Architecture Stage 3 Newcastle University - Dissertation

A TA L E O F TA L L

D I S S E RTAT I O N

D I S S E RTAT I O N

CITIES

REUBEN

JONES

1

2

A Tale of Tall Cites An analysis of the conflicting roles the iconic skyscraper has played in the London Housing Crisis and in the formation of the city’s identity following the 2008 financial crisis

Reuben Jones

1600632445

3

Many thanks to Dr Samuel Austin and Caroline Jones for all their guidance and help.

4

Introduction Chapter 2 Chapter 4 Conclusion

11

Preface

29

19

43 Endnotes

7

48

8 Who’s Who?

46 15

23

37

52

Fact File Bibliography & Figures

Chapter 1 Chapter 3 Chapter 5

5

London skyline, 2019, from Waterloo Bridge

6

As

a ‘Tale of Tall Cities’ this dissertation will explore the skyscraper’s role in the conflicting relationship between the glossy portrayal of London as a modern and prosperous global centre, and the harsher reality many of its citizens face as a consequence of the London housing crisis; specifically looking at the period since the 2008 financial crisis. Analysing how the skyscraper’s shape and name help to create a sense of familiarity with the building that leads us to actively iconise them and assimilate them into our collective identities as symbols of success and power. It will also unpick this perception and highlight the reality of the skyscraper as an economic machine and a dangerous symptom of the financial and housing crisis, looking at the effects this is having on many of the city’s poorer citizens. The conclusion poses that the role the skyscraper has played in shaping the physical and economic, political and social landscape of the city since the 2008 financial crisis has been profound and varied. But that such a collective deception about the realities of these influences , whilst understandable, may continue to have detrimental effects on many of the city’s ordinary citizens.

7

WHO’s

SCALPEL T H E

T H E

CHEESE-GRATER SPRAY

CAN

CAN 8

THE

of

HAM

WHO?

V

T

H

E

AS

E

GHERKIN

E

TH

SHAR

T H E

D WALKIE

TALKIE 9

10

Introduction The 2008 financial crisis saw the worst period of financial instability in the UK since the 1929 Wall Street Crash.1 It was succeeded by a nationwide housing crisis that worsened as demand for homes outstripped supply. Despite this, the 11 years since the financial crisis have seen an explosion in the number of skyscrapers constructed in London, reaching numbers and heights unprecedented in the capital’s history. Since 2008, 61 buildings over a height of 150 metres have been constructed in the capital. In 2019 alone, 76 of over 20 storeys were due to be completed, 24 of those being over 150 metres high.2 The sudden increase in the number of tall buildings has been met with varying receptions. Some groups, such as Historic Royal Palaces and English Heritage, fear that these buildings will cause the destruction of the city’s historic buildings and protected views. But others see the increase in high-rise construction as a tangible sign and deliberate demonstration of the capital’s economic vitality, despite the events of 2008. In many cases, the skyscrapers of London have been adopted as symbols of the modern city, used to help to cultivate this image and make its skyline recognisable around the globe. This has led to the creation of ever more iconic3 building forms as towers compete to become symbols of the modern city and win over planners and the public.

The rise of tall building construction is also symptomatic of far more important trends in the economic, social and political fabric of the city. The ever-rising heights of the towers is representative of increasing economic division. This divide is symbolic of a process which sees foreign investors attracted to London by its stable property market and reputation as a global financial centre. These investors are displacing local residents and pricing them out of the inner-city regions. The skyscrapers themselves, whilst often accompanied by rhetoric ex11

London skyline, 2009

London skyline, 2019

12

tolling the new amenities and benefits for the city, remain almost exclusively for the wealthy. Their construction is funded by wealthy elites who then sell their office space or luxury apartments to people of similar income and status, with the result that tracts of the city are being sterilised of any economic diversity and being given over to often absent tenants.4 Some skyscrapers offer viewing galleries or restaurants and spaces for recreation, but these are often token gestures. Most public areas in skyscrapers are designed to satisfy planning officers and are not truly for the benefit of the public. You can visit the Walkie-Talkie if you book a slot to access its sky garden in advance; you can take afternoon tea in one of The Shard’s restaurants, if you have £50 to spend on the occasion.5 Or perhaps you could invest in a studio apartment in the newly created Embassy Gardens in Nine Elms, but only if you can afford £635,000.6 This dissertation begins with an examination of the context surrounding the housing crisis and the role the skyscraper plays within it. Examining who funds, builds and lives in these megastructures and how they fit into wider debates around affordable housing and increasing foreign investment in the capital. And specifically looking at who this investment actually benefits by drawing on the work of Anna Minton and Danny Dorling, who investigate the effects of the housing crisis in relation to the 2008 financial crisis.

I will then investigate the forms and names of iconic skyscrapers; analysing the importance of these in selling the building, but more significantly how these help to assimilate the buildings into our collective and individual identities. Analysing the work of architectural theorists such as Neil Leach and Rem Koolhaas and philosophical theorists like Roland Barthes, I will discuss how the symbolism of the skyscraper has become a medium through which a collective anxiety about London’s position and prominence in the world is expressed. And, through an investigation of psychoanalytics, how this anxiety translates to the people of London, ultimately leading to a significant collective deception about what the purpose of the skyscraper is, and what good it serves in the city following the financial crisis. I will conclude with an examination of why this deception continues to occur and the possible effects this may have on the city and its population.

13

The skyscraper has always been divisive, whilst they are often lauded as great symbols of cities, there are still may who dislike everything about them.

14

Chapter 1

The London Housing Crisis It is no great secret that in the past 20 years, housing prices in the capital have soared far beyond the national average. According to the UK House Price Index, the average house price in the UK is £234,370. In London, however, the average price is £474,601.7 The city’s property market has seen an enormous boom at a time when housing markets around the country have been far from stable. Between 2007 and 2017, house prices in ‘Prime’ London rose between 34.4% and 44.0%,8 an extraordinary amount of growth for a city supposedly feeling the aftershocks of a financial crisis. Why the city is seen to have prospered to such a degree is largely to do with who controls and spends money in the capital.

The majority of London’s wealth and financial power rests in the hands of its very wealthiest citizens. These are defined by a series of different parameters, but they play an intrinsic role in the London Housing Crisis and the creation of skyscrapers in the city. Individuals with the wealth and power to affect such change are often called ‘High Net Worth Individuals’ (HNWIs). These are people with over $1 million of excess wealth, not including their primary residence. There are roughly 12 million globally, with 465,000 resident in the UK.9 However, to reduce this group to simply their income would underplay their significance in shaping London. In his works The Transnational Capital Class and Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalisation, Leslie Sklair defines the Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC) along similar but more in depth parameters. The TCC is a group of individuals that operates businesses on a transnational scale, often having multiple residences in different cities and traveling frequently. They do not conform to involvement in any specific business, but Sklair defines them as fitting into four broad, often overlapping, groups that relate to the production of iconic architecture: own15

London’s Skyscraper Clusters and Prime Property Areas Camden contains only 3% of the tallest skyscrapers, amongst these the BT Tower.

South Bank houses 7% of the cities towers, including the newly completed Vase Tower.

Roughly 30% of the London’s tallest buildings are found in the city, mostly office space, including the Gherkin and the Cheese-grater The City

Camden

North East London houses 6% of the city’s tall towers, including Woodberry Down scheme.

North East Isle of Dogs

Southbank Nine Elms

Roughly 4% of the cities tallest buildings found here, the regeneration of Battersea Power station and Embassy gardens being focal points

16

Southwark Roughly 3% of the cities tallest buildings found here, including the Shard, London’s tallest buildings

Roughly 47% of the city’s tallest buildings found here. All centred around the Canary Wharf financial district and One Canada Square

ers and major players in transnational businesses and corporations, globalising politicians or government officials, those involved in education or architectural construction at an international level, and those of significance in the media.10 To operate at this international level, the TCC must have the income of an HNWI, because an income of this size is essential to maintaining multiple homes and sustaining the travel required. The vast spending power of these individuals results in the ability to fund the creation of new architecture in globalised cities like London, as well as affecting existing property markets. The estate agent Savills reported that in 2014, 40% of all London property on the market was bought by international buyers, compared with 26% in 2007 (and 24% in 2008),11 demonstrating the huge percentage of international buyers investing in the capital since the crisis of 2008. Figures published by The Observer stated that 85% of all new builds in London were bought by overseas buyers in 201312. In 2017, 44,00213 properties in central London were owned by international buyers. The effect of such individuals is exacerbated by London having more ‘Ultra High Net Worth Individuals’ (those with liquid assets exceeding $30 million) than any other city in the world, reaching 4,224 in 2014.14 Whilst this group of super wealthy individuals was present and active in London prior to the 2008 financial crisis, it is after this event that their presence has become more important. Since the global financial crisis of 2008, this stable market has been the optimum place for foreign billionaires to invest. Property is more reliable than other forms of investment, such as the stock market, and the UK’s relatively low tax rates make it an ideal place to store money, or have a second home. The houses of ‘Super Prime’ Kensington and Hampstead have been described as “stucco-fronted bank vaults,”15 often uninhabited for years but retaining their value for their absent owners, or being let out at rates as far above the national average as the price of sale.16 It is even suggested that the London property market has become the prime destination for laundering money from illicit means abroad.17 The presence of super wealthy international elites has had profound effects on the city; the buying up of large quantities of property as investment rather than for living in, has left large portions of the city eerily void of people. The influx of foreign investors into previously white upper-class areas in West and North London has seen even the wealthy priced out of the market by those with more spending power.18 To drive or walk around some of these areas at night, one 17

can’t help but be struck by the stark lack of lights on in houses or the absence of people on the streets.

