This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/dec/31/the-paddington-shard-row-shines-a-light-on-londons-mayoral-choice

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The 'Paddington Shard' row shines a light on London's mayoral choice The 'Paddington Shard' row shines a light on London's mayoral choice
(about 4 hours later)
Four days before Christmas Boris Johnson’s right hand man Sir Edward Lister wrote this for City AM:Four days before Christmas Boris Johnson’s right hand man Sir Edward Lister wrote this for City AM:
Not for the first time, tall buildings in the capital are attracting media debate and some criticism. But tall buildings in the right places can be part of the solution. Crucially, if we are genuinely serious about preserving our green belt at the same time as managing London’s population explosion, we will need to continue to build upwards. Tall buildings can create real value and provide the density so badly needed in a rapidly-growing city. They are not just suitable as bases for the thousands of new companies requiring office space in the capital each year, but as homes for Londoners too.Not for the first time, tall buildings in the capital are attracting media debate and some criticism. But tall buildings in the right places can be part of the solution. Crucially, if we are genuinely serious about preserving our green belt at the same time as managing London’s population explosion, we will need to continue to build upwards. Tall buildings can create real value and provide the density so badly needed in a rapidly-growing city. They are not just suitable as bases for the thousands of new companies requiring office space in the capital each year, but as homes for Londoners too.
The day after that, the Guardian’s Simon Jenkins wrote this for the Evening Standard:The day after that, the Guardian’s Simon Jenkins wrote this for the Evening Standard:
A plot is afoot to race ahead with a “second Shard” in Paddington over the New Year. If built, it would be 72 storeys - one floor shorter than its sister tower - overlooking west London between Bayswater and Maida Vale. The developers could be hoping to avoid adverse publicity over the holiday so as to get planning permission at the beginning of March. At that point major planning decisions are suspended in advance of the mayoral elections. They have the support of the mayor, Boris Johnson, and his tower-hungry deputy, Sir Edward Lister. They cannot trust either of the new mayoral candidates, Zac Goldsmith or Sadiq Khan, to be sympathetic.A plot is afoot to race ahead with a “second Shard” in Paddington over the New Year. If built, it would be 72 storeys - one floor shorter than its sister tower - overlooking west London between Bayswater and Maida Vale. The developers could be hoping to avoid adverse publicity over the holiday so as to get planning permission at the beginning of March. At that point major planning decisions are suspended in advance of the mayoral elections. They have the support of the mayor, Boris Johnson, and his tower-hungry deputy, Sir Edward Lister. They cannot trust either of the new mayoral candidates, Zac Goldsmith or Sadiq Khan, to be sympathetic.
Fight! Fight! Fight! A duel between two of the built environment’s most august knights! A Jedi-esque dust-up over the city’s very soul! Who should we be rooting for, and why? Fight! Fight! Fight! A joust between two of the built environment’s most august knights! A Jedi-esque dust-up over the city’s very soul! Who should we be rooting for, and why?
Sir Edward, a veteran Tory radical of the Wandsworth variety, is, I think, right to insist that buildings of great height can be of benefit, though his caveat about them being “in the right places” marks a spot where the trouble tends to start. It echoes a line Johnson used way back in the mayoral campaign of 2008. The then incumbent Ken Livingstone dryly replied to the effect that, well, you wouldn’t want them in the wrong places, would you, Boris?Sir Edward, a veteran Tory radical of the Wandsworth variety, is, I think, right to insist that buildings of great height can be of benefit, though his caveat about them being “in the right places” marks a spot where the trouble tends to start. It echoes a line Johnson used way back in the mayoral campaign of 2008. The then incumbent Ken Livingstone dryly replied to the effect that, well, you wouldn’t want them in the wrong places, would you, Boris?
The exchange underlined the intense subjectivity of “right” and “wrong” in this context. Recalling it is also a reminder that the then future Mayor Johnson was keen to pose as the defender of London’s skyline heritage, rebuking “Red Ken” for his eager propagation of glassy capitalist growth monuments and lack of deference to viewing corridors.The exchange underlined the intense subjectivity of “right” and “wrong” in this context. Recalling it is also a reminder that the then future Mayor Johnson was keen to pose as the defender of London’s skyline heritage, rebuking “Red Ken” for his eager propagation of glassy capitalist growth monuments and lack of deference to viewing corridors.
