Not since 2000, when one Boris Johnson publicly suggested blowing up the Millennium Dome, has a public realm intervention been so emphatically and unanimously pilloried as the Marble Arch Mound.
Within 48 hours of opening, it had been likened to a slag heap, called the worst attraction in London, and subsequently closed for improvements. It opened again this week – minus the £4.50 ticket price.
But behind the mockery lies a serious point. The Mound was – in its original form, at least – a failure in placemaking. And while the vertiginous heap of astroturf is now a free-to-climb attraction, the £2m of public money spent on it ensures that it is only truly “free” at the point of entry.
Where did it go wrong? EG asked experts what lessons can be learnt from the troubled attraction.
Use what you’ve already got
The Mound was developed primarily to help bring footfall back to the West End post-pandemic, selling visitors the chance to “appreciate the wider context” of the area, according to Westminster council leader Rachael Robathan.
But James Saunders, chief executive of Wembley Park developer Quintain, says authorities would have been better off using what they already had at their disposal – including the Marble Arch itself.
Designed in 1827 by architect John Nash, the iconic structure originally stood in front of Buckingham Palace before being moved to its current site 24 years later. However, after Park Lane was widened in the early 1960s, the arch became isolated from public access – something that could have been improved.
“They could have put their money into enhancing their existing assets, not dropping in something of a temporary nature that could have come from Mars,” says Saunders.
“Of course there is room, in placemaking terms, to surprise and delight. But often it is better to stay true to the value of a place and improve it, rather than fundamentally change it beyond recognition.”
Be more generous
Another criticism of the Mound is that it does not offer enough to visitors who climb it. Many have complained that the views from the top are obscured by trees coming into bloom – something which architects’ drawings from last winter did not seem to account for.
Adam Scott, founder of experience masterplanner FreeState, says that Westminster should have focused more on what happens at the Mound, rather than on the structure itself.
“You have got to lead with generosity,” he says. “Something that attracts has to be exciting and it has to be thrilling, but it has to be generous too. And I think this is where something may have gone astray in the briefing of the Mound.”
He points to public realm interventions such as Crown Fountain in Chicago’s Millennium Park, a 2004 installation featuring a pair of 50 ft tall glass brick towers that spout water onto unsuspecting visitors from screens on either side.
Though controversial at first, the towers have become a key part of the city’s popular culture and have been critically acclaimed in subsequent years. “The organisers [in Chicago] recognised the importance of getting people involved,” says Scott. “The best examples of spectacle in the world make you a participant, rather than a spectator.
“Westminster could have thought about the Mound more like this, rather than just making a gigantic artefact. It is the programmatic bit that is missing.”
Create long term appeal
Saunders goes a step further, suggesting that a temporary attraction “of that magnitude, in such an important location” may have been ill-advised altogether.
Instead, he says, Westminster should have focused on something with a more permanent appeal. “It is very hard to get temporary attractions to pay for themselves, and the money is often much better invested in long-term initiatives that sit well with the overall vision of the place.”
He references Quintain’s reworked approach to Wembley Stadium as an example, which features 48 granite steps spanning 40m across, topped by a rounded piazza and events space at the foot of the building.
“We changed things significantly in Wembley with the pedway steps,” he says. “But in many ways they are an enhancement of an access route that was already there. Those will be there for another hundred years, we hope – and, for me, those are the right type of investments.”
Not all bad?
To this end, both agree that Westminster’s plans for Oxford Street itself – including turning Oxford Circus junction into two vehicle-free piazzas – are more sensible.
“That [pedestrianisation] will actually help transform the experience of shoppers and create long-term benefits for the whole area,” says Saunders.
Moreover, adds Scott, the council “should at least be applauded for understanding the importance of creating an attractor in the first place”.
When the Mound closed late last month, Stuart Love, Westminster’s chief executive, said: “We wanted to open the Mound in time for the summer holidays and we did not want to disappoint people who had already booked tickets.
“We made a mistake and we apologise to everyone who hasn’t had a great experience on their visit. We are working hard to resolve the outstanding issues and create an attraction worthy of our fantastic city. It’s going to look great and be an amazing experience once we’ve got it ready.”
Nonetheless, it has attracted further criticism since reopening, with visitors saying it “detracts from the majesty of Marble Arch,” and others likening it to the home of children’s TV characters the Teletubbies.
If organisers are to meet their target of attracting 200,000 visitors to the Mound over the next six months, they may yet have a mountain to climb.
To send feedback, e-mail alex.daniel@eg.co.uk or tweet @alexmdaniel or @EGPropertyNews
