memories in transition: churches, war and reconstruction
DESCRIPTION
Columbia University Master's Thesis, post-World War II church reconstruction in EnglandTRANSCRIPT
MEMORIES IN TRANSITION: CHURCHES, WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION
Jennifer Whisenhunt
7YFQMXXIH�MR�TEVXMEP�JYPÁPPQIRX�SJ�XLI�VIUYMVIQIRX�JSV�XLI�HIKVII�SJ� 1EWXIV�SJ�7GMIRGI�MR�,MWXSVMG�4VIWIVZEXMSR
+VEHYEXI�7GLSSP�SJ�%VGLMXIGXYVI��4PERRMRK�ERH�4VIWIVZEXMSR'SPYQFME�9RMZIVWMX]
1E]�����
i
AdvisorDr. Theodore H. M. Prudon, FAIA, FAPTColumbia UniversityPrudon & Partners, LLPDocomomo_USNew York, NY
ReaderKate Lemos McHaleBeyer Blinder Belle Architects & Planners, LLPNew York, New York
ReaderRobert DrakeTwentieth Century SocietyLondon, England
© 2013 Jennifer Whisenhunt
ii
Acknowlegements
I would like to thank everyone who has provided guidance and support during the writing of this thesis. First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Theodore Prudon, for your guidance, patience, and encouragement throughout the course of my time at Columbia. With your strong support I have been able to translate my many ideas into a thesis and learn a great deal in the process. Robert Drake, your thoughtful insight brought clarity and understanding to an English culture and topic that I am slowly beginning to understand. I am deeply grateful for your input and conversations throughout the year. Kate Lemos McHale, thank you for applying your sharp eyes to Q]�XLIWMW�ERH�ÁRHMRK�XMQI�XS�TVSZMHI�MRZEPYEFPI�GSQQIRXW�ERH�GVMXMUYIW�XS[EVHW�VIÁRMRK�XLI�TETIV��=SYV�ZMI[W�LEZI�KVIEXP]�LIPTIH�QI�XS�WLETI�MHIEW�ERH�GVIEXI�E�cohesive thesis.
-�EQ�MRHIFXIH�XS�XLI�(SVSXL]�1MRIV�1IQSVMEP�8VEZIP�*IPPS[WLMT�*YRH�JSV�XLI�ÁRERGMEP�support for this research. Much gratitude also goes to the Columbia University, Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation for awarding me the fellowship for this research. It is with immense gratitude that I also acknowledge the outstanding Historic Preservation faculty at Columbia University. I have considered it a privilege to learn from them and will remain eternally grateful for all they have taught me.
I am grateful to many others, as well. Much of the research that went into this thesis could not have been done without the generous assistance of several others across the pond. I was fortunate enough to be assisted by the staffs of many research institutions, including The Anglo-Catholic History Society, London; Church of England Record Centre, London; ChurchCare, London; Lambeth Palace Library, London; London Metropolitan Archives, London; Royal Institute of British Architects Library, London; The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings Archives, London; Coventry Cathedral Archives, Coventry; Plymouth Central Library, Plymouth; and the Plymouth ERH�;IWX�(IZSR�6IGSVH�3JÁGI��4P]QSYXL��%�WTIGMEP�XLERO�]SY�XS�.SLR�7QMXL�EX�7X��Bride’s Church; Duncan Ross, Mary McKenzie, and Isabel Rowe from St. Paul’s, Bow Common; Louise Campbell in Coventry; and Bob Brown from Plymouth University for your input, opinions and advice that made this thesis possible.
iii
To my classmates in the Historic Preservation Program, I certainly would not have made it this far without the understanding, encouragement, and lasting friendships that you have provided.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the tremendous support I have always received from my family. None of this would have been possible without their constant love and dedication— a sincere thank you for your support, patience, and belief in me throughout this experience.
iv
Abstract
Across Europe, post-World War II reconstruction focused on rebuilding the centers of destroyed cities, towns and communities in an effort to aid in the overall recovery. The TL]WMGEP�VIFYMPHMRK�SJ�XLIWI�GIRXIVW�LIPH�WMKRMÁGERGI�ERH�QIERMRK�JSV�TISTPI�EW�E�WMKR�of resurgence and renewal. City-wide reconstruction plans were then designed to aid in this emotional, physical and economic recovery by either looking to the city’s past or its future. By rebuilding to either pre-war designs or by creating a modernist city center these reconstruction plans symbolized a hope and desire for renewal for the post-war community. Churches then, as they had for centuries, played an important role in the planning as they represented a spiritual focal point as well as a visual marking of the civic center and center of life for the residents. Churches played an important role in restoring a sense of place and their reconstruction in one form or another came to symbolize a sense of recovery for their respective communities.
Church reconstruction then, as an integral part of an overall city plan, usually followed one of four routes: one, the church was stabilized and left in ruins to serve as both a memorial and as a reminder of the devastation to both people’s lives and their surrounding community; two, the church was reconstructed according to the historic HIWMKR�FIGEYWI�SJ�MXW�WMKRMÁGERGI�SV�EW�ER�EXXIQTX�XS�VIGETXYVI�XLI�TVI[EV�[SVPH��three, the ruins were kept but incorporated in a new structure adjacent so as to both serve as a memorial and a new gathering place; four, a contemporary church was built on the same site to accommodate the spiritual needs of the surrounding community.
This thesis seeks to uncover what decision-making processes led to the adoption of a particular approach. Four sites in England were selected to examine how those HIGMWMSRW�EVI�SV�EVI�RSX�MRXIVGSRRIGXIH��;MXL�XLI�ÁVWX�LERH�QIQSVMIW�SJ�[EVXMQI�survivors disappearing and the recollection of the devastation fading, it is important to not only consider the past but also to explore how these embedded memories are transferred; how those decisions are viewed and interpreted today and how they may SV�QE]�RSX�LEZI�ER�EHHIH�PE]IV�SJ�WMKRMÁGERGI��-W�XLI�PE]IVIH�WMKRMÁGERGI�SJ�XLIWI�sites recognized today? Has the post-war layer added meaning and how does it affect preservation decisions today? How important is the meaning of the reconstruction or VIIWXEFPMWLQIRX�ERH�LS[�VIPIZERX�MW�MX�MR�XLI�XVERWJIV�SJ�QIQSV]�JVSQ�ÁVWX�XS�WIGSRH�generation?
v
1. Introduction
2. European Context
2.1 Greater Europe Reconstruction
2.1.1 Le Havre, France
2.1.2 Warsaw, Poland
2.1.3 Dresden, Germany
2.1.4 London, England
2.2 Liturgical Movement
3. Charles Church, Plymouth
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Original Building History
3.3 WWII History
3.4 Plymouth Reconstruction Plan
3.5 Charles Church Preservation
3.6 Past Interpretation
3.7 Current Interpretation
3.8 Conclusion
4. St. Bride’s Church, London
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Original Building History
4.3 WWII History
4.4 London Reconstruction Plan and the City Churches
4.5 St. Bride’s Church Rebuilding
4.6 Past Interpretation
4.7 Current Interpretation
4.8 Conclusion
5. Coventry Cathedral, Coventry
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Original Building History
Table of Contents
1
14
42
73
104
vi
5.3 WWII History
5.4 Coventry Reconstruction Plan
5.5 Coventry Cathedral and Basil Spence
5.6 Past Interpretation
5.7 Current Interpretation
5.8 Conclusion
6. St. Paul’s, Bow Common, London
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Original Building History
6.3 WWII History
6.4 London Reconstruction Plan
6.5 The New St. Paul’s, Bow Common
6.6 Past Interpretation
6.7 Current Interpretation
6.8 Conclusion
7. Conclusion
7.1 Summary
7.2 Potential Preservation Issues
7.3 Conclusion
8. Post-War Rebuilding Timeline
9. Bibliography
143
174
181
183
1
Introduction
2
Introduction
Across Europe, post-World War II reconstruction focused on rebuilding the
centers of destroyed cities, towns and communities in an effort to aid in the overall
VIGSZIV]��8LI�TL]WMGEP�VIFYMPHMRK�SJ�XLIWI�GIRXIVW�LIPH�WMKRMÁGERGI�ERH�QIERMRK�JSV�
people as a sign of resurgence and renewal. Citywide reconstruction plans were then
designed to aid in this emotional, physical and economic recovery by either looking
to the city’s past or to its future. By rebuilding to either pre-war designs or by creating
a modernist city center, these reconstruction plans symbolized a hope and desire for
renewal for the post-war community. As part of these reconstruction plans Churches,
as they had for centuries, played an important role in the planning as they represented
a spiritual focal point as well as a visual marking of the civic center and center of life
for the residents. Churches played an essential role in restoring a sense of place to the
community and their reconstruction in one form or another came to symbolize a sense
of recovery for their respective communities.
(IWTMXI�XLI�VSPI�XLIWI�GLYVGLIW�TPE]IH�MR�XLI�VIFYMPHMRK��XLIVI�[EW�E�GSRÂMGX�
between modern urban planning, rebuilding and the overall preservation of bomb-
HEQEKIH�GLYVGLIW��-X�MW�XLVSYKL�XLMW�GSRÂMGX�XLEX�ZEVMSYW�GLYVGL�VIFYMPHMRK�
techniques emerged. These various techniques and the circumstances that led to them
are the basis of this thesis.
�'LYVGL�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR��EW�ER�MRXIKVEP��ERH�WSQIXMQIW�GSRÂMGXMRK �TEVX�SJ�ER�
overall city plan, usually followed one of four routes: one, the church was stabilized
and left in ruins to serve as both a memorial and as a reminder of the devastation
to both people’s lives and their surrounding community; two, the church was
VIGSRWXVYGXIH�EGGSVHMRK�XS�XLI�LMWXSVMG�HIWMKR�FIGEYWI�SJ�MXW�WMKRMÁGERGI��SV�EW�ER�
attempt to recapture the prewar world; three, the ruins were kept but incorporated in
a new structure adjacent so as to serve as both a memorial and a new gathering place;
four, a contemporary church was built on the same site to accommodate the spiritual
3
needs of the surrounding community. All four of these routes stem from either
GSQTPMERGI�SV�GSRÂMGXW�[MXL�GMX][MHI�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�TPERW��
In addition to citywide reconstruction plans, other factors such as the local
congregation or patriotism played a role in the preservation of churches post-war. The
&MWLST�SJ�0SRHSR�GPIEVP]�WXEXIH�[LMGL�JEGXSVW�QMKLX�MRÂYIRGI�VIFYMPHMRK�HIGMWMSRW�
in the 1942 Spring Session of the Archbishops’ Church War Damage Committee. He
stated,
Almost certainly… we should not wish to restore all the parishes in such
a group precisely as they were before... But in replanning such an area the
considerations to be borne in mind are immensely varied. There are the
interests of the incumbent, the parishioners, and the patron. There are in
relation to some churches interests of association, history, architecture, local
patriotism… There are the general interests of the Church and the diocese as
a while in that particular area, and there is the interest of the civil planning
authority in many cases contemplating a completely fresh lay-out of the whole
EVIE��&ILMRH�MX�MW�XLI�ÁREP�HIGMWMSR�SJ�XLI�;EV�(EQEKI�'SQQMWWMSR�EW�XS�what compensation shall be awarded in any particular case and upon what
conditions. There must quite clearly be an immense amount of consultation
ERH�KSSH�[MPP��ÁVWX�[MXLMR�XLI�'LYVGL�ERH�FIX[IIR�XLI�TEVMWLIW��XLIR��SYX�SJ�that, between the churches themselves, so that they shall not plan in complete
ignorance of what each body is doing, and then between the Church and the
civil authorities.1
8LI�&MWLST¸W�WXEXIQIRX�HIÁRIW�OI]�TSMRXW�SJ�GSRWMHIVEXMSR�XLEX�LIPTIH�
determine the fate of the four case studies presented in this thesis. The congregation
and diocese, historic association, local patriotism and civil planning authorities are
four main factors that are seen repeatedly in the case studies’ reconstruction planning.
Now, decades later, we can review more critically the plans and decisions made after
World War II. How has the interpretation of these sites changed and what does that
mean for the churches’ future preservation? Has the post-war layer added meaning
and how does it affect preservation decisions today? How important is the meaning of
1 Report of Proceedings, Spring Session, 1942. February 4, 1942. Archbishops’ Church War Damage
Committee. Church of England Record Centre.
4
the reconstruction or reestablishment and how relevant is it in the transfer of memory
JVSQ�ÁVWX�XS�WIGSRH�KIRIVEXMSR#
8S�FIKMR�Q]�VIWIEVGL�-�WIPIGXIH�JSYV�WMXIW�XLEX�I\IQTPMÁIH�XLI�JSYV�VSYXIW�
explained above. I focused my research on England-based churches in an attempt to
lower the amount of cultural discrepancies from choosing sites in multiple countries.
-�GLSWI�XLI�WTIGMÁG�WMXIW�FEWIH�SR�VIFYMPHMRK�WXVEXIK]��PSGEXMSR��GYVVIRX�WXEXYW�ERH�
EGGIWWMFMPMX]�XS�VIWIEVGL�QEXIVMEPW��8LI�ÁVWX�WMXI��'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�MR�4P]QSYXL��MW�ER�
example of a war-damaged church that was left as a ruin and a memorial for the city
�WII�-QEKIW���ERH�� ��8LMW�GLYVGL��EPXLSYKL�EX]TMGEP�MR�MXW�WMXMRK�EW�MX�WMXW�MR�XLI�QMHHPI�
SJ�E�XVEJÁG�VSYRHEFSYX��IQFSHMIW�E�WTIGMÁG�TVIWIVZEXMSR�ZMI[TSMRX�EW�MX�VIPEXIW�XS�[EV�
memorials. As a preserved structure, current preservationists struggle with three key
HMJÁGYPXMIW��XLI�LMWXSVMG�EWWSGMEXMSR�ERH�PSGEP�TEXVMSXMWQ�IQFSHMIH�MR�XLI�GLYVGL�EW�E�
war memorial, the fact that it is inaccessible to the public and the idea that it is slowly
PSWMRK�MXW�QEXIVMEP�WXVIRKXL�HYI�XS�XLI�XVEJÁG�ZMFVEXMSRW�GEYWIH�F]�XLI�WYVVSYRHMRK�
roundabout. Charles Church is important to study as it allowed me to understand how
an English city answered questions about post-war rebuilding without the level of
publicity that a much larger and more prominent city such as London would have to
endure. As we will see with St. Bride’s Church and Coventry Cathedral, the next case
WXYHMIW��MRGVIEWIH�PIZIPW�SJ�PSGEP�ERH�REXMSREP�WMKRMÁGERGI�EHHIH�XS�XLI�TVIWWYVI�SJ�
preservation and rebuilding. Plymouth also implemented a thoroughly modernist city
VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�TPER�WS�-�[EW�EFPI�XS�WXYH]�LS[�XLI�GMX]�HIEPX�[MXL�XLI�GSRÂMGX�FIX[IIR�
a modernist city plan and church preservation.
The next site, St. Bride’s Church in London was chosen for its important
association with Christopher Wren and the London City Churches. As a historically
WMKRMÁGERX�GLYVGL�XLMW�WMXI�EPPS[IH�QI�XS�VIWIEVGL�LS[�XLI�GMX]�SJ�0SRHSR�QMKLX�
LERHPI�MXW�QSVI�EVGLMXIGXYVEPP]�WMKRMÁGERX�FYMPHMRKW��WII�-QEKIW���ERH�� ��7X��&VMHI¸W�
Church was reconstructed according to the historic design due to its association
5
with Wren and the London City Churches. In contrast, I also chose to study St.
Paul’s, Bow Common Church in London; a church that was razed to allow for a
GSRXIQTSVEV]�GLYVGL�FYMPHMRK�SR�XLI�WEQI�WMXI��WII�-QEKIW���ERH�� ��8LIWI�X[S�GEWI�
WXYHMIW�WTIGMÁGEPP]�EPPS[IH�QI�XS�GSQTEVI�GLYVGLIW�XLEX�[IVI�EX�STTSWMXI�IRHW�SJ�XLI�
rebuilding spectrum within the same city, but located in different boroughs. Between
these two buildings I could compare the rebuilding approaches and discern which
JEGXSVW�[IVI�XLI�QEMR�MRÂYIRGIW�SR�XLI�X[S�ZIV]�HMJJIVIRX�HIWMKR�HIGMWMSRW��'MZMP�
TPERRMRK�EYXLSVMXMIW�ERH�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�TPERW�FSXL�MRÂYIRGIH�XLI�WMXIW��LS[IZIV��7X��
Bride’s rebuilding was affected by its historic association and local patriotism, whereas
St. Paul’s, Bow Common was dominated by the congregation.
1]�ÁREP�WMXI��'SZIRXV]�'EXLIHVEP�MR�'SZIRXV]��TVSZIH�XS�FI�XLI�QSWX�[IPP�ORS[R�
site and was selected because of its popularity and general recognition (see Images 7
ERH�� ��%PXLSYKL�RSX�E�X]TMGEP�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�ETTVSEGL��EW�XLI�VYMRW�[IVI�TVIWIVZIH�
with a contemporary structure built adjacent, Coventry allowed me to discover what
elements led to its famed reputation after such an uncommon rebuilding decision.
Local patriotism was at the forefront of Coventry’s rebuilding program, which, like St.
Bride’s, is key in its future preservation. Both sites now rely on that patriotism to gain
WYTTSVX�JSV�XLI�WMXI�ERH�IRWYVI�XLI�ÁRERGMEP�JYXYVI�SJ�XLI�FYMPHMRKW�
With these four sites, I have been able to answer questions such as “has the
post-war layer added meaning and how does it affect preservation decisions today?” I
EPWS�I\TPSVIH�XLI�XVERWJIV�SJ�QIQSV]�JVSQ�ÁVWX�XS�WIGSRH�KIRIVEXMSRW�ERH�WXYHMIH�MJ�
the meaning of the reconstruction or reestablishment is relevant today in that shifting
of memory.
-R�XLI�JSPPS[MRK�GLETXIVW�-�[MPP�I\TPEMR�MR�JYVXLIV�HIXEMP�XLI�LMWXSV]��WMKRMÁGERGI��
rebuilding strategies and past and current interpretations of each site. In addition,
I will place the case studies within the greater post-war European reconstruction
context as well as the Liturgical Movement.
6
Image 1: Charles Church, 2013
Jennifer Whisenhunt
7
Image 2: Charles Church, 2013
Jennifer Whisenhunt
8
Image 3: St. Bride’s Exterior, 2013
Jennifer Whisenhunt
9
Image 4: St. Bride’s Interior, 2013
Jennifer Whisenhunt
10
Image 5: St. Paul’s, Bow Common, 2013
Jennifer Whisenhunt
11
Image 6: St. Paul’s, Bow Common, interior, 2013
Jennifer Whisenhunt
12
Image 7: Coventry Cathedral, exterior, 2013
Jennifer Whisenhunt
13
Image 8: Coventry Cathedral, interior, 2013
Jennifer Whisenhunt
14
European Context
15
Greater Europe Reconstruction
Major reconstruction efforts, cultural and geopolitical shifts and advances in
XIGLRSPSK]��EVGLMXIGXYVI�ERH�YVFER�TPERRMRK�HIÁRIH�XLI�TSWX�;SVPH�;EV�--�TIVMSH�MR�
)YVSTI��-QTSVXERX�XS�XLMW�WXYH]�EVI�FSXL�XLI�FVSEHIV�GSRXI\X�SJ�YVFER�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�
EJXIV�XLI�[EV�ERH�JYRHEQIRXEP�GLERKIW�MR�ZMI[W�MR�PMXYVK]��ORS[R�EW�XLI�µ0MXYVKMGEP�
1SZIQIRX�¶�EJJIGXMRK�XLI�HIWMKR�SJ�'LVMWXMER�GLYVGLIW��%PP�EGVSWW�)YVSTI�GSYRXVMIW�
WXVYKKPIH�[MXL�XLI�UYIWXMSR�SJ�LS[�XS�VIFYMPH�XLIMV�GMXMIW�ERH�PMZIW��%JXIV�XLI�
HIZEWXEXMSR�FVSYKLX�SR�F]�;SVPH�;EV�--��XLIVI�[EW�E�GSQQSR�RSXMSR�SJ�GVIEXMRK�E�
µFVEZI�RI[�[SVPH¶�EJXIV�XLI�[EV�ERH��[MXL�XLEX��XLI�MHIE�XLEX�TL]WMGEP�VIFYMPHMRK�[SYPH�
LIPT�IQSXMSREP�ERH�WTMVMXYEP�LIEPMRK�JSV�REXMSRW�ERH�GSQQYRMXMIW��-QQIHMEXIP]�EJXIV�
XLI�[EV�XLIVI�[EW�E�RIIH�XS�QSZI�SR��FYX�EPWS�XS�VIQIQFIV��ERH��EW�WYGL��VIFYMPHMRK�
LIPH�E�LYKI�WMKRMÁGERGI�[MXLMR�IEGL�GSQQYRMX]�EW�E�TL]WMGEP�VITVIWIRXEXMSR�SJ�XLMW�
IQSXMSREP�ERH�WTMVMXYEP�VIRI[EP����
8[S�VIFYMPHMRK�MHISPSKMIW�IQIVKIH�EW�E�VIWYPX�SJ�XLMW�RIIH�XS�QSZI�JSV[EVH��
SRI�[EW�XLI�QSHIVRMWX�ETTVSEGL�[LIVI�XLI�LMWXSVMG�MRJVEWXVYGXYVI�SJ�XLI�GMX]�[EW�VE^IH�
ERH�E�QSHIVR�GMX]�TPER�[EW�MQTPIQIRXIH�[MXL�RI[��GSRXIQTSVEV]�FYMPHMRKW��8LMW�
ETTVSEGL�PIJX�LMWXSVMG�FYMPHMRKW�IMXLIV�XS�FI�HIQSPMWLIH�SV�XS�FI�GSQQIQSVEXIH�EW�
[EV�QIQSVMEPW�ERH�W]QFSPW�SJ�XLI�TEWX��8LI�SXLIV�ETTVSEGL�[EW�XLI�LMWXSVMGMWX�STXMSR�
XLEX�IRGSYVEKIH�[EV�HEQEKIH�LMWXSVMG�FYMPHMRKW�XS�FI�VIFYMPX�XS�XLIMV�TVI�[EV�HIWMKR��
YWYEPP]�[MXL�RI[��GSRXIQTSVEV]�MRXIVMSVW�XS�WYMX�XLI�QSHIVR�RIIHW�SJ�XLI�TYFPMG��8LMW�
ETTVSEGL�I\LMFMXIH�E�GMX]¸W�HIWMVI�ERH�GETEFMPMX]�XS�VIWXSVI�XLI�MQEKI�SJ�XLI�XS[R�
TVI�;;--��[LMPI�XLI�QSHIVRMWX�ETTVSEGL�HIQSRWXVEXIH�ER�I\GMXIQIRX�JSV�XLI�JYXYVI�
ERH�XLI�HIQERH�JSV�GMX]�MQTVSZIQIRX��-R�EHHMXMSR�XS�XLIWI�VIFYMPHMRK�MHISPSKMIW��XLI�
0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX�MRÂYIRGIH�XLI�HIWMKRW�SJ�GSRXIQTSVEV]�GLYVGLIW�ERH�XLYW�XLI�
GSRWXVYGXMSR�SJ�RI[�GLYVGLIW�XLEX�[IVI�VITPEGMRK�LMWXSVMG��[EV�HEQEKIH�GLYVGLIW�
WYGL�EW�7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR�
16
The four case study sites represent an overall trend of rebuilding seen
XLVSYKLSYX�)YVSTI��8LI�RIIH�XS�VIFYMPH��QSZI�JSV[EVH�ERH�GVIEXI�E�FIXXIV�XSQSVVS[�
GVSWWIH�GYPXYVEP�FSYRHEVMIW��,IVI�[MPP�-�HMWGYWW�XLI�VIFYMPHMRK�WXVEXIKMIW�MQTPIQIRXIH�
F]�JSYV�QENSV�GMXMIW�[LSWI�VIFYMPHMRK�WGLIQIW�EVI�VIÂIGXIH�MR�XLI�VIFYMPHMRK�SJ�
XLI�JSYV�GLYVGL�GEWI�WXYHMIW��0I�,EZVI��*VERGI��;EVWE[��4SPERH��(VIWHIR��+IVQER]��
ERH�ÁREPP]�0SRHSR��)RKPERH��*VSQ�XLIWI�JSYV�GMXMIW�ERH�XLIMV�TSWX�[EV�VIFYMPHMRK�
TPERW��XLI�JSYV�)RKPERH�FEWIH�GEWI�WXYHMIW�GER�FI�QSVI�IEWMP]�YRHIVWXSSH�EW�TEVX�SJ�
E�KVIEXIV�VIFYMPHMRK�XEOMRK�TPEGI�EGVSWW�)YVSTI��)EGL�GMX]�WXVYKKPIH�[MXL�TSWX�[EV�
VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�TPERRMRK��]IX�EPP�GEQI�SYX�[MXL�HMJJIVIRX�VIFYMPHMRK�WXVEXIKMIW��WMQMPEV�
to the four church case studies wherein each dealt with the reconstruction plans and
MQTPIQIRXIH�HMJJIVIRX�VIFYMPHMRK�WXVEXIKMIW��&]�I\EQMRMRK�ERH�YRHIVWXERHMRK�XLI�
FVSEHIV�GSRXI\X��XLI�MRHMZMHYEP�GEWI�WXYHMIW�EVI�QSVI�IEWMP]�YRHIVWXSSH�[MXLMR�XLI�
KVIEXIV�TSWX�[EV�VIFYMPHMRK��
8LI�ÁVWX�XLVII�WMXIW�[IVI�WIPIGXIH�FIGEYWI�XLI]�IEGL�MQTPIQIRXIH�E�HMJJIVIRX�
VIFYMPHMRK�WXVEXIK]��-R�0I�,EZVI��E�GSQTPIXIP]�QSHIVRMWX�ETTVSEGL�XS�TPERRMRK�ERH�
VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�[EW�ETTPMIH�[LMPI�;EVWE[�XSSO�XLI�LMWXSVMGMWX�ETTVSEGL�ERH�VIFYMPX�
MXW�LMWXSVMG�GMX]�GIRXIV��(VIWHIR��SR�XLI�SXLIV�LERH��GSQFMRIH�X[S�XEGXMGW��0SRHSR��
EW�E�TVMQEV]�JSGYW�JSV�XLMW�XLIWMW��MQTPIQIRXIH�E�QSHIVR�TPER�ERH�TVSTSWIH�E�
RI[�VSEH�W]WXIQ�XLEX�YXMPM^IH�E�VMRK�VSEH�[MXL�MRXIVMSV�VEHMEP�VSEHW��XLIWI�VSEHW�
GSRRIGXIH�ZEVMSYW�TVIGMRGXW�ERH�[SYPH�FI�VI^SRIH�JSV�WTIGMÁG�YWIW�WYGL�EW�MRHYWXV]�
SV�VIWMHIRXMEP���%X�XLI�WEQI�XMQI��0SRHSR�GMX]�TPERRIVW�VIWTIGXIH�FYMPHMRKW�SV�LMWXSVMG�
SV�EVGLMXIGXYVEP�MRXIVIWX�[MXLMR�XLI�'MX]�HMWXVMGX�ERH�EPPS[IH�JSV�XLIMV�TVIWIVZEXMSR��
WYGL�EW�7X��&VMHI¸W�'LYVGL��)EGL�GMX]�LEH�MXW�S[R�TSPMXMGEP�EKIRHE�EX�TPE]��MXW�S[R�WIX�
SJ�IRIQMIW�VIWTSRWMFPI�JSV�HIWXVYGXMSR��ERH�MXW�S[R�VIFYMPHMRK�WXVEXIKMIW�SZIVEPP��]IX�
EPP�I\TIVMIRGIH�XLI�WEQI�WIRWI�SJ�RIIH�JSV�XLI�VIFYMPHMRK��[LIXLIV�F]�E�QSHIVRMWX�
approach or historicist approach. Each city felt the drive to create and rebuild a better
XSQSVVS[�JSV�MXW�GMXM^IRW��RS�QEXXIV�XLI�WTIGMÁG�GMVGYQWXERGIW�XLEX�PIH�XLIQ�XS�MX��-X�MW�
17
JVSQ�XLIWI�HMJJIVIRX�VIFYMPHMRK�WXVEXIKMIW�XLEX�GLYVGL�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�ERH�TVIWIVZEXMSR�
XSSO�MXW�GYIW��'LYVGL�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�TPERW�[IVI�JSYRHIH�SR�IMXLIV�XLI�GSRÂMGX�SV�
GSRJSVQERGI�XS�XLI�GMX][MHI�TPERW���
%JXIV�HMWGYWWMRK�XLI�VIFYMPHMRK�WXVEXIKMIW�SJ�IEGL�GMX]�-�[MPP�TPEGI�XLI�VIFYMPHMRK�
MR�XLI�GSRXI\X�SJ�XLI�0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX�EW�MX�VIPEXIW�XS�GLYVGL�HIWMKR�WTIGMÁGEPP]��
-R�EHHMXMSR�XS�VIEGXMRK�XS�GMX][MHI�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�TPERW��GLYVGLIW�EPWS�LEH�XS�JYPÁPP�
XLI�GLERKMRK�PMXYVKMGEP�RIIHW�XLEX�[IVI�WYVJEGMRK�EW�E�VIWYPX�SJ�XLI�QSZIQIRX��8LI�
QSZIQIRX��FIKMRRMRK�MR�XLI�IEVP]�X[IRXMIXL�GIRXYV]��GEYWIH�E�VIRI[IH�JSGYW�SR�XLI�
physical unity between clergy and congregation. This focus affected the interior space
TPERRMRK�SJ�XLI�)YGLEVMWX�GIPIFVEXMSR�ERH�XLYW�XLI�EPXEV�TPEGIQIRX�[MXLMR�XLI�GLYVGL��
%�QSVI�GIRXVEPM^IH�EPXEV�[EW�WIIR�XS�IRGSYVEKI�GSQQYRMX]�TEVXMGMTEXMSR�[LMGL��MR�
XYVR��MRÂYIRGIH�SZIVEPP�GLYVGL�HIWMKR�ERH�WLMJXIH�TPERRMRK�JVSQ�XLI�XVEHMXMSREP�
0EXMR�'VSWW�TPER�XS�E�GIRXVEPM^IH�HIWMKR��8LI�QSZIQIRX�QIVKIH�[MXL�XLI�TSWX�[EV�
VIFYMPHMRK�GEQTEMKRW�ERH�EPPS[IH�XLI�TYFPMG�XS�I\TVIWW�XLIMV�RIIH�XS�QSZI�JSV[EVH�
EJXIV�XLI�[EV��EW�[IPP�EW�XLIMV�HIWMVI�XS�VIGSRRIGX�[MXL�IEGL�SXLIV�SR�E�QSVI�TIVWSREP�
FEWMW�ERH�GVIEXI�XLIMV�FIXXIV�XSQSVVS[��XSKIXLIV��8LMW�MRÂYIRGI�MW�WIIR�EX�'SZIRXV]�
'EXLIHVEP�EW�[IPP�EW�7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR�EW�FSXL�GLYVGLIW�FYMPX�RI[�WXVYGXYVIW�
ERH�GSYPH�IQFSH]�XLI�RI[�MHIEW�WYVVSYRHMRK�XLI�0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX��
Le Havre, France
0I�,EZVI�[EW�LIEZMP]�FSQFIH�FIX[IIR������ERH�������8LI�ÁVWX�FSQFMRK�F]�
XLI�+IVQERW�MR�������EPSRK�[MXL�XLI�6S]EP�%MV�*SVGI��6%* �FSQFMRKW�MR�����´�
EQSRK�XLI�LIEZMIWX�SJ�XLI�%PPMIH�EMV�VEMHW�MR�XLI�GSYRXV]´�HIWXVS]IH�ER�IWXMQEXIH�
82 percent of the city by the end of the war.1�6ESYP�(EYXV]��(I�+EYPPI¸W�QMRMWXIV�JSV�
VIGSRWXVYGXMSR��ETTSMRXIH�*VIRGL�EVGLMXIGX�%YKYWXI�4IVVIX�GLMIJ�EVGLMXIGX�JSV�XLI�
1 /RETT��%RHVI[��µ(IWXVYGXMSR�ERH�0MFIVEXMSR�SJ�0I�,EZVI�MR�1SHIVR�1IQSV]�¶�War in History. 14.4 ����� �������;IF�����.ER�������
18
VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�SJ�0I�,EZVI�MR�������4IVVIX�GVIEXIH�XLI�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�TPER�JSV�XLI�
GMX]�ERH�ETTVSEGLIH�XLI�VIFYMPHMRK�[MXL�E�XSXEPP]�QSHIVR�QMRHWIX��8LI�VIFYMPHMRK�
TVSGIWW�XSSO����]IEVW�XS�GSQTPIXI�ERH�[EW�µYRPMOI�XLI�SPH�MR�EPQSWX�IZIV]�VIWTIGX�¶2�0I�
,EZVI��XLIR��MW�E�TVMQI�I\EQTPI�SJ�XLI�QSHIVRMWX�ETTVSEGL�XS�VIFYMPHMRK��7MQMPEV�XS�
4P]QSYXL��XLI�GMX]�GLSWI�XS�EHSTX�E�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�ETTVSEGL�XLEX�PSSOIH�XS�XLI�JYXYVI�
ERH�FYMPX�GSRXIQTSVEV]�FYMPHMRKW�XS�EPMKR�[MXL�XLIMV�MHIEW�EFSYX�GVIEXMRK�E�FIXXIV��
WXVSRKIV�GMX]��4IVVIX¸W�GMX]�TPER�ERH�LMW�HIWMKR�JSV�XLI�QSHIVRMWX�GLYVGL��7X��.SWITL��
VITVIWIRXW�SRI�VIFYMPHMRK�VSYXI�[LMGL�QERMJIWXIH�MXWIPJ�MR�XLI�QSHIVRMWX�HIWMKR�SJ�XLI�
IRXMVI�GMX]�EW�[IPP�EW�XLI�GLYVGL��QYGL�PMOI�XLI�HIWMKR�SJ�7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR��WII�
-QEKIW���ERH�� �
4IVVIX��ORS[R�JSV�LMW�VIMRJSVGIH�GSRGVIXI�GSRWXVYGXMSR��WXYHMIH�EX�XLI�École des
&IEY\�%VXW��4EVMW�FYX�PIJX�FIJSVI�VIGIMZMRK�E�HMTPSQE�XS�NSMR�LMW�JEQMP]�FYWMRIWW� The
TPER�4IVVIX�ERH�LMW�XIEQ�GVIEXIH�[EW�µGSWX�IJJIGXMZI��KVERHMSWI��KIRIVEPP]�[IPP�FYMPX��
ERH�EVGLMXIGXYVEPP]�GSLIVIRX�¶��8LI�TPER�GEPPIH�JSV�E�KVMH�XLEX�GSZIVIH�����LIGXEVIW��
MRGSVTSVEXIH�WSQI�WYVZMZMRK�LMWXSVMG�FYMPHMRKW�ERH�GVIEXIH�RI[�µXVEJÁG�EVXIVMIW¶�
XS�EGGSYRX�JSV�XLI�QSHIVR�XVEJÁG�ÂS[�4�-R�EHHMXMSR�XS�XLI�QEWXIV�TPER��4IVVIX�EPWS�
HIWMKRIH�XLI�,|XIP�HI�:MPPI�ERH�XLI�'LYVGL�SJ�7X��.SWITL�MR�0I�,EZVI��FSXL�MR������
-R�������The New York Times�[VSXI�XLEX�0I�,EZVI�[EW�µXLI�QSWX�VIGSRWXVYGXIH�
GMX]�MR�XLI�[SVPH¶�EW�[IPP�EW�µXLI�QSWX�QSHIVR�XS[R�MR�)YVSTI�¶5�4IVVIX¸W�TPER�[EW�
GSRXVSZIVWMEP�EX�XLI�XMQI�ERH�SRI�*VIRGL�NSYVREPMWX�WXEXIH��µXLI�SRP]�EIWXLIXMG�LSTI�
JSV�0I�,EZVI�MW�ERSXLIV�[EV�ERH�ER�EXSQ�FSQF�¶6�8LI�'LYVGL�SJ�7X��.SWITL�[EW�GEPPIH�
2� �/RETT������������ Knapp,������4 µ0I�,EZVI��XLI�'MX]�6IFYMPX�F]�%YKYWXI�4IVVIX�¶UNESCO: World Heritage List��92)7'3�;SVPH�,IVMXEKI�'IRXVI��;IF�����.ER������5 0I�,EZVI�6IFYMPX�EW�'MX]�SJ�'IQIRX��1SHIVR�6IMRJSVGIH�'SRGVIXI�SJ�%YKYWXI�Perret Stirred a Sharp 'SRXVSZIVW]�¶�New York Times. ���7IT�����������;IF�����.ER�������6 -FMH�
��
µEPQSWX�FPEWTLIQSYW¶�F]�XLSWI�MR�XLI�GMX]�[LS�[IVI�QSVI�GSQJSVXEFPI�[MXL�XLI�
QIHMIZEP�GEXLIHVEPW�SJ�XLI�TEWX��WII�-QEKI�� �7�&]������XLI�GMXM^IRW�SJ�0I�,EZVI�LEH�
[EVQIH�YT�XS�XLI�RI[�HIWMKRW�SJ�XLI�GMX]��TEVXMGYPEVP]�XLI�'MX]�,EPP��HIWMKRIH�F]�.�)��
8SYVRERX��WII�-QEKI�� �
-R������92)7'3�PMWXIH�XLI�GMX]�EW�E�;SVPH�,IVMXEKI�7MXI��8LI�PMWXMRK�GMXIW�
µYRMX]�ERH�MRXIKVMX]¶�SJ�HIWMKR�EW�TEVX�SJ�MXW�I\GITXMSREP�UYEPMX]�ERH�WXEXIH�XLEX�0I�
,EZVI�MW�µER�SYXWXERHMRK�TSWX�[EV�I\EQTPI�SJ�YVFER�TPERRMRK�ERH�EVGLMXIGXYVI�FEWIH�
SR�XLI�YRMX]�SJ�QIXLSHSPSK]�ERH�XLI�YWI�SJ�TVIJEFVMGEXMSR��XLI�W]WXIQEXMG�YXMPM^EXMSR�SJ�
E�QSHYPEV�KVMH��ERH�XLI�MRRSZEXMZI�I\TPSMXEXMSR�SJ�XLI�TSXIRXMEP�SJ�GSRGVIXI�¶8
0I�,EZVI��WMQMPEV�XS�4P]QSYXL��MQTPIQIRXIH�E�QSHIVRMWX�TPER�XLEX��MR�XYVR��
EJJIGXIH�XLI�HIWMKR�SJ�RI[�ERH�I\MWXMRK�GLYVGLIW��-X�MW�JVSQ�XLMW�QSHIVRMWX�TPER�XLEX�
XLI�HIFEXI�SZIV�'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�MR�4P]QSYXL�FIKER��%W�E�TVIWIVZIH�VYMR��XLI�GLYVGL�
MRXIVJIVIH�[MXL�XLI�RI[�GMX]�TPERW��]IX��E�GSQTVSQMWI�[EW�QEHI�MR�SVHIV�XS�WEZI�XLI�
WXVYGXYVI�EW�E�QIQSVMEP��-R�0I�,EZVI��LS[IZIV��4IVVIX¸W�HIWMKRW�JSV�XLI�RI[�GLYVGL�SJ�
EVI�QSVI�VIQMRMWGIRX�SJ�XLI�QSHIVR�7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR�ERH�'SZIRXV]�'EXLIHVEP��
8LMW�QSHIVRMWX�ETTVSEGL�XS�GMX]�TPERRMRK�[MPP�EPWS�FI�WIIR�MR�'SZIRXV]�ERH�MW�TIVLETW�
SRI�SJ�XLI�VIEWSRW�XLEX�E�QSHIVR�HIWMKRIH�GLYVGL�[EW�QSVI�IEWMP]�FYMPX�EX�'SZIRXV]�
XLER�MR�XLI�LMWXSVMG�'MX]�HMWXVMGX�SJ�0SRHSR��[LIVI�QYGL�SJ�XLI�LMWXSVMG�JEFVMG�[EW�PIJX�
MRXEGX�ERH�[LIVI�7X��&VMHI¸W�'LYVGL�MW�PSGEXIH��
Warsaw, Poland
3R�XLI�SXLIV�WMHI�SJ�XLI�VIFYMPHMRK�WTIGXVYQ�MW�;EVWE[��4SPERH��;EVWE[�
ETTVSEGLIH�VIFYMPHMRK�JVSQ�XLI�LMWXSVMGMWX�TIVWTIGXMZI�ERH�MQTPIQIRXIH�E�GEVIJYP�
TVSKVEQ�XS�VIFYMPH�3PH�8S[R��XLI�LMWXSVMG�GSVI�SJ�XLI�GMX]��9RPMOI�0I�,EZVI��;EVWE[��
7 -FMH�8 µ0I�,EZVI��XLI�'MX]�6IFYMPX�F]�%YKYWXI�4IVVIX�¶UNESCO: World Heritage List��92)7'3�;SVPH�,IVMXEKI�'IRXVI��;IF�����.ER������
��
EW�E�GETMXEP�GMX]��LEH�XLI�EHHIH�TVIWWYVI�SJ�I\IQTPMJ]MRK�E�REXMSR¸W�MHIRXMX]�MR�XLI�
VIFYMPHMRK�TVSGIWW��1YGL�PMOI�XLI�GEWI�WXYH]�SJ�7X��&VMHI¸W�'LYVGL�MR�0SRHSR��
VIFYMPHMRK�EGGSVHMRK�XS�E�LMWXSVMG�HIWMKR�FIGEQI�QSVI�EFSYX�XLI�LMWXSV]�SJ�XLI�GMX]�
XLER�MX�HMH�EFSYX�MXW�JYXYVI��4VSZMRK�XLI�GMX]¸W�VIWMPMIRGI�EJXIV�HIWXVYGXMSR��RSWXEPKME�JSV�
XLI�TEWX��TEXVMSXMWQ�ERH�E�HIXIVQMREXMSR�XS�SZIVGSQI�XLI�HIWXVYGXMSR�[IVI�EPP�JEGXSVW�
EX�TPE]�[LIR�FSXL�;EVWE[�ERH�7X��&VMHI¸W�[IVI�VIFYMPX�
&IX[IIR������ERH�������HYVMRK�XLI�2E^M�SGGYTEXMSR�SJ�XLI�VIKMSR�����TIVGIRX�
SJ�XLI�GMX]¸W�LMWXSVMG�FYMPHMRKW�[IVI�HIWXVS]IH�� The city chose to rebuild the entire
LMWXSVMG�GIRXIV�EMHIH�F]�E�WIRWI�SJ�TEXVMSXMWQ�ERH�ZMGXSV]�SZIV�XLI�IRIQ]��(YVMRK�XLI�
2E^M�SGGYTEXMSR��:EVWSZMER�XS[R�TPERRIVW�GVIEXIH�GSZIVX�EVGLMXIGXYVI�SJÁGIW�EW�[IPP�
EW�WIGVIX�TPERRMRK�HITEVXQIRXW�XS�WXEVX�HIWMKRMRK�XLI�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�SJ�XLIMV�GMX]��
;SVOMRK�SJJ�TVI�;SVPH�;EV�--�TLSXSKVETLW��EW�[IPP�EW�IMKLXIIRXL�GIRXYV]�TEMRXMRKW�
F]�&IVREHS�&IPPSXXS��HIWMKR�JSV�XLI�VIFYMPHMRK�FIKER�XS�IQIVKI��4SPMWL�WSGMEP�WGMIRXMWX��
7XERMWPE[�3WWS[WOM�TVSQSXIH��µMJ�XLI�;EVWE[�GSQQYRMX]�MW�XS�FI�VIFSVR��MJ�MXW�GSVI�
MW�XS�FI�GSRWXMXYXIH�F]�JSVQIV�:EVWSZMERW��XLIR�XLI]�LEZI�XS�FI�KMZIR�FEGO�XLIMV�SPH�
VIFYMPX�;EVWE[�WS�XLEX�XLI]�GER�WII�MR�MX�XLI�WEQI�GMX]�ERH�RSX�E�HMJJIVIRX�XS[R�MR�XLI�
WEQI�WTSX�¶��
-R������7XERMWêE[�0SVIRX^��LIEH�SJ�XLI�(MVIGXSVEXI�+IRIVEP��I\TPEMRIH�XLI�
VIFYMPHMRK�XEGXMG�F]�WXEXMRK��
8LI�IRIQ]�LEH�MRXIRHIH�XS�VE^I�;EVWE[��ERH�RIEVP]�HMH�MX��8LIVIJSVI�MX�[EW�SYV�duty to reWYWGMXEXI�MX��8LI�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�SJ�SPH�;EVWE[�[EW�XLI�PEWX�ZMGXSVMSYW�EGX�MR�XLI�ÁKLX�[MXL�XLI�IRIQ]����XLI�ÁRMWLMRK�XSYGL�SJ�SYV�YRFIRHMRK�WXVYKKPI�EKEMRWX�IRIQ]�ZMSPIRGI��ERH�[EW�WS�LIVSMG�MR�MXW�ZIV]�WXVYKKPIW�JSV�JVIIHSQ�ERH�MRHITIRHIRGI�XLEX�MX�[SYPH�FI�MQTSWWMFPI�XS�SFPMXIVEXI�MXW�LMWXSVMG�EWTIGX��;I�HMH�RSX�[ERX�E�RI[�GMX]�SR�XLI�VYMRW�SJ�ERGMIRX�;EVWE[��;I�[ERXIH�XLI�;EVWE[�of our day and of the future to continue the ancient tradition.11
� 8YRK��%RXLSR]��Preserving the World’s Great Cities: The Destruction and Renewal of the Historic Metropolis. �WX�IH��2I[�=SVO��'PEVOWSR�4SXXIV������������4VMRX��� Tung, 84.11 +PIRHMRRMRK��1MPIW��The Conservation Movement: A History of Architectural Preservation from Antiquity to Modernity��6SYXPIHKI��JSVXLGSQMRK��'LETXIV�����TEKI����4VMRX�
21
8SHE]��XLI�LMWXSVMG�GIRXIV�SJ�;EVWE[�MW�E�92)7'3�;SVPH�,IVMXEKI�WMXI�ERH�MW�
PMWXIH��EW�SJ����� �EW�E�µQIXMGYPSYW�VIWXSVEXMSR�SJ�XLI�3PH�8S[R¶�ERH�ER�µSYXWXERHMRK�
I\EQTPI�SJ�E�RIEV�XSXEP�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�¶12�%W�92)7'3�RSXIW��;EVWE[�MW�E�TVMQI�
I\EQTPI�SJ�TL]WMGEP�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR��WII�-QEKI�� ��8SHE]�QER]�[SYPH�RSX�EKVII�[MXL�
XLI�SVKERM^EXMSR¸W�HIÁRMXMSR�SJ�µQIXMGYPSYW�VIWXSVEXMSR¶�ERH�[SYPH�MRWXIEH�GEPP�XLI�
EVIE�µTEWXMGLI�¶�8LMW�WIRWI�SJ�µTEWXMGLI�¶�SV�E�JIIPMRK�SJ�JEOIV]�ERH�MQMXEXMSR��GSYPH�EPWS�
FI�ETTPMIH�XS�7X��&VMHI¸W�'LYVGL�EW�MX�MW�EPWS�E�GSRXIQTSVEV]�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�FEWIH�SR�
LMWXSVMG�HIWMKRW���&SXL�3PH�8S[R�MR�;EVWE[�ERH�7X��&VMHI¸W�'LYVGL�MR�0SRHSR�[IVI�
VIFYMPX�SYX�SJ�E�WIRWI�SJ�TEXVMSXMWQ��FYX�FSXL�WXVYKKPI�[MXL�GYVVIRX�GVMXMGMWQ�XLEX�WE]W�
XLI]�EVI�MREYXLIRXMG�ERH�PEGO�LMWXSVMG�MRXIKVMX]��
Dresden, Germany
8LI�XLMVH�GEWI�WXYH]��(VIWHIR��+IVQER]��GSQFMRIH�XLI�X[S�ETTVSEGLIW�ERH�
MRXVSHYGIH�GSRXIQTSVEV]�HIWMKR�EW�[IPP�EW�LMWXSVMG�VIGSRWXVYGXMSRW��8LI�6%*�FSQFIH�
(VIWHIR�FIX[IIR�*IFVYEV]�������������MR�E�µVEMH�XLEX�WIVZIH�PMXXPI�GPIEV�QMPMXEV]�
TYVTSWI�FI]SRH�OMPPMRK�QEWWIW�SJ�GMZMPMERW�ERH�SFPMXIVEXMRK�E�W]QFSP�SJ�+IVQER�
GYPXYVI�¶�� -X�[EW�WEMH�XLEX�(VIWHIR�[EW�XEVKIXIH�FIGEYWI�MX�[EW�µXLI�GIRXIV�SJ�E�
VEMP[E]�RIX[SVO�ERH�E�KVIEX�MRHYWXVMEP�XS[R�¶14�8LMW�I\TPEREXMSR�PIJX�QER]�UYIWXMSRMRK�
XLI�QSXMZIW�FILMRH�XLI�EXXEGO�EW�XLI�FSQFMRKW�QSWXP]�LMX�XLI�GMX]�GIRXIV�ERH�QER]�
MRRSGIRX�VIWMHIRXW �̧PMZIW�[IVI�PSWX��
4VMSV�XS�XLI�EMV�VEMHW�SJ�;SVPH�;EV�--��(VIWHIR�LEH�FIIR�ORS[R�EW�E�GYPXYVEP�
GIRXIV�JSV�EVX��EVGLMXIGXYVI�ERH�QYWMG��XLI�XS[R�[EW�TEVXMGYPEVP]�VIGSKRM^IH�JSV�
MXW�QER]�FYMPHMRKW�[MXL�FEVSUYI�ERH�VSGSGS�HIWMKR�MRÂYIRGIW��8LI�XMQI�EJXIV�XLI�
12 µ,MWXSVMG�'IRXVI�SJ�;EVWE[�¶�9RMXIH�2EXMSRW�)HYGEXMSR��7GMIRXMÁG�ERH�'YPXYVEP�3VKERM^EXMSR��92)7'3��;IF�����3GX�������� (MIJIRHSVJ��.IJJV]��In the Wake of War: The Reconstruction of German Cities after World War II��2I[�=SVO��3\JSVH�9RMZIVWMX]�4VIWW�����������4VMRX�14 µ6%*�,MXW�(VIWHIR�,IEZ]�2MKLX�&PS[�¶�New York Times ?2I[�=SVO�'MX]A����*IF���������
22
FSQFMRKW�[EW�WTIRX�VIGSRWXVYGXMRK�QER]�SJ�XLIWI�FYMPHMRKW�[LMPI��EX�XLI�WEQI�XMQI��
VE^MRK�XLI�VIQRERXW�SJ�SXLIVW��%PXLSYKL�WSQI�FYMPHMRKW��WYGL�EW�XLI�7IQTIVSTIV�
ERH�>[MRKIV�4EPEGI�[IVI�VIFYMPX�FIJSVI�+IVQER�YRMÁGEXMSR��SXLIVW�[IVI�VE^IH�ERH�
VIHIZIPSTIH��WII�-QEKI�� ��8LI�>[MRKIV��FYMPX�MR������HYVMRK�XLI�VIMKR�SJ�%YKYWXYW�
XLI�7XVSRK��[EW�VIGSRWXVYGXIH�EX�E�ZIV]�IEVP]�HEXI�EJXIV�XLI�[EV��%R�EVXMGPI�JVSQ������
WXEXIH�XLEX�HYI�XS�µVIEWSRW�SJ�TVSTEKERHE¶�XLI�FYMPHMRK�[EW�VIFYMPX�µSR�MXW�SPH�PMRIW¶�
ERH�GSTMIH�µMXW�JSVQIV�JIEXYVIW�XS�XLI�QMRYXIWX�HIXEMPW�¶15�(IWTMXI�XLI�PEGO�SJ�FYMPHMRK�
QEXIVMEPW�ERH�GSRWXVYGXMSR�FYMPHIVW��XLI�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�[EW�GSQTPIXIH�MR�������3XLIV�
TEVXW�SJ�XLI�GMX]��PMOI�XLI�4VEKIV�7XVEWWI��GSRWMWXIH�SJ�RI[��QSHIVRMWX�GSRWXVYGXMSR��WII�
-QEKI�� ��
� -R������ER�I\LMFMXMSR��µ(EW�RIYI�(VIWHIR�¶�STIRIH�[MXL�ZEVMSYW�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�
TVSTSWEPW�HIWMKRIH�F]�EVGLMXIGXW��%YXLSV�1EVO�.EV^SQFIO�WXEXIH�XLEX�XLI�QSSH�SJ�XLI�
GMX]�HYVMRK�XLI�XMQI�[EW�µSTXMQMWXMG�¶16�%�GSQTIXMXMSR�[EW�LIPH�MR������ERH�,IVFIVX�
7GLRIMHIV¸W�QSHIVRMWX�TPER�IRXV]�[SR�MR�������8LI�HIWMKR�WYFQMWWMSRW�JSV�XLI�GMX]¸W�
GIRXVI�LEH�µPMXXPI�VIKEVH�JSV�XLI�GMX]¸W�TEWX¶�ERH�HMWVIKEVHIH�LMWXSVMG�WXVIIX�ERH�PSX�PMRIW�
17�&]�.YRI������7GLRIMHIV¸W�TPER�[EW�ETTVSZIH��8LI�TPER�EPXIVIH�XLI�QEMR�GMX]�E\MW�
JVSQ�E�RSVXL�WSYXL�SVMIRXEXMSR�XS�ER�IEWX�[IWX�HMVIGXMSR��8LI�7SGMEPMWX�EVGLMXIGXYVI�
GSRWXVYGXIH�HYVMRK�XLMW�XMQI��EW�TEVX�SJ�XLI�TPER��[EW�PEXIV�WPERHIVIH�ERH�MW�TSWWMFP]�E�
VIEWSR�JSV�MX�FIMRK�µVIJYVFMWLIH��GSRGIEPIH��SV��QSVI�PMOIP]��VITPEGIH¶�MR�PEXIV�]IEVW�18
8LI�LMWXSVMG�*VEYIROMVGLI�[EW�SRI�SJ�XLI�JEQIH�PERHQEVOW�HIWXVS]IH�MR�
XLI�6%*�EXXEGO��WII�-QEKI�� ��-XW�HIWXVYGXMSR�ERH�WYFWIUYIRX�VIFYMPHMRK�JSVQW�
XLI�JVEQI[SVO�JSV�XLI�VIFYMPHMRK�GEQTEMKR�SJ�(VIWHIR��&YMPX�FIX[IIR������ERH�
������YRHIV�XLI�GSRWXVYGXMSR�WYTIVZMWMSR�SJ�+ISVKI�&mLV��XLI�GLYVGL¸W�MGSRMG�HSQI�
15 (MIJIRHSVJ�������16� �.EV^SQFIGO��1EVO��µ9VFER�,IXIVSPSK]��(VIWHIR�ERH�XLI�(MEPIGXMGW�SJ�4SWX�8VEYQEXMG�,MWXSV]�¶�Studies in Theorectical and Applied Aesthetics��������������� ������4VMRX�17 (MIJIRHSVJ�������18� �.EV^SQFIGO�����
��
WLETIH�VSSJ�WIVZIH�EW�E�PERHQEVO�SR�XLI�GMX]¸W�WO]PMRI��8LI�MHIE�XS�VIGSRWXVYGX�XLI�
GLYVGL�FEWIH�SR�MXW�LMWXSVMG�HIWMKR�GEQI�WSSR�EJXIV�XLI�FSQFMRK�MR������FYX�E�PEGO�
SJ�ÁRERGMRK�ERH�PMXXPI�KSZIVRQIRX�MRXIVIWX�LEPXIH�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�TPERW��&IX[IIR�
XLI�FSQFMRK�ERH�XLI�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�TSWX�YRMÁGEXMSR��XLI�WMXI�FIGEQI�µE�QSRYQIRX�
SJ�[EVRMRK��8LI�TS[IVPIWW�MR�XLI�GSYRXV]�LEH�XEOIR�SZIV�XLI�GLYVGL�ERH�XYVRIH�MX�
MRXS�E�TPEGI�SJ�WMPIRX�TVSXIWX�EKEMRWX�ZMSPIRGI�ERH�HIWTSXMWQ�¶���2SX�YRXMP�XLI�&IVPMR�
;EPP�GEQI�HS[R�MR������HMH�XLI�VIFYMPHMRK�FIKMR�EKEMR��WII�-QEKI�� ��8LIWI�TSPMXMGEP�
YRHIVTMRRMRKW��IWTIGMEPP]�TSWX�VIYRMÁGEXMSR��[IVI�RSX�EW�MQTSVXERX�MR�XLI�SXLIV�GEWI�
WXYHMIW�ERH�EPPS[�YW�XS�WII�XLI�MQTEGX�XLEX�E�WLMJX�MR�TSPMXMGW�GER�LEZI�SR�E�WMXI�WYGL�EW�
XLI�*VEYIROMVGLI�
� -R������92)7'3�TPEGIH�XLI�(VIWHIR�)PFI�:EPPI]�SR�XLI�;SVPH�,IVMXEKI�
7MXI�PMWX��8LI�WMXI�[EW�WYFWIUYIRXP]�HIPMWXIH�MR������EJXIV�GSRWXVYGXMSR�SJ�XLI�
;EPHWGLP}WWGLIR�&VMHKI�FIKER�MR�������8LI�FVMHKI��[LMGL�92)7'3�WEMH�[SYPH�
µMVVITEVEFP]�GYX�SJJ�XLI�&EVSUYI�GIRXVI�[MXL�XLI�)PFI¸W�ÂSSH�TPEMRW�¶�[EW�HIIQIH�
RIGIWWEV]�MR�VIHYGMRK�XVEJÁG�GSRKIWXMSR�MR�XLI�GMX]����(VIWHIR��EW�E�GSQFMREXMSR�
SJ�FSXL�E�QSHIVRMWX�GMX]�TPER�ERH�LMWXSVMG�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR��MW�WMQMPEV�XS�'SZIRXV]�
'EXLIHVEP�XLEX�TVIWIVZIH�XLI�SPH�GLYVGL�VYMRW�ERH�FYMPX�E�GSRXIQTSVEV]�WXVYGXYVI�
EHNEGIRX��'SZIRXV]�MW�EVKYEFP]�XLI�QSWX�WYGGIWWJYP�SJ�XLI�GEWI�WXYHMIW�EW�MX�EPPS[W�XLI�
ZMWMXSV�XS�EHIUYEXIP]�VIQIQFIV�XLI�[EV�ERH�HIWXVYGXMSR�ZME�XLI�VYMRW�FYX�EPWS�PSSOW�
XS�XLI�JYXYVI�[MXL�XLI�EHNEGIRX�RI[�FYMPHMRK��-�[SYPH�EVKYI�XLIR�XLEX�(VIWHIR�EPWS�
LEH�SRI�SJ�XLI�QSVI�WYGGIWWJYP�TSWX�[EV�VIFYMPHMRK�GEQTEMKRW�EW�MX�MQTPIQIRXIH�E�
RI[�GMX]�TPER�XS�QIIX�XLI�GYVVIRX�RIIHW�SJ�XLI�TSTYPEXMSR�FYX�VIFYMPX�MXW�WMKRMÁGERX�
FYMPHMRKW�MR�ER�EXXIQTX�XS�VIGETXYVI�E�TVI�[EV�[SVPH��
�� .mKIV��;SPJVEQ��µ%�7LSVX�7YQQEV]�SJ�XLI�,MWXSV]�SJ�XLI�*VEYIROMVGLI�MR�(VIWHIR�¶�Construction and Building Materials������������ �������;IF�����.ER��������� µ(VIWHIR�0SWIW�92)7'3�;SVPH�,IVMXEKI�7XEXYW�¶�Local: Germany’s News in English.����.YR�������;IF�����%TV������
24
London, England
8LI�ÁREP�GEWI�WXYH]�PSSOW�EX�XLI�TPERRMRK�SJ�0SRHSR�EJXIV�XLI�HIWXVYGXMSR�SJ�
XLI�����������FPMX^��WTIGMÁGEPP]�EX�XLI�µ'SYRX]�SJ�0SRHSR�4PER¶�XLEX�[EW�TVITEVIH�MR�
�����JSV�XLI�0SRHSR�'MX]�'SYRGMP�F]�.�,��*SVWLE[��%VGLMXIGX�XS�XLI�0SRHSR�'SYRX]�
'SYRGMP�ERH�4EXVMGO�%FIVGVSQFMI��4VSJIWWSV�SJ�8S[R�4PERRMRK�EX�XLI�9RMZIVWMX]�
'SPPIKI�MR�0SRHSR��8LMW�[EW�XLI�ÁVWX�GSQTVILIRWMZI�GMX]�TPER�WMRGI�;VIR¸W�HIWMKR�
EJXIV�XLI������ÁVI��-R�XLI�TVIEQFPI�SJ�XLI�TPER��XLI�EYXLSVW�HIFEXIH�[LMGL�QIXLSH�
XLI]�WLSYPH�GLSSWI�ERH�EWOIH�µEVI�[I�XS�GPIEV�XLI�WMXI�SJ�0SRHSR¬�GER�[I�GSRWMHIV�
XLI�WMXI�EW�XLI�6SQERW�WE[�MX�[LIR�XLI]�TPERRIH�SYV�QSWX�HMVIGX�VSEHW#¶�8LI]�PEXIV�
EWOIH�µSV�EVI�[I�XS�IRHIEZSV�XS�VIXEMR�XLI�SPH�WXVYGXYVI��[LIVI�HMWGIVRMFPI��ERH�QEOI�MX�
[SVOEFPI�YRHIV�QSHIVR�GSRHMXMSRW#�-X�MW�YTSR�XLMW�FEWMW��VIKEVHIH�F]�YW�EW�EX�SRGI�XLI�
QSWX�TVSQMWMRK�ERH�QSWX�TVEGXMGEP��XLEX�XLI�TVIWIRX�4PER�MW�HVE[R�¶21
0SRHSR�[EW�EPVIEH]�I\TIVMIRGMRK�E�PYPP�MR�HIZIPSTQIRX�EW�XLI�TSTYPEXMSR�
[EW�WLMJXMRK�SYX�SJ�XLI�GMX]�ERH�E�PEVKI�RYQFIV�SJ�FYMPHMRKW�[IVI�FIMRK�HIWXVS]IH�
SV�LIEZMP]�HEQEKIH�F]�EMV�EXXEGOW��8LI�EYXLSVW�RSXIH�XLEX�XLIVI�[IVI�JSYV�HIJIGXW�MR�
XLIR�TVIWIRX�HE]�0SRHSR��XVEJÁG�GSRKIWXMSR��HITVIWWIH�LSYWMRK��MREHIUYEG]�ERH�
QMWHMWXVMFYXMSR�SJ�STIR�WTEGIW��ERH�MRHMWGVMQMREXI�^SRMRK��%RSXLIV�HIJIGX�[EW�XLI�
GSRXMRYIH�SYX[EVH�WTVE[P�SJ�XLI�GMX]�XLEX�[EW�PIEHMRK�XS�XLI�WYFYVFERM^EXMSR�SJ�XLI�
SYXP]MRK�GSYRXV]�XS[RW��8S�GSQFEX�XLI�XVEJÁG�ERH�^SRMRK�TVSFPIQW��%FIVGVSQFMI�ERH�
*SVWLE[�TVSTSWIH�E�RI[�VSEH�W]WXIQ�XLEX�YXMPM^IH�E�VMRK�VSEH�[MXL�MRXIVMSV�VEHMEP�
VSEHW�XLEX�GSRRIGXIH�ZEVMSYW�TVIGMRGXW�ERH�[SYPH�FI�VI^SRIH�JSV�WTIGMÁG�YWIW�WYGL�EW�
MRHYWXV]�SV�VIWMHIRXMEP��WII�-QEKI�� � 22�;I�[MPP�WII�XLEX�%FIVGVSQFMI¸W�TPER�JSV�0SRHSR�
[EW�WMQMPEV�XS�LMW�TPER�JSV�4P]QSYXL�ERH�'SZIRXV]¸W�'MX]�%VGLMXIGX��(SREPH�+MFWSR¸W�
TPER�JSV�'SZIRXV]��%PP�TVSTSWIH�VSEH�VIHIZIPSTQIRX�XLEX�MRGSVTSVEXIH�ER�SYXIV�VMRK�
21 *SVWLE[��.�,���ERH�4EXVMGO�%FIVGVSQFMI��County of London Plan��0SRHSR��1EGQMPPER�ERH�'S���0XH��������������4VMRX��22 *SVWLE[����
25
VSEH�[MXL�GSRRIGXMRK�MRRIV�VSEHW�XS�WIVZI�XLI�YWI�WTIGMÁG�TVIGMRGXW��WII�-QEKIW�
������ERH�� ��8VEJÁG�TPERRMRK�EW�TEVX�SJ�E�GMX][MHI�TPER�KVIEXP]�MRÂYIRGIH�TSWX�[EV�
VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�ERH�WTIGMÁGEPP]�XLI�HIGMWMSRW�FILMRH�XLI�'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�TVIWIVZEXMSR��
8VEJÁG�TPERRMRK�[EW�SJXIR�EX�SHHW�[MXL�TVIWIVZEXMSR�ERH�MW�TEVX�SJ�XLI�VIEWSR�[L]�
'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�WMXW�SR�ER�MREGGIWWMFPI�XVEJÁG�VSYRHEFSYX��
-R�EHHMXMSR��XLI�GMX]�JEGIH�E�LERHJYP�SJ�SXLIV�TVIWWMRK�GSRGIVRW�MRGPYHMRK�RI[��
QSHIVRMWX�LMKL�VMWI�LSYWMRK��STIR�WTEGIW��XLI�HIZIPSTQIRX�SJ�XLI�7SYXL�&ERO�EW�E�
GYPXYVEP�GIRXIV��XLI�*IWXMZEP�SJ�&VMXEMR�ERH�RI[�VSEH�GSRWXVYGXMSR��8LIWI�[IVI�XLI�ÁVWX�
MWWYIW�EHHVIWWIH�TSWX�[EV����8LI������*IWXMZEP�SJ�&VMXEMR�SJJIVIH�E�KPMQTWI�MRXS�E�JYXYVI�
SJ�µPMKLX��QSHIVRMX]�ERH�JYR¶�[MXL�MHIEW�XLEX�[IVI�MRXIRHIH�XS�PMJX�XLI�TYFPMG¸W �̧WTMVMXW�
ERH�GIPIFVEXI�&VMXEMR¸W�TSWX�[EV�VIWMPMIRGI�ERH�EGLMIZIQIRXW�24
8LI�0SRHSR�TPER�VIGSKRM^IH�XLI�µKVIEX�[IEPXL¶�SJ�LMWXSVMG�FYMPHMRKW�[MXLMR�
XLI�GMX]�ERH�XLI�RIIH�JSV�WTIGMEP�GSRWMHIVEXMSR�[LIR�HIEPMRK�[MXL�XLIQ��8LI�EYXLSVW�
WXEXIH�XLEX�E�µ0SRHSR�HIRYHIH�SJ�XLIWI�FYMPHMRKW�[SYPH�FI�ZEWXP]�TSSVIV�¶25 The
plan encouraged preservation of the surviving historic buildings and called for
WTIGMEP�EXXIRXMSR�XS�XLI�GLYVGLIW�MR�XLI�'MX]��XLI�LMWXSVMG�GSVI�SJ�0SRHSR��(YI�
XS�XLI�EWWSGMEXMSR�[MXL�'LVMWXSTLIV�;VIR��XLI�'MX]�'LYVGLIW�[IVI�LIPH�MR�QYGL�
LMKLIV�VIKEVH��%W�WYGL��XLI�'MX]�'LYVGLIW�[IVI�VIGSQQIRHIH�JSV�TVIWIVZEXMSR�ERH�
VIGSRWXVYGXMSR��8LI�EYXLSVW�EPWS�WYKKIWXIH�MRGSVTSVEXMRK�GSQQYRMX]�GIRXIVW�MRXS�
GLYVGLIW�XS�EMH�MR�SZIVEPP�RIMKLFSVLSSH�HIZIPSTQIRX��
-R�EHHMXMSR�XS�XLI�'SYRX]�SJ�0SRHSR�4PER��XLI������8S[R�ERH�'SYRXV]�
4PERRMRK�%GX�[EW�EPWS�TYFPMWLIH�ERH�SRI�MR�E�WIVMIW�SJ�EGXW�TEWWIH�XS�EMH�MR�XLI�JYXYVI�
TPERRMRK�ERH�VIHIZIPSTQIRX�SJ�[EV�HEQEKIH�EVIEW�[MXLMR�)RKPERH��8LI�EGX�TVSZMHIH�
�� *SVWLE[�����24 0SRK��4LMPMT��ERH�.ERI�8LSQEW� Basil Spence: Architect��)HMRFYVKL��2EXMSREP�+EPPIVMIW�SJ�7GSXPERH�MR�EWWSGMEXMSR�[MXL�XLI�6S]EP�'SQQMWWMSR�SR�XLI�%RGMIRX�ERH�,MWXSVMGEP�1SRYQIRXW�SJ�7GSXPERH������������Print.25 *SVWLE[������
26
JSV�1MRMWXIVMEP�ETTVSZEP�SJ�FYMPHMRKW�GSRXEMRMRK�µWTIGMEP�EVGLMXIGXYVEP�SV�LMWXSVMG�
MRXIVIWX�¶26�7IGXMSR����SJ�XLI�%GX�[IRX�JYVXLIV�ERH�KEZI�TS[IV�XS�PSGEP�EYXLSVMX]�XS�
EGUYMVI�XLIWI�WMXIW�JSV�XLI�µTVSTIV�GSRXVSP�SV�QEREKIQIRX¶�SJ�XLI�FYMPHMRKW�27�8LI�%GX�
EPWS�TVSLMFMXIH�XLI�HIQSPMXMSR�SJ�ER]�FYMPHMRKW�SR�XLI�PMWX�SV�EPXIVEXMSRW�XLEX�[SYPH�
µWIVMSYWP]�EJJIGX�XLI�GLEVEGXIV¶�SJ�XLI�FYMPHMRKW�28
� 3ZIVEPP��XLI�QEMR�XLIQIW�XLEX�EVI�TVIWIRX�MR�XLI�EFSZI�GEWI�WXYHMIW�EPWS�ETTIEV�
MR�XLI�JSYV�WTIGMÁG�GLYVGL�GEWI�WXYHMIW�XLEX�[MPP�JSPPS[�MR�XLI�WYFWIUYIRX�GLETXIVW��
%�QENSV�XLIQI�MW�XLI�TVIWWMRK�RIIH�XS�QSHIVRM^I�GMXMIW�XLVSYKL�XLIMV�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�
TPERW��-R�XIVQW�SJ�'LEVPIW�'LYVGL��XLMW�YPXMQEXIP]�PIJX�ER�MREGGIWWMFPI�LMWXSVMG�
VYMR�MR�XLI�QMHHPI�SJ�E�VSYRHEFSYX�JSV�XLI�WEOI�SJ�XVEJÁG�GSRXVSP��-R�'SZIRXV]��XLI�
QSHIVR�GMX]�TPER�EPPS[IH�JSV�GSRXIQTSVEV]�WXVYGXYVIW�WYGL�EW�'SZIRXV]�'EXLIHVEP�
XS�FI�GSRWXVYGXIH�[MXLMR�XLI�GSRXI\X�SJ�XLIMV�RI[�GMX]��0SRHSR�GMX]�TPERRIVW�WE[�
XLI�RIIH�JSV�FSXL�TVIWIVZEXMSR�ERH�QSHIVRM^EXMSR��EW�HIQSRWXVEXIH�MR�7X��&VMHI¸W�
VIGSRWXVYGXMSR��[LMPI�7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR�[EW�VE^IH�ERH�E�GSRXIQTSVEV]�WXVYGXYVI�
FYMPX�SR�XLI�WEQI�WMXI��8LMW�XLIWMW�[MPP�VIJIV�FEGO�XS�XLMW�XLIQI�EW�XLI�LMWXSV]�SJ�IEGL�
WMXI�MW�HIWGVMFIH�MR�QSVI�MR�HITXL�XLVSYKLSYX�WYFWIUYIRX�GLETXIVW���
Liturgical Movement
-R�EHHMXMSR�XS�GMX][MHI�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�TPERW��XLI�0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX�EPWS�
MQTEGXIH�XLI�HIWMKR�SJ�RI[�GLYVGLIW�FIMRK�GSRWXVYGXIH�XLVSYKLSYX�)YVSTI��0MOI�
SXLIV�FYWMRIWWIW�ERH�GSQQYRMX]�KVSYTW��GLYVGLIW�I\TIVMIRGIH�E�HVEQEXMG�WLMJX�
EJXIV�;SVPH�;EV�--��'LERKMRK�TSTYPEXMSRW��GSRWXVYGXMSR�QIXLSHW��HIWMKR�EIWXLIXMGW�
and views on liturgy contributed to a shifting view on churches and, thus, church
VIGSRWXVYGXMSR��8LI�'LYVGL�SJ�)RKPERH�MXWIPJ��EW�[IPP�EW�XLI�HMSGIWER�ERH�TEVMWL�PIZIPW�
26 ,MPP��,�%��The Town and Country Planning Act, 1944��0SRHSR��&YXXIV[SVXL��'S���0XH�������������4VMRX�27 ,MPP���������28 ,MPP������
27
SJ�XLI�'LYVGL�EPP�LEH�XS�VIWTSRH�XS�FSXL�XLI�TL]WMGEP�ERH�WTMVMXYEP�GLERKIW�XLEX�LEH�
FIIR�XEOMRK�TPEGI�[MXLMR�XLIMV�GSQQYRMXMIW�ERH�GSRKVIKEXMSRW�EW�E�VIWYPX�SJ�;SVPH�
;EV�--���8[S�JSVGIW�EJJIGXIH�XLI�HIWMKRW�SJ�TSWX�[EV�GLYVGLIW��XLI�HIWMVI�JSV�E�W]QFSP�
SJ�VIRI[EP�ERH�VIGSZIV]�TSWX�[EV�ERH�RI[�MHIEW�EFSYX�LS[�GSRXIQTSVEV]�GLYVGLIW�
WLSYPH�JYRGXMSR��&SXL�'SZIRXV]�'EXLIHVEP�ERH�7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR�[IVI�MQTEGXIH�
F]�XLI�QSZIQIRX�
8LI�QSZIQIRX�SVMKMREXIH�MR�XLI�6SQER�'EXLSPMG�'LYVGL�ERH�WYFWIUYIRXP]�
MQTEGXIH�XLI�'LYVGL�SJ�)RKPERH�ERH�SXLIV�4VSXIWXERX�JEMXLW��4STI�4MYW�<��[LS�
WIVZIH�EW�4STI�JVSQ������XS�������IWWIRXMEPP]�FIKER�XLMW�QSZIQIRX�MR�XLI�IEVP]���th
GIRXYV]��,MW�MHIEW�GIRXIVIH�SR�XLI�µKVS[MRK�IWXVERKIQIRX��FSXL�WTMVMXYEP�ERH�WTEXMEP��
FIX[IIR�XLI�GPIVK]�ERH�XLI�GSRKVIKEXMSR�¶���%�)YGLEVMWX�GIPIFVEXMSR�JSGYWMRK�SR�E�
QSVI�GIRXVEPM^IH�EPXEV�PSGEXMSR�[EW�TEVX�SJ�LMW�VIGSQQIRHEXMSR�XS�GSQFEX�XLI�KVS[MRK�
IWXVERKIQIRX�ERH�[EW�WSSR�JIPX�MR�GLYVGL�HIWMKR�MXWIPJ��8LI�µ0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX�¶�
EW�MX�FIGEQI�ORS[R��GEQI�PEXI�XS�&VMXEMR�FYX�EPWS�WSYKLX�E�KVIEXIV�YRMX]�ERH�µJYPPIV�
TEVXMGMTEXMSR¶�FIJSVI�+SH�FIX[IIR�XLI�GSRKVIKEXMSR�ERH�GPIVK]��� The center of liturgy,
XLI�)YGLEVMWX�JSV�[LMGL�XLI�EPXEV�MW�XLI�TL]WMGEP�GIRXIV�SJ�XLI�GIPIFVEXMSR��FIGEQI�SRI�
SJ�XLI�QEMR�GSRGIVRW�MR�RI[�GLYVGL�HIWMKR�ERH�MXW�TPEGIQIRX�[EW�XLYW�EX�XLI�JSVIJVSRX�
SJ�XLI�QSZIQIRX�
4IXIV�,EQQSRH��SVHEMRIH�QMRMWXIV��EVGLMXIGXYVEP�XLISVMWX��[VMXIV�ERH�TVSJIWWSV��
HIWGVMFIH�ER�SZIVEPP�YRMX]�SJ�XLI�GLYVGL�QIQFIVW�[LIR�LI�WEMH��µXLI�GIPIFVEXMSR�
SJ�XLI�)YGLEVMWX�MW�RSX�XLI�I\GPYWMZI�TYVTSWI�SJ�E�GLYVGL��FYX�MX�MW�MR�JEGX�MXW�GLMIJ�
TYVTSWI��8LIVIJSVI�XLI�WTEXMEP�EVVERKIQIRXW�SJ�E�GLYVGL�[MPP�FI�QEHI�TVMRGMTEPP]�
XS�WIVZI�XLI�VIUYMVIQIRXW�SJ�XLI�QEWW��;I�GER�WE]��XLIR��XLEX�XLI�WXVYGXYVI�SJ�XLI�
�� 'LVMWX�.ERIV��%PFIVX��Modern Church Architecture: A Guide to the Form and Spirit of 20th Century Religious Buildings��2I[�=SVO�'MX]��1G+VE[�,MPP������������4VMRX��� /MIGOLIJIV��6MGLEVH��8LISPSK]�MR�7XSRI��'LYVGL�%VGLMXIGXYVI�JVSQ�&]^ERXMYQ�XS�&IVOIPI]��3\JSVH�7GLSPEVWLMT�3RPMRI�����������I&SSO�
28
'LVMWXMER�GSQQYRMX]�EWWIQFPIH�JSV�XLI�GIPIFVEXMSR�SJ�QEWW�HIXIVQMRIW�XLI�WTEXMEP�
SVKERM^EXMSR�SJ�XLI�QEXIVMEP�GLYVGL�¶��
%RSXLIV�MQTEGX�SR�XLI�WTMVMXYEP�ERH�PMXYVKMGEP�MWWYIW�SJ�TSWX�[EV�VIFYMPHMRK�[EW�
XLI�7IGSRH�:EXMGER�'SYRGMP�XLEX�QIX�FIX[IIR�3GXSFIV������ERH�(IGIQFIV�������8LI�
6SQER�'EXLSPMG�'LYVGL¸W�WIVMIW�SJ�QIIXMRKW�LEH�TVSJSYRH�MQTEGXW�SR�GYVVIRX�PMXYVK]�
XLEX�MRÂYIRGIH�XLI�'LYVGL�SJ�)RKPERH��%�QENSV�GSQTSRIRX�SJ�XLMW�GLERKI�KIRIVEXIH�
JVSQ�XLI�MHIE�SJ�E�QSVI�EGXMZI�TEVXMGMTEXMSR�FIX[IIR�XLI�GPIVK]�ERH�GSRKVIKEXMSR��
8LMW�MR�XYVR�VIZIEPIH�MXWIPJ�EVGLMXIGXYVEPP]�MR�XLI�JSVQ�SJ�FVMRKMRK�XLI�µTVMIWX�ERH�
GSRKVIKEXMSR�TL]WMGEPP]�GPSWIV�XSKIXLIV�EVSYRH�XLI�JSGEP�TSMRX�SJ�XLI�EPXEV�¶�� The
'SYRGMP¸W�µ'SRWXMXYXMSR�SR�XLI�7EGVIH�0MXYVK]¶�WXEXIH�XLEX�µXLI�JEMXLJYP¶�WLSYPH�FI�
IRKEKIH�MR�E�µJYPP]�GSRWGMSYW��ERH�EGXMZI�TEVXMGMTEXMSR�MR�PMXYVKMGEP�GIPIFVEXMSRW���¶��
-R�������+�)��/MHHIV�7QMXL��*%-%��[VSXI��µXLIVI�MW�[MXLSYX�UYIWXMSR�RIIH�JSV�
E�QSVI�MRXMQEXI�EQFMERGI��XLER�E�GSPYQR�JSVIWXIH��EXXIRYEXIH�REZI�GER�TVSZMHI��%�
GPSWIV�GPIVK]�GSRKVIKEXMSR�VIPEXMSR�QYWX��SJ�GSYVWI��EJJIGX�XLI�IRXMVI�HIWMKR�SJ�XLI�
GLYVGL�¶���8LIWI�MHIEW�PIH�XS�ER�SZIVEPP�VINIGXMSR�SJ�XLI�XVEHMXMSREP�0EXMR�'VSWW�TPER�
[MXL�E�REZI��WMHI�EMWPIW��XVERWITXW�ERH�E�GVSWWMRK��%�QSVI�STIR��YRMÁIH�ERH�GIRXVEPM^IH�
TPER�XSSO�SZIV��/MHHIV�EVKYIH�JSV�E�TPER�XLEX�XSSO�MRXS�EGGSYRX�XLI�WMXI��GPMQEXI��
RIMKLFSVW�ERH�TVSKVEQ�EW�STTSWIH�XS�XVEHMXMSREP�MHIEW�SJ�GLYVGL�TPERRMRK��XLI�0EXMR�
'VSWW�TPER��JSV�MRWXERGI ��3ZIVEPP�GLYVGL�HIWMKR�GLERKIH�XS�E�QSVI�GIRXVEPM^IH�TPER�
XLEX�TPEGIH�XLI�EPXEV�MR�E�QSVI�TVSQMRIRX�ERH�EGGIWWMFPI�TSWMXMSR�µQIERX�XS�IQTLEWM^I�
XLI�MQTSVXERGI�SJ�KEXLIVMRK�TISTPI�JSV�[SVWLMT�¶���,IVI�XLI�QEMR�JSGYW�[EW�XLI�EPXEV�
�� ,EQQSRH��4IXIV��Towards a Church Architecture��0SRHSR��%VGLMXIGXYVEP�4VIWW�������������4VMRX��� 'LVMWX�.ERIV�������� µ'SRWXMXYXMSR�SR�XLI�7EGVIH�0MXYVK]�¶�Vatican: the Holy See��2�T������(IG�������;IF�����.ER��������� 7QMXL��+)�/MHHIV��The New Churches of Europe��2I[�=SVO��,SPX��6MRILEVX�ERH�;MRWXSR������������Print.�� /MIGOLIJIV������
��
SRGI�EKEMR��FYX�XLMW�XMQI�MX�IQTLEWM^IH�XLI�GSQQYRMX]�EW�STTSWIH�XS�E�WIGPYHIH�EPXEV�
only attainable by the clergy.
