Karl Sharro
reprinted from Culture Wars, 27th February 2010
Boris Johnson has made a virtue of opposing the construction of towers in London. One of his first appointees was former Westminster Council leader Simon Milton, a fierce critic of towers, who was named chief advisor on planning days after Boris took office. The hype that surrounded this appointment and Boris' anti-tower policy claimed that under Ken Livingstone London was on its way to becoming Dubai-on-Thames. Aside from the factual inaccuracy of this statement (see below), London already had a strict anti-tower policy in place maintained by a number of planning departments, quangos, and conservation groups. As London prepares to get out of the recession the question of towers will become important once again. It is worth challenging Boris' policy and making a case for the construction of more skyscrapers in London.
The conservation lobby's favourite phrase when it comes to towers in London
is that they are 'visually intrusive.' In fact, what is really visually intrusive
is the sight of so many organisations working to halt the development of London
and freeze it in time. The unchallenged assumption that such bodies promote
is that the existing condition of London cannot be bettered and that any modern
development needs to be modest in comparison to historic buildings. This self-effacing
ethos is truly baffling: if the architects of St Paul's Cathedral or the Palace
of Westminster had followed the same reasoning, neither would have been designed
as ambitiously as they were. The conservationists' attitude, and Boris Johnson
has firmly established himself within that camp, betrays a lack of faith in
our generation's ability to produce buildings of equal quality.
The outstanding buildings that have been built in London over the past few
years show that this pessimism is wholly unjustified. The Gherkin, the London
Eye, and the Millennium Dome have not only displayed ambitious architecture
and cutting-edge technology but have quickly become symbols of London. The
Dome may have been a PR disaster, but it broke new grounds in architecture
and engineering, illustrating what British firms are capable of if given the
chance. Yet the critics curiously insist on seeing these as the exceptions
rather than the norm. This partially explains why the most talented architects
and engineers in the UK have to do their best work abroad.
Before and since taking office, Boris has thrown his rather hefty weight around
in opposition to several high-rise schemes, such as Ian Simpson's Beetham
Tower on Blackfriars Road, Allies & Morrison's 'Three Sisters' on York
Road, and Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands' Doon Street. Armed with new mayoral
powers that allow him to order local councils to refuse applications, Boris
has become the uncertain element in the equation for developers planning high-rise
buildings in London. However, Boris' policy on, or against, towers has not
yet become the subject of intense public debate, because his term has coincided
with the recession, forcing most developers to shelve or postpone their planned
schemes. In a sense, economic stagnation carried out Boris' policy on his
behalf. But as we prepare, or so the theory goes, to get out of the recession,
several schemes are expected to be revived, and with them Boris' anti-tower
policy.
A closer look at the Dubai-on Thames claim reveals how ludicrous it is, and
how misguided Boris is in making opposition to towers a central plank of his
planning policy. Between 2000 and 2009, 34 high-rise schemes (taller than
100m) were proposed in London, compared to 111 in Dubai. (Source: http://skyscraperpage.com)
The Dubai towers are nearly all concentrated along one road, the London towers
spread around a much larger city. The tallest tower in Dubai is 828m, the
tallest in London will be 300m (the yet-to-be-built The Shard by Tower Bridge,
designed by Renzo Piano.) The average height of a London tower in this category
is 150m; the average in Dubai is twice as high at 300m. Furthermore, most
of the Dubai towers are either finished or under construction, few of the
London towers have been completed.
Not that I am opposed to the idea of Dubai-on-Thames - in fact I think it's
a rather exciting prospect - but the idea that the few modest buildings planned
for London threatened to transform it into a Dubai-like city is the product
of a very fertile imagination with little grasp of the facts. In reality most
of the opposition to high-rise buildings is based on a conservative outlook
expressed in a highly moralistic language. The 'visual intrusion' that so
many of the critics of skyscrapers deride is the intrusion of the 21st century
into our contemporary fields of vision. However, this is not simply a clash
of modern versus traditional, but a wholesale abandonment of ambitious development
as a valid path of progress. Even the advocates of high-rise buildings have
to coach their support in the language of sustainability, arguing that they
make more environmental sense. Even more ludicrously, designers have to go
out of their way to prove that towers have a minimal impact on the skyline
of London in order to gain consent, begging the question of why would you
bother to build a tower if you don't want it to be visible!
While Boris has come to represent the rounded end of the anti-skyscraper spear,
in London, in truth the opposition runs much deeper and wider. It ranges from
curmudgeonly individuals who regard every proposal for a tower in London as
a personal insult to themselves, to local councils who, with few exceptions
such as the more enlightened City of London and Southwark, regard towers with
the dread usually reserved for invading barbarians, to a variety of official
and semi-official outfits whose chief function is to put the case against
development. In a typical development in London, designers have to deal with
the local council's planning department, consult with the local community
and 'stakeholders', a very flexible definition that allows any busybody to
have a say on the development in question, English Heritage (who as a principle
regard the 20th century as one lengthy mistake), CABE (the Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment), who serve as a sort of taste police
monitoring 'design' as if it's a separate entity from the rest of the scheme,
and the Minister of State for London.
Into this already crowded scene steps the Mayor and the GLA with the full
force of the law behind them, with powers to cajole and bully designers and
developers into modifying their schemes downwards and if all else fails reject
them altogether. Boris has used these powers to galvanise the anti-high-rise
sentiment into an object of policy. So far, he has gotten away with this unchallenged.
But it is incumbent on us, those who welcome the prospect of transforming
London's skyline into an exciting scene that represents the city's dynamism,
to publicly challenge this short-sighted and un-ambitious policy. This requires
challenging not only Boris Johnson's anti-tower bias, but the entire planning
context that regards any development proposal as 'guilty until proven innocent'.
The cultural dimension of this opposition should also be challenged. We often
hear words like 'vanity' and 'greed' brandished around when discussing high-rise
towers, and they are often seen as the representation of the nasty side of
capitalism. But this only reflects the esoteric context within which this
debate is carried out, the assumption that any developer in the UK would sink
hundreds of millions of pounds into 'vanity' projects is as ignorant of economic
facts as it is the result of a general sense of pessimism. What makes towers
attractive to developers is that they represent a solution to the shortage
of space in dense contexts. Towers make particular sense in London where available
land is always at a premium. In fact, high-rise projects often create a much
better condition on the ground, freeing up valuable space for public use.
The bias against towers is largely a manifestation of the prevalent culture
of low expectations that looks at any ambitious development with suspicion.
The 'phallic symbols' seen by tower critics are products of their own dirty
minds.
Towers do indeed have a symbolic value, they represent the ambitions and power
of a society on its way up. New York would not be the same without its famous
skyscrapers, which once represented the optimism and ambition of America.
The reason thousands of people move to London every year is not to enjoy the
'uncorrupted' view of the Treasury from St James's Park as Boris Johnson and
his deputy mayor for planning Simon Milton seem to think, but to be part of
the dynamic metropolitan experience that London has to offer. It is only befitting
that the city's skyline should be allowed to reflect this dynamism, and a
few more houses and nicer offices wouldn't hurt either. Time to tell the Mayor
who takes pride in setting his sights low to retrain his sights and aim higher.
Boris, don't stand in the way of progress
To comment on this article, please write to futurecitiesproject@gmail.com
Click here to return to Comments main page
