# UNESCO Concerned Tower of London Overshadowed by Skyscrapers



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*UNESCO visits Tower of London over skyscraper fears: report *

LONDON, Oct 21, 2006 (AFP) - Officials from the United Nations cultural heritage organisation (UNESCO) are visiting the Tower of London because they fear it is being overshadowed by skyscrapers, an official told BBC radio Saturday. 

In July, UNESCO's world heritage committee warned that the tower, founded nearly a thousand years ago, could be placed on its heritage danger list and noted "with great concern" a series of proposed new developments around it. 

Committee members are now visiting the tower to assess threats to its setting from nearby modern buildings, which include the iconic Swiss Re building, known as the Gherkin. 

World heritage committee member Kishore Rao told BBC radio: "If you have modern buildings coming up all around it and people -- pedestrians -- can't view a historic building against the skyline or in relation to other historic buildings in the vicinity, then it loses the value." 

The committee has called for Britain to report on the situation by next February and has said it "regrets" that policies to protect the property and its environment have not been applied effectively. 

The UNESCO experts will also visit London's Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey to see if they are being threatened by modern development plans. 

The Tower of London was built as a fortress, palace and prison in 1078 by William the Conqueror. 

It is one of London's most popular tourist attractions and is famed for its ravens and for housing the crown jewels of Britain's royal family.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

It's good UNESCO is the new architecture police.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*The Tower of London is under siege - from neighboring skyscrapers *
20 June 2007

LONDON (AP) - It has withstood assaults from renegade barons, rampaging peasants, and Nazi bombers, but the Tower of London, one of Britain's top tourist attractions, is once again under siege. 

This time the peril is from skyscrapers that threaten to ruin the view of the turreted tower, prompting the world's top cultural body to consider adding the 900-year-old fortress to its list of endangered world heritage sites. 

Built on the orders of William the Conqueror in the late 11th century, the 90-foot tall stone building long dominated the city's panorama -- a symbol of royal authority meant to inspire awe in rebellion-minded Londoners and would-be invaders. 

But by the time the tower was named a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1988, the city had sprawled past it. Today, hemmed in by a noisy highway and overrun by tourists, the landmark no longer casts quite the same shadow in an area dominated by glass-canopied office buildings and hypermodern skyscrapers like the Norman Foster building known as "The Gherkin." 

The World Heritage Committee will hand down its verdict on the tower sometime after its meeting in New Zealand on Saturday. The body says further construction could undermine the tower's profile even further. 

The Historic Royal Palaces, an independent charity which maintains the building at the southeastern edge of London, says there are eight planned projects that could affect the tower's visual integrity. Among them is the Shard of Glass, which at 1,016 feet would be Britain's tallest skyscraper when completed in 2011. 

The Shard might be visible from the tower's courtyard, diluting the sense of isolation visitors feel when they enter the fortress, said John Barnes, conservation and learning director for the Historic Royal Palaces. 

But some argue the juxtaposition of old and new enhances the tower's mystique. 

"In a way (the skyscrapers) add symbolically to what the buildings were about," said Alex Bux, a senior adviser to the mayor of London. "The tower was always a fortress on the edge of London -- the capital city -- and was always in tension with London as the capital city." 

New buildings help give London fresh appeal, said Tom Hall, travel editor for Lonely Planet Publications. 

"I think lots of people assume that visitors to London only want to see the old, (that) they only want to come look at the Tower of London or visit Madame Tussauds, and I don't actually think that is the case," he said. "One of the things that keeps people coming back to London is that it is a city constantly reinventing itself." 

Although being listed as an endangered heritage site will not directly halt nearby construction projects, citing the Tower would be a "huge embarrassment" for the British government, according to Barnes. Other sites listed as being in danger include Everglades National Park in Florida, the Iranian city of Bam and the Katmandu Valley in Nepal. 

Barnes said the Historic Royal Palaces was working to address UNESCO's concerns, and Britain's Department of Culture Media and Sport has also submitted a report to UNESCO detailing efforts made to protect the fortress's skyline. 

