Point of View

So after about 5 minutes watching from my window I got bored of the Shard opening ceremonies. I guess there are only so many exciting things you can do with a building: make it change colour and fire lasers into the sky whilst searchlights and helicopters circle it. I imagine it was pretty exciting if you were an invited guest, what with the LSO playing and all. However I wasn't invited and neither were most Londoners, which seems to be the thrust of the one of the arguments of the anti-Shard lobby. It is elitist they say, a giant monument to money and greed. No argument from me there, but why single out the Shard for this criticism, why not the Heron Tower for example which is a much less graceful building and nearly as tall.
Of course the Heron Tower is built within the main city cluster, which exempts it from the major gripe of the anti-Shard lobby: that the Shard, by virtue of of its location dramatically changes the London skyline. Yes it does, so what? The London skyline is not some kind of perfectly realised, perfectly organised picture; it is a muddle, like the city itself, a conversation between thousands of different ideas. When London was burnt to the ground in 1666, Sir Christopher Wren wanted to build an entirely new city on a beautiful radial design, in much the same way as the French subsequently did in Paris. Unfortunately, he instantly ran into disputes with landowners, whose properties were bounded by the pre-fire roads. Ultimately, the only part of that design that survived was St Paul's Cathedral, and whilst the immediate area around that building retains some the order that Wren wished for, the London that sprang up beyond it had none of the discipline of a well designed cityscape. This set a precedent that survives today: when it comes to planning in London, the ultimate result stems from an argument between the architects, the developers, the authorities and the neighbors. The London skyline is not a homogeneous vista, it is a messy assortment of architecture both good and bad, and opinions on each of these buildings will vary wildly. As they should do in one of the world's oldest democracies.
In his piece on the Shard, Simon Jenkins complained that it didn't belong in this country, but in a desert state (such as the one from which much of its funding came). Apart from the apparent racism inherent in this statement, it fundamentally fails to understand the nature of London's architectural heritage. St Paul's itself was controversial, as Wren had decided to build it in what was then an Italian style. Would all the skyline preservationists been so concerned if it was just another classical English style cathedral? St Paul's is so evocative of England because like all Englishmen, it is an immigrant. To accuse a new building in London of being alien is to fundamentally misunderstand the city. Also, associating the Shard aesthetically with its major funders is a bit lame when they only committed funding after building had commenced.
Simon Jenkins is right to get exercised about big developers and famous architects steamrolling planning law, but surely he should have done that about the Gherkin rather than the Shard. The site of the Gherkin contained the grade I listed Baltic Exchange, and before Sir Norman Foster got involved, all development plans involved the retention of the badly bomb damaged building. As soon as Sir Norman broke out the plans for the most phallic building in London, all and sundry got weak at the knees and quickly forgot about listings. The Shard is different though: it is built on the site of some pretty ugly modernist rejects that no one will ever miss ever, but because you can see it poking up behind St Paul's if you're rich enough to live on Primrose Hill, but not connected enough to get invited to the opening party then it is an abomination. Brilliantly, people like Simon Jenkins say that this will open the floodgates to legions of super skyscrapers lining the Thames and ruining the skyline, and brilliantly by saying such things they prove themselves wrong. Yes, unfortunately there are a small number of other less well imagined supertowers springing up in the wake of John Prescott's hubris, but they will become a natural antedote to themselves. They will become new Euston Stations. The destruction of the original Victorian Euston Station in the 60s lead to the introduction of grading and protection of historic buildings that is both a wonderful thing for posterity and a massive headache for anyone associated with listed buildings. Planning in a city like London will always be complicated because everyone wants to be involved, it will ebb and flow, the developers and the conservationists will each have their day. Neither will ever win and neither should they.
I have issues with aspects of the Shard's construction; the fact that they ditched the energy saving aspects of the building's original design should have resulted in fines, re-submission of the planning application or a commitment to offset the additional energy usage. I'm sure there are many other complaints that can be levelled at it, but to complain that it ruins a skyline as jumbled as London's is surely to miss the point entirely. If you're worried about rich people doing what they like with your heritage, you should look to parliament. Now there is a blot on the skyline.