3|Page
Introduction London had experienced a remarkable amount of growth in the 16th and 17th century. Its significance in both a social and commercial sense cemented it as the nucleus of the country (to which it remains presently) and spared it from the economic stagnation which plagued several outlying English cities.6 Inevitably, the result of an unregulated urban sprawl would manifest itself in the form of an urban tinderbox within the City. The proposals put forth by the government to regulate space around newly built houses were deemed somewhat too equivocal by the general public7, furthering the subdivision of the city into narrow winding streets in order to accommodate an ever-growing population. Despite the economic prowess of London continuing for over a century, its architecture would remain a stark contrast to the Baroque majesty of its European equivalents. In any case, the forthcoming fire presented a tremendous opportunity for the reinvention of London and the City landscape.
Sir Christopher Wren, to whom most of the rebuilding of London is owed, had submitted his sketch-plan to King Charles II on 11 September; just 6 days after the fire was more or less under control – followed by John Evelyn on the 13th ; and others in the days that followed.8 In this instance, the fervour and initiative of Wren becomes immediately apparent, though the level of forethought shown by other city fathers as well as Wren is also a clear indication of a general concern shown for the City’s appearance at large. 9 Wren would incidentally visit Paris just months before the fire – providing a profound influence on his proposal for his parish churches, as well as the new City which had scope for a greater degree of capacity and scale.10 In essence, it was designed around several nodal points which served to define the urban fabric of the City and house prominent public buildings; the largest of which was a proposed new West End civic space, just north of Victoria Embankment. The areas themselves were generally linked by grand boulevards and thoroughfares, bearing great semblance to the planning of France, particularly Henry IV’s scheme for the Place de France, which though not completed, was accessible in engravings.11 The grandeur and magnificence of the Louvre and Tuileries Palaces would have undoubtably captured the imagination of Wren during his visit to the French capital – providing him with a clear precedent through which his vision for London would be channelled.12 By 1970, the second rebuilding act had been passed which arranged for the construction of St Paul’s and the parish churches via an increase in tax on coal imports to the City.13 Wren presided over the practices of a small committee responsible for the churches, which consisted of himself, Dr Robert Hooke, and Edward Woodroffe. 14 He had established himself as one of the most esteemed architectural figures in the country, and it was through the City churches and the reimagining of London’s skyline that he would make his most profound impact.
6 7 8 9
Nikolas Pevsner and Simon Bradley, London. 1, The City of London, pg. 57 Nikolas Pevsner and Simon Bradley, London. 1, The City of London, pg. 57 John Summerson, Architecture in Britain: 1530 - 1830, pg. 187 Whitechapel Art Gallery, Sir Christopher Wren, an exhibition, pg. 60
10 11 12 13 14
Nikolas Pevsner and Simon Bradley, London. 1, The City of London, pg. 67 Margaret Whinney, Wren, Pg. 39 Kerry Downes, The architecture of Wren, pg. 9 Doreen Yarwood, The architecture of England: From prehistoric times to the present day, pg. 231 Margaret Whinney, Wren, Pg. 45
