Area

(2007) 39.2, 195–205

Area

Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 195–205, 2007ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The politics of design: architecture, tall buildings and the skyline of central London

Igal Charney

Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel

Email: charney@geo.haifa.ac.il

Revised manuscript received 2 January 2007

After 2000 a handful of very tall buildings were approved in central London, acircumstance that challenged well-established planning practices in that part of the city.Their promotion by Ken Livingstone, the mayor, but opposition to them by conservationgroups, seemed to signal a fierce campaign ahead; in fact, it was all over in an instant.This article examines how this debate was framed to dismiss the arguments and concernsof those who oppose tall buildings. To make tall buildings acceptable, London’s mayordrew on the merits associated with iconic architecture and high-profile architects. UnderLivingstone’s incumbency tall buildings were affirmed by the expertise and clout ofglobal architects who provided legitimacy for mayoral ambitions to reach for the sky.Stressing the significance of high-quality design and iconic architecture helped to weardown deep-rooted antagonism and to channel the debate to improving the aestheticqualities of London, a goal that enjoys wide consensus.

Key words:

London, skyline, urban design, tall buildings, global architects, iconic architecture

Introduction

After the revolt against the lumpish high rises of the1970s, in most European cities both architectural andpublic sentiment determined that nothing else shouldbe allowed to break through a strict but unstatedheight limit. Then, equally suddenly, the receivedwisdom was turned on its head. Building tall becamean obsession for architects not just in Asia andAmerica, but in Europe too. (Sudjic 2005c, 360–1)

The shift related above is reflected in cities acrossEurope. In each city that experienced this change, anumber of tall buildings were recently completed:Barcelona, Munich, Cologne, Malmö, Bonn, Nurembergand The Hague are a few such examples. In othercities, such as Moscow, Madrid, Amsterdam, Rotterdam,Manchester and Birmingham, tall buildings wereapproved or are under construction. Tall buildingshave become ‘

sine qua non

of place in the globalhierarchy of cities’ (Zukin 1992, 203) and the ‘onlyvisible symptom of world city formation’ (Taylor

etal.

2002, 233). Construction of tall buildings often

involves global architects (dubbed ‘starchitects’) andiconic architecture, both having gained importancein recent decades (Sklair 2005). Property firmsacknowledge the aura associated with global architectsin promoting developments; political leaders likewiseappreciate the instrumental role of architecture asan expressive means of urban re-imaging.

In London a dramatic change is expected to trans-form its skyline; by 2015 the city should have 1

8

–20 skyscrapers, many of them in central London(

Guardian

2006; Teather 2006). This change is largelyattributable to the activism of London’s mayor(McNeill 2002a 2002b). Shortly after assumingoffice as London’s first elected mayor in mid-2000,Ken Livingstone announced his backing for the develop-ment of tall buildings in the capital, including the Cityand its surrounding boroughs. Initial concerns stirreddebate between Livingstone, pro-developmentboroughs (e.g. Corporation of London, TowerHamlets and Croydon), and leading conservationbodies, namely English Heritage and the Commis-sion for Architecture and the Built Environment

196

Charney

Area

Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 195–205, 2007ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.

Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

(CABE) (McNeill 2002a). But after a brief campaignthe opposition dwindled; this generates the questionwhy? In this article I suggest that examining how thedebate was framed is crucial for understanding whytall buildings were eventually approved. The campaignorchestrated by Livingstone expressed a strategy thatmade use of the artistic and aesthetic values associ-ated with iconic architecture and global architects.In the linkage of global city status with spectaculartall buildings, high-quality design was repeatedlystressed to make such developments acceptable andappreciable. Global architects who were commissionedto design tall buildings participated in Livingstone’scampaign, shoring up the legitimacy of tall build-ings as symbols of global power. Architecturalauthority and eye-catching designs were skilfullyused to appease opponents of tall buildings. Asspectacular architecture became a desired elementin many cities, it was placed high on the develop-ment agenda. The debate was no longer aboutwhether tall buildings were needed; argumentsinstead encompassed issues such as location, designmerits and architectural qualities. Framing thedebate around these issues defused deep-rootedantagonism and lasting perceptions.

City leaders, architecture and urban design

Making visually aesthetic cities is not novel, nor isthe connection between political leaders andmonumental architecture (Kostof 1991). Still, duringthe past couple of decades, urban design has gainedimportance in the planning agenda of many cities.The shift of approach from urban managerialism tourban entrepreneurialism (Harvey 1989) has madecity governments more responsive to business needsand more aware of intensifying competition betweencities. They have to come to recognize thatspectacular and innovative architecture designed bystar architects may positively contribute to theexposure of their cities. Such is the case in decliningindustrial cities such as Bilbao or cities which haveaimed to improve their global standing such as Sydneyand Kuala Lumpur. Designed by the Americanarchitect Frank Gehry, the Guggenheim Museum inBilbao has become a cultural icon, re-imaging theentire city and creating tourism (Evans 2003; Plaza2000). Petronas Towers were meant to put KualaLumpur on the world map and make it a world city(Morshidi 1997 2001; Bunnell 1999). In many casesentrepreneurial and long-serving mayors have playeda key role in shaping cities: Pasqual Maragall in

Barcelona, Francesco Rutelli in Rome and FrankSartor in Sydney are a few examples (McNeill 20012003; Punter 2005).

