"We are surrounded by zombie architecture"


"We are surrounded by zombie architecture"

Opinion: Sam Jacob argues against the resurrection of Crystal Palace in London and urges us to "resist the pull of loss and nostalgia".

When the dead return, the world of the living is thrown into turmoil, as we've just seen in French TV show The Returned that's been spooking out British audiences for the last eight weeks. In The Returned, the undead are not zombies out to eat your brain, but far more puzzling entities. They are confused themselves at their return to the living.

The blurry distinction between states of being alive, dead and undead might be tropes of supernatural dramas and horror films, but their questions are part and parcel of the everyday landscape of architecture and cities.

It's just this situation that's suggested by plans revealed earlier this week for the resurrection of Crystal Palace in London by what the press refers to as "a Chinese billionaire".

The original Crystal Palace was built for the Great Exhibition of 1851 in Hyde Park. Designed by Joseph Paxton, it was a huge iron and steel structure, itself a technological triumph of the Victorian age. It housed a vast assemblage of the bounty and riches of imperial Britain and the marvels it could produce. After the exhibition ended, its contents were distributed to seed the museums of Exhibition Road.

The structure itself was dismantled, transported and rebuilt in Sydenham where it failed to ever really settle. Despite boasting that it hosted the world's first cat show, visitor numbers were poor. Its decline was dramatically ended when it burnt to the ground in 1936. The architecture gone, its presence remains in the huge plinth that sits at the top of the park and the name bequeathed both to the area and its football team. The building's absence, even as its name is remembered, is ever present.

Despite not being here, the Crystal Palace remains highly significant architecturally. Crystal Palace exists as a foundation myth for a certain idea of British architecture. High-tech claimed it as an inheritance, as part of the tradition of glass-and-steel engineering that eventually became the Centre Pompidou, the Lloyds building and so on.

It also gave us another architectural thread that winds through Modernism: it was in the Crystal Palace that German architect Gottfried Semper encountered the structure that was to become his primitive hut. A colonial reconstruction of a native hut, in other words, acted as his cypher for the essential. That it should take the apogee of the industrial revolution - the immense wealth and reach of high colonialism - to invent this primitivism is odd in itself. Though of course, the idea of the primitive can only be conceived from a position of un-primitivism.

So what of the idea to reconstruct the Crystal Palace? Its own history of building and rebuilding on a different site suggests it might be a more likely subject than many for this treatment, but perhaps Semper's Primitive Hut inside a crystalline industrialised structure might make us think twice.

Any return - of history, primitiveness or anything buried in the past - can only be as perplexing as the undead are to the living. What would you do with your reanimated great great great great grandma? And what would she do in the here and now, brought back without her consent into the present, only to die again?

Even something as outwardly simple as food: think of all those artisanal breads, of peasant food remade as luxury dining on heirloom fruit and veg. These returned artefacts are only possible because of a highly complex, super-refined culture. When these things return to us, they return in a drastically altered form. Even if they are entirely the same in ingredients, shape, size, texture and so on, they are completely different. Re-animation can't bring back the original but rather invents a new form of the present.

These plans for the Crystal Palace are not unique. In fact, we are surrounded by zombie architecture, re-animated Frankenstein's monsters: Mies van der Rohe's Barcelona Pavilion, the Dresden Frauenkirche, Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye, Charles Rennie Mackintosh's House for an Art Lover, to name but a few. The Euston Arch and The Skylon are just other examples of the past that threatens to resurface in the present.

The state that this returned architecture takes is an idealised version of itself. The Villa Savoye, for example, spent very little time as the house it was originally intended to be: it was a cow shed for longer and a derelict building for even longer. That we choose to return it to an imaginary state is hardly an innocent decision. Rather, it's one loaded with a contemporary idea of what that particular building and architecture in general is. We remake history in our own image.

