Campaigners fight to save London skyline from 230 more skyscrapers. London is being transformed with 230 towers. Why the lack of consultation? Prince Charles: 'London needs more mansion blocks and garden squares'. Prince Charles: We need more homes for young Londoners. An introduction to the Prince's Foundation

In the 17th century, poet James Wright wrote of St Paul's: 'Without, within, below, above, the eye is filled with unrestrained delight.' London's skyline is now dominated by the Gherkin and Cheesegrater. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

Campaigners fight to save London skyline from 230 more skyscrapers

Statement to Observer signed by public figures including sculptors Anthony Gormley and Anish Kapoor, presenter Griff Rhys Jones and Royal Academy's Charles Saumarez Smith

Daniel Boffey, policy editor

The Observer, Saturday 29 March 2014 / http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/mar/29/campaigners-fight-save-london-skyline

Some of Britain's most influential figures in the arts, politics and academia have launched a campaign to save London's skyline from being dominated by more than 200 additional skyscrapers.

In a statement in the Observer today, signatories from sculptor Sir Antony Gormley to philosopher Alain de Botton, author Alan Bennett, Stirling prize-winning architect Alison Brooks, and London mayoral hopefuls Dame Tessa Jowell and MP David Lammy warn: "The skyline of London is out of control."

More than 200 towers of at least 20 storeys are under construction or being planned, of which three-quarters will provide luxury residential flats, according to New London Architecture (NLA), a discussion and education forum.

The campaigners, who also include sculptor Sir Anish Kapoor, Restoration presenter Griff Rhys Jones, Charles Saumarez Smith, chief executive of the Royal Academy, and Lord Baker, the former Tory home secretary, pledge to fight what they describe as a fundamental and damaging transformation of London.

The campaign, which wants a skyline commission to examine London's future profile, has also obtained the support of the Observer's architecture critic, Rowan Moore. "It is shocking that such a profound change is being made to a great city with so little public awareness or debate," he said. "There is also a startling lack of oversight and vision from the city's leaders. These towers do not answer the city's housing needs, but respond to a bubble of international investment in London residential property. A short-term financial phenomenon will change the city's skyline forever."

A spokesman for the London mayor, Boris Johnson, said he would consider the idea of a commission and discuss it with interested parties this week, though he called for the campaigners to engage with the "distinguished names" on his own design advisory group.

The skyline campaign comes after the rejection by the high court two weeks ago of an appeal against a £600m development on the South Bank that Unesco says could threaten Westminster's world heritage status.

In their statement, more than 70 signatories, including societies and associations, write: "Over 200 tall buildings, from 20 storeys to much greater heights, are currently consented or proposed. Many of them are hugely prominent and grossly insensitive to their immediate context and appearance on the skyline.

"This fundamental transformation is taking place with a shocking lack of public awareness, consultation or debate.

"Planning and political systems are proving inadequate to protect the valued qualities of London, or provide a coherent and positive vision for the future skyline. The official policy is that tall buildings should be 'well designed and in the right place', yet implementation of policy is fragmented and weak.

"Too many of these towers are of mediocre architectural quality and badly sited. Many show little consideration for scale and setting, make minimal contribution to public realm or street-level experience and are designed without concern for their cumulative effect and impact. Their generic designs, typical of fast-growing cities around the world, threaten London's unique character and identity."

The majesty of St Paul's prompted the 17th-century poet James Wright to note: "Without, within, below, above, the eye is filled with unrestrained delight." Today, London's skyline is dominated by such sights as the Cheese-grater in Leadenhall, the Walkie-talkie in Fenchurch Street, the Gherkin in Aldgate and the Razor at Elephant and Castle. Towering above them all is the 1,000ft Shard next to London Bridge station.

Campaigners say they fear the consequences for London's appearance of a further 236 buildings of 20 storeys or more. According to the NLA, 77% of the skyscrapers will be in the centre or the east of London and result in the most radical reshaping of the skyline in more than 300 years. Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Greenwich, Newham and Southwark between them will have 140 of the 236 towers. More than 30 will have between 40 and 49 floors and 22 with 50 or more.

On Thursday, Growing Up!, an exhibition at the NLA's offices, will highlight the extent of the skyscraper development about to hit the capital.

Many projects are funded by foreign investors seeking a safe berth – and healthy returns – for their money amid political instability in the Middle East, Russia and elsewhere. During the 12 months to January, London property values rose 13.2%.

