The City's next chapter? It's another very tall story...

In the battle of the skyscrapers, it is honours even. Details have been unveiled for One London, the tallest structure in the City that will exactly match in height Southwark’s Shard at 309.6 metres (the proximity of London City Airport means there is a limit of 310 metres). The mighty One London will comprise 74 floors, have terraces, public gardens and Europe’s highest public viewing gallery, run by the London Museum. Levels 72 and 73 will form “education spaces” where the museum “will bring the city’s history and geography to life”. Floor 71 will be a bar, “the highest in London”.

The hospitality industry may be feeling the pinch on the ground but in London, up above it is booming. Gordon Ramsay’s latest annual results show that the best-performing restaurants in his worldwide empire are those at the top of 22 Bishopsgate.

Nearby will be another skyscraper, 55 Bishopsgate. It will be huge, although a relative minnow against One London, at 269 metres. Its 63 storeys will feature a public conservatory or “sky garden”, water-wall and 360-degree rooftop viewing platform.

One London

Cityscape Digital for One London

The scale of these additions to London’s crowded skyline is vast. The ground floor of One London alone adds 42,700 square feet of public space, with 350 outdoor seats. Its architect Eric Parry said: “We stand at a historic moment of physical metamorphosis as the City rises in a uniquely close and tall form, at the centre of which is One London.”

Completion is due in 2033. It will be located between two other landmark towers — also made to look relatively small in comparison — the Cheesegrater and the Gherkin.

Before work can begin, the building it’s replacing must first be demolished. The condemned structure is no slouch either. Reduced to rubble will be the St Helen’s Tower, also known by its address as No.1 Undershaft or the Commercial Union building or Aviva Tower in reference to its previous occupants. Their home once measured 118 metres.

One London

Cityscape Digital for One London

The disappearing tower was said to have been influenced by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and was reminiscent of his Seagram Building in New York. The London version was bombed by the IRA in 1992, after which it was refurbished.

That “physical metamorphosis” is by no means confined to the financial quarter. Across town, the iconic, instantly recognisable BT Tower is to receive a very different appearance. MCR, America’s third-largest hotel operator, paid £275 million for what was once known to everyone as “the Post Office Tower”. It is to add a rooftop swimming pool and a 360-degree, revolving observation deck along with a ground-floor public square, restaurants and shops. Not so long ago, the BT Tower was London’s tallest building at 177 metres.

The 177-metre BT Tower, which will soon become a hotel after being bought by MCR Hotels for £275m

Getty

AI may be causing redundancies, but businesses need more room

The driver of the surge skywards is office space. There is a chronic shortage of highquality commercial accommodation across London. Workers may be able to function anywhere remotely via their laptops, AI may be causing redundancies, but businesses need more room, especially in the City.

Such is the demand that what was previously off limits is no more. In a breakthrough for the property developers, the City of London Corporation has overcome Historic England, the heritage watchdog, to be permitted to erect towers near the City’s original and most historic structure, the Tower of London.

The Government intervened in a dispute between the pair and appeared to be siding with the pro-heritage lobby. But, in a late twist, Matthew Pennycook, the planning minister, now says he is satisfied the proposed steel and glass towers will not overshadow views of the 11th-century stone fortress after all.

Pennycook believes the “City Plan’s heritage policies … provide substantial safeguards to protect the Tower of London Unesco World Heritage Site and mitigate the risk of harm to the Tower’s attributes of outstanding universal value”. The City Corporation was ready to approve its masterplan on development policy up to 2040, which included the construction of further skyscrapers. Historic England objected, fearing they would encroach on the Tower of London’s setting.

A raven rests outside its enclosure at the Tower of London, backdropped by The Shard

AFP/Getty

Historic England sought a larger “uninterrupted gap of clear sky” between the Tower of London and the new neighbours, to preserve unobstructed lines of sight of the former royal palace, prison and execution yard, location of the Crown Jewels and the Beefeaters. It also maintained that the titanic steel and glass arrivals should “lean away” from the Tower. From their side, the City burghers said Historic England’s stance risked imperilling one million square feet of planned new office tower projects. At stake, said the City, were as many as 20 skyscrapers, providing 6,800 jobs and producing £1.2 billion in economic output every year.

The corporation was able to draw on the support of 200 of the Square Mile’s largest property developers who together form the City Property Association (CPA). The association wrote to Pennycook’s boss, Angela Rayner, to warn that the new builds, which could be stymied by the Tower of London dispute, are “critical economic infrastructure”.

Ancient versus modern, traditional stewardship challenging future prosperity. That’s what the battlelines looked like, although the City insisted it wasn’t so. Tom Sleigh, chairman of the City’s planning committee, said: “This was never a choice between the Tower of London and jobs. The City was here first. William the Conqueror started his tower in 1078 in the corner of a city already 1,000 years old, and the two have grown side by side ever since.”

An aerial view of the Elizabeth Tower and the Palace of Westminster

AFP/Getty

This was the corporation attempting to trump the heritage lot by playing its own, we’re-older-than-you history card. William the Conqueror and his triumph at Hastings in 1066, that led to a design for a fortified base by the Thames, they claimed, was a newcomer compared with the City’s roots.

Part of the City’s case was that the recommended height restrictions put forward by Historic England would limit the developers’ ability to make money from the new towers and mean they would not get built, which could threaten the City’s ability to compete as a global financial powerhouse alongside New York.

It’s those floors in the sky that occupiers want, for the breathtaking, day-and-night cityscapes and the kudos of being higher than everyone else. They’re prepared to pay extra for the privilege versus the lower levels and it’s these premiums that earn the big bucks and make the whole, frighteningly expensive and protracted schemes worthwhile.

In a step interpreted as suggesting ministers were looking to accept Historic England’s argument, the Government asked an independent planning inspector to opine. But he concluded the City Plan would strike a better balance between heritage protection and growth than Historic England’s alternative. Surprisingly, or perhaps with one eye on the importance of the City and Britain’s under-pressure economy, Pennycook did not demur. He swiftly pronounced himself reassured.

Matthew Pennycook, the planning minister

Getty

The minister’s decision has fuelled fears the Government is intent on pursuing growth over conservation. Not so, says Pennycook. He said the Government had introduced “special regard” measures to provide additional guarantees for World Heritage Sites.

The Corporation is now pushing ahead with its development blueprint, which should receive formal approval by the end of the year. Chris Hayward, its policy chairman, said: “This is an outstanding result for the City, for London and for the wider UK economy.

The independent Planning Inspectorate has recognised that it is possible to protect one of our nation’s most important heritage assets while still supporting the growth our country needs.” Onwards and upwards, as they like to say in company boardrooms.