Ed Vaizey

21 responses to “Skyline debate continues”

1. james newman said on June 2nd, 2007 at 8:52 am:

   Interesting post Ed. I take issue with what you say about the City’s businesses NOT wanting skyscrapers. You are aware that Canary Wharf is almost fully let? They are running out of space at such a rate Riverside South which will be taller than One Canada Square is now being built? I’m sure you’ll also be aware that the latest two towers to go up in the City, the Willis Building, and Broadgate Tower are almost fully let too or have negotiations in the last stages. Tower 42, the Gherkin and City Point are almost all fully let as well, the only empty space they have is when someone moves to a bigger office. Indeed looking at current space offered on the market, Tower 42 is 95% let to multiple tenants who have taken flooplates in it as small as 250 sqm.
   Some companies do want large floor-plates. This is exactly the economics driving buildings such as the Walkie Talkie and why the floors get larger as the building gets taller. Other proposed towers including 100 Bishopsgate have floorplates in excess of 2,000 sqm. If you look at skyscrapers many do cater perfectly to what you say, other companies want groundscrapers and the market is providing for these too.
   Some companies however want smaller offices and many of the City’s towers are multi tenanted, this requires smaller floor-plates hence you have British Land developing the Leadenhall Building which offers Grade A bespoke offices to smaller companies or Heron with their tower and its “office villages”.
   People build tall buildings because they are commercially successful. The Shard in 2003 had an estimated GDV of £1.2 billion. Given the increase of prices since then, even with the huge development costs of the project, you can see the appeal to the developers of building it. How much do you think the apartments in it, some of which occupy entire floors and are 200 metres up will sell for given the current splurging by billionaires? Combined with income from observation platforms that are bound to be wildly successful, a pre-let hotel and pre-let offices the commercial realities remain appealing.
   Everyone acknowleges buffer zones because they do already exist in actual application of the planning rules. That’s why the Marsham Towers of the DoE ended up being demolished for example. UNESCO complain because there isnt a statutory protection of UNESCO monuments in law, that the planning rules are technically speaking discretionary which is of course, entirely how all laws should be. The debate hasn’t move in your direction because pretty much every man and his dog has always believed in this!

2. Chris Smith said on June 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 am:

   I’m afraid I have to take issue with just about everything you said there.

   1) The sitelines in London are not being abolished at all. What is actually happening is that, whereas there are 10 sitelines at the moment, there will now be 20 or so sitelines (the exact number slips my mind) which will be less strict, i.e. they will be narrowed so that you can still see the historical landmarks from the vantage point but developers will be able to build either side of the landmark.

   2) Obviously it’s logical that buffer zones should be around landmarks like the Tower of London and St. Pauls and there are at the moment. St. Pauls has no highrise buildings anywhere near it and the city cluster is well away from the Tower of London and Tower Bridge.

   3) I fail to see any logic in saying that the Shard will destroy views. Firstly, what views? There are already 2 highrise buildings on the site of the new building. Secondly the Shard will create a new view, both from ground level as you look up at it and from the top as you look down on the historic landmarks below.

   4) As to the point you made about skyscraper not being needed, they wouldn’t be being built if they weren’t. Developers only build or propose buildings in the city that will meet the demand of potential tennants. If that means that the tennants want a groundscraper, they will build a groundscraper. If it means that the tennants what a skyscraper, they will build a skyscraper. Also, due to the short supply of affordable housing in London, it has been neccessary for developers to build highrise residential buildings in order to provide more of a product to the market at the same time and also to keep the costs down as the cost of land in London rises as a result.

   It seems in this country we have an irrational fear of skyscraper and highrise development, which I fail to see any logic in, and as a result I fail to see logic in your comments above.

3. Steve Crew said on June 2nd, 2007 at 9:40 am:

   people like you would of moaned about the wheel being invented

4. Leslie Ferris said on June 2nd, 2007 at 12:27 pm:

   So Skyscrapers are ‘ego’ projects? Then what was St Pauls Cathedral? Christopher Wren had to hide the Dome behind scaffolding in fear of NIMBYs. Had they got our way, the dome of St Pauls would not grace our skyline today. There have always been ego projects, but in my opinion, that isn’t what the Shard is all about. It will be the Chysler or Empire State building of the 21st century, and we have the chance to have it here. It will provide vast regeneration for a run down area and a major transport interchange, as well as the removal of 2 ugly and far darker towers from the skyline. Regarding it 1. not being built and 2. people not wanting towers in the city, I guess it is just lucky that the Shard is already 65% let.

   Why would British Land push on with 122 Leadenhall which is now starting construction (one of the most amazing constructions in the world might I add, because it is starting as the current building is still being demolished) if firms didn’t want towers? Why would their Broadgate Tower further north that has just topped out now be almost fully let, before it has even finished? There are more and more foreign businesses coming to London, and from the facts we have infront of us we can see that atleast some of them want towers to house their offices.

