For those new to CabbieBlog or readers who are slightly forgetful, on Saturdays I’m republishing posts, many going back over a decade. Some will still be very relevant while others have become dated over time. Just think of this post as your weekend paper supplement.

A different view (27.01.12)

It was in 1962 with the construction of the Post Office Tower that St. Paul’s Cathedral lost its claim to be London’s tallest building after dominating the City’s skyline for centuries. It then took nearly 20 years before the NatWest Tower laid claim to that crown, but it now seems a race to the top.

Socio-economists are those people who, if you didn’t know – or care, study the social mood of society and they have argued that ladies’ hemlines reflect the price of shares (when they rise so do shares and vice versa). The opposite could be paid of building developers, for in times of hardship they build ever higher.

The Empire State building in New York was started in 1930 in competition with 40 Wall Street and the Chrysler Building to become the world’s tallest building. The Empire State building won and was opened on 1st May 1931 just in time to coincide with the great depression, in fact, the building wouldn’t become profitable until 1950 by which time it was dubbed “The Empty State Building”.

Centre Point suffered a similar fate, when completed in 1966 it remained empty for years as its developer sought to find a sole tenant to take the entire 34 floors. For a recent development, it is hard to get more central in the City of London financial district than the Walbrook. This gleaming glass box designed by Norman Foster’s firm sits less than 660 feet from the Bank of England and almost two years after its completion the office building remains empty.

Just why do developers choose to build during times of economic woes? The Georgian landowners would employ their estate workers at times of hardship to build obelisks and follies for their landscaped gardens in a philanthropic gesture to prevent their staff from starving to death.

Not so the developers of the City. By choosing to construct the largest/tallest/ugliest or maddest in a recession they hope to economise on labour and material costs.

Now after 350 years St. Paul’s is surrounded by building sites each intending to make its mark on London’s landscape. Bishopsgate – has there ever been a time since the Romans when this road wasn’t dug up? – has two, the Heron Tower completed last year and the 64-storey Pinnacle which coincidentally at the time of writing has had its construction halted with only 7 floors built due to lack of funding. If the Pinnacle, or Helter Skelter as it has been dubbed, is ever finished it will be the tallest tower in the City of London and the second tallest in the European Union. There is the Walkie Talkie in Fenchurch Street, Leadenhall Street’s Cheesegrater and the big daddy of them all the Shard at London Bridge, now the tallest building in the European Union.

Will they improve London’s vista? That is not likely for quaint beauty is not their purpose. London is a world-class city and as such cannot be preserved in aspic with only tourism to fill its coffers – Europe has plenty of other heritage cities.

London lost its charm when it had to be rebuilt after the Blitz. The question that should be asked is will these monoliths make a profit? Many skyscrapers have a poor track record, let us hope that more companies will relocate to London and not take the BBC’s lead and move up north. Hopefully, if there are enough jobs in London to fill their floors with office workers some might have the need for a cab.