TRANSFORMATIONS IN PUBLIC SPACE: FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE RISE OF PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES (POPS)

THE CASE STUDY OF BROADGATE, LONDON

Masterwork project by: Alexandros Daniilidis

University of Brighton February 2016

MA Architectural and Urban Design

ABSTRACT

“Once upon a time, a very long time ago, a settlement was born by a river, and they called it something unpronounceable. When the Romans came, they called it Londinium. Kings and queens and dukes and other powerhouses flocked to this city by the river.

Across the decades and the centuries, all these powerful kings and queens and dukes – and ever-bigger companies and banks and funds – rose and fell. They are all dead now. But the city where they lived is still alive, after 2,000 years of moving through history; looking forward with the will to live.”

Saskia Sassen, ‘A monster crawls into the city’, The Guardian, 23.12.15

LIST OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Chapter 1: Public Space and Urban LifeWhat is Public Space?Public space and its essentiality in everyday lifeAspects of Public Space: Public Art or Art of Public?Conclusion

Chapter 2: Big Bang and post-development: A decade of financial growth (1983-1993)The economic ‘Big Bang’: The sparkle that became a flameIn search for new space: the architecture of profitIntroduction to Broadgate business and office complex

Chapter 3: Rise of privatized urban space: Introducing BroadgatePart 1: Broadgate: UK’s “greatest redevelopment project” The site: Before BroadgateBroadgate complex: The early phasesBroadgate complex: The later phases

Part 2: The privatization of Public Space Impacts on public sphere: the rise of privatized public spaces (POPS) The Broadgate complex and public spaceBroadgate Circle: a private enclave with a public maskConclusion (a narration about the Broadgate experience)

Chapter 4: Design proposal – intervention: ‘Making a destination’IntroductionBroadgate and public artThe argumentThe siteThe proposal

Bibliography - Selected articles/journals/Films - documentaries

6

1

2

7810

131416

202123

262831

38394143

35

46

52

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1

Foremost, I would like to thank my supervisors Susan Robertson and John Andrews for their valuable guidance and feedback throughout this dissertation.

I would also like to thank and express my deep respect to all those who contributed in any way in the completion of this paper.

Last but not least, I would like to thank and express my absolute gratitude to my parentsfor their unconditional support.

“Timendi causa est nescire” - Lucius Annaeus Seneca

INTRODUCTION

2

1 My hometown is Thessaloniki, the second largest city in Greece, located in the north of the country. It is a seaside city which makes it an ideal place for long strolls and social occasions.

2 According to sociologists, including Habermas and Lefebvre, the public sphere encompasses every public activi-ty and interaction that takes place in and around a city’s built environment

3 Bourne L. S., Internal Structure of the City, Oxford University Press, 1982, p.6

Since I can first remember, public open space has always been the ‘stage’ for my so-cialization and experiencing of the world. I can still recall memories from my first encoun-ters with the public realm during my early childhood. My grandfather used to take me for long strolls around my hometown’s open spaces by the seafront1 , gazing at the cargo ships, the landscape or just the people walking by. I guess that was the initiation of my subconscious desire to spend more and more of my time in public spaces. I consider my-self lucky enough to have grown up during the 1990s, where resources such as internet social media, mobile phones and all those products of contemporary society that mod-ern adolescents are involved with, were simply beyond my reach (or simply did not exist). Inevitably, yet naturally, my generation grew up outdoors, as an active part of the public realm, shaping it, scaling it and appropriating it. From sports activities in my neighbour-hood’s open fields to engagements with political activism, public space was always the place of practice. Our lives could not be restrained by domesticity or the manipulative virtual life of social networks. We needed to be out there, to develop our characters and express our concerns. Eventually, all these lifetime experiences rendered public space an integral part of my civic everyday life and established in me a strong sense of respect and responsibility towards the public sphere2 along with a growing concern about its practices and evolution.

Cities and urban environments, as a product of human evolution, are not static en-tities and thus are constantly evolving and reshaping. The city, according to geographer L.S. Bourne is a “spatial mirror of society”3 reflecting all these facets – financial, cultural, technological and political– of social life that rule society, from which the city’s shape and function derives. Therefore, public sphere, as a compound of a greater urban organism, is also transforming along with its places of practice, namely public spaces. These trans-

formations I intend to investigate and report through this dissertation in the context of financial development as a regulative factor in the redistribution, reshaping and, eventually, re-establishment of public space. London, as a global financial city,4 provided the necessary prerequisites that need to be addressed in order to record spatial changes associated with financial development.

Essentially, the production and management of public space acquired a new meaning during the 1980s as the fundamental principles of economic growth defined the terms and objectives of urban regeneration. The economic ‘Big-Bang’5 that occurred in 1986 led to a financial boom that, consequently inaugurated an unprece-dented architectural wave. The architecture of profit, as I frame it in this paper, came to embody, spatially and structurally, the new demands that derived from Big-Bang’s new financial order and the excessive accumulation of capital in the City of London. The existing building stock around the Bank of England and London Stock Exchange was not sufficient to cover the proliferating demands in appropriate office space. Even though buildings housing financial activities did exist prior to Big-Bang (Lloyds of London, the NatWest Tower), the scheme that best represents the constructional activities of that era is Broadgate office complex, a project that “helped facilitate the growth of the Square Mile”.6 This project potently altered the physical appearance of the City of London, occupying a 30-acre site (120.000m2) on the borough’s eastern borders. Moreover, the Broadgate development endorsed the ongoing privatization of the public sphere by designing and promoting its open spaces as privately

4 Also referred to as ‘world cities’ or ‘megacities’. The term refers to cities which are a significant node of globalization and world economy. Of course these cities are highly populated and are being defined primarily by the accumulation of capital and world financial and trade enterprises and organizations. (London, New York, Tokyo, Beijing etc)

5 Big Bang, 1986 – In plain terms the deregulation of the British Stock Market resulted in its opening up to foreign membership, leading to a rush of major American and Japanese financial organizations looking for high quality office space in a short period of time (see Chapter 2)

6 Stuart Fraser, the City of London corporation’s policy chairman(source: broadgate.co.uk)

3

managed public spaces (or privately owned public spaces – POPS7 ) whose function and character conformed to the fundamental values of capitalism; succinctly, an interesting case of urban (re)development introducing a radically different and contradictory ap-proach to what genuinely public space is about.

The dissertation is structured in four chapters. The first two chapters set the context and fields of inquiry, while chapter three, which is divided into two parts, introduces the case study and the main argument deriving from the scope established in the previous chapters. This argument will also form a contextual base for the design proposal, which can be found in the final chapter of this paper. A more detailed description of each chap-ter follows:

Chapter one describes the idea behind the research and major field of research itself. It examines the principles and practices that constitute public space as an essential field of representation in democratic societies and, thus, as an integral part of urban social life. Furthermore, Chapter one introduces public art as an aspect of public space’s rep-resentational practices and its catalytic role in notional and spatial interpretation of the public sphere. Public art is also addressed in the final chapter, setting the scope for the design proposal’s qualitative approach. The extent of the research on the epistemological fields of each subject ranges from established perspectives by renowned sociologists on the sociological and political facets of public space (Jurgen Habermas, David Harvey, Don Mitchell) to spatial representations and critical debates on the essentiality of public art as a part of public sphere’s representational activities (Malcolm Miles, Jane Rendell, Sara Selwood).

Chapter two sets the scope, through which public space is regenerated both notion-ally and physically, along with the timeline and the field of action, which in this case is the City of London. Economic development is a powerful regulative factor in a city’s life that can lead to significant or even complete regeneration, with often limitative and

non-democratic reflections on the public sphere. In this chapter the literature review is mostly related to the factors that ignited the economic Big Bang, as well as the spa-tial requirements that came to be encapsulated in an emerging constructional wave of high-standard office facilities and well-protected private enclaves. In this chapter I evaluate articles of the time that give the notion of financial development and its im-pact on the built environment (Architect’s Journal, Building Design), as well as essays written by important individuals in London’s financial life (Nigel Lawson). This context will be used to set the standards for the case study in the next chapter.

Chapter three, as previously discussed, consists of two parts. The first is an introduction to Broadgate, the case study analysed in this dissertation. Through a detailed reference to its original site, amount of occupied space, phases of construc-tion and tenants I intend to capture the size and significance of the City’s massive redevelopment project. In this regard it was essential to research and report the im-pact Broadgate had on the architectural press of the time (between 1985 and 1991). The second part of this chapter focuses on the main argument that derives from the contradictive nature of the key subjects. What is the impact on the public sphere when financial development requires more and more private space? What kind of public spaces are produced when the design principles are not public-oriented but profit-oriented? A detailed study of Broadgate’s busiest privately owned public space (Broadgate Circle) aims to capture the spatial concerns it raised regarding its quality as a public space and record its evolution into a well-protected, privately owned office and retail hub. My methodological approach includes brief empirical surveys through which I record and depict frequently used paths and people’s frequently used standing points, spatial limitations and existing facilities that will contribute in a qualitative evaluation of Broadgate Circle’s public character. At the end of the chapter I include an overall critique of the site’s spatial and notional aspects, derived from the evaluation of the survey data collected. Presented in a narrative style, I want to capture the feeling of being in Broadgate Circle and my personal experience of

7 See Chapter 3, part 2, p. 26

4

a contradictory public space which attracts thousands of people through its ‘pseudo’ public appearance.

The final chapter consists of my proposal – an intervention in Broadgate’s privately man-aged public space. As previously mentioned, public art is an essential part of my approach and significantly contributes to the selection of the site where my proposal is situated. For this reason, and prior to the section where I analyse the concept of the proposal, I briefly refer to Broadgate’s pieces of public art and how they contribute to a different perspective of space. By evaluating data from observational surveys about public art’s impact on movement patterns and in combination with maps and figures displaying public activity at crucial points within Broadgate, I justify and further analyse the site where, in my opinion, a potential in-tervention could have a notable impact on the public and, thus, enhance the ‘obscure’ public character of the Broadgate development. The site is a relatively narrow space that acts as a conduit from and to inner Broadgate; a noticeably dense public square, on the south edge of Broadgate, where one of the most remarkable pieces of public art is located. My ulterior aim is to re-establish the site where ‘Fulcrum’ (Broadgate’s most famous sculpture) is located as a notable destination and not simply a transition point from and to the Broadgate complex. Moreover, the intervention intends to oppose the sterile, surveilled environment of Broad-gate Circle by foremost creating, through its form, the prerequisites for social interaction and the creation of incentives and situations that constitute a desirable space and, as a result, a potential public space.

1PUBLIC SPACE AND URBAN LIFE

Public space and urban life

What is Public Space?The objective of this part is to introduce the reader to the main content of this chapter

and masterwork key context which refers to the public space, along with its specific char-acteristics and its meaning for urban life. Public space constitutes a significant part of city theory, reflecting on various study fields from architecture and geography to social scienc-es, raising among academics and urban thinkers a productive debate on cities life and future. In this part, public space is examined as a determinant aspect of contemporary society function, as a space of practice, representation, civic and political engagement.

First, I need to define and clarify the scope of public space. In general, public space definition includes all kinds of areas that are open and accessible to society members within the city’s – town’s or village’s – built environment.1 From streets to parks and from plazas to public buildings, all non-private areas that can be used by the public for leisure activities or “space of representation”2 and interaction can be defined as public spaces. However, public space does not remain confined exclusively within its approach as a physical, palpable space, but it can expand theoretically beyond that. In modern civiliza-tion, Internet, being a major means of communication and representation, is also used as a public, though immaterial, space accessible by everyone (blogs, public websites, forums etc). Both expressions of public space mentioned here are part of public life and society function. This masterwork field of inquiry is, nevertheless, focusing on the physical, tan-gible space, which is the space between buildings where the real life occurs and is being practiced.

Cities are manmade complex entities; hence designed to accommodate urban life and meet people’s need for housing, working and interacting. The latter aspect of urban life is primarily represented by public spaces, the ‘stage’ upon which social life is enacted and what the public realm -the space between buildings3- is made of. Since the formation of

1 Neal, Zachary, ‘Locating Public Space’ in Orum, Anthony and Neal, Zachary (eds) Common Ground? Readings and Reflections on Public Space, Routledge, 2009, p.1

2 Mitchell Don, The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 85, No. 1,1995, p.115

3 Z. Müge Akkar Ercan, Public Spaces of post-industrial cities and their Changing roles, METU JFA 2007/1 (24:1), p.119

the first democratic societies, public space has been occupying an “important ideological position”.4 It is generally accepted that the notion of urban public space originates from the democratic Athenian state, in ancient Greece.5 The epicentre of Athenian democracy was the ‘agora’ (assembly) which functioned as “the place of citizenship, an open space where public affairs and legal disputes were conducted […]It was also a marketplace, a place of pleasurable jostling, where citizens’ bodies, words and actions were all literally on mutual display, and where judgements, decisions, and bargains were made”.6 It was the place where someone could see and hear city life and perform transactions of both goods and ideas.7 Consequently, it was the core of the Athenian state public sphere which, ac-cording to Gerard Hauser, is “a discursive space in which individuals and groups associate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgment about them”.8

4 Mitchell,1995, p.116

5 Athenian democracy developed around the fifth century BC in the city – state (polis) of Athens and it is the first known democracy in the ancient world. An eminent individual of the Athenian state was Pericles, the founder of democracy (495 – 429 BC) whose leadership concurred with the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of Athens. During that period the state of Athens thrived both culturally and financially and the foundations for representational democracy were laid.

