Mayor of London Discussion Thread | Sadiq Khan

938773 Views 12275 Replies 357 Participants Last post by El_Greco, 6 d ago

ibiza

Discussion Starter · May 3, 2008 (Edited)

I thought it makes sense to discuss the implications of having Boris Johnson as new mayor (with his vastly different views on skyscrapers compared to Kens) on current and future skyscraper development in London. I think that more can be said about it than the predictions of doom voiced in the election thread up to now.

To start off with a more positive view here comes my attempt (I try to be optimistic and the following logic is a bit different to what I read up to now on the topic): I think the implications might be that it might actually help the current projects (ok, with the exception of the shard which is threatened by Boris taking away the TFL prelet but that prelet wasn't that big anyways and I think even for that one this would be overcompensated by the effect described in the following) in the city and that it will also help future projects in CW.

Here's why: Obviously the consensus is that we will not see new skyscraper projects in the city approved anytime soon (more or less as long as he's mayor). But if you look at current skyscraper projects in the center (LBT, Pinnacle, Leadenhall, Heron & 20 Fenchurch) they face the credit crunch and fear of a real crash in the office market. For those projects it is actually quite a boost to know that they will not face further nearby competition by new skyscrapers any time soon. Especially not for those years after 2012 when they will all be finished if things are going according to plan and when the current downturn in the markets should long be over. The earliest for new competition to even get planning permission (and we know how long it takes from then to have a finished building entering the market) is 2012 (if Boris is not reelected) so they will have quite some time where they can divide the office market between them without a threat of new competition. That is worth a lot for investors and should put the projects on safer ground which was definitely shaken because of the credit crunch.

On the other hand even the now mayor-backed EH is not against skyscraper development in CW - so new projects simply gonna be forced to move there instead of the city (which will have plenty new skyscrapers to marvel on already from the current projects at the verge of starting construction now). This might help to move on a mega project (for european standards) like wood wharf which will bring CW to a whole new level..

See less See more

1 - 20 of 12276 Posts

DarJoLe

· #2 · May 3, 2008

He won't support residential skyscrapers in the suburbs, nor any towers in Tory boroughs.

He's stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to periphery areas; will he support the JP Morgan proposal in Moorgate at the expense of Barbican residents? Either way he can't have his cake and eat it with his supporters.

The credit crunch has pretty much wiped out any massive building programme in London for some time so I doubt between the ones going up now and the Shard we won't see much else. He won't approve anything tall around the Tower of London, but then we already know this because all the new proposals in this area since the UNESCO ruling haven't been towers anyway so developers obviously know the new rules with regards to this.

Canary Wharf will be fine, I'd imagine Stratford will be fine. I doubt we'll see anything new around Vauxhall, and the Victoria project is now pretty much dead in the water. The South Bank towers will quietly be axed, although I reckon Beetham is too far gone now.

What's he going to do though? He can't be on the side of business who want these towers yet at the same time listen to he concerns of residents. At least with Ken you knew he'd support them, yeah, it's pissed off EH and heritage bodies and local residents, but you knew what side his bread was buttered. Boris is going to be a more difficult one to figure out.

Truth be told I doubt we'll see many more proposals, we're heading into financial meltdown. When even the Olympic project is hit by the crunch you know we're in trouble.

See less See more

randolph

· #3 · May 3, 2008

Everyone on this site is enthusiastic about tall buildings and asumes this is shared by business and developers - not so - all they care about is sq footage. If they can't build towers they will build groundscrapers simple as that. Ken actually wanted tall buildings and it was still incredibly difficult to get them built or approved. Boris doesn't like them or want them so don't expect to see any on his watch.

Officer Dibble

· #4 · May 3, 2008 (Edited)

I'm finding this whole site pretty difficult to look at today - so much hysteria about Johnson, as if he's about to pull the plug on every project in London. I voted against him, but I've seen nothing to suggest he'll do anything of the sort. Planning played a very small part in his campaign; his few statements on it haven't been entirely consistent; he has however repeatedly said, and written, that tall buildings need to be part of London's development. He's also repeated that he wants to protect the viewing corridors for St Paul's and Parliament Square.

And (from here):

Addressing an audience of property industry professionals at central London’s Café Royal on Thursday (January 31), Johnson stressed he was “not against tall buildings” and would want to encourage “wonderful new developments”.

Highlighting Cesar Pelli’s [One Canada Square], he said: “The Conservatives were behind some of the great, wonderful property developments that now distinguish the London skyline.”

“I hope to play my own part in helping you to distinguish the London skyline.”

Everyone should chill out and wait to see what he does when he's in office. What politicians say on the campaign trail and what they do once they have major decisions to make (and experts advising them) are not always one and the same.

I'm going to give this site a miss for a few weeks.

