Tall storeys and urban myths
There is a danger of being complacent about conservation. At a time when tall buildings are
back in fashion, we need to understand their impact on the character of places.
Canary Wharf: a landmark in the history of London’s tall buildings.
facing the historic environment in London, and in
increasing numbers elsewhere – in Bristol, Manchester,
Leeds, Newcastle and Birmingham, for instance. By
their very visibility they can affect the lives – the
sense of place, the sense of identity – of thousands
of people.
Sometimes, in the right locations, they can provide
a focus for regeneration. But in the wrong places they
can blight lives and landscapes for generations, and be
inherently unsustainable, compromising the choices of
future generations. There is a real danger of repeating
the mistakes of the 1960s and ’70s, and ignoring the
hard-learned lessons of conservation-led regeneration
and creative contextualism, which have played such a
crucial role in enhancing the liveability of our towns
and cities over the past 30 years.
It would be ironic if, at the very moment when the
need for a proper understanding of context through
characterisation is at last becoming recognised as the
hallmark of progressive urbanism, we should start the
21st century by reviving outdated images of modernity
from 40 years ago.
Much of the recent debate about tall buildings has
been about skyline, but the impact at ground level is
just as important at a time when the quality of urban
life is under intense scrutiny.
This concept is likely to be one of the key issues
at the forthcoming public inquiry into the London
Bridge Tower next year. Because the press coverage
has concentrated almost exclusively on questions of
skyline and silhouette, few people are aware of how
poorly integrated the tower would be into the tightly
knit streetscape of Borough and London Bridge. Huge
canopies are proposed across the streets simply to deal
with the anticipated downdraught from the building.
Will this really provide a civilised or humane street
environment where people will want to linger?
Some of our successful neighbourhoods have been
regenerated through a subtle mixture of refurbishment
and contextual infill, disciplined by those qualities
which make an area special and which confer local
distinctiveness, including scale, height, bulk, massing
and materials. Conservation has proved so successful
that people have forgotten that all too often these
achievements were secured in the face of intense
We have grown complacent. We need to reaffirm
that conservation is not backward looking, but a
progressive, forward-looking framework for managing
change, well suited to the needs of 21st century
communities.
British cities have developed over a long period
of time in a multi-layered organic fashion in the
European rather than North American tradition from
where the modern skyscraper hails. While in the
right locations they can make a positive contribution
to urban life, new tall buildings do not usually sit
comfortably in areas with a fine urban grain or texture.
In many European cities the Corbusian model of
towers in the sky is all too often anti-urban, creating
lifeless precincts around their base, sucking the life out
of surrounding streets and destroying urban vitality.
One of the principal failings of high-rise buildings
of the 1960s and ’70s was that so many were designed
with a lack of appreciation or understanding of the
townscape context in which they were to sit. At
the time, modernist architectural orthodoxy regarded
context as transient and likely to be replaced. All too
often it was disregarded. As a result, dreadful damage
was done to many towns and cities nationwide, at
great economic and social cost, generating widespread
public concern. Today we know better. As Towards
an Urban Renaissance highlighted, 90 per cent of
our urban fabric of 30 years time already exists.
Enlightened stewardship is essential.
So why have tall buildings re-emerged? Andrew
Bennett MP, chairman of the recent Parliamentary
Urban Affairs Sub-Committee on tall buildings,
concluded that ‘tall buildings are often more about
power, prestige, status and aesthetics than efficient
development’.
In June 2001 English Heritage commissioned a
MORI poll to find out what the public thought. It
revealed that:
• 67 per cent thought that it was very important that a
building should fit in with its surrounding area.
• 67 per cent did not want to see new tower blocks
erected for living accommodation.
• 57 per cent strongly agreed that tall buildings should
be restricted to certain parts of cities so that other
parts could retain their character.
St Paul’s and the Palace of Westminster; 74 per cent
wanted views of more landmark buildings protected.
• 62 per cent did not want any new very tall buildings
in London over the next few years.
The MORI poll was important because it provided
a snapshot of public opinion on tall buildings prior to
September 11. In a subsequent MORI poll of people’s
attitudes to the historic environment in August 2002,
74 per cent said they would most like to live in a
semi-detached house with a garden and 69 per cent in
a period terraced house, but only one in 10 wanted to
live in a tower block. Opinion polls are only of limited
value, but repeated findings do seem to confirm that residential tower blocks remain unpopular.
There are several perennial arguments which are
routinely deployed in favour of tall buildings. All are
flawed.
