“You have, ladies and gentlemen, to give this much to the Luftwaffe: when it knocked down our buildings, it didn’t replace them with anything more offensive than rubble. We did that.” That was the famous barb which the then-Prince Charles aimed at modern architecture in 1987. They were not idle words: thanks to this speech, the architect Richard Rogers lost his opportunity to redesign an area next to St Paul’s cathedral, the 17th-century Baroque masterpiece by Christopher Wren.
It was not the last time the curmudgeonly prince would intervene against Rogers, and nor was it the last time Rogers would have to make room for St Paul’s. His skyscraper on Leadenhall Street, known as The Cheesegrater, owes its slanting profile to rules that protect certain views of Wren’s cathedral.
As we mark the 300th anniversary of Wren’s death, it’s worth noting a certain irony in all of this. St Paul’s may well be the nation’s favourite building, and Wren our greatest architect, but he is more like the grandfather of Richard Rogers than his antithesis.
This will strike some as blasphemous: Rogers’ buildings, which include the Centre Pompidou in Paris and London’s Millennium Dome, are technocratic in the most profound sense of the word. With their machine-like forms and conspicuous feats of engineering, they elevate efficiency and expertise into an idol to be worshipped, a religion in its own right. Impressive as these structures are, one can understand why they would make Charles despair whether “capitalism can have a human face, instead of that of a robot or a word processor”.
But technocratic monuments emerge from technocratic societies, where a fixation with how things work drowns out the question of what they are actually for. The natural and human worlds are treated as processes to be managed, with politics reduced to measurable outputs: higher growth, fewer emissions, a more equal distribution of benefits. Technology is held in awe, but more for its functional qualities than any greater purpose it serves.
This could be a description of our own society, and Rogers’ buildings an honest reflection of it. But these tendencies did not appear from nowhere; they have deep roots in the evolution of modern forms of knowledge and power. And those roots lead us back to Christopher Wren.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeA fascinating essay. Thank you.
Interesting take I would argue.
I would like to point out that Baroque architecture (St. Paul) works well in Rome, not so much in Northern Europe with bad weather/light.
The Northern Europeans (Germans, Scandis) tried to “solve” the problem with their modern designs (clean lines, efficient heating, big windows etc.)
Personally I like modern designs but that is me.
Nothing wrong with being Mid-Century Modern, old bean. There’s even an acronym for it. Hans Wegner, arguably one of the most influential furniture designers of C20th, trained as a cabinet-maker with the English Georgain chair as his model, and you can see this in the evolution of his chair designs. In his case, it’s not Why or What but How (it works) – he wanted to make the perfect Chair.
The old St Paul’s was a truly gothic wonder, complete with a spire rising to 500 feet. The whole building exceeded the present St Paul’s in length and additionally had a completely unnecessary, but glorious double storey cloister with the Chapter House in the centre.
From a distance it would have resembled Salisbury Cathedral despite its meagre 403 feet spire!
(Historically the only building in London to exceed it in size would have been the Basilica of the Roman Forum, now buried under Leadenhall Market.)
Nothing wrong with being Mid-Century Modern, old bean. There’s even an acronym for it. Hans Wegner, arguably one of the most influential furniture designers of C20th, trained as a cabinet-maker with the English Georgain chair as his model, and you can see this in the evolution of his chair designs. In his case, it’s not Why or What but How (it works) – he wanted to make the perfect Chair.
The old St Paul’s was a truly gothic wonder, complete with a spire rising to 500 feet. The whole building exceeded the present St Paul’s in length and additionally had a completely unnecessary, but glorious double storey cloister with the Chapter House in the centre.
From a distance it would have resembled Salisbury Cathedral despite its meagre 403 feet spire!
(Historically the only building in London to exceed it in size would have been the Basilica of the Roman Forum, now buried under Leadenhall Market.)
I too found this fascinating, not least through in-filling the back story on Wren. I’m not sure i agree with the author’s conclusions though.
