LUKE WHTAKER
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT
8
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT DATUM LINE GREENWICH PARK
A MANIFESTO BY LUKE WHITAKER
9
CONTENTS// 01 Preface
05
02 Introduction
07
A Dynamic Skyline
08
03 Toward a Democratic Skyline
14
Reaching for the Sky Global City, Big Buildings A Privatised Skyline The Heritage of a Nation A Didactic Skyline A Skyline for All Make a Place with a Virtual Space
16 25 29 35 38 43 47
04 The Skyline Parliament
52
The Skyline Parliament The Founding Principles A Pan-City Approach E-Democracy: The App
53 54 56 62
05 Datum Line: Greenwich park
64
An Introduction Finding the Site Topography as Uniqueness The Datum Line Cementing the Topography Design Principles An Expression of Extreme Horizontality Parliament as a Process
66 68 75 78 80 83 84 86
06 Conclusion
104
07 References
106
11
01
PREFACE //
23 .9m
28 .6m
rs'
35 .3m
4
Lo ve alk
W
PREFACE//
B
efore reading this manifesto it must be
so intrinsic to the parks unique quality provides a
understood that the Skyline Parliament wasn’t
prospect with which generations for millennia have
the result of a predetermined critical endeavour
witnessed the phenomena of civilisation. Greenwich
to challenge the morphology of the London’s skyline,
Park, it seemed to me, is London’s spatio-temporal
but an accidental finding revealed from the culmination
datum line.
of technical research and speculative enquiry into the
It wasn’t until I was challenged to critically place
essence of Greenwich Park. Initially challenged to
Greenwich Park within the wider context of the
examine Greenwich Park through the lens of external
design of cities, landscapes and territories that my
political influences both past and present, it was the
initial conviction that the park should remain neutral
park’s spatial perpetuity and topographic uniqueness
begin to shift. Initially convinced that the park only
that spoke to me. A topography that looks upon the
needed subtle interventions to sensitively curate this
metropolis of London, set upon an escarpment walked
juxtaposition between old and new, my thinking began
by man for millennia, conjured a wonderful image in
to change. Could it be that she lies asleep no more. As
the mind’s eye. How many generations have looked
an onlooker to one of the most evocative panoramas
upon this view? Who before me has stood on this
in the world - the London Skyline - could Greenwich
grassy bank and taken in this panorama of London? If
Park be awoken and become an active instrument of
only these hills could talk.
change? Could the geological form of landscape serve
Spawn out of the political landscape of the 16th and
as a democratic platform upon which it’s inhabitants
17th centuries, Greenwich Park’s development is
practice their citizenship and play an active role in the
inextricably linked to the political sphere of which it
shaping of their city? It was through the consideration
was formed. Turbulent in its conception the park has
of these questions alongside a theoretic examination
matured and loosened but resisted large scale change.
into the semiotics of the skyline that the necessity
As the metropolis of London morphs with the dynamic
for democratic shaping of London’s silhouette was
tide of past, present and the future political trajectories,
emboldened and the idea of the London Skyline
the banks of Greenwich Park lay still, patient,
Parliament was born.
contemplative and neutral. A dynamic yet preserved
It’s been almost a year since I first set foot in Greenwich
public landscape the park openly reveals past histories
Park and I truly hope you enjoy reading about my
and provides a geo-temporal permanence set within
journey as much as I have enjoyed walking it.
the context of a rapidly changing city. The topography
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
PREFACE
5
6
02
INTRODUCTION //
7
A DYNAMIC SKYLINE//
London En ld fie
Ba rn et r ve Ha
ge
rid
ey
am
db
Re
th al W
ng
rri
w rro
Ha
Ha
g
in
Ha ck
in Isl
rk
y
Ba
ne
in g
w ha
er s w let To am H
m
Ha
nw
w Le am
th
ish
be m
y xle Be
ich
k
La
d
or dw
on m
an W
ch
Ri
w slo
un
ar hw
ut
Ho
ee Gr
So
er m m
on gt s in ith nen sm KeK
g
lin
ty Ci
r te of ins ty m Ci est W
Ea
on
gd
llin
Ne
n
on gt
de m Ca
t en Br
Hi
th
M er n to
on st
ng
Ki y
le
om Br
n
de oy Cr
n
tto
Su
United Kingdom
L
ondon’s Skyline is dynamic, ever changing,
to that of neoliberal capitalist speculation (Appert
and unfinished. For over two millennia the
and Montes, 2015; Gassner, 2013). Now, with over 250
drawing of London’s skyline has been in a state
tall buildings either in planning, approved or under
of continued flux, expanding and altering in response
construction it is irrefutable that London is growing
to the competing political and social trajectories of
skyward, a symptom emblematic of a city that has
the metropolis below. The past 15 years, however,
embraced urban marketing strategies to re-brand itself
have seen this urban metamorphosis shift from one
as a de-contextualised global economic nexus.
of relative low-rise outward creep, to one of extreme
The redrawing of London’s skyline is, however, a
verticality (Appert and Montes, 2015; Gassner, 2013).
highly contentious issue, and to understand the
Positioning itself as an international city within an
tensions between advocates and objectors to this
increasingly competitive globalised economic stage, it
verticalisation we must first understand the skyline as
was the completion of 30 St Mary’s Axe (The Gherkin)
a visual representation of a city’s plurality. A skyline is
in 2004 that signified the global re-imaging of the
not merely the silhouette of an urban arrangement but
London skyline from one of conservatist preservation
a symbol of the collective trajectories of the city that it
8
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
INTRODUCTION//
A DYNAMIC SKYLINE
Tottenham Hampstead Heath
Stratford
St Paul’s Cathedral The City The Palace Of Westminster
The Tower Of London
Tower Bridge
Buckingham Palace
Canary Wharf
Elephant and Castle Greenwich
Wimbledon
Bromley Croydon
Central London
traces. Appert and Montes (2015) establish the skyline
that inhabit it. As a 3D representation of the collective
as more than a simple line traced upon the horizon, but
public, the skyline provides a physical representative
as the 3D embodiment and symbolisation of the local
sphere for both acceptance and objection by the
geopolitical order, revealing the contested political,
contesting trajectories of the demos who must identify
commercial and social organisations of the city’s urban
with it.
actors, past and present.
The London Skyline serves not only as a visual
A landscape arrangement which can only be obtained
representation of the city but as an internationally
from a vantage point the city skyline provides an
political one too. Inherent with their mass and
abstract depiction of the urban collective (Attoe,
height, when viewed from a vantage point, it is the
1981; Appert and Montes, 2015; Gassner, 2013; Kostof,
Skyscrapers which act as the modern day dominant
1991). Appert and Montes (2015) continue to identify
visual occupant, topping the spatial hierarchy of
the skyline as a city portrait which provides a self-
a cities silhouette. Towering above the metropolis
reifying physical and spiritual marker of the changing
below, Appert and Montes (2015) assert the modern
trajectories, powers and values of the various groups
day skyscraper, particularly in European cities, as the
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
INTRODUCTION//
A DYNAMIC SKYLINE
9
London’s topography is dictated by the underlying geology . The London Basin is a sedimentary basin approximately 250 kilometres long which underlies London and a the surrounding landscape. Due to London’s low lying proximity to the River Thames, views of the city are obtainable from the gently rising hills which encompass the metropolis.
unelected successor to the religious spires, spiritual
edifices, it becomes apparent that the redrawn London
centres, and civic edifices that once punctuated
skyline is designed to represent the interests of capital
a city’s skyline. Gassner (2013) suggests a skyline,
accumulation and pseudo-cultural progress, and not
particularly in the instance of national capital cities,
the immediate abstract essence of London’s collective
can transcend the boundaries of their own polis and
polis (Zukin, 1995; Minton, 2006).
assume the representation of nationhood. Through
It will then go on to propose a democratically centred
their images, skylines of capitals have a national
system, combining topography with new E-democratic
and global recognition, conveying ideas of national
systems (Vinod Kumar, 2017) and augmented reality
identity, language and culture to both insiders and
technologies to allow the people of the city to
outsiders of the urban community. A skyline then
actively engage in the shaping of its skyline. It must
has been transformed from a line on the horizon to a
be noted that this Skyline Parliament Manifesto does
representational image of both city and nationhood.
not concern itself with the detail of proposed towers,
This Skyline Parliament Manifesto will firstly provide
but with the scale, form and impact they have on the
a theoretical investigation into the cultural, social
expansion of the skyline, taking a holistic and distant
and political impacts of placing tall buildings upon
view of London’s development. Acknowledging that
London’s Skyline. Finding that the current planning
the skyline is an abstract representation of a cities
system endorses the decontextualised privatisation
collective, The Skyline Parliament provides a platform
of the skyline by the staging of monumental capitalist
for a democratically consented city image.
10
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
INTRODUCTION//
A DYNAMIC SKYLINE
Hanger Hill 65m
Richmond Gate 45m
r ve ur
b Ty
r te un
BT Tower 191m
Batersea Power Station 113m
Victoria Tower 102m
n
k
e re ’s C
Co
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT // Croombe Hill 54m
Primrose Hill 64m
Parliament Hill 98m
Ri
Castlebar Hill 51m
Horsenden Hill 85m
Dollis Hill 78m
Highgate Hill 136m
aR
Eff r
ive
INTRODUCTION// Addington Hills 146m
Crystal Palace Transmitter 219m
One Tree Hill 91m
Greenwich Park 45m
One Canada Square 235m
s ven r Ra
Beaulieu Heights 116m
Herne Hill 43m
Strata Tower 147m
The Shard 310m
122 Leadenhall Street 225m Heron Tower 230m RIVER THAM ES
St Paul’s Cathedral 111m
River Lea
Rive bou rne
A DYNAMIC SKYLINE
11
Shooters Hill 123m
Over 250 tall buildings are planned to be constructed over the next 4 years in the capital. The true effect upon the skyline is yet to be determined.