The mayor's spokesman said that "virtually every one" of the towers had the support of local politicians and English Heritage, adding: "The mayor needs to balance an array of challenges and competing interests across a rapidly growing city. He recognises the concerns around the architecture of London's skyline, but tall buildings beautifully designed in the right location and in harmony with their surroundings help to meet the challenge of a rapidly growing city."

The NLA says that of the buildings being planned, 189 (80%) are intended to be residential, but do not meet London's housing needs because of their price and dimensions. A further 18 are planned as office developments, eight as hotels and 13 are due for mixed use, while one tower is to be an educational institute.

 

How the view along the Thames from Vauxhall might look. Photograph: Hayes Davidson

London is being transformed with 230 towers. Why the lack of consultation?

An explosion of high-rise buildings will change London forever. Now 80 public figures, shocked at the scale of the plans, are demanding a say in the way the city is reshaped

Rowan Moore, architecture critic

The Observer, Saturday 29 March 2014 / http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/mar/29/london-skyline-lack-of-consultation

When the appearance of a great city is about to be radically transformed, it is a good idea for its citizens to be shown what is going to happen and have a say in it. It is also a good idea if the city's government has a vision, or at least an overview, of what is happening.

Neither of these applies to the wave of towers about to hit London. There are plans for more than 230, at the last count. They range in height from 20 storeys to more than 60, in central and suburban locations. Yet it has taken a privately funded organisation, New London Architecture, to discover this number. When Kit Malthouse, deputy mayor for business, was presented with this figure, he was not only ignorant of it, but denied it could be possible.

On these pages we show the cumulative effect of these planned towers on key locations along the Thames, where several of the proposals are concentrated. The images are of those that are known: many more can be expected in the coming months and years. It is the first time that the future skyline has been shown to this extent, even though the technology is there to do so.

Today we also publish a statement signed by scores of leading figures in culture, politics and business, and societies representing citizens. They include architects who have won the profession's highest awards, contemporary artists, property developers, MPs, authors and the heads of colleges and museums. These are not Luddites or fogeys, they are not enemies of business or of the new, but they share simple shock at the thoughtlessness with which change on this scale is happening.

Here's another good idea: buildings in cities should not be designed in isolation, but in relation to the places in which they are set, whether these are views to and from world heritage sites, or the fabric of adjoining streets. Together with its present and future neighbours, new development should make accessible public spaces that are a pleasure to inhabit – the effects of tall buildings are as important at ground level as they are in the sky. And the larger and more prominently placed a building is, the greater the care that should be taken over its design.

Nobody could go to the places already being shaped by towers – Elephant and Castle, Vauxhall or Stratford High Street, a discus-throw from the Olympic Park – and say that these are great places to linger, or that the tall buildings now rising there enhance the experience. Images of these places in the future, when further skyscrapers will jostle for attention, suggest more of the same. New urban zones are being created with no overall idea of how the parts contribute to the whole, of the places that are being made at their base.

Rather, new London tower design tends to go out of its way to be as assertive and architecturally antisocial as possible. Strata SE1 in Elephant and Castle, with its slashed rooftop, randomised aluminium cladding patterns and bulbous form, seems to be setting out to be as hostile as possible to any future neighbour. In Stratford the fashion is for arbitrary clashing colours – another idea that kills the prospect of making coherent public places.

Nor, when you get close to a building such as St George's Tower in Vauxhall, would you say that you are in the presence of quality. Its details clash and its cladding looks cheap and plasticky. There is no great reason to believe that these surfaces will age well. Images of proposed future projects, such as the Quill in Bermondsey and 1 Merchant Square in Paddington, suggest little improvement in the future.

Combined with frantic attempts at individuality is a profound sameness. These projects tend to use the same type of cladding and floor layouts. It is sometimes said that London needs skyscrapers to make an "iconic" statement on the world stage, but these developments make it look less distinctive. And if the city tries to engage in the global race for height, it can only lose. It is outpaced by the likes of Shanghai and Dubai, the height of whose Burj Khalifa is 2.7 times that of the Shard.

If towers can sometimes look dramatic and impressive, they also bring drawbacks. They are inflexible, expensive to run and maintain and consume money, space and resources on lifts, air conditioning and structure that lower buildings do not require. Above a certain height such simple pleasures as opening windows and outdoor space become difficult. Towers disconnect residents from their surroundings.

