# Reasons for lack of High Rise residential?



## Retro Specs (Apr 25, 2012)

I've been wondering why London lacks high rise residential towers that are centrally located. Obviously there's exceptions like the Barbican towers, but by and large most of central London and the areas near it are relatively low in height. 

Is it purely a cultural thing due to the poor construction of some post-war pre-fabs then their later mismanagement by councils? 

I'm currently in Philadelphia and the downtown and around the centre is full of 30 story high residential buildings that all seem well kept and the prices in them are cheaper than flats in even Brixton. I'd love to live lets say near Euston station in a high rise flat like that if it was affordable rather than something like a flat in a converted Victorian terrace which is probably where I'll end up when I move to London. 

I know there's protected views, but surely somewhere like I suggested (Euston) where there's already office towers they could build high rises (there's actually 3 residential council ones near Mornington Crescent but they never seem to have any flats on the rental market).

I know there's places with them, but I don't want to live in Canary Wharf in a community of bankers, and in a location that would take longer to get to central London from than Brixton. And I know they're building some in Vauxhall (sadly due to the complete lack of them currently these will go for rent for some ridiculous amount which is unaffordable someone like me who makes money from freelancing).

I'll probably end up living in a flat in Brixton, but it makes me feel guilty that I'll be living in a converted house that means there's less places for families to live and the flat won't be ideal for a young couple like myself and my wife due to the the nature of converted properties and developers trying to squeeze flats into tiny spaces.

Sorry this is half rant, but I'm genuinely interested as to why London hasn't seem the high rise residential development for normal (rather than rich) couples and singles. Even cities like Leeds (near to where I grew up) have build these, even if the quality of the architecture is a bit poor.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 25, 2012)

Something about maintaining views of St. Pauls from certain points?

e2a: I see you're already aware of that.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 25, 2012)

Ronan Point caused a certain lack of enthusiasm for high rise living


----------



## Retro Specs (Apr 26, 2012)

Ronan Point obviously put people off for a while, but surely most people realised that was problems with pre-fab structures. It also didn't seem to put people off the Barbican's towers build around the same time as the Ronan Point disaster.

Another thing I've struggled to understand is why council tower blocks were located where they were, so far from public transport which surely would be essential for residents in them who would be far less likely to own a car than house dwellers.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 26, 2012)

A few guesses: there aren't a lot of centrally-located residential areas of London in the first place. There are some quite serious tower blocks in areas circling the centre like Tower Hamlets, as well as the more recent dockside developments, so they do exist to an extent. And large social housing projects just aren't the sort of thing that have been practical for a while now - social housing at all has been pretty much banned, let alone building something the size of a tower block.

I don't know the history of Philly's housing so I couldn't really compare that well tbh.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 26, 2012)

On BBC London radio they used to have this economics commentator from Hong Kong come on - Jon Gaunt called him the Cuddly Capitalist if that rings a bell for anyone - anyhow, he said on a few occasions that high rise flats would sort London out no end for a host of (mainly economic) reasons. Didnt say why it doesnt happen though. Doubt StPauls comes into it now in any meaningful way. Id love to live with a view over London, particularly to see sunsets out west...


Had visitors from Hong Kong come to London and their impression was how "human" the scale of the buildings was for a city. But then they have this 






welcome to the boards retrospecs.


----------



## Retro Specs (Apr 26, 2012)

Thanks for welcoming me Ska, I've lurked here for a while, ever since the famous incident where the SWP got in a panic when one of their members posted a running commentary of their conference on here.

There's definitely some disadvantages of the scale of buildings in Philly that's for certain. Sometimes they are right next to each other which isn't great for light or wind and not something I would propose. Also outside the centre everything is 2 stories or perhaps sometimes 3 row houses (we'd call them terraces, but they look quite different). But the city centre is a really nice place, as is London's, and I suppose I just feel kinda jealous that those who live in Philly can live right above it without paying the ridiculous rents you need to live anywhere near the West End.

Started reading this report which seems interesting: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/2647/1/2647.pdf

Still it seems like a massive planning mistake for tower blocks to have been places in, lets say, Camberwell away from the main roads where there's no tube or even rail line (these are far from Denmark Hill).

It seems to me not that there just isn't any social housing being built these days, but very little housing at all. Which seem strange given the prices rents have gone up to for those of us not lucky to be from the generation when getting a council properties was somewhat easier. It seem strange that developers aren't following the money and building high density near the centre where rents are highest (actually rents are probably higher in the pseudo centre around Kensington, but that area just feels like a rich persons playground rather than a true part of centre to me).

