Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

London's prize gherkin

12:29 / 02.10.03

image of Swiss Re bdg

Best Uncircumsised Building in the World.

The building itself is not hot news really, but I've been thinking of making a thread on it for a little while and now seems to be the time.

AKA the Swiss Re Headquarters, the "Erotic Gherkin" or "Towering Innuendo" struggles to define itself as anything but, well, a phallus. Living in London, I've never heard anyone call this building by its real name, in fact usually it's just "the Gherkin." Anything else seems a bit of a mouthful.

Apparently, the building's form is entirely derived from its function and environment and so we can conclude that any resemblance to anything else s entirely coincidental ... OK ... right. It seems to me this building has quite an interesting textual life -- "Re" I'm guessing, from the client's full name, is a contraction of "reinsurance," a problematic word since the Lloyds of London debacle of a few years ago, so perhaps the building's given name is a euphemism as well.

So what do you think? Like it? Loathe it? I think it's impressive, but will it look dated quickly? Or is this the shape of things to, er, come?

And isn't it wonderful that the people of London can spontaneously create a fitting name for it? London 'Lithers especially, are there other names?

12:32 / 02.10.03

I think it looks more like a butt-plug or a suppository. I like it.

Tryphena Absent

13:50 / 02.10.03

I love this building, it's so evocative of a giant sex toy but I'd love it without the parallel. I don't think it will date that quickly, rather become one of those timeless constructions that people are fond of because they're so... weird. I like the diagonal lines that run across the windows. I can't think of anything else to say that won't come across as dirty so I'll shut up now.

12:56 / 03.10.03

Its ugly, but simply for the differentness to the others beside it, I think i could grow to like it.

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:15 / 05.10.03

I really like it - the roundness and smoothness of the lines make it distinct from the boxy, rectilinear buildings around it, and, most importantly, it looks like the kind of building we were supposed to have by now - a slab of Dan Dare futurism liek the GLA building ont he toher side of the river.

I'm with Ganesh, btw - a penis is not supposed to taper like that.

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:15 / 05.10.03

I really like it - the roundness and smoothness of the lines make it distinct from the boxy, rectilinear buildings around it, and, most importantly, it looks like the kind of building we were supposed to have by now - a slab of Dan Dare futurism liek the GLA building ont he toher side of the river.

I'm with Ganesh, btw - a penis is not supposed to taper like that.

12:48 / 05.10.03

For me, the Swiss building is important because it is built on the site of The Baltic Exchange, a building that was destroyed by the IRA in 1992. I think its interesting to contrast attitudes to the Swiss building and plans to build on the site of the World Trade Centre...

18:05 / 05.10.03

Sleazenation -- Interesting, but I'm not sure myself the incidents are comparable. What are the similarities for you?

18:58 / 05.10.03

Well certainly in terms of civilians killed the two events are hardly comparable, however Both the Baltic Exchange and World Trade Centre were both major financial institutions and business centres that were both destroyed in terrorist actions. The redevelopment of both sites have been subject of some controversy.

Or does the scale of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre make any comparisons entirely invalid?

21:07 / 05.10.03

Sleazenation -- The Baltic Exchange is a financial institution, but the World Trade Center, despite its name, was nothing more than leased office space.

The controversy over the redevelopment of the Baltic Exchange was based mostly on building conservation issues. I wouldn't like to argue that there was a cut-off point for the commemoration of death or that the two attacks are beyond comparison, but three deaths versus nearly 3,000 is difficult to equate.

Tryphena Absent

10:53 / 06.10.03

Leased office space to a lot of important companies... and let's not forget the restaurant that was open to the public.

The real thing about the WTC though was its status as a piece of NY's culture. They chose an architectural landmark and that's why there's so much debate about the rebuild. Well that and the lack of terrorism on US soil. I think it is comparable as a terrorist action despite people killed... IMO that's never been the issue, America kills people all the time, I still think it's the 1)significance of the landmark and 2)position of the building. These things massively contributed to the reaction, it wouldn't have been as massive if it had been a government building in the midwest.

I'm just glad they didn't tear in to the Chrysler Building because I love it desperately.

11:51 / 06.10.03

And there was, of course, just such an incident in the midwest with which to compare. I think the WTC location had some impact on the plans:

"Oklahoma City's recovery was centered largely on the construction of a memorial and was generally absent of the large-scale financial repercussions and business community diaspora which has befell New York." (PDF available from Columbia University, mentions Baltic as well)

The WTC did contain many "important" companies but then, it was in downtown Manhattan -- not many buildings didn't. I really have a problem with the common (and mostly European, it seems to me) interpretation of the WTC as a symbol of US something. The WTC has only really become anything but an unloved white elephant since its destruction. It was, if you like, NYC's Canary Wharf. If one wanted to destroy a symbol, one would be better off going for the Empire State Bdg or perhaps the much-loved Chrysler. Except they are not so vulnerable to attack -- an airplane hit the ESB during WWII with a handful of deaths and the building still stands -- which makes me question the after-the-fact ideological explanation of why the hijackers chose the WTC. I think they were going for maximum deaths rather than iconoclasm.

Tryphena Absent

12:39 / 06.10.03

I suppose that's a factor and there's the point that there were always innocents around the World Trade Center but it's still a landmark. Remember they weren't trying to get at New Yorkers, they were trying to get at the Western world and the WTC was very much representative of corporate America, it was recognised by everyone in the way that the Chrysler building isn't and the Empire State is only a tourist attraction in international eyes. So the deaths may have been part of the plan but I think the obsessive aftermath would have happened with a quarter of that number dead. It's as much about culture and paranoia as it is about killing people.