,EQQSRH��MR�LMW�FSSO�µ8S[EVHW�E�'LYVGL�%VGLMXIGXYVI�¶�I\TPEMRIH�XLI�
0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX�EW�FEWIH�TYVIP]�MR�HSGXVMREP�ERH�TEWXSVEP�MWWYIW�WYGL�EW�XLI�
VIWYVVIGXMSR��XLI�EGXMZMX]�SJ�XLI�,SP]�7TMVMX��ERH�XLI�FEWMG�XLISPSK]�SJ�XLI�'LYVGL��,I�
EVKYIH�XLEX�XLIWI�JYRHEQIRXEP�MWWYIW�[IVI�EX�XLI�LIEVX�SJ�XLI�TL]WMGEP�XVERWJSVQEXMSRW�
SJ�XLI�GLYVGL�FYMPHMRK��,EQQSRH�EHZSGEXIH�JSV�XLI�HIWMKR�SJ�E�GLYVGL�JVSQ�XLI�
MRWMHI�SYX��JVSQ�YRHIVWXERHMRK�XLIWI�FEWMG�TVMRGMTPIW�SJ�XLI�'LVMWXMER�'LYVGL�ERH�
then�ETTP]MRK�XLIQ�XS�XLI�HIWMKR�SJ�XLI�FYMPHMRK��,I�WXEXIH��
8LI�REWGIRX�PMXYVKMGEP�QSZIQIRX�[EW�FIKMRRMRK�XS�TVSZMHI�XLI�VEHMGEP�XLISPSKMGEP�XLMROMRK�XLEX�[EW�WS�HIWTIVEXIP]�RIIHIH��RSX�SRP]�F]�GLYVGL�EVGLMXIGXW�FYX�F]�EPP�[LS�[IVI�WIIOMRK�XS�IQFSH]�EYXLIRXMG�'LVMWXMER�XVEHMXMSR�MR�JSVQW�SJ�IUYEP�EYXLIRXMGMX]��%VGLMXIGXYVI�[EW�FIKMRRMRK�XS�FI�VIPEXIH�XS�XLISPSK]�ERH�MX�[EW�FIGSQMRK�GPIEV��XLEX�MR�SVHIV�XS�YRHIVWXERH�XLI�TYVTSWI�SJ�the domus ecclesiae,�SRI�QYWX�ÁVWX�WIIO�XS�YRHIVWXERH�XLI�TYVTSWI�SJ�XLI�ecclesia itself.��
8LI�0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX�MR�XLI�GLYVGL�GSMRGMHIH�[MXL�XLI�1SHIVR�1SZIQIRX�
MR�EVGLMXIGXYVI���%VGLMXIGXW�WYGL�EW�0YH[MK�1MIW�ZER�HIV�6SLI��;EPXIV�+VSTMYW�ERH�
%PZEV�%EPXS�[IVI�EX�XLI�JSVIJVSRX�SJ�XLMW�QSZIQIRX��[LMGL�WSYKLX�XS�PSSO�XS[EVH�XLI�
JYXYVI�[MXLSYX�LMWXSVMG�VIJIVIRGIW�SV�TVIGIHIRX�ERH�VIHYGIH�FYMPHMRK�SVREQIRXEXMSR��
8LMW�QSZIQIRX�KEMRIH�TSTYPEVMX]�TSWX�;SVPH�;EV�--�EW�GSQQYRMXMIW�PSSOIH�XS�QSZI�
JSV[EVH�ERH�GVIEXI�E�FIXXIV�XSQSVVS[�EJXIV�XLI�HIWXVYGXMSR�FVSYKLX�SR�F]�[EV��7X��
4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR�I\IQTPMÁIW�XLMW�SZIVPET�MR�GSRNYRGXMSR�[MXL�XLI�µFVEZI�RI[�
[SVPH¶�MHISPSK]�SJ�XLI�TSWX�[EV�VIFYMPHMRK�QSZIQIRX��8LI�HIWMKRIVW��6SFIVX�1EKYMVI�
ERH�/IMXL�1YVVE]��WTIGMÁGEPP]�YXMPM^IH�GSRXIQTSVEV]�PMXYVKMGEP�VIUYMVIQIRXW�XS�MRJSVQ�
their design for the new church. The designers noted that the liturgy was seen as a
µQSZIQIRX�XS[EVHW�XLI�TPEGI�SJ�XLI�EPXEV�ERH�GSQQYRMSR��E�QSZIQIRX�XS[EVHW�XLI�
�� ,EQQSRH���������
��
PMKLX�¶���8LI�GLYVGL�FIGEQI�ORS[R�EW�SRI�SJ�XLI�QSWX�MRÂYIRXMEP�SJ�QSHIVR�&VMXMWL�
churches.��
-R�XLI�JSPPS[MRK�GLETXIVW�-�[MPP�I\TPEMR�MR�KVIEXIV�HIXEMP�XLI�LMWXSV]�ERH�
MRXIVTVIXEXMSRW�WYVVSYRHMRK�IEGL�GEWI�WXYH]�EW�XLI]�VIPEXI�XS�XLI�XLIQIW�HMWGYWWIH�MR�
XLMW�GLETXIV��GMX][MHI�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�TPERW�ERH�XLI�0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX��
�� 1EKYMVI��6SFIVX��ERH�/IMXL�1YVVE]��Modern Churches of the World��(YXXSR�:MWXE������4VMRX��� &MRKLEQ��2IMP��)PEMR�,EV[SSH��IX�EP��The Twentieth Century Church��0SRHSR��6-&%�,IMR^�+EPPIV]�MR�EWWSGMEXMSR�[MXL�XLI�8[IRXMIXL�GIRXYV]�7SGMIX]������������4VMRX�
��
-QEKI����0I�,EZVI�ÁREP�KVSYRH�TPER�ETTVSZIH�F]�PIEH�EVGLMXIGX��%YKYWXI�4IVVIX
��
-QEKI����'LYVGL�SJ�7X��.SWITLImage Courtesy Frans and Banja Mulder
��
-QEKI����8S[R�,EPP��,SXIP�HI�:MPPI Image Courtesy Philippe Alès / Wikimedia Commons
��
-QEKI����;EVWE[������Image Courtesy Jenna Van Aswegen
��
-QEKI����7IQTIVSTIV-QEKI�'SYVXIW]�7IFEWXMER�8IVÂSXL���;MOMQIHME�'SQQSRW
��
-QEKI����4VEKIV�7XVEWWIImage Courtesy Gabriele Delhey / Wikimedia Commons
��
-QEKI����*VEYIROMVGLI�VYMRWImage Courtesy Richard Peter / Wikimedia Commons
��
-QEKI����*VEYIROMVGLIWikimedia Commons
��
-QEKI����(MEKVEQ�SJ�4VSTSWIH�0SRHSR�6SEH�7]WXIQCounty of London Plan
��
-QEKI�����4VSTSWIH�4P]QSYXL�'MX]�'IRXVI�*YRGXMSREP�(MEKVEQA Handbook of the Plymouth Plan
41
-QEKI�����4VSTSWIH�'SZIRXV]�'IRXVEP�%VIE�6IGSRWXVYGXMSR������Coventry Cathedral: Art and Architecture in Post-War Britain
42
Charles Church, Plymouth
43
Introduction
Charles Church is located in Plymouth, a port town on the south coast of
England. This site is an example of a bomb-damaged church that was preserved as
E�QIQSVMEP�XS�XLI�HIWXVYGXMSR�SJ�[EV��8LIVI�[EW�WMKRMÁGERX�GSRXVSZIVW]�WYVVSYRHMRK�
the preservation of the church, as it interfered with various planning schemes such
EW�VSEH�HIWMKR�ERH�XVEJÁG�GSRXVSP��8LI�HIFEXI�PEWXIH�JSV�SZIV����]IEVW�FYX�YPXMQEXIP]�
XLI�GLYVGL�[EW�TVIWIVZIH���8LI�GLYVGL�GYVVIRXP]�WMXW�MR�XLI�QMHHPI�SJ�E�XVEJÁG�
VSYRHEFSYX�ERH�MW�MREGGIWWMFPI�XS�XLI�TYFPMG��WII�-QEKIW���ERH�� ��-R�4P]QSYXL��
the planning, reconstruction, and ultimately the economics surrounding a rebuilt
QSHIVRMWX�GMX]�GIRXIV�[IVI�EX�SHHW�[MXL�XLI�MHIE�SJ�TVIWIVZMRK�XLI�GLYVGL��8LI�XVEJÁG�
planning designed for the new city center was similar to Perret’s plan for Le Havre and
Abercrombie’s plan for London, which proposed an outer ring road with connecting
inner roads. It is from this main road plan that the controversy surrounding Charles
Church is based. Despite this, the public’s outcry and ongoing debate about the site
led to the City Council relenting and deciding to leave the church as a memorial.
First, a look at war memorials before a closer study of Charles Church history:
Bombed Churches as War Memorials��[EW�TVMRXIH�MR����� and contains articles
expressing the opinions of experts on the proposal that some bombed churches be
preserved as war memorials. In one article, the current Dean of St. Paul’s asks
two questions: “what would be the sincerest, most genuine memorials to the dead
of this war… and what is to be the future of the bombed churches in Britain.”�
British architect, Sir Hugh Casson, wrote an article for the book titled “Ruins for
Remembrance” in which he argues for the preservation of ruined churches as war
memorials as they held the potential to “become places of value and great emotional
WMKRMÁGERGI�XS�JYXYVI�KIRIVEXMSRW�¶2 Casson was known for his role as director of
� Bombed Churches as War Memorials��7YVVI]��8LI�%VGLMXIGXYVEP�4VIWW�����������4VMRX��2 Bombed Churches as War Memorials�����
44
EVGLMXIGXYVI�JSV�XLI������*IWXMZEP�SJ�&VMXEMR�EW�[IPP�EW�TVIWMHIRX�SJ�XLI�6S]EP�%GEHIQ]�
SJ�%VXW�JVSQ������������8LI�ÁVWX�WIKQIRX�SJ�XLI�IWWE]�WXEXIW�XLEX�XLI�HIGMWMSR�[SYPH�
fall to the Church and its advisors and would depend on “the state of the building,
the needs of the parish, and the demands of town-planning and economics,” as well
as public opinion.3 Casson gives three options for the future of the ruined church:
“we can rebuild them as they were; we can pull them down and re-use the sites
for other purposes; we can leave them as they are.”4 Casson argues that the “total
disappearance” of these ruined churches “would sever a link with the past, and deprive
us of something which might be precious to posterity” and as such, they should be
preserved as memorials.�
Casson also raises objections to the preservation of church ruins and states that
preservation might only be “sentimental and obstructionist” and that populations are
shifting, people are moving out of the city center, the congregations are dwindling,
and that the sites as potential real estate development opportunities are more valuable
than the church buildings.� Despite this, Casson ultimately claims that a church serves
as more than “disseminating point for religious instruction” and that “to destroy all
this just because it was in the way, or because on Sunday the pews were mostly empty,
is surely indefensible.”� These opposing viewpoints are at the heart of the Charles
Church debate.
Original Building History
Charles Church belongs to the Church of England and lies within the Province
SJ�'ERXIVFYV]�[MXLMR�XLI�(MSGIWI�SJ�)\IXIV��8LI�ÁVWX�QIRXMSR�SJ�XLI�GLYVGL�MW�JSYRH�
3 Bombed Churches as War Memorials����4 Ibid.� Bombed Churches as War Memorials������ Ibid.� Ibid.
��
MR�E������TIXMXMSR�JVSQ�XLI�1E]SV�SJ�4P]QSYXL�ERH����GSWMKRIVW��8LI�KVSYT�[VSXI�
to King Charles I of England advocating for a division in the Plymouth parish. The
city wanted to create a second parish along with a second church as the growing
population thought the city needed another church to support the community.
However, the fact that the King and the town were at religious odds (there was a lack
SJ�4YVMXER�XIEGLMRK�MR�XLI�XS[R�EX�XLI�XMQI �MW�XLI�QSVI�GSQQSRP]�EGGITXIH�VIEWSR�
for the petition. The differences in opinion, the citizens believed, could be solved with
the second church.��*MREPP]��EJXIV�TIXMXMSRMRK�JSV�WIZIR�]IEVW��MR�������XLI�/MRK�HIGVIIH�
that the new church would be built. The two churches, “The Church of Plymouth
called Charles Church” and “The Church of St. Andrew’s in Plymouth” became to two
main places of worship within the community.� The church became known for being
one of the few established churches built during the Commonwealth.
8LI�QEMR�TSVXMSR�SJ�'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�[EW�GSQTPIXIH�MR�������ERH�E�[SSHIR�
WTMVI�[EW�GSRWXVYGXIH�MR�������WII�-QEKIW���ERH�� ��)ZIRXYEPP]�XLI�WTMVI�[EW�XEOIR�
HS[R�ERH�E�WXSRI�SRI�VITPEGIH�MX�MR�������� Bishop Seth Ward of Exeter consecrated
XLI�GLYVGL�MR�7ITXIQFIV�SJ�������KMZMRK�MX�XLI�REQI�SJ�µ'LYVGL�SJ�'LEVPIW¶�ERH�MX�[EW�
thus referred to as Charles Church.���&]�������XLI�GLYVGL�[EW�GSRWMHIVIH�µSRI�SJ�XLI�
ÁRIWX�TSWX�6IJSVQEXMSR�+SXLMG�GLYVGLIW�MR�XLI�OMRKHSQ�¶�� The building, a rare gothic
survival style church, was constructed with limestone ashlar and granite.
� James, Suzanne Aileen Helen. The Life Continues: A History of the Congregation of Charles Church,
Plymouth.�4P]QSYXL��'PEVOI��(SFPI��&VIRHSR�����������4VMRX�� James, 4. �� Worth, R.N. History of Plymouth From the Earliest Period to the Present Time. Plymouth: W. Brenden, �����������4VMRX��� James, 4. �� Worth, 244.
��
WWII History
8LI�GMX]�[EW�HIZEWXEXIH�MR������[LIR�XLI�0YJX[EJJI�XEVKIXIH�4P]QSYXL�
HIWXVS]MRK����GLYVGLIW�ERH�XLI�LSQIW�SJ�XLSYWERHW��EW�[IPP�EW�GMZMG�FYMPHMRKW��PMFVEVMIW�
ERH�XLIEXIVW��WII�-QEKI�� ��%W�ER�MQTSVXERX�TSVX�GMX]��4P]QSYXL�[EW�XEVKIXIH�FIGEYWI�
SJ�XLI�WM^EFPI�REZEP�FEWI�MR�XLI�GMX]��8LI�TVI�[EV�TSTYPEXMSR�[EW���������ERH�F]������
LEH�FIIR�VIHYGIH�XS����������� Despite the devastation, the city set out to recover
quickly and a sense of resilience and resurgence was seen within the population.
As one author wrote, “the centers of Plymouth and Devonport were completely
SFPMXIVEXIH��1ER]�XLSYWERHW�SJ�LSQIW�[IVI�HIWXVS]IH�SV�HEQEKIH��8LI�PSWW�SJ�PMJI�[EW�
tragic in the extreme… But the old spirit remained. Out of the agony of these days, a
resolve was born to rebuild after the War, a city better than the one which had existed
in the past.”�� This resolve to rebuild post-war was seen in all four of the European
city examples from the previous chapter. Although the sentiment was similar for each
city, the outcome, particularly for Charles Church, was unique to the planning and
preservation needs of Plymouth.
%������EVXMGPI�JVSQ�XLI�Western Evening Herald�HEXIH�1EVGL����WXEXIH�XLEX�XLI�
FPMX^�PEWXIH�LSYVW�ERH�FIKER�WLSVXP]�EJXIV�/MRK�+ISVKI�:-�LEH�ZMWMXIH�XLI�GMX]��� An
IWXMQEXIH�����+IVQER�TPERIW�EXXEGOIH�XLI�GMX]�ERH�+IVQER�VEHMS�WXEXIH�XLEX�XLI�VEMH�
was “particularly effective” and that the bombs were “of the heaviest caliber.”�� The
MRGIRHMEV]�FSQFW�HVSTTIH�[IVI�µSRI�SJ�XLI�ÁIVGIWX�SJ�XLI�[EV¶�ERH�µGEQI�HS[R�PMOI�
a hailstorm” on the city.�� One report noted the “fabric of the city was shattered, one-
�� µ%�4PER�JSV�4P]QSYXL��3PH�ERH�2I[�MR�XLI�1EOMRK�SJ�E�1SHIVR�'MX]�¶�4VMRX��� Scotland, Andrew. A Handbook to the Plymouth Plan��0SRHSR��2MWFIX��'S���0XH�������������4VMRX��� µ����¸4PERIW�6EMH�7XEVXW�4P]QSYXL�*MVIW��8LVII�'LYVGLIW��8[S�/MRIQEW��*SYV�,SXIPW��4YFPMG�7LIPXIVW�Hit.” Western Evening Herald ?4P]QSYXLA����1EV�������)ZIRMRK����4VMRX��� Ibid.�� Ibid.
��
third of its property-value destroyed.”��
It was during this blitz that Charles Church suffered the most damage. The
GLYVGL�[EW�IWWIRXMEPP]�KYXXIH��WII�-QEKI�� ��8LI�RIMKLFSVMRK�1SXLIV�'LYVGL�SJ�7X��
Andrew’s was also destroyed, though not to the extent of Charles Church, and was
later rebuilt. In the aftermath, open air services were held in St. Andrew’s Church after
HIFVMW�ERH�VYFFPI�[EW�GPIEVIH��XLI�ÂSSV�µXYVJIH�ERH�FIHW�SJ�FVMKLX�ÂS[IVW�TPERXIH�¶��
8LI�HIGMWMSR�XS�VIFYMPH�GEQI�UYMGOP]�ERH�F]�PEXI�������[LIR�XLI�ÁVWX�1MRMWXIV�SJ�8S[R�
and Country Planning, Lord Reith, visited the city, the City Council had decided that
Plymouth needed a comprehensive plan for the ensuing reconstruction.
Plymouth Reconstruction Plan
The city enlisted Professor Patrick Abercrombie to help prepare a rebuilding
plan. Abercrombie, a well-known town planner, was trained as an architect, worked
as a civic design professor at Liverpool University, and was a town planning professor
at London University. Abercrombie, along with James Paton Watson, then the city
engineer and surveyor of Plymouth, presented a reconstruction plan to the Plymouth
City Council soon after the blitz.
-R�������XLIMV�TVSTSWEP��XMXPIH�µ%�4PER�JSV�4P]QSYXL�¶�FIGEQI�E�GLERGI�JSV�
the city to “repair past errors in lay-out and to create a new Plymouth worthy both
of its fame and its site between the hills and the water.”�� The city boasted a stable
agricultural employment, a shopping hub, a thriving tourism industry and active
military naval base. To enhance these qualities the plan employed a series of precincts,
E�µTSGOIX�WYVVSYRHIH�F]�XVEJÁG�VSYXIW��FYX�WS�HIWMKRIH�XLEX�XLVSYKL�XVEJÁG�MW�IMXLIV�
�� Watson, James Paton. A Plan for Plymouth: The Report Prepared for the City Council. 2nd. Plymouth, )RKPERH��9RHIVLMPP��������Z��4VMRX���� Watson, vi.�� Ibid.
��
impossible or discouraged.”�� These precincts would be grouped by function such as
WLSTTMRK��MRHYWXVMEP��IHYGEXMSREP��LMWXSVMGEP�ERH�GYPXYVEP��WII�-QEKI�� ��4P]QSYXL¸W�RI[��
modernist city plan followed the same ideals that Le Havre did when Auguste Perret
proposed the modernist approach to rebuilding. This choice, in both Le Havre and
Plymouth, demonstrated an excitement for the future and the ability to advance the
city as they attempted to not only repair physical damage and improve upon current
problems but also to repair the emotional trauma by expressing that they would move
on and look to the future, not the past.
Prior to the plan’s implementation, the city was wrought with issues such as
XLI�WLSTTMRK�GIRXIV�KVS[MRK�XSS�FMK�JSV�XLI�REVVS[�WXVIIXW�XS�QEREKI�ERH�XVEJÁG�
congestion that was “already the worst in the West of England.” The Navy also had
HMJÁGYPXMIW�[MXL�E�GVEQTIH�ERH�SZIVGVS[HIH�HSGO]EVH��
The plan proposed the creation of a new city center that would be formed
out of the destruction of the “civic and shopping heart” of the city. Watson and
Abercrombie presented an idea to “rebuild a Centre of really modern design and
on an adequate scale—a re-adaptation of the city’s functions into an orderly and
economic pattern which will ensure that the daily civic and business life of the
city will function smoothly and with less exertion then in the past.”22 Watson and
Abercrombie saw the new city center as an opportunity to integrate the civic, cultural
ERH�FYWMRIWW�HMWXVMGXW�SJ�XLI�GMX]�MRXS�E�GSLIWMZI�GMX]�GIRXIV��WII�-QEKI�� ��8S�HS�
this the plan suggested “treating of the whole central area for planning purposes
as a cleared site except for such few important and still standing buildings as can
FI�[SVOIH�MRXS�XLI�TPER¶�WS�XLI]�GSYPH�VIZEQT�XLI�VSEH�W]WXIQ�XS�VIHYGI�XVEJÁG�
GSRKIWXMSR��WII�-QEKI�� �23�8LI�TPERRMRK�RIIHW�SJ�XLI�GMX]��WTIGMÁGEPP]�XVEJÁG��GEQI�
�� Scotland, Andrew. A Handbook to the Plymouth Plan��0SRHSR��2MWFIX��'S���0XH�������������4VMRX�22 ;EXWSR�����23 ;EXWSR�����
��
before architecture and preservation and are a theme that will be seen throughout the
LMWXSV]�SJ�4P]QSYXL¸W�VIFYMPHMRK��8LI�TPER�GEPPIH�JSV�JYRGXMSR�WTIGMÁG�TVIGMRGXW�XLEX�
[SYPH�FI�WYVVSYRHIH�F]�VSEHW�TVSLMFMXMRK�XLVSYKL�XVEJÁG��[LMGL�[SYPH�EPPS[�JSV�E�
pedestrian friendly area inside the outer roads.
In addition to the new city center, the plan made special mention of the historic
core of the city, the Barbican. Watson and Abercrombie encouraged it to be treated as
E�LMWXSVMG�TVIGMRGX�[MXL�XVEJÁG�VSYXIW�WYVVSYRHMRK�XLI�EVIE��PIEZMRK�XLI�WTEGI�JVII�JSV�
pedestrians. The plan called for the restoration of the historic buildings in the area
ERH�VIHIZIPSTQIRX�SJ�XLI�HMWXVMGX�µXS�JSVQ�E�ÁXXMRK�JVEQI�JSV�XLI�TVMGIPIWW�ERXMUYIW�
which it contains.”24 The streets within the Barbican would be preserved, unlike the
streets of the city center. The authors were against a “faked, exhibitionist pseudo-
antique district” and so advocated for the “reconditioning and reconstruction of the
buildings so what, whilst retaining its historic features… [the precinct] shall possess
those additional communal and personal facilities demanded by modern standards of
living.”�� This treatment of the Barbican is similar to Warsaw’s plan for their Old Town,
yet does not restore to the highly detailed level that is seen in Warsaw.
To do this the plan proposed building a physical wall around the historic core.
The south, west and north sides would enclose historic Plymouth and would run
westwards from the Citadel, then north via the line of the existing Hoe, St. Andrews
and Kinterbury Streets. The wall would eventually turn east towards Charles Church,
giving the church a position of “enhanced importance.”�� This proposed wall was never
actually built.
The plan also suggested rehabilitating the present buildings that were in
good condition, restoring those that had been defaced and re-creating their historic
24 7GSXPERH�������� ;EXWSR������� ;EXWSR�����
��
character features “as not to disturb the existing layout.”�� The plan assumed that St.
Andrew’s Church would “be restored in greater glory than before.”��
As part of the historic Barbican, J. Paton Watson suggested that the ruined
Charles Church be preserved as a war memorial. The plan stated that Charles Church
would be given new prominence in the new plan as it had “suffered severely from
IRIQ]�EGXMSR��FYX�XLI�[EPPW�ERH�XS[IVW�WXMPP�VIQEMR�TVSYH�ERH�HIÁERX�¶�� It also
noted that an open-air church would serve as a “memorial to the forty Churches of
all denominations, which the enemy has destroyed.”�� It suggested that the names of
XLI�ZMGXMQW�SJ�XLI�[EV�FI�µÁXXMRKP]�IRWLVMRIH�YRHIV�GSZIV�[MXLMR�XLIWI�[EPPW�?XSA�FI�E�
centre of historic interest and pilgrimage.”��
Charles Church Preservation
8LI�TPER�[EW�GSRXVSZIVWMEP�WTIGMÁGEPP]�EW�MX�VIPEXIH�XS�'LEVPIW�'LYVGL��8LI�
Council’s Reconstruction Committee wanted to buy the church and demolish
it instead of creating a memorial as the plan suggested. The planning and road
design schemes were seen to be superior to the preservation of the church so it was
eventually suggested to keep the tower and spire in the middle of a newly proposed
roundabout so it would not impeded the implementation of a newly designed road
system.
The authors of the Plan disagreed with the Reconstruction Committee as they
noted the new status and prominence given to Charles Church after the construction
SJ�XLI�[EPP��[LMGL�[EW�RIZIV�FYMPX ��8LI]�WXEXIH�XLEX�µEW�XLI�RI[�GMX]�TPER�KMZIW�XLI�
Church of Charles a position of prominence which it has hitherto lacked… it might
�� ;EXWSR������� ;EXWSR������� 7GSXPERH�������� Ibid.�� Ibid.
��
well become one of the city’s primary features… we suggest that the ruins of this
GLYVGL�FI�GSRWMHIVIH�EW�E�ÁXXMRK�QIQSVMEP�XS�W]QFSPM^I�XLI�GMX]¸W�KVMIJ�ERH�LSRSYV�
in the triumphant survival of the trials of this tragic war.”32 The Plan noted that the
church walls and tower, which survived the Blitz, stood “proudly upreared, defying
both enemy and elements.”33 Watson and Abercrombie noted the success of St.
Andrew’s as an open-air church and enclosed garden and suggested that Charles
'LYVGL�YWI�XLI�WEQI�XEGXMGW�XS�GVIEXI�E�µ+EVHIR�SJ�6IWX�¶34
The Reconstruction Committee’s ideas about Charles Church raised a great
HIFEXI�[MXLMR�XLI�IRXMVI�GSYRXV]�XLEX�[SYPH�PEWX�YRXMP�������-R������XLI�(MSGIWER�
Reconstruction Committee wrote to Plymouth’s Lord Astor clarifying the notes of the
6IGSRWXVYGXMSR�'SQQMXXII�XS�XLI�'MX]�'SYRGMP��µ1]�'SQQMXXII�[MWLIW�MX�XS�FI�GPIEVP]�
understood that there can be no question of retaining the ruins of the Church as a
memorial to Nazi brutality. It is agreed, however, that the tower and spire be retained
and a small memorial chapel be set up in the base of the tower.”��
%RSXLIV�PIXXIV�GSRÁVQIH�XLI�TYFPMG�HMWETTVSZEP�SJ�E�QIQSVMEP�XS�µ2E^M�
brutality” but suggested that the opposition be placated by explaining that the
proposal was for “tidying” up the ruins in the same manner as St. Andrews and that
the “names of the people who lost their lives would be put on a suitable plaque in the
wall.”��
-R������E�PIXXIV�JVSQ�XLI�WIGVIXEV]�SJ�XLI�7SGMIX]�JSV�XLI�4VSXIGXMSR�SJ�%RGMIRX�
&YMPHMRKW��74%& �XS�'ETXEMR�,��%PPIR�MR�4P]QSYXL�EWOIH�MJ�XLI�7SGMIX]�GSYPH�FI�SJ�
32 ;EXWSR�����33 Ibid.34 Ibid.�� 0IXXIV����8'�(6�SJ�Letters to Lord Astor��4P]QSYXL��4P]QSYXL�;IWX�(IZSR�6IGSVH�3JÁGI�����.YR�������4VMRX��� %WXSV��0IXXIV����8'�(6�SJ�Letters to Paton Watson��4P]QSYXL��4P]QSYXL�;IWX�(IZSR�6IGSVH�3JÁGI�����.YR�������4VMRX�
��
assistance in the preservation of Charles Church.���-R�2SZIQFIV�SJ������;EXWSR�[VSXI�
to SPAB updating them about the proposal to preserve the church as a memorial,
which had been put forth to the Council but was not approved, and had thus been
abandoned. Watson dismissed any ideas of rebuilding the church stating that “the
intended redevelopment of the surrounding area would render it redundant.”�� At
this point the suggestion was made to simply leave the tower in the middle of the new
roundabout.
%�PIXXIV�JVSQ�XLI�4P]QSYXL�8S[R�'PIVO¸W�3JÁGI��HEXIH�(IGIQFIV�������EWOIH�
SPAB to conduct a survey of the Barbican area of Plymouth to aid in its preservation
as per the Abercrombie plan.�� A newspaper article published a few months later
GSRÁVQIH�XLEX�74%&�[SYPH�JSVQ�E�PSGEP�GSQQMXXII�XS�YRHIVXEOI�XLI�WYVZI]��8LI�
survey would cover the “restoration and improvement of the housing of the residents
in the Barbican area [and] the preservation of the old buildings that are worthy of
preservation.”���&]�3GXSFIV�SJ������E�HVEJX�VITSVX�[EW�[VMXXIR�ERH�XLI�TVSTSWEP�SJ�
PIEZMRK�'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�MR�XLI�QMHHPI�SJ�E�XVEJÁG�VSYRHEFSYX�SR�XLI�RI[�QEMR�VSEH�
was established, stating, “There is a strong feeling in Plymouth that it should be
restored for use as a Church, but the Surveyor has pointed out that its position on an
MWPERH�QEOIW�XLMW�MREHZMWEFPI�JVSQ�E�XVEJÁG�TSMRX�SJ�ZMI[�¶��
This, along with the general plan for the Barbican was controversial and in
������XLI�&MWLST�ERH�ZMGEV�SJ�7X��%RHVI[¸W�WXSSH�XSKIXLIV�XS�KMZI�XLIMV�STMRMSR�SR�
the church’s future. They pointed to the facts that the church was an ecclesiastical
property that was for the Church only to decide its future. They cited factors such as
�� “Old Plymouth.” Letters to Captain H. Allen, Plymouth����%YK�������4VMRX��� ;EXWSR��.��4EXSR��µ4P]QSYXL�6IGSRWXVYGXMSR�%VIE�2S����¶�Letters to the Secretary, SPAB�����2SZ�������Print.�� Campbell, Colin. “Historic Plymouth.” Letters to the Secretary, SPAB�����(IG�������4VMRX��� µ2EXMSREP�+VSYT�XS�%MH�¶�Western Independent.����*IF�������R��TEK��4VMRX��� ;MPPGSGOW��'�&��µ6ITSVX�SR�3PH�4P]QSYXL�¶����3GX�������4VMRX�
��
manpower and money and putting it to the best use possible as well as the shifting
population to support their idea. They mentioned that the church was not needed
on its present site and suggested it be rebuilt in a new area. They also stated that the
creation of a public opinion to support such an idea “would insist on the granting of
the necessary licenses.”42�8LI�3PH�4P]QSYXL�7SGMIX]��347 �HMH�RSX�WYTTSVX�XLMW�MHIE�
of physically moving the church building and wanted it to be both “repaired and left
as is, or restored and used as a parish church.”43 OPS also rejected the tower in the
middle of a roundabout suggestion.
-R������XLI�'MX]�'SYRGMP�ETTVSZIH�TPERW�XS�HIQSPMWL�XLI�GLYVGL�[MXL�XLI�
exception of the tower and spire. They cited the road gradient as a reason for not
OIITMRK�XLI�GLYVGL��EW�XLI]�[ERXIH�XLI�VSEH�XS�WXE]�[MXLMR�E������WPSTI��[LMGL�XLI]�
argued would not be possible if the church was preserved. They acknowledged that the
GLYVGL�[EW�RSX�SR�E�VSYRHEFSYX�MR�XLI�%FIVGVSQFMI�TPER�FYX�GLEVKIH�XLI�1MRMWXV]�
of Transport’s needs for road alignment and gradient as the reasons the plans had
changed and, thus, the church was to be in the middle of a roundabout.44
The decision was widely criticized in newspaper articles. SPAB weighed in on
XLI�QEXXIV�WE]MRK�XLI�GLYVGL�[EW�µE�TEVXMGYPEVP]�ÁRI�JIEXYVI�SJ�XLI�GMX]�ERH�SJ�KVIEX�
MRXIVIWX�EW�GSQFMRMRK�+SXLMG�TPERW�ERH�SYXPMRIW�[MXL�6IREMWWERGI�HIXEMPW�¶�� SPAB
stated, “it is deserving of every consideration from those concerned with the future
planning of Plymouth. Such churches are extremely rare in this country.”�� As the
debate about Charles Church escalated, more architecture and preservation groups
[IMKLIH�MR�SR�XLI�WMXYEXMSR��-R�������XLI�4P]QSYXL�8S[R�'PIVO¸W�3JÁGI�VIGIMZIH�E�
42 Plymouth Development Plan��4P]QSYXL��4P]QSYXL�;IWX�(IZSR�6IGSVH�3JÁGI��������4VMRX�43 Ibid.44 µ'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�XS�+S��8S[IV�7XE]W�¶�Plymouth Western Morning News���%TVMP�������1SVRMRK�R��TEK��Print.�� “Need for Charles Church.” Plymouth Western Morning News����%TVMP�������1SVRMRK�R��TEK��4VMRX��� Ibid.
��
letter from SPAB hoping “that this Church, which is of great interest to archaeologists
and architects, will be saved.”���&]������1V��'�&��;MPPGSGOW�SJ�74%&�PEYRGLIH�ER�
SJÁGMEP�ETTIEP�XS�TVIWIVZI�XLI�VYMRW�SJ�XLI�GLYVGL���
8LI�GLYVGL�[EW�ÁREPP]�PMWXIH�SR�XLI�1MRMWXV]�SJ�,SYWMRK�ERH�0SGEP�
+SZIVRQIRX¸W�µ0MWX�SJ�FYMPHMRKW�SJ�WTIGMEP�EVGLMXIGXYVEP�SV�LMWXSVMG�MRXIVIWX¶�JSV�XLI�
GMX]��9RHIV�XLI�8S[R�ERH�'SYRXV]�4PERRMRK�%GX�SJ�������µRS�TIVWSR�QE]�HIQSPMWL�E�
building which has been listed nor may any alteration or extension to the building
be carried out until at least two months’ notice has been given to the local planning
authority.”���(IWTMXI�XLMW��MR�������XLI�'SQQMXXII�QMRYXIW�WLS[IH�XLI�HIÁRMXI�
intention of the Council to “acquire the Church and burial grounds and to arrange for
the demolition of the church building, the Corporation reserving the right to demolish
the spire and tower, if they should so decide in the future.”��
Despite the controversy regarding the church, English Heritage listed the
'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�VYMRW�EW�E�KVEHI�-�TEVMWL�GLYVGL�VYMR�MR�.ERYEV]�������-X�MW�MQTSVXERX�
to note that this listing is a key contributor to the turn of events that led to Charles
'LYVGL¸W�TVIWIVZEXMSR��-R�.YRI�SJ������XLI�4P]QSYXL�6IGSRWXVYGXMSR�'SQQMXXII�
wanted to demolish the church and leave only the tower and spire. English
,IVMXEKI�PMWXIH�XLI�VYMRW�SR�8LI�,IVMXEKI�0MWX�MR�.ERYEV]������ERH�F]�.YP]������XLI�
Reconstruction Committee decided to keep the ruins as a war memorial. Charles
Church is the only case study where the listing of the ruin affected the future outcome
of the church. St. Bride’s Church was listed after recommendations for restoration
were made and the ruins at Coventry Cathedral were listed after the decision to keep
the ruins was made.
�� SPAB Deputy Director. “Charles Church, Plymouth.” Letters to Colin Campbell, Plymouth Town Clerk’s
3JÁGI�����.ER�������4VMRX��� “Preserve Charles Church, Plymouth Appeal.” Western Evening Herald�?4P]QSYXLA�������)ZIRMRK�R��pag. Print.�� “New Reason Why Plymouth Should Stay Its Hand on Charles Church.” Print.�� Plymouth. City Council. Reconstruction Committee Minutes��4P]QSYXL�����.YRI�������4VMRX�
��
*MREPP]��EJXIV�]IEVW�SJ�HIFEXI��MR�.YP]�SJ������XLI�6IGSRWXVYGXMSR�'SQQMXXII�
decided to preserve the ruins and the council approved the decision.�� The Ancient
1SRYQIRXW�FVERGL�SJ�XLI�1MRMWXV]�SJ�;SVOW��XLI�4MPKVMQ�8VYWX��XLI�'MX]�'SYRGMP�EW�
well as the Old Plymouth Society contributed funds for the preservation.�� These
debates and letters demonstrate how the town planning ultimately came before the
wants of the community and the preservation needs of the church as the roundabout
VSEH�[EW�GSRWXVYGXIH�MR�XLI�����W�ERH�YPXMQEXIP]�VIRHIVIH�XLI�WMXI�MREGGIWWMFPI��WII�
-QEKI��� �
3R�2SZIQFIV���������XLI�6IZIVIRH�.��%PPIR�.EQIW��ZMGEV�SJ�'LEVPIW�[MXL�7EMRX�
0YOI��HIHMGEXIH�XLI�WMXI�EW�E�QIQSVMEP�XS�4P]QSYXL¸W�������GMZMPMER�HIEH�MR�;;--��8LI�
0SVH�1E]SV�SJ�4P]QSYXL�YRZIMPIH�XLI�TPEUYI�SJ�HIHMGEXMSR�JSV�'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�EX�XLI�
ceremony. Several hundred attended the service where James said “In this hallowed
place, we remember all those men, women, and children who suffered and lost their
lives in the senseless barbarism of war.” The plaque, which describes a brief history
of the church, is now attached on the railing of a subway entrance, across the street
from the church, right next to the Drake Circus shopping center entrance. The plaque
reads:
3R�XLI�RMKLX�SJ�1EVGL���st���nd�������XLI�GLYVGL�[EW�[LSPP]�KYXXIH�F]�ÁVI�EW�E�VIWYPX�SJ�E�LIEZ]�EMV�VEMH��ERH�YRXMP������XLI�VYMRW�VIQEMRIH�MR�E�HIVIPMGX�condition. The church authorities having decided that the church was not to be rebuilt, XLI�4P]QSYXL�'SVTSVEXMSR�TYVGLEWIH�XLI�WMXI�ERH�MR�������[MXL�XLI�EWWMWXERGI�of the ministry of works, carried out the preservation works. 8LI�GLYVGL�RS[�JSVQW�E�ÁXXMRK�QIQSVMEP�XS�XLI�GMZMPMER�TSTYPEXMSR�SJ�4P]QSYXL�who lost their lives due to enemy air attacks on the city during the Second World War.��
�� Jones, Lloyd. “Charles Church.” Letters to the Deputy Chairman, SPAB�����.YP�������4VMRX��� µ,IPT�+MZIR�XS�4VIWIVZI�6YMR�SJ�'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�¶����3GX�������R��TEK��4VMRX�“Only One Organization Offer to Help.” Western Morning News�?4P]QSYXLA����2SZ�������1SVRMRK�R��TEK��Print.�� Plymouth. City Council. Charles Church History Plaque�������
��
Past Interpretation
8LI�TPER�MXWIPJ�[EW�LIVEPHIH�HYVMRK�XLI�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�TIVMSH�FYX�XLI�WTIGMÁGW�
about the treatment of the Barbican, which was ultimately preserved and stands
as a tourist destination today, were very controversial and the subject of numerous
newspaper articles and editorials.
-R������The Times�TYFPMWLIH�ER�EVXMGPI�EFSYX�XLI�XS[R�TPER�WTIGMÁGEPP]�ERH�
stated that it was a “remarkable and exemplary achievement” and praised the plan
JSV�FIMRK�µGSQTPIXI��TVEGXMGEFPI��ERH�GSRÁHIRX�MR�TYVTSWI�¶�� The plan was compared
to the County of London plan as Abercrombie had directed both. Schemes such as
the decentralization of the population and preservation of historic buildings via the
creation of a precinct were present in both plans. The plan was called “heroic.”��
-R�������EJXIV�XLI�HIHMGEXMSR�SJ�XLI�GLYVGL�EW�E�[EV�QIQSVMEP��XLI�FSSO�µ8LI�
0MJI�'SRXMRYIW¶�[EW�TYFPMWLIH�EFSYX�XLI�4EVMWL�'LYVGL�SJ�'LEVPIW�[MXL�7X��1EXXLMEW��
[LSWI�TEVMWLIW�[IVI�YRMXIH�MR�������8LI�0SVH�&MWLST�SJ�)\IXIV�EX�XLI�XMQI��6SFIVX�
)\SR��WXEXIH�XLEX�XLI�GLYVGL¸W�MRÂYIRGI�LEH�FIIR�µZIV]�KVIEX¶�ERH�XLEX�XLI�VYMRW�
served as a “melancholy reminder of the war.”�� The book aimed to paint a complete
picture of the life of the church and showcase how the life of the church has
continued since the devastation of WWII.
