Dear Boris,
Let's agree that towers can be beautiful. Let's also agree that London needs new homes and plenty of them. It may well be that many of the 200-plus tall buildings now proposed can play a useful role if, as you say, they are "sensitively managed, well designed and in the right place".
London is not Amsterdam nor Vienna, cities whose inherited profile is retained at all costs. But neither, as you once put it, should it be Dubai-on-Thames.
— theguardian.com
1 Comment
The policy in London with respect to high-rises is based on different and competing interests. On the one hand there are densification areas and opportunity areas, areas in which (economic) growth is stimulated, and on the other hand you have the preservation lobby.
London makes use of so-called viewing corridors and protected views; areas which need to maintain an uninterrupted view onto landmarks or monuments. (St Paul's, The Tower of London, etc.)
Where there are public transportation nodes (London Bridge with the Shard f.i.) you can locally go higher in so-called densification areas. (And then there is the CBD where you can go higher still)
The result of these conflicting policies (restrictive vs. facilitating) is that big developments inevitably 'get called in', meaning that they ultimately get decided at a higher level on a case-by-case basis. The arbitrariness of the process does not add up to a coherent skyline; it is too disjointed.
I welcome Rowan Moore's call to debate London's skyline, and one of the things which needs to be covered is the way in which high-rises meet the ground and fit into the (often historic) city fabric. The plot sizes are usually small compared to the US and you can get jarring contrasts. The shard (Renzo Piano) is never photographed at ground level...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.