I think you may be a little unclear about the meaning of "perspective".
From Wikipedia: "Perspective (from Latin perspicere, to see through) in the graphic arts, such as drawing, is an approximate representation, on a flat surface (such as paper), of an image as it is seen by the eye."
When we stand at ground level and look up at a building, the verticals do appear to be converging. It is just that our brain automatically corrects for that. When we take a photograph from the same position, and point the camera up to get the top of the building in the frame, the fact that the film isn't parallel to the building sometimes results in the two-dimensional photo looking strange.
If you worry about that, try an experiment. Pick up the photo and tilt the top slightly away from you. If you look at it from the right distance, the converging verticals will look natural again. This works best if you have a lighted photo in a darkened room, and the choice of angle of view and viewing distance is finicky.
The reason that this experiment can work is that the perspective shown in the photograph is accurate. It's just that sometimes we bring pre-conceived notions to how photographs should look, when "real life" doesn't even look this way.
I'm rarely bothered by converging verticals, except when looking at photographs where the geometric shape of the building is critical to the photograph's purpose. Architectural representations are an example.
A 35mm lens isn't particularly wide, so if you are using it to get the entire building in, the convergence of verticals will probably look fairly natural - in other words similar to how the building appears to the unaided, near ground-level eye. Unless your photograph is intended to satisfy the needs of an architect for his/her portfolio, or some other similarly technical purpose, or the photograph depends heavily on the geometric/graphical character of the buildings for its character, I wouldn't worry about it.