Architecture Update: Deadline approaches for Stonehenge six
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.SIX FIRMS have until the end of this month to submit design ideas for a visitor centre at Stonehenge. They are: Edward Cullinan Architects, Future Systems, Jeremy Dixon and Edward Jones, Plincke Leaman & Browning, Colvin & Moggridge, and Birds Portchmouth and Russum Architects. They were selected in a competition organised by the National Trust and English Heritage.
But a new book, Stonehenge Tomorrow, argues that the centre will further damage a site that has suffered from 'an appallingly low standard of architecture and environmental design' since the Twenties. While welcoming the competition itself, the authors - Theo Crosby, professor of architecture at the Royal College of Art, and Peter Lloyd-Jones, professor of three-dimensional design at Kingston University - argue that the proposal to build an access road to the centre will mean that 'Stonehenge Down would never be the same again'. They believe the new centre should not be built at Larkhill, next to a major military installation, but farther west at Fargo Plantation - a view shared by the local planning authority, which has rejected the current scheme.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments