Chloe Hampton - LSBU explore green infrastructure for a healthier workplace

London South Bank University (LSBU) has recently started a campaign to make the campus healthier and more sustainable. We were therefore very happy to host the green infrastructure as a building service design challenge. The design challenge was devised with focus on a real office space with real opportunities for improvement. The Clarence Centre for Enterprise and Innovation at LSBU was a suitable fit having recently been retrofitted, and has a typical office space layout, which can allow for replication - an important feature for engaging implementation. 

The Clarence Centre is a beautiful listed building renovated with a complimentary modern extension. It is a pleasure to work there, great location, looks amazing and wonderful people. Although, since I have been involved in the green infrastructure design challenge I have started to notice just how poor the indoor environmental quality is. It is very stuffy, the temperatures vary wildly from space to space with the offices being generally hot. Opening windows is our sole source of ventilation of which half open on to the busy London road. We do not measure or record anything in the building, something I think all spaces should do -  because if you don't know you can't fix it! 

The Clarence Centre has very little in the way of greenery and plants; green infrastructure however, is developing from a ‘nice to have’ aesthetic to an integral part of building service design and maintenance of spaces. The potential positive impact plants can have on indoor environmental quality and staff morale are numerous e.g. boosting productivity,  therefore helping to provide the business case for internal green infrastructure. It is exciting to have 'green sky' design solutions on site at LSBU that we may be able to implement and test, improving the working environment, supporting small businesses and informing research.

Typical office space within Clarence Centre

Universities offer a unique resource of both expertise for innovation and facilities to support it. They should be considered a playground of activity, for testing and trailing new ways of doing things and challenge the status quo. At LSBU, we have a number of interesting projects on site varying from testing 'sustainable' products to implementing innovative ways to heat and cool buildings to our Centre for Efficient and Renewable Energy in buildings. We work within an influence loop where enterprise informs research and research informs teaching. This ensures that we are working on the current issues in industry and that our students are learning relevant and current topics - such as green infrastructure as a building service. We have an excellent building services course at LSBU – staff and students of which were involved in the challenge. 

The Challenge received three submissions of a very high standard – especially given the tight time constraints. Each submission coincidentally focused on different areas of the building. The winner was Biospace, and as an occupant of the space, it was my favourite design. I could really see their ideas being implemented in the office and could imagine myself working very happily in their proposed space. The design consisted of an interesting amalgamation of greenery including hinged ‘green blinds’, edible plants, energy producing plants and technology that informs occupants of the plants needs. What I liked most was that it didn't change the workspace it simply edited and added unobtrusive clever greenery that served a purpose. 

The winning entry being scrutinised

Challenging the industry and academia to collaborate to develop ideas for the integration and retrofit of green infrastructure in the office spaces at LSBU allows for the development of a healthier, more sustainable and climatically resilient workplace, both on site and for the wider working community. 

Thank you to ARCC and CIBSE for the opportunity and especially thanks for the first plant in the office, which I am desperately trying not to kill! 

For more information about the competition and downloads of the submissions received including the winning BioSpace entry then click here.

Chloe Hampton, Research and Enterprise Support Officer 
The Green Infrastructure challenge complements and supports The LSBU Corporate Strategy, which focuses on real world impact, and The Enterprise Institutes based at the Clarence Centre are integral to this aim. I work within The Sustainable Communities Institute (SCi) one of four Enterprise Institutes at LSBU. It is an interdisciplinary and inter-professional centre of excellence working toward creating places for individuals and groups to live and work sustainably, both now and in the future. The focus of the Institute is to enhance performance, sustainability and wellbeing and reduce cost and resource usage through impactful interventions, research and policy guidance. 
LSBU has been awarded the ‘Commitment’ level award of the London Healthy Workplace Charter and is striving towards the ‘Excellent’ award.

Join the conversation about this post on LinkedIN.

Jae Mather - Vancouver; a city of the present not just the future!