12
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
INTRODUCTION//
A DYNAMIC SKYLINE
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
INTRODUCTION//
A DYNAMIC SKYLINE
13
14
03
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE //
15
REACHING FOR THE SKY //
A
cknowledging that London is growing
signifier of both the climax and the conclusion of the
skyward, and understanding the skyline’s
still young process of tall buildings in central London.
importance as an emblem of a collective, it is
The tower, whilst over a kilometre away from St Paul’s
now important to scrutinise and critique the historic
Cathedral, dwarfed the silhouette of London’s most
and current political, economic and social powers
treasured building from several panoramic views and
within which this verticalisation of the city’s skyline
confidence was lost in a confused legislative process for
has occurred. Traditionally a low-rise city, London’s
tall building development. Tall building did however
central enclaves have historically resisted large scale
continue; stimulated by Margaret Thatcher’s neoliberal
tall building development. Appert and Montes (2015)
deregulation of financial markets, commercial tall
identify the current legislation as the end of a long
building development found a new home and moved
iterative process which has been evolving since the
to a derelict area in East London, Canary Wharf. The
late 19th century. With 1894 Building Act’s right to light
early 21st century has signified the current period of
underpinning early regulation for tall development, it
upward growth for London’s skyline and it is largely
was the protection and preservation of the silhouette of
accepted that the shackles restraining London’s
St Paul’s Cathedral that emerged as the 20th century’s
verticalisation were removed with the appointment of
primary concern against constructing tall edifices in the
ken Livingstone as London’s first elected Mayor in 2000
immediate area. Appert and Montes (2015) point to an
(Appert and Montes, 2015; Charney, 2007; Gassner,
accidental skyline born from a legislative vagueness
2013).
which saw tall building applications approved and
Ken Livingstone was a vocal proponent of tall building
refused amid a confused dialectical battle between the
development and strongly opposed any cap on
post war need for rebuilding and a desire to preserve
proposed building height within the capital. Setting
the visual heritage of London’s horizon line.
up a consultation on ‘tall buildings within the capital’
This sporadic, bit-part period of legislation is affirmed
as part of the London Plan, Livingstone appointed the
by Gunter Gassner who, in his enquiry into history,
services of world renowned British architect Richard
power, profit and the skyline, states that it was the
Rogers, the then chair of the Urban Task Force (UTF) as
1970’s that signified London’s most obvious upward
his chief advisor on architecture and urbanism. With
shift (Gassner, 2013). Gassner (2013) points to the
towers central to the debate on urban regeneration
construction of the 183 metre tall Nat-West Tower as the
several reports prepared by stakeholders including the
16
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
REACHING FOR THE SKY
UTF, the Chartered Association of Building Engineers
development must be in general coherence (Garmory
(CABE), and English Heritage (EH) concluded that
et al, 2016). The London Plan is a regional level paper
towers were not essential in satisfying targets for urban
published by the GLA that sets out guidance for the
densification and represented only one model of
preparation of all local development plans within the
building for density.
boundary of Greater London (Mayor of London, 2016).
CABE and EH vocalised further objections to tall
The London Plan endeavours to ensure that a city-
buildings, citing concerns over the potential for major
wide, coordinated spatial strategy is in place, and
impact upon the London skyline and the character of
provides guidance on wider planning challenges such
world heritage sites whilst the privatisation and over
as transport, economic development, housing, culture,
intensification of the River Thames was highlighted
social issues such as inequality, and environmental
as a key cause for alarm (Charney, 2007; Short, 2012).
issues such as air quality and noise pollution (The
Despite tensions between the pro tall building parties
Mayor of London, 2016). Where high rise development
such as the London Mayor, Greater London Authority
is concerned the London Plan is supplemented by
(GLA) and real estate investors, and more cautiously
the London View Management Framework (LVMF),
conservative mandated public organisations such
which highlights strategic panoramic views across
as CABE and EH, the London Plan was drawn up
the city which are to be protected. The LVMF largely
legitimising the process of privately re-drawing a de-
centres on safeguarding city wide perspectives of St
contextualised global urban city landscape.
Paul’s Cathedral whilst providing a spatial and material
To understand how the London Plan endorses the
strategy for the continuation and enhancement of the
proliferation of towers upon the London Skyline it
character of the River Thames (Mayor of London, 2016).
is important that the framework outlined within the
Whilst the LMVF is the only supplementary document
plan is examined. The current London Plan outlines
to deal explicitly with the London skyline, economic,
the current planning system which presides over the
densification, and regeneration strategies outlined
implementation of tall building development in the
in the London Plan can be seen to underpin the then
inner and outer boroughs of the city (The Mayor of
Mayor’s desire for tall building development.
London 2004). The only regional Planning legislation
Furthermore, placing the lens over the context of
to outlast the 2011 the Localism Act, the London Plan
application for buildings higher than 30 storeys, the
provides guidance at a strategic level to which all
London Plan mandates explicit development and
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
REACHING FOR THE SKY
17
Primrose Hill Regents Park 64m
BT Tower 191m
Heron Tower 230m
St Paul’s Cathedral 111m
Centre Point
The Shard 310m
Westminster Palace
Strata Tower 147m
A Drawing showing the current distribution of tall buildings across London. The majority of tall buildings across the capital are located in the City of London or Canary Wharf.
18
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
REACHING FOR THE SKY
122 Leadenhall Street 225m
Tower Bridge One Canada Square 235m
Greenwich Park 45m
5 - 25m
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
25 - 50m
50 - 100m
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
100 - 150m
REACHING FOR THE SKY
150 - 200m
250m +
19
Alexandra Palace 90m
The LVMF is provided as a supplementary planning document to the London Plan. The LVMF identifies 13 strategic panoramas that are to be protected placing focus on retaining views of the Palace of Westminster and St Paul’s Cathedral.
Kenwood House Hampstead Heath 112m
Parliament Hill Hampstead Heath 98m
Primrose Hill Regents Park 64m
122 Leadenhall Street 225m
BT Tower 191m St Paul’s Cathedral 111m
Heron Tower 230m
R
Tower Bridge ER IV
E AM TH
The Shard 310m Westminster Palace
One Canada Square 235m
Strata Tower 147m
Blackheath Point 52m
Croombes Hill Richmond Park 45m
planning powers to the office of the Mayor (Charney,
considered to wield a ‘significant impact upon the
2007). Written into the London Plan is the right to
implementation of the London Plan’ or a development
referral to the London Mayor for all projects that
may have impacts across more than one borough, the
have potential strategic importance (PSI) (The Mayor
Mayor has the right to intervene in the planning process
of London, 2016). The London Plan identifies PSI’s
and appoint her or himself as the local authority for a
as developments of 150 residential units or more,
planning application (The Mayor of London, 2016). The
developments over 30 metres in height (outside the
Mayor, then, has the political authority to directly affect
City of London), and development on Green Belt
and imprint a political, social and economic agenda
or Metropolitan Open Land. When development is
upon the city’s spatial development strategy.
20
S
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
REACHING FOR THE SKY
A spatial comparison of the LVMF and the existing distribution of tall buildings shows that tall building construction within the viewing corridors has been resisted.
Greenwich Park 45m
When overlaying future planned tall buildings however, it becomes clear that areas unrestricted by the planning document enjoy far less scrutiny. The LVMF therefore protects only a small percentage of the overall skyline.
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
REACHING FOR THE SKY
21
22
Ealing (Elg)
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
Harrow (Hrw)
Hillingdon (Hln)
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
Redbridge (Red)
Sutton (Stn)
REACHING FOR THE SKY
Waltham (Wlt)
0
Tower Hamlets (TwH)
2
Southwark (Swk)
0
Richmond (Rmd)
1
Merton (Mer)
32
Newham (New)
23
Lewisham (Lew)
3
Kingston (Kng)
3
Lambeth (Lam)
1 0 0
Islington (Isl)
8
Kensington (Ken)
5
Hounslow (Hsw)
1
Havering (Hvg)
4
Haringey (Hgy)
16
Hammersmith (Ham)
18
Hackney (Hky)
Greenwich (Grn)
9
Enfield (Enf )
20
Croyden (Crd)
12
City of Westminster (CoW)
City of London (CoL)
4
Camden (Cam)
Brent (Brt)
0
Bromley (Brm)
0
0
Bexley (Bxy)
Barnet (Brt)
Barking (Bkg)
100 93
80
67
60
40
32 26 24
21
14
10
6
1
Many London Boroughs have permitted the staging of tall buildings. Tower Hamlets and Greenwich will see the most tall buildings constructed under their stewardship.
29
38
12
5
44 235
31
90
1
East London
Inner London
Central London
Outer London
South London The location of planned tall buildings across London .
West London North London
93
67
32 23 A visual representation of the number and location of planned tall buildings across London .
2
1 5
12 1
4
6 10 14 3
8
4
16 9
26 32
21
24 18
3 1
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
1
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
REACHING FOR THE SKY
23
1.0 m 40 .0 m 38 .3 m
Lo ve rs' 33 .8m
44 .1m
44 .7m
24
W alk
GLOBAL CITY, BIG BUILDINGS //
T
o first understand how the argument for tall
pro-tall building Mayorship we can understand how
buildings prevailed, it is important that we
tall buildings become endorsed by the London Plan.
contextualise the benefits of tall buildings
Through the plan’s foci on economic improvement and
within the compass of a highly competitive inter-city
demand for high quality, high density, internationally
globalised economy. Globalisation and competition
distinctive architecture the proliferation of tall building
between cities has accelerated corporate and
construction was legitimised (Charney, 2007). In his
political efforts to gain a competitive edge to draw
paper ‘The politics of design: architecture, tall buildings
international capital by packaging and presenting
and the skyline of central London’ Igal Charney (2007)
a visually seductive image of the city (Zukin, 1995;
points towards Livingstone’s arguments for the socio-
Minton, 2006). Cities have become under increasing
economic benefits of redrawing a visually spectacular,
pressure to project the image of economic and cultural
re-imagining of London’s skyline as a key contributor in
confidence and architecture has played a key role in
the city’s adoption of tall buildings.
this entrepreneurial urbanism (Sklair, 2005; Charney,
Understanding innovative and distinctive architecture
2007; Gassner, 2013). Sklair (2005) claims that the
as a magnet for investment and symbol of economic
process of globalising cities is centred on the search
confidence Livingstone pushed the focus of city
for iconic and distinctive architectures; the delivery of
development toward tall buildings. Believing EH
simple standardised buildings is no longer enough.
and CABE stood to undermine the city’s economic
Charney (2007) draws on examples of such global
confidence and block London’s ambitions as a world
urbanism highlighting Sydney, Dubai, Shanghai
city, Livingstone ran his campaign on two fronts; good
and Kuala Lumpur as cities that have spectacularly
quality aesthetics and the economy. Backed by global
redrawn and commodified the image of the city into
architects commissioned to design tall buildings, and
an internationally recognisable destination for global
leaning on the report prepared by the UTF, Livingstone
capital. Iconic, recognisable architecture, then, is a
used striking architectural designs to seduce opponents
prerequisite for a global city.
of tall buildings. With spectacular architecture a
Considering this and returning to Ken Livingstone’s
precondition for a modern global city, the deployment
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
GLOBAL CITY, BIG BUILDINGS
25
Iconic Global Architecture
Cities seeking global recognition use iconic architectures to render a memorable city image. Tall buildings have become a signifier of a city’s economic self confidence. Burj Khalifa, Dubai
One World Trade Centre, New York
Shanghai World Finance Centre, Shanghai
Taipei 101, Taipei
Petronas Towers, Kuala Lumpur
of internationally recognised architects helped to
2007; Gassner, 2013). Through private investment
publicly legitimise tall buildings as needed symbols of
Livingstone could also utilise the social benefits of
global power, re-framing the debate from not ‘if’ but
tall buildings citing job creation and the stipulation
‘how’ (Charney, 2007; Appert and Montes, 2015).
for social housing alongside planned tall buildings
On the second front, Livingstone courted the private
as public benefits of private investment. Placing the
sector. With Livingstone’s conviction that London
debate of tall buildings within the context of neo-liberal
needed to be re-branded to remain as the pre-
politics, global city branding, and stressing London’s
eminent financial services centre of Europe, distinctive
weakness within the global city hierarchy, Livingstone
tall buildings were needed to house state of the
accrued the support of both high profile architects and
art office space. Limited public financial resources
influential real estate actors to intertwine the city’s
led Livingstone, a socialist opposed to unrestricted
economic agenda with its development programme.
capitalism, to adopt a pro-business approach and to
In order to retain its global city status, London needed
recruit the influence of the private sector (Charney,
tall buildings.
