“Gleaming skyscrapers built alongside medieval churches”

The City in 2013. Image: Getty.

The Corporation of London’s chair of planning, on the future of the City.

The capital faces a turbulent few weeks as the long-running Brexit saga plays out in Westminster and Brussels.  But amid this political drama, it’s important to not lose sight of how London is transforming itself for life beyond Brexit.

The City of London embodies this process, with gleaming skyscrapers being built alongside medieval churches.  Our draft local plan – which is open for public consultation until later this week – sets out proposals designed to deliver the next stage of the Square Mile’s evolution.

The City’s planning policy has not only historically led the capital’s agenda but the nation’s. In the 1930s, we were the first to protect the cherished views of St Paul’s Cathedral, London followed. In the 1950s, we were the first to introduce a smokeless zone after the great smog, with the City’s Clean Air Act followed by a national Act.

Today, the City of London is already home to the most sustainable office building in the world, Bloomberg’s European headquarters. But as a business district with a pipeline of more than a dozen office skyscrapers approved for construction, some of which can house up to 12,000 workers at a time, we know that there is more that can be done to enable development that is environmentally sustainable.

We started at the top. With limited space available at ground level, we’ve actively encouraged green roofs for decades. There are over 70 across the Square Mile and just over a week ago reaching new heights with The Garden at 120, a project that has been in the works since 2006.


Of course, great cities are not made from great buildings alone. Our proposed urban greening policy reflects that. It requires – for the first time – that all new developments include a greening element, but this extends not just to roofs, but to the ground level spaces around buildings, and, to the buildings themselves.

With 513,000 workers commuting in and out of the City every day, and tens of thousands more expected on the completion of the Elizabeth Line, part of the challenge for this great city is space. Businesses and residents frequently raise the issue of overcrowding on our medieval streets.

We have made significant progress when it comes to making the City a better environment for pedestrians. For example, the 1960s Aldgate gyratory is now home to drinking fountains, trees, flowing traffic and cycling facilities at Aldgate Square, one of the largest public spaces in the Square Mile.

The City’s local plan proposals take this pursuit of space even further, so that walking routes will be available through and under new buildings – similar to the existing routes through One New Change, Bloomberg and Fen Court and the future 100 Leadenhall Street building, and the space under buildings such as the Cheesegrater and the approved 1 Undershaft. This will enable the workers that pour out of their office buildings at lunch time, to use convenient and direct routes between the incredible examples of architecture that line our City streets. You won’t see this on such a scale anywhere else in London.

These are some of the most uncertain times that we’ve lived through, and our draft local plan is designed to ensure that the City and wider London remains attractive to investment, talent and business well beyond 29 March.

Chris Hayward is planning chairman at the City of London Corporation.

 
 
 
 

Does it matter that TfL are renaming White Hart Lane station Tottenham Hotspur?

New White Hart Lane. Image: Getty.

Pretend for a moment that you’re travelling in the London of 1932. You’re taking the Piccadilly Line northbound and alight at Gillespie Road station. The name should be obvious: it’s inscribed in bespoke brown tiling on the platform.

But that 31 October, following an intense campaign by the eponymous football club, the London County Council changed the station’s name to Arsenal (Highbury Hill). The area’s growing association with the name “Arsenal” ended in a lengthy negotiation that changed maps, signs and train tickets alike. Football had acquired so much power that it changed the name of not just a Tube station but an entire suburb, even before the era of Wenger or the Emirates.

Now the spectre of name changes is on the horizon once again. As Tottenham Hotspur FC inches closer to completing its new stadium, the club is clamouring for a renamed Overground station. Despite the fact the new stadium is located on almost exactly the same site as the old just off White Hart Lane, and fans have long been calling the scaffolding-laden mess “New White Hart Lane”, the club’s executive director is adamant that the station’s existing name cannot stand. White Hart Lane station, on the Overground line leaving Liverpool Street, is set to be renamed “Tottenham Hotspur”, at a cost to the club of £14.7m.

Little has been made of the fact that this peculiar PR kerfuffle is tied to Spurs’ failure to convince Nike to sponsor the venue. Some sources have even claimed that the sponsorship is yet to be finalised because it is somehow contingent on the renaming of the Overground station; beyond the ridiculous Johnson-era vanity project that was the Emirates Air Line, it seems improbable that TfL will allow any more corporate-flavoured information pollution. There will be no “Nike Stadium” station on the way to Enfield, much as there is no “Emirates” on the way to Cockfosters, especially if public consultation gets a look in.

The scene of the crime. Image: TfL.

But there’s a problem with the new name, all the same. “White Hart Lane” already means “football stadium”, in the same way Loftus Road or Stamford Bridge do. Changing it to “Tottenham Hotspur” risks opening the floodgates to an “O2 North Greenwich” or a “Virgin Euston” at some point in future, names as banal as there are dystopian. The Greater London Authority has promised to spend the £14.7m fee on community programmes in the local area – but that’s not much money to set the precedent that a private company can mess about with the Tube map.


What’s more, as CityMetric has often observed, there are plenty of station names across London that could do with a tidy up. Picking one that’s perfect already and asking for £14.7m to change it is adding insult to injury. How much would it cost a community group if they asked to change the name of Goodge Street to Fitzrovia? Why does a vast corporate entity backed by international sponsors and thousands of season ticket holders get to set the standard?

Back in Arsenal’s day, changing names on the Tube must have been easy; changes could be accommodated gradually without bothering the every day traveller. But in our world of online information, maps and apps, name changes are rather more complicated.

The question is – if TfL can bring itself to balefully accept this particular proposition, why can’t it accept ours? Why sort out a single non-issue on the Tube Map when you can catch lots of real ones in one go? A day’s pandemonium might just be a price worth paying to fix the Bethnal Greens problem once and for all.