Rendering the artist's impression obsolete

I came across this just now, in a BBC article dating from when the Gherkin was given planning permission. It looks a bit odd doesn't it - the black bits look like they've been coloured in hurriedly with permanent marker. It's the courtroom artist sketch of the skyscraper depictions world (I briefly thought then that there was a word for 'courtroom artist', but no - that's stenographer, the courtroom secretary.)

I can't say I've seen anything of quality as poor as this in relation to the new batch of skyscrapers. They possibly exist somewhere, just not in the public domain. It's all about 'renders' these days, such as that to the right, which also dates from the same time. Back in those pioneering days they were known more descriptively as 'virtual' images (the BBC's ' ', not mine). Lots of clouds in the image - you won't get that these days. I'm pretty confident of that statement and will now pick a random 5 current renders to see if my point is borne out.

See - completely random, and not a cloud in site.

Turns out I was wrong, although Leadenhall Tower has chosen to have blue skies in all their renders, which I think is indicative (I love the rhythm of that word... particularly if you put on a South African accent) of a lack of confidence in the quality of the architecture. On the other hand, Peano (who I believe is responsible for the Shard of Glass) is so confident of his building's ability to carry itself that in the promotional picture it's shrouded in smog.

Back to the Gherkin for a moment, English Heritage were, as I mentioned earlier, opposed to its construction, somewhat undermining their moral authority when it comes to being the nation's guardian against eyesores. Turns out I was wrong about that too.

English Heritage's recommended that: "the old Baltic Exchange could not be properly preserved and that it could, in the unique circumstances of this case, be replaced by a new high quality building".

But there was a lot of controversy then too, as many thought that the historic Baltic Exchange Building, badly damaged by the 1992 IRA bomb, could be reconstructed fully, and shouldn't be flattened to make was for the Swiss Re Tower. (Talking of flattening, they've made Flatland: the Movie with Martin Sheen voicing Square (on the official website the menu items issue a satisfying ping as you hover over them)).

From wikipedia

English Heritage ... insisted that any redevelopment must restore the building's old facade onto St Mary Axe ... later discovered that the damage was far more severe than they had previously thought, so they stopped insisting on a full restoration — over the objections of the architectural conservationists who favoured reconstruction.

Anyway, here's this:

When it forced a public inquiry into the Heron Tower at Bishopsgate in 2002, its objections were effectively dismissed by the planning inspector who pointed out that, given its support for the Gherkin, opposition to Heron was "inconsistent". It then lost the inquiry over the "Shard of Glass" at London Bridge in late 2003, when the inspector cited the quality of the Renzo Piano design as the overriding consideration. As EH had used this very argument in support of its shameful decision to allowing the loss of the Baltic Exchange in favour of the Gherkin, it could not win.

... which is written by an Evening Standard journalist, so has no authority, but is a pretty good point.

I really hope people have bothered to read this far down as what follows is far and away the best twist in the tale.

The Baltic Exchange now sits in pieces in a great many wooden crates in a barn near Canterbury ... Perfect for phenomenally wealthy jigsaw enthusiasts

To arrange a viewing of the bits [Hahaha] please contact

Pavilions of Splendour
22 Mount View Road Winchester Hampshire
N4 4HX
020 8348 1234

Read all about it

The London paper - journalism so good they have to give it away - ran a big double spread feature on the london skyline of tomorrow today. Depending on whether you read the leftmost or the rightmost column of page 10 the Shard will be either 1,017 or 1,003 ft tall. Quality journalism. And:

London will never be Manhattan, but over the next 20 years the capital’s skyline is going to change dramatically and Canary Wharf and the City will definitely be giving New York a run for its money.

Unless she means "London will never be Manhattan" in a literal sense surely this is self-contradictory?

Talking of poor writing, I read the Guardian's eLearning supplement yesterday and it was atrocious. I've heard it called the Graudian in the past, and reading it yesterday made me think it may even once have had the name London Lite.

Back to the London paper. I would class its tone as muted celebration, which in London I think probably counts as whole-hearted cheers by anywhere else's standards. I've just come back from Poole where the people are nicer and more chatty. Although a shoplifter alarm did go off as I walked in to Tesco's, which I thought was overly suspicious of outsiders. Bloody Tesco's - you'd never get that in Waitrose.

Interesting facts the article contained were an explanation of the cheese grater's unusual shape: It makes it easier to grate the moon, and the sloping side means the view of St Paul's isn't obscured.

It also had a few artist's impressions of the Walkie Talkie. Not pleasant... but luckily it's being halted by the otherwise disappointing Ruth Kelly.

There's a video (doesn't work in Firefox though) interviewing the exhibition director of New London Architecture about skyscrapers as he gives the interviewer a tour of their model (which is missing the Willis Building! But don't worry; I have notified them). The interviewer has just, cynically but quite correctly, accused the buildings of trying to "out-wow" each other. I missed the reply as I was typing.

He gives an astute appraisal of the current vogue for nicknaming new building projects, which began with the gherkin. Come to think of it "wedge of cheese" would be a btter name for the "cheese grater".

Yes - what about the shard of glass, hmmm??? It's not in the cluster, is it Mr Murray?

Ah, no - but it is next to a train station. It's all part of Ken's strategy. Oh yes it is.

Watch the video!