However, it is those citizens of London who earn an average or below-average wage who have felt the effect of international capital in the city most keenly. The huge demand for centrally located London property has left normal inner-city residents totally unable to compete. Dorling outlines the issue succinctly: “Growing wealth inequality [caused by an influx of super wealthy business elites] leads to an increasingly less efficient use of our housing stock, and rapidly increases housing prices as a result, because less efficient use reduces supply.”19 As a result, prices are soaring to all-time highs. It is not just issues surrounding existing housing that are making life for local people increasingly untenable, it’s the creation of new, high-rise, high-density homes in these same areas. As housing becomes an ever more highly prized commodity in London, so does the available land in the centre of the city. The resulting conflict between rising land values, developers and investors, cash-strapped councils and powerless residents will be explored in the following chapter.

18

Chapter 2

The Effects of the London Housing Crisis Crucial to contextualising the skyscraper in London, is examining how the financial crisis and the subsequent housing crisis have affected local residents, particularly in poorer inner-city areas. The massive surge in foreign interest in London housing has seen the price of land rise accordingly. The largest owners of land in London prior to the turn of the twenty-first century were often local councils.20 Following World War II the quantity of inner-city land tied up in council-owned property was extensive, with Southwark council owning 43% of the land it administers.21 To many, this land represents an untapped resource; social housing of the post-war era was often low-density, and is seen as a poor use of space when land costs are at such a premium. Lord Adonis, a politician for the Labour party stated that: “The scale of council-owned land is vast and greatly under-appreciated … there are particularly large concentrations of council-owned land in central London and this is some of the highest priced land in the world.”22 Consequently, under pressure from the government, local councils have started selling off this land to developers. This phenomenon is documented extensively; Anna Minton’s book Big Capital in particular discusses the implications of this through a series of examples. To best explain the conflict around this process and its implications I will look at Woodberry Down in Hackney as an example consistent with city-wide trends.

A former housing estate in Northwest London, Woodberry Down was built shortly after World War II. One of the largest social housing schemes of its day, it had fallen into considerable disrepair by 1989 after continued neglect by the council. The scheme of regeneration is headed by The Berkeley Group, a large 19

The Skyline Tower of Woodberry down, marketed as exclusive housing, “An Iconic focal point”, for “life at the highest level”.33

Woodberry Down Development, the old estate crumbles as the new high-rises grow taller

20

UK-based property developer. The new scheme intends to destroy the 1,981 residences and create 5,561 new homes in a development that will take 20 years to complete.23 Several contentious issues surround the development of the site. Firstly, such schemes often involve the destruction of old buildings in favour of building new homes from scratch, which requires the displacement of many existing residents. In addition, the 1,555 social rented homes in the existing estate have been reduced to 1,088 in the new.24 This process has become a consistent trope in the redevelopment of inner-city estates. Minton notes that a similar process is happening in Southwark, with the development of the Heygate and Aylesbury estates. Crucially, many of these displaced people are not rehoused in London, due to its high prices and long waiting lists for social housing. This process rips up the residents’ social networks and isolates people from their communities, often with detrimental effects to both physical and mental health.25 Whilst redevelopments like Woodberry Down pledge to aid socially rented tenants, in reality the figures given in reports are just statistics about number of homes created, with little regard to how communities are affected by being uprooted. This process is even worse for home owners under the Right to Buy scheme. Despite ownership, many are being moved out and are forced to accept Compulsory Purchase Orders on their homes; some forced to accept prices that were £300,000 less than an equivalent home in the area.26 An investigation carried out by The Independent newspaper, found that between July 2011 and July 2014, a staggering 49,789 families were displaced from London to other parts of the country, some being sent as far away as Manchester.27 Woodberry Down received praise from the local council for including high levels of affordable housing, stating 40% of the houses in the new scheme would be affordable homes.28 This appears to be a positive for those on lower incomes, but the reality of what ‘affordable’ means is very different. An amendment in 2016 to the Planning Act puts the price of a starter home at around £450,000, still far above the national average.29 This, coupled with the reduced numbers of socially rented homes, demonstrates that despite marketing rhetoric, inner-city developments of former social housing estates simply aren’t designed for local residents, instead they aim to attract HNWIs who are considered to be more desirable tenants.30

21

What is most shocking about this scheme, however, is its physical segregation of those in different income brackets. The part of the design most widely advertised is the building of a series of towers. This, a current resident note, will not be social or affordable housing; the most desirable homes will be sold privately to the wealthy. Using a very Ballard-esque statement, the rich will tower over the poor; the social tenants will even have to access the site via a different entrance. Similar to other examples of redevelopment, 55% of the homes sold in the first phase went to overseas buyers.31 The blame for such redevelopment schemes has been heaped on local councils, with many residents seeing these regeneration projects as a form of social cleansing.32 Minton, particularly, sees the councils as directly responsible for the damaging effects urban regeneration is having, and whilst many councils should be accountable, these policies are also responses to nationwide austerity schemes put into effect after the 2008 financial crisis. Measures introduced by the Government saw considerable budget cuts to councils already struggling to maintain the vast system of social housing. Austerity forced many boroughs to enter into partnerships with private developers whereby regeneration of estates was to be achieved in exchange for reduced land prices and other incentives. This suggests that whilst councils are indeed culpable, they are responding to wider governmental failures to deal effectively with the 2008 crisis.

This serves to contextualise the problems that surround the London property market, the forces and their consequences that enable the construction of highrise architecture. The second part of this dissertation will therefore examine this architecture in more detail, analysing how the crisis has developed the skyscraper in London and its effects on the city and its population.

22

Chapter 3

The Rise of the Iconic Object The skyscraper is an immensely seductive architectural ideal; images of them have become synonymous with economic prosperity and modernity. In cinema and other forms of media, the skyscraper is the widely accepted language of dynamic and successful urban living. Images of a city’s skyline are endlessly reprinted and replicated for cheap wall art or for items sold to tourists. Regardless of whether we think skyscrapers belong in our cities, there remains something enticing about looking out over a city from a high window and peering down at “the human ants below.”34 The reasons for this are complex and varied. Why we are seduced by tall buildings is explored by Stephen Graham in his book Vertical.

He covers aspects of their appeal, from the innate human inclination to see everything associated with height strength, to the skyscraper as a representation of capitalist social mobility, that anyone could ascend the corporate ladder and reach the top of the social tower.35 The feeling of success attributed to these buildings is certainly backed up by economics. Only wealthy businesses are able to have their offices in a skyscraper and, as demonstrated by Woodberry Down, only the very wealthiest citizens can afford to live in them.

But in London in particular this was not always the case, 50 years ago visibility on London’s skyline was mostly held by churches and social housing blocks, namely the dome of St Pauls Cathedral. This idea, that the skyscraper should be a luxury only for the rich, is a fairly new one, at least in London. The city as a whole has generally been uncomfortable with the idea of skyscrapers; even today, the building of tall structures is hotly contested by historical preservation groups.36 Despite the Canary Wharf development in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher’s government, the excitement about the skyscraper in London can mostly be attributed to The Gherkin, which was acclaimed by critics like Deyan Sudjic and 23

London’s varied skyline make it perfect for the tourist industry, you can buy it on anything from fridge magnets to t-shirts.

London in the 23rd century from 2013 film Star Trek: Into Darkness. Even in the fictional futuristic semi-utopian world of cinema, London’s imaginary skyline is used as an establishing shot. Some of its skyscrapers wouldn’t look out of place in the contemporary city.

24

the artist Antony Gormley. This was the first building that broke the mould of “boring”37 architecture on London’s skyline. The buzz around it focused primarily on the building’s bold form, and the more ecological approaches to heating and ventilation it employed.38 In reality, however, what made this building popular was its uniqueness; it wasn’t London’s only skyscraper, but its controversial conspicuousness made it instantly recognizable. Gormley noted that its visibility was heightened by its isolation, the qualities of its form and distinction from the surrounding architecture made it appear like a piece of monumental urban sculpture.39.

In reality, The Gherkin was just a very large office building. Sudjic does not provide adequate evidence to suggest that The Gherkin is very different from other skyscrapers, beyond its superficial qualities (as he states earlier in his work):40 “We are supposed to get excited by Skyscrapers, mainly because they are very tall. This is an attribute that is supposed to encourage us to overlook the fact that almost everything else about them, despite the residual trace of glamour in the basic idea, is uninteresting.”41 This seems to indicate that, despite its attempts at appearing revolutionary and pioneering, The Gherkin nominally followed in the same vain as other skyscrapers. For all its innovation, it remains an office block commissioned by a large insurance firm to house their London headquarters. The firm in question, Swiss Re sold the tower three years later, earning them £200 million profit.42For all the rhetoric and its iconicity The Gherkin was, like any skyscraper in London, an instrument of capitalism, a way of squeezing as much money as possible out of a small site, a “machine to make the land pay”43 as architect of the Woolworth Building Cass Gilbert famously described the mammoth structures.

