The recent issues raised by Prince Charles relating to the London skyline may seem a little like asking if Londoners may eat cake – it is interesting from the national coverage that there have been a number of issues left out of the discussions – one of which is the considered need for a city to have a ‘skyline’, that is a profile view which reflects the character of the commerce and industry of the locality. This is largely an American issue and may not be that significant in terms of the nature of British cities, largely within the context of international debates and considering London as a global city, it is a relevant discussion. When I was in Australia a fellow backpacker scoffed at Adelaide because it was shown on a postcard with all the captial cities of each of the states of Australia as being the only one without a noticeable skyline as if it were not a place of the least significance as a result. I presume, perhaps wrongly, that this is linked to the development of big cities and the macho comparisons between cities as having greater prowess than each other because of the manhood of the skyline. However, for most people in London there are far more significant issues, in terms of the impact that decent town planning can make on quality of life through offering local services, a greater sense of safety in public space and suitable space to exercise in public. Unfortunately, maintaining a heritage of this type of matter has not been a preserve of the Royal Family – at least not in terms of how the mass media wish us to perceive them. I have stated this before – there are a multitude of perspectives to take on the city as a geographical phenomenon. To an extent there may be some mileage in seeing the city as an organism which grows and changes to suit the challenges made to it. Reference to social ecology and the need for a discussion on how much of a living organism. The animal that may have run through city space for millions of years is now a pest to be exterminated. While I don’t wish to encourage foxes and rats within cities we are considering the urban zone as something which it is not meant to be. Does Prince Charles criticise forests for not having level trees? Maybe we as a nation should only support development projects in the Amazon which are likely to leave it tidy?
There can be a reframing of the buildings which have dominated London’s skyline for centuries can take place as part of a movement of updating the city rather than damaging it. Is this another difficult stage in the process of recognising that Britain is no longer a leading light in technology and what really hurts is that British engineering and design are not what they once were? Is there not scope to consider the changes made to the Louvre in Paris and the additional extensions which were meant to compliment the existing framework of the buildings? Is his highness employing any adequate frame of reference to evaluate whether or not the buildings which are being added to the London skyline are making any significant addition to the way London is seen? There can be a conflict between the modern and the post- modern – should this debate be reconsidered alongwith other thinkers not just within the bodies that his highness has assembled to restrict development Does this not reflect a healthy balanced and developing economy which is directed by several significant forces – perhaps they are too American and this is what the problem is?
It does make interesting reading having read some Goffman recently and the remarks on stigma – there is reference to the imoral individual as being a “….blemished person, ritually poluted, to be avoided particularly in public places….” (Goffman, 1987; p11) this does make me wonder what intention there was in drawing upon discourses relating to less than physically perfect individuals (read London being ‘pockmarked’) who presumably would be excluded from society (the international community) if they weren’t to improve their appearance. I did want to check the original speech from the text as there were also reports in the media regarding buildings in London being ‘dwarfed ’by the likes of Canary Wharf. It does seem unwise to select a discourse of deformity when challenging the development of a city like London which should be welcoming, supportive and innovative in terms of how it deals with disability.
A city is not some form of sculpture unlike the perceptions of architechts who may see it that way – it may in some respects be influenced by Plato’s observations of humanity working towards the ideal and everything in life being in some ways or other being a less than perfect representation of the ideal form. It does make me slightly concerned when looking at how good the architechture is in London whether or not Prince Charles has any significant regard for the likes of Coventry, Birmingham and Sheffield city centres. Are there just as strong moves to preserve what is left of the architechtural heritage of these places?
The centre of Birmingham now apears to be significantly better and has been described as having an American theme in the regeneration that has taken place. The design of the new Bull ring around St. Martin’s Church which resembles the flesh of a fruit around the stone at its heart, that is St. Martin’s, seems like quite a good example of urban design although it is questionable in terms of how effective views of Selfridges are at promoting the city from the other side of the shopping centre. As an emblem of the city centre it does seem like just as good a symbol of the city and is perhaps all that is necessary – perspectives on the skyline are just not necessary. Does the stone at the heart of the fruit interest the Royals in terms of how St Martin’s has become a strong symbol of the surviving city? Will they walk down from the New St. Station, which was literally buried, to the view over the bullring shopping centre on a clear day and wonder if the shopping centre was meant to symbolise the flesh of the fruit around the stone, the continuation of life, St Martin’s church.
No comments:
Post a Comment