26
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
GLOBAL CITY, BIG BUILDINGS
Height
Completed 2017
The Pinnicle
70 St Mary’s Axe
One Creechurch Place
The Scalple
The Atlas Building
Principle Tower
Newfoundland
The Stage
Height
Completed 2018
Carrara Tower
1 Park Place
6-8 Bishopsgate
100 Bishopsgate
Appold Street
Pan Pacific Hotel
One Blackwall Reach
Infinity Tower
The Maddison
Height
Completed 2019
40 Leadenhall
22 Bishopsgate
One Undershaft
The Spire
The Wardian
South Quay Plaza
Marsh Wall
Height
In Planning
One Crown Plaza
Finsbury Avenue Square
Bishopsgate Goodsyard
201 Shoreditch Highstreet
Wood Wharf
Glengall Tower
One Bank Street
10 Bank Street
Alfa Square
An oblique cross section of proposed and planned tall buildings in London. A brief analysis of the proposed building’s form and height reveals a varied architectural language.
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
GLOBAL CITY, BIG BUILDINGS
27
GREAT CROSS AVENUE
28
47 .0m
A PRIVATISED SKYLINE //
T
he
verticalisation
of
London’s
skyline
concerns that high-rise development is threatening
however, isn’t without controversy. This
the internationally significant historic character of
upright redrawing of the skyline is often
London’s built fabric (Short, 2012).
against the wishes of residents, heritage groups and
More explicitly, the London Plan’s economy-centric
visitors. Initial opposition to the development of
approach to urbanism is criticised by Appert and
tall buildings in London was led by English Heritage
Montes (2015) who claim that the London Plan
and the Commission for Architecture and the Built
framework supports the proliferation of tall buildings
Environment (CABE) (Appert and Montes, 2015). More
within the city to satisfy its call for densification and
recently the Skyline Campaign, backed by over 80 high
economic growth. Whilst the need for densification
profile public figures, experts, and community groups
within London can’t be ignored, it is possible that
has led the debate on tall building development whilst
tall buildings are approved hastily by the politically
the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
and economically powerful, with insufficient regard
Organisation (UNESCO) has organised a task group over
for the potential impact on the historic fabric of the
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
A PRIVATISED SKYLINE
29
place. Appert and Montes (2015) continue to claim
upon the re-imagining of cities through large scale
that despite the London Plan’s 2007 introduction
international investments and by the commodification
of regulations to protect historically significant
of monumental architectures and landscapes within
perspective views within the city, tensions between
mainly cosmopolitan inner city centres. Within the
proponents and detractors have not eased, and the
context of globally competing cities, the re-drawing
staging of skyscrapers upon the skyline continues to
of a dramatised, global skyline acts as an instrument
impact the standing of london’s built heritage.
for further international investment by which the
Placed within the context of neo-liberal globalisation,
TCC can reproduce and consolidate themselves as
it is possible that the London Plan facilitates the
the internationally powerful. This commodification of
surreptitious territorialisation of the London skyline by
the skyline is reinforced by Appert and Montes (2015)
the politically and economically powerful in return for
who claim that the urban landscape, under the foci of
an internationally marketable image of the city. Appert
capital accumulation, is appropriated as a resource by
and Montes (2015) turn to the empirical research into
real estate actors, investors and political authorities
the processes of globalisation by Leslie Sklair (2001) who
who re-draw the built form of the city and thus execute
coins the term Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC). Sklair
a territorialisation of the skyline.
(2001) establishes the TCC as the segment of the global
This privatised territorialisation of the London skyline
bourgeoisie that controls transnational capital. Global
not only favours the economically and politically
corporations and international political structures are
powerful, but promotes a global, de-contextualised
influenced and controlled by this global economic
architectural language. Gassner (2013) points to the
stratum which operates within its own interests, often
spatial framework set out within the London Plan’s
freely, without state imposed boundaries or regulation.
supplementary LVMF as a contributor in allowing
A collaboration of bureaucrats, global corporations,
standardised architectural forms to persist. Through
professionals and media actors, the TCC acts as the
protecting cherished viewing corridors of historic
global ruling class, a class which often imperceptibly
buildings, the staging of globalised architectural
controls the processes of globalisation (Sklair, 2001).
edifices is legitimised in large enclaves of the city.
Sklair (2001) claims that the powerful actors forming the
Areas outside of these panoramas provide a stage for
TCC exert their political, economic and cultural influence
the TCC to redraw a decontextualized, internationally
30
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
GLOBAL CITY, BIG BUILDINGS
1
3
77
A breakdown of proposed tall building uses. Private residential buildings are the most prevalent reflecting the current London housing boom.
7 18
10
32
0
Residential
Hotel
Mixed Use
Student Accommodation
Commercial
University
Office
6
21
37
A breakdown of the heights of tall buildings planned and proposed for London. 20 - 29 floors is the preferred height.
118
273
20 - 29 Storeys
50 - 59 Storeys
30 - 39 Storeys
60 Storeys +
40 - 49 Storeys
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
GLOBAL CITY, BIG BUILDINGS
31
-2.4
316,666
-3.2
300,000
Average house Price
333,333
2016 Q3
-1.6
2015 Q1
350,000
2013 Q3
-0.8
2002 Q1
366,666
2010 Q3
0
2009 Q1
383,333
2007 Q3
0.8
2006 Q1
400,000
2004 Q3
Economic Growth
1.6
seductive image of the city. In a competitive world
Fenchurch Street is known as the ‘Walkie Talkie’.
where globally renowned architectures are required to
This territorialisation of the skyline is not only due to
project the confidence and uniqueness of a city an often
capital flows and investing corporations but the result
standardised, decontextualized and dehumanised
of the actions of planners, politicians and architects
language is employed (Appert and Montes, 2007).
who, pushing their own global agendas, act as
Furthermore, global architecture is less concerned
accomplices, at differing scales, in the production and
with blending in with its immediate context than it
staging of tall capitalist edifices within the city (Appert
is standing out as a recognisable, distinctive emblem
and Montes, 2015; Charney, 2007). Appert and Montes
- a trend often reinforced by the use of memorable
(2015) identify the towers as distinctive landscape
monikers to reassert a globally recognised identity
markers not only of the corporations who occupy
(Charney, 2007). This trend made manifest when
them, but for the politicians who sanction them.
recent skyscrapers in London are examined; Richard
Furthermore, mediation of the planning process,
Rogers Partnership delivered the Leadenhall Building,
reinforced by community based legislation such as the
nicknamed the ‘Cheese Grater’ whilst Rafael Vinoly’s 20
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and section 106
32
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
A PRIVATISED SKYLINE
Number of Tall Building Applications
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
0
Comparisons between the London economy and the number of tall building applications reveal a striking correlation. Tall buildings allow investors to maximise capital returns during a housing boom.
agreements, consents the GLA to satisfy affordable
doesn’t only support, but profits from the staging of
housing
improvements
monumental and dramatized privately funded tall
and economic and social regeneration aspirations
buildings upon the London Skyline (Appert and Montes,
outlined in the London Plan. Whilst this facilitates
2015; Charney, 2007; Gassner, 2013). It can be assumed
the accumulation of public funding from private real
then, that the TCC’s territorialisation transforming the
estate speculation, it hands leverage to the investing
London skyline is a form of landscape control by both
corporation’s whose economic strength is used as a
transnational economic investors, real estate actors,
bargaining chip.
and domestic political stakeholders. Considering
Appert and Montes (2015) go further, suggesting
this, it is apparent that the London skyline, under the
that the GLA’s regulations drawn within the London
legislative regulation of the London Plan, is becoming
Plan are intentionally vague, legitimising a brand
a privatised commodity not for the collective many but
of entrepreneurial public governance which is
for the powerful few.
targets,
infrastructure
centred upon the foci of global urbanism and capital accumulation. It is evident then, that the GLA
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
A PRIVATISED SKYLINE
33
23 .9m
28 .6m
rs'
35 .3m
34
Lo ve alk
W
THE HERITAGE OF A NATION //
1078-1672
1672 - 1711
1711 - 1933
1933 - 1961
1961- 1991
1991- 2013
2013 - present
The Tower of London
St Bride’s Church
St Paul’s cathedral
Battersea Power Station
The BT Tower
One Canada Square
The Shard
A review of the buildings which once stood as the tallest buildings in london reveals the dominant social power of the time. The tower of london reveals a time of oppression dictated by the monarchy, church spires and the dome of St Pauls signify christianity’s dominance in society, whilst recent tall buildings represent society’s transition to a capitalist economy.
I
t is now important to return our attention to the
built heritage has been appropriated by the TCC to
spatial hierarchy contested between tall corporate
act as a contextually unique décor for the staging of
symbols of power, and historic edifices of heritage
internationally standardised corporate edifices. Recent
and culture. Remembering the skyline as a self-reifying
buildings staged upon the London skyline such as
physical marker of the competing trajectories and
the ‘Walkie Talkie’, the ‘Shard’, and the ‘Cheesegrater’
values of a city or nation, it is evident that the recent
spatially compete with internationally significant
proliferation of tall capitalist edifices upon the skyline is
buildings of heritage such as St Paul’s Cathedral,
impinging upon the prominence of important spiritual
Westminster Palace and the Tower of London to the
emblems of heritage and nationhood (Attoe, 1981;
demise of the city’s collective sense of identity.
Appert and Montes, 2015; Gassner, 2013; Kostof, 1991).
