7 ms·

I bet it's insanely hard to get approval to build highrise luxury condos in London, especially when to do so you have to tear down historical buildings--and pra

by briga 8y ago

I bet it's insanely hard to get approval to build highrise luxury condos in London, especially when to do so you have to tear down historical buildings--and practically every building in Central London is historic. This seems like a sensible, if extravagant solution. I just hope they're considering how underground buildings might affect the structural stability of what's built on top.

theoh 8y ago
Actually, if you've been to central London recently, you'll know there is a huge amount of demolition and rebuilding going on: for example dead center on the west side of Tottenham Court Road. Office buildings in the centre, from the 20s onward, regularly get demolished and rebuilt to modern specs. There are brand new "luxury condos" around Tate Modern and the amount of building going on near Canary Wharf is incredible. It's true that there are some preserved buildings that are unlikely to be redeveloped. But in the City proper (the square mile) there is a lot of redevelopment. Nobody lives there, though. The reason for the basements is not that the houses are architecturally noteworthy, just that they are in conservation areas. It has to do with the look of the neighbourhood and all the property value that goes along with that. It's not an effective way of densifying the housing stock.
- pledg 8y ago
  "Nobody lives there, though." Hello from the Barbican.
  - zerowellies 8y ago
    What an exceptional place to live. Is there a good sense of community between the residents?
  - theoh 8y ago
    Point taken. I love the Barbican. According to Wikipedia: "The City has a resident population of 9,401 (ONS estimate, mid-2016) but over 300,000 people commute to and work there." That is the breakdown I was trying to communicate.
- cm2187 8y ago
  No, there are very stric planning rules in London. It’s not just about not touching listed properties (though a lot of the city is listed) but also there is a web of line of sights from different view points which are protected and results in an invisible ceiling to new constructions. Add to that a very lengthy planning process and locals hostile to the densification of the area despite the crumbling transportation system, and you get the current odd situation where most of the city is made of low rise, 2 floors high tiny houses converted into even tinier apartments, and a few spots where you have a massive concentration of some of the highest residential skyscrapers in Europe.
fredley 8y ago
There's a lot of history, but there's also a lot of low-mid rise cheap postwar developments (built on bomb sites) that are overdue for replacement.
- mattkevan 8y ago
  We live on a long straight road in central London lined with Georgian townhouses. It’s possible to see exactly where the bombs fell as every few hundred yards the houses stop and there’s a 60s tower block or a park. Never realised why until it was pointed out.
burfog 8y ago
I would expect the seriously historic stuff to be underground. That is where the ancient Roman stuff would be best preserved. I wonder how often an inconvenient archaeological site gets quietly disposed of.
- fredley 8y ago
  They don't get 'disposed of'. Whenever there are large excavations it's a planning requirement to turn the site over to archaeologists first, who can find anything that's to be found before it's dug out. E.g., there was a lot of archaeology done with the Crossrail project: https://archaeology.crossrail.co.uk/exhibits/roman-moorgate-liverpool-street/ https://archaeology.crossrail.co.uk/exhibits/roman-moorgate-...
  - dbuder 8y ago
    There is nothing worse for a project than finding a mammoth tusk, so sometimes people "don't".
  - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
    Yes, but that's a large excavation for public purposes, a private project is probably smaller - so does the same rules apply? Can those rules be avoided when done privately?
    - dfwqdfw 8y ago
      Avoided no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Monuments_and_Archaeological_Areas_Act_1979 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Monuments_and_Archaeol...
chrisseaton 8y ago
> I bet it's insanely hard to get approval to build highrise luxury condos in London 'Condo' isn't really a term we use in London. What's the difference between a condo and an apartment that you own?
- markkanof 8y ago
  There isn’t any real difference. It is just a difference in wording. Usually in the US we say apartment to mean a unit in a larger building that you are renting and condo means the same unit but you own it.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    We call both things 'flats'. Apartment maybe in corporate marketing material or some historical names.
    - jessriedel 8y ago
      It's not necessary to change to the local lingo when you're talking about another place. When describing a trip to the US, Brits talking to Brits are perfectly able to say they rode an American lift.
      - chrisseaton 8y ago
        But when you use a specific term like ‘condo’ rather than something generic like ‘home’ it looks like that specific term is there for a reason. If you ask if building condos is hard does that mean you think building apartments instead is easier, for example.
        burke 8y ago
        It’s not really a specific use, it’s just terminology that doesn’t overlap in a the way you want it to. Most high rise developments, at least where I am, are condos, as it tends to be more profitable or convenient for a developer to sell all the units than for a single entity to rent them all out on an ongoing basis. Lots of the units will be rented out as apartments. “High rise condo” May sound overly specific but it’s just the most common example of a category for which we don’t have a convenient descriptor.
danburbridge 8y ago
I am sure I remember reading reports a few years ago where there excavation has caused serious issues/subsidence and even collapse.
- mattkevan 8y ago
  There’s always the Mole Man of Hackney who spent 40 years digging tunnels under his house. He dug so much that the pavement outside collapsed. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/aug/08/communities.uknews https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/aug/08/communities....
angarg12 8y ago
At the same time some properties are being held purely for speculative reasons and going derelict. I would much rather have a new construction rather than a rotting 'historic' building. Point in case: The luxury Principal Tower [1] and buildings just across it [2]. [1] https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5213362,-0.0786701,3a,75y,14.75h,113.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-VPxogucgRrZYV515yGJ9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5213362,-0.0786701,3a,75y,... [2] https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5213362,-0.0786701,3a,75y,114.87h,103.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-VPxogucgRrZYV515yGJ9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5213362,-0.0786701,3a,75y,...
- Sabinus 8y ago
  Time for some taxes on foreign property ownership or uninhabited buildings then.
  - jaredklewis 8y ago
    No need to target foreigners really; speculative land ownership does the same harm regardless of which side of the imaginary line an owner was born on.
Balgair 8y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGXbiSwcqtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGXbiSwcqtM Tom Scott on the 'Protected Views' or 'Sightlines' of London. It explains some of the legal issues about heights in London. TLDW (even though is 3 frickin min. long): You have to be able to see St. Paul's (and have nothing behind it) from a few special vantage points. Something he didn't mention is the issues about London vs. The City of London, which also affects building heights, though less so.
- baud147258 8y ago
  Regarding limited building height in a capital city, my brother worked on a refection/reconstruction project in Paris (just next to the local Google office, near St-Lazare train station). They removed all the insid of the building, but they left the roof in place, because if they removed it to rebuild it, they would have to rebuild it lower (3 meters I think).

