• Europe

• Business

• Economy

• Culture

• Technology

• Education

• Travel

• Lifestyle

• Just Curious

Does Size Really Matter?

In spite of the constant threat of financial meltdown, companies and governments have shown little interest in abandoning ambitious and extravagant building projects to add skyscrapers to city skylines.

Is this important and in the name of the common good?

During the Middle Ages, monarchs and bishops in Western Europe would work hard to construct ever greater cathedrals, confident in the knowledge that such buildings, intended as monuments to God and a sign of their unwavering support for the Catholic church, would secure their place in Heaven. Nowadays, in what some regard as a godless age, many of the continent’s towns can still boast some of the most ornate places of worship around; monuments to an age when religious devotion was considered to be amongst the most important of all virtues. An interest in large buildings which made statements was not just a mediaeval issue either – ancient Egyptian pharaohs would begin constructing the tombs by which they would be remembered – Pyramids – almost as soon almost as they ascended to the throne and more recently the Titanic, a famous passenger liner, was designed and built with the express aim of demonstrating how man, with his engineering prowess – had conquered nature. Nature, in the end, had other ideas.

One wonders, therefore, what the on-going building of skyscrapers by companies and governments across the world - each one designed to beat a previous record – is meant to signify and where this might all end up. The appetite for such projects, in a time of global slowdown has been nothing short of breath-taking. The Shard – a skyscraper currently under construction in London – will edge out Frankfurt’s Commerzbank Tower for the title of the tallest building in Europe when it is completed in 2010. However, it in turn may be usurped by any one of three planned Moscow Towers although whichever of these three takes the crown of ‘Europe’s biggest building will not hold it for long; twin towers planned for La Défense in Paris, to be known as Hermitage Plaza, will outshine all three.  Such relentless one-upmanship is happily not limited to European ‘partners’ either; Dubai’s Burj Khalifa was recently proud recipient of the title ‘world’s tallest building,’ knocking the incumbent Shanghai World Financial Centre off its perch. However, even the Middle Eastern principality might not hold on to the laureate for too long – even bigger projects are in the pipeline in Delhi, Seoul, Kuwait and Bahrain because, after all, who wouldn’t want to have an enormous glass structure dominate their city?

Cynics – and there are many of them – would suggest that these projects are more about making sure that there will be lasting monuments to an age of excess than solving real urban planning problems. Certainly, it is difficult to understand why cities, even ones as crowded as London, need such ostentatious monuments right in the heart of town to resolve their space issues; in an age of modern communications and technology, it would seem to make more sense for multinationals to site their offices in industrial estates outside city centres, closer to airports where rents are cheaper. Nor is there a dearth of office space in many of the places where such buildings are to be built– in 2009, whilst builders and architects were busy scrambling to meet the ambitious deadlines set for them at the Shard, London’s empty office space topped 10 million square feet and has remained fairly close to this level ever since. Dubai meanwhile has only managed to fill 60% of its own commercial property.

The companies involved argue that it is foolish to talk in such terms about skyscrapers - these buildings are icons, not just functional floor space. Indeed, the Shard’s own website describes how the building will ‘redefine London’s skyline and become a symbol for the capital’ whilst that of the Burj Khalifa claims that the building will in time become ‘a symbolic beacon of progress, and an emblem of the new, dynamic and prosperous Middle East.’ Moscow’s Naberezhnaya Tower, meanwhile, is to herald a ‘new beginning for the city’ - Paris’s Hermitage Plaza is less ambitious – understandable, perhaps, for a project on which work has not yet started – its designers only promise to create a ‘new community to the east of La Défense.’ It is easy to mock such talk as marketing fluff, bold statements which have little bearing on reality – after all, how exactly does one ‘redefine’ a skyline? Sniggering aside, however, there is a value to be found in such monuments, although it is often difficult to discern from official press releases; the image they promote of cities is a real boon to companies and inhabitants alike. Thus is particularly important as most of them will at some point come to serve as bases for financial services companies, enterprises operating in a sector where confidence – and indeed image - is key to any success.This was highlighted in August this year;when following the downgrade of American debt, markets entered into a catastrophic downward cycle. Big construction projects have the power to provide investors with assurance that these cities remain dynamic and vibrant economies - an important message for metropolises to put across. This is particularly true for the West which constantly attempts to demonstrate that it still offers potential in the 21st century, when many companies would prefer to look to the developing ‘BRIC’ economies instead.  Conversely, skyscrapers allow burgeoning ‘new’ economies to show that they represent modern and sound investment opportunities; if Federal, local and regional bodies are capable of co-ordinating well enough to pursue such projects in Moscow, surely fears about government interference in business affairs in Russia can be laid to rest?

The other side of this argument, of course, is that such financial monoliths convince citizens of countries in economic difficulty – including a Dubai still reeling from a financial meltdown in 2009, BRIC economies facing the old spectre of inflation and Western countries short of credit – that times are still good; why else would monuments to financial services industries be thrown up with such recklessness? The hard-sell – that everyone must make sacrifices – becomes more difficult to get across to the general public if financial centres are promoting an image of wealth an opportunity. At the same time, enormous construction projects in city centres give citizens the impression – probably with some justification – that big businesses are able to call the tune when it comes to deciding on government policy. Many in London were shocked to see the sheer size of the tower which has been built at the Shard site and wondered openly if the project was approved to placate companies hinting that they would otherwise leave the UK. The image here is that the little people are of little importance when it comes to deciding on grand urban planning projects.

There is a final point to consider when it comes to any development in city centres. Urban landscapes have rarely remained the same for any period of time and some of the most well-loved landmarks were once vehemently criticised for their vulgarity and brashness. The Eiffel Tower, designed as a monument to French engineering and power at the turn of the century, was considered to be amongst the ugliest buildings in the world. It is now, of course, considered to be the defining landmark for the Gallic state. Could it be that the angular Shard, pointed Burj Khalifia or geometrical marvel at the Hermitage plaza will be considered masterpieces in years to come? By that time, people may mock the buildings as monuments to values which have long since disappeared. That does not mean, of course, that their size will not matter.

by Thomas Thatcher