Impressive architecture and renowned architectshave become essential elements of the postmoderncity (Olds 2001; Gospodini 2002; McNeill 2002a2005; Evans 2003; Sklair 2005 2006). Architecturehas acquired a life of its own, and the developmentof standard tall buildings, such as simple rectangu-lar boxes, is no longer enough. Architecture ex-emplifies the globalization of the urban form: ‘it iscertainly the search for architectural icons thatdrives the process in globalizing cities’ (Sklair 2005,498). In a world of abundant attractions, the bestarchitectural designs are considered prerequisite forthe production of instantly recognizable distinctive-ness, since ‘projecting the “image of being global”is as important as “being global” in the competitiveglobal economy’ (Marshall 2003, 23). As imagesbecome differentiating mediums, prestigious anddistinctive landmarks turn into cutting-edge locationsfor global capital.

Global architects (a group of maybe 30 names;Sudjic 2005c, 318) play an essential part. They havebecome influential figures and their works arehighly desired in every city around the globe thatseeks to pull together an assemblage of distinguishededifices:

Every ambitious city wants an architect to do for themwhat they think Jorn Utzon’s Opera House did forSydney and Frank Gehry and the Guggenheim did forBilbao. (Sudjic 2005c, 318)

Internationally renowned architects are vital because,as suggested by the deputy mayor of Bilbao, ‘goodarchitecture is not enough anymore: to seduce weneed names’ (quoted in Gonzalez 2006, 12). In thiscontext tall buildings have won a leading position:‘many national and civic leaders have chosenintervention in the skyline as an important part of“scripting” a world city status’ (McNeill 2002a,325). In Shanghai, top architects with an internationalreputation from Britain, Italy, Japan and France werecontacted for the planning of a new business districtof tall buildings. The lack of local experience inglobal architectural practices was deemed irrelevantby the Chinese organizers since the foreign teamswere supposed to supply the ‘shock of the new’,associated with high Modernism (Olds 1997 2001).Similarly, Cesar Pelli was commissioned to design anew symbol for Kuala Lumpur (Petronas Towers)and the global architectural practice of Skidmore,

The politics of design

197

Area

Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 195–205, 2007ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

Owings and Merrill (SOM) designed Burj Dubai,which on completion will be the world’s tallestskyscraper.

Obviously, whether to develop large-scale andspectacular projects is a highly contentious matter.Those in favour of them highlight expected eco-nomic benefits and potential social opportunities assupportive factors. Decision-makers use thesearguments to legitimize controversial developments,particularly those that are large-scale and conspicu-ous. By and large, justifications focus on economicgrounds, namely the promotion of growth. Citiesthat compete to host mega-events such as theOlympic Games and world fairs assert that hugespending on spectacular projects such as sportstadiums and infrastructure facilities is worthwhilebecause of their positive economic impact on citiesin the long run. Social aspects are often highlightedtoo. Providing social housing and revitalizingdeprived neighbourhoods are proclaimed crucial forcreating equality, and accordingly justify excessivedensity rights. Impressive tall buildings are also sup-ported by an appeal to the grander ambitions oflocal and national leaders. For local planners andpoliticians in Shanghai, an appropriate method toexpress the achievements of the reform era was thedevelopment of impressive skyscrapers. Skyscraperswere attractive because of the association of towerswith modernization, and the recognition that Shang-hai is the most international of all Chinese cities(Olds 1997; Marshall 2003). This is probably thecase with the recent surge in extravagant skyscrap-ers in Dubai, which aims at widening its globalexposure. But European cities remain suspicious oftall buildings:

Europe doesn’t much like skyscrapers. There, tallbuildings – a quintessential American architectureform – are generally regarded in a negative light,suspicious products of rapacious corporate speculatorsbent on destroying the fabric of life and culturalheritage of old European cities. (Dupré 1996, 111)

The overall built form of the historic core andparticular landmarks within it were consideredhistorical assets. Preserving the recognized andhuman-scale fabric of the historic city has been themain argument for opposition to tall buildings. Thecompletion of an extra-tall building in the 1970s(Maine-Montparnasse, 210 metres tall) sparkedfierce criticism and resentment toward high-risebuildings in Paris. This tower, which is situatedclose to the historical core, became a dominant

element in the city’s silhouette, dwarfing manyhistoric Parisian landmarks (Sutcliffe 1993). Theoutcry led to a ban on buildings of more than eightstories in the city centre. The recent link of tallbuildings with global standing and with iconicarchitecture has made them more acceptable insome European cities. Newly completed tall buildingsdesigned by star architects may become urban icons.Turning Torso (Malmö: architect Santiago Calatrava),Torre Agbar (Barcelona: architect Jean Nouvel), andthe Gherkin (London: architect Norman Foster) arepossible candidates for identification with the skylinesof their respective cities.

Bringing tall buildings to central London

I have no intentions to recreate Manhattan here; Iwant London to flourish as London – a uniqueexciting and truly global city . . . London mustcontinue to grow and maintain its global pre-eminence in Europe. London must continue to reachfor the skies. (Mayor of London 2001, 3–4)

Until the 1960s London maintained a relatively lowskyline because of the tight restrictive environmentthat aspired to preserve the visual dominance of itshistoric buildings such as St Paul’s Cathedral andthe Houses of Parliament. The development ofseveral, albeit isolated, tall buildings in the 1960sand 1970s in London’s West End (Centre Point andEuston Tower) and within the City (Britannic Houseand NatWest Tower) somewhat changed London’sskyline. Further change occurred in the 1980s whenthe Conservative government of Margaret Thatcherencouraged greater private involvement in urbandevelopment. The start of the Canary Wharf projectin London’s Docklands and the completion of itsfirst major tall building there in 1991, One CanadaSquare (50 stories, 237 metres high) opened a newera of tall-building development on London’sperimeter. Still, tall buildings were largely missingfrom central London.

