Skyline Campaign Gains Momentum
The Campaign to Protect our two World Heritage Views in London is gaining momentum. Last week, The Times’ architectural correspondent, Marcus Binney wrote an excellent piece defending the vistas HERE, which I followed up with a letter HERE. Last week end’s Observer contained extracts from an interview with Simon Thurley, the chief executive of English Heritage, who also defended the skyline HERE.
The reaction of critics of the policy, many of whom have posted comments below, has been interesting. Very few of them seem actually to have read my speech as every one of them has attacked me for being (a) against modern architecture and (b) against economic development despite the fact that I said (a) I am a big fan of modern architecture and (b) there is no evidence you need skyscrapers to sustain economic development.
My point is amazingly simple. I would love to see more modern, iconic architecture in London. But does it have to be at the expense of the views of two world heritage sites. Here is my hypothetical for my critics: if St Thomas’s Hospital, just across the Thames from Parliament, suddenly became available as a site, would you build the Shard there? If yes, you are a fundamentalist. If no, then there is common ground between us, it is simply a question fo degree.
Leslie Ferris said on May 31st, 2007 at 6:18 pm:
I find it humorous that the Conservative party, which is supposed to be going in a fresh new direction, is upholding such a backward thinking ideology?
The fact is, you yourself have said you love the Swiss Re building, and rightly so, it is trully iconic. But how can you say you love that, when it has a bigger impact on views of the Tower of London than te Shard ever will. Not only is it closer and in more prominent views of the tower, it also has a considerably darker cladding as opposed to the Shard. The Shard will have a super white reflective clad, and will reflect the sky, as opposed to Swiss Re’s darker cladding which will make it alot more dominant on the skyline. So how can you love Swiss Re yet attack the Shard? And I have still seen NO evidence to support the ‘ruined views’ thory.
Lets not forget the construction of the Shard will mean the overhaul of a run down area and a major transport interchange, and the replacement of 2 ugly highrise 60s blocks on the skyline with modern and iconic towers that beat any other in Europe.
Regarding replacing St Thomas hospital with The Shard. I would not support that. Reasons? It is right on the edge of the river, and the north and south bank of the river should have shorter buildings leading to the taller ones behind. The north bank, for example, is a disgrace littered with 1960’s office blocks that are too tall and too close to the river, but for some reasons English Heritage, UNESCO and now the Conservatives don’t bother themselves with small ugly buildings totally ruining the city, but with tall, gracefull buildings that ruin imaginary views.
The arguments are so poor that I would suggest that this idiocy stops now, because if any of these people have to stand up and actually debate it with someone who knows anything about the subject, they are going to end up looking rather… ‘misinformed’.
A Quinn said on May 31st, 2007 at 6:28 pm:
Yes but the trouble is your little article last week was a scattergun attack on tall buildings in central London in general and a cheap dig at the Mayor. You could also argue theres no economic reasoning for large lower rise office schemes which take up just as much floor space as a skyscraper in London but why single out tall office developments.
On the subject of world heritage views. Fair enough have a buffer zone around the Tower of London & the House of Parliament but how big do you want them?? How does the Coin St Tower (one of the tower you attacked in your original article) for example effect the setting of either of the above? The centre of London is a very large place & essentially quite flat as a result a tall building built some distance may be seen from a certain angle when viewing one of this heritage sites but does that mean the view overall is compromised. The London Eye was originally opposed by many & effects views especially of the Houses of Parliament. Yet it is now an established icon of London recognised around the world. How has this tall, modern structure, which remember is closer to the Houses of Parliament than any proposed tall buildings worsened the setting of this world heritage area??
Theres a lot of hysterical talk in the media recently about tall buildings in London & its down to the Architects/developers/Mayors ego. Tall buildings are just another form of building. If people paid more attention to some of the low rise dross that is proposed & built as they do to skyscrapers we might have a better built environment.
Coming back to the tower of London it is not tall buildings that effect the setting but the low rise dross that surrounds it. Tall buildings already frame the Tower from certain viewing points & have done for over twenty years. The new proposals for the city would, in my opinion enhance the setting but forming a tight cluster of tall buildings which are of exceptional design rather than the half hearted stumps we have at present.
