Morning:
8°c
LONDON towers policy is in chaos. Boris Johnson, elected on a pledge to stop the plague of towers promised by his predecessor, Ken Livingstone, now wants towers everywhere. Hazel Blears, who has permitted towers that Johnson wanted stopped, is now stopping ones he wants built, notably two giants in Wandsworth and Ealing. There is no policy, no one in charge and certainly no ounce of aesthetic judgment.
Erectile disorder seems the occupational disease of London mayors. Within months of taking office, Livingstone, who had backed "affordable cottages" on the South Bank and refused to move into his Foster-designed "testicle", was rooting for symbols of his potency across the capital. He moved into Foster's eerie structure and returned from an early visit to Manhattan believing that only skyscrapers could demonstrate his civic virility.
His successor, Boris Johnson, swore that he would rescind Livingstone's towers. He told all comers that he would "stop the madness". Yet no sooner was he in "the testicle" than he craved a phallus. The developer lobbyists got to him and undermined his self-confidence.
Londoners should steel themselves for a shock. The London Eye is soon to be overshadowed by a gigantic stump on the South Bank directly behind the National Theatre. It will comprise 43 storeys of private luxury flats. The building will be of no civic or public significance but simply a way of making money. It will sit above a swimming pool to which, as a sop to local people, non-residents will be admitted - as if that were due compensation for punching London in the face.
Even the relevant secretary of state, Hazel Blears, normally pro-developer, thought to stall the plan by demanding a public inquiry but, with Johnson declining to object, she has let it through.
Last October Johnson compounded the offence by deciding to allow another tower and wall of slabs over Waterloo Station, directly behind the Shell Centre. The tower will be 33 storeys and the slabs 27 and 22 storeys.
The effect of the South Bank tower and the now-dubbed Three Ugly Sisters will be of a wall of unrelieved, energy-guzzling glass gashed across the vista of central London just where the river performs a sweeping curve between Westminster and the City. What will Johnson want next: a nuclear power station in Belgrave Square?
It is hard to imagine a more sensitive location anywhere in Europe. The towers conform to no plan or contextual policy. They are simply demanded by developers and conceded by a planning process that is hopelessly divided between boroughs, the Mayor and a secretary of state.
Livingstone at least had a tall buildings policy, which was to build as many as he could. In this he was influenced by his official adviser, not a planner but the partisan iconic-buildings architect Lord Rogers. Livingstone duly agreed "to promote the development of tall buildings", with the meaningless rider that they should "create attractive landmarks enhancing London's character".
All architects claim to do that. Rogers is at present crushing Knightsbridge with an over-development of luxury flats next to the old Hyde Park Hotel.
Livingstone and Rogers planned 21 towers dotted at random across the capital, most of them along or near the Thames, where they are favoured by apartment developers. Even Moscow is more sensitive to its river front than is London.
They were all to be virtually identical, glass and steel versions of the concrete towers erected by the architect Richard Seifert in the Seventies, notably overlooking Hyde Park. Their shapes are "son-of-gherkin", computer-fashioned into shards, cheese-graters, walkie-talkies, penny whistles or the gigantic cluster, including a 550-footer, shortly to rise over Vauxhall by the personal decision of John Prescott. MPs on the terrace at Westminster will gaze up at these edifices and wonder what on earth they thought they were doing at the start of the 21st century. The answer is that they were not looking.
Johnson was apparently against these towers being "pepper-potted" across London. He was supported in this approach by the former leader of Westminster council, Sir Simon Milton, now his planning chief. He even encouraged the Standard to list the developments that would be doomed under his regime.
Within a year of arriving in his office, Johnson has not only allowed the South Bank tower and wall of glass but has decided to let through a 25-storey tower by Lord Foster in an Ealing conservation area, another 42-storey job in Wandsworth and the Beetham tower in Blackfriars, expected to rise to the height of Canary Wharf. A truly colossal structure is now proposed for Battersea, which will loom over views as far away as Hyde Park,
There appears to be no curb, other than the depth of the property recession, on builders coming forward with towers wherever in London takes their fancy. If Ealing and Wandsworth are considered appropriate it is hard to imagine where is not. All an architect has to do is suggest a truly ridiculous height and then "concede" a few storeys to get permission.
Why Johnson has effected such a U-turn is a mystery, other than that he has been listening to someone's money talking. The architect/developer lobby has always been strong in London. It used to lobby central government to overturn local zoning and height codes, promising trivial concessions (latterly termed Section 106 deals) to undermine the rules. Hence the underpasses and roundabouts that allowed the Euston Tower, Centre Point and Stag Place, Victoria. Such crude deals are anathema in such better ordered cities as Rome, Paris or Amsterdam.
The sheer obtrusiveness of these structures sets them apart from all other London architecture. There will be no escaping them. They should be part of a coherent plan. The once-favoured cluster concept collapsed under Livingstone and now under Johnson who seems eager to destroy even more of London's skyline than his forebear.
