London, like most major cities, has lots of skyscrapers. But unlike other cities, the skyscrapers have weird shapes and there is no compact, homogenous central business district. Every Londoner knows why that is the case and many people outside of London know why, too. But look closer and you see something else that is weird about the London skyline.
Many people know that the weird shape of many London skyscrapers is owed to the network of protected lines of sight that span an invisible web across the city. These protected views connect important locations in London and cannot be blocked by any buildings. The most famous one of them is near my home in Richmond Park, where one can walk up to King Henry’s Mound and look at St. Paul’s Cathedral some 10 miles away in the middle of the city. No building can obstruct this view and there is a gap in the hedges around King Henry’s Mound to ensure the view remains unobstructed. Indeed, even the extension of the view towards Liverpool Street Station has limitations on the high-rise buildings there since a skyscraper in the background of St. Paul’s would ‘spoil the view’.
Because of these protected views, skyscrapers sometimes have to become narrower at the top (Gherkin, Shard), look tilted (Cheesegrater) or look like a middle-aged man sucking in his belly (Walkie Talkie) or they could not get planning permission.
Network of protected views in London
Source: Wikimedia Commons
But take another look at the skyline above and you can notice something else. The height of the buildings is very uneven. Most skylines have buildings of similar size next to each other. In London, a very tall building stands next to several shorter buildings before another tall building comes along. And no, this has nothing to do with the protected views.
Paul Cheshire and Gerard Dericks explain why that is the case. Unlike in other cities, getting planning permission is a political, somewhat subjective process. Yes, there are guidelines for buildings in terms of height, distance to neighbouring buildings, etc., but unlike in most American cities, for example, simply presenting a design that meets all the guidelines is not enough to get planning permission. City Hall and the local councils typically make a judgment call if the proposed project would fit in and not aggravate local residents or cause other problems. And this means, the system can be gamed by clever property developers.
One way to curry favour with local politicians is to hire a star architect with a reputation for design excellence. Most city planners have no taste and the design instinct of a naked mole-rat. Just look at the stuff they designed in the 1950s when they were put in charge of city development. Meeting a star architect with a lot of design awards to his name is like meeting Taylor Swift to them. They are star struck and willing to grant them permission on every building no matter how ugly it is. Don’t believe me? I suggest you visit the Walkie Talkie in Fenchurch Street or 1 Poultry next to Bank Station.
The research of Cheshire and Dericks indicates that hiring a star architect means you can develop a building that is on average 17 stories taller than a building designed by a lesser architect. Buildings designed by architects that win a lifetime achievement award are on average 13 to 17 stories higher after they win the award than before. On a representative site, this boosts property value by about £216m of which £148m is increased income from rents while £68m is the premium valuation a building commands when designed by a star architect. Meanwhile, extra construction costs amount to some £14m.
That’s a pretty sweet deal for a property developer and even though star architects command higher fees, these are negligible compared to the sway they create over London city planners and the extra rent one can create from the buildings they design.
Price per sqm and construction costs for buildings in the City of London
Source: Cheshire and Dericks (2020).
Wow, I didn't know any of this. Makes perfect sense (while being rather stupid, given the examples of ridiculous architecture you cite).
One more thing that seems weird to me is how 80% of London housing is in 2-3 storey buildings. Totally underbuilt space and inefficient, too -- just about every flat my daughter (who's been living in the city for about a decade) has had included a staircase, no matter how small the total area. Tokyo has small efficient houses, efficient streets and great public transport, and subsequent low housing costs. London in some respects seems to be the opposite?
You are correct about the bizzare and capricious UK planning system, which IMHO holds back the whole country GDP.
However high-status star architects resulting in higher buildings? could it not be that the causal link is the other way around i.e. these "stars" are more likely to get hired for the bigger and more prestigious projects rather than causing them to be big and prestigious?