Save London’s Skyline
I made a speech today to the Heritage of London Trust, in which I draw attention to the astonishing fact that two of our country’s World Heritage Sites, Westminster and the Tower of London, could be put on the endangered list by UNESCO, the first in the developed world to suffer this ignominy.
This is the text:
“The preservation of our heritage is not simply about more money. There is one thing we could do for no cost which would have a dramatic impact in the battle for our heritage.
Next month, UNESCO, the cultural organisation of the United Nations, will meet to discuss whether to put two World Heritage sites on their “endangered” list. If you asked the average person where these two sites are, they would assume they were in places like Afghanistan or Iraq. They would be astonished to learn that they are actually both in London - Westminster and the Tower of London.
They would be right to be astonished. There are 830 world heritage sites. Of these, only 31 - about a three per cent - are currently on the endangered list. They are indeed in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo and the Congo. It is, therefore, a cause for national humiliation and shame that UNESCO should even be considering putting Westminster and the Tower of London on the same list, the first such sites in the developed world.
How did this astonishing situation come about?
Westminster and the Tower of London have been World Heritage Sites since the late 1980s. To maintain their status, UNESCO has called for a buffer zone to be put around each to protect their views from being damaged by tall buildings.
Simon Milton, the leader of Westminster Council, and Tony Arbour the Conservative planning spokesman on the GLA, have vigorously supported this proposal. Ken Livingstone, London’s Mayor, and the Government have refused to agree to the establishment of buffer zones. It is not hard to see why.
They are in thrall to the skyscraper. The Tower of London’s views would already have been damaged by the Minerva Tower, which is only not now going ahead because of financial problems. The London Bridge Tower (the Shard of Glass) remains a danger. A substantial tower at Vauxhall has been already been given planning permission which will damage views of Parliament. A number of other tall buildings have also been proposed or talked about which would have a devastating impact on the views around the Palace of Westminster. Two tall buildings have been proposed by Victoria; there is a risk of development in Waterloo and Blackfriars; there is a proposal for a tower at . All of these proposals - some merely ideas, others more substantial, and one going ahead, would have a massive impact on the historic and important views around the Palace of Westminster. They should be stopped. The Government should immediately put in place a buffer zone to protect the site.
Coin Street
There are two objections to my position, one aesthetic and one commercial.
The aesthetic objection is this: any one who argues for a buffer zone is secretly against modern architecture. London, say those who put forward this argument, should not be set in aspic. Every generation should leave its mark. Quite so. I am a huge supporter of modern architecture, but it should always be in the right context. As an example, even those that support the buffer zone backed the London Eye. Its delicate and perforated silhouette compliments the area and does not crowd out the historic views, as a skyscraper would.
The second argument is that a buffer zone would stifle London’s commercial development. This argument has been rejected by the London Planning Advisory Committee and a House of Commons Select Committee, and those rejections have been endorsed by the Government. In particular, the Select Committee concluded that no company had been put off locating in London because of lack of office space, and that there was in any case plenty of other areas suitable for development.
Indeed, Canary Wharf and the NatWest Tower were both supported by the previous Conservative Government, so one can be both pro-heritage and pro-development. In any case, if development is the be all and end all, one might as well argue that we should build in Hyde Park. We don’t of course, because we recognise that commerce depends on quality of life as much as any citizen. And these important views are part of our quality of life in the capital city.
The Government has given a small nod to UNESCO’s concerns in its Heritage White Paper, published in March. But it is no more than that. It has stopped far short of calling for the buffer zone that is essential if we are to preserve these views not only for ourselves, but for the generation to come.”
Comstock said on May 22nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm:
I’m a loyal Labour voter, but I agree totally. I love London and more towers will wreck the place.
And I’m sick of the way Ken Livingstone talks socialist whilst brown-nosing with big business. At least Thatcher was open about being in the pocket of the city- and she put Canary Wharf on derlict land and not in the historic centre.
Rob Smith said on May 23rd, 2007 at 3:17 pm:
What do you think of the Gherkin? Tall building in the heart of city that has rapidly become a much loved part of the skyline - features in tourist souvenirs of London for instance.
