Sir Terry Farrell is frustrated. Not the clenched fists, stormy eyes sort of frustrated. That’s not really his style. In fact, the architect manages to express his concerns with an unusual sense of serene urgency. An oxymoron if ever there was one, his exasperation is palpable through a characteristically steady tone as he discusses the future of “the world’s most loveable metropolis”.
The metropolis in question is, of course, London – a city that Farrell believes increasingly risks falling victim to disjointed planning and political bureaucracy. His thoughts on these matters are well known, not least because he has become so fed up with “the UK’s ad hoc way of doing things” that, over the years, he has worked up plans for entire London districts himself – often on a voluntary basis and free of charge.
His current official projects include the regeneration of 72 acres around Earl’s Court and the masterplan for Wood Wharf, the next phase of Canary Wharf’s development.
The 74-year-old’s work has not gone unnoticed. He was appointed to the mayor of London’s planning advisory board last December and just last month he was named as the decade’s greatest contributor to planning. But one man’s vision is not going to be enough. And no one is more aware of that than Farrell himself.
Sitting in one of the more conservative rooms in his neon-painted practice in north-west London, Cheshire-born Farrell urges developers to recognise just how much power they have to help avoid the sort of “dog’s dinner” developments – he points here to the Isle of Dogs and the redevelopment of Vauxhall, Battersea and Nine Elms – he believes could severely damage London’s brand and prevent the capital from reaching its full potential.
“Enterprise needs an infrastructure”
While Farrell’s best known stamp on London is the MI6 Building in Vauxhall – last seen being blown to smithereens in the Bond film Skyfall – it has been his dedication to improving the overarching city plan that has had the most impact year-on-year as development control outside individual applications has been consistently ignored by everyone from government to developers.
“Development control happens within each application but there is no thought given to how it then connects to the next one, or the previous one,” he says. “I have done a lot of masterplanning work on a voluntary basis. Mainly along the Euston Road and the Thames Gateway. This was the biggest regeneration project in Europe at the time and it never had a plan. Not until I got involved in 2009 and came up with one. I think it is down to our British culture. We don’t like to have a plan as people are frightened of curtailing enterprise. There is a view in this country that planning suggests socialism. But enterprise needs an infrastructure.”
Developer duty
It is the developers, says Farrell, that can really help promote change – if only they would man up. “I think developers tend to argue too much on a narrow front,” he says. “They should have much more to say to government about how things are done because there are some clever people in that sector. Take the London airport for example. There are developers with existing experience in projects like this that have been built around the world and this experience would have been really useful. Developers were involved in the London Olympics and I think that really showed.”
Farrell believes the sector has been given an unfair rap, but the only way to prove everyone wrong will be to make more of a stand. “The development industry has, in its hands, the future of London, the future of the UK, the future of all our cities,” he says. “The public, for some reason, see architects as good and developers as bad. I don’t think that’s fair.
“The British are so conservative that they tend to hate change, which is what developers are generally associated with – new buildings and only new buildings – which is a terrible misfortune for the profession. It does so much good. Look at the redevelopment of Manchester, Birmingham, the East End of London. The sector needs to stand much more proudly and promote its better credentials wherever possible. They should say ‘we are making a better, safer, healthier, greener society,’ which I believe they are.
“Once upon a time, before the 1980s, town planners, project managers and developers used to be a couple of wheeler dealers in Mayfair. The quality of this profession has skyrocketed since then. It is a very different scene – professional and capable.”
In an ideal world, Farrell hopes this new breed of developer will get more on board with his thoughts on city planning. It is “a messy business”, he says, but one that will be crucial to the future smooth-running of our major cities – and London in particular. He believes the repercussions of poor planning could be disastrous and points to one particular development he fears could do more harm than good.
Just not sorted…
“The lack of a good overall vision or plan at Battersea, Vauxhall and Nine Elms is an example of where London fails,” he says. “It will not be as good as it could be and is currently a bit of a mess. I am not criticising the individual parts – there are some separate masterplans and building designs of a high standard – but the roads, the traffic, the phasing? It’s just not sorted. They are building an area the size of Ashford and there is one road. It is unbelievable.”
Farrell believes that the majority of the hurdles stem from a political level, where there is a rejection of proactive planning, and he adds that the capital suffers from falling under national laws and restrictions: “London needs a specific type of focus when it comes to planning and development. We have a mayor, but one with very limited powers. I am not one for radically changing everything, but I think we need to recognise the limitations we are working within and adjust them accordingly.”
He adds that these limitations and unnecessary bureaucracy are responsible for the current state of affairs at the Royal Docks and Greenwich, where the Port of London – which has jurisdiction over the river – has plans for a high bridge. “We should be bridging over the Thames at low level,” he insists. “The docks are not full of tall ships anymore and everyone seems to think they are. These two banks of the Thames in east London are not connected and the area will never become a proper east city until this is sorted out. The Thames is one of our biggest problems – it’s like a liquid Oxford Street.”
And speaking of which: “Why can’t we sort out Oxford Street? We all know what needs to be done, we need to sort out the wall-to-wall buses, the fumes, the miserable traffic. This is London’s high street for goodness’ sake. The New West End Company has the right ideas but someone actually needs to do something.”
Not all bad news
Farrell’s frustrations make for disheartening listening. But there is hope on the horizon, he insists. And plenty of it, as good examples of city masterplanning are springing up all over the capital.
The best tend to involve a single landowner, he says, before adding that Argent at King’s Cross, Capco at Earl’s Court, Canary Wharf in east London and Grosvenor in Bloomsbury have all got it right.
“There are some pockets of good planning and good development in London,” he says. “And on big projects as well, where there are lots of components, which is proof that linked-up planning between developments can be done.
“Ultimately, when I walk around the streets of London I am at peace. London is getting a lot of things right. It is just difficult as I know it could be so much better. Then I see Clerkenwell and Shoreditch and the miraculous development in these areas and feel happier.”
emily.wright@estatesgazette.com
