Sky Space Around London's Inner Parks

Home , Horse Guards (building), The Royal Parks

Hal Moggridge

Sky Space around London’s Inner Parks

At present there is no method for forecasting the effects of very tall buildings upon the broad landscape scale composition of the metropolis as a whole. For London, a report proposed a mechanism to synthesise the desire to build high with the as- piration for conservation of skylines and of secluded areas of parkland.

London is a thriving metropolis, loved by its reasons why the Royal Parks are so popular. proposed tall buildings which some Londoners inhabitants and immensely popular with visi- Peace and quiet, trees and greenery, wide open want. It is true that the parks’ qualities are emo- tors from overseas, in the midst of which are space and freedom to wander, and getting away tional and intangible, giving refreshment to the swathes of open space evocative of the natural from the metropolis into fresh air are the most human spirit; but the desire to build high also world. Modern cities are struggling to create valued qualities of the parks. These values are aims to satisfy emotional rather than practical naturalistic open spaces. London, by an historic clearly connected with enjoyment of natural sur- aspirations since “London’s character is already chance, already holds such open spaces in trust roundings, greenery and sky rather than build- well defined. It does not need new high buildings for the whole Nation, in the form of its grade I ings; the parks are valued as recreation from the to define itself as a World City … high buildings listed parks. As the opening paragraphs of the built-up areas round about. An enlightened are not necessary to the continued success of 1992 Royal Parks Review stated, they are “unique modern vision for London’s future would there- London”, (London Planning Advisory Commit- in number, scale, quality and individuality. fore include areas of secluded nature in the tee ADV83 March 1999 para 1.9). Furthermore They are fundamental to the quality of London parks, where it is possible to enjoy being in open the most densely populated borough in London life and contribute to the city’s character, conti- sun-lit and tree-shaded spaces, green with grass is Kensington and Chelsea, where there are few nuity, ethos and reputation as much as the and bright with water, out of any visible contact high buildings (2001 census). Thames, St Paul’s Cathedral, the Houses of Par- with the metropolis beyond the parkland. Nonetheless new high buildings in London liament or the great museums.” The parks are are not incompatible with secluded parkland. visited by millions every year; the 1992 Review Parkland sky space Skilful control of the disposition and height of estimated that Hyde Park receives 10 million new tall buildings would make it possible to visitors a year and St James’s Park 15 million, a The parks which bring nature to the very heart provide suitable sites in synthesis with secluded third of them being from overseas and another of the City of Westminster are one of London’s areas of parkland, thus providing for both these quarter from beyond London. most memorable and unique assets, too precious 21st century aspirations. Movement from the Market research for the Royal Parks Review to squander for the sake of not bothering to adjacent metropolis into separate contact with in 1992 established visitors’ opinions of the main consider the appropriate height and location of nature is only wholly satisfying where trees

82 Skylines, like in London, give cities a distinctive look. But they might also affect the open sky space around parks. The image at the top shows a study of Kensington Gardens in London. Buildings lower than the rising line of sight will not affect views from the park.

83 meet sky uninterrupted by upstanding built mass. This, as le Corbusier wrote in Towards a New Architecture, is because of “the sensation of density: a tree or a hill is less powerful and of a feebler density than a geometrical disposition of forms.” Therefore the impact of nature can only be strong where buildings do not rise over the tree canopy. The open sky space needed around the parks is comparable to the cone of open sky which is protected around airports to prevent rising aero- planes colliding with structures. The upward line of view from a visitor on the ground within the park, enjoying the sky over the tree canopy, rises like the flight of an aeroplane. Nearby a building only a single storey higher than the tree canopy steals sky from those in the park. Further away tall buildings can stand out of sight, as long as their height relative to distance keeps the top of the buildings below the rising sight line. Tow- ers of considerable height can be placed without impinging on parkland seclusion; for instance Tower 42, four kilometres distant in the City of London, is unseen from St James’s Park Bridge, though it rises almost 200 metres into the sky. A metropolitan sky space contour plan was therefore proposed to define the maximum level (in metres above sea level) which the tops of buildings can reach without impinging upon core areas of the Inner London Parks. One or two of the tallest buildings in the City of London, are already touching this ceiling. The plan may need to be widened in scope to take account of other open spaces in the metropolis. There would still be places in the parks or where the open space is

The images above show the view towards Horse Guards over the lake in St James’s Park, indicating the unseen skyline of the City of London beyond. The arrows show the height of current proposals for new towers.