Buildings exist in a time as well as space. They rot, crumble, break and leak. They require constant repair. In our quest for the authenticity of historic architecture, we often find ourselves running into Theseus's paradox. It runs like this: on his return to Athens, the hero's ship was placed in dry dock as a monument and in seaworthy condition. Over time, pieces of the boat were replaced as it rotted. At a certain point, the paradox emerged: if none of the original material remained, was this still Theseus's boat? As it is for classical philosophers, so it is for contemporary conservationists. Where, in other words, does architectural or historical authenticity reside?

There is already a replica of the Crystal Palace, but in Dallas, not south London. It houses a technology office and data centre and its lobby contains a reproduction of the Crystal Fountain. The Infomart, as it is called, was honoured with a visit in 1986 by that renowned British architecture expert Prince Charles. In promotional material, the Infomart's developer was quoted with what must be some kind of garbled and/or fabricated anointment: "England's parliament declared the Infomart official successor to the Crystal Palace." This of course reveals how history itself can be made a commodity. The statement shows how the Infomart's developer attempts to fold the aura of the original Crystal Palace into its spec development.

Behind the innocent claims of honouring the past and righting wrongs done unto culture by acts of god or the wrecking ball, there is always another agenda. History acts as a convenient alibi for contemporary motivations. Though it presents itself as an innocent act, philanthropic even, we should remember Churchill saying that history is written by the victors. History, in other words, is not something that happened in the past but a function of contemporary power. Reanimating its form in the present is equally a function of contemporary power.

We may mourn the past. We may feel intense sorrow at the gaping voids left in the present by things that have vanished, but we should resist the pull of these feelings of loss and nostalgia. The Crystal Palace functions perfectly well in its absence (perhaps even more so than if it were still here). Its return as a ghost, zombie or otherwise undead form of architecture should be seen for what it is: a ghoulish pull on our tender heartstrings in the service of large scale development. Its construction, like the Infomart in its cheap cartooning of history, would only make our sense of loss greater.

Sam Jacob is a director of architecture practice FAT, professor of architecture at University of Illinois Chicago and director of Night School at the Architectural Association School of Architecture, as well as editing www.strangeharvest.com.

  • joaquindcn

    “The more congealed, formulaic, predictable, and recognizable the cultural and architectural forms, the more they aim at conserving a facet of the past and reducing the future to a form of its repetition” – Elizabeth Grosz

  • Ross hunter

    Hill House is not Zombie. You are confusing it with House for an At Lover I imagine.

  • Steve Appleby

    I live opposite the park, any resurrected Palace is likely to be a white elephant and or a mall/ office development which would be inappropriate for the context. Latz und Partner have planning permission for a superb scheme for the park which includes planting trees on the grid of the old palace’s columns.

  • kfk

    Reminded me of the Renaissance, when architects decided to abandon Gothic, and return to Classicism.

  • sam

    You’re right Ross. How embarrassing. And me a Mackintosh alumni too…

  • pmo

    A Chinese businessman rebuilding a 19th century architectural icon would be something entirely new and truly contemporary. This would be the “farce” phase of historical repetition.

  • Errik Buursink

    I don’t get your point. Of course it’s silly to rebuild a dysfunctional structure. But that doesn’t mean rebuilding is silly per se. Dresdens reconstructed Frauenkirche and surrounding neighborhood, Warschau’s old town, Berliner Pariser Platz, Hildesheim Marketplace, Frankfurts Römerberg, the belltower of San Marco in Venice. Why were these buildings reconstructed? Why shouldn’t they have been?

  • Louisa Pacifico

    Being born and bred in Crystal Palace, I know it will never happen as the community will need to agree to one plan. If it does happen then I hope it’s a contemporary structure by a London architect, which will nod to its past. I’m all for a beautiful exhibition/concert space in the area, as long as it doesn’t eat up the entire park.

  • @cpsubway there are parts of the site left which need renovation. Sphinxes, subway, dinosaurs, terraces… preserve the real past please.

  • ryan morson

    Hyperbolic, pedantic nonsense.

  • zizi

    The parallel between human beings and buildings is of course pretextual; it means the author has really no other points. There is the dogma that you can’t rebuild old building and that’s it, you can’t give a rational reason to that, because there isn’t.