There's a decent amount of former industrial land that could be built on near King's Cross, and there's very low density housing near Euston and strangely recently built housing in Wapping minutes walk from Tower Hill (I took a walk around there in February and was shocked by how suburban somewhere so close to the centre could feel - also it's strangely council housing that was built in the early 90s if I remember correctly, which seems quite odd given that I'd thought most social housing building had finished long before that). Surely this sort of land would tempt developers - I struggle to see why it hasn't so far.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 26, 2012)

Isn't the downtown / centre city area of Philadelphia significantly smaller than zone one? not sure how/why that would make a difference, but it surely would, in all kinds of ways. Being there, Philadelphia *feels* like a very different city (and you can rent a quite lovely, non high-rise apartment around South street, for eg, much much cheaper than somewhere right in the centre of london). Comparisons with Manhattan are more valid, i think.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 26, 2012)

Retro Specs said:


> Still it seems like a massive planning mistake for tower blocks to have been places in, lets say, Camberwell away from the main roads where there's no tube or even rail line (these are far from Denmark Hill).


Buses. Loads of them. On the whole it was the middle-classes who commuted the sort of distances that make tube and train the obvious option.


----------



## El Jugador (Apr 26, 2012)

There's a health and safety issue to do with high-rise residential developments where the fire engines can't pump water high enough to fight fires over 15 storys or something. <awaits QI-alarm>


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 26, 2012)

When I lived in a high-rise there were hydrants on each floor fed from a tank on the roof.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 26, 2012)

As this thread has more than one example I want to put on my spelling nazi hat. When referring to housing it's storey, not story.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2012)

Retro Specs said:


> Ronan Point obviously put people off for a while, but surely most people realised that was problems with pre-fab structures. It also didn't seem to put people off the Barbican's towers build around the same time as the Ronan Point disaster.


 
TBF, the system-build used for Ronan Point, and the pre-fabrication model used for the Barbican complex differ massively. The former was a Meccano kit assembled on-site, the latter used very few elements wholly pre-fabricated off-site, with sections tailored _in situ_ to fit together (which is why the Barbican complex has, for example, had fewer water penetration problems than most sytem-build).



> Another thing I've struggled to understand is why council tower blocks were located where they were, so far from public transport which surely would be essential for residents in them who would be far less likely to own a car than house dwellers.


 
Originally services were supposed to be extended to the estates. In some cases this happened, in other it didn't. Mostly to do with poor communication between different bodies, with no-one willing to take responsibility.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2012)

Retro Specs said:


> It seems to me not that there just isn't any social housing being built these days, but very little housing at all. Which seem strange given the prices rents have gone up to for those of us not lucky to be from the generation when getting a council properties was somewhat easier.


 
The UK economy is supported by our housing price bubble here in the south. If supply is eased beyond the occasional gesture, then house prices will either stagnate or fall. Either will undermine whoever is in government, and make life less profitable for many of their sponsors.



> It seem strange that developers aren't following the money and building high density near the centre where rents are highest (actually rents are probably higher in the pseudo centre around Kensington, but that area just feels like a rich persons playground rather than a true part of centre to me).
> 
> There's a decent amount of former industrial land that could be built on near King's Cross...


 
You'd probably need to check, but you'll probably find that about two-thirds of that land is already under development, or can't currently be built on until tunneling operations in the area have ceased (some time in the 2020s for the tunneling for various line extensions and cross-links).



> and there's very low density housing near Euston and strangely recently built housing in Wapping minutes walk from Tower Hill (I took a walk around there in February and was shocked by how suburban somewhere so close to the centre could feel - also it's strangely council housing that was built in the early 90s if I remember correctly, which seems quite odd given that I'd thought most social housing building had finished long before that). Surely this sort of land would tempt developers - I struggle to see why it hasn't so far.


 
It won't be council housing, if it were built in the '90s, although it might be Housing Association, built in cooperation with the late Docklands Development Agency to replace some of the council housing that was razed.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 26, 2012)

Two reasons:

1. The housing bubble must be kept inflated at all costs
2. Getting high-rise buildings through the planning process is no easy business. If you're going to go to all that trouble, build offices - they're more profitable.

The "people don't like highrise" argument is still true, but there's enough people who don't mind or who actively like it that the market would bear it.


----------



## Retro Specs (Apr 27, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> Isn't the downtown / centre city area of Philadelphia significantly smaller than zone one? not sure how/why that would make a difference, but it surely would, in all kinds of ways. Being there, Philadelphia *feels* like a very different city (and you can rent a quite lovely, non high-rise apartment around South street, for eg, much much cheaper than somewhere right in the centre of london). Comparisons with Manhattan are more valid, i think.


 
I actually lived on South St this summer in a nice apartment in a converted row house, lovely area and yeah Philly centre (and the city as a whole) is a whole lot smaller than London so comparions are never going to be entirely fair. But despite being smaller and having low rises are reasonable rents near the city centre, for instance on South St, there's still a ton more high rise residential in Philly centre and near its centre than London has.