But, unlike pre-existing towers in the city and despite its adolescence, the tower was widely accepted into the city’s roster of iconic buildings. This is doubtless due to its striking shape but also, I believe, because it was adopted by the city as ‘The Gherkin’ and not its official name the Swiss Re Building. Most people know neither the street name of The Gherkin nor the company that built it, and this is intrinsic to its success. Whereas One Canada Square was named for its Canadian investors Olympia and York, the Gherkin was an object, not the headquarters of a financial institution. Its memorable shape and nickname dissociate it from the methods of its creation and that allows a city uncomfortable with the concept of the skyscraper and what they represent to forget why it was really built. Rather, it 25

A Sectional drawings of the Woolworth Building and the Gherkin, despite obvious shape differences, both rely on a repetitive plan stacked vertically, only the gherkins serrated form twists as it rises.

The bulge in the Gherkin’s shape maximises this office space still further, by allow for a larger floor area than is available at ground level.

26

is seen entirely as a friendly object, a piece of monumental urban sculpture. The structure is, however, similar enough to that of conventional skyscrapers to still invoke the feelings associated with the skyscraper as a typology, a typology widely associated with success.44 What The Gherkin succeeded in doing was setting a precedent for the city; it embedded the idea that objectifying architecture, creating a narrative for a skyscraper, was crucial to a project’s success. This narrative involved portraying structure as not just a large building, but an iconic symbol. This establishment of iconicity was aided by an easily recognisable shape and a simple corresponding nickname.

Kaika suggests that developers nicknaming their buildings before they are even built is a crucial marketing ploy to help sell skyscrapers;45 that giving a building an identity would help forge it into the collective identity of the city. What The Gherkin did was suggest to others that London’s unease with the skyscraper could be overcome if it was sold as an iconic object, symbolic of the city’s success, not an office building.

Following the 2008 financial crisis, most tall buildings created follow this example, they don’t reference the names of the owners, instread benign, easily recognisable objects: The Walkie Talkie, The Scalpel, The Shard. After all, it’s much easier to like a scalpel than the headquarters of a wealthy, international insurance firm. Particularly after the 2008 financial crisis, which saw the role of the financial sector and the greed associated with it come under heavy public scrutiny. It therefore became essential that the public at large like, or be seduced by, these buildings, because without the seductive element, the reality of what they represent as instruments of wealth extraction and “territorial multiplication”46 is laid bare.

27

28

Chapter 4

The Skyscraper and the Formation of Identity Having analysed the context of the skyscraper’s creation, and the reasons for this, it is now necessary to discuss what effect this has on the city’s identity as well as its social and economic make up. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate that not only does the skyscraper have a detrimental effect on the city for many of its residents, but that our misconceptions about its form and what it represents are adversely affecting how we perceive ourselves — and that this false perception further exacerbates the effects of their production.

Discussions of the formation of identity have often been interlinked with the built environment. Two branches of thought converge in the work of Neil Leach that I feel best explain the formation of identity with regard to the skyscraper and the built environment. In 9/11 Leach discusses the work of French psychoanalyst and psychiatrist Jacques Lacan and his theories on the formation of identity as a speculative process. This theory requires a person to identify or misidentify aspects of their own personality and identity in that of another person or object.

Through this process we define what we believe we are, but also what we are not.47 The second theory relates to the work of French film theorist Christian Metz. He supposes that the identity is formed via a process of projection and introjection. In an architectural sense, this means that an observer may view a building or aspect of their environment and interpret certain values from it that help them to form their own identity. Simultaneously though, they project their own character and beliefs onto the structure. We see a building and we project onto it, we observe it, and thus we introject. Both these processes revolve around a degree of mirroring: that we essentially see in our environment aspects of our pre-existing character or beliefs; that our environment serves to build, but also reinforce aspects of our identities. Leach notes that character is likely to be formed by a process of both of these; that whilst this is essentially a narcissistic way of establishing identity, mirroring ourselves via our environment is at the core of how we define ourselves.48

29

In this sense, architecture and our built environment is essential to the formation of not just our personal identities, but also national identities. Leach explains that identity and national identity is not real or physical, it relies on a belief in a shared historical and social experience. Architecture acts as a way of making the intangible tangible. It is the physical manifestation of our beliefs, but also serves to further establish or reconfirm those beliefs.49 If this is indeed the case, this poses the question of whether the meaning associated with the skyscraper is real, or simply perceived; whether the meaning embedded in or attached to architecture can form our identity, or if it simply confirms things we already believe to be true. Leach and Jameson tend to agree about aspects of this theory: that, inherently, space and architecture cannot be political because a building’s ability to be seen as confirming or subverting any particular political belief is entirely dependent upon the person viewing it. Architecture can be loaded with political symbolism and ideals, but there is no guarantee that everyone will see the building as it was intended,50for if we project onto the building our own identity and this does not align with the intended meaning, this can counter or totally overrule the message. We see what we want; we cannot be forced.

The consequence for London and its skyscrapers with regard to both these points is significant. Firstly, it is apparent that whilst the skyscraper is a product of the collective identity of London following the 2008 financial crisis, it is also affecting the way that society continues to form its identity. Whilst the current political and social climate has helped to popularise the skyscraper in London, so too does the skyscraper affect the collective and individual identities of London and its citizens.

Secondly, that if architecture cannot directly convey specific political meaning, then the way we interpret skyscrapers is entirely of our own making. We perceive the skyscraper as a demonstration of collective wealth and success not because the architecture induces or deceives us into feeling this way, but because we choose to perceive it as such.

With regard to the first point, it is necessary to state that the adoption of the skyscraper as a form of architecture in London was a conscious decision, made through a series of developments in the city’s approach to tall buildings. Namely, the 2002 Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the role of the Mayor of London.

The UDP was a change in the City of London’s planning legislation that gave it more control over planning processes within its jurisdiction. Further to this, it outlined that planning strategy (following its implementation) was to favour the construction of high-rise buildings and skyscrapers. This was in response to fears that if it did not modernise and adapt to global trends in building and 30

office centralisation, The City would be eclipsed as the country’s leading financial centre by the newly developed Canary Wharf. Or worse still, as a global financial centre by Paris, Frankfurt, New York and other international competitors. This development led to the granting of planning permission for buildings such as The Gherkin, but also others like The Walkie Talkie that would not be built until after the 2008 financial crisis.51 Also key to the initial popularisation of the skyscraper is the creation of the office of London Mayor in 2000 and Ken Livingston’s role in the position, which closely ties into themes outlined under the UDP. Significantly, the position of Mayor allowed the incumbent great personal control over London’s planning authorities, which extended to literal power (i.e., the power to veto any planning application within London if there was sufficient cause to do so). It also led to the Mayor having great involvement and authority in the planning process, such as meeting privately with developers.

This aligned with Livingston’s existing pro skyscraper policy — mostly the result of significant pressure to supply London with new iconic architecture believed necessary to help it compete globally as a centre for global culture and tourism; this is generally termed the ‘Bilbao Effect’.52 The result is a deliberate drive to create skyscrapers in London, to ensure its dominance as a financial centre and easily recognisable tourist hot-spot.

This phase could, in line with Metz’s writing, be termed the ‘projection’ stage.

London and the UK, from 2000 to 2008, deliberately intensified the number of skyscrapers being produced in central London to demonstrate its position as an important global city, and in the belief that doing so would secure that position.

At this time, these fears and beliefs about the city’s and the country’s position were made physical in the form of the skyscraper. After the financial crisis, a phase of collective introjection occurred. By this I mean that the skyscraper had already been established in the city as a symbol of success or cultural and economic virility. Thus, when global financial crisis ensued, the systems of power in the city reverted back to the already accepted methods of communicating stability, the skyscraper. Similarly, with regard to collective identity, The Gherkin had already become a city-wide icon, indicative of the confidence and success that came to the city between the millennium and 2008. Thus, after the crisis, this building and others like it served to reflect back onto the city this confidence — an image of how it wanted to be perceived, but also how it wanted to perceive itself. Consequently, rather than reducing skyscraper production, the crisis heightened it, because through the skyscraper the collective identity of the city found a perfect mirror of itself. Only this mirror showed the city’s collective identity prior to the financial crisis, in a period of relative stability and prosperity.

A preferable image to identify with than that of a country wracked by austerity measures and political uncertainty.

31

This then feeds into my second point about identity, that if architecture cannot itself explicitly convey political meaning, the associations made between architecture and success are conceived and made real by us, not the architecture, planners or developers. This, similar to the thinking of Lacan, relies on the fact that we create our identities from a relationship with the skyscraper that is fundamentally false or misunderstood. Namely, it reflects the city’s collective success and, by extension, our own. We see in the skyscraper our own collective prosperity reflected back. This is, at its most basic, misrecognition. As detailed in preceding chapters, the wealth of the skyscraper is not general, it’s highly specific to those involved in their production and inhabitation. At a broader level, however, I believe this relationship we have with skyscrapers is fundamentally detrimental to society. Chiefly because it encourages us to ignore the evidence provided by our own reality, that the skyscraper is symbolic of increasing wealth disparity between the majority and a few wealthy individuals, and instead subscribe to the dream they are designed to seduce us into believing — that the individual wealth they demonstrate is a manifestation of our collective success.