Resilience, adaptability & self-sufficiency; appear to be the buzzwords of the day. These concepts are rising to the surface of people’s minds, both individually and ever more so within companies, organisations and governments. It would seem that we may be upon the cusp of some transformation in consciousness and maybe even governance.

We've never been in a better position to access information and therefore to transition to a place where we start to fundamentally understand that 'what we do to others, we ultimately do to ourselves'. Things like the changing climate, global macro trends, commodity price volatility and the global agreements that came out of COP 21 in Paris are all pointing in the same direction. Things are changing and they are changing at an accelerating pace that unavoidably turns our eyes towards the absolute need for new ways of running the economy, society and the environment.

To many people cities represent the pinnacle of the evolution of our respective civilisations. They are big, loud, opportunity generating, ever growing and often deeply exciting places. They are where most people are (53% of the world populations now lives in cities) and where a large percentage of the rest want to be (http://kff.org/global-indicator/urban-population/). They are where the majority of the jobs are at, where most of the best education is and where art and culture consolidates.

Cycling in Vancouver

Recently my family and I moved back to my home city of Vancouver after 18 years in Europe. One of the reasons why was because of the leadership that is being shown in Vancouver’s Greenest City 2020 Action Plan which was created in response to these circumstances and they appear to be one of the best examples of transforming the consciousness through sustainable leadership.

The city consistently rates, as one of the best places in the world to live and what is interesting is that the leadership and staff of the city recognize that for Vancouver to stay in such a position, there is a need to continually innovate and adapt. The choice has been made to keep sustainability sitting at the very heart of that plan.  Sustainable strategy is the cities strategy and not just a bit of green on the side. Resilience and adaptability are returning to the top of the list as highly desirable and in some cases essential elements of urban management and design.

Vancouver district heating system

Key targets of the Greenest City 2020 Action Plan:

Goal 1. Green Economy

• Double the number of green jobs over 2010 levels
• Double the number of companies that are actively engaged in greening their operations over 2011 levels

Goal 2. Climate Leadership

• Reduce community-based greenhouse gas emissions by 33% from 2007 levels

Goal 3. Green Buildings

• Require all buildings constructed from 2020 onwards to be carbon neutral in operations
• Reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in existing buildings by 20% over 2007 levels

Goal 4. Green Transportation

• Make the majority (over 50%) of trips by foot, bicycle and public transport
• Reduce average distance driven per resident by 20% from 2007 levels

Goal 5. Zero Waste

• Reduce solid waste going to the landfill or incinerator by 50% from 2008 levels

Goal 6. Access to Nature

• All Vancouver residents live within a 5 min walk of a park, greenway or other green space
• Plant 150,000 new trees

Goal 7. Lighter Footprint

• Reduce Vancouver’s ecological footprint by 33% over 2006 levels

Goal 8. Clean Water

• Meet or beat the strongest of British Columbian, Canadian and appropriate international drinking water quality standards and guidelines
• Reduce per capita water consumption by 33% from 2006 levels

Goal 9. Clean Air

• Always meet or beat the most stringent air quality guidelines from Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the world health organisation

Goal 10. Local Food

• Increase citywide and neighbourhood food assets by a minimum of 50% over 2010 levels

What also interests me is how cities will adapt and prosper from some of the main technological disruptions that are one the way.

Driverless Cars 
How will the value of property in urban centres change as people are able to travel at very high speeds while working, sleeping & playing from much further away at much lower cost?

3D printing 
How will the high street change when people are able to make their own high quality things at home and the financial model switches from owning products to licensing designs?

Virtual Reality 
When people do not need to commute to work in anywhere near the volumes that they do today because of home based VR systems allowing them to be anywhere, how will this change the needs of public transport?

Jae Mather BA, PGradDip, CEnv., FRSA, FIEMA is the Director of Sustainability at the Carbon Free Group and North American Ambassador for the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) @jaemather



City images courtesy of Vancouver City Council

Join the conversation about this post on LinkedIn by following this link.

