Each of the recent buildings I have chosen is flawed. But then name me an architecture anywhere that isn’t. To note this is not to carp or be excessively negative, but to acknowledge both a truth and the fact that it is exactly such flaws that metaphorically let us in — that enable us to penetrate the architecture, accommodate it to us and vice versa.
To quote Harry Gugger, the partner in charge of the Laban design, “There is no solution. There is always only an idea. And it works in some parts, and works not so good in others. Nothing is perfect. In architecture this is certainly true". One could easily be philosophical on this point, quoting the likes of Hegel and Zizeck. One could also quote cultural traditions which invite the ‘deliberate flaw’. But any ruminative architect considering the wonder that anything of merit is ever realised would be forgiven a neglect of deliberate and artful flaws. Contingent impediment is sufficient!
Another point of note is that these current favourites only make sense when set against the background of all the other buildings of note in London — and when I say ‘buildings’, I am conscious that one is often referring to parts and isolated features (as well as those characterful places made up of groupings of buildings): London is a city of the ‘almost all right’ and is best enjoyed on this basis i. e. as a rich mix inviting discovery. In the words of the late Theo Crosby, “Much of the pleasure of cities comes from small scale, invention and complexity: a doorway, a bay window, a spire, an element suddenly seen and exploited in the context of the street. These are fragments, the result of intelligent intervention or forethought, that provides the markers by which one remembers and creates a mental structure of a city. […] It is those fragments […] that remain memorable. […] To recognise the [architectural] language and the players, to be able to see the jokes, is the richest pleasure of living in cities; to play the game is in itself a mode of establishing identity". (from The Necessary Monument,
1970).
The contemporary buildings listed on the right are merely a tiny part of such a scenario.
Why? Although I query its location and cannot get excited about the site strategy, the Laban is possibly the most masterful piece of contemporary architectural gamesmanship in London, lifting that bar and asking for a native equivalent. But a visit is almost deceptive; one has to study the plans and sections in order to understand what is going on and what moves have been made to realise a design making the most of a constrained budget. Certainly, no other London educational facility comes anywhere near the quality of this building.
Why? I believe that Fawood marries intelligence with considerateness and artfulness — qualities that are surprisingly rare in architecture. It’s on-target and — incidentally — a complement to the Swaninarayan Mandir temple just down the road and Wembley Stadium on the other side of the North Circular. No other nursery in London comes near it. few other buildings mix such intelligent considerateness and outrageous playfulness.
Why? The very notion of an ‘idea store’ is nauseating and this place is still far from what one expects of a good metropolitan library, but Adjaye here demonstrates some of the promise that media hype has already attributed to him. It’s cheap ‘n’ cheerful and the client has screwed up some principal intentions; however, the Idea Store — like Alsop’s Peckham Library before it — delivers an architecture of substance.
• Institute of Cell & Molecular Science
Why? One wonders if plans for the exterior will ever come to meaningful fruition and, on the inside, the ‘pods’ simply don’t work as well as they should and nor are they well detailed. However, this is a great place for the post-graduates who use the place and will be (when they complete it) terrific for visiting children. In having such ambitions, the brief is unexpected, generous and (again) intelligent. And the design takes it head on.
Why? It’s simple. It’s unpretentious. It’s refreshing and poses as if site constraints and a ludicrous adjacency didn’t exist. London needs much more like this.
Why? (Possibly in spite of themselves) Allies & Morrison have here pulled off an artful mix that has the new dancing around in between the old bits, enlivening them, changing them, releasing potential: it’s fine gamesmanship again. If they gave up doing worthy office buildings we might get more of this quality of work from them.
Why? BDP’s efforts on this tight corner site hardly constitute a poetic wonder, but this is damned powerful stuff that delivers an architecture whose benefits are literally and metaphorically multi-layered. The kids, teachers and parents clearly love it.
• The Wood Street assemble, in the City
Why? Because there is no equivalent in London of such a mix of new buildings in an aged part of the metropolis by — I admit — equally aged, establishment architects. Terrific fun to read, juxtapose and deconstruct.
Why? Niall McLaughlin and Ash Sackular at odds with one another against a background of dreary residential orthodoxy is a rare mix illustrating aspects of the mixed architectural values enjoyed in London.
• The Great Court, British Museum
Why? Despite implausible aspirations regarding routes across town, the Great Court — like the work Spencer de Grey also realised at the Royal Academy — is a marvellous architectural work almost justifying that horrible term ‘intervention’: truly a worthy architecture and beneficial collaboration with possibly the UK’s best engineers, Buro Happold.
Right: Cumberland Terrace, on the Outer Ring Road of Regent’s Park.
Plan of the Princess Diana Memorial in Hyde Park,
|
Stanmore The following sections divide the areas outside the West End and the City of London into an Inner Ring and an Outer Ring. The former covers 80% of London’s better architecture. The latter area is accessible by train, but visitors might find a car more useful (check each building entry). |
|
The northern Ring Road is well defined; on the southern side it is a somewhat more optimistic name given to a series of linked roads. |
|
Hendon’ |
|
& Hlghgote |
|
Wembley |
|
Tufriell РОГК |
|
Vital 4iawpsteod |
|
Tjchley fts |
|
5H3nchrlrlgi? |
|
Kilburn |
|
KJlbum Pnrt-ft |
|
МпкКї- Wki© |
|
Lodh’ciQff |
|
Stilling |
|
GoldhnwkSd |
|
Xfjnhlnllds |
|
Htimrm |
|
Qiphs-T |
|
Soulfilidd |
|
‘iSQlhom |
|
Richmond Park |
|
Chigwell ■ >g. vi |
|
fiMf, ngVoll4 |
|
Hdnoulf |
|
Redbridge |
|
Buitjigsido |
|
DbcUicr1 |
|
a via ‘inm ^ForcsJ у |
|
.frtantv l-icKJsa- |
|
Carnry WhaH |
|
Cbnotfc Water j |
|
Jtermondsgy |
|
Chariton |
|
Stot well |
|
Bextey |
|
Dulwich |
|
Greenwich |