6 Hartley, John, The Politics of Pictures: The Creation of the Public in the Age of Popular Media, Psychology Press, 1992, pp 29-30

7 Miles, Malcolm, Art, Space and the City, Routledge, 1997, p. 19 8 Hauser, Gerard, Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1999, p. 61

Fig.1: Perikle’s speech in ancient AgoraPhilip von Foltz,1852

6

Public space and its essentiality in everyday life

The significance of public space can be examined under various perspectives, of which the most important in the context of this masterwork are the psychological, social, political, economic, cultural or aesthetic ones. Public space is urban space, smaller or bigger physical gaps on city’s body, interrupting the built – and predominantly private – environment. Peo-ple spend significant part of their time in these spaces, either as occupants or simply pas-sers-by. From an ecological and physical point of view, public parks or public green spaces in general are the lungs of the city, the most prominent reminder of people’s origin, which is nature. Furthermore, public space is the “arena of political deliberation and participa-tion”9 throughout human history. Being part of the public sphere, public space represents the material location where the social interactions and political activities of all members of the public occur.10 As Vito Acconci stated “public space is not space in the city but the city itself.”11 It is where democracy and social engagement can be activated (Fig. 2). From Tahrir Square (Cairo) to Tiananmen Square (Beijing) and from Tompkins square park (New York) to Syntagma square (Athens), public space was always the place of political struggle, social revolution and formation of ideas and movements. Society depends on public space as it is the stage of representation and, therefore, its voice.

In such open and accessible public spaces, one should expect to encounter individuals of diverse backgrounds, whose “social perspectives, experiences and affiliations are differ-ent”12 . This is reasonable considering the fact that, in genuine public places there are no regulations or discriminations against who can use them. All members of society, from yup-pies to the homeless and to political activists, equally possess the right of representation in the public sphere. Besides one should not ignore the recreational parameter of public space with the fun and thrill it may afford. In this direction, another significant aspect of the public realm is the randomness of its acts and the surprise of the unforeseen deriving from this randomness. Pop-up events, unscheduled situations, art and open air activities can

alter people’s mentality, intrigue them, provide them with a challenge out of the dullness and strict repetition of everyday routine or just create new perspectives on space (Fig.3-4). A mixture of the human factor along with a variety of situations and activities blending in, creating a unique ‘urban canvas’ which could be considered as the soul, voice and the very essence of the city, a heart that pulsates and reinforces the circulation of activities in public realm. This is the point where public art’s role, as means of modification and enhancing the public realm, becomes active and crucial.

Fig.2 A demonstration in Tahrir Square during the Arab spring (source: slate.com)

Fig.3 Pop-up music event on the streets of Liverpool, c. 1979(source: http://www.streetseen.org.uk/ )

Fig.4 An outddoor sport activity at Westlake Park, Seattle, USA(source: www.downtownseattle.com)

9 Harvey, David, ‘The Political Economy of Public Space’, in Low, Setha and Smith, Neil (eds) The Politics of Public Space, Routledge, 2006, p.17

10 Mitchell,1995, p.11611 Acconci, Vito, ‘Public Space in a Private Time’, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Summer, 1990), pp. 900-918

12 Young, Iris Marion, Justice and the Politics of Difference, 1990, p.119

7

Aspects of Public Space: Public Art or Art of Public?

In this section I am focusing on how public art in contemporary society is related to the public realm and how it affects or alters people’s perception on public space use and interpretation. But what is public art and what does the term ‘public’ stand for? In gener-al, public art describes works commissioned for sites of open public access; the word ‘art’ describes the exposed object and ‘public’ the site in which the art is located as well as the audience or the group of people to whom the art is intended.13 Everything, within the artis-tic context that is exposed to the general public’s sensorial perceptions can be approached as public art. Many commissioners and artists also use the term ‘site-specific’, which refers both to art as installations in a given site, and art as the design of the site itself (Fig.5).

At the ‘People and Cities’ conference held in Coventry in 1966, it was proposed that the sculptor,14 working in conjunction with the planner and the architect, was responsible for ‘expressing the meaning of the city’. Nevertheless, people’s ways of embracing and shap-ing the public realm is what constitutes a city as meaningful. Therefore, being indisputably public realm’s field of practice, public spaces are indirectly the major exponent of city’s meaning. In this direction, public art contributes to the ongoing desire to identify who we are and where we are, it beautifies, shocks, excites, questions, unites, envisions, edifies, inspires, celebrates and remembers, draws various disciplines together, and it is a catalyst for change15 (Fig. 6). Moreover, as Sara Selwood argues, “making art physically accessible is considered synonymous with encouraging a wider understanding and appreciation ofart”. 16

People choose to visit galleries or museums with the expectation to encounter some form of art. On the contrary, public art can happen anywhere; it can happen in the streets, in a plaza, in a park, outside a building, in the air or in the water. It can be an object or body of objects, a performance, an event or activity, a constructed ambience or place,

even a public narration. Regardless of its nature, public art is part of the public realm, and thus experienced equally as anything else in the surrounding space. Presumably, public art accommodates and acquires deliberate, as well as random, encounters. Some people go deliberately out of their way to experience public art, the same way as they might go to an exhibition in a gallery. But often public art is witnessed as an unintentional consequence of moving through the city. A public art activity is disclosed and, instantly, a new factor on

13 Rendell, Jane, Art and Architecture: A Place Between, 2006, p.18

14 Since I am generally referring to public art, the term ‘artist’ instead of ‘sculptor’ is more appropriate.

15 Cartiere, Cameron and Willis, Shelly (eds), The Practice of Public Art, introduction, Taylor & Francis, 2008, p.2

16 Selwood, Sara, The Benefits of Public Art, PSI Publishing, 1995, p.250

fig.5: Richard Serra’s ‘Elevations, Repetitions’ (2006),

Gagosian Gallery, NY.

A work of art that actually defines the site itself.

fig. 6: Issac Cordal’s Politicians Discussing Global

Warming, Berlin.

Public art problematizes..

fig. 7: A 3D flor painting by Nikolaj Arndt, London

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

8

someone’s spatial perception is introduced; a potential “rupture in pedestrian life.” 17

Essentially, public art is designed to ‘act’ as such; while observing the work of art, our pro-gress through urban space is being slowed down. On Lefebvre’s account, “arts future is not artistic but urban.”18

In contrast to gallery works, the majority of public art takes advantage of the open space, creating interactions and encounters, something that is not often the case with individual experiences in museums. As Guy Debord stated “something that changes our way of seeing the streets is more important than something that changes our way of seeing paintings”.19 Richard Serra’s ‘Tilted Arc’ (1981), for example, was physically nothing more than a longitudinal, slightly curved board of steel, placed in Foley Federal Plaza in New York (Fig. 8,9). But the way in which it was violently ‘invading’ the plaza, fragmenting it into individual spaces, was a unique experience for the pedestrian, whose perception of space and his very own position in it was entirely redefined. According to Barbara Hoffman, the sculpture “was constructed so as to engage the public in dialogue that would perceptually and conceptually enhance its relation to the entire plaza. The sculpture involves the viewer rationally and emotionally.”20

Public art balances at boundaries, occupying the deficient spaces between public and private, architecture and art, object and environment. When art is located in public space, the parameters that define it are questioned and new interpretations about the relation-ship between art and architecture are opened up. The viewer becomes the subject and everyone is equal before the artwork, despite someone’s art-appreciation levels or social status. Like a second-class citizen, public art can represent the marginal, the opposed or the unseen.21 It inhabits contemporary urban life unpredictably by adding or subtracting, merging or dividing, reminding or introducing, stimulating new sorts of behaviour based

17 Green, Jared, ‘Why Public Art Is Important’, in dirt.asla.org, 15.10.12

18 Henri Lefebvre in H. Lefebvre et al (eds), Writings on Cities, Wiley – Blackwell, 1996, p.173

19 Debord, Guy in Knabb, Ken (ed), Situationist International Anthology, Revised and Expanded Edition, Bureau of Public Secrets, Berkeley, CA, 1981/2006, p.42

upon human encounter and play.22 Public art is owned by everyone and no one, since the anonymity of the city lures people who want to excel or simply hide.

21 Acconci, Vito, ‘Public Space in a Private Time’ in W.J.T. Mitchell (ed), Art and the Public Sphere, The University of Chicago Press, 1992, p.176

22 Sadler, Simon, The Situationist City, The MIT Press, 1998, p.10520 Hoffman, Barbara, ‘Law for Art’s Sake in the Public Realm’ in W.J.T. Mitchell (ed), Art and the Public Sphere, The University of Chicago Press, 1992, p.116

“I consider space to be a material. The articulation of space has come to take precedence over other concerns. I attempt to use sculptural form to make space distinct.”

Richard Serra, 1998

Fig.8 Photo by Frank Martin

Fig.9 Photo by Anne Chauvet

9

Public places are the essence of city life; the ‘stage’ where people’s needs and tenden-cies for social expression and interaction are expressed, the places where ‘the practice of everyday life’23 is implemented. Dispersed throughout city web, public spaces constitute a complicated, structured network of urban ‘fragments’ outside the private realm. In addition to being major mobility ‘veins’ of urban flow, as well as meeting points for the public realm, these spaces also represent “conjoined arenas of social and political contest and struggle”.24 As it has already been mentioned, public space is the voice of the citizens and the ‘laboratory’ or assembly place of democratic society practices, of-fering the ability – and the choice – to its citizens to represent themselves in pub-lic, contribute to the shape of ideas and decisions, and when necessary, proclaim their dissatisfaction or anger about occurring injustice. Of course, public spaces are occupied by the public for the opposite reasons as well, for example to celebrate an event or to pay tribute for something/someone, whose importance is widely acknowledged by the general public 25 (Fig. 13,14). As Jane Rendell stated regarding western (democratic) tradition, ‘public’ stands for “all that is good, for democracy and accessibility, participation and egalitarianism set against the world of private ownership and elitism.” 26

Public art, in turn, is a means of social expression within the public realm. From the largest commissioned public sculpture to the smallest graffiti piece, public art participates in the production of meanings, uses, and forms for the city,27 as a practice within the established environment, while promoting ideas, expressing resentment or support, joy or distress. It is genuinely combined with the public

Conclusion

sphere and can convey the perception of space with multiple interpretations or in certain cases with misguiding messages. It can be an exponent of both ephemeral and permanent meanings or ideas, which in various totalitarian regimes has been used as an oppositional act (thus forbidden) against those who want to exert and maintain public order and cleanliness and defend official culture 28 (Fig. 15).

Both aspects of city life mentioned in this part are of a great importance for both citizens and the healthy societal function within the context of democratic ideals. However, these aspects have been increasingly threatened or questioned during the last three decades due to financial development of the cities and the established capitalist order, which is in a constant search for space to appropriate for its operational mechanism. American sociologist and Professor Richard Sennett remarks “how development tends ‘to wall off’ the differences between people, assuming that these differences are more likely to be mutually threatening than mutually stimulating. What we make in the urban realm are, therefore, bland, neutralising spaces which remove the threat of social contact […]”29 In this context, public art is generally intended to contribute to the eradication of that sense of threat by enhancing the built environment30. However, public art, especially com-missioned art, can also be manipulated to express meanings that promote certain values related to certain groups of people and establishments and, thus, create public misconceptions of its originality and the true character of the place where it is situated (Fig. 10-12).

23 Certeau, Michel de, The Practice of Everyday Life, University of California Press, 1984

24 Low, Setha, Smith, Neil (eds) The Politics of Public Space, Routledge, 2006, p.12

25 For instance people around the world gather in public spaces to celebrate New Year’s Eve or other global events, even the result of an important sport activity (world cup series etc.)26 Rendell, Jane, 2006, p.19

27 Deutsche, Rosalyn, ‘Uneven Development: public art in New York City’, in (ed.) Ghirardo, 1991:157–219 cited in Miles, Malcolm, Art, Space and the City: Public art and urban futures, Routledge, 1997, p.73-4

28 Abaza, Mona, ‘Cairo Diary: Space-Wars, Public Visibility and the transformation of Public Space in Post-rev-olutionary Egypt’ in Berry, Chris, Harbord, Janet, and Moore, Rachel (eds) Public Space, Media Space, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, p. 97-8

29 Sennett, Richard, Conscience of the Eye, 1990, p.1230 Grady, Clay, Close up: How to read the American City, 1973, p.180

10

Fig.10 ‘Couple on Street’ by Lynn Chadwick, Canary Wharf, London(1984)(source: rebeccafarley.wordpress.com)

Fig.11 ‘Bullring bull’ by Laurence Broderick, Bull Ring shopping center, Birmingham (2003)(source: http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/)

Fig.12 ‘Silver Forest’ by Rut Blees Luxemburg, Westminster City Hall, London(source: http://photolondon.org/)

Public Art can be also encountered on sites of specific financial/retail/authoritarian character and rules of engagement. Its presence aims to alter, enhance or overcast the genius loci of such places by creating incentives in a predictable environment of predefined paths and social control.

Fig.13 Lenin’s monument on Lenin Square, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia(source: www.skyscrapercity.com)

Fig.14 Saddam’s ‘Victory Arch’, Baghdad, Iraq(source: michaeljohngrist.com)

Public Art commemorates political or national figures whose role in the coun-try’s evolution was determinant. Those figure’s significance is being imposed on public realm through, usually grandiose works of art, publicly exposed, making themselves landmarks.

Public Art problematizes, communicates and raises awareness on certain issues that require solution or confrontation. Political messages agains totalitarian re-gimes, implications and debates on quali-tative aspects of modern life or concerns on people’s nature and existence are what usually public art brings forward in urban centers.

