I’ve been doing a bit of travelling over the last couple of months and as you might imagine have observed many fabulous buildings, from the brand new to the very old. Our Airbnb in the wonderful city of Verona was in a 14th Century apartment exhibiting one of the worlds most important Fresco facades (highly recommended, DM me if you want the details).

​

Our journey has reached Paris and I have particularly been looking forward to going back to see Centre Pompidou. I studied under the professorship of Ted Happold where he had established the joint school of architecture and building engineering at Bath University not long after Centre Pompidou was completed in 1977. The building was held up as a shining example of the synergy between architecture and engineering. I have followed and admired the work of Rogers and of course Arup throughout my career, even contributing to the latter’s body of work myself.

I was expecting the debate with my companions about whether we liked the aesthetic of the building (they don’t, I do). That wasn’t a surprise. What I wasn’t expecting to see was the dreadful condition of the building. The heritage buildings we have been admiring here in Paris and through northern Italy have stood the test of time. Constructed in masonry, porcelain, zinc roofing they appear to need little maintenance. (I’m reminded also of the 1,056,006 clay based tiles on the Sydney Opera House, a similar vintage to Centre Pompidou, also relatively maintenance free). And yet here is a building less than 50 years old that is looking very tired.

I am left wondering have the French failed the building by not investing the funds needed to maintain a building of venerable architectural quality? Or in fact has the design failed the French by leaving them with a building that is simply not affordable for a public institution to properly maintain?

What do we thing Centre Pompidou or Centre Pompidon’t? (sorry!)

Next