The façade of Buckingham Palace is so familiar that it’s easy to forget it is younger than COUNTRY LIFE. It also strikes John Goodall as dull. To mark the Jubilee, he asks six architects to suggest, in playful spirit, how it might be changed for the better
IN 1825, John Nash began converting what was then Buckingham House into what we know as Buckingham Palace. His creation forms the bulk of the building today, but is outwardly unrecognisable. Nash flanked the main range with low projecting wings terminating in pavilions, to create a three-sided court. This was entered via a central, free-standing triumphal arch.
Almost from the first, the project was mired in scandal. George IV, his patron, endlessly changed the plans and even Nash himself disliked the low wings (soon elevated). Costs mounted to stupendous levels with astonishing speed and, after George IV’S death, Nash was dismissed amid public controversy. His replacement, Edward Blore, finished the work.
In the early 1840s, as the family of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert grew, there was a demand to expand the palace. Blore drew up plans for an east wing to close in the open courtyard, which meant Nash’s triumphal arch had to be relocated. It now stands at— and has given its name to—marble Arch.
Blore’s new wing was 25 window bays wide, articulated to each end by a pavilion and in the centre by a gatehouse. Brighton Pavilion was sold to raise money for the work and supplied many of its fittings. It was constructed from 1846 by Thomas Cubitt, who had also built Osborne House on the Isle of Wight.
After the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, a public fund was established to reconfigure the setting of the palace as a memorial to her (COUNTRY LIFE, May 5, 2005). An open competition, won by Aston Webb, widened and re-orientated the Mall to create the ceremonial approach to the palace we know today. This was entered by a new triumphal arch— Admiralty Arch—from Trafalgar Square. Incredibly, before this change, there was no axial approach to the palace. Webb also created the palace forecourt and circle, with Thomas Brock’s monument surmounted by a gilded image of Victory. When all the work was completed between 1903 and 1911, however, there was still £50,000 in the fund.
Webb, therefore, was commissioned to re-front the palace, too. He worked within extraordinary constraints. The palace could only be refaced, so all the window openings and levels of Blore’s building had to be preserved. In addition, the work had to take place when the Royal Family was away at Balmoral, so, in the course of three months over the autumn of 1913, 800 men working shifts by day and night completed the whole task. The Portland stone was delivered to the site in relays as required.
In technical and organisational terms, Webb’s achievement in creating the façade was extraordinary. There are some notable authorities, including the architectural critic Ian Nairn who have hailed it as an aesthetic success. To my eyes, however, it looks dull. We have a monumental exercise in Edwardian Baroque—a style synonymous with playful ebullience—imprisoned by the Victorian volume behind it. Could it be improved upon?
London’s skylines are a wonder and here is a chance to add picturesqueness
garden, assisting carbon offset. What of Webb’s façade? It would be lifted beyond current recognition with the Arch and reflections in the water.
‘Exercising the horses and corgis might be a challenge…’