Fig.15 Protesting against sexual harassment in Cairo, as part of the Arab spring demonstrations.(source: www richheffron com)

Fig.16 ‘Out of Order’, art installation by David Mach, Kington on Thames, London(source: pinterest.com)

Fig.17 ‘Event Horizon’, series of installations by Anthony Gormley(source: dailymail.co.uk)

11

2Big Bang and post-development: A decade of financial growth (1983-1993)

Big Bang and post-development: A decade of financial growth (1983-1993)

The economic ‘Big Bang’: The sparkle that became a flame In 1981, Thatcher proclaimed for the City of London that “is a precious national asset”31 which needed the freedom of deregulation so that it could become more outward-facing. The day of October 27th, 1986, was the day of deregulation for the securities market in London, in which the LSE (London Stock Exchange) became a private limited company.32

That event, which took place under Thatcher’s Government consent, paved the way for foreign corporations – mostly major Japanese and American - to enter their member firms in London’s stock market, so that London could operate on a modern, properly capital-ized basis as a global financial center.33 The deregulation and radical reform of London’s Stock Exchange market came to be widely known as the ‘Big Bang’, a term which was then attached to the reforms package itself and to the long-standing changes which these reforms set in motion. If it was not for ‘Big Bang’, London undoubtedly would not have been Europe’s eminent financial center and its role as a global city would not have been established. According to Nigel Lawson (Thatcher’s Chancellor at the time), London “would not have become the foremost truly international financial centre of the modern globalised economy that it is today” 34

London’s City financial power initiated back in the 17th century, where the foundations were laid for some of the City’s present institutions. The stock market was founded some time in the 1670’s and around 1687/88 Lloyds of London emerged in Edward Lloyd’s Coffee House. The Industrial Revolution along with the overseas trade which it promoted, con-tributed to the growth of London’s importance during late 18th and early 19th century. This position as a leading financial and trading centre was further strengthened with the continuous expansion of the British Empire, and by 1914 London’s dominance among financial centres was unwaveringly established. In order to maintain this position, great

changes should be made in the post-World War era which, eventually, led to the formation of pre-Big Bang era conditions. Shortly before the advent of the Thatcher Government in 1979, the Office of Fair Trading decided to launch an investigation into the restrictive practices of the London Stock Exchange, which resulted in the realisation of the securities market problematic situation. While the City was a leading force among the whole range of world-class financial markets, there was no way in which London could remain one without a world-class securities business.35 Therefore, the sooner complete reform came, the better it was for English economy and London’s world-class stock market.

‘Big-Bang’ made UK open for business. Henceforth, an influx of foreign capital over-whelmed LSE which helped London maintain its role as the world’s premier truly interna-tional financial centre. The next wave of development was the globalisation of investment banking which led the English Stock market to the Japanese.36 “If the Japanese are going to have significant presence here, then there must be enormous growth in their property requirements”.37 It was, therefore, critical that the City was granted the permit and ability to continue to prosper.38 And in order to do so, the subject of spatial accommodation and infrastructure was raised as one of critical importance.

32 http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bigbang.asp

33 Kynaston, David, ‘Was the Big Bang good for the City of London and Britain?’, The Telegraph, 26.10.2011

34 Lawson, Nigel, foreword in Big Bang 20 years on: New challenges facing the financial services sector, Collected essays, Centre for policy studies, London, 2006, p.1

35 Ibid, p. 2

36 “Since 1982 they have been the largest national banking group (Japanese banks), as measured by balance sheet size, in the world. London is the largest centre for Japanese banks’ international business outside Japan itself, with some 26% of Japanese banks’ international assets booked here (by the end of 1988) […]” – Bank of England 1989, p. 88

37 (author unknown) Containing the explosion, Building Design, No 806, 3.10.1986, p.2

38 McWilliams, Douglas and Said, Jonathan, ‘The importance of the city of London to the UK economy’, pp.11-23 in Big Bang 20 years on: New challenges facing the financial services sector, 2006, p. 23

13

31 Clark, Greg, The Making of a World City: London 1991 to 2021, John Wiley & Sons, 2015, p.14

In search for new space: the architecture of profit

The 1980s was the decade when the foundations of neo-liberalism and massive capital flow were laid. London established itself as a ‘global city’ and the borough of City as the ‘headquarters’ for the financial activities. The ‘financial City’s’39 contribution to Britain’s economy was vital, not only for its considerable overseas earnings and the collection and distribution of the nation’s savings and investments into government and industry, but also for the world trade by providing a variety of absolutely essential complex mechanisms to finance international commerce.40 As a result, these new ‘value-added’ services will set the standards for new additional office space demand in central London, an area of approxi-mately 26 square kilometers and nearly 60% to 70% of all London’s office space. It is among the top five largest concentrations of employment in the world and the dominance of its office-based activities means “that it is truly comparable only with Manhattan and central Tokyo.”41 (see Table 1: Employment in the City)

Margaret Thatcher’s policies led to a significant growth in commercial development in a city where 75% of the office stock was built before the advent of the personal computer as a tool for processing and storing data. This is probably the “biggest spurt” since the 1900s, considering that the 1960s boom was mostly late replacement of stock destroyed in WW II.42 According to an estimation of the time, central London has approximately 14 million square meters of office space built before 1980, much of which is unsuitable to accom-modate the new office demands, for rooms are too small, their shape is inefficient and the ventilation system is inadequate. The unprecedented amount of technical equipment (cables, monitors, PCs) along with the need for big, efficiently designed spaces that could accommodate a significant amount of office workers, executive technical staff, clients and

security staff necessitated an increase in demand for large office buildings. This demand was met between 1985 and 1989 by the addition of nearly 2 million m2 to the central Lon-don stock (15.3% of the existing office space) and, subsequently by 1.3 and 1.2 million m2

in the years 1990 and 1991 respectively (an extra 16.9%).43 This dramatic change in spatial demand was accumulated in buildings far bigger than the already built in central London (Fig. 18). According to a review by Jones Lang Wooton44 (1989) in the period 1984-88, the total occupation of floorspace within the City of London and its fringes came up to 2.4 million m2 which is the equivalent of about one-third of the original stock. In 1984, 335.000 m2 were acquired for occupation. This was an increase of 30% on the previous year, and from 1985 to the end of 1988 it increased by an additional 60% to run at almost 560.000 m2 per year.45 This fact constituted the new objective for an emerging architectural wave of big office complexes, which eventually reflected on the rapid capital development within the City of London.

40 A 1989 Bank of England report on London’s role as a diversified global financial centre identified the following world roles: international Eurocurrency business; Eurobond transactions; foreign exchange; fund management; corporate financial advice; equity trading; insurance and trading futures and options.

41 Diamond, Derek, ‘The City, the ‘Big Bang’ and Office Development’ in Hoggart, Keith and Green, David R.(eds) London, A new Metropolitan Geography, Edward Arnold publications, 1991, p.81

42 Rebenek, Andrew, ‘Broadgate and the Beaux Arts’, Architect’s Journal, No 17, Volume 192, 24.10.90, pp. 36-51

43 Ibid

44 British real estate agency, founded by Richard Winstanley in 1783, opened its first US office in 1975 and in 1999 merged with LaSalle Partners, forming JLL (Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated), which was the biggest real estate agency merging at the time.

45 Diamond, Derek, 1991, p.87

source: Rajan (1988) in Hoggart, Keith and Green, David R.(eds) London, A new Metropolitan Geography, Edward Arnold publications, 1991, p.88

Table 1

14

39 Bolton, Nigel, Broadgate & its development: offices above their station, 1989,dissertation, University of Brighton, p.21

Two of the largest and most significant development projects in London emerged in the years between 1983 and 1992, ‘inaugurating’ the new wave in architectural and construc-tion sector; Broadgate office complex, which is going to be examined in-depth later in this dissertation, is located adjacent to Liverpool’s street station on the east part of City’s borough and Canary Wharf business district, located on the Isle of Dogs, on the east part of Tower Hamlets borough (Fig.19,20). This new high-tech business architecture of steel and glass “embodied the modernising and entrepreneurial ethic of London’s corporate culture”.46 The Broadgate scheme, whose initial phases were constructed between 1985 and 1987, is considered to be the City of London’s pioneering office complex project. Home to prestigious companies including UBS (Swiss financial institution), RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), Deutsche Bank and EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Develop-ment) Broadgate scheme “came to embody the brash, flash ‘loadsamoney’ culture of the 1980s economic boom.”47 On the other hand, Canary Wharf development project, an area of 930.000 sq. meters, initiated in 1991 and by 1993 most of the scheme’s proposals were built. Interestingly, however, the scheme was granted by Margaret Thatcher herself in 1987, who personally called and commissioned the development group Olympia & York to under-take the project’s construction, rendering Canary Wharf as one of ‘Iron Lady’s’ greatest last-ing legacy.48 Some of the world’s greatest financial institutions are situated in Canary Wharf, like Citigroup, Barclays, J.P. Morgan, Moody’s, HSBC and more. An interesting fact regarding both schemes is that they are not yet fully completed; they are in a constant evolution sig-nifying a tendency towards greater financial and capitalistic development rendering them as reflective projects of City’s continuous economic empowerment in the last two decades.

47 Booth, Robert, ‘Heritage or horror? Row over Broadgate demolition plan’, The Guardian, 12.5.2011

48 Olympia & York was a Canadian property company and one of the biggest in the world at the time. Its found-ers Albert and Paul Reichmann had been commissioned with the construction of development projects of great importance among which were the World Trade Center in New York and Canary Wharf in London. According to journalist Graham Ruddick (‘Will Canary Wharf be Baroness Thatcher’s greatest lasting legacy?’, The Telegraph, 9.4.2013) Margaret Thatcher herself called Paul Reichmann in 1987, remarkably asking him to take over the Ca-nary Wharf project by telling him “You are the only developer in the world that could do Canary Wharf”.

Fig. 18: City cluster in 1983.

City’s physical appearance changed significantly since the dawn of the ‘loadsamoney’ 1980s.(source: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/)

Fig. 19: Broadgate complex in late 1980s(source: Bolton, Nigel, Broadgate & its development: offices above their station, 1989)

fig. 20: The financial district of Canary Wharf in 2012.(source: wikipedia)

15

46 Clark, Greg, 2015, p.15

Introduction to Broadgate business and office complex

The City, more than anywhere else in London, craves grandiose new buildings to “pump up the aura” of architecturally dramatic change, and create as much profitable floorspace as possible. If history, as the Arts and Crafts designer William Morris stated in 1889, is “perpetual change”, the City is the best representative of that modification in London.49 The massive remaining stock of out-of-date office buildings and obsolete infrastructure were overcast in the late 1980s by a dramatic office building boom, a by-product of the financial Big-Bang and the growth of global financial markets within the fringes of City (Fig. 21). It is generally considered that Stuart Lipton50, Broadgate’s major developer (long before anyone else), should be acknowledged for his realisation that the 1986 ‘Big Bang’ would lead to a large scale reconstruction of London. This construction boom ushered a new architectural wave whose typical product seems quite different from the classic high-rise model of the 1960s and 1970s, creating a new geography of employment in a significantly enlarged London centre.

Broadgate office complex came to describe this new wave. Comprised by 14 buildings with a total provision of about 370.000 sq metres of advanced design office space, it is considered to be the largest single development in the City of London since the Great Fire of 1666 and, upon completion, one of the largest in terms of financial value in the whole of Europe. Occupying a site of approximately 120.000 m2 at the junction of the City of London, Hackney and Tower Hamlets (see map 1), Broadgate was the result of intensive market research over several years that revealed and later satisfied the demand for high quality office space.51 (Fig. 22) The newly built buildings were only about ten stories high, but their post-modern style could not obscure their functionality. Careful design has proved efficient by providing massive uninterrupted floor space with controlled environments to prevent computing equipment from overheating and additional space between the floors that could facilitate huge quantities of wiring. An amount of over 280.000 m2 of banks, offices, shops

and restaurants rendered Broadgate a private enclave within the City’s fabric of capital and employment accumulation, ‘mimicking’ corresponding types of office complexes that emerged in great US financial centers during the previous years (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Boston). As Catherine Croft52 stated “its American influence is witnessed in its postmodern architecture, sequence of public spaces which are privately owned and its sense of private rather than public patronage.”(Fig. 23) Besides, it is on record that Broad-gate’s developing firm Rosehaugh Stanhope Developments (RSD) evaluated the new dealing rooms in New York before commencing this development.53

49 Merrick, Jay, ‘5 Broadgate: Inside the ‘groundscraper’ set to become the City’s new financial engine’, Independent.co.uk, 5.6.2015

50 Sir Stewart Lipton (1942 - ), founder and former chief executive of Rosehaugh Stanhope Developments

51 Jencks, Charles, ‘Broadgate: The city in the City’, Architectural Design vol.61 5-6/1991, p.46-47

52 Director of the Twentieth Century Society, Broadgate preservation

53 Diamond, Derek, 1991, p. 84

Fig. 21: The financial borough of the City in 1990. Broadgate’s early phases are on the left side of the image, while the later phases are under construction. The ‘machine’ is working full power in order to catch up with the new office and financial standards (source: Davis, John, Phase 11, London: Davenport, 1991)

16

By the end of 1980s architectural and civic design production passed on to the private sector. Projects like Broadgate and Canary Wharf, which were fuelled by the financial mar-kets and global capital, predefined the advent of privatization as a regulative factor in urban space’s design and character. Henceforth, “space and air would be shaped and primped by the private sector”.54 That resulted in a redefinition of architecture in favour of the continu-ous financial and commercial development within controlled and thus sterile environments,

while neglecting a qualitative approach towards architectural production and the public notion of urban space. The clientele’s objective is to “to choke as much value out of a site as possible”,55 and Broadgate, as a big project of capitalistic development is definitely a model of such philosophy.

54, 55 Martin, Ian, ‘The city that privatized itself to death’, The Guardian, 24.2.15

Stock Exchange

Money Investment

Solicitors

Real Estate

IT Services

Insurance Services

Business Consultant

Bank

Fig. 22: Inside UBS offices in Broadgate(source: http://www.workspacesearch.com/)

Fig. 23: Chicago Financial District(source: www.grayline.com)

Fig. 24: An illustration indicating (part of) the business profile of the area adjacent to Broadgate development, 2012(original photo by: Kevin Allen, edited by the author)

17

Map 1: This map illustrates Broadgate’s (turqoise hue) surrounding area with the most significant landmarks, along with the (few) open green spaces.