See less See more

Octoman

· #5 · May 3, 2008

A balanced post. ^^

What I hope to see is the continued support of high quality skyscrapers in appropriate locations. Boris will be pro business and I have no doubt that he will be supportive of top quality proposals in the square mile and canary wharf. that is after all what we want isnt it? We dont want any old crap to be built.
it will be harder for residential high rises to be built accross the various boroughs and I fully support this. i have a pasion for skyscrapers but detest the pseudo towerblock crap that is being pushed through on the grounds of high density across london at the moment. i hope this comes to an end and a more balanced approach accomodating the building of family homes will come to the fore. Boris has given every indication of this being the case.

I'm not interested in tower blocks. I only care about high caliber skyscrapers and of those we have quite a few in the pipeline. I suspect the raft of proposals to dry up for a while and the quality of what is put forward to detiorate. For that reason i welcome a more rigorous assessment process.

See less See more

Comfortably Numb

· #6 · May 3, 2008

Officer Dibble said:
I'm finding this whole site pretty difficult to look at today - so much hysteria about Johnson, as if he's about to pull the plug on every project in London. I voted against him, but I've seen nothing to suggest he'll do anything of the sort. Planning played a very small part in his campaign; his few statements on it haven't been entirely consistent; he has however repeatedly said, and written, that tall buildings need to be part of London's development. He's also repeated that he wants to protect the viewing corridors for St Paul's and Parliament Square.

And (from here):

Addressing an audience of property industry professionals at central London’s Café Royal on Thursday (January 31), Johnson stressed he was “not against tall buildings” and would want to encourage “wonderful new developments”.

Highlighting Cesar Pelli’s [One Canada Square], he said: “The Conservatives were behind some of the great, wonderful property developments that now distinguish the London skyline.”

“I hope to play my own part in helping you to distinguish the London skyline.”

Everyone should chill out and wait to see what he does when he's in office. What politicians say on the campaign trail and what they do once they have major decisions to make (and experts advising them) are not always one and the same.

I'm going to give this site a miss for a few weeks.

Thanks for posting this....

ibiza

Discussion Starter · #7 · May 3, 2008

Angry_Chair said:
Thanks for posting this....

yes, thats more or less what I started this thread for - to get a more objective view of the new situation which was quite hard during the last days when almost everybody on this forum was still campaigning against Boris and then having to cope with the shock of him winning - but it's now time to move on, say goodbye to Ken and assess what's really gonna be the consequences of this mayoral election for our beloved skyscrapers.

And his post comes as quite a relief indeed that it's not necessarily all doom and gloom for skyscrapers with Boris.

london lad

· #8 · May 3, 2008

My thoughts.

1) All the towers approved are safe & more likely than not to be built as now theres an anti highrise Mayor those that have seen the trouble of getting planning permission for a tower wont want to waste it as the chance of getting one through planning again may be reduced (depending on location).

2) The towers in the city are still more likely than not- Was reading EG today which said the credit crunch will actually help them as it has stopped any new development. The current load of offices due to complete this year will find it toughest as tenants sit & wait in the hope of getting a better deal. The Heron, Pinnacle & 122 LH developers have all said publicly many times they will still build regardless & it is even advantageous for them to build as they all expect demand to pick up again just as these are delivered in 2011.

EG also expects Wallbrook Square to get built as well as 20FC- eventually as Land Secs continue to say they wont start without a pre-let.

3) New towers will still be worked up for the city as the Corp of Londons recognised permitted high rise zone (roughly north of Fenchurch St, up Bishopsgate & along Houndsditch) is not in any restricted viewing corridor & this is backed by two PI won for 20FC & Heron. Boris would not , I imagine call in towers in the City as he wouldn't want to be a Tory Mayor effecting the City of Londons carrying out there business.

4) For towers in Stratford & Docklands I see no reason for them to be effected.

5) The proposed towers in the central E&C regeneration would see safe as well as both Strata & the Park hotel towers which are on the periphery of the regeneration area got through planning without a hitch so it would be difficult to refuse any new towers planning permission.

6) However towers proposed in the suburbs, with the exception of Croydon will find it very difficult to get planning which means Ealing, Wandsworth & possibly Clapham Junction (although towers here adhere to the London plan as they are next to a major transport interchange) & the towers around City Rd. The embryonic talk of designating the area from Vauxhall to Battersea Power Station as a major residential area area with residential towers might seem unlikely also. If/When St Georges tower gets built (Boris can not stop this one )it may mean a couple of towers on the island site that the 2 Squire towers were planned could possibly be allowed but any area further out may find things tough.

7) The towers proposed for North of Bishopsgate & the goodyards are hard to call. Provided they are not tall enough to fall into St Pauls it should not worry EH or Boris as its not in their beloved Ye olde Central London & wont spoil there sacred views & is in the more down at heel East End. But the local population are against towers here so who knows.

