# Skyscraper petition



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Having visited London recently, UNESCO are recommending that LBT and the Bishopsgate Tower be cancelled, or the
Tower of London could lose its "World Heritage" status.

Please sign this petition to the Mayor of London -

*http://www.petitiononline.com/ldntower/petition.html*

Many thanks for your help!


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

These are the skyscrapers they want to cancel -



London Bridge Tower (310m)















Bishopsgate Tower (288m)


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

That's so stupid from them.

Who the hell is running UNESCO? Maybe if they had existed at the time of the tower of London and Saint-Paul they would have called for them never to be constructed?


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Is there a petition to support UNESCO? Personnaly I think UNESCO is right. Those skyscrapers should be built in Canary Wharf, not next to Saint Paul and the Tower of London. Would you imagine skyscrapers built next to Notre Dame and Le Louvre?


----------



## 1878EFC (Jun 24, 2006)

This Unesco holding Liverpool back abit aswell.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

brisavoine said:


> Is there a petition to support UNESCO? Personnaly I think UNESCO is right. Those skyscrapers should be built in Canary Wharf, not next to Saint Paul and the Tower of London. Would you imagine skyscrapers built next to Notre Dame and Le Louvre?


London isn't Paris.

Read the points made in my petition:-


- The Shard of Glass, the Bishopsgate Tower and the other skyscrapers planned for the City are truly outstanding examples of architecture. They are world class projects that deserve every chance to be built.

- The City of London is a major financial centre, and in order to retain this position it needs to be flexible and catering to the needs of large corporate tenants.

- The City of London is running out of space and needs to increase the density within its boundaries.

- London has always been a city of contrasts, with old and new juxtaposed together. If anything, these new skyscrapers will enhance and compliment the Tower of London. In any case, only the view from the east side will change. Most other views (from the west, north, southwest) will remain virtually the same.

- A city should never be allowed to stagnate. London is a thriving, dynamic, 21st century metropolis. Throughout its history, it has changed and evolved. It is constantly relying on new people, new ideas, new architecture. This is what makes the place feel so "alive" and vibrant. New landmarks are needed, not just for us, but for future generations to appreciate.

- London already has some of the strictest planning laws in the world. Tightening them still further will cause developers to shun the City, or produce architecture that is bland and lacking any grace or verticality.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

brisavoine said:


> Is there a petition to support UNESCO? Personnaly I think UNESCO is right. Those skyscrapers should be built in Canary Wharf, not next to Saint Paul and the Tower of London. Would you imagine skyscrapers built next to Notre Dame and Le Louvre?


The city of London isn't central Paris Brisavoine.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

London isn't Paris, but monuments are monuments, wherever they happen to be located. I am personally in favor of mixing the old and the new, and I would support building skyscrapers around the Montparnasse Tower or the Saint Lazare train station in central Paris, but there are some monuments that are so symbolic and that have such a historical value, such as Notre Dame, the Forbidden City, or the Tower of London, that they need to be preserved unadulterated for future generations. Even the Chinese, who are destroying their old city centers _en masse_, have understood that and have forbidden building skyscrapers near the Forbidden City of Beijing. They are building them in other parts of Beijing. Why can't Londoners do the same? London is large and there are plenty of places in central London that could house these skyscrapers without damaging any cultural icon, such as around Elephant and Castle, or around the King's Cross and St Pancras train stations.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

I have signed it


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

brisavoine said:


> London isn't Paris, but monuments are monuments, wherever they happen to be located. I am personally in favor of mixing the old and the new, and I would support building skyscrapers around the Montparnasse Tower or the Saint Lazare train station in central Paris, but there are some monuments that are so symbolic and that have such a historical value, such as Notre Dame, the Forbidden City, or the Tower of London, that they need to be preserved unadulterated for future generations. Even the Chinese, who are destroying their old city centers _en masse_, have understood that and have forbidden building skyscrapers near the Forbidden City of Beijing. They are building them in other parts of Beijing. Why can't Londoners do the same? London is large and there are plenty of places in central London that could house these skyscrapers without damaging any cultural icon, such as around Elephant and Castle, or around the King's Cross and St Pancras train stations.


