Jump to content

Talk:The Gherkin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Ventilation

"This is achieved through a natural ventilation system which uses thermal effects to drive air circulation through the outer sheath of the tower, which is in effect giant double glazing. Double glazing in houses is limited in thickness to avoid convection of heat; in the Swiss Re tower, this effect is exploited. This cools in the summer, and can be regulated to warm in the winter through passive solar heating. Sunlight is reflected down through the tower, making the working environment more pleasing, and keeping lighting costs down."

- I've read this paragraph two or three times, and still cannot grasp the meaning (and I come from a science background). Can someone who does understand it please tidy up the wording to make it clearer? Palefire 03:50, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

My reading of it is that, despite being called here "double glazing", the pockets of air are in fact open ended, and that the application of the Sun onto the glass causes the air to heat up and so rise to the top of the building, drawing in air (from certain floors, or perhaps just from the ground floor, or perhaps even every one, and so cooling things down a bit.
Not sure if that's right, though.
James F. (talk) 22:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right, it is confusing, and the mention of household double glazing is irrelevant at best. I'll redo this with a bit more research. User:Waster —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, December 22, 2004 (UTC)

The building uses energy-saving methods which allow it to use half the power a similar tower would consume

The building uses energy-saving methods which allow it to use half the power a similar tower would consume

This is a great line, but is it true? I doubt it. It seens to be drawn from one sentence a random article linked at the bottom... I haven't removed it, because it's such a great line, but I probably should

I should think its about right. One of the most significant things about the building design is its use of passive air conditioning (the double skin windows discussed in para 2 of The Building) and several other design features for sustainability. You can find more are Sustainable development and 30 St Mary Axe, which includes the statement;
The Building Research Establishment’s (BRE) annual energy consumption guideline for low-energy mixed-mode offices is 175 kWh/sq m. It is anticipated that Swiss Re’s new building will surpass this figure by up to 25 kWh/sq m in its optimal low energy configuration.
The average energy consumption for offices would seem to be around 220 kWh/sq m [1]; the average for skyscrapers may be higher. There is also some further discussion in this sustainability.com article. -- Solipsist 18:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Upcoming edits

Hi all, I got this very helpful stuff from User:Laos. I will put most of it into the article in the near future. But if you guys want to do it now, feel free:


Hi,

I worked as an engineer on the design at concept and scheme stage when the project team was very small.

I was planning a few more additions, including some closeup pictures of the construction stage. My feelings will not be hurt if you tidy up/re-organize, and I'll keep an eye on what you do (you seem to be experienced in these matters...)

A techy insight: Most tall buildings are given lateral stabilty either by a core or by an unbraced (no diagonals) perimeter tube or some combination of the two. This normally means that if they're designed to be just strong enough to resist wind load, they are still too flexible from the point of view of occupant comfort. The primary methods for controlling wind excited accelerations are to increase the stiffness, or increase damping (see tuned/active mass dampers). Swiss re's fully triangulated perimeter structure makes the building sufficiently stiff without having to add extra material over that needed to provide the required strength.

Sorry if I messed up a section - I was a bit confused about which edit links hooked up to which sections. It looks like you didn't like the bit about the sight lines.

Perhaps you'd like to summarize what follows:

the planning process was absolutely crucial to how the building ended up looking.

The site was very special in London because it: 1) needed development 2) was not on any of the "sight lines" - planning guidance requires that new buildings do not obstruct or detract from the view of St. Paul's dome when viewed from a number of locations around London: see [2] and [3] 3) had housed the Baltic exchange. I cannot over-emphasize how impressive the interior was before the bomb - this gave the planners extra motivation and leverage.

One of the schemes (with an architect other than Foster's - GMW I think?) involved building a new box building (large floor plates - what the banks want) around a restored exchange. This didn't get any buyers.

At some stage (around the time I got involved), the planners realized that the exchange was unrecoverable, and that they could either (a) live with a derelict site or (b) relax their constraints, and it was indicated that an "architecturally significant" (this is a quote, though who said it escapes me) building would be looked upon favourably. This made the architect's brief much more open, and eliminated the "large, capital efficient box for making money" ideas the client would inevitably have been having.