Peter Henshaw - “Tox-ford Street”

This post was written by Peter Henshaw last summer to inform BuroHappold Engineering staff about the impact of poor air quality local to their offices. 
We have reproduced it here with their permission partly to respond to the news that London has broken European air-quality rules for the whole of 2016 — just 175 hours into the new year.

Many of you will have read articles in the press over the past few days about poor air quality in London, and specifically in Oxford Street – so called “Tox-ford Street”. 

The bold statement of leading air quality expert Dr David Carslaw that Oxford Street is one of the most polluted streets in the world is likely to be of concern for those of us here in the office each day, sitting just 150m from Oxford Street.

The claim is based on air quality monitoring data recorded opposite Selfridge’s (see figure below), as part of the London Air Quality Network (http://www.londonair.org.uk). Yearly average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), were recorded at more than three times the legally binding EU limit value, whilst hourly NO2 readings (to reflect the short term health impacts) have exceeded limit values on more than 1500 occasions in the last year. 

  
The main causes of these high concentrations are the large volume of diesel buses and taxis passing through the area, the stop-start nature of urban driving, and also the street being canyonised (narrow with tall buildings either side) where pollution recirculates and accumulates. The health impacts are exacerbated by the popularity of the street, with very many people spending significant periods of time exposed to high pollution concentrations.

For ‘at risk people’ (children, elderly, those with asthma/respiratory problems) measures can be taken to avoid this exposure – even such simple steps as walking away from the kerbside can reduce exposure. However the best advice would be to use quieter streets with less traffic, and avoiding strenuous exercise along busy roads (cyclists/joggers in particular - the cityair app is useful for this http://cityairapp.com). On days when pollution is particularly high (due to weather conditions, for example) airtext alerts can be received via text or email and used to inform both those at risk and healthy individuals, giving advice on any precautions that should be taken (http://www.airtext.info).

For us on Newman Street, although there is no monitoring undertaken here, the London Air Quality Network has modelled average annual NO2 concentrations (see figure) for the whole of London.  Predicted concentrations on Newman Street indicate that even though pollutant levels are not as high as on Oxford Street, as with the majority of central London, concentrations are still above EU limits for NO2. The abundance of nearby construction sites and high HGV numbers along Newman Street do little to help the situation either. 

For new buildings in areas of poor air quality mechanical ventilation and unopenable roadside windows are often prerequisites from planning authorities in order to protect those inside. However instead of such energy intensive measures, perhaps the best method is for better education- understanding that there are certain days or even times of the day when windows next to a busy road may be best left closed. Better informing the public on air quality is something that will no doubt increase as the topic receives a higher profile from further research into effects of pollutants on human health.

So for us in Newman Street the advice is: 

• Facilities management to sign up to airtext alerts and advise via email/on London Magellan page high pollution days;
• On poor air quality days best to only open the windows on the less exposed building facades, so east facing in 17 and west facing in 71;
• For cyclists/those taking exercise- although the benefits of exercise may outweigh potential health impacts, using the cityair app (http://cityairapp.com) to plan a low pollution route on your cycle to work can only make things better;
• Petition Boris to do something about it / get in touch with your MP if it is an issue that concerns you; and
• Support campaign groups such as healthy air http://healthyair.org.uk/support-us/ 

More detailed info here for those who are really interested!

As well as being recently declared carcinogenic by the WHO (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf), studies of particulate matter have shown a link between the number of particles in the air and ambulance calls and A&E admissions for heart attacks (http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Abstract/2010/07000/Urban_Ambient_Particle_Metrics_and_Health__A.13.aspx.

High short term NO2 concentrations can lead to inflammation of the respiratory system, and subsequent increased susceptibility to respiratory illness. Long term exposure is linked to bronchitis in asthmatic children and reduced lung function growth. To make things worse, on sunny days NO2 reacts photochemically to produce ground level ozone, which can cause breathing problems, trigger asthma and lead to lung disease. As the reaction can take some time, ground level ozone tends to build up away from roadside locations, for example in parks.