18

3The rise of privatized public space:Introducing Broadgate

The rise of privatized public space Part I: Broadgate, UK’s “greatest redevelopment project”

The site: Before Broadgate

The site is located on the eastern margins of the borough of City, adjacent to Tower Hamlets borough on the east edge and Hackney on the north. In terms of the development of the City as a whole, someone might argue that the site is located in a transitional zone between the substantially developed, financially oriented office-based activities of the City to the south, and the less developed mixture of offices, light industry and residential ac-commodation to the north and east.56 Until the initiation of Broadgate’s construction works in the mid-1980s, the area was occupied by two of London’s most busy train stations at the time: Liverpool Street, which is still one of the busiest at the moment in central London at the moment, and Broad Street station, where Broadgate complex is built. By the time they were built in late 19th century, the stations became the landmarks of the division between the world of commerce in the City and the dark, notorious and ‘uncharted’ territory of the East End (Spitalfields, Whitechapel). The construction of railways improved the deteriorat-ing area in a way and helped the City get rid of the burden of the impoverished East End, whose poor rates reached their maximum by the end of 1880.57

Built in 1874 on the site of the original Bethlem Royal Hospital, which was specialized in treating the mentally ill, Liverpool Street station was a new terminus for the Great Eastern Railway to serve east London, Essex and East Anglia. The station had nine platforms having been operational since November 1875 and had a connection to the Metropolitan Railway, the world’s first underground railway.58 Prior to Liverpool Street station, Broad Street was built in a French Renaissance style in 1865 for the North London Railway according to a de-sign by James Stansby. With over 27 million passengers using the terminus in 1902, Broad Street was London’s third busiest station, with only Liverpool Street and Victoria being bus-ier (Fig. 25). However, the advent of bus, tram and tube services competed the station hard

which eventually led to the closing of station’s main buildings in 1956 which already had suffered several damages during WW2 London blitz. By the 1960’s only two of the remain-ing platforms had been in use and by 1970’s its Goodsyards had been turned into a parking lot (Fig. 26); the countdown for Broad Street station had already begun.59

In 1975 British Railways announced plans to demolish and redevelop both stations. The proposed demolition raised a public opposition and urged a campaign led by the poet Sir John Betjeman. However, the planning permission was granted in 1979 by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Environment. In 1985 British Railways signed an agreement with the developing company Rosehaugh Stanhope (RSD plc)60 and the works on a big office and retail development scheme, known as Broadgate, began. By November 1985 nothing had remained to remind of Broad Street station’s existence.

56 Hillier, Bill et al, Broadgate Spaces: Life in public spaces (a survey about urban life in public spaces with Broad-gate Square as a case study), Unit for Architectural Studies, Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL, 1990

57 Bolton, Nigel, 1989, p.22

58 Whitcombe, Juliet, ‘The history of Liverpool street station’ , Crossrail.co.uk, 28.02.2011

59 By 1985 just 6000 passengers per week were using the station. (source: ‘Remembering Broad Street railway station’, Urban75 blog)

60 Rosehaugh Stanhope Developments was one of the biggest development companies at the time. Founder and former chief executive of the RSD was Sir Stewart Lipton.

Fig. 25: Broad Street station’s main entrance in 1983(photo by Ben Brooksbank)

Fig. 26: Liverpool (upper) and Broad Street stations in 1983. Broad Street station’s biggest part had been transformed into a parking lot.(source: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/)

20

Broadgate Complex: The early phases

“[…] financial institutions should choose for themselves where to locate in the light of commercial considerations […] there is space within reasonable reach of the City to meet an overspill of demand.” - Governor of the Bank of England, 17.10.85

In March 1985 Rosehaugh Stanhope Developments PLC was commissioned by Brit-ish Rail to build 1.200.000 ft2 (112.000 m2) of offices and shopping facilities on a 10 acre site (approx. 40.500 m2) next to an expanded Liverpool Street station and the remains of deteriorating Broad Street Station. This scheme would cost £130 million and meant to be, when completed, “the largest single office development by one developer in the City of London,”61 when completed. The scheme proved to be in favour of BR’s desire to completely clear a big percentage of the area which was until then occupied by the two stations, including the historic yet not listed building of The Great Eastern Hotel, Broad Street station itself and part of Liverpool Street station. There were various reactions from other authorities to this scheme; the City of London was a bit sceptical on the proposed percentage of retail accommodations and the council of Hackney was clearly opposed to the scheme because they wanted more housing over office infrastructure.62 Despite the opposition, outline planning permission was put to Hackney Council in April 1984, detailed design commenced that autumn and detailed planning permission was obtained in March 1985. Stuart Lipton and Godfrey Brad-man of RSD raised a £6 million loan, signed up the architectural firm Arup and Associates to masterplan the scheme and appointed Bovis Construction Ltd as management contractors.

In July 1985, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher launched the construction works at Broadgate and by 1986 the first phase of the scheme, 1-3 Finsbury Avenue (Fig.26,35), had been completed. The set of buildings were designed by architect Peter Foggo of the Arup Associates and consisted of some 470.000 ft2 (43.664 m2) of floorspace, deployed in 8

storeys. By 1987 phase two of Broadgate’s scheme, 1, 2&3 Broadgate (Fig.27,34), had been completed in the designs of Peter Foggo. Deployed in 2 8-storey buildings, the proposed floorspace consisted of 375.000 ft2 (34.838 m2). In December of the same year, Prince Charles inaugurated Broadgate Circle (Fig.28), a circular plaza in the heart of Broadgate development which facilitated the only open air ice rink at the time. A year later (1988) phases 3 and 4 were completed. Broadgate 4 and 6 (phase 3, 7 storey buildings of a com-bined 320.000 ft2 – 30.000m2 - floorspace - Fig. 28, 34), along with 100 Liverpool Street and 8-12 Broadgate (phase 4, conjoined into an 8 storey building of 384.000 ft2 – 35.674m2) (Fig.32,28), signified the completion of Broadgate’s early phases development but also the end of Arup’s commission to the scheme.

61 Patrick Hannay in Architect’s Journal, Number 39, Volume 182, 25.9.1985, pp 28-29

62 The Architects’ Journal, volume 161, Number 22, 28.5.1975, pp. 1122-23

Fig. 26

Fig. 27

Fig. 28

Fig. 26: Finsbury Av. 1-3 (photo by the author, 2015)Fig. 27: 1-2 Broadgate and part of Broadgate Circle (photo by: Bolton, Nigel, 1989)Fig. 28: Broadgate Circle,6 Broadgate and 8-12 Broadgate in the background. (photo by: Bolton, Nigel, 1989)

21

1

2

3

4

1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 29 A ground plan of Broadgate’s early phases (1989)

The scheme is developed around two open public spaces; Finsbury Avenue square (left) and the circular Broadgate square (center)(source: Bolton, Nigel, 1989)

Fig. 30 An aerial photograph of Broadgate’s early phases. In 2012, Broadgate 4-6 was demolished in order for a new mega-building to emerge(see p.25)(photo: Kevin Allen, 2012)

Fig. 31 1-2 Broadgate from Eldon street (photo by the author, 2015)

Fig. 32 100 Liverpool street from Blomfield street (google street view, 2011)

Fig. 33 8-12 Broadgate and 100 Liverpool street (photo by the author, 2015)

Fig. 34 3 Broadgateand 4 Broadgate(right)(photo: Bolton, Nigel, 1989)

Fig. 35 2 Finsbury Avenue from Sun street (photo by the author, 2015)

2 Finsbury Avenue

1 Finsbury Avenue3 Finsbury Avenue

1-2 Broadgate

100 Liverpoolstreet

8-12 Broadgate

3 BroadgateSite of 4-6 Broadgate

Broadgate Circle

5

22

The later phases were completed in the years between 1988 and 2008 and the com-missioned architectural firm was the Chicago-based Skidmore, Owens and Merill (SOM)63. Phases 5 to 14 include the following buildings (in chronological order)64 :- Phase 5: 1 Appold Street, 1988, consisted of 8 storeys and 235.000 ft2 of floorspace (21.832m2)- Phase 6: 135 Bishopsgate, 1988, consisted of 13 storeys and 340.000 ft2 of floorspace (31.587 m2)- Phase 7: 155 Bishopsgate, 1989, consisted of 13 storeys and 400.000 ft2 of floorspace (37.161m2)- Phase 8: Broadwalk House, 1989, consisted of 7 storeys and 290.000 ft2 of floorspace (27.000m2)- Phase 9: Exchange House, 1990, consisted of 11 storeys and 390.000 ft2 of floorspace (36.232 m2)- Phase 10 : 175 Bishopsgate, 1991, consisted of 13 storeys and 370.000 ft2 of floorspace (34.374m2)- Phase 11: 199 Bishopsgate, 1991, consisted of 12 storeys and 146.000 ft2 of floorspace (13.563m2) - Reopened after a major refurbishment in 2012.- Phase 12: 10 Exchange Square, 2004, consisted of 11 storeys and 161.000 ft2 of floorspace (15.000m2)- Phase 13: Broadgate Tower, 2008, consisted of 33 storeys and 397.000 ft2 of floorspace (36.900m2)- Phase 14: 201 Bishopsgate, 2008, consisted of 13 storeys and 418.000 ft2 of floorspace (38.833m2)

63 SOM was initially found in Chicago in 1936 by Louis Skidmore and Nathaniel Owings. After the addition of John O. Merill in 1939, the firm came to be one of the most famous and active in the field of office building along with other architectural practices. Some of SOM’s greatest projects include Sears Tower (Chicago, 1973), 7 World Trade Center (New York, 2006) and Burj Khalifa (Dubai, 2010 – current world’s tallest building)

64 Source: http://www.broadgate.co.uk/about/ourjourney and the leaflet Explore the Buildings of Broadgate, published by Broadgate Estates.

1 Appold street (source: broadgate.co.uk)

135 Bishopsgate (source: http://costarfinance.com/ )

155 & 175 Bishopsgate(photo by the author)

Broadwalk House(source: broadgate.co.uk)

Exchange House(photo by the author)

199 Bishopsgate(source: broadgate.co.uk)

10 Exchange House(source: broadgate.co.uk)

Broadgate Tower(photo by the author)

201 Bishopsgate(source: broadgate.co.uk)

Broadgate Complex: The later phases

23

Fig. 36 A 3-D illustration of Broadgate’s development up to 2012 along with the scheme’s open public spaces. In 2012 4-6 Broadgate were demolished, so that 5 Broadgate would be constructed on the site, housing UBS’s new headquarters. (illustration produced for British Land PLC)

Exchange Square

Finsbury Avenue Square

Broadgate Circle

Broadgate Plaza

Fig. 37 photo by the author, 2015

Fig. 38 photo by the author, 2015

Fig. 39 photo by the author, 2015

Fig. 40 (source: www.brian-coffee-spot.com)

24

As it was mentioned in the previous Chapter, major financial corporations are dis-persed throughout Broadgate’s office spaces including UBS, RBS, AXA Investment Manag-ers, Deutsche Bank, EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development), Société Générale, Lloyds Banking Group and other financial, law and insurance firms. In 2012, British Land (Broadgate’s landowner) allowed the demolition of phase 3 (Broadgate 4&6) in order to provide space for a massive office complex of 700.000 ft2 (65.000 m2) which was pre-let for UBS. The 13-storey 5 Broadgate building (Fig.50), designed by Ken Shuttleworth of MAKE Architects was completed in 2014 and raised a series of debates among critics regarding the quality of its design and the effect that would probably have on Broadgate’s physical appearance and quality of inner open spaces.65 Finally, in 2015, the redevelopment of Broadgate Circle was completed providing a new hub for leisure, food and retail accom-modations (Fig.51). Currently, the only works that are still underway are Crossrail’s station outside 100 Liverpool Street building.

Broadgate complex came to inaugurate a new era of mass office development in the City, altering significantly the form, mass and skyline of this part of London.66 The first four phas-es, designed by Arup’s Peter Foggo, were well received by architectural critics and reflected well on the City. Satisfying the demand for bigger and more efficient working spaces, they introduced an innovative architectural approach that had nothing to do with “ordinary Lon-don commercial development with its choppy brickwork, cheap windows and inept dollops of stone punctuation”.67 Between 1987 and 1992 Broadgate won 31 awards from bodies regarding architecture, construction, planning and art including the 1991 RIBA President’s Choice Award (the buildings designed by Arup). Moreover, project’s precursor, 1 Finsbury

Avenue had won the 1985 ‘Financial Times Architecture at Work’ Award. The building, as “a clean, if sombre piece of semi-High-Tech Modernism, was most interesting for its planning, a direct response to research into the needs of large international financial trading ten-ants.”68 Broadgate’s later phases (5-14) with their Chicago influenced post-Modern classicist design proved to be of rather debatable quality and SOM were accused by British architects and critics for attempting to establish the “brash Chicago taste”69 of massive office build-ings. The character of the development, a privately-owned commercial groundscraper70 estate embodying leisure and retail uses within landscaped public spaces, originated from US models and was relatively new to the UK. Broadgate development might not be related whatsoever, in terms of appearance, with the equivalent American behemoths that con-stitute office and retail complexes. However that new wave of capital-driven architecture was significantly responsible for the gradual privatization of public urban space along with alterations of these space’s character and ways of engagement.

65 Sir Stuart Lipton and Peter Rodgers stated that 5 Broadgate is an “environmental disaster” and the worst big building in the City for 20 years. Furthermore, the issue of Grade listing was brought forward, since phase 3 was suggested by English Heritage for Grade II listing. The suggestion was rejected by culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, allowing the landowner, British Land (which was funded by Blackstock private equity group), to proceed with the construction of 5 Broadgate. (source: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2011/jun/16/is-jeremy-hunt-right-about-broadgate-centre )

66 In the pre-Big Bang era, City of London was consisted mostly of average-height buildings (up to 5 or 6 storeys) with the exception of Lloyds Building (1981, Sir Richard Rogers) and NatWest Tower (1981, Richard Seifert) which were, for the time standards, tall buildings but their percentage of coverage was quite small compared to Broad-gate’s. Another massive project in the area is Barbican residential estates, located on the west of Broadgate, which was completed in 1982.(see Appendix section X)

67 Rebenek, Andrew, ‘Broadgate and the Beaux Arts’, Architect’s Journal, No 17, Volume 192, 24.10.90, pp. 36-51

68 Selwood, Sara, The benefits of Public Art, PSI Publishing, 1995, p.116

69 Jencks, Charles, ‘Broadgate – The city in the City’, Architectural Design vol.61 5-6/1991, p.46-47

70 A groundscraper is a large building that is around 12 stories high but greatly extends horizontally.

Fig. 50 5 Broadgate building, overcasting Broadgate Circle (photo by the author, 2015)

Fig. 51 Broadgate Circle at its present form (photo by the author, 2015)

25

Part II: The privatization of Public Space

At the end of the 1980’s, London witnessed the advent of a physical, technological and regulatory infrastructure that launched the unaffected industry of financial services.71 The declining industrial economy was no longer in the picture and London’s transforma-tion into a dynamic ‘global city’ was certainly of determinant significance both for the UK economy and the establishment of an architecture that encapsulated this development. Broadgate was a carefully planned product of that era and, along with the later redevelop-ment scheme of Canary Wharf, came to inaugurate a new type of privately-driven regen-erating ‘razzmatazz’.72 The Broadgate development was the most ambitious of the 1980s property boom. Not surprisingly, its 3m ft2 (280.000 m2) of office space built above the railway tracks of Liverpool Street Station epitomised the financial and property boom and bust of the 1990s.