I think the argument about housing bubble could have some weight, but I'd like to see evidence of where govt was actually blocking building projects (obviously we're not going to get proof of them blocking for that reason).

It would also I suppose be consistent on why they allow the high rise residential building near canary wharf but not elsewhere (if this is the case that its down to govt blocking of building) - finance capital is what British capitalism survive on and thus needs to keep its banks in the metropolis thus needs to make it cost effective for them but have no incentive to make cheap housing for anyone else.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Apr 27, 2012)

I'd welcome more high rise in certain areas.  It's a complex scenario as others have pointed out.

Save Watership Down  Especially if meant not building over bits of Berkshire with wally neo georgian crap.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 27, 2012)

Retro Specs said:


> I actually lived on South St this summer in a nice apartment in a converted row house, lovely area and yeah Philly centre (and the city as a whole) is a whole lot smaller than London so comparions are never going to be entirely fair. But despite being smaller and having low rises are reasonable rents near the city centre, for instance on South St, there's still a ton more high rise residential in Philly centre and near its centre than London has.
> 
> I think the argument about housing bubble could have some weight, but I'd like to see evidence of where govt was actually blocking building projects (obviously we're not going to get proof of them blocking for that reason).
> 
> It would also I suppose be consistent on why they allow the high rise residential building near canary wharf but not elsewhere (if this is the case that its down to govt blocking of building) - finance capital is what British capitalism survive on and thus needs to keep its banks in the metropolis thus needs to make it cost effective for them but have no incentive to make cheap housing for anyone else.


completely OT - but did you just LOVE the Magic Garden?  best thing in the whole of philly, imo.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 27, 2012)

The reasons for not building high rise in London have changed over time I think. A few answers here have mentioned why they aren't being built now (although there are a few - in Elephant and Castle for example) I think they're about right.

Historically there will be different reasons though. Apparently one of those is the ground, there's no rock in London to build on which makes it more difficult. Another is the lack of boundaries to the city. If you think of places like New York, Hong Kong or Singapore for example, they all have natural or political boundaries that limit geographical growth so the tendency is to build upwards. The other factor I can think of is that London was historically the first city to undergo massive growth, so by the time the technology was there to build very high (including lifts etc) London had already developed a mostly non-residential centre surrounded by mostly very poor areas, and a few very wealthy areas, and the houses for people who might elsewhere have paid to live in high rises were already being built in the suburbs. And then when high rise residential buildings were eventually built they were largely council blocks which have developed a bad reputation which has put people off.


----------



## cybertect (Apr 28, 2012)

good points MGO




Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> The other factor I can think of is that London was historically the first city to undergo massive growth, so by the time the technology was there to build very high (including lifts etc) London had already developed a mostly non-residential centre surrounded by mostly very poor areas, and a few very wealthy areas, and the houses for people who might elsewhere have paid to live in high rises were already being built in the suburbs.



Worth remembering that when London underwent most of its expansion in the late 19th and early 20th century, heating in most buildings was provided by coal. London's 'Pea Soupers' prior to the Clean Air Act  are infamous. I've seen adverts for new houses out in Coulsdon, Surrey from the 1920s and 30s where the primary selling point was the clear air. Land in the suburbs before the Town snd Country Planning Act restricted building opportunites was relatively cheap, as was construction of low rise buildings, which didn't require any sophisticated technical skills.


----------



## what (Apr 28, 2012)

I think the london building acts played a large part in determining height. In particular section 20 in the mid 1930's which put major restrictions on any building over about 25 or 30m


----------



## cybertect (Apr 28, 2012)

To illustrate quite how starkly the clean air thing could be drawn at the time:

http://www.hadra.org.uk/Past Present & Future.pdf




> At the time the properties were constructed the marketing focus was directed at the healthiness of the area in order to attract people from central London, where air pollution was increasing. Coal burning on household fires and in factories was the main cause of this, allied to very little wind blowing across the Thames valley in general, which could change the air. Even by modern marketing standards, it is surprising that death statistics were actually highlighted in the promotion of the area. For instance, the local guide to Coulsdon, Purley and Sanderstead in 1934 stated on its front pages the words:
> 
> *For Garden Homes Set amidst the Surrey Hills
> 
> The preface to this guide stated: “This is now one of the largest Urban Districts in the country, and is besides, in the true sense of the word, a health resort. The death rate is 8.5 per thousand of the population, being 4.9 less than the average for the whole of England and Wales; and though the birth rate is 13.4 per thousand (that for the whole country being 16.3), the deaths of infants under one year is only 5.0 per thousand, compared with 7.4 for England and Wales."*



I think the local guide they're quoting from may even be the publication I have a copy of around the house somewhere. 

E2a: ISTR a number of the property ads at the back regularly quoting the altitude above sea level for each development.


----------