Current Interpretation
%������TYFPMGEXMSR�SR�XLI�VIFYMPHMRK�SJ�4P]QSYXL�GEPPW�XLI�TPER�µSTXMQMWXMG¶�
and states that “there was no doubt in the authors’ minds that this proposal… was
going to be symbolic of the rebuilding of a better Britain.”���%YXLSV�.IVIQ]�+SYPH�
�� “The Plan for Plymouth.” The Times�?0SRHSRA����%TVMP�������R��TEK��4VMRX��� µ%�4PER�JSV�4P]QSYXL��3PH�ERH�2I[�MR�XLI�1EOMRK�SJ�E�1SHIVR�'MX]�¶�R�H���R��TEK��4VMRX��� James, Suzanne Aileen Helen. The Life Continues: A History of the Congregation of Charles Church,
Plymouth.�4P]QSYXL��'PEVOI��(SFPI��&VIRHSR�����������4VMRX��� +SYPH��.IVIQ]��Plymouth: Vision of a Modern City���WX��7[MRHSR��)RKPMWL�,IVMXEKI������������4VMRX�
��
calls the plan “the greatest post-war plan in Britain” but noted that because of Basil
Spence’s Coventry Cathedral, which “captured the public imagination,” Plymouth’s
reconstruction was no longer the “national symbol of revival and reconciliation”
but that Coventry became the symbol instead.�� Plymouth was thus “eclipsed and its
WMKRMÁGERGI�JSVKSXXIR�¶��
%VRSPH�;LMXXMGO¸W�FSSO��µ;EV�1IQSVMEPW¶�HIÁRIW�E�QIQSVMEP¸W�TYVTSWI�
as its ability to “stir remembrance, and to keep alive and ever before us what is
commemorated.”�� Has that happened in the years since the war? A variety of factors
WYKKIWX�XLEX�TIVLETW�XLI�WMXI�HSIW�RSX�PMZI�YT�XS�XLMW�HIÁRMXMSR��'YVVIRXP]��XLI�(VEOI�
Circus Shopping Center sits adjacent to the site and overpowers the church sitting
EGVSWW�XLI�WXVIIX��WII�-QEKIW����ERH��� ��8LI�WLSTTMRK�GIRXIV��FEWIH�SR�XLI�X]TMGEP�
%QIVMGER�QEPP�TPER�ÁVWX�STIRIH�MR�������%�WIGSRH��LS[IZIV�[EW�HIWMKRIH�MR������FYX�
RSX�FYMPX�YRXMP�������'SRWXVYGXMSR�[EW�GSQTPIXIH�MR�������
Despite the public’s lack of attention to the site, the presence of a shopping
GIRXIV�ERH�XSXEP�MREGGIWWMFMPMX]�SJ�XLI�WMXI��TPERW�XS�JIRGI�SJJ�XLI�GLYVGL�MR������[IVI�
QIX�[MXL�GSRÂMGX��%�4P]QSYXL�GSYRGMP�WTSOIWTIVWSR�WEMH��µ8LMW�MW�ER�I\XVE�TVIGEYXMSR�
to ensure that members of the public do not enter the grounds, which will not
only help to preserve the memorial, but keep the public safe.” One member of the
community said he was appalled at the plan to block access to Charles Church: “I
ÁRH�MX�SJJIRWMZI��'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�MW�ER�MGSRMG�MQEKI�SJ�4P]QSYXL��4ISTPI�MHIRXMJ]�[MXL�
it as part of the city… It should be restored, not put behind fencing. They should be
opening it up so that we can use it for civic events and memorial services,” he said.��
After public outcry the idea of a fence was scrapped.
�� +SYPH�������� Ibid.�� Whittick, Arnold. War Memorials��0SRHSR��'SYRXV]�0MJI�����������4VMRX��� “Charles Church Fence Plan Scrapped.” This is Cornwall. ���.YRI�������R��TEK��;IF�����1EV�������
��
1EVO�0S[V]��0EFSYV�GSYRGMPSV�JSV�,SRMGORS[PI��[LS�STTSWIH�XLI�TVSTSWEP�
said, “I’m delighted that the council has chosen to reverse this unpopular decision. It
would have made Plymouth a laughing stock. The church is a reminder of what the
people of the city had to endure during the Second World War. It is good news that
the council has listened to public opinion and the views of Labour councilors. The
idea was clearly unpopular – and it would have cost a fortune.”��
In an interview, Bob Brown, Head of Architecture for the School of Architecture
and Design at the University of Plymouth, made the point that the main concern
for the WWII reconstruction and development in the subsequent years was the
economic downturn and major need for jobs and growth within the city. He noted
that the job creation argument post-war was much more convincing than any aesthetic
argument, much like today, and that, at least in the city center, anything a developer
wanted to pursue essentially was approved on the basis of job creation. He explained
that a similar principle is still in practice today and is part of the approval of the
Drake Circus Shopping Center that seems to be so despised for its aesthetics. When
asked about his thoughts on Charles Church and the public’s consciousness of it he
stated that it was not in the public’s day-to-day mind. He explained that the post-war
sentiment was one that encouraged a progressive future, which seemingly left little
room for connection to the historic fabric that remained.��
Another local resident and member of the Church of St. Andrew moved
XS�4P]QSYXL�MR������ERH�VIQIQFIVW�E�KIRIVEP�EMV�SJ�I\GMXIQIRX�XLVSYKLSYX�XLI�
city during the rebuilding. She called the siting of Charles Church, along with the
newly constructed Drake Circus shopping center “dreadful.”�� The church member
GSQQIRXIH�XLEX�XLI�VYMR�MW�QSWX�PMOIP]�SRP]�WMKRMÁGERX�JSV�XLSWI�[LSWI�JEQMP]�HMIH�MR�
�� Ibid. �� &VS[R��&SF��4IVWSREP�-RXIVZMI[�����.ER�������� CCCC��&EVFEVE��4IVWSREP�-RXIVZMI[�����.ER������
��
XLI�[EV��FYX�SXLIV[MWI�MX�LIPH�ZIV]�PMXXPI�WMKRMÁGERGI�JSV�XLI�VIWX�SJ�XLI�TSTYPEXMSR��7LI�
mentioned that the church, being so inaccessible to the public, was not something that
the rest of the community either interacted with on a daily basis or considered all that
WMKRMÁGERX�
Conclusion
With all this in mind, the answers to my general thesis questions are more
HMJÁGYPX�XS�ERW[IV�JSV�'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�XLER�XLI]�EVI�JSV�XLI�SXLIV�GEWI�WXYHMIW��8LMW�MW�
due in part to the fact that the site has multiple issues at play even today such as local
patriotism, lack of site accessibility and possible loss of structural strength which all
stem from the early decision made about the church post-war. The elements that led to
the preservation of Charles Church are a result of a combination of factors including
XLI�GMX]�TPER��WTIGMÁGEPP]�XLI�VSEH�HIWMKRW�ERH�XVEJÁG�GSRXVSPW��XEOMRK�TVIGIHIRGI�SZIV�
other elements of the plan, as well as the preservation of the Barbican. In addition to
these elements a strong public voice contributed to the long debate that ensued after
the City Council’s initial plans to demolish the building. In the end, a compromise
was agreed upon, leaving a preserved church in the middle of a newly designed
VSYRHEFSYX�MRXIRHIH�XS�VIHYGI�XVEJÁG�GSRKIWXMSR�
2S[�[I�EWO�XLI�UYIWXMSR��µMW�XLI�WMKRMÁGERGI�PE]IVIH�SRXS�XLMW�WMXI�TSWX�[EV�
VIGSKRM^IH�XSHE]#¶�-�[SYPH�EVKYI�XLEX�EX�ÁVWX�KPEGI�MX�MW�RSX��6EVIP]�HSIW�XLI�TYFPMG�
acknowledge or visit the site; yet, as we saw with the fence proposal, any plan that
would endanger the ruin is met with public outcry. This fact supports my answer to
XLI�RI\X�UYIWXMSR�SJ�µ[MPP�XLI�EHHIH�QIERMRK�ERH�WMKRMÁGERGI�EJJIGX�TVIWIVZEXMSR�
decisions today?” Clearly, yes it will and has affected preservation decisions. The great
HIFEXI�SJ�XLI�PEXI�����W�ERH�����W�MW�GEVVMIH�SR�XSHE]�EW�HMWTPE]IH�[LIR�XLI�JIRGI�
proposal was brought forward. There is a public connection with the site, however
small it may seem on the surface, which will rise within the residents to protect the
��
church they associate with World War II destruction and subsequent rebuilding.
1]�PEWX�UYIWXMSR��µMW�XLI�QIERMRK�SJ�XLI�GLSMGI�XS�TVIWIVZI�XLI�GLYVGL�VIPIZERX�
XSHE]�MR�XLI�WLMJXMRK�SJ�QIQSV]�JVSQ�ÁVWX�XS�WIGSRH�KIRIVEXMSR�¶�MW�QSVI�HMJÁGYPX�XS�
answer. The fact that the public spoke against the fence proposal and thought the
Drake Circus Shopping Center took away from the importance of the church site
PIEHW�QI�XS�FIPMIZI�XLEX�XLI�WMKRMÁGERGI�SJ�XLI�GLYVGL�[MPP�GSRXMRYI�XS�FI�HIJIRHIH��
over multiple generations. However, the fact that the church is so seldom visited
is cause for concern. If the church continues to be physically alienated from the
public then perhaps interest for the church will dwindle. On the other hand, the
fact that numerous residents drive past the site every day could be a source of daily
awareness that transforms into a public consciousness of the site that the residents
would not allow to be threatened by future development. The siting of the church,
both its positive and negative attributes, could be what saves or ultimately leads to its
destruction.
It is this combination of patriotism and remembrance along with inaccessibility
and lack of context that Charles Church battles with today. Current preservationists
struggle with the notion of preserving a relic that lacks historic context or public
accessibility, and ask what an appropriate response or design intervention for such
a site would be. The siting due to the road plan fundamentally affected the site’s
past, and now future, preservation. The citizens of Plymouth must be aware of the
preservation challenges that could affect Charles Church in the future due to such
TVSFPIQW��'SRWXVYGXMRK�E�[EPO[E]�XS�XLI�WMXI�GSYPH�FI�XLI�ÁVWX�WXIT�MR�IRWYVMRK�
the church’s future as more people could visit the site, connect with the past and
YPXMQEXIP]�ÁKLX�XS�IRWYVI�MXW�JYXYVI�TVIWIVZEXMSR�
��
-QEKI����'LEVPIW�'LYVGL������Jennifer Whisenhunt
��
-QEKI����'LEVPIW�'LYVGL������Jennifer Whisenhunt
��
-QEKI����'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�����Copyright The Francis Frith Collection
��
Image 4: Charles Church InteriorA History of Plymouth and Her Neighbors
��
-QEKI����4P]QSYXL��TSWX�;;--�FPMX^�Image Courtesy Western Morning News
��
-QEKI����'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�VYMRW��TSWX�;;--�FPMX^��Image Courtesy Western Morning News
��
-QEKI����4VSTSWIH�4P]QSYXL�'MX]�'IRXVI�*YRGXMSREP�(MEKVEQA Handbook of the Plymouth Plan
Charles Church
��
-QEKI����4VSTSWIH�'MX]�'IRXVI�(MEKVEQ��A Handbook of the Plymouth Plan
����6EMP[E]�,SXIP��3JÁGIW��ERH�&YW�Station����+SZIVRQIRX�ERH�4VSJIWWMSREP�3JÁGIW����1EVOIX4 Theatre����'SRGIVX�,EPP����'SYRGMP�'LEQFIV����+YMPHLEPP��2I[ ����1YRMGMTEP�3JÁGIW
����0E[�'SYVXW�����&EROW�����,SXIPW�ERH�&SEVHMRK�,SYWIW�����7XEHMYQ�ERH�µGSZIVIH�MR¶�Amusement Centre�����1EVMRI�4EZMPMSR�����&EVFMGER�2IMKLFSVLSSH�Centre�����4YFPMG�&EXLW�����,IEPXL�'IRXVI
�����&&'�ERH�SXLIV�'YPXYVEP�Buildings�����7LSTTMRK�'IRXVI�����6IWMHIRXMEP�%VIE�����3TIR�%MV�8LIEXVI�����6S]EP�7EMPSVW �̧6IWX
*Numbers indicate possible
utilization of sites
Charles Church
��
-QEKI����4VSTSWIH�'MX]�'IRXVI�0E]SYX��VIH�PMRIW�WLS[�TVSTSWIH�GIRXVEP�PE]SYX�SZIV�I\MWXMRK�WXVIIXW �A Handbook of the Plymouth Plan
Charles Church
��
REPLACE!
-QEKI�����'SRWXVYGXMSR�SJ�VSYRHEFSYX�G����W Plymouth City Council, Central Library
��
-QEKI�����:MI[�SJ�'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�ERH�(VEOI�'MVGYW�7LSTTMRK�'IRXIV������ Jennifer Whisenhunt
��
-QEKI�����:MI[�SJ�'LEVPIW�'LYVGL�ERH�(VEOI�'MVGYW�7LSTTMRK�'IRXIV������Jennifer Whisenhunt
73
St. Bride’s Church, London
74
Introduction
St. Bride’s Church is located in the City district of central London. St. Bride’s
is an example of a bomb-damaged church that was reconstructed according to its
LMWXSVMG�HIWMKR��EPXLSYKL�XLI�MRXIVMSV�PE]SYX�YRHIV[IRX�WMKRMÁGERX�GLERKIW�HYVMRK�XLI�
post-war reconstruction. St. Bride’s rebuilding is similar to Warsaw’s reconstruction
plan as they both looked to the past in an attempt to move forward and recover from
the destruction post-war.
8LI�'MX]�[EW�LMWXSVMGEPP]�E�GSQQIVGMEP�HMWXVMGX�[MXL�SJÁGIW��[EVILSYWIW�ERH�XLI�
marketing industry operating within its boundaries. St. Bride’s then, in association
[MXL�XLMW�WTIGMÁG�PSGEXMSR�FIGEQI�ORS[R�JSV�MXW�GSRRIGXMSR�[MXL�XLI�*PIIX�7XVIIX�
journalism industry that operated close by. Designed by Christopher Wren after
XLI�+VIEX�*MVI�SJ�������MXW�EVGLMXIGXYVEP�MQTSVXERGI�MW�GPIEVP]�XMIH�XS�XLI�EVGLMXIGX�MR�
combination with the rest of the City Churches in the area. Wren, best known for this
design of numerous City Churches in London including St. Paul’s Cathedral, was
also a well known scientist and mathematician. Wren was appointed Surveyor of the
6S]EP�;SVOW�MR������ERH�ORMKLXIH�MR������� It is from these ties that St. Bride’s gains
QSWX�SJ�MXW�WMKRMÁGERGI�ERH�MW�[LEX�HSQMREXIH�XLI�HIGMWMSR�XS�VIGSRWXVYGX�XLI�GLYVGL�
according to its historic design. The building’s association with a great architect and
the journalism industry are what made the restoration of St. Bride’s possible.
Original Building History
The site of St. Bride’s church has an extensive history, as the present building
is the eighth church to have been constructed on the site. A stone church was
constructed in the sixth century and was then enlarged between the ninth and
XIRXL�GIRXYVMIW��%�ÁVI�MR������GEYWIH�ERSXLIV�GLYVGL�XS�FI�FYMPX��[MXL�I\XIRWMSRW�
� µ7MV�'LVMWXSTLIV�;VIR������������� �¶�BBC: History��&VMXMWL�&VSEHGEWXMRK�'SVTSVEXMSR��;IF�����*IF������
��
GSRWXVYGXIH�MR������ERH�MR�XLI�����W��8LI�FYMPHMRK�[EW�XLIR�HIWXVS]IH�MR�XLI�+VIEX�
*MVI�SJ�������7X��&VMHI¸W�XLIR�FIGEQI�SRI�SJ�XLI�SZIV����GLYVGLIW�VIFYMPX�F]�7MV�
Christopher Wren.
-R������;VIR�GSQQIRGIH�[SVO�SR�XLI�WMXI�XS�FYMPH�]IX�ERSXLIV�GLYVGL��[LMGL�
STIRIH�MR�(IGIQFIV�������WII�-QEKIW���ERH�� ��8LI�WTMVI��EQSRK�XLI�XEPPIWX�SJ�ER]�
;VIR�GLYVGL��[EW�EHHIH�FIX[IIR������ERH������FYX�HIWXVS]IH�MR������F]�E�WXSVQ��
It was later rebuilt eight feet shorter.3 St. Bride’s was one of the most expensive of
the Wren churches and was only exceeded in price by St. Lawrence, Jewry (the Lord
1E]SV¸W�'LYVGL �ERH�'LVMWX�'LYVGL�EX�2I[KEXI��7X��&VMHI¸W�MW�SRI�SJ�SRP]�WM\�GLYVGLIW�
believed to be designed by Wren alone. 4
7X��&VMHI¸W�[EW�SRI�SJ�XLI�ÁVWX�XIR�GLYVGLIW�TPERRIH�JSV�GSRWXVYGXMSR�EJXIV�XLI�
+VIEX�*MVI�ERH�[EW�EQSRK�XLI�ÁVWX�XS�STIR���µ;VIR�HMH�LMW�[SVO�FVMPPMERXP]¶�EYXLSV�
Dewi Morgan stated, “with his genius for relating a building to its surroundings and…
enabling it to overcome them, he made St. Bride’s Church a simple structure on the
SYXWMHI�FYX�I\UYMWMXI�MRWMHI�¶� The church became well known as a Wren masterpiece
JSV�MXW�µWTPIRHMH�WXIITPI¶�ERH�TPER��[LMGL�[EW�VIKEVHIH�EW�SRI�SJ�;VIR¸W�ÁRIWX�
FEWMPMGER�MRXIVMSV�WGLIQIW�¶7�1V��6MGL��E�TEWXV]�GSSO�SR�*PIIX�7XVIIX��FIGEQI�JEQSYW�
for his wedding cakes modeled on the tiered arcades of the spire.
%R�IWWE]�HEXIH������MRGPYHIH�E�HIWGVMTXMSR�SJ�XLI�GLYVGL�EW�TEVX�SJ�ER�SZIVEPP�
essay about Wren. The author stated “the steeple of St. Bride’s Church, alone, does
� *MRGL��4EYP��µ;I�2IIH�8E\�6IPMIJ�*VSQ�XLI�+SZIVRQIRX�MJ�;I¸VI�+SMRK�XS�4VIWIVZI�'LYVGLIW�0MOI�7X�&VMHI¸W�¶�Architects’ Journal������� ��R��TEKI��;IF�����.ER�������3 (EZMI��)VMG��µ7X��&VMHI¸W�4VIWIRXEXMSR�¶�7X��&VMHI¸W�8SYV��7X��&VMHI¸W�'LYVGL��)RKPERH��0SRHSR��0IGXYVI�4 0SRK��/MIVER��µ7EZI�7X��&VMHI¸W�¶�London Evening Standard����.ER�������R��TEK��;IF�����.ER�������� Morgan, Dewi. Phoenix of Fleet Street: 2,000 Years of St. Bride’s���WX�IH��0SRHSR��'LEVPIW�/RMKLX��'S��0XH�����������������. Print.� Morgan, ���. 7 *�VWX��:MOXSV��The Architecture of Sir Christopher Wren���WX��0SRHSR��0YRH�,YQTLVMIW��������4VMRX����
��
not assert the strength of [Wren’s] genius, nor the play of his fancy, so much as his
judgment and taste in producing an elegant arrangement of simple and resonating
KISQIXVMGEP�JSVQW��[MXLMR�ER�SYXPMRI�SJ�YRMQTVSZEFPI�KVEGI�¶�
In addition to the popularity of this Wren design, the church was also known
for its association with the rise of the British newspaper and printing industries.
-R������;MPPMEQ�'VE\XSR¸W�EWWMWXERX��;]RO]R�HI�;SVHI��QSZIH�XLIMV�TVMRXMRK�TVIWW�
business to a new site near St. Bride’s Church. Soon other printers moved to the area
MRGPYHMRK�6MGLEVH�4]RWSR�ERH�8LSQEW�&IVXLIPIX��&]������0SRHSR¸W�ÁVWX�VIKYPEV�HEMP]�
newspaper, the Daily Courant, was published “next door to the King’s Arms Tavern
EX�*PIIX�&VMHI�¶� In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the newspaper industry
GSRXMRYIH�XS�I\TERH��*PIIX�7XVIIX¸W�GSRZIRMIRX�PSGEXMSR�FIX[IIR�XLI�ÁRERGMEP�ERH�
political districts of the city allowed for the area to become a center of newspaper and
TIVMSHMGEP�TYFPMWLMRK��&]�XLI�IEVP]�X[IRXMIXL�GIRXYV]��*PIIX�7XVIIX�[EW�WXMPP�ORS[R�EW�
the heart of the nation’s press and media industries. Consequently, even before World
;EV�--��7X��&VMHI¸W�'LYVGL�LIPH�E�ZEWX�EQSYRX�SJ�WMKRMÁGERGI�JVSQ�MXW�EWWSGMEXMSR�[MXL�
FSXL�;VIR�ERH�*PIIX�7XVIIX�
WWII History
8LI�0SRHSR�&PMX^�FIKER�MR�7ITXIQFIV������ERH�E�HIZEWXEXMRK�FSQFMRK�VEMH�
SGGYVVIH�(IGIQFIV�����������8LI�GLYVGL�WYJJIVIH�WIVMSYW�HEQEKI�EW�E�VIWYPX��%�
VITSVXIH����SJ�XLI����'MX]�'LYVGLIW��EPP�HIWMKRIH�F]�;VIR��[IVI�HIWXVS]IH�SV�WIVMSYWP]�
damaged.�� St. Bride’s roof, windows and interiors were all burnt out; everything
I\GITX�XLI�WTMVI�[EW�HIWXVS]IH��WII�-QEKI�� ��3RGI�XLI�VYFFPI�[EW�GPIEVIH�ERH�
� µ%�'VMXMGEP�)WWE]�SR�XLI�%VGLMXIGXYVI�ERH�+IRMYW�SJ�7MV�'LVMWXSTLIV�;VIR�¶�Essays for Medal��0SRHSR��6S]EP�-RWXMXYXI�SJ�&VMXMWL�%VGLMXIGXW������������4VMRX�� St. Bride’s Church, Museum. Museum Exhibition. St. Bride’s Church, London.�� µ8LI�2I[�7X��&VMHI¸W��6IWXSVMRK�;VIR¸W�*PIIX�7XVIIX�'LYVGL�¶�The Times�?0SRHSRA����2SZ�������R��pag. Print.
77
columns encased in concrete for support, the church hosted open-air services (see
-QEKIW���ERH�� ��8LI�EQSYRX�SJ�HEQEKI�XS�'MX]�'LYVGLIW�EW�E�[LSPI�MPPYWXVEXIH�µXLI�
irreparable loss that London [had] suffered; the proportion [was] far more than the
TVSTSVXMSREXI�PSWW�SJ�SXLIV�FYMPHMRKW�¶��
&IX[IIR������ERH������XLI�(MWXVMGX�7YVZI]SVW�SJ�XLI�1IXVSTSPMXER�&SVSYKLW�
assessed the damage that occurred to buildings due to enemy bombing that took
TPEGI�FIX[IIR������ERH������JSV�XLI�0SRHSR�'SYRX]�'SYRGMP�;EV�(EQEKI�7YVZI]�
Section of the Architect’s Department. Each map was color-coded to show the extent
SJ�XLI�HEQEKI�ERH�MRGPYHIH�MQTEGX�TSMRXW�SJ�:��Â]MRK�FSQFW�ERH�:��PSRK�VERKI�
VSGOIXW�SJ������ERH�������7X��4EYP¸W�'EXLIHVEP��XS�XLI�[IWX�SJ�7X��&VMHI¸W��WYJJIVIH�ZIV]�
little damage but the area immediately surrounding the cathedral was documented
EW�LEZMRK�FIIR�µHEQEKIH�FI]SRH�VITEMV�¶�� The area to the north of St. Bride’s also
suffered serious damage while the church itself was listed as “seriously damaged; but
VITEMVEFPI�EX�GSWX�¶��
A survey of the City’s destruction, The City of London: A Record of Destruction
and Survival��RSXIH�XLEX�XLI�µJVMRKI�SJ�FYMPHMRKW�RSVXL�SJ�*PIIX�7XVIIX�WYVZMZIH¶�ERH�
included the Daily Express, the Daily Telegraph�ERH�WIZIVEP�SXLIV�RI[WTETIV�SJÁGIW���
8LI�FSSO�WXEXIH�XLEX�µPSSOMRK�WSYXL��XLI�WTMVI�SJ�7X��&VMHI�SR�XLI�JEV�WMHI�SJ�*PIIX�
7XVIIX�?WXSSHA�SYX�[MXL�ER�YRI\TIGXIH�GPIEVRIWW�¶��
�� Historic London Under Fire���RH�IH��0SRHSR��;�,��7QMXL��7SRW������������4VMRX��� The London County Council Bomb Damage Maps, 1939-45��0SRHSR�1IXVSTSPMXER�%VGLMZIW��0SRHSR�'SYRX]�'SYRGMP�%VGLMXIGX¸W�(ITEVXQIRX��������4PEXI������� Ibid. �� ,SPHIR��'�,���ERH�;�+��,SPJSVH��The City of London: A Record of Destruction and Survival��0SRHSR��7LIRZEP�4VIWW�������������4VMRX���� Ibid.
��
London Reconstruction Plan and the City Churches
Many of the reconstruction plans, guidelines and publications regarding the
0SRHSR�VIFYMPHMRK�QIRXMSRIH�XLI�'MX]�'LYVGLIW�WTIGMÁGEPP]��SJ�[LMGL�7X��&VMHI¸W�[EW�
VIKEVHIH�EW�EQSRK�XLI�IPMXI��3ZIVEPP��0SRHSR�TPERRIVW�YRHIVWXSSH�XLI�VSPI�SJ�XLI�
church in city life and were eager to retain as many as they could. The connections
with the historic City area of London, Sir Christopher Wren as well as the publishing
and newspaper industries contributed to the attention showered upon St. Bride’s.
Without these important connections the church may have been completely torn
down with a new structure built on top, similar to St. Paul’s, Bow Common. As with
Warsaw, a deep connection to the past is what propelled the historicist rebuilding
scheme for St. Bride’s.
The Bishop of London originally set up a Diocesan Committee to manage the
rebuilding of London churches as a whole but, after realizing the unique character
of the City Churches due to their historic and architectural importance, created a
separate Committee, the Bishop of London’s Committee for the City Churches, to
LERHPI�XLMW�KVSYT�SJ�GLYVGLIW�WTIGMÁGEPP]��8LI�'SQQMXXII�JSV�'MX]�'LYVGLIW�IQTPS]IH�
Godfrey Allen as a consultant architect. Allen and Prebendary Wellard, the Secretary
of the Committee, were to visit “every church where any problem arises and make sure
XLEX�XLI�RIGIWWEV]�WXITW�EVI�XEOIR�¶��
8LI�ÁVWX�QIIXMRK�SJ�XLI�GSQQMXXII�XSSO�TPEGI�MR�3GXSFIV�������8LIMV�XEWO�[EW�
to “correlate the spiritual, historical, architectural factors with conditions as they are
RS[��ERH�EVVMZI�EX�XIRXEXMZI�GSRGPYWMSRW�¶���7X��&VMHI¸W�'LYVGL��EPSRK�[MXL�%PP�,EPPS[W�
Barking-by-the Tower, St. Giles, Cripplegate, St. Mary-le-Bow and St. Stephen,
Walbrook, all of which suffered damage, were recommended by the commission to
�� London. Church War Damage Committee. Church Bodies Set Up to Deal with Bombed Churches. London. Print.�� London. The Bishop of London’s Commission on the City Churches. Meeting Minutes, October 7, 1941. Print.
��
FI�VIWXSVIH��8LI�GSQQMWWMSR�TYFPMWLIH�XLIMV�ÁREP�VITSVX�MR�������XMXPIH�µ8LI�'MX]�
'LYVGLIW�¶�8LI]�IGLSIH�E�VIGSQQIRHEXMSR�JVSQ�XLIMV�-RXIVMQ�6ITSVX�XLEX�WXEXIH�
“no Wren Church, not already destroyed, nor damaged beyond the possibility
of satisfactory restoration, should be removed, except in a case of most urgent
necessity, and after all the schemes for entire or partial preservation have been fully
GSRWMHIVIH�¶�� The report noted that, even if the congregations were diminishing in
RYQFIV��MX�[EW�µMQTSWWMFPI�XS�VIKEVH�XLI�QEXXIV�JVSQ�XLEX�EWTIGX�SRP]¶�EW�XLI�µ;VIR�
towers and spires with the churches to which they belong… are an essential part of
XLI�0SRHSR�WGIRI�¶����µ8LIMV�HMWETTIEVERGI�MR�XLI�[EV�¶�XLI�VITSVX�EVKYIH��µ[SYPH�
LEZI�FIIR�ER�MVVIXVMIZEFPI�PSWW�XS�XLI�'MX]�ERH�XS�XLI�REXMSR¸W�EVGLMXIGXYVEP�LMWXSV]�¶��
*VSQ�XLIWI�UYSXIW�MX�MW�GPIEV�XLEX�IZIR�XLSYKL�XLI�GSRKVIKEXMSRW�[IVI�WLVMROMRK��
XLI�GLYVGLIW�LIPH�QSVI�WMKRMÁGERGI�EW�LMWXSVMG�MGSRW�XLER�XLI]�HMH�EW�JYRGXMSRMRK�
churches. The economics related to running a church with a healthy congregation was
not a main contributing factor in the reconstruction discussion.
%FSYX�7X��&VMHI¸W�WTIGMÁGEPP]��XLI�'SQQMWWMSR�WEMH��µXLMW�GLYVGL�LEW�FIIR�
WIVMSYWP]�HEQEKIH��FYX�MXW�QEKRMÁGIRX�XS[IV�WYVZMZIW�ERH�MXW�[EPPW�GER�FI�VITEMVIH��
Even apart from its great architectural beauty, its close connection with the newspaper
[SVPH�QEOIW�MXW�VIWXSVEXMSR�MQTIVEXMZI��;I�VIGSQQIRH�XLEX�MX�FI�VIWXSVIH�¶�� They
WXEXIH�XLEX�µXLIVI�MW�RS�NYWXMÁGEXMSR�JSV�XLI�HIWXVYGXMSR�SJ�ER]�GLYVGL�[LMGL�LEW�
survived the war substantially intact or capable of reasonable restoration… such
unnecessary destruction would be an act of vandalism likely to shock the conscience
RSX�SRP]�SJ�XLMW�GSYRXV]�FYX�SJ�XLI�IHYGEXIH�[SVPH�¶�� In addition to the architectural
importance, rebuilding the church could have also been seen as a morale booster
�� London. The Bishop of London. City Churches��0SRHSR��;MPPMEQW��0IE��'S���0XH���������������4VMRX��� Ibid.�� Ibid.�� Ibid.�� Ibid.
��
JSV�XLI�GMX]�ERH�GSYRXV]��;VIR��EW�WYGL�E�[IPP�ORS[R�ÁKYVI�MR�0SRHSR�PMJI��LIPH�
REXMSREP�WMKRMÁGERGI�JSV�XLI�GSYRXV]�ERH�VIGSRWXVYGXMRK�LMW�FYMPHMRKW�[SYPH�FI�WIIR�
both as patriotic and an encouragement for the city and nation. As noted earlier, the
'MX]�'LYVGLIW�LIPH�QSVI�WMKRMÁGERGI�EW�LMWXSVMG�MGSRW�XLER�XLI]�HMH�EW�JYRGXMSRMRK�
churches so it is easily argued that restoring these buildings could have been seen as
boosting a general spirit of renewal throughout London. Again a parallel can be drawn
[MXL�;EVWE[�EW�XLI�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�SJ�FSXL�XLI�'MX]�'LYVGLIW�ERH�XLI�3PH�8S[R�MR�
Warsaw was done to generate local and national support after World War II.
%RSXLIV�KVSYT��XLI�'MX]�'LYVGLIW�7SGMIX]��[EW�JSVQIH�MR�*IFVYEV]������XS�
HMWGYWW�µXLI�WTMVMXYEP¬�EVGLMXIGXYVEP�ERH�GMZMG�WMKRMÁGERGI�SJ�XLI�'MX]�'LYVGLIW�¶��
The Society was formed to “oppose the closing of further London City churches
and the eventual abandonment of those which enemy action [had] made temporarily
YRYWEFPI�¶�� The Society was of the opinion that “wherever possible the churches
WLSYPH�FI�VIFYMPX�SR�XLIMV�SVMKMREP�WMXI�¶�� The Society argued that in “no other city in
XLI�[SVPH�[EW�XLIVI�WS�RSFPI�E�KVSYT�SJ�PEXI���th century churches to be found, and
XLEX�XLIWI�FYMPHMRKW��XSKIXLIV�[MXL�XLSWI�SJ�QIHMIZEP�HEXI�[LMGL�IWGETIH�XLI�ÁVI�SJ�
������LEZI�QEHI�ERH�GER�GSRXMRYI�XS�QEOI�E�YRMUYI�ERH�MQTIVMWLEFPI�GSRXVMFYXMSR�XS�
XLI�GLEVEGXIV�ERH�EXQSWTLIVI�SJ�XLI�LIEVX�SJ�XLI�)QTMVI�¶��
8LI������'SYRX]�SJ�0SRHSR�4PER�WXEXIH�XLEX�GLYVGLIW�[SYPH�FI�ER�MRXIKVEP�
part of London’s overall reconstruction and retained whenever possible. The authors,
.�,��*SVWLE[��%VGLMXIGX�XS�XLI�0SRHSR�'SYRX]�'SYRGMP�ERH�4EXVMGO�%FIVGVSQFMI��
noted that church congregations were undergoing population shifts, which were
reducing congregations and affecting the regrouping of parishes. This regrouping of
�� The City Churches Society. Agenda for Inaugural Meeting of Council�����*IF������4VMRX��� Ibid.�� Ibid.�� Ibid.
��
parishes had little impact on the reconstruction of the City Churches and St. Bride’s,
WTIGMÁGEPP]��EW�IZIR�[MXLSYX�XLIMV�TEVMWLIW�XLI�PSWW�SJ�XLI�FYMPHMRKW�[SYPH�FI��EW�
mentioned previously, “an irretrievable loss to the City and to the nation’s architectural
LMWXSV]�¶���&SXL�*SVWLE[�ERH�%FIVGVSQFMI�VIGSKRM^IH�XLI�MQTSVXERGI�SJ�XLI�GLYVGL�MR�
daily communal life as places of worship and historical association with some being
µRSXEFPI�EVGLMXIGXYVEP�QSRYQIRXW�¶���8LI�TPER�QIRXMSRIH�GLYVGLIW�WTIGMÁGEPP]�µJSV�
XLI]�JSVQ�ER�MQTSVXERX�IPIQIRX�MR�XLI�ETTIEVERGI�SJ�0SRHSR�¶�� The plan also noted
that churches, in addition to museums, public libraries and schools, served a local
social life and community need that was necessary for the growth and revitalization of
the city.
-R������ERSXLIV�GSQQMXXII��XLI�-QTVSZIQIRXW�ERH�8S[R�4PERRMRK�'SQQMXXII��
published a report on the preliminary draft proposals for the post-war reconstruction
JSV�0SRHSR��8LI�QEMR�TVMRGMTPIW�WTIGMÁG�XS�XLI�'MX]�[IVI�EW�JSPPS[W��µVIWTIGX�JSV�
XLI�'MX]¸W�XVEHMXMSRW�ERH�MXW�LMWXSVMGEP�TVIWXMKI¶�EW�[IPP�EW�MQTVSZMRK�VSEH�ERH�XVEJÁG�
conditions, rehabilitation of the city’s commerce, and “preservation of the City’s
ERGMIRX�QSRYQIRXW�¶ ����%KEMR��MQTVSZMRK�VSEHW�ERH�XVEJÁG�MW�WIIR�MR�XLI�0SRHSR�
VIFYMPHMRK�WGLIQI�EW�MX�[EW�WIIR�EX�4P]QSYXL��8LMW�ETTVSEGL�MW�WMKRMÁGERXP]�HMJJIVIRX�
from what was proposed at Plymouth, however, as this plan advocated for the
retention of the City Churches for future rebuilding. Their stated intent for the plan
was to “see the return of the City at the earliest possible date for those businesses
which have been displaced by enemy action, and to assist in every way within our
TS[IV�XLI�VILEFMPMXEXMSR�SJ�GSQQIVGI�[MXLMR�SYV�[EPPW�¶�� City Churches were
�� London. The Bishop of London. City Churches��0SRHSR��;MPPMEQW��0IE��'S���0XH������������4VMRX��� *SVWLE[��.�,���ERH�4EXVMGO�%FIVGVSQFMI��County of London Plan��0SRHSR��1EGQMPPER�ERH�'S���0XH����������������4VMRX���� *SVWLE[�������� London. Improvements and Town Planning Committee. Report: Preliminary Draft Proposals for Post-War Reconstruction��0SRHSR��&�8��&EXWJSVH��0XH���������MMM�MZ��E��4VMRX��� Ibid.
��
considered the historic jewels of the day as “the sites of City churches are respected,
and where possible, the buildings themselves, whether undamaged or not, [were]
KMZIR�E�TVSQMRIRGI�[LMGL�XLI]�VEVIP]�IRNS]IH�MR�XLI�TEWX�¶ ���µ8LIMV�IRZMVSRQIRX�¶�
the proposal stated, “should be redeveloped in a manner sympathetic to and, as far as
TSWWMFPI��MR�WGEPI�[MXL�XLIQ�¶33
St. Bride’s Church Rebuilding
In accordance with the various city groups and agencies advocating for the
preservation and restoration of City Churches, St. Bride’s was soon in the planning
WXEKIW�SJ�E�JYPP�VIWXSVEXMSR�WGLIQI��-R�������XLI�TVSTSWIH�VIWXSVEXMSR�TVIWIRXIH�F]�
W. Godfrey Allen, was published in The Builder �WII�-QEKI�� ��%PPIR��XLI�WYVZI]SV�XS�
the fabric of St. Paul’s and twice Prime Warden of the Goldsmiths’ Company, was
considered an authority on Wren’s architecture. The London Diocesan Advisory
'SQQMXXII�ETTVSZIH�TPERW�JSV�XLI�ÁVWX�TLEWI�SJ�GSRWXVYGXMSR�MR�.ERYEV]������34 By
�����XLI�GLYVGL�LEH�PEYRGLIH�ER�ETTIEP�JSV�JYRHW�XS�VIWXSVI�XLI�GLYVGL��[MXL�LSTIW�
SJ�GSRWXVYGXMSR�FIKMRRMRK�F]�������8LI�EMQ�JSV�%PPIR�[EW�µXS�VIWXSVI�XLI�GLYVGL�XS�
;VIR¸W�SVMKMREP�HIWMKR��EW�GSRNIGXYVIH�¶���8LMW�µGSRNIGXYVI¶�WXMTYPEXMSR�YPXMQEXIP]�
allowed Allen to change various aspects within the church under the guise of
MQTVSZMRK�SV�ÁREPP]�EPPS[MRK�;VIR¸W�MRXIRHIH�HIWMKR�XS�GSQI�XS�JVYMXMSR��The Builder
article stated that Allen proposed to “eliminate the north and south galleries which,
MR�1V��%PPIR¸W�ZMI[��[IVI�EHHIH�?F]�;VIRA�EW�EJXIVXLSYKLXW�¶�� Allen argued that “had
Wren intended the galleries, he would have made proper provision of windows on
�� London. Improvements and Town Planning Committee. Report: Preliminary Draft Proposals for Post-War Reconstruction��0SRHSR��&�8��&EXWJSVH��0XH���������F��4VMRX�33 Ibid.34 London. London Diocesan Advisory Committee. Meeting Minutes, January 26, 1954. Print.�� µ7X��&VMHI¸W��*PIIX�7XVIIX��4VSTSWIH�6IWXSVEXMSR�¶�Builder��<<<:-��������� �������4VMRX��� Ibid.
��
the north and south walls, and the pedestals of the columns would have been carried
YT�XS�XLI�PIZIP�SJ�XLI�KEPPIVMIW¬�MRWXIEH�SJ�VMWMRK�JVSQ�XLI�ÂSSV�XS�XLI�WTVMRKMRK�SJ�
XLI�EVGLIW�¶ 37 Allen proposed removing the galleries that were “not now required,
ERH�VIWXSVMRK�XLI�EVGEHMRK¶�[LMGL�[SYPH�LIPT�µEGLMIZI�SRGI�QSVI�XLI�WTEGMSYW�
TVSTSVXMSRW�SJ�;VIR¸W�HIWMKR�¶�� The new, collegiate-style seating would allow “a more
MRXMQEXI�JSVQ�SJ�WIVZMGI�¶���8LMW�WMKRMÁGERX�GLERKI�MR�WIEXMRK�GER�FI�EXXVMFYXIH�XS�XLI�
Liturgical Movement as the goal of bringing congregation and clergy closer together to
JSVQ�µE�QSVI�MRXMQEXI¶�WIVZMGI�[EW�EX�XLI�LIEVX�SJ�%PPIR¸W�HIWMKR�
-R������ERSXLIV�EVXMGPI�[EW�TYFPMWLIH�MR�The Builder. Allen had continued to
VIÁRI�LMW�ÁVWX�HIWMKR�MR�ER�EXXIQTX�XS�µFVMRK�XLI�VIWXSVEXMSR�GPSWIV�XS�;VIR¸W�SVMKMREP�
TPERW�¶�� The restoration included items such as a fresco on the east end of the church,
which was designed to “give the east end of the church the appearance of an apse
MRWXIEH�SJ�E�ÂEX�[EPP¶��WII�-QEKIW���ERH�� ����2I[�FPEGO�ERH�[LMXI�QEVFPI�ÂSSVMRK�
was installed along with collegiate style seating. The gallery space was still excluded
JVSQ�XLI�VIWXSVEXMSR�TPERW�EW�XLI]�µVIHYGIH�XLI�PMKLX�QYGL�FIPSZIH�F]�;VIR�¶�� The
two aisles were then used as memorial chapels dedicated to the press “printing and
OMRHVIH�TVSJIWWMSRW�ERH�XVEHIW¶�SR�XLI�RSVXL�ERH�XS�'LMPHVIR�ERH�1MWWMSRW�3ZIVWIEW�
on the south side.
