Church dignitaries, leaders of art and literature, cabinet and ex-cabinet ministers — what are we to say to these when they betray signs of incipient “Brixtonitis”? These are our natural protectors,
the custodians of our amenities. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes!
In the recent report issued by the Cathedrals Commission, the problem of Westminster Abbey is recommended for solution by a new building on the available open space! Still quite a lot of country unbuilt on, even in London! “But why, ” mutters someone, “all this fuss in an architectural paper — isn’t all this building on open spaces good for architects? ” My reply is — “that though it may be
good for the individual architect, it is bad for architecture as a whole, and, therefore, bad for architects. ” In the same way, epidemics may be good for individual doctors, but recurring preventable epidemics are bad for medicine and, therefore, bad for doctors as a body whose duty it is to combat and, if possible, prevent them.
If I had my way, I would not allow one single inch of land unbuilt on at the present time within, say, a four-mile radius of Charing Cross — and I am not sure I would not extend the inhibition to a 20-mile radius — to ever be built on, now or in the future.
If you take an eighteenth century map of London, you will be surprised to see the proportion of open land deliberately reserved in the way of squares and gardens to the amount of the built-up areas. Now that the population is five or six times larger, this proportion is seriously diminished — instead of pulling down buildings to give us more open spaces, which would seem to be the logical and sensible thing to do if we wish to have a beautiful and healthy city, we are covering up the available open spaces as quickly as we can. Apart from this major crime of covering up an open space, do we really wish to see the Abbey added to for the sake of providing accommodation for sepulchral monuments to the illustrious dead — however illustrious? I am not a scoffer at greatness — I believe a certain amount of ancestor worship is good for any country — a nation who omits to honour her great men is a nation pretty far gone in sin. But does such recognition really require the tampering with our holy shrines? The Abbey is more than a London Church, it is a possession of the Empire, whose sons have a definite picture of what it is, and what it stands for. Do we wish that picture blurred and made indecisive by this alteration of its outline? Besides, who knows when this work of enlargement is going to stop: after we have built on the vacant space, why not pull down some adjoining buildings, so that in the distant future we might be paralleled by the example of the American millionaire who bought up the small cottage home of his ancestors and proceeded to add on so many bedrooms, dining rooms, lounges, swimming pools, etc., that the original four-roomed house was relegated to one forgotten corner!
Some would have us clear out some of the existing monuments of the lesser luminaries on the principle of: “Tommy, make room for your Uncle’’ — but,
however unworthy some of these monuments are as works of art, they are still part of the Abbey of our familiar realisation, and I should see them go with a regret which I believe would not altogether be sentimental. I remember that the present Dean of Windsor once said “that all houses should have a few Aunt Maria pieces of furniture in them, to make them real — that the most dreadful thing on earth was the perfect house, perfectly furnished! ’’ This was a good many years ago, but I hope I have quoted Dr. Baillie correctly. And if houses should have a few Aunt Maria pieces of furniture, why shouldn’t cathedrals have a few Aunt Maria monuments?
Why this need to worry about this sepulture in the Abbey at all? Some time or other, if we continue to produce great men at the same rate as during the last hundred years, there will come a time, and I imagine that time will not be far distant, when the Abbey will be definitely full up. Well, why not declare that time now?
It is difficult to have comparative degrees of greatness, to label a man “very great, ” “great, ” or “rather great, ” as the case may be. Either he is great and worthy of a place in the national Valhalla, or he isn’t — and that is all about it.
There is, however, plenty of land in Westminster covered with most undesirable slums (see recent reports) which would be all the better for a good Clearance, or a site might be found on that reconstructed south side of the Thames for a Pantheon to the great men of the English race, and the ghosts of the Empire’s sons to whom she wishes to render homage, would be quite content once they were definitely assured that a “House Full” notice was permanently displayed on the Abbey.