by briga 8y ago

theoh 8y ago

Actually, if you've been to central London recently, you'll know there is a huge amount of demolition and rebuilding going on: for example dead center on the west side of Tottenham Court Road. Office buildings in the centre, from the 20s onward, regularly get demolished and rebuilt to modern specs. There are brand new "luxury condos" around Tate Modern and the amount of building going on near Canary Wharf is incredible. It's true that there are some preserved buildings that are unlikely to be redeveloped. But in the City proper (the square mile) there is a lot of redevelopment. Nobody lives there, though. The reason for the basements is not that the houses are architecturally noteworthy, just that they are in conservation areas. It has to do with the look of the neighbourhood and all the property value that goes along with that. It's not an effective way of densifying the housing stock.

pledg 8y ago
"Nobody lives there, though." Hello from the Barbican.
- zerowellies 8y ago
  What an exceptional place to live. Is there a good sense of community between the residents?
- theoh 8y ago
  Point taken. I love the Barbican. According to Wikipedia: "The City has a resident population of 9,401 (ONS estimate, mid-2016) but over 300,000 people commute to and work there." That is the breakdown I was trying to communicate.
cm2187 8y ago
No, there are very stric planning rules in London. It’s not just about not touching listed properties (though a lot of the city is listed) but also there is a web of line of sights from different view points which are protected and results in an invisible ceiling to new constructions. Add to that a very lengthy planning process and locals hostile to the densification of the area despite the crumbling transportation system, and you get the current odd situation where most of the city is made of low rise, 2 floors high tiny houses converted into even tinier apartments, and a few spots where you have a massive concentration of some of the highest residential skyscrapers in Europe.

fredley 8y ago

There's a lot of history, but there's also a lot of low-mid rise cheap postwar developments (built on bomb sites) that are overdue for replacement.