Broadgate was built and developed on private land, which means that anything within the edges of the scheme is subject to private regulations and control, in the same way that all private properties are . Therefore, these regulations also apply to its inner open spaces whose access, despite being ostensibly open to the public, is at the discretion of the land-owner and is either deemed limited, exclusive or free. In addition to the rest of the city, where certain rules of conduct also apply but nonetheless is unconditionally open to the public, the Broadgate complex is a UK pioneering privately developed scheme of purely business and financial character that embodies facets of public life within its premises. This resulted in the formation of pseudo - public spaces, an implication of public activity within a strongly private environment. These spaces came also to be known as privately owned public (open) spaces or POP(O)S.73 Broadgate however was not the first in the post-WW2 building and economic boom to introduce this controversial aspect of public life. Its origins can be traced back to the American Bonus Plazas, when the creation of privately

Impacts on Public sphere: the rise of Privatized Public Spaces (POPS)

owned public spaces became part of planning regulations.

According to Gregory Smithsimon, bonus plazas made their formal appearance in New York in 1961 as an outcome of a revision in New York’s zoning regulations.74 The term ‘bo-nus’ derives from these zoning regulations that provide contractors with an additional floor area ratio (FAR) allowing them to build larger, taller buildings (Fig. 52). In return they had to provide equivalent space at street level that will be used as public plaza. The FAR became an incentive for the construction of more commercial high rises and POPS are the outcome of this “contract between developers and the city”.75 Their access however, being subject to private regulations, is granted only to those who enjoy private benefits, hence the term ‘pri-vate’. One of the most famous schemes that came to endorse the rise of the privatization of public space was the General Motor plaza in New York, as bonus space to the building of the same name. Completed in 1968, the GM building is one of the most expensive office complexes in the world76 and the ground level plaza is a controlled public environment under a private regime (Fig. 53).

26

71 Minton, Anna, Ground Control, Penguin, 2012, pp.3-4

72 Noisy, showy, and exciting activity and display designed to attract and impress

73 Privately Owned Public (Open) Spaces: a term which was popularized by Harvard academic Jerold Kayden through his book Privately Owned Public Space: the New York City experience, Willey, 2000

74 Smithsimon, Gregory, ‘Dispersing the crowd: Bonus Plazas and the Creation of Public Space’, in Orum, Anthony and Neal, Zachary P.(eds), Routledge, 2010, pp.118-127

75 Ibid, p. 118

76 The main building has been purchased in 1998 by Donald Trump and Conseco, while the site is owned by Boston Properties (real estate investment trust), Zhang Xin (co-founder and CEO of SOHO China, the largest commercial real estate developer in Beijing) and the Safra banking family (internationally renowned network of companies’ management). Average rent usually exceeds the amount of $100 per square foot (0.09 m2) source: Wikipedia

Fig. 52 An illustration explaining how the FAR factor works. (source: Planning for Privately Owned Public Spaces: Improving POPS in Community District Five, Manhattan, Columbia University, 2015)

In the following years, private management policies became a major factor in the advent of smaller or bigger privately owned public spaces. The nature of public space and thus, urban design, was gradually changing as more and more land was being controlled by private hands. Landowners and entrepreneurs operating their own buildings, due to their need to squeeze as much money as possible out of their properties, started hiring manage-rial groups to administer and maintain the incorporated open spaces. Private management of these spaces meant larger amount of money invested on their maintenance and outer appearance, which ought to reflect the status of their owners and preserve by any means, what Loukaitou-Sideris described as the “marketability of space”77 - the ability to present itself as merchandise and thus attract additional investments. However, this fact came in contradiction to genuine public spaces, where access to every member of the public is non-negotiable. Consequently, these small, carefully controlled ‘vest-pocket’ spaces (whether they were parks or plazas) were often detached from the public realm, constitut-ing themselves private enclaves with a notion of public that not everyone had the privilege to experience (Fig. 54 - 58).

The production of social space, as it was on the hands of corporations and developers funded by big financial institutions, was regulated by a trend that wanted to eradicate pub-lic realm’s heterogeneity within those spaces. On the contrary they wanted to define public as a passive and docile subject, willing to ‘buy’ the product of a ‘filtered-out’, safe and ho-mogenized social environment, where “every interaction was carefully planned”.78 The right

to assembling in public had become a privilege; a ‘product’ that only those willing to play by the rules could ‘afford’. Regarding these spaces, Darrell Crilley argued that their nature was a ‘product of conspiracy’ in order to “hide from us the widespread privatization of the public realm and its reduction to the status of commodity.”79 The appropriation of public space by private corporations was henceforth the new trend in post-modern city80 design, the context of which was highly influenced – or even defined - by the new globalised econ-omy and its needs. The apparent outcome was ‘private-public’ locations, lacking in interac-tions and practices of democracy that could potentially ‘jeopardize’ the desired outcome of these places; an overcontrolled, sterile urban ambiance displaying “a tendency to look the same and to exhibit a very similar sense”81 to other spaces of the same philosophy, partially resulting from their surveilled nature.

Fig. 53 General Motors Plaza, Manhattan, NYGeneral Motors building, Apple store and a well controlled, as expected, privately owned public open space.

(source: www.musapietrasanta.it)

27

77 Loukaitou-Sideris, ‘Privatisation of public open space: Los Angeles experience’, Town Planning Review (64:2) 1993, pp 139-167

78 Mitchell, Don, ‘The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 85, No. 1. (Mar., 1995), pp. 108-133, p. 119

79 Crilley, D, ‘Architecture as advertising: constructing the image of redevelopment’ in Kearns, G and Philo, C(eds) Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present, Oxford: Pergamon, 1993, p.153

80 Emerged during post-war wave of construction in the 1950s and 1960s and peaked by the dawn of the new architectural wave for profit which, in the UK, was set during the 1980s decade (see Chapter 2)

81 Minton, Anna, The privatisation of public space, 2006, p.26

Fig. 54 Greenacre Park, Manhattan, NY

(source: yelp.com, photo uploaded by user Nakia S)

“A lovely and peaceful park marred by a new, ill-mannered and ill-suited attendant who would be better placed at Riker’s Island than in an upscale neighbourhood park. This park is in my neighbourhood and I’ve been going on and off for many years. It was always attended by well-mannered and responsible individuals who are still there if you’re lucky enough to arrive when it’s their time slot. Management is evidently slipping. The no photography rule is incomprehensible and hostile to the public.”

- Terry S., Manhattan, on Greenacre Park experience (yelp.com)

Fig. 55 Paley Park, NY

Another case of a privately owned public space, arranged and used in a similar way to Greenacre Park.

(source: flickr, photo uploaded by michaeltk)

28

Fig. 57 Paddington Basin, London, 2014

A major redevelopment project as part of the wider Paddington Waterside scheme.In contrast with the other POPS displayed, Paddington basin is not an enclosed space but an integral part of the wider waterfornt, which is being regenerated by private devel-opment companies. Thus, small occasional ‘private gaps’ are created along the riverside walkway.

(source: www.active360.co.uk)

Fig. 56 SAS Headquarters, Stockholm, Sweden by Niels Torp.

Public space is developed by traversing the interior of the headquarters.

(source: www.nielstorp.no)

Fig. 58 King’s Cross redevelopment scheme, London, 2015

A £550 million project, unveiled by the mayor B. Johnson himself. A case of similar concept with Paddington Basin project.(source: www.dailymail.co.uk, photo by John Sturrock)

The Broadgate complex and public space

Broadgate, being a project developed by renowned developing companies that aimed to accommodate global financial institutions, can definitely be approached as a scheme that produced and promoted privately controlled but, nonetheless public, space. The imperative need for undisturbed circulation of capital and proper function of financial services led the developers to create an enclave that could host these services. But rather than being an apparently indifferent bastion of ‘condensed capitalism’ that would inevitably exclude the public factor, Broadgate’s objective was to ‘bridge the gap’ between the controversial na-tures of global finance on one hand and public realm on the other. And how could that be achieved? By attracting - or should I say luring - the public into its premises through a series of leisure and retail outlets provided in an attempt to transform a financial ‘citadel’ into a destination; a place where the general public would like to spend time. Therefore, the pro-cess of designing such a place should be defined by two crucial factors: in the first place, a high level of security incorporated in a series of high class buildings and facilities that would provide a safe and prestigious environment for high earning employees. Then, a tempting environment that would welcome people more like consumers rather than users of public space, with the ulterior aim to attract as many customers as possible willing to spend their money in the shops, restaurants, cafes and other outlets provided by the development.

octagon

The combination of both aspects resulted in a sequence of ‘private-public’ spaces within the establishment (see p. 24), designed in a way that meet both the public and private needs of Broadgate’s nature. These privately owned inner plazas are dispersed throughout the development, providing individual enclaves of leisure and retail activities. Their position (Map 2) have been carefully selected, as each of the plazas is situated in a specific geo-graphic location that signifies itself as an entry point to Broadgate and, at the same time, a point of public gathering. Broadgate Plaza (Fig. 59) is on the north edge of the develop-ment, Finsbury Avenue Square (Fig. 60, 61) on the southwest, while Broadgate Circle (Fig. 61), which is going to be examined individually as the most significant and crowded plaza, is situated on Broadgate’s southern entry points. Exchange Square (Fig.62) is rather inward looking, as it is located in a central position, right above the railway tracks, on the north edge of Liverpool Street station. With the exception of their physical appearance, all of the plazas follow more or less the same motive regarding the facilities provided. A series of cafeterias, pubs and eating places are ready to serve the white-collar hordes on their lunch-break or after work along with those who choose these POP places to spend part of their time. And that is precisely one of the major aims of these private-public locations; to draw the public’s attention (and money) into a commercialized place while maintaining a clean, safe and ‘spectacular’ image, equivalent to the powerful status of Broadgate’s tenants.

An important factor towards this direction is Broadgate’s location. As previously men-tioned in Chapter 2 (see p.18), the site’s location is on the City’s eastern edge, neighbouring areas that were in a state of chronic deprivation and defiance during the development’s early phases. Broadgate, as a transitional location between the City and the East End’s fringe districts, ought to act as a filter between those areas by keeping away undesirable social groups and situations that could potentially threaten, obstruct or defy the harmony of the City’s and Broadgate’s ‘high-life’. As William Whyte observed “the best way to handle the problem of undesirables is to make a place attractive to everyone else.”82 The brief was to “choke as much value out of a site as possible”83 and Broadgate’s developers succeeded in that by creating these monotonously well-designed private enclaves of consumerism and

leisure, where every sort of intrigue has vanished or at least is monitored by CCTV and private security teams. Consequently, despite being open to the public these spaces lack the essential characteristics of a genuine public space, as stated in the first part of this

29

Map 2: This map displays Broadgate’s open public spaces under private control.

Fig. 59 Broadgate Plaza

A relatively small open space, entrance to Broadgate Tower and 201 Bishops-gate. Grandiose design, a couple of eating points, vestigial street furniture and public art. A ‘fixed’ recipe for a privately control public space.

(photo by the author)

82 Whyte, William H., ‘The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces’ in Orum, Anthony and Neal, Zachary P. (eds), 2010, p.37

83 Martin, Ian, ‘The city that privatized itself to death’, The Guardian, 24.2.15

Fig. 60 Finsbury Avenue Square and 1-2 Broadgate, 2015

(photo by the author)

Fig. 62 Broadgate Circle and 4-6 Broadgate in the background, 2011

(source: knowyourlondon.wordpress.com)

Fig. 63 Exchange Square, 2015

Just like the pictures above, security staff is always present (circled).

(photo by the author)

30

paper. A crowd fully homogenized following predefined paths between cafés and estab-lished eating chains is what someone will encounter. Unauthorized activities and presuma-bly undesirable subjects are prohibited and excluded from the premises, constantly remind-ing us that Broadgate’s public spaces are not always as public as someone would think and their celebration occurs only when it is scheduled.

Fig. 61 Finsbury Avenue and 1 Finsbury Avenue building, occupied by UBS. On the left side of the picture is George Segal’s Rush Hour sculpture (see p. X)

(photo by Google street view, 2014)

31

Broadgate Circle: a private enclave with a public mask

“The arrival of the new department stores and the proliferation of cafés, cabarets, and theatres meant, furthermore, that the society of the boulevards was now as muchcontrolled indirectly by the commercial activity around it as by police power.”- David Harvey on public space in Second Empire Paris in Harvey, David and Low, Setha (eds) The Politics of Public Space, Routledge, 2006, p. 25

In December 1987, Prince Charles inaugurated Broadgate Circle by watching a Torvill and Dean (Olympic and World ice dancers champions) performance on the only open -air ice rink in the UK. Nearly two years after the outset of the construction works on the site, a new privately owned public open space in the City of London was a fact. Broadgate’sfinancial and office complex had its own leisure and retail hub, a circular plaza located in the centre of Broadgate’s phases 2, 3 and 484 (Fig. 64). Arup’s intention was to create a gath-ering point as an expansion to the prior Finsbury Avenue Square (phase 1); a “new focus”85 in the area that, apart from the reference to Broadgate’s employees, it would also attract the general public along with office workers from the nearby companies.

