Campaign to save London's skyline

Bullshit.

If they were that fussed about most developments ARE NOT for the average person then why not pen a letter saying ' average homes for average people at average prices' instead of getting all high and mighty about a very long 15 year gestation of towers that make up this 250 figure mark which they seem quite willing to ignore. A lot of these 'towers' (20 floors isn't that tall lots of council towers around this mark) are part of wider developments most of which is mid-rise blocks with a solitary tower added to the mix.

Besides most of the towers they seem to be carping about are the predominately office towers and resi towers in central London which never have been for the ordinary people. Something I doubt they will be up in arms over 20 floor blocks sprouting up in places like Croydon (that are affordable to a great many who are willing to pay a bit more for a view- as has always been the case with views).

Campaigners Fight to Save London Skyline

The Guardian said:

Some of Britain's most influential figures in the arts, politics and academia have launched a campaign to save London's skyline from being dominated by more than 200 additional skyscrapers.

In a statement in the Observer today, signatories from sculptor Sir Antony Gormley to philosopher Alain de Botton, author Alan Bennett, Stirling prize-winning architect Alison Brooks, and London mayoral hopefuls Dame Tessa Jowell and MP David Lammy warn: "The skyline of London is out of control."

More than 200 towers of at least 20 storeys are under construction or being planned, of which three-quarters will provide luxury residential flats, according to New London Architecture (NLA), a discussion and education forum.

The campaigners, who also include sculptor Sir Anish Kapoor, Restoration presenter Griff Rhys Jones, Charles Saumarez Smith, chief executive of the Royal Academy, and Lord Baker, the former Tory home secretary, pledge to fight what they describe as a fundamental and damaging transformation of London.

Campaigners say they fear the consequences for London's appearance of a further 236 buildings of 20 storeys or more. According to the NLA, 77% of the skyscrapers will be in the centre or the east of London and result in the most radical reshaping of the skyline in more than 300 years. Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Greenwich, Newham and Southwark between them will have 140 of the 236 towers. More than 30 will have between 40 and 49 floors and 22 with 50 or more.

Campaigners fight to save London skyline from 230 more skyscrapers

Click to expand...

I have a number of questions in relation to this, firstly how can projects that have been passed now be prevented without large payout to building companies.

secondly a lot of these high rise modern apartments are being built in the traditionally poor East End, and surely investment in areas such as Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Greenwich, Newham and Southwark should be encouraged. Whilst the rest of the Towers will mainly centered around the City and Nine Elms with very few impacting on the West End Tourist Heartlands.

Thirdly surely more apartments built around the concept of high rise hubs in parts of the East End and South London will help to house London's growing population and if affordable housing is included in such schemes (which it is by law) then surely they will help make London more affordable.

Whilst on terms of all these planned towers, each has gone through one of the most rigorous planning procedures in the world and each tower and scheme has been judged on it's own merits, we haven't just decided to stick 236 towers up all at once in the Centre of London. This just seems like another case of celebrities knowing best, when in fact many of these areas are receiving much needed investment as a result of these redevelopment schemes.

Still it gives the Daily Mail something new to fret about.

St Paul's at risk of being rubbed out of the London skyline forever with nearly 250 high rise developments planned for the capitall

As for the prospect of Tessa Jowell being the next Mayor of London it doesn't fill me with much joy or optimism for the future of London.

The Guardian said:

Some of Britain's most influential figures in the arts, politics and academia have launched a campaign to save London's skyline from being dominated by more than 200 additional skyscrapers.

In a statement in the Observer today, signatories from sculptor Sir Antony Gormley to philosopher Alain de Botton, author Alan Bennett, Stirling prize-winning architect Alison Brooks, and London mayoral hopefuls Dame Tessa Jowell and MP David Lammy warn: "The skyline of London is out of control."

More than 200 towers of at least 20 storeys are under construction or being planned, of which three-quarters will provide luxury residential flats, according to New London Architecture (NLA), a discussion and education forum.

The campaigners, who also include sculptor Sir Anish Kapoor, Restoration presenter Griff Rhys Jones, Charles Saumarez Smith, chief executive of the Royal Academy, and Lord Baker, the former Tory home secretary, pledge to fight what they describe as a fundamental and damaging transformation of London.

