The Shard: scintillating or a scar?

[Serial_Apologist]

Well there weren't any developments (a better word than "advances" ? IMV) in Music of any significance so I guess the same is true for architecture

I suppose you're right by implication, GG - advances for whom?

[MrGongGong]

I suppose you're right by implication, GG - advances for whom?

Ask Simon

(I saw a brilliant interview with a couple of teenagers yesterday at the Birmingham Conservertoire where they were talking about the things they could do when they got stuck writing "songs", along the lines of

"yeah, you can use all sorts of things , like retrograde, inversion and rotation " get in Arnold )

[Anna]

I agree with Simon Jenkins when he says: "It stands apart from the City cluster and pays no heed to its surrounding context in scale, materials or ground presence. It seems to have lost its way from Dubai to Canary Wharf" I think it's a monstrosity, completely out of scale and ruins the skyline of London (I admit to quite liking The Gherkin)

[MrGongGong]

I agree with Simon Jenkins when he says: "It stands apart from the City cluster and pays no heed to its surrounding context in scale, materials or ground presence. It seems to have lost its way from Dubai to Canary Wharf" I think it's a monstrosity, completely out of scale and ruins the skyline of London (I admit to quite liking The Gherkin)

I guess St Pauls cathedral does the same thing ?
To me it looks like a well built dynamic building unlike many of the fake ones in Canary Wharf
but hey, it's only London
so it's not as if we have to look at it every day

[Nick Armstrong]

I agree with Simon Jenkins when he says: "It stands apart from the City cluster and pays no heed to its surrounding context in scale, materials or ground presence. It seems to have lost its way from Dubai to Canary Wharf" I think it's a monstrosity, completely out of scale and ruins the skyline of London (I admit to quite liking The Gherkin)

Interesting, Anna - do you think Mr Jenkins's and your reaction are different from de Maupassant and Dumas and others who wrote “We protest with all our strength [against] the useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower. The Eiffel Tower is without doubt the dishonour of Paris.”

Were they right about that? After all the Eiffel Tower is also completely out of scale with its surroundings... Do you like it?

[Serial_Apologist]

wherever that fire station (?) is I bet it doesn't dominate the surrounding 100 square miles

This asks many questions I must admit not to feeling qualified other than to raise.

What drives our feelings about dominant buildings? Is what drives our feelings hard-wired into us?

Wren's St Pauls Cathedral must have dominated the landscape at least as far as it would have been visible in, say 1700. As would have its predecessor. Could one say that the object of scale in buildings such as cathedrals, temples and mosques is to make the individual feel dwarfed into insignificant submission before a sense of greater power?

Today the 30 square miles that would have dominated the landscape as far as it would have been travelled in a day in the 17th century has turned into mercia's 100 square miles dominated by buildings designed to lend corporate power the sense of insuperable power once attributed to God.

In the wake of 9/11, followers of political Islam at its most violent must feel tremendous empowerment from that act which proved the old adage, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

[Anna]

Interesting, Anna - do you think Mr Jenkins's and your reaction are different from de Maupassant and Dumas and others who wrote “We protest with all our strength [against] the useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower. The Eiffel Tower is without doubt the dishonour of Paris.”

Were they right about that? After all the Eiffel Tower is also completely out of scale with its surroundings... Do you like it?

Firstly, I've only seen the Shard in photographs so maybe I shouldn't comment. Personally I like the Eiffel Tower but you cannot compare that to the Shard except comparison of height and the Tower is, I think, quite elegant in that it tapers away into almost nothing but straddles Paris in a totally non-threatening way.

The Shard (to me) just seems a very vulgar ostentatious display of wealth which would be fine if sited in Dubai, but it's not in Dubai, it's in London and it seems to be looking down on St. Pauls and saying 'well, you didn't kick the moneylenders out of the Temple did you?' In fact, should it be renamed Barclays Tower? Which, having just seen S_A's post it seems he thinks the same.

[Flosshilde]

Whatever one thinks of the Shard, I think Jenkins is guilty of excessive hyperbole when he says "financial fanaticism every bit as selfish and destructive as the religious fanaticism of Timbuktu. But there is a difference. Timbuktu's shrines can and surely will be rebuilt. The Shard has slashed the face of London for ever." You can't simply 'rebuild' 15th & 16th artefacts that have been smashed, whereas the Shard can be demolished as easily as it was built (just as out-of-favour tower blocks are), leaving the London skyline as it was.

