Just read about the new Swiss Re building in the Wall Street Journal and this website from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3663971.stm

Have any of you viewed it?

Yes, you can hardly take a nice photo of the Tower of London now without getting the big gherkin in the shot. Then you look across the Thames from the Tower and you see the new government building that looks like a sliced hard-boiled egg.

Jsmith-you must have been reading my mind! I've been thinking about the "Gerkin," as it's called, and about posting on this since I came back from London. With respect to newish architecture adorning the London skyline, however, there's not just the Gerkin, but the fantastical sci-fi architecture of the Lloyd's bldg. as well!

First Lloyd's-Spygirl was brought here by a London solicitor, who smiled broadly and asked, so, what do you think? Spygirl LIKE! The bldg. reminded me of something out of a Philip K. Dick novel (a famous sci-fi writer) or, even more familiar, something out of the "the Terminator"-all the steel heating/air con. ducts are exposed on the outside, turning upwards and outwards, a futuristic twisted metal-junkyard-mechanical looking-post-Modern masterpiece! But here's the wild part-at night, the Lloyd's bldg. is lit up in PURPLE- you can see the purple glow off in the distance-SO cool to view at night! For those who are interested in having a look, Lloyds is but a short walk from the Tower Hill tube stop. (Now, Spygirl COULD tell you a bit about the tres elegante private rooms in Lloyds-but that would be giving away secrets! (smile))

Later, as Spygirl was riding on one of the Lloyd's elevators (the glass elevators are on the outside of the bldg. so you can get nice glimpses of the Tower of London on the higher floors) I was able to get a glimpse of the green glass Gerkin, and view its place on the London skyline. I decided I liked the look of this bldg. very much-it is both elegant and oddly in harmony with its surroundings, despite its futuristic look-it manages to neither agitate nor offend. It is fitting that both of these structures should be built in the heart of the City-the juxtaposition of ancient and post-Modern is really quite striking.

Anyone in London will probably have seen it. You can see it from The river, the Eye, Tower Bridge, the Globe, along the south bank, Tate Modern, the top of St Paul's, Primrose Hill and many other view points . . . . .

I guess I should have been more explicit. What did you think if you did see it?

Thanks, Spygirl, says something that the 20 year old Lloyds building can still excite (and its predecessor, the Pompidou generate such vitriol).

Have seen it from a distance. It's a Foster building, I think (haven't read your article). Interestingly, supposedly there's been a fight in Foster's architectural firm -- one of his partners is leaving to strike his own. Foster has been quite prolific (the Millennium Bridge, the Reichstag Dome, etc.), and there's speculation that he didn't do all of this himself. (No I'm not privy to some architectural firm secrets -- a Google search will bring up some of this; I can't remember where I read it).

Hm.... Is there an "r" in Foster?

I've not seen the Lloyd's Building, but the principles behind it and those behind the Pompidou are the same -- I think that either Renzo or Piano or both had something to do with the Lloyd's Building.

An R in Foster - that makes it Foste, remove the t, add an S and we have a choreographer. Hardly. If you mean Forster - completely different name, utter rubbish.

His work is largely excellent, stylish, a little up itself, but that's Foster for you.

I'm not frantically keen on the Swiss Re (the Glass Suppository) but I suppose it's more interesting than the standard shoebox in the City. It was more interesting while it was being built, and the structure was illuminated at night - they made it into a 'Christmas tree' for a time.

There is a difference between Foster (whoc also did the Millennium Bridge and Stanted airport) and Richard Rogers (who did the Pompidou with Renzo Piano, and Lloyd's). Piano has also designed a dramatic new building for London Bridge.

I doubt if any large building is the sole responsibility, credit or discredit of any one architect, since there are so many technical bits and pieces that need specialist designers to look after them.

Foster: http://www.architecture.com/go/Archi...inks_1125.html
Rogers:
http://www.architecture.com/go/Archi...inks_1126.html
Piano and the London Bridge Building:
http://www.londonbridgetower.com/the_architect.html

Times change: when they erected the Eiffel Tower the Parisians were so enraged by it they lobbied to have it torn down as soon as possible.

The London Eye? A giant ferris wheel? Part of the scene now and apparently getting to be beloved.

Ahhh, the joys of travel and experiencing new things.

Maybe its time to buy back London Bridge from the Americans! What do you think MK II ?

Perhaps we could swap it for Red Ken.

TopMan remarks
>Times change: when they erected the Eiffel Tower the Parisians were so enraged by it they lobbied to have it torn down as soon as possible. <

I, for one, wish they had been successful.

Just being different there - you want the tourists to vanish, how pseudy.

I can see both the Swiss Re building and the Eye from my living room window, and I love them both.

(I can also see the old NatWest Tower, which I HATE)

What about Guy's - now there's an ugly building.

And if we're on the subject Patrick, what about Centre Point. To think that hideous carbunkle is actually listed.

The trouble with a lot of these buildings is that they look impressive on the skyline (and in the artist's impression drawings at the planning stage), but completion on the ground often leaves a lot to be desired. I quite like the look of Centre Point, but getting round the base of it is a real nuisance. It's as though planning stops outside the front door. Coincidentally, there's a reference in my paper today to a none-too-enthralled review of Swiss Re:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/editor/sto...275307,00.html

Centre Point is an iconic building with an awful bar (among other things) at the ground floor level. The building itself is representative of the architecture of its generation, it's iconic and symbolic of the period. It has power and dominates that particular area.

My first impression when I saw this building last April was that it looked like a huge cigar stuck in the ground. I also wondered what it was like inside - is the top floor like a little cone?

Watched the chick flick "Love Actually" a few nights ago, in which it had several shots of London skyline. One of the shot had the Swiss Re building in it, still under construction (but near completion). I'm sure I wouldn't have noticed that if I hadn't read this thread.

Glass suppository? I like that description!