For a chain, Gaucho is startlingly expensive, the final bill ending up pretty close to one from much more stylish, individual restaurants
Boris Johnson's deputy faces damaging new allegations that he misled the public by claiming to be a magistrate
More...
Towers of London
By Elizabeth Hopkirk and Ross Lydall, Evening Standard Last updated at 11:08am on 18.07.07Ken Livingstone is being given new powers to approve skyscrapers as part of a government drive to increase the supply of affordable homes.
The Mayor will be able to remove major planning applications from the control of boroughs and approve them himself, preventing schemes being delayed by local objectors.
How London's skyline could look by 2012
The move comes as the Evening Standard today reveals how the London skyline could look by the time of the Olympic Games in 2012. This panoramic picture shows a radically altered landscape with dozens of new skyscrapers, including the recently approved Walkie-Talkie tower in Fenchurch Street. Some of the buildings have not even reached the formal planning stage yet.
Graphic designer Will Fox placed artists' impressions of every large new project on a panorama made from 17 photographs taken from a balcony in Forest Hill.
"There was this amazing London skyline and I started wondering how much it will have changed by the time the Olympic games arrive," said Mr Fox. "I wanted to show the impact these developments will have as I think nobody has a sense of how many new buildings are planned."
Under his new powers, Mr Livingstone is expected to rule on about 350 big developments each year - up 40 on present arrangements. Only a minority are likely to include skyscrapers.
The Greater London Authority Bill, which is due to receive its third reading in the Lords next week, will allow the Mayor to decide on applications for buildings 30 metres or higher.
This falls to 25metres or higher for those adjacent to the Thames but rises to 150 metres for those in the City of London due to the preponderance of skyscrapers there.
Areas favoured by the Mayor for tall buildings - which he believes can be landmarks that "contribute to regeneration and improve London's skyline" - include King's Cross, Paddington, Euston, Victoria, Waterloo, Tottenham Hale, Elephant and Castle, Waterloo, Vauxhall, Battersea and Croydon.
At present the Mayor can only veto applications approved by the boroughs. The new powers - which are expected to receive Royal Assent this autumn - will enable him to give the go-ahead to schemes that face rejection by councillors.
However, the Mayor has to pass three tests before he can take over an application - it must have a "significant impact" on his London Plan development strategy and "significant effects" across more than one borough and there must be "sound planning reasons".
The Mayor will also be able to intervene in plans featuring 150 or more houses or flats - meaning he can force boroughs to reject schemes where he believes there is insufficient affordable housing. His aim is for half of all new homes to be affordable.
For the first time, the Mayor will be required to consider the views of the applicants and the relevant borough council in an open forum.
Reader views (23)
Here's a sample of the latest views published. You can click view all to read all views that readers have sent in.
Some people say that since a few buildings built in the 1960s should be demolished as eyesores, modern buildings will look awful in 30 years' time, how about even older buildings? Surely by this logic, they must have been eyesores for even longer, and hence even more worthy of demolition. Why not demolish the Tower of London, and return it to a pristine green field?
Of course, that would be just as ridiculous as saying that we should not build any more large structures now - the point is that something is made in modern times can be just as inspiring or beautiful as something hundreds of years old. Much as I do not approve of a lot of what the mayor does, the question of tall buildings only has one realistic answer in a growing city which cannot spread, in times when minimal environmental impact is desired. Tall buildings increase energy efficiency with economies of scale, whilst still leaving open spaces for the public to enjoy as opposed to lower, broader buildings that take up all available space, and with quality architecture and planning of the public realm, there are few valid reasons to object to a building merely because it is tall.
The apparently common process of many planning enquiries of lopping off some of the height of a building simply results in a wider, lower, less optimised structure to maintain the economic case, reducing any extra public space generated for no apparent gain. This is therefore probably better off out of the hands of local councils.
- Sunil, London
That is one fantastic looking skyline! London needs skyscrapers to show off it's economc power to the world! It's ony British people who seem to have a problem with skyscrapers, the rest of the world seem to love them, when london gets these built, london will outshine every city in every departement. I am proud to call it my capital, and these skyscrapers merely add to the greatest city in the world and make it even better, these are the cathedrals of our time, let's not support those who block them, they live in the past, these buildings represent our generation, just as old buildings did for theirs.
- James, Leeds
Much as I support Ken, I don't see why there has to be sudden blitz on high rise buildings in London. I we have to have tall buildings why can't we just encourage further development round the Docklands - they look good clustered together there, no need to ruin the low skyline in Central London.
- Headhunter, London
13°c
17°c