The reaction to it is interesting when one thinks of its proximity to Tower Bridge, a monstrosity that overshadows the Tower of London (which in its turn was once a symbol of power, designed to overshadow & intimidate the 'native' population).

I have seen it, last year, before it was finished, and I think it is probably one of those buildings that disappears the closer one is to it. In addition the sloping glass cladding will presumably reflect the sky, rather than surrounding buildings, & will therefore be likely to "disappear into the sky", as Renzo Piano suggests.

[Flosshilde]

Firstly, I've only seen the Shard in photographs so maybe I shouldn't comment. Personally I like the Eiffel Tower but you cannot compare that to the Shard except comparison of height and the Tower is, I think, quite elegant in that it tapers away into almost nothing but straddles Paris in a totally non-threatening way.

The Shard (to me) just seems a very vulgar ostentatious display of wealth which would be fine if sited in Dubai, but it's not in Dubai, it's in London and it seems to be looking down on St. Pauls and saying 'well, you didn't kick the moneylenders out of the Temple did you?' In fact, should it be renamed Barclays Tower? Which, having just seen S_A's post it seems he thinks the same.

But is your opinion of the ET swayed by your liking it? It could equally well be called a monstrosity that squats by the Seinne (spelling?) and looms over Paris, with no grace or style. The Shard, by comparison, is a gleaming, elegant needle, pointing to the sky. The 'vulgar, ostentatious display of wealth' is not intrinsic to the building, but a subjective view, coloured by knowledge of its owners & the accomodation in it. If it consisted of 'social housing' (unlikely, I know, but not, in other political circumstances, impossible), or even 'ordinary' offices, then would it still be a vulgar display of wealth?

[Serial_Apologist]

But is your opinion of the ET swayed by your liking it? It could equally well be called a monstrosity that squats by the Seinne (spelling?) and looms over Paris, with no grace or style. The Shard, by comparison, is a gleaming, elegant needle, pointing to the sky. The 'vulgar, ostentatious display of wealth' is not intrinsic to the building, but a subjective view, coloured by knowledge of its owners & the accomodation in it. If it consisted of 'social housing' (unlikely, I know, but not, in other political circumstances, impossible), or even 'ordinary' offices, then would it still be a vulgar display of wealth?

Which reminds me of how I got involved in politics: the occupation of an empty office block in the centre of Bristol in 1973 to point out the scandal of new commercial premises being left empty in the face of homelessness while property values rocketed. We did house a few homeless/evicted families for a while in premises which proved quite serviceable though not designed for this purpose, until the notice to quite was served.

[mercia]

astonished to find that the Eiffel tower is actually slightly over 30 feet taller than the Shard
perhaps because of all the space around it, it looks less oppressive (??)

I'm no Prince Charles wanting the world to be architecturally stuck in the 18th century, I like all sorts of modern buildings but I still think the Shard looks too big for its surroundings. [Mind you the views from the top must be fantastic]. I wonder from what furthest distance it can be seen.

[Anna]

The 'vulgar, ostentatious display of wealth' is not intrinsic to the building, but a subjective view, coloured by knowledge of its owners & the accomodation in it. If it consisted of 'social housing' (unlikely, I know, but not, in other political circumstances, impossible), or even 'ordinary' offices, then would it still be a vulgar display of wealth?

Probably, as I am not a Londoner and very unlikely to see the Shard in person, I shouldn't comment but it just seems totally out of scale and ugly and in no way an elegant needle. So I won't say more. I think its use is office accommodation, a swanky restaurant and some penthouses for merchant bankers? I still think it's horrible, but then, I'll never have to see it!

[Nick Armstrong]

astonished to find that the Eiffel tower is actually slightly over 30 feet taller than the Shard

Glad I'm not the only one! (Did you just find that out yourself or was it from my #20 above?)

[Serial_Apologist]

Probably, as I am not a Londoner and very unlikely to see the Shard in person, I shouldn't comment

Oh what a shame - we were so looking forward to your visit... sometime

[Nick Armstrong]

...a swanky restaurant... I still think it's horrible, but then, I'll never have to see it!

And for Londoners who don't like it, de Maupassant leads the way - after the Eiffel Tower opened, he started to eat regularly at the restaurant up in the Tower: it was the only place he didn't have to look at it....

Same applies to visitors from the Western lands... maybe we should visit, Anna? schmooze schmooze...