The church Rector and Churchwardens published a small brochure in
�����EFSYX�XLI�VIWXSVEXMSR�SJ�XLI�GLYVGL��µ8LMW�VIWXSVEXMSR�[EW�E�XVMYQTL�SJ�JEMXL��
vision, patience, tenacity and devotion by the friends of St. Bride’s, determined to
37 Ibid.�� Ibid.�� Ibid.�� Ibid.�� Ibid.�� (EZMI��)VMG��µ7X��&VMHI¸W�4VIWIRXEXMSR�¶�7X��&VMHI¸W�8SYV��7X��&VMHI¸W�'LYVGL��)RKPERH��0SRHSR��Lecture.
��
WII�XLI�4VMRXIV¸W�'LYVGL��WSQIXMQIW�GEPPIH�·8LI�'EXLIHVEP�SJ�*PIIX�7XVIIX�̧ �XEOI�MXW�
rightful place as a forum of thought, enlightenment and progress in the heart of
RI[WTETIVHSQ�¶43 The publication noted that “those who knew Wren’s church prior
XS�XLI�7IGSRH�;SVPH�;EV��[MXL�MXW�LMKL�FEGOIH�Á\IH�TI[W��MXW�WSQFIV�VEMPIH�SJJ�
communion tables and tablets, its heavy galleries in the north and south arcades, and
MXW�KVIEX�SVKER��KEPPIV]�ERH�ZIWXMFYPI�EX�XLI�[IWX�IRH��[MPP�ÁRH�E�KVIEX�GLERKI�¶44 The
language used in just this one paragraph illustrates the overall attitude at the time
of restoration. Wren’s design, although heralded as a masterpiece, was thought to be
PEHIR�[MXL�HVE[FEGOW�WYGL�EW�µLIEZ]�KEPPIVMIW¶�ERH�µWSQFIV¶�GSQQYRMSR�XEFPIW�XLEX�
could be improved upon, with the help of Allen’s creative interpretation.
%�WMKRMÁGERX�HMWGSZIV]�JSPPS[IH�EJXIV�I\GEZEXMSRW�PIEH�F]�4VSJIWWSV�+VMQIW�MR�
�����ERH������[IVI�GSQTPIXIH��SZIV�������]IEVW�SJ�LMWXSV]�[EW�EHHIH�XS�7X��&VMHI¸W��
The church Rector and Churchwardens booklet discussed the excavations that
uncovered Roman ruins, mosaics and skeletal remains. “Six inches below the level of
;VIR¸W�GLYVGL�¶�MX�I\TPEMRIH��µ[I�FIKER�XS�YRGSZIV�WOIPIXSRW�ERH�PIEH�GSJÁRW��QSWX�SJ�
[LMGL�LEH�FIEYXMJYPP]�IRKVEZIH�MRWGVMTXMSRW¬�;I�HMH�RSX�ORS[�XLIR�XLEX�RIEVP]�������
burials, Roman, Saxon and onwards, had taken place in the area now enclosed by the
[EPPW�SJ�;VIR¸W�GLYVGL�¶ ��
8LI�VIFYMPHMRK�[SVO�[EW�GEVVMIH�SYX�F]�1IWWVW��2SVQER��&YVX�SJ�&YVKIWW�
,MPP��[LS�EPWS�VIWXSVIH�7X��+MPIW��'VMTTPIKEXI�ERH�QER]�SXLIV�[IPP�ORS[R�GLYVGLIW�
and cathedrals. The work was funded with the help of the War Damage Commission
ERH�XLI�TVMRXMRK�MRHYWXV]��8LI�GLYVGL�VIWXSVEXMSR�[EW�GSQTPIXIH�MR�������WIZIRXIIR�
]IEVW�EJXIV�MX�[EW�HIWXVS]IH�MR�(IGIQFIV�������8LI�SJÁGMEP�VISTIRMRK�GIVIQSR]�[EW�
LIPH�SR�(IGIQFIV���������� The space below the church is now open as a museum
43 Redpath, William. Fleet Street’s Church Restored, 1940-1957���RH�IH��0SRHSR��4EXMRE�4VIWW�0XH������������Print.44 6IHTEXL�������� 6IHTEXL�����
��
HIXEMPMRK�XLI�I\XIRWMZI�LMWXSV]�SJ�XLI�GLYVGL�ERH�I\GEZEXMSR�ÁRHW��%�7ITXIQFIV������
meeting of the London Diocesan Advisory Committee approved a “scheme for the
re-arrangement and development of the crypts to provide a permanent exhibition of
QEXXIVW�SJ�LMWXSVMGEP�MRXIVIWX�¶��
Past Interpretation
(IWTMXI�%PPIR¸W�WMKRMÁGERX�HIWMKR�GLERKIW�JSV�XLI�GLYVGL��QER]�GVMXMGW�
supported the design and noted its success. The church Rector and Churchwarden
FSSOPIX�GEPPW�%PPIR¸W�HIWMKRW�µKIRMYW¶�EW�LI�[EW�EFPI�XS�GVIEXI�ER�MRXIVMSV�µWYMXEFPI�JSV�
TVIWIRX�HE]�RIIHW�ERH�EHETXEFPI�JSV�XLI�JYXYVI�¶47 “Within Wren’s fabric, which he has
WS�JEMXLJYPP]�TVIWIVZIH�¶�XLI]�EVKYI�µ?%PPIRA�GVIEXIH�E�RI[�MRXIVMSV�MR�XLI�2EZI�ERH�XLI�
7ERGXYEV]´E�KIQ�SJ�VEVI�FIEYX]�¶���8LI]�GEPP�XLI�VIVIHSW�E�µFEPERGIH�HIWMKR¶�SJ�µVEVI�
FIEYX]¶�XLEX�GVIEXIH�ER�µMRXMQEXI�EXQSWTLIVI�SJ�E�GSPPIKMEXI�GLYVGL�¶��
%�.ERYEV]������EVXMGPI�MR�Country Life comments on Allen’s changes to the
building stating, “by making the altar-piece a solid structure the architect has
increased the sense of depth behind it which is further enhanced by Mr. Glyn Jones’s
trompe l’oeil�TEMRXMRK�SR�XLI�IEWX�[EPP�¶�8LI�EYXLSV�WYTTSVXW�XLI�RI[�EPXEV�TMIGI�
because it has effectively reduced glare which was “so troublesome to those facing it
YRPIWW�XLI�[MRHS[�?[EWA�ÁPPIH�[MXL�STEUYI�WXEMRIH�KPEWW¶��WII�-QEKI�� ��� The article
calls the painting on the east end wall, designed to create the illusion of an apse, a
µFVMPPMERX�EGLMIZIQIRX¶�EW�XLI�GLYVGL�RS[�LEH�E�µWIRWI�SJ�HITXL�ERH�VIGIWWMSR�FILMRH�
the high altar much greater than the few feet that in fact separate the east wall from
�� London. London Diocesan Advisory Committee. Meeting Minutes, September 26, 1967. Print.47 6IHTEXL������� 6IHTEXL������� 6IHTEXL�������� 1G*EPP��(EZMH��Country Life������� ������;IF����(IG�������
��
XLI�VIVIHSW¶��WII�-QEKI��� ��� These articles depict a general feeling of acceptance
XS[EVHW�%PPIR¸W�HIWMKR��HIWTMXI�XLI�JEGX�LI�EPXIVIH�WMKRMÁGERX�EWTIGXW�SJ�XLI�HIWMKR�
such as the seating.
2SX�EPP�GVMXMGW�ETTVSZIH�SJ�%PPIR¸W�HIWMKR��SV�EX�PIEWX�XLI�GPEMQ�XLEX�MX�[EW�E�
VIWXSVIH�;VIR�HIWMKR��-R�E������EVXMGPI�JVSQ�The Architect’s Journal��-ER�2EMVR��E�
British architectural critic, writes about six Wren churches that had undergone
VIGIRX�VIWXSVEXMSRW�MRGPYHMRK�7X��&VMHI¸W��,MW�EREP]WMW�SJ�7X��&VMHI¸W�MW�GVMXMGEP�SJ�XLI�
VIEVVERKIQIRX�SJ�XLI�WIEXMRK��,I�RSXIW�XLEX�7X��&VMHI¸W�VIWXSVEXMSR�PIH�XS�µE�RI[�
GLYVGL¶�ERH�YVKIH�YWIVW�XS�µRSX�FI�QMWPIH�F]�XLI�XEPO�SJ�VIHSMRK�;VIR¸W�SVMKMREP�
MRXIRXMSRW��XLMW�MW�E�XLSVSYKL�KSMRK�ERH�TEVXP]�WYGGIWWJYP�RIS�;VIR�IWWE]�[LMGL�
LEW�LETTIRIH�XS�YWI�XLI�[EPPW�ERH�EVGEHIW�SJ�E�;VIR�GLYVGL�¶���2EMVR�XEPOW�EFSYX�
Godfrey Allen’s choice to replace the gallery-style seating for college-fashion stalls
with “the east end… completely rearranged with a big free-standing altar and a trompe
l’oeil TEMRXMRK�SR�XLI�ÂEX�[EPP�FILMRH¶�ERH�GEPPW�XLI�WXEPPW�µWTEXMEPP]¬�RSRWIRWI�¶���,I�
remarks that for a longitudinal church, the college stalls “simply get in the way of
the rhythm of the arcades with the heavy cornice and the heavier pediments sticking
YT�NYWX�[LIVI�XLI]�EVI�PIEWX�[ERXIH�¶�� The author criticizes the decision to recreate
some kind of old design instead of using Wren’s original arcades “as the basis of a
GSQTPIXIP]�RI[�FYMPHMRK�[MXL�QSHIVR�ÁXXMRKW�ERH�E�QSHIVR�VSSJ¬¶��
-R������EYXLSV�(I[M�1SVKER�TYFPMWLIH�Phoenix of Fleet Street: 2,000 Years of St.
Bride’s in which he describes the reconstruction. Morgan argues that the east wall,
µPEGOMRK�XLI�HMWXERGI�IJJIGX�GVIEXIH�F]�E�GLERGIP¶�[EW�µEFVYTX��ÂEX��ERH�YRMRWTMVMRK´
�� Ibid.�� µ7X��&VMHI¸W��*PIIX�7XVIIX�¶�Architects’ Journal������� �������4VMRX��� Ibid.�� Ibid.�� Ibid.
��
[LMPI�XLI�[LSPI�GLYVGL�[EW�GPYXXIVIH�[MXL�HEVO�FVS[R�TI[W�¶�� Morgan continues
SR�ERH�GVMXMUYIW�XLI�WIEXMRK��,I�WXEXIH�XLEX�XLI�µWXEPPW�MR�7X��&VMHI¸W�EVI�MQTVIWWMZI��
Their arrangement encourages a feeling of community among the congregation. The
arrangement does, however, have one disadvantage, in that the preacher feels he is
EHHVIWWMRK�E�VS[�SJ�RSWIW��8LIVI�MW�RS�TYPTMX�MR�XLI�GLYVGL�ERH�MX�MW�HMJÁGYPX�XS�ORS[�
[LIVI�SRI�GSYPH�FI�TYX��%R�EQTPMÁGEXMSR�W]WXIQ¬�LEW�XLIVIJSVI�TVSZIH�SJ�IWTIGMEP�
ZEPYI�¶��
8LI�FYMPHMRK�[EW�PMWXIH�EW�E�KVEHI�-�FYMPHMRK�MR�.ERYEV]�������8LI�)RKPMWL�
,IVMXEKI�PMWXMRK��YTHEXIH�MR�������GEPPIH�XLI�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�E�µRIEV�JEGWMQMPI¶�]IX�GEPPIH�
XLI�MRXIVMSV�µSRI�SJ�;VIR¸W�ÁRIWX¬�RS[�SFWGYVIH�F]�QSHIVR�NSMRIV]�¶ �� This update
demonstrates the realization and shift in thinking as Allen’s additions are now seen to
FI�µSFWGYVMRK¶�;VIR¸W�SVMKMREP�HIWMKR��
The printing and newspaper industry eventually moved out of the area in the
����W�EW�IPIGXVSRMG�TVMRXMRK�XIGLRSPSK]�FIKER�HSQMREXMRK�XLI�MRHYWXV]�ERH�RI[WTETIV�
owners decided to abandon their cramped and expensive sites for cheaper locations
IPWI[LIVI�MR�0SRHSR��,S[IZIV��XLI�µGLYVGL�VIQEMRW�ZIV]�QYGL�E�NSYVREPMWQ¸W�
parish church, despite the diaspora of the industry away from this district in recent
HIGEHIW�¶���µ;LEX�YWIH�XS�FI�XLI�ZMPPEKI�SJ�*PIIX�7XVIIX�MW�RS[�HIWIVXIH�̧ ¶�WEMH�'ERSR�
David Meara, the vicar of St Bride’s. Meara stated that the church is now a “place of
KLSWXW�ERH�QIQSVMIW¶�FYX�GSRXMRYIW�XS�WIVZI�EW�E�QIIXMRK�TPEGI�JSV�XLSWI�[LS�WXMPP�
work within the area and for weddings, memorials, and other events.��
�� Morgan, ���. �� Morgan, ���. �� µ'LYVGL�SJ�7X��&VMHI�¶�English Heritage��)RKPMWL�,IVMXEKI��;IF�����2SZ�������� 'LIGOPERH��7EVEL�.ERI��µ'IPIFVEXMSR�1EVOW�XLI�(E]�*PIIX�7XVIIX¸W�4EVMWL�'LYVGL�6SWI�*VSQ�XLI�%WLIW�SJ�;EV�¶�The Times�?0SRHSRA����2SZ�����������;IF����2SZ��������� %WPIX��'PMZI��µ(IEHPMRIW�ERH�0MJIPMRIW�EX�7X��&VMHI¸W��%�7TIGMEP�%TTIEP�JSV�XLI�.SYVREPMWXW �̧'LYVGL�MR�*PIIX�7XVIIX�¶�Daily Telegraph�?0SRHSRA����7ITX����������;IF����2SZ�������
��
Current Interpretation
Wren’s contribution to London through his church design still dominates
GYVVIRX�EVKYQIRXW�JSV�WMKRMÁGERGI��TEVXMGYPEVP]�[MXL�7X��&VMHI¸W��%PPIR¸W�GVIHMX�JSV�
his contributions to the building pale in comparison to the amount of credit that
Wren’s receives for the building. The church is still largely known as a Wren design,
as opposed to a Wren/Allen design. “This is one of Wren’s most prominent buildings,
and it is preserving his legacy as well as the stone of St. Bride’s that we are looking
XS�HS�¶�.EQIW�-VZMRK��XLI�GLYVGL¸W�HMVIGXSV�SJ�ÁRERGI��XSPH�Reuters.�� The church’s
connection with journalism is also noted, “known as the journalists’ church, St. Bride’s
MW�E�TSMKRERX�VIQMRHIV�SJ�XLI�TVSJIWWMSR¸W�GSRRIGXMSR�[MXL�*PIIX�7XVIIX�¶��
%�VITSVX�F]�µ7%:)�&VMXEMR¸W�,IVMXEKI¶�[EW�TYFPMWLIH�MR�1E]������XMXPIH�The City
Churches Have a Future. The purpose of the publication was to promote current and
JYXYVI�YWI�SJ�XLI�'MX]�'LYVGLIW���%�WIVMIW�SJ�EVXMGPIW�[EW�TYFPMWLIH�MR�XLI�VITSVX��3RI��
F]�(V��+MPIW�;SVWPI]�EVKYIW�XLEX�XLI�GLYVGLIW �̧µWMKRMÁGERGI�PMIW�MR�XLI�JEGX�XLEX�XLI]�
EVI�WS�YRX]TMGEP¶�JSV�XLIMV�EWWSGMEXMSR�[MXL�7MV�'LVMWXSTLIV�;VIR��µMX�MW�XLMW�XLEX�QEOIW�
XLI����GLYVGLIW¬�EQSRK�XLI�QSWX�EVGLMXIGXYVEPP]�MQTSVXERX�MR�XLI�GSYRXV]�¶��
Despite my surprise that Allen was able to insert a new seating scheme into the
GLYVGL��EHHMXMSREP�GSPPIKMEXI�WX]PI�WMHI�EMWPI�WIEXMRK�[EW�GSRWXVYGXIH�MR������EJXIV�E�
JYRHMRK�ETTIEP��8LI�WIEXMRK��XLI�GLYVGL�EVKYIH��SJJIVIH�µWMKRMÁGERXP]�FIXXIV�ZMI[W�JSV�
PEVKI�GSRKVIKEXMSRW�[LMPI�TVIWIVZMRK�XLI�FIEYXMJYP�GLEVEGXIV�SJ�XLI�GLYVGL�¶��
8SHE]��XLI�GLYVGL�MW�MR�XLI�QMHWX�SJ�E�ÁRERGI�GEQTEMKR�XS�VEMWI�QSRI]�JSV�
KIRIVEP�I\XIVMSV�QEMRXIRERGI�ERH�GPIERMRK�SJ�XLI�FYMPHMRK��WII�-QEKIW����ERH��� ��
�� 3VQWF]��%ZVMP��µ7X�&VMHI¸W��8LI�µ.SYVREPMWXW �̧'LYVGL¶�MR�0SRHSR��7IIOW�E�*MRERGMEP�7YMXSV�¶�Reuters 3 .ER�������R��TEK��;IF����.ER��������� 0SRK��/MIVER��µ7EZI�7X��&VMHI¸W�¶�London Evening Standard����.ER�������R��TEK��;IF�����.ER��������� ;SVWPI]��+MPIW��µ8LI�'MX]�SJ�0SRHSR�'LYVGLIW�¶�8VERW��%VVE]�The City Churches Have a Future��0SRHSR��7EZI�&VMXEMR¸W�,IVMXEKI��������4VMRX��� µ'LETXIV�<��������������¶�St. Bride’s: History��7X��&VMHI¸W�'LYVGL��*PIIX�7XVIIX��;IF����2SZ������
��
The church launched its “Inspire!”�JYRHVEMWMRK�GEQTEMKR�MR�1EVGL������[MXL�E�KSEP�
of raising �����QMPPMSR��%W�SJ�.ERYEV]������XLI]�LEH�VEMWIH�IRSYKL�JYRHW�JSV�XLI�
Churchwardens and the Parochial Church Council to begin preparations for work to
FIKMR�MR�WTVMRK�SV�WYQQIV�������%R�EHHMXMSREP�£��������MW�FIMRK�EWOIH�XS�LIPT�JYRH�
MRXIVMSV�GPIERMRK�MR�������WII�-QEKI��� ��The appeal notes that the church is “one of
XLI�ÁRIWX�I\EQTPIW�SJ�'LVMWXSTLIV�;VIR¸W�[SVO�[LMGL�LEW�WXSSH�JSV�QSVI�XLER�����
]IEVW�¶�� Sir Michael Bear, Master of the Worshipful Company of Paviors, and Late Lord
Mayor of London stated “the City landscape is punctuated with historic buildings,
QER]�SJ�XLIQ�GLYVGLIW��E�JI[�EVI�ÁRI�I\EQTPIW�SJ�;VIR¸W�FIWX�[SVO��8LI]�EVI�XLI�
glue that holds the Cityscape together and makes the varied property skyline what it
MW�XSHE]�¶���2MGO�*IVVEVM��PSGEP�NSYVREPMWX�ERH�FVSEHGEWXIV�WXEXIH�µ7X�&VMHI¸W�MW�RSX�SRP]�
E�GLYVGL�FYX�E�JSGEP�TSMRX¬*PIIX�7XVIIX��XLI�RI[WTETIV�MRHYWXV]�ERH�XLI�FVSEHIV�
broadcast and online media business… it is St Bride’s that we journalists return for
XLI�GIPIFVEXMSR�SJ�XLI�MRHYWXV]�ERH�MRHMZMHYEP�TISTPI¸W�GSRXVMFYXMSR�XS�E�JVII�TVIWW�¶��
Conclusion
The combined elements that led to St. Bride’s reconstruction stemmed from its
EJÁPMEXMSR�[MXL�;VIR�ERH�'MX]�'LYVGLIW�EW�[IPP�EW�MXW�EWWSGMEXMSR�[MXL�XLI�TVMRXMRK�ERH�
NSYVREPMWQ�MRHYWXV]�SR�*PIIX�7XVIIX��;MXLSYX�XLIWI�XLVII�GSRRIGXMSRW��XLI�GLYVGL��MR�
an area with many potentially redundant churches, could have easily been torn down.
With all this in mind I look to answer the key questions asked at the beginning
SJ�Q]�VIWIEVGL��µ-W�XLI�WMKRMÁGERGI�PE]IVIH�SRXS�XLMW�WMXI�TSWX�[EV�VIGSKRM^IH�XSHE]#¶�-�
would argue that it is recognized, but only because of the great excavation discoveries
XLEX�LETTIRIH�FIGEYWI�SJ�XLI�FSQFMRK��3XLIV[MWI��XLI�WMXI�[SYPH�WXMPP�SRP]�FI�
�� St. Bride’s Church. Inspire! Advertisement. 0SRHSR��������4VMRX��� Ibid.�� Ibid.
��
ORS[R�JSV�MXW�EVGLMXIGX�ERH�GSRRIGXMSR�XS�*PIIX�7XVIIX�NSYVREPMWQ��8LI�EVGLEISPSKMGEP�
breakthrough ensured that the post-war history of the site is noted in the overall
history of St. Bride’s. Without this discovery that is clearly physical evidence of the
post-war reconstruction, Allen’s additions and alternations may have gone virtually
unnoticed by future visitors.
%RSXLIV�UYIWXMSR��µ[MPP�XLI�EHHIH�QIERMRK�ERH�WMKRMÁGERGI�EJJIGX�
TVIWIVZEXMSR�HIGMWMSRW�XSHE]#¶�GSQTIPW�E�WMQMPEV�VIWTSRWI��8LI�EHHIH�WMKRMÁGERGI�
from the excavations will certainly affect preservation decisions as the excavation
site is currently preserved and being researched under the main sanctuary space
of the building. As a physical reminder of the effects of the WWII bombing, the
archaeological remains will dictate future preservation decisions as it relates to the
museum space underneath the sanctuary. Despite this, the Inspire! campaign that
is looking to fund basic maintenance and cleaning of the church still relies on the
church’s historical Wren background as the main argument for restoration. Despite
this, future preservation decisions will have to be affected by the fact that Wren’s
GLYVGL�RS[�LEW�ER�%PPIR�HIWMKRIH�MRXIVMSV��*YXYVI�HIGMWMSRW�[MPP�RIIH�XS�XEOI�XLI�
RI[�MRXIVMSV��[LMGL�MW�RS[�WMKRMÁGERX�MR�MXW�S[R�VMKLX��MRXS�EGGSYRX�[LIR�JEGIH�[MXL�
decisions concerning restoration. I would suggest that, even though the distinction
between Wren and Allen is not very clear, that Allen’s design remain a necessary
component of St. Bride’s overall design. In addition, I would also suggest that the line
FIX[IIR�;VIR�ERH�%PPIR�FI�QSVI�GPIEVP]�HIÁRIH�WS�JYXYVI�ZMWMXSVW�GER�QSVI�IEWMP]�
understand the layered history of the building.
%�ÁREP�UYIWXMSR�SJ�MJ�XLI�µ�QIERMRK�SJ�XLI�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�MW�VIPIZERX�XSHE]�MR�XLI�
WLMJXMRK�SJ�QIQSV]�JVSQ�ÁVWX�XS�WIGSRH�KIRIVEXMSR¶�TIVLETW�LEW�E�QSVI�WMQTPI�ERW[IV�
SJ�µRS�¶�%W�XLI�QEMR�;SVPH�;EV�--�MQTSVXERGI�GSQIW�JVSQ�XLI�I\GEZEXMSR�ÁRHMRKW�ERH�
XLI�JEGX�XLEX�XLI�GLYVGL¸W�XMIW�[MXL�;VIR�ERH�*PIIX�7XVIIX�WXMPP�HSQMREXI�QSWX�SJ�XLI�
church’s publications, it is safe to say that the meaning of the reconstruction, although
��
it will certainly be mentioned in future history books, will only be noted as a side
element among the greater connections the church has ties to.
��
-QEKI����7X��&VMHI¸W�-RXIVMSV������History Under Fire, 52 Photographs of Air Raid Damage to London Buildings, 1940-41
��
-QEKI����2SVXL�WMHI�SJ�7X�&VMHI¸W�IRKVEZIH�F]�;�,��8SQW������Image Courtesy St. Bride’s Church
��
-QEKI����7X��&VMHI¸W��TSWX�;;--History Under Fire, 52 Photographs of Air Raid Damage to London Buildings, 1940-41
��
-QEKI����7X��&VMHI¸W��STIR�EMV�WIVZMGI�TSWX�;;--�Image Courtesy St. Bride’s Church
��
-QEKI����7X��&VMHI¸W��GSRGVIXI�IRGEWIH�GSPYQRW�The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings Archives
��
-QEKI����%PPIR¸W�4VSTSWIH�7X��&VMHI¸W�6IWXSVEXMSR�(IWMKR“St. Bride’s, Fleet Street: Proposed Restoration.” Builder
��
-QEKI���ERH����)EWX�IRH�JVIWGSJennifer Whisenhunt
��
-QEKI����7X��&VMHI¸W�-RXIVMSV��ZMI[�XS�EPXEV������Jennifer Whisenhunt
���
-QEKI�����7X��&VMHI¸W�-RXIVMSV������Jennifer Whisenhunt
���
-QEKI�����7X��&VMHI¸W�)\XIVMSV������Jennifer Whisenhunt
���
-QEKI�����7X��&VMHI¸W�)\XIVMSV������Jennifer Whisenhunt
���
-QEKI�����7X��&VMHI¸W�-RXIVMSV��ZMI[�XS�IRXVERGI�JVSQ�EPXEV������Jennifer Whisenhunt
104
Coventry Cathedral, Coventry
105
Introduction
Coventry Cathedral is located in Coventry, England, an industrial center
situated in the West Midlands of the country. This cathedral is an example of a site that
preserved the church ruins and built a new structure adjacent. Similar to Dresden,
Coventry chose to embrace both historic fabric and contemporary design aesthetics
in their rebuilding. Coventry has become known throughout the world for its new
cathedral design and its dedication to peace and reconciliation. Coventry gained this
VIGSKRMXMSR�FIGEYWI�MX�[EW�SRI�SJ�XLI�ÁVWX�GMXMIW��SYXWMHI�SJ�0SRHSR��XS�I\TIVMIRGI�
such an extensive German bombing raid. This raid occurred in November 1940, just
SZIV�SRI�QSRXL�FIJSVI�XLI�EMV�VEMH�XLEX�HEQEKIH�7X��&VMHI¸W�'LYVGL�MR�0SRHSR�XSSO�
place. Coventry was immediately considered an example of recovery and rebuilding
ERH�EW�WYGL��XLI�GEXLIHVEP�TVSNIGX�LIPH�ER�MQQIRWI�EQSYRX�SJ�WMKRMÁGERGI�JSV�XLI�
city and country. Coventry’s importance greatly surpassed Plymouth’s rebuilding
WMKRMÁGERGI�EW�XLI�GEXLIHVEP�FIGEQI�SRI�SJ�XLI�QSWX�[IPP�ORS[R�REXMSREP�ERH�
international symbols of hope and recovery.
These ideas of recovery and reconciliation dominated the design for the
cathedral from the beginning of the project and are at the heart of the building’s
interpretation today. In the upcoming chapter about St. Paul’s, Bow Common a
striking comparison between the two churches becomes evident, as both are prime
I\EQTPIW�SJ�XLI�MQTEGX�XLI�0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX�LEH�SR�GLYVGL�HIWMKR���
Original Building History
Coventry Cathedral belongs to the Church of England and lies within the
Province of Canterbury under the Diocese of Coventry. The original church, the
Cathedral Church of St. Michael, was built in the English gothic Perpendicular style
during the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (see Images 1 and 2). The tower
was built between 1373 and 1394, and the construction of the spire began in 1432. The
106
GLYVGL�FSEWXIH�����[MRHS[W��E�TIRXEKSREP�ETWI�[MXL�[MRHS[�XVEGIV]�EW�[IPP�EW�E�����
foot tower and spire. The church was seen as an “all familiar… landmark which no one
who has seen… could ever forget.”1�8LI�FYMPHMRK�[EW�ORS[R�JSV�MXW�XLVII�µQEKRMÁGIRX�
spires” which began to decay so the cathedral underwent a complete restoration
FIX[IIR������������%X�XLI�XMQI�XLI�FYMPHMRK�[EW�MR�E�µHITPSVEFPI�GSRHMXMSR�¶2 The
building was originally designated as a parish church but was later enlarged and
gained cathedral status in 1918.
WWII History
Coventry was destroyed during an air raid on November 14, 1940 when a
+IVQER�EMVWXVMOI�LMX�XLI�GMX]�ERH�WYFWIUYIRXP]�HIWXVS]IH�7X��1MGLEIP¸W�'EXLIHVEP��8[S�
thirds of the medieval city was destroyed or severely damaged in the raid; 568 people
died while 863 were severely injured.3 The next morning the city discovered that only
the cathedral tower, spire and exterior walls remained intact (see Images 3 and 4). The
town center was reduced to a “charred wilderness of rubble and twisted girders.”4
'SZIRXV]�[EW�SRI�SJ�XLI�ÁVWX�&VMXMWL�GMXMIW�XS�WYJJIV�WYGL�WYWXEMRIH�FSQFMRK�
EJXIV�XLI�+IVQER�EMV�JSVGI�XYVRIH�XLIMV�EXXIRXMSR�E[E]�JVSQ�0SRHSR�XS�µXLI�QSVI�
compact targets of provincial cities.”5 This single factor affected the rebuilding
perhaps more than any other issue at hand. The Coventry Blitz subsequently obtained
legendary status as the blitz symbolized Nazi terror that had been ruthlessly and
senselessly released upon innocent civilians and their city. Despite later attempts
1 µ8LI�6IWXSVEXMSR�SJ�7X��1MGLEIP¸W�'LYVGL��%�7YVZI]�SJ�XLI�;SVO�¶�Coventry Standard? n. pag. Print.“Various.” Cycling Times, n. pag. Print.2 Ibid.3 'EQTFIPP��0SYMWI��Coventry Cathedral: Art and Architecture in Post-War Britain. Oxford: Clarendon 4VIWW�������������4VMRX�4 &V]ERX��%VXLYV��Coventry Cathedral. Coventry Cathedral Council, 1970. 2. Print.5 Campbell, 7.
107
by historians to create a more “rounded picture, by suggesting that industry was
the real target” these concepts continued to surround discussions of the blitz.6 This
attempt at propaganda propelled the future church design to legendary status before
GSRWXVYGXMSR�IZIR�WXEVXIH��0SRHSR�[EW�EPVIEH]�MR�XLI�QMHWX�SJ�E�FPMX^�XLEX�[EW�XS�PEWX�
from September 1940 to May 1941, which was also seen as an attempt of destruction
for the purpose of crippling local morale, so Coventry’s blitz, also seen as lacking real
strategic purpose, used that same idea to pull together local and national support in a
“resolve that Nazi Germany must, and would be, beaten.”7
%W�'SZIRXV]�[EW�XLI�ÁVWX�GMX]�MR�)RKPERH�XS�VIEPP]�I\TIVMIRGI�XLMW�PIZIP�SJ�
HIZEWXEXMSR��ETEVX�JVSQ�0SRHSR��XLI�TVIWW�GSZIVIH�XLI�IZIRX�I\XIRWMZIP]�ERH�TVIWIRXIH�
the city as “a monument to German frightfulness.”8 The loss of physical fabric to the
GMX]��ERH�WTIGMÁGEPP]�7X��1MGLEIP¸W�'EXLIHVEP��[EW�YWIH�EW�TVSTEKERHE�XS�WYKKIWX�XLI�
ZYPRIVEFMPMX]�SJ�XLI�GMX]�EW�[IPP�EW�HIÁERGI�EKEMRWX�2E^M�XIVVSV��8LI�Birmingham Gazette
stated “the proud spirit of Coventry Cathedral yesterday stood as a sentinel over the
grim scene of destruction below.”9
News coverage about this idea became unnerving for then Prime Minister and
Minister of Defense, Winston Churchill, as well as the Director of Home Intelligence,
1EV]�%HEQW��%HEQW�WYKKIWXIH�E�WLMJX�MR�VITSVXMRK�JVSQ�HIWXVYGXMSR�XS�µXLI�JYXYVI��XS�
rebuilding, reconstruction, replanning” in order to provide “a useful escape from…
controversial issues” such as civilian shelters, military strategy or destruction.10
6 Campbell, 7. 7 &EVRIXX��'SVVIPPM��µ+IVQER]¸W�&SQFW�7IX�3YV�'MXMIW�ERH�,SQIW�%PMKLX��&YX�;I�'EVVMIH�On.” Independent ?0SRHSRA����7ITX�������R��TEK��;IF�����%YK�������8 Campbell, 9. 9 Ibid.10 Campbell, 10.
108
Coventry Reconstruction Plan
To aid in the overall appeal of focusing on the future and reconstruction, the
day after the air strike, the Provost of Coventry, Richard Howard, stated that the city
and the cathedral would be rebuilt. His speech “ensured that the city and its cathedral
became an emblem of all Britain’s bombed cities, and the focus of hopes for the
future.”11�,MW�TVSTSWEP�JSV�VIFYMPHMRK�XLI�GLYVGL�µEW�E�W]QFSP�SJ�'LVMWX¸W�GVYGMÁ\MSR�
and resurrection, and of hope and forgiveness in the face of war and destruction”
gained widespread attention and support.12 Other leaders in the community included
the city engineer, E.H. Ford, who controlled the majority of the new city planning,
particularly in terms of the street pattern for the central commercial area and the City
%VGLMXIGX��(SREPH�+MFWSR��[LS�JSGYWIH�SR�XLI�EVIE�EVSYRH�XLI�GEXLIHVEP�[LIVI�RI[�
civic and cultural buildings were to be located.
Both Ford and Gibson presented reconstruction plans to the National
Emergency Committee and City Redevelopment Committee in 1941.13 Gibson’s plan
GEPPIH�JSV�VIHYGIH�XVEJÁG�JVSQ�XS�XLI�GMX]¸W�QEMR�WLSTTMRK�EVIE�ERH�E�VIPSGEXIH�GMX]�
GIRXIV��HIWMKRIH�XS�FI�E�KVERH�WUYEVI��WII�-QEKI�� ��3RGI�EKEMR��XVEJÁG�TPERRMRK�MW�EX�
XLI�JSVIJVSRX�SJ�TSWX�[EV�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR��8S�XLI�IEWX�ERH�[IWX�SJ�XLI�WUYEVI�[IVI�GMZMG�
buildings and the commercial center, respectively, with the cathedral sitting in the
middle. Ford’s plan, however, did not rethink the street pattern but merely proposed
widening the already existing streets. He did, like Gibson, design a “broad vista”
between Broadgate and the cathedral but unlike Gibson he envisaged “small squares
EVSYRH�XLI�'EXLIHVEP�ERH�GMZMG�SJÁGIW�XS�XLI�IEWX�SJ�XLI�GIRXVEP�LMPPXST�̧ ¶14 In January
11� �+PIRHMRRMRK��1MPIW��.ERI�8LSQEW�ERH�0SYMWI�'EQTFIPP��&EWMP�7TIRGI��&YMPHMRKW��4VSNIGXW��0SRHSR��6-&%�4YFPMWLMRK������������4VMRX��12 Hodge, Jessica. Coventry Cathedral: Celebrating the Past, Embracing the Future��0SRHSR��7GEPE�4YFPMWLIVW�0XH������������4VMRX�13 Campbell, 14. 14 Campbell, 16.
109
�����'LYVGLMPP¸W�[EVXMQI�'EFMRIX�QIX�[MXL�0SVH�6IMXL��XLI�1MRMWXIV�SJ�;SVOW��ERH�
Gibson’s plan was selected. Coventry’s Redevelopment Committee approved the plan
in March.
Gibson continued to work on the plan and produced a model to present to the
public by 1942. His plan, widely published, became an example for the reconstruction
SJ�&VMXMWL�GMXMIW�EJXIV�XLI�[EV��8LI�TPER�MRGSVTSVEXIH�VEHMEP�VSEHW�XS�VIPMIZI�XVEJÁG�
congestion and also historic buildings that, together with the cathedral ruins, would
be preserved and incorporated as “features in open spaces and gardens.”15 Similar
XS�4P]QSYXL��+MFWSR¸W�TPER�[EW�EPWS�XVEJÁG�HVMZIR��;EVRMRKW�SJ�PMQMXIH�JYRHMRK�
EPSRK�[MXL�GVMXMGW�YVKMRK�QSHMÁGEXMSRW�XS�XLI�TPER�GSQFMRIH�XS�WPS[�XLI�SZIVEPP�
VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�SJ�XLI�GMX]��+MFWSR¸W�TPER�[EW�EPWS�WMQMPEV�XS�%FIVGVSQFMI¸W�TPER�JSV�
0SRHSR�MR�XLEX�XVEJÁG�GSRKIWXMSR�ERH�STIR�WTEGIW�[IVI�XLI�QEMR�GSRGIVRW�JSV�FSXL�
TPERW��&SXL�XLI�0SRHSR�ERH�4P]QSYXL�TPERW�TVSTSWIH�E�VMRK�VSEH�[MXL�GSRRIGXMRK�
radial roads to serve the various precincts of the city.
The gutted St. Michael’s Cathedral held a key position in the publicity
surrounding the blitz and the new plan. The cathedral symbolized “the city’s fate
as the innocent victim of war” and the tower was intended to “provide a precious
historical dimension for an almost entirely modern city.”16
%�'LVMWXQEW�(E]�&VSEHGEWX�JVSQ�XLI�VYMRW�MR������WYQQEVM^IH�XLI�JIIPMRKW�SJ�
the city immediately after the blitz and demonstrates the role the church played in a
propaganda campaign for the overall rebuilding of the city and country:
7M\�[IIOW�EKS�XLI�IRIQ]�GEQI��ERH�LYVPIH�HS[R�ÁVI�ERH�HIWXVYGXMSR�YTSR�our city from the sky, all through the long night. So many lives were lost, so many homes destroyed, and our Cathedral nave and Chancel utterly burnt and brought to the ground. It was ruthless, futile, wicked… What we want to tell XLI�[SVPH�MW�XLMW��XLEX�[MXL�'LVMWX�FSVR�EKEMR�MR�SYV�LIEVXW�XS�HE]��[I�EVI�XV]MRK��hard as it may be, to banish all thoughts of revenge; we are bracing ourselves
15 “The New Coventry.” Times�?0SRHSRA�����W��R��pag. Print.16 Campbell, 21.
110
XS�ÁRMWL�XLMW�XVIQIRHSYW�NSF�SJ�WEZMRK�XLI�[SVPH�JVSQ�X]VERR]�ERH�GVYIPX]��[I�are going to try to make a kinder, simpler… sort of world in the days beyond this strife. We are in brave spirits and can wish the Empire a Courageous Christmas.17
Coventry Cathedral and Basil Spence
Provost Howard’s speech soon after the raid concluded by saying “from every
citizen and from dwellers far and wide has come the determined cry: ‘We shall build
again.’ It will be worth while winning the war if only to rebuild St. Michael’s.”18 In
contrast to Howard’s ideas about the future of St. Michael’s, Bishop Gorton and City
%VGLMXIGX�+MFWSR�FSXL�JIPX�XLEX�E�RI[P]�HIWMKRIH�GLYVGL�[SYPH�µFIXXIV�WIVZI�XLI�
needs of the city, and help attract a young congregation.”19 The two also thought that
the ruins should be completely demolished, as a new building would provide a more
suitable answer for the new modernist city plan. The ideas from these three would
TVSZI�XS�FI�ZIV]�MRÂYIRXMEP�MR�XLI�JYXYVI�SJ�XLI�GEXLIHVEP�EW�MX�[IRX�XLVSYKL�QYPXMTPI�
design stages, architects and waves of public opinion.
Howard believed that the cathedral had the potential to play an important
VSPI�MR�XLI�µQSVEP�VIKIRIVEXMSR�SJ�&VMXEMR��ERH�VIÂIGX�QSVI�IKEPMXEVMER�GSRHMXMSRW�¶20
Gorton, likewise, thought of the new cathedral project as an opportunity to explore
HIWMKR�WSPYXMSRW�XLEX�[IVI�MR�PMRI�[MXL�XLI�0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX¸W�MHIEW�EFSYX�
church planning and function. Both Gorton and Howard “felt that a central altar
was desirable,” similar to the St. Paul’s Bow Common designers of Robert Maguire
and Keith Murray who were also looking to rethink church function in terms of its
design.21�(IWTMXI�XLIMV�MHIEW�EFSYX�WTEGI�TPERRMRK��XLI������WTIGMÁGEXMSRW�JSV�XLI�RI[�
17� �'SZIRXV]�'EXLIHVEP���TSWX����� ��?&VSGLYVIA�'SZIRXV]�'EXLIHVEP��'SZIRXV]�18 µ0SWX�8VIEWYVIW�SJ�'SZIRXV]�¶�The Times�?0SRHSRA�.ER�������R��pag. Print.19 Glendinning, 74.20 Campbell, 22. 21 Campbell, 23.
