A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
‘A critical biography of the Lloyd’s building by Richard Rogers’ Matthew Lambert
Photo by Matthew Lambert
‘A critical biography of the
Pg. 1
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
Lloyd’s building by Richard Rogers’
work (BBC Imagine, 2008), and when salvation for Rogers came it
ADVANCED CULTURAL STUDIES
was from an unlikely client.
Matthew Lambert
Lloyd’s of London insurance market started from humble
(09037402)
Foreword:
beginnings in Edward Lloyd’s coffee shop in 1688, and enjoyed
I have chosen the following building as the subject of my biography due to interests
many decades of growth throughout the 20th century, and
developed in my current design project for hi-tech and flexible architecture. I hope
after moving offices 4 times in 60 years the time finally came
to expand my knowledge of these subjects to critically inform my design work.
in 1978 when Lloyd’s saw the need to expand their offices yet again (The Times, 1986).
Introduction
It seemed strange that such classical, traditional and
In the following piece of work I will chart the career of the Lloyd’s
supposedly ‘stuffy’ company such as Lloyd’s were keen to
building’s from the original claims for the building, showing both
commission a building by Rogers who had two years before
conceptual ideas Richard Rogers looked to embody in its design, contrasting with counterclaims as to whether these intentions were realised, highlighting the building’s use and wear, through to proposals for change, heritageisation, and my own personal view on how the building should play out its final years. I will provide evidence both from Richard Rogers himself, Architectural reviewers,
shocked the world with the ‘inside-out’ architecture of the Centre Pompidou. When the chairman of Lloyd’s was questioned on this he responded: “If Lloyd’s can’t take a risk who can?” (BBC How we built Britain 2007)
critics and most importantly the building users to ascertain whether the building has been successful or not.
The 1980’s was a time for change for many businesses and In the years following the high profile commission for the
the ‘exploding requirements of the information age’ (BBC
Centre Pompidou in Paris, Richard Rogers struggled to find
Imagine, 2008) was transforming Architecture. Lloyd’s of London
Pg. 2
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
had the funding and wanted to ‘take a risk’ to invest in a new building instead of adapting and expanding the original offices they were currently working in, a decision they would perhaps regret. Rogers supposedly won the job for the Lloyd’s building not from polished design drawings, but with a strategy for accommodation ascertained from a “wide range of analysis and a series of mathematical models” (Deyjan Sudjic, pg.20, 1994). “One of the things which we are searching for is a form of architecture which, unlike classical architecture is not perfect and finite upon completion...we are looking for an Architecture that is rather like some music or poetry which can actually be changed by the users, an architecture of improvisation” (Richard Rogers, “The Artist and the Scientist” in Bridging the gap, 1991, p. 146)
Image From The Architecture of Richard Rogers, (1994) Deyjan Sudjic
Pg. 3
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
The Lloyd’s building, one of the most expensive buildings ever built, costing 157 million pounds was completed in 1986 (Brand, 1995). As soon as it was opened it sparked wide
controversy from the public due to its striking machine-like exterior. The decision was taken by RRP to locate the services in towers on the periphery and to expose ducting for heating, lighting, ventilation and power to the exterior face of the building for claimed functional reason’s only: “Turning the plan inside out by placing service cores outside the main envelope offers two principal benefits – freeing the building of all internal obstructions and making lifts and servicing systems more accessible for maintenance and future upgrades” John Young, Partner, RRP (Deyjan Sudjic, pg.22, 1994) Roger’s used Meccano as an analogy, claiming that the Lloyd’s Building could be seen as “a piece of machinery, a flexible kit of moving parts that is continually changing” (Deyjan Sudjic, pg.22, 1994) Parts were claimed to be movable and upgradable when more servicing was required, the services however have stayed in the same place for the whole buildings life and very little has moved.