Campaigners say they fear the consequences for London's appearance of a further 236 buildings of 20 storeys or more. According to the NLA, 77% of the skyscrapers will be in the centre or the east of London and result in the most radical reshaping of the skyline in more than 300 years. Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Greenwich, Newham and Southwark between them will have 140 of the 236 towers. More than 30 will have between 40 and 49 floors and 22 with 50 or more.

Campaigners fight to save London skyline from 230 more skyscrapers

Click to expand...

I have a number of questions in relation to this, firstly how can projects that have been passed now be prevented without large payout to building companies.

secondly a lot of these high rise modern apartments are being built in the traditionally poor East End, and surely investment in areas such as Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Greenwich, Newham and Southwark should be encouraged. Whilst the rest of the Towers will mainly centered around the City and Nine Elms with very few impacting on the West End Tourist Heartlands.

Thirdly surely more apartments built around the concept of high rise hubs in parts of the East End and South London will help to house London's growing population and if affordable housing is included in such schemes (which it is by law) then surely they will help make London more affordable.

Whilst on terms of all these planned towers, each has gone through one of the most rigorous planning procedures in the world and each tower and scheme has been judged on it's own merits, we haven't just decided to stick 236 towers up all at once in the Centre of London. This just seems like another case of celebrities knowing best, when in fact many of these areas are receiving much needed investment as a result of these redevelopment schemes.

Still it gives the Daily Mail something new to fret about.

St Paul's at risk of being rubbed out of the London skyline forever with nearly 250 high rise developments planned for the capitall

As for the prospect of Tessa Jowell being the next Mayor of London it doesn't fill me with much joy or optimism for the future of London.

I would agree it’s an odd campaign, save the skyline from what exactly ?

The print media and trade papers like BD & AJ has been full of articles about this but it doesn’t make sense.

They seem to be saying towers are sprouting uncontrollably everywhere without any guidance but totally ignore the London plan and borough planning policies were to site tall buildings. This has been an ongoing evolution for the last 15 years. Its pretty much accepted the following have tower clustered planned and have done for years with buildings already built, with planning or in pre-planning.

Tower cluster agreed by borough and/or GLA plans

City- Has had tall buildings since the 70’s, pretty much agreed where they can go (Eastern Cluster) and most have gone through public inquiries (PI) that generated much column inches and debte.

London Bridge. The GLA policy to site tall buildings near major transport interchanges is sensible and was proven at the PI. Pretty much accepted that a cluster of sorts will be here.

Waterloo. Again the transport interchange at a major central London site is sensible and has been highly scrutinised for the best part of a decade here. Towers here are stunted because of heavy opposition from a very noisy Heritage lobby.

Blackfriars Rd. Along with the E&C Southwark have recognised this site suitable for Highrise. PI here for 1 & 20BF confirmed this. Again much teeth gnashing in the media so hardly something that has just slipped through. The area between this and Waterloo has a couple of other towers (LWT & Kings reach have been there for decades) but they hardly swamp the area.

CW & Isle of dogs- Long established high rise zone, even if Tower Hamlets seem to have conflicting opinions depending on what day of the week it is.

Stratford. Again an area recognised as a tall building zone. Quality mixed but largely getting better. Now has one of the best transport connections in London.

Vauxhall and Nineelms. Both Lambeth/Wandsworth and the GLA have spent the last few years establishing this area as a highrise zone, again much scrutiny in the press and from the Heritage and Westminster with several PI’s. Practically every site here suitable has approved plans so what they going to do?

Croydon- Recognised by the council as being suitable for tall buildings with them all clustered near transport interchanges at East Croydon or in the town centre , which is already dominated by post war blocks.

City Fringe. Again contentious media scrutiny for the best part of a decade but towers on City rd have been long planned and those in Shoreditch have also been long in gestation and a stones through from the bigger City towers. Similarly Aldgate has a long planned cluster of resti towers although they have all been stunted by appeasement to the vocal heritage lobby.

You can’t ban what has planning and there is no immediate policy to reject new towers and even if hypothetically the next mayor did the 250 towers will still be built so surely this horse bolted long ago??