As the developers had detected a considerable demand for retail facilities around the area Arup Associates, in order to meet that demand, had initially designed Broadgate Circle to function more like a 3-level piazza in the heart of the development. The lower level, as the entry point to the Circle, was immediately connected with Liverpool Street station’s exit (Octagon Arcade) and filled to its periphery with shops and restaurants, facing towards the centre. The second level was elevated over the first one, giving access to each of the buildings with their own prestigious entrances. Then there was the main arena, Broadgate Circle’s activity epicentre, overlooked by the surrounding office buildings. Developed on a higher level than the rest of the Circle, it was used by the developers as an arts resource (Fig. 65). Operating from May to September, the arena hosted musical and cultural events, gathering a significant number of people who were outsiders to the development. During winter time, when the weather was more inclement, the arena was turned into an open -air

ice rink, so that the Circle could still be operational and occupied by people (fig. 66). Ac-cording to the event organiser at the time, Prue Redfern “the purpose is to provide a place where Broadgate comes alive”86; an attempt by the developers to display a more extrovert and ‘embracing’ face towards the city.

84 See also pages 22 and 2485 Swenarton, Mark, ‘Full circle at Broadgate’, Building Design, 4.3.1988, pages 15-16

Fig. 64 A plan indicating the arrangement of Broadgate’s early phases within the site.

(source: Nigel, Bolton, 1989)

86 Murray, Callum, ‘The Art of Development’, Architect’s Journal, Number 17, Volume 192, 24.10.1990, pages 28-31

Fig. 65 Broadgate Circle, during a musical event

(source: Nigel, Bolton, 1989)

Fig. 66 Broadgate Circle occupied as an ice rink.When it first opened it was the first ever open air ice rink in the UK.

(source: theculturetrip.com, photo by Garry Knight, 2011)

During the first years of its operation, Broadgate Circle proved to be particularly success-ful in terms of the number of people using its facilities and outlets. A report carried out in 1990 by Professor Bill Hillier stated that Broadgate (referring to Finsbury Avenue Square and Broadgate Circle) “is the best used public open space in and around the City of Lon-don. Larger numbers stop there to eat, drink, talk or just sit and watch the world go by than in any other open space or spaces”87 (Fig. 67). But that was the mission in the first place, was it not? A number of carefully designed concourses, terraces and colonnades emerging between financial buildings of limited access and inevitably noticeable eating and coffee chains, altogether blended in a ‘canvas’ of well-detailed materials such as granite, marble, travertine and steel that would undeniably attract Londoners. As Charles Jencks wrote in an article, Broadgate Circle was “the British version of Rockefeller Centre”88 in New York (1939), because of its ice rink and the number of leisure facilities available to the public. Broadgate Circle came to ‘incarnate’ on a significant level the prerequisites generated during the era of financial and building boom (see also Chapter 2); a ‘private-public’ place designed “with the consumer in mind”,89 fully controllable and “vandal-proofed by a full-time bodyguard of 50 managers”90.

Presently, the Circle’s established role as a privately managed public open space is still apparent. Furthermore, the few morphological changes that have occurred since 2012 have significantly enhanced the Circle’s private and self-referential character. Prior to the demolition of 4-6 Broadgate (2012 – see p. 24, Fig.36), Broadgate Circle was accessible by both its north and south edge, rendering it a notable part of a pedestrian movement axis when descending from north to south and vice versa (Map 5a). The Circle’s northern edge was occupied by a small roundabout where the sculpture of Ganapathi and Devi was placed 91 (Fig. 68) , emphasizing that specific location as an access point. Circle’s southern edge (the Octagon) is particularly busy, as it is Broadgate’s southern entry point (Fig. 69).

32

The Octagon functions as a ‘conduit’ that assembles and redistributes pedestrian flows (coming from inside the train station as well as from Eldon Street and Liverpool Street) fur-ther into Broadgate’s premises (Map 5c). With that specific spatial arrangement around the Circle a visual contact between those two entry points was established, thus forming a clear and potent movement axis, which could ‘absorb’ and circulate pedestrian traffic smoothly from and to Broadgate Circle and the adjacent spaces. Additionally, once someone was located in the centre of the piazza, the movement axis provided a depth of field in both

87 Hillier, Bill et al, Broadgate spaces: Life in public places, Research report regarding the use of public spaces in Broadgate development, Unit for Architectural Studies, Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, University College London, January 1990

88 Jencks, Charles, ‘Broadgate: The city in the City’, Architectural Design vol.61 5-6/1991, p.46-47

89 Minton, Anna, 2006, p.26

90 Jencks, Charles, 1991

Fig. 67 A map produced for the the research report Broadgate spaces: Life in public places, illustrating patterns of movement and density within Broadgate’s public spaces.

(source: Unit for Architectural Studies, Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, University College London, January 1990

Fig. 69 The Octagon, leading to Broadgate Circle(photo by the author)

Fig. 68 photo by Google street view, 2008

91 See also Map 8, p.39

directions that could actually diminish the private nature of the development by enhanc-ing the Circle’s, roughly present, extroversion; namely the visual and physical connection between the piazza and the surrounding area outside Broadgate. However, since 5 Broadgate replaced the previous buildings (2014) nothing of the above is apparent or can be experienced. The massive new building (see p. 25) has utterly blocked Broadgate Circle, rendering any kind of connection (visual or physical) with its surrounding environment, from that side, absolutely impossible (Fig. 70). Moreover, the movement patterns have been disrupted and, thus diverted to nearby points of access which, apart from their narrowness, have become perceptibly busier (Map 5b, Fig. 71, 72). Beyond that, another significant change has occurred in Broadgate Circle. Until 2015, the central arena was developed on two levels; the peripheral ground level and the elevated rink, whose level difference emphasized its capacity as a vibrant gathering and occasionally eventful point, standing out from the rest of the facilities (see Fig. 65). In its present form, the central rink

33

Map 5c This map indicates the access patterns to Broadgate Circle’s from its south edge, through Octagon - the small ‘antechamber’ space where all access points end up to (Eldon str, Liverpool str / Blomfield str, Octagon Arcade). The big dashed arrow indicates the pedestrian flows coming from Liverpool Street station, through the Octagon Arcade (beneath 100 Liverpool building).

lIVERPOOL STR STATIONlIVERPOOL STR

ELDON STROCTAGON ARCADE

Map 5a

Map 5b

consists of only one level merged with all the restaurants, pubs and coffee places within its perimeter (Fig. 73). This change degraded it to just a simple open space, a void which is mostly used as a transitional space and not a destination. It does not really differ in any way from the rest of the development as its standing points are not used that often and are rel-atively crowded only during lunch breaks or in the evening. In this way, the ‘grandiose’ and out-of-scale monstrous building of 5 Broadgate overcasts the Circle, giving someone inside the Circle a sense of exposure and suffocation - as he is surrounded by mega-buildings -, looking down on him.

Eventually, Broadgate Circle has become indeed, as promoted on its website, “London’s latest dining hub […] bringing a dynamic food, drink and leisure offering to the City with a diverse collection of restaurants, cafes, bars, street food traders and gym”92 . Malcolm Miles referred to Broadgate as “an enlightened ‘corporate fortress’, from within which the rest of the city is invisible.”93 And this fact definitely reflects on Broadgate Circle. A ‘mall-ified’ pri-vate enclave that struggles to ‘convince’ about its (impure) public character, where its spec-tacular but sterile environment instigates a state of ‘normality’ and docile social conduct.

34

92 With prestigious investment bank UBS moving to 5 Broadgate, joint owners British Land and Singapore wealth fund GIC are spending £20 million for the improvement of the shops and restaurants in Broadgate Circle.(Source: ‘Broadgate turns to Tech City to pull in punters’, The Evening Standard, 24.12.13)

93 Miles, Malcolm, Art, Space and the City: Public art and urban futures, Routledge, 1997, p. 71

Fig. 70 The recently emerged mega-building of Broadgate 5 (new headquarters for UBS) domi-nates Circle’s northern side.

(photo by the author, 2015)

Fig. 71 Sun Street passage. This narrow pathway on the east of Broadgate Circle, used to connect Liverpool Street station with Exchange Square (see map 5a). After the construction of 5 Broadgate the passage is fraught with extra pedestrian movement. Its access is not allowed from Liverpool street anymore (see Chapter 3 front cover) thus the traffic from and to the station is diverted through underground arcades.

(photo by the author, 2015)

Fig. 72 The only remaining access point to Broadgate from the north edge (Sun street). An-other realatively narrow passage, leading straight into Finsbury Av. Square’s northeast corner.

(photo by the author 2015)

Fig. 73 Broadgate Circle during lunchtime. Despite the fact the restaurants are busy, the Circle remains signifi-cantly vacant (photo by the author, 2015)

Fig. 74 Broadgate Circle during evening time. Maybe a good time to experience 5 Broadgate’s dominance over the Circle. (photo by the author, 2015)

Conclusion (A narration about the Broadgate experience)

We got off at Liverpool Street station slightly before lunchbreak. I and my friend ‘C’ were heading towards Shoreditch, but decided to make a detour through Broadgate. As I had previously happened upon some pictures of the prestigious financial and office complex, we wanted to experience Thatcher’s urban redevelopment ‘swan song’ that came to inau-gurate the 1980s financial and construction boom.

After making our way through shops, restaurants and hasty commuters, we left the clam-our of Octagon’s arcade behind us and officially entered Broadgate. The first experience was rather impressive; a huge urban installation, made of titanic steel slabs leaning onto each other, was disclosed in front of our eyes. It was the mighty ‘Fulcrum’ by Richard Serra, a place of its own, perturbing the balance of the scenery and ‘speaking’ in its own lan-guage. I really doubt if anyone could understand its ‘narrative’ as most of the people were simply passing by it, possibly feeling threatened by its presence. Only a group of tourists were engaged in a ‘conversation’ with it, scrutinizing every bit of its compelling arrange-ment in that relatively narrow space.

Then we advanced towards the centre of the complex, bypassing a gym (!?) and another entrance that I never understood where it led. And then, to our amazement, we entered Broadgate Circle. Everything seemed to be in order; clean walls and floor, delicate materi-als and an absence of delinquent activities or individuals. I instantly recalled Iain Borden’s article about what someone can and cannot engage with in places like the one we were standing in:“it’s OK, for example, to sit around as long as you are in a café or in a designat-ed place where certain restful activities such as drinking a frappuccino should take place but not activities like busking, protesting or skateboarding.” 94 The Circle was significantly occupied but in a strange, for a ‘public’ space, manner. Most of the people were gathered perimetrically to the central rink, enjoying their coffee, quick lunch or drink but only a few were seated on the benches provided.

We sat down on one of the benches by a pub called ‘The Botanist’. As we were sur-rounded by formally dressed – suit and tie – men and stylish ladies drinking and chatting, I had a premonition that anytime soon we would be asked about the purpose of our visit and, consequently to escort ourselves out of the premises since we were practically loafing. A few meters away a security guard kept looking at us with that intense and penetrating look, as if he was asking us subconsciously “what are you lads doing here?” To our surprise, nobody approached us. It seemed as though we could not blend with the environment. “We are standing on hypothetically public ground! Nobody denied our access here” my friend observed with a point. On the next bench to ours, two young people were sitting – advertisers I presumed – talking about a commercial that was supposed to be shot on the location. ‘C’ mentioned James Bond’s movie ‘Skyfall’. After a short pause, he resumed: “Some of the scenes were shot here”. Apparently, I was not aware of that, neither of the fact that many commercials are shot here. “So that’s what it’s all about” I replied and kept mulling over Broadgate’s true nature. A prestigious private enclave, designed for the well-behaved average white-collar worker, ‘struggling’ (in vain) to persuade him about its ‘publicness’ by acting as a movie location and leisure hub full of ‘a variety of rich tastes’ and ‘seasonal cocktails’.

In a place where nothing really interesting happens you get bored quickly enough. We climbed back up the stairs to the second level in order to circle the place and resume the route to our actual destination. Before leaving Broadgate Circle we had a brief stop to expe-rience the view one last time. The Circle was still busy, like a contemporary arena crowded with ‘modern gladiators’ where everybody could, at the same time, be friends and rivals with everyone else. “Bread and circuses”95 ‘C’ murmured as we were silently gazing. I could not agree more. Everything here is just an image, a commodity for a mass ignorant enough to be concerned about the gradual loss of (our) public space. A satisfaction of the immedi-ate, shallow requirements of the populace that were imposed and not naturally generated.

35

94 Borden, Iain in Quinn, Ben, ‘Anti-homeless spikes are part of a wider phenomenon of ‘hostile architecture’, The Guardian, 13.6.14

95 Panem et circenses: A Latin phrase used to imply the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner (Wikipedia). Namely the provision of amenities that will, ultimately, distract public opinion from crucial matters.

For it is now acceptable for, a ‘mall-ified’ yet public place like this, to be patrolled by private security. And it is acceptable for certain societal groups to be denied the access because someone decided that they don’t fit with the social background.

