Tall things and The Shard

click photo to enlarge
It was wind turbines that first prompted the realisation that tall things - I mean very tall things - look tallest when seen from afar. There's a wind farm not too far from where I live, and, though I know that the ground to blade tip height is 100m regardless of where I'm standing, they still appear to be bigger when I'm two miles distant, and bigger still when I'm 5 or more miles away. It must be something to do with the fact that at those sorts of distances the real difference between a house or a tree and the turbine is always clear. However, when I'm closer a nearby tree looks relatively tall when viewed with a distant turbine.

The same is true of the the Shard, currently the tallest building in London. When seen from my car on the M11 where it passes over the hills north of London the Shard appears to tower over most of the tall buildings of the city, its distinctive, pointed shape catching the eye. However, from within the city its relative height seems less - at least to my eye. With the Shard I think there is another factor at work: the tapering shape makes it less massive in fact and in appearance when you are nearby. I photographed this building at reasonably regular intervals as it was being built, and took a few shots from the location of today's image (the ludicrously named More London). This recent shot was prompted by the silhouettes of people in the canyon-like cleft that frames the Shard, and also the bright red crane stretched across it. Building in London never stops and a recent news article pointed out that there are currently 436 tall buildings (over 20 storeys) in the pipeline for the capital of which 233 have planning approval.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Photo Title:  The Shard Seen From More London, London
Camera: Olympus E-M10
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 14mm (28mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/250 sec
ISO:200
Exposure Compensation: -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Canary Wharf at night

click photo to enlarge
This isn't the first night time photograph I've taken of the financial district of London called Canary Wharf. And it probably won't be the last. However, if you live in the Lincolnshire countryside, where the brightest light around is probably a security light on the side of a farm, then the opportunity to photograph night views with plenty of lights is one not to be missed.

There was a time when I used a tripod quite regularly, particularly when I photographed more interior church architecture than I do now. These days I reserve that kind of camera support for macro photography. I've always thought one of the best developments in camera technology in recent years has been image stabilisation (or vibration control or whatever term your manufacturer uses). A close second has been the improvement in the high ISO abilities of sensors. Put those two together and the tripod is no longer quite the necessity that it was. Even a pocket camera with a relatively small 1 inch sensor like the Sony RX100 is capable of producing pretty good images after the last light of the day has disappeared.

I had the ISO on Auto for today's shot and it chose ISO 5000 to keep the shutter speed up to 1/60 second, a necessarily high speed given the focal length was 56mm (35mm equivalent). Nonetheless, old habits die hard and I rested the camera on a handy lifebelt point for my photograph and I braced it firmly. The result is a shot that I wouldn't have thought of taking this way with this kind of camera only five years ago, and it's one that is, I think, technically pretty good.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Sony RX100
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 20.6mm (56mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f3.5
Shutter Speed: 1/60 sec
ISO:5000
Exposure Compensation: -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Living the high-rise life

click photo to enlarge
On my recent trip to London I walked up the south bank of the Thames, past the MI5 building, to Vauxhall to see St George Wharf and, in particular, a new 50 storey residential tower that is approaching completion. This area has been developed with a complex of expensive and distinctive, river-side towers and blocks. The shiny new skyscraper that has grown up beside them seems to have settled on the generic and rather presumptuous name of The Tower.

Will such a name last? Can it when it is one among many towers? Is this a grab for a name that distinguishes it from all the other particular towers? Who knows? What I do know is that already the building has a certain fame and notoriety. On completion its 594 feet (181 metres) it will be the tallest residential tower in the UK, and this fact has caused some commentators to say it is too high for the area and too high for its relative proximity to the Palace of Westminster. Fame of a different type attached to the tower when, on 16th January 2013, a helicopter struck the construction crane attached to the building, causing the helicopter to crash into the road below, hitting two cars, killing the pilot and another person, and setting two buildings on fire. Such an occurrence is, thankfully, very uncommon, yet the fact that it has happened once must put the thought of it happening again into the minds of some high-rise residents, and will make people consider the down-side as well as the up-side (pun intended) of high-rise living.