Under the recent administrative rearrangement ofLondon (the Greater London Authority Act, passedby Parliament in 1999), the mayor’s role in thecourse of London’s future development is crucial, asmost of the executive powers are vested in him orher. The mayor has statutory capabilities to reshapeurban development as he or she is responsible forthe city’s spatial development strategy (expressed in

London Plan

, released in 2004). Among other stipu-lations, this Act requires local planning authorities

198

Charney

Area

Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 195–205, 2007ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.

Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

to consult the mayor on proposals for tall buildings(thresholds for tall buildings vary according to loca-tion). Ken Livingstone, London’s first elected mayor,changed from a hard-line Labour Party member(‘Red Ken’) and opponent of unrestricted capitalisminto a keen sponsor of tall buildings, the ultimatesymbols of capitalism. His aim was to reshapeLondon’s skyline, in particular its core, which ismost closely associated with global-city functions.Notwithstanding his potential powers, the mayorhas few resources to implement them as he or she isheavily reliant on central government for funding(Sweeting 2003). The lack of financial resources hasmade Livingstone actively court the business sectorand adopt a strong pro-business attitude (Syrett2006). Such an attitude allows him to realize hisown programme, overcoming the lack of financialpower; it helps gain independence in relation tocentral government (Thornley

et al.

2005). In thiscomplex situation tall buildings present clear bene-fits for Livingstone. They carry potential benefits forplanning for example, social housing can be providedas a result of the award of planning permission fortall buildings (Ross 2001; McNeill 2002b). In addi-tion, many of Britain’s influential property firms andchoice boroughs

1

are behind the development oftall buildings.

Livingstone’s arguments for pursuing the develop-ment of tall buildings rest on the need to providetop-quality office space to keep London at the apexof the world-city hierarchy (McNeill 2002a 2002b;Gordon 2004). For Livingstone, unless London getsmore top-quality office space in tall buildings, itrisks losing its position as the predominant financialcentre in Europe. Competition from Frankfurt asEurope’s financial centre and the need for state-of-the-art office space has posed a major threat toLondon (McNeill 2002a). Livingstone drew on thecase of Swiss Re to demonstrate his concerns. SwissRe, one of the world’s leading reinsurance companies,hinted that unless it was allowed to build a distinc-tive circular tower on the site of the old BalticExchange (within the City), it would take itself, itsjobs and its huge investment in the British economyback to mainland Europe (Sudjic 2001a). In July2000, just two months after assuming office, Living-stone urged that its development (30 St Mary Axeknown as ‘the Gherkin’) not be subjected to publicinquiry. In his letter to the Deputy Prime Minister,John Prescott, he indicated that ‘Any undue delay inthe planning process could jeopardize Swiss Re’spresence in London’ (SAVE Britain’s Heritage 2003).

The Deputy Prime Minister was highly supportive oftall buildings and when he had to make a decisionon controversial plans he inclined to give hisapproval. This was the case with Heron Tower,Shard London Bridge and Vauxhall Tower.

London Plan

, the strategic plan for London, firmlyendorses the development of tall buildings. Thisplan offers a dual rationale for their development.First, land is scarce in central London and the needto maximize the opportunities presented by the fewremaining development sites justifies the constructionof tall buildings. It is no longer possible to providesufficiently large buildings in the City in the form oflow-rise large-scale buildings (groundscrapers). Second,tall buildings are connected to global stature: tomaintain its global position and meet the needs ofcertain tenants, London has to consign a portion ofits office space to prestigious tall buildings (Mayorof London 2004a). For this purpose,

London Plan

calls for the development of ten to fifteen tall buildingsin the City and elsewhere in the first decade of thetwenty-first century.

Critique of Livingstone’s strategy

Livingstone’s tall-building strategy drew fire fromtheir ‘natural’ opponents, namely conservationgroups such as English Heritage and SAVE Britain’sHeritage, and even from the Prince of Wales. PrinceCharles launched an attack on the inflated egos ofthe architects and the heads of corporations thatbuilt them (Worsley 2001). A parliamentary sub-committee which examined the need for tallbuildings disagreed with Livingstone’s assumptions,arguing that there was ‘no evidence that anycompany had left London or refused to come toLondon because of a shortage of tall buildings’ and‘tall buildings are more about power, prestige,status, and aesthetics’ (House of Commons 2002, 5,26). In turn, Livingstone used harsh rhetoric againstthe opponents of tall buildings whom he couldattack. He claimed that their chief critic, EnglishHeritage, was the biggest threat to London’s futuresince the Luftwaffe, denouncing it as ‘the Talibanof British architecture’ (Sudjic 2001a 2001b). Hebelieved that English Heritage was standing inthe way of his campaign to revitalize London(Sudjic 2005a). When the Deputy Prime Ministergranted permission for Heron Tower, acontroversial tall building in the City, a plan thatEnglish Heritage attempted to stop, Livingstone felttriumphant:

The politics of design

199

Area

Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 195–205, 2007ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

This shows that English Heritage are out of touch.Their arguments about London’s skyline have beencompletely defeated. English Heritage should not beallowed to undermine the economic confidence ofthe city by calling in every tower proposal there is.(Mayor of London 2002a)

