Sainsbury Wing contractors find 1990 letter from donor
Contractors renovating London’s National Gallery Sainsbury Wing uncovered a 1990 letter from its donor predicting that future generations would demolish two non‑structural foyer columns he had opposed, prompting debate over architectural intent versus practical usability. Commenters explore why architects add “false” columns for aesthetic, symbolic, or psychological reasons, and whether such elements can obstruct wayfinding or simply age badly. The find also sparks broader reflections on British passive aggression, shifting architectural taste, and the tradition of leaving artifacts hidden in buildings for future renovators to discover.
Passive-aggressive letter and Britishness
- Many see the donor’s hidden “told you so” letter as peak British / English passive aggression and find it very funny and oddly admirable.
- Some commenters describe it as “the most British thing” they’ve seen; others note that downvoting online can feel similarly passive-aggressive.
Which columns and what they look like
- Multiple commenters struggle to identify exactly which foyer columns were removed, sharing several reference photos and renders.
- Consensus forms that two of several ground‑floor foyer columns (not the more prominent upper-level ones) were the “false” ones.
- Several people are surprised by how visually clumsy and “cheap” the columns look; some say the donor was right to dislike them.
Architectural intent vs obstruction
- One side stresses that non‑structural columns can still have purpose: organizing space, evoking crypts or Egyptian tombs, reinforcing cultural iconography.
- Others counter that these particular columns mainly blocked views, confused navigation, and clashed with both the original National Gallery and their own surroundings.
- There is debate over “decorated sheds” vs “ducks” (from Learning from Las Vegas): some see the criticism as missing that conceptual context; others think the chosen “decoration” was simply bad.
Donor power and architect autonomy
- Some argue the donor, having paid millions, should have vetoed the columns rather than complain later.
- Others note that if you hire a star architect and micromanage, they may walk away and publicly distance themselves, so institutions often defer to the designer.
Wider architecture debates
- Discussion touches on Prince/King Charles’s longstanding opposition to modernist architecture and the “carbuncle” controversy around the National Gallery extension.
- A few suggest public resistance to new buildings stems from dislike of postwar aesthetics and user‑hostile design.
- There is side debate over whether the original gallery’s classical forms are noble tradition or just long‑standing kitsch.
Analogies, code comments, and hidden artifacts
- Commenters liken the letter to developers hiding apologetic or “please delete this later” comments in code.
- Others share stories of finding tiles, coins, marbles, beer cans, even razor blades and witch bottles hidden in walls or concrete, seeing it as either charming foresight or lazy trash.