Already a subscriber? Log in
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
Also in Society
Also by Lloyd Evans
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in