Memories in Transition: Churches, War and Reconstruction

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


4.3 WWII History

4.4 London Reconstruction Plan and the City Churches

4.5 St. Bride’s Church Rebuilding



4.8 Conclusion

5. Coventry Cathedral, Coventry

5.1 Introduction


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



5.8 Conclusion

6. St. Paul’s, Bow Common, London

6.1 Introduction


6.3 WWII History

6.4 London Reconstruction Plan

6.5 The New St. Paul’s, Bow Common



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�VEÎH�

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�YXMPMÎH�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�GMXMÎRW��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�GIRXVEPMÎH�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�GIRXVEPMÎH�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�GMXMÎRW�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�YXMPMÊXMSR�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�VEÎ�;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�SVKERMÊXMSR¸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]�VIGSKRMÎH�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�3VKERMÊXMSR��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�VEÎH�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�WYFYVFERMÊXMSR�SJ�XLI�

SYXP]MRK�GSYRXV]�XS[RW��8S�GSQFEX�XLI�XVEJÁG�ERH�^SRMRK�TVSFPIQW��%FIVGVSQFMI�ERH�

*SVWLE[�TVSTSWIH�E�RI[�VSEH�W]WXIQ�XLEX�YXMPMÎH�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�VIGSKRMÎH�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�QSHIVRMÎ�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�QSHIVRMÊXMSR��EW�HIQSRWXVEXIH�MR�7X��&VMHI¸W�

VIGSRWXVYGXMSR��[LMPI�7X��4EYP¸W��&S[�'SQQSR�[EW�VEÎH�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�GIRXVEPMÎH�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�&]ÊRXMYQ�XS�&IVOIPI]��3\JSVH�7GLSPEVWLMT�3RPMRI��I&SSO�

28

'LVMWXMER�GSQQYRMX]�EWWIQFPIH�JSV�XLI�GIPIFVEXMSR�SJ�QEWW�HIXIVQMRIW�XLI�WTEXMEP�

SVKERMÊXMSR�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�GIRXVEPMÎH�

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�GIRXVEPMÎH�TPER�

XLEX�TPEGIH�XLI�EPXEV�MR�E�QSVI�TVSQMRIRX�ERH�EGGIWWMFPI�TSWMXMSR�µQIERX�XS�IQTLEWMÎ�

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�IQTLEWMÎH�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]�YXMPMÎH�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�WMÊFPI�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]QFSPMÎ�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�

VIGSKRMÎH�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.


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�VIGSKRMÎH�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]É�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��

��


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�VIGSKRMÎH�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��


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��WYQQEVMÎH�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-&%�6IGSKRMÎH�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��%�KPEÎH�;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]QFSPMÎ�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�GIRXVEPMÎH�

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�GVMXMGMÎH�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


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]�'EXLIHVEPÉ�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�XVEYQEXMÎH�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�VIGSKRMÎH�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�TYFPMGMÎH�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.


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�VISVKERMÎ�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�GPEWWMGMWXÉRH�;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�GIRXVEPMÎH�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.


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�VIGSKRMÎH�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


166


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�3VKERMÊ-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�&]ÊRXMYQ�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>.


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.


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>.


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/>.


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�6ISVKERMÊ-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/>.


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/>.

Documents

Memories in Transition: Churches, War and Reconstruction