Image from Richard Rogers: architecture of the future (2004) Kenneth Powell
Pg. 4
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
The Lloyd’s building’s “deliberately articulated” form (The Independant, 1993) increased the number of “joints and points of
connection” (Mostafavi, 1993, pg. 98) that were to be exposed to the elements which lead to attractive yet expensive detailing, and the level technical prowess in the Lloyd’s building belies its adaptive roots: “The building’s technical virtuosity is evident in every detail from door, furniture, to window cleaning gantry, from the sharpness of each concrete arris to the great concrete collars which attach major beams to columns, from the tiny under floor air-conditioning units to the stainless steel ducts and pods which are such a feature of the exterior...Every detail however obscure in Lloyd’s is taut and perfect’. (Duffy, 1992, pg 166, pg. 192)
If Rogers was looking to create something that could be adapted and changed, finishing the building to such a high degree seems counterintuitive.
Pg. 5
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
Image from Richard Rogers: architecture of the future (2004)
occupants. Indeed occupants of the building only encounter
Kenneth Powell
the shiny and expensive machine like exterior when perhaps
If “perfection of detailing is an enemy of change” (Brand, 1995, pg. 175) the level of craftsmanship in detailing contradicts
Roger’s intentions of the building’s temporality. Rogers beautiful and precise detailing still didn’t hold back the rain and in 1998 he was sued for £185 million pounds for extensive water damage to the servicing pipe work. “Some more permanent order is needed both to meet urban contextual priorities and to give visual coherence to the building itself” Rogers (Powell, 2004, pg. 45) The fact that Rogers justifies the permanence in Lloyd’s for ‘visual coherence’, shows that Rogers was perhaps more passionate about creating a work of art than a truly adaptable architecture. Rogers claimed the decision to place services on the exterior and clad in stainless steel was purely functional yet I think it had more of an aesthetic reasoning behind it. Lloyd’s was in a position to commission a building that proclaimed their wealth therefore RRP concentrated on the ‘pizzazz’ of the exterior. This gloss only serves to impress passers-by rather than the Pg. 6
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
going for lunch and travelling to and from work. The exterior then seems entirely cut off and separate, and although showing the ‘gut’s of the building, it does this in an elaborate celebratory way, rather than as a consequence of its function, which points toward art as architecture rather than architecture of pure function to which Rogers was seemingly aversed. The problems of art as architecture are highlighted by Stewart Brand (1995, pg.54) •
Art is proudly non-functional and impractical.
•
Art reveres the new and despises the conventional.
•
Architectural art sells at a distance.
Although the Lloyd’s building functions on a practical level internally, it’s showy exterior sells at a distance and inside-out design despises the conventional, yet “Convention became conventional because it works” (Brand, 1995, pg. 54) and going against it proved expensive as the shiny ‘stainless’ steel exterior must be cleaned regularly to maintain it’s timeless appearance. The Lloyd’s building costs a hefty 1.5m pounds a year to maintain and maintenance isn’t easy either (Jay Thompson, 1993). Photo by Matthew Lambert
Pg. 7
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
Crane’s on the service towers are presumably too short as the lift cradles carrying the cleaners bang against the cladding leaving dents, the cleaners make yet more dents in the cladding trying to reach difficult places in the building’s facade, the panels therefore must be removed and the dents taken out. (Jay Thompson, 1993) Roger’s, as countless modern architect’s had done before him, tried to deny the elements “too proud to accept that as with all things, buildings change” (Mostafavi, 1993, pg. 17), as Mohstafavi explains in modern architecture, weathering is deterioration. As elements in buildings have varying durability, we might expect the material’s used for more temporary elements to represent this degradation visually, but by using permanently cleaned stainless steel to encase the supposedly temporary elements, the building give’s an impression of timelessness. ‘The services have a short life like the engine of car, ten years, the inside structure could last 200 years’ Rogers (BBC, Imagine 2008)
Photo by Matthew Lambert
The whiteness of modernism permeates through into the stainless steel post-modernism of the Lloyd’s building, and the Pg. 8
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