To recognize how skyscraper’s spatial and visual
Appert and Montes (2015), continue to claim that the
obfuscation of spiritual and symbolically significant
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
THE HERITAGE OF A NATION
35
Europe’s tallest building and one of London’s most iconic new architectures, The Shard, competes with the dome of St Paul’s cathedral when viewed from Primrose Hill, a corridor protected in the LVMF.
buildings threatens a polis or nation’s understanding
Cathedral stood as London’s tallest building from 1710
of itself we must turn to Tim Edensor’s examination
– 1939 it is quite possible to see how the modern day
of national identity. Edensor (2012) highlights ‘iconic
skyscraper’s appropriation and territorialisation of the
sites’ which provide a moral and cultural compass of a
symbolic role of nationally spiritual structures could
nation’s evolved cultural trajectories; the Eiffel Tower
challenge a city’s collective memory and threaten
anchors French identities as St Paul’s Cathedral serves
it’s understanding of its shared identity (Appert and
as an emblem of ‘Englishness’. Objects upon the skyline,
Montes, 2015; Edensor, 2002; Gassner, 2013).
then, often steeped in spiritual and historic symbolism,
The
serve to reveal a nations unique quality which, through
preponderance of these silhouettes upon London’s
the connotation of past cultures and historic events,
skyline is then, undeniable. Considering this, when
project evidence of a glorious past (Edensor, 2002).
aligning a skyline’s inherant obligation to represent the
This is reinforced by Anthony Smith who, in his book
competing trajectories of a collective polis (Attoe, 1981;
‘National Identity’, claims that these iconic sites serve
Appert and Montes, 2015; Gassner, 2013; Kostof, 1991)
as ‘spiritual centres’ which locate a nation in both time
against the privatised territorialisation of London’s
and space (Smith, 1991).
skyline (Sklair, 2005; Charney, 2007; Gassner, 2013)
Continuing to highlight both external and internal
it is evident that the political legislation negating the
functions of these national iconic features Smith (1991)
development of the London Skyline is failing to protect
suggests that they both serve as signifiers of nation to
significant built indicators of heritage, and thus damage
outsiders and act as moral indicators of nationhood to
important built notions of pluralistic nationhood
insiders. Considering the internationally iconic St Paul’s
36
national
importance
of
retaining
the
37
A DIDACTIC SKYLINE //
T
o understand how this appropriation of the
phenomenological sense of belonging. It is evident
skyline by the powerful few may negatively
then, that when this metaphysical connection
impact a people’s relationship between
between man and landscape is fragmented through
themselves and the skyline that represents them, this
misrepresentation and the domination of the powerful,
arc of capitalist territorialisation must be placed within
a people can become alienated from the landscape
the frame of a democratic landscape. In Kenneth Olwig’s
that spiritually and physically nurtures them (Olwig,
essay ‘Representation and alienation in the political
2005). Identifying alienation as the transferral, and
land-scape’ an etymological investigation into the
subsequent loss, of rights of a person to property
word landscape is presented within which he explicitly
or land with which they have developed a sense of
links the land with the people who exist upon it. Olwig
belonging through allegiance, residence or birth, it is
(2005) identifies the suffix scape as the distinction
possible that the privatised proliferation of the skyline
between land in its simplest, material form and its more
threatens to estrange a people from the city image that
metaphysical abstraction landscape. Suggesting scape
represents them.
as the equivalent of the more common English suffix
This alienation is made more explicit when exploring
ship, Olwig (2005) draws upon more abstract themes
Sharon Zukin’s theme of public exclusion; the symbolic
such as “friendship, comradeship, or fellowship” to
economy. In her book “The Culture of Cities” Zukin’s
point out how the suffix ship provides a non-physical
(1995) symbolic economy addresses a city’s ability to
concept that can symbiotically bind individuals into
produce a distinctive aesthetic of both symbol and
fellows, communities or nations.
space. Zukin (1995) continues to align the symbolic
Transferring this abstraction to the suffix scape it can
economy with the interests of public officials, private
then be assumed that a people inhabiting a land have
developers and capital investors whose ability to return
deep rooted ties and an intrinsic sense of belonging
tangible economic results (jobs, real estate value,
to it; villagers belong to their common lands, a polis
increased business) when constructing the symbolic
to the limits of its city, and a citizens to the land of a
image of the city has led to the increase in private
nation. Therefore the relationship between the land
corporations involvement in the imagination of public
and its people is greater than the sum of its physical
space. Whilst Zukin (1995) states that entrepreneurial
parts and landscape is fundamental to a people’s
initiatives to project a seductive image of a city can
38
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
A DIDACTIC SKYLINE
establish a competitive advantage over competing
space we must again turn to Sharon Zukin, who’s
cities, it is important to ask, particularly in the case of
more recent work ‘Naked City: The Death and Life of
the London’s skyline, who is the symbolic economy
Authentic Urban Places’ (Zukin, 2010) discusses the
representing?
authenticity of public places. Zukin (2010) argues that
Whilst asserting that the product of the modern city is
forces of globalisation, supremacy of capital and the
culture, Zukin (1995) identifies intermittent economic
cultural power of media have driven cities to exchange
crises’ and the disappearance of local manufacturing
symbols of their past for a glossy consumable image
industries as the catalyst for the modern city’s transition
of the future. Jacobs and Appleyard (2007) further
from industrial goods manufacture to the redrawing of
the discussion, asserting that the authentic city is
a consumable city image. The recent growth of cultural
one where the “origin of things” is clear. Displaying
consumption has accelerated corporate efforts to
its significant meanings, the authentic city should
gain a competitive edge to draw transnational capital
not be dominated by the powerful but be openly
investment by packaging and presenting a visually
representative of the moral issues of its society (Jacobs
seductive image of the city (Zukin, 1995; Minton, 2006).
and Appleyard, 2007). An authentic city is then, along
Considering the TCC’s territorialisation of the London
with its skyline, should be a didactic cartography of the
skyline as a promotional instrument of private interests,
society that inhabits it.
and the GLA’s endorsement of decontextualised capitalist edifices, it is then apparent that the redrawn London skyline is an idealised image designed to represent the interests of capital accumulation and pseudo-cultural progress, and not the immediate abstract essence of London’s collective polis. Considering the political shortcomings cultivated from the private projections of the symbolic economy when redrawing the skyline, it is quite possible that a nonauthentic representation of public place is fostered. To comprehend existing discourse on authentic public
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
A DIDACTIC SKYLINE
39
One Bank Street
Bishopsgate Goodsyard
10 Bank Street
One Crown Plaza
Finsbury Avenue Square
In Planning
Glengall Tower
One Undershaft
40 Leadenhall
Completed 2019
22 Bishopsgate
6-8 Bishopsgate
Principle Tower
100 Bishopsgate
Appold Street
Pan Pacific Hotel
Completed 2018
Carrara Tower
The Scalple
1 Park Place
T
Completed 2017
70 St Mary’s Axe
The Atlas Building
One Creechurch Place
A St Paul’s Cathedral
A The City
Skyline 2016
Westminster Palace
Skyline 2020
Westminster Palace
40
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
St Paul’s Cathedral
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
Tower Bridge
THE HERITAGE OF A NATION
Alfa Square
201 Shoreditch Highstreet
Wood Wharf
The Spire
South Quay Plaza Marsh Wall
The Wardian
The Maddison One Blackwall Reach
Infinity Tower
The Pinnicle Newfoundland
The Stage
Aa Tower Bridge
Aa Canary Wharf
Shoreditch
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
The number of proposed tall buildings proliferating the London skyline could have a devastating effect on the historic character of traditionally low rise city.
THE HERITAGE OF A NATION
41
4.5 m
42
A SKYLINE FOR ALL //
W
hen considering the recent verticalisation
Despite visual marketing strategies, the aegis of
of London’s skyline, the influence of
world famous architect Renzo Piano, and the promise
powerful real estate actors, both private
of economic and cultural rejuvenation for the area,
and public, and the objections of organisations such as
concerns over the permanent damage to the London
EH, CABE, UNESCO, and the concerns of residents and
skyline prevailed and the proposal was revised to a
visitors (Appert and Montes, 2015, Charney, 2007), it is
14 storey ‘Cube’ (another distinctive and marketable
important to understand the levels to which citizens
geometric shape) (Johnston, 2017; The Skyline
are enabled to participate effectively within the
Campaign, 2016). The prospect of a further 250 towers
redrawing of the skyline. One example of public success
landing upon the London skyline, however, shows that
against the construction of a skyscraper can be found
anti-skyscraper successes such as this, are rare.
in the refused application for Renzo Piano’s 72-storey
This concern for the lack of engagement and seemingly
skyscraper at Padding Place, dubbed the Paddington
unrestricted proliferation of towers upon the skyline
Pole. A design that seemed to disregard the urban
is reflected in a recent study YouGov survey which is
grain, scale and historic fabric of the place was fiercely
packaged and presented by Historic England (2016).
contested by statutory consultees and public pressure
The survey revealed that not only are the majority of
groups led by EH (Johnston, 2017).
Londoners unhappy with the current redrawing of
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
A SKYLINE FOR ALL
43
the skyline, but 60% felt they should have a say on
The lack of a city-wide, pan-London approach to
its verticalisation, particularly in historically sensitive
planning could be a further contributor to the
areas. More telling, however, is that 58% of Londoners
inefficiencies in community engagement initiatives.
said that they didn’t know where or how to express their
With a decentralised planning system that affords
concerns about the skyline (Historic England, 2016).
planning
This dissatisfaction with participation isn’t however
participation is centred on engaging the community
limited to just the skyline and could be the result of
within the projects locality (Gassner, 2013; Historic
the strained communicative reciprocation between
England, 2016). Planning authorities are required to
public authorities and the city’s citizens. Townsend and
outline stratagems for community engagement with
Tully (2004) suggest that in spite of enthusiasm from
all tall building planning applications which include an
the public and efforts to engage a broad cross section
A4 public notice on the site, a letter to neighbouring
of the public in planning matters, participation levels
parties, a newspaper press release and/or a website
remained disappointing. This repeated despondency
notification (Department for Communities and Local
from the public has led local authorities to reassess
Government, 2017).
their commitment to community participation leading
Placing the fact that a the city skyline is a citywide,
public councils to perform the minimum level of public
nationally and internationally symbolic image only
consultation expected of them by planning legislation
perceptible from a distant vantage point (Appert
(Townsend and Tully, 2004). This suggests that the
and Montes, 2015; Charney, 2007; Gassner, 2013),
limits upon who is consulted and the current strategies
alongside the local infrastructural, social and economic
in place to involve the public are failing to cultivate a
benefits afforded alongside private investment into tall
democratic and collaborative civic consensus on the
corporate edifices (Section 106, CIL), it is possible to see
development of the skyline.
