Boris Johnson as Mayor - what are the implications for London's development?

[mulattokid]

Originally Posted by london lad

Hmmm . So now we know who sent UNESCO a letter that so embarrassed Boris when they came & visited that he wants to ban highrises. None other than Sir Simon Milton Londons new planning guru.

This from the FT in March 2007.

Westminster City Council this month joined the debate by warning that tall buildings could "ruin the skyline" around the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey. The local authority wrote to Unesco, the United Nations' heritage group, calling for the body to help prevent a new cluster of buildings around Waterloo Station and elsewhere in the area.

Southwark, CABE & the developers of of 1 & 20 Blackfriars will have quite a fight in their PI's. Lets hope the national government doesn't share the same views as the new Mayor & his planning chief.

I guessed as much at the time and said so in the EH thread. They still failed though. UNESCO left wondering what they were talking about

[potto]

Originally Posted by Bitumastic boy

Ok so one Canada Square is hardly the height of architectural innovation but it needs to be remembered at the time of it's construction it was by far the best looking skyscraper in London (some may argue that honour fell to the Natwest Tower but thats another discussion). It's construction kick started London's move to becoming a 21st century city, helping to take away the stigma of tall buildings. It was in response to the challenge of Canary Wharf that the City lifted it's own restrictions on high rises giving us the Gherkin and all that is now in the pipeline.

The way some embittered Labour supporters are going on it would be easy to think Ken invented the skyscraper. Up until he took high office with his deeply commie roots he was very much anti-high rise once describing the original Canary Wharf Tower as a 'giant turd'. He was against the regeneration of Docklands - at least as a financial centre. Fact - Had the Conservatives not been in power that area would still be a neglected and derelict part of our capital. Labour has simply carried on where the last Tory government left off.

sorry did I paint 1 Canada square in a bad light? Tall buildings have been used as a solution to land restriction for a hundred years and as an aesthetic for thousands, hardly a creation of the British party political system. The fact that Boris uses the Docklands as his 'tall building' policy shows basically how little he knows about architecture and urban design. Why not chose a far more enlightened building from the myriad of choices around the world or how about even The Shard on his very doorstep? All infinitely superior and actually positively evolve the historic fabric rather than the aloof resort that is docklands, La Defense, Dubai et al, where exactly is the intellectual challenge in his answer? Suprise there is none.

Sorry again but the docklands, out of sight of the conservative voter and the way it was handled was the very easiest of options. And for the record the competition provided by the Docklands inflicted the worst period of damaging architecture on the city since the 60s filled in after the war! It actually required a very non-conservative attitude to go the tall route and even then we have the same hypocrisy being inflicted on the rest of London. Strangely tall buildings in the City are now ok, oh and now the docklands too.... but heaven forbid anywhere else!

[CrazyMac]

The face of the enemy..


Sir Simon (Mr establishment elite wanker) Milton.

get to know it well, because its this twat that will halt skyscrapers in London, not Boris, he will be too busy to bother with such trivial matters.

[Bitumastic boy]

Originally posted by Potto

Sorry again but the docklands, out of sight of the conservative voter and the way it was handled was the very easiest of options. And for the record the competition provided by the Docklands inflicted the worst period of damaging architecture on the city since the 60s filled in after the war! It actually required a very non-conservative attitude to go the tall route and even then we have the same hypocrisy being inflicted on the rest of London. Strangely tall buildings in the City are now ok, oh and now the docklands too.... but heaven forbid anywhere else![/Q

Hmmm sorry you are right Docklands was developed because it was out of sight from the Tory voter. Canary Wharf should have been built in Kensington instead because that was really in need of regeneration wasn't it! In case you haven't noticed Tory voting areas generally are not in need of massive re-building or huge investment so you're whole comment is just rubbish. If large amounts of money were poured into such places then Labour would complain that the cash was not going where it was most needed. As for tall buildings being ok in docklands or the city I think that is right. After all hasn't the problem been in the past that the odd high rise was dotted here and there around London in a kind of mish-mash. Tall buildings look better in clusters with the odd rare exception ie the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Generally we should stick to the existing clusters we have adding to them, the only tower planned that should go up outside those areas should be the Shard and then it will look best in splendid isolation. What to do with rest of the South Bank is a bit of an awkward one as it's mostly a disaster of 60's planning or lack of it. It is crying out for some classy buildings, maybe tall ones would be acceptable if the quality is high enough (that rules out Doone St then). Wanting to conserve some of Londons heritage is not some kind of narrow minded nimbyism, it's simply preserving what's best about our capital while allowing other areas to develop showcasing what's best about this era. Lets face it given the chance Ken would have built a tower on top of Buckingham Palace if he could have got away with it. What is narrow minded is thinking there is no value in anything from the past and just bulldozing our history. Just look at most of our drab towns and cities to see evidence of that. Yes alot of what has gone up in docklands is dull the worst of it appearing ie pretty much all of Bank St during Ken's watch. Why did he not insist on a bit of quality and innovation there, after all it wasn't like he was inflicting it on evil Tories but his own voters. Hopefully Boris will not have the attitude that anything is ok as long as it is high, instead insisting that new proposals be stunning in their innovation rather than their blandness. A last point you seem to think all Tory voters are little Englanders living in thatched cottages somewhere in the country. It's like saying all Labour supporters are unwashed veggies living in a squat in Hackney. The truth is most people voting Conservative now have aspirations, are fed up with being taxed to the hilt while being spied on and then being expected to be grateful for it. Your mob are just as hated now among most voters as John Major's party were when they were turfed out of office. No doubt when the Conservatives win the next election and overstay their welcome things will go full circle and we'll be back where we are today.