idealistic shiny aesthetic of the building seems in denial of the supposed temporary and flexible ethos of the building. By placing the services on the perimeter the idea was that it would allow the internal space to be adaptable. Originally Lloyd’s insurance market operated around a central space, with the underwriters ‘boxes’ or office stalls around a central space (Goldberger, 1987). The decision was taken to continue this tradition and to organise the Lloyd’s building’s interior around a 240 foot high rectangular shaped glass atrium, with office space on its perimeter. Roger’s explanation of it as the ‘wow space’ (BBC Imagine, 2008), shows that this was intended as the main focus
in the interior. It is clear that the occupants were appreciative of their former traditional interior as RRP blamed ‘compromises’ to internal fit out on Lloyd’s management (Deyjan Sudjic, 1994) which included Georgian decor and the 19th century room by Robert Adam (Goldberger, 1987) The room is free standing in the two storey
space in the executive upper floors. Computer Manipulated image showing denting, Original From The Architecture of Richard Rogers, (1994) Deyjan Sudjic
Pg. 9
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
“It has been encased in a mock classical enclosure that looks like a huge sarcophagus and the effect a kind of maudlin Disneyland” (Goldberger, 1987) In 1987 Lloyd’s commissioned a leading poll organisation to survey the occupants of the building to “identify as wide a range of views as possible prior to any decision on major changes” (Lohr, 1987). Seventy five percent said they’d prefer to move back to the previous office space. David Learner, spokesman for Lloyd’s blamed traditionalists working in the building “after all we still have people who complain that we never should have moved from the old 1938 to the one built in 1958” (Lohr, 1987). However prejudiced the Lloyd’s occupants were in accepting the modern building, Lloyd’s serious technical problems on opening can’t have helped its cause. Celebrated in steel on Image from The Architecture of Richard Rogers, (1994) Deyjan Sudjic
exterior of the building, the air conditioning and ventilation didn’t work and the glass elevators were too slow (Lohr, 1987). “as Mr. Philips was showing us around the building he spotted one of the plate glass entrance doors propped wide open, by a large plastic bucket. A security guard told him “underwriters
Pg. 10
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
getting bit of hot sir, wanted a bit of ventilation” (Thompson,
Matthew Lambert
above.
1993)
The open plan space with more than 1000 people working at a time meant that the noise level was sometimes so high it was distracting for the occupants. (Rose, 2007) The double height underwriting floor nicknamed ‘the Room’ lies at the base of the atrium with several floors of broker’s
Image from The Architecture of Richard Rogers, (1994) Deyjan Sudjic
Pg. 11
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
Roger’s claimed that the space was ‘adaptable’, so that when the underwriter’s grew in numbers they could use the floors above and offices could be converted for use as and when they were needed (BBC Imagine, 2008). The designed flexibility was optimistic as Lloyd’s enjoyed a sustained period of growth in the early 1980s and expected further growth. Roger’s planned extra floor’s, in which Lloyd’s were to expand into. The flexibility seemingly geared one way, however Lloyd’s was accused of fraud in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s (Brown, 1978) and suffered losses which forced them to shrink. The extra floors intended for future use in the £157 million pound building were embarrassingly empty. It would be interesting to see how the Lloyd’s building would have responded to further expansion in the company, as even increasing the trading floors from two in the old building to four in the new one caused problems. Syndicates supposedly received less ‘passing business’ from brokers because of the breakdown of visual connection. The fourth and most upper trading floor was seen as a ‘graveyard’ for small syndicates. From The Architecture of Richard Rogers, (1994) Deyjan Sudjic
Pg. 12
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
If planned expansion of Lloyd’s had happened perhaps the verticality of the Lloyd’s building would lead to further break down the visual connection leading to further occupant complaints. In 2006 FLACQ Architects was commissioned by Lloyd’s to work on designs for changes to the interior of Lloyd’s. FLACQ looked at “ways of adapting its iconic building...to reflect two decades of organisational change” (http://www.flacq.com). The FLACQ proposal looked at circulation through the building, and proposals for an external visitor’s ‘pod’, and updating the
Render of scheme proposed by FLACQ Architects from
requirements under the disability discrimination act. When
www.flacq.com access on 05/05/10
the 20th century society heard of the plans, it tried to garner support to spot-list the building, and give it Grade 1 listed
“It’s one of those buildings that everyone assumed would be
status (Thompson, 2008). Listing buildings began in 1947 with
listed as soon as it was threatened...one of those landmarks
the town and country planning act is seen by critics to cripple
that has been universally acclaimed for taking architectural
the evolution of cities.
