"...Architecture has its political use; public buildings being the ornament of a country; it establishes a nation, draws people and commerce; makes the people love their native country." Sir Christopher Wren.
Currently there seems to be a crisis in public confidence in British politicians. The expenses scandal exposed the disconnection that many people felt towards the political process in this country.
With the downturn in the economy, many people looked for scapegoats and the details of the expenses that many MPs were claiming exacerbated this separation. Indeed the details of some MPs claiming for second home allowance led some to suggest providing communal accommodation near to the Palace of Westminster would be the ideal solution!
The suspicions that many voters had was that the political world was becoming something of an insular members' club based around Westminster - with MPs out for all the benefits they could get and all the work being done behind closed doors.
At the recent Political conferences, MPs' speeches were filled with details of how they intended to curb their spending along with a collective attempt to reduce the overall public debt.
In a bid to re-establish a rapport with their constituents and the voting public MPs have started using such political 'buzz words' as transparency and clarity - words that could be adjectives associated with a successful modern building.
Portcullis House, designed by Michael Hopkins, and opened in 2000, is situated close to the Palace of Westminster. It provides office accommodation for 210 Members of Parliament within a six-storey rectangular block around a central courtyard covered by a glazed roof supported by oak members. It is intended to be environmentally friendly and is designed to overcome such issues as the proximity of the Tube line below.
The imposing external facade contrast with the bright central courtyard area - an award-winning building but perhaps also a metaphor for the current public view of politicians?
In his book, 'The Edifice Complex - How the Rich and Powerful Shape the World,' Deyan Sudjic talks about Architecture being "not merely an art form, but a form of communication - or more pointedly, a kind of propaganda."
Politicians have used buildings as a show of political and economic strength.
However if you were to soften the definition of propaganda to something like 'a method of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of community towards a cause' (as on Wikipedia!) then perhaps the future of (political) buildings could be exemplars of transparency, clarity and accessibility. These were certainly the intentions of Norman Foster with both the Reichstag and City Hall in London.
The Reichstag transformation was completed by Foster in 1999 and allows the public and the politicians to enter through the same re-opened formal entrance. It is a show of architectural strength that embraces the general public within the political process.
On the Foster and Partners' web-site they discuss the buildings transformation being rooted in four issues:
- the significance of the Bundestag as a democratic forum
- a commitment to public accessibility
- a sensitivity to history
- a rigorous environmental agenda.
The intentions of the City Hall were similar from Foster's point of view in that he wished to express "the transparency and accessibility of the political process' and 'demonstrate the potential for a sustainable, virtually non-polluting public building.'
Posts
Post a Comment