how local communities stand to lose the least and gain
44
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
powers
to
A SKYLINE FOR ALL
local
authorities,
public
the most from the implementation of a tall building.
making with professional deliberation and negotiation,
Community participation strategies that focus too
requiring many professional planning, architectural,
concisely on a projects locality neglect to consult and
landscape and engineering consultants to engage in
obtain a wider public consensus and place too much
the process.
emphasis on the consent of citizens with a tangible
Whilst these private professional actors are well placed
interest in the projects approval. It is possible, then,
to steer a project to a successful conclusion, allegiances
that applications for tall buildings may need to extend
with the real estate investors with which these
their public outreach.
consultants financial depend leads to a professional
Appert and Montes (2015) propose a further
prejudice in favour of tall buildings (Appert and Montes,
shortcoming
to
2015). Coupling this with competition held between
democratically engage citizens in redrawing the city’s
boroughs to generate economic growth and cultural
skyline; the supremacy of capital and dependence on
regeneration, local authorities consequently become
professionals. Despite a planning system that places
part of a technocratic planning system that disregards
decision making within the hands of an elected local
the concerns of the public and panders to the global
authority, a negated process that engages statutory
agenda of private investors (Appert and Montes, 2015).
of
local
authorities
attempts
consultees and professional consultants from an application’s infancy, a project is often well advanced prior to referral to the public. A system that acts within a framework rather than stipulated set of measurable restrictions, London skyscraper applications are decided upon in a case by case, subjective basis (Gassner, 2013). This system replaces traditional administrative decision
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
A SKYLINE FOR ALL
45
34 .5 m
45 .8m
4
7.0 m 45 .4m
44 .9m
41 .0m
40 .0m
38 .3m
46
MAKE A PLACE WITH VIRTUAL SPACE //
M
odels for a more accessible and interactive
can engage previously hard to reach citizens and
public participation stratagem do however
mobilise democratic interest from typically disengaged
exist, not in the physical realm, but in the
segments of the public. Secondly, by opening up a new
virtual one. First we must turn to an investigation into
democratic space which can align unprecedented
web technologies and their potential to increase public
levels of public value with the ambitions of developers
participation by Chris Twitchen and David Adams who
and direction of elected public officials, digital
assert that Web 2.o technologies (the availability of
democratic processes have the potential to enable a
high-speed internet access, the innovation of social
civic consensus to overrule previously technocratic
networking forums, and widespread use of portable
planning decisions. Digital technologies, then, have
devices) solidifies the internet as a powerful new
the capacity to enable a truly collaborative, pluralistic
platform for effective public participation (Twitchen
planning process.
and Adams, 2012). Twitchen and Adams (2012) propose
The argument for digital technologies within the
that digital participatory processes can benefit the
planning system is furthered by Vinod Kumar (2017)
development of a collaborative planning system in two
who proposes the use of ‘E-Democracy’ as a means
ways; accessibly and collaboration.
of
Firstly, through the simplicity of the technology to
E-Democracy as the use of web 2.0 technologies within
use, and cost-effectiveness for the both the enquiring
the context of city decision making to increase citizens’
authority and participating citizen, these technologies
engagement in democratic processes, Vinod Kumar
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
improving
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
public
participation.
MAKE A PLACE WITH VIRTUAL SPACE
Establishing
47
The use of virtual reality technologies could allow proposed architectures to be viewed against the real time backdrop of the city skyline. Ideas can be tested, considered and challenged by an augmented vision of the city.
(2017) suggests the technology as a means to generate
skyline by powerful real estate actors self-evident in
publicly-engaged smart cities. With small mechanical
the proliferation of skyscrapers upon the skyline, the
and procedural reform of governmental planning
London skyline is not a plural signifier of the collective
process, E-Democracy can open up cyberspaces that
whole but a signifier of the supremacy of capital (Sklair,
encourage information exchange, citizen collaboration,
2005; Charney, 2007; Appert and Montes, 2015). Web
open dialogue and civic deliberation thus enabling the
based technologies could help to evenly redistribute
public to instantly uphold their civic interests (Vinod
power away from a privately supported technocracy
Kumar, 2017).
to engage the people of the city, enabling affective
Vinod Kumar (2017) identifies three primary possibilities
practices of citizen participation. Secondly, recalling the
of E-Democracy; Firstly, a citizen can easily cast votes
importance that historic iconic sites have in nurturing
on an issue with the click of a button, secondly,
a national sense of self to both citizens on the inside
participants can give comment on a policy or proposal,
and onlookers from the out (Edensor, 2002; Smith,
and thirdly, the channels of power can be reversed
1991), and coupling this with a civic concern for the
allowing citizens to voice their proposals. E-Democracy,
obfuscation of these sites by the staging of skyscrapers
then, replaces monopolies of information channelled
upon the skyline (Historic England, 2016), web based
through traditional hierarchical procedures with an
technologies could provide a platform for citizens to
unrestricted reciprocal distribution of intelligence. It is
safeguard the heritage that fundamentally underpins
possible to understand then, that provided the political
their understanding of nationhood. Finally, turning to
will and leadership is in place to relinquish certain
themes of the authentic city which honestly depicts
decision making powers to the public, E-Democracy
the society that occupies it (Jacobs and Appleyard,
can provide a non-physical platform for the informed,
2007; Zukin, 2010), E-Democracy could allow for
democratic and genuinely collaborative imagining of
the etching of a truly representative, democratically
our actual public space.
consented, authentic urban silhouette upon the skies
A progressive technological course to broaden the
above London.
participation to a pan-London solution has the
It is possible, then, that by informing, mobilising and
potential to concretise the civic interests within the re-
engaging all Londoners in tall building planning
imagining of the London skyline, addressing three key
applications, a plural consensus of the contemporary
issues with the current planning of the city silhouette.
reshaping of the historic skyline can be met, and a
Firstly, remembering the territorialisation of the
democratic representation of the city be drawn.
48
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
MAKE A PLACE WITH VIRTUAL SPACE
Democratic Skyline
Technocratic Skyline
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SKYLINE//
MAKE A PLACE WITH VIRTUAL SPACE
49
50
04
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
51
m
40 .0 m 38 .3 m
Lo ve rs' 33 .8m
44 .1m
44 .7m
52
W alk
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT
The Skyline Parliament proposes the advancement
which can only be viewed from a vantage point (Attoe,
of E-Democracy technologies alongside a critical
1981) the skyline parliament seeks to appropriate
restructuring of the current mechanics of London’s
topographic elevations which encompass the city.
planning
negated
Proposing a synergy between the physical landscape,
by powerful real estate actors, both private and
E-Democracy technologies, and emerging virtual
political (Appert and Montes, 2015; Charney, 2007), a
reality technologys the skyline parliament submits
democratically focussed repositioning of the planning
the use of a visually augmented skyline to inform the
system’s core values could shape a path toward the
public of the visual impact a propsal may have upon
creation of an authentic, publicily consented skyline.
the skyline.
Remembering the implicit role Skyline plays as as an
A visually augmented skyline, proliferated with virtual
abstract indicator of an urban collective (Attoe, 1981;
models of speculative tall building proposals will not
Appert and Montes, 2015; Gassner, 2013; Kostof, 1991),
only provide a spacio-temporal vision upon which
and further understanding the role the prominance of
the public can decide upon the appropriateness
historical buildings play in nurturing a national sense
of a proposal, but a digital workspace upon which
of self (Edensor (2012), it is imperative that a redrawing
city planners and architects can test their ideas. The
of the panning systems allows for effective civic
Skyline Parliament is a public, real time testing space
engagement.
where the future skyline of London can be challenged,
Understanding the skyline as a landscape composition
reconfigured and democratically consented.
system.
A
system
currently
53
Rejected
Approved
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT: THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES//
A 3D model of existing and proposed buildings in London will support an augmented vision of the city
Promoting Democratic Engagement
reveal the immediate abstract essence of London’s
The Skyline Parliament mandates the people to
collective polis and not just the interests of capital
democratically participate in the shaping of their
accumulation and pseudo-cultural progress.
city’s skyline. Understanding the skyline as a didactic cartography of the collective populace of the city, The
An Integrated Planning Approach
Skyline Parliament provides a physical network and a
The Skyline Parliament will complement the existing
virtual forum for citizens to debate, comment upon,
planning system that negates the built development
and vote on proposed tall buildings within the city.
of London. Concerned only with the staging, location,
Finding that the current planning system serves as a
scale and form of future tall building development
technocratic framework which endorses the privatised
in London, the Skyline Parliament adds an additional
staging of capitalist edifices upon the skyline, The
layer of democratic involvement. Before applications
Skyline Parliament will allow future development to
for outline or full planning for buildings 20 storeys or
54
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT//
THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES
higher are reviewed by the local authority and statutory
Parliament. Augmented realities can juxtapose tall
consultees, Skyline Planning approval must have been
building applications alongside the existing built
consented by the people of the city.
form of the city. Augmented Reality will allow citizens to view and challenge the proposed building in its
Using the Topography
context, against all other proposed tall buildings, and
The Skyline Parliament uses the topography of the
against the real backdrop of the city. Viewed from one
city to provide a network of panoramas where future
of the 5 Skyline Parliament Branches, the staging, scale
proposals of the city can be viewed, tested, scrutinised
and form of the proposal will be able to be tested in
and decided upon. Understanding the spatio-
real time.
permanence of the landscape, significant high-points will provide a platform to review the spatio-temporal
A City Wide 3D Model
development of London’s skyline. Informed by the
All applications are required to be uploaded to an
existing LVMF, The Skyline Parliament will employ
integrated 3D model of London. The model will be
5 city panoramas; Greenwich Park, Richmond Park,
used alongside augmented reality technologies to
Parliament Hill, Primrose Hill, and Alexandra Palace.
project future proposed and planned buildings upon the landscape. Applications will be visible for 6 weeks
A Pan City Approach
before voting closes. Declined applications will be
The skyline is an abstract city portrait which provides
removed whilst approved buildings will remain within
a self-reifying physical and spiritual marker of the
the model, rendering a real time virtual vision of the
changing trajectories, powers and values of the various
future London Skyline.
groups that inhabit it. Understanding that the skyline should not be a representation of the powerful few but
A Spatio-temporal Planning System
of the collective many, the Skyline Parliament proposes
The Skyline Parliament recognises the growth of
a Pan-City approach to the staging of its skyscrapers.
