CAST IN STONE
Charles Saumarez Smith (“DREAMY
SPIRES”, MAY) rightly contrasts the posterity-minded approach that Oxford colleges adopt as patrons of new architecture compared to the here-today and (hopefully) gone-tomorrow gimcrackery of contemporary London commercial developments.
A further consideration is the use of materials and whether they should strive for diversity or contribute to an aesthetic unity that gives a place its identity.
In Cambridge, the historic use of Ketton, Ancaster and Portland stone along with Tudor redbrick provides modern architects with the latitude that their Victorian predecessors enjoyed with overwhelmingly pleasing results. Cambridge is a treasure trove of variety where only the (thankfully rare) flashes of exposed concrete fail to rise to the occasion.
Not so Oxford, whose honey-coloured stones unify gown and central town and bring a rewarding visual coherence that is commonly the preserve of Britain’s most attractive places — Bath; the Cotswolds, Stamford; Edinburgh; Aberdeen etc..
Architects keen to “make a splash” may rail against such a tyranny of material, but if they consider themselves above being bound by a discipline that clearly works in its setting then there are no shortage of free-wheeling clients to impress in Dubai, Hong Kong and, indeed, London.
To every rule there are some exceptions. The polychrome psychedelia of Keble College, a Laudanum trip in brick, gets away with it through sheer panache, as, more soberly, does Alfred Waterhouse’s Oxford Union Society (perhaps because of its discreet positioning). Likewise, brick at Lady Margaret Hall offends no one as it’s on the wrong side of the University Parks. But there are few examples where modern architects have triumphed by ignoring the materials that define Oxford.
Take one of Britain’s most celebrated modern architects, the late “Big Jim” Stirling. His Engineering Faculty is an adornment to Leicester. But his similar use of red brick and glass for his Florey Building at the Queen’s College is simply wrong for Oxford. It is an alien eyesore that even its Grade II* listing cannot mask. The failure is not just in the design (a long story in itself), but in the complete disregard for the materials that say “Welcome to Oxford”.
Saumarez Smith ends by suggesting that, whatever their faults, Oxford dons “have a sense of continuity and want to leave a legacy.” There are many different design approaches through which this may be achieved but harmony to surroundings means that that the Oxford legacy should be expressed in stone. Margaret Nicholson
salisbury