Tonight:
4°c
Ditch the tower, then make the rest of the development shine
Rowan Moore, Architecture Critic18 Dec 2008
Is it good to build a new Tube connection to Battersea? Or to build a low energy development? Or to rescue Battersea Power Station from decay? Yes, yes and yes.
Is it necessary to build a 250-metre tower to achieve these ends? No. As the developers Treasury Holdings explain, the restoration of the power station can be financed from other parts of their proposal, namely the substantial apartment blocks around the old building itself.
This is just as well, as it will be years before the market can pay for an idea as ambitious as their "eco-dome" and its great glass chimney.
You can also achieve low energy office buildings in other, albeit more prosaic, ways, such as covering the development's vast acreage of roof with photovoltaic cells.
So the question is: Is it right for London to have this tower on this site? The official policy on the matter, drawn up under the last mayor, seems to say no.
It states that, as seen from the "viewing place" along the full length of Hungerford footbridge, buildings "should not encroach on the World Heritage Site of the Palace of Westminster". The Battersea tower would indeed pop up behind the Houses of Parliament, and I agree with Ken Livingstone's policy.
Glamorous though the tower looks in the flattering computer images, I have a problem with a symbol of commercial ego obtruding on the centre of democracy.
I just wish the developers and their architect would forget about the tower, and apply their talents and energy to making the rest of the development, which is more likely to happen, outstanding.
Reader views (8)
Everyone seems to have forgotten the skyscraper already approved for St George Wharf in Vauxhall. If this (far less attractive) building can win official approval (albeit with a little alleged greasing of John Prescott's palms), surely Battersea will be a no-brainer?
- Tom, Nine Elms, 07/01/2009 15:11
Report abuse
The trouble with people like Rowan is that they would have protested against the Houses of Parliament 150 years ago; for blocking views of Westminster Abbey. They lack vision. This development with its integrated tall element is a vision from a respected architect at the peak of his career encompassing all our collective knowledge regarding living and working spaces over the centuries. If we cant put a bit of trust in that what hope is there? This sort of prestigious development is the pinnacle of our ability. With Rowan campaigning against Barratt Housing estates sprawling all over the countryside and now this sort of ultra intelligent design, what room is left for us? The so called resident groups (read bored conservative with too much time on its hands) have even resorted to lies to try and champion their ugly ulterior motives ie I dont want anyone else enjoying the city. Rowan must be part of this movement or he is blinded by a false epiphany. So what if a bit of distant glass appears behind a rather loud stone pinnacle on the Houses of Parliament from a bridge that has only existed for 10 years. I know Rowan how about we have our cake and eat it, the view of the Houses of Parliament that you enjoy, an self-ventilating development which requires the tall glass 'chimney, saving the power station & more living space... just move a bit more along jubilee bridge
- Barry M, London, 19/12/2008 15:22
Report abuse
"Is it good to build a new Tube connection to Battersea? Or to build a low energy development? Or to rescue Battersea Power Station from decay? Yes, yes and yes.
Is it necessary to build a 250-metre tower to achieve these ends? No."
The tower might not be necessary, in fact, I'm quite certain it isn't. But whilst saving the power station and building a new tube connection are "good" (whatever that could mean from an objective point of view) they aren't strictly necessary either. The whole thing is unnecessary then - oh except the green credentials... Well, then surely we should level the whole sight and build a wind farm instead. Obviously, I'm kidding. Your argument of necessity is, frankly, ridiculous.
It seems to me that English Heritage aren't so much preserving England's heritage as they are blighting England's legacy. As for the "community group", well... I almost hope that battersa is left to rot and crumble on their doorsteps so they might get exactly what they deserve from their efforts. Nothing.
- Andy, Chesterfield, UK, 19/12/2008 14:25
Report abuse
Just wait until the Shard goes up, and people realise that towers can be nice. This is not the 60s/70s anymore, skyscraper construction has moved on, and the Shard, Pinnicle and this will add another layer of recognition to London's rather dismal skyline.
- Phil Alvarez, London, 19/12/2008 00:45
Report abuse
Is it necessary to build a 250-metre tower to achieve these ends? YES! It's the focal point of the scheme, and will be the jewel of Battersea upon completion. 21st Century architecture for a 21st Century city.
- Mark Campbell, London, UK, 18/12/2008 17:51
Report abuse
What is wrong with the tower? It represents the future of London, a modern progressive City which takes the environment seriously. London is NOT some Tudor/Georgian/Victorian theme park as the critics, NIMBYS and English Heritage are determined to make it. Buildings such as the Palace of Westminter, St Pauls etc were all progressive buildings in their time; indeed I can imagine Christopher Wren being a major backer for new projects such as this if he were alive today. Most other major cities have fantastic towers as part of their makeup. Why can't London?
- Mike Wilson, London, UK, 18/12/2008 17:45
Report abuse
You have a problem with this "symbol of commercial ego obtruding on the centre of democracy", would you have had a problem with the empire state if it had been planned in London? Now widely regarded as an icon and huge tourist attraction in NYC.
- Chris Savage, London, 18/12/2008 17:12
Report abuse
Rowan, is there a single tower project that you've ever supported in London, ever? Serious question.
- Will Fox, London, 18/12/2008 10:58
Report abuse