London’s skyline as a slow, delayed process. Many
Moving away from the current LVMF which protects
proposed buildings currently are only shown against
only narrow vistas centred on preserving views of
the existing built context and disregard the fourth
historic edifices, The Skyline Parliament proposes a city
dimension; time. The Skyline Parliament understands
wide approach, placing scrutiny on all tall development,
the necessity to scrutinise tall building proposals not
and not just that which directly impacts the historic
only against the existing built form of the city, but
character of a localised area.
test their relationship against future proposals. Using augmented reality, all future proposals and planned
Applying E-Democracy Technologies
buildings will be digitally juxtaposed against each
Advancements in both Web 2.0 capabilities and virtual
other, and the existing built city, so applications can be
reality technologies will be utilised by the Skyline
scrutinised under a spatio-temporal lens.
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT//
THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES
55
A PAN-CITY APPROACH// CONTACT THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY (LPA) FOR ADVICE
Parliament Hill Hampstead Heath 98m
APPLY ONLINE OR IN PAPER FORMAT TO THE LPA FULL APPLICATION
OUTLINE APPLICATION
SUBMIT PROPOSALS WITH THE CORRECT DOCUMENTATION LPA ACKNOWLEDGES A VALID APPLICATION BUILDING UNDER 20 STOREYS
BUILDING OVER 20 STOREYS
SKYLINE PLANNING REQUIRED
Primrose Hill Regents Park 64m
SUBMIT 3D MODEL OF BUILDING TO SKYLINE DATABASE APPLICATION LIVE TO PUBLIC VOTE FOR 6 WEEKS APPROVED
REJECTED
LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY PUBLICISES AND CONSULTS ON THE APPLICATION PERMISSION REFUSED
PERMISSION NOT DECIDED WITHIN 8 WEEKS
PERMISSION GRANTED WITH
PERMISSION GRANTED
CHANGE PROPOSAL AND RESUBMIT
APPEAL TO SECRETARY OF STATE
START WORK AND COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS
PERMISSION REFUSED
PERMISSION GRANTED
Croombes Hill Richmond Park 45m
The Skyline Parliament will compliment rather than compete with the existing planning framework of London. Adding a further layer of public engagement it will help convey the development of a democratic and collective skyline.
The Skyline Parliament proposes a city wide network of panoramas already employed within the LVMF. Chosen for their inherent city wide prospect, these locations will serve as the centres of a pan-city approach to tall building planning applications. Extending scrutiny past just that of protected corridors, outer enclaves of the city will be examined, and a democratic and publicly consented approach to tall building development can be established.
56
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT//
A PAN-CITY APPROACH
Alexandra Palace 90m
Greenwich Park 45m
122 Leadenhall Street 225m BT Tower 191m
St Paul’s Cathedral 111m
Heron Tower 230m Tower Bridge
One Canada Square 235m
The Shard 310m Westminster Palace Strata Tower 147m
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT//
A PAN-CITY APPROACH
57
Natural topography will provide the physical platform for an augmented vision of possible re-arrangements of the skyline.
58
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT//
A PAN CITY APPROACH
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT//
A PAN CITY APPROACH
59
Croombes Hill, Richmond Park + 45m LVMF
300 m
150 m
0m
Greenwich Park + 45m LVMF
300 m
150 m
0m
Alexandra Palace + 90m 300 m
150 m
0m
Parliament Hill, Hampstead Heath + 98m 300 m
150 m
0m
Primrose Hill, Regents Park + 64m LVMF
300 m
150 m
0m
The Skyline Parliament network will provide full coverage of inner London and partial coverage of outer London.
60
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT//
A PAN CITY APPROACH
LVMF LVMF
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT//
A PAN CITY APPROACH
61
E - DEMOCRACY: THE APP//
T
he Skyline Parliament App supplements
buildings, conveys information about the buildings,
the landscape proposals ensuring the three
and allows the public to comment on contentious
possibilities of E-Democracy can be realised;
and successful building proposals. Free to download
Firstly, the public can easily cast votes on proposed
the App provides an integrated platform that will
buildings, secondly, participants can give comment
greatly improve information transfer and awareness
on a policy or proposal, and thirdly,
channels of
of building applications. Geo-referenced, the App will
power and information can be reversed allowing
only allow votes to be cast after a visit to one of the 5
citizens to transparently record their comments. The
Skyline Parliament’s panoramas.
App provides access to the 3D database of proposed
62
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT//
E-DEMOCRACY: THE APP
Peter Robinson
5m
Caroline Lord
27m
Out of scale with the area The building is too large and doesn’t ...
A beautiful building I feel the building is a beautiful adit ...
Paul Clement
2h
Too Big! This building is far too large or the ...
Antony Nelson
3h
The Skyline Parliament App will increase accessibility to the planning system. Through increased access engagement levels will increase and provide a broader, deeper cross section of public opinion.
Lack of Public Space! The building hogs the available space ...
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT//
E-DEMOCRACY: THE APP
63
64
05 DATUM LINE: GREENWICH PARK
65
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE: AN INTRODUCTION// London
r Ba
t ne
Re
ge id
g in
c Ha
r Ba
Ne
ng ki
ey kn
on gt in Isl n de
m ha
w
er s w let To am H ty Ci
m Ha
m
ee Gr
y
th
M
er
n to
n to
s ng Ki
y le
om Br
de oy Cr
n
n
tto
Su
d ea m es s am ing r oo M Th
River Thames
xle Be
th
am ish
w Le
be
m
La or dw an W
d on
m ch Ri
w lo ns
k
ich
nw
ar hw
ut
So
er
r te of ins ty m Ci est W on gt sin ith nn sm Ke
g lin
Royal Borough of Greenwich
r ve Ha
r db
am th al W
y
m Ca
t en Br
Ea u Ho
h ic e lw oo sid W er iv R
y d oo W
be Ab
Plu
on nd ly G
ea st m
d
h
h ic
h at he be ck om tc es W
on m om
ic C
lw
on rlt
oo W
ha C
Bla
w en
t es W
oo Sh
rs te
ill H
ke
air nf or H
oo ith
br Kid
w
m
ha Elt
m
ha
Elt
th
or
N
t es W
dle
id
M
li tc
m
ffe
ha Elt
Su
k
r Pa
&
h
ut
So
&
old
C
r
m
ha
Elt
ou
rb
ew
N
ha
AN INTRODUCTION
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
66
ge rin
w ro
n do
la su nin Pe
re G
Greenwich park is located in West Greenwich. One of the Royal Parks of London, it spans 74 hectares, and is part of the Greenwich World Heritage Site. It commands views over the River Thames, Canary Wharf and the City of London.
r Ha
r Ha
g llin Hi
United Kingdom
1.
2.
3. 4.
1
3
2
6.
6
5.
8
5 4
7 16
9 12 13
10 11 14
15
7.
8.
Greenwich Park
Greenwich Park Character Areas 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
St Mary’s Quarter Grand Axis - Lower Ground Playground Quarter Croom’s Hill Plateau The Old Royal Observatory Giant Steps Lover’s Walk Valley Maze Hill and One Tree Hill
Surrounding Character Areas 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
The Reservoir Quarter The Rose Garden The Ranger’s Field Bandstand Quarter The Flower Garden Blackheath Gate The Wilderness & Blackheath Slips Greenwich Park Cafe and Garden
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
1. The River Thames 2. Greenwich Riverside and Cutty Sark 3. Royal Navy College 4. Greenwich Town Centre 5. Crooms Hill 6. Maze Hill 7. Blackheath 8. Blackheath Vale
AN INTRODUCTION
67
FINDING THE SITE//
Escarpment
Dense Mixed Trees
Formal Deciduous Tree Avenues
Scattered Mixed Trees
Greenwich park, initially enclosed in 1433 has a notable veteran and ancient tree stock. Small areas of manicured gardens punctuate a mixture of acid and amenity grasslands. Scattered trees and formal avenues run throughout the parks rolling topography.
68
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
FINDING THE SITE
Acid Grasslands
Amenity Grasslands
Meadow Grasslands
Manicured Gardens
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
FINDING THE SITE
69
M
H
H
M M
H L H
H H
M
M H
H
M
M
M L
M L
H M
70
L
Low Sensitivity to Change
M
Medium Sensitivity to Change
H
High Sensitivity to Change Civic / Education. - Large scale late 17th century Baroque Architecture.
Retail / Commercial - Georgian and Victorian, medium scale buildings with traditional shop frontages
Residential - Medium scale Georgian architecture. Stucco and brick terrace faรงades.
Amenity grass land contained by deciduous trees.
Scattered deciduous trees and amenity grassland
Dense mixed woodland
Open Heathland
Residential - Victorian. Brick semi detached faรงades.
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
FINDING THE SITE
Modern Waterfront
The park is encompassed by several succinct character areas. A strong relationship between the parks form and the neighbouring Queens House and Naval Collage dominates the site, as Georgian and Victorian residential house line the adjacent streets.
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
FINDING THE SITE
71
1433 Duke Humphrey constructed a tower strategically placed on the edge of the heath with prospect of both the river and the capital. The Park was also enclosed by earth forms and a timber fence (TRP, 2006).
1443 Duke Humphrey constructed the Palace of Placentia on the banks of the Thames. Under the Tudor’s, Placentia became the pre-eminent Royal Palace (TRP, 2006).
1676 King Charles II commissioned the construction of the Greenwich Observatory. Christopher Wren identified the site of the Duke Humphrey’s tower for the then state of the art astronomy and navigation facility (TRP, 2006).
1696: Christopher Wren led the design of the Royal Naval Hospital. The design strengthened the Grand Axis of the Park and Queens house. The buildings later became a Naval College and are now part of the University of Greenwich.
72
1616 The construction of the Queen’s House was overseen by architect Indigo Jones. Soon after James I ordered the construction of the brick boundary wall (TRP, 2006).
1663 Prominent French landscape architect Andre Le Notre designed and oversaw implementation of the Grand Axis, terraces and Elm Avenues that still define the parks form today (TRP, 2006).
1780 The uses of parks where beginning to change from hunting to leisure. This saw the enclosure of the Deer herds to the southern ‘Wilderness’ section of the park (TRP, 2006).
1884 The scientific pre-eminence of the observatory made it the obvious choice to position the centre of the zero meridian time zone which runs north to south through the park (TRP, 2006).
Enclosed in 1433 , Greenwich Park has received several design reconfigurations. It was the 1663 ‘Grand Axis’ design which still defines the park today, with formal avenues dividing the space.
73
TOPOGRAPHY AS UNIQUENESS//
A
B
C
D
1
2
The Escarpment A walk along the escarpment reveals a changing landscape. Divided by Veteran tree avenues and dense woodland, dispersed openings provide differing panoramas of the city.