The exterior of the new tower is, to my mind, fine without being particularly special. The broadly cylindrical shape is not unpleasant but doesn't offer an overall form or specific details that strongly distinguish it from others or that cause the viewer's gaze to linger. The blue glass looks attractive, as blue glass often does, yet one has to wonder how much longer it can survive as the default tint. The tower is topped by a disguised wind turbine to power some of its lighting and heat-pump technology will take warmth from the water of the London aquifer. These and other design features will mean it needs about one third of the energy that a typical tower of this size consumes, and its carbon dioxide emissions will be half to two thirds that of a similar structure.

I spent a few minutes watching the workmen as they went about the task of putting the finishing touches to the building. Two orange clad men made useful indicators of the scale of the structure. They were dangling on ropes and appeared to be washing the windows (surely not) or applying something to the glass or glazing frame. Incidentally, the smaller photo is a crop of a larger image.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Photo 1
Camera: Sony RX100
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 20.4mm (55mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f6.3
Shutter Speed: 1/1250
ISO: 125
Exposure Compensation:  -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Reflecting on cameras and capital cities

click photo to enlarge
A recent couple of days in London coincided with the two warmest days of the year so far and I returned to a cooler, windier, wetter Lincolnshire with a face turned ruddy by the sun. I'd gone to our capital city for a small family gathering. However, the visit also became an experiment with my recently acquired compact camera and I made it an opportunity to photograph some of the city's most recent buildings as well as those that have been around for a few years.

The best way to get to know a camera such as my Sony RX100 is to use it. So, I made it my sole camera for the trip and turned its one inch sensor and 28-100mm (35mm equiv.) lens to the sort of uses that I would usually apply my Canon 5D Mk2 and its 24-105mm, 17-40mm and Tamron 70-300mm lenses. What do I conclude? The Sony does a remarkable job. The screen coped in all but the brightest conditions and I could usually compose quite satisfactorily. Having 20.2 megapixels allows for  quite a bit of cropping without the file size becoming too small, consequently the effective focal length can be easily doubled. Unfortunately its not as easy to widen beyond 28mm. I like 24mm as my standard wide focal length, but all cameras are compromises of one sort or another and this is one I'll live with. I shot JPG only rather than RAW or RAW + JPG. It's less flexible, but less work too, and I found that satisfactory. The colours are good, quite "film-like". The biggest drawback was that a couple of times I inadvertently pressed the movie record button. It's all well and good making movie recording easy, but it's a touch too easy with this camera.

On our second day I walked ten miles round the city in search of shots. I was particularly keen to see how the 20 Fenchurch Street skyscraper (nicknamed "The Walkie Talkie") is coming on, and whether its appearance is improving as it starts to approach completion. The answer to that last question is a resounding "No". It seems to me that this building is the wrong shape and the wrong size for its location which is too detached from the main group of tall City towers and too close to the river. Moreover it intrudes far too much on the view of Tower Bridge from the south.

The other thought I had as I followed the course of the River Thames through the city is that London continues to hog far too much of the nation's spending on infrastructure. I got a real sense that the effects of the depression that are felt right across the rest of the country are barely impinging on the metropolis and that this can only lead to further regional and social divisions that will have bad consequences.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Sony RX100
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 18.2mm (49mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f6.3
Shutter Speed: 1/500
ISO: 125
Exposure Compensation:  -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On 

London and the Walkie Talkie

click photo to enlarge
A new building is appearing in the City of London at 20 Fenchurch Street and already the most eye-catching feature of its design is apparent. This 525 feet (160m) tall tower by the architect, Rafael Viñoly, flares outwards as it rises upwards, an unusual characteristic that has already earned it the nickname, the "Walkie Talkie". You can see it under construction on the left of my main photograph and on the right of the smaller one. This photograph gives an idea of what it will look like when it is completed in April 2014.

I've been fairly supportive of many of the new towers that have appeared in the City of London over the past twenty years or so. However, this building is one that I dislike for its shape and for the way it will intrude upon and overwhelm a location that has many fine and important buildings, including Tower Bridge. The developers must be aware of the disapprobation that the building has engendered because they plan to incorporate a three-level "sky garden" at the top with free access for the public. That has the potential to be visually interesting and very popular, but will do little to mitigate the intrusion of the massive building that will not only tower over its surroundings but will lean and loom over them too.

