We need to make sure that skill and commitment make their mark, says Richard Rogers

When Lloyd’s of London, the world’s leading insurance market, began its search for a team of architects in 1977, they faced challenges born of success and uncertainty. The City institution, which takes its name from a coffee house where insurance syndicates struck deals in the 17th century, was close to outgrowing its third office building in 50 years.

Wherever the corporation moved next, the board insisted, it would stay at least until the century’s end. As they said, they wanted to be in the insurance business, not the construction business. They needed a building with an atrium, that could accommodate face-to-face trading floors and offices, which was energy efficient, and which could adapt to changing requirements and the unknown impact of the coming revolution in information technology. It was a demanding brief.

My practice won the commission by presenting not a single design concept, but a range of approaches – from extension, to adaptation, to demolition – to meeting Lloyd’s needs. The design process that followed was one of the most intensive that I have ever been involved in; our clients were in contact daily, and the board pored over our designs for a full afternoon every month.

Good buildings are the product of this type of painstaking collaboration, not blinding flashes of inspiration by “starchitects”. This ugly and almost meaningless term is used to suggest a world of ill-conceived and inflexible prototypes that turn out to be commercial flops – gimmicky signature buildings chosen by star-struck clients chasing celebrity architects like so many autograph hunters....Continue Reading

> via FT