Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Minister blasts ‘descendants of Brutalism’ and pledges to rebuild Euston Arch


Transport minister John Hayes has made a startling attack on the quality of modern British architecture during a speech on ‘beauty in transport’ in which he promised to rebuild the Euston Arch

The politician, who admitted his opinions on the built environment were ’bold, controversial and provocative’, said that the majority of public architecture built in the last 60 years was ’aesthetically worthless, simply because it [was] ugly’.

Citing philosopher Roger Scruton – a member of the government’s design panel – Hayes promised an end to the ’Cult of Ugliness’ and that his mission was to ensure ‘beauty’ was at the heart of every new transport scheme, including the new roads programme and HS2.

Hayes said he wanted to avoid the ’horrors [built] from huge concrete slabs’ by today’s descendants of the Brutalists, slamming ’the rough-hewn buildings and massive sculptural shaped structures which [bore] little or no relationship to their older neighbours’.

He vowed that on HS2 there would be ’no more soulless ubiquity… no more sub-standard, conceptually flawed buildings’ and ’no more excuses, in the guise of ergonomics, for an ignorance of aesthetics’.

The minister, speaking earlier this week at an Independent Transport Commission discussion, went on to set out his plans to reconstruct the 1837 Doric arch which sat at the entrance to Euston Station until its controversial demolition in 1962.

He said the move would ’signal the renaissance’ of beauty in transport architecture, adding: ’We will make good the terrible damage that was done to Euston, by resurrecting the Euston Arch.

’Recently, I have seen its stones, pulled from the River Lea, where they were ignobly dumped in 1962. I support the Euston Arch Trust’s great ambition to see those stones stand in Euston once again as part of the rebuilt arch. And we will want to plan our work in the coming weeks.’

The speech was welcomed by classicist Robert Adam, who told the AJ: ’I agree with every word.’

However Will Alsop said: ’I will back anyone who wants to legislate for beauty as long as they don’t confuse it with taste’.

Tell us what you think of Hayes’ speech by leaving a comment or tweeting us at @ArchitectsJrnal

Full speech by minister of state for transport, John Hayes 

Politicians speak a lot and sometimes they speak sense.

Too rarely they challenge orthodox assumptions and more rarely still take action to turn back tides.

This evening I will challenge an orthodoxy, and give notice to the determinist doubters and defenders of the indefensible that, during my time as minister of state for transport, in respect of the built environment, I will turn the tide.

My case is bold, controversial, and, to some, provocative.

Yet the view I will articulate here is widely shared; sometimes falteringly, even guiltily.

But shared nonetheless.

For me the core of my case is startlingly obvious. Yet it is rarely put and, when put, often derided.

The rarity with which the case for beauty is articulated is explained partly by timidity, and partly by unwillingness to challenge Modernist determinism; by the surrender of many decent people to the Whiggish notion that the future is bound to be better than now and, in any case, there isn’t much we can do about altering it.

The aesthetics of our built environment – including our transport architecture – has suffered from what Roger Scruton has called the Cult of Ugliness.

Yet there are signs that we’re on the cusp of a popular revolt against this soulless cult, and we must do everything in our power to fuel the revolt.

Now, because of the government’s colossal investment in new transport, we have a unique opportunity to be the vanguard of a renaissance.

The Cult of Ugliness

My first point ought to be beyond doubt.

Yet, it must be made more starkly and more bluntly.

It is this: the overwhelming majority of public architecture built during my lifetime is aesthetically worthless, simply because it is ugly.

This assertion is not so much challenged by defenders of contemporary architecture as dismissed out of hand.

They say that yes, I might find it ugly (or sometimes, more politely, ‘some people’ might), but that’s nothing more than my subjective personal judgement – and as such, of no significance.

Or, alternatively, they defend much of what is built, because it is functional.

Most argue that it is utility that counts; practicality and convenience trumps all.

As His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales says in his wonderful book, Harmony – ‘Modernism deliberately abstracted Nature and glamourised convenience.’

This detachment from the past, with its reverence for all inspired by the natural order means, in the Prince’s words, that:

We have become semi-detached bystanders, empirically correct spectators rather than what the ancients understood us to ‘be’, which is participants in creation.

Some Modernists seem to suggest that we’ve grown out of a need for beauty, that a love of beauty is the sign of an immature or unsophisticated outlook.