Now, as his mayoralty nears its end, Johnson is presiding over the gestation of more than 260 towers of at least 20-storeys. Sir Edward’s assurances in his City AM piece that planned new towers are subjected to “rigorous scrutiny processes” and “strict guidelines” and must “contribute positively to the world-class architecture of the capital’s skyline,” might have been delivered by the now former Mayor Livingstone - and met with the same derision from critics like Simon Jenkins.Now, as his mayoralty nears its end, Johnson is presiding over the gestation of more than 260 towers of at least 20-storeys. Sir Edward’s assurances in his City AM piece that planned new towers are subjected to “rigorous scrutiny processes” and “strict guidelines” and must “contribute positively to the world-class architecture of the capital’s skyline,” might have been delivered by the now former Mayor Livingstone - and met with the same derision from critics like Simon Jenkins.
Along with his concern that proper planning procedures are being subtly (and not-so-subtly) subverted in relation to the putative Paddington Shard both at Westminster Council and at City Hall, Simon reprised his well-known aesthetic objections to ostentatious height: “The tower is a shocker...a glass tube soaring to a drum with what appears to be a tree on top” and a “bling edifice”. Importantly, he also challenged the case of Lister and of the Paddington Shard’s architect Renzo Piano - also the original Shard’s designer, of course - that height is necessarily the way to deliver greater building density:Along with his concern that proper planning procedures are being subtly (and not-so-subtly) subverted in relation to the putative Paddington Shard both at Westminster Council and at City Hall, Simon reprised his well-known aesthetic objections to ostentatious height: “The tower is a shocker...a glass tube soaring to a drum with what appears to be a tree on top” and a “bling edifice”. Importantly, he also challenged the case of Lister and of the Paddington Shard’s architect Renzo Piano - also the original Shard’s designer, of course - that height is necessarily the way to deliver greater building density:
Piano claims that if London is not to sprawl “it must build up”. This is rubbish. His towers are luxury market speculations, which is why his Shard is mostly empty. More to the point, 200-300 flats is not dense...the same number of dwellings could be arranged in two dozen seven-storey Victorian terraced houses on half the site. A normal low-rise, high-density development in Paddington should be delivering 600-700 flats. As housing, this tower is a waste of space.Piano claims that if London is not to sprawl “it must build up”. This is rubbish. His towers are luxury market speculations, which is why his Shard is mostly empty. More to the point, 200-300 flats is not dense...the same number of dwellings could be arranged in two dozen seven-storey Victorian terraced houses on half the site. A normal low-rise, high-density development in Paddington should be delivering 600-700 flats. As housing, this tower is a waste of space.
Joshing aside, the conflict between Simon’s view and Sir Eddie’s helpfully concentrates the mind on what the priorities of the next mayor should be regarding buildings’ heights, densities and architectural styles, meeting housing need, balancing the wishes of local people with the interests of London as a whole and the use of City Hall’s very substantial planning powers to impose those priorities.Joshing aside, the conflict between Simon’s view and Sir Eddie’s helpfully concentrates the mind on what the priorities of the next mayor should be regarding buildings’ heights, densities and architectural styles, meeting housing need, balancing the wishes of local people with the interests of London as a whole and the use of City Hall’s very substantial planning powers to impose those priorities.
The look of buildings matters as does their wider impact on their surroundings, but so does their social and economic utility (I’d say these matters more). The egos of “starchitects” and the market-distorting influence of footloose billions from abroad are the often-deserving targets of opposition. And yet the sobering fact remains that private developments financed from overseas supply much of what a rapidly-enlarging London needs - such as about one third of its “affordable” housing, new schools and major public transport improvements - as well as plenty it does not. The look of buildings matters as does their wider impact on their surroundings, but so does their social and economic utility (I’d say these matter more). The egos of “starchitects” and the market-distorting influence of footloose billions from abroad are the often-deserving targets of opposition. And yet the sobering fact remains that private developments financed from overseas supply much of what a rapidly-enlarging London needs - such as about one third of its “affordable” housing, plus new schools and major public transport improvements - as well as plenty it does not.
The problem is that the present terms of these trade-offs don’t help London and most Londoners as much as they could and should. The challenge for the next mayor will be to change those terms for the better. As Simon’s piece for the Standard indicated, both Candidate Khan and Candidate Goldsmith say they have ambitions in that direction. The substance of those ambitions should become clearer very soon.The problem is that the present terms of these trade-offs don’t help London and most Londoners as much as they could and should. The challenge for the next mayor will be to change those terms for the better. As Simon’s piece for the Standard indicated, both Candidate Khan and Candidate Goldsmith say they have ambitions in that direction. The substance of those ambitions should become clearer very soon.