Whatever UNESCO's decision, construction is unlikely to deter the approximately 2 million people who tour the tower each year. 

"People want to still come and see it," Mike Rutter, a social studies teacher from Dallas, said at the tower, "even if they have to go through a maze of buildings to get there."


----------



## PresidentBjork (Apr 29, 2007)

Seems to me this is being used as a cover story to malign almost every new development in the city by the usual culprits. How on earth would the Shard have any impact on the view of the tower of London?

London was built on business, the Tower once was set far apart from the city, but as the city grew the Tower was subsumed by the encroaching metropolis.

These trends can't be suddenly halted, London needs to grow, and buildings demonstrative of this will be constructed. The Tower was a symbol of the city's permanence and center of power when William the Conquerer initiated construction. The new buildings, whilst not military, symbolize the same qualities.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Prince Charles: Skyscrapers ruin London *
By REGAN McTARSNEY, Associated Press Writer
Fri Feb 1, 1:50 AM ET

LONDON (AP) — Prince Charles warned Thursday that historic sites like the Tower of London have been "vandalized" by high-rise construction that threatens to ruin the character of the capital.

The heir to the British throne, who spoke at a conference on city planning, argued that poor planning could damage the integrity of Britain's historical areas — particularly criticizing tall buildings that dwarf smaller structures.

"We seem to be determined to vandalize these few remaining sites which retain the kind of human scale and timeless character that so attract people to them and which increase in value as time goes by," Charles said at St. James' Palace.

The speech was a challenge to London Mayor Ken Livingstone's support for a project near the Tower. The building, known as the "Shard of Glass," would be Britain's tallest skyscraper.

Charles suggested tall buildings be clustered in corporate areas. He pointed to Paris' La Defense, a business district full of skyscrapers kept separate from the city's famous museums and landmarks.

"The key point I want to make is that I am not opposed to all tall buildings," he said. "My concern is that they should be considered in their context; in other words, they should be put where they fit properly."

His speech also took aim at plans to build more than 3 million new homes by 2020.

"My concern is that London will become just like everywhere else with the same homogenized buildings that express nothing but outdated unsustainability," he said.

In 1984, Charles criticized a proposed addition to London's National Gallery, calling it a "monstrous carbuncle." More skyscrapers in London would be worse, he said.

"Not just one carbuncle, ladies and gentlemen, on the face of a much-loved old friend, but a positive rash of them that will disfigure precious views and disinherit future generations of Londoners," he said.

___

On the Net:

Prince Charles: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

I thought all these new skyscrapers were meant to make London better, not kill it.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

actually if anyones ever been to London, (damn maybe even live there) you'll know that the Tower of London is not surrounded by skyscrapers, nor is it slated to be, but by awful midrise blocks, either post pomo or brutalist. Its amazing UNESCO, English Heritage etc never made a sound when these were put up, some as recently as 2004, some facing directly onto the Tower walls. Its also just a big glorified roundabout I may add.

In short the development around the Tower of London is a national disgrace. HOWEVER it isn't, contrary to the reports, development in skyscraper form. The skyscrapers slated for The City area are over a mile away in some cases, it's just that their height alllows them to project above the view of the walls from a distance - nothing I may add that stopped all the highrises that already do the same since the 1960s.

In short, it's just an excuse, taken up by the Nimby's, with shortsighted UNESCO backing, to bring down highrise development in the city. 
See it as it is I say.


----------



## PresidentBjork (Apr 29, 2007)

the spliff fairy said:


> actually if anyones ever been to London, (damn maybe even live there) you'll know that the Tower of London is not surrounded by skyscrapers, nor is it slated to be, but by awful midrise blocks, either post pomo or brutalist. Its amazing UNESCO, English Heritage etc never made a sound when these were put up, some as recently as 2004, some facing directly onto the Tower walls. Its also just a big glorified roundabout I may add.
> 
> In short the development around the Tower of London is a national disgrace. HOWEVER it isn't, contrary to the reports, development in skyscraper form. The skyscrapers slated for The City area are over a mile away in some cases, it's just that their height alllows them to project above the view of the walls from a distance - nothing I may add that stopped all the highrises that already do the same since the 1960s.
> 
> ...