I very well can imagine people saying that about the Eiffel tower 100 years ago, and it would ruin the view on the Notre Dame, the Palais Chaillot or the dome des invalides
And anyways, as wjfox showed, these towers would only very partially block the view to the tower of london.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

virtual said:


> I very well can imagine people saying that about the Eiffel tower 100 years ago, and it would ruin the view on the Notre Dame, the Palais Chaillot or the dome des invalides


The Eiffel Tower is located 4 km (2.5 miles) from Notre Dame. The French government would never have accepted that the Eiffel Tower be built just across the river from Notre Dame. As for the Palais de Chaillot, it was built AFTER the Eiffel Tower. And the Invalides is a monument of Paris but it is not a national cultural icon like Notre Dame or the Tower of London.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

virtual said:


> That's so stupid from them.
> 
> Who the hell is running UNESCO? Maybe if they had existed at the time of the tower of London and Saint-Paul they would have called for them never to be constructed?



My sentiments exactly......build on London I say!


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

this is just one more example of UN overreach.....


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

You still understand my point, this was only an example.

London is a city that has always mixed old and new and while they should preserve the tower of London, it shouldn't be an excuse not to build anything taller than 200m in a 2km circle around it.


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 7, 2006)

brisavoine said:


> Is there a petition to support UNESCO? Personnaly I think UNESCO is right. Those skyscrapers should be built in Canary Wharf, not next to Saint Paul and the Tower of London. Would you imagine skyscrapers built next to Notre Dame and Le Louvre?


I take your point brisavoine and ideally the talls in London would be clustered at canary wharf as those in Paris are and hopefully will be at la Defense. That is the better solution by far.


However central london has nothing like the architectural integrity, or to be frank the attractiveness of paris intramuros so the comparison whilst having some merit is not entirely comparing like for like. The Tower and St. Pauls are already surrounded by ill conceived functional ordinariness at the moment.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

What has been the City's reaction to the request? Any buzz in the media either way? How much influence do you think this will have on the City's planning? It really is a most extraordinary request for a thriving city to just pack up and remain a museum. I would never have thought they would feel it was within their mandate to suggest such a broad request.


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

^^ Most people want them built


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

The UNESCO position is rdiculous since the shard sits across the Thames from the Tower. Also, Bishopsgate tower is quite a distance from the Tower of London. It won't impact it all.

I would agree with UNESCO if these buildings were next to the Tower, but they are not.


----------



## Miso (Dec 23, 2006)

I'm in favor of UNESCO


----------



## VanSeaPor (Mar 12, 2005)

I signed the petition. It's all very well for UNESCO to protect heritage sites, but to cancel nearby skyscrapers isn't needed.


----------



## Avens (Jan 19, 2006)

Of course. The more support the better. Maybe people from outside of London can give a more objective view as well.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

I signed it too, and gave them a tounge lashing as well...stupid buggers, backward pillicks, fools, pigs..... i'll stop now


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

if the skyscrapers were actually NEAR the Tower, sure Im all for it. But when theyre 2 km away and just because their outline manages to perforate the outer walls Im not for it. To 'protect' the views of the Tower from 10 miles away does not mean that all highrises within ten miles equidistant, have to be banned, that all highrises within the whole centre be downscaled to midrises.

This already applies to the 'viewing corridors' to St Pauls, areas stretching for dozens of miles that no highrises can block, hence London's haphazard looking skyline instead of all the highrises bunched together in one CBD district like in Paris. In effect this made the city look worse.

What Im railing against is the mass of low-midrise concrete and glass buildings hemming right up to the castle gates, the fact the Tower is a big traffic roundabout too - to which not one of those ghastly buildings (you see it would help if they were nice too, but theyre not) were stopped by either EH nor UNESCO. A new one went up last year for Chrissakes, Tower Bridge House that directly looks onto the Tower walls and that you didnt hear a peep from nimbyist EH about. I remember when they built it it was the London skyscraper forums of all places that were filled with criticisms that it was far too near the Tower. In my view it's the people on these modern forums that care about architecture as a whole, aloit more, which cant be said for the so called 'preservationists' who even fail to do what it says on their own tin:

















^if theyre going to allow buildings grasping right up onto the walls of the Tower, but ban skyscrapers 2 km away because their profile might jut above the walls (which Im afraid they didnt complain about with Natwest tower, Gherkin or any of the many other city highrises that do, and from a far closer location too), Im tempted to say: *this is just a ploy to take down highrises in London*.

