The Product of a "Solution" and Other Moral Dilemmas

My favorite architectural discoveries are unplanned, unexpected, and, with a splash of humorous context, a bit absurd.Enter five grad architecture students, wandering around Mudchutes Farm en route to pay homage to the unavoidable Sir Foster and his "cathedral-like" Canary Wharf tube station. Suddenly, amidst a large expanse of foliage and barnyard animals, Emerald City appears on the horizon. Cranes loom high above, whispering to the sky promises of development and economic prosperity. Tall, faceless buildings ascend to create a large profile of anonymity at its... most anonymous?

And so began our trek to-and-through Canary Wharf, a sci-fi Venice that makes McMansion developments seem "cute" and 60's housing developments "homely."

To preface, I am aware that the reconstructive surgery of a once thriving docklands is not an easy task. Particularly when this type of "development" involves the vision of a city made for and by money. It is hard not to picture a planning scenario choreographed by stain-resistant trousers, blackberries, skim lattes, and words like "convenience," and "accessibility" intermingled with "design" and "strategy."




Rewind to Canary Wharf, circa 1802 to 1980. For almost two hundred years, the Isle of Dogs boasted one of the world's most active docks. However, after a bombing in the 1950's, the advent of the large shipping-container, and the decline of the port industry, 8 miles of business quickly became dirty and derelict.

Luckily Margaret Thatcher and the London Docklands Development Corporation began to think 1980's "big," as did the world's largest financial institutions. With the deregulation of banking services, the financial landscape changed as well. Large corporate headquarters and multi-floor office buildings were needed to accomodate a financial food chain of employees and services. Thus the vision was sealed: Canary Wharf would lead London's new financial frontier, one non-descript building at a time.

After walking around Canary Wharf, it is a bit difficult not to feel torn between the product of a "solution." While Canary Wharf was successful in exponentially increasing land value, attracting commerce, and just recently, full-time residents, the glass-box syndrome of quick development seems too successful, efficient, and optimized. In a walk into the mall adjacent to the tube station, I was shocked to see the extravagant use of marble surrounding the "hip" sushi-and-organic food court.

While I have yet to visit China, I am aware of the phenomenon of entire cities being planned and built within the life-span of an ipod. As architects, I wonder how thoughtful and agile we can be as we continue to approach and re-approach city planning, one Canary Wharf at a time. Perhaps our goal should not be product-life, but solution validity.