At the start of London Festival of Architecture 01-30 June 2014, a debate took place at the LSE on Monday 02 June and provided a platform to listen to the arguments for and against London’s ‘need’ for tall buildings.
There are now proposals for over 230 new tall buildings to be built in London over the next decade, 80% of which are residential. As London’s population continues to expand, is this high-rise vision of London’s future the right one for the city of London and its people?
Centre for London, the London School of Economics and Political Science and New London Architecture (NLA) hosted a public discussion to debate the motion ‘Does London need more tall buildings’.
The Speakers were:
For the motion:
Paul Finch, Programme Director, World Architecture Festival
Julia Barfield
Against the motion:
Simon Jenkins, Chairman, National Trust
Nicholas Boys Smith, Director, Create Streets
Discussion panel
Tony Travels, Director, LSE London
Rowan Moore, Architecture Critic, The Observer
Nicky Gavron, Chair of the Planning Committee, London Assembly
Sir Edward Lister, Mayor’s Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor, Policy and Planning
Sarah Gaventa chaired the debate. A vote was taken at the start of the debate, with 75% of the audience voting for the motion and 17% against with some abstaining. At the end of the debate the same vote was carried out and the results were 60% for and 40% against.
Paul Finch started off the debate for the motion and highlited that London as a world centre deserved tall buildings. He stressed that it isn’t possible to solve housing problems by picking on one building form and that there was a financial gain from tall buildings which can be utilised for other necessary civic facilities.
Simon Jenkins argued against the motion. Stating that he loved London and all that London stood for, he was as shocked as others in the auditorium that ‘we’ had not been told about the 230 tall buildings. What was the policy? What is the plan? The policy of clusters seems to have gone. He argued that London as an extraordinary city certainly did not need these tall buildings. Most were offices and luxury accommodation and an inefficient and expensive building form to maintain. We can achieve high density with low rise buildings which he suggested were more appropriate.
To hear the speakers and the debate, click here : The Towers Debate: Does London need more tall buildings?
CAA has, for the past 20 years and more, supported and promoted sustainable practice in the built environment. All major world centres have sustainability policies in place and measured against no city should ‘need’ tall buildings which are resource hungry in creation, operation and maintenance. Essentially these buildings are a manifestation of human ego and competition for status and as such will surely come to be seen as follies. With 230 tall building in the pipeline London has more than its fair share.
The debate and panel discussion, whilst making us aware of the many and complex issues involved in managing development for growth in London, found the protagonists for the motion only making excuses for these buildings. The Shard seems to have won the city over as an object of wonder and beauty but it is surely only that – it was not necessary. London sold out for (admittedly huge) improvement of the area at street level.
And who would have imagined that in the 21st century London would host a building formed such that the resultant concentration of the sun’s rays could fry an egg (and cars and people) at street level – that is folly indeed.
