Leader – Mayor must stand tall to block towers

Large numbers of tall buildings were built in Hackney in the 1960s, only to be pulled down amid sighs of relief 30 years later.

Now again we see skyscrapers sprouting – this time with slightly more plate glass, slightly less concrete – but in many respects remarkably similar to the last crop.

Is opposition to tall buildings nimbyism? Two points: firstly, tall buildings have a very large back yard. The Shard in south London is visible from ordinary terraced houses in Hackney. Secondly, opposition to many developments might more properly be labelled ‘imby’ – they are about what people do want in their back yards as much as what they don’t want.

Tall buildings are not necessarily problematic. But to be acceptable in a densely-populated urban setting, they need to serve local needs and minimise negative impact on the visual and natural environments.

There is a huge need in East London for more housing for local residents, so affordable housing should be the number one requirement of any development.

Hackney Council’s target for affordable housing in new developments is 50 per cent, which is not as high as might be desired, but is probably a realistic compromise given the financial exigencies of the construction industry.

Tall buildings also need to fit into the local cityscape, not darken streets and green spaces. Hackney Council’s Tall Buildings Strategy distinguishes between ‘tall’ (10-15 storeys) and ‘very tall’ (16 storeys +) buildings. ‘Very tall buildings’ are defined as “those that are excessively taller than the surrounding built form” (emphasis added). Buildings above 15 storeys are thus, according to Hackney’s own policy, inappropriate.

Finally, tall buildings need to be constructed as sustainably as possible. Construction is one of the most significant contributors to carbon emissions, especially when it comes to buildings containing large amounts of concrete and steel. The use of alternative building materials should be mandatory in new developments. An 84-metre wooden skyscraper is to be built in Vienna, which demonstrates that low-impact materials are not just suitable for new age cottages.

With these criteria in mind, it is laudable that the Mayor Jules Pipe should have taken a stand against the proposed Bishopsgate Goodsyard development, which is slated to include two 48-story towers and just 10 per cent affordable housing.

Though going up against London Mayor Boris Johnson, who approves of the plans, may seem like politicking (especially coming as it does right before an election), it is also the right thing to do.

Mayor Pipe should go further and put his (and the Council’s) money where his mouth is. The local authority is vocal in its opposition to the Bishopsgate development, while at the same time rubber-stamping the new 30-storey Skyline tower that is to join the existing 27-storey Residence tower on revamped Woodberry Down estate, both of which rise to heights labelled ‘excessive’ in the council’s Tall Buildings Strategy.

And the Council is pushing for the construction of locally-opposed towers in Hackney Downs and Hoxton as well.

The Hoxton building is to rise to an ‘excessive’ height (22 storeys). Meanwhile the proposed Tiger Way development near Hackney Downs is not in an area designated in the Strategy as being appropriate for the construction of tall buildings.

The recently-approved residential construction proposals which fail to comply with the council’s requirement of 50 per cent affordable or social rented housing are too numerous to name, but include the redevelopment of Woodberry Down (41 per cent), the Hackney Downs and Hoxton proposals noted above (none)), and the Dalston Western Curve development (14 per cent).

Moreover, those with longer memories will recall that in 2009 Hackney Council approved an initial version of the Bishopsgate Goodsyard proposal – which included a 51-storey tower and 28 per cent affordable housing – despite criticism from the Commission on the Built Environment (CABE) and English Heritage.

If Hackney Council were more diligent in adhering to its own tall buildings policy, Mayor Pipe might have greater moral authority to resist the unwelcome encroachments of Boris’s building bonanza.

Note: this article was updated at 6pm Tuesday 10 March 2015 to a longer version.