Transcriber: Isabel Pozas González Reviewer: Alicia Ferreiro
So, Francis and I are both classical architects,
and when we tell people that,
they often ask us quite familiar questions,
so we've called this talk "Six Frequently Asked Questions,"
and I'm going to try and answer three of them
and then Francis will answer the others.
So, the first question, very simply, is: what is classical architecture?
Well, it's a kind of architecture which started in ancient Greece and Rome,
which has its own set of rules.
And those rules are based around five different kinds of column,
which are called the five orders.
For about two thousand years,
the five orders were the basis of all architecture.
But about fifty years ago, they stopped being taught,
and most architects now don't know much about them,
and would dismiss them as being irrelevant.
This is a picture of me measuring and drawing a classical building.
And it's my belief that, because it's not taught any more,
the only way you can really find out about the grammar and language of buildings
is by measuring and drawing them yourself, and that's what I do
and also what we're doing outside today.
So the next question is:
why is classical architecture relevant now?
Architecture has always been dictated and influenced by fashion and taste.
But recently, fashions and tastes have been moving much more quickly.
The fashion at the moment
is for funny-shaped buildings made of glass.
(Laughter)
And they're being built in cities all around the world
with the result that a lot of cities are now beginning to look rather the same.
But things are changing a little bit.
For one thing, glass buildings are not very sustainable.
They involve a lot of energy and cost
in their construction and maintenance and use,
and they don't last very long.
For another thing, people are concerned that cities are beginning to lose
their individual identities.
And so for that reason, I think,
a lot of people are now starting to look at local traditions
and ways of building buildings which are going to last longer.
And we think that's why classical architecture is relevant now.
And as an illustration,
this is a photograph of a building which I designed
and which was built recently in the middle of London.
It's built of natural stone, it has sculpture on it.
It uses the classical language.
But it's for a modern art gallery, and a very modern purpose.
So, the last question is:
would you ever design a classical airport?
(Laughter)
Actually a while ago, a magazine asked me
to redesign Heathrow Terminal 5 as if it was a classical building.
And I think that they were asking it as a slightly tongue-in-cheek question.
But actually, when you think about it, it's maybe not that ridiculous after all.
If you think of a building like Grand Central Station, in New York,
it's a wonderful building designed as a grand classical space,
and when you arrive there,
you have a tremendous sense of the place that you're arriving in.
And, arguably, modern airports don't do that.
And, I think that it's the power to be uplifting
which is one of the most exciting things about classical architecture.
Hi, I'm Francis. My three questions.
Is classical architecture appropriate for a modern city?
Well, I believe it is.
I mean, particular cities, like London,
have these beautiful historic buildings in them
and a lot of architects are just putting up, as George suggested,
these rather hideous glass buildings
which could be anywhere, Taipei, Kuala Lumpur.
And I get very sad to see these sort of fragmented streets.
We were called in recently to stitch together
this small bit of classical architecture in Tottemham Court Road,
and our building in the middle
takes the same language, follows the same materials
and stitches together.
Obviously, there are other times when a modern building is appropriate.
Some people criticize classical architecture
because it looks too easy, you're just copying.
And I don't really see a problem with things being good if they're easy.
That's great.
But I think that one of the problems with architecture
is it's very closely aligned to painting and sculpture,
where being cutting-edge and new is how you make your name.
But I think that architecture
should more correctly be associated with cooking,
which is a domestic art.
And when you cook, you follow a recipe,
and a recipe is just a form of copying
and no one would deny the amount of creativity you need when you cook,
because you have to interpret recipes, particularly Nigella Lawson's ones.
(Laughter)
That's the example of a house.
If I see a nice window, I copy it,
and I just try and get it as close as I can.
It's actually very difficult to copy things well.
And the last question is: what's the purpose of drawing?
One of the rather frustrating things
about the visual creative industry, or world,
is that people don't take these traditional skills seriously.
If you were to study music, and you went to a music school,
you would learn to play the piano beautifully,
irrespective of whether you went on to play Schopenhauer or AC/DC
or whatever you taste is.
But with architecture and arts,
you're not taught to draw well at architecture.
At school, they don't value it.
And I think our drawing is an attempt to breathe new life into drawing,
which both me and George think is an incredibly important skill,
and I hope that we can transfer some of that passion to you.