C O N T E X T 1 2 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 1 33 Architecturally speaking The perils and precariousness of architectural patronage There is still a majestic awe-inspiring quality to the sweep of Regent Street which can best be experienced when progressing from Piccadilly Circus to Oxford Circus at dawn, when this part of London is still deserted. Commissioned by the Prince Regent in 1811, it was of course John Nash (1752–1835) who created the street as part of a larger master plan for the area. Nash rose quickly to fame under the patronage of the Regent but this honour fast became a suffocating mantle; one from which Nash never regained his architectural credibility. Architectural patronage has always been a doubleedged sword and has only really worked for architects adept at maintaining their own design integrity and career path. While patronage is responsible for some of our best-loved buildings, for the individual architect, and indeed for architecture, this system has proved to be stifling. The rule of thumb, as gleaned from examining the lives of some of our most revered historic architects, seems to be that several patrons are far better than a single one, enabling more creativity and very different commissions. The single patron has a tendency to develop a monopolising power, stultifying creativity. Nash’s master plan stretched from St James’ northwards, including Regent Street, Regent’s Park and the adjacent, purpose-built streets and terraces of town houses and villas, all designed to the highest degree of elegance. Regent Street itself was strategically built to connect Regent’s Park with the west end. It provided an effective boundary between the streets and squares occupied by the nobility and higher gentry to the west, and the ‘narrow and meaner houses’ to the east. It was meant to be part of a Royal route from Carlton House to the Prince Regent’s new villa in Regent’s Park, a building which was never actually built. Nash did not oversee all the final architectural details of every property that fell within the master plan, but his was certainly the genius behind the scheme. Most of Regent Street was rebuilt between 1890 and 1930, but the credit for the original architectural details can be shared between Nash and his protégées, including Decimus Burton, John Pennethorne and Augustus Charles Pugin, who all progressed to greatness in architecture in their own right.¹ As the Regent’s favourite, Nash obtained the much-coveted position of Surveyor General of the Kings Works in 1813 on the death of James Wyatt. Due to the inefficiencies of Wyatt’s tenureship, however, this post was quashed and Nash had to share the position with John Soane and Robert Smirke. Despite working in a triumvirate, it was Nash who retained the Regent’s great personal favour, a questionable honour if ever there was one. Nash went on to remodel the Royal Pavilion at Brighton (1815–1822) for the Regent. But his own aesthetic tastes and preferences were surrendered to the architectural predilections of his client. When completed, the Royal Pavilion was at best controversial. Its gross ornament, architectural confusion and overt lack of refinement, to say nothing of the profligacy involved in its creation, all led to a public aversion to the building and the architect behind it. When the Regent became King George IV in 1820 it was still Nash to whom he turned for architectural advice. The commission for the reconstruction of Buckingham Palace on a palatial scale went, without question, to Nash, causing friction between the architect and his colleagues, who were probably Regent Street today: John Nash would be puzzled about the religion being celebrated in the Christmas decorations.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=