A
nalysis
a
inextricably related Queen’s House and old Royal Naval
topographic quality unique from other
College, the corporate edifices of Canary Wharf now
London parks. A steep escarpment running
dominate the view. Bearing witness to the evolution
east to west divided the park into three succinct
of London’s skyline this escarpment has led dormant,
spaces; the lowland, the highland, and the escarpment
unexacting and accepting of the urban metamorphosis
itself. An historic park arrangement preserved in time,
taking place before it. A promontory walked for
it was the natural escarpment carved by the timeless
millennia, this escarpment serves not only as the
River Thames that epitomised the parks palpable sense
platform to view London but as a landscape datum in
of permanency.
both space and time; the Greenwich Park escarpment
Commanding a prospect of the River Thames and the
is London’s datum line.
74
of
Greenwich
Park
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
revealed
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
FINDING THE SITE
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
FINDING THE SITE
75
2010 - 2016 CANARY WHARF
2000-2010 CANARY WHARF
1990-2000 CANARY WHARF
1712 THE ROYAL HOSPITAL 1735 THE QUEEN’S HOUSE
1675 THE ROYAL OBSERVATORY
South of the River Thames, the 45m climax of Greenwich Park’s promontory provides a city wide perspective of London with Canary Wharf in the foreground and St Paul’s Cathedral and the City of London in the distance.
76
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
TOPOGRAPHY AS UNIQUENESS
T1
T2 SG
ST -3 FK
CV 1K
.5 K
T5
CL T4
LT -6
CS
0
GA
T8
ST -7 M
PS
0
DT -9 HA
0
T1 TA H
1
T1 TA H
2
NU T1
1
+1 NZ ST
0
+1 DT AE
+9
+8
+7
+1 T AE
T JS
T HK
DA VT
+5
+6 T BS
+3
+4 T
ST AZ
GS
+2
+1
GREENWICH PARK
EA T
T EE
T CE
GM T
+0
1433 GREENWICH PARK ENCLOSED
Existing Park Form
Open Grassland
Existing Trees
Existing Paths
Open Expanses
Ancient Structre
The Datum Line Greenwich Park Ridge Line
‘Celebrate the topography, set the datum’
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT
Greenwich Park’s escarpment sets a datum in both space and time. Could this escarpment be set in stone, making manifest its sense of permanency?
DATUM LINE THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
TOPOGRAPHY AS UNIQUENESS
77
THE DATUM LINE: A PROPOSAL//
A
35’ E
Wha rf
0°02
en Av
Can ary
The
m 000 on 6 ond 3’ E of L 80 City 0°8
St Mary’s Quarter
785 0m
+ 20.00
ue
+ 25.00
+ 30.00
St Pauls + 35.00
+ 40.00
+ 45.00
1
3
Croom’s Hill Plateau 1.
Store Room
2.
Vehical Rampway
3.
Testing Chamber West
4.
Testing Chamber East
5.
Debating Chambers
AA
+ 45.00
B,BB
+ 40.00 + 35.00 + 30.00 + 25.00 + 20.00
78
+ 15.00
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
THE DATUM LINE
0°098
Cathed
Wh a
rf 2
m 600 Gre enw 0°00 ’51 ich Pen E ins ula r2
ary
650m ark 6 pic P 5’ E Olym 0°012
Ca n
85
0m
ee t Gr
Eas
ry W ha
0°02 rf 7850 m 35’ E
BB
m ’E 750 0°00 nwich
y Cit
Can a
+ 30.00
m 00 60 on nd 3’ E Lo of °880
0°0 0’ E
0
One Tree Hill
St Pau ls
0°0984
’
Cathed E ral 785 0m
+ 35.00
+ 25.00
Gree n Obse wich rvato ry
84’ E
+ 30.00
dral 7850
m
r’s ve Lo
+ 35.00
+ 40.00
lk Wa
+ 40.00
+ 45.00
Blackheath Avenue
1 1
5 4
2
N
B
0
10
20
40
80
The Datum Line responds directly to the unique topography of the Park. Extending a horitonal line from the highest contour of the escarpement to the contour 5m beneath it, Datum Line creates a concrete infinity line. Celebrating the permanency of Greenwich Park’s escarpment, Datum Line solidifies a moment in both space and time upon which the future trajectories of london’s skyline can be judged.
120
A,AA
+ 45.00 + 40.00
5 10 15
25
50
100
+ 35.00
150
+ 30.00 + 25.00
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
TOPOGRAPHY AS UNIQUENESS
+ 20.00 + 15.00
79
CEMENTING THE TOPOGRAPHY// + 40.00
+ 40.00
5’ E
St Mary’s Quarter
lk Wa ue r’s en Av ve Lo The
+ 35.00
Can ary Wha rf 78 50m 0°02 3
7850m
+ 35.00
m 000 on 6 ond 3’ E of L 80 City 0°8
Pauls C athedra l
+ 45.00
+ 25.00
+ 45.00
Blackheath Avenue
+45
+ 30.00
1 + 35.00
+40
1
The Debating Chamber + 40.00
5 + 45.00
4
3
Croom’s Hill Plateau 1.
Store Room
2.
Vehical Rampway
3.
Testing Chamber West
4.
Testing Chamber East
5.
Debating Chambers
2
+45 +40
1
The Debating Chamber
5 10 15
25
50
100
150
Croom’s Hill Plateau 1.
Store Room
2.
Vehical Rampway
3.
Testing Chamber West
4.
Testing Chamber East
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT AA 5.
Debating Chambers
DATUM LINE GREENWICH PARK + 45.00
B,BB
+ 40.00 + 35.00 + 30.00 + 25.00 + 20.00 + 15.00
80
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
CEMENTING THE TOPOGRAPHY
m + 40.00
St Pau ls
+ 25.00
St Pauls
Gree n Obse wich rvato ry
0°0984
’E
Cathed ral
+ 30.00
7850m +45
+45
1
+40
+40 + 35.00
Ramped Access
Stepped Access + 40.00
+ 45.00
+45
+45 +40
+40
Blackheath Avenue
Ramped Access
+45
The Store Room
1 +45
+40
+40
Ramped Access
The Ha-Ha N
B 5 3 A,AA
+ 45.00 + 40.00 + 35.00 + 30.00 + 25.00
2
+ 20.00 + 15.00
5 10 15
25
50
100
150
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT
The Datum Line follows the contour lines of Greenwich Park’s escarpment. Literally ‘filling in’ and cementing the space between the 45m and 40m contour lines, an intentionally defensive landscape gesture can command the DATUM LINE topography’s perspective of London.
GREENWICH PARK
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
CEMENTING THE TOPOGRAPHY
81
0°0984
’
Cathed E ral 7
5.
4.
6.
3.
1.
82
DESIGN PRINCIPLES//
1. Book End the Datum Line
4. Provide an Accessible Landscape
Concrete walls will provide both a ‘book end’ and threshold to the Datum Line. Each end of the Datum Line will be defined by a 10 metre wall which spatially narrates the begin and the end of the journey whilst directing the user towards the view.
Where the large axis roads cross the Datum Line a ramped access will be provided. True accessibility is fundamental in underpinning the democratic and public nature of the Datum line.
2. Respect the Existing Layout of the Park
5. The Ha-Ha
The historic layout of the park is to be respected. Whilst the datum line juxtaposes a bold statement upon this historic landscape, the concrete gesture will not interfere or disrupt the current function and circulation of the park.
3. Protect Existing Veteran and Ancient Trees: The Debating Chamber
6. Protect Existing Veteran and Ancient Trees: The Tree Pit
Where the topography dictates and the Datum Line is wide enough, amphitheatres will step down towards veteran and ancient trees. Dictated by the tree protection zones the landscape proposal will not impact the parks mature tree stock.
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
A stepped Ha-Ha will affront the Datum Line. Providing a concrete infinity line, views will be un-impacted whilst a safe edge to the termination of the landscape will be provided. The Ha Ha also provides a continuous seated prospect of the view.
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
Where the topography steepens and the Datum Line narrows a tree pit will be provided to ensure the preservation of existing ancient and veteran trees.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
83
AN EXPRESSION OF EXTREME HORIZONTALITY//
1
Lo ve r
One Tree Hill East Greenwich 750m
0°00’ E
0m
60
c
i nw
ee Gr
r2 ula E ins en ’51 P 0 h
0°0
1.
84
Store Room
2.
Vehical Rampway
3.
Testing Chamber West
4.
Testing Chamber East
5.
Debating Chambers
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
AN EXPRESSION OF HORIZONTALITY
’s W alk
0°0984
’E St Pauls Cathedra l 7850m
Blackheath Avenue
2
Croom’s Hill Plateau
3
1 1 6000m City of London
0°8803’ E
Gree n Obse wich rvato ry
St Mary’s Quarter
ty Ci
Can a
ry W
ha 0°02 rf 7850 35’ E m
m 00 60 on nd ’ E Lo 03 of °88 0
N
4
5
0
5 10 15
25
50
100
10
20
40
80
120
150
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT DATUM LINE GREENWICH PARK
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
TOPOGRAPHY AS UNIQUENESS
85
PARLIAMENT AS A PROCESS// Construction of the Datum Line
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
‘Deciding on the buildings of London’s future, standing on the tombstones of it‘s past’
The datum line will be constructed out of recycled materials from demolished buildings within London. Providing a sustainable conceptual ‘closed loop’, THEand SKYLINE PARLIAMENT the public will decide on the buildings of London’s future whilst standing on the DATUM LINE tombstones of it’s past. GREENWICH PARK
86
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Process of the Parliament
Datum Line Database
Pariament is called
A KIT OF PARTS Moveable Furniture
Augmented Reality
‘The Windarium’
The Datum Line App
‘The Windarium’
Let’s test this!
Is this augmented reality the future?
Don’t forget to Vote!
The Datum Line provides a physical platform for a virtual process. Once a proposal submitted the public haveis6made’ weeks to visit the Parliament and test ‘A proposal is submitted, theis Pariament is called, a decision
the validity of the proposal against the backdrop of London. Presentations are held the proponents of the application and testing chambers allow citizens to THEbySKYLINE PARLIAMENT challenge there ideas. DATUM LINE
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT // GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE// GREENWICH PARK
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
87
‘What will the future London S 88
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
THE SKYLINE
DATUM
Skyline look like?... You decide’
PARLIAMENT
M LINE
The Datum Line provides a Pan-city appoach to the staging of tall buildings upon the skyline of London. The people can shape the city silhouette that represents them.
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
89
Meandering through Greenwich Park the landscape gesture solidifies a point in space and time. A Datum upon which the skyline of London can be judged.
