CSCB emerged from a community campaign against a Richard Rogers megastructure, which was considerably lower (22-storeys???) than what they are now proposing. And IIRC the Rogers scheme didn't intrude into iconic views from St James's Park
And to add insult to injury, according to the Independent last month, "Coin Street Community Builders has donated the plot of land, worth £5m" for the Rambert Dance centre to them for FREE. Aren't they meant to be providing affordable housing in sustainable communities, not playing Lady Bountiful in arts patronage?
This is an organisation that despite being given the land by the GLC, blackmailing Lambeth into allowing them to continue to operate commercial car parking on a large swathe of the site in clear contravention of planning policies, massive income from equally dubious advertising hoardings, and bending the ear of ministers, still somehow continues to fail to find money for projects?
I'm fairly sure what I think, but I'm restraining my views on this post as I don't want this website to be dragged through the courts for defamation.
Is it surprising that CSCB turn out to be just like everyone else?
There was an interesting passage in a book by Ursula K Leguin, A Wizard of Earthsea, where the wise one tells the pupil that "the rules change in the reaches". I have re-written that to say that "any agreement means less and less the further in time or space you move away from it".
CSCB are 25 years away from their idealism so nothing surprises me.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with tall buildings. They don't automatically create a dogs dinner. I think that a far greater problem is that London is flat and the skyline is unremittingly boring, not because of the buildings but because of the geography (or topography).
In fact, a good sprinkling of tall buildings hels break up the boredom.
Similarly to Bill Posters, 'tall buildings are innocent, its society that is guilty'.
One thing that strikes me about these various plans to build skyscrapers in SE1 is that one would have thought that the expected lifespan of these buildings is what... at least 50 years? Have none of the developers looked at the projected rise in sea levels around the UK over that timeframe? Seems to me like the flood maps at the Environment Agency should provide grounds for caution when it comes to investing tens of millions of pounds into new buildings like this. At the very least, with UK progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions now slipping back, the Foresight report on Future Flooding should make for sober reading. Especially when the Environment Agency expresses caution about building on flood plains, which is exactly what Prescott and Livingstone's Thames Gateway proposals will do.
Professor Andrew Watkins of the University of East Anglia was interviewed on Newsnight recently. According to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, Professor Watkins said:
"The best projections at the moment are that by the end of the millennium [sic - surely he means century?] we are looking at something like a ten metre sea-level rise.
"That is going to mean that areas in London are not going to be viable anymore and we are going to have to look at relocation of buildings in the centre of London."
More about the risks facing all who live in SE1, not just companies building skyscrapers can be found in this Times article.