I know! It's not as if you can even see the tower from many angles any more. What the hell is wrong with these people? Have they not considered that a whacking great big 7 storey building along side the tower, may have a bigger impact on the surrounding aesthetic than a skyscraper almost a mile away?

People like Prince Charles seem to only care what the city looks like from a very far (possibly safest?) distance. Whilst at the same time completely disregarding the ground level fabric of the city. Worries about homogenized buildings? - then why prevent the construction of one of our most novel and acclaimed new projects whilst at the same time disregarding all those bland monoliths that just because they happen to be under 10 stories tall?


----------



## Dallasbrink (Nov 2, 2007)

Who cares what a figure head thinks? Its like when celebrities in America criticize the government for still allowing the death penalty or shit like that. We all go, ya, what ever, shut up, make your movies or records and over does on drugs already so we can mute the 2 weeks of Entertainment Tonight coverage of your not so awesome life!


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> *Prince Charles: Skyscrapers ruin London *
> By REGAN McTARSNEY, Associated Press Writer
> Fri Feb 1, 1:50 AM ET
> 
> ...


I don't think Paris is an espeically relivant comparason to London. The former has a strong unifed design dating mainly from a single era where as the latter has grown organically over hundreds of years. We already have medieval right next to regencey, neo gothic, neo classical, art deco, modernist etc so these new devolpments are very much in the tradision of the capital. Each should be judged on its own merits rather than though some grand plan IMHO.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I don't think the problem is so much what's immediately around the Tower of London but generally what's happening in the City as a whole, since the Tower should not be looked at in isolation when the whole area is the historic 'birthplace' of London.


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

hkskyline said:


> *UNESCO visits Tower of London over skyscraper fears: report *
> 
> LONDON, Oct 21, 2006 (AFP) - Officials from the United Nations cultural heritage organisation (UNESCO) are visiting the Tower of London because they fear it is being overshadowed by skyscrapers, an official told BBC radio Saturday.
> 
> ...


Arse.


----------



## 1878EFC (Jun 24, 2006)

we have the problem in Liverpool. Towers being rejected and having floors knocked off because of there close vicinity to the World Heritage Site and blocking views of the Cathedrals. In some cases I agree but others are just plain annoying. English Heritage are very influential in these matters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6083260.stm


----------



## Giri (Jan 28, 2005)

Quite frankly, I don't get why London should follow the global skyscraper war. What made London exciting was the London of the XIXth century. If I want tower exuberance, I'll go to Singapore or China.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

i think you really need to visit London to understand the debate. Its one of the worlds most futsuristic city amalgamated into one of the oldest, in layer upon layer.

Its not a central Paris preserved in aspic and neither is it a skyreaching Shanghai. The skyscrapers replace old sixties concrete that sprouted on the bombblasts (1/3 of the city was destroyed in the war).


----------



## Giri (Jan 28, 2005)

the spliff fairy said:


> i think you really need to visit London to understand the debate. Its one of the worlds most futsuristic city amalgamated into one of the oldest, in layer upon layer.


I know London. Concrete buildings from the 60s do excite me much more than giant glass suppositories.


----------



## Saigoneseguy (Mar 6, 2005)

Maybe they forgot that we don't fly up to helicopters or go boating to observe the Towers, which only becomes prominent at ground level and at a very close range. 

The towers are not high, office buildings from the 70's have overshadowed it long before.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

The area is question - you gotta understand this is a part of the centre that is architecturally mixed to the extreme, in part largely thanks to historical fire and war. In short, it's no setpiece. There is no grand vista or radial streets, they still follow the medieval tangle, with little architectural conformity. The urban fabric lends itself to mix and change.