    The only concern here, for me, is the quality of the construction, the level of the details and how faithfully the old building will be rebuilt.

    • Douglas

      “you can’t give a rational reason to that, because there isn’t”

      Admittedly the idea of replicating the building merely ‘feels’ naff (which for me, is sufficient as an argument). However, some things aren’t subject to rationale and cannot be easily articulated or analysed conclusively – but that wouldn’t necessarily invalidate it. I think its up to those who propose tacky repro-buildings to justify why their plans should take precedence over a contemporary new design.

      I live up the road in West Norwood and the idea of such a development is making me blush with embarrassment. I read the proposal a few years back and spoke to a councillor who was an advocate. She completely fulfilled the stereotype of philistine capitalist, right down to the dismissing of local youth as never going to being interested in arts (although she claimed she was) and giving answers like ‘its all very well for arty types to criticise the (repro) design’, and ‘I’m a realist, and jobs are what’s needed in the area, not pie-in-the-sky modern buildings’.

      The plans are led by corporate interests, not architectural or social concerns.

  • Chris Elliott

    I agree with almost everything you said Sam, but I would also say that anyone who has been inside the Barcelona Pavilion would find it difficult to suggest that it should not have been rebuilt.

    The problem for me is that the Crystal Palace is such a huge structure and will undoubtedly cost a lot to replicate if done properly. Although it was revolutionary at the time and it is sad that it’s gone, I think it would be much better to use that money to build something revolutionary and new.

  • Angela B

    The original Crystal Palace inspired a wave of innovation that can be traced to Foster, Rogers, Piano, et al. If a replicated building does a similar thing for the cause of architecture and inspires a new generation, then I’m all for it. Certainly the recent work of clowns like Steven Holl, Daniel Libeskind, Peter Eisenman among others are but a sad detour and derailment of architectural progression.

    If rebuilding the Crystal Palace is what it takes to get back on a sure footing, then that’s a great thing. The majority of the modernist work that came afterwards remains a joke and is unlikely to breed better.

  • njb

    Let’s have the cinema we wanted before a rebuilt glass palace.

  • Paul Nathanson

    Sam Jacob’s article seems somewhat facile despite its reliance on fashionable postmodernist theory. Assuming the necessary land and money (which would require very different arguments whether pro or con), I see no reason to oppose a reconstruction of the Crystal Palace. The original, at least in my opinion, was beautiful.

    I approve of beauty, which is always in short supply. Therefore, I approve of the proposed reconstruction. I don’t care that its context or use would be new and therefore different from the original. Even buildings that survive intact, after all, often acquire new contexts and new uses. I want to see the Crystal Palace, period. If that makes it a “zombie,” then so be it; otherwise, every old movie would be a “zombie” and unfit for screening.

    On moral grounds, moreover, I reject the profoundly cynical idea that reconstructed art and architecture—let alone art and architecture per se—are never “innocent” and always rely on sinister political or economic motivations.

    Art and architecture have always had political, economic and social contexts, and these have not always been altruistic. But so what? If we allow those factors to take precedence, then we should not merely avoid the reconstruction of masterpieces that haven’t survived, but self-righteously destroy those that have survived. After all, would we really want to celebrate the sinister political culture of Renaissance Florence?

    Finally, Jacob’s argument gives the distinct impression that he worries about competition between modernist or postmodernist architecture and earlier architectural styles— as if a reconstructed Crystal Palace would somehow threaten architectural “progress.”

    Should we therefore ransack museums to avoid the lethal and even “ghoulish” pull of “nostalgia,” eliminating all objects that were produced before 1960 or 2010 or whatever?

  • “Apparently, humans cannot live without magic – however superficial it may be. The Crystal Palace is a magic palace. Sloterdijk uses the image of the Crystal Palace as a metaphor for the dream of a global society: a transparent, illuminated space without boundaries.

    It is a space of permanent magic, consumption and excitement – a theme park – which leads in the end to nothing: a never ending and at the same time closed and exclusive shopping mall.” — Erwin Jans