London Skyline Update
A recent visit to the Tower of London included a useful up-date on the Great London Skyline debate. Interestingly, and incidentally, Historic Royal Palaces run the Tower and four other sites without a penny from Government or the Royal Family - they are entirely self-financing.
Anyway, back to the main point- HRP, like me, are pro-Gherkin and the “City Cluster” of which it forms a part, so they are relaxed about the cheese grater and 20 Bishopsgate. But they are opposed to the Minerva tower, which would have stood out on its own to the east of the cluster, and dominated views of the Tower. In any event, Minerva is not being built because there is, er, no demand for this tall building. HRP recognise there are two views - either respect the views of the Tower, and allow tall buildings to build up and away from it, or simply go for any new building wherever it is placed. They and I favour the latter view.
It is not just tall buildings. Three Quays, low slung, if built would still crowd in on the Tower. the Shard would obviously dominate. Twenty Fenchurch Street would make the cluster sprawl. The Shard would dominate. The new London Views management Framework also seriously narrows the definition of “view” until it is almost completely worthless.
Let the debate continue!
Les Ferris said on June 18th, 2007 at 10:15 pm:
The Minerva building was not built because the developers wanted a single tenant to take the whole building, and made the mistake of trying to cater for the wrong people. Had they held out, JPMorgan could have been a strong contender for the building. I guess everyone you met is pleased that the tower has been replaced by a revolting bulky ground scraper that has all the architectural merit of a dogs bowel movement.
I find it funny how The Leadenhall building, Bishopsgate Tower and Heron are all being built speculatively, yet you say ‘there is no requirement for tall buildings’
And again. If the Shard dominates, give us some cold, hard proof. Something that neither you, or anyone else has provided.
A survey I did of an SE1 community forum found the residents who will have to live near the Shard to have an overwhelmingly positive view of the development. Neither you Mr Vaizey, or English Heritage, or UNESCO, will be living in the same borough as the Shard. If the residents there want it and the regenration it brings, you or any others have absolutely no right to deny it to them or the general public, based on some highly unfounded claims that it will ‘dominate’.
St Pauls dominated until all of the groundscrapers were built around it. Now THAT is a battle worth fighting, not some wild goose chase that will eventually make the nay sayers look silly when it is finally built and loved around the world. No doubt people like you will be trying to convince people that you loved it all along, and gave it your full support…
A program is on BBC London tonight, called Building Britain at 10:35pm regarding this particular subject. Should be very interesting.
David Watson said on June 19th, 2007 at 12:23 am:
The building that most damages the Tower of London is the dreadful Hotel building beside it, not a spectacular piece of contemporary architecture half a mile away on the other side of the river. But, of course, the hotel is not a tall building therefore it is absolutely ok.
Now we hear the Regents hotel is going to be demolished and replaced. But, of course, the replacement building will not be tall, so it is perfectly ok.
If English heritage and the like protested against the vandalism to the streetscape caused by these bland oppressive structures half as much as they protested against stunning buildings like the Shard and the Gherkin (both names, lets remember, intended to be insulting) then London would probably be a much better city for it.