Story of St. Paul's Cathedral

St. Paul’s Cathedral has a long and arduous history. The sacred grounds have seen more than one redesign, and numerous large-scale repair works. It was founded as a cathedral in the year 604. Interestingly, the sole reason it was built where it was built is because there was a hill present. This hill was the reason Mellitus decided to set up shop there, he was bishop sent from Rome to Christianize London when the city was still part of a Saxon era. In the beginning, it was a wooden church. Therefore, by noone’s surprise, it burned to the ground in the year 675. Immediately after, rebuilding process was underway, however this time it was built by St. Erkenwald. (The man is still buried there so the grounds continue to be sacred.) The Vikings destroyed the second church and in 962, it is rebuilt once more. It is built in stone this time because it is a familiar material Saxons used from recycled Roman ruins. In 1087, there was a local fire around the London Bridge that did some damage to this third church. This event motivated people to turn it into a grand structure, this where the idea of building it into a gothic structure originated. In 1240, the gothic ideas is carried through. This is ironically, the same time that the Westminister Abbey is built, with a similar gothic structure. The church was not completely wooden, neither was it completely stone. This festers the need for constant repair. The repetitive repair and reconstruction also adds rose windows and flying buttresses to the cathedral. In terms of height, it is wider and taller than the existing St. Paul’s cathedral. As it grows physically, it begins to take in small parish churches in the area, and soon, it is no longer just a religious place, but a public space. The nave begins to hold the public and passerbys. There are records of it being used for people playing games, selling things, news mongers, etc.… The nave becomes referred to as Paul’s Walk. The 16^th century is one of religious contention, Henry VIII breaking away from Catholicism. There is a break from the Catholic Church. The dissolution of the monastery is a lot of iconoclasm. Puritan iconoclasm happens around 1536, where the cathedral suffers quite a bit of damage. On the civil war, there is Oliver Cromwel who is inclined towards protestant, so he will completely neglect the church, so it falls into ruin. The Jewish community is offered the Cathedral, but they decline. In 1561, lightning destroys the spire, and there is more ruin that adds to the state of the building. Around 1634, the king wants to give dignity back to the structure. Inigo Jones is hired to fix things, but he will do his own ideas, that will be classically inclined.
Jones constructs a decastyle portico. He replaces pilasters with engaged columns, because he needs support. He is trying to turn this into an edifice that is far from gothic and close to classical. There is materiality involved, he re-clads the whole building in portland stone. This is before the fire, people are considering portland stone already. The civil war happens in 1642-1651, there is complete neglect of the church and it is in disuse, then the catholic upheaval happens and so Jones is out of business. There monarchy is then again restored in 1659/60. However, there is no dome or spire at this point. The church as a cathedral is lacking dignity. When the great fire happens, the cathedral burns down because it has timber scaffolding. After the fire, Wren reconstructs the cathedral. Wren was a physicist and had a background in engineering. He dealt with structural issues, definitely numbers. In 1668, he puts proposals to what the new cathedral can look like, it is not one of repair but of redesign. He is building the first Anglican cathedral, and wants it to be different. Socially, the Greek cross brings people together more than a plan with a long nave. It creates this idea of spatial equality. He thinks this will also attract the clergy. He wants to create an edifice that is of its own time, that adhere to architectural fashion that is around that time. People interested in celestial phenomena like domes because this structure speaks to that. It is no longer enough if you just built ornamentation. In 1665, he produces the warrant decision that is approved by the king. The clergy is happy, and the king is happy. He proposed a longitudinal plan. In this proposal there is a spire in the dome. There is a clause in the argument that states that the architect can produce changes as he sees fit. This clause makes him change most of the building to build the dome. The final design is shorter, narrower, and smaller. This is compared to the gothic cathedral. He finds that he has to reduce the size of the dome that he wanted to build. So that is the reason that he reduced everything else, than the previous gothic structure.

Evelyn and Wren: Characters of London

When the Commonwealth began, and England’s monarchy was replaced, it seemed like an expedient idea. However, social and economic crises caused distress in London. There was a lot of discontent that began to climax into a restoration of the old monarchial powers. During this time period, John Evelyn, wrote a book, where he was attacking the type of architectural system in the city. He was criticizing larger societal issues that tied back to the urban fabric. The essential takeaway from his book is that there is a correlation between the built environment and the social psyche, so he claims that classicsm is the best for society, pulling from Greek and Roman characteristics.

Evelyn also published a series of pamphlets in 1661 regarding air pollution (it is one of the earliest works on this subject). This pamphlet was written in three parts and directed towards King Charles II, which explained the problem, offered a solution, and a method of improving the air in London. This letter was directly addressing early vestigial phases of industrialism, and he referenced to the burning of certain products that released toxin into the environment that were harmful to humans and nature. This is a time when the emergence of industrialization is having its impact on the built environment and the regular environment at large. John’s solutions favored more flowers and various sweet-smelling plants and other vegetation to be placed near the city to clear air congestion. He also touched base on the opening up streets to form squares. This idea was received with some criticism from an anonymous person who went by the name of “Gallus Castratus”. Gallus criticized John for trying to impose a foreign scheme in London, saying that the idea would be a subjugation of ordinary people and will be imposed on a city that was built gradually. Beyond this contrasting notion, what becomes evident is that the built environment is being politicized. There is evident push and pull on ideologies. However, both John and Gallus understand that the shaping of the built environment does not begin with housing but with society.

