This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/world/europe/with-move-across-london-us-embassy-cant-please-everyone.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
With Move Across London, U.S. Embassy Can’t Please Everyone With Move Across London, U.S. Embassy Can’t Please Everyone
(about 9 hours later)
LONDON — One neighbor, a countess named Anca Vidaeff, staged a hunger strike to protest it. Another neighbor, the chairwoman of a local residents’ group, said it made people “very, very nervous” about bomb threats and suggested it find a new home. LONDON — One neighbor, a countess named Anca Vidaeff, staged a hunger strike to protest it. Another neighbor, the chairwoman of a local residents’ group, said it made people “very, very nervous” about bomb threats and suggested it find a new home.
They are about to get their wish.They are about to get their wish.
The United States Embassy in Grosvenor Square, a Modernist concrete building in the heart of Mayfair, London’s most exclusive neighborhood, has been a potential terrorist target for years, creating anxiety for both employees and neighbors.The United States Embassy in Grosvenor Square, a Modernist concrete building in the heart of Mayfair, London’s most exclusive neighborhood, has been a potential terrorist target for years, creating anxiety for both employees and neighbors.
“It didn’t matter whether they lived in an 18th-century house or on a 20th-century street corner,” said Lois Peltz, the head of the neighborhood group — actually, the Residents’ Society of Mayfair and St. James’s — who has lived for 50 years in one of the many fine Georgian townhouses that line the square. “They knew that if a bomb went off, they would’ve had it.”“It didn’t matter whether they lived in an 18th-century house or on a 20th-century street corner,” said Lois Peltz, the head of the neighborhood group — actually, the Residents’ Society of Mayfair and St. James’s — who has lived for 50 years in one of the many fine Georgian townhouses that line the square. “They knew that if a bomb went off, they would’ve had it.”
Ten years ago, embassy officials insisted they would stay in Grosvenor Square until the lease ran out — in 2953 — and in 2007, Washington spent $15 million on security enhancements. But even after the upgrade, and the British government’s blocking off streets and pathways, the embassy, designed by Eero Saarinen in 1955, remained vulnerable to terrorist attacks.Ten years ago, embassy officials insisted they would stay in Grosvenor Square until the lease ran out — in 2953 — and in 2007, Washington spent $15 million on security enhancements. But even after the upgrade, and the British government’s blocking off streets and pathways, the embassy, designed by Eero Saarinen in 1955, remained vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
So a new embassy is under construction for a move by 2017, and the residents of Mayfair are relieved. But this being Britain, the new embassy has become the object of debate and, in some quarters, ridicule.So a new embassy is under construction for a move by 2017, and the residents of Mayfair are relieved. But this being Britain, the new embassy has become the object of debate and, in some quarters, ridicule.
One big problem, as critics see it, is an old one in real estate: its location, in the gritty district of Nine Elms on the South Bank of the Thames in a former rail yard surrounded by luxury residential buildings, most of which stand empty. One big problem, as critics see it, is an old one in real estate: its location, in the gritty district of Nine Elms on the South Bank of the Thames in a former railyard surrounded by luxury residential buildings, most of which stand empty.
“It seems sad that the U.S. Embassy is relocating from a beautiful historic square in Mayfair to a fortified bunker in former rail yards on the far side of the river,” Peter Rees, the City of London’s former head of planning, wrote in an email. “It’s like moving from New York’s Upper East Side to New Jersey.” “It seems sad that the U.S. Embassy is relocating from a beautiful historic square in Mayfair to a fortified bunker in former railyards on the far side of the river,” Peter Rees, the City of London’s former head of planning, wrote in an email. “It’s like moving from New York’s Upper East Side to New Jersey.”
He described the area around the new embassy as “a high-value ghost town.”He described the area around the new embassy as “a high-value ghost town.”
State Department officials say the new embassy will be safer, big enough to accommodate the 1,000 employees now crammed into a building meant for 800, and equipped with all the modern communications and environmental features. And local officials are hopeful that the embassy will spark development in the area. State Department officials say the new embassy will be safer, big enough to accommodate the 1,000 employees now crammed into a building meant for 800, and equipped with all the modern communications and environmental features. And local officials are hopeful that the embassy will stimulate development in the area.