Another major influence in the project's gestation was Canary Wharf. At the time, the banks and other traditional square mile employers were defecting to Canary Wharf in droves. One reason for this was the availibity of modern large floor plates. The City of London was not approving such buildings, meaning that the firms had to disperse their staff across many sites. The City became aware of the mass defection, and relaxed its opposition to high-rise buildings. Swiss Re's low level plan meets the planning authorities desire to maintain the City of London's traditional "street scape" with relatively narrow streets, without the mass of the tower being too imposing. Like Barclay's City building, you are almost oblivious to the tower's existence in neighbouring streets until you are directly underneath it. Such planning rules/goals are the principal cause of many cities' visual identity - compare central London, Paris, and NY's sky lines and street environments to see this. (As an example, NY's plot ratio and setback rules have had an enormous impact on how it looks.)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muchosucko"

Thanks to Laos for the goodies.--Muchosucko 22:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

More prominent name?

I was trying to find the "real" name of the building (Swiss Re Tower), should this not be in the intro text instead of burried near the end of the text? --Aslate 21:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

go for it! --Muchosucko 22:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Its not the real name of the building, although it should be clarified since we are using it in the article. 'Swiss Re Tower' was the working title for the building during construction. Swiss Re had planned to occupy the whole building and if they had, that would probably have been its name. Since they now want to rent half of it, it has the more neutral name of '30 St Mary Axe'. -- Solipsist 03:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
As noted, 30 St Mary Axe is its real name (see its web page ) I've reworked the intro to accomodate the informal names. Icundell 16:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Bogus nicknames

I removed the following nicknames. If any of them are genuinely used (rather than plundered from this article by lazy wags) then reputable sources should be cited:

chocolateboy 16:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Good call. -- Solipsist 20:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's really called the "Dildo", but my information is personal communication with actual Londoners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.161.69 (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


it should perhaps be clarified if the use of the name 'the gherkin' predates 'the erotic gherkin' as i remember the architectural press at the time suggested the use of the gherkin name was seen as heading off the more offensive nickname. Later foster designed the SECC building extension in glasgow, which local parlance had as the 'slater' (woodlouse) but PR parlance placed as being nicknamed by 'locals' as the 'armadillo'... it was a time of learning for iconic building PR.... for which we still suffer the consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.214.111 (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Slice of pickle

The cross section is like? With the current bldg it's circular, the previous I understand was merely larger. In the UK a pickle is not a gherkin. What to do with this section... Rich Farmbrough 15:26 28 February 2006 (UTC).

The the original (1996) design was radically different and the floorplan resembled the slices of dill pickle you get in McDonalds burgers. The Guardian subs made the leap to gherkin (because it was funnier). Icundell 00:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Icundell didn't read the Guardian quote properly. The 'erotic gherkin' refers to St Mary Axe's outline, not the shape of the floorplan of the Millenium Tower. 86.134.72.105 12:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Icundell didn't rely on the Guardian quote, he relied on the fact that he was there at the time. Icundell 13:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Style

Does anybody know what kind of style architecture this building would formally be considered? I'm not an architecture expert, but would it be postmodern? Modern? It just seems very unusual and different - I was wondering if it has any kind of categorization. It would probably make a very good addition to the article. Nicholasink 04:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would describe its style as 'futurism'. Wjfox2005

Street name origin

Perhaps to a Londoner the name of this building sounds normal, but to me, "30 St Mary Axe" is a jumble.

Don't worry old chap we tolerate the jumble of names you use for your streets as well. I believe the expression is a game of two halves. ;-) --mgaved 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

First I thought Axe might be a type of road (those crazy Brits...), and the building was named Number + Specific Name + Generic Name, à la One Police Plaza. But of course an axe isn't a type of road. So maybe the building's name is just Number + Specific Name? Which led me to wonder what the full street name was. But googling for a full name yields few results (e.g. 26 hits for "St Mary Axe Street"). So is the road's official and complete name simply "St Mary Axe"?

And regardless of whether it's St Mary Axe Ave or Blvd or whatever: why the hell is the street named St Mary Axe? First, did it used to be St Mary's Axe? And second, why does St Mary have an axe at all? The best solution I could come up with was that "axe" is a bygone form of "axis", which is a concievable generic street type, even though that's a completely unattested usage in the OED. Or maybe it is in fact a completely random name, the result of mutation of an archaic name, like The Shambles from Fleshammels?