111
design recalled traditional ideas about liturgy and church design.
8LI�'EXLIHVEP�'SYRGMP��GSQTVMWIH�SJ�XLI�&MWLST��%WWMWXERX�&MWLST��4VSZSWX��
LSRSVEV]�ERH�VIWMHIRXMEV]�GERSRW��%VGLHIEGSRW�SJ�'SZIRXV]�ERH�;EV[MGO��
VITVIWIRXEXMZIW�SJ�XLI�HMSGIWI�ERH�GEXLIHVEP�GSRKVIKEXMSR��QIX�JSV�XLI�ÁVWX�XMQI�MR�
March 1941.22 Two of the most modern thinkers of the group were Provost Howard and
Bishop Gorton.
Initially Provost Howard invited Giles Gilbert Scott to design the new
cathedral in June 1941. Scott, son and grandson of British architects George Gilbert
Scott Junior and George Gilbert Scott respectively, was known for his design of the
0MZIVTSSP�'EXLIHVEP�ERH�&EROWMHI�4S[IV�7XEXMSR��[LMGL�RS[�LSYWIW�XLI�8EXI�1SHIVR�
EVX�KEPPIV] ��7GSXX�YRHIVWXSSH�XLI�HMJÁGYPX]�JEGMRK�LMQ�[MXL�XLI�GSRXVEWX�FIX[IIR�XLI�
µLMWXSVMGEP�ERH�IQSXMSREP�WMKRMÁGERGI�SJ�XLI�VYMRW�¶23 Contemporary design was also in
a state of change and the Cathedral rebuilding was caught between two design schools,
one being more traditional and the other looking towards the future with modernist
design principles. This theme is also seen in the space planning of the cathedral
that was caught between traditional views on liturgy versus contemporary views that
EPMKRIH�[MXL�XLI�0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX��7GSXX�EGORS[PIHKIH�XLMW�GLERKI�ERH�MRMXMEPP]�
recommended an open competition for the new design but instead the Bishop and
Cathedral Council, at the urging of Howard, appointed Scott as the architect. Bishop
+SVXSR�ERH�'MX]�%VGLMXIGX�+MFWSR�[SVOIH�[MXL�7GSXX�XS�GVIEXI�E�HIWMKR�XLEX�XLI�
Cathedral Council approved of in September 1943. Gorton wanted a centrally planned
church with new elements such as a Chapel of Christian Unity and a Christian Service
Centre.24 Scott tried to accommodate Gorton’s wishes by designing multiple buildings
sitting to the east of the cathedral. Scott’s plan kept the ruined nave to serve as a
22 Campbell, 22. 23 Campbell, 17. 24 Glendinning, 74.
112
cloister with the new cathedral sitting across the site. This idea of preserving the ruins
[MPP�FI�WIIR�EKEMR�EW�TEVX�SJ�XLI�ÁREP�HIWMKR�JVSQ�&EWMP�7TIRGI��8LI�HIWMKR�[EW�µGSSPP]�
received, both by the City Council… which was reluctant to yield land to the east and
south of the old cathedral, and by the general public, who apparently disliked both the
central altar and the treatment of the ruins.”25
Scott published this statement to accompany his published design in
newspapers in February 1944 (see Image 6):
The purpose of the Cathedral to form a spiritual centre for the city, to bring it into the everyday life of the people and to emphasise the dominance of the spiritual values over the material can only be satisfactorily expressed architecturally if the Cathedral forms the centre and climax of the city’s plan.26
Despite the Council’s approval, Bishop Howard did not like the design, which
included Gothic details. He thus urged Scott to eliminate the details and make the
design more modern to “reinforce the image of a progressive new cathedral.”27 These
GLERKIW�TVSQTXIH�XLI�6S]EP�*MRI�%VX�'SQQMWWMSR��6*%' �XS�VINIGX�XLI�HIWMKR�WXEXMRK�
that it had a “lack of unity, both architectural and aesthetic between the interior and
exterior.”28 The City Council then suggested that the Cathedral Council either adopt
a new plan or abandon the idea and just have the congregation join with the nearby
Holy Trinity Church.
Torn between traditionalists and progressives, Scott resigned in January 1947
saying, “It is unlikely that a modernist or traditional design will ever meet with the
approval of all parties… These differences of opinion, and the formation of numerous
societies, committees and commissions etc, to give them expression, are characteristic
25 Campbell, 25. 26 'EQTFIPP��0SYMWI��To Build a Cathedral: Coventry Cathedral, 1945-1962���WX��;EV[MGOWLMVI��.SPP]��&EVFIV�0XH�������������4VMRX�27 'EQTFIPP��0SYMWI��To Build a Cathedral: Coventry Cathedral, 1945-1962, 18.28 Ibid.
113
of our time; they harass the unfortunate artist and hamper the production of the
work…”29
8LI�EHHIH�WMKRMÁGERGI�SJ�XLI�VYMRW�[SYPH�GSRXMRYI�XS�MQTEGX�HIWMKR�HIGMWMSRW�
and as such, the site would never be purely a religious building. The design had
to accommodate multiple functions such as a war memorial and the symbol of the
VIGSZIVMRK�GMX]�ERH�REXMSR��%W�E�GEXLIHVEP��XLI�FYMPHMRK�EPWS�LEH�XS�WXERH�YT�XS�
MRGVIEWIH�GIVIQSRMEP�WMKRMÁGERGI��QSVI�WS�XLER�XLI�GLYVGLIW�SJ�7X��&VMHI¸W�'LYVGL�
and St. Paul’s, Bow Common. In contrast to the role of St. Paul’s, Bow Common or St.
Bride’s as parish churches, Coventry Cathedral would act as the chief church of the
diocese and the base for the Bishop of Coventry and, as such, had a much higher role
to play merely within the Church of England structure of worship spaces.
%JXIV�7GSXX¸W�VIWMKREXMSR��0SVH�,EVPIGL�GVIEXIH�ER�EHZMWSV]�GSQQMWWMSR�XLEX�
ultimately suggested an open competition, which had been Scott’s recommendation
MR�XLI�ÁVWX�TPEGI��8LI�'SZIRXV]�'EXLIHVEP�6IGSRWXVYGXMSR�*YRH�TYFPMWLIH�0SVH�
Harlech’s Commission Report in 1947. The report discussed four options for the site
of the cathedral: move it outside of Coventry, build another cathedral on a different
site, move the congregation to Holy Trinity, or build another cathedral on the same site.
8LIMV�ÁREP�VIGSQQIRHEXMSR�[EW�XLEX�XLI�RI[�GEXLIHVEP�WLSYPH�FI�FYMPX�SR�XLI�WMXI�
of the old building.30 This recommendation was supported by references to “grounds
of natural sentiment, tradition, and continuity… but also on a careful review of all
the suggestions and considerations.”31 They stated that the walls were too structurally
unstable to allow for reconstruction and should thus be demolished because they
HMH�RSX�LSPH�µWYJÁGMIRX�EVGLMXIGXYVEP�QIVMX�XS�NYWXMJ]�XLI�GSQTPIXI�VIFYMPHMRK�¶32
29 'EQTFIPP��0SYMWI��To Build a Cathedral: Coventry Cathedral, 1945-1962, 18. 30 Coventry Cathedral: Report of Lord Harlech’s Commission. Oxford: University Press, 1947. 9. Print.31 Ibid.32 Coventry Cathedral: Report of Lord Harlech’s Commission, 20.
114
Harlech’s Commission proposed that the tower and spire remain as it was “Coventry’s
outstanding landmark” and destroying it “would be both a dereliction of duty and
an acquiescence in the destruction wrought on November 14, 1940 by the forces of
oppression and evil.”33
The report encouraged architect selection by open competition and proposed
a Building Committee be organized to carry out all the building operations and
JYRHVEMWMRK��8LI�6S]EP�-RWXMXYXI�SJ�&VMXMWL�%VGLMXIGXW��6-&% �TVSXIWXIH�EKEMRWX�XLI�WX]PI�
stipulation because they thought it would “severely inhibit competitors.”34
To prepare for the competition the Building Committee was renamed the
Reconstruction Committee and was comprised of mainly local businessmen and
the Provost, and chaired by Colonel Cyril Siddeley. The committee would be in
GSRWYPXEXMSR�[MXL�XLI�&MWLST�ERH�XLVII�EVGLMXIGX�EWWIWWSVW�[LS�[IVI�ETTSMRXIH�
F]�XLI�6-&%��-R�XLI�WYQQIV�SJ������XLI�6IGSRWXVYGXMSR�'SQQMXXII�QIX�[MXL�XLI�
6-&%�GLSWIR�GSQTIXMXMSR�NYHKIW��)H[EVH�1EYJI��QIQFIV�SJ�XLI�6S]EP�*MRI�%VX�
Commission), Sir Percy Thomas (member of the Harlech Commission), and Howard
Robertson (a recent advisor for the UN headquarters design competition).35
Finally, in October of 1950, the Reconstruction Committee published their
brief and held a design competition for the new cathedral that was open to any
UYEPMÁIH�EVGLMXIGX�MR�XLI�&VMXMWL�'SQQSR[IEPXL��WX]PI�KYMHIPMRIW�[IVI�RSX�TEVX�SJ�XLI�
competition brief but they did stipulate that the tower and crypt chapels had to be
preserved. The lack of style and material restrictions allowed “the moderns… to enter
the fray,” as young architect Colin St. John Wilson wrote in the Observer in January
1951.36
33 Coventry Cathedral: Report of Lord Harlech’s Commission, 19.34 Campbell, 34. 35 Campbell, 41. 36 Glendinning, 75.
115
The competition brief required seating for 1250 people, space for 150 diocesan
GPIVK]�ERH�E�GLSMV�SJ�����%PWS�XS�FI�MRGPYHIH�[EW�E�TYPTMX�ERH�PIGXIVR��E�JSRX��E�0EH]�
Chapel, a Guild Chapel, a Children’s Chapel, and a Chapel of the Resurrection. Eight
“hallowing places” were also to be included as well as a Chapel of Christian Unity,
[LMGL�[EW�XS�FI�E�WITEVEXI�IRXMX]�JVSQ�XLI�VIWX�SJ�XLI�GEXLIHVEP��%�'LVMWXMER�7IVZMGI�
Centre was also included in the brief as well as the stipulation that the altar must be
sited toward the east end. There were no liturgical requirements in the competition
brief apart from the requirement that the altar be placed towards the east end of the
building and have an unobstructed view from the congregation.37
8LI�WMXI�GSRÁKYVEXMSR�EPWS�TPE]IH�E�VSPI�SR�XLI�WYFQMXXIH�HIWMKRW��%R�0�WLETIH�
site to the north of the ruins had been secured by the church in 1948 so the designers
had to choose between three options: “building on the site of the old cathedral,
squeezing a new cathedral alongside it, or using the land to the north.”38 This left many
XS�GSRÁKYVI�XLI�RI[�GEXLIHVEP�MR�E�XVEHMXMSREP�JSVQEX�[MXL�E�REVVS[�TPER�HMZMHIH�MRXS�
nave, choir and sanctuary.
In addition to the competition brief, the Bishop, Provost and Cathedral Chapter
as well as the Joint Council of the Coventry Cathedral Christian Service Centre issued
a guide to encourage the competitors to reimagine the liturgical requirements of the
WTEGI�ERH�µVI�MRXIVTVIX�MQEKMREXMZIP]�XLI�GSRZIRXMSREP�WGLIHYPI�SJ�VIUYMVIQIRXW�JSV�
the cathedral.”39 In terms of a war memorial, the only stipulations relating to such
an idea was for a place to be set aside for the charred cross, cross of nails and altar of
rubble from the ruins which as to be placed within the new cathedral.
Eventually 219 drawing sets were submitted and exhibited at the King Henry
VIII School in Coventry during July 1951. The assessors felt than none of the
37 Glendinning, 76.38 Ibid.39 'EQTFIPP��0SYMWI��To Build a Cathedral: Coventry Cathedral, 1945-1962, 19.
116
submissions were “worthy of being erected” but decided to recommend Basil Spence’s
design as the project could not sustain another setback. They felt that Spence’s design
“stood a better chance of reconciling the different factions” than a more radical design
would.40
&EWMP�7TIRGI�[EW�ERRSYRGIH�EW�XLI�[MRRIV�SR�%YKYWX�����������;SVO�SJÁGMEPP]�
began on June 8, 1954 (see Images 7 and 8).41�7TIRGI��E�7GSXPERH�FEWIH�EVGLMXIGX��
[EW�FSVR�MR�-RHME�MR�������XVEMRIH�EX�)HMRFYVKL�'SPPIKI�SJ�%VX��[LMGL�MW�RS[�TEVX�SJ�
XLI�)HMRFYVKL�9RMZIVWMX]�7GLSSP�SJ�%VGLMXIGXYVI��ERH�EXXIRHIH�GPEWWIW�YRHIV�%�)��
6MGLEVHWSR�EX�XLI�0SRHSR�9RMZIVWMX]�%XIPMIV�MR�������,I�XLIR�[SVOIH�JSV�)H[MR�
0YX]IRW �̧SJÁGI�JVSQ������XS������ERH�FIGEQI�ER�6-&%�6IGSKRM^IH�7GLSSPW�WMPZIV�
QIHEPMWX�MR�������-R������7TIRGI�FIGEQI�TEVXRIV�EX�6S[ERH�%RHIVWSR�4EYP�ERH�
4EVXRIVW�FIJSVI�PIEZMRK�XS�WIVZI�MR�;SVPH�;EV�--��,I�[SVOIH�MR�XLI�%VQ]�'EQSYÂEKI�
9RMX�HYVMRK�XLI�[EV��[LMGL�MW�[LIVI�LMW�EQFMXMSR�SJ�FYMPHMRK�E�GEXLIHVEP�[EW�ÁVWX�
articulated.42 Spence became known as an “exhibition architect” after completing
designs for the “Britain Can Make It” exhibition, “Enterprise Scotland Exhibition” as
well as the “Sea and Ships” Pavilion at the Festival of Britain in 1951, the same year he
won the Coventry competition (see Images 9 and 10).43�,I�STIRIH�LMW�S[R�SJÁGI��&EWMP�
7TIRGI��4EVXRIVW�MR�2SZIQFIV�������
Spence’s design was commended for “qualities of spirit and imagination of the
highest order.”44�%YXLSV�0SYMWI�'EQTFIPP�RSXIH�XLEX�XLI�HIWMKR�[EW�EFPI�XS�VITVIWIRX�
“a middle ground between the traditionalism… and radicalism” and reconcile the
“differences between the clergy, the Reconstruction Committee and the architectural
40 Campbell, 66. 41 Campbell, 20. 42 Spence, Basil. Phoenix at Coventry: The Building of a Cathedral��0SRHSR��+ISJJVI]�&PIW�0XH������������Print.43 'EQTFIPP��0SYMWI��To Build a Cathedral: Coventry Cathedral, 1945-1962, 19. 44 Glendinning, 79.
117
profession.”45
Spence’s design retained almost all of the ruins and placed the new building at
E�VMKLX�ERKPI�XS�XLI�VYMRW��WII�-QEKI�� ��%�GSPYQRIH�TSVGL�GSRRIGXIH�XLI�X[S�WTEGIW�
[MXL�XLI�GSPYQR�KVMH�GSRXMRYMRK�HS[R�XLI�REZI�SJ�XLI�RI[�GEXLIHVEP��%�KPE^IH�;IWX�
Screen facade served as the entrance to the new cathedral. The Guild Chapel was
placed on the east side with the Chapel of Unity on the west. The interior incorporated
triangular recesses that would hold the eight hallowing places. Opposite the West
7GVIIR�[IVI�XLI�,MKL�%PXEV�SR�XLI�IEWX�IRH�[MXL�XLVII�GLETIPW�ERH�XLI�+VIEX�8ETIWXV]�
behind it, separated by a wall. The baptistery window was placed across from the
Chapel of Unity. The Stone of Bethlehem, the font, sits in front of the window.
%JXIV�[MRRMRK�XLI�GSQTIXMXMSR�7TIRGI�GSRXMRYIH�VIZMWMRK�XLI�TPER��[LMGL�
included proposals for a more centralized altar, revised materials choices as well as
commissioning artists for the various works he had in mind for the space.
%VX[SVO�TPE]IH�E�KVIEX�VSPI�MR�XLI�GEXLIHVEP�FYMPHMRK��7TIRGI�VIJIVVIH�XS�
the cathedral as a “casket of jewels” which was integral to the overall design of
the building. The Grand Tapestry at the east end of the nave, designed by Graham
Sutherland, was one of the most important of the art commissions as it reinforced the
µW]QFSPMWQ�SJ�WEGVMÁGI�ERH�VIWYVVIGXMSR¶�JSV�XLI�GEXLIHVEP��WII�-QEKI��� �46�%RSXLIV�
major piece of artwork was the baptistery window, which would highlight two aspects
of the church: “spiritual growth beginning in baptism and the nurturing of unity and
reconciliation (see Image 12).”47 The window was contracted out to John Piper and
Patrick Reyntiens, artists who ended up collaborating for three decades after working
together at Coventry. John Hutton, who met Spence during World War II while
[SVOMRK�MR�XLI�EVQ]�GEQSYÂEKI�YRMX��GVIEXIH�XLI�;IWX�7GVIIR��7TIRGI�HIWMKRIH�XLI�
45 Ibid.46 Glendinning, 89. 47 Willis, John, Sarah Walford, et al. Journey into the Light: The Art Treasures of Coventry Cathedral, Their Making and Meaning���WX�IH��3\JSVH��,YRXW��4ISTPI�MR�4VMRX������������4VMRX�
118
clear screen with the intent of visually incorporating the ruins with the new cathedral,
which could now be seen from the interior of the new building (see Image 13).
%PXIVREXMRK�VS[W�SJ�WEMRXW�ERH�ERKIPW�[IVI�IRKVEZIH�MRXS�XLI�WGVIIR��8LI�WGVIIR�[EW�
XVERWTSVXIH�JSV�MRWXEPPEXMSR�MR�7ITXIQFIV�������%RSXLIV�MRXIKVEP�TMIGI�SJ�EVX[SVO�[EW�
the nave windows. The windows, with their distinctive zigzag formation that points to
XLI�LMKL�EPXEV��[EW�HIWMKRIH�F]�0E[VIRGI�0II��+ISJJVI]�'PEVOI�ERH�/IMXL�2I[��EPP�EX�
XLI�6S]EP�'SPPIKI�SJ�%VX��0II�[EW�XLI�,IEH�SJ�7XEMRIH�+PEWW�HITEVXQIRX�EX�XLI�XMQI��
%�HMWXMRGXMZI�GSPSV�TVSKVIWWMSR�[EW�MRGSVTSVEXIH�XS�W]QFSPM^I�PMJI¸W�IZSPYXMSR�JVSQ�
GLMPHLSSH��KVIIR �XS�SPH�EKI�ERH�[MWHSQ��TYVTPI �ERH�ÁREPP]�LIEZIR��KSPH ��%PP�XIR�
windows were completed by 1958.48
%JXIV�MRMXMEP�GVMXMGMWQ��7TIRGI�VIÁRIH�XLI�HIWMKR�ERH�EWOIH�XLI�IRKMRIIV�3ZI�
%VYT�XS�WIVZI�EW�LMW�GSRWYPXERX��[LMGL�[EW�GVMXMGEP�MR�XLI�GSPYQR�ERH�WXVYGXYVEP�HIWMKR�
SJ�XLI�FYMPHMRK��%�QENSV�GLERKI�[EW�XLI�QSZIQIRX�SJ�XLI�EPXEV�XS�E�QSVI�GIRXVEPM^IH�
location, as per Bishop Gorton’s request. Spence moved the bishop’s throne and
clergy seats around the altar but the Reconstruction Committee eventually rejected
the design change. The chairman of the Committee, Ernest Ford, opposed the entire
new scheme and wrote that it was “wrong aesthetically, practically, psychologically
and traditionally.’”49 The proposed centralized location for the altar aligns with the
0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX�TVMRGMTPIW�ERH�MW�WIIR�EX�7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR��8LMW�PEGO�SJ�
support for such design changes is one of the core reasons why the architect of St.
Paul’s, Bow Common regarded Coventry Cathedral’s design as antiquated. Coventry
Cathedral, although modern in its materials and outward appearance, was traditional
in terms of its space planning and interior layout.
Money for the rebuilding came from the Government’s War Damages
48 Willis, 52. 49 Glendinning, 80.
119
Commission.50 In addition to securing donations for the rest of the building campaign,
Spence, the Provost and the Bishop’s Chaplain conducted a fundraising tour that
helped gain public support and funding for the building. Construction began in June
1954 and the foundation was laid by March 1955 (see Image 8). The new church was
consecrated on May 25, 1962.51
Past Interpretation
Throughout construction and the following decades, the project went through
phases of popularity and criticism. In the 1940s “patriotic commemorative projects”
ruled the discussion until the 1950s came and the focus shifted to the “renewal of
national architectural and craft traditions.”52 In the 1960s projects of international
reconciliation were heavily debated and such was the climate surrounding Coventry
'EXLIHVEP��8LI�;EV�%VXMWXW�%HZMWSV]�'SQQMXXII�YWIH�XLI�VYMRW�JSV�[SVOW�ERH�XLI�
1MRMWXV]�SJ�-RJSVQEXMSR�YWIH�XLIQ�MR�TVSTEKERHE�ÁPQW��&IGEYWI�SJ�XLMW��XLI�VYMRW�ERH�
'SZIRXV]�'EXLIHVEP�FIGEQI�ZIV]�[IPP�ORS[R�ERH�µEGUYMVIH�IRSVQSYW�WMKRMÁGERGI��
locally, nationally and internationally.”53
Overall Spence enjoyed mass publicity, as he became one of the few architects
to become a household name after he won the Coventry design competition. He was
IPIGXIH�6-&%�TVIWMHIRX�MR�������ORMKLXIH�ERH�QEHI�E�6S]EP�%GEHIQMGMER�MR������
ERH�ETTSMRXIH�4VSJIWWSV�SJ�%VGLMXIGXYVI�EX�XLI�6S]EP�%GEHIQ]�MR�������,I�EPWS�[EW�
awarded the Order of Merit for the competition of the Cathedral.
Once Spence’s design was published it immediately attracted attention
and critics from around the country. To some, the design seemed “uncomfortably
50 Glendinning, 84.51 “Our History.” Coventry Cathedral. Coventry Cathedral. Web. 9 Sept 2012.52 Glendinning, 100.53 Glendinning, 75.
120
reminiscent” of the exhibition pavilions for which Spence was known while others
thought it appeared “disappointingly sober and traditional.”54
8S�TVIWIRX�XLI�HIWMKR�XS�XLI�TYFPMG�ERH�KEMRIH�WYTTSVX�JVSQ�TSXIRXMEP�ÁRERGMEP�
donors a 1952 publication titled “The New Coventry Cathedral” broke down the new
HIWMKR�MRXS�WM\�GSQTSRIRXW��%�QENSV�GSQTSRIRX�[EW�XLI�VIXIRXMSR�SJ�XLI�VYMRW�JSV�
which it stated,
%PQSWX�XLI�[LSPI�SJ�XLI�VYMRW¬�EVI�XS�FI�VIXEMRIH�EW�E�QIQSVMEP�WLVMRI�ERH�EW�a vestibule to the new cathedral… these ruins have a powerfully religious effect upon the minds of those who see them. They enshrine a positive truth which speaks impressively from the stones. It is felt that it would be little short of sacrilege to destroy this. The voice of God from the ruins must be allowed to go SR�WTIEOMRK�MRHIÁRMXIP]�MRXS�XLI�JYXYVI�55
The other components of style, ground plan, exterior, interior and the Chapel
of Unity and Christian Service Centre were presented as harmonious elements that
would combine to create a building of “tremendous power and clean gracefulness
which is characteristic of all our greatest Christian architecture, and though built in a
later age and style it will stand in harmony and continuity with the old Cathedral.” 56
%������TYFPMGEXMSR�YRHIV�XLI�WEQI�XMXPI�MRGPYHIH�WMQMPEV�MRJSVQEXMSR�FYX�
added a section on “The Beginning of the Building” which places the project within
the larger countrywide context by stating, “the Cathedral is not a building which
concerns Coventry and Coventry alone. The echo of the bombs which destroyed your
city was heard round the world. We cannot tell how many people are waiting in this
country and abroad for this church to rise and prove that English traditions live again
after the Blitz.”57�%KEMR��EW�E�REXMSREP�QSRYQIRX��'SZIRXV]�'EXLIHVEP�[EW�PSSOIH�XS�
54 Campbell, 67. 55 Howard, R.T. The New Coventry Cathedral. 1st ed. 1952. 5. Print.56 Ibid.57 Howard, 25.
121
JSV�MRWTMVEXMSR�JVSQ�XLI�VIWX�SJ�XLI�GSYRXV]��%W�WYGL��XLI�HIWMKR�[EW�LIPH�[MXL�KVIEX�
importance.
Public opinion and design taste changed throughout the construction
years. The retention of the ruins presented in 1951 was “well suited to the mood
of the period” but by 1958 this design idea “had come to seem both romantic and
unadventurous” when compared to other building projects of the day.58
-R�������,IRV]�6YWWIPP�,MXGLGSGO��ER�%QIVMGER�LMWXSVMER��KEZI�ER�MRXIVZMI[�
where he criticized the design for its “traditional character” and noted British
EVGLMXIGXW �̧µJIEV�SJ�ÂEQFS]ERGI�ERH�TIVWSREP�I\TVIWWMSR�¶�)MKLX�]IEVW�PEXIV��MR�������
Hitchcock reversed his opinion and paid tribute to the completed cathedral stating “its
assured sumptuousness and its uninhibited symbolism… successfully captured the
imagination of the wider public.”59
Throughout the construction process two clergymen, architectural writer
and priest Peter Hammond and Harold “Bill” Williams, both critiqued the design.
Hammond criticized Coventry Cathedral as a “building which contributes nothing to
the solution of the real problems of church design and perpetuates a conception of
a church which owes far more to the romantic movement than to the New Testament
or authentic Christian tradition.”60 Hammond’s liturgical critique aligned with the
St. Paul’s, Bow Common designers, Robert Maguire and Keith Murray, who thought
XLEX�'SZIRXV]¸W�HIWMKR�JEMPIH�XS�VIEPP]�WIIO�E�QSHIVR�HIWMKR�ERW[IV�XS�XLI�0MXYVKMGEP�
1SZIQIRX��'SZIRXV]¸W�XVEHMXMSREP�REZI�FEWIH�HIWMKR��XLI]�XLSYKLX��HMH�RSX�WYTTSVX�
new, contemporary ideas of designing around the Eucharist and the increased
connection between clergy and congregation, in which a central altar would be most
58 Campbell, 254. 59 'EQTFIPP��0SYMWI��µ7LETMRK�XLI�7EGVIH��7TIRGI�EW�'LYVGL�&YMPHIV�¶�8VERW��%VVE]�Basil Spence: Architect��4LMPMT�0SRK�ERH�.ERI�8LSQEW��)HMRFYVKL��2EXMSREP�+EPPIVMIW�SJ�7GSXPERH�MR�EWWSGMEXMSR�[MXL�XLI�6S]EP�'SQQMWWMSR�SR�XLI�%RGMIRX�ERH�,MWXSVMGEP�1SRYQIRXW�SJ�7GSXPERH������������4VMRX�60 'EQTFIPP��0SYMWI��Coventry Cathedral: Art and Architecture in Post-War Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. 204. Print.
122
YWIJYP��%RSXLIV�EVXMGPI�EPWS�GVMXMGM^IH�XLI�HIWMKRIV�JSV�RSX�TYWLMRK�XLI�HIWMKR�IRZIPSTI�
far enough and stated, “before ever an architect was briefed, there should have been
more fundamental thinking about current liturgical needs in general and about the
particular requirements of a modern cathedral church.”61 The author continued to
describe current liturgical thinking as emphasized in the importance of the Eucharist,
µMR�MXW�WMQTPIWX�EVGLMXIGXYVEP�XIVQW��ÂI\MFMPMX]�QIERW�XLI�TVSZMWMSR�SJ�TPIRX]�SJ�WTEGI��
%RH�MR�XLI�GSRXI\X�SJ�)YGLEVMWX�[SVWLMT��XLMW�QIERW�TPIRX]�SJ�WTEGI�MR�XLI�WERGXYEV]�
with complete freedom for movement all round the altar.”62�0EXIV�GVMXMGW�SJ�XLI�HIWMKR¸W�
µPMXYVKMGEP�MRÂI\MFMPMX]¶�WXIQ�JVSQ�E�PEGO�SJ�YRHIVWXERHMRK�EFSYX�XLI�GEXLIHVEP¸W�VSPI�EW�
a “bridge between past and present or its qualities as a great ceremonial space.”63
By the consecration date in 1962 people were still divided in opinion.
The older generation “paid tribute to the skill and imagination with which the
EVGLMXIGX�LEH�ÁPPIH�XLI�GSRHMXMSRW�SJ�XLI�FVMIJ�ERH�VIWTSRHIH�XS�XLI�WMXI¶�[LMPI�XLI�
]SYRKIV�KIRIVEXMSR�[EW�WXMPP�GVMXMGM^MRK�XLI�HIWMKR¸W�QSRYQIRXEP�ERH�µLERH�GVEJXIH�
appearance.”64
In G.E. Kidder Smith’s Book, The New Churches of Europe, published in 1964,
the church is commended as having done “more to revitalize the hitherto almost
totally reactionary architecture of the Church of England than was ever dreamed
possible.”65 The author continues, stating: “because of the enormous popular success
SJ�XLMW�RI[�GLYVGL��XLI�MRÂYIRGI�SJ�'SZIRXV]�[MPP�VEHMEXI�XLVSYKLSYX�XLI�GSYRXV]�EW�E�
positive and exciting statement of religious building in our time” and that the building
µQMKLX�[IPP�KS�HS[R�MR�LMWXSV]�EW�QSVI�RSXEFPI�JSV�MXW�MRÂYIRGI�XLER�MXW�EVGLMXIGXYVEP�
61 Pevsner, Nikolaus. “Faith and Feasibility.” Guardian ?'SZIRXV]A����1E]����������4VMRX�62 Ibid.63 Campbell, 272. 64 Campbell, 269. 65 Smith, GE Kidder. The New Churches of Europe. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. 38. Print.
123
excellence.”66
-R�ERSXLIV�EVXMGPI�HEXIH�������(EZMH�4V]GI�.SRIW�EWWIWWIW�µ[LEX�LEW�LETTIRIH�
to the reputation made with Coventry Cathedral?”67 He notes, “the controversies
EVSYRH�XLI�GEXLIHVEP�LEZI�RIZIV�UYMXI�HMIH��XLSYKL�QER]�GVMXMGW�EX�XLI�XMQI��0SVH�
Clark and J.M. Richards notably among them, have since recanted.”68 He also states
that, “the Poles could reproduce Warsaw just as it had been before the German
HIWXVYGXMSR��'SZIRXV]�'EXLIHVEP�[EW�SYV�KIWXYVI�SJ�HIÁERGI��SYV�EWWIVXMSR�SJ�XLI�
future.”69�%KEMR��XLMW�SZIVEVGLMRK�XLIQI�SJ�VIFYMPHMRK�ERH�PSSOMRK�XS�XLI�JYXYVII\MWXW��
across cultures, yet the two cities chose to implement their reconstruction plans very
differently as Warsaw rebuilt to historic designs and Coventry created new designs.
During his lecture, “New Buildings in Old Cities” at the University of
7SYXLEQTXSR�MR�������&EWMP�7TIRGI�RSXIH�XLEX�XLI�QSWX�HMJÁGYPX�TVSFPIQ�ER�EVGLMXIGX�
could be faced with was “designing a modern building in an ancient city.”70 Using
Coventry as an example, Spence spoke about the issues with designing around a
historic cathedral in an old city. He noted that his design proposal for the competition
was the only one “that kept the entire ruin as an integral part of the complete
building” as “it had to be of our time but one which grew from the old and which
would be incomplete without it.”71 He noted that his design was very controversial
at the beginning, drawing 80 percent of the letters from strangers being rude with
66 Ibid.67 4V]GI�.SRIW��(EZMH��µ4MPPEV�SJ�%VGLMXIGXYVI�¶�Daily Telegraph Magazine. 29 Sept 1973: 33. Print.68 4V]GI�.SRIW������69 Ibid.70 Spence, Basil. New Buildings in Old Cities; The Second Gwilym James Memorial Lecture of the University of Southampton, Delivered at the University on the 23d Feb. 1973. Southampton, Eng.: University of 7SYXLEQTXSR�������������4VMRX��71 Ibid.
124
the other 20 percent being “very rude.”72 Spence continued to describe his site visit
ERH�XLMROMRK��µ-�JIPX�XLEX�XLI�STIR�EMV�GEXLIHVEP�WTSOI�IPSUYIRXP]�SJ�XLI�WEGVMÁGI��ERH�
that it was my duty to design a building… which would stand for the triumph of the
Resurrection.”73 By the time Spence gave this lecture, 20 years after the conception, he
noted a change in public opinion, as the letters he was then getting were “happily very
different from the ones I got in the beginning.”74
English Heritage listed the ruined Cathedral Church of St. Michael as a grade
I building in February of 1955 and listed the contemporary Coventry Cathedral as a
grade I building in March of 1988 (see Images 14 and 15). The listing for the ruin is
very brief and describes the history and layout of the church with little mention of its
memorial status or its connection with the new cathedral. The listing for the cathedral
is much more detailed and describes the design and layout of the church as well as
the ruined St. Michael next to it. The listing states that the cathedral was “one of the
most important architectural commissions of its date in Britain… the scheme was also
notable in its period for the degree to which the bomb damaged shell of the Medieval
church of St. Michael was preserved.”75
Current Interpretation
Today interpretation surrounding the cathedral mostly focuses on the
symbolism of reconciliation and peace as well as the various pieces of artwork within
the building. %�WIVMIW�SJ�TYFPMGEXMSRW�EZEMPEFPI�EX�XLI�GEXLIHVEP�VIÂIGX�XLI�GYVVIRX�
MRXIVTVIXEXMSR�SJ�XLI�WMXI��8LI����]IEV�ERRMZIVWEV]�GIPIFVEXMSR�TVSQTXIH�XLI�TVMRXMRK�
72 Spence, Basil. New Buildings in Old Cities; The Second Gwilym James Memorial Lecture of the University of Southampton, Delivered at the University on the 23d Feb. 1973. Southampton, Eng.: University of Southampton, 1973. 7. Print. 73 Ibid,74 Spence, 10.75 “Cathedral of St. Michael.” English Heritage. English Heritage. Web. 15 Nov 2012.
125
SJ�µ����'IPIFVEXMRK�XLI�4EWX��)QFVEGMRK�XLI�*YXYVI������������¶�-R�XLI�(IER¸W�;IPGSQI�
of the introductory brochure, he says to the visitor:
;IPGSQI�XS�'SZIRXV]�'EXLIHVEP´E�QEKRMÁGIRX�QSHIVR�FYMPHMRK�ERH�XVIEWYVI�house of 20th Century works of art. More than that, this is the home of a lively worshipping community witnessing to the transforming power of Jesus Christ MR�XLI�LIEVX�SJ�E�QYPXM�GYPXYVEP�MRHYWXVMEP�GMX]��7IX�FIWMHI�XLI�VYMRW�SJ�XLI�3PH�Cathedral destroyed by enemy bombing in 1940, the New Cathedral remains a powerful witness to the hope of the resurrection and the importance of reconciliation.I do hope that as a result of your visit, something of the majesty of Christ in glory and the ministry of peace and reconciliation will stay with you as you journey on.76
The points Reverend John Irvine makes in the brief introduction speak
volumes to the interpretation of the site today. The idea of reconciliation, artists who
contributed to the cathedral and the World War II destruction are heavily emphasized
throughout the brochure. The Dean does not identify the enemy in the brochure but
uses the term as a general idea to encourage the church’s overall goal of promoting
TIEGI�ERH�VIGSRGMPMEXMSR��VIKEVHPIWW�XLI�IRIQ]¸W�MHIRXMÁGEXMSR��
-R�EHHMXMSR�XS�XLI�[IPGSQI�FVSGLYVI��XLI�GEXLIHVEP�EPWS�SJJIVW�QYPXMTPI�XLIQI�
WTIGMÁG�XSYVW��8LI�6IGSRGMPMEXMSR�1MRMWXV]�8SYV�MW�NYWX�SRI�I\EQTPI��8LMW�FVSGLYVI�
states:
Coventry’s old Cathedral was destroyed on 14 November 1940 by German ÁVIFSQFMRK��-QQIHMEXIP]�EJXIV[EVHW��4VSZSWX�,S[EVH��XLI�'EXLIHVEP¸W�QSWX�senior clergyman, stated that this Community would forgive and be reconciled to their former enemies, and that the Cathedral would be rebuilt. Today, the Cathedral’s International Centre for Reconciliation supports a worldwide network of over 170 peace ‘centres’—the ‘Community of the Cross of Nails.’77
This brochure, in contrast to the Dean’s welcome introduction, does identify
76� �µ����'IPIFVEXMRK�XLI�4EWX��)QFVEGMRK�XLI�*YXYVI������������¶������ ��?&VSGLYVIA�'SZIRXV]�'EXLIHVEP��Coventry.77� �8LI�'LETIP�SJ�9RMX]�EX�'SZIRXV]�'EXLIHVEP������� ��?&VSGLYVIA�'SZIRXV]�'EXLIHVEP��'SZIRXV]�
126
the enemy as Germany. These contrasting views on the “enemy” shows that although
the enemy, Germany, is still part of the overall history of the church, its role is being
reduced to describe enemies in general. This generalization, although it supports the
overall goal of the church to promote peace and reconciliation, demonstrates the shift
of memory from one generation to the other, as one piece of the history is transformed
to help aid a current goal of the church.
%RSXLIV�TYFPMGEXMSR��SRI�JSV�TYVGLEWI�MR�XLI�ZMWMXSV¸W�GIRXIV��[EW�EPWS�TVMRXIH�
JSV�XLI�ÁJXMIXL�ERRMZIVWEV]�SJ�XLI�'EXLIHVEP��8LI�FSSOPIX�QIRXMSRW�'EXLIHVEP¸W�[EZI�
of popularity, which was high right after the consecration in 1962 but waned in the
decades after. The cathedral was, however, voted as Britain’s favorite twentieth century
building in the 1990s. The booklet points to Howard’s declaration right after the blitz
and the Cross of Nails as the two immediate symbols of peace, hope and reconciliation
for which the cathedral and Community of the Cross of Nails (CCN) is now based. The
CCN, based at Coventry Cathedral, is an international ministry that promotes peace,
justice and reconciliation around the world.
The church still holds an annual service in November to “commemorate victims
of the blitz” which also aims to help “stimulate public interest in the preservation of
the remains.”78�8LI�GEXLIHVEP�LSTW�XS�I\XIRH�XLMW�WMKRMÁGERGI�XS�µFIGSQI�E�QIQSVMEP�
SJ�REXMSREP�ERH�MRXIVREXMSREP�WMKRMÁGERGI�XS�GMZMPMERW�OMPPIH��MRNYVIH�SV�XVEYQEXM^IH�F]�
[EV�ERH�ZMSPIRX�GSRÂMGX�¶79
Recently the church implemented an admission fee for visitors, something
RI[�XS�XLI�WMXI��XS�LIPT�ÁRERGI�XLI�QEMRXIRERGI�SJ�XLI�SPH�ERH�RI[�GEXLIHVEPW���8LI�
welcome brochure states that it costs more than £5,000 per day to maintain the site.
%PXLSYKL�XLI�'EXLIHVEP�MW�MR�KSSH�GSRHMXMSR�XSHE]��E�GYVVIRX�GEXLIHVEP�EVGLMZMWX�
78 Hodge, Jessica. Coventry Cathedral: Celebrating the Past, Embracing the Future��0SRHSR��7GEPE�4YFPMWLIVW�0XH������������4VMRX�79 Hodge, 9.
127
supported the visitor admission fee, as they had to maintain two buildings: essentially
the new cathedral and the ruins. In addition to the admission price, visitors are also
expected to enter the cathedral from a separate entrance at the back of the building.
0SYMWI�'EQTFIPP�TVIHMGXW�XLEX�JYXYVI�MRXIVTVIXEXMSR�SJ�XLI�WMXI�[MPP�WLMJX�JVSQ�ER�
emphasis of a war memorial to the design, architecture and art of the building.80 This,
WLI�EVKYIW��[MPP�LIPT�XS�EXXVEGX�QSVI�ZMWMXSVW�EW�TSWX�[EV�EVGLMXIGXYVI�MR�KIRIVEP�MW�
rising in popularity.
