Join E.B. Misfit, Sek, and me as we mock the stupidity of American officials who want their embassies to be literal fortresses in the wilderness. This Borg Cube is going to be sitting in London.
As Susman unveiled the designs of the Philidephia-based firm of Kieran Timberlake – a 12-storey cube clad in a blastproof glass and plastic façade – it emerged the British jurors believe the Obama administration should have selected a rival design by a Californian designer, Thom Mayne, who won the Pritzker Prize, architecture's version of the Nobel, in 2005. They were overruled by the five Americans on the panel, including former ambassador Clyde Taylor.
Rogers and Palumbo are said to have thought the design was boring and "not good enough to represent one of the great nations in London", said sources familiar with the jury process. By contrast, they considered Mayne's design to be "touched by genius".
After the spat with two of the most prominent figures in British architecture, and both peers, a second diplomatic banana skin looms: the US government has yet to agree with HM Treasury about whether it will pay VAT on the building cost and the $1bn (£650m) price quoted yesterday did not include VAT. Susman said last night talks are continuing.
The embassy is set to become one of the most expensive in the world, cheaper only than America's fortress-like outposts in Baghdad and Islamabad.
From the NY Times: "It’s hard to think of a project, in fact, that more perfectly reflects the country’s current struggle to maintain a welcoming, democratic image while under the constant threat of attack." You just want to grab the State Department officials and say, are you stupid? Are you just insensitive to the image that you portray to the people whose country you are visiting? Are you deliberately trying to make people afraid of Americans? And spare not a dime into making this monstrosity a fortress proper, including a moat. It's going to cost a billion dollars, but if it's anything like the US embassy in Baghdad, that's just the starter price. It will cost more than that by the time the drawbridge drops down doors open for business.
Jesus wept.
UPDATE: Prof Walt says, "well, yeah, America will need embassy fortresses if it can't understand that its global ambitions will cause consequences from people who object to those policies." Cheryl Rofer says "boo" also.



It looks like a fiberglass and lexan version of any building in Hong Kong with the perpetual façade of bamboo scaffolding that encircles every building there in a regular rotation for rebuilding, painting, and what not.
Yippie for the always under construction look.
All your embassies are assimilated...
Posted by: Michael | 25 February 2010 at 07:45 AM
Resistance is futile! Lol.
Anyway - I paid more attention to the sheer size than to the "unfriendly" aspect. It's a huge thing and I seriously doubt that this size is really necessary.
Posted by: Sven Ortmann | 25 February 2010 at 09:01 AM
Sven: you know, I thought about that, too. Granted, London is a huge tourist/student/business destination for Americans and probably has an unusually large consular staff. But there is also a lot of intelligence-sharing and joint collection initiatives (especially in signals intelligence) and I wonder how much of that staff will be based in this building.
The British Government has been an unequivocal enthusiast for the Global Surveillance State and never says "no" to the FBI/CIA/DEA/Revenooers when they want to sneak and peek into the terabytes of data that flow through the City. An ominous Borg Cube may be more appropriate than the British public imagines.
Posted by: James | 25 February 2010 at 10:13 AM
Well, I'll miss the old building with the Eagle and its long attention span, and the Naval Intelligence building across the way. Deceptively homely; smiles all round with definite ulterior motives.
This one will not pretend, or be as inviting, but glint malevolently in the London sunshine, and glower when it rains. Still, it might have a decent bar.
Posted by: Ray | 25 February 2010 at 01:14 PM
Uh, James; that last paragraph of yours. This might be somewhat modified over the recent Falklands issues.
Posted by: Ray | 25 February 2010 at 01:51 PM
Ray, what do you mean? Are you referring to the fact that the citizens of the Falklands are having their right to self determination disrespected by Argentina?
"global ambitions will cause consequences from people who object to those policies."
Seems like an accurate assessment. Any country can have "global ambitions".
Argentina seems to have ambitions toward the Falklands, the Islanders have voted in a referenda and decided to stay a British territory.
Brits are very aware that "global ambitions" have repercussions, which is why there is no Empire anymore only a Commonwealth.
Posted by: Scathsealgaire | 28 February 2010 at 10:27 PM
Hello, Scathsealgaire. Yes, I am saying that Argentina that "the citizens of the Falklands are having their right to self determination disrespected by Argentina"
They make little or no reference to that in their claims.
The islanders do not want to be Argentinian citizens. Forget the past; it's the present that has relevance. No historical "facts" have relevance to a person wishing to keep their long-established homes intact.
Posted by: Ray | 01 March 2010 at 04:26 AM
Thanks for clarifying that Ray.
Posted by: scathsealgaire | 01 March 2010 at 05:22 AM
PS: I have been to the Falklands; albeit a long time ago. I was tending the air- pumps for a Royal Navy deep-sea diver, in Port Stanley Harbour, gathering seafloor samples; possibly for oil-shale, but we weren't told. Could have been updating the Admiralty charts, for all I know. A porpoise was trying to push the diver off his feet, but I don't think that the, very large, animal was from Argentina. This didn't stop the swearing from the diver who was muttering "F---off!" which came to us through the tinny sounding telephone in the boat.
Also, I with others from our ship, enjoyed the hospitality of the islanders, via a few pints in a tiny cabin, which was a long walking distance through flocks of sheep, and across the boggy "moors". In that makeshift pub we were served in the "bar" through a tiny hatch with a sliding cover in the timber wall.
The nearest I got to Argentina was when we passed from the Pacific side and through the Magellan Straits, and anchored near Punta Arenas.
I like tango music, too.
Posted by: Ray | 01 March 2010 at 06:57 AM