Although there has been great progress since the Great Smog of 1952, which killed 4,000 Londoners, there is a common misconception that air quality is no longer a problem. However in reality we are dealing with different pollutants; instead of smoky sulphur dioxide from coal burning (which is still an issue in places such as China), we now have NO2 and fine particulates from petrol, diesel and gas combustion, which are much more difficult to see with the naked eye and are potentially just as dangerous.
The main problem in London (as with most urban areas) is transport, and although long term measures have been introduced to try and combat traffic emissions (more stringent emission standards and the (ultra)low emission zone) certain emission technology has proved problematic  and actually lead to increases in pollutant emissions in some cases. Likewise the incentivisation of diesel vehicles to comply with carbon reduction targets has had a detrimental impact on local air quality.

A recent presentation highlights the benefits of actively improving air quality, whereby a US EPA representative highlighted the return of more than $30 in benefits for every dollar invested in pollution reduction. With increasing urbanisation, air pollution is a growing world health problem which needs to be dealt with by transforming existing cities through good design; reducing dependency on road transport and providing clean energy.


Peter Henshaw is an environmental consultant at BuroHappold, specialising in air quality research and consultancy. 

Join the conversation about this post on LinkedIn by following this link.

Kirsten Henson - What Makes a Sustainable City?

In January this year I went back to Cambridge University to attend the Cambridge Forum for Sustainability and the Environment review of their 2014 Sustainable Cities programme. I contributed to the forum last year as an expert witness and was invited to return to hear the panel discuss the outcome of their year-long programme. As one might expect, the sustainable cities discussions threw up more questions than answers and was considered invaluable for directing future PhD and Masters Research within the University.

Diverse topics were discussed from design to governance. Of particular interest was the suggestion that we had a lot to learn from developing countries; a degree of elasticity and disorder was deemed critical for resilience. The developed world tends to have more fixed and structured cities and therefore when the barriers are breached, the consequences tend to be catastrophic. It was surmised that the resilient city lies somewhere between the regimented system of the developed world and the organised chaos of cities in developing countries.

The panel warned against a sole focus on climate change. Working in silos and optimising a single element of a city’s challenges is likely to lead to detrimental and often unintended consequences elsewhere. This is an area that I have written about before, following on from an EU Knowledge share programme between East London and Gothenburg in Sweden. A sole focus on the provision of exceptional new services in a deprived area in Gothenburg had no impact on the health and well-being of the local population, largely due to a lack of engagement, employment and social networks throughout the process.

The need for adaptable, flexible design that gives due consideration to the many trade-offs and balances, acceptance of soft-failure and consideration of ‘good enough’ is fundamental to creating sustainable cities.

Fundamentally we should not be over-engineering our cities, whether from a hard engineering or social governance perspective. We should take pleasure in the murky corners and nurture the informal networks, celebrate the diverse space from formal squares to a forgotten leafy corner with a tired looking bench. We must give due consideration to, but not try to engineer out the social deprivation that lives alongside the shiny new development and ‘regeneration’ projects. These juxtapositions, found across our cities make them vibrant and exciting places to live and provide an element of resilience.

I have been involved in the Olympic Programme since 2006 and during this time my belief of what success would look like for the Olympic regeneration programme has changed somewhat. When I first started I believed that we could only claim success if we created a vast improvement in the social deprivation indices in the host boroughs and changed the very fabric of the surrounding area.

But, as one Newham councillor told me, the people of Stratford want to shop in the Stratford Mall. They like it. It offers a place of strong social identity and cohesion unlike the polished floors and bright lights of Westfield. It isn’t so much ‘them’ and ‘us’ it is perhaps as simple as people not easily engaging with change, particularly when they feel they have a community on their doorstep.