Any Londoners or otherwise familiar people care to enlighten me on all this? It's really bothering me for some reason.--Severinus 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I can tell you that the street name is just "St Mary Axe" without any Street, Road, Lane, Avenue, Walk or any other type of street suffix that you can think of. And yes it does sound a bit strange, but it is in one of the older sections of London which contains quite a few odd little streets so it is the sort of historic curiosity that we come to expect.
Acording to this webpage from LondonTourist, the origin of the name comes from the church there, which is also called "St Mary Axe".
Of course this just begs the question of why the church is called "St Mary Axe". I guess the "St Mary" part isn't particularly surprising, but the "Axe" needs a little more explaining. Fortunately this extract from British History Online looks like it has a fairly authoratative answer. They say that records around the 12th-14th century(?) show the name as variously
  • "St. Mary apud Ax"
  • "St. Mary de Ax"
  • "St. Mary atte Axe"
  • "St. Mary atte Naxe"
and even "Modo Mari Ax" which all seem to be Old English versions of "St Mary at the Axe" and the explanation of the "at the Axe" part is that the original dedication of the church was
"St. Mary the Virgin, St. Ursula and the Eleven thousand Virgins", the name "Axe" being added because the church boasted possession, as a relic, of one of the three axes with which the Virgins were executed.
Glad you asked :) -- Solipsist 00:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you for the quick & thorough answer! Interesting stuff. -- Severinus 03:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I should also have provided a link to St. Ursula for those, like myself, who are unfamiliar with the story. Although seeing as how her story is now considered fiction, the existence of an Axe relic seem pretty unlikely too. -- Solipsist 15:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I had this question too, why such a weird name? So I added it in the intro. --AW (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Skyscraper Square

Has anyone else actually heard of this term applied to the east end of the Square Mile? Its a new one to me, and there appears to be zero Google hits. -- Solipsist 22:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree, and I'll nominate that article for deletion. -- H005 23:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Billions

Listing large numbers such as the recent sale price as $1.2bn is ineffective because some British and American readers understand billions as different amounts. Given the locational nature of this article and the international nature of the web this should not be done.

Also simply stating $1.2bn is useless, which dollar currency does the author you mean? Canadian, American, Australian? Using what exchange rate? Also the suffix Bn is probably less common than simply B or b or even G, although some people interpret G to mean "grand" which tends to mean 1,000. Which is why I've changed the sale price to reflect the whole number using the exchange rate of 1.0 GBP = 1.95916 USD

GoClick 01:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Whilst in the 1950's perhaps it was common to make a distinction between the british billion (a million million) and the US billion (a thousand million) by the time of my parent's generation and certainly by mine (born 70s-80s) divergance has occured - The Chancellor of the exchequer himself, when addressing parliament during his budget speech will refer to US billions - I'm fine with 1 USD (US dollar - or whatever is the correct way of abbreviating it). --Joopercoopers 12:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Happy with US billions as most people in the UK have moved over to that. My British bias is that the currency value should be described in UK Sterling first with dollars in brackets second, unless there is a specific WP policy of referring to all article values in US currency. Seems only polite. --mgaved 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a read of the lead here will help. --Joopercoopers 12:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean 'convergence'. I agree that AFAIK the 'British billion' has not been in use since the 1970s. (Though I do recall the distinction being sometimes made during my childhood in the 1970s.)Ben Finn 15:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bogus nicknames

I've removed another bogus-sounding nickname, 'Foster's Cock'. I have only ever heard it referred to as the Gherkin. Ben Finn 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please reinstate my edit - the Gherkin is consistently referred to as 'Fosters Cock' in the fortnightly magazine 'Private Eye', which includes a column on architecture and heritage. I also work in the building, and have heard fellow workers both from my own company and several others refer to the building with this term.

