Architect's heart of glass
MAGNUS LINKLATER
....
Now is the time to judge, and Edinburgh is currently the place to do it
- a city whose DNA is its architecture, a World Heritage Site jealously
protected by its citizens, is about to embark on a series of radical
developments that will affect the look and shape of some of its most
historic sites. One is in the very heart of the Old Town, where fire
destroyed ancient streets and buildings in the Cowgate; one will affect
the area that runs from the Waverley Valley, which defines the character
of the city, to the Canongate, which is its 17th-century soul; and one
aims to remove and replace an entire section of the High Street, its
artery and nerve centre all in one.
For any city, that would be a challenge. For Edinburgh it is a
revolution. Why, then, have we heard so little about it? Few of the
tourists now pouring in for the festival season will have any inkling of
what is planned. Even Edinburgh folk have only a dim notion of the
implications. Contracts have been granted with a minimum of public
discussion. There has been no major architectural competition. There
seems to be no overall aesthetic plan which holds them together.
Approval is being given on a site-by-site basis, which seems the very
antithesis of the grand vision which drained the Nor' Loch, created the
New Town and encouraged the grand projects of William Playfair.
....
Now that Murray has also been contracted to carry out the even more
prestigious Cowgate development in the heart of the Old Town, his
practice is humming, and since he has clearly won over the council and
the developers to his brand of what he calls "urbanism" rather than
architecture, it would be churlish to begrudge him his success.
But what are his buildings like? The most obvious one is the massive
glass structure that greets anyone driving down Leith Street beneath the
Calton Hill. This is part of the famous Greenside Place - once touted,
improbably, as the site of the new Scottish Parliament. Here plate glass
is the dominant material. There is a massive round tower made of it, an
ornate bridge over the street, then the vast Omni cinema and restaurant
complex, also made of plate glass, which was part of Murray's master
plan, though not built by him. I might as well say straight out that I
do not warm to it. It seems out of context with its setting, it conceals
much of the view of Calton Hill from the west, and it is as anonymous as
a city office block. I prefer his design for the Tun complex on Holyrood
Road, which strikes me as being far more in context with its surroundings.
Murray defends the buildings on the grounds that they are well used and
popular. Popularity is important, of course - unless buildings are
people-friendly, they will never thrive. But it is not enough. Edinburgh
demands more than just usefulness. If it is to have contemporary
architecture at the heart of its ancient sites, and I would argue
strongly that it should, then the buildings must be as distinguished as
their surroundings. They must justify their presence. They must be
outstanding.
All this should be a matter of the keenest public debate. We should be
more closely involved in learning what is being planned, why it is being
planned, and whether the city itself has a vision of what it wants to
achieve. Whatever Murray may think of aesthetic overviews, Edinburgh
presents an image to the outside world which it changes at its peril. We
need to know whether that change is for the better or for the worse.
Perhaps instead of another Restoration series, the BBC should consider a
Renewal programme to ask what future generations will make of the
buildings we are planning today.
cont'd....
http://living.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1067182006