Lastly the Southbank will probably be the main battleground for those for & against towers & the results of the Doon St & Beetham towers will set a precedent for this area. If they win then it will be very hard for anyone to justify cancelling 20Blackfriars & any other towers that might have been proposed for the rest of the Blackfriars Rd. However if Hazel Blears & the planning inspectorate decided against them then it will effectively put a stop to anymore towers on the Southbank including Waterloo. I still cant believe Beetham got called in as it there is no case against it. However who knows whats going on behind the scenes. Yet it wont be Boris deciding the outcome but central Government & as I have mentioned elsewhere if EH put up a big fight they will be accused of being hypocrites as they gave there approval on the understanding Beetham cut the height- which they did.

One possible positive outcome could be that developers would really have to raise their game would could result in better thought out & designed scheme.

See less See more

JackTindale

· #9 · May 3, 2008 (Edited)

I've just sent this e-mail to the Mayor, it will almost definitely have no effect whatsoever but at least I've tried!

Dear Sir;
I am not a Londoner, nor for that matter, a Conservative yet I would first like to present by my best wishes for your future term in office, becoming the Mayor of one of the worlds greatest cities is not something to be under taken lightly, yet I am sure that you will conduct yourself with the same decorum and grace shown by your predecessor.

I would however like to draw your attention to the current levels of construction sweeping the capital, notably, the recent and continuing skyscraper boom. As a keen architectural enthusiast I have watched with a continuing sense of awe and anguish at the rate of development within the metropolis and have finally been able to see that London may finally have some great examples of modern design such as that of the Shard London Bridge, Heron Tower and new build at 122 Leadenhall Street, all of which would enhance both London’s aesthetics as well as its status as the worlds premier financial capital.

Despite this, English Heritage have criticised many of these new builds, claiming that they are “eyesores” and, to quote the Prince of Wales “carbuncles”. However, they fail to take into account that the capital is in dire need of both the office space as well as the resulting publicity that comes with their construction. Cancellation of these projects would be disastrous for the capital as well as the national economy, as well as Transport for London, which has negotiated a very competitive deal on office space within the aforementioned “Shard”

I am aware that you are now a very busy man, with dozens of important matters in need of your time, but I implore you Sir, do what is right for London, for Britain and the economy. Aim High.

Yours faithfully;
Jack Tindale

See less See more

wjfox

· #10 · May 3, 2008 (Edited)

JackTindale said:
I've just sent this e-mail to the Mayor, I will almost definitely have no effect what so ever but at least I've tried!

Dear Sir;
I am not a Londoner, nor for that matter, a Conservative yet I would first like to present by my best wishes for your future term in office, becoming the Mayor of one of the worlds greatest cities is not something to be under taken lightly, yet I am sure that you will conduct yourself with the same decorum and grace shown by your predecessor.

I would however like to draw your attention to the current levels of construction sweeping the capital, notably, the recent and continuing skyscraper boom. As a keen architectural enthusiast I have watched with a continuing sense of awe and anguish at the rate of development within the metropolis and have finally been able to see that London may finally have some great examples of modern design such as that of the Shard London Bridge, Heron Tower and new build at 122 Leadenhall Street, all of which would enhance both London’s aesthetics as well as its status as the worlds premier financial capital.

Despite this, English Heritage have criticised many of these new builds, claiming that they are “eyesores” and, to quote the Prince of Wales “carbuncles”. However, they fail to take into account that the capital is in dire need of both the office space as well as the resulting publicity that comes with their construction. Cancellation of these projects would be disastrous for the capital as well as the national economy, as well as Transport for London, which has negotiated a very competitive deal on office space within the aforementioned “Shard”

I am aware that you are now a very busy man, with dozens of important matters in need of your time, but I implore you Sir, do what is right for London, for Britain and the economy. Aim High.

Yours faithfully;
Jack Tindale

Hmm, is that such a good idea?? Drawing his attention to it like that... Best thing would be to keep quiet I think!

TallBox

· #11 · May 3, 2008 (Edited)

Officer Dibble said:
I'm finding this whole site pretty difficult to look at today - so much hysteria about Johnson, as if he's about to pull the plug on every project in London. I voted against him, but I've seen nothing to suggest he'll do anything of the sort. Planning played a very small part in his campaign; his few statements on it haven't been entirely consistent; he has however repeatedly said, and written, that tall buildings need to be part of London's development. He's also repeated that he wants to protect the viewing corridors for St Paul's and Parliament Square.

And (from here):

Addressing an audience of property industry professionals at central London’s Café Royal on Thursday (January 31), Johnson stressed he was “not against tall buildings” and would want to encourage “wonderful new developments”.

Highlighting Cesar Pelli’s [One Canada Square], he said: “The Conservatives were behind some of the great, wonderful property developments that now distinguish the London skyline.”