Conclusion
-R�ERW[IVMRK�XLI�UYIWXMSRW�TSWIH�EFSYX�XLI�MRXIVTVIXEXMSR�ERH�WMKRMÁGERGI�
SJ�GLYVGLIW�MR�)RKPERH�TSWX�;SVPH�;EV�--��-�ÁRH�XLEX�'SZIRXV]�MW�YRPMOI�ER]�SJ�XLI�
WMXIW�VIWIEVGLIH��TVMQEVMP]�HYI�XS�ER�MQQIRWI�ERH�IPIZEXIH�PIZIP�SJ�WMKRMÁGERGI�
MRXIKVEXIH�MRXS�XLI�WMXI��8LI�QEMR�VIEWSR�JSV�XLMW�MW�XLEX�'SZIRXV]�[EW�SRI�SJ�XLI�ÁVWX�
GMXMIW�XS�I\TIVMIRGI�WYGL�E�FSQFMRK�VEMH�SYXWMHI�SJ�0SRHSR��'SZIRXV]��EW�E�GEXLIHVEP�
status church, also had the added pressure of responding to the ceremonial needs
JSV�XLI�&MWLST�SJ�'SZIRXV]��8LI�GEXLIHVEP¸W�TSTYPEVMX]��TYFPMGMX]�ERH�WMKRMÁGERGI�XLYW�
MRGVIEWIH�VETMHP]�ERH�HVSZI�MX�XS�FIGSQI�SRI�SJ�XLI�GSYRXV]¸W�QSWX�[IPP�ORS[R�TSWX�
war sites. This propelled the country to look to Coventry as an example of rebuilding
and recovery, and as such, forced the city to undertake the rebuilding of the cathedral
very carefully so as to present a strong and clear message of reconciliation and
recovery to the rest of the country and world.
� 'SRWMHIVMRK�XLMW��[I�EWO�XLI�UYIWXMSR�µMW�XLI�WMKRMÁGERGI�PE]IVIH�SRXS�XLMW�WMXI�
TSWX�[EV�VIGSKRM^IH�XSHE]�ERH�LEW�MX�EHHIH�QIERMRK�ERH�WMKRMÁGERGI�XLEX�QE]�SV�QE]�
RSX�EJJIGX�TVIWIVZEXMSR�HIGMWMSRW�XSHE]#¶�8LI�PE]IVIH�WMKRMÁGERGI�SJ�XLI�WMXI�MW�GIVXEMRP]�
recognized today and will arguably continue as both the ruins and cathedral building
EVI�QEMRXEMRIH��8LI�EHHIH�WMKRMÁGERGI�IQFIHHIH�MR�XLI�FYMPHMRKW��EW�IWWIRXMEPP]�XLI�
80 'EQTFIPP��0SYMWI��4IVWSREP�-RXIVZMI[����.ER������
128
ÁVWX�I\EQTPI�SJ�VIGSZIV]�ERH�VIFYMPHMRK��IRWYVI�XLEX�XLI�GMX]�ERH�GSYRXV]�[MPP�[SVO�
XS�WEJIKYEVH�XLI�FYMPHMRK¸W�TL]WMGEP�JEFVMG�EW�[IPP�EW�MXW�W]QFSPMWQ��8LI�TSWX�[EV�
history embedded in the site will continue to be present for decades to come as the
ruins serve as a strong physical reminder of the destruction of war. The same physical
reminder cannot be seen at either St. Bride’s Church or St. Paul’s, Bow Common for
which that section of their history could easily fade into the background of the overall
building history.
The question whether the meaning of the reconstruction or reestablishment
MW�VIPIZERX�XSHE]�MR�XLI�WLMJXMRK�SJ�QIQSV]�JVSQ�ÁVWX�XS�WIGSRH�KIRIVEXMSR�MW�TIVLETW�
QSVI�HMJÁGYPX�XS�ERW[IV��8LI�MQQIRWI�EQSYRX�SJ�W]QFSPMWQ�MQFIHHIH�MR�XLI�WMXI�
[MPP�GIVXEMRP]�GSRXMRYI�XS�FI�TYFPMGM^IH�FYX�TIVLETW��EW�0SYMWI�'EQTFIPP�RSXIH��
the emphasis will shift from the war memorial and destruction of the city to the
EVGLMXIGXYVI�ERH�EVX�EW�TVIQMIVI�I\EQTPIW�SJ�TSWX�[EV�GEXLIHVEP�HIWMKR�ERH�EVX[SVO��
%PXLSYKL�-�EKVII�XLEX�XLI�EVX[SVO�[MPP�KEMR�QSVI�VIGSKRMXMSR�EW�XMQI�KSIW�SR��-�XLMRO�
XLI�FYMPHMRK¸W�ÁVWX�EWWSGMEXMSR�[MPP�EP[E]W�FI�EW�E�TSWX�[EV�WMXI��IWTIGMEPP]�FIGEYWI��
the ruins are still intact and an integral part of the site. The fact that the ruins are
incorporated with the building will ensure that no matter the future interpretation, the
memory of war and destruction will always be physically present to future visitors.
129
Image 1: St. Michael’s Cathedral, 1824Image Courtesy Coventry Cathedral Archives
130
Image 2: St. Michael’s Cathedral, nave and apseImage Courtesy Coventry Cathedral Archives C. Burkett
131
-QEKI����7X��1MGLEIP¸W�'EXLIHVEP��TSWX�;;--�FSQFMRKImage Courtesy Coventry Cathedral Archives
132
Image 4: Mother’s Day Service in ruins, 1945Image Courtesy Coventry Cathedral Archives
133
-QEKI����4VSTSWIH�'SZIRXV]�'IRXVEP�%VIE�6IGSRWXVYGXMSR������Coventry Cathedral: Art and Architecture in Post-War Britain
134
Image 6: View of proposed cathedral based on Sir Giles Gilbert Scott’s plan, 1944Coventry Cathedral: Art and Architecture in Post-War Britain
135
Image 7: Plan of Cathedral as builtPhoenix at Coventry: The Building of a Cathedral
136
Image 8: Construction of new cathedral, early 1958Image Courtesy Coventry Cathedral Archives, A. Cooper
137
Image 9: The Special Ships Section of the Sea and Ships PavilionBasil Spence: Buildings and Projects
138
Image 10: The Shipbuilding Section of the Sea and Ships PavilionBasil Spence: Buildings and Projects
139
Image 11: Coventry Cathedral, interior, 2013Jennifer Whisenhunt
140
Image 12: Baptistery Window, 2013Jennifer Whisenhunt
141
Image 13: Coventry Cathedral, interior, 2013Jennifer Whisenhunt
Image 14: Coventry Cathedral, exterior, 2013Jennifer Whisenhunt
142
Image 15: St. Michael’s Ruins, 2013Jennifer Whisenhunt
143
St. Paul’s, Bow Common, London
144
Introduction
St. Paul’s, Bow Common is located in the East End of London, in the borough
of Tower Hamlets. This site is an example of a bomb-damaged parish church whose
building was razed and a new, contemporary structure built on its site. This post-
war rebuilding scheme was also seen at Le Havre in which a modernist plan was
constructed essentially on top of the historic site. A combination of factors led to
this more radical answer to church reconstruction. London’s city plan focused
SR�IGSRSQMGW��LSYWMRK�ERH�XVEJÁG�GSRXVSP�ÁVWX�ERH�PIJX�LMWXSVMG�GLYVGLIW�JSV�PEXIV�
discussion. Once historic, bomb-damaged churches were recognized, the focus was on
XLSWI�MR�8LI�'MX]�FSVSYKL��XLI�LMWXSVMG�GSVI�SJ�0SRHSR��QSVI�WTIGMÁGEPP]��XLI�;VIR�
designed churches like St. Bride’s Church or St. Paul’s Cathedral. This allowed St.
Paul’s, Bow Common, a smaller parish church, to design a contemporary structure
without as much pressure or criticism from the public as they would have received
had they been a church in The City. A strong-willed vicar, Gresham Kirkby, along with
young and innovative designers took advantage of these facts and produced arguably
XLI�µQSWX�MRÂYIRXMEP�SJ�QSHIVR�&VMXMWL�GLYVGLIW�¶1�-RÂYIRGIW�JVSQ�XLI�0MXYVKMGEP�
Movement are seen throughout the design, particularly in its centralized altar
placement.
Original Building History
St. Paul’s, Bow Common, a Church of England church that is within the
Province of Canterbury, lies under the direction of the Diocese of London. The
original structure was consecrated in October 1858 to accommodate the growing
St. Dunstan’s parish (see Image 1).2�8LI�FYMPHMRK�[EW�ÁRERGIH�F]�;MPPMEQ�'SXXSR�
1 Bingham, Neil, Elain Harwood, et al. The Twentieth Century Church. London: RIBA Heinz Gallery in association with the Twentieth century Society, 1997. 22. Print. 2 St. Paul’s, Bow Common: The Fiftieth Anniversary, 1858-1908��0SRHSR��(%7�,I[SSH��������;IF�
145
of Leytonstone, then governor of the Bank of England, and was known as “Cotton’s
'LYVGL�¶ 3
The Victorian-style church, designed by Rhode Hawkins, boasted a large
spire and stained glass window on the east façade (see Images 2 and 3). The window
was designed by G.E. Street. Hawkins also designed the Churches of St. Michael at
Paddington and St. Michael at Exeter. A 1908 pamphlet on the church, published for
XLI�GLYVGL¸W�ÁJXMIXL�ERRMZIVWEV]��WXEXIH�XLEX�XLI�RI[�HMWXVMGX�SVMKMREPP]�GSRXEMRIH�������
VIWMHIRXW�[MXL�SRP]�E�JI[�LSYWIW�ERH�GSXXEKIW�XS�QEOI�YT�XLI�WS�GEPPIH�µ'SQQSR¶�
land.4�1SWX�SJ�XLI�PERH�EX�XLI�XMQI�GSRWMWXIH�SJ�VLYFEVF�ÁIPHW��(YVMRK�%�&��'SXXSR¸W�
XIRYVI�EW�XLI�ÁVWX�ZMGEV�JSV�XLI�GLYVGL��XLI�GSRKVIKEXMSR�I\TERHIH�JVSQ�������XS�
14,000.5
WWII History
The church was destroyed in the last few months of the London Blitz, in May
1941. The East End “suffered most from aerial bombardment [and] had an air of
HIVIPMGXMSR�¶6 The area surrounding St. Paul’s, Bow Common, according to the District
Surveyors of the Metropolitan Boroughs bomb damage maps, was hit with two VI
bombs that left the area seriously damaged. The church itself was listed as “damaged
FI]SRH�VITEMV¶�[LMPI�XLI�FYMPHMRKW�XS�XLI�IEWX�SJ�XLI�GLYVGL�[IVI�XSXEPP]�HIWXVS]IH��
The East London borough of Stepney, which later became known as Tower
Hamlets in 1965, had a mix of residential and light industry in 1941. The area had
been experiencing a population decrease as people were moving to the suburbs
which was felt as the congregation of St. Paul’s decreased. Between 1901 and 1938
3 0SRHSR�1IXVSTSPMXER�%VGLMZIW��µ7EMRX�4EYP��&S[�'SQQSR��8S[IV�,EQPIXW�¶�London Metropolitan Archives��;IF�����3GXSFIV������4 St. Paul’s, Bow Common: The Fiftieth Anniversary, 1858-1908��0SRHSR��(%7�,I[SSH��������;IF�5 Ibid.6 Adler, Gerald. Robert Maguire & Keith Murray. 1st. London: RIBA Publishing, 2012. 16. Print.
146
the population of the area had fallen from 298,600 to 200,500.7 In 1938 the area was
known for its industry and had the second highest number of industrial employees
and factories throughout London but the area, as with the rest of London, was
experiencing a decentralization of industry to the outer boroughs.
London Reconstruction Plan
The County of London plan authors, J.H. Forshaw, Architect to the London
County Council, and Patrick Abercrombie, Professor of Town Planning at the
University College, suggested that the small residential areas of Stepney be rezoned
for general business and light industry, which would decrease the population in
XLI�EVIE�IZIR�QSVI��-R�OIITMRK�[MXL�XLIMV�SZIVEPP�0SRHSR�TPER�XS�VISVKERM^I�XVEJÁG�
ÂS[�[MXL�VMRK�VSEHW�XLEX�GSRRIGXIH�ZEVMSYW�TVIGMRGXW�XSKIXLIV�[MXL�VEHMEP�VSEHW��XLI�
Stepney roads were also being redesigned to make room for more industry (see Image
4). Churches then, as part of this development (with the City Churches being the
exception), were subject to parish reorganization and demolition due to population
shifts, street reorganization, and a decrease in housing.8 Again, street organization
played a large role in the demolition of St. Paul’s, Bow Common as it did in the near
demolition of Plymouth’s Charles Church.
8LI�0SRHSR�'SYRX]�'SYRGMP�%VGLMXIGX¸W�(ITEVXQIRX�GMVGYPEXIH�E�GSRÁHIRXMEP�
list of damaged buildings that contained “features of Architectural and Historical
-RXIVIWX¶�EJXIV�XLI�EMV�VEMH�HEQEKI�[EW�WYVZI]IH��7X��&VMHI¸W��XLI�TVIZMSYW�GEWI�WXYH]��
[EW�PMWXIH�ERH�XLI�EQSYRX�SJ�HEQEKI�GMXIH�EW�µVSSJ�KYXXIH��XS[IV�HEQEKIH�F]�ÁVI¶�
[LMPI�7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR�[EW�SRP]�PMWXIH�EW�µHEQEKIH�¶ 9 Although St. Paul’s
appears on this list, the fact that so little detail is given supports the idea that St.
7 Forshaw, J.H., and Patrick Abercrombie. County of London Plan. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1943. 33. Print.8 Forshaw, 140. 9 London. London County Council Architect’s Department. Air Raid Damage. 11. Print.
147
Bride’s (and the other City Churches’) was seen as superior to smaller, parish churches
such as St. Paul’s, Bow Common.
In May 1944, the London Improvements and Town Planning Committee
submitted a preliminary draft proposal for post-war reconstruction to the Mayor
and Commons of London. Their stated intent for the plan was to “see the return of
the City at the earliest possible date of those businesses which have been displaced
by enemy action, and to assist in every way within our power the rehabilitation of
GSQQIVGI�[MXLMR�SYV�[EPPW�¶10 The authors referred to Abercrombie’s County of
London Plan from 1943.11 From this plan we see a focus on the City borough of
London, the main historic core of the city, and an emphasis on economics without
mention of the historic fabric of the city. The City took precedent and the seemingly
smaller matters such as St. Paul’s, Bow Common were not discussed as much. As such,
the church could implement more drastic changes without the scrutiny of the public.
In addition to the preliminary draft proposal, the Improvements and Town
Planning Committee published a 1950 book titled “The City of London: A Record of
(IWXVYGXMSR�ERH�7YVZMZEP�¶�8LI�1MRMWXIV�SJ�8S[R�ERH�'SYRXV]�4PERRMRK�GSQTMPIH�E�
list of historic London monuments and while St. Bride’s Church was on it, St. Paul’s,
Bow Common was not. The City Churches were emphasized again in this publication
without mention of the smaller churches outside the City area proper.
In addition to reestablishing businesses, housing was a major rebuilding
concern. In a letter to the Lord Bishop of London from Ernest Bevin of the Ministry
of Labour and National Service, Bevin stated “I quite appreciate your anxiety that
HEQEKIH�GLYVGLIW�WLSYPH�FI�KMZIR�ÁVWX�EMH�VITEMVW�EW�UYMGOP]�EW�TSWWMFPI����-X�MW�XLI�
10 London. Improvements and Town Planning Committee. Report: Preliminary Draft Proposals for Post-War Reconstruction. London: B.T. Batsford, Ltd., 1944. a. Print.11 London. Improvements and Town Planning Committee. Report: Preliminary Draft Proposals for Post-War Reconstruction, 2.
148
TSPMG]�SJ�XLI�+SZIVRQIRX��LS[IZIV��XS�KMZI�TVMSVMX]�XS�XLI�VITEMV�SJ�H[IPPMRK�LSYWIW�¶12
The interest in rebuilding the economic center and housing for London as well
as particular attention in the City area churches combined to take the decisions
surrounding St. Paul’s, Bow Common out of the public’s eyes and ears. This in turn
allowed the church to take on a much more contemporary approach to rebuilding than
has been seen yet in this thesis.
The New St. Paul’s, Bow Common
Despite what could be seen as a lack of concern for the churches outside the
City area, the congregation at St. Paul’s, Bow Common began to plan for their new
future. After the church was bombed, the congregation held a service in the ruins and
then used the nearby St. Luke’s Church for additional services.13 As part of overall
parish reorganization due to population shifts and zoning changes within the borough,
St. Luke’s was eventually demolished in 1961 and their parish united with St. Paul’s.
From the war damage maps, we see that St. Luke’s was not as badly damaged as
St. Paul’s.14 Originally, the London Diocesan Reorganization Committee suggested that
7X��4EYP¸W�FI�µVIWXSVIH�ERH�VIXEMRIH�EW�?EA�4EVMWL�'LYVGL�¶15 The Committee was created
to redraw parish boundaries and consolidate congregations in areas with war damage,
multiple parishes or a declining population. St. Luke’s Church, it was suggested, was
to be torn down and the parish joined with St. Paul’s, Bow Common.16 Author Gordon
Barnes noted “as St. Luke’s had not suffered badly during the war surely it would have
12 London. The Bishop of London’s Commission on the City Churches. Meeting Minutes, October 7, 1941. Print.13 Barnes, Gordon. Stepney Churches: An Historical Account. London: published for the Ecclesiological Society by the Faith P., 1967. 105-106. Print.14 The London County Council Bomb Damage Maps, 1939-45. London Metropolitan Archives: London County Council Architect’s Department, 1945. Plate 64.15 London. London Diocesan Reorganization Committee. Proposals for Draft Reorganization Scheme for the Rural Deanery of Stepney. 1-2. Print.16 Ibid.
149
FIIR�QSVI�IGSRSQMGEP�XS�VITEMV�MX�ERH�XS�YWI�MX�EW�XLI�GLYVGL�SJ�XLI�YRMXIH�FIRIÁGI�
of St. Luke with St. Paul instead of building, at great cost, a new church of St. Paul’s
E�WLSVX�HMWXERGI�HS[R�XLI�&YVHIXX�6SEH�¶17 Despite Gordon’s thoughts, St. Luke’s was
eventually torn down and a new building proposed for the site of St. Paul’s.
The record on why this occurred is unclear. Reasons for this site decision may
have stemmed from St. Paul’s location on a more prominent street corner and the fact
that it had a larger site in general. St. Luke’s Church, like St. Paul’s was not considered
SRI�SJ�XLI�QSVI�LMWXSVMGEPP]�WMKRMÁGERX�GLYVGLIW�MR�XLI�EVIE��ERH�[MXL�HIGPMRMRK�
population only one parish church was deemed necessary for the area. In addition, the
JEGX�XLEX�:MGXSVMER�EVGLMXIGXYVI�[EW�RSX�WIIR�EW�WMKRMÁGERX�EX�XLI�XMQI�GSYPH�LEZI�EPWS�
contributed to the demolition of St. Paul’s.
8LI�;EV�(EQEKI�'SQQMWWMSR�KEZI���������JSV�XLI�RI[�FYMPHMRK�[MXL�ER�
EHHMXMSREP��������JSV�WXEMRIH�KPEWW�WTIGMÁGEPP]�18 The funds stipulated that the new
GLYVGL�LEH�XS�WIEX�E�QMRMQYQ�SJ�����TISTPI��%�WIPJ�TVSGPEMQIH�µVEHMGEP¶�:MGEV��
Gersham Kirkby, hired the young architect, Robert Maguire to design the new
building. The church was designed in 1956 and began construction at the end of 1958.
The building was open for worship by the end of 1959 and consecrated in April 1960.19
Kirkby, the parish priest for over 40 years, from 1951-1994, would prove to be
MRÂYIRXMEP�MR�XLI�VIFYMPHMRK�SJ�7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR��-R�E�WQEPP�TYFPMGEXMSR�EFSYX�
/MVOF]��/IRRIXL�0IIGL�HIWGVMFIH�LMQ�EW�µTSWX�:EXMGER���FIJSVI�MX�SGGYVVIH�¶20 Kirkby
[EW�GEPPIH�E�µTMSRIIV�SJ�PMXYVKMGEP�VIRI[EP¶�EW�LI�FIKER�XLI�HIWMKR�TVSGIWW�F]�EWOMRK�
µ;LEX�[MPP�'LVMWXMER�[SVWLMT�FI�PMOI�MR�XLI�]IEV�������ERH�LS[�GER�[I�FYMPH�E�GLYVGL�
17 Barnes, 105-106. 18 Adler, 17.19 6SWW��(YRGER��µ%FSYX�3YV�'LYVGL�¶�St. Paul’s, Bow Common��7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR��;IF����2SZ�2013.20 0IIGL��/IRRIXL��µ4VMIWX�SJ�XLI�/MRKHSQ�SJ�+SH��%�4IVWSREP�1IQMSV�¶�8VERW��%VVE]�Father Gresham Kirkby: 1916-2006. London: The Anglo-Catholic Society, 2009. 2. Print.
150
XS�VIÂIGX�XLMW#¶21�;LIR�/MVOF]�WE[�E�WXSRI�EPXEV�ERH�[VSYKLX�MVSR�GSVSRE�HIWMKRIH�
by Keith Murray and his brother, with drawings from Robert Maguire, at the Royal
Foundation of St. Katharine, he asked Murray to help design the new church building.
22 Kirkby was “ready to experiment in the design of his new church, becoming central
MR�XLI�HIZIPSTMRK�TEVXRIVWLMT�FIX[IIR�1YVVE]�ERH�1EKYMVI�¶23 Maguire and Murray
would continue to work together and design churches such as St. Matthew’s in
Birmingham as well as educational buildings like the student village at the University
of Surrey at Guildford.
The Liturgical Movement was at the heart of the new church design as well as
Kirkby’s ideas about the role of the building in relation to the congregation. In terms
of design the movement sought to bring the priest and congregation physically closer
around a centralized altar. The Eucharist celebration was seen as the essential function
of the church for which everything else became secondary. This idea prompted the
centralized plan on which St. Paul’s design was based. The initial design contained
no permanent structures, lecterns, or stalls but instead included easily moveable pew
benches that were to surround a raised altar in the middle of the space (see Images 5,
6 and 7).
1EKYMVI�[EW�XS�µHIWMKR�ERH�WYTIVZMWI�XLI�GSRXVEGX�JSV�FYMPHMRK�XLI�GLYVGL¶�
while Murray would design and execute �8,000-worth of glass mosaics, which would
be paid for in lieu of the stained glass of the bombed church. Eventually the mosaic
was designed and executed by Charles Lutyens instead of Murray. Murray had
GSQTPIXIH�TVIPMQMREV]�HIWMKRW��ERH�GSRXEGXIH�XLI�ÁVQ�SJ�1IPPSRM�ERH�1SVIXXM�MR�
Murano for glass samples and colors. However, in order to commit more time to his
and Maguire’s new practice, Murray proposed that painter Charles Lutyens complete
21 Leech, 3-6. 22 ,EV[SSH��)PEMR��µ7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR��%R�%VGLMXIGXYVEP�%TTVIGMEXMSR�¶�8VERW��%VVE]�Father Gresham Kirkby: 1916-2006. London: The Anglo-Catholic Society, 2009. 17. Print.23 Adler, 17.
151
the mosaics instead. The mosaic spans the entire length of the church arcade,
approximately 800 square feet, which encloses the main altar space. The mosaic is
comprised of ten angels and incorporates representations of the four elements of
IEVXL��ÁVI��EMV�ERH�[EXIV�MR�XLI�GSVRIVW�
Advised to tone down his initial design proposal, Maguire submitted a
VIÁRIH�HIWMKR�MRXIRHIH�XS�KEMR�ETTVSZEP�JVSQ�XLI�(MSGIWER�%HZMWSV]�'SQQMXXII�
�(%' ��3RGI�XLI�(%'�ETTVSZIH�XLI�TPERW��XLI�FYHKIX�[EW�HIGVIEWIH�JVSQ���������
XS���������FIGEYWI�7X��0YOI¸W�LEH�FIIR�SZIVZEPYIH�ERH�[EW�VIETTVEMWIH�JSV�E�PS[IV�
real estate value.24�1EKYMVI�VIÁRIH�XLI�HIWMKR�IZIR�QSVI�XS�ÁX�[MXLMR�XLI�RI[�FYHKIX�
by simplifying the external form and removing the spire, along with other features.
Author Robert Gibbon noted that Kirbky “and his people arranged and rearranged
XLI�JYVRMXYVI�YRXMP�XLI]�LEH�XLI�VIPEXMSRWLMTW�VMKLX�¶ 25 Gibbon found it “incredible
XLEX�+VIWLEQ�/MVOF]�[EW�TVITEVIH�XS�ÁKLX�JSV�E�VIZSPYXMSREV]�HIWMKR�F]�ER�YRORS[R�
architect, getting it past a diocesan establishment which included – on the DAC—such
KSXLMGMWX�ERH�GPEWWMGMWX�WXEP[EVXW�EW�;�,��+SHJVI]�ERH�%�)��6MGLEVHWSR�¶26
%�TYFPMGEXMSR�XMXPIH�µ8LI�'LYVGLIW�ERH�;EV�(EQEKI¶�I\TPEMRIH�XLI�GSWX�
associated with church rebuilding:
In assessing the net cost of a plain substituted church regard must be paid to such factors as obsolescence and redundancy and structural defects in the former building. On the other hand, it has to be borne in mind that the payment may represent the cost of a plainer or in some cases a smaller building in lieu of a former church of superior character and appearance… These churches will be those which, after consultation with a representative body of the denomination concerned and after taking into consideration the
24 Adler, 22.1EKYMVI��6SFIVX��µ6IGSPPIGXMSRW�SJ�XLI�)EVP]�(E]W�SJ�XLI�7X��4EYP¸W�4VSNIGX�¶�8VERW��%VVE]�Father Gresham Kirkby: 1916-2006. London: The Anglo-Catholic Society, 2009. 21. Print.25 +MFFSR��6SFIVX��µ7X�4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR��%�:SMGI�MR�XLI�;MPHIVRIWW�¶�Church Building. 1989/1990.13 15. Print.26 Ibid.
152
requirements of the public interest… the Commission determine ought to be repaired or rebuilt on the same site.27
-R������1EKYMVI�VIÂIGXIH�SR�XLI�HIWMKR�ERH�XLI�MWWYIW�WYVVSYRHMRK�MXW�GSRÁVQEXMSR�
by the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC):
%RHVI[�'EVHIR�ERH�)QMP�+SHJVI]�KIRXP]�FYX�ÁVQP]�[EVRIH�QI�XLEX�XLI�(%'�GSRXEMRIH�4VSJ�'SVÁEXS�ERH�7MV�%PFIVX�6MGLEVHWSR´FSXL�SJ�XLIQ�I\XVIQIP]�ZSGEP�GPEWWMGMWX´ERH�;EPXIV�+SHJVI]��JEXLIV�SJ�)QMP�ERH�E�GSRZMRGIH�+SXLMG�man, and that the one thing these eminent architects found they could agree on was that new churches had to be in a historic style. ‘You have to take account of them, Bob, otherwise you’re out,’ they said, ‘so decide what it is that’s most important to achieve, and go for it, then wrap it up in something you think they QMKLX�ETTVSZI�̧ �8LI�ÁVWX�HIWMKR�[EW�XLI�VIWYPX��-X�[EW�EW�JEV�EW�-�XLSYKLX�-�GSYPH�go, and the ‘most important’ thing was the plan and the internal relationships it and the section and the overhead lighting would encourage. It was essentially designed as an interior, somewhat but not entirely compromised by the external appearance.28
The basic form of the building is a series of cubes set on top of one another.
The base cube serves as circulation space and is divided from the main sanctuary
WTEGI�F]�GSPYQRW��WII�-QEKIW���ERH�� ��8LI�QMHHPI�GYFI�ÁPPW�XLI�WTEGI�MRWMHI�XLI�
GSPYQRW�[MXL�E�ÁREP�GYFI�VIWXMRK�SR�XST��VMKLX�EFSZI�XLI�GIRXVEPM^IH�EPXEV��8LI�
only elevation in the space is the high altar; everything else is on the same plane
WS�µIZIV]XLMRK�ERH�IZIV]SRI¶�MW�SR�XLI�WEQI�PIZIP��WII�-QEKI��� �29 To control costs
Maguire and Murray used industrial materials for the new building; purple Uxbridge
brick, concrete and exposed rolled steel sections were used extensively throughout the
space.
27 Churches Main Committee. Churches and War Damage. London: Press and Publications Board of the Church Assembly, 1944. 9. Print.28 Maguire, 21. 29 Leech, 6.
153
Past Interpretation
8LI�GLYVGL�WSSR�FIGEQI�ORS[R�EW�XLI�ÁVWX�%RKPMGER�GLYVGL�XS�
µ[LSPILIEVXIHP]�IQFVEGI�XLI�MHIEW�SJ�XLI�0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX�¶30 A 1960 Architectural
Review article stated that the building was “the most important church built in the
20th�GIRXYV]�¶31 The design prompted many publications about the role of the church
building and church design in general. In contrast to Coventry Cathedral, the design
EX�7X��4EYP¸W�[EW�JYPP]�GSQQMXXIH�XS�XLI�0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX�ERH�MW�I\IQTPMÁIH�MR�GSVI�
layout of the sanctuary with the centralized altar.
In 1960, the year the church was completed, author Peter Hammond wrote
that the building was “a church of outstanding promise, which may well prove to be
something of a landmark in the recreation of a living tradition of church architecture
MR�XLMW�GSYRXV]�¶32
In G.E. Kidder Smith’s Book,�µ8LI�2I[�'LYVGLIW�SJ�)YVSTI�¶�TYFPMWLIH�MR�
������XLI�GLYVGL�MW�RSXIH�EW�µXLI�'LYVGL�SJ�)RKPERH¸W�ÁVWX�WYFWXERXMEP�IWWE]�MRXS�TSWX�
[EV�GLYVGL�FYMPHMRK��ERH¬�MXW�ÁVWX�TSWMXMZI�WXEXIQIRX�SJ�XLI�RI[�0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX��
It must be judged, therefore, as a pioneer, and a brave and somewhat experimental
SRI�EX�XLEX�¶33 The author criticized the interior space, however, noting that the wall
behind the altar, with a small chapel behind it, “serves scarcely more than a service
ERH�GMVGYPEXMSR�EVIE�XLEX�EW�FEGOKVSYRH�HIXVEGXW�JVSQ�XLI�LSPMRIWW�SJ�XLI�WERGXYEV]�¶34
Kidder also commented that the clear glass in the folded roof plans “does not help—
GPIEV�KPEWW�FILMRH�ER�EPXEV�VEVIP]�HSIW¶�EW�PMKLXMRK�ERH�KPEVI�JSV�XLI�GSRKVIKEXMSR�GSYPH�
30 Bingham, 22.31 Leech, 6.32 Gibbon, 14. 33 Smith, GE Kidder. The New Churches of Europe��2I[�=SVO��,SPX��6MRILEVX�ERH�;MRWXSR������������Print. 34 Ibid.
154
potentially be an issue.35 Despite these notes, the author generally thought that the
GLYVGL�I\IVXIH�E�µTS[IVJYP�ERH�WEPYXEV]�MRÂYIRGI�SR�&VMXMWL�VIPMKMSYW�EVGLMXIGXYVI�¶36
In 1965 Maguire and Murray published Modern Churches of the World in which
they selected thirty-nine churches that demonstrated architectural quality, which
XLI]�HIÁRI�EW�XLI�µaptness at all levels—a ‘nearness to need’, an appropriate place for
the activity the building houses… and a relevance to its environment and the kind
SJ�GYPXYVI�SJ�[LMGL�MX�MW�XLI�TVSHYGX�¶37 Along with their own design at St. Paul’s, the
authors include Le Corbusier’s Notre-Dame du Haut in Ronchamp, France; Auguste
Perret’s Notre-Dame du Raincy in Paris, France; and Rudolf Schwarz’s St. Anna in
Düren, Germany (see Images 11, 12 and 13).
The authors write this about St. Paul’s, Bow Common:
A church is a place for the assembly of the people of God. It is a holy place, GSRWIGVEXIH��WIX�ETEVX�JSV�XLMW�TYVTSWI�̧ �;LMPI�XLIWI�X[S�PMROIH�MHIEW�[IVI�XLI�FEWMW�SJ�XLI�HIWMKR��MX�[EW�HIZIPSTIH�XS�JYPÁPP�XLI�WTIGMEP�RIIHW�SJ�XLI�TPEGI�and a particular Christian community. The church may be seen as a pattern of VIPEXMSRWLMTW��[LMGL�EVI�WMKRMÁGERX�FIGEYWI�SJ�XLIMV�JYRGXMSR�MR�XLI�GSRXI\X�SJ�an actual liturgy; a liturgy seen as a movement towards the light. In this church the movement is inwards through the dark porch, past the font, through the TVSGIWWMSR�XS�XLI�TPEGI�SJ�XLI�1MRMWXV]�SJ�XLI�;SVH´W]RE\MW´MRXS�XLI�PMKLX�of the sanctuary. In this the colonnade, and hanging corona of lights around XLI�WERGXYEV]��ERH�XLI�GMFSVMYQ�HIÁRI�XLI�WTEGIW�[MXLSYX�TVIZIRXMRK�JVII�movement between them.38
The duo believed that the church building itself was secondary to its function
and use. They claim that contemporary churches, a result of both the Liturgical
Movement in the Church and the Modern Movement in architecture, would be
SRP]�µWYTIVÁGMEPP]�QSHIVR�MR�WX]PI��GSQTPIXIP]�PEGOMRK�XLI�IWWIRXMEP�GLEVEGXIV�SJ�
35 Ibid.36 Ibid.37 Maguire, Robert, and Keith Murray. Modern Churches of the World. Dutton Vista. 10. Print.38 Maguire, Robert, and Keith Murray, 90.
155
XLI�EVGLMXIGXYVI�SJ�XLI�1SHIVR�1SZIQIRX¶�MJ�XLI�HIWMKRIVW�HMH�RSX�GSRRIGX�XLI�YWI�
to its design.39�1EKYMVI�ERH�1YVVE]�EVKYIH��µXLI�ÁVWX�RIGIWWMX]�JSV�GLYVGL�FYMPHIVW�
was to forget all about architecture and to study the anatomy of Christ’s body, the
WXVYGXYVI�SJ�XLI�XIQTPI�FYMPX�SJ�PMZMRK�WXSRIW�¶40 The duo was outspoken about other
new church designs undergoing construction around the country, particularly Basil
Spence’s Coventry Cathedral. They saw Spence’s design as shallow since it combined
more traditional church design plans with contemporary design aesthetics. Coventry,
1EKYMVI�ERH�1YVVE]�XLIR�GSRXIRH��[EW�E�TVMQEV]�I\EQTPI�SJ�E�µWYTIVÁGMEPP]�QSHIVR¶�
church that lacked the essential contemporary theological ideas yet used modern
design aesthetics to try and label the church an overall modern building. A possible
reason for the lack of contemporary liturgical designs at Coventry was the fact that
it was a cathedral and had to accommodate more ceremonial events than a parish
church such as St. Paul’s did.
A 1989 article argues that St. Paul’s, Bow Common did not reach its
full potential due to a “lack of relationship between building and changing
GMVGYQWXERGIW�¶41 A decline in population and changing demographics were to blame
for the inconsistency, the author argued. This shift caused the writers to observe,
µ7X��4EYP¸W�WIIQIH�HIWXMRIH�JSV�KIRXPI�SFWGYVMX]�¶42 However, author Robert Gibbons
thought that, despite all those things, “Bow Common [had] a voice that still [deserved]
XS�FI�LIEVH¶�[LIR�XEPOMRK�EFSYX�MXW�µEFMPMX]�XS�VEMWI�UYIWXMSRW�EFSYX�SPH�MHIEW�ERH�
GLEPPIRKI�XLI�WXEXYW�UYS�¶43 Gibbons states, “the overall effect is of a space that draws
XLI�[SVWLMTTIVW�MR[EVHW��E�TPEGI�XLEX�LIPTW�TEVXMGMTEXMSR�ERH�KMZIW�VSSQ�JSV�TVE]IV�¶44
39 Maguire, Robert, and Keith Murray, 14. 40 Hammond, Peter. Towards a Church Architecture. London: Architectural Press, 1962. 18. Print.41 Gibbon, 14. 42 Ibid.43 Ibid.44 Ibid.
156
The author does, however, criticize, the placement of the sacrament chapel, on the
east wall, which was placed according to parish tradition, but “intrudes too much into
XLI�GIRXVEP�[SVWLMT�WTEGI¬¶45�8LIWI�WQEPPIV�EPXEVW�µWIIQ�WYTIVÂYSYW¶�EW�XLI�QEMR�
MHIE�[MXLMR�XLI�0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX�[EW�µSRI�GLYVGL��SRI�EPXEV�¶46 Overall, the author
seems convinced by the design as he states, “Bow Common shows us the result of
a partnership between a priest who saw the liturgy developing and designers who
[IVI�EFPI�XS�GEVV]�SYX�ERH�YRHIVWXERH�XLI�ZMWMSR�SJ�XLI�TEVMWL�¶47 He predicts that
the church would become a pilgrimage church for all who were interested in church
design.
The church building was designated as a grade II* listed building in March
of 1988. The listing only describes the church’s design and does not mention its role
in community recovery as a post-war church. As a grade II* building, the church is
already seen as inferior to the other case studies presented in this thesis. As a building
SJ�µTEVXMGYPEV�MQTSVXERGI�¶�EW�STTSWIH�XS�KVEHI�-�FYMPHMRKW�XLEX�EVI�SJ�µI\GITXMSREP�
MRXIVIWX¶�ERH�MRXIVREXMSREPP]�MQTSVXERX��7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR¸W�WMKRMÁGERGI�ERH�
future preservation could be at risk as its importance is not as highly celebrated as the
other case studies.
Current Interpretation
The building continues to provoke various articles and publications regarding
its design and role within the greater London reconstruction. Keith Murray passed
away in 2005 and in his obituary he is touted as a church designer who “brought clergy
ERH�GSRKVIKEXMSRW�GPSWIV�XSKIXLIV�¶48 The author of the obituary notes that St. Paul’s
45 Ibid.46 Ibid.47 Gibbon, 15.48 HI�;EEP��:MGXSV��ERH�HI�;EEP�)WXLIV��µ/IMXL�1YVVE]�¶�Guardian�?0SRHSRA����2SZ�������;IF����1E]��2013.
