Skyscrapers vs groundscrapers: where quality and flexibility are key

Let’s start with a question: do you like tall buildings? This question can provoke a surprisingly emotional response. Although it often depends on the building or place, people love or hate them on principle alone. Pre-pandemic, Charles Russell Speechlys started work on a piece of research – Skyscraper vs Groundscraper – which looks at how and why our building typologies arise and the associated legal issues. The project enjoyed support from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and is part of the Charles Russell Speechlys Building Up series, which looks at the role that tall buildings play in society, through panel discussions and thought leadership reports. The project genesis We aimed to gather views from leading industry figures on the respective merits of skyscrapers and groundscrapers. The concept arose from a comparison of two of the most significant developments underway in London at that time: 22 Bishopsgate and the Google headquarters at King’s Cross. 22 Bishopsgate topped out at 278m, while the Google HQ will reach a mere 11 storeys but measure a whopping 330m in length. If you were to turn it on its side, it would stand more than 50m above 22 Bishopsgate, and even outstrip London’s tallest building, the Shard, by 20m. At the time of planning, the impact of Brexit on London and the rest of the country was a matter of significant debate, alongside the housing crisis and what could be done to solve it. Little did we know that a far more immediate threat – the coronavirus pandemic – was just around the corner. More than 25 interviews were conducted, and the views of those contributors, along with our own, were published in a series of discussion papers this year. We were keen to hear from those involved across the whole development life cycle to understand what they saw as the challenges and opportunities in the years to come. In this article we look at the key themes emerging from our paper and associated polls. Our second article considers two of the major issues facing developers, the planning system and rights of light, and how they currently do and could in the future affect building typology. In the third article we focus on two particular aspects of the ESG agenda: sustainability and the social impact of buildings. Love ’em or hate ’em? Tall buildings are often synonymous with the leading cities and economies of the world, defining them with landmarks that punctuate the skyline. They also provide significant spaces where people can live, work and play in crowded cities where land is scarce. Returning to the initial question, in the UK, tall buildings often attract strong objection. In part, at least, that is due to concern about the lasting impact on our heritage. Many of the cities that have been home to the world’s tallest buildings do not have the extensive urban heritage that London does or give less weight to its preservation – New York, Dubai and the modern cities in China, to name but a few. Surprisingly, only a couple of our contributors expressed a real passion for tall buildings, and there was genuine concern about creating an adverse legacy. Yet, in contrast, our poll revealed that almost 66% of our audience thought that the legacy of tall buildings in London to date is either positive or extremely positive. What begin as controversial tall buildings can become much-loved landmarks over time. The pandemic Unsurprisingly, the impact of the pandemic became one of the main themes of the paper. Interestingly, it is accepted by the majority of contributors that the pandemic will accelerate several already developing trends, including a marked increase in homeworking, the need for flexible office space and the desire to understand the impact of buildings on physical and mental wellbeing. Our contributors also spoke of human resilience and generally agreed that over time the “new normal” would look much more like the “old normal”. Those who declared “the end of the office” and “the death of the skyscraper” are reminded by our contributors that we have overcome significant challenges in the past. How we live, work and play Placemaking featured consistently, with a clear desire to ensure that developments work for the communities they serve. Groundscrapers, with their ability to facilitate many interactions with the ground, might be better placed to achieve this in terms of hospitality and entertainment offerings. Yet vertical masterplanning to ensure life flows into and through a skyscraper is increasingly aimed at achieving similar results. Living space In London, a large majority of emerging tall buildings are put to residential use, which has in recent years been driven by the growth of the build-to-rent market. According to New London Architecture’s London Tall Buildings Survey published in April this year, almost 90% of the tall buildings in the pipeline are residential. While historically the tall residential buildings in London traditionally provided public sector housing (think of Trellick Tower in Notting Hill), in the modern context they are often more closely related to luxury housing for the very wealthy. How skyscrapers and groundscrapers can best help meet the need for affordable housing raises many questions. However, it is clear that a high-rise rental model is part of the future housing solution, increasingly in cities outside London. Regardless of the form of ownership, our contributors were unanimous in their call for a high quality of design and build, particularly for tall buildings. The need for a home office will be of increasing importance going forward, with more than 77% of those who responded to our poll saying it would be a key driver in their choice of a new home. The workplace This was probably the most significant area of debate during the pandemic. The most extreme predictions talked of the end of the office and a future of working from home. Would shiny new office buildings be required after all? Yet after considerable periods of lockdown, the pendulum began to swing, and our industry experts concluded that there would be a mixed working model going forward. When our paper was published, the developing consensus was that a new normal might consist of three days working in the office and two at home. We will watch with great interest how this unfolds over the coming months and years and the impact it has on office space needs. The associated question is how offices will be used. Our contributors anticipated an increased need for flexibility and collaboration space, which might be more easily achieved in a lower-rise building. However, developments in design and materials mean developers are increasingly providing flexibility in the skyscraper model, with the ability to link floors and create double-height spaces for reception and entertaining areas. What the new normal might look like and how demand for office space might change remain to be answered. However, the initial indications are that it will be a case of evolution rather than revolution. Our poll revealed an almost equal split between those predicting less demand for office space post-pandemic and those predicting no change in demand. Unsurprisingly, no one predicted an increase in the demand for office space. Technology and innovation With building costs going up, developers are looking to technology and innovation in the construction process as a means of driving efficiencies. It was interesting to hear that the perception around skyscrapers being more expensive to build is not necessarily reflective of reality. However, we also heard that the floor area efficiencies of skyscrapers are generally 10% less than a groundscraper. This is largely due to the percentage of the floorplate taken up by the core. Looking forward, technology will have a huge part to play in terms of limiting the running costs and environmental impact of skyscrapers and groundscrapers alike. Sustainability and social impact When asked what they saw as the biggest challenge to the future of development, 60% of our respondents said sustainability. The environmental impact of buildings and their construction, including the extraction and transportation of materials used, has been high on developers’ agendas for many years. However, with the drive to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, it is more important than ever and no longer acceptable to think of office buildings in particular as having a lifespan of 30 years or so. Sustainability in one form or another was mentioned by the majority of our contributors. This covers the E from the initialism ESG. The S is currently less prevalent, but it is a theme that came through loudly in our paper and is clearly something we are going to hear much more about in the months and years to come. Developers are thinking carefully about how local communities and the wider public benefit from development, and the days of the fortress-like corporate headquarters are surely behind us. A mantra for the future: long-life, loose-fit Unsurprisingly, our contributors didn’t generally express a particular preference for either skyscrapers or groundscrapers. There is a place for both, but the focus must be on quality and flexibility, whatever the building typology. A phrase which emerged from three of our contributors was “long-life, loose-fit”, with one adding “low-energy” on the end. If there is a conclusion to be drawn from our paper, then this is probably it. The main aim should be to develop buildings that have long-term and sustainable futures, with quality of design and construction and flexibility of use being the essential components to achieve this aim. The theme of the future is what those buildings give back to the societies that created them. James Souter and Claire Fallows are partners at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP Download the report on which this article is based here Image © jplenio/Pixabay