Overcoming these issues requires effort in design, effort that is hard to see here. It was decided in the 1970s that councils should no longer build high-rise blocks for families, particularly where there were not enough open spaces and communal facilities. Those now being built are for the higher end of the market, but the lessons of the past have not been learned.

The majority of the tall buildings now proposed are residential. There is, of course, an acute shortage of homes in London, but stacks of high-rise, high-price flats are not what the city needs. In a recent Ipsos Mori poll commissioned by New London Architecture, a majority of Londoners said they would not want to live in towers. The transformation of the skyline is not driven by serving their needs, but by a bubble of overseas investment in high-end residential property. Many of these flats are likely to be left empty.

The best thing about these buildings is that, under existing planning policy, developers must make a contribution to affordable housing, which can be spent at another location. But it would be possible to build developments that are both lower and better-designed and still achieve this benefit.

We have got to this point through several factors. Early in Tony Blair's government, a taskforce led by Lord Rogers of Riverside produced a report on the "Urban Renaissance", arguing for using land more effectively and making cities more vibrant through higher densities, achieved with the help of good design and quality public spaces. As mayor of London, Ken Livingstone employed Rogers as an adviser and built these ideas into the London Plan, which guides development. The plan, and other policy statements, stress that towers are acceptable only if they "are well-designed and in the right place".

What we have now is a bastardisation of Rogers's ideas. "Density" has been translated into height, and the pieties about design and siting are almost meaningless. Significant decisions have blown holes in such policies as exist. John Prescott and Hazel Blears, when they were the ministers responsible, overturned the advice of planning inquiries into key projects. The City of London, which had a plan to confine tall buildings in a cluster around the Bank of England, permitted 20 Fenchurch Street, aka the Walkie Talkie, which stands outside it.

Boris Johnson, when first running for London mayor, vowed he would reverse Livingstone's friendliness to building high and prevent a "Dubai-on-Thames", but its creation has accelerated on his watch. The communities secretary, Eric Pickles, has told the Architects Journal: "We attach great importance to good design of buildings and neighbourhoods and have empowered communities so they can shape developments to reflect local needs."

What this means in practice is that south London boroughs such as Southwark, Lambeth and Wandsworth readily give permission for tall buildings south of the river. They do this so they can collect contributions to affordable housing and because they lack the resources to argue for long with well-financed developers. The wall of towers forming along the river is a direct expression of this.

But buildings of this prominence are a matter not just for boroughs, but for the city, the country and, given London's international importance, the world. For this reason Johnson has the power to intervene, but doesn't, much. Pickles pleads his love of communities, but, wanting to favour developers, he stands back.

So what should be done now? Peter Murray of New London Architecture has proposed a mayoral London Skyline Commission, in which experts would scrutinise the quality of new proposals and guide developers. He also wants a publicly accessible digital model of the city, which would enable everyone to see the effects of any planning application. Both would be welcome steps, but they don't go far enough. Murray's commission sounds like a (possibly improved) version of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, which has existed for 15 years and is now part of the Design Council, during which London's planning has got into this state.

The city needs a clearer, more precise framework, one that states where height is acceptable and where not. It can identify opportunities for vertical growth as well as restrictions. Something like this exists already, in the rules controlling strategic views of St Paul's and the Palace of Westminster. The problem is that, where these rules do not prevail, there is often havoc.

Such a framework would be more efficient than the current system, where it has taken 10 years, three architectural practices, and untold millions of professional and legal fees, for the proposed rebuilding of Elizabeth House in Waterloo to be permitted. New York has applied strict rules to the building of skyscrapers for nearly a century, during which it became the world's most dynamic city – so rules are not bad for business.

It is not easy to work out the right policies for London. In the coming weeks the Observer, our Cities website and the Architects' Journal will develop the debate. But this effort is essential: the alternative is to accept that civic democracy is powerless to influence the effects of financial speculation.

Prince Charles: 'London needs more mansion blocks and garden squares'

JONATHAN PRYNN, CONSUMER BUSINESS EDITOR

Published: 26 March 2014 Updated: 09:53, 27 March 2014 / http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/prince-charles-london-needs-more-mansion-blocks-and-garden-squares-9216690.html

London’s unique character with its “city of villages” is under assault from “faceless” towers and “poorly  conceived” mega-developments, a major report from Prince Charles’s housing charity warns today.

