London is home to a surprising number of strange skyscrapers with funny names and nicknames. There are quite elegant shards and females. The (almost) popular gherkin, which resembles a glass pickle. A wedge-shaped cheese grater. And the widely hated walkie-talkie is a bulbous shape that depicts a building that, in the words of the Guardian, “looms ominously over its low-rise neighbors, like a broad-shouldered banker in a cheap pinstriped suit.” It’s a manga.
There’s an economic explanation for why London has so many skyscrapers that stand on tiptoe and say, “Look at me.” Developers hire star architects because doing so increases their chances of winning approval for taller, more profitable buildings, say Paul Cheshire, emeritus professor of economic geography at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Research.
Cheshire and Christian Hilber, also from the London School of Economics, developed the starchitect argument in a paper dating back to 2008. Cheshire and Gerald Derricks of the University of Oxford provided supporting evidence in a 2014 paper and updated the discussion with newer data in 2020. Last year, Cheshire published Starchitect’s ideas in an article in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s policy magazine. He expanded on his own thoughts in an interview with me last week.
Cheshire pointed out in an article last year that land-use decisions in the UK, like in Chicago, for example, are largely discretionary rather than rule-based. The elected committees that decide applications in London are unpredictable and can be swayed by lobbying, he wrote.
“Chicago may be the birthplace of great modern architecture, but any competent architect can get permission to build a skyscraper there, as long as it meets zoning regulations and building codes.” ” Cheshire wrote. He added that London’s discretionary plans employing trophy architects “appear to give developers a strong signal of design quality, providing political approval and a passport to bigger buildings.” .
I contacted London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s office for a response. A spokesperson told me in an email: “All planning applications submitted to the Mayor are assessed against the standards of the London Plan, our long-term development strategy.” “The idea that the profile or reputation of a particular architectural practice will influence this decision-making process is false.”
That may be the goal, but Cheshire has data on his side. In London, he writes, buildings designed by trophy architects are 17 storeys taller than those without, and “the value of a typical site increases by 144 percent.” Cheshire also notes that “buildings designed by an architect after receiving a Lifetime Achievement Award have a lower floor space (depending on model specifications) between 13 and 17 floors compared to buildings designed by the same architect before receiving the award.” It was also discovered that the In Chicago, the awarding of lifetime achievement awards did not affect the height allowed.
The unintended consequence was that some of the world’s most famous architects used London as a playground, leading to cacophony. Gwyn Richards, then head of design for London’s planning team, described the skyline to the Guardian newspaper in 2015 as “an incoherent riot”.
There are some signs that Londoners are starting to realize the error of their ways. “We are now taking a more disciplined approach,” Richards said in the Guardian article. “No building in a cluster should try to loudly criticize its neighboring buildings.”
But, Cheshire told me, “star architects’ ability to wow local politicians continues, and they put a lot of effort into it.” And if for some reason that glare is lost, Cheshire said developers have other ways to convince the planning commission. For example, he might take them on an architectural tour “to show them how amazing skyscrapers are.”
The main problem with the UK discretionary system is not that buildings are too tall, although that can sometimes be the case. In fact, the opposite is often the case. High-rise buildings designed by lesser-known architects are sometimes blocked for arbitrary reasons, or the permitting process drags on and developers give up. Ultimately, the general public will suffer as the lack of supply drives up prices for residential and commercial real estate.
I asked Cheshire to introduce me to a developer in London. He sent me to Francis Salway, who was chief executive of Rand Securities from 2004 to 2012 and a visiting professor at the London School of Economics from 2012 to last year. Ta.
Mr Salway said he agreed with Mr Cheshire about the shortcomings of the UK discretionary system, but warned that a rules-based system focused on building height and mass could fail as well. For example, he warned, it would allow high-rise buildings to be built in historically significant low-rise areas. . But could the rules be changed to prevent such outcomes? I asked. “That’s a possibility,” he allowed.
Then I made a mistake. I volunteered to Salway that I particularly disliked the walkie-talkie, officially known as 20 Fenchurch Street. This walkie-talkie was designed by Uruguayan-born Rafael Viñoly. In 2015, Building Design magazine awarded the Carbuncle Cup to the worst building of the year. Before the renovation, the building was also known as the “Death Ray” or “Flyscraper” because the sunlight reflecting off its curved façade was so strong.
There was a short silence. Um oh. I asked Salway if it had anything to do with walkie-talkies. Yes, Land Securities is one of its developers, along with Canary Wharf Group, he said. I apologized. He was nice about it.
Well, my tastes are different. Some people may find walkie-talkies appealing. The important thing is that such buildings do not suddenly appear from the ground. There are explanations for them. And the explanation is economic.
Outlook: Chief Executive Officer
For the first time in two years, U.S. chief executives are feeling more confident overall, according to the Conference Board and Business Council. The CEO Confidence Index rose from 46 in the final quarter of 2023 to 53 this quarter. A number above 50 indicates more positive responses than negative responses. The last time this happened was in the first quarter of 2022. The survey was conducted from January 16th to January 29th and received 138 responses. This indicator combines views on the current state and expectations for the economy and industry in your country.
quote of the day
“Pittsburgh has rebounded from the steel industry collapse of the 1970s and 1980s by building capacity in computer and data science, AI and automation, and now health care. … Once upon a time in Minneapolis-St. Paul, once the flour-milling capital of the world, is now a dynamic hub for finance, retail, healthcare, and biomedical sciences. Near Madison, Wisconsin, home of the University of Wisconsin and its University Research Park, , home to over 125 startups.
— John C. Austin and Mark Muro, “CHIPS and the Science Law Program are writing a new story about the Rust Belt,” Brookings Institution Commentary (February 7)