And some of our enemies say and - still more sadly - believe that to pursue the purely functional is intrinsically efficacious.

Others cling to a tired desire to shock; a sad addiction to the newness of things.

They echo Reyner Banham, who said (in his 1955 Architectural Overview): ‘in the last resort what characterises the New Brutalism in architecture […] is precisely its brutality, its bloody-mindedness.’

The most stupid of all those we face and fight claim that our industrial and public buildings are bound to be bland, or even ugly, that they need be nothing more.

Be warned! The descendants of the Brutalists still each day design and build new horrors

It may be that there are even those who still cling to what must have driven some of the post-war planners: that to strive for the beautiful after the horrors of the 20th century would be to pursue mere triviality or sentimentality.

Perhaps they think it better for our architecture, like all our arts, to revel in the suffering and brutality of the human experience.

Well, yes, life is sometimes ugly.

Which is precisely why we must create all of the sublimity of which we are capable – to enthral and inspire; to counter the disappointment and harm which are bound to be part of human frailty.

Be warned! The descendants of the Brutalists still each day design and build new horrors from huge concrete slabs to out of scale; rough-hewn buildings, and massive sculptural shaped structures which bear little or no relationship to their older neighbours.

Consider swathes of the worst of our towns and cities; then say that I am wrong.

The people want better

To respond in detail to these objections, we might draw on the great philosophers.

Plato, through Aristotle, Hume, Hegel and Burke; and as the battle I intend to wage may become bloody, I probably will.

For they have all affirmed beauty as a thing of universal human value.

But for all the intellectual paucity of the brutal, modernising so-called ‘progressives’ - the case for ugliness in architecture falls on one straightforward fact: people don’t like it.

They crave harmony.

The Prince of Wales foundation for Building Community has found that 84 per cent of those asked want new buildings to reflect historic form, style and materials.

Take a walk through a typical British town or city.

Most of our urban areas are an ill-considered patchwork of buildings old and new.

But which buildings, I ask you, will invariably be the shabbiest and neglected, the most disfigured by vandalism or scarred by graffiti?

It is usually the relatively modern buildings – those built within my lifetime – including the transport infrastructure such as roads, bridges, post-war bus and train stations, and car parks.

The rare exceptions are normally those modern buildings which have not yet had time to sink into the neglect for which they are surely destined.

And which of our buildings are typically the most-obviously treasured?

Older buildings, shaped by vernacular style, where architects and craftsmen have taken care that what they imagined and constructed fitted what was there before, and are not just useful to their inhabitants but, through form and detail, lift their spirits, nurturing individual and communal.

What’s happened in our built environment is mirrored in much else. I deeply regret brutality and disharmony whenever it’s found.

I deeply regret brutality and disharmony whenever it’s found

But it is less pernicious in what can be avoided. By contrast, transport architecture, however, is used by everyone; it is ever present.

And there is something profoundly elitist about the way ugliness has been imposed upon it.

In so many areas of design, ugliness and destruction remain rampant, unchallenged by those with the power to prevent it.

It is rewarded by critics and investors, eager to associate themselves with the momentary shock of brash novelty, or greedily building what is cheap and easy.

Convenience! A by-word for the credo of those that can’t see what is wrong or don’t want to.

Few of the culprits would choose to live or spend their own working lives in the structures they make.

Transport offers a new way

We have had enough of the desecration of our towns and cities.

And I believe that it is transport that offers a way forward.

The government has begun a once-in-a-lifetime programme of investment in our transport infrastructure.

Building new roads, new railways and new stations, as well as overhauling those already here.

We’re spending billions on Crossrail, HS2, Crossrail 2, new roads and bridges, hundreds of new trains.

Throughout it all, we have a precious opportunity to do more and do better.

And transport is the perfect medium for leading the way to the public realm of the beautiful, for these reasons.

First, because so much transport design already gives us a direct link to the past, to a more aesthetically demanding age.

And in this, we’re fortunate that so much of our Kingdom’s transport was built before the twentieth century, in an age of a different orthodoxy, when beauty in design was expected.

Kings Cross, St Pancras, Paddington and Bristol Temple Meads, yes.

But also the classical portico of Huddersfield station.

The ecclesiasticism of Carlisle.

The gentle Gothic of Great Malvern.

And hundreds of other stations, all distinctive, and all welcoming and refreshing to the tired traveller.

