The Natural History Museum
(Image taken from Wikipedia Article)
Whilst in London recently I visited the Natural History Museum and was really impressed by the exterior nearly as much as by the interior. The building was designed mainly by Alfred Waterhouse in a distinctive Romanesque style and was opened in 1881. It has since been dubbed, quite rightly so, the “Catherdral of Nature.”
I was impressed by the entrance and the pillars in particular, as they created such a sense of grandure through the extensive layering of the arches and pillars, and they served well to set the scene for the contents of the musuem. The design is also practical and appropriate as Waterhouse made extensive use of terracotta tiles to resist the sooty climate of Victorian London, many of which feature relief sculptures of flora and fauna - the museum’s main contents. But Waterhouse’s brief was restricted as Richard Owen, Superintendent of the natural history departments of the British Museum stated that relief sculptures of extinct and living animals must be situated on the east and west wings respectively as a reflection of his contemporary rebuttal of Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection.
To me the Natural History Museum was a building truely designed for and suited to its purpose.
— Addition —
In response to Claire’s post regarding the architecture of more of the building I have posted this photo.
July 16th, 2007 at 04:12 pm
Its interesting too see just how much attention has been paid to what could potentially have been a plain building exterior. I love all of the carvings and intricate bits that you have shown. Was this level of detail exclusive to the entrance or continued all the way around the building.
I think that it is this kind of thing that is often missing from modern architecture, I understand that it has been deliberately designed out to create a more sleek appearance, however in my opinion this can have a tendency to be a bit overdone. Having said that, some of my favourite buildings use clean lines and shapes to predominantly make up the design and do this very effectively. But many others just do this simply to ‘look modern’ which consequently means they can lack originality and style.
July 20th, 2007 at 02:43 pm
There a Swedish word, which I love, and which I think might be something that more cultures need to have in their vocabulary. It’s called “lagom”, which means that it’s not too much, nor too little, it’s basically “lagom”. How much and how little lagom is, is of course very subjective. It’s a matter of general taste and opinion, lagom is determined by the big mass (even if it can have personal variations). ANYHOW - my point is, since English architectures usually have TOO much or TOO little, they would benefit from being “lagom”.
Lagom modern, lagom decorative is key – maybe even the golden rule for ‘all’ of design?
August 12th, 2007 at 02:42 pm
The Natural History Museum is such a striking building, that has so much detail that you need to take time to admire the architecture before you even enter and look at the exhibitions inside.
The Natural History Museum has an ornate terracotta facade typical of high Victorian architecture. The carvings represent the past and present diversity of nature.