As we were leaving the area we were both wondering about who eventually owns the city. We receded in silence towards Shoreditch, leaving Broadgate’s hustle and bustle be-hind, concerned about the dismal urban future that lies ahead of us…

36

clamor

anxiety

claustophobia

awerush

contemplation

exposurecautiousnessspectacularity

boredom

Map 6: This map indicates the route followed during the narration. The circles describe the emotions and mental states generated during the stroll

Fig. 76

Fig. 75photo by Frank Desautel, 2015source: google street view

Fig. 76, 77photo by idealinsight, 2015source: google street view

Fig. 78source: google street view2012

Fig. 75

Fig. 77

fig. 77

Fig. 78

4Design proposal - intervention:

”Creating a destination”

38

In Broadgate’s sterile and privately managed public places, the occupation of space de-pends mostly on the location of the retail and leisure facilities provided (Map 7). The public is situated in or around spots that appropriate and denature common space into a com-modity (see Fig. 75). The remaining open spaces are monitored, transitional spaces which are used by the large majority as predefined paths to their destinations; it may be either an office, a café, a restaurant, the gym or an event taking place. Public spaces are more like a supplement to private facilities or an event, rather than a destination themselves, activat-ed whenever they need to be by whoever has the jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, their ‘pseudo’ public environment lacks incentives that could potentially lead to the creation of, either sensorial or spatial, intriguing situations and patterns of movement. And these situations in turn render a place into a destination, an attractive locus where people choose to spend time and not just simply used by chance or by necessity. To this end, public art can play an important role in enhancing the character and rules of engagement of a public space. Moreover, as Patricia Phillips stated “public art inhabits boundaries – everywhere and nowhere. It embraces the undefinable; it occupies the immaterial, metaphorical spaces that hover between public and private, sharing qualities of both.”96

96 Phillips, Patricia, ‘Public Art: a renewable resource’ in Hall, Tim and Miles, Malcolm (eds), Urban Futures: Critical Commentaries on shaping Cities, Routledge, 2002, pp. 122 – 133, p. 130

97 Rendell, Jane, Art and Architecture: a Place Between, I.B. Tauris, 2006, p.8

> 50 individuals/min.

underground or covered paths

<10 individuals / circle

Fig. 79: Broadgate Circle during lunchtime

Fig. 80: Octagon, Broadgate’s south entry point.

Fig. 81: Pop-up eating places in Broadgate Circle are crowded during lunchtime.

Fig. 82: Octagon and Serra’s Fulcrum Fig. 83: Broadgate Circle is the only vibrant spot in evening hours

Fig. 84: Paths that are busy during daytime, are now empty

all photos by the author, 2015

Map 7: This map displays the most frequently used public spaces (static) and pedestrian paths in and around Broadgate Cirlce. Observation timeline: 12:00pm - 3:00pm, weekday

There are certain points among Broadgate’s open spaces where pieces of public art are installed, whose form and size can provide a different and qualitative perspective of space. Thus, they create incentives which enhance the character of those places and alter the commonness and sterility of such a public environment. The artworks in Broadgate that can be experienced by the general public are all sculptures, namely three-dimensional in-stallations that “produce a co-incidence of possible readings of art, city form, and patterns of sociation.” Dispersed throughout the development, their strategically chosen locations (Map 8) signify either an entry or a gathering point within Broadgate’s open spaces. The most significant of them are (in chronological order):

• Bellerophon Taming Pegasus by Jacques Lipchitz, 1966 (Fig. 85)• Rush Hour by George Segal, 1987 (Fig. 86)• Fulcrum by Richard Serra, 1987 (Fig. 87)• Ganapathi and Devi by Stephen Cox, 1988 98 (Fig. 88)• Leaping Hare on Crescent and Bell by Barry Flanagan, 1988 (Fig. 89)• Broadgate Venus by Fernando Botero, 1989 (Fig. 90)• The Broad Family by Xavier Corbero, 1991 (Fig. 91)• Eye-I by Bruce McLean, 1993 (Fig. 92)• Chromorama by David Bathcelor, 2015 (Fig. 93)

The aim of this section is not to analyse and interpret these sculptures artistically but rather spatially and in terms of how they affect or alter public perception of Broad-gate’s circulatory routes. As mentioned in Chapter 1, public art (see p. 8) as part of the public realm aims to enhance a place’s character by promoting certain meanings, notions or simply redefining the public’s circulation within the urban environment. After evaluating an observatory survey, conducted especially on the subject of Broadgate’s public art, (Map 9, p. 41) I have concluded that some of the development’s artworks fail to meet their role as spatial formations that can potentially affect or ‘converse’ with their surrounding space (Eye-I, Leaping Hare on Crescent and Bell, Chromorama). Their presence has ended up be-

39

Map 8: This map indicates the position of public artworks within Broadgate.

Fig. 85

Fig. 86

Fig. 87

98 Originally placed adjacent to 4-6 Broadgate, in a small circular roundabout. Relocated in its present position just before the demolition of the buildings. (see map 8)

Broadgate and Public Art

ing barely noticed, acting more as an indifferent obstacle in the public’s way rather than an intriguing piece of art that stands out from its environment (Fig. 89 ). Others, however, have succeeded in establishing their own ‘sense of place’ and dialogue with their surrounding environment. Stephen Cox’s Ganapathi and Devi for instance was processed in such a way that could emit a traceable odour and give the idea of an unusual but deliberate ‘dirty’ feel that could challenge the clean and delicate environment of its whereabouts. George Segal’s Rush Hour, ‘emits’ a unique mental state that many passers-by can identify themselves in. Rush Hour’s ‘life-like’ qualities99 along with the successful capture of a stressful reality that most commuters can relate to, defined the sculpture as a landmark and an experiential piece of art that is definitely something ‘strange’ but inspiring within a strict private envi-ronment (Fig. 86). Last, but certainly not least, comes Richard Serra’s Fulcrum, which is go-ing to be further examined in the final chapter, as it is an imposing, yet controversial, urban sculpture with a great impact in the relatively small space where it is located (Octagon).

In a BBC interview in 1993 Stewart Lipton, an art lover himself, intended to exalt the importance of integrating public art in such developments by claiming that what (RSD ) was really interested in was not the buildings but the spaces between them. According to him “art is integral to that, in enhancing the nature of the environment, providing scale, humanity and the genius loci 100 that is fundamental ingredient of successful urban design.” 101 However someone may argue that, since Broadgate’s art is commissioned art, then it is not necessary for it to be for or of the public but rather a government-imposed art, a ‘spa-tial accessory’ that needs to beautify, alter or draw further attention upon Broadgate. With this in mind, Sara Selwood claimed that the commission of prestigious artists like Richard Serra and George Segal “doubtless contributed to attracting major American, European and Japanese companies to locate there”.102 Yet even in such a privatized public environment, sculpture’s presence stimulates and gives a sense of originality by problematizing the notion

100 Genius Loci: Latin for ‘spirit of the place’

101 Rosehaugh Stanhope Developments, 1992

40

Fig. 88 Fig. 89

Fig. 90 Fig. 91

Fig. 92 Fig. 93

All photos by the author except 87 (broadgate.co.uk) and 92 (google street view)

99 Selwood, Sara, The Benefits of Public Art: the polemics of permanent art in public places, Policy Studies Insti-tute, 1995, pp. 124-25.

102 Selwood, Sara (1992) ‘Art in Public’, in (ed.) Jones, 1992:11–27, p.21

41

Map 9

Map 9 illustrates the range of view and the percentage of impact of the scultpures in and around Broadgate

Circle. The yellow hue indicates the area that someone must be within so that the art can be seen. For instance,

Serra’s Fulcrum, as the biggest installation located in a crowded place is visible within a broader field and ex-

perienced by most people. Segal’s Rush hour is constructed in human scale thus it can be seen only if someone

gets relatively close. The Leaping Hare on crescent and ball, despite being slightly bigger than the human scale

is roughly experienced as it is located in a crowded area where most use for their lunch time (pop-up canteens)

or as entry point to 8-12 Broadgate building .

The red circles indicate the percentage of interaction with the public (standing around or in them- Fulcrum - or

observing them for more than a minute).

(Observation timeline: 13:00 - 15:00, weekday)

of ‘public’ as an ideological concept and not as a spatial factor of “civic beautification”.103 And, in my opinion, this critical principle needs to be delicately enhanced and, therefore, communicated in a powerful, but refined manner throughout the proliferated privatized public space.

103 Deutsche, Rosalyn, ‘Uneven Development: public art in New York City’ in Ghirardo, Diane (ed.) Out of Site, Seattle Press, 1991, p. 167

The argumentAs established in the previous Chapter, Broadgate Circle is a publicly accessible pri-

vate enclave that manifests successfully the notion of contemporary consumerism; a safe environment where someone can eat, shop, drink or simply loaf in an efficiently short amount of time. It is what Richard Sennett describes as “bland, neutralising spaces (within the urban realm) which remove the threat of social contact”104, as it is developed in a way that indicates (and thus promotes) ephemeral social interactions (see p. 42, video stills). People constantly move in, out and through Broadgate Circle, diminishing its role to a mere threshold that does not provide anything but the fundamental amenities of a ‘sanitized’ place similar to a mall, along with the predefined paths from and to the surrounding work-ing places. In this sense the role of public art, in an environment like this, can be ambig-uous. Although being a potential powerful aspect of the public realm that can reimagine or enhance its meaning, it can also function (when in the hands of corporate interests) as a tool “to persuade a notional public, addressed through media images, that the scheme is ‘good”.105 As a result, the pieces of public art in Broadgate Circle are approached by the public as part of the built environment whose meaning is often overlooked and their role is deminished to necessary embelishents of the development’s corporate image.

The intention of this proposal is a spatial intervention that will create the circum-stances for a place to oppose the ‘introvert’ and ‘filtered’ character of Broadgate Circle and attract the public in a clear and unconditional way. Essentially, what is needed is a space ‘strange’ to the privatized nature of the development that will enhance its ‘spirit of place’

104 Sennett, Richard, Conscience of the Eye, W. W. Norton & Company, 1990, p.12

105 Miles, Malcolm, 1997, p.75

and upgrade its nature from a transitional zone to a destination. Public art plays a ‘cata-lytic’ role on this direction as it is a considerable criterion for selecting the site. The public will have the opportunity to interact freely and for longer with artworks whose dynamics, due to present locality, are not as appreciated as they should be. On the same time, the intervention aims to produce different situations of social interactions by establishing new movement patterns and sitting facilities that will introduce new perspectives on people’s perception of space and public art.

42

Stills from an observation video shot in Broadgate Circle, displaying the use of space by the public.The video is comprised by two parts (above the Circle and in the Circle) of 15 minute duration each.

43

The site

According to Patricia Phillips “public art balances at the boundaries, occupying the inchoate spaces between public and private”. 106 It gives those transitional places a new meaning, where the confines between public and private are often indistinct. Public art has the dynamic to decrease the conspicuous private character by acting as a hinge towards a smooth transition between those two realms. For the site selection two maps have been evaluated: maps 7 and map 9 (pp.38 and 41). The first map indicates the public spaces in Broadgate complex which are frequently used and paths that are mostly preferred by the public. Map 9 points out the works of public art around Broadgate Circle based on their field of view and level of impact on the public regarding their size and appearance. The evaluation of the combined data from both maps resulted in the selection of Octagon square (Fig. 94) as an interesting case of public space where one of Broadgate’s most enig-matic yet impressive sculpture is located.

‘Fulcrum’, in mechanical terms, means ‘the point or support on which a lever piv-ots’.107 But as a site-specific work of art it implies the notion of balance; a balance between the public and the private, the narrow and the wide, the city and the development. The 17m high sculpture is made of five irregular quadrilateral sheets of steel, tilted inwards and supporting each other in order to give the sense of a tower (see Fig. 95). Its form and dominating presence render Fulcrum a spectacular and unique work of art itself. But what makes it an even more interesting case is its location. Placed outside one of London’s busi-est stations, Fulcrum is the first thing someone encounters with as he exits the arcade and enters Octagon square (see Fig. 77, p.36).

The small plaza is a busy pedestrian crossroad, as it receives traffic from three differ-ent points (Liverpool Street station, Eldon Street and Broadgate Circle – see also Map 5c, p. 33). The plaza’s original design was an actual octagon shape (Fig. 97, 98) thus its potential as a public gathering point was apparent. Richard Serra was aware of that by the time of

106 Phillips, Patricia, 2002, p. 122

107 According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com

Figure 95:The Fulcrum, a massive sculpture surrounded by bulky buildings.

photo by the author

Figure 94:The Fulcrum and Octagon plazaOn the right side is the entrance to Octagon arcade, the highly commercial underground passage that connects Liverpool Street station and Broadgate complex

source: google street view,2014photo by: PhotoSphere

sketch by the author

the commission by Sir Stewart Lipton himself108 so he developed his work in such way that it could define the space. As himself stated he wanted the piece to “function both as a place to collect people – for people to walk into, through and around – and also to act as an entrance beacon (Fig. 96) […]it needed the potential to collect people and act as a conduit, a place where people could walk into or locate, meet or gather.”109

However since 2000, when Octagon took its present form, the plaza is significantly narrower (Fig. 100). Its role as a conduit that redistributes the pedestrian flows from and to Broadgate Circle has rendered Octagon into a genuine transitional zone which the majority of people use for a brief period of time. The site’s ‘compression-decompression’ nature makes the space remarkably ‘suffocating’ and, as a result, Octagon’s transitonal nature is emphasized (Map 10). The site’s amphitheatric design gives the sense of an implicit ‘em-brace’ towards Fulcrum while its entrance is at the same time the only point were someone can stand (Fig. 99) . The current situation also blowbacks on Fulcrum, whose original glam-our and mysterious nature is hardly experienced by the passers-by. The public is hasty, the space is narrow and Fulcrum stands there, quiet and unable to fully ‘reveal its secrets.’

108 The commission of Fulcrum was given to Richard Serra, as a result of a visit by Stewart Lipton to the Saatchi Gallery, where the wife of David Blackburn (executive member of British Land and personal friend of Lipton) worked, and where some of the sculptor’s work was on display. (source: Ward-Jackson, Phillip, Public Sculpture of the City of London, Liverpool University Press, 2003, pp. 44-45)

109 Selwood, Sara, The Benefits of Public Art, PSI Publishing, 1995, p. 111

Fig. 96: Fulcrum as seen from Blom-field Street, few meters south of Broadgate

photo by the author, 2015

Fulcrum and Octagon plaza in late 1980s - early 1990s.

source: Foster, Hal, Richard Serra, MIT Press, 2000 (Fig. 97) Smithson and Serra: Beyond Modernism? (Fig. 98) (TV Documentary)

Fig. 97

Fig. 98

44

45

Fig. 99:

A collage of stills from a video shot by the author in Octagon plaza, as a part of an observational survey regarding the flow of pedestrian traffic and the percentage of interactions with Fulcrum.