Moving to the new site, no matter how grim it may look now, makes perfect sense, American officials say. Renovating the existing building would have cost $730 million and still would not have provided state-of-the-art security, said Lydia Muniz, director of the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations at the State Department.Moving to the new site, no matter how grim it may look now, makes perfect sense, American officials say. Renovating the existing building would have cost $730 million and still would not have provided state-of-the-art security, said Lydia Muniz, director of the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations at the State Department.
“It did not have the appropriate setback,” she said. “There are some things you just can’t modify.”“It did not have the appropriate setback,” she said. “There are some things you just can’t modify.”
The new embassy is expected to cost about $1 billion, financed entirely from the sales of the existing embassy to Qatar’s Sovereign Wealth Fund and a nearby former Navy building to other property developers, Ms. Muniz said in an interview. The new embassy is expected to cost about $1 billion, financed entirely by the sales of the existing embassy to Qatar’s Sovereign Wealth Fund and a nearby former Navy building to other property developers, Ms. Muniz said in an interview.
The new site is not well served by public transportation, but plans for two new Tube stations are underway, and possibly a footbridge from Pimlico, a residential district across the Thames.The new site is not well served by public transportation, but plans for two new Tube stations are underway, and possibly a footbridge from Pimlico, a residential district across the Thames.
At first glance, the new embassy grounds appear even more exposed, absent metal posts, high perimeter fences or concrete flower beds to block unwanted vehicles. Instead, the security measures will be camouflaged.At first glance, the new embassy grounds appear even more exposed, absent metal posts, high perimeter fences or concrete flower beds to block unwanted vehicles. Instead, the security measures will be camouflaged.
The 4.9-acre site will contain a public plaza featuring a pond, walkways connecting to the planned Tube stations and seating. Metal barriers will be replaced by grass berms, low garden walls and benches. Two small meadows on one side of the chancery will serve as a setback, as will the pond, essentially a moat, euphemistically described by American officials as a “water feature.” The 4.9-acre site will have a public plaza featuring a pond, walkways connecting to the planned Tube stations and seating. Metal barriers will be replaced by grass berms, low garden walls and benches. Two small meadows on one side of the chancery will serve as a setback, as will the pond, essentially a moat, euphemistically described by American officials as a “water feature.”
Not surprisingly, given the churning debate over all major new buildings in London, the chancery has faced criticism in the British press. Twelve stories high and made of blastproof glass and solar cells, it has been dismissed as a “corporate office block” or “the Ice Cube.”Not surprisingly, given the churning debate over all major new buildings in London, the chancery has faced criticism in the British press. Twelve stories high and made of blastproof glass and solar cells, it has been dismissed as a “corporate office block” or “the Ice Cube.”
That, too, is dismissed by American officials, and the design has its defenders among the intelligentsia. One of them, Jane Loeffler, a historian and author of “The Architecture of Diplomacy: Building America’s Embassies,” said the new project was a refreshing break from previous embassy designs.That, too, is dismissed by American officials, and the design has its defenders among the intelligentsia. One of them, Jane Loeffler, a historian and author of “The Architecture of Diplomacy: Building America’s Embassies,” said the new project was a refreshing break from previous embassy designs.
Designed by KieranTimberlake, the chancery will be covered on three sides with pillowlike panels of ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene, a type of polymer, that contain photovoltaic cells to harvest solar energy. The north facade was engineered to help cool the building.Designed by KieranTimberlake, the chancery will be covered on three sides with pillowlike panels of ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene, a type of polymer, that contain photovoltaic cells to harvest solar energy. The north facade was engineered to help cool the building.
The embassy also engages the city, Mrs. Loeffler said. Traditionally, United States embassies have “been in the middle of nowhere, which has always been a problem,” she said. But the new embassy displays “big changes in that it is trying to address the fact that diplomats need to be part of the community.”The embassy also engages the city, Mrs. Loeffler said. Traditionally, United States embassies have “been in the middle of nowhere, which has always been a problem,” she said. But the new embassy displays “big changes in that it is trying to address the fact that diplomats need to be part of the community.”