Professional Societies
R. I. B. A.
The Council of the R. I. B. A. are holding a series of five informal illustrated lectures on architecture, confined to workers in the building trades. The following is the programme: —
December 14, at 8 p. m. — Subject: “Hampton Court Palace. ” Lecturer: Mr. Ernest Law, C. B.
January 18, 1928, at 8 p. m. — Subject: “Architecture of Provincial France. ’’ Lecturer: Mr. Henry M. Fletcher, M. A., F. R. I. B. A.
February 1, at 8 p. m. — Subject: “House Building through the Centuries. ” Lecturer: Mr. C. H. B. Quennell, F. R. I. B. A.
February 15, at 8 p. m. — Subject: “Bridges. ” Lecturer: Sir E. Owen Williams, K. B. E.
March 7, at 8 p. m. — Subject: “General Building Materials. ” Lecturer: Mr. J. H. Jarman (Superintendent, H. M. Office of Works).
All men employed in the work of building are cordially invited, admission being free.
The following are notes from the minutes of the recent Council meeting: —
Presentation of Drawings to the R. I. B. A. — The Council passed a vote of thanks to Mr. Sigismund Goetze for presenting a selection of drawings and sketches by Alfred Stevens to the Institute.
International Congress at Amsterdam. —A report was received from Lt. -Col. H. P. Cart de Lafontaine (A), the R. I. B. A. delegate at the recent International Congress of Architects held at Amsterdam. The thanks of the Council were conveyed to Lt. -Col. Cart de Lafontaine.
The Architects’, Engineers’, and Surveyors’ Defence Union. — It was agreed that a letter signed by the President be sent to every member of the R. I. B. A. urging him to join the Architects’, Engineers’, and Surveyors’ Defence Union if he has not already done so.
The Fellowship. — The Council, by a unanimous vote, elected Mr. G. de C. Fraser, of Liverpool, to the Fellowship under the powers defined in the Supplemental Charter of 1925.
London Architecture Medal, 1927
The conditions and nomination form in respect of the award of the above medal for the best building completed within a radius of four miles from Charing Cross, during the three years ending the 31st of this month (December), have been circulated to members.
the custodians of our amenities. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes!
In the recent report issued by the Cathedrals Commission, the problem of Westminster Abbey is recommended for solution by a new building on the available open space! Still quite a lot of country unbuilt on, even in London! “But why, ” mutters someone, “all this fuss in an architectural paper — isn’t all this building on open spaces good for architects? ” My reply is — “that though it may be
good for the individual architect, it is bad for architecture as a whole, and, therefore, bad for architects. ” In the same way, epidemics may be good for individual doctors, but recurring preventable epidemics are bad for medicine and, therefore, bad for doctors as a body whose duty it is to combat and, if possible, prevent them.
If I had my way, I would not allow one single inch of land unbuilt on at the present time within, say, a four-mile radius of Charing Cross — and I am not sure I would not extend the inhibition to a 20-mile radius — to ever be built on, now or in the future.
If you take an eighteenth century map of London, you will be surprised to see the proportion of open land deliberately reserved in the way of squares and gardens to the amount of the built-up areas. Now that the population is five or six times larger, this proportion is seriously diminished — instead of pulling down buildings to give us more open spaces, which would seem to be the logical and sensible thing to do if we wish to have a beautiful and healthy city, we are covering up the available open spaces as quickly as we can. Apart from this major crime of covering up an open space, do we really wish to see the Abbey added to for the sake of providing accommodation for sepulchral monuments to the illustrious dead — however illustrious? I am not a scoffer at greatness — I believe a certain amount of ancestor worship is good for any country — a nation who omits to honour her great men is a nation pretty far gone in sin. But does such recognition really require the tampering with our holy shrines? The Abbey is more than a London Church, it is a possession of the Empire, whose sons have a definite picture of what it is, and what it stands for. Do we wish that picture blurred and made indecisive by this alteration of its outline? Besides, who knows when this work of enlargement is going to stop: after we have built on the vacant space, why not pull down some adjoining buildings, so that in the distant future we might be paralleled by the example of the American millionaire who bought up the small cottage home of his ancestors and proceeded to add on so many bedrooms, dining rooms, lounges, swimming pools, etc., that the original four-roomed house was relegated to one forgotten corner!