This is not to say that the skyscraper explicitly points us towards a political or social message. As suggested by Jameson, it physically cannot do this. Instead, it relies upon the associations we have built up around its form and typology to lead us to incorrectly identify with the building and its wealth. Thus, the buildings themselves are not political and contain no direct political message. Instead, society has built up associations around the skyscraper; associations to prosperity and a pre-2008 financial success that we attach to the form of the building. We elect to the see the skyscraper as a symbol, political or otherwise, because it acts as an antidote to our individual and collective insecurity.

Finally, with regards to identity, it is necessary to return the physical form and marketing of the skyscraper, allowing us to better understand how the buildings form and identity help us shape and create our own identities in relation to them.

The nature of iconic architecture is such that it is somehow representative of the city as a whole. Often, as with buildings such as St Pauls Cathedral, this iconicity, this status as somehow representative of the entire population, functions because of a perceived architectural significance. And, more importantly, because it calls to light a reminder of a shared collective history. What happens when an intended icon has no real history to speak of ? This is the case for modern skyscraper architecture, who’s history in London spans less than half a century. Here, I believe, the recognisable form and simple (even mundane) nicknames act as a replacement for a building’s lack of history. They encourage familiarity, which in turn acts as a kind of ersatz form of history.

32

This familiarity is crucial, because we are less likely to identify with something we do not know or understand. Leach states the importance of familiarity as:.

“In moments of identification we effectively see ourselves in objects with which we have become familiar.”53 In an historical building, this familiarity is expected, even when we have little direct contact with it. This is perhaps best evidenced by the outpouring of sorrow by Parisians over the 2019 fire at Notre Dame de Paris. Footage from people’s smartphones recorded locals crying openly in the street as they watched the blaze, despite the fact that as few as one in twenty French people actually attend mass on a regular basis.54 Iconic historical buildings form part of our collective identity, they make our intangible shared histories tangible.55 In modern nation states, this idea of orientating ourselves via a shared collective history, and via historic buildings that demonstrate and embody that history, is a key way of identifying with our wider nations and finding our place within that. This association makes us familiar with these historical architectural icons, even if we don’t have a great deal of physical interaction with them.56 If a modern piece of architecture is unable to tap into this shared collective history in order to become truly iconic, it must find other ways of becoming familiar. The need for familiarity is what drives the ‘wannabe’ iconic building to follow the example of The Gherkin.

The Gherkin generated this ersatz form of familiarity, despite being a relatively new form in London. The shape is instantly recognisable and very memorable.

This memorable quality was heightened by the press attention it attracted.

Both positive and negative, all publicity helped to cement the silhouette of the building, its form, shape and location, into people’s minds.57 Its very unique identity became, over a short period of time, inseparable from that of London; one image becoming synonymous with the other. These factors worked together to make the form of The Gherkin very familiar very fast. Whether people loved or loathed the structure, they knew what it was. This effect was heightened still further by its nickname, The Gherkin, which I believe solidified its position as not just memorable but familiar. The relationship drawn between a huge, potentially threatening glass building and small pickled vegetable you might find in anyone’s home, served to take away some of its initial shock value and downgrade it to a friendly, familiar household item. Norman Foster considers the nickname for his creation “dismissive,”58 but it is precisely because of the way we are easily able

33

The power of the Gherkin and the skyscraper rests in these two examples, its a simultaneously the playful butt of a joke, and an iconic and popular easily instagrammable form of modern architecture.

34

to dismiss such a monumental building that it has been so readily assimilated into our collective identities and that of the city. This idea, that buildings could be “new and threatening, but in familiar ways,”59 became the goal for every new building since. In this way, the architecture of modern iconic buildings in London is not trying to be political, in fact entirely the opposite — it aims to be new and different, but with an underlying familiarity. This familiarity compensates for its comparative newness and a form that is, or perhaps was, unfamiliar to London. The goal of this assimilation is that despite the skyscraper’s roots as an economic machine, and its links to the unequal division of wealth in the city, it is cherished by citizens as truly representative of London’s people and ideals as opposed to being despised. This love of the iconic skyscraper has been generated by ourselves, because we want to believe the dream the skyscraper represents.

35

36

Chapter 5

A Crisis of Perception The skyscraper is both a product of economic and political factors that are shaping the city, and its response to questions surrounding its identity in relation to crisis. This duality is best demonstrated in the circumstances surrounding the construction and use of The Shard.

Irvine Sellar, chairman of the Sellar property group and lead developer of The Shard met with Renzo Piano, in the year 2000, where Piano agreed to become the projects architect. There were significant problems funding this massive project when, during the financial crisis of 2008, the investor withdrew.60 Financial backing was quickly picked up again, however, by an investment fund of the Qatari state working via LBQ Ltd. They would end up investing 80% of the money required for the project.61 The significance of this is that the project was conceived eight years before the financial crisis, but wasn’t begun until after it, and that despite costing £1.2 billion it was still able to go ahead after a devastating global recession that crippled many economies. 62 This relationship between architecture and its ability to withstand financial crisis shares similarities with another significant skyscraper and the process around its construction, the Rockefeller Center, constructed in 1930s New York. Both were intended to be multipurpose buildings: cities within a city equipped with everything from office space to large spaces for civic benefit — a series of music halls and theatres in the Rockefeller Center, and the redesigned London Bridge station at the base of the Shard. However, what is most remarkable about both of these projects is their relationship to financial crashes. Where The Shard came into being in spite of the 2008 financial crisis, the Rockefellar Center was built despite the catastrophic Wall Street Crash of 1929. Rem Koolhaas, in his book Delirious New York, theorises that it was the very nature of the Wall Street Crash that forged the ideas of the Center into physical form. That, from a pragmatic and practical perspective, the crash made the logic of the Center

37

totally ridiculous. The spaces it proposed simply weren’t required.63 The main tenant of the lower sections, the Metropolitan Opera, pulled out of the project in 1929. The vast quantity of office space contained within the central ‘slab’ had little hope of being filled at a time when businesses were making staff redundant and downsizing in attempts to cope with the crash. Koolhaas states that with the project liberated from any constraints imposed upon it by reality, it became entirely focused around the ideals of its architects and investor. In a period of deep financial decline, the Rockefeller Center would stand as a beacon of New York’s architecture and ideals, a monument to the city’s resilience.64 I believe this is also true of the Shard. Where the Rockefeller Center acted as the final evolution of Hood and Corbett’s long-established dreams for their city’s architecture, the Shard represents the epitome of London’s iconic obsession.

The Shard’s form is impractical, its towering, tapering pinnacle results in the top 20 floors being useless for anything other than a viewing platform and storing communications equipment. Its shape is not a product of planning restraints like Cheese-grater, but purely for aesthetic purposes. This huge quantity of vanity space is perhaps the tipping point where the requirements for an iconic, easily recognisable shape outweigh the economic requirements the skyscraper was designed to maximise. This essential liberation meant that the Shard, like the Rockefeller Center, was constructed with little thought for who would actually inhabit its 65 lettable floors. Thus, four years after its construction, the building still wasn’t fully inhabited, resulting in this vast building being noticeably dark at night.65A feature that bears striking resemblance to the emptiness of some of London’s wealthy neighbourhoods.

Where The Shard and the Rockefeller Center differ is in their legacy. The Rockefeller Center became the icon of its age, as its legion of architects intended. Its style and principles were the culmination of New York’s evolution, it epitomised the era and city that built it.66 Despite this, the Center stands as the last significant building to be constructed in Manhattan’s pre-war skyscraper boom. The reality of this era of skyscrapers is that they were funded and built by corporations either specific to the city of New York or to the USA. Although the crash was weathered by big businesses much better than average Americans, the ability to fund these huge projects disappeared until after the World War II, when prosperity returned. The same is not true of London and the Shard; the Qataris who funded the project fall precisely into the category of Transnational Capitalist Elite. Their wealth is not specific to the UK or London. Qatar is the world’s largest exporter of liquified natural gas, and this industry recovered far quicker than most after the 2008 financial crisis.67 Their involvement in London was not out of place-specific loyalty, like that of the Rockefeller’s, but because London’s 38

property market represented a stable investment. This stability was confirmed when, after the Global financial crisis, the city’s housing markets stayed relatively stable. The Shard did not need to fill its floor space with tenants to be financially viable, it simply had to retain its value like a giant safety deposit box.

“He [Irvine Sellar] fought hard to get The Shard built and convinced the Qataris to back it financially. For them it is a long-term investment – they are not interested in quick returns.”68 Renzo Piano Whereas the Rockefeller Center, and New York’s skyscraper construction industry was dependent upon US or New York businesses having the money to build in the city, this is not the case for London. Today, London and its prime property market have become a Mecca for people with no dependence upon the city for anything other than investment. The Shard therefore typifies the system of building and investment that has come to so obviously define London’s urban landscape. Consequently, the number of skyscrapers in London has continued to grow since the financial crisis. Under the guise of an iconic piece of architecture, the skyscraper can act as a stable investment for its owners, whilst convincing the population into falsely identifying its owner’s imperviousness to crisis with their own.

