Let Queen Elizabeth II’s memorial serve the whole nation

The shortlisted designs for the Queen Elizabeth II memorial for St James’ Park were recently unveiled. Most were perfectly lovely bridges, to replace an existing not very exciting bridge. One or two were not to my taste, but that’s subjective. I’m sure it will smarten up a corner of a rather lovely park a stone’s throw from Buckingham Palace. The statue of the late Queen will no doubt also be a useful spot for those who wish to pause and remember the long life of a woman who embodied duty, perseverance and service to her country.

It does seem a pity to me though that while central and close to ceremonial routes, the life of this extraordinary woman, who cared so much for communities around the UK and the commonwealth should become such a London project. I also can’t help but ponder if a footbridge over an ornamental lake is the most fitting way to remember our longest reigning monarch, and the longest reigning female monarch in history.

The Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Committee however is also looking into a national legacy programme. A very similar committee was created by the Lord Mayor of London in 1936 following the death of King George V. Their aim was to create a ‘living memorial’ not based solely on a statue. There was a statue erected in London but, I think more significantly, was the King George’s Fields Foundation that was also set up, that created playing fields across Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Between 1936 and 1965, 471 playing fields across the UK were created for a capital cost of around £4.1m, safeguarding over 4,000 acres of land as public recreation space for local communities. These playing fields are all marked by memorial heraldic plaques - whose mounting was approved by the foundation’s architect ro ensure appropriateness and a level of continuity. Now protected by Fields in Trust they are managed locally by either a council or board of trustees and legally protected in perpetuity.

Our next monarch, Edward VIII, abdicated after less than a year on the throne, but his brother - Elizabeth II’s father - reigned as George VI for fifteen years. On his death in 1952 Prime Minister Winston Churchill called for a memorial not dissimilar to George V’s. A statue was to be erected in London “to carry to the living generation and to those who come after the physical presence of the King” but Churchill was, he said, “sure, however, that the King would have wished that the greater part of the money … would be spent in support of causes which he cherished and for which he strove”. The King George VI memorial fund was set up to create a philanthropic scheme to benefit young people’s welfare, and still funds activities to this day.

There is something about setting aside a physical space, especially on an island with a finite amount of land, that seems to mark a life more permanently

Of the two approaches to national legacies I am most drawn to the ‘living memorial’ of George V through the playing fields. There is something about setting aside a physical space, especially on an island with a finite amount of land, that seems to mark a life more permanently. The George VI awards are harder to tangibly grasp, and benefit more discrete groups and individuals.

A playing field or community space has an almost unlimited public benefit in terms of who it can impact. A grant application does not need to be made to enjoy a playing field, and your suggested recreational use does not need to be weighed or measured for long term benefit. There is simply space there for your picnic, your dog walking, your football game.

The memorial to Elizabeth II in St James’ Park is nice. It’s central, provides a statue and has been designed by a ‘big name’ designer. It’s all very fitting. The national legacy programme though has the opportunity to be more meaningful. It should consider the tangible nature of the legacy it is creating as well as the social impact this programme could bring. I hope they choose to commission something tangible, perhaps even something built. Not only could this provide benefits to communities but it could build skills in that community that create opportunities outside of London.

Say, for instance, the committee chose to build a number of community centres nationwide. Perhaps a condition could be made that they must be designed and built by an architect and contractor from within fifteen miles of the community; perhaps there should be an upper limit on the size of the business, or an age limit on the age of the business’ principals. In today’s economy of large architectural practices, heavy tender pre qualifications, and construction skills shortages it’s hard to start new businesses in the built environment.

So many of the practices and contractors of today were launched by a single key scheme. As well as providing community benefit the Elizabeth II memorial committee could launch the future of British architecture and construction. Of course it would be risking a legacy on the young and inexperienced - but the monarchy was risked on a twenty five year old in 1952 and that turned out just fine.