The first is that tall buildings are essential in urban
areas to achieve high densities and to reduce pressure
on green field sites. Here two separate issues have
become confused: high density and high rise. As Lord
Rogers so eloquently explained in Towards an Urban
Renaissance, high density does not mean high rise.
Different forms of architecture – a single point block,
a traditional street layout and medium-rise urban
blocks enclosing an open space – can all be built to
the same density.
Some of the highest residential densities can be
found in low-rise areas of elegant terrace housing, as
in Islington, Kensington, Harrogate, Bath or Brighton,
which have become celebrated centres of high-density
living without sacrificing environmental quality. The
recent Parliamentary Urban Affairs Sub-Committee
concluded that: ‘tall buildings are not an essential part
of the urban renaissance and are not needed to curb
urban sprawl. Developers can achieve high-density
offices and housing in medium- and low-rise schemes
in urban centres without all the disadvantages of high
rise buildings’.
The MPs went on to stress that ‘transport capacity
must be a major consideration in deciding whether a
proposal for a tall building, or for any high-density
development, is given planning permission. In London
the lack of capacity poses a serious problem.’
The second fallacy is that tall buildings are essential
for economic growth. There is little evidence to
support this.
After an exhaustive study, in 1998 the London
Planning Advisory Committee (LPAC) concluded that
‘there is no overwhelming evidence to suggest that
there is a need for a radical change in London’s
skyline through the addition of high buildings in order
to secure, sustain or enhance London’s importance
as a world city, or to create a new image of London
‘economic analysis confirms that very high office
buildings are not required for London to maintain
and enhance its world city role.
There is no evidence to support arguments that
London will lose jobs to other world cities if high
buildings are not developed’. Indeed, an enthusiastic
policy for tall buildings in Frankfurt has not stopped
a steady seepage of German business headquarters to
London. For the past 20 years London has flourished
by building low-rise, large-floorplate groundscrapers
of 8–12 storeys in areas like Broadgate, and innovative
schemes for international companies like Merrill Lynch
and Deutschebank in a form which reinforces rather
than erodes the City of London’s distinctive urban
grain and character.
The Parliamentary Sub-Committee concluded that
tall buildings were not essential for London as a global
financial centre, and pointed out that not a single company had left London or refused to locate here
because of a shortage of tall buildings.
If there is a need to improve the range of tenant
choice, then the international central business district
in London does just that. It now embraces Canary
Wharf and beyond, and parts of the West End, so
should a future need for commercial tall buildings be
proven, they can be directed to areas such as
Canary Wharf, Croydon, Stratford and the Thames
Estuary, which are in need of regeneration, where the
historic environment is less sensitive, and where local
employment needs are greater.
Outside London there does not seem to be the
demand for office space to justify many tall buildings.
In Birmingham, for instance, there is a desire to
spread economic activity over a broad canvas and to
use that to stimulate future development rather than to
concentrate activity in to a few tall buildings. In Bristol
there are five current proposals under discussion, two
of which relate to the replacement of existing towers,
while in Newcastle there is mounting pressure in the
Tyne Gorge, with six proposals in Newcastle and two
in Gateshead. Here English Heritage is working with
CABE and the two councils to assess the development
constraints and opportunities.
In granting permission for the Heron Bishopsgate
Tower in London, the Deputy Prime Minister
established an important point of principle by
accepting the Inspector’s argument ‘that, although the
development would have certain beneficial economic
consequences, these would not be sufficient to outweigh
material harm to the setting of St Paul’s Cathedral,
the setting of the Tower of London World Heritage Site
or the more local heritage assets had such harm
been demonstrated’. This will be important for
future policy and decision-making, particularly where
economic arguments are deployed to justify proposals
The 1978 NatWest Tower
set a benchmark for very
tall buildings in the capital.
environment.
The third issue is sustainability. Are tall buildings
sustainable? In their evidence to the recent
Parliamentary Sub-Committee, the architects DEGW
pointed out that ‘high buildings can be disruptive
to build, inflexible to adapt, impossible to phase,
inefficient in space utilisation and costly to construct
or replace; a closed system that separates inhabitants
from the city below, and a source of congestion. The
challenge is to find design solutions and appropriate
locations that reflect the opportunities and respond
to the shortcomings’.
The government has made a clear commitment
to the principles of sustainable development which
includes ‘conserving both the cultural heritage and
national resources, taking particular care to safeguard
designations of national and international importance’.
The question of whether or not tall buildings are
sustainable is not just a matter of their green
credentials, but of how compatible they are with the
wider historic environment and local context. Because
they are so difficult to replace, once built, tall buildings
in the wrong places are inherently unsustainable.
