British local government is run, substantially but not entirely, on the principle of Buggins’ turn and, in order for the new Buggins to get their turns, they have to do much what their predecessors did. The amazing Lord Jacky Fisher, who re-formed the Royal Navy as the decisive factor in the First World War, remarked in 1901 that ‘Favouritism was the secret of our efficiency in the old days… Going by seniority saves so much trouble. ‘Buggins’s turn’ has been our ruin and will be disastrous hereafter!’ I do not know how he became First Lord of the Admiralty but, when appointed, his first action was to decommission all the out of date ships. UK local authorities, with regard to public open space planning, never do this. They merely re-hash the work of their predecessors. So they lack, among many other things, coherent definitions of ‘public’, ‘open’ and ‘space’.
The Port of London Authority has control of the entire tideway (the tidal reach of the Thames). Mayor Boris has the EXCELLENT idea of making the PLA part of the Greater London Authority which he heads. Boris is no Buggins so this could only be good. I am less keen on Boris’ wish to ramp up London’s size by immigration. Most of them seem to be good people – but. as with booze, one can have too much of a good thing!

Does the Port Authority have ownership and management responsibilities for the Thames to low tide? Where does private ownership of the land begin?

The distinction between Site and Context is valid, though they could be conflated and ‘site’ could be regarded as a subset of ‘context’.
It would be helpful if planning authorities put more effort into making information available to designers – and less effort into the promulgation of hot air! Here, for example, is the Greenwich policy on public open space:
SO1 To adopt a positive approach to the use and treatment of open space by:
i. Maintaining and increasing suitable recreational facilities;
ii. Improving the environmental quality of open spaces;
iii. Identifying and conserving sites of nature conservation importance and;
iv. Recognising the value of landscape, biodiversity and open space features throughout the
urban environment.
I do not disagree with any of these policies but they are legalistic – not informative and not inspirational.

So yes a Context Statement would be good as well as a Site Statement, so that the two sets of concerns a clearly differentiated.

If this was so, it would also be necessary for more information to be available to designers on the development pipeline so that the changing context could be better understood. There may be some intellectual property, commercial in confidence and privacy imperatives in this.

They need to talk to the public but, even more important, they need to talk to themselves about contextual relationships! One category of sculpture is described as ‘site-related’. By implication, most sculpture is not in this category. But I guess ALL architecture needs to be site-related and I think designers must take this into account. Most probably they would all say they do but this probably little more than thinking that the context is going to benefit from a fine new building. I would like to see a Context Statement forming part of the design process. Then, since they have done it, the statement should form part of the planning permission process.

It is definitely worth seeing designers engage in a public conversation about their design that it not confrontational but rather educational in orientation. So that the public can be more enlightened about their thinking and perhaps can make comments with greater pertinancy to the designers thinking.

The cumulative impact of a single project on the future of a city skyline, as you allude to, is an even more important consideration which perhaps designers give as much thought to. It would be great to hear them speak more on this.

For me, the only ‘commandment’ is that the design team MUST explain the relationship with the environment that they envisage. They can make a case for it being indistinguishable from its its environment (eg the equipment is underground), similar to its environment or a sharp contrast with its environment. The Black Mountain Tower is obviously in the third category and for this type of ‘bid’ I think much depends on a relative assessment of scenic quality. If it is an ugly or humdrum place then there is a fair case for a contrast but if it is the most beautiful and admired place in a region then the case should be much harder to make.
I do not know what case, if any, Vignoly made for the Walkie Scorchie but I think it making a case would have been possible. It most definitely does not relate to the present or past form of the City but he could have made a case for ‘mushroom’ buildings being good – just as the designer of the Empire State Building could have made a case for NYC becoming even more of a city of skyscrapers than it was in 1931.

The development was contested in the High Court on constitutional grounds, however, it was decided in favour of the government.

Apparently Black Mountain tower became part of the World Federation of Great Towers in 1989 along with the Blackpool tower in the UK.

I am not sure that the minaret is a symbolic reference, possibly only a typological one. Perhaps the Big Ben clock tower would also be within the same typology of communication structures? Although the clock tower is both a visual and a sound communication purpose (ie you both look at the clock face and hear it chime.)

My impression is that aesthetic quality was a significant consideration in the design of the Black Mountain Tower but that ‘aesthetic quality’ was an abstract consideration, divorced from meaning, symbolism and the world of ideas. Unless those who see the Black Mountain Tower are mainly Muslim then I doubt if minaret symbolism would the right choice – and this leads to the difficult question of what would be the the right choice for a multi-faith or secular society.
I hope bad design generates LESS money and FEWER jobs than good design but if they design team and the planners have sticky fingers and grubby palms, and are in a rush, then they are not likely to produce high quality designs.

How much money and how many jobs are admirable questions. But it does not seem to me that a bad design will generate any more money or any more jobs than a good one. Perhaps someone could crunch some numbers on this?