Question time
computer controlled, in-perceivable when built. The fast pace of technologies and how they are integrated into our buildings and cities is not a problem. They are ever changing and will become more invisible and effective as they develop. Taking the position as many do that change and diversity is good for the city is one thing, but how to realise this creates both a platform of challenge and immerse opportunity. Since the post war period the British public have been reluctant to be convinced to change in the built environment despite great changes in society. Likely due to the disasters made by planners and developers in the 1960’s and 70’s, the public have lost their faith in the system. Change in the grander scheme of things will certainly be complex, but can be implemented through a bottom-up, transformative, collaborative framework. Such a strategy, should be delivered through end user engagement and collaboration between the architect and inhabitants throughout design the process – a codesign of urban transformation. The decisions are to be determined by a collaborative process and not market led individuals, transforming communities, the planning process and the city.
IAN PHILIPS, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, EDGE
When I was a student, we had a lecturer in architectural history who liked to conclude his deliberations on any building that he considered particularly singular, especially those of the modern era, with something
14 Architects Choice July 2014
along the lines of: “perfectly acceptable, of course, as long as there’s only one of them.” It was probably as much a comment on the need to keep extreme design within bounds as a ploy to deter us from producing a rash of similar creations in our course work. The Shard is a structure that makes its point (no pun intended) at high level, where you can appreciate the concept of large planes of glass propped together. It has the presence and command of abstract sculpture on a huge scale, like Claes Oldenburg’s giant clothes peg in Philadelphia. However, cut it through at a lower level and you would just have an elongated, flat topped pyramid of glass curtain walling that seems to be slightly askew around the edges. Unfortunately, it is only this ‘slightly askew’ element that some have picked up on. There are always those unable to distinguish imitation from inspiration and, by the same token, those who want to own something that makes a nod towards the latest fashion. In the same way that rag trade pattern cutters have a quick look in the shop windows of haute couture designers before producing lookalike, mass market versions based on a re-shape of their usual product, so some practitioners are willing to invoke connection with the Shard for developers, in wonky glass facades that are really just another form of wallpaper around standard commercial buildings. The current epidemic of ‘Shard-ettes’ will undoubtedly fade out when the next design craze comes along. Otherwise, they may simply become inappropriate thanks to the recent trend for office tenants to look for
buildings with character rather than another form of corporate ‘glass and steel’. More worrying perhaps is the trend that the Shard itself follows, that of tall, signature buildings, in the City of London, each intended to stand out as different from all the rest by virtue of particular shape and cladding, and, of course, size - each has to be taller than the last one. In the early 70s it was possible to look from Greenwich across the City of London and appreciate the composition and integrity of the city as a whole, dominated by St Paul’s cathedral. At that time, this vista was considered sacrosanct, a zone within which no towers were allowed. That requirement has degenerated to merely requiring sightlines of St Paul’s among the jumble of tall developments and the skyline is fast heading towards the feel of the city in Roy Lichtenstein’s painting “This Must Be the Place”. But as to the Shard, don’t get me wrong, I like it, though its shape and all glass shell may simply prove to just be the current front runner in the individuality stakes. And it needs to stand alone; unthinking replication, like familiarity, breeds contempt.
Our panel of contributors are experts in their field and have experience in a vast area of architectural design including; landscape, public sector and private residencies. If you would like to contribute as a panelist email:
jade.tilley@onecoms.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52