London skyline and urban design.

There have been a few issues relating to the London skyline that have required some attention recent and gladly these matters have made headline news. I personally aim to avoid criticising Prince Charles and others for taking this matter seriously and doing what may be necessary for much of the character of London to be altered, almost definitely on a permanent basis once planning permission has been granted to developers to build a skyscraper within the city. What I think tends to be interesting about the media portrayals of the debate is that there is quite often direct criticism of architects rather than attention paid to the Town and Country Planning Acts that can be passed through parliament and amended locally. I don't know if there is a tendency for the media only to comment upon issues where they can hold an individual responsible for the development of a building and thus point the finger at them for changing the character of a city but it does seem very bizarre when there could be democratic solutions offered and Town Planning restrictions placed on building within specified areas, including for instance the City of London.

On a trip to the Lake District last year one of the bus drivers who was talking as he drove commented upon the lack of freedom in the Lakes area to add PVC conservatories on the buildings in the area. I assume this is correct and that planning permission would be required but not granted for this type of venture - there is a policy which has resulted in the maintenance of the character of the area. Presumably the next step in the south east would be for politicians to offer some form of democratic solution and put in place restrictions on the height of buildings and for this matter to be decided democratically. I don't know if this is taking place to the extent that may be necessary but there should be more political debate on this matter as well as debate involving other public figures.

It's perhaps interesting to reflect on this issue in Antigua, Guatemala for a couple of reasons. There tends to be maintenance of a tradition design to the buildings here because of earthquakes more than anything else - the city has three volcanoes around it giving indication of the tectonic plate movements below. As a result most of the buildings in the area tend to be only one story high. There were higher ones built but owing to earthquakes they tend to be in the minority. Also, the buildings that have survived earthquakes, notably those built by the Spanish colonisers do tend to be of religious significance. This may be owing to the fact that religious buildings were at the time they were built seen to be one of the most significant elements of infrastructure to introduce but also because the style of religious buildings to a Catholic may also be slightly different to Protestants. There seems too a degree to be a desire to build some Catholic churches on the highest ground. I don't know if this is incorrect however, there does not seem to be the same tendency for this to take place in the Protestant churches. Whether this was in order to make churches more prominent and exude the power of God and the Church as some form of higher being is perhaps a misapprehension of mine. I maybe wrongly assume that 'the skyline' and debates around it may have some Catholic undertones to it that maybe don't reflect Protestant British character.

It was also interesting in Nepal that owing to an earthquake several years ago, many of the buildings were still being rebuilt and first and second floors were planned to be added on over a period of years which I presume is how a lot of English development may have continued for years. We're not in contact with either town planning or architecture as a nation any longer and probably haven't been for several hundred years.

There could be rather facile questions asked about the phallic nature of the skyscraper and the rather shallow addition it makes to a city's character as if it were some genuine indicator of a city's status which it is not. In Adelaide, when I was there ten years ago or so, another backpacker commented upon a postcard of the state capitals in Australia, that Adelaide was the only one which didn't have a skyline, as if this were of the least significance. Perhaps I should be more open to American urban design but this does not strike me as being of any importance. To me the skyline is not something that lifts an otherwise normal city to the status of a global city – this is not necessarily a significant indicator of a city’s prominence.

With a little knowledge of planning in the UK, as someone who is aware of general trends relating to the west side of the city being generally of greater wealth than the east, the high ground in the city being generally of more affluent settlements than the low and the centre being more valuable on the whole that the periphery high ground has always been important to us - perhaps as a safer space. This could perhaps be introduced into the design of high buildings - to reflect elements of our national character. It also does strike me as odd that Prince Charles is to a degree still anticipating to be referred to as 'your Highness'. 'Highness' being above, better or somehow superior to the lowness of me. Excuse me, but this does feel rather paradoxical. Who does he think he is?

The issue of why journalists have focused on architects as the villains of the piece does concern me, as this will no doubt cloud debate on the matter. Why the broader range of factors that shape an organisations desire for particular premises not outlined more frequently in the media as well may also contribute to divergence between the average member of the public's view on local architecture and the agenda of the corporation. This could perhaps be improved upon. Also, perhaps there are other means of resolving this apparent conflict. Is Canary Wharf of some symbolic importance, as if some ‘Excalibur’ protecting the rest of the city through it’s significance in the economy? Could symbolism of the architecture provide a means of compromise? Perhaps issues like this and others related to how design can shape the city could be part of social and personal education in schools?

There are many reasons for improving yourself through appreciation of the arts lets hope this link leads you to appreciation of the London skyline.