10 signatures reached
To: City Hall (London)
Maintain architectural standards in London
I am petitioning against the proposal for a new skyscraper, 22 Bishopgate, that is seeking planning approval in the city of London next month.
Developers are seeking permission for the revised scheme of 22 Bishopgate (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/london-new-skyscraper-22-bishopsgate-will-fill-desperate-need-office-space-city-1506856) that will see a 278 meter tall tower built in the City by 2019. This scheme proposes the demolition of the incomplete stump of the original design for this site, the Pinnacle building (http://www.e-architect.co.uk/london/the-pinnacle) which would have formed a 288 meter tower had its construction not been halted in 2012.
I believe the government should seek the revival of the original scheme or failing that one of its design calibre by not only denying permission to the revised proposals but also actively encouraging submission of world class design.
Developers are seeking permission for the revised scheme of 22 Bishopgate (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/london-new-skyscraper-22-bishopsgate-will-fill-desperate-need-office-space-city-1506856) that will see a 278 meter tall tower built in the City by 2019. This scheme proposes the demolition of the incomplete stump of the original design for this site, the Pinnacle building (http://www.e-architect.co.uk/london/the-pinnacle) which would have formed a 288 meter tower had its construction not been halted in 2012.
I believe the government should seek the revival of the original scheme or failing that one of its design calibre by not only denying permission to the revised proposals but also actively encouraging submission of world class design.
Why is this important?
Whilst the original scheme was for one of the most beautiful structures ever proposed – and had already affectionately earned the nickname ‘the helter-skelter’ – the new tower is incredibly mundane at best. Not only is the new design entirely uninspiring but it is completely out of scale with its surroundings. Over the last decade a collection of iconic towers each in proportion to the other has arisen in the city. The new tower’s boxy form is not only boring but the way it hulks over its surroundings completely detracts from them.
Now the developers maintain that the redesign was necessary as the curved panels which formed the beautiful summit of the original design were too expensive. Given the fact that rental rates in the city are soaring and the fact that there are significant costs associated with redesigning the scheme, demolishing the current works and delaying completion by several years, it would hardly seem worth it even if the focus is solely on the bottom line. However, whatever the scale of the impact on the bottom line, its absolute minimization cannot be the sole focus regardless of any aesthetic costs when it comes to a structure of this size that will completely dominate views across London for well over a century.
Obviously I am against the current design and will sound like an anti-development campaigner. However, nothing could be further from the truth. I am a skyscraper enthusiast as I believe high density design is environmentally friendly and can create an exciting skyline. I just fear that the scheme will turn public opinion in the city against the development of further high-rises. While I argue that bad designs should not be approved, I believe the government should use all resources available to actively encourage good developments. When presented with a scheme of such high quality design as the original Pinnacle proposal, the government should do everything within its power to ensure that it comes to fruition. If, as the developers claim, the original design was too expensive, the government in its capacity to both encourage business and beautification of the cityscape, should have found ways in which to increase the financial return on the structure. For instance, permission could have been given to extend the tower by another forty meters or so. Not only would this have provided another ten stories of rentable space, but it would have, at 328 meters, secured the title of tallest building in the European Union and maintained it in 2020 when the Hermitage Plaza towers open in Paris. I know that some will say that chasing records is a wasteful egotistical exercise, but I am sure the majority of Londoner’s would rather host the tallest structure on the continent than play second-best to Paris. I do believe there is an inherent benefit in pursuing beautiful, record breaking projects. If an attitude of always settling for the mundane – such as this new proposal – is allowed to propagate, it eventually feeds through into the psyche of the surroundings. Meanwhile, an environment where the boundaries are forever being pushed has an invigorating atmosphere that stimulates achievement and aspiration throughout the population. I do not believe that when Britain produced the fastest locomotives at the end of the 19th century, when America launched its moon missions and the Classical world constructed its glorious monuments that each of these was merely a product of its countries technological leadership at the time. Rather, I believe pushing to develop world beating structures is inspiring to the population and drives further progress back into society. I therefore think government must encourage good design, not only by denying permission to ugly buildings but by doing everything possible to encourage the development of great ones.
