Letter from London

Our attitude to the past is a good guide to what we think about the present, hence the continuing interest in (and controversy over) what buildings do or do not get listed. And having been listed, what we then find acceptable in terms of alteration or even demolition, for it needs to be remembered that listing is about a protective cloak, not preservation for all time.

Margaret Hodge, who has recently returned as architecture minister, was immediately put into the hot seat over the recommendation to list the American embassy in Grosvenor Square (by Eero Saarinen). In deciding that it should indeed be listed, the minister expressed the view that the listing of 20th century buildings should generally be where they represented the highest quality of work of the architect, and that they should be fit for purpose.

For good measure, the minister also said she thought the final decision on listing should rest with the minister rather than be determined by English Heritage alone, another example of Richard Rogers’ dictum that architecture is always about politics.

That is certainly the case in respect of the US embassy, the future of which seems to have prompted an odd outbreak of prickliness from the British government. In the first instance, instead of fixing a property purchase for our friend and ally, we managed to elicit a huge offer which was beaten by two others.  The site in question was Chelsea Barracks, which would have made a great embassy location given the inevitable need for security these days. No marks at all to the Ministry of Defence for greedily grabbing an even higher offer from the Qataris, who at the time of writing do not seem to be one of our major military allies.

To add insult to injury, the government has now listed the existing US embassy building as the Americans start planning their move to a site in Nine Elms, south of the Thame.This move will do much to regenerate that area, and indeed is a critical element in the Nine Elms masterplan launched with a fanfare by Mayor Johnson last week. (He graciously suggested that levies to pay for Crossrail would not apply in the area, which is just as well since the Americans would not have agreed to stump up this particular tax.)

So is the Saarinen embassy one of his finest works, and is it fit for purpose? My personal conclusion is a qualified ‘no’ in each instance, the architecture approaching the line but not crossing it, though I can understand why the minister reached the conclusion she did. The embassy design certainly does not show the quality of many of Saarinen’s other buildings, but it is the only building he achieved in the UK, which in itself makes it of some historic interest. The question of whether it is fit for purpose is an interesting one. Were it obviously so, then why would the US government want to  move elsewhere, especially (despite its hidden attractions) to Nine Elms?

On the other hand, the embassy has been functioning in Grosvenor Square for many years since 9/11, so it would be difficult to argue that it is an absolutely impossible building to use, though to resolve some of the perceived security issues associated with its very public relationship to Mayfair would be difficult.

In reality, the building did not need listing to give it protection, since it stands in the Mayfair conservation area and therefore cannot be demolished or altered without a high-quality design being deployed. Listing legislation takes not account of this, however, which is why the minister faced such a tricky decision. Sooner or later the building will have to change, perhaps retaining the façade, which it has to be admitted is striking. There is not much to shout about behind it, as I discovered on a visit a few months ago.

For some, including Margaret Hodge, the embassy is remembered as the site for the protests in 1968 against the war in Vietnam – a war, incidentally, in which Britain played no part. How times change, but how odd that now we are allies in arms again, we can’t behave like friends when it comes to property.