The New Palace And Gothic Architecture In The House Of Westminster

1796 Words4 Pages

The Palace of Westminster, also known as the Houses of Parliament, serves as the meeting place for the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Old Palace was a medieval building that was destroyed by fire in 1834. After the fire, a competition was held for architects to submit plans for the new building that should be in a Gothic or Elizabethan style hoping to embody the conservative values of England. A Royal commission chose Charles Barry’s designs for a Perpendicular Gothic palace. Barry’s own style was more classical than Gothic which is why Augustus Pugin’s involvement was so crucial in Barry winning the competition. Barry’s plans reflected more of his knowledge of the neo-classical style through its symmetry. Pugin was the leading authority on Gothic architecture at the time. Almost all of the remains of the Old Palace were incorporated into the new design. Their work on the Palace began in 1840 and, while most of the work was finished by 1860, the New Palace of Westminster was not complete until a decade later. One of the most identifiable features of the Palace is the Elizabeth Tower, commonly identified by its main bell, “Big Ben”. The building is also known for two main spaces; the Lord’s Chamber and the Common’s Chamber. It is well identified by its main façade which runs parallel to the River Thames. The Palace, as it stands today, has been conserved very well to best display the designs as Charles Barry and Pugin intended them to be displayed. The Palace was, and remains, the center for political life in the United Kingdom, just as it remains a major iconic landmark of London. Many articles and books have been written discussing and disputing the history and design of the New Palace of Westminster, as well as the... ... middle of paper ... ...gwood instead focuses on the morphing of the design to include parts of both men’s creative minds. The variety of articles, books and opinions pertaining to the New Palace of Westminster were quite interesting. While it is well known that there is confusion around the roles and work of Barry and Pugin on this famous piece of architecture, the range of opinions and there supporting resources were intriguing. Robert Dell published an article filled with supporting resources that really supported the fact that A.W.N. Pugin was the “true” architect for the Houses of Parliament while Roland Quinault defended quite the opposite, barely mentioning Pugin in his work. The book titled the The New Palace of Westminster provides a very different description of the building and its history than The History of Parliament organization article on the New Palace of Westminster.

Open Document