好色先生TV

The skyline of the City of London is no stranger to controversy. Ever since the Gherkin unexpectedly gained planning permission in August 2000, London鈥檚 oldest district has become a battleground for some of Europe鈥檚 tallest structures. From the public inquiry that dogged the former Heron Tower to the firestorm of controversy the Walkie Talkie left in its wake, building tall here is more often a question of perseverance than it is of planning. 

And now a new high-rise proposal seems about to become the City鈥檚 next major planning saga. The Brazilian billionaire Jacob Safra is set to become indelibly linked to his controversial proposals to build a 305m-tall concrete viewing gallery in the City of London shaped, improbably, like a tulip. 

Located right beside the Gherkin, which Safra also owns and Foster + Partners also famously designed, when its planning application was submitted last autumn the Tulip immediately ignited the now-familiar touchpaper of ire and incredulity that City high-rise schemes frequently unleash. 

Perhaps predictably, Historic Royal Palaces, which manages the Tower of London and is frequently the only significant stakeholder bulwark against the City鈥檚 scrum for the skies, scathingly dismissed the scheme as 鈥渁lien and exotic鈥� and demanded it be rejected. And the Civil Aviation Authority, another statutory skyscraper nemesis, raised concerns over the impact the Tulip might have on radar systems at London City airport. 

To the surprise of many, the Greater London Authority (GLA) 鈥� an organisation hardly averse to tall buildings 鈥� has savaged the proposals, dismissing the idea as 鈥渋ncongruous鈥� and citing a host of 鈥渟erious concerns鈥� ranging from public realm, heritage and transport, to height, design and contravention of the London Plan. 

A spokesperson for the Tulip project said: 鈥淲e welcome the detailed technical comments by GLA officers and, as part of the ongoing planning process, we will continue to work closely with the City of London Corporation and the GLA to resolve those matters raised and to improve the package of public benefits associated with the Tulip.鈥�

Historic England has a reputation for fence-hovering on the topic of high-rise buildings in London, and has also formally objected to it. Incredibly, even the City鈥檚 own built environment team have concluded that the tower would have a detrimental impact on the quality of public realm within this part of the Square Mile. 

And Julia Barfield of Marks Barfield, the architectural practice that created London鈥檚 most iconic observation decks at the London Eye, probably spoke for much of the architectural community when she professed to being 鈥渕ystified鈥� by the plans. 

Still, there is every chance that the Tulip could be awarded planning permission when its application is determined, conceivably at the end of next month. Even the Gherkin came in for a fair amount of criticism during its planning and construction phase, remote as that time may now seem. So it wouldn鈥檛 exactly be unprecedented for a proposal facing strong opposition to neverthess succeed in winning approval. 

But the strength and breadth of condemnation here appear significant. After almost two decades in which conservationists and heritage campaigners against tall buildings in the City of London have endured continual defeat, could the tide finally be about to turn? 

In order to assess the Tulip鈥檚 chances and try to find out just why it has proved so controversial, we examine here the key factors 鈥� for and against 鈥� that could decide whether or not the Tulip ever comes to bloom. 

What could be the impact on London鈥檚 heritage?

For: While towers are now commonplace across the City of London, it is important to remember that this is London鈥檚 oldest district and one of Europe鈥檚 most important historic urban centres, so heritage concerns are a hugely sensitive and potentially incendiary topic. But the City鈥檚 recent reconfiguration into a high-rise district is virtually complete, so rejecting the Tulip on the grounds of any perceived heritage harm smacks of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. In any case the planning application鈥檚 heritage assessment argues strongly in the scheme鈥檚 favour, claiming it would cause no harm or alteration to the setting of the Tower of London or its relationship with the City and the river. 

