Over 450 high rises under construction or in planning in London. What are your thoughts? (apartment, homes)

[Hightower72]

For those startled at the construction going on in London, with hundreds of residential and commercial high rises in development across multiple centers, do you think this model of cityscaping will change the aesthetic and ambiance for better or for worse?

Do you think London should have adopted an oligomodal CBD model, if possible, instead of building multiple centers like below?


http://www.theresident.co.uk/homes-i...ich-peninsula/

[Brave New World]

A lot of them are being built on former industrial land and wasteland, such as the old docks, Thames Gateway and areas such as Nine Elms/Batersea or Old Oak Common.

Furthermore a lot of very good regeneration schemes are on-going such as the transformation of the Kings Cross area, and the new Museum of London project in Smithfield and the decision to stop previous developments in Smithfield and to save the old buildings and market is also very sensible.

As for those towers planned, a much smaller number will be built in many areas due to planning regulations as well as schemes falling by the wayside.

However the fact so much investment is being directed towards London is good news.

City of London Financial District

Pic Link - Chest SSC


Canary Wharf Financial District

IMG_9972.jpg by corerising, on Flickr

[Brave New World]

[Brave New World]

Some good videos regarding Smithfield and Kings Cross.

[Stewart G. Griffin]

London has traditionally been a low rise city. And much the better for it. I wish London would behave more like Paris when it comes to development, i.e. keep the skyscrapers out of the heart of the city.

London has some of the nicest architecture of any city & its impact is being lost among the soulless glass & steel monstrosities.

It seems far too easy to get permission to build something characterless & horribly out of keeping with its neighbours in London, and the city is rapidly losing its charm because of that. Restoring & regenerating should be the order of business, not tear down & replace.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Stewart G. Griffin

London has traditionally been a low rise city. And much the better for it. I wish London would behave more like Paris when it comes to development, i.e. keep the skyscrapers out of the heart of the city.

London has some of the nicest architecture of any city & its impact is being lost among the soulless glass & steel monstrosities.

It seems far too easy to get permission to build something characterless & horribly out of keeping with its neighbours in London, and the city is rapidly losing its charm because of that. Restoring & regenerating should be the order of business, not tear down & replace.

London has strict planning regulations, and much of the high rises are being built in areas which have been wasteland or are miles from the West End such as the Docklands in the traditionally poor East End and the Thames Gateway, as well as areas as far away as Croydon.

Some areas in South London such as the Elephant & Castle and indeed Nine Elms are seeing a lot of investment, but the investment was needed and the areas have been enhanced, whilst schemes such as Kings Cross and the new plans for Smithfield are going to enhance these historic areas.

The Towers are not being built in the West End or in the tourist areas of London which are well protected, and although there may be numerous schemes, many will fall foul of planning laws and many others won't go ahead for numerous reasons including financial backers changing their minds. Indeed some schemes are put forward just to increase potential land property prices.

London has also identified skyscraper hubs and zones, where they are more suited, over half of these tall buildings are to the east of the City, clustered in the Isle of Dogs (Canary Wharf, Wood Wharf, Greenwich Peninsula etc), Greenwich, Aldgate and Stratford. Whilst of the rest of the new towers a high percentage are being built in South London at places ranging from Vauxhall and Nine Elms right down to Croydon.

It's also worth noting that a high rise does not constitute a skyscraper, which has to be taller than 100 metres (328 ft). So it really depends what you class as high rise. Most moderately sized apartment blocks are high rise but that does not make them skyscrapers.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by ilovelondon

But that doesn't stop the boroughs from demolishing perfectly fine historic buildings (that are not heritage-protected) and building dross modern buildings.

For example, this fine building in Hanover Square was demolished and there is a plan to demolish this gorgeous building in Oxford Street.

There is also a planning application to demolish this nice historic building and replace it with something boring.

A lot of buildings are heritage protected, the UK has one of the most stringent historic preservation criteria of any country in the world.

Organisations such as Historic England, English Heritage and Save Britain's Heritage are very protective of such buildings and lodge objections taking cases to the Secretary of State if necessary taking cases to the Courts.

All such cases usually have to be granted permission not only by the Local Authority but are often called in and the decision referred to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and they may also involve the Courts. So it's a long and difficult process, and on top of that there are protected sightlines and other criteria.

It should be noted that in terms of Smithfield which I mentioned above numerous schemes were called in and were rejected by the Secretary of State, and they weren't even listed buildings, in terms of listed buildings there are tens of thousands of listed buildungs in London.

SAVE Britain's Heritage: Home Page

Historic England - Championing England's heritage | Historic England

Keep it London | Historic England

Another good organisation is the Heritage of London Trust which is heavily involved in perserving and restoring old buildings in London. The trust has helped over 600 restoration projects across London.

Heritage of London Trust

London actually has plenty of old areas of old industrial land, docks (Canary Wharf) and other areas to the South and East of the city that can be redeveloped, but they need to be quality developments. In terms of the tourist areas and west end, a lot of the buildings are listed and the chrachter of the areas must be maintained. Indeed schemes such as Kings Cross and Smithfield are looking to utilise old buildings and to preserve character the of the area.

[ilovelondon]

I am aware of English Heritage, Heritage England, and the various listings (Grade I, II*, and II). That being said, there are a lot of historic buildings (mainly Victorian and early 20th century) that are NOT listed, but are protected through conservation areas. Those nice historic buildings I've posted above are NOT listed, and therefore, can be demolished especially if dodgy planning inspectors do not see any historic value in them and would side with the developers.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by ilovelondon

I am aware of English Heritage, Heritage England, and the various listings (Grade I, II*, and II). That being said, there are a lot of historic buildings (mainly Victorian and early 20th century) that are NOT listed, but are protected through conservation areas. Those nice historic buildings I've posted above are NOT listed, and therefore, can be demolished especially if dodgy planning inspectors do not see any historic value in them and would side with the developers.

Conservation areas in London generally have very strict rules, and I am in full agreement with you when it comes to preserving historic buildings and fully support yoir views.

[easthome]

They are going to turn London into just another 'bland' collection of towers by the sound of it, what a shame.