90
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
technologies juxtapose proposed ‘No longer the dormant onlooker, Greenwich Park becomes anVirtual active reality instrument of change. ’ buildings against existing and planned buildings of the future.
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
DATUM LINE GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
GREENWICH PARK
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
91
Speculators of tall buildings applications have the ‘The first monthly Planning Parliament is called. The Architects Present ’ opportunity to present their design to further inform an engaged public of their proposals.
THE MOBILE COMMONS
92
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
DATUM LINE
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
GREENWICH PARK
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The testing allows users to ‘The wind machine blows and the building glows. But will it passchamber the peoples scrutiny? ’ look upon a detailed 3d model of a proposal. The windarium wind machines calculate and recreate the wind effects of the tall building.
TESTING CHAMBER EAST DATUM LINE
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
GREENWICH PARK
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
93
The demolished buildings of London used in the construction of the Datum Line are memorialised upon the landscape’s surface.
94
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The Ha-Ha provides seating and safety without compromising the horizontal gesture. Views remain uninterrupted and the skyline of London is under-scored. THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
95
talpmetnoc si enily ks s’nodnoL fo erutuf eht seerT tuntsehC teewS tneicna eht htaeneB‘
96
SREBM HCPARLIAMENT GNIT//ABGREENWICH ED EPARK HTDATUM LINE// THEA SKYLINE ENIL MUTAD KRAP HCIWNEERG
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The debating chambers provide ample seating and a variety of confined, private and public spaces within which proposals can be discussed and interrogated. THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
97
98
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Lying dormant no more the onlooker of one of the most evocative panoramas in the world, the London Skyline, has been awoken. Datum Line is now an active instrument of change
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
99
Undershaft
200M
Bishopsgate Goodsyard
40 Leadenhall
300M
100M
+ 25.00
rf 7
5’ E
Wh a
23
ary
0°0
Ca n
0m
00
3’ E
80
n6
do
0°8
n Lo
50
of
m
y Cit
0M
St Mary + 45.00
+ 45.00
Croom’s Hill Plateau
Set on Greenwich Park’s escarpment on the banks of the Thames, Datum Line orchastrates the democratic drawing of London’s skyline.
100
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
THE DATUM LINE
The Infinity Tower
South Quay
The Wardian
Newfoundland
One Bank Street
The Pinnicle
Glengall Tower
Wood Wharf
The Spire
The Maddison
200M
uls
0°00’51 E
Greenwich Pe
0m 65 E k 6 5’ ar 12 c P 0°0
St P a
pi
ym
+ 25.00
Canary Wharf 2850m
0°0
Cat 984’ E hed ral 785
Gree n Obse wich rvato ry
+ 30.00
0m
E h 0’ wic
75
0 0° een r
t as
G
E
0M + 40.00
0m
ninsular 26
00m
100M
Ol
y’s Quarter
300M
One Tree Hill
+ 40.00
+ 40.00
+ 35.00
+ 40.00 + 45.00
Lover’s W al
k
+ 45.00
+ 45.00 + 45.00
Blackheath Avenue N 0
5
10
20
40
60
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
GREENWICH PARK DATUM LINE//
TOPOGRAPHY AS UNIQUENESS
101
102
06
CONCLUSION //
103
Conclusion//
L
ondon’s Skyline is an unfinished and ever
planning decisions. Competing cities in a globalised
changing composition drawn upon the city’s
political and economic landscape has accelerated
horizon. In a state of perpetual flux, London’s
efforts to create a visually seductive, marketable and
skyline expands and alters in response to competing
iconic city image (Zukin, 1995; Minton, 2006). Following
social and political trajectories of the city below.
globalised trends set by cities such as Dubai and
A skyline however isn’t merely a line drawn upon the
Singapore, London has embraced a decontextualised
horizon but a man made landscape composition that
proliferation of tall buildings upon its historically low
provides an abstract representation of a city’s plurality
rise skyline. With financial benefits, the opportunity
(Attoe, 1981; Appert and Montes, 2015; Gassner, 2013;
for capital accumulation for investors, and the ‘trickle
Kostof, 1991).
An urban portrait providing a self-
down’ economic effect of section 106 and Community
reifying marker of the changing powers, trajectories
infrastructure levies (CIL) global architecture has been
and values of the people who occupy it, a city skyline
central to London’s entrepreneurial urbanism (Sklair,
adopts an inherent representative responsibility to its
2005; Charney, 2007; Gassner, 2013).
people (Appert and Montes, 2015).
It is evident powerful politicians, private stakeholders
With over 250 tall buildings due to be delivered within
and real estate speculators making up the Transnational
the city it is undeniable that London’s skyline is growing
Capitalist Class (TCC) strongly influence the redrawing
taller. A contentious issue with many opponents to this
and commodification of the city image into an
verticalisation, it is possible that the current planning
international destination for global capital (Sklair,
system is failing to produce a consented image of the
2005). Interested in capital accumulation and power
city. Currently mediated by guidelines set out within
consolidation,
the London Plan and it’s supplementary document,
bourgeoisie use iconic real estate investment as a
the London View Frame Management (LVMF) London’s
vehicle to reify their status. Whilst the London Plan
planning system focusses on the protection of narrow
outlines areas for tall building development, economic
corridors which preserve the silhouettes of iconic
aspirations pave the way for the TCC’s privatisation of
historic symbols.
the skyline. The London skyline then, is a territorialised
With powers entrusted to the GLA, local planning
commodity for the powerful few and not the collective
bodies and the London Mayor, private capitalist
many.
pressures can be seen to influence tall building
This privatised verticalisation of the skyline does
104
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
CONCLUSION
this
socio-economic
international
however present serious implications to the position
(Twitchen and Adams, 2012). Using virtual technologies
of the historic edifices upon the skyline. Historic sites
the transfer of power can flow both up and down
provide a national sense of self, conveying moral and
traditional channels of technocratic knowledge
cultural signifiers of nationhood to outsiders and
distribution. With a publicly accessible restructuring
underpinning a national identity to insiders (Edensor,
of the planning system, citizens can be easily made
2012). The current staging of tall, de-contextualised
aware of proposals and feed comments back to the
buildings upon the skyline then, threatens the
applications proponents. With an more engaged public,
predominance of these iconic sites within the capital’s
the planning of London’s skyline can be mandated
spatial hierarchy
to the people and a truly democratic, consented, and
The proliferation of capitalist edifices upon the skyline
plural skyline could be drawn.
also presents problems with what Sharon Zukin terms
By forwarding a symbiotic pairing of the physical
‘the symbolic economy’ (Zukin, 1995). With the modern
landscape and virtual technologies it is possible that
product of a globalised city being culture, consumable
the future planning of London’s skyline can be publicly
images are drawn to attract investment. This redrawing
consented. Using natural panoramas of the city, virtual
however presents a semiotic disconnect to a people’s
reality technologies can superimpose future tall
metaphysical sense of belonging. With the staging of
building applications upon the skyline. E-Democracy
capitalist symbols upon a city skyline a polis can ask
(Vinod Kumar, 2017) technologies can be employed
who this skyline is really representing? By endorsing
to obtain quick and informed decisions about a tall
the packaging and presentation of a consumable,
building proposals legitimacy. Providing a landscape
globally iconic skyline, the GLA and other publicly
intervention which outlines the skyline of London
elected officials risk alienating the people of London
in an independent, neutral and non-biased way, the
from their sense of civic duty and public engagement.
apparatus for a democratic and representative skyline
Models for a more accessible and interactive public
could be employed.
participation stratagem do however exist, not in the physical realm, but in the virtual one. Web 2.o technologies have the potential to increase public participation and make manifest a new political platform for high performance public participation
THE SKYLINE PARLIAMENT //
CONCLUSION
105
106
07
REFERENCES //
107
REFERENCES // Appert, M. and Montes, C. (2015). Skyscrapers and the redrawing of the London skyline: a case of territorialisation through landscape control. Articulo, [online] (Special issue 7). Available at: http://articulo.revues. org/2784 [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017]. Attoe, W. (1981). Skylines. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Charney, I. (2007). The politics of design: architecture, tall buildings and the skyline of central London. Area, 39(2), pp.195-205. Charney, I. (2007). The politics of design: architecture, tall buildings and the skyline of central London. Area, 39(2), pp.195-205. Edensor, T. (2002). National identity, popular culture and everyday life. 1st ed. Oxford: Berg Publishers, pp.39-55. English Heritage. (2016). Londoner’s want Their say on the Skyline. [online] Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/whats-new/ news/londoners-want-a-say-on-their-skyline [Accessed 30 Aug. 2017]. Garmory, N., Vernon, S. and Tennant, R. (2009). Landscape Architect’s Pocket Book, 1. Burlington: Elsevier. Gassner, G. (2013). Unfinished and unfinishable: London’s skylines. Ph.D. London School of Economics. Jacobs, A. and Appleyard, D. (2007). Toward an Urban Design Manifesto. In: R. LeGates and F. Stout, ed., The City Reader, 4th ed. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, p.442. Johnston, C. (2017). Paddington skyscraper scrapped after fierce opposition. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www. theguardian.com/ar tanddesign/2016/jan/30/paddington-
108
skyscraper-scrapped-after-fierce-opposition
[Accessed
30
Aug.
2017]. Kostof, S. (1991). The city shaped. New York: Bulfinch Press. Vinod Kumar, T. (2017). E-Democracy for Smart Cities. Singapore: Springer. Minton, A. (2006). The Privatisation of Public Space. 1st ed. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, pp.3-7. Olwig, K.R. (2005) ‘Representation and alienation in the political land-scape’,
Cultural
Geographies,
12(1),
pp.
19–40.
doi:
10.1191/1474474005eu321oa. Ruppert, E. (2005). The Moral Economy of Cities. 1st ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp.126-148. Smith, A. (1991) National Identity. London: Penguin, pp.16-18. Short, M. (2012). Planning for tall buildings. London: Routledge. The Mayor of London (2016). The London Plan. London: GLA. The Royal Parks. (2017). History and Architecture. [online] Available at:https://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/greenwich-park/aboutgreenwich-park/history-and-architecture [Accessed 24 Sep. 2017]. Townsend, A. and Tully, J. (2004). Modernising Planning: Public Participation in the UK Planning System. In: Urban and Regional Planning. Porto: EUROPEAN REGIONAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION.
109
Twitchen, C. and Adams, D. (2012). Using web technology to increase levels of public participation in planning. Town Planning Review, 83(6), p.vii-xiv. Sklair, L. (2005). The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(3), pp.485-500. Zukin, S. (1995). The Cultures of Cities. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, pp.132-142. Zukin, S. (2010). Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.1-16.
110
111