[stefanel]

Hi,
I live in Romania, in a city (that is Bucharest) which is being developed rather at random and with no respect towards old buildings. The things that happen daily under our eyes in Bucharest are: old and valuable houses being torn down and demolished, glass&steel office buildings taking their places, right in the "old" centre of the city!
Now comes my question: do you know what are the urbanistic requirements in Europe (in Paris, London, Rome etc.) for a developer who wantrs to build smth? Are the buildings of the city centres protected by laws and regulations? Could you please be as specific as possible? I am thinking to start an NGO action and I need some specific documentation about European urbanism, to sketch the context.
Thanks a lot!

[HelpSkippy]

Hello.

I live (and work) in London. Here, there are too many 'old buildings' and too many regulations/ authorities etc which protect the history of the city, in my opinion. As you will know, London is divided into boroughs, e.g.. Westminster, Kensington etc... Each borough adopts 'policies' centred around the London Plan - a document which outlines the future plans for the city prepared by central government (greater London authority), who now occupy a new glass, and steel building beside Tower Bridge I may add!!

In terms of restrictions imposed on buildings in the city, there are plenty. The individual boroughs identify 'key' parts of the borough which have specific historical architectural merit or other, as conservation areas. To build anything within these, you need to apply for both, planning permission, and conservation area consent. Even something as small as the removal of a tree in a conservation area requires planning permission. These are decided by the planning officers (who work for the borough) for smaller proposals, and by local counsellors on larger schemes. This can be a nightmare when you are trying to build anything new (ie contemporary) as there are strict policies on what can and cannot be built. The architecture is judged by counsellors with little or no architectural knowledge. In comparison to Spain where it is judged by other architects who work for the local authorities.

So, conservation areas restrict what can and cannot be built. There are also very tight controls on London over the protection of the skyline. There a few towers, and are often not allowed to exceed the height of the neighbouring buildings. London has to be one of the hardest places to achieve planning permission?

Then there is Listed building consent. There are three categories. Grade I, II* and II. This is administered by English Heritage. Alongside this, they (English Heritage), 'own' (?) some of the very old buildings in the city, such as the Tower of London (I think). Therefore to achieve planning permission anywhere close to that would require consultation with them. They have power to object I believe. Even if the very top of the proposal is only visible from the site, or a minor intervention is proposed. Click on the link for more info on English heritage:

Heritage Protection : Research & Conservation : English Heritage

Try to embrace change, and don't feel overly nostalgic or sentimental about old buildings. Architecture defines time and history. We must build new to progress and develop. Maybe you live in a city which is looking more to the future, than becoming precious of its past. This is where politics enters. There must be a central plan for the city, and this should be made public. Below is a link to the London plan document. You should be able to find something similar for Bucharest, try their central officers, or website. Or find out where the mayor lives and camp outside his house!!

Mayor of London - The London Plan, the Mayor's spatial development strategy

Were you suggesting that the quality of the architecture currently being built is of a low quality? If so, then that is a different matter. In order to understand this, you need to look into what drives architecture. i.e. economy, construction costs, budgets, time etc... There are also considerations such as 'value'? An old building may appear nice (made of old stone) but how thermally efficient is it? Does it meet current regulations? How much would it cost to make it structurally sound? Compare this to the cost of demolition and construction and sometimes it is the more efficient option.

Generally a developer would approach an architect/s with an idea, and possibly a site. They will say, I own this piece of land, or I may buy this piece of land. I want 50 flats there (they will have done the calculations etc themselves to ensure it is financially viable). Then they employ the architect and he draws the scheme and submits it for planning to the local authority (borough). They then grant either a permission or refusal, and if a permission, the developer will approach contractors (builders) to gain quotes for the cost of building it. Then construction begins. The architect and client (developer) can hold pre-application meetings with the planning officers to gain advice about the proposal (ie, this would stand a better chance of gaining permission if... ). This advice is informal and is not a decision by any means. It represents their opinion only. It does however, give an idea to the developer, if the scheme is likely to encounter problems with regards to planning permission/ conservation area consent/ listed building consent.

You should be aware that from a legal perspective, planning permission gives you legal permission to build what is on the drawings. Should there be any action groups/ campaigns/ protests on the site with regards to its construction, either before, or during, the police have every right to remove you and arrest you. Further, most sites will be privately owned land, and therefore avoid trespassing. One effective way to campaign against a proposal is to talk to your local mp (politician).

Read some of Richard Rogers books on urbanism, and maybe the architecture of the city also.

It would be great to see some plans, maps for developments in Bucharest and would help you clarify what you mean by random? Town planning is rarely random.

Hope this helps.

[stefanel]

Hi Helpskippy and first of all thanks a lot for your detailed and documented answer!

