^:^:-“^neach to come up with — no, not designsn(how vulgar!)—with ideas.nAt first, Lloyd’s redevelopment committeenwas a little nervous. After all, thenYale master’s-course graduate’s mainnclaim to fame was a little frightening. ButnMr. Graham was reassuring: “I don’tnknow what you’ll get,” he is reported tonhave told the committee with the kind ofn^•iH’-h – •*•’ ••*’• •••••.”••nmn”‘^fS’: iiUiff:n”^] ‘-^^iinP–:y mn• .•«?!••?,. ‘ ‘ ;nr^^.|[….-.., ;*S: -vji;: ….n’ffi:n*««n: • • ” *n*” • •-* * ‘ V’••n*-j:^ -• -^ •-.’ -ii*'”* i^* •n•_J^’/:fr.’-r rif:,j^^.,^ – .. .ny^> I. – •: ^s?v- •n: i^ ?—.-“-:r • 4r*” -•,-•”n’I?J’>*s*.^X’-n^ r. -^^ii^f^– – -,n•iifr;-r-n”Y WTVil -”’»«-• ‘^V”. *^n^ ^sroi =-J^-‘ “.”**• ••*nS^ ‘i*f ‘• • • ••~,’s-‘*’^nH* • ••-•. V • ••Gi’2>-nLloyd’s from the corner of Leadenhall and Bishopsgate,nwith 1928 retained entrance at left.n441 CHRONICLESn£.V?Jn*iSnvague optimism that is born of experience,n”but you won’t get a Pompidou.”nAlas, a Pompidou, like the PompidounRogers had designed with Renzo Piano,nwas what they were in for. In essence,nthe notion was innocuous enough: tontake Louis Kahn’s idea of separating then”served” space of the proposed building’snmain atrium from the “servant”nspace around it, and. then take it to itsnlogical — or, tragically for Lloyd’s,nillogical — conclusion. Admittedly, thenclient’s brief to the architect did call fornthe creation of a single vast space, then”Room,” or floor, where the membersncould do their trading as they had done itnfor the past three centuries. But whilenRogers’ steel-and-glass barrel-vaultednatrium, 15 stories high, would preserventhat tradition, the proposed “inside-out”ndesign violated every other tradition dearnto the city: “Traditional buildings arendinosaurs,” Rogers told them. “Architecturenis inseparable from ideology.”nOf all the quiet, conservative, staidninstitutions in the city of London,nLloyd’s had enjoyed the reputation ofnhaving the lowest profile, at least comparativelynwith its historic role. But, asnhistory would have it, just about then thenold club was attracting the unhappynattentions of government regulators. Innthe face of expected parliamentary interventionnin its affairs, Lloyd’s reasoned, itnwas probably a good idea to be seen, atnhome as well as abroad, as a greatninternational institution, rather than ann”elitist” meeting place. The glass,n”inside-out,” democratic facade was justnthe thing.nI interviewed one of Rogers’ partners,nJohn Young. Around the table in hisnHammersmith ofBce overlooking thenThames were four chairs: three angularnand spiked affairs, in one of which I hadnto sit, and his own, a comfortable swivelnarmchair of the kind used by doctors,naccountants, and other ordinary people.n(His secretary, a pert young thing of thenkind doctors, accountants, and other ordinarynpeople employ, had told me hownhe designed the three chairs, so I keptnquiet on this score.) Smiling with satisfaction,nMr. Young, responsible for thenactual construction of the Lloyd’s building,nrecalled those “early days” on thensite: “Lloyd’s didn’t know what sort ofnbuilding they were going to get.”nIn those “early days,” the client receivednmonthly reports from the architects,noutlining the progress of the de­nnnsign, and approved it little by little. Itnmay be recalled how successfully thisn”incremental” technique was used bynthe tailors in Hans Christian Andersen’snfairy tale. Two years later, when thenmodel was at last unveiled, “it wasn’t as ifn[Lloyd’s] hadn’t been a party to all thendecisions,” Mr. Young told me, “and sonthey accepted it. If we had gone in andnsaid ‘Here’s the model,’ they would havensent us on our way.” By 1979, thenarchitects were so much in control thatnthey were able to convince the client tonappoint a Fine Arts Advisory Panel.nArchitects often have artistic friends. Innfact, it is surprising that Andersen’s tailorsnnever asked one of their friends tondesign invisible shoes.nWhen, seven years later, the newnLloyd’s building was ready, the differences,nin the words of a Private Eyencorrespondent, “between the Tomb ofnUnknown Pompidou and the Lloyd’snReinsurance Refinery” became apparent:n”The former was a duet betweennPiano and Rogers, the latter is Rogers’nown bravura composition for wind andnbrass.” Surely, asked a Financial Mailnreporter, “the underwriters’ activities atnLloyd’s deserve expression ahead of thentechnical systems that support them?”nAt Lloyd’s itself, city wits observed that itntook them three centuries to move fromna coffeehouse to a percolator.nOn November 18, 1986, to the strainsnof Copland’s Fanfare for the CommonnMan adding that internationaldemocraticntouch, the Queen launchednthe “surreal engine of the mind,” in onenwriter’s phrase. The October 1986 issuenof Architectural Review, published bynRIBA, had just proclaimed, in one of itsn10 articles on the new building, that itnwas the greatest masterpiece of architecturen”to have arisen in the City ofnLondon since Sir Christopher Wren finallynput the gold cross in the sky abovenSt. Paul’s.” Unlike her outspoken son,nwho had compared the National Gallerynextension to “a monstrous carbuncle onnthe face of a much-loved friend,” thenQueen chose not to notice the intellectualnnakedness of her subjects, notingnmerely that the building was “unlike anynother.”nOn second thought, even her subjectsndid not seem to have had much choice innthe matter.nAndrei ISlavrozov is poetry editor ofnChronicles.n