Eve of destruction

An Englishman, a Welshman, a Scotsman and an Irishman visit the Queen Elizabeth II memorial in London… It sounds like the start of a bad joke (and I’ll get to the punchline later) but the telling actually began last week when five shortlisted designs for that project were published. All are flawed, some deeply, and a couple appear to insult both the monarch they are supposed to be commemorating and a quiet oasis at the heart of the capital. I and others have since commented on the increasing absurdity of this scheme, but I now raise that to the level of a warning – unless its location, scope and concept are changed, the result is likely to be a national embarrassment.

That a permanent tribute to Her Late Majesty would take the form of a figurative statue in central London was obvious two and a half years ago, when I wrote about my own ideas;  

suggesting Green Park as a suitable home seemed intuitive too, given its proximity to Buckingham Palace, ability to accommodate the expected crowds and existing tree-lined path closed by attractive (and unused) gates.

Yet when the announcement that a statue would indeed be erected near the Mall was duly made last autumn, its site was confirmed as the much smaller St James’s Park and the sculpture revealed as only one element of a much larger and more diverse (not to say diffuse) memorial cutting right through the park from north to south. This plan would require the remodelling of a swathe of land running all the way down to Birdcage Walk, removal of the pretty ‘Blue Bridge’ across the lake and welcomed new “artistic interventions” in addition to the statue.

My bafflement at this decision was exceeded only by my upset.

Firstly, there simply isn’t the room for a statue in the position indicated, which is on rising ground already cluttered with park structures and close to a ceremonial route that is likely to cause additional crowding. Secondly, Eric Bedford’s 1957 bridge – one of my favourite places in London – is unobtrusive and, as Pevsner says, handsome, finished as it is in Portland stone and bronze. The delightful hand-wrought metal finials atop each stanchion feature flowers in a nod to the surroundings and little crowns in reference to the Queen’s then-recent Coronation. The latter is now bitterly ironic of course whilst, rather underhandedly, a Certificate of Immunity was quietly issued in January this year to prevent the bridge from being designated a listed building. Thirdly, the huge scale of the memorial site – which will be even bigger during the years it will take to complete – comes dangerously close to the only place where garden birds perch on your hand to feed, as well as imposing additional burdens on the park as a whole.

This, though, was the brief. Who would respond, and how? We don’t know about the also-rans and probably never will, but if the shortlisted candidates are the combined product of application and selection, it is apparent both phases have failed utterly.

The stand-out entry, for all the wrong reasons, is that from Thomas Heatherwick. A crass, biophilic monster of a bridge featuring giant triffids the height of a small building is home to an overbearing equestrian statue that no-one will be able to get near. It is as grotesque aesthetically as its theme (‘The Bridge of Togetherness’) is infantile, whilst Heatherwick’s record casts very serious doubt on his ability to deliver a safe, functional, cost-effective work. More restrained yet still too large is WilkinsonEyre’s double-deck bridge, whose interwoven aerobatics recall a municipal walkway threaded around a motorway flyover and which leads to a “tribute to Prince Philip” on Birdcage Walk; perhaps they entered the wrong competition. Tom Stuart-Smith’s curved stone bridge is mercifully flat and somewhat elegant yet the view from it toward Buckingham Palace will be blocked – unaccountably – by a life-size, cast bronze replica of “an awe-inspiring oak from Windsor Great Park” stuck in the lake; is this a memorial, or the ‘Robin Hood experience’ at Disneyland? Modifying Marlborough Gate to add a new central pier supporting the statue is not unintelligent but the resulting height will again be a problem. Curious dimensional choices affect Foster + Partners’s bridge too, which narrows at either landing to create clear choke points despite the practice’s history with flaws in another bridge it has designed; equally evident is the grossly out-of-place ‘sculpture’ nearby resembling a flaming torch but supposedly representing the wind, whilst the Queen’s statue is in a more fitting place but dominates those of her parents across the Mall.

That leaves J&L Gibbons’s proposal, the least intrusive in many ways, with its minimalist bridge showing sensitivity to Bedford’s precedent and modest planting that resists the excesses pursued by others. Yet the statute here is the worst of the lot, equestrian again and perched atop an aggressively jagged stone base like something erected in the Eastern Bloc c.1972. And here too we find the punchline of that joke, which is that all will apparently link arms in unity and each man’s heart will leap with joy just because he will be walking over paviours made of stone from his own nation.

In truth any of the designs could have provided that pay-off line, incorporating as they do a myriad of extraneous gestures seemingly generated by an AI asked to ensure every possible aspect of the Queen’s reign, Britain and the Commonwealth are noted and no offence is caused to anyone. Thus we have for example sound recordings from around the world, quotes for each year and planting that reflects the theme of faith, all accompanied by a painfully-constructed justification.  

Of course the real joke will be on us, as Londoners, subjects and taxpayers (current projected cost: £50 million) should any of these ideas become reality. The aim is to make “an emotionally powerful place and a space for pause and reflection, which is sensitive to the site within the Grade I listed St James’s Park” but on the evidence none of the shortlisted designs has come anywhere near meeting those criteria, and indeed several will ruin what already exists. Not one truly “blends with the wider Park”, and how can any fulfil the brief to “declutter” it when they all add so much more?

Public comments are being sought until Monday, so please take a look at the five designs online and make sure you let the committee know your views although given the portal restricts you to a literal few words why not also email queenelizabethmemorial@cabinetoffice.gov.uk and hello@malcolmreading.com?

This isn’t just a bridge (and a statue) too far; it’s going to damage about 10% of the entire part. It’s why many online commentators – ordinary people – are now expressing concern over how this peaceful part of central London is being threatened.

Make sure you are one of them.

It is not too late.