The hard-hitting study urges developers, architects and planners to look at the mansion block and the classic Georgian and Victorian squares and crescents of central London as inspiration for forms of housing that perfectly meet the capital’s needs.

It warns that the remorseless surges in home prices threaten the “vitality and vibrancy” of the capital by creating unhealthy divisions between property “haves and have-nots” and barring young families from the housing ladder.

The 62-page report, Housing London: A Mid-Rise Solution, was launched today by Charles at his Foundation for Building Community’s latest project at Ham Close in south-west London. It follows the results of a survey from urban design body New London Architecture showing that almost 250 towers of at least 20 storeys are planned or under construction in London — the vast majority blocks of apartments for private sale.

But the foundation’s report condemns them as “glittering towers of exclusivity and luxury living, out of the reach of the average Londoners and unsuitable to the needs of many households”.

It says a return to the mid-rise model, with buildings of five to eight storeys, is the best route to providing the density of housing desperately needed in London without resorting to urban sprawl over the green belt or more impersonal high rises.

According to the report: “One of London’s greatest architectural legacies is the mid-rise residential building. Whether the mansion blocks of Maida Vale or the converted Victorian houses of Sloane Square, well constructed beautiful mid-rise housing is one of London’s greatest assets.”

It says Victorian and Edwardian mansion blocks such as Albert Hall Mansions in Kensington and Prince of Wales Drive in Battersea, in particular have “proved its capacity to be adopted to the residential needs of a variety of households” and should be revived. Dominic Richards, executive director of the foundation, said: “Mid-rise looks like London — not Singapore or Dubai. If you have six or seven floors you can still get light on the other side of the road, you can still create green spaces and it fits with the existing vernacular. What we are really saying is “more London please”.

The report points to the success of central Paris where the classic Haussman era apartment buildings that give the city its unique look are typically no more than six storeys high.

Mr Richards said developments should also house a “pepper-potted” mix of people from different backgrounds in different types of tenure, including owner occupiers, private renters, key workers in affordable housing and social tenants.

At one of the foundation’s London projects, Highbury Gardens on the Holloway Road, there are 120 homes of which 70 were sold on the open market, 32 are for shared ownership and 18 are local authority social flats, all built to an almost identical specification and mixed in together.

The report goes on to argue that mid- rise buildings can bring other benefits. They can be built with a wider range of building materials rather than the steel and glass that predominate in the new towers. They will also promote a greater “bio-diversity” of builders.

The report says: “London’s house building market has becoming increasingly narrow over the past decade with only a handful of mega-builders producing the majority of London’s new housing stock. The nature of the high-rises in development around the capital means that not only is the final housing offering exclusive to a few but so too is the building process.”

The report’s conclusions appeared to chime with the results of new poll findings today from New London Architecture showing that while Londoners often admire the new generation of tall buildings dominating the skyline the vast majority do not want to live in them, including more than seven out of 10 of the under 35s. Ben Marshall, research director at pollsters Ipsos MORI, which carried out the research for  New London Architecture, said: “With London facing a ‘housing crisis’ and keen to grow economically, the onus tends to be on the quantity of new building. Tall towers offer promise, but our new poll underlines the importance the London public place on quality and design. Opinion is mixed — Londoners might like looking at tall towers, but they are less sure about living in them.”

Prince Charles: We need more homes for young Londoners

Prince Charles today made a dramatic intervention in London’s housing crisis with a warning that soaring prices will drive a generation of young people away.

JONATHAN PRYNN, CONSUMER BUSINESS EDITOR

Published: 26 March 2014 Updated: 14:08, 26 March 2014 / http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/prince-charles-we-need-more-homes-for-young-londoners-9216685.html

He said the dream of home ownership “is simply becoming further and further out of reach” as he launched a major report on the capital’s future housing needs. It calls for fewer high-rise apartment blocks for the wealthy and more “human-scaled streets, squares and parks” available to a greater mix of people.

His stark comments come the day after official figures showed property prices in the capital rocketed more than 13 per cent last year with the average cost of a home hitting a record £458,000 in January.

The Prince was speaking in Ham, south-west London, at an event to mark the publication of Housing London: A Mid-Rise Solution. He said the relentless rises had made property ownership all but impossible for thousands of young key workers.

Charles added: “In London we find ourselves in a situation where the average house price is 10 times the annual salary of a primary school teacher— a huge rise in comparison to just 20 years ago — when the average house price was 2.9 times a primary teacher’s annual salary.