The Shard’s vacant floors provide access into one final avenue of discussion around the skyscraper in London. This emptiness strikes a chord with Roland Barthes’ exploration in The Eiffel Tower. In this analysis of the famous monument he discusses the local resistance to the tower, which, at the time, people felt was frivolous. Consequently, Gustave Eiffel, its creator, compiled a list of all the uses it could have, most of which involved scientific monitoring of weather, etc. What Barthes notes is that the one thing he doesn’t include as a use, was the tower’s ability to become a symbol around which the entire nation was defined. Today, the Eiffel Tower is totally synonymous with the people of Paris and of France, despite the fact that it doesn’t really do anything. The Eiffel Tower makes the imaginary idea of a shared collective identity physical.69This is not a suggestion of iconic equivalence between the two, but the Shard has been finished only six years and already dominates advertising material on the city. Likewise, The Gherkin is only 17 years old, yet is already considered by many to be more iconic than St Pauls Cathedral.70 I also believe that Barthes’ analysis of the tower precisely points to the final reason why the skyscraper is quite so seductive; why they manage to imprint themselves upon our collective consciousness so fast despite their detrimental presence. Barthes points out that the great draw of the Eiffel Tower is that a one

39

The Shard’s Toilet, with views out over the city of London to the North and the buildings shorter competition for iconic status.

40

can venture to the top, enjoy the view, or eat a meal. That …

“One can feel oneself cut off from the world and yet the owner of a world.”71 Looking out of a skyscraper provides us with a kind of commanding power and a sense of success. If looking at a skyscraper in its context from outside can serve to reaffirm a collective success, the urge one feels when inside looking out is more personal. A feeling of omnipotence. The fact that few of us will ever have the option to live in such a tower, or spend any prolonged period of time in one is beside the point. Like the token gesture of affordable housing at Woodberry Down, the lure of a public viewing gallery, sky garden or a restaurant with a view provides us with enough hope. These gestures work to satisfy a need in us, but not fully cure it. This, I think, is best shown via the rather prosaic means of the toilets in the Shard’s Skydeck, which contain floor to ceiling windows — enabling you to simultaneously do the necessary and feel the power that 244 metres of distance between you and the pavement below can provide. This is an extreme example of allowing people to temporarily share in a feeling of ownership over the world below. In this sense, you can (in theory) experience this power as many times as you want, but you can’t actually have it. You can feel as though you are part of the exciting experience of skyscraper living, but you aren’t. The public are a tolerated parasite: forced to use slower elevators and entirely secondary in this vertical social hierarchy. Permanent positions of physical authority, and faster lifts, are reserved only for those who can afford to live in an apartment here, or stay in the five-star hotel.

41

42

Conclusion It can therefore be seen that the skyscraper is a complex symptom of the financial crisis, as well as the unstable political, social and economic forces at work in the city; that it has sprung out of deliberate attempts by various governing bodies to cultivate the image of London as a global financial and cultural centre.

Through these attempts, and because of economic instability following the financial crisis of 2008, the skyscraper became popularised as a direct result of foreign investment in the capital, as a method of maximising rent profits on a small site.

This attraction to the city because of its stable and lucrative property market is, whilst beneficial to some, having serious effects on many of the city’s citizens, such as those of Woodberry Down who are displaced and their homes destroyed in an attempt to attract the wealthy to reside in the city.

Beyond this, however, the skyscraper is not only a symptom of crisis in the city, but also responsible for worsening it. As insecurity and anxiety continues to plague the country, firstly with the financial crisis, then Brexit and the Scottish Referendum, the skyscraper acts increasingly as a tangible sign of wealth, prosperity and stability. The forms and names help the residents of the city to assimilate them into their collective and individual identities; their wealth, which in reality demonstrates only the prosperity of the wealthy who construct and inhabit them, being misinterpreted and seen as a sign of the city’s collective success. As collective insecurity deepens, so our dependence on the skyscraper to portray the dream we wish to be a reality also deepens. The story of modern London really is therefore a tale of tall cites, but also two cities: the London inhabited by the wealthy skyscraper-building elite that we aspire to be, and the ordinary people, displaced by their construction, who can only look on and dream of the tangible but constantly out of reach reality of skyscraper living.

This leads me to feel that a reconsideration of how we define ourselves with regards to our built environment is necessary. Iconicity is a status that seems

43

4 new skyscrapers in the planning process

Promotional material for Fosters new Tulip, is the future this glossy for all of London ?

44

to be granted to buildings with increasing rapidity and ease in the modern age.

Whilst the form of the skyscraper can be beautiful, and is doubtless awe inspiring and impressive, I feel we must apply more consideration when labeling something iconic. An icon is something worthy of admiration or veneration, an object somehow representative of an entire group. Naming skyscrapers as the icons of our cities is fine, we all have the ability and freedom to interpret architecture however we like, but we must be aware that inherent in their shapes and idenities is the intention to seduce us into liking them. That fundamentally the skyscraper only proclaims the success of a city as a secondary characteristic, a designed facet of its identity. Iconicity is simply a factor that enables them to exist, that allows planning permission to be granted, not the reason for its existence. Fundamentally the skyscraper exists as an investment, either by their owners or the people that inhabit them. Iconising them further may only serve to worsen divisions in the city, because it suggests that we ignore the needs of the city’s poorest inhabitants in favour of the needs of its wealthiest, all in the name of creating an image of a city that does not really exist. Continuing to deny the reality of the skyscraper may result in life in the city becoming untenable for many of its population, those who actually make it function as a city and not just as a collection of monumental safety deposit boxes.72

45

FACT

The Cheese-grater The Leadenhall Building Built by British Land and Oxford Properties Rogers Stirk Harbout + Partners Office Space

The Can of Ham 70 St. Mary Axe Built by Henderson Real Estate Foggo Associates Office Space

The Spray Can St. George Wharf Tower Designed By Broadway Malyan Residential

46

The Scalpel 52 Lime Street (changed to the Scalpel) Built by W.R. Berkely Designed by Kohn Pederson Fox Office Space

F I L E

The Shard The Shard of Glass Built for Sellar Property Group Designed by Renzo Piano Mixed Use

The Gherkin 30 St. Mary Axe Built for Swiss Re Designed by Norman Foster Office Space

The Walkie Talkie 20 Fenchurch Street Built for Land Securities Group Designed by Rafael Vinoly Office Space

The Vase One Blackfriars Built for Berkeley Property Designed by Simpson-Haugh Residiential

47

Endnotes Introduction 1 Nick Mathiason, ‘Three weeks that changed the world’, The Guardian. 28th December 2008. <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/dec/28/markets-credit-crunch-banking-2008> [Accessed 13/10/19] 2 ‘London’, The Skyscraper Center, 2019, Available from <https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/city/london> [Accessed 13/10/19] , Josh Wilson , Patrick Scott, ‘2019 is the ‘year of the tall building’ with London set for record number of skyscrapers built’, The Telegraph. 5th March 2019. <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/ news/2019-year-tall-building-london-set-record-number-skyscrapers/> [Accessed 13/10/19] 3 Iconic has been noted because this is a common description in promotional material for skyscrapers to use. I will use the term throughout, as this dissertation will examine the appropriateness and connotations of the term for these buildings not, and not delve into defining it specifically in relation to architecture 4 Anna Minton, Big Capital: Who is London for? (London: Penguin Books, 2017), p.14, 5 The Shard Restaurants & Bars : Everything you need to Know [online], The Nudge. Updated 17th April 2019. Available from <https://thenudge.com/features/ shard-restaurants-and-bars/> [Accessed 11/10/19] 6 Minton, Big capital, p.23.

Chapter 1 7 ‘UK House Price Index summary: September 2019’, HM Land Registry (Office of National Statisatics, November 2019) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-house-price-index-summary-september-2019/uk-house-price-index-summary-september-2019> [Accessed 9th December 2019] 8 Savills Research Team. ‘Prime London & Country: Spotlight 2017, Savills (2017) <https://pdf.euro.savills.co.uk/uk/residential---other/savills-prime-london-andcountry-2017.pdf> [Accessed 7th December 2019] 9 Danny Dorling, Inequality and the 1% (London: Verso, 2014), p. 90.

10 Sklair, Iconic Architecture 24-25 and Leslie Sklair, The Transnational Capitalist Class (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), p.17.

11 Joel Marsden, ‘House prices in London – an economic analysis of London’s housing market’, Mayor of London Office (London: Greater London Authority, 2015) <https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/house-prices-in-london.pdf> [Accessed 14th December 2019] 12 Alex Preston, ‘Room at the top: London’s super-prime housing market’, The Observer. 6th April 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/06/room-attop-londons-super-prime-housing-market> [Accessed 4th January 2020]

48

Endnotes 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Minton, Big Capital, p.4.

Dorling, Inequality and the 1%, p. 90.

Preston, ‘Room at the Top’, The Observer Preston, ‘Room at the Top’, The Observer Dorling, Inequality and the 1%, p. 90.

Minton, Big Capital, xii, p.11.

Dorling, Inequality and the 1%, p. 107.

Chapter 2 20 Kate Allen ad Jim Pickard, ‘London Councils urged to demolish and redevelop council estates’, The Financial Times, 22nd March 2015. <<https://www.ft.com/ content/4129abaa-cf16-11e4-893d-00144feab7de.> [Accessed 14th December] 21 Allen and Pickard, ‘London Councils demolish estates’, Financial Times 22 Allen and Pickard, ‘London Councils demolish estates’, Financial Times 23 ‘Woodberry Down Regeneration’, Manor House Development Trust, <https:// www.mhdt.org.uk/about-us/woodberry-down-regeneration > [Accessed 12th December 2019] 24 Aditya Chakrabortty, ‘The Truth about gentrification: regeneration or con trick?’, The Guardian ,18th May 2014 <https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/ may/18/-sp-truth-about-gentrification-how-woodberry-down-became-woodberrypark> [Accessed 9th December 2019] 25 Minton, Big Capital, p. 52-54.