There are various other towers in London (Paddington has a couple) and most of the so called ‘towers’ used as examples such as the London Island scheme in the Leamouth Peninsula are buildings that although tall buildings are no more than 20 floors so not really skyscrapers. You could also add in the blank slate that is Greenwich peninsula and even Woolwich ( again a town centre with upgraded transport with Crossrail) but a lot of what is built are blocks of flats between 8-15 floors with the odd tower as part of the mix.

All those areas are pretty much accepted now as suitable for highrise so even if this ‘outrage’ put a stop to anymore they would still be established clusters and Londons population would still rise by 100,000 a year and still only half the amount of housing needed per year will be built. Most of the towers plonked in other areas are often one small part of a larger development or council estate redevelopment that is dominate by 10 storey blocks. You could ban them but then London is already littered with council blocks of similar heights.

If they are worried about quality then fair enough but what is a good or bad design is surely subjective. One person’s innovative tower is another’s carbuncle or wacky shape so who decides what is passable or not. A lot of the cheaper towers are square blocks, again what is a good box and what a bad?

Ironically all this campaign might do is persuade developers to accelerate plans for towers and rush then in for planning well before Mayoral and national elections next year and any potential change in policy.

I'm all for more public awareness and debate, and also for the raising of standards of not only tall but ALL buildings that appear in the capital, which is why it was an absolute crime Design for London and CABE were effectively rendered useless in the last round of Government cuts. But as londonlad says the whole campaign just feels so reactive rather pro-active - save the skyline from what exactly? A campaign to MAKE London's skyline now that's something that people will all get behind and portrays a positive change whereby we can focus our attention on building coherent clusters with well-designed landmarks and 'place making' each of these so-called transport hubs we are developing tall buildings around. Nobody wants nondescript places and the whole point of the London Plan (in the early days at least) was that each of these London clusters would develop in a holistic yet individual style - Canary Wharf different from the City, Southwark different from Vauxhall, etc. I think lately we've become a bit lost to this, although it's not at a stage that is completely irreversible.

What troubles me is the words used and over-romanticising nostalgia for a previous time when London did not have an attractive skyline. London hasn't had an attractive skyline since the days of Wren but that was a completely different city incomparable to the 21st century global capital it now is. So what is there to save, when we are already in a half-baked skyline that potentially with a bit of positive design becomes something just as awe-inspiring as Wren's was? Do they intend for us to stop now, leaving future generations with a gappy toothed halfway house of towers, or do we continue and actually build tight dense clusters and sub-clusters and make something that at least has an aesthetic that works? It's all headline grabbing and political fencing without actually doing anything of worth that actually facilitates a change for the better, either way.

I generally agree the the posts so far. The devil of course is in the detail of the execution.

What annoys me about this is that once again they are attacking the high rise development which is on the whole the part we are getting right. Okay, there is mediocracy in the mix but we also have a good range of high quality, individual towers going up.

Where we are making a complete mess is on the large scale development plans such as Elephant and Castle, Greenwich Peninsula, Barking Riverside, Stratford, The Olympic Village and so on which are insipid, second rate, uninspiring and worst of all clearly built with no longevity in mind. These will be yet more grotty areas needing complete redevelopment 30 years down the line. We seemingly have not moved on from the architectural practice that left us with places like Stevenage, Sutton and Hemel Hemsted except now we are planting them all over the capital.

Why aren't they attacking these? Why don't they insist that schemes are built with a decent timeframe in mind that will form the part of new communities and are built in such a way to inspire people? It is just the same old obsession with tall buildings.

pictures I took today.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


The new exhibit at the NLA

London's Growing Up


London is about to see an explosion in the number of tall buildings, as the capital's population increases and investors pour money into London real estate. There are now more than 230 tall towers over 20 storeys in the pipleine for London, which, if all complete, will have a signficant impact on the London skyline, streets and public spaces.

This NLA exhibition, based on the findings on an NLA Insight Study into tall buildings in London, examines the impact that this growth will have on the capital, through a series of images, models and interactive displays. It examines where this growth is taking place and why, the key organisations that have a say in tall building policies and how the planning system is responding.

Free to enter and on view until 12 June, the exhibtiion is supported by a series of NLA events, including roundtable discussions, conferences, breakfast talks, walking tours and site visits.

http://www.newlondonarchitecture.org/exhibition.php?id=593&name=london_s_growing_up_exhibition

===================