Reflections on Thomas Heatherwick and our "boring" buildings

Last week I posted a recommendation to listen to the BBC Sounds podcast “Building Soul with Thomas Heatherwick”. In the podcast Heatherwick outlines his theory that modern architecture is, simply put, “boring” and that this is having a negative impact on all of our lives. Initially, I was at least partially convinced. Living in London and having worked in and around the City for most of my career, it is hard to disagree that the forest of grey, glass clad buildings are boring. Even the latest trend of putting gold or bronze accents is not enough to convince me otherwise.?

But I have been mulling over the podcast for the past week, thinking about his thesis as I walk around the city and have done a 180. While the first episode of his podcast tries to root his thinking in architectural psychology and therefore putting humans at the centre of his argument, I can’t help but now think that humans are distinctly lacking from the argument he is making.?

And putting humans at the centre of building, design and urban planning is essential (at least for me as someone who is not educated in these areas but has a pretty keen interest). American-Canadian writer Jane Jacobs said “There is no logic that can be superimposed on the city; people make it, and it is to them, not buildings, that we must fit our plans”.? Her thinking on people-centric cities and spaces is even more important now that it was at the start of the last century as we continue to be a more urban society. In England and Wales between 2001 and 2019 city populations increased by 16%. Population growth and continued urbanisation make it even more important we have sensible approaches to what and how we are building.?

You need only look at some of Heatherwick’s recent projects to get you questioning whether he is the best placed person to be informing “better” design and planning. He is the designer behind the proposed Garden Bridge in London. There were multiple criticisms for the project, namely that its location was a part of London already well served by bridges opposed to the east end of the city where Tower Bridge is the last crossing over the river. Its classification as a public space was also questioned as its funding was dependent on private backers. The Vessel in New York designed by Heatherwick Studios and billed as a piece of public art has also been closed indefinitely since it opened in 2019 after a series of suicides.????

This is not to say that Heatherwick’s designs are “bad” and these are of course only two examples. But his approach to design and thinking around how our buildings should be built feeds into what I have for a while seen as the “fairground-isation” of our spaces and especially our cities. What do I mean by this? Where structures and spaces are not necessarily designed for the people living there, but for visitors and for the entertainment of people. I am not saying that cities cannot be fun spaces. But projects like the Garden Bridge and the Vessel essentially serve to entertain rather than be a useful addition and often will divert attention and resources away from necessary infrastructure. The MSG Sphere proposed for Stratford is another example; a project while providing a novel concert and event space, will likely have a negative impact on those actually living in the area (they have kindly been offered black out blinds to combat the light pollution that will come from the venue).?

I am not an expert on this subject but having lived in London for 10 years I have always been interested in how cities and our spaces are designed and evolve. Even in my relatively short time living here I have seen the city and the neighbourhoods I have lived in change drastically. Some changes for the better. Some not so much.?

Heatherwick focuses too much on aesthetics. While there is evidence to suggest a city not being, as he puts it, “boring” it ignores some of the other priorities when it comes to architecture and planning that experts are already stressing:?

The environment. Climate change is going to impact the way we live. Heatherwick does rightly suggest that we should not be taking a “fast fashion” approach to architecture and be designing for the long term. This includes using and adapting existing buildings rather than just tearing them down (see the debate around the Marks & Spencer flagship shop and the Birmingham Ringway Centre). But it is also about adapting our built up areas to better deal with things such as extreme weather, such as using trees to help combat extreme heat and flooding.?

Social equality. The housing crisis and cost of living crisis in the UK, along with a historic under investment in social housing, has continued a trend of “suburbandisation” where lower-income people are priced out of areas. Not only is this distressing for people who may have called those areas their homes for years, it also is detrimental to neighbourhoods and communities as studies show the benefits mixed income communities have on those living there.?

Livability. Simply put, our housing needs to be high quality. But in the UK, a higher proportion of people are living in poor quality housing compared to other countries in Europe. While it may be nice for buildings to not be “boring” they still need to serve the basic functions of keeping those who live there safe and warm. Livability also extends beyond the front door and to public spaces. According to research by Play England between 2017 and 2021 the number of children’s park dropped by 17%, denying children access to a safe place outside their home to play which campaigners say have an important role to play in childhood development.?

I think Heatherwick’s intentions are good. I am sure anyone living in a large city or a new suburb can relate to giving a small sigh when they see another glass tower block being built or another web of roads flanked by identical redbrick homes. But there are greater challenges for how we are building than just how they look.?