26 Minton, Big Capital, p. 58.

27 ‘Over 50,000 families shipped out of London boroughs in the past three years due to welfare cuts and soaring rents’, The Independent, 28th April 2015 <https:// www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/over-50000-families-shipped-out-of-london-in-the-past-three-years-due-to-welfare-cuts-and-soaring-10213854.html> [Accessed 10th January 2020] 28 Chakrabortty , ‘The truth about gentrification’, The Guardian 29 Minton, Big Capital, p. 33.

30 30 Minton, Big Capital, p. 20.

31 Chakrabortty , ‘The truth about gentrification’, The Guardian 32 ‘Political Groups Cross Party Organisation’, London Council <https://www. londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/537> [Accessed 12th December 2019], and Minton, Big Capital, p. 88.

33 ‘Woodberry Down, Skyline London N4’, Berkley Group (Promotional Material) < https://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/media/pdf/3/r/berkeley-woodberry-down-skyline.pdf> [Accessed 18th January 2020], ‘Skyline: Best of Both Worlds’, Berkley Group (Promotional Material)< https://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/media/pdf/b/d/Skyline_3_ bed_brochure-34.pdf> [Accessed 18th January 2020].

49

Endnotes

Chapter 3 34 Deyan Sudjic, Norman Foster: A Life in Architecture (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 2010), p.184.

35 Stephen Graham, Vertical: The city from satellites to bunkers (London: Verso, 2016), p. 16, p. 151.

36 Laura Mark, ‘English Heritage worried over latest London skyscraper scheme’, Architects Journal, 9th January 2013. <https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/english-heritage-worried-over-latest-london-skyscraper-scheme/8640920.article > [Accessed 3rd January 2020] 37 Maxine Frith, ‘Rogers blasts ‘dull’ Capital’, The Evening Standard, 14th November 2001. <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/rogers-blasts-dull-capital-6312799.html.> [Accessed 3rd December 2019] 38 Jessica Mairs, ‘” London needs to address its profit and loss skyline”, says Antony Gormley’, Dezeen , 5th October 2016, <https://www.dezeen.com/2016/10/05/ interview-antony-gormley-london-skyscrapers-profit-loss-skyline/`.> [ Accessed] 3rd December 2019], Sudjic, Norman Foster, p. 182.

39 Jessica Mairs, ‘London Skyline’, Dezeen, 40 Deyan Sudjic, The Edifice Complex: How the Rich and Powerful Shape the World (London: Penguin, 2006), p. 320.

41 Sudjic, Norman Foster, p. 181 42 Maria Kaika , ‘Architecture and Crisis: Reinventing the icon, reimagining London and rebranding the city.’ Institute of British Geographers 35, no, 6 (2010), 467.

43 Cass Gilbert quoted by Martin Parker, ‘Skyscrapers: The City and the Megacity’, Theory, Culture & Society 31, no.7 (2014), 267.

44 Sudjic, Edifice Complex, p.309.

45 Kaika, ‘Autistic Architecture’, 985.

46 Rem Koolhaas, Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan (New York: Monacelli Press, 1994), p. 88.

Chapter 4 47 Neil Leach, ‘9/11’, in Urban Memory: History and Amnesia in the Modern City, ed.

by Mark Crinson (London; New York: Routledge, 2005), p. 172.

48 Neil Leach, ‘9/11’, in Urban Memory, ed. by Crinson, pp. 172 – 174,181.

49 Neil Leach, ‘9/11’, in Urban Memory, ed. by Crinson, p. 180.

50 Fredric Jameson, ‘Is Space Political?’, in Rethinking Architecture: a reader in cultural theory, ed. by Neil Leach (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 258.

51 Kaika, ‘Architecture and Crisis’, 465-499.

52 Charles Jencks, The Iconic Building: The Power of Enigma (London: Frances Lin50

Endnotes coln: 2005), p. 6-7.

53 Neil Leach, ‘9/11’, in Urban Memory, ed. by Crinson, p. 175.

54 Palash Ghosh, ‘The Church in Decline: France’s Vanishing Catholics’, International Business Times, 14th March 2013 <https://www.ibtimes.com/church-decline-frances-vanishing-catholics-1125241> [Accessed on 10th January 2020], Katie Weston, ‘ Notre Dame fire: Parisians ‘IN TEARS’ staring in mute disbelief as blaze intesifies’, Express <https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1114655/notre-dame-fire-cathedral-paris-live-news-latest-sky-inside-twitter-spire-today-video> [Accessed 10th January 2020].

55 Neil Leach, ‘9/11’, in Urban Memory, ed. by Crinson, p. 180.

56 Neil Leach, ‘9/11’, in Urban Memory, ed. by Crinson, pp. 180-181.

57 Kaika, ‘Autistic Architecture, 983-984.

58 Jencks, The Iconic Building, p. 187.

59 Jencks, The Iconic Building, p. 185.

Chapter 5 60 Edward Denison, ‘London Bridge/ The Shard’, Architectural Design, 82 no. 1 (2012), 4. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ad.1343> 61 Kenneth Powell, The Shard: The Official Guidebook (London: Thames & Hudson, 2013), Denison, ‘Londn Bridge/ The Shard,’ 1.

62 Mira Bar-Hillel, ‘Why the Shard stands proud – but empty’, The Independent, 27th January 2014, <https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-the-shardstands-proud-but-empty-9088155.html> [Accessed 6th January 2020].

63 Koolhaas, Delirious New York, pp. 178-184.

64 Koolhaas, Delirious New York, pp. 178.

65 Jonathan Prynn, ‘Shards owners say Britain’s Tallest building is not ‘virtually full’’, The Evening Standard, 12th January 2017 <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/ london/shard-owners-say-britains-tallest-building-is-now-virtually-full-a3438741.html> [Accessed 6th January 2020].

66 Koolhaas, Delirious New York, p. 178.

67 World Bank, ‘Qatar Economic Outlook – Spring 2018 (English)’ World Bank Group ,Washington D.C.<http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/669561556573880727/pdf/Macro-Poverty-Outlook-for-Qatar.pdf > [Accessed 10th January 2020] 68 Powell, The Shard Guidebook, p. 19.

69 Roland Barthes, ‘The Eiffel Tower’, in Rethinking Architecture: a reader in cultural theory, ed. by Neil Leach (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 174 – 175.

70 Kaika, ‘Autistic Architecture’, 468. This relates to a study of 100 people, in which 64 people voted for the Gherkin being the most iconic building in London. Of those 64 though, only 3 could locate it on a map.

71 Barthes, ‘The Eiffel Tower’, in Rethinking Architecture, ed. by Neil Leach, p.

180.

51

Bibliography 72 Preston, the Top’, Observer.

Monographs and ‘Room EditedatCollections Barthes, Roland. ‘The Eiffel Tower’ in Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, ed. by Neil Leach, (London: Routledge, 1997), 158- 172 Cody, Jeffrey W. ‘Introduction’, ‘Abortive American Highrise’ and ‘‘You too can be like us’’ in Exporting American Architecture, 1870-2000. Planning, History, and the Environment Series. (London: Routledge, 2003) Dorling, Danny. Inequality and the 1%. (London: Verso, 2014) Foucault, Michel. ‘Space, knowledge and power’, in Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, ed. by Neil Leach, (London: Routledge, 1997),329-357 Graham, Stephen. ‘Introduction’, ‘Skyscraper: Violence and Vanity’ and ‘Housing: Luxified Skies’ in Vertical : The City from Satellites to Bunkers, (London: Verso, 2016) Jencks, Charles. The Iconic Building: The Power of Enigma, (London: Frances Lincoln, 2005) Jameson, Fredric. ‘Is Space Political’, in Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, ed. by Neil Leach, (London: Routledge, 1997), 224-255 Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York: A retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. New ed. (New York: Monacelli Press, 1994) Leach, Neil, ‘9/11’, in Urban Memory: History and Amnesia in the Modern City, ed. By Mark Crinson, (London; New York: Routledge, 2005), 169-194 Lefebvre, Henri, ‘The production of Space’, in Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, ed. by Neil Leach, (London: Routledge, 1997), 132-139 Minton, Anna. Big Capital: Who is London for ?, (London: Penguin Books, 2017) Powell, Kenneth. The Shard: The Official Guidebook. 2nd Edition, ( London: Thames and Hudson 2013) Sklair, Leslie. ‘Introduction’, ‘Globalizing Class Theory’ and ‘Transnational Corporations and the Global Economy’ in The Transnational Capitalist Class, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. pp. 0-50.

Sudjic, Deyan. Norman Foster : A Life in Architecture, (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2010) Sudjic, Deyan. ‘Why we build’, ‘Landscapes of Power’, ‘Ego Unchained’ and ‘High-Rise Syndrome’ in The Edifice Complex: How the Rich and the Powerful Shape the World, (London: Penguin Books, 2006)

52

Bibliography Journal Articles Denison, Edward. ‘London Bridge/ The Shard’, Architectural Design, 82.1 (2012), < https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ad.1343>,22-27 Essletzbichler, Jurgen. ‘Inequality and the 1%’, review of Inequality and the 1%, by Danny Dorling, London: Verso 2014.