The debate on tall buildings came under the closescrutiny of the media, and major newspapersreported regularly on the issue. Journalists andcommentators in leading newspapers were highlycritical of Livingstone’s fixation on tall buildings.Deyan Sudjic, architecture critic of the

Observer

and author of

The Edifice Complex

, a book thatcharts the relations between power and architecture,concluded,

London is going to be the nearest Europe comes toShanghai. Footloose international finance, a mayorintoxicated by high-rise architecture, and a developer-friendly planning system have unleashed a wave ofdevelopments that are bigger, and brasher, thananything the city has yet seen. (Sudjic 2005a)

Writing for the

Guardian

and the

Sunday Times

,Simon Jenkins criticized Livingstone, but also theDeputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, who had thepower to grant or overturn planning permission:

They [very tall buildings] have been unleashed bythat most lethal political phenomenon, a socialistenthralled by capitalism, in London’s case Prescottand the city’s mayor, Ken Livingstone. (Jenkins 2005)

The architects of tall buildings came under fire too:

They [architects] are adept at using an artist’s licenseto flatter power. They must, because their art isexpensive and prominent. It is on public exhibitionfor generations to come. It also needs to obliteratewhat went before. Tower builders claim the entire cityfor their canvass. They demand the right to over-paintCanaletto. (Jenkins 2005)

Expecting opposition, the proponents of tall buildingsrecruited leading consulting firms that wouldprovide professional support. These firms exploredvarious aspects of tall buildings; not surprisingly,all supported the need for them. A property firm(Development Securities PLC) recruited a group ofresearchers from the LSE Cities Programme. Thisgroup studied five cases (Berlin, Frankfurt, NewYork, Paris and London) and provided a review ofthe development of urban design guidelines for tallbuildings. The key problem of existing tall buildings

in London, according to this report, was their poorarchitectural quality: well-designed buildings wererequired. This report suggested that the previouslycautious attitude to tall buildings in London wasdue to haphazard and negative attitudes promptedby the dismal high-rises of the 1960s: ‘London’sskyline is “messy” and unstructured, offering fewpositive ‘role models’ when it comes to tallbuildings’ (Development Securities plc 2002, 6). Aninternational design consultancy (DEGW) prepareda report for the Greater London Authority thatsupported the need for tall buildings in London,stressing the role of high-quality design as animportant indicator of new tall buildings (DEGW2002). Another consultancy firm (Faber Maunsell)prepared a report commissioned by the Corporationof London. This document, which focused onsustainability, argued that high-quality design hadthe potential of improving sustainability (Corporationof London 2002).

Criticism by conservation groups and the mediadid not stop Livingstone. The parliamentary sub-committee on tall buildings, though not convincedthat tall buildings were essential for the future ofLondon as a global financial centre, concluded: ‘ifthey [tall buildings] are to enhance the skyline it isimportant that they are well-designed’ (House ofCommons 2002, 5). This last conclusion was whole-heartedly embraced by Livingstone and the supportersof tall buildings.

Putting architecture in focus

Good design is central to all objectives of this plan[London Plan]. It is a tool for helping to accommodateLondon’s growth within its boundaries. Particularlygiven its strong growth, very high standards of designare needed to make London a better city to live in andone which is more attractive and green. There is astrong link between good design and the attraction toeconomic investors to help create a prosperous city.(Mayor of London 2004a, 173)

As in Sydney, where the mayoral objective was toelevate architecture and design from the mediocreto the iconic (Punter 2005), Livingstone decided tofocus on architectural quality. He also indicatedthat he would support a criteria-based approach tothe assessment of tall buildings in which qualitydesign rather than height should be the key criterionby which planning applications were to be judged(Mayor of London 2001).

200

Charney

Area

Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 195–205, 2007ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.

Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

To solidify the role of architecture in his develop-ment agenda, Livingstone set up an Architectureand Urbanism Unit in April 2001, appointing aninternationally acclaimed architectural authority, theLondon-based Lord Richard Rogers, as his chiefadvisor on architecture and urbanism. The timingwas by no means accidental. The appointment wasmade at the height of the preparation of the

LondonPlan

and at a time when several plans for tall build-ings were in the pipeline. Lord Rogers is a highlydistinguished architect with numerous London designs(e.g. Lloyd’s of London, Millennium Dome andTerminal 5 Heathrow) as well as worldwide (e.g.Centre Pompidou and Madrid Barajas Airport); he isalso the chairman of the government’s task force forthe revitalization of English cities and towns.

2

InJune 2006 Livingstone announced plans for a newarchitecture and urban design unit (Design forLondon). This new unit merges staff from differentunits that engage in design enhancing the importanceof city-wide design. In Livingstone’s view this unitwill support the delivery of world-class architectureacross London’s built environment; his declaredgoal is to make London a world leader in sustainableurban planning, design and architecture (Mayor ofLondon 2006a).

As Livingstone’s advisor, Rogers accentuated therole of design in the city-building process. Hecriticized the present method of planning because‘Many of the delivery bodies operate first andforemost as land dealers and surveyors concernedwith numbers and management, not design’ (Rogers2005). He eagerly defended the importance ofdesign and high-quality architecture for London,suggesting that for this purpose the mayor’s powershad to be expanded:

Unless the mayor is empowered, and given a greatersay in this multitude of poorly coordinated quangos,we shall never produce a sustainable policy or designto compare to the best abroad. And if we don’t get thedesign of cities and neighbourhoods right then all ourwork on crime, education, health, jobs and socialexclusion will be undermined. (Rogers 2005)

The discussion was framed in terms of architecturepartially to appease those who opposed tall buildingsor those who were sceptical about their need. Theaforementioned parliamentary sub-committee identifieddesign as one of the key subjects it wished toexamine. Concerns were raised about whether thepresent movement to erect new tall buildings wasin danger of repeating the mistakes of the 1960s.