GA On hold

There are very large sections it the article without citations in the article some of which are in the "The planning process" section. I would recommend that there atleastr be one citation for every paragraph which there is possible. Tarret 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article has failed the GA noms due to the above complaints, and as they don't seem to have been attempted to be addressed. If you feel that this review was in error feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Tarret 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Erotic gherkin

It is clear from the Guardian source cited that the 'erotic gherkin' refers to the present building, not the proposed and unbuilt Millenium Tower. The gherkin-shaped outline of the building is the reason for its nickname, not the 'slice of pickle-like' floor plan of the Millenium Tower. I have corrected this article and that of the Millenium Tower. 86.134.72.105 12:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And I have corrected them back, relying in the fact that I know what I am talking about. Icundell 13:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You may well know what you are talking about, but you haven't cited a source that shows that the Guardian's 1996 reference referred to the floor plan as opposed to the outline of the building. I was correct, according to Wikipedia poliy, to change the text. You were incoreect in reverting it back, citing your superior knowledge. That just won't cut it here, buddy. Come up with some evidence. 86.136.194.163 15:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the article showing that the "erotic gherkin" nickname was indeed originally applied to the Millennium Tower. I don't know if we can really say it referred to the floorplan, though: the Guardian piece says: "Those who claim to have seen the plans give a range of descriptions - sleek, elegant, a mixture of concave and convex sides, or a building with "erotic" gherkin-shaped structures on top." This seems a little mysterious to me. Anyway, I don't suppose it's particularly relevant to this article - I think it's sufficient to note that the "gherkin" nickname was originally applied to a different building. Camembert (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Light show

Wasn't it VERY brightly lit for several weeks/months after completion? Paulbrock (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If you check cached versions of this page, there was once a section on the Gherkin's place in popular culture, but it seems to have been removed. Why would this have been done when it's a remarkable phenomenon how quickly the building has embedded itself this way and become so iconic? I should think it would be far more interesting and useful to the majority of Wikipedia readers than discussions of the buildings natural ventilation system. Is it possible to have this rewritten or reinstated? [Not sure how to sign my posts, so in case it doesn't appear, this is OxfordJane] —Preceding unsigned comment added by OxfordJane (talk • contribs) 13:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

St Mary "Axe"

What is the origin of this unusual street name? Is it an abbreviation (e.g. for annex(e) ?) or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.150.127 (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:30 St Mary Axe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Preliminary review

I don't yet feel qualified to pass or fail a GA nominee, but I'll give my thoughts. Firstly, the article seems rather short. I sense that there is surely more that could be said about this building. (Although I have just checked Empire State Building to try and make a comparison. That also strikes me as rather short; it is currently graded a B-Class article). I guess one thing that appears to be missing is any sense of the interior of the building. The interior is covered to some extent by discussion of its heating/cooling methods, lifts and so on... but perhaps more could be given about anything notable in the restaurant, bar, what a typical office floor is like, the lobby? And with all these a picture would be wonderful.

That complaint aside I don't see any glaring criticisms to be made; it seems well referenced, tidy and the prose is OK.

I notice from the talk page that we've had input from someone who worked on the building. It would be great if that contact could be chased up for a review of the article as he will obviously have particular insight, albeit that it will be difficult if not impossible to use his knowledge for references and that he is unlikely to be familiar with Wikipedia article assessments.

I hope someone else will review this who has more experience with GA nominees.

Reviewer: bodnotbod (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Review

Thanks bodnotbod for your review and comments. Starting review. Elekhh (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I reviewed the article, and I think it is well focused and not too far to become a GA. While in some aspects (references) it has been improved since the last GA nomination in March 2007, in other aspects, such as the description of architectural design it lost content. Its only major weakness is that it does not cover several key aspects of the building, and thus is not broad enough in its coverage. I think this might be the reason why bodnotbod perceived it as too short. However, it should not be difficult to fix this given the abundance of available references. Following is a list of areas needing improvement:

  • Coverage
    • The article does not provide information about the architect, and how he came to design the building. Norman Forster is mentioned in the lead and in the infobox, but not in the main part of the article. The text jumps from the architect of the previous scheme (GMW) directly to the builder (Skanksa). Why was the architect changed? Was there a design competition for the building?
    • The design of the building (why this shape?) is not properly explained. No mention of the Stirling Prize for the design of the building;
    • There isn't much information provided about the uses of the building besides that of company headquarters: no mention of the shopping arcade [4], not explained that office space is provided to a number of companies - not only head offices, not clear what other uses are inside.
    • No information is provided about the large "plaza" (publicly accessible square) at the base of the building.
  • Facts
    • The number of storeys given in the article is 40 based on this source, however is 41 according to most other sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc). I would assume the first source was wrong as it also has other errors such as "the project in figures: 131 m".
    • Floor area is provided only in the infobox as 47,950 m² without reference, while other sources state 76,400 [5], 41,805 m² [6].
    • The use of the term (and wikilink) double-glazing is inaccurate. The correct term to describe the building is Double-skin facade.
  • MOS
    •  Done There is an inconsistency in the use of units of measurement: while in most cases measurements are in metres (feet) format, in two instances the order is reversed.
    •  Done Two of the image captions are bit too long, and contain unnecessary information, while two other captions a bit short, and do not explain from which street are the images taken from.
    •  Done I think there are too many external links, probably the first two would suffice. See WP:EL
  • Other improvements
    •  Done I think the section title "Origin of Gherkin nickname" is superfluous. The first paragraph does not talk about the name at all. Both paragraphs could be part of the "History" section.
    •  Done An image of the interior (like this) would be more useful than this construction image. Also would be good to have a better image of the plaza. (however not a GA requirement).
    • I find that the layout could be improved (not a GA requirement). The highest quality image (FP) is currently squeezed towards the end of the article.
    • I would be interested to read more about how the building changed the London skyline.

Please let me know if any editor wishes to address these issues, and I will put the review on hold. Elekhh (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that in the past week some work has been done to fix minor issues, however the main problems remained unaddressed. I will provide a few more days for these to be addressed. Elekhh (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I am disappointed to have to fail this article, but the major issues highlighted above haven't been addressed in three weeks. The article is not broad enough in its coverage, and requires substantial work to expand it. With 25-30,000 views per month, it appears that unexperienced editors are often trying to fill the gaps, but sometimes this is eroding the article's quality. I was surprised to see that quality content from the 2007 version has been removed since. Thus in order to remain stable, it is very important for the article to provide a complete coverage of the topic and to be appropriately referenced. I hope it will be soon improved and re-nominated. Elekhh (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Crystal Phallus

I readded the Crystal Phallus nickname, citing http://www.gridskipper.com/travel/london/sightseeing/best-of-the-worst-london-walking-tours-036529.php as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tredanse (talk • contribs) 05:14, 9 January 2006‎ (UTC)

BBC London News poll

...on ugliest building

Only 512 people voted in this poll, so it's hardly representative (see the cited source). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.151.146 (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2006‎ (UTC)

Egg

If you can find a reliable source that refers to the 'Gherkin' as an 'Egg' please, illuminate us. Otherwise, please don't put nonsense in the article. Thanks--Topperfalkon (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Inspired by Taut?

Is the building inspired by Bruno Tauts Glass Pavilion? --93.129.0.118 (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Building in adminstration

The building is in administration: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/36ee7d68-cbb2-11e3-8ccf-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fhome_uk%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz2zpXeGAvD

Can we have an article update please? 86.27.141.47 (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Energy-savings questioned, the term is "double-skin facade"

Quote from the article:

The building uses energy-saving methods which allow it to use half the power that a similar tower would typically consume.[1] Gaps in each floor create six shafts that serve as a natural ventilation system for the entire building even though required firebreaks on every sixth floor interrupt the "chimney." The shafts create a giant double glazing effect; air is sandwiched between two layers of glazing and insulates the office space inside.

I'm pretty sure the correct term to use here is double-skin facade. Quote from 2013 article on the building from ArchDaily:

The double-skin façade zones encased by clear glazing presume that air between curtain wall layers will absorb solar heat, rise due to the stack effect, and vent to the exterior through narrow slits at the top of each two-story structural bay.

— ArchDaily

Also, the windows have been rarely used since they started falling off and some tenants have sealed off the curtain wall for security reasons, pretty much ruining any claimed energy savings, according to ArchDaily:

A notable case is London’s sustainability-hyped “Gherkin” (Foster & Partners, 2003), where the building’s open-floor ventilation system was compromised when security-conscious tenants created glass separations. Operable windows whose required specifications had been lowered because of the natural ventilation feature actually began to fall from the building, and had to be permanently closed. The ambitious goal of a more sophisticated natural ventilation system paradoxically resulted in even worse ventilation.

