It's a simple question…yes or no. Please humor me by responding with a comment below if you're interested in making your voice heard. Hopefully members of the local press that read this will pick-up on the responses.
If you're wondering what prompted this question, it's the email that I just received from the Council which highlighted the results of a recent consultation they did. In it, one of the questions was near and dear to my heart – it was about whether or not local residents wanted more tall buildings in certain areas of the borough.
As I have been a campaigner against more tall buildings, I was keen to see how others felt. However, I was quite surpirsed by the answer which prompted me to look a little closer. Below you will see my comments to the Council:
Dear XXX (sent to the person who published the results)
Statistics get a bad name as folks have now realized that oftentimes the way you ask the question can influence the response. In fact now-a-days, most people are leery of Government statistics for just that reason. In the following, I illustrate a clear example of what I mean.
First however, to ensure you understand my motivation for writing, you should know who I am – a campaigner against more tall buildings in the Borough.
I’ve just looked at the headline results for the Your Neighbourhood, Your Islington (otherwise known as the Core Planning Strategy) Study that has just been completed. I draw your attention to the phrases highlighted in bold type as examples of how your questions most likely influenced the answers.
3.8 Tall buildings
(Your conclusion) Opinion was greatly divided on the approach to tall buildings. Almost half of respondents were in favour of allowing tall buildings in five restricted locations, whereas the same proportion wanted to restrict the height of new buildings.
(And here are the two choices you gave folks to respond)
Allow tall buildings in five restricted locations to help meet demand for housing and employment. At Archway station, Finsbury Park station, Holloway Road station, Kings Cross Triangle and some sites in south Islington that border the city.
Restrict the height of new buildings in all locations so that they are no higher than surrounding buildings, although this could mean less space for housing and employment.
Why were these emotive phrases added to the simple question of “do you or do you not support more tall buildings in certain areas of the Borough?” It seems to me you have tried to tie the Council’s justification in seeking more tall buildings to the issue of housing and employment and who would not want more housing and employment!
I find it especially interesting that even with these phrases added that the results are split, leading me to believe that had you not inserted these phrases, the results would clearly have tipped in favour of no more tall buildings!
From this observation on one point of the study, I now have no faith in the entire study.
So now over to you, the public. Do you want to allow tall buildings in five restricted locations - at Archway station, Finsbury Park station, Holloway Road station, Kings Cross Triangle and some sites in south Islington that border the city? Please respond with a yes or no in the comments section below.
Kings Cross Environment 
Well, I’m generally a fan of tall buildings (modern ones, not the generic sixties crap), as long as they’re well designed and suit the needs of the local community. I can’t say I’d object to a tower if it was well designed (cf. the 40-storey residential tower going up in Elephant and Castle, which looks stunning – at least on paper). In most cases, I couldn’t object to a development on the grounds of its height alone – I’d have to weigh up all the factors such as design, materials and location before forming an opinion. Your ‘simple question’ of support or otherwise for more tall buildings seems not so simple to me.
Unlike the previous poster, for me the issue is simple:
I live in King’s Cross and I say:
NO to more tall buildings in my area
&
NO to “Great Wall” equivalents of compact building mass that stop daylight and tend to dehumanise pedestrians & cyclists, making them feel small and vulnerable (ref. buildings approved for station end of York Way)
PS Well-spotted, Stephan.
The questionnaire is flawed by the loaded/ leading questions.
Accordingly the results are unreliable and cannot form the basis for any decision-making by the Council. This exercise seems to have been a waste of taxpayer’s money.
No to tall buildings on an environmental and social basis. Unless specifically designed to be environmentally friendly (and I don’t mean a bit of sedum grass on the top and cheap air con system) tall buildings will always have negative impacts expect for some very specific forms of urban wildlife. Modern use of tons of glass may look sexy but does nothing but harm to the environment, lighting up to the sky is appalling, increasing rain water fall off is a sin and I could go on.
Socially tall buildings are generally designed as money earners not as means to increase social and human capital. The more tall buildings the less social capital we have, and we have so little anyway.
No no no.
I tend to agree with poster M@ above. And it is plainly not a simple yes/no matter, as there are 5 areas on the list and it is reasonable to feel differently about each. My own preferences would be: yes to Archway (if carefully designed they could improve the area), no to Finsbury Park and Holloway Road unless well set back from the main roads, definitely no to Kings Cross Triangle, which is coming along nicely at a low level, and possibly yes to some South Islington sites, but again each would need separate attention.
I have lived in London all my life, and specifically in Kings Cross for some considerable time, and must say that I have never really had much of a problem with tall buildings. Of course there are some noticeable carbunckles (mainly from the ’60s, I hasten to add) which I would rather weren’t around, but on the whole I think that tall buildings play their part.
I also seem to know an awful lot of people who, having moved from other parts of the country, or indeed the world, then begin to complain bitterly about elements of the environment that they have chosen to adopt as their own.