So provided the opportunities are there for those that want to take them and the services and facilities are affordable to all let us celebrate the different cultures, lifestyles and environments we find in our city. How foolish of me to think that everyone would aspire to live in a new zero carbon home on the edge of the Queen Elizabeth Park. Inevitably new people will be drawn to this area and the challenge is to ensure that this new London quarter develops its own identity, its own community, and is one that sits well between the already strong identities of Hackney Wick and Stratford.

Kirsten Henson is a director at KLH sustainability.

http://www.klhsustainability.com

Join the discussion about this post on Linked in.

Derek Clements-Croome - Lessons from History and Nature

Buildings and Cities Planned and Designed with Lessons from History and Nature

Intelligent Buildings are buildings which respond to human needs whilst being economic in the use of resources. Today they often include digital technology which make them smart but this alone does not make an intelligent building as the history of vernacular history shows. Buildings and infrastructure make cities and they have to be adaptable and resilient over the long term.

It is only in the last 300 years that cities have evolved on the scale we are used to today. Before that time for millions of years people have been hunter gatherers living in the countryside. By 2050 we expect 70% of the world’s population to be living in urban landscapes. The danger is that mankind is becoming disconnected from Nature. The garden cities movement in England at the start of the 20th century was an attempt to rectify this. Now we have the medical evidence to show that Nature affects our mood, stress levels and well-being. We need greenery around us for a host of reasons and biophilic design reflecting our innate love of Nature is emerging as a significant discipline.

Green Mega City: Lilypads by Vincent Callebaut

But now we have another concern and that is climate change. It is expected that the Summer of 2003 which caused the death of some 35,000 people in western Europe will be prevalent here in the UK by 2080. So buildings within cities have to be designed or refurbished with resilient measures so their occupants will remain healthy. Vernacular architecture is the history of buildings over thousands of years of change and show many ingenious examples of resilient design using few mechanical devices and which we know as passive environmental design using orientation, materials, building form to handle the climate inside the building. This is demonstrated by the wind towers prevalent in Islamic architecture which inspired the ventilation for the Queens building at De Montfort University. Passive solutions also have the advantages of durability and low maintenance. 

Wind towers in Yadz, Iran and also De Montfort University

Building services consume energy and require careful maintenance if they are to be continuously reliable. Compared to the building fabric their lifetime is comparatively short. However they help to make buildings habitable for people to work and live in them by providing air and water at suitable temperatures besides light , power and a host of other utilities for the occupants. Heating , ventilation and air-conditioning are a major consideration because they provide fresh air, heating and cooling for human needs. Cities can be noisy places so many buildings are sealed forcing the use of air-conditioning rather than natural ventilation. With the pressures to design new and refurbish old buildings which are sustainable and also healthy we need to consider alternatives to the traditional approaches to systems provision. The solution being proposed here is use the lessons from Nature and vernacular architecture blended with the judicious use of smart technologies.

Technology is advancing more and more rapidly but cannot provide all the answers. Throughout history people from all cultures throughout the world have discovered ingenious ways of dealing with the rigours of climate whether hot, humid or very cold. The marvels of the plant and animal worlds give ceaseless wonder and can stimulate us to think more laterally and learn from the beautiful optimal ways in which Nature is economic in the use of energy and water.

The camel’s nose is a humidifier and dehumidifier and conserves some 70% of the water present in the breathing cycle or the termitaries which inspired the Eastgate shopping centre in Harare are examples. 

The camels nose and termite mounds can both teach us much

By reviewing the thinking behind vernacular styles and being prepared to learn from Nature we can design more naturally responsive buildings. Let us adopt a more organic and holistic approach together with appropriate technology to the design of buildings, infrastructure and systems as a whole to achieve sustainable intelligent and resilient cities for people and society.

Derek Clements-Croome

Professor Emeritus in Architectural Engineering

University of Reading

September 2015

Join the discussion about this post on LinkedIn.

Polly Turton - Let’s not just talk about the weather

The British love to talk about the weather. Comedians have even suggested that without the nations’ favourite topic of conversation to fill the silence, romances might fail and families fall out. And it is only going to get worse... 

