ST PAUL'S
YET again, an important British architectural competition has degenerated into farce. A scheme for the redevelop- ment of the late Lord Holford's post-war rebuilding of the Paternoster Square area north of St Paul's Cathedral was to be chosen from seven entries by well- established architectural firms. The jury chose Arup Associates, but some jurors felt that elements in the scheme by Richard Rogers merited his involvement in the redevelopment. Mr Rogers, however, has huffily declined to co-operate with the winners — hoping, no doubt, as Sir Gilbert Scott did over the Law Courts competition, that he is indispensable — while his sup- porters in the media are asserting, menda- ciously, that this fashionable figure was joint winner. However, it has emerged that the Prince of Wales thinks that none of the schemes is worthy of the site, while the Londoners' Society is commissioning an alternative scheme on the naïve assump- tion that classicism is the answer. The public has yet to be allowed to see any of the schemes. Meanwhile, the original de- velopers have been bought out at huge profit by new developers, although Sud- bury House — the most offensive part of the Holford development -- remains in independent ownership. This is high farce, except that the setting of Wren's master- piece and London's glory deserves more intelligent and more open consideration. No one architect should deal with this most sensitive site, nor should its appearance be decided, in secret, by property developers. The post-war rebuilding of the City of London was a disaster. It is a matter of national importance that the same mis- takes are not made again.
Previous page
