The 20 Fenchurch Street Building - Essay Example

Insert Name Instructor’s Name Date 20 Fenchurch Street Introduction Architectural designs have in the recent past faced criticism from the public, fellow architecture, city planners as well as neighbors of the proposed buildings. In most cases the buildings face criticism because of some reasons that include unorthodox shapes, poor working conditions, safety of the tenants and the general public. The building of interest in this evaluation is the 20 Fenchurch street which has faced numerous criticism because of its unorthodox shape, scorching effect and strong winds at its bottom. Also, concerns were raised over the safety of the tenants and the public because the unstable shape of the building. The essay below evaluates the concerns that were raised over the design and construction of the building and presents the solutions that were used to contain the criticism and the faults in the building. The criticism that were raised in the design of the building will be used to improve the building. Additionally, the faults identified in the building will be used to increase knowledge in the field of architecture. The 20 Fenchurch Street is a 177m high 38-storied building that is popularly known as the “walkie-talkie” because of the building’s shape. The design of the building was first proposed in 2004 after developers realized that people prefer to be at the top of tall buildings. It was the assumption of the developers that the tenants of the because people love to be at the top of tall buildings, tenants at the top of the building would most likely require increased floor space as compared to those at the bottom of the building. Consequently, there was need for the 20 Fenchurch Street building to have a comparatively increased capacity in its top offices. Conventionally, buildings have an increased floor plate at the bottom so as to increase stability and strength. If the design of the building has followed orthodox techniques, the challenge of having an increased office space at the top of the building could not be solved. The developers had to think of a shape that would lead to increased floor space at the top of the building while still maintaining the stability of the building as well as other constraints that include respecting the freedoms of neighbors. The construction of 20 Fenchurch Street was designed in such a manner that it included a publicly accessible park (Allinson & Thornton, 2014). The design of the building was criticized after it was proposed by both the English heritage that it may be a fatality in waiting in that increased floor space may cause death’s and injuries if the building collapsed. The concerns of the heritage and others which were raised by neighbors were reviewed through a public inquiry. Neighbors of the 20 Fenchurch Street building had concerns that their rights to light were jeopardized by the shape of the building. However, the concerns of the neighbors were considered to be minor and as such the city planners approved the design. The city’s chief planner Peter Rees considered the building “a figurehead at the prow of our ship.” Also, the position of the sky garden was considered to provide a platform where the vibrancy of the city’s engine room could be observed. the city planners’ philosophy was that the secret of London’s success relied heavily on the presence of places to gossip. The 20 Fenchurch building provided just that with the sky garden and Peter Rees was keen on allowing the construction to proceed. The reasoning behind the chief planners support of the building was that the growth of the city depended heavily in having a public place where people would exchange their thoughts. The building promised to provide a place where people would ‘gossip’ because it included a public park at the top of the building where most of the city could be viewed. Also, the presence of the sky garden acted as a ‘party city’ which was as close to the offices as possible. The presence of a party city was an appealing business offer to many entities because it meant that the employees will have access to what they want in their proximity. Even though public opinion on the building was divided, there was a certain degree of elegance that was associated with the 20 Fenchurch Street building (Allinson & Thornton, 2014). 1. Format of Display The episode is presented through print media and it includes arguments for and against the design as well as pictorial representation of the building itself. Print media presents one of the best choices for presenting the arguments because it presents the logic for the supporting or opposing the design. Pictorial representation acts as visual aids to facilitate the understanding of the design as well as the arguments counterarguments for the design. The format of display used in this episode is appropriate in the field of architecture because it enables the understanding of the shape of the building. 2. How the episode is explained The episode is explained through the use of documentary photographs that are used to aid the understanding of the arguments that are made against the design of the building. Articles are then used to present the arguments for and against the design of the building. Articles are appropriate for presenting the episode because they can be used to present the thoughts of those engaged in the arguments adequately. The documents that are presented on the building are also instrumental in presenting the faults that have been identified in the building. The reviews that were raised led to an increase in the knowledge of the controversies and the faults that were raised by the building. 