14:21 / 06.10.03

I agree it isn't about the exact number dead, but ...

Remember ... they were trying to get at the Western world and the WTC was very much representative of corporate America

No, absolutely not, in my book that's received opinion and I will always question it. It is an explanation put into the mouths of the hijackers by anti-corporate/anti-US commentators who have their own reasons, right or wrong, for describing it as such. The WTC was notable only for its contribution to the Manhattan skyline -- it was only recognisable in that because of its repeating structure -- and its monumental failure to make anything like the money the Port Authority hoped. If anything in NYC was of interest solely to tourists, the WTC was it.

And as for not going after New Yorkers, why didn't they do it on a Sunday? Why not car-bomb Wall Street? It doesn't add up.

Tryphena Absent

15:25 / 06.10.03

Because they were making a dramatic plea- a car bomb's very everyday. They wanted the reaction and we're talking about fundamentalists making a statement about America and the American dream and the very construction of the WTC was the essence of that dream. Fundamentalists aren't sensible, this was about the statement.

why didn't they do it on a Sunday?

Because corporate America does not work on a Sunday?

This is getting off topic though and it's a ridiculous argument because neither of us is a fundamentalist Muslim. This should really be focused on the similarities rather than the differences between the redesign of a bomb site.

21:26 / 06.10.03

At the risk of getting further off topic the most obvious reason for hitting the WTC would seem to be it was the tallest target and therefore the easiest to hit.

Dances with Gophers

11:11 / 12.10.03

My views on the Swiss-Re building.
Looks like on of Obelix's menhirs.
Sited by St Andrews Undershaft, the site of an ancient Maypole (hence the name of the church).
One evening last December I was looking at it from Hungerford bridge and it looked like a christmas tree.
Yeah I like it. It sort of looks like it is meant to be there.

23:36 / 29.11.03

I really have a problem with the common (and mostly European, it seems to me) interpretation of the WTC as a symbol of US something… If one wanted to destroy a symbol, one would be better off going for the Empire State Bdg or perhaps the much-loved Chrysler.

The WTC is considered by many to be a symbol of US Capitalism. I think it is not so much about destroying a symbol as making a bold statement. Hitting twin towers certainly has psychological impact.

Insofar as making an impact, while you or I might bemoan the loss of the Chrysler building, I think the sheer death-toll would hit the average Joe more.

If the US people had a choice between the September attacks happening and having all their art/culture/architecture erased in an attack, I’m sure they’d choose the latter.

21:24 / 19.06.04

Has anybody seen this poster yet? Not much to do with the design of it, but who's idea was it to use a vaguely penis shaped building, and then have someone pommelling round it. Yes... i will stop talking now. Incidentally, he doesn't know where the building is.

23:39 / 19.06.04

Well, he's from Surrey.

13:27 / 21.06.04

I was thinking more like Faberge Dildo. It's a damn cool building. Hats off to London. I was staying at Stoatie's last year while the building was being finished and had a couple of cranes, one on each side. From Stokey it looked like an Archon!

One reason they didn't car-bomb the WTC because somebody tried that in '93 and it didn't work. Speaking of bad design, somebody had the brilliant idea (never seriously considered) of building a giant cross. A giant symbol of capitalism and muscular Christianity? No attraction for terrorists there, nosirree!

Isn't there supposed to be a restuarant atop the F.D.?

16:31 / 21.06.04

I mentioned car-bombing Wall Street not the WTC because it would be hard to hit Wall Street effectively with a plane. Also, one is, or rather was, across town from the other yet the two places seem to have merged in the post-9/11 European imagination. Convenient ideologically speaking I guess.

But things have moved on, let us do so too.

The Gherkin is fab, but London's New Skyline May Augur Economic Slowdown. Oh dear. BTW, I do wish the papers would stop writing that people call it the Erotic Gherkin. It's just the Gherkin. The eroticism is too obvious for anyone I know to mention.

Apparently also we are to "Forget the Erotic Gherkin [grr!]: here comes the Vortex."

09:26 / 22.06.04

Actually I find contraction from 'the erotic gerkin' to 'the gerkin' really annoying, as if people are trying to ignore a massive elephant in their living room, or as in this case, a towering innuendo in the city.

13:33 / 22.06.04

Gherkins are phallic already. They don't need to be called erotic. It really is gilding the, er, gherkin.

13:45 / 22.06.04

I don't think it's gilding the gerkin since it was known as the erotic gerkin first - if anything giving it a reduced epithet could be described as gelding the gerkin...

15:17 / 22.06.04

Hehe! Very good.

But I maintain that people call it the Gherkin and always did, except in print.

12:01 / 23.06.04

That Vortex is pretty cool, and it beats having to go to Shanghai, Bangkok or Singapore to see cool buildings.

13:48 / 23.06.04

Apparently the Vortex is based on a hyperboloid shape. Tragically, a hyperboloid is not a construction fashioned out of hyperbole.

Its also strikes me as a bit disappointing that it would offer less office space for its footprint/height than a rather less interesting conventional skyscraper would offer.

16:39 / 23.06.04

Yes, though massive occupancy would need massive infrastructure to support the occupants. Extra drainage, transport etc would all have to be squeezed in.

What I find interesting is that the shape of the building's elevation (kind of) complements the Gherkin -- where one is thin, the other is thick etc. It is as if one building is talking to the other and as if the architect is saying something to his old practice ...