The change reflects a push by the Obama administration to make embassy design part of America’s soft power, she said, even if some critics at home say embassies should follow a “standard embassy design” put in effect after the 1998 bombings in East Africa and reinforced after Sept. 11. The change reflects a push by the Obama administration to make embassy design part of America’s soft power, she said, even if some critics at home say embassies should follow a “standard embassy design” put in effect after the 1998 bombings in East Africa and reinforced after Sept. 11, 2001.
Over the years, the bunker-style compounds came to symbolize American defensiveness and militarism.Over the years, the bunker-style compounds came to symbolize American defensiveness and militarism.
Even Secretary of State John Kerry, as a senator in 2009, said he cringed at the sight of United States embassies. “We are building some of the ugliest embassies I’ve ever seen,” he said. “We’re building fortresses around the world. We’re separating ourselves from people in these countries.”Even Secretary of State John Kerry, as a senator in 2009, said he cringed at the sight of United States embassies. “We are building some of the ugliest embassies I’ve ever seen,” he said. “We’re building fortresses around the world. We’re separating ourselves from people in these countries.”
James Timberlake, one of the architects of the new embassy, said it had “changed the post-9/11 discourse.” Still, he told an architecture journal last year, it “took a lot” to persuade the State Department to give over a third of the site to public space.James Timberlake, one of the architects of the new embassy, said it had “changed the post-9/11 discourse.” Still, he told an architecture journal last year, it “took a lot” to persuade the State Department to give over a third of the site to public space.
But if the embassy’s design is intended to project America’s “transparency, openness and equality,” as the architects claim, the British are not convinced.But if the embassy’s design is intended to project America’s “transparency, openness and equality,” as the architects claim, the British are not convinced.
Jonathan Glancey, the Guardian newspaper’s architecture critic, wrote that the design was “cool, remote and superficially transparent,” reflecting the American political process — “nominally open to all and yet, in practice, tightly controlled.” Jonathan Glancey, architecture critic for the newspaper The Guardian, wrote that the design was “cool, remote and superficially transparent,” reflecting the American political process — “nominally open to all and yet, in practice, tightly controlled.”
Two leading British architects, Richard Rogers and Peter Palumbo, who were on a jury to select the design, reportedly submitted a minority report to the State Department that rejected KieranTimberlake’s design as boring. They could not be reached for comment.Two leading British architects, Richard Rogers and Peter Palumbo, who were on a jury to select the design, reportedly submitted a minority report to the State Department that rejected KieranTimberlake’s design as boring. They could not be reached for comment.
The American connection to Grosvenor Square dates back to 1785-87, when John Adams, the first American envoy to the royal court, lived a few blocks away. Fittingly, in view of that long history, after 2017 the United States will maintain a presence in the square, popularly known as “Little America” ever since Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower occupied one side to command the Allied forces in Europe. The embassy’s facade, with its iconic 35-foot gilded aluminum eagle, will remain, following a decision by the British government to grant it landmark status in 2009. The American connection to Grosvenor Square dates back to 1785-87, when John Adams, the first American envoy to the royal court, lived a few blocks away. Fittingly, in view of that long history, after 2017 the United States will maintain a presence in the square, popularly known as “Little America” ever since Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower occupied one side to command the Allied forces in Europe. The embassy’s facade, with its iconic 35-foot gilded aluminum eagle, will remain, after a decision by the British government to grant it landmark status in 2009.
For many, though, the move from Grosvenor Square is inevitably painful. Raymond G.H. Seitz, the American ambassador to Britain from 1991 to 1994, said the relocation was equivalent to centuries of shared memories and history being “tossed aside.” For many, though, the move from Grosvenor Square is inevitably painful. Raymond G. H. Seitz, the American ambassador to Britain from 1991 to 1994, said the relocation was equivalent to centuries of shared memories and history being “tossed aside.”
“We in the U.S. don’t pay much attention to tradition,” he said in an interview. “We tend to be overly dismissive of the importance of that, and that’s a real pity, because these things can only be acquired with time.”“We in the U.S. don’t pay much attention to tradition,” he said in an interview. “We tend to be overly dismissive of the importance of that, and that’s a real pity, because these things can only be acquired with time.”