Critique of 30 St Mary Axe, 2004

Perhaps the idea of a publicly accessible restaurant at the `top of London’ represented a socially radical aspect, but since it is only available privately to the occupants and their guests, or for £5,000 an evening, I doubt that this is the socially radical aspect referred to.

What about its form and its impact upon the skyline? What did the architects set out to achieve? The form dominates and controls the `air space’ around it in a way that orthogonal buildings do not. I would like to see it montaged into a cityscape like Manhattan to see if this domination is more vulnerable than I sense. It is absorbed more at a distance when seen from the west of the City, becoming a dome on an anonymous dark grey office building seen from the north side of Waterloo Bridge.

I can recognise the idea that an organic form ­ one composed of curves, is a more appropriate image for our so-called environmentally concerned age. Yet the reduction of the curved line to diagonals evokes the industrial aesthetic of lattice structures of yesteryear. The diagonal line has a strong dynamic and insensitively used can produce quite an aggressive and assertive feeling. This is most apparent at the ground level around the building where the gentle curve of the form’s surface ends with natural cut-outs created by the structure into large sharp-edged triangles, pointedly tip-toeing across the ground.

The small mezzanine entertainment space within the domed glass head of the building is by far the most spatially exciting space, which combined with the panoramic views over London make it the space to visit in the building. To help improve daytime viewing of London, there is need to decrease the white vertical surfaces ­ Heal’s shop front is the classic successful model. The rest of the building’s interior is rather traditional.

One might ask if the form derives from a rigour of urban planning or from a desire to be different for difference’s sake.

The pursuit of producing a form, an instantly recognisable image that stands out, is a sign of our times. The emergence of such architecture is akin to the creation of celebrities ­a desire to be in or to stay in the headlights. Regrettably, I find its form in its close and distant setting, and particularly its striated surface not particularly pleasing to my eye.

Foster and Partners have produced many outstanding buildings and their continued ambition to explore technology to achieve better physical environments remains fundamental to their approach. However, I have become much more aware of how they seem to struggle with reconciling forms that are different and visually powerful with structure, surface, space and environmental performance. Computing does help produce useful answers but it is vital to keep asking the right questions.

Notes

The Zeppelin in the City is proving more problematic, and Foster gets quite heated about it. For him, it is a very refined building, a new type of tower. “It’s not whimsy. It’s rooted in an incredible intellectual rigour, planning rigour, structural rigour, environmental rigour, with a continuous spiral of a garden to act as a lung. It takes that quest for a better working environment one notch further.” Moreover, his client doesn’t want any car parking, has bought the public transport message. “These people should be given bribes to come to London, instead of having life made difficult for them.” From an interview with Hugh Pearman The Sunday Times, London. Published June 18, 2000

Critique of 30 St Mary Axe
Originally published in issue 149 of `Architecture Today’ June 2004
© Ian Ritchie