In some respects the idea of designing a building that offers more space than its footprint would usually allow is a clever and understandable one in an area where the price per square foot of property is so high. But it's not a new idea. The timber-framed "jettied" buildings of the Tudor period sought the same advantage. Moreover, though they didn't go anywhere near as high as the "Walkie Talkie" they did create dark, narrow streets and a sense of enclosure. This is already evident in parts of the City where tall, vertical buildings are adjacent to each other. It would only get worse if the idea encapsulated in this new building became a trend.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 183mm
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/250
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation:  -1.00 EV
Image Stabilisation: On 

The Shard

click photo to enlarge

The Shard looks set to be one of the most interesting buildings to have been erected in London in recent years. Not only will it be the tallest in the capital (and in the UK and Europe) at 1,017 feet (310m), it will also be a mixed use building, something that is not common in the UK. Floors 2-28 will be offices, 31-33 will be restaurants, 34-52 will be a hotel, 53-65 are reserved for residences, and floors 68-72 are to form an observatory. The designer of the tower, Renzo Piano, likened his creation to a shard of glass and the name has stuck. This glittering, angular, tapered shape will be a dramatic addition to the skyline, a building that is designed to change its appearance in different weathers.

There was some opposition to the construction of such a tall building so close to the centre of London, even one located on the south bank of the Thames. However, the last Labour government gave the planning go-ahead, and I am glad that they did. It seems to me that the height of a new building is an important consideration if it is very near a large, significant older building. But, a big new tower should not be rejected on size alone where this consideration does not come into play. The crucial factor is the quality of what is proposed, and the Shard, it seems to me, is a high quality design that will add something to the London skyline rather than detract from what is already there. Yes, its shape is a little "odd", but it is very appealing: to my mind more so than London's other "oddity", the Gherkin.

I've photographically recorded the Shard as it has been under construction over the past two years, and have meant to post a blog entry with several of the shots. However, I probably won't do this as the Shard's Wikipedia page has done it better (bottom of page). Instead I will post photographs of the building as and when I secure one that I like. This shot was taken during a recent early evening walk where, even without lights, the glass of the building glowed against the dark, sunlit cloud.

Incidentally, the Shard has a very good website that not only explains more about what it will become, but also charts the progress of its construction. I particulary recommend the Gallery and the panoramic views.

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Lumix LX3
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 12.8mm (60mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f3.2
Shutter Speed: 1/500
ISO:125
Exposure Compensation: 0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

A prospect of London

click photo to enlarge

Over the past eight years I've taken a number of photographs of this view of London and the River Thames seen from Rotherhithe. It's the panorama that I survey from my son's windows, and it is an ever-changing prospect. Not only does the river traffic vary considerably - liners, warships, catamaran ferries, pleasure boats, Thames sailing barges, yachts, kayaks and more can be seen - but the skyline itself has been regularly added to as well.

When I first gazed upon this view the bullet-shaped City tower at 30 St Mary Axe (affectionately known as "The Gherkin") wasn't built. At that position on the horizon was what was then London's tallest building, Tower 42 (formerly the Natwest Tower). This can still be (just) seen, its shape adding angular protrusions to the top right of The Gherkin. Nor was the tower behind the needle-spired church built, and a couple more of the nondescript blocks are also recent constructions. However, the biggest addition to the London skyline (from wherever you view it) , "The Shard", is slowly climbing towards what will be its final height of 1,017 feet (310 metres), though it is out of this particular view, to the left.

