The new Docklands Development has been criticized for many reasons. Most of these criticisms are valid, yet one seems more important than all of them. The North American influence is clear throughout the Docklands, leading to a barrage of complaints. Canary Wharf was developed by Olympia & York, a Canadian company. Therefore the North American presence is most pronounced on Canary Wharf.

There are conflicting reports on whether the British like the Docklands development, and specifically Canary Wharf Tower. A British writer said, "For the thing about Dockland is that it is quite extraordinarily foreign. It reminds me most of Houston, Texas,"(Punch). While the analogy of Houston is not repeated by others I have read, it felt to me as though I stepped from London into a life-sized architect's model of a North American city. The same British writer went on to say, "Docklands isn't a place, it's a concept. The LDDC has just celebrated its tenth anniversary, but there still aren't any of the things there that you find in real cities -- little news agent's shops, that nice man in the ironmongers. There isn't even any dogshit, for Chrissakes," (Ibid.)

Despite the deserted, eerie feeling of the new development, there are more specific and tangible reasons Londoners find for criticizing the development. The Tower stands out in the skyline like a "white elephant." It was the intent of developers to draw attention, and consequently firms, to the Docklands. Attention has been drawn -- one can't help but locate Canary Wharf Tower from any spot in London, but the firms are harder to draw. The attention is often not welcome, as the Tower is a possible bombing target of the IRA. There have been several bomb threats directed at Canary Wharf Tower (interview). This has resulted in strict security measures and the upper levels of the Tower are closed to the public. One British citizen mentioned that perhaps the IRA is trying to make friends in London by bombing the Tower.

It is telling that the biggest problem with the new development is transportation. North Americans rely much more heavily on their cars than on public transportation. This is the first and perhaps most damaging effect of North American developers in London. Mass transit did not receive the money or attention it deserved while funds were drawn to roads. This left both forms of transportation inadequate.

The idea of the food court that is so familiar to North Americans is not selling to the British. There are mini malls and food courts on the first floor of the office buildings, but office workers are not using them. Thus, only well-established chains can afford to remain in the Docklands while business is slow before the idea catches on. This also means that the chains move in when rents are low and smaller establishments are effectively excluded when business picks up and rents are raised.

Developers seem frustrated that British people aren't cooperating with them by approving of the new style of development. The food courts and convenient (but high priced) shops aren't working, and the British aren't jumping on this "prime" office space the way they should. It is another North American idea that new and big are better. Many prestigious firms simply prefer the older, traditional London office buildings despite the fact that the Docklands offers up-to-date office space. "Early moves to Docklands have been by North American companies that do not share the British antipathy for newness, not the financial establishment's distaste for London's East End,"(Canary Wharf's Real Problem.) Docklands buildings "have large floor plates which can be fitted out in a variety of ways by different tenants. . ."(Davies). Docklands Associates freely expressed their frustration to me (because they assumed that, I, being North American would understand) about the British people who lack vision when visiting Docklands office space. The British are used to renting finished office space, thus the empty offices waiting for specified finishing touches from the renters appear undesirable. The developers see this cultural difference as a lack of vision on the part of the British.