   Regarding the buffer zones, I would like them, but what I would like to see them focus on the lowrise buildings that are actually close by, not the highrise towers 600m away, and certainly not affecting buildings as far away as the Shard, because that would greatly impinge on the city and would mean Swiss Re would have to be demolished. I have looked at 3D models on my computer, and discovered that the city cluster will have significantly more impact on the Tower of London than the Shard, but even then it won’t detract fom views.

   Which brings me to the fact that I STILL have seen no evidence of these ruined views of the Tower of London. Oh and after taking a survey on a community site of 50 SE1 residents, I have found 88.7% to be in favour of The Shard and the regenration it will bring to the area.

5. James said on June 2nd, 2007 at 1:18 pm:

   What a typically miserable, old-fashioned Tory view of the world. What happens if people in Victorian times had the same view as you Ed? What happens if they refused to build beautiful buildings in case they “ruined” the views of the previous buildings that were there? Each generation of Britons must make their own stamp on Britain. Our generation is far bolder, radical and inspirational than previous ones and we like skyscrapers - we feel they create truly great icons that thrust London (and other British cities) well into the 21st century.

   The idea that such an incredible architectural gem like the Shard will ruin views of ‘ye olde’ London is a pretty poor excuse Ed - it will enhance London if anything, especially if it’s built in time for the 2012 Olympic games.

   It’s so sad that the ‘modern Conservatives’ are still so stuck in the past and still want to suck up to the anti-modern heritage clan. For God’s sake, move to the future Tories - you’d be more successful if you did. But alas, all Tories at the end of the day don’t understand cities and still want them to look like picturesque little villages. Embrace the future Ed, don’t keep clinging to the past.

6. Londoner said on June 2nd, 2007 at 3:39 pm:

   You know what ruins those heritage sites?Motorways,60s eyesores and groundscrapers.Not skyscrapers.
   I find it funny that you guys (You,EH,UNESCO) are only concerned about ST.Paul’s,Houses Of Parliament and Tower Of London.What about other buildings?Buildings like Smithfield Market which is being demolished and will be replaced with a groundscraper with huge ‘plates’?You dont care.Groundscrapers arent tall so its ok to demolish this historic building.But if developers wanted to build a skyscraper there you would be campaigning to save Smithfield Market.

   Go to South Bank and look at St.Paul’s.You can barely see it.Why?Whats blocking it?Skyscrapers?No!Groundscrapers!Now can you see church spires?No?!Why?Whats blocking them?Yes thats right - groundscrapers.
   So you still think skyscrapers are ruining heritage sites?

7. Peter Spychal said on June 2nd, 2007 at 5:45 pm:

   At the heart of Conservative ideology are economic progress and prosperity. Mr Vaizey, your attack on the Shard is an attack on these values.

8. A voter said on June 2nd, 2007 at 6:14 pm:

   I find your comments funny to be honest. There are many issues which support tall buildings such as, the environment, more office/flats on a small space is much better than building on acres of land and greenfield land. Tall buildings are built in areas which have good transport links, ie the Shard etc. The provision of jobs, either construction and perminent such as office workers and services, retail are a boost and reduce unemployment. The general public actually like tall buildings, and see them as inspiring and as icons and landmarks. We want to be a bold and confident country once again and want 21st century buildings which reinforce this, just like the Victorians did. The likes of EH should use their money to save buildings under threat as in falling down and at risk of being knocked down. We all support viewing corridors, and these will remain, but can you really say stop all tall builds at the risk of preventing job creation and holding back the economy of the UK. This is not acting in the interests of the public in which you get paid by and work for. If this is the general opinion of the Tories I for one will never give you my vote.

9. Jon Tennant said on June 3rd, 2007 at 8:15 am:

   Ed, I wonder if you have seen this (link Below)? The views of Peter Ackroyd, a true Londoner and authour of the excellent ‘London: The Biography’. No one is more passionate about London more than this man, and he says:

   “(tall buildings) have allowed ordinary Londoners to comprehend the City of London’s current pre-eminence as a financial centre.”

   ““…the Shard is the perfect embodiment of that spirit. It is wholly in keeping with the great London tradition of boastful and monumental architecture, a tradition driven by power and money.”

   “I think the past and the present are entwined like lovers in an embrace. So the memory of the past is very much present in the development of the future. And in a sense the future of London is already here. We should embrace it.”

   He also says - and this is most important - ”Any attempt to constrain or control this future is doomed to failure.”