Some would have us clear out some of the existing monuments of the lesser luminaries on the principle of: “Tommy, make room for your Uncle’’ — but,
however unworthy some of these monuments are as works of art, they are still part of the Abbey of our familiar realisation, and I should see them go with a regret which I believe would not altogether be sentimental. I remember that the present Dean of Windsor once said “that all houses should have a few Aunt Maria pieces of furniture in them, to make them real — that the most dreadful thing on earth was the perfect house, perfectly furnished! ’’ This was a good many years ago, but I hope I have quoted Dr. Baillie correctly. And if houses should have a few Aunt Maria pieces of furniture, why shouldn’t cathedrals have a few Aunt Maria monuments?
Why this need to worry about this sepulture in the Abbey at all? Some time or other, if we continue to produce great men at the same rate as during the last hundred years, there will come a time, and I imagine that time will not be far distant, when the Abbey will be definitely full up. Well, why not declare that time now?
It is difficult to have comparative degrees of greatness, to label a man “very great, ” “great, ” or “rather great, ” as the case may be. Either he is great and worthy of a place in the national Valhalla, or he isn’t — and that is all about it.
There is, however, plenty of land in Westminster covered with most undesirable slums (see recent reports) which would be all the better for a good Clearance, or a site might be found on that reconstructed south side of the Thames for a Pantheon to the great men of the English race, and the ghosts of the Empire’s sons to whom she wishes to render homage, would be quite content once they were definitely assured that a “House Full” notice was permanently displayed on the Abbey.
Professional Societies
R. I. B. A.
The Council of the R. I. B. A. are holding a series of five informal illustrated lectures on architecture, confined to workers in the building trades. The following is the programme: —
December 14, at 8 p. m. — Subject: “Hampton Court Palace. ” Lecturer: Mr. Ernest Law, C. B.
January 18, 1928, at 8 p. m. — Subject: “Architecture of Provincial France. ’’ Lecturer: Mr. Henry M. Fletcher, M. A., F. R. I. B. A.
February 1, at 8 p. m. — Subject: “House Building through the Centuries. ” Lecturer: Mr. C. H. B. Quennell, F. R. I. B. A.
February 15, at 8 p. m. — Subject: “Bridges. ” Lecturer: Sir E. Owen Williams, K. B. E.
March 7, at 8 p. m. — Subject: “General Building Materials. ” Lecturer: Mr. J. H. Jarman (Superintendent, H. M. Office of Works).
All men employed in the work of building are cordially invited, admission being free.
The following are notes from the minutes of the recent Council meeting: —
Presentation of Drawings to the R. I. B. A. — The Council passed a vote of thanks to Mr. Sigismund Goetze for presenting a selection of drawings and sketches by Alfred Stevens to the Institute.
International Congress at Amsterdam. —A report was received from Lt. -Col. H. P. Cart de Lafontaine (A), the R. I. B. A. delegate at the recent International Congress of Architects held at Amsterdam. The thanks of the Council were conveyed to Lt. -Col. Cart de Lafontaine.
The Architects’, Engineers’, and Surveyors’ Defence Union. — It was agreed that a letter signed by the President be sent to every member of the R. I. B. A. urging him to join the Architects’, Engineers’, and Surveyors’ Defence Union if he has not already done so.
The Fellowship. — The Council, by a unanimous vote, elected Mr. G. de C. Fraser, of Liverpool, to the Fellowship under the powers defined in the Supplemental Charter of 1925.
London Architecture Medal, 1927
The conditions and nomination form in respect of the award of the above medal for the best building completed within a radius of four miles from Charing Cross, during the three years ending the 31st of this month (December), have been circulated to members.