Finch says EH "obsesses" about tall towers
Paul Finch, Chairman of CABE
Architectural quality is more important than height, Cabe director adds
Design Council Cabe director Paul Finch has weighed into the debate about whether English Heritage should relax its stance on protecting London views.
Despite the two groups having issued joint guidance on tall buildings five years ago, Finch accused EH of being “obsessed” with the height of towers pointing out its objections to Renzo Piano’s Shard and KPF’s Heron Tower as examples.
He said: “EH has to protect the heritage assets but if you stand in the Tower of London and you can see the Shard, does it destroy the Tower of London? No.”
And he added: “Obsessing about height is one thing but far more important is the quality of architecture in tall buildings rather than their height. The most important thing is the ground floor plate. It’s the experience at the lower level that’s the critical thing.”
Finch was speaking after Cabe had said in a design review for two KPF-designed towers at Nine Elms in south London that EH should worry less about tall towers in the future. “We suggest height lines are determined in a less restricted manner,” it warned.
An EH spokeswoman said: “It’s misleading to say we are obsessed with tall towers. We have to provide advice on their potential harm to views.”
Related Articles
Have your say
Sign in to make a comment on this story.
Sign InDesktop Site | Mobile Site
Readers' comments (8)
ah. Finch, the developers' friend. Of course he favours towers.
He is talking about the abitrary 150m datum in vauxhall. Towers are right for that location, but creating a cookie cutter is idiotic. Removing the floors will only guarantee crapola urban spaces and a china style skyline
This whole debate could be avoided if planners took into account the setting/location of their buildings.
Would anybody object against the Shard if it was built in Canary Wharf? Probably not.
Why should anyone listen to CABE?
Paul Finch's comments are disingenuous. A city full of high-quality skyscrapers would be a dark and miserable place.
I have yet to find a single person who thinks that Heron Tower has destroyed London's skyline.
OK let me be the first.
To broaden the topic slightly!
Apologies for the late comment, but I’ve been exploring this theme recently in Glasgow on my Gallery, which can be found here:
http://photos.kevinscotttoner.co.uk/#53.21
I’ve basically suggested in my captions that building high might in fact relieve some of the tension on lower height masterpieces, which can often end up with the ubiquitously set-back greyed-out additional storey/s. This has not happened in Glasgow where it is tallest. The IFSD might prove to be another future example, which yet boasts untouched classical warehouses. The Merchant City district has failed all but the most ornate buildings in this respect.
Does anyone share similar experiences elsewhere?
I’ve included the multi-storey Southern General Hospital, the biggest in Europe, in my impromptu photo study album that’s entitled ‘Redevelopment Vs Conservation’.
-
Regarding protected views in Glasgow: there are two important urban spaces that spring to mind:-
One which was almost breached by the great Mackintosh and concerns the Lighthouse turret in Mitchell Street, which I’ve shown in the album’s cover photo, and its relationship to Royal Exchange Sq. The Mackintosh tower does start to come into view once immediately upon setting foot out the Square. Had it been a few more feet taller it would have begun to prematurely breach! It’s indeed curious why near distant towers have so far been unpermitted to breach the sightline beyond the parapet from within the square, in almost two centuries, although this is being recently challenged by a Nord hotel proposal; and
The other being that which concerns the Park Circus set-piece of Victorian period towers that prominently mark Glasgow’s skyline from the circus vicinity yet hadn’t impeded on the circus crescent skylines, as can be perused here: http://www.scotcities.com/westend/parkdistrict.htm
The latter is not downtown so there’s no further worry of any breaches beyond the cornice-line, which is increasingly not the case for the former example.
EH would surely have similar sightlines protected to all of its famous urban spaces. Perhaps Historic Scotland indeed intervenes in such matters too; especially for Edinburgh’s famous crescents etc.