It’s telling, too, that unlike the 1970s office blocks which litter our city centres, much attractive transport architecture is attentively preserved, even after it has outlived its original purpose.

That includes much rail architecture, such as Monkwearmouth Station, north of Sunderland city centre, now a museum; Camden Roundhouse, built in 1846 as an engine shed for the London and Birmingham Railway and now one of our best concert halls.

And there are examples from other transport modes too: the Wolseley car showroom on Piccadilly, now the famous restaurant.

These structures testify that transport design can be beautiful, and that beauty – far from fading – grows and endures.

Transport: architecture of the people

The second reason that new transport design matters so much is that it is an architecture of the people.

Our busiest stations are used by millions every day.

Their design has a profound effect on the well-being of those who pass through.

The critic Richard Morrison is right about Euston station. He said:

Euston is one of the nastiest concrete boxes in London: devoid of any decorative merit; seemingly concocted to induce maximum angst among passengers; The design […] gives the impression of having been scribbled on the back of a soiled paper bag by a thuggish android with a grudge against humanity and a vampiric loathing of sunlight”.

For better or worse, transport hubs like Euston frame our working days, and punctuate our working lives.

When transport design is done well, it raises expectations.

As Roger Scruton has written about the ’old stations such as Paddington and St Pancras…’:

The architecture is noble, serene, upright. The spaces open before you. Everything is picked out with ornamental details. You are at home here, and you have no difficulty finding the ticket office, the platform or the way through the crowds.

Many of us will recognise these contrasting experiences.

They prompt us to ask - why can’t all buildings be designed with concern for form and detail?

If we learn from this experience, and seek to replicate the best in our new infrastructure, we have great power to satisfy the people’s will for structures that enhance our sense of worth by affirming our sense of place.

Ours can be – must be – an age in which aesthetic quality of the public realm soars.

Transport: already winning beauty wars

The final reason why I believe transport presents a remarkable opportunity for beauty is that, in a number of cases, transport is already beginning to counter the blind orthodoxy of ugliness.

There is St Pancras, and Kings Cross, where – dare I say – the original station is enhanced by its extension, its glory revealed, its new addition is like a child, unique, but recognisably spawned from its parent.

There’s also Blackfriars, transformed from a subterranean nightmare into a station with the world’s best platform views.

We might even claim the Boris Bus, which, at very least beautiful, certainly has style.

Further afield there’s the British-designed Millau Bridge in France, a striking, graceful structure which, like the best Victorian viaducts, complements and enhances its environment.

Let no-one say it can’t be done.

It has been, and by our generation.

The way forward

Now we have an opportunity to build on these all-too-rare successes, to make aesthetics a matter of public policy.

And that’s exactly what I have a mandate to do.

But more than that.

It is my mission.

For our roads, I have established a design panel and had its role written into the Highways England’s operating licence.

Its membership includes the Prince’s Foundation for Building Community, the Design Council, the Campaign to Protect Rural EnglandNatural England, and many others.

On HS2, we have established a design panel almost 50-strong.

I will be looking closely at its remit, role and appropriateness.

I expect to do more and do it better.

No more soulless ubiquity.

No more demolition of our railway heritage.

No more sub-standard, conceptually flawed buildings.

No more excuses, in the guise of ergonomics, for an ignorance of aesthetics.

Euston Arch in 1896

Euston Arch in 1896

Euston Arch in 1896

Conclusion: Euston Arch

May one place be our totem; our guide to the future, our chance to signal the renaissance.

We will make good the terrible damage that was done to Euston, by resurrecting the Euston Arch.

Recently, I have seen its stones, pulled from the River Lea, where they were ignobly dumped in 1962. I support the Euston Arch Trust’s great ambition to see those stones stand in Euston once again as part of the rebuilt arch.

And we will want to plan our work in the coming weeks.

What a statement it will be of the revolt against the Cult of Ugliness, of our new orthodoxy.

We can and will turn back the tide. My certain conviction is unwavering. So be warmed - or warned - when I speak next I will set out when and how.

How we will change what is built and what is saved – roads, rail and beyond.

Some who did the damage to our country were crass and careless.

But some wrought monstrous havoc knowingly, wilfully.

All of them Philistines.

Well now the Philistines have met their David.