But, river traffic and skyscrapers notwithstanding, the most significant effects on this prospect are actually the weather, the time of day, and especially, the sky. Today's photographs illustrate this. The larger image was taken for the beauty of the November afternoon sky and the way the filtered sun lit up both the buildings and the clouds. The smaller image, taken with a wide angle lens, shows the clouds and the river illuminated by the city's lights. Of course, some of those clouds could be smoke because the shot was taken on Bonfire Night (November 5th)!

photographs and text (c) T. Boughen

Photograph 1 (2)
Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 70mm (17mm)
F No: f4
Shutter Speed: 1/640 (1/4)
ISO: 100 (3200)
Exposure Compensation: 0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Towers of power

click photo to enlarge

Some architectural historians would have us believe that the first building with a glass curtain wall was Oriel Chambers in Liverpool, built in 1864 by the architect Peter Ellis. Others point to the large Victorian conservatories and glass buildings such as the Crystal Palace. But, whilst some of them may technically exhibit the features of such a design - a metal frame from which the windows hang, and external walls that are not structural entities supporting the building  - the first archetypal glass curtain walled building was surely Walter Gropius' Bauhaus at Dessau, Germany, built in 1925-6.

One of the things I've always found interesting about the arts and crafts institute that was the Bauhaus, is the fact that it was peopled by staff who were labelled subversives, Communists and anti-Germans. In fact, it was on those grounds that it was closed down. The truth is that the Bauhaus staff didn't support the neo-realism and imperialist style (a sort of stripped down classicism) that was favoured by the German state of the 1930s. Consequently, many dispersed across the world, to Britain, and more especially, to the United States, where they could build in the way they wanted. And it was there that the curtain wall really took off. Not, however, as an architecture for liberal, left-leaning, social democrats, but as the faceless monoliths of "red in tooth and claw" capitalism. The rest, as they say, is history. Today the glass curtain wall is found in the centre of every major city of the world, its reflective surface symbolizing power, wealth, and the discreet anonymity of the people who drive our financial and commercial empires.

The example in today's photograph is in Canary Wharf, London. I came upon it towards the end of the day as the sun was setting behind patchy cloud. As I looked up at it the building revealed nothing about who worked there and what they did. The visual connect between those inside and passers-by was one way only: they could see me but I wasn't allowed to see them. We used to think that the "iced cake" style tower blocks of the old Soviet Union, with their endlessly repeated window bands epitomised anonymous power. However, I think buildings such as the one in today's photograph do it so much more efficiently. And they do it whilst wearing a reflection that makes them  look like they are part of our world.

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 12mm (24mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/500
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: -1.0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Reflecting on Pinchbeck church

click photo to enlarge

The proposal for a 200 storey, 1,000 metres high tower in Dubai is just the latest manifestation of mankind's urge to construct tall towers. Building a single storey structure then extending laterally is obvious and easy, and was the way that early builders erected their dwellings. Vertical building, with storey on top of storey, is harder and more perilous. Only when building skills had reached a certain level could it be considered.

In the British Isles the 2,000 year old Iron Age brochs of Scotland are probably the oldest tall buildings. These circular towers with their ten feet thick, double-skin walls could reach a height of fifty feet and contain three floors. There is some debate over whether brochs were defensive, offensive or simply the elaborate homes of people of greater means and higher status. Whatever the reason for their construction they must have fulfilled one of the main purposes of most tall buildings - to impress those who gaze upon them.

The builders of medieval church towers were certainly aiming to impress the people who lived nearby and worshipped at the church. They were tangible reminders, often visible for many miles, of the power, presence and importance of the church, ever present fingers of stone pointing to the ultimate destination of those who embraced its teachings. There is also documentary evidence to show that these towers were sometimes deliberately designed to surpass the height, richness and beauty of towers in neighbouring parishes. How ironic that the sin of pride motivated the construction of some of our most beautiful church towers, and how like today's skyscraper race that has seen first the U.S.A. then Singapore, next China and now Dubai triumph in the contest to be tallest! However, the church tower did have a functional purpose - to raise the bell (or bells) high above the surrounding buildings and trees so that their call to worship could be heard over a wide area.

Of the six medieval churches that are strung along the A156 and B1356 from Donington to Spalding, the tower of St Mary at Pinchbeck (above) breaks the procession of attractive spires with its tall, crenellated tower that was built in the 1300s and 1400s. As Pevsner notes, it "suits the character of the building", which is large and ornate. My photograph was taken on a sunny, early October afternoon. It shows the tower from the west, framed by trees, some of which are shedding their leaves earlier than the others, a view I chose for the way it reduces a big, complex building to something simpler. Another of my shots of this church can be seen here.

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 11mm (22mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/160
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On