22 Bishopsgate. Architectural Review (008) by Harry John Wallis
Since when did average become acceptable for the City of London? That’s the term that comes to mind for me when I saw the new renderings of the replacement for the Pinnacle, now known officially as 22 Bishopsgate. It seemed, well, rather plain. Boring. Ordinary. Rather than the centrepiece of the city’s prestigious skyline it seemed like one of Chicago’s more inadequate office blocks had been dropped in it’s place instead. The design is so amazingly bland considering it’s location.
Compared to the design of the Pinnacle, this is a disgrace quite frankly. It’s predecessor was set to be a masterpiece and worthwhile addition to the city. This on the other hand is a very average office block that has been redesigned to maximise it’s floor space and, subsequently, profitability. Although lets not pretend that we expected anything else from the imbeciles in Guildhall. There is no character whatsoever. There is nothing iconic about it, nothing worth remembering. And unfortunately we are going to have to get used to seeing this type of building a lot more.
Gone are the days when designs like 30 St Mary Axe and 122 Leadenhall Street could make it past city planning authorities. These days archiects are expected to cough up models that do not place any value on aetheticism or attractiveness — but on a buildings ability to make as much cash as possible. And if that means building an ugly, obese, dumpy skyscraper in the middle of one of the most prestigious and most beautiful places in the world. So be it.
I'm very disappointed that the city has sold it’s soul to developers with no taste and, more importantly, no sense of responsibility to give London a building it truly deserves. The renderings that I have so far seen give me the impression that the architect behind this is completely inadequate and needs to go back to school, and the councillors who approved the scheme — and probably insisted on it’s dullness, should be sacked and replaced with men and women with a drive to improve their city, and not abuse it.
As Londoners we need to decide what is best for our city, and I suggest we start by saying no to this scheme. We do not want our skyline ruined by a boring glass block with no taste and no structural elegance. The company behind this, and the City of London Corporation will try to feed you all kind of insufferable jargon about how this is a ‘world first’, the ‘finest architecture’, an ‘engineering feat of brilliance’ and a ‘Masterpiece’ — it’s not.
The Empire State Building was a masterpiece. The Burj Khalifah was a masterpiece. Even the Shard by all means was a masterpiece. But this design is about as innovative as a fart, and frankly I've seen kids come up with more fascinating building ideas on Minecraft that this boring box. 4/10 is my overall rating. The concept of maximising desntiy in the city has been misinterpreted; sacrificing the original design for a simpler and far less beautiful one. My hope for the future now is that Brian Avery’s design for 1 Undershaft becomes a reality. A truly iconic design - it will be a far more impressive building that, once complete, will grace London’s skies and alleviate the uninspiring monotony caused by 22 Bishopsgate.
By Harry John Wallis, Monday 15th of June 2015
