The great Spectator/IQ 2 debate Motion: Prince Charles was right: modern architecture is still all glass stumps and carbuncles.
New rules at Intelligence Squared. For the debate on architecture the speakers were offered the use of a slide projector. Opening for the motion Roger Scruton described modern architecture as ‘a grammarless chaos’ in which buildings ‘aren’t made for the city but against it’. Like a softly spoken Moses he laid down his three architectural commandments. 1. A town is a home where strangers can enjoy a shared sense of belonging. 2. Buildings should fit together organically and be capable of accepting additions and developments. 3. Genius is as rare among architects as it is among the rest of us. (That got a big laugh.) This was a beautifully crafted, very funny speech full of unshowy profundities. Stephen Bayley began with an anecdote about his attempt to persuade Prince Charles to open the Design Museum in 1989. ‘Mr Bayley,’ came the royal rebuff, ‘Why does it have a flat roof?’ Bayley accused the Prince of ‘stultifying negativism’ — not to his face, of course — and suggested that he lacked ‘a scintilla of intellectual enquiry’. Though Bayley speaks faster than a greyhound runs he’s always excellent value. He suggested that the debate’s true subject was ‘hatred of novelty and experimentation, a fear of the future and opposition to the creative spirit’. Simon Jenkins reminded us that ‘concrete stump architecture’, the style we call ‘modernism’, evolved in Germany between the wars and was fundamentally contrarian. ‘It pretended you didn’t need or want to refer back to the past.’ Only two groups of customers exist for this architecture. Local councillors who want to create a social utopia, ‘though they know they’ll never have to live in the buildings themselves’. And large corporations who fancy ostentatious offices. ‘But when they get rich where do they go? A nice Georgian house in Mayfair.’ He ended on a crowd-pleasing note. ‘Modern architecture is a dangerous authoritarian cul-de-sac. Let’s not let them get away with it.’ Alain de Botton made a measured, welcoming speech and got plenty of laughs by projecting photos overhead and adding a whimsical commentary. ‘Here are three kitchen taps. Each tap has a definite character. If I had to go on holiday with a tap, I know which it would be.’ He told us Britain’s distaste for modernism isn’t shared in Europe, where modern architecture is far more advanced. He urged us to ‘take our inspiration from the past without slavishly copying it. Let’s make ourselves at home in the present.’ Leon Krier is best known as the architect of Poundbury and the debate’s chairman, Anna Ford, introduced him by mischievously reminding us that Stephen Bayley had just described his work as ‘a sham fake bogus pastiche’. Mr Krier refused to be drawn. In his salty German accent he hailed Prince Charles as ‘a hero’ and told us we were ‘wrong to characterise the Prince as a nitwit’. He helpfully redefined the terms of the debate. Traditional architecture, he said, is ‘not a style but a technology’ and its durability is guaranteed because the materials it uses are entirely independent of fossil fuels. And he spoke eloquently on behalf of imitation. Nature copies constantly, he told us.
Sean Griffiths, a student of architecture in 1984, told us that the Prince’s comments had seemed dated even then. Griffiths invited us to appreciate modernist creations like Trellick Tower and the Barbican where he takes his Sunday stroll. ‘A fantastically crafted building.’ But such quality is rare. New Labour’s private finance initiative will soon deliver ‘revolting cheaply made buildings’.
During the floor debate the architect Quinlan Terry revealed just how entrenched modernism had been in the 1950s. His tutors told him bluntly that if he submitted traditional designs for his finals, he would fail. Anna Ford had another mischievous inspiration up her sleeve and she asked the opposers of the motion to reveal at what date their homes had been built. Sean Griffiths: ‘2002. I did it myself.’ Alain de Botton: ‘1900 but I wish it were 2008.’ Stephen Bayley: ‘1834. I’d tear it down but the planners won’t let me.’ The motion was defeated, although there was a marked swing towards the proposers during the debate.
Before: For 199, Against 365, Don’t Know 119. After: For 266, Against 391 Don’t know 29
Lloyd Evans
Previous page