Renzo Piano, a distinguished architect and thedesigner of London’s tallest approved building,Shard London Bridge, agreed that the 1960s loomedover contemporary architects:

The problem is that architects who want to buildskyward are paying for the sins of their fathers. Thegeneration of architects and builders who spent thepostwar years filling the craters left by the Luftwaffebequeathed London a dispiriting pile of ugly concretehigh-rise boxes. (Wallace 2003)

Livingstone praised a recent design by RichardRogers Partnership (Leadenhall Building).

3

In thiscase, design was used to offset the impact of tallbuildings on the historic city:

The building will be nonetheless fall comfortablywithin the standard ‘world class’ architecture and anyperceived harm to the historic environment will bemore than overcome by its ability to delight the eye.The building’s easily recognisable shape will allowrecognition from long distance static views andLondon panoramas. (Mayor of London 2004b, 10)

With a strong-minded mayor, powerful propertyinterests and a government that endorsed boroughs’decisions to grant planning permission, the opponentsof tall buildings stood little chance of stopping thedevelopment of tall buildings. Once they realizedthat their campaign was largely ineffective, as theycould not stop the erection of those buildings, theytoo adopted a strategy that stressed the role of high-quality design. In 2003 English Heritage and the Commis-sion for Architecture and the Built Environment(CABE) published the

Guidance on Tall Buildings

.In this document the issue of design had a toppriority:

Proposals for tall buildings should not be supportedunless it can be demonstrated through the submissionof fully worked-up proposals that they are of thehighest architectural quality. (English Heritage 2003)

Instead of denunciation of tall buildings in centralLondon, these groups made constructive commentsfor proposed tall buildings.

Conservation groups focused on aesthetic con-siderations in their campaign against tall buildings;Livingstone and his team used similar arguments tojustify the development of tall buildings. As heritageand architecture watchdogs, they were able to makedesign issues of decisive importance; on the otherhand, the design-oriented approach provided a

The politics of design

201

Area

Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 195–205, 2007ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

convenient escape route once other efforts wereexhausted. Design was stressed subsequent topublic inquiries that endorsed the plans for twocontroversial tall buildings, Heron Tower and ShardLondon Bridge. After these public inquiries, opponentsrealized that it was difficult to resist tall buildingswhich conformed to strict design criteria. CABEawarded its support to many controversial tallbuildings; only English Heritage maintained almostacross-the-board objection to tall buildings in centralLondon. Even after design amendments to proposedplans were made, English Heritage persisted in itsobjection to tall buildings; this made English Herit-age one of Livingstone’s most bitter adversaries.

Global architects and the development of tall buildings

In an interview with the

International Herald Tribune

,Livingstone convincingly argued that ‘companieswill choose London only if they can occupy signaturebuildings designed by architects like Foster’ (Bowley2005). In his study of Norman Foster, McNeill (2005)suggested that his designs became brand nameswith their signature ‘Foster look’. Designed by thearchitectural practice Norman Foster & Partners, 30St Mary Axe (also known as Swiss Re Tower or theGherkin) became almost instantly an urban icon(Lane 2004). Opened in 2004, it is already regardedby many as the most recognizable symbol of thecontemporary City of London. As Charles Jencksremarked, ‘this rocket [the Gherkin] inspires sucha kind of cosmic awe that makes Christianity[represented by St Paul’s Cathedral] look a bit likeyesterday’s faith’ (Jencks 2005, 1

3

–14).Even Simon Jenkins, a harsh critic of the tall-

buildings mania, acknowledged the iconic featuresof the Gherkin, listing its credentials to date:

It won the 2004 Stirling prize [the highest award of theRoyal Institute of British Architects]. It scores as mostvisited on London’s Open House list [buildingsnormally closed to the public that are opened forthe weekend], and was acclaimed by Condé NastTraveller as one of the ‘seven wonders of the modernworld’. It has been on the cover of Newsweek, theOlympic bid and Time Out’s London guide. TheGherkin features in Match Point, Bridget Jones andBasic Instinct II, supplanting the Post Office tower inLondon’s visual image. (Jenkins 2006)

Undoubtedly, the Gherkin sets a precedent forfuture tall buildings in the City of London in terms

of creating highly memorable architectural statementsand at the same time providing top-quality officespace. The ability to create a modern icon forcentral London which is atypical in respect of itswell-known icons (e.g. St Paul’s Cathedral and theTower of London) in such a short period substantiatedLivingstone’s idea of enhancing London’s skyline bydeveloping eye-catching iconic tall buildings. Thearchitects of the newest buildings approved for theCity are eager to copy Foster’s success. In theirmarketing efforts nicknames have been attached tobuildings; Bishopsgate Tower designed by KohnPedersen Fox (KPF) is known as ‘Helter-Skelter’,Leadenhall Building by Richard Rogers Partnershipis the ‘Cheese Grater’, and 20 Fenchurch Street byRafael Viñoly Architects is the ‘Walkie Talkie’.Beyond their unique architecture, such nicknamesassign distinguishable and memorable identities.

