Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Blackboard Monitor
Joined
·
1,324 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In related park news.... yesterday's Evening Standard.

KELLY ALLOWS NEW BUILDINGS TO CUT VIEW OF ST PAULS
by Mira Bar-Hillel

A 300-year-old view stretching from Richmond Park to St Paul's Cathedral is to be radically changed after the government bowed to Ken Livingstone's demands for skyscrapers.
The previously protected view, seen from King Henry's mound in the park, stretched 10 miles across London but will now be altered following Ruth Kelly's decision to allow the Mayor to build.
The decision by the Secretary of State gives the green light to build within the vista, reducing the views width from 150m to 70m. The move is one of ten substantial reductions in the protected views of St Paul's Cathedral and Westminster.

The Editorial says that by halving the view, two new skyscrapers could be built. I'm not familiar enough with the angle from Richmond to say which developments this story refers to?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,368 Posts
OMG!? First she approves unconventional Ghery towers in Brighton, now she approves plans to narrow viewig corridors!?! Is Kelly turning?!;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,872 Posts
The Editorial says that by halving the view, two new skyscrapers could be built. I'm not familiar enough with the angle from Richmond to say which developments this story refers to?
Either the Victoria Towers, or Beetham and Doon Street.

I wasn't even aware you can see the City from there.
 

·
BLAND
Joined
·
8,868 Posts
^^^^ A very famous view...St. Puals is not immediately obviuos, you have to have a keen eye....I suspect that business and commerce have reminded her that New Labour are 'Freinds" of capitalism and enterprise...or perhaps she is just logical. Dont forget, we have not seen the other side of the compromise yet!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,872 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
why dont they just move st pauls onto the top of a skyscraper?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
yeah but he'd have been able to see the old one!!! Cos I bet he made it out to Richmond park all the time
Well as Richmond was a Royal Hunting Park I think we can assume that Henry did indeed desport himself there on many an occassion.
There seems to be an assumption on the London threads that anything that chips away at heritage in favour of tall buildings is good. This is fundamentally incorrect; a balance is required.
The reduction in the width of the viewing corridor was proposed by Ken Livingstone. On what basis is Livingstone qualified to propose such sweeping changes, as far as I can see - none.
Had the corridor been narrowed specifically in favour of a major piece of architecture, it may have been justified. Based on the info on this thread it will allow a couple of nondescript towers and the wider view will be lost. St Pauls may be 10 miles from Richmond Park but it is clearly visible from the Park.
I am most certainly not anti towers and look forward to the city cluster and even LBT but I also enjoy the views from Crystal Palace and Richmond Park and see no reason to applaud the phillistine reduction of these views.
 

·
BLAND
Joined
·
8,868 Posts
^^^ ah now I would agree...but you seem perhaps to forget that we are also foregoing some possibilities to build good quality icons for the future.

We are not 'losing' anything here, the view here is being reduced, whereas we 'will' be losing opportunities to build our future anywhere near the Tower of London, most sites behind St Pauls and along a major part of the Thames...I would argue that this is probably a good idea. If you follow your line of thought, there would not, in fact be any remaining sites available in the City..the most important commercial area of all.

I do think, respectfully, that compromise is important..and this sound like a reasonable compromise. The desicion was made by those in the know, who are not necessarily fans of great modern structures like you and me.
 

·
Blackboard Monitor
Joined
·
1,324 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
There's another story on this in today's Standard which looks at the site line plans as a whole rather than individual cases.

Roughly the story concludes that the viewing corridors have been reduced for the benefit of devlopers, the new rules are more complex (26 wider views compaired to 10 key sitelines), but each individual view is weaker than under the previous rules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,918 Posts
They used the views from Parliament Hill & Greenwich as examples of views that will be ruined by these new rules. To my mind the view consists of tall buildings from these vantage points so what would be ruined?!?!?!?

From what I can make out the views of St Pauls, HoP etc will still be protected & you will still be able to see them, just that the limit of taller buildings being built near them will be narrowed. Realistic in my view. Taking Greenwich as an example to me its the high rises in the background with the naval college in the foreground that makes this view & not the fact you can see St Paul's over in the distance looking West & so long as you can still see it then i'm fine with it in principle.

Its just been latched onto by the usual suspects accusing Ken of being in the pocket of property developers.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top