SKYSCRAPERS AND THE NEW LONDON SKYLINE: 1945-1991

Roger D. Simon
Lehigh University


The author wishes to express his appreciation to the following individuals and institutions for their assistance and cooperation: Institute for the Study of Tall Buildings and the Urban Habitat, and Professor Lynn Beedle, Lehigh University; Urban Studies Research Unit, and Ian Gordon and C. Pickvance, University of Kent at Canterbury; Tim Catchpole, formerly senior planner, Greater London Council.

Does London really have skyscrapers? By world class standards they have only two: the 800 foot Canary Wharf Tower and the 600 foot National Westminster Bank Tower. In 1991 all of central London had no more than two dozen buildings over 300 feet, but they were prominent enough to constitute a new skyline crafted entirely since 1945. Until after World War II, London had eschewed tall buildings, having little need for them. For 250 years, until the late 1960s, the 365 foot high dome of Christopher Wren's St. Paul's Cathedral dominated the London skyline, complimented by the nineteenth century towers of Parliament which rise 336 feet and 320 feet. Seeing St. Paul's and Parliament, one might wonder how anything was ever permitted to compete with it. But in the post-war era City of London office rents were among the world's highest, creating strong pressure to build taller to maximize the return on that land. Considering London's central role in world financial markets, and the enormous value placed on proximity to the Bank of England, the question could also be asked why London does not have more skyscrapers or why they are not taller, particularly in the historic financial core known as the City. The form and character of the London skyline represents the outcome of a continuing struggle between a strict regulatory environment attempting to preserve the centrality of St. Paul's Cathedral and the historic monuments, and high land values and the demand for office space to maintain London's role as a world financial center. London's skyline is the result of these tensions, both in terms of what was built, as well as what was not built or what was scaled down.Ref.1

Figure 1: City of London Skyline, view east (downriver) from Waterloo Bridge, 1985.


I. THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

For sixty years, from 1894-1954, there was a 100 foot height limit on all London buildings (80 feet to the cornice with an additional 20 foot recessed roof). The building that triggered London's first height restriction was the 151 foot Queen Anne's Mansions, an apartment house located between Victoria Street and St. James's Park in the West End. Legend has it that Queen Victoria was incensed because the building blocked her view of Parliament from the Palace. In addition to royal pique, the building exceeded the height of the city's fire-fighting equipment, and the rationale for the height limit was fire safety. Consequently, through the first half of the twentieth century, London maintained its historically uniform low profile, with a skyline shaped by church steeples, the dome of St. Paul's, and the towers of Parliament.Ref.2

There is little to indicate that London property owners seriously resisted or bridled at the 100 foot height restrictions. The most persuasive supporting evidence is that most new offices built before World War II did not even reach the maximum allowable limit, but were 70 to 80 feet high. If owners and developers felt compelled to maximize their land values, one would expect a virtually uniform 100 foot height line. Between the 1890s and the 1930s there was considerable new office building, notably in the section of the West End closest to the City, but in the City itself there was little interest in razing offices erected in the 1870s and 1880s to replace them with taller buildings. The existing structures provided adequate space for the expanding finance and trade complex. In the inter-war decades a few buildings did exceed the height limit, but by law the upper floors could only be used for storage.Ref.3

In addition to the height regulations, planners since at least the 1930s were concerned with the view of St. Paul's. The great cathedral was hemmed in on all sides; when viewed either close-up or from the River Thames, it was difficult to gain much perspective on the great church, although the dome, standing 366 feet high, dominated the entire London skyline. In 1934 the Royal Fine Arts Commission stated that new building near the Church would be "seriously detrimental" and called for protecting distant and famous views of the dome. Because London sits in a great basin, there are also numerous long-distance vantage points on the surrounding ridges, notably from Greenwich, Hampstead, and Richmond. In 1937 the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's and the City agreed on a policy to protect the views of the Cathedral. The greatest concern was the view from the River and the zone immediately adjacent to the cathedral.Ref.4

Previous v5n2Continue