Sudjic (2005b) argues that even the opponents oftall buildings recognize the role of such architects:

Rather than trying to stop big new developments,CABE has concentrated on ensuring that architects itapproves of get to build them. As well as RichardRogers and Norman Foster, Jean Nouvel, RemKoolhaas and other architectural celebrities havebenefited from this policy. CABE’s view, echoing thatof the City planners and Ken Livingstone, appears tobe to allow the market to let rip, provided St Paul’sis untouched, and that developers use famousarchitects. (Sudjic 2005b)

Another acclaimed architect, Renzo Piano, ismaking his mark on London’s skyline. Rising to 305metres on the south bank of the Thames, ShardLondon Bridge will be the most extravagant towerto be erected in London in the near future.Decision-makers in the hosting borough (Southwark)view this tower as a chance to generate additionalspillover benefits. For that reason extreme heightand striking design are of significance. When theapplication was approved by Southwark council,Livingstone explained his support:

With the continued involvement of the currentarchitectural practice [Renzo Piano BuildingWorkshop] the proposal will deliver architecturalquality and status of what should be a singularbuilding of outstanding design and integrity and ofstrategic importance to London. (Mayor of London2002b)

In spite of the mayor’s extremely keen support, thegovernment called in the application and it went for

202

Charney

Area

Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 195–205, 2007ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.

Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

a public inquiry. On the eve of the inquiry the chiefexecutive of English Heritage said,

This is the wrong location for the tallest building inEurope. This colossal building is crammed onto a tinysite and looms oppressively over the surroundingarea. (Weaver 2003)

This decision to call in Shard London Bridge forpublic inquiry was made soon after the Deputy PrimeMinister gave his support to another controversial tallbuilding, Heron Tower, and Livingstone was almostcertain that the later decision was a waste of timeand of public money.

4

To provide legitimacy for hissupport for the project, Livingstone placed RichardRogers in the van. Rogers praised the design of hisformer associate (Rogers and Piano are the architectsof Centre Pompidou in Paris), suggesting that:

It would provide for a dramatic landmark structurewith a distinctive profile and presence, which wouldadd positively to the London skyline and the imageof London as a World City through the provision of aniconic and emblematic building of outstanding designquality. (Mayor of London 2003, 26)

Architectural quality played a role in the decision ofthe Deputy Prime Minister to grant permission forthis project:

[t]he proposed tower is of the highest architecturalquality. Had this not been the case, the Secretary ofState might have reached a different decision, buthe considers that the quality of the design of thisparticular building is a very strong argument in itsfavour. (ODPM 2003)

So attractive was the design that even an official inEnglish Heritage intimated that they had nothingagainst Piano’s design itself: ‘we feel a bit conflictedopposing something so wonderful’ (Wallace 2003).This statement by the strongest opponent of tallbuildings exemplifies how star architects and out-standing designs have been instrumental in silencingcritics and defeating long-lasting resentment totall buildings. Grander architecture seems to be apowerful token in the battle over urban developmentskilfully used by urban boosters.

Conclusions

This article explored the use of design aspects in thedebate on the development of tall buildings incentral London. Consensus prevailed in the pursuit

of high-quality design, unifying all who did not wishto repeat previous mistakes, particularly thedisastrous architecture of the 1960s. That tastelessera, almost unanimously criticized, was contrastedto the spectacular and promising design of thetwenty-first century. Since his election as London’smayor, Ken Livingstone has shown remarkablepersistence in his crusade to reshape London’sskyline. His support of tall buildings abolished hisanti-capitalist image and perhaps redefined him asa pro-development mayor. Expecting strong opposi-tion, he chose to draw attention to design andarchitecture as the lingua franca of the tall-buildingdiscourse. Unlike the outcry and powerful criticismheard in many European cities, Londoners seem toaccept the development of tall buildings. A surveyconducted on behalf of English Heritage in 2001found that the British public was certainly notopposed to tall buildings per se but would notsupport unlimited expansion; more particularly,London residents were more likely than peopleliving elsewhere to support the construction of morevery tall buildings (English Heritage 2001).

5

To lessen the opposition of conservation groupsand those interested in preserving the historic builtform and to create a distinct skyline, architecturalquality has become a predominant factor in deter-mining the future of tall buildings. This strategy ispartly facilitated by the fact that proposed tall build-ings are of impressive designs. Foster, Rogers andPiano made Livingstone’s mission easier becausetheir work is associated with iconic architecture, anasset considered precious for every city. Globalarchitects and iconic design were used to relegatelong-lasting opposition to tall buildings. By takingbig-name architects and stressing the role of design,it was possible to ensure that tall buildings werejustifiable by virtue of their conventional raisond’être, but also because of their aesthetic qualities.Today architects are not just artists engaged in designper se, they also engage in promoting and evenshaping urban planning policies. In this context, theappointment of Richard Rogers as Livingstone’schief advisor on architecture and urbanism is ratherunique. By and large, global architects are freelanc-ers who offer their expertise to clients worldwide; assuch they do not assume public duties. From hisposition as the mayor’s advisor, Rogers suggestedthat it is time to reposition the status of design:

While we continue to treat architecture as amarginalised ‘add-on’, quantity will always prevail

The politics of design

203

Area

Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 195–205, 2007ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

over quality, mammon over imagination. To constructcities around the belief that urban design and thepublic realm can be considered once land deals,planning policy and economic viability have beensettled, is to submit our cities to a form of vandalismfrom which few will recover. (Rogers 2005)

Perhaps, this latest call by Rogers is shared by otherleading architects; yet none has assumed a positionso influential as Rogers’. Although it is rather naïveto think that this view is to be adopted, practices ofthe past couple of years indicate that architectureand design may hold more power in the developmentof cities. In a highly competitive world, strikingarchitecture provides not just recognizable identitiesbut also artistic and aesthetic legitimacy. Thisjustification helps to play down antagonism towardlarge-scale developments such as tall buildingswhich have the potential of altering the familiarskyline of cities. According to this scenario,architecture and design may occupy a morepowerful position in dictating future urban growth.

