+
From: "Architexturez." <interface.services@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:26:43 +0530
The towers of London
2007 Issue 14
When was the shift from bad tall buildings to good tall buildings? The
one that really lifted the lid was the first pickle out of the jar, the
Gherkin. Canary Wharf tower, some 15 years before, was mediocre
corporate but unwittingly it became a landmark, visible from the east,
the north and the south. A sight of the tower was a sign that you were
getting close to the centre.
By the time of early Docklands, London was ready to forget the legacy of
the ill-conceived and poorly constructed towers from the sixties and
seventies. But it took the audacity of Foster’s design to really shift
perception. Despite its somewhat dumpy proportions (the tip was lopped
off to appease the planners) the Gherkin experimented with the generic
form of the orthogonal tower. It softened the edges, rounded the top and
gave as much thought to the way it hit the ground as how it met the sky.
It is a building that despite being a symbol of commercial prowess
carries significant meaning, creates a sense of place and generates a
great deal of public affection. When tall buildings are done well they
become socially acceptable and very popular.
Our mayor can also be credited with the renaissance of tall buildings.
Livingstone was told by our developer friends that unless London created
more quality office space, it would lose out to other European cities.
But his largesse was not just about bending to commerce (he is not
exactly famous for his deference to anyone). As a mayor whose hands are
tied when it comes to raising money, he relished the potential for
increasing rateable income. His strategy has paid off. Not only is
London now the financial capital of the world, but central government is
beginning to trust our mayor with greater responsibilities.
Coincidental with this has been the decline of the heritage lobby.
cont'd....
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=31&storycode=3084156&c=0