mattkevan 8y ago
We live on a long straight road in central London lined with Georgian townhouses. It’s possible to see exactly where the bombs fell as every few hundred yards the houses stop and there’s a 60s tower block or a park. Never realised why until it was pointed out.

burfog 8y ago

I would expect the seriously historic stuff to be underground. That is where the ancient Roman stuff would be best preserved. I wonder how often an inconvenient archaeological site gets quietly disposed of.

fredley 8y ago
They don't get 'disposed of'. Whenever there are large excavations it's a planning requirement to turn the site over to archaeologists first, who can find anything that's to be found before it's dug out. E.g., there was a lot of archaeology done with the Crossrail project: https://archaeology.crossrail.co.uk/exhibits/roman-moorgate-liverpool-street/ https://archaeology.crossrail.co.uk/exhibits/roman-moorgate-...
- dbuder 8y ago
  There is nothing worse for a project than finding a mammoth tusk, so sometimes people "don't".
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  Yes, but that's a large excavation for public purposes, a private project is probably smaller - so does the same rules apply? Can those rules be avoided when done privately?
  - dfwqdfw 8y ago
    Avoided no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Monuments_and_Archaeological_Areas_Act_1979 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Monuments_and_Archaeol...

chrisseaton 8y ago

> I bet it's insanely hard to get approval to build highrise luxury condos in London 'Condo' isn't really a term we use in London. What's the difference between a condo and an apartment that you own?

markkanof 8y ago
There isn’t any real difference. It is just a difference in wording. Usually in the US we say apartment to mean a unit in a larger building that you are renting and condo means the same unit but you own it.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  We call both things 'flats'. Apartment maybe in corporate marketing material or some historical names.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    It's not necessary to change to the local lingo when you're talking about another place. When describing a trip to the US, Brits talking to Brits are perfectly able to say they rode an American lift.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      But when you use a specific term like ‘condo’ rather than something generic like ‘home’ it looks like that specific term is there for a reason. If you ask if building condos is hard does that mean you think building apartments instead is easier, for example.
      - burke 8y ago
        It’s not really a specific use, it’s just terminology that doesn’t overlap in a the way you want it to. Most high rise developments, at least where I am, are condos, as it tends to be more profitable or convenient for a developer to sell all the units than for a single entity to rent them all out on an ongoing basis. Lots of the units will be rented out as apartments. “High rise condo” May sound overly specific but it’s just the most common example of a category for which we don’t have a convenient descriptor.

danburbridge 8y ago

I am sure I remember reading reports a few years ago where there excavation has caused serious issues/subsidence and even collapse.

mattkevan 8y ago
There’s always the Mole Man of Hackney who spent 40 years digging tunnels under his house. He dug so much that the pavement outside collapsed. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/aug/08/communities.uknews https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/aug/08/communities....

angarg12 8y ago

At the same time some properties are being held purely for speculative reasons and going derelict. I would much rather have a new construction rather than a rotting 'historic' building. Point in case: The luxury Principal Tower [1] and buildings just across it [2]. [1] https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5213362,-0.0786701,3a,75y,14.75h,113.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-VPxogucgRrZYV515yGJ9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5213362,-0.0786701,3a,75y,... [2] https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5213362,-0.0786701,3a,75y,114.87h,103.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-VPxogucgRrZYV515yGJ9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5213362,-0.0786701,3a,75y,...

Sabinus 8y ago
Time for some taxes on foreign property ownership or uninhabited buildings then.
- jaredklewis 8y ago
  No need to target foreigners really; speculative land ownership does the same harm regardless of which side of the imaginary line an owner was born on.

Balgair 8y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGXbiSwcqtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGXbiSwcqtM Tom Scott on the 'Protected Views' or 'Sightlines' of London. It explains some of the legal issues about heights in London. TLDW (even though is 3 frickin min. long): You have to be able to see St. Paul's (and have nothing behind it) from a few special vantage points. Something he didn't mention is the issues about London vs. The City of London, which also affects building heights, though less so.

baud147258 8y ago
Regarding limited building height in a capital city, my brother worked on a refection/reconstruction project in Paris (just next to the local Google office, near St-Lazare train station). They removed all the insid of the building, but they left the roof in place, because if they removed it to rebuild it, they would have to rebuild it lower (3 meters I think).