Love is not enough

Architectural wonders are admired by all but those who sign the lease

Londoners love their architecture. Armed with notebooks and cameras, they swarm each September through the opened lobbies of the city's offices on a weekend-long design safari.

Above all, they love the Gherkin, as Swiss Re's 30 St Mary Axe is affectionately known. More than 13,000 building-spotters (edit: including me!) queued up on an open house weekend in 2004 to visit Norman Foster's creation, which was voted the 'most admired new building in the world' in a poll of architects last year.

But tenants are not showing the same level of enthusiasm. Eight of the Gherkin's 34 floors stand empty almost 2 years after its opening. The elegance of its pickle-shaped camber has cut its useable floor space while its stature has put off tenants who seek a lower profile.

'It's a pin up of the London property market,' say John Forrester of DTZ, a property agent representing the Gherkin. 'The only problem we've had with it is that its brand image is stronger than that of any potential tenant'.

Most tenants prefer dull, square buildings say Chris Williams-Ellis, a director of property agents Atisreal. A case in point is the London Ark, a rotund, boat-like office building ever poised to dock with the Hammersmith flyover.

The building attracts a steady flow of architectural pilgrims who marvel at its soaring interior and suspended walkways. It has been voted office of the year and was a runner-up in a contest to choose Britain's happiest workplace.

Pity, then that it has stood empty for most of its 12 year life. While beautiful, the building's luscious curves limit the usable floor space and its airy atrium cuts down on privacy. 'You need great architecture and you need great design, and there is a distinction between the two,' says Chris Hiatt of Jones Lang Lasalle. He has had more success filling competitors to the Ark than in finding tenants for it.

Box-like Plantation Place, an office block completed at the same time as the Gherkin was fully let within months. Tower 42, the tallest building in London's old financial district and a structure widely hated before it was damaged in a 1993 Irish Republican Army bombing, is also full after a redesign added restaurants and conference rooms. The lesson: tenants prize a short walk to lunch more highly than an award-winning atrium.

This presents a quandary for developers. While function takes precedence over form in the market, Ken Livingstone, London's mayor, has made it clear that tall buildings must be architecturally interesting to win planning permission. Prepare to see more elegant (and half-empty) towers on the horizon.

Interesting article, with alot of truth in it, and salient especially regarding the recent debates of the merits of groundscrapers.

I think there is a need for a balance. Though there are risks involved with prestige towers, there is certainly appetite in the commercial market. Quite whether there is enough to fill all those in the London development pipeline is quite another matter. Time will tell, but the big test will come with Broadgate Tower, 122 Leadenhall Street and Heron, the 3 schemes in the city that I feel have the greatest chances of progressing.

Personally, I marvel at CityPoint every day and would love to work on the 30th floor overlooking the city spread out at my feet like a carpet. Sadly my company is a fan of non-descript boxy offices, of the 1980s vintage. Time for a move perhaps.

what a load of bollocks, whats this strange conspiricy to get the whole of London knocked down to be replaced by something immensly dull! Isnt this the third or so article, maybe the second from the Economist, spreading such pointless insights.

Companies and people in power like striking work places and they have done since time began. In his article he forgets to be more specific, it is the accountants that dont like decent architecture because it costs a bit more because more thought is put into it, well fuck them! If we let accountants hold sway over every aspect of our lives we had might as well turn the lights out now!

So now the wind tunnel effect saving aspect of the design and the environmental natural light and air shafts are all rubbished as artistic fancies due to Staples not selling any curved desks?

I think the problem is to do with the shareholder as it could be questioned as to why a company should have a landmark building like Swiss RE when they could be getting higher dividends.

Personally if the environment is great, it makes the occupants happy and attracts attention without having to do any PR work then thats money well spent. It will boost productivity, enhance the work ethos and consolidate the reputation of a company (how many people knew of Swiss RE before the tower - I bet it was few and that shit good publicity).

