Morning:
13°c
It's as if the Mayor's been schmoozed
Rowan Moore23.10.08
BORIS Johnson's decision to go soft on the Three Sisters looks like an extraordinary U-turn.
He came to power proclaiming that, although he had nothing against tall buildings, they should be in appropriate locations, such as the City, Canary Wharf and Croydon. There was no mention then of Waterloo.
He has also stated his opposition to two towers in Blackfriars Road, on the grounds they would impinge on historic views, in this case from St James's Park.
The Three Sisters, being bulkier and closer, would have a much greater impact on the Palace of Westminster, yet this is now dismissed as a "kinetic" view, which "will vary from different viewpoints".
It looks very much as if the Mayor has been efficiently schmoozed by the property business, and fed the argument that allowing developments like this is essential to London's future prosperity.
This is as specious as banks' arguments against regulation: there is ample scope to increase the density and quantity of commercial space without building towers.
Tall buildings, being more difficult and expensive to build, also have a way of hanging about for years before they are realised, which helps nobody.
It might also be that officials have told him that he can't reverse Ken Livingstone's London Plan overnight, and has to stand by the Plan's support for higher buildings near railway stations. If so, they are wrong. The Plan identifies "important views" where greater care should be taken in designing buildings. The Three Sisters sit in one of these views and could be opposed on those grounds.
If these lumpen and intrusive objects are waved through by the Mayor, his policy on the London skyline will be almost identical to his predecessor's.
Reader views (7)
Far from having the same policy on the London skyline as Ken Livingstone, Boris doesn't have any policy, he doesn't even have a firm opinion never mind a policy, on this or anything else to do with the running of this city.
- Dave Taylor, London, UK
"Maybe someone from the press can ask at his next press conference"
Hahaha. Good one. You do know that he's cut back massively on the number of questions he takes from the press, don't you? The 'more accountability' idea went a while back.
- Tom, London, UK.
Sorry Mrs Jackson but Boris and press conferences or even question time are rarer than white Christmas. Ken held weekly conferences where he was willing to answer ALL questions asked.
Boris is to busy don't forget he has a newspaper column to write!
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex.
It's irrelevant whether someone has been lobbied - what is relevant is the degree to which apparent promises and flavours in an election campaign are broken - as it happens I am one of the only members of the last London Assembly (2004-2008) who supported the Towers and spoke in favour of them during the debate. I also said to the Tories (who opposed them) that in power they would do exactly the same as Ken. I never imagined they would win the Mayor election, nor did I imagine the U-turn (welcome though it is) to be so fast. But seeing the other U-turns already I should not have been surprised.
- Damian Hockney, London, UK
Sounds like the mayor found it easy to say things to get into office, but going through with these plans once in power a tad harder. Lucky we voted him in for trivial policies not for policies of any substance that really mattered.
- Adam, London
Has he given any reason for the apparent U turn? Surely in the light of his electroal campaigning against tall towers, which was one of the reasons I voted for him, we the london electorate are entitled to know why he has changed his mind? Has he been threatened with legal action because Ken had given a confidential prior approval perhaps? Maybe someone from the press can ask at his next press conference, meanwhile has he issued a press release about it?
- Mrs Jackson, London UK
"his policy on the London skyline will be almost identical to his predecessor's"
Good.
Also, you're complaining for the complete wrong reason. The problem is not that these are 'tall' the Shell Centre and London Eye will both appear taller from the west) it's that the designs are awful. There' nothing wrong with height, I don't know why this site/newspaper is so obsessed over it. It's when the designs are bad that we need to be worried, and that goes for ANY building, tall or short. Sadly I get the impression that the writers here would rather have a wave of short, ugly buildings or tacky pastiche buildings, rather than one good looking tower. So my argument will probably be lost on you.
- Les Ferris, Portsmouth