Tall buildings are totally appropriate in certain ares of London & where the majority of the ones proposed are in the right place. Many , if not all are replacing poor post war architecture & some have the potential to be icons of the 21st Century & could possibly be listed themselves in the decades to come.
Nobody is suggesting Skyscrapers next to the houses of Parliament & never would. Sure there’s towers planned for Victoria but so long as they don’t impinge on the view of the Houses of Parliment from the North bank of the thames I see no problem with them there.
Rather than a rabid response by some whether something tall is proposed shouldn’t design be paramount. Heritage bodies particularly seem to scream blue murder at anything tall yet lose sight of poor quality low rise buildings. The Tower of London being the case in point. They made a huge fuss over the proposed 20 Fenchurch St tower yet they didn’t seem to mind all the lower rise developments that were built in the last few decades that also effect the setting of the tower.
Martin Caldwell said on May 31st, 2007 at 6:48 pm:
The problem is Mr Vaizey, is you are not taking into account commercial pressures. Let’s take your St Thomas’s Hospital example, if a developer bought the site they would be seeking a maximum return on their investments for their shareholders, if they cannot build upwards, they simply build huge monolithic groundscrapers, that destroy any shred of public space we have left in London. You only have to look at some of the monostrosities in the City and St Paul’s to see the impact at ground level these type of buildings have on London’s streets. By denying developers opportunities in good locations like over major transport interchanges and in the spare few furlongs of the City not protected by ‘views’ or ‘listing’ status then they simply produce oppressive buildings that damage the day to day life of an area with hulking groundscrapers. I always thought the Conservatives believed in the laws of Adam Smith, apparently they are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Leslie Ferris said on June 1st, 2007 at 11:34 am:
I have been doing an online survey, which is so far 96.8% in favour of The Shard after 31 responses. I posted the survey in a community forum for SE1 residents, AKA people who actually live there.
It contributes to the idea that English Heritage, UNESCO, and the Conservatives are not speaking for the majority of people, and people can see how poor their arguments are. The Conservative party seem stuck in the past, despite wanting to take a new direction. A recent article on building online re-iterates this:
Link to the article- http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=427&storycode=3088255&featurecode=11931
I am also starting some studies with online models to prove the Shard will have considerably less impact on the Tower of London than the City cluster, which even then does not interupt with the majority of views.
james newman said on June 1st, 2007 at 1:25 pm:
Ed, your question has one key error in it and that’s distance. St Thomas’s Hospital is a little over 200 metres away from the Houses of Parliament whilst London Bridge Tower is 650 metres from the Tower of London.
As I mentioned previously, your buffer zone policy against tall buildings is one that would have stopped the Gherkin from being built and one that the Gherkin breaks. This is a building that UNESCO oppose even today having attacked it for the damaging impact it has had on the Tower of London, a view you don’t subscribe to.
I actually have a question for you. Assuming the Gherkin was unbuilt today would you support its development? It’s a superb piece of architecture but it breaks the very strict would-be rules that you support.
William James Fox said on June 1st, 2007 at 5:10 pm:
- The Shard of Glass, the Bishopsgate Tower and the other skyscrapers planned for the City are truly outstanding examples of architecture. They are world class projects that deserve every chance to be built.
- The City of London is a major financial centre, and in order to retain this position it needs to be flexible and catering to the needs of large corporate tenants.
- The City of London is running out of space and needs to increase the density within its boundaries.
- London has always been a city of contrasts, with old and new juxtaposed together. If anything, these new skyscrapers will enhance and compliment the Tower of London. In any case, only the view from the east side will change. Most other views (from the west, north, southwest) will remain virtually the same.
- A city should never be allowed to stagnate. London is a thriving, dynamic, 21st century metropolis. Throughout its history, it has changed and evolved. It is constantly relying on new people, new ideas, new architecture. This is what makes the place feel so “alive” and vibrant. New landmarks are needed, not just for us, but for future generations to appreciate.
- London already has some of the strictest planning laws in the world. Tightening them still further will cause developers to shun the City, or produce architecture that is bland and lacking any grace or verticality.