I understand if the skyscrapers are replacing old buildings (which they are not) this would devalue the richness of the city, but if they are put up on the concrete dross of the postwar era methinks it an improvement. There are already 25 protected 'viewing corridors' in the city for famous monuments, the new rash of skrapers do not infringe on these established ones:















































London is not intramuros Paris, and it no longer looks like this if ya know what I mean, not since the Great Fire, the Georgians, the Victorians, the Edwardians, the War, the Postwar, the contemporary times:


----------



## SRG (Jan 2, 2005)

Giri said:


> I know London. Concrete buildings from the 60s do excite me much more than giant glass suppositories.


Then you my friend, are weird.


----------



## Ekumenopolis (Feb 2, 2005)

^^ :lol:


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I think the present mix of old and new in the City is OK. There are a lot of towers going up around St. Paul's but none are actually right next door and there is still a buffer zone away. Unless all new developments are pushed to Canary Wharf, I think the present arrangement is still acceptable, although the questions still should be asked.


----------



## heywindup (Dec 12, 2009)

Unionstation13 said:


> If they are replacing old buildings with highrises then I can understand their concern. But if they are replacing ugly 60's buildings what is the issue? We can't stop progression to keep every good view around. Most of the towers get thinner as they go up anyways to avoid blocking many views so what is the real problem here?


For the most part, yes -- they usually replace ugly 60's buildings. But once in a while, they do demolish old buildings such as the following below:

This building has been approved for demolition:










This facade has been demolished to incorporate a glass building:










Believe it or not, this building was proposed to be demolished. But, the Crown Estates backed out after protests.










They've also demolished whole blocks of old Victorian buildings to make way for Crossrail:









This building was demolished in the early 90s:










The sad part is that in the future, they will blame WWII for all these demolitions, just to cover up the fact that they have been demolishing old historic buildings decades after the war. They will be like _"oh, this building replaced a post-war building"_ because people wouldn't know any better.

And the saddest part is, despite all these demotions, London will still lag behind Paris in terms of economic output (GDP).


----------



## heywindup (Dec 12, 2009)

I've just found out that these two buildings below have been given approval for demolition:











See what I mean folks? It's not just 60's buildings that get demolished. Perfectly fine Victorian buildings are also being targeted by developers.


----------



## divisoriaboy (Feb 1, 2010)

So sad, same thing is happening in our country.


----------



## divisoriaboy (Feb 1, 2010)

divisoriaboy said:


> So sad, same thing is happening in our country.


hno:hno:


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

_Also related to the modernist theme vs. historic London : _

*Prince Charles accused of persuading Emir of Qatar to scrap project *
19 May 2010
Agence France Presse

One of London's leading property developers told a court Tuesday he believed Britain's Prince Charles persuaded the Emir of Qatar to block Britain's most expensive housing project.

Christian Candy is suing his Qatari partners in the prestigious Chelsea Barracks scheme in central London for 81 million pounds (116 million dollars, 95 million euros) for breach of contract.

Candy said in evidence to a High Court judge that he found out in March last year that Prince Charles had written a letter criticising the plans by leading architect Richard Rogers, best known for the iconic Pompidou Centre in Paris.

The heir to the British throne is an outspoken critic of much modern architecture and his traditionalist views have drawn criticism from architects and academics.

Candy said it was following a meeting with the prince that the Emir of Qatar had decided the planning application for the modernist scheme for 650 flats must be withdrawn.

Jeremy Titchen, of development company Qatari Diar (QD), was alleged to have said to Candy's colleague that when the emir was in the UK, the Prince of Wales spoke to him about "how awful the scheme was."

"The emir then went mental at Ghanim (bin Saad al Saad, managing director of Qatari Diar) telling him how awful the design was, and that they must withdraw as soon as possible."

Candy, who owns CPC Group, the other main company in the development consortium, is claiming the Qatari partners in the project withdrew the planning application in breach of their contract.

In his evidence, Candy said: "It was only the intervention of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that put the planning application in any conceivable doubt."