3. Content In the initial stages of the construction of the building there were concerns by neighbors that the 20 Fenchurch street will prevent some of the neighbors from assessing sunlight. Consequently, these neighbors felt that their right to light was jeopardized by the design of the building. The English heritage also had concerns that because of the shape of the building, the 20 Fenchurch Street was prone to collapse. The English heritage opposed the design of the building because it presented the possibility of including London among the cities with collapsed buildings. Also, the collapse of a building could lead to fatalities as well as financial losses for the owners of the buildings, tenants as well as the neighbors. The concerns of the English heritage and the neighbors were subjected to a public inquiry. The inquiry established that the issues raised against the building could not cause any danger to the public. Also, the neighbors right to light could not be jeopardized by the design of the 20 Fenchurch Street. There were other complaints that were raised after the completion of the building over certain factors not predicted in the planning stages. One of the concerns was the strong winds at the bottom of the 20Fenchurch Street that necessitated the use of an independent observer to assess the potential effects of the winds. The use of an independent observer was further reinforced by the fact that there had been a wind related death in Leeds in 2011. Also, the reports that were submitted by the developers were divergent in the possible effects of the strong winds at the bottom of the 20 Fenchurch Street. The city of London had received similar complaints concerning strong winds at the bottom of tall buildings and as such there was the need to evaluate the potential implications of these winds. Another concern raised was the building’s tendency to destroy objects on the ground. Concerns were raised after the building converged the sun rays to create a destructive “laser ray” that was able to melt the wing mirror, the jaguar badge and the panel of a parked jaguar sedan. Other objects that were destroyed include burnt carpets and numerous bicycle seats. The street temperature at the bottom of the 20 Fenchurch street were estimated to be around 100 degrees Celsius were frying eggs using the ray to demonstrate the scorching effect of that results from the 20 Fenchurch street (MacLeod, 2014). The scorching effect of the 20 Fenchurch street is attributed to its curvilinear shape which focuses the sun ray’s on a small area. The exterior wall facing the south is fitted with reflective glass and since it is concave in shape it converges the sun rays in a small area (Lallanilla, 2013). The same effect was observed in the Vdara Hotel in Las Vegas where the building focused sunbeams to the swimming pool deck thus creating a ray strong enough to melt plastic. Both the 20 Fenchurch Street and the Vdara Hotel buildings were designed and constructed by Vinoly’s architecture. 4. Participants The participants in the episode included the English heritage and UNESCO who criticized the building as having an oppressive and overwhelming form. Additionally, the building was considered to most likely add London to a ‘world heritage in danger listing’. The English heritage and UNESCO were affiliated to those against the design of the “walkie-talkie”. The city planners also participated in the episode through its chief planner Peter Rees, who supported the design of the building. The chief planner argued that the design of the building would most likely be the beneficial to the city of London because it would act as the ‘figurehead at the prow of our ship’. The idea of the sky garden particularly appealed to Peter Rees because it provided a platform from whence the vibrancy of the City could be observed. the city planners were affiliated to those that supported the design of the building. The owners of surrounding buildings also participated in the episode because they felt that the design of the building jeopardized the right to sunlight. The design of the building was in such a way that the floor space at the top was larger than the floor space at the bottom. Consequently, due to its shape and height sunlight to neighboring buildings would be blocked. However, the complaint was blocked by the city planners who did not feel that the neighbors’ right to light was jeopardized (Allinson and Thornton, 2014). The public also participated in the criticism of the building with some considering the design of the building as resembling an inflated balloon that is about to burst. However, the public opinion was divided on the design of the building with others considering the building to possess a certain elegance. The public also criticized the building because of its scorching effect. The ability of the building to melt objects underneath it saw a lot of criticism from some of the projects initial supporters. Paul Finch who had supported the design of the building throughout its initial planning process criticized the project by claiming that the developers created a mess of the project (MacLeod, 2014). The scorching effect of the building on ground objects that are underneath it has been rectified by installing sunshades referred to as ‘brise soleil’ so as to stop the glare from burning shops and shops underneath. The glass in the building was considered to converge the light to produce the dangerous ‘laser death rays’. 