Notes

1 Competition has been especially fierce between the Cor-poration of London and the Borough of Tower Hamlets.Massive office development in the Docklands and therelocation of firms challenge the unrivalled ascendancy ofthe City of London. For instance, between mid-2001 and2005 gross office completions in the City reached 764 000m

2

, whereas 924 000 m

2

were added in Tower Hamlets(Mayor of London 2006b).

2 The

Guardian

called him the design tsar for London (Muir2006).

3 Recently Richard Rogers has been taking a back seat ondesign and Graham Stirk is emerging as the key tall build-ing designer in his practice.

4 Livingstone cited that the public inquiry into the HeronTower scheme caused around 18 months delay in grantingpermission and cost approximately £11 million (Mayor ofLondon 2002c).

5 In a poll conducted for the London Architecture Biennalein 2006, London’s newest tall building, the Gherkin, wasvoted the city’s best new building by the general public.On the other hand, it was nominated as one of the fiveugliest buildings in London by viewers of the BBC, whoplaced it fourth out of the five choices they were given(BBC London News 2006).

References

BBC London News

2006 Ugliest buildings in London (http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2006/05/25/most_

hated_building_feature.shtml) Accessed 21 December2006

Bowley

G

2005 Mayor tugs sprawling London up

Interna-tional Herald Tribune

7 March (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/06/news/london.php) Accessed 15 January2006

Bunnell

T

1999 Views from above and below: the PetronasTwin Towers and/in contesting visions of development incontemporary Malaysia

Singapore Journal of TropicalGeography

20 1–23

Corporation of London

2002 Tall buildings and sustainability(http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/08A4077B-3199-442E-B4D1-E7F9F2C68E15/0/SUS_tallbuildings.pdf)Accessed 1 March 2005

DEGW

2002

London’s skyline, views and high buildings

DEGW, London (http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/tr19_high_bdgs_lowres.pdf) Accessed 1 March 2005

Development Securities plc

2002 Tall buildings: visionsof the future or victims of the past? London School ofEconomics and Political Science, London (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/cities/pdf/tall_buildings.pdf)Accessed 1 March 2005

Dupré

J

1996

Skyscrapers

Black Dog and Leventhal, NewYork

English Heritage

2001 Public attitudes towards tall buildingsin cities (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/mori_tall_buildings.pdf) Accessed 7 June 2005

English Heritage

2003 Guidance on tall buildings (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk) Accessed 1 March 2005

Evans

G

2003 Hard-branding the cultural city – from Pradoto Prada

International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch

27 417–40

Gonzalez

S

2006 Scalar narratives in Bilbao: a culturalpolitics of scales approach to the study of urban policy

International Journal of Urban and Regional Studies

30836–57

Gordon

I

2004 Capital needs, capital growth and global cityrhetoric in mayor Livingstone’s London Plan

GaWCResearch Bulletin

145 (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb145.html) Accessed 15 March 2005

Gospodini

A

2002 European cities in competition and thenew ‘uses’ of urban design

Journal of Urban Design

7 59–73

Guardian

2006 High hopes: London ‘will soon have 18 to 20skyscrapers’ 1 October (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,1884837,00.html) Accessed 19 November 2006

Harvey

D

1989 From managerialism to entrepreneurialism:the transformation in urban governance in later capitalism

Geografiska Annaler B

71 3–17

House of Commons, Transport, Local Government and theRegions Committee

2002

Tall buildings

Sixteenth Reportof Session 2001–2 The Stationary Office, London

Jencks

C 2005 The iconic building Rizzoli, New YorkJenkins S 2005 Prescott Towers, the height of architectural

imbecility SundayTimes 7 August (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,1059-1724469,00.html) Accessed27 June 2006

204 Charney

Area Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 195–205, 2007ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.

Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

Jenkins S 2006 The Gherkin is magnificent but it should havebeen built elsewhere Guardian 13 January (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,1685500,00.html) Accessed 8 April 2006

Kostof S 1991 The city shaped: urban patterns and meaningsthroughout history Little, Brown and Company, Boston MA

Lane M 2004 Modern Britain’s instant icon BBC NewsOnline Magazine, 28 April (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3663971.stm) Accessed 1 March 2005

Marshall R 2003 Emerging urbanity: global urban projects inthe Asia Pacific Rim Spon, London

Mayor of London 2001 Interim strategic planning guidelineson tall buildings, strategic views and the skyline in LondonGreater London Authority, London (http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/tall_buildings.pdf) Accessed 1 March 2005

Mayor of London 2002a Mayor welcomes Heron Towerdecision Press release 22 July (http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=1324) Accessed 17March 2005

Mayor of London 2002b Letter to Andy Cook SouthwarkCouncil 28 March (http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/strategic_dev/mar2002/london_bridge_tower_final_decision.pdf) Accessed 22December 2005

