Skyscrapers is not a bad thing in itself as long as proper zoning is done, although it is going to be a challenge for a developed city like London.

As for aesthetics, perhaps our generation of architects need to shed the narcissism to create buildings with better forms, context & sensitivity. However, I speculate that the root of the problem has something to do with the economics of the building industry.

The profession is becoming too much of a business instead of a craft. Architects are simply too underpaid and consequentially end up relinquishing the power to control the aesthetics to developers. Many times you persist to a certain extent and then give in because you dont want to ruin the relationship or worse still get fired from the job. Developers treat architecture as a money-generating playground and some simply stop at nothing to make a statement with the building.

At the end of the day, if you want a better city, other than a robust planning department, the fundamental economics of the building industry needs to be overturned. Why should the developers, who are essentially middlemen brokering deals for properties, get a grossly huge slice of the profit pie while architects, toiling and burning midnight oils one after another, are paid peanuts.

Paying more to the architect may not directly translate to higher pay for each individual architect. It may mean that there can be a couple more hands on board working on a project to even out the workload, which ultimately brings more quality to the finished project. On the macro scale, this levels the playing field between developers & architects. Architects are in a better position dealing with developers and have more authority to assert their views on aesthetics.

At the end of a day, we all get a more pleasant city and everyone is happier, except the developers perhaps.

Since they almost replaced their local population it seems they only need the correct buildings now.

Normally I love Big-Al's sentiment, and his organisation does wonderful work, but I take exception to the boring old trope of comparing us to doctors. I have yet to meet a doctor who is at the behest of multi-million dollar organisations, without proper protection of function. Lets see how the medical profession gets on if they get de-regulated (actually with the tories in power it could just happen!).

I think most architect's working in London understand all these issues and would much rather design some nice low-rise blocks for people who actually deserve them, but government policy, financing and planning law are all working against them.

Decades of erroneous policies have left us in a situation whereby we rely on private companies to build virtually all our hosing. So, when they get their hands on a bit of land they of course seek to maximise their profit margin, all in the name of 'providing housing'. What they're providing is more 'property' to people who often already have several houses, and allow them to keep making money at the expense of others.

I didn't know he was Swiss. Not many Swiss people say 'whopping'.

Really? I think the diversity is amazing. Merelu mimicking the old buildings generates a boring city. We're in the 21st century, let there be innovation! Let there be drama! I lives nearby for one year and never heard of anyone saying the Shard or the City Hall destroyed the city's skyline. London has done great so far as modernizing itself without losing its genius loci, its essence. I think the opinion expressed in this video is a bit narrow minded. Yes, I agree that some of the new buildings are just ugly, but most of them are amazing. And to build many 8 storey buildings, you need to demolish MANY houses. A tower takes less space, leaving more parts of the original city, what they're most concerned with in the video, intact.

Totally agree, taller towers would require less knocking down of older stock.

Glitz'n Glitter!!!
Sounds like xmas 2 me.

It isn't a skyline that makes a city great, it is the streets. And London has some of the greatest streets to be found. London (and every city in the world) should be less concerned with what highrise buildings look like in the skyline and more of how they look on the bottom 8 floors and how those floors look and interact with the existing streets.

They should require new towers to have a pedestal of 8 or so floors that reflects nicely with the current streetscape and interacts with it. Above that require a small setback and let them build any garish thing they want above that line.

A Walkie Talkie is the most beautiful of the London building, as is good to display alternative to what is considered respected architecture styles but good when because it something different therefore unique so it is not bad. When will UK kingdom deport the Swiss gentleman?

You can't create a city with buildings that are not a part of that city, but prescribing one scale of buildings wouldn't necessarily create more sense. Fine tuning of buildings architecture is in my point of view something that needs to be supervised by an elaborate city plan, a vision that determines the development of London in the future. Based on this individual decisions can be made. Maybe high-rise combined with nature could create green lines for cyclists trough the city supplementing a dense low rise street pattern. There are many options to create consistent beautiful cities for people with the right vision and rules but without it cities just sprawl.

"But architecture should, when it's going right, never be fun." ... I dare say NO Yes is more, I have been to the "8 house" in Copenhagen and it is really fun! What architecture should never be is egotistic: from any perspective a building should be useful and integrated BEFORE being "fun". The opinion of this video is also biased because it sounds like it has the monopoly of what is beautiful architecture. I find that some of the buildings that are cited as an example of "ugly" buildings actually give a plus value to London (e.g. the "60 mary axe" and the "armadillo" ) It is about balance and urban composition.

but London is not Copenhagen! And that's what almost every architect tend to forget nowadays, treating every city as their own experimental playground... People of London have their own identity, the city has unique history and soul - so why archi-stars consequently ignore it by making copy-paste projects?

You are correct. London is not Copenhagen. Copenhagen is fun.

I totally disagree!!!
Alain de Botton totally misses the point!...

Do enlighten us with your wisdom, what is this point which is being missed?

Apparently, what's really needed is more instruction in grammar and typing.

Hear, hear!

It's more to do with the auto type thingy than the user.

The biggest issue I have with the new residential skyscrapers in London is that the apartments mostly stay empty. They are purchased before the tower is even built by multi-millionaires who never even step foot in their unit. The same thing is happening in NYC.

What we need is useful housing. I don't care if that means luxury units are built and everyone trades up or if middle to low end housing is built to fill the needs of people in those incomes, but if money is being used to build housing units, then those units should be occupied.

In Australia for example there is a new law that requires foreign property investors to buy new construction only, which is great for the economy as it creates alot of money through construction jobs. This law comes into effect in the near future.

I couldn't agree more... the myth of the housing crisis in London has just been debugged-I salute your remarks

Even if the Shard had been 'a good idea' which it is not, it is out of proportion as it is a truncated come being much to wide at the base for its hight, god forbid it could have been higher!

I coud't agree more with what Alain de Botton is saying. London is being sold out and the city is loosing it's own identity, all for the namesake of capitalism, in order to last against this permanent crisis. Architecture must 'heal' the cities, not make them giant objects of fashion and 'trendiness' as what happens in Dubai. True architecture is made to last for centuries, not the fashion and passing architecture that is made nowadays. But nobody cares about true architecture, what is needed is something fashion, symbolizing the consumerism, to feed the capitalism. In a 'less negative' way (if we can consider that), we can say that London is becoming something like 'a New York in Europe'.

I concure.... lost of identity in London... and becoming a quasi New York

socialism is strong with this one

"But architecture should, when it's going right, never be fun." ..enough said.

This just depends on you definition of fun? Big buildings in a city of so many people serving only a minority is not the fun of architecture...

The "never be fun"-thing coming from a swiss (so am i) makes it even better. look at swiss architecture (or things in general) and you'll soon feel what it lacks..

Transparency!

Either way more housing stock must be built, I can see anything wrong with a few glitzy apartment towers. Perhaps more scrutiny just needs to be applied to each individual design, in order to achieve aesthetically improved outcomes. Maybe all future proposals can be assessed by Mr de Botton himself?

Haha das best wat he dou mans.