Ed Vaizey said on May 24th, 2007 at 8:40 am:
I love the Gherkin. As my speech makes clear this is not an attack on modern architecture, it is an attack on an attack on World Heritage Sites
Peter Thurston (Cat Man Do) said on May 24th, 2007 at 10:29 am:
London is not a museum, it is world city and that is why most world heritage sites exist in the first place. What I love about London is the way that old and new can sit comfortably side by side in the same way that it London accommodates so many cultures. All buildings were new additions to the skyline at one point, Tower Bridge was not that popular when it went up. So lets not put London in a glass display cabinet, lets celebrate new buildings and allow the evolution of London’s skyline with innovative and excellent architecture in all its guises - as has always been the case.
Les Ferris said on May 24th, 2007 at 10:46 am:
The Shard is nowhere near the Tower of London. These arguments are extremely flawed, there is no proof, and it is this kind of thinking that will halt London’s future development. Just as the 133m St pauls is an icon of the past, The Shard will be an icon of the future. The fact that it is on the other side of the river and around a km away in no way smothers the heritage site. That is possibly the most absurd thing I have ever heard. There is alredy a tower (Guys Hospital) around half the height close by to the site of the Shard, and that is extremely ugly and blocky, yet no one complains about that. It proves this is all about height, not design. I’m just happy that stopping these towers would be illegal, and that work has now started on The Shard. I guarentee the majority of Londoners will love it, just as they love Swiss Re in the heart of the city.
Edward Vincent said on May 24th, 2007 at 10:48 am:
Dear Sir,
I’m astonished at your views, which seem to be illogical. None of the towers you mention effect views in a negative way. I really do wonder whether flagging such an “issue” is the best use of your powers as an MP. Surely there are more pressing problems for MP’s to resolve, than getting embroiled in issues which you obviously have no professional knowledge of.
I think it will shortly become apparent that your speech and this new policy may well make some headlines, but will only highlight the Tories ignorance of modern architecture and city planning.
The UNESCO sites are not endangered and the buildings you mention are just too far away from the UNESCO sites to be clasified as over-bearing. UNESCO has shown it is prone to intense lobbying and its clearly influenced by EH and other anti-skyscraper voices in the UK.
Perhaps next time you give a speech about this you could do so in a forum which is able to test and interrogate the reasoning behind your ignorant views about the impact of buildings which in reality do not impinge on any views at all.
Thankyou,
Rev Edward Vincent
Kardinal said on May 24th, 2007 at 10:49 am:
Skyscrapers are nice assets to any modern world city like London. One of the things that I love so much about this city is the contrast between the new and old, mixed together.
The London Bridge Tower in particular will be, when built, an outstanding piece of architecture and a new future icon for London.
james newman said on May 24th, 2007 at 3:10 pm:
Hi there Ed, nice to see you do actually read this blog and comment which is something I wish more would do.
Anyway, just to take up your point on the Gherkin, I hope you are aware that the Gherkin would also have been caught in the buffer zones that you have spoken of and has been attacked by UNESCO for the damage it does to the Tower of London? An arbitary height limit does not allow for good design or bad design, it stops everything.
When the Gherkin was being built it was also branded “a danger” by people. I suspect that London Bridge Tower will be as loved by Londoners as the Gherkin. I would much rather you concentrated on the real problems on our historical sites which is often the street layout around them, the choking by motorcar (just look at Westminster to see what I mean), and the morass of horrible and very short bulky buildings without any grace. Many of these lay around the tower of London whilst St Pauls, although not a WHS, is totally hemmed in by this dross.
I’d like to see the next government rip up the roads that separate Parliament Green, Parliament and Westminster Abbey and replace them with cobble stones. I’d like to see some of the rubbish around the Tower of London bulldozed. These have an immediate impact on the overall environment of the areas that tall buildings don’t have as they are all proposed some distance from the WHS in question.
Criticism of tall buildings can only work when it goes hand in hand with sympathetic close-up spatial planning of the areas you are trying to protect. At the moment we don’t have this, infact we don’t have this to such a level that it was the Tories who built a road right past Stonehenge. Damage is damage and lets start by fixing the ground levels around these great places in our country
Jon Tennant said on May 24th, 2007 at 4:43 pm:
I’m getting really fed up with Cameron’s Tory party.
First they tell us they no longer stand for grammar schools which I’ve always thought was a core policy of Conservatives. Now they seem to want to stifle the extraordinary success of London by campaigning against tall buildings.
The tall buildings we have already in the city of London, Tower 42, the Gherkin and the new Willis buildings so benefit the London skyline it’s hard to imagine them not being there.
Future proposals such as The Shard of Glass, the Bishopsgate building and 122 Leadenhall are architecturally superb.