“The National Housing Federation estimates that in only six years the average London house price will have risen 40 per cent to £650,000. This isn’t sustainable and risks driving away talented young individuals who are starting their careers in London and spending most of their income on rent.

“Home ownership for this generation is simply becoming further and further out of reach.”

His comments are certain to be warmly welcomed by the growing ranks of “generation rent” workers who fear they will never be able to raise the deposit and the mortgage needed to jump on the housing ladder — or trade up from flat to family house.

The report, from the Prince’s Foundation for Building Community, calls for a move away from construction of soaring towers of luxury apartments, where many flats are snapped up by “buy to leave” foreign investors.

Instead it suggests a new focus on “mid-rise” buildings of between six and eight storeys typified by the mansion blocks built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The Prince added: “In order to continue to prosper, any healthy city requires a built environment that provides good quality housing, the integration of nature and green spaces at its heart, walkable, mixed-use neighbourhoods, good public transport and an identity that fosters pride and a sense of belonging. The most successful cities and the most popular neighbourhoods within those cities all share these qualities in abundance.

“It is these qualities which attract so many people to London — not just for the employment opportunities that the city offers, but because of its mid-rise nature, its human-scaled streets, squares and parks and its series of diverse walkable neighbourhood ‘villages’ that foster a strong sense of community.  We must continue to build upon these strengths, which are essentially London’s ‘calling card’. ”

The speech comes two days before  Boris Johnson’s new housing strategy aimed at tackling the problem. The Mayor is committed to a target of at least 42,000 new homes in London each year but critics say even this falls far short of meeting London’s needs.

The Prince’s Foundation

The Prince’s Foundation for Building Community is a charity dedicated to promoting “beautiful, harmonious and enduring” urban developments using sustainable principles.

It does not fund schemes but acts as a “champion” bringing together developers, designers, local authorities and local communities.

It supports mixed-use, mixed-income, “walkable” neighbourhoods.

As well as Highbury Gardens in Islington, the foundation has been involved in more than  30 projects throughout the UK, including Knockroon in East Ayrshire, Scotland, Lincoln city centre and Coed Darcy in south Wales.

 It is now working with residents at Ham Close  in Richmond about its next project.

The Foundation has also done work in the Galapagos Islands, Jamaica, Sierra Leone  and Haiti.

The foundation runs a range of educational courses in traditional building craft and urban design skills, as well as summer schools teaching building and repair techniques.

EVENING STANDARD COMMENT

Evening Standard comment: Prince Charles and the housing debate

When the report calls for “more London” in terms of style, it could actually make new housing seem a welcome prospect rather than a depressing one. That could change the housing debate

Published: 26 March 2014 Updated: 13:09, 26 March 2014 / http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/evening-standard-comment-prince-charles-and-the-housing-debate-9216503.html

Prince Charles has entered the housing debate in characteristic fashion. His Foundation for Building Community has published a report calling for more housing, and for that housing to be in keeping with the character of the city — mid-rise rather than skyscrapers.

The report follows a survey from urban design organisation New London Architecture (NLA) which shows that almost 250 towers of 20 storeys or more are planned or under construction in London — most blocks for private sale. These Prince Charles’s foundation describes as “glittering towers of exclusivity and luxury living — out of the reach of the average Londoners”. Instead, the report calls for a return of Edwardian mansion blocks and Georgian-style squares and crescents.

Architects do not usually welcome the interventions of the prince when it comes to building aesthetics but in this case the professionals should acknowledge that his foundation’s report is both good sense and reflects the sentiments of most Londoners. A new poll from NLA shows that 70 per cent of Londoners under 35 admire distinctive high-rise buildings but would not want to live in them. Mansion and apartment blocks like those of Paris are uniquely suited for urban living, combining high density with well-proportioned individual and communal space. They should be the template for more buildings in London; certainly they are hugely popular.

The Foundation is also right to suggest that there should be far more mixed developments than at present — unlike the tower blocks for the rich that are favoured by some of the biggest developers. It recommends a mixture of private, shared and social housing in order to accommodate a mixture of tenants which would make for greater social cohesiveness; certainly it’s a healthier model than either council estates or gated communities.

The Mayor in particular should be sympathetic and receptive to Prince Charles’s ideas. When the report calls for “more London” in terms of style, it could actually make new housing seem a welcome prospect rather than a depressing one. That could change the housing debate.