discourse forward”
Catherine Croft, spokeswoman for the 20th Century Society
On the 10th of March 2009 the Lloyd’s building was denied
indicated her opinion on Lloyds in the Architects Journal
listed status for the following reasons:
February 2006:
“As one of the most important buildings of the late-C20-precocious for its design and technology, architecturally Pg. 13
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
dramatic and much acclaimed--the Lloyd's building is a strong
building. Listing should provide security to architecture but
candidate for listing in the highest grade. However, given its
not suffocate it.
relative youth, and since it is carefully looked after and not under serious threat, we cannot recommend listing until after June 2011.” (http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk) Under the current listing criteria, buildings less than 30 years old must be shown to be at risk before they can be given heritage status. The shocked 20th Century society commented ‘We feel that there are key features that are going to be changed… a building can be substantially compromised by a slow accretion of minor alterations’. (http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/1995000.article, accessed on April 10, 2010)
Photo by Matthew Lambert But it is perhaps by way of this ‘accretion of minor alterations’ that buildings learn. To think of minor adjustments to the interior as compromising its architectural integrity seems ironic and contradictory to Rogers ethos of flexibility and temporality, indeed contradictory to all buildings in time. To list the building in order to preserve its ‘outstanding architectural interest’, and therefore constrain future change is to deny what Rogers himself wished to achieve with the Pg. 14
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
Award systems in architecture are rarely based on use or context just “purely visual photographs taken before people start using the building” (Brand, 1995, pg. 55). Post occupancy evaluation has never really taken off in architecture although it remains a highly useful way of determining whether a building has done what it set out to do. It would be interesting to do a post occupancy evaluation on Lloyd’s as it stands, comparing it to the poll carried out in 1987, to see whether as much negative feeling still resides amongst occupants. “obviously there will be some pieces of it that are as they were on the day the building opened. Its a spirit of change aswell as actual change” Rogers (Rose, 2007) The Lloyd’s building was over-specified, expensive to build and is expensive to maintain. It is finished to too high a level to be truly flexible, and is clear from Roger’s statement above that it only embodies the “spirit of change” rather than any real sense of an adaptive building. The cleverer the architect is the more conditions that have to be met for the building to work Image from Richard Rogers: architecture of the future (2004) Kenneth Powell
Pg. 15
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
the way he hoped it would, so that chances of those conditions being met decreases. If Lloyd’s is to be heritageised the only purpose it really serves is to the Architectural community, not to the actual building’s occupants. In stopping time and monumentalising Rogers experiment the discourse on adaptable building is cut short. As a city is an organic entity made up of people who inhabit it and its vitality is a product of their interactions, it is the human ebb and flow which is the true essence, and the buildings in which it happens are merely temporary envelopes, therefore to see the Lloyd’s building as a preserved entity of successful architecture would be a mistake.
Album Cover from Hundred Reasons “Ideas above our station”
Bibliography Pg. 16
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building
Matthew Lambert
Documentaries: BBC Imagine: Richard Rogers inside out (2008)
BBC
BBC How we built Britain (2007)
BBC
Publications: The Architecture of Richard Rogers (1994)
Deyjan Sudjic
Richard Rogers: architecture of the future (2004)
Kenneth Powell
How Buildings Learn (1995)
Stewart Brand
On Weathering (1993)
Mohsen Mostafavi and David Leatherbarrow
Bridging the gap, (1991)
Richard Rogers
The Changing Workplace (1991)
Francis Duffy
The Story of Lloyd's of London (1978)
Antony Brown
Newspaper Articles: The Times, London (August 26 1985)
Charles Knevvit
The New York Times (December 20, 1985)
Barnaby J Feder
The Times, London (May 27, 1986)
Charles Knevvit
The New York Times (April 14, 1987)
Paul Goldberger
The New York Times (September 1, 1987)
Steve Lohr
The Sunday Oregonian (October 25, 1987)
Peter Bysom
The Times, London (June 10 1988)
Alison Eadie
The Independent, London, (June 6, 1993)
Jay Thompson
The Guardian, London (July 21, 2007)
Steve Rose
Pg. 17
A Critical Biography of the Lloyd’s Building The Architects Journal (January 30, 2008)
Matthew Lambert Marcus Lee
Websites:
http://www.flacq.com http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk Music: Hundred Reasons – Ideas above our station - Album
Pg. 18