The weather is forecast to be the subject on everyone’s lips even more often in future, but, unfortunately, for all the wrong reasons. We have already arguably seen the impacts of climate change manifest in such extreme UK weather events as flooding of the Somerset Levels and the Dawlish railway-line collapse. The sad fact is that we now associate the weather with making big headlines, as much as small talk. 

Furthermore, it is not just rural and coastal areas affected. Built in 1982, the Thames Barrier was designed to be deployed on perhaps two or three occasions a year to protect the Capital from flooding. Last winter, it was closed a record 50 times. 
Just like homeowners, businesses are facing up to this new reality. They are already experiencing the effects on their shared environment and community – stocking up on sandbags, whilst insurance premiums rise. Retailers in particular are coming to terms with what it means to be prepared and resilient. 

At Arup, we have been working with Marks & Spencer to assess the weather- and climate-related risks to their UK stores. We are developing appropriate climate change adaptation and resilience strategies in response to their Plan A commitments, for both existing properties and new development. 

M&S are not dealing merely with some ‘what if’ scenario. Climate change impacts are real and happening to them, their staff, customers and properties. Despite M&S being alive to the issues, passionate about good store design and committed to high standards of operation, there is still no escape. In the last decade, weather-related incidents have affected M&S buildings thereby justifying a business case for climate change adaptation. What is also plain, however, is that this is not a topic any one organisation should or can tackle on its own. Let’s face it, when has a storm or a heatwave ever hit only your house and not that of your next-door neighbour? 

Shared problems call for shared solutions. Accordingly, M&S is leading a collaborative drive to pool knowledge and resources, boost understanding of risks and speed response.
To do this, as well as reaching out to customers and local community networks, M&S has also brought together a broad mix of government bodies, businesses and NGOs in a series of round-table discussions with external stakeholders. 
From technology trends to climate maps and from landlords to health professionals - sometimes with issues this complex and perspectives that varied, the best place for people to start is, literally, in the same room. 

Taking this approach also means that the financial, social and environmental benefits of climate risk management can be shared across companies, catchments, cities and communities. 

The collective wisdom of this expert cohort is then being disseminated even more widely via the Environment Agency (EA), so other companies and organisations can benefit. For M&S, working in tandem with the EA in this way also builds on their successful collaboration around ‘Flood Hubs’ last year. 

Meantime, the weather continues to make news, with the hottest July day ever in the UK recorded last month. The burning question M&S is asking, through its collaborative approach to climate change adaptation, is what are we going to do about it, together? The time for just talk is over.

Polly Turton is a Climate Change Adaptation Consultant at Arup.

This blog was reproduced from one originally published by M&S.

Polly has also written on this topic for the Arup Thoughts blog, and she will be presenting on the subject in the Resilient Cities session (9.45-11am on 4th Nov) at the CIBSE Conference.

Join the discussion about this post on LinkedIn.

Julie Futcher - What makes a tall building good?

‘Does London need Tall Buildings?’ is the title of an upcoming Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats (CTBUH) event; it poses disarmingly simple questions such as ‘what is the practical contribution of tall buildings to the urban realm? and; Are tall buildings good or bad for us? Not surprisingly the answer to these questions is not straightforward and depends on the perspective (whether indoor or outdoor), the purpose (for commercial or residential use), the context (as an isolated tall building or as part of a cluster) and the metric (energy, density, profit, etc.). However, to some extent the questions posed are moot; London already has an eclectic mix of tall buildings and many more are planned. Here, I look at the effects of some tall buildings on the distribution of natural energy (sun and wind) in the surrounding urban landscape.  

