Any retrospective look at the past decade in planning and development terms cannot fail to ignore that the UK saw a significant re-emergence of the tall building. The first tall building boom in the 1960s was down to 2 main factors, the first largely a ‘panic solution’ (HOC 01) in meeting social housing demand following the clearances of the high density victorian slums in the inner cities. The second prompting factor for tall office development was a result of site shortages in the inner cores of British cities and the difficulties in assembling large sites. (DTLR).
Unfortunately as a result of the swiftness upon which many such developments were constructed meant many such schemes were of both of a poor quality, and of a poor design which led to high crime rates and unsatisfactory living conditions, coupled alongside high profile incidents such as the collapse of Ronan point; the 1970s and 1980s saw an inevitable decline in the number of tall buildings erected.
The revival has its origins in the developer led economies of the late 1980s, which saw the construction of One Canada square, at Canary Wharf, yet this building famously stood on its own for much of the 1990s, and was not fully unoccupied until the start of the 21st Century.
 |
| The Shard under construction (June 2010) |
Ken Livingston, the former Mayor of London; in particular can claim to be at the forefront of the revival and his pro-tall building policies saw dramatic changes to the skyline of both the City of London and Canary Wharf, despite the present mayor been considerably less enthusiastic for tall buildings as the economy begins to show small signs of improvement; we are still seeing a number of new super tall structures which were given permission in the Livingston era, under construction. The most notable addition is the tallest of them all The Shard, which when complete will not only be the tallest in the UK but also Europe. The Shard is also notable because it is outside of the two recognised clusters of Canary Wharf and the City, lying instead within the borough of Southwark incidentally keen supporters of Livingston’s policies. It is highly unlikely this tower would have seen the light of day, if it wasn’t for the proactive policies that were encouraged.
The success of London in developing high quality tall buildings saw other cities notably Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool attempt to copy the formula that the capital had developed, with mixed results.
Leeds in particular saw a number of student housing led developments which now scar the northern edge of the city centre. 'Sky plaza' incidentally when constructed the tallest student housing scheme in Europe, acting as nothing but a breeze brick wall between the city centre and the inner city suburb of little london.
Manchester fared slightly better, with the high quality Beetham 'Hilton' Tower a successful new icon for the city
What is particularly interesting through is that there is no national tall buildings policy framework, with local authorities free to develop their own policy; an approach which in many areas has led to a developer led system. Interestingly both Manchester and Leeds have taken different strategies here.
Manchester city council does not believe a dedicated tall buildings policy would add any value (Short 2006), with the council reasoning due to the limited number of sites in the city centre in which tall buildings could actually be built.
This is perhaps a short sighted way of looking at things, by designating areas for clusters, when over time as sites come up for redevelopment ; the city council could dictate to developers that tall buildings would be preferable. A tall buildings policy also prevents developers wasting time and money submitting applications in unsuitable locations, or developers being granted permission in unsuitable locations after appeal, due to a lack of policy to back up the local planning authority’s decision for refusal. It could also dictate other things such as ensuring only suitable materials are used.
A lack of policy has also led to overbearing developments such as the great northern tower, constructed between two well used public spaces, leaving both permanently in the shade.
Leeds City Council has implemented what could be described as reactive policy measures to the development pressures. The primary document, the ‘Tall buildings design guide’ was published in 2008 as a supplementary planning document following consultation in 2007. Its purpose is ‘to establish clear principles and advice to steer them to appropriate locations and to ensure they are well designed’ (Tall buildings design guide 2008) the guide establishes 7 key principles.
The document supports the idea of constructing tall buildings in clearly defined clusters, which it states can draw attention to an area and handle the environment better (Tall building guide 2007 pg 58), It therefore identifies 2 areas of opportunity for tall building clusters; these are located at key gateway points into the city centre, to the north and to the south of the historic core. The northern cluster aims to re-enforce upon a number of tall buildings constructed in this area during the tall building boom of the 1960s.
The document is very conscious about creating a positive skyline, which follows policy SA1 of the cities unitary development plan, which states ‘The design and sitting of new buildings should complement and, where possible, enhance existing vistas, skylines and landmark’. The guide suggests that the skyline could be broken, with a restricted number of taller ‘iconic’ buildings.
The ‘Tall buildings design guide’ though has been criticised, Rachel Unsworth in Punter (ed) Urban design and the British urban renaissance argues it simply attempts to justify the sighting and visual impact of structures, when in reality there locations are the product of private developers finding sites, a key example of this is ‘the super tower zone’ which when the plan was produced featured planning consent for 2 landmark towers (Lumiere and Criterion place (now both abandoned with low rise replacements proposed on both sites), the attempt to retrofit these towers into policy, according to Unsworth is in direct contravention of the cities only policy of clustering towers.
As a result of the economic uncertainty between 2008 and 2010, many schemes in Leeds have subsequently been either abandoned or mothballed on site, with few new schemes coming forward; the question of whether a tall buildings guide is really necessary in a provincial city such as Leeds is being asked by critics (Unsworth 2010. The document has therefore proved too much as a reactive document and too late to really influence anything.
So what is the way forward?
I have two key recommendations that could go some way to ensuring all new tall developments are constructed to a high specification.
The first is that the current CABE/ English Heritage advice document on the matter should be developed into a dedicated planning policy statement. This is important to ensure the guidance which says the right things is not ignored.
 |
| The City of London |
The second recommendation is to make it compulsory for the countries major cities to develop tall buildings policies, as supplementary planning documents, that are updated regularly. This would ensure that any new documents are not produced as a response to emerging proposals but can have real influence in directing tall buildings to the right locations.
Tall buildings can dominate streets and even cities and may often be responsible for helping to shape people’s opinions of a place, those done well such as St Marys Axe (Above) in London help create the impression of a modern, forward thinking and dynamic city to residents and visitors alike. Cities such as New York, Shanghai, Dubai can build poor buildings, with the expectation that they will help develop the skyline from a distance but be clouded out by nearby better quality structures. Cities such as Leeds, Manchester and London cannot do this, our skylines are not as developed and it is unlikely they will ever be. Bad buildings stand out.
It could be argued that it is a failure of the planning system that we have not put the proper policy in place to protect the integrity of our cities.