Towers are now being shoved anywhere someone can make money out of them, or any architect can show off. It is a wretched chapter in London's history, with authority showing no concern for the city's dignity or beauty. When I voted for Johnson as Mayor I thought this was one promise he would keep. I was wrong.
Reader views (13)
The lesson: never trust a Tory!!
- Wilbar Goss, London Init, 24/04/2009 06:21
Report abuse
you forgot to mention that the swimming pool at the bottom of the 43 storey southbank tower will actually form part of a sizable community leisure facility. There is a deficit of these sorts of facilities in the borough. So regardless of your opinion on the merits of the architecture, part of this development responds directly to one of the key policy objectives of the borough, which has been identified on a national scale as in urgent need of improved access to sports facilities.
And on the subject of architecture, since when has development ever been solely about aesthetic impact? Money has to be made and even the worlds most iconic buildings are the result of the differing agendas of those involved when they came to fruition...
- Helen P, Reading, UK, 25/02/2009 09:34
Report abuse
London is the world's greatest city because of its amazing mix of new and old, large and small, appropriate and inappropriate. Paris's architecture simply reflects the dictators and maniacs who ran the country while Rome and Amsterdam do not have a 10th of London's influence. You cannot sensibly compare them. Build tall and modern and be pround of your city. Don't make the future a prisoner of the past!
- Jeff, Hobart, Australia, 25/02/2009 01:00
Report abuse
Well said Darren, but although it cannpt be destroyed and each generation adds to it - the reason St Paul's and Westminster still cast an imposing sight on the horizon is because their views are protected, and space is given so that all the skyline can benefit- new and old.
Given the fact there is soon to be excess luxury apartments in the vicinity of the South Bank - why on earth do these towers need to go ahead. Haven't Westminster and English Heritage drawn attention to the fact that it will have a negative impact on the views from St Jame's Park and will also have a negative impact on the views from Somerset House and its Courtyard. Surely like St Paul's and the Palace of Westminster all these developments - need to be that - considered developments - not these examples of get rich quick schemes.
Walking around SE1 there are now hundreds of unoccupied luxury flats - and well lets not mention the Shard shall we!
- Jc, SE1, 24/02/2009 21:16
Report abuse
When wlll architects and planners start taking into consideration the people who dwell amongst these giants, and the shadows they cast? Buildings should be designed on a more human scale. Size/height isn't as impressive as it was 50 years ago. It's time someone came up with something a bit less imposing.
- Kath, Sunningdale, UK, 24/02/2009 13:55
Report abuse
When the Gherkin was opened to the public a few years ago, people were queuing up to 8 hours to go inside. The restaurant on the top floor is very popular due to the impressive panoramic views. The inner layout may be poor, but the tower is a great addition to the skyline and is instantly recongisable around world.
- Steve Green, London, 24/02/2009 13:44
Report abuse
As somebody who works in the Gherkin I can assure you its not well loved by the residents, in fact its poorly designed with lots of wasted space and restricted views, at least its huddled in amongst other towers.
- Chris Milburn, Tonbridge,England, 24/02/2009 12:58
Report abuse
This is a national tragedy! London will be turned into Manhattan with dozens of mile-high skyscrapers! Buckingham Palace will be demolished! It's the end of the world! We're all going to die!!
/sarcasm
- Will Fox, London, 24/02/2009 12:31
Report abuse
Well said Darren, it is not New York or Paris but simply the greatest city on the planet and it cannot be stopped from progessing by the people who are stuck in the past.
- Paul Hopkins, London, England, 24/02/2009 12:20
Report abuse
Of course it stinks and London will be plunged into darkness. Londoners get hardly any sun as it is. We want to be out in the parks at lunchtime and enjoy the sun .. but no, we will be freezing in the parks now. It all for the developer's benefits. They don't understand our heritage.
- Velochick, London, 24/02/2009 11:41
Report abuse
Simon Jenkins wrote similar articles against the Gherkin, which is now one of London's most loved buildings. We should remember that heritage groups have lost every public inquiry against tall buildings in London in recent years. The democratic process has taken place.
- Steve Green, London, 24/02/2009 10:59
Report abuse
I'd rather have a tower that is beautiful than a low rise building that is ugly. London's skyline cannot be destroyed anymore than when St Pauls or the Palace of Westminster graced the skyline - for each additional generation adds to the rich electic mix that is the architectural style of London, from Medieval castles to Georgian terraces to futuristic spacescrapers. To deny the laissez-faire urban growth of London is to stop London being London. It is neither Paris, nor is it New York, and neither it will be whatever Jenkins believes it should be.
- Darren, London, 24/02/2009 10:02
Report abuse
Serves you right for voting for Johnson, Jenkins. You fully deserve to be suffering the consequences.
- John, London, 24/02/2009 09:53
Report abuse
