London Monument to disppear into the guts of monstrous accordion
Christopher Wren's great fire Monument in the City of London is to be surrounded bulwarked by this bizarre, pleated accordion mirror-building which will leave only the tip of the Monument visible, serving as part of a giant sundial. Looks like none of the Monument will be visible from the street, though, which would mean that you'd need permission from whichever nameless developer owns the building in order to view it, photograph it, etc. I take it back -- on closer inspection, the Monument is in front of the building, not inside it
Link (via Gizmodo)
Architect Ken Shuttleworth has obtained planning permission for a building resembling an accordion which will fold around the City square where the Monument has stood since 1677.There will be a roof garden that will form a giant sundial, with Wren's 202ft column acting as the gnomon, the pillar which creates a shadow on the dial, indicating the time across the landscaping.
the latest
latest episodes
I had a quick check who owns the site and it is the marvelously titled "Worshipful Company of Fishmongers."
which conjures images of a secret basement altar to their fish-headed god.
Actually, I notice on the larger version of this image that the lower portion of the building is open to the elements and therefore the proles. Of course that wouldn't stop over-officious security guards confiscating a camera or two.
how did that get planning permission? hmmm...some bureaucrats are getting side bonuses this year.
the last thing london needs is a building that is heavy on steel and glass.
how about a bit of greenery? a building like in fukoka city that has a park on top of it.
http://scophy.com/2007/10/22/architecture-mondays-green-parks-on-a-building/
I'm not sure that the Monument is actually inside the building - looking at the image and how it gels with my understanding of the streets round there, this will 'wrap around' 2 sides of the Monument, leaving it accessible and visible from the street.
The Monument isn't inside the building - you can even see that from the picture. The Monument's shadow is being cast across the southern side of that building, and onto the roof.
You can see from the illustration here that the far side of the building is open beneath the (semi-transparent?) roof. So the monument should still be visible to the public, but still, yuck. I don't think this modern building is going to do the fire monument as many aesthetic favours as it's going to do for the building.
Ah, the Daily Mail... you may want to get one or two other sources for this story before believing it. Unfortunately I wouldn't be surprised if it was true - Fish Street Hill is one of the less, ah, productive open spaces in the City because of that silly tower in the middle, and to misquote some chap with a beard, if it ain't selling, it ain't working. I'm not sure how extensive the redevelopment would be though. Most of the buildings around the Monument are 70s brutalist banks and I can't see their view being spoiled unless they are being moved too.
How would the garden be a giant sundial, if you can't actually see it?
From the ground level you can't see the garden, so it acting a giant sundial is just marketing speak to make it look like they care about history.
This building looks hideous too. Absolutely not something I'd like to see in London. London's Ghurkin already pushes the limit a lot, if you ask me. (The egg shaped building in the back of the photo, not visible in the thumbnail here)
Argh. What kills me isn't the modern architecture - the building itself looks impressive, like a soap bubble and a hunk of quartz had an ill-conceived but advantageous liaison. What disturbs me is that obviously this sort of thing will not, as Mr Shuttleworth asserts, "reinstate a more coherent plan of the square as envisaged by Wren". The monument was designed as an open-air object, the core of a space, an intentional absence. The absence of development, indeed, implies the sacredness of the site itself; this emptiness was created by one of the three greatest tragedies this city every experienced (along with the Plague and the Blitz) and we have rebuilt everywhere but here - this place is to remember. Not to mention the fact that Wren designed the monument to be an astronomical and meteorological instrument, uses, while neglected presently, reflect the crafter's intention. Finally, it hardly needs to be added this action will steal one of the most memorable public spaces from Londoners - but ah, I'm sure the City needs a few more offices. Sigh.
The gherkin has a lot to answer for.
The success of that building, which I like btw, has led some architects down an "I'll show you a bloody gherkin, mate" path. Maybe they should take the bus instead.
While I love the ACROS building in Fukuoka (Hopefully Chili Joe's is still in the park) - this is a very different idea. My thought are "Why not! Build it and enjoy!"
Let's not forget, this is the same tower featured in Neal Stephenson's System of the World that Jack ziplined down.
Given this article is from the (notably alarmist!)Daily Mail I would say the building's impact might be somewhat exaggerated. Might be best to get some other opinion on it. The CGI picture isnt exactly the best, but as best I can imagine from the picture there are other far far uglier buildings in London.
I say tear as much down as possible, or remix whats there, and build something new every year...hell, every day. Start with the airport.
Porn For Creative Souls, there is a park on top. The photo caption in the original article reads, "The new accordian shaped building will feature a roof garden," which you can see in the photo.
Without asserting whether this is good or bad for London's cityscape, I do have to hand it to that place for some great daring architecture. In Vancouver the most daring thing we've had in the past decade is the bling penis-lust for 'taller' and 'more glass'.
Gherkin or egg shaped indeed. It's a huge ugly vibrator soiling the sky of London. My first thought was, someone had a small penis.
God, I hate this stupid ugly modern architecture. One person does something interesting and the rest of the design world (architecture, fashion, whatever bunch of prancing pains in the arse/ass) destroy it making ugly ugly copies and torture generations to come with their horrible creations cause they have no imagination and think if they make something spectacularly ugly, people wouldn't be able to distinguish them from cutting edge and just plain crap.
And what's with all the glass buildings? I thought saving energy was in style. Souless, cold and ugly buildings.
end of rant.
The first picture link on this page makes it a bit clearer:
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=1219
can we have a ban on all links so the daily mail please whilst i am no fan of ken shuttleworth (formerly the partner of norman foster but without his rigor or restraint.) and this is a truly average building by the way, barely brave or dramatic, tucked away amongst average city blocks and meant for similarly average clients, I foreseen less press when it opens that is has received today.
but the daily mail... really?
I hope they glaze the windows such that the office lights inside show through clearly, like a giant pixelated surface undulating across the facade. That will be very cyberpunk.