So what’s new It’s not just landmarks such as the Swiss Re Tower to which architects will point, although there are plenty of those as one scans the horizon, from the magnificent Tate Modern and the Millennium Bridge to the London eye and City hall. On a much more fundamental level, London has stopped grumpily turning its back on the Thames and begun a new love affair with its river.

At the same time, in this most commercially minded city, there is a reawakening sense of connectivity and public space- walkways along the south bank now connect public areas from Butler Wharf to County hall. It has opened up new vistas. It’s now one of the great World City experiences to walk over the New Millennium Bridge, going from Tate Modern straight to St Paul’s. It’s given people a new understanding of St Paul’s and the city.

Unlike some great metropolises such as Paris, London was never methodically planned. And compared with other major cities such as New York, it’s historically been low-rise. That latter characteristic is now up for grabs, as London is ready to promote the construction of clusters of tall buildings as a show of economic strength. However, the legacy of London’s successive waves of organic growth will always be with it, including a constantly simmering tension between the traditional and the new.

Gothic architecture was only one aspect of the Victorian anticlassical backlash, which in general, had a fundamental, lasting impact on London’s landscape. Expert talks about the ambivalent love-hate relationship the Victorians sustained with the London their Georgian parents had bequeathed them. Victorians produced the brightest red bricks they could manage; if the Georgians sought restrained, uniform monochrome facades, the Victorians reveled in glazed, polychrome tiles. It wasn’t only in their architecture that the Victorians rejected 18th century values, but in the very layout of the city. Rather than planned growth, they were happy to allow the organic growth of the city to reflect their way of living.

Even before the riot of multicolored, Lego shaped developments began to spread across the Isle of Dogs and Docklands like a postmodern rash, Prince Charles, of all people proved that the age old battle between architectural traditionalists and modernizers had not gone away. In 1984 this self-proclaimed architecture expert launched a full frontal attack on contemporary buildings.

He immediately targeted his sights on a proposed extension to the National gallery, which he described as a monstrous carbuncle on the face of an elegant and much-loved friend. He took the opportunity to argue for a more humane architecture and eulogize about city churches, Georgian terraces and green parks.

The effect of the prince’s statement was quite remarkable. Indeed, he seems to have caught the public mood and succeeded in getting the firm Arhends Burton and Koralek fired from the National gallery project, in favor of the partly classical designs of Americans Venturi, Scott Brown and associates. Another criticized project at Mansion Square House was dropped and a wave of traditionalist buildings was begun.

However the reaction from many architects was furious. Most of them were of the view that modern architecture is in danger of being obliterated by an indiscriminate wave of nostalgia. In addition, they were of the view that Prince’s crusade against it ultimately gave post modernism an unintentional boost, with architects like James Stirling and a whole range of others willing to champion its cause by building it.

The years (1979-91), popularly known as the Thatcher years were not kind to London’s public schools or hospitals and saw much of the city’s low rent, council owned housing stock sold off to private owners. Worse, in 1986 the Tories abolished the Greater London Council that left one of the world’s largest conurbation’s without a planning and coordinating authority- which was a disaster for public transport.

In 1992, the Major government took a more positive step, with the introduction of the National lottery, funds from which would be put towards public buildings. Throughout its history, London had never really been a city of grand projects on a Parisian scale but as the new millennium loomed, that was about to change. Among the score of projects undertaken by the lottery funded Millennium Commission were several of the landmarks that would define London in the 20th century: Tate Modern, the Millennium Bridge and the Millennium Dome.

Tate Modern was a success beyond perhaps even the architect’s wildest dreams. From the disused Bank side power station, they fashioned an art gallery that went straight to number two in the top 10 London tourist attractions, and then walked away with international architecture’s most prestigious prize, the Pritzker.

The Millennium Bridge infamously had a case of the wobbles when it was first opened, but is now generally considered to be a boon to the city. Even the Millennium Dome, the dunce of the class of 2000, probably through no fault of its Teflon exterior, looks like having a second lease of life as a sporting stadium- especially as London is going to host the 2012 Olympics. While not a publicly funded Millennium project, British Airways London Eye also appeared on the south bank in 2000, enjoying immense popularity ever since.

The Swiss Re Tower and the new City Hall have joined the millennium landmarks. Work has started on the regeneration of the Paddington Basin- a sort of canary Wharf around a reconstructed Paddington station – and around King’s cross-station to bring the Channel Tunnel link into town. Surprisingly, in the face of the recent success of contemporary architecture, traditionalist critics have been more silent than usual.

Related Articles

» Hyde Park is one of London’s largest parks and it covers 140 hectares

» England has already taken a giant leap in implementing