“It’s incredible how tall London is when you look at it from a tall building.”
This was the comment on everybody’s lips while on an Academy of Urbanism seminar last Wednesday. The Workshop “Learning from Tall Buildings” was chaired by John Worthington, the indefatigable campaigner of liveability and founder of DEGW (now AECOM). The workshop also included a superb guide through the exhibition London is Growing! by Peter Murray (until 12 June so if you haven’t been, I recommend you run there!). And the day just got better with an insightful tour of Nine Elms by Pam Alexander OBE, and a walking tour of the City of London guided by non other than Peter Rees, ex-chief planner of London, involved in the shaping of the city for the past 29 years. What a treat! alleyways, pocket parks and bridges …hidden gems buried in the heart of London where lucky locals meet and, as Peter Rees pointed out, exchange gossip, valuable information that keeps this city going as one of the most important financial capitals of the world.
A model of London at the NLA Centre
But you might be reading this and thinking “that walkabout was all on the ground, what about the tall buildings?” Yes, yes, we did a lot of horizontal walking but it was also the day that will go down in my memory as the day I used elevators the most! Up the BT Tower, up the Heron Tower, up to the Shard; and due to the internal organisation of some of these buildings, we were coming out of one elevator half way through only to take another lift that was taking us all the way to the top. And as gravity will define, Galileo and his experiments at the roof of another tower – all that goes up must come down …so we spent a lot of time making our way down from these giants. At one point I had the feeling I put my name for a theme park workshop given the speed of some of these elevators!
So, back to the workshop – what did we learn? Well I’m not going to mention the current debate about towers in London that I’m sure you’ve all read about as it has featured prominently on the news with mostly bad press. But I feel there are certain things worth highlighting such as the fact that currently there are 236 towers in the pipeline across London, with 113 of them with planning permission and 45 under construction. We also know that according to the ONS the current population of London (8.3 million, 2012 figures) will grow to 10 million by 2031 and 11 million by 2050. The argument for density was hardly disputed during our workshop, but the discussion focused on maximising liveability and the sharing of development gains while increasing density.
Now to the nitty-gritty of our workshop. We looked at different aspects of towers: the way buildings meet the ground and the space they create around; the way they add to the city skyline; the experience they provide from the tower (i.e. the views from within) and on the ground as one approaches the tower and from the distance. In terms of the approaches at ground level, we compared the NY style of building-podium as opposed to the London style of lone building. We considered that if the lone building is not carefully planned it can easily become an isolated component in the urban pattern, obstructing the pedestrian flow, particularly when access to the basement and surrounding open spaces are denied to the public. The NY podium-style has the advantage that it creates a street front, but it suffers the same consequences as the lone building when located in large urban plots of single occupancy with little access to the public. The Rockefeller Plaza was mentioned as a good example of building tall and offering good quality public space, whilst Centre Point was seen as a failure. But with reference to the latter, there is a scheme that might solve shortcomings on the ground, but keeping the tower, as the tower itself was praised by Peter Murray for its innovative concrete facades.
No Entry signs surrounding Vauxhall Tower
But of course this discussion lead to the issue of the size of London’s plots. Contrasting with the large plots in Manhattan, the question posed was: Is it wise to build tall in a city where the only option to make available large plots is by compulsory purchase? Or is it better to consider this lack of large plots and consequently lower the building’s height so light can reach the street level? Others pointed out that small plots were better than large, as they can increase permeability but the problem was multiplicity of ownership. This can create further complexity as planning then needs to aline different stakeholders. Mayfair was cited as an area in London where there are a large number of small plots, but with few owners. Thus a clear vision for regeneration was successfully achieved. Canary Wharf was also mentioned as a peripheral solution similar to that followed by other cities in Europe equally constrained by plot size and by heritage such as La Defence in Paris. Still small plots tend to push for a square design particularly in the case of residential buildings, which do not have the flexibility that the office space can have and therefore the result can be the replication of a monotonous landscape of square residential towers.
Freedom of the office space: all floors can be different given the flexibility of he floor plan. This encourages more imaginative building forms than the square tower mostly used in residential developments. Time to re-think the flexibility of the house plan?
We visited interesting places where tall buildings generated good quality urban spaces at ground level, by creating small alleyways and piazzas in between. Images speak for themselves:
Space under Lloyd’s: rain put off people from using the tables at the forefront of the picture but under the shelter of the building it was very busy as you can see. Good idea to offer options.
1960-70s legacy of bridges
Alleys, steps and added places for eating and meeting
In contrast Joe Mitchel (Associate Director of Broadway Malyan) explained the constrains of the site of their Vauxhall Tower, and the difficulties in offering a large public area in such small site. He also asked critics to consider that the regeneration of the surrounding area is still not completed. However, opinions were divided as to whether the completion of this work was going to raise the quality of the public space which the area so much needs, suggesting that the scheme needs more streets.
The workshop also analysed the view experience provided by the buildings. In this sense the Shard was praised for its ability to mark a transport hub and its contribution to London’s skyline. Equally, other iconic towers were also praised for respecting the heritage and not obstructing the views of St Paul or the Houses of Parliament. The control of protected views was seen as an achievement of good planning, although some consider that perhaps more should have been done to open the basements to the public. Still something that I didn’t know was that the Walkie Talkie will have a public space at the top (only for Londoners and not for tourists, apparently). Whether people will be allowed to go through security that remains to be seen, and in a way this is a major issue in trying to increase permeability in sites that can be easily targeted by terrorism. Notwithstanding, the Shard is managing to do this for tourists and Londoners alike (it will cost you though, one day adult entrance ticket is £29.95 and child is £23.95, steep indeed!).
View from the Shard
Still the experience of the view from the top of a tall building is another component that has to be considered when deciding the location for a single building or for a cluster of them. Peter Murray suggested that the Mayor of London should seriously consider investing in a 3D digital model of London so you can move around and make strategic decisions of this scale. Equally, the experience at ground level, and how people view it as they approach the building is important. We commented on how enjoyable the sudden glimpses of an icon amidst the urban blocks was, and their sometimes drawing-in power that makes people turn, explore and discover.
the Gherkin appears at the background
We all agree that strategic decisions need political leadership and long term vision. Planning and designing skylines, clusters of towers and footprints while maximising public benefits of space in between buildings cannot be executed without a clear vision of the future. And yet, according to Peter Rees, London is the least planned city in the world. I was surprised to hear this and was left wondering whether a reactive planning system is no longer suitable for a global city.
Peter Murray taking us through the history of London towers.
Cities 