Two words: English Heritage.


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

seems a little suspicious doesnt it??


----------



## jlshyang (May 22, 2005)

VanSeaPor said:


> I signed the petition. It's all very well for UNESCO to protect heritage sites, but to cancel nearby skyscrapers isn't needed.


i second that.


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

500 signatures now.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Thanks to everyone who's signed so far - I can assure you it is much appreciated.

I'll be contacting Ken Livingstone early next week.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

It looks like that London will have a skyscraper sprawl. They building skyscrapers everywhere. Shouldn`t they concentrate the tallest skyscrapers in the CBD?


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Tom_Green said:


> They building skyscrapers everywhere. Shouldn`t they concentrate the tallest skyscrapers in the CBD?


LBT and Bishopsgate - the two tallest proposals - are both going up in the main CBD. Most of the other tallest proposals will stand around them in a very tight cluster, or in the 2nd CBD at Canary Wharf.

It's true that several other clusters are forming, but I don't see a problem with this. London is so huge, it's almost like a series of smaller cities joined together. The clusters are forming in just the right places I think.

For example - Elephant & Castle, a major transport node just outside the centre, which is undergoing a massive regeneration. Then there's Croydon in the far south, a major commercial/retail zone which already has a cluster of midrises. In the north, there's Stratford, where the Olympics are being held. A couple of hotel/residential skyscrapers are planned there. In the south-west, there's Vauxhall, which desperately needs regenerating and could soon be home to 3-4 residential skyscrapers. Ditto for the South Bank, where the Beetham Tower and a couple of others are planned.

The two biggest and most obvious clusters, by far, will remain the City and Canary Wharf. In terms of size, quality of design, and number of towers, they are the most important, and most proposals will be concentrated there. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a bonus that we're getting additional clusters.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

I'll be sending the petition to Ken Livingstone (Mayor of London) by the end of this week.

Anyone who hasn't signed it yet, please do so! We need all the signatures we can get.

http://www.petitiononline.com/ldntower/petition.html

Many thanks for your support kay:


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

I've just contacted the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Sent separate emails to Tessa Jowell, Richard Caborn, David Lammy.

Made a couple of very slight modifications, as recommended by Monkey and BenL. Here's the final email -


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


*Don't Hold London Back - A Petition in Support of London's Future Development*


Dear Rt Hon Ms Tessa Jowell

I am contacting you regarding the recent visit by UNESCO to London, and their subsequent attempts to place severe restrictions on tall buildings in the city. In particular, they have called for the 72-storey "Shard of Glass" and the world-class Bishopsgate Tower to be cancelled.

I would like to draw to your attention a petition I created, which includes a detailed list of objections to UNESCO's statement: It has gained nearly 800 signatures. This is being sent to Ken Livingstone and the London Assembly, and will also be sent directly to UNESCO themselves.

You will note that people from around the world have been signing this petition, not just Londoners. All of them are concerned by UNESCO's heavy-handed tactics, which would undoubtedly do far more harm than good to London's image, vitality, tourism, development and financial power.

The petition can be accessed at the following URL - http://www.petitiononline.com/ldntower/petition.html

I hope you will take this into consideration when responding to UNESCO's demands.

Many thanks for your time.

Yours sincerely,

William Fox


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


And the automated reply I received...




Thank you for your email to [email protected]


This message is an automatic acknowledgement of your email sent to DCMS Ministers.

Please note this is receiving attention. If your correspondence requires a response the DCMS aims to reply within 20 working days.

Thank you for your interest in the work of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.



Correspondence and Ministerial Support Unit
Department for Culture, Media & Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5DH
www.culture.gov.uk


----------



## Davee (Oct 22, 2005)

I hope this works, I was in central London for dinner on Friday and Monday nights - just beautiful, and will be even more beautiful when these wonderful buildings fill the skyline!!!


----------



## ch1le (Jun 2, 2004)

Hah they are doing the exact same thing In Tallinn, dont build them damn Highrises or well take your old town off the list...

Sorry sods they are thats what!


----------