If architectural styles didn’t change over time, we’d be living in a very boring urban environment. It’s been said (and i’m sure Mr Stanhope will correct me if i’m wrong) that prior to the uptake of Christianity by the Roman Empire during the reign of Constantine, the Empire itself was rather lacking in spirituality, a facet which allowed for the new religion to take hold. Now, do we think of a lack of spirituality when we look at the remaining examples of architecture still standing in Rome, or elsewhere within the former Empire? We do not!
So why ascribe a lack of spirituality to contemporary architecture? Of course, there’s the “form follows function” dictum, but i personally find much modern architecture satisfying, and occasionally inspiring. Might i suggest that those who fail to find a spiritual context for such architecture (post-war concrete blocks notwithstanding!) are simply reflecting something lacking in themselves?
Heaven forbid!!
“the Empire itself was rather lacking in spirituality”.
Lacking a uniform spirituality certainly, but NOT spirituality per se. In fact you could ‘believe’ in almost anything as long as you obeyed two cardinal rules.
Don’t kill anybody (eg Human sacrifice), and don’t ask/ demand state cash!
Otherwise for example, if you wished to worship Crocodiles as some Egyptians did, fine. If you wished ( as many soldiers did) to worship ‘Sol Invictus Mithras’, (The Invincible Son God-Mithras) fine, but don’t bore me with the details.
In short it was all about, “to hunt,to bathe, to play, to laugh, OCC EST VIVERE…THAT IS TO LIVE*
(* Inscription from Timgad, Aurés Mts, now Algeria.)
“the Empire itself was rather lacking in spirituality”.
Lacking a uniform spirituality certainly, but NOT spirituality per se. In fact you could ‘believe’ in almost anything as long as you obeyed two cardinal rules.
Don’t kill anybody (eg Human sacrifice), and don’t ask/ demand state cash!
Otherwise for example, if you wished to worship Crocodiles as some Egyptians did, fine. If you wished ( as many soldiers did) to worship ‘Sol Invictus Mithras’, (The Invincible Son God-Mithras) fine, but don’t bore me with the details.
In short it was all about, “to hunt,to bathe, to play, to laugh, OCC EST VIVERE…THAT IS TO LIVE*
(* Inscription from Timgad, Aurés Mts, now Algeria.)
Interesting take I would argue.
I would like to point out that Baroque architecture (St. Paul) works well in Rome, not so much in Northern Europe with bad weather/light.
The Northern Europeans (Germans, Scandis) tried to “solve” the problem with their modern designs (clean lines, efficient heating, big windows etc.)
Personally I like modern designs but that is me.
I too found this fascinating, not least through in-filling the back story on Wren. I’m not sure i agree with the author’s conclusions though.
If architectural styles didn’t change over time, we’d be living in a very boring urban environment. It’s been said (and i’m sure Mr Stanhope will correct me if i’m wrong) that prior to the uptake of Christianity by the Roman Empire during the reign of Constantine, the Empire itself was rather lacking in spirituality, a facet which allowed for the new religion to take hold. Now, do we think of a lack of spirituality when we look at the remaining examples of architecture still standing in Rome, or elsewhere within the former Empire? We do not!
So why ascribe a lack of spirituality to contemporary architecture? Of course, there’s the “form follows function” dictum, but i personally find much modern architecture satisfying, and occasionally inspiring. Might i suggest that those who fail to find a spiritual context for such architecture (post-war concrete blocks notwithstanding!) are simply reflecting something lacking in themselves?
Heaven forbid!!
A fascinating essay. Thank you.
The key difference between Wren and Rogers is that Wren’s building have lasted centuries. Roger’s are unlikely to last a century without significant repair and redesign (see the current shuttering of the Pompidou Centre for 4 years).
If Roger’s buildings could manage to not rust away and were actually practical then they would be more impressive
Yes, and didn’t the Pompidou require the knockdown of some of the few remaining medieval buildings in central Paris? A French friend owned one such building nearby. What an era! It was the worst of times, and then some.