He added that he believes the planning application would have succeeded "if QD stood wholeheartedly behind it."

The site, in one of London's most expensive residential areas, was sold by the Ministry of Defence for 959 million pounds to the consortium now battling in the High Court.

The hearing is expected to last two weeks.


----------



## Annibale (Dec 30, 2006)

Not that the tower of London is this great beauty...
And thinking that the kings of Engalnd lived there...they must have been dirt poor...


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*The Shard, Europe's tallest building, launched amid debate*
AFP 
Thu, Jul 5, 2012

Europe's tallest skyscraper the Shard was inaugurated in London on Thursday in a dazzling sound and light show befitting its status as the capital's brashest and most controversial building.

Thousands of Londoners gathered at vantage points around the city and lined the River Thames to take in the show, but the structure has been the source of heated debate during its gradual rise above capital's skyline.

Twelve lasers and 30 searchlights lit up the night sky from the dramatic glass and steel structure -- which stands 310 metres (1,017 feet) tall -- connecting it to other London landmarks as the London Philharmonic Orchestra provided the soundtrack.

The building was earlier officially launched by Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, whose country funded the building, and Queen Elizabeth II's son Prince Andrew.

Prince Andrew said he hoped the building would give the local area "a huge new boost" during the formal ceremony.

London mayor Boris Johnson sang the Shard's praises, calling it "a quite astonishing piece of architecture".

"Of course it's not like any piece of architecture in the city at the moment, but that's the whole point about London," Johnson told BBC radio.

But in a nod to Londoners' split opinions on the building, he added: "I think it is important that we do not pepper-pot the city with skyscrapers everywhere. There's got to be control."

The Shard's inauguration marks the completion of the exterior of the building, located on the south bank of the River Thames at London Bridge, while work on the inside is expected to continue into 2013.

The skyscraper, whose name was coined by its Italian architect Renzo Piano, is still significantly shorter than Dubai's 828-metre Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world.

It takes over from Capital City Moscow Tower as the highest in Europe.

The 95-floor building has a glass facade covering the equivalent of eight football pitches, while the volume of concrete used in its construction could fill 22 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

It has capacity for 12,000 people and will contain a five-star hotel, 600,000 square metres (6.5 million square feet) of office space, luxury restaurants and shops.

The jagged-tipped skyscraper will also house 10 apartments, reportedly costing up to £50 million ($78 million, 62 million euros) each, which on floors 53 to 65 will be the highest residential properties in Britain.

Developer Sellar Property said it hopes the Shard's viewing decks, offering 360-degree panoramas, will become a major tourist attraction.

"It will become as essential a part of a visit to London as going to the top of the Empire State Building is for visitors to New York," said company chairman Irvine Sellar.

The building will open as a tourist attraction in February and more than 17,500 people have already registered interest online. Advance tickets are available from Friday.

The £450 million ($705.4 million, 560.70 million euro) project was 95 percent funded by Qatar.

The tiny oil-rich Gulf state has a growing London property portfolio that also includes Harrods department store and the Olympic Village.

But the building's futuristic silhouette has angered traditionalists who say it has dwarfed older landmarks such as St Paul's Cathedral and the Houses of Parliament.

English Heritage, the body responsible for protecting historic sites, says the skyscraper mars a view of St Paul's, while UNESCO has said it compromises the "visual integrity" of the Tower of London, a World Heritage site.

One commentator compared the Shard's impact on the skyline to the recent destruction of ancient shrines in Timbuktu in Mali.

"Timbuktu's shrines can and surely will be rebuilt," Simon Jenkins wrote in the Guardian on Wednesday. "The Shard has slashed the face of London for ever."

Piano, who also had a hand in the design of the Pompidou Centre in Paris, has defended the building against claims it is an overbearing presence on the skyline.

"This building is not arrogant," he told AFP in February.

"When you're making a building like this, that's so important for the city, you have to be absolutely sure that it's the right thing to do... as an architect, if you make a mistake it stays there for a long time."


----------