Haacke, Paul. ‘The Vertical Turn: Topographies of Metropolitan Modernism’, (unpublished doctorial thesis, University of Berkeley, 2011).

Huriot, Jean-Marie. ‘Towers of Power’, Metropolitiques, 25th January 2012, trans. Oliver Waine. <https://www.metropolitiques.eu/Towers-of-Power.html.> [ Accessed 20th October 2019].

Kaika, Maria. ‘Architecture and crisis: Re-inventing the icon, reimaging London and rebranding the city’, Transactions and the Institute of British Geographers 35, no.6 (2010) <www. jstor.org/stable/40891002,>453-74.

Kaika, Maria. ‘Autistic Architecture: The Fall of the Icon and the Rise of the Serial Object of Architecture’, Environment And Planning D-Society & Space 29, no. 6 (2011)<https://doi.org/10.1068%2Fd161109> ,68-92 Knox, Paul L. “The Social Production of the Built Environment Architects, Architecture and the Post-Modern City.” Progress in Human Geography 11, no. 3 (1987) <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/030913258701100303> 354-77.

Laws, Glenda. ‘Oppression, Knowledge and the Built Environment.’ Political Geography 13, no. 1 (1994), <https://doi.org/10.1016/0962-6298(94)90008-6 >,7-32 Mcneill, Donald. ‘Skyscraper Geography.’ Progress in Human Geography 29, no. 1 (2005) <https://doi.org/10.1191%2F0309132505ph527oa>,41-55 Mcneill, Donald. “The Mayor and the World City Skyline: London’s Tall Buildings Debate.” International Planning Studies 7, no. 4 (2002), 325-34 Parker, Martin. ‘Vertical Capitalism: Skyscrapers and Organization’, Culture and Organization 21, no. 3 (2015)< https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0263276414547776>, 217-34 Parker, Martin. ‘Skyscrapers: The City and the Megacity’, Theory, Culture & Society 31, no.

7-8 (2014), 267-71 Sklair, Leslie. ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalisation.’ City 10, no. 1 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810600594613,21-47 Willis, Carol. ‘Zoning and “Zeitgeist”: The Skyscraper City in the 1920s,’ Journal of the

53

Bibliography Society of Architectural Historians 45, no. 1 (1986), <4www.jstor.org/stable/990128. Accessed 19 Jan. 2020>, 7-59

Newspaper and Magazine Articles Allen, Kate and Jim Pickard. ‘London Councils urged to demolish and redevelop council estates’, The Financial Times ( 22nd March 2015)<https://www.ft.com/content/4129abaacf16-11e4-893d-00144feab7de> [Accessed 6th January 2020] Bar-Hillel, Mira. ‘Why the Shard stands proud – but empty’, The Independent (27th January 2014) <https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-the-shard-stands-proudbut-empty-9088155.html> [Accessed 6th January 2020] Beckett, Andy. ‘The Fall and Rise of the Council Estate’, The Guardian (13th July 2016) [Available at] <https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/13/aylesbury-estate-south-london-social-housing> [Accessed 12th November 2019] Butler, Sarah. ‘London’s Walkie Talkie building sold for record-breaking £1.3bn’, The Guardian, (27th July 2017), <https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/27/londons-walkie-talkie-building-sold-for-record-breaking-13bn> [Accessed 28th November 2019] Chakrabotty, Aditya and Sophie Robinson-Tillett. ‘The Truth about Gentrification: Regeneration or con trick’. The Gaurdian, (18th March 2014) <https://www.theguardian. com/society/2014/may/18/-sp-truth-about-gentrification-how-woodberry-down-became-woodberry-park> [Accessed 11th November 2020] D.K. ‘The Great Inversion’, The Economist (9th September 2013) <https://www.economist.com/blighty/2013/09/09/the-great-inversion> [Accessed 11th November 2019] Dorling, Danny. ‘How the super-rich got richer: 10 shocking facts about inequality’,The Guardian (15th July 2014) <https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/15/howsuper-rich-got-richer-10-shocking-facts-inequality> [Accessed 24th November 2019] Frith, Maxine. ‘Rogers blasts ‘dull’ Capital’, The Evening Standard (14th November 2001) <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/rogers-blasts-dull-capital-6312799.html.> [Accessed 3rd December 2019] Frankel, Eddy. ‘The Changing fortunes of the Balfron Tower’, Time Out Magazine (26th May 2015) <https://www.timeout.com/london/things-to-do/the-changing-fortunes-ofbalfron-tower> [Accessed 3rd October 2019] Ghosh, Palash. ‘The Church in Decline: France’s vanishing Catholics’, International Business Times (3rd April 2013) < https://www.ibtimes.com/church-decline-frances-vanishing-catholics-1125241> [Accessed 10th January 2020] Mairs, Jessica. ‘London needs to address its profit and loss skyline’, says Antony Gormley’. Deezeen (5th October 2016) <https://www.dezeen.com/2016/10/05/interview-ant-

54

Bibliography ony-gormley-london-skyscrapers-profit-loss-skyline/> [Accessed 3rd December 2019] Mark, Laura. ‘English Heritage worried over latest London skyscraper scheme’, Architects Journal (9th January 2013)< https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/english-heritage-worried-over-latest-london-skyscraper-scheme/8640920.article> [Accessed 3rd January 2020] Osborne, Hilary. ‘New London Housing ‘aimed at wealthy’ creates affordability gap’. The Guardian (11th November 2013) <https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/11/ new-london-housing-aimed-at-wealthy> [Accessed 10th October 2019] Preston, Alex. ‘Room at the Top: London’s super-prime housing market’, The Observer (6th April 2014) <https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/06/room-at-top-londons-super-prime-housing-market> [Accessed 4th January 2020] Prynn, Jonathan, ‘Shard owners say Britain’s Tallest building is now ‘virtually full”, Evening Standard (12th November 2017) <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/shardowners-say-britains-tallest-building-is-now-virtually-full-a3438741.html> [Accessed 6th January 2020] Rosenfield, Karissa. ‘Norman Foster’s Interview with The European: “Architecture is an Expression of Values.”’, Archdaily. <https://www.archdaily.com/563537/ interview-norman-foster-on-the-role-of-architecture-in-modern-society.> [Accessed 30/09/19] Turner, George. ‘Revealed: London council took on financial risk of estate development ‘,The Guardian (12th September 2018) <https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/ sep/12/london-council-aylesbury-estate-development-southwark-financial-risk> [Accessed 12/10/19] Wainwright, Oliver. ‘Blomberg HQ: a £1bn building that looks like a regional department store’, The Guardian (25th October 2017) <https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/oct/25/bloomberg-london-hq-norman-foster-architecture-review> [ Accessed 12/10/19] Wainwright, Oliver. ‘Super-tall, super-skinny, super-expensive: the pencil towers of New York’s super-rich’, The Guardian (5th February 2019)<https://www.theguardian.com/ cities/2019/feb/05/super-tall-super-skinny-super-expensive-the-pencil-towers-of-newyorks-super-rich> [Accessed 30/09/19] Waite, Richard. ‘Norman Foster only Architect on the Sunday Times Rich List’, Architects Journal (25th April 2016) <https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/norman-foster-only-architect-on-sunday-times-rich-list/8682079.article> [ Accessed 12/10/19] Weston, Katie. ‘Notre Dame fire: Parisians ‘in tears’ staring in ‘mute disbelief ’ as blaze intensifies’, Express (15th April 2019) <https://www.express.co.uk/news/ world/1114655/notre-dame-fire-cathedral-paris-live-news-latest-sky-inside-twitter-spire-

55

Bibliography today-video> [Accessed 9th January 2020] White, Anna. “Schindler’s List’ estate to lead housing revolution’. The Telegraph, (5th February 2014) , <2014.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/10619129/ Schindlers-List-estate-to-lead-housing-revolution.html.> [Accessed 20th November 2019]

Online Reports and Documents Berkeley Group, ‘Woodberry Down, Skyline London N4’, The Berkley Group (Promotional Material) < https://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/media/pdf/3/r/berkeley-woodberry-down-skyline.pdf> [Accessed 18th January 2020], Berkley Group, ‘Skyline: Best of Both Worlds’, The Berkley Group (Promotional Material)< https://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/media/pdf/b/d/Skyline_3_bed_brochure-34. pdf> [Accessed 18th January 2020].