Against: Unesco has already threatened to delist the Tower of London as a World Heritage Site because of the modern high-rise structures dominating its background, to which the Tulip will add. So although this guardian of international culture has yet to comment specifically on the Tulip proposal, it is unlikely to be impressed. Historic Royal Palaces, which has already offered its reaction, has been scathing. The organisation claimed the Tulip would be 鈥渆xtremely damaging鈥� to the tower鈥檚 setting and would challenge the tower鈥檚 鈥渆minence as an iconic, internationally focused monument鈥�. The conclusion of its report was that 鈥渢he height and attention-seeking nature of the Tulip鈥檚 design would make it the most visually intrusive element of the cluster [鈥�] Its effect would be both major and adverse.鈥� A spokesperson for the Tulip project said: 鈥漌e recognise the position of the Historic Royal Palaces as an important stakeholder with whom we engaged with prior to the submission of this planning application. 鈥榃e will continue to work to address these comments as part of the planning process.鈥�

Does it meet a need?

For: The design team argues that the Tulip will provide a 鈥渘ew state-of-the-art cultural and educational resource for Londoners and tourists鈥�. Although the attraction would charge an as yet undetermined entrance fee, it aims to offer free entry to 20,000 London state schoolchildren every year and predicts their visits will deliver 鈥渘ational curriculum topics鈥�. Fosters also last week increased the amount of space dedicated to education after planners raised 鈥渟ignificant concerns鈥� about the scheme. The 12 elliptical floors will offer 360 degree views across the city, and the design and access statement claims that the 鈥渢hrill of sliding between floors鈥� in the external gondola pods will be like no other experience in the city.

Against: The boom in skyscraper construction in the City means it now has several high-level viewing galleries so it is difficult to justify the Tulip on the basis that it provides yet another, particularly as this one 鈥� unlike most of the rest 鈥� will not be free for most people. The design team claim the project was developed partly in response to the difficulties of providing public access to the top of the Gherkin. Surely if Gherkin public access were truly the aim, that would be easier to deliver than constructing an entirely new building next door? The question of need is one that vexes London Eye co-creator Julia Barfield. 鈥淲hen we did the London Eye, there was no place where people could view the city from a height [except] the top of St Paul鈥檚. You could say it wasn鈥檛 a desperate need, but it was providing a platform at a height so that people could see the city for the first time from a new perspective. Now there are three of those, with the Shard and the Walkie Talkie [as well as the Eye]. So do people really need another one?鈥�

The word on the street

Opinion on the merits of the Tulip vary sharply on the City鈥檚 streets. On Bury Street itself where the project is set to be built, opinion generally veered from cautious to hostile. 鈥淲hat is it?鈥� asked Edward, a derivatives trader from West Sussex. When he was made aware of its purpose his scepticism was barely dented. 鈥淲ell, it looks a bit ridiculous. It鈥檚 like the sort of thing you expect in Las Vegas or Dubai. It doesn鈥檛 seem appropriate to London, to me.鈥� 

Fabienne works at an insurance firm on nearby Lime Street and was only marginally more positive. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 mind the glass egg at the top and it will be nice to have something for tourists as well as office workers. But this long pillar thing it鈥檚 on just looks stupid and ugly.鈥�

However, when canvassing the people queuing up to visit the top of the Walkie Talkie, opinion was generally warmer. 鈥淚t looks kinda cool,鈥� mused Steve, a student from the University of Berkeley in California. 鈥淭he gondola rides look awesome and it鈥檚 great that an old city like London can do something cool and contemporary.鈥� Helen, a TV producer from Winchester, was also generally supportive. 鈥淚 like it, I think. It looks odd but it鈥檚 daring and provocative; I like things that push the boundaries.鈥�

But Maria, a tourist from Oviedo in Spain on her first visit to London, wasn鈥檛 so sure. 鈥淲hen I was growing up in Spain me and my friends all thought of Big Ben and Buckingham Palace whenever we thought of London. 好色先生TVs like this [Tulip] are nice but that鈥檚 not really why we come to London. I don鈥檛 think this kind of thing is part of London鈥檚 identity.鈥