Sic transit beautiful? Not!

St. Pancras Station, London, its original hotel restored in 2011. (

The race is on to see whether British Prime Minister Theresa May or American President Donald Trump will win the bilateral infrastructure beauty sweepstakes. At least we know Britain has entered. May’s Transport Minister John Hayes recently gave a speech, “On Beauty in Transport,” laced with a great deal of profundity in regard to what citizens of a civilized state deserve and by right ought to demand from their government, and not just regarding bridges, highways and train stations.

(Trigger Warning: Hayes is a member of a cabinet dominated by the prime minister’s Conservative Party. The reader is advised that any agreement with Minister Hayes’s remarks on beauty in no way requires or implies agreement with Hayes or May on any other matters.)

Hayes quotes the critic Richard Morrison describing Euston Station, which was once an elegant exercise in pedimental archways but is now … well, let Morrison tell the tale:

Euston is one of the nastiest concrete boxes in London: devoid of any decorative merit; seemingly concocted to induce maximum angst among passengers; The design […] gives the impression of having been scribbled on the back of a soiled paper bag by a thuggish android with a grudge against humanity and a vampiric loathing of sunlight.

Hayes then remarks: “For better or worse, transport hubs like Euston frame our working days, and punctuate our working lives. When transport design is done well, it raises expectations.” As for the “old stations such as Paddington and St. Pancras,” Hayes adds, quoting the philosopher and architectural theorist Roger Scruton:

The architecture is noble, serene, upright. The spaces open before you. Everything is picked out with ornamental details. You are at home here, and you have no difficulty finding the ticket office, the platform or the way through the crowds.

Hayes describes how beauty serves to aid utility. Today utility is conceived by most of our leading aesthetic theorists, and by modern architects, as untied to beauty, whereas the reverse is true: Utility without beauty eventually will lose its usefulness as ugliness and sterility erode our care for a structure’s maintenance. Eventually, as Scruton has pointed out, such a building will serve best as an opportunity to make way for a prettier building.

That is, if beauty ever wins its own sweepstakes with the muscle-bound iron horse of modernist utility – and who cares whether May or Trump leave the starting gate or reach the finish line first – as long as they get there. I see more and more reasons nowadays to hope that I needn’t warn readers not to hold their breath. In her transport minister May has a head start, but Trump could trump May by using his as-yet-unproposed infrastructure program to rebuild Penn Station in its original, classical McKim, Mead & White style.

Screen Shot 2017-07-25 at 6.36.19 PM.png

Euston Station today, give or take a remodeling or two. (Londonist)

About David Brussat

This blog was begun in 2009 as a feature of the Providence Journal, where I was on the editorial board and wrote a weekly column of architecture criticism for three decades. Architecture Here and There fights the style wars for classical architecture and against modern architecture, no holds barred. History Press asked me to write and in August 2017 published my first book, "Lost Providence." I am now writing my second book. My freelance writing on architecture and other topics addresses issues of design and culture locally and globally. I am a member of the board of the New England chapter of the Institute of Classical Architecture & Art, which bestowed an Arthur Ross Award on me in 2002. I work from Providence, R.I., where I live with my wife Victoria, my son Billy and our cat Gato. If you would like to employ my writing and editing to improve your work, please email me at my consultancy,, or call 401.351.0457. Testimonial: "Your work is so wonderful - you now enter my mind and write what I would have written." - Nikos Salingaros, mathematician at the University of Texas, architectural theorist and author of many books.
This entry was posted in Architecture, Urbanism and planning and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Sic transit beautiful? Not!

  1. Pingback: More Hayes on beauty | Architecture Here and There

  2. Pingback: Victorian hotel evolution | Architecture Here and There

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.