Greater London Authority, Housing and Land, ‘Quarterly Housing and Market Report’ (London: City Hall, November 2019) <https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws. com/airdrive-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/20191106123705/Quarterly-London-housing-market-report-Q3-2019.pdf.pdf> [Accessed 1st January 2020] Greater London Authority, Intelligence Unit, ‘GLA Demographic Projections’ from London Plan Technical Seminar (London: City Hall, November 2018).<https://data.gov.uk/ dataset/9c43750a-1350-4207-9b47-f089ae2626b4/gla-population-and-household-projections> [Accessed 1st January 2020] Knight Frank Research Team, ‘ The London Report 2018’, (London, Knight Frank, 2018) <https://content.knightfrank.com/research/982/documents/en/the-london-report-2018-5244.pdf> [Accessed 17th January 2020] ‘London’, The Skyscraper Center, (2019) <https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/city/london> [Accessed 13th October 2019] Marsden, Joel. ‘House prices in London – an economic analysis of London’s housing market’, GLA Economics working paper 71 (London: Greater London Authority, November 2015) <https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/house-prices-in-london.pdf> [Accessed 17th January 2020] ‘Political Groups Cross Party Organisation’, London Council <https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/537> [Accessed 12th December 2019] Savills Research Team. ‘Prime London & Country: Spotlight 2017, Savills (2017) <https://pdf.euro.savills.co.uk/uk/residential---other/savills-prime-london-and-coun-

56

Bibliography try-2017.pdf> [Accessed 7th December 2019] Savills Research Team, ‘Spotlight: Prime London Residential Markets’, in Savills World Research (London: Savills, Autumn 2015) <https://pdf.euro.savills.co.uk/uk/residential---other/prime-london-residential-markets-autumn-2015.pdf> [Accessed 17th January 2020] Savills Research Team, ‘Spotlight: The World in London’, in Savills World Research (London: Savills, 2013) <https://pdf.euro.savills.co.uk/residential---other/spot-worldlondon-lr.pdf> [Accessed 17th January 2020] Scanlon, Kath., Christine Whitehead, Fanny Blanc and Ulises Moreno-Tabarez, ‘ The role of overseas investors in the London new-build residential market’, (London: LSE London, May 2017) <http://www.lse.ac.uk/business-and-consultancy/consulting/ assets/documents/the-role-of-overseas-investors-in-the-london-new-build-residentialmarket.pdf> [Accessed 17th January 2020] World Bank, Qatar Economic Outlook – Spring 2018 (English) , 125261 ( Washington D.C.: World Bank Group) <http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/930611523635638905/Qatar-Economic-Outlook-Spring-2018> [Accessed 17th January 2020]

57

Illustrations Front Cover: Designed and drawn by Author. Based off of Penguin classics front cover. This was intended to reference the fictional world the skyscraper portrays, and also follow the theme that the skyscrapers form endears us to it by evoking familiar things, thus the title and cover are deliberately evocative to make it seem familiar and more likable Cartoon Who’s Who page: Designed and drawn by Author. Inspiration taken from Content cartoon by OMA.

Introduction Skyline Images: James Burns, A decade of change: London form the rooftops, Photographs, Found at ‘I love primrose hill’, <https://i1.wp.com/iloveprimrosehill.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2009-2019.jpg?w=2160&ssl=1> [ Accessed 18th January 2020] Headline Quotation Collage Russel Lynch, ‘‘Walkie Scorchie’ tower’s sun ‘death ray’ will soon be fixed, say developers’, Evening Standard 15th May 2014 <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ walkie-scorchie-towers-sun-death-ray-will-soon-be-fixed-say-developers-9373958.html.> [Accessed 10th January 2020 Sophia Sleigh, ‘The Beacon tower set to be scrapped after outcry over the ‘alien phallus’, Evening Standard 6th October 2016< https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/it-s-likean-alien-phallus-tower-set-to-be-scrapped-after-outcry-by-residents-a3362316.html > [Accessed 10th January 2020] Peter Murray, ‘We need the Tulip if London is to flower’, Evening Standard 29th November 2018 <https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/we-need-the-tulip-if-londonis-to-flower-a4003706.html >[Accessed 10th January 2020] Oscar Quine, ‘New London skyscraper is ‘attention-seeking’ and ‘extremely damaging’ for Tower of London, charity warns’, The Telegraph 24th December 2019 <https://www. telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/24/new-london-skyscraper-attention-seeking-extremely-damaging-tower >[ Accessed 10th January 2020] Soo Kim, ’28 incredible skyscrapers of the future’, The Telegraph 28 November 2018 <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/galleries/amazing-skyscrapers-of-the-future/> [Accessed 10th January 2020] Karissa Rosenfield, ‘Renzo Piano Defends London’s skyscraper Boom’, Archdaily Octo-

58

Illustrations ber 2015 <https://www.archdaily.com/776117/renzo-piano-defends-londons-skyscraper-boom> [Accessed 10th January] James Taylor-Foster, Vinoly’s London Skyscraper “Bloated” and “Inelegant”’, Archdaily 5th January 2015 <https://www.archdaily.com/583857/vinoly-s-london-skyscraper-bloated-and-inelegant> [ Accessed 10th January 2020]

Chapter 1 Prime London Map with Skyscraper Clusters: Drawn by author.

Information used from ‘London, United Kingdom’, The Skyscraper Center, <https:// www.skyscrapercenter.com/city/london> [Accessed 17th January 2020], Savills Research Team, ‘Spotlight: Prime London Residential Markets’, in Savills World Research (London: Savills, Autumn 2015) <https://pdf.euro.savills.co.uk/uk/residential---other/prime-london-residential-markets-autumn-2015.pdf> [Accessed 17th January 2020]

Chapter 2 W_faich, ‘Woodberry Down Estate N4’, Photograph flikr August 3rd 2014 <https:// www.flickr.com/photos/willfaichneyphotography/15002995575/ >[Accessed 17th January 2020] Rolfe Judd, ‘Woodberry Down’, Photograph, Rolfe Judd Architects May 2018 <https:// www.rolfe-judd.co.uk/architecture/news/woodberry-down-scoops-london-project-ofthe-year-at-the-rics-awards/ >[Accessed 17th January 2020]

Chapter 3 Star Trek Film Still J.J Abrams, ‘Star Trek into Darkness’, Film Still, New Star Trek trailer depicts future London, 2013 <https://londonist.com/2013/04/new-star-trek-trailer-depicts-future-london > [Accessed 17th January 2020] Fridge Magnet ‘London Union Jack and Skyline fridge magnet’, Image, Crest of London < https:// crestoflondon.co.uk/product/london-union-jack-skyline-wood-magnet/>[Accessed 17th January 2020] Woolworth Building Section Cass Gilbert. ‘Woolworth Building Section’, Image, <https://i.pinimg.com/originals/df/ db/95/dfdb95795634a927b47e29e63f20c167.jpg>[ Accessed 17th January 2020] The Gherkin Section

59

Illustrations Fosters + Partners, ’30 St. Mary Axe.’, Image, 30 St. Mary Axe/ Foster and Partners, ArchDaily, November 2019, <https://www.archdaily.com/928285/30-st-mary-axe-tower-foster-plus-partners> [Accessed 17th January 2020]

Chapter 4 Gherkin Newpaper cut out.

Lloyds Pharmacy, ‘Lost the Per-in in your Gherkin’, Advertisement, The Evening Standard, image found at Dezeen <https://www.dezeen.com/2013/11/12/flaccid-gherkin-features-in-erectile-dysfunction-treatment-ad/> [Accessed 17th January 2020] Telegraph Headline Unknown Photographer, ‘Getty Images’, Photograph, Found at ‘Gherkin named as London’s most instagrammable skyscraper’ The Evening Standard.’< https://www.standard. co.uk/news/london/gherkin-is-london-s-most-instagrammable-skyscraper-a4259171. html > [Accessed 17th January 2020]

Chapter 5 Shard Toilet Ben Cawthra, ‘Room with a View’, Photograph, Found at ‘The Loo with a View’, Mail Online 11th January 2013 <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2260485/TheShards-loo-view-750ft-London-toilet-68th-floor-offers-spectacular-perspective.html > [Accessed 17th January 2020]

Fact File.

20 Fenchurch Street ’20 Fenchurch Street sept 2015’, Photograph, Found at Wikimedia Commons, 19th September 2015 <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Walkie-Talkie_-_Sept_2015.jpg> [Accessed 17th January 2020] The Shard ‘The Shard from the Sky Gardem’, Photograph, found at Wikimedia Commons, 2015 <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/The_Shard_from_ the_Sky_Garden_2015.jpg/480px-The_Shard_from_the_Sky_Garden_2015.jpg> [Accessed 17th January 2020] The Gherkin ‘St. Mary Axe’, Photograph, found at 150th Anniversary: Our History, Swiss Re, <https:// history.swissre.com/swissre_150th_anniversary/admin/uploads/SR-30StMaryAxe-01-

60

Illustrations WebApp.jpg> [Accessed January 2020] The Vase ‘One Blackfriars’, Photograph, found at One Blackfriars, Simpson Haugh Architects, <https://www.simpsonhaugh.com/projects/one-blackfriars> [Accessed January 2020] Tony Hisgett, ‘The Leadenhall Building’, Photograph, found at flickr <https://www. flickr.com/photos/hisgett/13911854879/in/photostream/> [Accessed 17th January 2020] The Scalpel KPF architects, ’52 Lime Street’, photograph, found at 52 Lime Street, KPF Architects <https://www.kpf.com/projects/52-lime-street> [Accessed 17th January 2020] The Can of Ham Foggo Associates,’70 St Mary Axe’, photograph, found at Foggo Associates completes Can of Ham alongside the Gherkin, Dezeen, 23 October 2019 <https://www.dezeen. com/2019/10/23/can-of-ham-70-st-mary-axe-foggo-associates/> [Accessed 17th January 2020]

Fosters + Partners, The Tulip 2019 < https://thetulip.com/> [Accessed 17th January 2020]

61

A TA L E O F TA L L CITIES An analysis of the conflicting roles the iconic skyscraper has played in the London Housing Crisis and in the formation of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s identity following the 2008 financial crisis

REUBEN

JONES