   Let’s hope he is right. How painfully ironic it would be if the Tories came to power and stifled the growth of Britain’s geatest asset.

   http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/05/30/building_britain_ackroyd_feature.shtml

10. Martin Caldwell said on June 4th, 2007 at 2:03 pm:

    I do find it amusing you claim the debate seems to be moving in your direction when virtually all the comments on your blog disagree with you.

    You are right to suggest that city firms want big floor plates. But you have yet to understand that those big floor plates are more damaging to the fabric of the city than skyscrapers. Massive groundscrapers add nothing to the streetscape of London, and add nothing to the public realm.

    Developers still need to maximise their returns on their investment with huge land costs, this results in hulking buildings dominating the area in which they are in.

    You are also flawed in your logic to claim that there isn’t massive demand for residential apartments. London has already one of the lowest poulation density of any Western city and if you believe in maintaining the green belt this results in ever higher property prices. This is responsible for London being one of the most expensive cities to live in as it has a direct impact on the prices of all goods and services.

    I wish you would think through your argument a bit further.

11. AWTP said on June 4th, 2007 at 5:15 pm:

    I’ve never replied to any blog before so apologies in advance for rambling on a bit. I’m no expert on architecture but purely a “fan” of it old and modern, castles or skyscrapers. I’ve been compelled to comment because I’m becoming so fed up with the anti-skyscraper arguments that have been doing the rounds recently and now taken up by you.

    I bet you feel exasperated that respondents to your blog seem to ignore your claims to be a fan of modern architecture, why oh why can’t they see your opinion is based purely on the locations of tall buildings you might be saying. The thing is this is exactly the point: your opinion is being rejected because it doesn’t seem to be built upon anything more than your aesthetic dislike for tall buildings. There seems little evidence at all that you support any of the new tall developments planned for London. Your opinion seems to sit far too easily with the worn Tory party clichés and stereotypes that your party leader is trying to break away from.

    London is not Venice or Florence, places which are essentially frozen in time. It is a constantly evolving place, that’s what makes it special and a world city. It can’t stay still. This evolution though shouldn’t mean, barring a disaster befalling them, the destruction of our incredibly important historical sites and architecture. But it does mean that the vitas in which these buildings sit will inevitably change and I think we would all agree that we should always strive to make these new vistas and settings better than the old and in the process stamp our generations mark on the history of the city. This should be the simple guiding principle to the planning of new buildings.

    However you and others spend all your time attacking, admittedly in my opinion, probably the most attractive and striking building this city will have seen for a very, very long time: The Shard at London Bridge, a building that has the potential to be iconic for years into the future in the UK and around the world and designed by one of the worlds greatest living architects. A building that is very sensibly being proposed (built) above a major transport hub and in a part of town that desperately needs the regeneration, far from many of the sites you seek to protect. It is not being proposed (built) as your straw man argument would have it opposite the houses of parliament. I can accept you may not like the look of the shard, that it aesthetically displeases you. That’s fine, we shall agree to disagree. But you must accept your dislike of it is just that: An opinion reached from a subjective standpoint not an objective one. It is up to the democratic process to decide whether it is built or not, not you or I as individuals or an unelected and unrepresentative UNESCO. Fortunately those at the public enquiries into the shard, who are charged with looking at these propositions from an objective point of view have found in the favour of people like me and the other posters to your blog. Those who think that rather than ruin views it will, in fact, enhance them.

    I’m a Londoner (been one all my life) so this issue affects me directly so I feel I have a right to comment. I’m also a bit of floating voter at present (but admit to not being a natural Tory voter by a long stretch) and although you are not my MP if your views correlate with the majority of your party it is unlikely that one of your colleagues will ever get my vote in the future.

    Thanks for listening.

12. Ed Vaizey said on June 4th, 2007 at 5:57 pm:

    Dear AWTP, where have I said I have an aesthtic dislike of tall bu8ildings? PLEASE do not misquote me. Please debate me on the terms I have set - should tall buildings obscure views that are currently listed as worthy of world heritage status? And prove to me that there is an overwhelming economic argument that justifies such destruction. I garee the SHard is beautiful, I just don;t want it to destroy a world heritage view. That’s all.

13. randolph ryeder said on June 4th, 2007 at 8:31 pm:

    How can a building which you describe as ‘Beautiful’ and of which you say ‘I love the design’ ruin a view? Surely beauty enhances, not detracts from it’s setting? (let alone ‘destroys’ it)In the case of the ‘Shard’ it will add to any and, in my opinion, all views of London. How can building ‘beautiful’ buildings in London do anything other than enrich our city? As to History let us add to history with own great buildings. History will judge us badly if we only contribute mediocre, unambitious and ’safe’ buildings to London.

14. Londoner said on June 4th, 2007 at 9:11 pm:

    Mr Vaizey youre not a Londoner are you?
    I suggest you visit London and have a walk along South Bank.