Mayor of London 2002c Mayor criticises government call-infor London Bridge Tower Press release 24 July (http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=1328)Accessed 4 December 2006

Mayor of London 2003 Proof of evidence of Richard Rogers,Chief Advisor to the Mayor of London on Architecture andUrbanism (http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/call-ins_appeals/evidence/richard_rogers_proof_of_evidence.pdf) Accessed 27 February 2005

Mayor of London 2004a London plan (http://www.lon-don.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/london_plan/lon_plan_all.pdf) Accessed 5 May 2004

Mayor of London 2004b Planning report PDU/0551/02, 2December (http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/strategic_dev/2004/dec0804/122_leadenhall_street_report.pdf) Accessed 9 January 2005

Mayor of London 2006a London to lead way in design andarchitecture Press release 20 June (http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=8392) Accessed 17November 2006

Mayor of London 2006b London office policy review (http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/lopr-06.pdf)Accessed 4 December 2006

McNeill D 2001 Barcelona and imagined community: Pas-qual Maragall’s spaces of engagement Transactions of theInstitute of British Geographers NS 26 340–52

McNeill D 2002a The mayor and the world city skyline: Lon-don’s tall buildings debate International Planning Studies 7325–34

McNeill D 2002b Livingstone’s London: left politics and theworld city Regional Studies 36 75–91

McNeill D 2003 Rome, global city? Church, state and Jubilee2000 Political Geography 22 535–56

McNeill D 2005 In search of the global architect: the caseof Norman Foster (and partners) International Journal ofUrban and Regional Research 29 501–15

Morshidi S 1997 Globalization of economic activity and thechanging landscape of Kuala Lumpur central planning areaAsian Geographer 16 37–58

Morshidi S 2001 Kuala Lumpur, globalization and urbancompetitiveness: an unfinished agenda? Built Environment27 96–111

Muir H 2006 Lord Rogers to be ‘design tsar’ for LondonGuardian 21 June (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,1802214,00.html) Accessed 7 December 2006

ODPM 2003 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Section77 Land adjoining London Bridge Station at St. ThomasStreet/Joiner Street, London SE1 Application by TeighmoreLimited, Application No. 0100476

Olds K 1997 Globalizing Shanghai: the ‘global intelligencecorps’ and the building of Pudong Cities 14 109–23

Olds K 2001 Globalization and urban change: capital,culture, and Pacific Rim mega-projects Oxford Univer-sity Press, New York

Plaza B 2000 Evaluating the influence of a large culturalartifact in the attraction of tourism: the GuggenheimMuseum Bilbao case Urban Affairs Review 36 264–74

Punter J 2005 Urban design in central Sydney 1945–2002:laissez-faire and discretionary traditions in the accidentalcity Progress in Planning 63 11–160

Rogers R 2005 Dan Dare and doll’s houses Guardian29 January (http://society.guardian.co.uk/urbandesign/story/0,11200,1402380,00.htm) Accessed 25 November 2005

Ross J 2001 Management philosophy of the Greater LondonAuthority Public Money and Management 21 35–41

SAVE Britain’s Heritage 2003 The Baltic Exchange (http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/baltic/livingstone.htm)Accessed 1 March 2005

Sklair L 2005 The transnational capitalist class and contempo-rary architecture in globalizing cities International Journal ofUrban and Regional Research 29 485–500

Sklair L 2006 Iconic architecture and capitalist globalizationCity 10 21–47

Sudjic D 2001a The only way is up Observer 10 JuneSudjic D 2001b A thoroughly modernizing mayor Observer

8 July (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,518246,00.html) Accessed 17 September 2005

Sudjic D 2005a Goodbye to all that Observer 3 April (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,11710,1450917,00.html)Accessed 17 September 2005

Sudjic D 2005b Dizzy heights Observer 31 July (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,11710,1539502,00.html) Accessed 5 November 2005

Sudjic D 2005c The edifice complex: how the rich andpowerful shape the world Penguin, New York

Sutcliffe A 1993 Paris: an architectural history Yale Univer-sity Press, New Haven CT

Sweeting D 2003 How strong is the Mayor of London? Policyand Politics 31 465–78

Syrett S 2006 Governing the global city: economic challenges

The politics of design 205

Area Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 195–205, 2007ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

and London’s new institutional arrangements Local Govern-ment Studies 32 293–309

Taylor P J, Walker D R F, Catalano G and Hoyler M 2002Diversity and power in the world city network Cities 19231–41

Teather D 2006 London’s Square Mile high club Guardian16 December (http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,1973345,00.html) Accessed 22 December 2006

Thornley A, Rydin Y, Scanlon K and West K 2005 Businessprivilege and the strategic planning of the Greater LondonAuthority Urban Studies 42 1947–68

Wallace W 2003 New rise of London Los Angeles Times12 May E1, E6

Weaver M 2003 Battle begins for London Bridge TowerGuardian 15 April (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,11711,937305,00.html) Accessed 4 December2006

Worsley G 2001 Prince attacks soaring ego of skyscraperarchitects Telegraph 12 December (http://www.tele-graph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/12/nhrh12.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/12/12/ixhome.html) Accessed25 March 2005

Zukin S 1992 The city as a landscape of power: London andNew York as global financial capitals in Budd L andWhimster S eds Global finance and urban living: a studyof metropolitan change Routledge, New York 195–223