Yes, and didn’t the Pompidou require the knockdown of some of the few remaining medieval buildings in central Paris? A French friend owned one such building nearby. What an era! It was the worst of times, and then some.
The key difference between Wren and Rogers is that Wren’s building have lasted centuries. Roger’s are unlikely to last a century without significant repair and redesign (see the current shuttering of the Pompidou Centre for 4 years).
If Roger’s buildings could manage to not rust away and were actually practical then they would be more impressive
Will we really say this about Rogers:
“Lector, si monumentum requiris, circumspice.”*
*Reader if you seek a monument look around (you).
(Attributed to Wren’s son, although remarkably similar to one used for the Roman architect Julius Lacer at Alcantara circa 110AD).
No we won’t, at least not in any positive sense – more as a warning. Equally, the classic Vitruvian formulation of firmitas, utilitas, and venustas (roughly translated as strength, functionality and beauty) hardly applies to Rogers, while clearly it does to Wren. A silly article, in my humble
Agreed.
Agreed.
Nice!
No we won’t, at least not in any positive sense – more as a warning. Equally, the classic Vitruvian formulation of firmitas, utilitas, and venustas (roughly translated as strength, functionality and beauty) hardly applies to Rogers, while clearly it does to Wren. A silly article, in my humble
Nice!
Will we really say this about Rogers:
“Lector, si monumentum requiris, circumspice.”*
*Reader if you seek a monument look around (you).
(Attributed to Wren’s son, although remarkably similar to one used for the Roman architect Julius Lacer at Alcantara circa 110AD).
William Blake would have entirely agreed. He thought St Paul’s a temple to Urizen, the god of the ratio, in love with measurement, whose mentality now dominates life.
William Blake would have entirely agreed. He thought St Paul’s a temple to Urizen, the god of the ratio, in love with measurement, whose mentality now dominates life.
Another perfect essayist in this fantastic journal.
The odd thing about this “world so complex it needs technocrats to manage it” is that even abstract labour is reduced to child-like simplicity, marked by the primacy of Process. Division of labor in hand and mind. It’s not actually a complex world at all, in that we’ve reduced the humanities, personal relations and thought work into simplicity.
Neo-Marxism is another manifestation, axioms from physics applied universally to entire groups, even comprising entire genders, absent individual living people.
And Shelley wrote an essay anticipating the English language would devolve into factspeak, parallel with the growth of technocracy, circa 1820.
But then, we have signs of revival, signaled by the very existence of this essay, and the return of art, design and architecture. Next to reclaim the humanities.
Another perfect essayist in this fantastic journal.
The odd thing about this “world so complex it needs technocrats to manage it” is that even abstract labour is reduced to child-like simplicity, marked by the primacy of Process. Division of labor in hand and mind. It’s not actually a complex world at all, in that we’ve reduced the humanities, personal relations and thought work into simplicity.
Neo-Marxism is another manifestation, axioms from physics applied universally to entire groups, even comprising entire genders, absent individual living people.
And Shelley wrote an essay anticipating the English language would devolve into factspeak, parallel with the growth of technocracy, circa 1820.
But then, we have signs of revival, signaled by the very existence of this essay, and the return of art, design and architecture. Next to reclaim the humanities.
Loyalty to my alma mater compels me to point out that Wren’s first building was in fact the chapel of Pembroke College, Cambridge, commissioned by his uncle, Matthew Wren and consecrated in 1665. The Sheldonian followed soon afterwards.
Loyalty to my alma mater compels me to point out that Wren’s first building was in fact the chapel of Pembroke College, Cambridge, commissioned by his uncle, Matthew Wren and consecrated in 1665. The Sheldonian followed soon afterwards.
That picture, is that St. Paul’s, or the Capitol building?
St Paul’s from the Millennium Bridge, ie from the south.
Contemporary architecture deserves to die.