84 very wide, such as the Hyde Park Parade Ground It would however be far preferable if individ- seen in silhouette against the sky; a bridge may or the playing fields in Regent’s Park from which ual building projects were devised from the start afford a long view across a lake. The quality of a distant view of high buildings may be accept- within a wider metropolitan landscape context. such views depends upon an open skyline spe- able. Similarly certain angles of view already A contour plan of the bottom of the open sky cific to the prospect. contain many high buildings, such as south east- space defines in advance an idealised vision for St James’s Park is a civic park, a source of na- erly from Regent’s Park towards a major com- London in the 21st century, which combines tional pride, a picturesque composition sur- mercial area. Such a contour plan cannot be landscape values with many possibilities for rounded by a silhouette of important buildings, absolutely precise. However, any proposal for a building tall buildings in suitable locations. seen against the sky framed by trees. The inner structure rising through the base of the sky space park was remodelled by John Nash in 1827 with defined by the contour plan would diminish the Significant prospects these effects in mind, as explained by Walker in quality of parts of the Inner London Parks, and his Original of 1835. “In walking around the so erode public enjoyment for millions. There are certain places within the parks where water, almost at every step there is a new and This concept was tested in 2000 by applica- there is a special view or prospect from a spe- striking point of view of buildings and foliage. tions for tall buildings in the Paddington area cific viewpoint. A significant building may be Buckingham Palace, Carlton Terrace, the Duke north of Hyde Park. Railtrack had submitted a planning application for a 200-metre high tower at Paddington Station designed by Nicholas Grimshaw and Partners, while Grand Union had submitted a planning application for an equally tall building at Paddington Basin by Richard Rogers Architects. A report “Potential impact on Royal Parks of two proposed 200-metre high towers at Paddington (Nov 2000)”, assessed the impact of the two towers on Kensington Gar- dens, Hyde Park and Regents Park lake. Using the principle subsequently applied to establish view contours in the report “Sky Space around Inner London Parks”, the angle of views out from the park were measured to establish how much of the towers would be visible. The resulting photo visualisations convinced the Westminster City Council Planning Committee members not to accept these proposals and to suggest that the schemes should not exceed sight lines above the tree canopy from critical places.

A metropolitan sky space contour plan could define the maximum level (in metres above sea level) which the tops of buildings may reach without impinging upon core areas of the Inner London Parks.

85 of York’s column, the Horse Guards, West- Palace of Westminster from distant high South Bank. The current London Plan, howev- minster Abbey, and other inferior objects, seen ground. For instance protected viewing corri- er, is about to abandon this farsighted concept, between the trees, form a combination and a dors towards the Palace of Westminster from so relevant to the composition of London dur- variety I have never before seen equalled”, he Primrose Hill and Parliament Hill pass across ing the 21st century. The city-wide contour plan wrote. Since then the Palace of Westminster, the and so protect the views of Westminster Abbey of the underside of London’s open sky, dis- roof-scape above Horse Guards and the Foreign and Victoria Tower from St James’s Park, as well cussed above, should also incorporate the Office, now framed by the ethereal London Eye, as the view down Lower Regent Street and the slightly lower viewing corridors of open sky have been added in the same spirit. The profiles view of Big Ben from the National Gallery in beyond key views of historic monuments. of great buildings silhouetted against sky around Trafalgar Square. In the same way the strategic This concept has been tested on one occasion St James’s Park is a picture of Britain’s constitu- view of St Paul’s from King Henry’s Mound in in the case of the picturesque view towards tional organisation, expressed in the form of a Richmond Park, combined with Westminster Horse Guards from St James’s Park bridge. The romantic skyline. Pier, has given some protection to the view over first proposal for the Swiss Re building which is In the past many of these views have been Horse Guards from St James’s Park Bridge. This 196 metres higher than river level was for a “mil- safeguarded by “Guidance for London on the same viewing corridor has protected the back- lennium tower”, 400 metres high, also by Foster Protection of Strategic Views” (RPG3 1991), a ground of the Thames views of St Paul’s from and Partners. This tower would have loomed city-wide protection of views of St Paul’s and the Hungerford and Waterloo Bridges and the above the wooded island seen from St James’s Park Bridge. When this was illustrated for the benefit of the owner and architect of the site, the less high Swiss Re building was proposed in- stead. Nonetheless at this moment several towers are being proposed to rise into the sky space beyond this beautiful prospect. These buildings would steal the open sky from the millions who enjoy London’s great skyline views from the park. Similarly views of St Paul’s dome and west towers standing against sky space as seen from Hungerford Bridge and the South Bank could be threatened by forthcoming development plans. Other proposals, on the other hand, such as the 300-metre “Shard” at London Bridge or the tower near Vauxhall Bridge, would not spoil key views or impinge upon the core secluded parts of the parks. Nor would the towering 231-metre AOD top of Minerva Building proposed for Aldgate in the eastern part of the City.

London’s parks like St James’s Park are immensely popular with inhabitants and visitors from overseas. In the back- ground one can see the towers of the Westminster World Heritage Site.