Readers' comments (11)

  • Industry Professional

    Just be nice if trains ran on time, if only we had a transport minister who could comment on that.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Does anyone know any more about the Network Rail Design Panel that was proposed a couple of years ago. I applied to be a member, but I not heard whether it was actually formed? If so who are the members? I have tried to find out this by writing to them, but never received any replies.
    (This does have relevance to the above I think)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Where do they find these people?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mr Hayes' views on modern architecture obviously catch the headlines, but shouldn't detract from his views on Euston station.

    This is surely the most dismal of London's main termini - definitely not a good example of anything, as far as I can see - and we've waited far too long for the resurrection of the Euston Arch.

    This project has so much more going for it than the imposition of Lumley, Johnson, Osborne and Heatherwick's narcissistic project for a garden bridge across the Thames, and when and if this finally evaporates (mostly at our expense) perhaps the more altruistic of the sponsors might see their way to help finance the resurrection of Hardwick's magnificent arch.

    The Euston Arch Trust deserves all the support that the Garden Bridge Trust doesn't - and, dare I say it, the Arch would be a significant feature of tourist London.

    In terms of the architectural history of this area of the city, the reconstruction of Euston Arch would also be no small compensation for the same Heatherwick's arrogant butchering of the grade II listed Kings Cross coal drops on the altar of the shopping religion.

    Hardwick versus Heatherwick? it's no contest.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Reconstruction of Euston Arch may be fine , should its stone be available , the views of the Minister leaves me very cold ! , has he any knowledge of Architectural history ? , he seems like a philistine to me !

    John Meagher , FRIAI , RIBA

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Chris Roche

    Interesting logic which will no doubt lead to the return of the Horse and Cart, only with the cart put before the horse to avoid the aesthetic of the horses arse.

    Chris Roche / Founder 11.04

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Commodity, firmness and delight. I'm sure the minister knows that one. Delight may be in the eye of the beholder but if he thinks the Boris bus has commodity he's obviously never sat on one in summer. I have to take Heatherwick's word for its firmness. To me it feels like a kid's plastic toy. Not like the Euston arch at all.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ...nonchalantly drops mic as inaudible gramophone base-beats kick in; swaggers off to flag horse and cart back to 19th century.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • He's not blasting Modernism per say, Modernism refers to a multitude of styles the have sprouted as early as the turn of the 20th Century. He has a gripe with Brutalism, and I agree with him. Brutalism is a particular style of Modernism where Form Follows Function is enacted and whatever consequential form resulted, it was accepted by the instigator. The visible concrete finish is then treated in such manner rendering it robust to the elements where stains, cracks and pollution reinforce the brutal character. It really was a celebration of the consequential, ugly as it may be, and far removed from Mies's carefully and Classically arranged Modern facades. This discussion, you see, is not an assault on Modernism, as many of the honourable Transport Minister's praised structures are Modern, but this is a reaction against Brutalism.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I remember the current Euston under construction and the loss of the Arch, which to me, even as child seemed a wanton act of vandalism. Although, of course, the arch was not actually visible from the main thoroughfare of Euston Road until after the war and all the buildings cleared allowing for a green oasis, a buffer between the road and the station sadly never really taken best advantage of. The 'new' station when opened did feel like a move towards the future, out of the staid, grey and squalid 50s. Its sleek horizontality and simple, clean lines were then a not unwelcome contrast to the previous generation of station building. An undoubtedly modern building, there were still nods to a more classical architecture, particularly with the long collonade.
    However, time has not been kind and the appalling 'having to make money out of every square inch' attitude of successive railway runners has obscured the view of that horizontality and blighted the original aesthetic with layers of unsympathetic accretions, a process which really started even before the station was finished. It is now impossible to stand back and appreciate the station - see https://www.flickr.com/photos/31319650@N03/11933234213 for an idea of how it could have been.
    The latest internal accretions, whilst possibly adding to passengers convenience and undoubtedly extracting more of their money to Network Rail's benefit, have finally completely destroyed the grand concourse volume. This latest 'improvement' moves me to thinking the present station is not worth saving and wholesale redevelopment may be the kindest course of action. But, can I make a plea for retention of one feature? Not the ceiling, that has already been done (https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2013/04/21/in-praise-of-euston-railway-station/), but the one under your feet. To my eye, as all around it fades, the stone gently wears becoming softly more textured and beautiful. A little joy in a sea of mediocrity.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Show 1020results per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.