I talked to a friend of mine and he promised to tell me more about (or introduce me to) our city's urbanism commission, which - yes, of course - hold their regular meetings and provide building permits to the developers. So I'll be able to tell you more precise information after that. Until then I am talking as a common citizen who sees smth on the streets that he doesn't like!
The problem is that these permits are issued so easily - in my opinion. I heard the mayor talking on the TV that it's not within his power&duty to regulate the building construction and only this commission - which is not controlled by the mayor... - can say "yes" or "no" to building a new house etc. To me this sounded... well, like delegating his duties i.e. putting the blame on someone else or finding a convenient skapegoat, just in case.
About our new buldings: yes, they are of a very low quality, because the developers want to speculate the boom on the estate market, they build very cheap and sell very expensive. Not all of them are destined to house offices, but some are blocks of flats for living. Ugly and cheap, badly built (their clients always complain on the forums about the poor quality of the finishings etc), strictly functional, without any aesthetic/ architectural/ postmodern awareness. The gas pipes can be usually seen on the façades (a yellow network of "wires" interwined most disgraciously). As I was saying that there is no concern for the aesthetic (only for building and selling as many apartments as possible), another problem concerns the air conditioning systems, whose exterior units, in our city, can be placed on any wall of the building (facades etc), resulting in a very ugly and careless look of the building (whether new or old). If one wants to put on an air conditioner, doesn't he/she need to observe some regulations, in London? Or, the same with changing their windows for new thermopane glass windows, coloured in different hues and colours, disregarding the architectural unity of the building. How is this regulated in London?
I have asked already so many questions and deviated from the main subject (I know it), but, as I have recently been in London, let me ask you one more thing about it: What's the story of these red brick houses, why are there these huge rows and burroughs of red buildings? Are there so strict colour regulations too? Because - growing up in a "Latin" city of various influences (Turkish, Austrian, Balkanic etc) - I found this rather predictable. How do you feel about it?

[HelpSkippy]

No worries.

It is very satisfying, and a relief to hear from somebody who is a non-professional, yet has a concern for the quality of the built environment. I speak as an architecture student. This reassures me that there is some worth in this world.

The central problem here is the lack of consideration, and appreciation for good architectural design. Architects want to create good architecture. That is why we spend seven years learning how to. Our job is to create good architecture. If we are given time and money, we will give you good architecture. Architecture which makes a difference to the city and to communities. The responsibility for good architecture lies with the client (employer). He employs the architect. If he wants a good piece of architecture, then he must be willing to invest in good architecture. In the future of the city, in progress, Many are not, and that is the problem. Good architecture will not buy him a new car, it will not buy him a bigger house. What does he get from it? He does not live in the apartment blocks he builds/ neither does he live near them. Not his problem.

The responsibility for good architectural design does not necessarily lie with the mayor. He works to an agenda. He needs to build X amount of houses in line with increases in popularity and migration etc. He cannot control what each one looks like. HE TRUSTS US TO CREATE GOOD ARCHITECTURE.

I find clients complaining about the poor quality of finishes etc very frustrating. In the supermarket, I can buy a loaf of bread for 20 pence, or one for £1.50. If I buy one for 20 pence, I know I am eating crap and expect to live an unhealthy and unfruitful life. If I want quality, I will invest in quality. No investment in quality, no quality.

I agree with how you describe poor architecture. I see it all around me. Yet when I walk to work, I do not look at it, I do not think about it. It does not hold any interest to me. I would suggest that this is not architecture. Remember, architects have the ability to create good architecture, but to apply it, we need time and money. I have no intention to work for free in the same way as I am sure you don't. It you want quality, pay for quality.

You need planning permission to put an air conditioning system on a wall of a building in London.

I will answer your other questions at a later date.

[stefanel]

Yeap, I totally agree with you as regarding paying the architects. In Romania, as far as I know from my friends architects, the payment is always a very bad joke...
Waiting impatiently for your other answers (about London etc)...

[HelpSkippy]

Hello and sorry for the (very long) delay in responding.

So, you are asking about red brick buildings in London. You need to be more specific here as there are many different architectural uses of brick for houses in London. For example, for victorian terraces or for apartment blocks.

Bricks have traditionally been red because they are made from clay, which is red :-). There are of course exceptions and hue changes across the country, hence the different types of brick. e.g.. London Stock brick - the yellowish, brown brick seen widely across London. Before the widespread use of transportation etc, buildings were formed and built of local materials. So what was available was used. For example, Phillip Webb's red house in Kent, where the materials which are used, are inherently local (a typical feature in English Arts and Crafts architecture). The technology of the brick has of course become so advanced that we can now specify bricks in almost any colour and shape. Then we begin to touch upon universalisation etc... should I have access to the same materials which someone is using on the east coast of America for example? The local 'identity' of architecture is definitely something which has been lost.

I cannot give you a detailed history on the victorian terrace. However, there are many books written on this subject. You should have a look at these for your research as they will give you a better account than I am able to.

Yes Northern European culture (and architecture) differs from Latin. There are so many considerations here. For example, climate. A white rendered building with shaded windows is much cooler because it reflects the sun. Again, you need to do more research on this through reading etc. Your local library may have information, although I would recommend your governing body for architecture as a better option. They may allow you to do your research there (even if you are not an architect) if you explain your interests and reasons. PLEASE DO NOT USE THE INTERNET FOR RESEARCH ON ARCHITECTURE. The information is often inaccurate, plagiarised, biased and misinterpreted.

You may send me a private message with your email address if you wish to correspond further, as that will be easier for me.

Good luck with your research