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.

John Hayes should stick to making the trains run on time

Paul Finch
  • 1 Comment

The junior transport minister has no mandate for his grandstanding attack on architects, says Paul Finch

John Hayes is a man who, for better or worse, knows his own mind. Modestly comparing himself to David facing the Philistines of the architectural profession, he pledged last week to ‘make aesthetics a matter of public policy’.

As a student at Nottingham University, Hayes was involved in a campaign to create a pipe-smoking society affiliated to the student union, which gives us some idea of the sort of chap he is, or was. He adores the views of Roger Scruton and the Prince of Wales on architecture, but believes that, whether people are aware of those views or not, his own nostrums are ‘bold, controversial and, to some, provocative’.

His views are a rehash of commonplace observations made since at least 1984

I have some news for him: his views aren’t bold; they are a rehash of commonplace observations made since at least 1984, so they are scarcely controversial; and they are only provocative in the sense that a fly buzzing round you on a tranquil sunny day is irritating, but not something to get too worked up about. 

The minister claims that making said aesthetics a matter of public policy is ‘exactly what I have a mandate to do’. It is not clear where exactly this mandate has come from, since architecture and the arts are properly the responsibility of fellow-ministers in other departments. The job of Mr Hayes is, among too many other things, to make sure we have sufficient infrastructure.

He boasted last week about the fact that he had set up a design panel in respect of roads, and that there is a 50-strong design panel for HS2 (which sounds about 35 people too many). He also made a series of undifferentiated and, of course, non-specific attacks on architects guilty of producing ‘soulless ubiquity’, followers of the ‘Cult of Ugliness’, which is apparently ‘our new orthodoxy’.

Euston Arch

Euston Arch

In a series of staccato sentences beloved of the self-important trying to sound like Winston Churchill, Hayes declared:

‘We can and will turn back the tide.’

‘My certain conviction is unwavering.’

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

‘But some brought monstrous havoc knowingly, wilfully.’

To which one can only respond: why doesn’t he name them? After all, he just about manages to applaud Blackfriars Station/Bridge, the King’s Cross station extension and the Millau Viaduct, though, needless to say, the architects received no reference. I suppose he can claim that he doesn’t name the architects of the one specific ‘modern’ transport building singled out for criticism: Euston Station. 

The original Victorian station was demolished in 1961, but apparently the minister believes (a) that the instincts of the replacement architects were Brutalist (he is quite wrong); and (b) that their ‘descendants still each day design and build new horrors’ with ‘sub-standard, conceptually flawed buildings’, none of which he cares to name. 



Artwork by Michael Craig-Martin at Woolwich DLR station

You have to wonder whether Mr Hayes, whose constituency is admittedly in Lincolnshire, has ever taken the opportunity to travel on the Jubilee Line Extension, or experienced the very decent Docklands Light Rail station at Woolwich (with artwork by Michael Craig-Martin), where he was born and brought up. Has he seen the airports and rail stations by Foster, Rogers, Grimshaw et al, not only at home but around the world? Apparently not. 

Of all the building types which one could choose in order to attack contemporary architecture, transport is the most inappropriate. I fear Mr Hayes only does so because transport is his remit; in falling prey to the Cult of Scruton he has taken on board arguments that have as much relevance to his remit as 1961 does to 2016.

He should stick to trying to make the trains run on time, especially Southern. 

  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • All fair comment, and he's surely banging the populist drum - I bet he's been quoted at length in the Daily Mail - but at least he might have increased public awareness of the moves to resurrect the shamefully demolished Euston Arch.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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.