157
“was then a striking new feature, and the economy of the design, together with the use
of industrial materials… contrasted with the new Coventry Cathedral, which Murray
ERH�1EKYMVI�VIKEVHIH�EW�IWWIRXMEPP]�QIHMIZEP�MR�GSRGITX�¶49 The author states that
µXLIMV�GSRGIVR�[EW�XS�IREFPI�ERH�IRGSYVEKI�TISTPI�XS�TEVXMGMTEXI�MR�XLI�WIVZMGI¶�ERH�
VIGEPPW�XLEX�JSVQIV�GSPPIEKYI��XLI�EVGLMXIGX�)OOILEVH�;IMWRIV�µWTSOI�SJ�XLI�FYMPHMRKW�
Murray helped to create as proving to be of timeless quality, a gift to the modern
world… In their modesty and economy of scale they touch people truly, serving their
needs at every level.“50
A 2009 publication wrote that the church was “a remarkable structure… often
referred to locally as ‘the gate of heaven,’ words which are framed in stone outside
XLI�FETXMWXIV]��ERH�ZMWMFPI�JVSQ�XLI�VSEH�¶�The church celebrated its Golden Jubilee
on April 30, 2010. Maguire sent the following statement in regards to the anniversary
celebration:
The general atmosphere in the country at the time was one of reconstruction and hope, but even by those standards the events surrounding the new St. 4EYP¸W�[IVI�RSX�SRP]�QSVI�JSV[EVH�PSSOMRK�FYX�VIZSPYXMSREV]�ERH�HEVMRK��;MXL�hindsight, we could even say prophetic.Father Gresham Kirkby was using the old parish hall to experiment with what would then have been considered quite revolutionary ways of Eucharistic worship. Unfettered by any constrictions from higher authority, he could move furniture around or throw it out, and generally exercise a freedom in what he and his adventurous parishioners wanted to do, simply because it was a hall and not a proper church.;I�[IVI�HIWMKRMRK�E�GLYVGL�JSV�E�RI[�ZMWMSR�SJ�)YGLEVMWXMG�[SVWLMT��2I[��FYX�MR�JEGX�ERGMIRX�ERH�SVMKMREP��XLI�MRGPYWMZI�ERH�EPWS�XLI�HIÁRMRK�EGX�SJ�YRMX]�SJ�XLI�[LSPI�4ISTPI�SJ�+SH��XLI�'LVMWXMER�'LYVGL��;I�[IVI�XV]MRK�XS�FYMPH�a church which would encourage true relationships in the liturgy—priest to people, people to one another, priest to God and people to God, the worship of the whole Church together. Encourage but not cause; because it is only people coming together with understanding and faith which bring those relationships to life.51
49 Ibid.50 Ibid.51 Maguire, Robert. “Some Thoughts on the Occasion of the Jubilee of St. Paul’s Church, Bow 'SQQSR�¶�.YFMPII�'IPIFVEXMSR��7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR��0SRHSR�����%TV�������7TIIGL�
158
In a 2012 publication about Maguire and Murray, author Gerald Adler states the
FYMPHMRK�[EW�XLI�µQSWX�JEQSYW�ERH�WMKRMÁGERX�TEVMWL�GLYVGL�XS�FI�FYMPX�MR�&VMXEMR�MR�
XLI�PEXXIV�LEPJ�SJ�XLI�X[IRXMIXL�GIRXYV]�¶52 Adler observes that the design of St. Paul’s,
Bow Common is “a ‘functional’ scheme insofar as it has been designed from the
inside out… how people, laity and clergy, actually use the space, and indeed ought to
use it in order to relate meaningfully to the life of and in the Church, was the thing
[LMGL�KSZIVRIH�MXW�HIWMKR�¶53 Adler argues that the design “crystallised architectural
and theological thinking about the form the church should assume in the post-war
era. It was a highly symbolic project, the one which would bring the practice critical
EGGPEMQ�¶54
Two members of the congregation, Mary McKenzie and Isabel Rowe moved
to the Bow Common area in the early 1950s and began attending the church soon
after. They sat down with me to discuss the church’s history and future. Both women
GSRÁVQIH�XLEX�XLI�HIWMKR�[EW�µUYMXI�GSQQIRHIH¶�[LIR�MX�[EW�ÁVWX�VIPIEWIH�ERH�XLEX�
it continues to be the center of praise within the community.55�1G/IR^MI�VIÂIGXIH�
that some members of the congregation “probably wanted something old like before
FIGEYWI�MX�[EW�E�LYKI��KVERH�GLYVGL¶�]IX�EW�XMQI�[IRX�SR�XLSWI�[LS�STTSWIH�XLI�
RI[�HIWMKR�µKVI[�XS�PSZI�XLI�GLYVGL�¶�8LI]�WTSOI�SJ�XLI�WYVVSYRHMRK�GSQQYRMX]�
GSQQIRXMRK�XLEX�XLI�FYMPHMRK�HMHR¸X�µPSSO�PMOI�E�TVSTIV�GLYVGL¶�FYX�EKEMR��EW�[MXL�XLI�
GSRKVIKEXMSR��XLI]�IZIRXYEPP]��µ[MXL�XLI�]IEVW¬�LEZI�GSQI�XS�PSZI�XLMW�¶
In regards to the plan of the church, Rowe stated that “people who are used to
it very much appreciate the fact that it is all level, it’s immediate, it’s here, and when we
go up we all surround it… It’s even, it doesn’t matter where you sit… that’s been part
52 Adler, 1.53 Adler, 22.54 Adler, 29.55 McKenzie , Mary, and Isabel Rowe. Personal Interview. 06 Jan 2013.
159
SJ�MX�JVSQ�XLI�MRGITXMSR�¶�8LI�X[S�EPWS�HMWGYWWIH�XLI�WMHI�GLETIPW�XLEX�[IVI�SVMKMREPP]�
criticized for interfering with the simplicity of the centralized plan. Both women
appreciated the additions and did not feel like they detracted from the main theme
of the building. “I feel like they are little, slightly set apart, quiet places but they don’t
HIXVEGX�¶�McKenzie stated; µXLI]�EVI�RSX�MRXVYWMZI�¶
;LIR�EWOIH�EFSYX�XLI�WLMJX�SJ�QIQSV]�JVSQ�SPHIV�XS�]SYRKIV�KIRIVEXMSRW�
the two expressed a feeling of inclusiveness with the younger members of the
GSRKVIKEXMSR��2IMXLIV�SJ�XLIQ�I\TVIWWIH�GSRGIVR�EFSYX�XLI�FYMPHMRK�PSWMRK�MXW�;SVPH�
;EV�--�LIVMXEKI�ERH�FSXL�[IVI�I\GMXIH�XLEX�XLI�]SYRKIV�KIRIVEXMSR�[SYPH�MRHIIH�
remember the past but create their own future within the church.
Conclusion
The elements that led to the construction of the new church building stemmed
from a combination of leadership within the church and city planning initiatives
that tended to exclude churches in neighborhoods outside the historic City area
of London. A strong vicar, Gresham Kirkby took full advantage of these facts and
advocated for an innovative and contemporary design that fully expressed new ideas of
liturgy (see Images 14 and 15).
;MXL�XLMW�MR�QMRH�-�EWO�XLI�UYIWXMSR��µMW�XLI�WMKRMÁGERGI�PE]IVIH�SRXS�XLMW�WMXI�
TSWX�[EV�VIGSKRM^IH�XSHE]#¶�-�[SYPH�EVKYI�XLEX�MX�MW�GYVVIRXP]��FYX�XLEX�MX�QE]�[ERI�MR�
the future with the shifting of memory from older to younger generations. As Mary
1G/IR^MI�ERH�-WEFIP�6S[I�GSRÁVQIH��XLI�]SYRKIV�KIRIVEXMSR�MW�E[EVI�SJ�XLI�TEWX�
FYX�RIMXLIV�SJ�XLI�X[S�[SQIR�WIIQIH�GSRGIVRIH�[MXL�XLI�MHIE�XLEX�XLI�;SVPH�;EV�--�
history may not be at the forefront of younger generations’ minds. I think this emerges
JVSQ�XLI�SVMKMREP�JEGX�XLEX�XLI�GLYVGL¸W�JYXYVI�ERH�HIGMWMSR�QEOMRK�[EW�ÂI\MFPI�[MXL�
XLI�XMQIW��8LI�JYXYVI�MRXIVTVIXEXMSR�[MPP�MRGPYHI�;SVPH�;EV�--�EW�MX�[EW�XLI�MRGITXMSR�SJ�
160
XLI�HIWMKR�TVSGIWW�FYX�MX�[MPP�EPWS�FI�ÂI\MFPI�XS�EGGSQQSHEXI�JYXYVI�KIRIVEXMSRW �̧MHIEW�
EFSYX�GLYVGL�HIWMKR��%W�XLI�LMWXSV]�ERH�WMKRMÁGERGI�WTIGMÁG�XS�;SVPH�;EV�--�HIGPMRIW��
the church will continue to gain recognition as a work of iconic mid-century work of
liturgical design and church architecture.
8LI�PEWX�X[S�UYIWXMSRW�SJ�µ[MPP�XLI�EHHIH�QIERMRK�ERH�WMKRMÁGERGI�EJJIGX�
TVIWIVZEXMSR�HIGMWMSRW�XSHE]¶�ERH��µMW�XLI�QIERMRK�SJ�XLI�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�VIPIZERX�
XSHE]�MR�XLI�WLMJXMRK�SJ�QIQSV]�JVSQ�ÁVWX�XS�WIGSRH�KIRIVEXMSR¶�EVI�QSVI�HMJÁGYPX�
XS�ERW[IV��7MRGI�XLI�EHHIH�WMKRMÁGERGI�SJ�XLI�FYMPHMRK�EW�E�TSWX�[EV�VIGSRWXVYGXIH�
church may decline in the future I would argue that future preservation decisions will
stem from the fact that it is an architectural icon more than a post-war memorial. The
preservation challenge will be to make a stronger connection between the building’s
MRÂYIRXMEP�QSHIVRMWX�HIWMKR�ERH�MXW�WMKRMÁGERGI�EW�E�TSWX�[EV�VIFYMPHMRK�TVSNIGX�XS�
strengthen the overall argument for preservation.
161
-QEKI����7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR��TVI�;;--Image Courtesy St. Paul’s, Bow Common
162
Image 2: St. Paul’s, Bow Common Interior, c1900Image Courtesy St. Paul’s, Bow Common
163
-QEKI����7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR��MRXIVMSV��TVI�;;--Image Courtesy St. Paul’s, Bow Common
164
Image 4: Road plan for part of StepneyCounty of London Plan
Image 5: Initial St. Paul’s, Bow Common DesignImage Courtesy St. Paul’s, Bow Common
165
Image 6: Initial St. Paul’s, Bow Common DesignImage Courtesy St. Paul’s, Bow Common
166
Image 7: Initial St. Paul’s, Bow Common DesignImage Courtesy St. Paul’s, Bow Common
167
Image 8: St. Paul’s, Bow Common, site planImage Courtesy St. Paul’s, Bow Common
Image 9: St. Paul’s, Bow Common, interior, 2013Image Courtesy St. Paul’s, Bow Common
168
Image 10: St. Paul’s, Bow Common, interior, 2013Jennifer Whisenhunt
169
Image 11: Notre-Dame du Haut, Ronchamp, France
170
Image 12: Notre-Dame du Raincy, Paris, FranceImage Courtesy Mary Ann Sullivan, Bluffton University
171
Image 13: St. Anna, Düren, GermanyImage Courtesy Moritz Bernoully
172
Image 14: St. Paul’s, Bow Common, 2013Jennifer Whisenhunt
173
Image 15: St. Paul’s, Bow Common, interior, 2013Jennifer Whisenhunt
174
Conclusion
175
Summary
Similar to the city examples in the European Context chapter, the various
rebuilding strategies represented in the four case studies exemplify an overall trend
of rebuilding that crosses cultural boundaries. All four of the churches presented
in this thesis are products of post-war church interpretation and all were at the
mercy of factors outside their immediate control, yet each had a different recovery
strategy implemented. Whether by rebuilding to historic designs or constructing
a contemporary building on the same site, each case study was looking to aid in
the overall recovery of its community. The four sites still maintain a link to their
surrounding communities yet each has future preservation issues that are unique
to the building and that relate directly back to the preservation and reconstruction
process.
Plymouth’s decision was ultimately led by the planning goals of the city but
[EW�IZIRXYEPP]�QSHMÁIH�XS�EGGSQQSHEXI�TYFPMG�STMRMSR��8LI�GSQFMRIH�IPIQIRXW�XLEX�
PIH�XS�7X��&VMHI¸W�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�WXIQQIH�JVSQ�MXW�EJÁPMEXMSR�[MXL�;VIR�ERH�XLI�'MX]�
Churches as well as its association with the printing and journalism industry of Fleet
7XVIIX��'SZIRXV]��EW�SRI�SJ�XLI�ÁVWX�GMXMIW�SYXWMHI�SJ�0SRHSR�XS�I\TIVMIRGI�I\XIRWMZI�
German bombing, was immediately considered an example of recovery and rebuilding
ERH�EW�WYGL��XLI�GEXLIHVEP�TVSNIGX�LIPH�ER�MQQIRWI�EQSYRX�SJ�TEXVMSXMG�WMKRMÁGERGI�
for the city and country. These ideas of recovery and reconciliation dominated the
designs for the cathedral and are at the heart of the building’s interpretation today.
*MREPP]��7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR�MW�E�TVSHYGX�SJ�0SRHSR¸W�GMX]�TPER�[LMGL�I\GPYHIH�
non-City Churches from discussion, thus leaving the church, and the strong-willed
vicar, Gresham Kirkby, to design a contemporary structure without the added pressure
SV�GVMXMGMWQ�EXXEGLIH�XS�'MX]�'LYVGLIW��8LI�0MXYVKMGEP�1SZIQIRX�ERH�XLI�GSRÂMGX�
between the rebuilding schemes and the proposed modern city reconstruction plans
also contributed to the various rebuilding techniques presented in this thesis. Overall
176
then, church reconstruction, despite the various rebuilding schemes, represented
E�KVIEXIV�KSEP��EW�IGLSIH�MR�XLI�GMX]�VIFYMPHMRK�TPERW�PMOI�0I�,EZVI�SV�;EVWE[ �SJ�
strength and recovery following the destruction of World War II.
Potential Preservation Issues
Plymouth, the least invasive of the rebuilding strategies, preserved the church
VYMRW�EW�E�[EV�QIQSVMEP��-R�4P]QSYXL��XLI�XVEJÁG�TPERRMRK��VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�ERH�
ultimately the economics surrounding a rebuilt modernist city center were at odds
with the idea of preserving Charles Church. Despite this, it was the public’s outcry
and ongoing debate about the site that led the City Council to relent and decide
to leave the church as a memorial. In this case outside factors such as the city plan
[IVI�XL[EVXIH�F]�TYFPMG�STMRMSR��XLI�TYFPMG�ERH�GSRKVIKEXMSR�ÁREPP]�LEH�E�WE]�MR�XLI�
future of the church, yet this alternative is perhaps the most unsatisfying of all the
case studies as the site is inaccessible to the public today. This very factor, however,
could either help or hinder the site’s future preservation; as an inaccessible site the
area holds little development potential for future building strategies yet, the fact that
people cannot easily visit the site could lead to diminished public appreciation for the
ruin, which could itself ultimately lead to the site’s demolition.
At Plymouth, the site is rarely acknowledged or visited by the public, yet, as
seen with the fence proposal, any plan that would endanger the ruin is met with
public outcry. The main concern for this site then is the future conservation of the
ruin. Preservationists need to worry about structural damage and the potential
preservation battle when the option to demolish the church becomes cheaper than
repairing it. I worry that since the site is not in the public’s everyday consciousness
because of its inaccessibility, and the older generation is no longer around to provide
for the public memory of the site, it may become easier to raze the ruin and redevelop
XLI�[LSPI�XVEJÁG�EVIE�MQQIHMEXIP]�WYVVSYRHMRK�MX��
177
On the other hand, the fact that Charles Church is isolated from the rest of
the city could prove to be an advantage when discussions of conservation arise. In a
monograph published by the RIBA in association with the Twentieth Century Society,
published in 1997, it is noted that churches, “because of their relatively low economic
worth and apparent plenitude… are more readily given away.”1 Charles Church,
XLSYKL��WMXW�SR�E�WMXI�XLEX�[SYPH�FI�QSVI�HMJÁGYPX�XS�VIHIZIPST�EW�MX�MW�WYVVSYRHIH�[MXL�
LIEZ]�XVEJÁG��(IZIPSTIVW�[SYPH�PSSO�XS�SXLIV�WMXIW�JSV�MQTVSZIQIRX�FIJSVI�XV]MRK�XS�
redevelop the middle of a roundabout. The siting of the church, both its positive and
negative attributes, could be what saves or ultimately leads to its destruction. In order
XS�QEMRXEMR�XLI�GLYVGL¸W�ZMWMFMPMX]�[MXLMR�XLI�GSQQYRMX]�XLI�ÁVWX�WXIT�-�[SYPH�WYKKIWX�
would be to allow greater accessibility to the site, whether by a crosswalk or other type
of physical connection. The church, without a real context and interpretation, will
only diminish in public opinion and value. Providing a physical link to the site could
MRGVIEWI�MXW�TYFPMG�ZMWMFMPMX]��ERH�XLYW�WYTTSVX��[LMGL�[SYPH�FI�FIRIÁGMEP�[LIR�WMXI�
becomes at risk for demolition.
The next site on the reconstruction scale would be St. Bride’s Church in
0SRHSR��8LI�GSQFMRIH�IPIQIRXW�XLEX�PIH�XS�7X��&VMHI¸W�VIGSRWXVYGXMSR�WXIQQIH�JVSQ�
MXW�EJÁPMEXMSR�[MXL�;VIR�ERH�XLI�'MX]�'LYVGLIW�EW�[IPP�EW�MXW�EWWSGMEXMSR�[MXL�XLI�
printing and journalism industry of Fleet Street and its location in a historic center.
Without these connections, the church, in an area with many potentially redundant
churches, could have easily been torn down. Unlike St. Paul’s, Bow Common, St.
Bride’s, as part of a larger network of City Churches, almost had its fate decided before
the debate even began. The building’s association with a great architect and a thriving
industry are what made the restoration of St. Bride’s possible. These same associations
[MPP�GSRXMRYI�XS�MRÂYIRGI�XLI�WMXI¸W�JYXYVI�TVIWIVZEXMSR��EW�XLIVI�MW�PMXXPI�GLERGI�
1 &MRKLEQ��2IMP��)PEMR�,EV[SSH��IX�EP��The Twentieth Century Church��0SRHSR��6-&%�,IMR^�+EPPIV]�MR�association with the Twentieth century Society, 1997. 2. Print.
178
0SRHSR�[SYPH�EPPS[�JSV�E�FYMPHMRK�[MXL�WYGL�GSRRIGXMSRW�XS�FI�IMXLIV�HIQSPMWLIH�SV�
altered beyond recognition.
St. Bride’s current funding appeal, Inspire!, calls upon these associations in
SVHIV�XS�KEVRIV�ÁRERGMEP�WYTTSVX�JSV�XLI�GSRXMRYIH�QEMRXIRERGI�ERH�GPIERMRK�SJ�XLI�
church. As the church does not physically express the post-war interpretation (other
XLER�XLI�EPXIVIH�MRXIVMSV�XLEX�SRI�GSYPH�IEWMP]�QMWNYHKI�EW�FIMRK�JVSQ�;VIR¸W�XMQI �
the current and future interpretations of the site will continue to be dominated by
the larger associations the church holds. As such, the future of the church is relatively
secure if the leadership continues to rely on Wren, the City Churches and Fleet Street
for support. The connections have proven valuable in the past and there is no reason
XS�FIPMIZI�XLEX�XLI�WXEXYW�[MPP�GLERKI�ER]XMQI�WSSR��,S[IZIV��JYXYVI�MRXIVTVIXEXMSR�
SJ�XLI�WMXI��WTIGMÁGEPP]�MXW�MRXIVMSV��WLSYPH�QEOI�KVIEXIV�QIRXMSR�SJ�%PPIR¸W�EHHMXMSRW�
during the post-war rebuilding. The site currently does not acknowledge this addition
ERH�XLI�EHHIH�PE]IV�SJ�WMKRMÁGERGI�GSYPH�LIPT�KEVRIV�QSVI�WYTTSVX�JSV�XLI�FYMPHMRK��
FSXL�ÁRERGMEPP]�ERH�TYFPMGP]���
Coventry Cathedral preserved the ruins and built a contemporary church on
XLI�EHNEGIRX�WMXI��'SZIRXV]��EW�SRI�SJ�XLI�ÁVWX�GMXMIW�XS�I\TIVMIRGI�E�FSQFMRK�VEMH�
SYXWMHI�SJ�0SRHSR��[EW�MQQIHMEXIP]�I\TPSMXIH�EW�ER�I\EQTPI�SJ�VIFYMPHMRK�ERH�
recovery. As a result, the city was forced to undertake the rebuilding of the cathedral
very carefully to present a strong and clear message of reconciliation and recovery to
the rest of the country and world. Coventry is now known throughout the world for
its new cathedral design and its dedication to peace and reconciliation. These ideas
of recovery and reconciliation dominated the designs for the cathedral and are at the
heart of the building’s interpretation today. The site, as an international symbol will
always be preserved and remembered as part of a post-war rebuilding campaign.
0MOI�7X��&VMHI¸W�JYXYVI��'SZIRXV]¸W�JYXYVI�MW�EPWS�VIPEXMZIP]�WIGYVI��FYX�JSV�
different reasons. Coventry became known around the country and world for its
179
message of reconciliation and today, the church heavily relies on these ideas for the
current interpretation. Since the ruins are physically incorporated with the site the
memory of war and destruction will always be represented to future visitors and will
support the ideas of peace, strength and recovery for future generations. Thus, both
the ruins and Spence’s building will remain for years to come and will continue
to be interpreted as a post-war site of recovery and reconciliation. In addition, the
artwork within the cathedral may experience an increase of exposure, though not at
the expense of the post-war narrative, which is due to remain because of the ruins’
physical presence.
*MREPP]��7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR�MW�ERSXLIV�GLYVGL�PSGEXIH�MR�0SRHSR��FYX�RSX�
a Christopher Wren City Church. The elements that led to the construction of this
new building stemmed from a combination of leadership within the church and city
planning initiatives that tended to exclude neighborhoods outside the historic City
area. This lack of attention allowed St. Paul’s architects to design a contemporary
structure without the added pressure or criticism attached to City Churches. A
strong-willed vicar, Gresham Kirkby, along with young and innovative designers took
EHZERXEKI�SJ�XLIWI�JEGXW�ERH�TVSHYGIH�SRI�SJ�XLI�µQSWX�MRÂYIRXMEP�SJ�QSHIVR�&VMXMWL�
churches.”2 The church’s recognition will continue to be rooted in its association with
modern architecture as opposed to a post-war rebuilding symbol.
The current and future interpretation of the building will always mention post-
war rebuilding as that was the start of the new church’s life, but future preservation
issues will stem more from the well-known design of the church than the post-war
symbolism aspect. As a result, the building may be subject to risk as design aesthetics
and public taste changes. The Twentieth Century Society noted that the churches “are
becoming increasingly vulnerable to changes in taste and shortage of money.”3 With a
2 Bingham, 22.
3 Bingham, 2.
180
dwindling congregation, the church’s future lies with modern architecture enthusiasts
[LS�[MPP�ÁKLX�EKEMRWX�ER]�TSXIRXMEP�VIHIZIPSTQIRX�TPERW��
Conclusion
Overall, churches are still an important part of the England community. Forty-
ÁZI�TIVGIRX�SJ�XLI�+VEHI�-�PMWXIH�FYMPHMRKW�MR�)RKPERH�EVI�'LYVGL�SJ�)RKPERH�GLYVGL�
buildings which goes to show the great level of appreciation for the buildings.4 In
addition, the number of visitors is still on the high as St. Paul’s Cathedral, Westminster
Abbey and Canterbury Cathedral are all “among the top visitor attractions in the UK.”5
%�1EVGL������'LYVGL'EVI�EVXMGPI�WXEXIW�XLEX�GEXLIHVEPW�EHH������QMPPMSR�TIV�]IEV�XS�
the tourism industry of the nation.6 Janet Gough, Director of Church and Cathedral
Buildings for the Church of England stated that the churches and cathedrals tell of
“unparalleled glories and a history of architecture” as well as serving the primary
function of “worship and mission” and as a center for community use.7 These numbers
tell us that the buildings, as a whole, are still being visited regularly and still serve a
need for the local and tourist populations.
With this in mind, it is reasonable to assume that the future of all these
churches is safe as, overall, the country values historic church architecture, whether for
its architectural or historical value. Each site and surrounding community must always
be cognizant of the potential dangers to the site, whether it is the site’s inaccessibility
or lack of modern architecture enthusiasts ready to battle for the protection of the
church.
4 ChurchCare. Key Facts. 'LYVGL'EVI� Cathedral and Church Buildings Division, Archbishops’ Council.
2013.
5 “Thousands Visit Churches and Cathedrals.” ChurchCare��'LYVGL'EVI� Cathedral and Church
Buildings Division, Archbishops’ Council�����1EV�������;IF����*IF������6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
181
Post-War Rebuilding Timeline
183
Bibliography
184
Introduction
Report of Proceedings, Spring Session, 1942. February 4, 1942. Archbishops’ Church War Damage Committee. Church of England Record Centre.
European Context
“Auguste Perret.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academ-ic Edition. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 20 Jan. 2013. <http://www.britannica.com>.
Bingham, Neil, Elain Harwood, et al. The Twentieth Century Church. London: RIBA Heinz Gallery in association with the Twentieth century Society, 1997. Print.
Christ-Janer, Albert. Modern Church Architecture: A Guide to the Form and Spirit of 20th Century Religious Buildings. New York City: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Print.
“Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.” Vatican: the Holy See. N.p., 04 Dec 1963. Web. 29 Jan 2013. <http://www.vatican.va/>.
“Dresden Loses UNESCO World Heritage Status.” Local: Germany’s News in English. 25 Jun 2009. Web. 21 Apr 2012.
Diefendorf, Jeffry. In the Wake of War: The Reconstruction of German Cities after World War II. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Print.
Forshaw, J.H., and Patrick Abercrombie. County of London Plan. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1943. Print.
Glendinning, Miles. The Conservation Movement: A History of Architectural Preservation from Antiquity to Modernity. Routledge, forthcoming. Print.
Hammond, Peter. Towards a Church Architecture. London: Architectural Press, 1962. Print.
Hill, H.A. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. London: Butterworth & Co., Ltd., 1945. Print.
“Historic Centre of Warsaw.” 9RMXIH�2EXMSRW�)HYGEXMSR��7GMIRXMÁG�ERH�'YPXYVEP�3VKERM^E-tion. UNESCO. Web. 13 Oct 2012.
Jäger, Wolfram. “A Short Summary of the History of the Frauenkirche in Dres-den.” Construction and Building Materials. 17.8 (2003). Web. 01 Jan. 2013.
185
Jarzombeck, Mark. “Urban Heterology: Dresden and the Dialectics of Post-Traumatic History.” Studies in Theorectical and Applied Aesthetics. 2001.01 (2001). Print.
Kieckhefer, Richard. 8LISPSK]�MR�7XSRI��'LYVGL�%VGLMXIGXYVI�JVSQ�&]^ERXMYQ�XS�&IVOIPI]. Oxford Scholarship Online, 2004. eBook.
Knapp, Andrew. “Destruction and Liberation of Le Havre in Modern Memory.” War in History. 14.4 (2007). Web. 25 Jan. 2013.
“Le Havre, the City Rebuilt by Auguste Perret.”92)7'3��;SVPH�,IVMXEKI�0MWX. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Web. 25 Jan 2013. <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1181>.
“Le Havre Rebuilt as City of Cement: Modern Reinforced Concrete of Auguste Per-ret Stirred a Sharp Controversy.” New York Times. 07 Sep 1955, 33. Web. 01 Jan. 2013.
Long, Philip, and Jane Thomas. Basil Spence: Architect. Edinburgh: National Galleries of Scotland in association with the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Histori-cal Monuments of Scotland, 2007. Print.
Maguire, Robert, and Keith Murray. Modern Churches of the World. Dutton Vista. 90. Print.
“RAF Hits Dresden Heavy Night Blow.” New York Times [New York City] 14 Feb 1945, 4.
Tung, Anthony. Preserving the World’s Great Cities: The Destruction and Renewal of the His-toric Metropolis. 1st ed. New York: Clarkson Potter, 2001. Print.
Smith, GE Kidder. The New Churches of Europe. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Print.
Charles Church, Plymouth
“100-’Planes Raid Starts Plymouth Fires: Three Churches, Two Kinemas, Four Hotels, Public Shelters Hit.” Western Evening Herald [Plymouth] 21 Mar 1941, Evening 1. Print.
Astor. Letter 27/TC/DR of Letters to Paton Watson. Plymouth: Plymouth West Devon 6IGSVH�3JÁGI�����.YR�������4VMRX�
____, Barbara. Personal Interview. 11 Jan 2013.
Brown, Bob. Personal Interview. 11 Jan 2013.
186
Bombed Churches as War Memorials. Surrey: The Architectural Press, 1945. Print.
Campbell, Colin. “Historic Plymouth.” Letters to the Secretary, SPAB. 29 Dec 1947. Print.
“Charles Church Fence Plan Scrapped.” This is Cornwall. 09 June 2009, n. pag. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. <www.thisiscornwall.co.uk>.
“Charles Church to Go: Tower Stays.” Plymouth Western Morning News 4 April 1950, Morning n. pag. Print.
“Charles Church, Plymouth.” British Listed Buildings. British Listed Buildings. Web. 10 Dec 2013. <http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/>.
Gould, Jeremy. Plymouth: Vision of a Modern City. 1st. Swindon: English Heritage, 2010. Print.
“Help Given to Preserve Ruin of Charles Church.” 20 Oct 1956, n. pag. Print.
Hoge, Warren. “Sir Hugh Casson, 89, Architect; Led Britain’s Royal Academy.” The New York Times:Arts. The New York Times, 19 Aug 1998. Web. 12 Feb 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/>.
James, Suzanne Aileen Helen. The Life Continues: A History of the Congregation of Charles Church, Plymouth. Plymouth: Clarke, Doble & Brendon, 1964. Print.
Jones, Lloyd. “Charles Church.” Letters to the Deputy Chairman, SPAB. 12 Jul 1955. Print.
Letter 27/TC/DR of Letters to Lord Astor. Plymouth: Plymouth West Devon Record Of-ÁGI�����.YR�������4VMRX�
“National Group to Aid.” Western Independent. 22 Feb 1948, n. pag. Print.
“Need for Charles Church.” Plymouth Western Morning News 25 April 1950, Morning n. pag. Print.
“New Reason Why Plymouth Should Stay Its Hand on Charles Church.” Print.
“Old Plymouth.” Letters to Captain H. Allen, Plymouth. 1 Aug 1947. Print.
“Only One Organization Offer to Help.” Western Morning News [Plymouth] 02 Nov 1956, Morning n. pag. Print.
“A Plan for Plymouth: Old and New in the Making of a Modern City.” n.d., n. pag. Print.
187
“The Plan for Plymouth.” The Times [London] 27 April 1944, n. pag. Print.
Plymouth. City Council. Charles Church History Plaque. 1958.
Plymouth. City Council. Reconstruction Committee Minutes. Plymouth, 15 June 1953. Print.
Plymouth Development Plan��4P]QSYXL��4P]QSYXL�;IWX�(IZSR�6IGSVH�3JÁGI��������Print.
“Preserve Charles Church, Plymouth Appeal.” Western Evening Herald [Plymouth] 1951, Evening n. pag. Print.
Scotland, Andrew. A Handbook to the Plymouth Plan. London: Nisbet & Co., Ltd., 1945. Print.
SPAB Deputy Director. “Charles Church, Plymouth.” Letters to Colin Campbell, Plymouth 8S[R�'PIVO W̧�3JÁGI. 02 Jan 1951. Print.
Watson, James Paton. A Plan for Plymouth: The Report Prepared for the City Council. 2nd. Plymouth, England: Underhill, 1943. Print.
Watson, James Paton. “Plymouth Reconstruction Area No. 1.” Letters to the Secretary, SPAB. 24 Nov 1947. Print.
Willcocks, C.B. “Report on Old Plymouth.” 28 Oct 1948. Print.
Worth, R.N. History of Plymouth From the Earliest Period to the Present Time. Plymouth: W. Brenden, 1890. Print.
St. Bride’s Church, London
Aslet, Clive. “Deadlines and Lifelines at St. Bride’s: A Special Appeal for the Journal-ists’ Church in Fleet Street.” Daily Telegraph [London] 22 Sept 2007, 3. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
“Chapter X: 1989 - 2013.” St. Bride’s: History. St. Bride’s Church, Fleet Street. Web. 5 Nov 2012. <http://www.stbrides.com/history>.
Checkland, Sarah Jane. “Celebration Marks the Day Fleet Street’s Parish Church Rose From the Ashes of War.” The Times [London] 29 Nov 2007, 81. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
“Church of St. Bride.” English Heritage. English Heritage. Web. 15 Nov 2012. <http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/>.
188
The City Churches Society. Agenda for Inaugural Meeting of Council. 11 Feb 1942 Print.
The City of London: A Record of Destruction and Survival. London: Published on behalf of the Corporation by the Architectural Press, 1951. Print.
“A Critical Essay on the Architecture and Genius of Sir Christopher Wren.” Essays for Medal. London: Royal Institute of British Architects, 1838. Print.
Davie, Eric. “St. Bride’s Presentation.” St. Bride’s Tour. St. Bride’s Church. England, London. Lecture.
Finch, Paul. “We Need Tax Relief From the Government if We’re Going to Preserve Churches Like St Bride’s.” Architects’ Journal. (2012): n. page. Web. 10 Jan. 2013. <www.architectsjournal.co.uk>.
Forshaw, J.H., and Patrick Abercrombie. County of London Plan. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1943. Print.
Fürst, Viktor. The Architecture of Sir Christopher Wren. 1st. London: Lund Humphries, 1956. Print.
Historic London Under Fire. 2nd ed. London: W.H. Smith & Sons, 1942. Print.
Holden, C.H., and W.G. Holford. The City of London: A Record of Destruction and Surviv-al. London: Shenval Press, 1951. Print.
London. The Bishop of London. City Churches. London: Williams, Lea & Co., Ltd., 1946. Print.
London. The Bishop of London’s Commission on the City Churches. Meeting Minutes. Print.
London. Church War Damage Committee. Church Bodies Set Up to Deal with Bombed Churches. London. Print.
London. Improvements and Town Planning Committee. Report: Preliminary Draft Pro-posals for Post-War Reconstruction. London: B.T. Batsford, Ltd., 1944. Print.
London. London Diocesan Advisory Committee. Meeting Minutes. Print.
The London County Council Bomb Damage Maps, 1939-45. London Metropolitan Archives: London County Council Architect’s Department, 1945. Plate 62.
“The London Encyclopedia”, eds. Weinreb and Hibbert (London Metropolitan Ar-chives Library Reference 67.2 WEI).
189
Long, Kieran. “Save St. Bride’s.” London Evening Standard 25 Jan 2012, n. pag. Web. 29 Jan. 2013. <http://www.standard.co.uk/arts/architecture>.
McFall, David. Country Life. (1958): 51-52. Web. 5 Dec. 2012. <http://www.davidmcfall.co.uk/Press.html>.
Morgan, Dewi. Phoenix of Fleet Street: 2,000 Years of St. Bride’s. 1st ed. London: Charles Knight & Co. Ltd., 1973. Print.
“The New St. Bride’s: Restoring Wren’s Fleet Street Church.” The Times [London] 21 Nov 1951, n. pag. Print.
Ormsby, Avril. “St Bride’s, The “Journalists’ Church” in London, Seeks a Financial Suitor.” Reuters 3 Jan 2012, n. pag. Web. 5 Jan. 2013. <http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld>.
Redpath, William. Fleet Street’s Church Restored, 1940-1957. 2nd ed. London: Patina Press Ltd., 1958. Print.
“Sir Christopher Wren (1632 - 1723).” BBC: History. British Broadcasting Corporation. Web. 10 Feb 2013. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history>.
St. Bride’s Church. Inspire! Advertisement. London, 2013. Print.
St. Bride’s Church, Museum. Museum Exhibition. St. Bride’s Church, London.
“St. Bride’s, Fleet Street.” Architects’ Journal. (1959). Print.
“St. Bride’s, Fleet Street: Proposed Restoration.” Builder. XXXVI.11 (1951). Print.
Worsley, Giles. “The City of London Churches.” Trans. Array The City Churches Have a Future. London: Save Britain’s Heritage, 1994. Print.
Coventry Cathedral, Coventry
“50: Celebrating the Past, Embracing the Future, 1962-2012.” (2013). [Brochure] Coven-try Cathedral, Coventry.
Barnett, Correlli. “Germany’s Bombs Set Our Cities and Homes Alight, But We Carried On.” Independent [London] 05 Sept 2010, n. pag. Web. 10 Aug. 2012. <http://www.independent.co.uk/>.
Bryant, Arthur. Coventry Cathedral. Coventry Cathedral Council, 1970. Print.
190
Campbell, Louise. Coventry Cathedral: Art and Architecture in Post-War Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Print.
Campbell, Louise. To Build a Cathedral: Coventry Cathedral, 1945-1962. 1st. Warwickshire: Jolly & Barber Ltd., 1987. Print.
Campbell, Louise. Personal Interview. 9 Jan 2013.
Campbell, Louise. “Shaping the Sacred: Spence as Church-Builder.” Trans. Array Basil Spence: Architect. Philip Long and Jane Thomas. Edinburgh: National Galleries of Scotland in association with the Royal Commission on the Ancient and His-torical Monuments of Scotland, 2007. Print.
“Cathedral of St. Michael.” English Heritage. English Heritage. Web. 15 Nov 2012. <http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/>.
The Chapel of Unity at Coventry Cathedral. (2013). [Brochure] Coventry Cathedral, Coventry.
Coventry Cathedral. (Post-1940). [Brochure] Coventry Cathedral, Coventry.
Coventry Cathedral: Report of Lord Harlech’s Commission. Oxford: University Press, 1947. Print.
Forshaw, J.H., and Patrick Abercrombie. County of London Plan. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1943. Print.
Glendinning, Miles, Jane Thomas and Louise Campbell. Basil Spence: Buildings & Proj-ects. London: RIBA Publishing, 2012. Print.
Hodge, Jessica. Coventry Cathedral: Celebrating the Past, Embracing the Future. London: Scala Publishers Ltd., 2012. Print.
Howard, R.T. The New Coventry Cathedral. 1st ed. 1952. Print.
“Lost Treasures of Coventry.” The Times [London] Jan 1947, n. pag. Print.
“The New Coventry.” Times [London] 1940s, n. pag. Print.
“Notes on the Restoration of St. Michael’s Church.” Coventry Herald, n. pag. Print.
“Our History.” Coventry Cathedral. Coventry Cathedral. Web. 9 Sept 2012. <http://www.coventrycathedral.org.uk/>.
Pevsner, Nikolaus. “Faith and Feasibility.” Guardian [Coventry] 25 May 1962. Print.
191
Pryce-Jones, David. “Pillar of Architecture.” (EMP]�8IPIKVETL�1EKE^MRI. 29 Sept 1973. Print.
“The Restoration of St. Michael’s Church: A Survey of the Work.” Coventry Standard? n. pag. Print.
“Ruined Cathedral of St. Michael.” English Heritage. English Heritage. Web. 15 Nov 2012. <http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/>.
“Sir Giles Gilbert Scott.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica On-line Academic Edition. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 20 Jan. 2013. <http://www.britannica.com>.
Smith, GE Kidder. The New Churches of Europe. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Print.
Spence, Basil. 2I[�&YMPHMRKW�MR�3PH�'MXMIW��8LI�7IGSRH�+[MP]Q�.EQIW�1IQSVMEP�0IGXYVI�of the University of Southampton, Delivered at the University on the 23d Feb. 1973. Southampton, Eng.: University of Southampton, 1973. Print.
Spence, Basil. Phoenix at Coventry: The Building of a Cathedral. London: Geoffrey Bles Ltd., 1962. Print.
“Various.” Cycling Times, n. pag. Print.
Willis, John, Sarah Walford, et al. Journey into the Light: The Art Treasures of Coventry Ca-thedral, Their Making and Meaning. 1st ed. Oxford: Hunts- People in Print, 2012. Print.
St. Paul’s, Bow Common, London
Adler, Gerald. Robert Maguire & Keith Murray. 1st. London: RIBA Publishing, 2012. Print.
Barnes, Gordon. Stepney Churches: An Historical Account. London: published for the Ecclesiological Society by the Faith P., 1967. Print.
Bingham, Neil, Elain Harwood, et al. The Twentieth Century Church. London: RIBA Heinz Gallery in association with the Twentieth century Society, 1997. Print.
Churches Main Committee. Churches and War Damage. London: Press and Publications Board of the Church Assembly, 1944. Print.
“Church of St. Paul.” English Heritage. English Heritage. Web. 15 Nov 2012. <http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/>.
192
The City of London: A Record of Destruction and Survival. London: Published on behalf of the Corporation by the Architectural Press, 1951. Print.
de Waal, Victor, and de Waal Esther. “Keith Murray.” Guardian [London] 28 Nov 2005, Web. 5 May. 2013. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>.
Forshaw, J.H., and Patrick Abercrombie. County of London Plan. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1943. Print.
Gibbon, Robert. “St Paul’s, Bow Common: A Voice in the Wilderness.” Church Building. 1989/1990.13. Print.
Hammond, Peter. Towards a Church Architecture. London: Architectural Press, 1962. Print.
Harwood, Elain. “St. Paul’s, Bow Common: An Architectural Appreciation.” Trans. Ar-ray Father Gresham Kirkby: 1916-2006. London: The Anglo-Catholic Society, 2009. Print.
Leech, Kenneth. “Priest of the Kingdom of God: A Personal Memior.” Trans. Array Fa-ther Gresham Kirkby: 1916-2006. London: The Anglo-Catholic Society, 2009. Print.
London. The Bishop of London’s Commission on the City Churches. Meeting Minutes, 3GXSFIV��������. Print.
London. Improvements and Town Planning Committee. Report: Preliminary Draft Pro-posals for Post-War Reconstruction. London: B.T. Batsford, Ltd., 1944. Print.
London. London County Council Architect’s Department. Air Raid Damage. Print.
London. London Diocesan Reorganization Committee. 4VSTSWEPW�JSV�(VEJX�6ISVKERM^E-tion Scheme for the Rural Deanery of Stepney. Print.
The London County Council Bomb Damage Maps, 1939-45. London Metropolitan Archives: London County Council Architect’s Department, 1945. Plate 64.
London Metropolitan Archives. “Saint Paul, Bow Common: Tower Hamlets.” London Metropolitan Archives. Web. 25 October 2012. <http://search.lma.gov.uk/>.
Maguire, Robert. “Recollections of the Early Days of the St. Paul’s Project.” Trans. Ar-ray Father Gresham Kirkby: 1916-2006. London: The Anglo-Catholic Society, 2009. Print.
Maguire, Robert. “Some Thoughts on the Occasion of the Jubilee of St. Paul’s Church, Bow Common.” Jubilee Celebration. St. Paul’s, Bow Common, London. 30 Apr 2010. Speech.
193
Maguire, Robert, and Keith Murray. Modern Churches of the World. Dutton Vista. Print.
McKenzie , Mary, and Isabel Rowe. Personal Interview. 06 Jan 2013.
Ross, Duncan. “About Our Church.” St. Paul’s, Bow Common. St. Paul’s, Bow Common. Web. 5 Nov 2013. <http://www.stpaulsbowcommon.org.uk/about-our-church/>.
St. Paul’s, Bow Common: The Fiftieth Anniversary, 1858-1908. London: D&AS Hewood, ������;IF�� LXXT���[[[�WXTEYPWFS[GSQQSR�SVK�YO�ER�EVGLMZI�XLI�ÁVWX���XL�ER-niversary-0f-1908/>.
Smith, GE Kidder. The New Churches of Europe. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Print.
Conclusion
Bingham, Neil, Elain Harwood, et al. The Twentieth Century Church. London: RIBA Heinz Gallery in association with the Twentieth century Society, 1997. Print. 2
ChurchCare. Key Facts. ChurchCare: Cathedral and Church Buildings Division, Arch-bishops’ Council. 2013.
“Thousands Visit Churches and Cathedrals.” ChurchCare. ChurchCare, 13 Mar 2013. Web. 5 Feb 2013. <http://www.churchcare.co.uk/>.