Map 10: This illustration indicates the pedestrian’s flow ‘compression - decompression’ motive, due to Octagon’s (circled) narrow form and strategic position.The yellow arrows indicate the circulation from Liverpool Street station while the red ones the traffic from outside Broadgate premises.

The proposal - aims

46

As stated in this Chapter the objective of this proposal is to signify and enhance the public notion of this sunken, narrow and compressed zone, whose role is significant in the circulation of pedestrian traffic. The gradual loss of public space over privatized enclaves, renders Octagon a crucial zone on the verge of private and public that needs an absolutely decisive intervention which will, eventually, ‘resurface’ and emphasize its public qualities. Octagon is practically part of Broadgate Circle by being its ‘antecham-ber’ (Fig. 101). It needs to re-establish itself by reforming its appearance so that it can oppose the sense of ‘pseudo’ publicness that Broadgate ‘drains’.

The basic lines that this proposal follows are related with two things:• To restore the factor of social interaction within the site, as it is a fundamental

value of a space unconditionally open to the public.• To re-establish Fulcrum as a genuine work of public art and highlight its, cur-

rently overlooked, intriguing and multi-faceted nature. By making social interaction an intriguing and integral part of a place, its character

gains and promotes a desired valuable sense specifically by the public, which needs to be inspired, surprised and attracted by the urban realm. Essentially, a place is desired where the public factor can be activated. .

As it was stated previously, one of Octagon’s debatable spatial facets is its am-

phitheatric development which constitutes its access not specifically defined and thus it ‘floods’ with excessive amounts of pedestrian flows (see Fig. 99, 100). The anarchic distribution of people within the narrow space along with intense walking paces do not promote neither extensive social interaction nor the space’s experience. Furthermore Fulcrum’s presence seems to be redundant in a space already small and busy. A lot of passers-by have a negative opinion about the sculpture which, on my account, derives from the way they experience the installation. It dominates Octagon’s ‘core’, disturbing the ‘harmony’ of a dull and uninteresting transitional zone and that seems to bother the majority.

Fig. 100:An artistic view of Broadgate Circle’s and Octagon’s main plan along with the traffic patterns developed within and the frequently used sitting points.((Plan prior to 2015)

According to the proposal (Fig. 102), the traffic is redistributed to and from Octagon through three different access points that have replaced the single, amphithe-atrically shaped one. Situated on each of the plaza’s sides, they ‘absorb’ the traffic and circulate it through the site’s perimeter, while they decompress the epicentre which is now a coherent zone, close to the sculpture, dedicated to the public as a sitting point (see Fig. 104). Moreover, another positive outcome from this ‘gesture’ is to gather peo-ple around the centre of the square (and Fulcrum) in addition to Broadgate Circle where the crowd is normally receding on the perimeter (with the exception of a scheduled event). Thus, the sense of centrality and site-specificity is enhanced, regardless the size and nature of the original space.

47

Fig. 101:A hoarding in Octagon square, directing the pub-lic to additional places within the development.This emphasizes the role that Octagon holds as a transitional zone.

photo by the author, 2015

+12.50

+10.30

Fig. 102:An artistic illustration of the proposal’s main plan

This spatial ‘division’ extends on the road level as well. The different levels between the road and the square (~2.20m) roughly allow someone located on the upper level (road) to be aware of the ‘situation’. However he can be aware of this division due to a number of rectangular, solid constructions that channel the pedestrian flow in or around the spot, slow down the walk pace and raise questions about what can possibly be happening. From that point and onwards someone can gradually encounter with a series of levels, of unequal shape and size but of the same purpose; to provide the public with the freedom of appro-priating this space on their own choice. Either as a point of descent or a sitting spot those concrete cubic spatial formations intend to signify the invisible and indefinable border between the city and the development, the public and the private (Fig. 103). Moreover, the proximity with the Fulcrum give the opportunity to anyone sitting there to experience the sculpture from a different perspective, unhindered by the flows of traffic which are now diverted. The sculpture – like form of these levels (Fig. 107, 108), in ‘co-operation’ with Fulcrum, create a challenging ambiance with their different method of occupying their space and different materiality (Fig. 105). But at the same time, the distinct spatial fragmen-tation they cause of the enclosed, neutral public space are situated, concludes in a spatial reshaping of Octagon and the formation of additional movement patterns and places of public gathering.

48

Fig. 104:An artistic illustration of the proposal’s main planFig. 103: An illustration displaying part of the proposal

49

Fig. 106:An artistic impressions of the proposal

Fig. 105:An artistic impression of the proposal’s materiality.

Beton of different shades for the levels, highly polished black marble for the street furniture (road level) and concrete slabs are the main proposed materials.

Fig. 107:Carlo Scarpa, Fondazione Querini Stampalia, Venezia (1949)

Lawrence Harplin, Seattle freeway park (1976)

Two works where the sculpture-like design meets function

Fig. 108:Early sketches of the levels (standing points and of descent)

Fig. 109:Some of the proposal’s early sketches, in search of the two major lines mentioned before.

50

Fig. 110:Quick conceptual sketches during the early phases of the proposal’s development. The spatial qualities and how they affect the traffic witihin the site of interest was a major concern during those stages of the proposal

Fig. 111:Quick sketches that process the difference of levels.

110 Grady Clay, Close up: How to read the American City, 1973, p.180

111 Whybrow, Nicolas, Art and the City, I.B.Tauris, 2011, p.31

51

Fig. 112:An artistic impression of the Fulcrum, as seen from the passage between the Octagon and the Broadgate Circle

As a conclusion, this intervention intends to introduce a different perspective on social engagements and spatial experience in a space empty of specific meanings and iden-tity. While balancing among bulky buildings, highly commercial arcades and homogenous pseudo-public environment, the Octagon has the prerequisites to create situations of social conduct and spatial perception that can oppose the controversial character of a develop-ment designed for a very specific reason, clientele and reality. The proposal, by using this space, attempts to “unlock or translate an urban situation (transition from public to private, experiencing public art) to its inhabitants or visitors”110, make the site a destination instead of a predefined path and enhance a notion that, gradually, loses its meaning and space of practice. Nicolas Whybrow stated that one’s location makes a difference to what he knows and who can he be, even if his presence is transient.111 In a proliferating private urban realm, small ‘pockets of publicness and freedom’ are absolutely essential urban situations that people need (and seek) to engage with so that they can constantly be aware of the true public notion and all the qualities it entails. Therefore, to be aware of their own na-ture, rights and social role within the public realm, even if it is supposed to last for a brief amount of time.

“I know that there is no audience for sculpture, as is the case with poetry and experimental film. There is, however, a big audience for products which give people what they want and supposedly need, and which do not attempt to give them more than they can understand.“

Serra, Richard, “Notes from Sight Point Road”, Perspecta 19, 1982, pp. 173-181

BIBLIOGRAPHYAcconci, Vito, ‘Public Space in a Private Time’ in W.J.T. Mitchell (ed), Art and the Public Sphere, The University of Chicago Press, 1992

Berry, Chris, Harbord, Janet, and Moore, Rachel (eds) Public Space, Media Space, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013

Bolton, Nigel, Broadgate & its development: offices above their station, dissertation for the Dip Course in Architecture, University of Brighton, December 1989

Bourne L. S., Internal Structure of the City, Oxford University Press, 1982

Cartiere, Cameron and Willis, Shelly (eds), The Practice of Public Art, Taylor & Francis, 2008

Crilley, D, ‘Architecture as advertising: constructing the image of redevelopment’ in Kearns,G, Philo,C(eds) Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present, Oxford: Pergamon, 1993

Debord, Guy in Knabb, Ken (ed), Situationist International Anthology, Revised and Expanded Edition, Bureau of Public Secrets, Berkeley, CA, 1981/2006

Deutsche, Rosalyn, ‘Uneven Development: public art in New York City’ in Ghirardo, Diane (ed.) Out of Site, Seattle Press, 1991,

Foster, Hal, Richard Serra, MIT Press, 2000 Grady, Clay, Close up: How to read the American City, University of Chicago Press; New edition, 1980

Hartley, John, The Politics of Pictures: The Creation of the Public in the Age of Popular Media, Psychology Press, 1992

Harvey, David, ‘The Political Economy of Public Space’, in Setha Low, Neil Smith (eds) The Politics of Public Space, Routledge, 2006, pp. 17-34

Hauser, Gerard, Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1999

Hoffman, Barbara, ‘Law for Art’s Sake in the Public Realm’ in W.J.T. Mitchell (ed), Art and the Public Sphere, The University of Chicago Press, 1992, pp. 113-116

Hoggart, Keith and Green, David R. (eds) London, A new Metropolitan Geography, Edward Arnold publications, 1991

Lees, Loretta et al (eds), Regenerating London: Governance, Sustainability and Community in a Global City, Routledge, 2008, pp 315-321

Lefebvre, Henri in H. Lefebvre et al (eds), Writings on Cities, Wiley – Blackwell, 1996

Miles, Malcolm, Art, Space and the City: Public art and urban futures, Routledge, 1997

Minton, Anna, Ground Control, Penguin, 2012,

Minton, Anna, The privatisation of public space, 2006

Mitchell, Don, ‘The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 85, No. 1, 1995, pp. 108-133

Phillips, Patricia, ‘Public Art: a renewable resource’ in Hall, Tim and Miles, Malcolm (eds), Urban Futures: Critical Commentaries on shaping Cities, Routledge, 2002, pp. 122 – 133

Rendell, Jane, Art and Architecture: A Place Between, 2006

Sadler, Simon, The Situationist City, The MIT Press, 1998

Selwood, Sara (1992) ‘Art in Public’, in (ed.) Jones, 1992:11–27, p.21

Selwood, Sara, The Benefits of Public Art, PSI Publishing, 1995

Shane, D.G, ‘Balkanization and the Postmodern City’in Lang, Peter (ed) Mortal City, Princeton Architectural Press, 1995, pp. 55-69

Smithsimon, Gregory, ‘Dispersing the crowd: Bonus Plazas and the Creation of Public Space’, in Orum, Anthony and Neal, Zachary P.(eds), 2010, pp.118-127

Ward-Jackson, Philip, Public Sculpture of the City of London, Liverpool University Press, 2003Whybrow, Nicolas, Art and the City, I.B.Tauris, 2011

Whyte, William H., ‘The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces’ in Orum, Anthony and Neal, Zachary P. (eds), 2010

52

Journals and selected articles

Big Bang 20 years on: New challenges facing the financial services sector, Collected Essays, Centre for policy studies, London, 2006

Booth, Robert, ‘Heritage or horror? Row over Broadgate demolition plan’, The Guardian, 12.5.2011

Borden, Iain in Quinn, Ben, ‘Anti-homeless spikes are part of a wider phenomenon of ‘hostile architecture’, The Guardian, 13.6.14

‘Broadgate turns to Tech City to pull in punters’, The Evening Standard, 24.12.13

Building Design, No 806, 3.10.1986, p.2

‘Explore the Buildings of Broadgate’, published by Broadgate Estates.

Fletcher, Richard, ‘Broadgate’s celebrated history must be remembered with a hefty premium’, The Telegraph, 18.8.09

Green, Jared, ‘Why Public Art Is Important’, at http://dirt.asla.org/2012/10/15/why-public-art-is-important/, 15.10.12

http://www.broadgate.co.uk/about/ourjourney

Jencks, Charles, ‘Broadgate: The city in the City’, Architectural Design vol.61 5-6/1991, p.46-47

Kynaston, David, ‘Was the Big Bang good for the City of London and Britain?’ , The Telegraph, 26.10.2011

Loukaitou-Sideris, ‘Privatisation of public open space: Los Angeles experience’, Town Planning Review (64:2) 1993, pp 139-167.

Martin, Ian, ‘The city that privatized itself to death’, The Guardian, 24.2.15

Merrick, Jay, ‘5 Broadgate: Inside the ‘groundscraper’ set to become the City’s new financial engine’, Indepedent

Müge, Akkar Ercan, Public Spaces of post-industrial cities and their Changing roles, METU JFA 2007/1 (24:1)

Murray, Callum, ‘The Art of Development’, Architect’s Journal, Number 17, Volume 192, 24.10.1990, pages 28-31

Patrick Hannay in Architect’s Journal, Number 39, Volume 182, 25.9.1985, pp 28-29

Rebenek, Andrew, ‘Broadgate and the Beaux Arts’, Architect’s Journal, No 17, Volume 192, 24.10.90, pp. 36-51

‘Remembering Broad Street railway station’, in Urban75 blog

Ruddick, Graham, ‘Will Canary Wharf be Baroness Thatcher’s greatest lasting legacy?,’ The Telegraph, 9.4.2013

Swenarton, Mark, ‘Full circle at Broadgate’, Building Design, 4.3.1988, pages 15-16

The Architects’ Journal, volume 161, Number 22, 28.5.1975, pp. 1122-23

Whitcombe, Juliet, ‘The history of Liverpool street station’ , Crossrail.co.uk, 28.02.2011

Hillier, Bill et al, Broadgate spaces: Life in public places, Unit for Architectural Studies, Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, University College London, January 1990

Rosehaugh Stanhope Developments, 1992

Reports

Acconci, Vito, ‘Public Space in a Private Time’ in W.J.T. Mitchell (ed), Art and the Public Sphere, The University of Chicago Press, 1992

Berry, Chris, Harbord, Janet, and Moore, Rachel (eds) Public Space, Media Space, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013

53

‘Give My Regards to Broad Street’ by Peter Webb, 1984

‘London’ by Patrick Keiller, 1994

‘Smithson and Serra: Beyond Modernism?’ by G.D. Jayalakshmi, 1994

‘Twilight City’ by Reece Auguiste, 1989

Films - documentaries

Various authors, Planning for Privately Owned Public Spaces: Improving POPS in Community District Five, Manhattan, Columbia University, 2015

54

Total word count: 12589