— ArchDaily

One of the building’s operable windows broke off and fell some twenty-eight floors to the ground. Building managers concluded that one of the mechanical arms controlling the window had failed. [10] Following this episode, Swiss Re and its management company disabled the mixed-mode building control system as they tested and replaced the chain-drive motors controlling window operation. The system has been used on only a limited basis since. Many tenants have walled off the atria, and some have insisted on lease provisions guaranteeing that mixed-mode ventilation will not be employed in their zones. Since 2005, as far as I can determine, the windows have opened only occasionally and only on the lower floors, which are occupied by Swiss Re. This means that mixed-mode ventilation is available in only one of the four sets of six-story atria. For all but its first year of operation, then, the building has run primarily on mechanical ventilation. [...] I have been able to determine the performance of the mixed-mode ventilation has never been rigorously tested or empirically confirmed. [...] Nor has this hybrid of ventilation systems been employed in another tower before or during the decade since the design was completed, which suggests that neither the firm that designed the Gherkin nor the profession at large sees this as a valuable approach. The combination of double-skin facade, atria, and open floors connotes improved environmental performance and aligns the building with symbolically powerful precursors. But what it yields functionally is an internally incoherent environmental control system of undetermined performance capability. [...] If its provisions for natural ventilation are not used, 30 St. Mary Axe is not a green tower but an energy hog.

— ArchDaily

Worth adding, perhaps? Gavleson (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference build was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Sweetcorn

It's the Sweetcorn building! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.151.177 (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

it looks like an alien rocket that came from outerspace and landed in London. Londoners are terrorized, the War of the Worlds is real. -Pedro (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
It looks like a Fabergé egg to me. Axeman (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Pop culture?

I've removed an edit made by user User:Jaquelbrown99 stating that Taylor Swifts Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song)music video was shot in the building. There is no source known to prove this is accurate as most of the video was CGI's

Which led me to think of curating a Pop Culture section to this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.162.229.236 (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 30 St Mary Axe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Double-Standard vs. Saoud bin Abdulrahman Stadium in Qatar

Your article on the stadium doesn't seem to have much problem pointing out that the stadium is a vulva. Why the reticence in stating that the subject of this article is what it obviously is, and what it is MEANT to be: a dildo? What else looks like that? I will give one billion dollars to the first person who shows me a Gherkin that looks like this building. If this were built in San Francisco during earthquake season, it'd be the world's largest vibrator. One of the reasons for Wikipedia to exist is to speak Truth against The Legitimated who use the fact of their Legitimacy to re-write truth in a sinister and Orwellian manner ("There's a Nobel Prize in Economics, a test of mitochondrial maternal genetic inheritance is the same thing as 'a DNA test', most mature women in the USA routinely got Brazilian-waxes in the 1960s and 1970s, Laura Kightlinger's current age has no connection to the date of her birth", etc.) Obviously the builders came up with "Gherkin" before the building was built in order to avoid having it called for what it is: "Dildo". It is shameful here, as it is shameful on all of the other articles at which I've protested, when Wikipedia goes along with the sinister intentions of the powerful and legitimate.2604:2000:C682:B600:8060:B37B:BC53:5E4A (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Please expand the sentence on the "erection" by Skanska

2604:2000:C682:B600:8060:B37B:BC53:5E4A (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Please expand on "stiffness"

Please flesh out or pump up: QUOTE: to increase the stiffness, or increase damping with tuned/active mass dampers. To a design by Arup, its fully triangulated perimeter structure makes the building sufficiently stiff UNQUOTE The methods used might help some of your male readership.2604:2000:C682:B600:8060:B37B:BC53:5E4A (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Please add discussion of Christo's plan to wrap this building

Project will be funded by Trojan. They will use a gigantic condom.2604:2000:C682:B600:8060:B37B:BC53:5E4A (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 30 St Mary Axe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 30 St Mary Axe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thor: The Dark World

Is this the building Thor and Malekith were sliding down in Thor: The Dark World? Should this article get a "In popular culture" section? 68.150.5.99 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

does this erection remind you of anything

The architectural style of this building looks extremely phallic. However, that wouldn't be the first time phallic architecture was a phenomenon. Maybe, the "architectural style" section of the building should be labeled as "phallic" instead of what was put there, it would be far more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.25.188 (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

What a strange-looking phallus that would make! It looks nothing like a human male erection, apart from both of them standing upright.
Nuttyskin (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Gherkin/Archive_1&oldid=1170086145"