“I hope to play my own part in helping you to distinguish the London skyline.”

Everyone should chill out and wait to see what he does when he's in office. What politicians say on the campaign trail and what they do once they have major decisions to make (and experts advising them) are not always one and the same.

I'm going to give this site a miss for a few weeks.

Great post, mate. The comments on this site recently have been cringeworthy to say the least. I guess it's a wait and see game; if it means that we'll still get the towers approved and u/c in the pipeline then I would be very happy.

As for Boris - being a Conservative, there's nothing they like better than willy-waving capitalism and all the big shiny towers that symbolise it. I think the party - at a national level - want to depart from the thatched-roof wooly jumper Conservatives of the Home Counties. The worst I think Boris will be is ambivalent towards skyscrapers. Unlike some posts that have alluded to it, I don't think he will be scheming with the Women's Institute to block every tall building in London.

chest

· #12 · May 3, 2008

I agree - the screaming hysterics on this site have been incredibly irritating.

Lightness

· #13 · May 4, 2008

If it wasn't for the Conservatives Docklands would still be just docks and would probably still have dockers on strike.

randolph

· #14 · May 4, 2008

^^You are being ironic, right?

pricemazda

· #15 · May 4, 2008

Octoman said:
A balanced post. ^^

What I hope to see is the continued support of high quality skyscrapers in appropriate locations. Boris will be pro business and I have no doubt that he will be supportive of top quality proposals in the square mile and canary wharf. that is after all what we want isnt it? We dont want any old crap to be built.
it will be harder for residential high rises to be built accross the various boroughs and I fully support this. i have a pasion for skyscrapers but detest the pseudo towerblock crap that is being pushed through on the grounds of high density across london at the moment. i hope this comes to an end and a more balanced approach accomodating the building of family homes will come to the fore. Boris has given every indication of this being the case.

I'm not interested in tower blocks. I only care about high caliber skyscrapers and of those we have quite a few in the pipeline. I suspect the raft of proposals to dry up for a while and the quality of what is put forward to detiorate. For that reason i welcome a more rigorous assessment process.

But for crying out loud, you can't extrapolate your own situation and suggest that it is the main problem. Yes you may find it hard to get a family home, but the majority of us don't want a family home with a garden, we just want a 1 or 2 bedroom flat. If you want your 3 bed semi move to St Albans or Hillingdon.

But on a slightly different point, please tell us exactly where you think Boris can build these 50'000 family homes? Where exactly?

Octoman

· #16 · May 4, 2008

But Pricemazda I'm not advocating a wholesale abandonment of high density development. I would just like to see some focus placed on family housebuilding which has been seriously neglected over the past decade. I'm not sure the majority do all want to live in flats. I think given a choice the majority of families would choose to live in a house with some private outside space. These groups are every bit as much a part of the social fabric of London as your young urbanites.

The pent up demant for houses is causing ridiculous prices. The pressure needs to be eased for these buyers, not just first time buyers or young city dwellers. I would like to see large scale zoning of brownfield sites from zone 3onwards set aside for family housing. In the more central areas they can be done in high density terracing. Let face it, the terraces of Fulham provide great housing with garden spaces while delivering high density. Further out I would propose lower density housing and where appropriate build on the green belt.

I think the greenwich peninsula would be a good place for housing. Also, head east through dagenham and there are vast wildernesses that could be used for building lower density family housing. There are no shortage of spaces for this if we just open our eyes.

See less See more

randolph

· #17 · May 4, 2008

Otoman, When you talk about 'quality' and 'rigorous assessment' you are forgetting that the definition of quality is a subjective one. Some people think that Quilan Terry is a good quality architect, some think Rogers is. The worry I, and others, have is Where Johnson stands in terms of his judgement of 'Quality' Ken was forward thinking in his architectural tastes, many of us fear that Boris will not be.

pricemazda

· #18 · May 4, 2008

And actually Octoman London is one of the least dense cities in the world, those terraces do not provide the level of density required.

The reason house prices are so high is simply a supply and demand issue. We need to build more houses of all types but particularly low cost for our changing demographics, but we do not have the space to build single family homes. So the question is, what do we do to correct it?

If we can't build outwards? Where do we go?

wjfox

· #19 · May 4, 2008

Well, there are supposedly 90,000 abandoned/empty homes which could be re-occupied, so there's a start.

Rational Plan

· #20 · May 4, 2008

Apparantly the number of vacant properties is at a record low. There are always going to be some vacant properties. After all, 90,000 homes is a very low percentage of Londons housing stock.

With the buy to let market correcting itself maybe the demand for one and two bedrooms flats will decline. What needs to happen is for the market to accept 3 and 4 bedroom flats (not just at the luxury end of the market). Recently, planning authorities are trying to restict the supply of one and two bedroom flats, but with limited effect so far.

1 - 20 of 12276 Posts