Five years after Evelyn published this pamphlet, the Great Fire of London took place in  1666. The fire began in a baker’s shop and spread to over seven-eighths of the city (373 acres). After the fire, many architects submitted plans for the opportunity to rebuilt London to King Charles II. Many of these plans were variations of the grid system, playing with grid typology and location of squares or large urban spaces. While other proposed plans radically changed the urban texture of the city and their plans recognized London as trading hub, basing important squares around trading centers. However, Wren’s was the most adaptable to the existing fabric of the London because it had the least amount of altercations, and it outlined churches rather than trade. Unfortunately, most of Wren’s plans were not executed because property lines came into play. Property owners soon asserted their rights and did not give Wren the chance to work with a blank canvas. There was also no money to execute all his plans because during the time, England was at war with the Dutch that left the country in a financial handicap. It is interesting to imagine what London would have looked like if Wren had succeeded in his attempt to map out the city after the fire. Though it is an exciting thought, it would be more interesting to see what would have come later in time to interrupt his grid and how this interruption would relate to Wren’s grid.

The Globe Theatre

 London had an early start with theatres, the first one being in 1576, called “Theatre”. This structure that was to give birth to other similar buildings of its kind, was on a twenty-one year lease. And in the success seen in those twenty-one years, many other theatres sprung up throughout London, such as the Rose Theatre and the Globe Theatre. Today I am further exploring the history of the Globe theater and the architectural qualities of it.

            The Globe Theatre was funded by James Burbage, a man who consulted Dr. John Dee. Dr. Dee was a magician and an alchemist, who happened to have an extensive architectural library and was knowledgeable in the subject. The contrast of the two professions is an interesting juxtaposition and says quite a lot about the culture at the time, and the individuals who were multi-lingual in professions. Burbage, with the Coliseum and a Roman amphitheater in mind, built the Globe Theatre. The resemblance to Greek and Roman structures was present so individuals coming for shows would overlook the evaluation of plays and actors with bad reputation, and rather be entranced by the architecture.

            The theatre was supposed to have eight sides, but then later was finalized to have had twenty. The roof was thatched, and this was the reason the first Globe Theatre burned to the ground in 1613, only to be rebuilt with a tiled roof. The original Globe Theatre boasted a classic black and white half timbered style of architecture that is seen in the Staple Inn.

Death of Modernism

Demolition has never been a concept I associated with architecture. However, the iconoclasmic death of Pruitt-Igoe, and the influence of media, put into perspective the demise of an architectural era. The death of modernism itself was punctuated by such a widely broadcasted event. This fueled me to further investigate the happenings of Pruitt-Igoe that led to the tragic events of March 16^th 1972. I watched “Pruitt-Igoe Myth: An Urban History”, a documentary that follows the lives of individuals affected by Pruitt-Igoe’s construction and its destruction.

Pruitt-Igoe was an urban housing project that began in a 1950’s St. Louis as an initiative, by businessmen and politicians, to dispose of the slums; a bothersome blemish in the urban landscape of the city. It was touted as a solution. Pruitt-Igoe would rise victoriously out of the slums and the city would prosper respectively. Housing developments were commercializing a low-cost urban housing project that would offer a community, safety, and to be a part of the modern movement. To the lower class of society, this was nothing short of a goldmine. However, as maintenance efforts ran short, and federal income no longer supported the project, living conditions took a hit. Vandalism, prostitution, and drug trafficking all saw their fair share of time in Pruitt-Igoe. Rapidly it became the slums it had been trying to eradicate. However, this time, it bore the face of modernism wrapped around two decades of segregated housing for the poor.

The “Pruitt-Igoe Myth: An Urban History” is a documentary that draws a lot from primary sources; it is founded on the interviewees and their familiarity with Pruitt-Igoe. Their history in Pruitt-Igoe comes from their experiences in a difficult environment that was festering in the urban housing project. The documentary reinforces the stories of the interviewees with various types of video clips: advertisements of the housing project, older interviews, home-made videos, etc. The Freidrichs brothers bridge an emotional gap through the eyes of the interviewees and their poignant stories. Moreover, two sides of the stories are shared, rather than offer a one-sided bias outlook. This gives the documentary a touch of realism, as the interviewees were chosen for their similar struggles but different attitude on those struggles.

The documentary opened with Sylvester’s visit to the land that once occupied Pruitt-Igoe. He describes the trees, questioning how long it takes for them to grow, expressing a longing for the old Pruitt-Igoe, very similar to the emotions of other interviewees. Freidrichs brothers structure the documentary with archival footage that takes viewers into a linear interpretation of how history played out with the housing development project. These kinds of footages help to not only be a reliable source, but also aid in repainting conditions and environments to how they played out during a different time. Each interviewee had their own story to bring to the table (Jacquely with her 12 sibilings, Ruby and her poor man’s penthouse, Valerie and her police days, the death of Brian’s brother, etc…) and in the heart of those stories was the biases themselves. As an example, Brian King’s brother was shot dead at a young age and this shaped him to despise the system that he was forced to live in, and embrace a “fight or flight” living style. He has no love for Pruitt-Igoe, different from Jacquelyn Williams who labled her days in Pruitt-Igoe as “some of the best memories [she] has”.

Sources, like those of all the interviewees, in my opinion, are the most important sources, more than the short video footages and the facts spewed off by the narrator. Pruitt-Igoe is nothing if not the product of those who occupied it. I believe it is essential to understand from the simple men and women that lived there, how the project failed. This is because Pruitt-Igoe was left to grow by itself, without the aid of government funding; it was propelled by nothing more than its community. The project could only go as far as the community could push it forward, which was not a lot, as time passed. That being said, it is difficult to have created an objective argument from this documentary that is so tangled in emotions and biases. Perhaps, it is not the best argument for Pruitt- Igoe, if it does not involve the people and their emotional attachments to the place that cost them so much grief and/or delight.