Tulip appeal thrown out over design and carbon concerns

Foster & Partners’ Tulip was today rejected by the new communities secretary Michael Gove who said it contained “too many compromises to amount to world-class architecture”.

He also questioned the “highly unsustainable concept of using vast quantities of reinforced concrete”.

Gove threw out an appeal lodged by developer Bury Street Properties against the mayor of London’s decision to refuse planning for the tower. The City of London Corporation gave the scheme the green light in 2019 but Sadiq Khan overruled this.

伯里街事件引发了一场去年举行的公开调查。规划督察大卫·尼科尔森的报告于7月提交给了当时的MHCLG，但报告的内容和他的裁决直到现在才公之于众。

Today the government published both the report and Gove’s decision, outlining in detail his reasons for rejecting the 305m tourist attraction which would have consisted of a 12-storey glass viewing ‘pod’ perched on top of a slender concrete shaft. It would have stood right next to the Gherkin – also designed by Fosters – in the already congested eastern cluster of towers in the City of London.

Gove – who had been tipped to approve it as recently as last month – backed his inspector on most points.

The 210-page report goes into granular detail about different protected views, the design of the tower and its use of carbon and concludes that the harm caused on these fronts would not be outweighed by the “economic, tourism and educational benefits”.

One key finding was that the “extensive measures that would be taken to minimise carbon emissions during construction would not outweigh the highly unsustainable concept of using vast quantities of reinforced concrete for the foundations and lift shaft”.

另一个令人担忧的问题是，郁金香会对世界遗产伦敦塔的环境造成影响，例如，对于任何走过伦敦塔桥的人来说，它会“径直穿过(伦敦塔的)白塔后面的空域，这对观众来说是非常明显和干扰的”。

Gove also agreed with the inspector that by virtue of “important differences in height, position, form and materials”, the Tulip would not merge into the cluster but appear to be challenging for dominance.

He said this would amount to a “much greater distraction than any or possibly all of the existing cluster and that it would bring the apex of the cluster much closer to the White Tower”.

Gove rejected Bury Street’s argument that the high quality of the Tulip’s design would have amounted to a heritage benefit.

While praising the skills of the architects in resolving a tricky brief on a very constrained site, he said the proposals contained “too many compromises to amount to world-class architecture”.

He added: “However carefully detailed, in terms of aesthetics the result would be visually compromised, being neither a continuous flowing object, as with the Gherkin, nor a structure of three distinct parts, as with the Monument. He also shares the inspector’s reservations about the finish to the concrete of the Tulip.

“In terms of symmetry, the secretary of state agrees with the inspector that while there have obviously been considerable effort and architectural dexterity employed in modelling the top of the building, the way the gondolas, slide and skywalk have been incorporated into the viewing areas has produced a compromised design that is neither a flamboyant expression nor a consistent elegance”.

The report added: “The form and materials of the Tulip at its proposed height and location would be a poor and unsympathetic response to the historical context. He [Gove] considers that this weighs very heavily against the quality of the design, and has reflected this in the very considerable weight attributed to the heritage harm.”

戈夫赞扬了展馆的地面设计，他说“郁金香底部的戏剧感和结构力量的表达将是惊人的”，但他对如何控制地面游客数量，以及塔周围立即失去公共开放空间持保留意见。