Section through the Eastern Cluster City of London

In an urban setting, buildings interact with each other and the intervening streets, parks and plazas and it becomes impossible to examine buildings in isolation from their urban context. Tall buildings will cast shadows, reflect light, divert wind and modify all aspects of climate at the ground. Where air quality is poor an isolated tall building may aid in the ventilation of near-surface however, it may also result in gustiness that makes walking difficult. While taller buildings may be a more efficient use of space and offer the potential to reduce carbon emission, they can also make outdoor spaces less pleasant and increase the energy demands of buildings cast in shadow. In fact, a marked feature of the new tall buildings in London is that they trumpet their green credentials as making best use of natural resources to achieve energy efficiency while ignoring their impact on the surrounding area.

20 Fenchurch Street- 2015 carbuncle cup winner

The potential impact of tall buildings on the urban realm is best demonstrated by 20 Fenchurch Street which has a BREEAM rating of excellent and an unusual ‘form’ that earned it the 2015 Carbuncle Cup. This ‘form’ caused the surface to behave like a parabolic mirror focusing the Sun’s energy onto a nearby street; since 2013 the envelope has been modified to prevent this from happening again. However, what is not so well known is that the buildings height interfered with the ‘rights to light’ of neighbouring buildings. Nonetheless, the buildings sustainable credentials (including the Sky Garden) were considered so significant that the Corporation of London made a compulsory purchase on these rights, effectively reassigning ownership of shared resource.

Another example is 100 Bishopsgate, yet to come out the ground, but once built the bulk and height will shade the south facing façade of the neighbouring Heron Tower for much of the day. In normal circumstances, this might be beneficial. Most commercial office functions occur during the daytime when the combination of internal and external loads generates a significant cooling demand; in these circumstances shading of a glazed surface reduces this demand. However, in the case of the Heron Tower, the soon-to-be shaded façade is where photovoltaic array have been embedded in the fabric to generate electricity. 100 Bishopsgate will simply block access to its energy source.

100 Bishopsgate (Red) over shading the solar array on the south facing façade of the Heron Tower (Blue)

‎At 22 Bishopsgate, a planned 278m-high tower sits among other tall buildings. While the mutual shadowing effects may benefit the buildings and their energy use, they also create an outdoor space that is almost always in shade; while this might be a desirable outcome in a hot climate, it does not make for a pleasant space in mid-latitude London. There is little to be gained if tall building achieve efficiencies for indoor private spaces at the expense of the outdoor public spaces.

22 Bishopsgate (Red)

In general The Eastern Cluster the City of London is a good example of how tall buildings can be mutually beneficial by providing shade. However, what is best for office buildings may not be best for residential buildings, which are occupied in the morning and evening hours.  

The proposed residential Bishopsgate Goodsyard (BGY) Development on the boundary of the City of London occupies a wide site oriented east-west. BGY will cast a shadow on its neighbours which includes the Boundary Estate, a historic social housing scheme that was designed to maximize ventilation and access to sunlight. BGY will make best use of the natural resources available to it but because of its height it effectively captures these from its neighbours. These two neighbouring residential schemes highlight the growing conflict between the right to a passive resource and those of high density.

The proposed Goodsyard development (Red) on the underlying Boundary Estate (Blue)

These examples demonstrate that energy management strategies require a spatial approach that accounts for the wider impacts of buildings on their surroundings. But currently we have no way of evaluating the influence of the ‘form’ a building takes outside the envelope of the building itself – rather buildings are seen as isolated entities that neglect their dynamic effect on the neighbouring buildings. 

There are many examples of good tall buildings throughout the city and the world that demonstrate that tall buildings have a role to play in resilient cities futures. However addressing their strategic role in their urban setting is only part of the picture, we need a resilient city wide plan that considers current and future needs of urban occupation that ensures all new buildings, streets, parks and plazas are ‘designed in an integrated way’ that addresses many of the issues that organisations like CIBSE Resilient Cities and CTBUH are starting to address. But what is for sure London is about to embark on a massive change to its infrastructure, to be successful we need to be vigilant and take our time.

Dr Julie Futcher is an architect and freelance consultant at Urban Generation.

Join the discussion about this post on the CIBSE LinkedIn page