5. Genealogy Presentation of the building’s design The proposal for the design of the “walkie-talkie” was first presented in 2004. The rationale for the shape of the building was that people prefer to be at the top of tall buildings which presented a challenge because the largest floor space in orthodox buildings is found at the bottom. Also, the developers of the 20 Fenchurch building were interested in presenting a building that was unique in its own self. Criticism of the building’s design The proposal for the design of the building was criticized by the English Heritage, UNESCO as presenting a threat to the city of London. The neighbors of the building also criticized the building as jeopardizing their right to light. The complaints were subjected to a public inquiry to evaluate whether the complaints are valid or not. The city planners through the chief planner Peter Rees overrode the complaints as invalid and as such construction of the 20 Fenchurch Street building commenced. The shape of the building was also criticized as resembling an inflated balloon that was about to burst. Criticism of the building’s scorching effect At the completion of the building there were complaints by neighbors due to the scorching effect of the 20 Fenchurch Street building that occurred on the south end because of the concave exterior that converged light. The scorching of a sedan car, bicycle seats and the carpets in neighboring shops forced the city planners to demand for an independent observer on to the potential effects of the reflective glasses installed in the building and the possible solutions. The scorching effect of the 20 Fenchurch street building was rectified through the installation of ‘brise soleli’ sunshade on the south part of the building to prevent the damaging rays. The scorching effect of the building created more criticism than any other issue in the building because the possible extensity of the reflected rays particularly on humans could not be ascertained. The rectification of the scorching effect of the reflective rays was critical because it could most probably stall the project and lead to extreme losses especially in the occupancy of the building. Concern for the strong winds at the bottom of the building There were also concerns raised over the strong winds that were witnessed at the bottom of the building as well as other tall buildings in the city. Independent observers also evaluated the potential effects of these winds on the safety of the tenants of the buildings as well as other residents in the city. The independent observers established that there is no threat in the winds at the bottom of the building and recommended the building as safe to be inhabited. In conclusion, the 20 Fenchurch Street building has faced criticism throughout its planning, and completion stages because of a number of factors. The criticism was centered mainly on the unorthodox shape of the building, the strong winds at the bottom of the building, the scorching effect of the reflected sun rays. Also, there were concerns by the neighbors that the shape of the building compromised their right to light. However, the criticism has been countered and it has led to the improvement of the building as well as increase in knowledge in the field of architecture. Most notably the decision to include a public park at the top of the building was considered commercially beneficial because there would be a lot of human traffic to the top of the building which implies more clients to the tenants. Also, the shape of the building allows it to be included as one of the epics which inspires many to visit the building when in London. The criticism and the faults in the building did not affect the demand for the building as witnessed in its occupancy. The additional cost that was used in installing the shades and compensating the damages that were caused by the reflected rays did not cause the cost of the building to stray from the budget allocation. Consequently, the criticism of the building’s shape and other faults acted to increase the popularity of the building without affecting the revenue generated. Moreover, the numerous controversies that have been raised against the design of the building as well as some of the building’s faults has created a publicity for the building. Considering the fact that the faults in the building were rectified implies that the bad publicity that was initially circulated against the building will eventually work for the good of the building. Vinoly architectures who were tasked with the design and construction of the building admitted that the installation of the sunshades to prevent the scorching effect did not negatively affect the budget allocated for construction. Consequently, the faults and criticism generated towards the building has served to increase the knowledge in architecture (Yaneva, 2016). Reference List Allinson, K. and Thornton, V. (2014). London’s Contemporary Architecture: An Explorer’s Guide. New York: Routledge, p. 73. Lallanilla, M. (2013). London’s Burning: How a Skyscraper Melts Cars. [online] Live Science. Available at: http://www.livescience.com/39371-skyscraper-melts-cars-20-fenchurch.html [Accessed 17 Sept. 2016] MacLeod, F. (2014). The 9 Most Controversial Buildings of All Time. [online] Arch daily. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/573271/the-9-most-controversial-buildings-of-all-time [Accessed 16 Sept. 2016]. Mullin, G. (2014). No more Walkie Scorchie! London Skyscraper which melted cars by reflecting sunlight is fitted with shading. [online] Mail Online. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2786723/London-skyscraper-Walkie-Talkie-melted-cars-reflecting-sunlight-fitted-shading.html [Accessed 17 Sept. 2016]. Yaneva, A. (2016). Mapping Controversies in Architecture. New York: Routledge, p. 73. Read More