The London City Hall and The San Francisco City Hall

As I’ve said before, I am from about fifteen minutes south of San Francisco. Because of my location, I am lucky enough to visit the city on a frequent basis and have become familiar with the type of architecture it offers. The San Francisco City Hall is one of my favorite buildings and I thought it would be interesting to compare it to The London City Hall. Although the buildings differ greatly in architectural style and are almost 100 years apart, they share some striking similarities. Both buildings serve as landmarks in their respected cities and share the idea that architecture can represent the values of a city.

The San Francisco City Hall was re-constructed in 1915 after the 1906 earthquake demolished the entire building. After reconstruction, this structure became an archetypical Beaux-Arts building, contributing to City Beautiful Movement, a nation-wide architectural and urban planning reform. Beautification, splendor, and buildings that demonstrated high social importance were the main ideals of this American Renaissance and spanned from1880 to 1917. The term “Beaux Art” is translated to “fine arts” and originated in the Ecole De Beaux Arts in Paris, where many American architects at the time studied and brought back principles of classical architecture mixed with Renaissance ideas. Beaux-Arts style was chosen for this building because the city hall was intended to represent the power the city council possessed and was based upon centuries of “instruction under authority”. With its massive dome and wide open space totaling about 500,000 square feet and taking up two full city blocks, this city hall serves as a perfect representation of legislative power and architectural grandiosity which San Francisco valued at the time.

The London City Hall was completed in 2002 and because of its modernism, it differs greatly when compared to San Francisco. Being “green” has become a number one priority of London, so it makes sense that its city hall was completely designed around the idea to be as energy efficient as possible. The shape of the building is an unusual bulbous spherical shape, sharing striking similarities with the shape of a testicle. The reason for this odd shape is to minimize the surface area exposed to direct sunlight. “The building leans back towards the south, where floor plates are stepped inwards from top to bottom. This provides natural shading from the most intense direct sunlight” (London.gov.uk). Other methods of being energy efficient include 100% natural ventilation, recycling heat generated from computers, and the “deep-plan floors allow for the collection of heat at the building’s core, which can then be redirected to its periphery”(London.gov.uk). The City Hall uses a quarter of the energy consumed by typical office buildings of the same stature. The energy efficiency of London’s City Hall is a perfect example of how architecture can be used to represent the values of the City.

In my personal opinion, I feel that the London City Hall is quite an ugly building. I think it contrasts too much between its incredibly historical neighbor, The London Bridge, and doesn’t really fit in well along the River Thames which contains so much historical content. Although I personally do not enjoy the eccentric architecture of the London City Hall, it is quite a unique building that is definitely worth the experience.