Yeah for companies that want to keep a low profile or don't want to be seen as in the limelight, boring boxes will possibly suit them...but I can tell you - my company will start off in a boring box, but It'll grow into something else....London's first 400m tower made out of Portland stone!

"Eight of the Gherkin's 34 floors stand empty almost 2 years after its opening"

And they could at least get their facts right; re size/floors/heights. The whole purpose of an article is to make you think (IMO). How can you make considered opinions if you are not requisite with the facts?

This is why I do not buy newspapers or magazines---I had the niave notion that facts would be supplied for my betterment!

Guess what, Q4 of 2005's office take up has been issued. Its official - 2006 is the time of London's Booooom! :eek2:

The point is a good one though - square floor plates can fit more desks than round or curvy ones. More desks equals less floorspace needed equals less rent. It's all about economics and if tennants fall at that first hurdle they aren't really in the right business for working in the financial sector!

Most of the towers proposed for London though have square or rectangular floorplates and aren't that weird and wonderful. Only Bishopsgate Tower is slightly off, and it will be very interesting to see if their is any indication of interest in the tower (for me, although I love it and want it built, I have a feeling it will be a long, long way off).

Thing is though, residential towers seem to be the ones with all the curves. People like them who live in them and although they are a bugger it doesn't seem to have stopped the success of Ontario or the design of the Vauxhall Cross proposals.

what a load of bollocks, whats this strange conspiricy to get the whole of London knocked down to be replaced by something immensly dull! Isnt this the third or so article, maybe the second from the Economist, spreading such pointless insights.

Companies and people in power like striking work places and they have done since time began. In his article he forgets to be more specific, it is the accountants that dont like decent architecture because it costs a bit more because more thought is put into it, well fuck them! If we let accountants hold sway over every aspect of our lives we had might as well turn the lights out now!

So now the wind tunnel effect saving aspect of the design and the environmental natural light and air shafts are all rubbished as artistic fancies due to Staples not selling any curved desks?

Aside from the factual inaccuracies about Swiss Re, there are some grains of truth to the article. Okay, so its a bit sensationalist, but when most companies (FTSE Index anyway) are pretty much run by bean counters who are focused on 'maximising shareholder value', spending hundreds of millions on landmark schemes often can fall by the wayside in exchange for cheaper, less spectacular developments. I don't think the Economist has an agenda about these tall towers, simply picking up on known issues - although the example of these two schemes can hardly be deemed representative. Even conventional towers can sit empty for years, look at Centrepoint (although that was in the economic downturn of the 1970s and 80s).

I guess it all boils down to who`s city is it... I feel strongly that the bean counters should not have the final say. What annoys me is that the Economist article doesnt expand its very limited scope and look at the benefits of an attractive or even heartening environment

I understand the concept, but that doesn't make it right and is a very simplistic view.

Not all sites are square, especially in the UK. So a curve could well be making the most of a site.

Efficient use of space can involve a curve. Why not? There are a whole host of objects (coat hanger for example) or perhaps a coffee machine to fill an odd curve or triangle of space. Is this about office planning software not being set up for curves?

And from the environment view it is a pity companies do not recognise the economic benefit. HSBC I understand buys emmisions rights to cover the carbon produced by its buildings. This is a marketing stunt I guess, but why not make it a cheaper one and use environmentally sound buildings?

From the smiley happy workers point of view why is this not taken into account? There have been direct relationships proven between air conditioned offices and the amount of sick leave taken. i.e. more is taken. I'm not sure if it has been proven, but people feeling good about themselves from my experience work harder.

I suppose it is because the office procurement team only look at the cost, because sickness is an HR issue and unless there is an enlightened chairperson prepared to take the holistic view and overrule the various departments the cheapest, but probably more costly option for the company will be taken.

Although this Magazine article is meant to be informative or provocative it is, in fact, you lot that have given me the facts and food for thought.