Fwd: Re: interview
> Even more reason for all of us to hear from Eu Chai, eh?I'm flattered! But where shall I begin?
As with any city, Venice is such a complicated tangle of
As far as urban space and human scale is concerned, it is as near
perfection as one can imagine. However, to actually live in Venice
itself has become more and more difficult over the last 30 years.
Venice still has the basic urban structure to be a great place to
live in, but thanks in no small part to poor foresight of the local
government, it has evolved into more of a theme park for tourists
rather than a real living city.
J.H. Crawford is correct to say that Venice is expensive. This has
come about because of the priority given to the tourism sector and
the relative neglect of other trades as well as basic planning and
governing policies for residents. Anyone who has been there will note
the omnipresence of souvenir shops, hotels, restaurants, cafes and
take-aways. Just try looking for needle and thread. Not that daily
supplies completely absent (there are markets, supermarkets, grocers,
bakeries and sundries outside of the tourist areas), but the
proportion of retail and amenities catering to the needs of residents
is far lower than what should be to sustain a sizeable community.
This, together with the high cost property and the building trade
(for renovations) in general, has forced many Venetians to migrate to
Nevertheless, there are mitigating forces. Venice is still a
university town, with a student population of something like 25-
30000. This has helped to attenuate the push towards a totally "theme
park" environment by providing the city with a relatively stable
living community. The lifestyle demands of this population has
encouraged the growth of trades relevant to this age-group - cheaper
eating places and cafes, bookshops, youth-oriented fashion, etc, as
well as the public transport sector.
On transport...well, as most would already know that everything
happens on water, including fire-fighting, garbage disposal, police,
deliveries, and so on. Many residents have both a boat and a car, the
latter being parked in the main garage in Piazzale Roma (they pay a
reduced fee as residents). Public transport is by water buses called
vaporetti, and gondola ferries for crossing the Grand Canal. The
existence of the latter has influenced the evolution of the urban
fabric over the centuries, so that opens spaces are found at
strategic points along the tight frontage of the Grand Canal. This is
why vaporetto stops seem to be located so conveniently up and down
the Venetian main street - they have taken over most of the old ferry
I guess that's enough writing for now. Got to get back to work...
- Thinking about what we can learn from Venice then reading Simon
Jenkins' in this weeks' Sunday Times on the tsunami of developers
tower blocks about to hit London (and other British cities) -
motivated by greed, egged on by egomaniacal big name architects'- has
got my blood boiling today.
Approved in the face of all planning sense, by our moronic deputy
prime minister -John ''Two-Jags'' Prescott (and Jenkins is saying the
planners have anyway abdicated their responsibilities), but also with
Ken Livingstone on board, Jenkins treats us to some indignant
Oh hell I'll just paste in the whole thing:-
Prescott Towers, the height of architectural imbecility
When members of parliament arrive at work one day next year they will
get a shock. Looming over their view up-river will be a stupendous 50-
storey tower of luxury flats. It will be higher than the NatWest Tower
and the highest residential tower in Europe.
Last month it was personally approved by the deputy prime minister,
John Prescott, in defiance of all planning advice, local and national.
He seems to have gone mad. MPs will be outraged but it will be too
late. Prescott tower, as it should be called, will have slipped
through every net.
Similar towers are being built or proposed along the Thames from
Greenwich to Deptford to Bermondsey. One will crowd the Tate Modern,
another rise over Waterloo station, another slice the South Bank next
to the Festival Hall, and more will dominate Vauxhall, Chelsea
Harbour, Battersea and Kew Gardens.
The ever-narrowing Thames will seem like a torrent in a canyon of
high-rise. "Landmark towers" are also proposed in a ring across north
London, from Bishopsgate to Islington to Queen's Park. These are not
stumps but giants, from 20 to 40 storeys high.
Others are now proposed across Britain. Leeds is seeing two 30-storey
"kissing towers". Manchester has a 47-storey Beetham Tower, Newcastle
a mooted 50-storey tower. Others are planned for Birmingham, Brighton
and possibly Liverpool. The craze for a single totem of modernity is
manic. It was in like spirit that Chicago built the Sears Tower,
highest in the world, to show the city was somehow "more manly" than
New York. Malaysia's giant Petronas Centre in Kuala Lumpur was meant
as a slap in the face of the West, yet it is now being out-towered by
Shanghai, Pusan, Dubai and other tinpot civic dictatorships desperate
for a year in the record book.
None of these structures carries civic significance. They are not town
halls or museums or strategically placed features. They are merely
speculative developments in random very high buildings (known as VHBs)
. They have been unleashed by that most lethal political phenomenon, a
socialist enthralled by capitalism, in London's case Prescott and the
city's mayor, Ken Livingstone. Both are on their backs and purring as
property men tickle their bellies. The Vauxhall tower turned
Prescott's head when its developer, Broadway Malyan, offered him a few
flats on the cheap to tenants of his choice known in the game as
"affordables". They will not be affordable for long.
