Afternoon:
6°c
The strangest thing about the Great Tower Craze of the Noughties is that almost no towers got built.
For all the jousting between developers and planners, the cyberwar fought with computer images of future totems, and the untold millions of pounds expended on consultants and public inquiries, our skyline is not much changed from 10 years ago.
The City has the Gherkin, and the still-rising frame of the Heron Tower, which both won permission early in the decade, and the Broadgate Tower.
Some humdrum blocks have risen at Canary Wharf without anyone greatly noticing, and a few are scattered around other boroughs, such as Strata in Elephant and Castle.
Otherwise the sites of would-be skyscrapers in Vauxhall, Battersea, Waterloo, Blackfriars, Shoreditch and Walbrook are dead zones, places of urban inaction where nothing much is likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
The centre of Ealing can now be added to that list, after Foster and Partners' proposed Penny Whistle tower was rejected.
In Leadenhall Street, the empty site of the planned "Cheese grater" is to be a city farm, with allotments and wild flowers.
The Shard at London Bridge and the Pinnacle in the City are, it's true, now going up, but only with the Viagra of Qatari oil money.
There is also the Minerva Tower site in Aldgate, where developers won permission to build a 216m block, but then built a lower, squatter building like one already given consent in 2000.
The developers argued that their skyscraper was as essential to the capital as the Tower of London had been in the Middle Ages, and then decided it wasn't essential at all.
Which is odd, because the Corporation of London and Mayor Livingstone never tired of telling us that towers were vital to London's status as a financial powerhouse, and for providing the thousands of new homes the city needs.
If we wanted to get ahead, went the argument, we needed to emulate really cool and go-ahead cities - like Dubai.
Yet skyscrapers played little part in London's great boom and bust.
Those office towers that were built proved slow to let, and the contribution made by tall residential buildings to London's housing needs was infinitesimal.
It turns out that international investors are much more excited by tax rates and by financial regulation, or the lack of it, than by building high.
Usually, tower proposals have been a drag. They have slowed things down and blighted their neighbourhoods.
They have prevented lower, more effective development taking place. Some might blame this on the planning system, but it won't wash: skyscrapers are expensive, slow to build, difficult to finance and hard to let; they are all-or-nothing projects.
To which one can only say, what was the great dash for height all about? A prodigious amount of architectural, planning and legal talent that might otherwise have been spent on more constructive ways of beautifying our city has gurgled down the plughole. For what purpose?
Mayors Livingstone and Johnson have both supported the idea of building high, with provisos.
The current and future mayors should shift that position: the evidence is that tower proposals are bad for London's economy and environment, and it's up to developers to prove otherwise.
Reader views (6)
I do get depressed by critics of the Gherkin.
It is an extremely elegant building which manages to be impressive without being oppressive. The London skyline was ruined long ago by drab buildings both tall and not so tall. The Gherkin adds a touch of grace to the City and has become an iconic British building well known internationally.
Tall buildings should not be rejected out of hand. Like any other building they need to be judged on functionality, form, aesthetics and how they fit into the environment in which they are placed.
- Douglas Ford, London, UK, 21/01/2010 17:11
Report abuse
Skyscrapers are slow and difficult to build, and expensive.
I think not, I lived in Hong Kong for many years, they rose like mushrooms and now with the constraint of Kai Tak gone they are going even higher. Here in Vancouver the past ten years has seen canyons of hi rise both residential and commercial. Toronto during the 70,s and 80`s developed a comprehensive skyline, and even in the 60`s when I arrived there hi rise accommodation was abundant.
The alternative would be to have ever expanding suburbs, Hong Kong does not have that luxury and the only option is up. They have hi rise construction down to a fine art and cheap.
I.M.Pei`s Bank of China is spectacular, and Norman Foster`s HSBC building is truly innovative and a landmark. This is the future. It is time for London to display these kind of architectural classics, the Gherkin notwithstanding.
- W.Palmer, Vancouver, Canada, 16/12/2009 04:21
Report abuse
Sarah from Tunbridge wells suggests the Shard's construction be halted and a garden be built there instead. This seems nonsensical - London has vast numbers of parks and gardens, and the footprint of this building is rather small in the grand scheme of things - it would be en expensive waste of land which is about to be used in a high density development right next to a transport hub - exactly the sort of thing we should be doing. This building will be a true landmark for London, one of the most beautiful modern buildings in the World and a great addition to the city.
- Sarah, Cambridge, UK, 16/12/2009 01:34
Report abuse
The article makes no sense, it flies in the face of reality, Rowan seems almost in denial. in the past few years have been 15 towers over 100m completed - but these pale compared to the height and scale of the current generation now under construction. Heron, The Shard, Riverside South, the Pinnacle cannot simply be dismissed. Two of these towers are around the 1000ft mark, Riverside South is one of the biggest office developments in the world- London has seen nothing like the current activity.
I agree with A Brown - I'm a bit bored of this dislike of towers, the Shard is possibly one of the most stunning towers ever to rise and think london is a far better place for it.
- Ben Veasey, London, 15/12/2009 15:34
Report abuse
I'm sure Boris will protect us from these horrific tower blocks. There is still time to prevent the Shard from going up - it could be turned into a garden instead. This would be a much nicer use of the site. Hopefully he can arrange for the Gherkin to be demolished too.
- Sarah, Tunbridge Wells, UK, 15/12/2009 14:29
Report abuse
Not sure how the hundreds of millions of pound being spent on transforming the drab area around London bridge with the Shard and the massive new HQ for JPM being built at Canary Wharf is not good for the London Economy.
Why also no mention of English Heritage, Westminster's petty and wasteful public inquiry, paid for at the taxpayers expense which has held up many towers over the last ten year and is a factor in them not going up sooner?
Why also no mention of the very many more sites that are still derelict that have not been developed and are not tall.For example huge areas of the Royal Docks & Greenwich Peninsula continue to be empty and have no tall building planned yet have been wastelands for a decade or more?
Rowan leave your petty dislike for towers for somewhere else.I thought the evening standard had changed but its still seems just as fixated with the supposedly harmful effects of tall buildings and ignoring the obvious benefits.
- A Brown, London, 15/12/2009 13:59
Report abuse
