Shard

On July 5th, our capital city introduced its newest landmark to the south-bank. The Shard building, standing at 1,016 feet, ousts European competition in becoming the continents tallest building. Renzo Piano, the architect, claims the sky-scraper to be part of his 'vision of a vertical city'. With retail, a hotel, apartments and entertainment, it is appears he's met his brief.

What is the price of owning the pinnacle of Europe? Harry Mount wrote in the Telegraph recently about the poor contextual relationship it has within London (article). Much of Mount's argument seems based on his own conservative prejudice; talking of the city's deep association with the neo-classicalists of Wren and Canaletto. His dislike of the aesthetic-"no ornamentation, no sophistication, just a pyramid of flat planes" seems slightly typical of the traditionalist perspective. Certainly when detail is concerned, the façade seems unimaginative. The de-constructivist style is too subtle to be interesting yet persists in removing any grace out of the iconic obelisk. The choice of material is relatively sober too and fails to spark much inspiration.

But just think what the 1880's Parisian must have thought as Gustave Eiffel added another iron section onto his tower and how they must have moaned as the classical ambience of their city was rudely interrupted. The Shard is not a revolutionary design and Piano is probably one of the most over-rated architects on the scene, however I think this is an eye-sore Londoners will grow ever more fond of. Advice for the hardened critics...When Guy de Maupassant was asked why he chose to eat lunch at the Eiffel Tower's restaurant each day, he replied that it was the one place in Paris where he could not see the structure.