- The Thistle Hotel and some of the other low-rise dross nearby already does far more damage to the setting of the Tower than any skyscraper could ever do.
My petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/ldntower/petition.html
How can you support the Gherkin, yet oppose the Leadenhall Building, Bishopsgate Tower, Shard of Glass, etc.? It’s mind boggling. As for the Vauxhall Tower, it will barely have any impact on Westminster at all. The renderings released by the developers prove this. A public inquiry has proved this.
I was considering voting Tory, but your views on urban development seem backward and far too restrictive. This isn’t what we need for a dynamic, thriving, 21st century metropolis like London. I suggest you re-think your views on tall buildings because they are clearly flawed. These buildings aren’t going up randomly - they are being concentrated in tight clusters in perfectly suitable locations, and they each go through an extremely rigorous planning process. The vast majority of people will disagree with you about the Shard of Glass, which is going to become a new icon for London and should be celebrated instead of feared. London isn’t just about history.
Owen Matthews said on June 1st, 2007 at 8:45 pm:
Why have you not responded to any of the comments made on this page? Are you afraid to engage in a debate? I consider myself a tory but I find your views on urban planning, and commercial development quite antiquated and unrealistic. London isn’t a museum - it’s a thriving and developing City, and your proposals will do nothing but hold back its growth. Now that doesn’t exactly sound like the conservative ideology I, in principle, support.
Jon Tennant said on June 2nd, 2007 at 8:05 am:
I feel passionate about London. That someone - a Conservative, unbelievably - would jeopardise this incredible success story is extraordinary. How sad it will be if in future foreign banks looking for a base decide they can find better-priced and more suitable office space in Paris. And the people who oppose thrilling modern achitecture like The Shard seem totally oblivious to the damage done to the skyline by, for instance, the dreadful extension to the Unilever building or the ugly, Staines-style groundscrapers that we will get if their campaign is allowed to succeed.
Chris Barnard said on June 2nd, 2007 at 11:26 am:
Mr. Vaizey, you are not against modern architecture but you are clearly against tall buildings. But you must realise that tall buildings do not ruin or compromise views - poorly designed buildings do - the height is irrelevant.
The more interesting probing question is why does the suggestion of building tall create such a moral panic? Proposals should be judged on their individual merits - it is very simple.
I don’t know why you are quoting Mr. Binney - I think his point is London shouldn’t allow tall buildings to be erected en masse without due care and consideration. What we are talking about are a small number of world class buildings - that won’t SPOIL London’s skyline - they will DEFINE London’s skyline for generations.
And where does one start with Mr. Thurley? His views can only be described as xenophobic. London is a world City, of course it attracts international investment, in fact it’s past, present and future depends on this investment.
To that end it doesn’t matter if a skyscraper is the work of an individual architect or developer - I expect we’d all like the talent, drive and determination that Mr. Piano has to produce such an outstanding piece of architecture. It’s not just about money - IT’S ABOUT VISION!
What this proves is people want to come to London - people want a part of one of the worlds great cites - of course the best architects want to leave a legacy it’s a gift from them and an honour.
As an Englishman I am proud of the fact.
I don’t want London to be littered with ill-conceived skyscrapers as much as the next man - but I do want people to get over this unhelpful and frankly immature attitude toward building tall.
Mark Joseph BSc said on June 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pm:
Dear Mr VAisey,
I have already let you know my views personally. As an Environmental Scientist I find your comments both worrying and misguided. London does ‘not’ follow other cities, they follow London. Thankfully, London will never erase its world class heritage (despite your asertion that this is what is happening), only enhance it with modern exiting and the most environmentally progessive buidings, some of which will be tall. They are not being designed to admit our society to any kind of tower building race. Note that there are no plans to build the tallest buildings in the world here.
I am delighted, however, on reading this blog, that a majority (if not all) of contributors are either unconcerned, or opposed to your assertion that damage is being caused.
With repect, Its quite amusing just reading the heading of this page: ‘Skyscraper campaign gains momentum’ Followed by all of these posts, it appears to be a blog in support of skyscrapers and far from one opposed to them.