So how do we assess impact and prevent harm
to the historic environment? Various methodologies
exist.
Until 1956 the London skyline was controlled by
the London Building Acts of 1888 and 1894 which
restricted building heights to the width of the street
or to the height of a fireman’s ladder (80 feet), plus a
two-storey roof with some concession for architectural
features. Many other cities adopted a similar regime,
conferring a consistent height, scale and built form
on most urban areas. In 1956 the London County
Council announced it would consider each case on
its merits. Subsequently this led to the Shell Centre,
culminating in 1978 with the NatWest Tower, which
set a benchmark for very tall buildings in the capital.
In London a sophisticated methodology for
protecting important strategic views was put in place
in 1991 after exhaustive research. Only 10 of the
34 views recommended to the government by the
London Planning Advisory Committee were protected
by the government, but these were added to Regional
Planning Guidance with the aim of protecting important
long views of St Paul’s Cathedral and the Palace of
Westminster as supreme national architectural icons.
These controls not only ensure that views are not
blocked, but also take into account a range of potential
impacts, both far and near. The backgrounds to views
of landmark buildings and their wider settings are just
as important as the foregrounds.
These controls are currently under review as part
of the draft London Plan, which suggests reducing the
number of views and diluting their protection. It no
longer endorses the primary purpose of the original
designation, which was to protect the pre-eminence
of the two landmark buildings on the skyline, but
favours a much vaguer concept of controlling wider
panoramas in which these cultural landmarks would
form just a part. Additional proposals are made to
protect important River Prospects and Townscape
Views, which is a welcome recognition of the
importance of many nationally important crossborough
views, such as those from Waterloo Bridge to
St Paul’s, or from the Isle of Dogs to Greenwich.
Outside London few authorities have designated
views of landmark buildings or city skylines for
protection in their unitary development plans. Bristol
and Newcastle have UDP policies to ensure that
development does not harm various views, while
Oxford, for instance, has a vigorous skyline policy with
Hong Kong ‘after
dark’: the opposite
end of the scale
Carfax. Leeds has policies recognising the importance
of tall buildings to local topographical features.
An alternative approach has been developed by
Colvin and Moggridge for the London Royal Parks.
This involves the definition of a series of height
contours around the parks, related to the
tree line, to
provide height constraints for development. Its aim is
to protect the edge condition of the parks from intrusive
development and to protect a number of key views
from them. It is a simple and practical methodology
with much to commend it for use elsewhere – at the
Tower World Heritage site, for instance, where views
from the Inner Ward are so crucial to the sense of
place.
So what is the answer? There are no economic, social
or environmental imperatives for a new generation of
tall buildings. It is much more a question of choice,
of whether we want them for other reasons. If we do
choose to have them, then locational considerations
are paramount.
In June 2001 English Heritage and the Commission
for Architecture Built Environment (CABE) produced
a joint consultation document Guidance on Tall
Buildings. This emphasised that ‘for English Heritage
the overriding consideration will be whether the
location is suitable for a tall building in terms of its
effect on the historic environment at a city wide as
well as local level. If not, then no tall buildings will
be acceptable, however good the design. Only if it
can be demonstrated that the location and context
are appropriate will other factors, including design
quality, be addressed.’
Sub-Committee has recommended that there should
be national guidance on tall buildings as part of
any revision of PPG1, and that the joint English
Heritage/CABE guidance should be endorsed by the
government. Both are highly desirable.
We must learn from the mistakes of the past.
The current approach of ad hoc, reactive, piecemeal
responses to unplanned and, often, speculative
proposals is not the way to create towns and cities that
people enjoy living in. The answer is a clear, rational,
plan-led approach, supported by national guidance.
Having carried out detailed character appraisals of the
historic environment, local authorities should identify
important views and other constraints, and only then
highlight areas that are appropriate or inappropriate
for tall buildings.
In appropriate places more detailed urban design
frameworks could then be prepared, modelling the
potential impacts of tall buildings in relation to the
local area and to the wider environment. Where
existing tall buildings detract from views, skylines or
townscapes, policies can be put in place to secure their
removal and replacement by lower-rise, contextual
development compatible with the wider area.
This would ensure that our towns and cities are not
forced to undergo another wave of high-rise buildings
in the wrong places, and allow new tall buildings to
come forward only in the right locations, as part of
a coherent strategy informed by a clear vision of the
nature of the place being created. After all, as Power
of Place demonstrated, people care about places, not
just individual buildings.
Philip Davies is director of
English Heritage, London
Region.