We should be able to admire St Paul’s along with the work of latter day Christopher Wrens, Norman Foster and Richard Rogers.
London needs tall buildings because it the world’s premier financial centre. Banks require huge trading rooms and we also need to supply office space at reasonable rates. If we don’t build them then Paris will. And building tall in London might save us from concreting over Surrey which John Prescott seems so keen to do.
I’m flabbergasted that a Conservative MP would want to interfere in Britain’s number one success story, the city of London. I’d never thought I’d say this but red Ken is beginning to look like a reasonable chap.
James Harrison said on May 24th, 2007 at 6:25 pm:
For our city to develop we cannot put these restrictions on tall buildings. It is my belief that they greatly enhance the skyline.
The Shard for example will provide an observation deck which I am sure will attract many tourists and will benefit London in more ways than economics.
If skyscrapers are prohibited than the big businesses will instead create groundscrapers, great hulking masses which take all space away from ground level and are a much worse obscenity to the beutiful city of London than any skyscraper.
It is also my belief that the proposed skyscrapers do not damage London’s heritage at all, they are all at perfectly reasonable distance from the Tower of London and St Pauls Cathedral. What would William the Conquerer say if he knew that Lodnon had the opportunity to have some of the most beautiful tall buildings the world had ever seen, but that they were being prevented from being built because some people feared they would ruin the view of his tower? I can’t imagine he’d be pleased, I’m sure he’d rather have the towers.
I also agree with the commenter above, London is not a museum and we can’t ever let that happen to our ever-changing city.
Marcus Dixon said on May 26th, 2007 at 4:41 pm:
The London Bridge Tower is quite simply the most breathtakingly beautiful skyscraper proposal I have ever seen. It’s slender, delicate, and elegant and the glass they will use will make it appear almost “white” under most light conditions. Londoners have taken to the Gherkin but the London Bridge Tower, or “Shard of glass”, is aesthetically far superior to the Gherkin. St Paul’s is magnificent and, like most Londoners, I love to view it from afar, but the Shard is simply too far away to compromise it. The Tower is closer but Shard is nonetheless on the opposite side of river and set well inland from the Thames riverside. It will be built admidst the hideous concrete buildings that surround London Bridge Station and can be nothing but an architectural blessing to such a generally ugly and depressing corner of London. The Tower of London is already surrounded by buildings of similar or greater height nearby (and has been for at least a century….) and can only be viewed from afar from the South Bank. Needless to say the London Bridge Tower would not obstruct that view at all as it would be well behind the viewer. If the Tower’s setting is compromised it’s by buildings much closer to hand than the Shard will be. Mr Vaizety please show a little more imagination. The London Bridge Tower, a Renzo Piano masterpiece, will be the most beautiful contemporary building in London and one of the finest anywhere in the world. It deserves better than opposition from anyone who appreciates architecture of any period or style.
Adam Caddy said on May 26th, 2007 at 6:05 pm:
These claim’s are completley unjust, The beautifull heritage of London will most defiently not be ruined by the soaring beautifull modern day architecture we have proposed in this World class city. However what ruin the city is a wall of symetrical buildings that have all been reduced in size and have compramised on both their height and design. In a city that is crying out for my residential and office space it makes perfect sense to build London up, and leave A twenty first century mark that compliments an already beautiful skyline.
Jon Tennant said on May 27th, 2007 at 7:39 pm:
Mr Vaizey,
My vote for the Conservatives at the next election is in even greater peril. I wonder if you would be kind enough to answer these questions.
1. I’ve lived and worked in London for my whole life over 40 years. Please tell us your relationship with London.
2. Which particular tall-building proposals do you most object to?
3. Isn’t it common sense (despite what the select committee concluded) that building 50 storeys up is cheaper than building the same space on one level?
4. Are you not concerned that if London cannot provide office space at reasonable rates that it risks losing its position as the first or second biggest financial centre in the world?
5. Which if any current tall buildings (Tower42, the Gherkin etc, etc) do you believe spoils the London skyline.
6. Are you aware of the monstrous addition to the Unilever building in Blackfriars that spoils the view of St Paul’s from Waterloo Bridge. How is it that neither you nor English Heritage objected to this ghastly extension.
7. Would you prefer to build up in London or to build out into the home counties, or do you believe that London has plenty of office space to keep growing despite availability in both the city of London and Canary Wharf being at record lows?
Kind regards,
Jon Tennant