15. Leslie Ferris said on June 4th, 2007 at 9:59 pm:

    “should tall buildings obscure views that are currently listed as worthy of world heritage status?”

    But Mr Vaizey, the Shard does not obscure any listed views, or prominent views of the tower. If it had, it would not have been approved at a public inquiry. I have seen no evidence that it does. It doesn’t block any protectd views.

    We must realise, the Shard will likely create one of the most beautiful views of the tower ever, from 250m up in the sky in one of the two public viewing galleries of the tower. There are no views from behind the Shard that it blocks, but it will create a new one, one that I plan to enjoy in 2012 when I go to the Olympics (as long as the qeues aren’t too long. Actually I take that back, I don’t care about the qeues, the view will be too amazing to NOT see.)

16. A Green said on June 4th, 2007 at 11:19 pm:

    Ed-

    Slightly puzzled about your quote,

    “I love the design, I just don’t want it to ruin an iconic view”

    What view would this be , the iconic view of Guys hospital or the iconic view of New London Bridge house???

    If your talking about the view of the tower of London which your chums at English Heritage wasted millions of pounds of the public’s money on in a public inquiry. An inquiry which incidentally found their arguments were found to be baseless then your; a) a little late as the public inquiry was a few years ago & b)as daft as English Heritage. The only time your going to get the Shard & the Tower of London in the same shot is when viewed from the north of the Tower in which case your iconic view contains most of the south bank from Tower to London bridge including three not particularly nice looking towers from the 1970’s.

    So are you trying to say your iconic view is the tower of London framed by Guys hospital & two 1970’s office towers in which case I admire your commitment to post war architecture but come on Ed surely you can see the shard is superior to the current tall buildings on site even if it does ruin your iconic shot of the tower of London framed by the best 1970’s office design has to offer.

    I wish you & the heritage lobby all the best & look forward to using my vote at the next election wisely.

17. Jon Tennant said on June 5th, 2007 at 7:48 am:

    “I garee the SHard is beautiful, I just don;t want it to destroy a world heritage view. That’s all. ”

    This is getting ridiculous. You have started a campaign to save something that doesn’t exist.

    If we are going to have politicians talking about tall buildings in London, then please let us have someone who knows London, which clearly you don’t.

    Honest advice: If you are going to continue campaigning on this matter you need to get to know London or Red Ken is going to tear you apart.

18. Tom said on June 5th, 2007 at 2:18 pm:

    Well you’re right that the Standard reported this - but as usual the Standard was printing drivel. World Heritage Site status for Westminster and the Tower is not under threat. As for the mayor, you (and the Standard) are overstating it - he’s suggested some of the protected sightlines be narrowed.

    I don’t share your impression that the debate on your blog is moving your way - almost all of us seem to think you’re wrong in pretty much every respect, myself included. It’s true that investment banks in particular want huge footprints - this combined with the planners’ obsession with height limits means we now have a plethora of the dreaded “groundscrapers” which reduce the livability of the city, especially for pedestrians. Take seven or eight of these 8-story monstrosities, however, and pile them up, then you’d have one skyscraper and there would be breathing room for the rest of us.

    Skyscrapers may not be “”essential” for economic growth but they’re certainly desirable - and they’re even more desirable from a planning perspective, assuming you don’t want to concrete all over the green belt and countryside.

    Not all Conservatives are conservative, but you are, and I believe that puts you squarely on the wrong side of this argument.

19. Martin Caldwell said on June 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pm:

    The Evening Standard has a record of opposing all skyscrapers in London. The nickname the Erotic Gherkin was coined intended by them to be a negative term.

    Simon Jenkins is a well known anti-skyscraper person.

    I must also question the validity of speaking to one developer as it is nothing more than anecdotal. Surely you should follow the decision of CABE to decide whether they are high quality skyscrapers? Afterall, they are experts in architecture, ensuring high quality designs that contribute to London.

20. Peter Thurston said on June 5th, 2007 at 3:36 pm:

    Mr Vaizey. I lived into Wantage up until a year ago. I know Oxford. Is it not a city that celebrates dreaming spires?

21. Paul Walton said on June 30th, 2007 at 6:26 pm:

    Ed,

    Surely the fact that two rather ugly office buildings from the sixties are going to disappear from the London skyline to make way for the Shard is reason enough to support the project. Do you really think what is standing there at present compliments the Tower of London? Also the Shard will be on the south bank of the Thames, the Tower of London is on the north and not even directly opposite. How will it possibly detract from historic views? If you want to do something to improve views across London, why not campaign for all the mediocrity built during the post war period to be torn down. Also while you’re at it have a word with your pals at English Heritage and ask them if they have gone completely mad. Although not affecting London they have just given a sixties eye sore, the civic centre in Plymouth listed status. Try to explain that one since just about everyone in that city wants to see it torn down.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website