Why London should want to play this game is a mystery. It has nothing
to do with economics. There are hundreds of acres awaiting cheaper
high-density, low-rise building. VHBs tend to be expensive to maintain
and hard to let. A third of the residential towers in Canary Wharf are
unsold or are left empty as bank collateral. Even the "Siefert" towers
that dotted the London skyline in the 1970s were mostly flogged cut-
price to government departments, hardly an economic necessity.
Today's towers will either stand empty as vacant assets, like Centre
Point, or be filled by new "parastatals", banks and consultancies
dependent on government contracts. It was not skyscrapers that made
London the financial and (no less important) tourism goldmine that it
is. It was the lack of them, the civilised, unthreatening scale of
London's streets and neighbourhoods.
The towers are aesthetically banal. They strike with one club, a
quirky shape (box, step, pyramid, phallus, wedge, shard) of uniformly
bleak glass and steel. Their windy footings and servicing zones crush
all humanity out of their surroundings. There is not one that does
not. The residential towers are like fortified camps, defying all
comers. The blocks by Lord Foster and Lord Rogers in Battersea might
be creatures from Mars, so hostile are they to their neighbourhoods.
The chief sponsor of this so-called "f***-you" planning is Livingstone
himself. High buildings policy is one of the few powers he has vested
in him. Early in his reign he visited New York and returned with a bad
case of "Manhattan syndrome", a belief that skyscrapers are the key to
a mayor's virility. With his office in what he himself calls "the
testicle" he craved erect phalluses all round him. Developers with fad
architects in tow promptly beat a path to his door.
Height controls collapsed. Because Canary Wharf had breached the 600ft
rule, everywhere could. The cluster policy was set aside in favour of
"landmarks", more or less wherever a developer wanted one. Sight lines
from Hampstead, Richmond or Waterloo Bridge were forgotten. Only St
Paul's retained a modicum of dignity from the rule book. The socialist
Livingstone had fought for humane planning in Covent Garden and Coin
Street. The Blairite Livingstone fights against it at Spitalfields and
The public still tends to the view that the loss of the familiar in
cities, however sad, somehow "cannot be stopped". The result of the
collapse of VHB control shows this is naive. Planning does make a
difference. Others argue that if towers are beautiful (which all are
to their creators) it should trump planning, as if a concern with
settings, views and neighbourhoods were nothing to do with
architecture. Yet we would not put the "gherkin" in the middle of Hyde
Park or next to Big Ben because it is "original". We retain a
lingering sense of public aesthetic.
In his new book, The Edifice Complex, Deyan Sudjic charts the
incestuous relations between power and architecture, the role mega-
buildings play in "unchaining the ego" of their patrons. Not for
nothing is architecture the one art that flourishes under
dictatorship. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein were all
enthusiasts for building, magnetised by its offer of immortality. They
saw in architecture what Sudjic calls the "instinct to control,
categorise, shape life as it will be lived in space". In a street a
person knows he or she is a Londoner. In a VHB we are ants, impotent
and lost in anywhere.
To find the centre of power in any society, watch where the architects
cluster. They are adept at using an artist's licence to flatter power.
They must, because their art is expensive and prominent. It is on
public exhibition for generations to come. It also needs to obliterate
what went before. Tower builders claim the entire city for their
canvass. They demand the right to overpaint Canaletto.
Town planning supposedly controls this. It was once a profession at
which Britain excelled. It evened out the peaks and troughs of
building cycles. It helped cities evolve rather than self-destruct
under political or commercial pressure. Planning is democracy talking
to architecture. Above all London's planning had a concern for the
context of buildings, how new ones fitted alongside old. These
concerns are familiar in Paris, Rome, even in American cities.
London's planning has lost its way, swept aside in the same tide of
greed as did such damage to its skyline in the 1970s. The tide is not
motivated by some new vision of the city it has none but by a
simple desire to make money wherever permitted. But its abuse of
opposition is visceral. It accuses those, including less grand
architects, struggling to honour London's character, of living in the
Stone Age or seeking a "pastiche city". Nothing is more Stone Age than
these megaliths. Nothing is more pastiche than these Mies van der
Rohe/Philip Johnson lookalikes.
Their presumption is on spectacular display at the New London
Architecture show at the Building Centre. Visitors are invited to view
London not as citizens do, from street level, but as architects do,
from the heavenly clouds above. A model of the metropolis is at floor
level, so the new towers seem diminutive. Virtually every one of the
200 buildings craves "icon" status, a term idealised by the writer
Charles Jencks, whose The Iconic Building has the gherkin as a moon
rocket on the cover. This is architecture as "musique concrete", an
art detached from context or audience.
I believe Britons will deplore the towers about to pepper-pot their
cities, as they deplored the same rash a quarter century ago. They
congregate in streets and patently love them. Today's leading
architects simply cannot design streets. They are like artists who
cannot draw and composers who "don't do tunes". They do towers but not
the spaces in between. They really want to live on the moon. Prescott
is there with them.