In 1984 George Orwell wrote that ‘Airstrip One, for instance, had not been so called in those days: it had been called England, or Britain, though London, he felt fairly certain, had always been called London’ and Eric Schlosser has just published a book (Command and Control) reporting, on the basis of a trawl through US archives, that this is just what the Americans had in mind. Planes with armed nuclear weapons were not allowed to fly over US territory but were allowed to fly from Airstrip One. Visiting London is now like visiting an airport. If you are having a hard time in an airport (as has happened to me more than once) it can be a relief to find a fellow countryman. I spent an hour on the tube yesterday and hardly heard an English voice. This does NOT mean that civility has gone. A large girl with a badge saying Baby on Board came onto the train and a Middle Eastern man jumped up to offer her his seat while I was still puzzling over what the badge meant. Over 50% of Londoners were not born in the UK and do not have English as their first language. London (and the UK more generally) is definitely not the Workshop of the World any more but it has important positions in several industries: eg financial services, music, drugs, advertising and bragging.

Perhaps it will become necessary to introduce local quotas for schools, universities and positions to ensure some form of equity for the locally born?

The phenomena of upward mobility is an interesting one. Perhaps because of the industrial revolution nearly everyone got used to being upwardly mobile (in much the same way as is the case in developing countries today). So the question becomes – what happens once a country is developed? What drives real economic growth then?

The rural based aristocracy have been struggling with downward mobility since the industrial revolution also, with the middle class and the growth of cities, being the historical beneficiaries.

Surely it can’t be only consumption by those in the financial services sector and imported money from the consumption of the wealthy from other countries that is supporting the London economy?

Sadly, the Church of England, in a different way to the Church of Rome, is totally hung up on sex. It is scarcely reported in the press except about the roles of women, gays and lesbians in the church hierarchy – and its views on these topics are about 50 years behind those of the general population.
Financial services appear an attractive option for a post-industrial city. One of the things global financiers want is attractive residential property with good access to restaurants, theaters, airports , servants, trafficked girls etc. London has provided its incoming financiers with many of these things by selling them its property and allowing unlimited immigration. This has driven up property prices and is dispossessing the old middle class. I think that to follow London in financial services Melbourne would also need to take this route.

It occurred to me reading into the new Melbourne Plan, after reading about London’s Tall Buildings Policy, that London probably took a bigger hit than most in the GFC because of it being predominantly (and historically) a financial services city.

Not much mention is/was made of the differential exposure of cities to the GFC based on their industry structure.

Melbourne for example, is moving away from its strong manufacturing base and is looking more towards the knowledge and finance industries to underpin its economic future.

This seems to be a common trend in contemporary cities offshoring their manufacturing base?

So it would seem there is going to be greater competition to become a financial services based city. This will also change the global financial risk profile for cities individually and collectively.

If London is 1000 years ahead of the game – it also needs to be able to keep its eyes on the horizon in a dynamic way – rather than on other cities which are looking to follow its lead.

Venice was a mercantile city. Perhaps it might be worth looking at what happened there for some lessons going forward (maybe Ruskin’s Stones of Venice)?

Yes, and before his recent appointment to the See of Canterbury Archbiship Justin Welby had spent his career making money. The poor old battered and tatty Church of England quite probably hoped that he would be good for their finances as well as for their popularity. I would like to hear more from him about architecture and landscape even if it meant hearing less about his views on tax policy! I will do a blog post about the Shard with some comment on its symbolic significance.

I am not sure which definition would be the one favoured by the Archibishop of Cantebury. But the spiritual welfare of London is his concern, and if the material development of the city is reflecting the influence of mammon, he needs to be talking architecture, landscape and urban design too!

My preferred definition is ‘unjust material gain’ rather than wealth per se – and having experienced the GFC worldwide – it is an aspect of wealth accumulation we as global citizens should all be concerned about.

Renaissance London was very much a ‘city of spires‘ so one cannot argue that this geometry is inappropriate. The big difference is that Old St Paul’s (which had a spire) was devoted to God and the Spire is devoted to Mammon. One could make a case for this being a timely change: people seem to care less about God, even if they think he exists, and more about Mammon. We seem to have forgotten St Matthew. We care more for today and less for tomorrow: “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” – Matthew 6:19-21,24 (KJV)

His comments particularly about one building (the Shard) becoming predominant on the skyline or on the hierarchy of dominance of additons to the skyline are incredibly important.

The Edinburgh study makes the point that the symbolic buildings of the city should dominate the skyline with the exception of the Castle located above the city. This is fundamentally a decision about the image the city wants to project as much as it is about respecting the legacy of the past.

I am not sure what the opinion is about the appropriate heirarchy of buildings in London?

He also makes an interesting comment on the intention to create ‘make believe countryside’ in the Royal Parks. If he is correct about this, this aspect of the designer’s intent should inform the city’s policy on limiting the intrusion of buildings on the skyline around these parks. (This issue was also discussed in one of the reports).

You are right about Canary Wharf and Broadgate. I often look at Canary Wharf from Greenwich. The view is particularly good between now and Christmas for several reasons: the atmosphere is more atmospheric; all the office lights tend to be on at dusk; the sunlight, when it is there, is particularly rich at dusk (also because of the moisture-laden atmosphere). Greenwich Park provides a foreground ‘proscenium’ of trees and the result can look like a romantic medieval castle. The chief planner for the City of London (Peter Rees) hoped to achieve a similar effect in the City but has not, so far, pulled it off.
Here is a link to an interesting comment on the City skyline from Simon Jenkins. He is a really excellent liberal journalist (in the classical sense of liberal – and therefore probably as disappointed with current British Liberalism as I am!) and the author of books on Britain’s 1000 best houses, 1000 best churches and (published this year) 100 best views. But he is also the Chairman of the National Trust and when it comes to skyline policy he is a hoary old tory.
Re Centrepoint ‘I see what you mean’! I have heard it castigated as an eyesore for so many years that I too am having difficulty adjusting to seeing its good qualities. Its architect, Richard Seifert, was better than average for the 1960s but was excessively criticised during his working life. The architectural press hated him for being ‘commercial’ and the public hated him for being ‘modern’.

So there is a case – particularly in London where the designers do design iconic buildings – that these are given similar respect as cathedrals and other historic structures.

However, the clustering of highrises (now considered medium rise) in Broadgate and Canary Wharf where there are less ‘iconic buildings’ seems to have been a successful approach.

So it seems to me that London should probably continue to produce both iconic buildings in a predominantly lowrise environment and clustered highrises in appropriate commercial or residential centres.

There is a discussion that is needed around the issue of historic iconic ‘eyesores’ (ie Centrepoint). [ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Centre_Point_London.jpg ]
It is actually a quality building of its type – but inappropriately located.

The issue of heritage rather than aesthetic contribution and the listing of modern buildings is a different conversation altogether. So it is a shame that the heritage organisations are having difficulty articulating their dual roles in identifying heritage and in ensuring appropriate regard is given to heritage icons within the skyline.

The advantage of planning principles is that they could give designers the opportunity to consider issues of planning and urban design importance beyond the site. These aspects often do not form part of the brief for a site, but can often become issues of contention that then get confused with the quality of the designer’s response embedded within their particular building design proposal.

So it may be that 1) a tall building is totally inappropriate for a site or it may be that 2)a tall building would be appropriate for a site if it was able to meet particular site and context constraints.