Critique of 30 St Mary Axe, 2004

Yes, its form is radical for a high rise building and this form enables a concept of a single envelope design for the entire building. Yet like most office towers, it has no particular orientation – being essentially the same building from any direction ­ ignoring solar geometry. It is dominant both in the City and upon its skyline. The benefits derived from such a form for office space is very open to question. The internal planning is all orthogonal within the cores ­ lifts, toilets and stairs, and the office floor plates are essentially `squared’ off, presumably to provide areas more suitable to traditional office and furniture layouts. This is achieved by introducing the `spiralling’ 6 floor high perimeter atriums whose segmented spatial character is derived from the 5 degree rotation of the triangular cut-out at each floor level. The view from within the standard height Category `A’ fit-out office space is disturbing ­ caused by the combination of the very wide white clad diagonal structural members, the smaller diagonal and horizontal glazing frames and the slender verticals of the perimeter glazed partitioning of very different scales. The potential benefits of having clear spectacular views out across London are significantly diminished. The use of solar reflective glazing for the domed head of the building and spiralling this tinted grey glass in six bands down the façade in front of the atriums may visually relate the head to the body of the building but it also reduces the simplicity of the form to that of a strong candy-striped graphic. Was this striping originally intended? This banding is not evident on the very detailed marketing models on show in the building. Despite their detail, the models are thus not representative of this very powerful visual pattern and I found this an uncomfortable observation. Tinted glass always takes away the natural colours of the sky ­ its blues and whites of clouds – and renders interiors more sombre.

The form and its cladding geometry have created an unplanned and disturbing characteristic which I suspect may annoy some occupants of neighbouring buildings in the city and others much further away. The sun’s rays are reflected off the glass panels in such a manner as to produce a very powerful reflected light beam throughout the day. The primary and secondary reflections of light can cause social and aesthetic discomfort.

Socially there are perhaps two aspects to consider – the nature of social exchange spaces and social responsibility to the environment. Externally, the social space(s) of the plaza at street level seems anonymous. Everything about the ground plan focuses the spaces towards the building ­ the building sucks the plaza unto itself. It occupies it, like a giant skittle or “upturned bomb” in the centre of a tiny stage framed by stone walls and modest city buildings.

Environmentally it does not appear radical in its design or use of materials or energy systems. The possibility (up to 40% of the year) of permitting fresh air to enter the perimeter atriums through opening windows during periods of little or no wind (allowing for +ve and ­ve pressures) to allow a reduction in mechanical cooling is commendable. It will be interesting to see if this works as predicted. Lord Foster said in an interview with Hugh Pearman in 20001 that (the design) is rooted in an incredible intellectual rigour,… environmental rigour, with a continuous spiral of a garden to act as lung.” The narrow spiralling atrium spaces also provide areas where social encounter could be encouraged ­ which may work well at the floor of each atrium, but at the other levels where a shallow balcony may be provided seems rather weak. The idea of spiralling gardens is not yet evident.