As shown by a recent study by the think tank NLA (New London Architecture), which we wrote about earlier, in London in the near future it is planned to build 236 new skyscrapers, the appearance of which threatens to greatly change the face of the city. According to this study, 77% of new high-rises will be concentrated in east London, with 140 of them in just 5 boroughs: Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Greenwich, Newham and Southark.
More than 200 towers are already under construction or approval, but it is only now that the public has finally responded to the upcoming transformation of the city. The reason for the launch of the campaign to stop the construction of the towers was a lawsuit rejected by the court against the implementation of the 29-storey building of David Chipperfield near Waterloo station. The £ 600m structure under construction threatens to strip the Westminster area of UNESCO World Heritage Site status.
The campaign began with an open letter to the weekly The Observer dated March 29, 2014, in which prominent Londoners, including artists Anthony Gormley and Anish Kapoor, philosopher and writer Alain de Botton, well-known Russian MAPS protector of heritage Clementine Cecil, director of the Design Museum Dejan Sudzic, architects David Adjaye, Chiperfield (!), Adam Caruso and Charles Correa signed the words “The skyline of London is out of control”.
The authors of the letter base their claims on the fact that the "universal" appearance of skyscrapers threatens the authenticity of London. At the same time, the construction of towers does not meet the needs of the city in any way. Despite the fact that ¾ of the new buildings will be residential buildings, they only embody the interests and ambitions of investors and do not save them from the London housing crisis. This is evidenced by the fact that the towers will house luxury housing. From an urban planning point of view, the tower is not the most rational option for increasing the building density (see illustration below). But such a solution heavily loads the transport system at one point. At the same time, the renders of future buildings eloquently testify to the not very tactful attitude of skyscrapers to the context.
Signatories also express dissatisfaction with London's political and urban governance systems. One of their main objections was that "such a fundamental transformation is taking place without public awareness, consultation or discussion": this situation shocked Londoners.
Nevertheless, according to the results of the NLA study, the planners and developers involved in the construction of the towers claim that they acted exclusively within the framework of the existing - and quite well thought out - system of urban planning regulation, which determines the location of high-rise buildings and their number of storeys, imposes restrictions on their possible appearance.
It is important to note that the crusaders are not against high-rise construction in general. They are dissatisfied with the quality of work of the urban planning authorities and its result, which threatens the city with fundamental changes.
The London authorities, acting as mediators in this conflict, took a step towards the concerned citizens, saying that they would consider the possibility of creating a commission on the appearance of the city and will discuss it with interested parties in the near future.
The developing confrontation reveals the acuteness of long-standing problems that are urgent for all cities in the world. The questions arise: does urban planning regulation work with a sufficiently sensitive reaction to the city and its needs, its image, its fabric? And how should it actually work?