[Mr Bricks]

So what´s this article all about then?

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3105318

[potto]

Its what we are talking about. Personally I find it cynical to cry 'pro-skyscraper' over the mono-cultured niche environments of the Docklands and the City.

[Bitumastic boy]

Originally Posted by potto

Its what we are talking about. Personally I find it cynical to cry 'pro-skyscraper' over the mono-cultured niche environments of the Docklands and the City.

It's not at all. Just look at America, not a skyscraper in site in Washington but you can hardly call the yanks anti-high rise.

[CrazyMac]

Originally Posted by Bitumastic boy

It's not at all. Just look at America, not a skyscraper in site in Washington but you can hardly call the yanks anti-high rise.

But the USA has a couple of dozen cities with the economic clout to sustain skyscraper districts.

The UK only has London on the same scale, which is filled with selfish Nimbys only interested in preserving 'their patch' and everyone else can just get lost.

It's the same old shit, the 'establishment' wanting to preseve London as some kind of Victorian cliché.

[Bitumastic boy]

The only cliche is the use of the term establishment. The class war is over, you lot won, move on. These days the only establishment with any real power is the liberal one. They are always right no matter what. To hell with everyone who disagrees. What wrong with Londons Victorian make up? Build high everywhere and our city would be just another sky high metropolis.

[Mr Bricks]

Originally Posted by potto

Its what we are talking about. Personally I find it cynical to cry 'pro-skyscraper' over the mono-cultured niche environments of the Docklands and the City.

But according to this article Boris supports tall buildings.

[DarJoLe]

Only in the City and Canary Wharf, and only if no-one complains about them.

[mulattokid]

Originally Posted by Bitumastic boy

The only cliche is the use of the term establishment. The class war is over, you lot won, move on. These days the only establishment with any real power is the liberal one. They are always right no matter what. To hell with everyone who disagrees. What wrong with Londons Victorian make up? Build high everywhere and our city would be just another sky high metropolis.

Your issues appear to be other than skyscrapers...and how!!!! So what do you want with us? ~Every skyscraper fan on here is just as enthusiastic about Victoriana (however common it is) and the rest, or is that too lateral a concept for you?

This is a skyscraper forum afterall.


When you say 'you won the class war' just what does that mean? Am I right in suspecting you feel you are from the 'natural' ruling classes? How are you qualified to make such a statement? Pimms? Discuss

[Bitumastic boy]

Believe it or not you can be pro skyscraper and not want them everywhere. I love tall buildings and can't wait to see the City graced by the Pinnacle etc. Who knows with a little imagination it might not be too late for Docklands to emulate Dubai. The point is there's no need to change London's historic areas, they are beutiful as they are and envied the world over. The future lies in the east end, there's still a chance to make it something special.

[DarJoLe]

Nobody is changing London's historic areas.

[El_Greco]

East End has some beautiful areas I hope youre not advocating demolition of them?

[mulattokid]

@ Bitumen sniffer

There we agree...now...about the class war...who do you feel you should be with your churlish belittling statement? How does it qualify you?

[london lad]

Originally Posted by Bitumastic boy

Believe it or not you can be pro skyscraper and not want them everywhere. I love tall buildings and can't wait to see the City graced by the Pinnacle etc. Who knows with a little imagination it might not be too late for Docklands to emulate Dubai. The point is there's no need to change London's historic areas, they are beutiful as they are and envied the world over. The future lies in the east end, there's still a chance to make it something special.

I didn't know busy roundabouts in Vauxhall & Old St & post war office blocks on places like Blackfriars rd & London Bridge were considered historic areas.

Sorry but its that thinking, that somehow Londons historics areas are going to be swamped by tall buildings is just the type of thing Boris, EH, Wesminster etc spend a great deal of time putting across when it is frankly not true.Lowrise, blocky buildings are doing far more damage to historic areas of London than skyscrapers ever will.

[Bitumastic boy]

Obviously hit a raw nerve with that one. It is easy to get the impression reading some of the entries on this forum that the masses are still being trampled on by toffs on horse back. It's clearly no longer the case. Do you think there is still a class war on? Anyway I'm off for Pimms with the boys down the Conservative Club. Night night.

[mulattokid]

Toodle pip

[Ntn_Rawlings]

^ I could not agree more with London Lad, misinformation about skyscrapers is rife. People jump to conclusions without thought.