Now I know that one or two people may complain that slightly extending the height of a tower would make it overbearing. But I do not think it would be more than two as I do not think there are many people who would be perfectly content for a building of 288 meters to be constructed by their property but not one of 328 – hardly anyone would be able to tell any difference at all. In fact the vastly more noticeable impact of increasing the height of a skyscraper is that the extra capacity it would yield would allow for the demolition of an entire crumbling tower block somewhere else and its replacement with a park. I am aware that the very earliest proposal for the Pinnacle was for a tower of 307 meters and this was vetoed by the Civil Aviation Authority. However, I really do not think that we should be allowing poor airport planning to spill over into poor city planning – especially in the heart of the United Kingdom’s economy. Rather than stunting the development of this city, the CAA should be looking to address the utter inadequacies of its infrastructure with a new hub airport that would eliminate flights over central London.
Now the developers maintain that the redesign was necessary as the curved panels which formed the beautiful summit of the original design were too expensive. Given the fact that rental rates in the city are soaring and the fact that there are significant costs associated with redesigning the scheme, demolishing the current works and delaying completion by several years, it would hardly seem worth it even if the focus is solely on the bottom line. However, whatever the scale of the impact on the bottom line, its absolute minimization cannot be the sole focus regardless of any aesthetic costs when it comes to a structure of this size that will completely dominate views across London for well over a century.
Obviously I am against the current design and will sound like an anti-development campaigner. However, nothing could be further from the truth. I am a skyscraper enthusiast as I believe high density design is environmentally friendly and can create an exciting skyline. I just fear that the scheme will turn public opinion in the city against the development of further high-rises. While I argue that bad designs should not be approved, I believe the government should use all resources available to actively encourage good developments. When presented with a scheme of such high quality design as the original Pinnacle proposal, the government should do everything within its power to ensure that it comes to fruition. If, as the developers claim, the original design was too expensive, the government in its capacity to both encourage business and beautification of the cityscape, should have found ways in which to increase the financial return on the structure. For instance, permission could have been given to extend the tower by another forty meters or so. Not only would this have provided another ten stories of rentable space, but it would have, at 328 meters, secured the title of tallest building in the European Union and maintained it in 2020 when the Hermitage Plaza towers open in Paris. I know that some will say that chasing records is a wasteful egotistical exercise, but I am sure the majority of Londoner’s would rather host the tallest structure on the continent than play second-best to Paris. I do believe there is an inherent benefit in pursuing beautiful, record breaking projects. If an attitude of always settling for the mundane – such as this new proposal – is allowed to propagate, it eventually feeds through into the psyche of the surroundings. Meanwhile, an environment where the boundaries are forever being pushed has an invigorating atmosphere that stimulates achievement and aspiration throughout the population. I do not believe that when Britain produced the fastest locomotives at the end of the 19th century, when America launched its moon missions and the Classical world constructed its glorious monuments that each of these was merely a product of its countries technological leadership at the time. Rather, I believe pushing to develop world beating structures is inspiring to the population and drives further progress back into society. I therefore think government must encourage good design, not only by denying permission to ugly buildings but by doing everything possible to encourage the development of great ones.
Now I know that one or two people may complain that slightly extending the height of a tower would make it overbearing. But I do not think it would be more than two as I do not think there are many people who would be perfectly content for a building of 288 meters to be constructed by their property but not one of 328 – hardly anyone would be able to tell any difference at all. In fact the vastly more noticeable impact of increasing the height of a skyscraper is that the extra capacity it would yield would allow for the demolition of an entire crumbling tower block somewhere else and its replacement with a park. I am aware that the very earliest proposal for the Pinnacle was for a tower of 307 meters and this was vetoed by the Civil Aviation Authority. However, I really do not think that we should be allowing poor airport planning to spill over into poor city planning – especially in the heart of the United Kingdom’s economy. Rather than stunting the development of this city, the CAA should be looking to address the utter inadequacies of its infrastructure with a new hub airport that would eliminate flights over central London.
