London Burned 360 Years Ago Tomorrow — Rome Rebuilt on New Streets, London Rebuilt on the Old Ones — Woody Magazine, Sept. 1, 2026
London Burned 360 Years Ago Tomorrow — Rome Rebuilt on New Streets, London Rebuilt on the Old Ones
A redrawn city was on the king's desk within six days. Not one of the five plans was built.
- Fire broke out in a bakehouse on Pudding Lane before dawn on September 2, 1666. Four days later, 85 percent of the walled city was gone.
- Six days after the flames died, Christopher Wren laid a redrawn London in front of Charles II. Evelyn, Hooke and Newcourt followed. None of the plans was built.
- What stopped them was not small-minded merchants. It was the price of land. London taxed coal to raise the compensation money, and what the tax could buy was a dozen widened streets.
Tomorrow marks 360 years. Before dawn on Sunday, September 2, 1666, a fire started in a bakehouse on Pudding Lane. It burned for four days.
Walk through London's financial district today and something is off. This is one of the great money capitals of the world, and the streets do not run straight. Narrow lanes bend into one another. Pudding Lane is still there, still carrying the name.
Four Days
Three hundred and seventy-three acres inside the city walls burned, and another 63 outside them.
Thirteen thousand two hundred houses were destroyed, along with 86 parish churches lost or badly damaged. The Guildhall, the city's civic hall, was gutted, and so were the Royal Exchange, where the merchants gathered, and the custom house. Between seventy and eighty thousand people lost their homes.
Losses came to somewhere between £8 million and £10 million. Housing alone accounted for £3.2 million. Who was going to pay it is the rest of this story.
Oddly, the official death toll is in single digits. How many deaths went unrecorded, nobody knows.
A New Map in Six Days
The fire was out on September 5. Six days later, on September 11, Christopher Wren unrolled a drawing in front of Charles II. Wren was an Oxford astronomy professor then, moving into architecture. What he had drawn was London, redrawn whole.
Wide straight avenues radiating out from open squares. A clean quay along the Thames. A city with Paris and Rome in mind. Two days later John Evelyn, who had been complaining about London's cramped and filthy streets for years, showed his own version to the king and queen. Robert Hooke and Richard Newcourt followed with theirs. The king had asked only Wren and Evelyn for drawings. The other three sent theirs unasked.
A captain named Valentine Knight proposed a toll canal ringing the city, with a calculation attached showing what the Crown stood to earn from it. Charles II, incensed at the suggestion that he profit from a public calamity, had him briefly locked up.
Up to this point the story is tidy. The city is a blank page, the best minds in Europe arrive with drawings, and the king likes Wren's. The rest seems settled.
Who Stopped It
It never got through Parliament.
Wren's son wrote later that small-minded businessmen had ruined his father's drawing. That account has had a long life, and it is easy to see why. The genius and the philistines is a legible shape.
Ian Archer, of the Oxford history faculty, reads it differently. Carrying out any of those plans would have meant compensating the owners of every parcel the new streets crossed, and money on that scale simply was not available.
To move a street is to run it across ground that belongs to somebody. For one of Wren's avenues to run, every parcel beneath it has to be settled first. Every plot has an owner, and every owner has to be paid.
We know how this works. An apartment block can come down entirely and the record of which unit belonged to whom survives it. When it goes back up, the layout cannot simply be improved. Every shareholder's stake has to be squared again first.
London in 1666 was the same, except that the money to square anybody's stake fell far short.
Parliament had a second worry. If rebuilding dragged, the merchants would go elsewhere, and London's trade was a large share of the state's revenue. Building fast mattered more than building well.
What the Law Did Instead
On February 8, 1667, the Rebuilding Act received royal assent. The lawyer Matthew Hale drafted it.
Outer walls in brick or stone. Houses sorted into four classes, none above four floors. Power for the city to widen streets. And one clause more: no house could come out past its ancient foundation.
Ancient foundation is the statute's own phrase. Nothing projecting, and no house itself, could push past the line its footings had held before the fire. The fire did not set that line. The London standing before it had.
There was a three-year clause too. If burned ground went unbuilt for three years, the city gave public notice and allowed nine months more. If it was still empty, a jury put a price on it, the city sold it, and the money went to the owner. That was pressure to build quickly. It was not permission to build differently.
Compensation money was not simply absent. The same act raised it. From June 1667, for ten years, every ton of coal coming into London carried an extra twelvepence in duty. The statute directed the proceeds first to the people whose ground was taken to widen a street. Second in line were the people who gave up ground for wharves. Prisons came third.
There was a procedure as well. A jury fixed what a dispossessed owner was owed. Owners of houses that gained value from a wider street were assessed to help cover it.
The act named the streets to be widened one by one — Fleet Street, Thames Street, Old Fish Street. A dozen or so by name. And it authorized exactly one new street, running from the Guildhall into Cheapside.
Twelvepence a ton bought that much city and no more.
The tenants were a separate problem. Most Londoners rented, and the burden of rebuilding a burned house fell on the leaseholder. An additional act three years later had to sort out what happened when a tenant did not rebuild and the landlord did it instead. The house was gone. The lease was not.
Left alone, those contracts would have turned tens of thousands of fire victims into debtors. So Parliament stood up a Fire Court. From February 27, 1667 until the end of 1668 it sat at Clifford's Inn, one of the buildings where lawyers trained, and heard nothing but these disputes. Appeals went only to a larger bench of the same court. The disputes were sealed inside it.
William Petty, the political economist, called it a power to cut every knot.
But the knot the court cut was the knot of cost. It left the knot of ownership alone. Deciding whose ground was whose had never been its business.
The Fire Did Not Bring the Brick
We are taught that the Great Fire turned London from a timber city into a brick one. London Museum flatly denies it.
Thatch had been banned inside the City since 1189, and the city tightened the rules again after a fire in 1212 killed some three thousand people. James I ordered in 1605 that new houses be built of brick or stone, then repeated himself in 1607. Repetition means it was not happening.
The fire did not produce a new rule. It produced the leverage to enforce an old one.
Not that nothing changed. The city's common council approved a scheme in late April 1667 to widen and realign some streets. Some of the streets the act had named were in fact widened, and King Street and Queen Street were cut through to link the Guildhall to the river. A uniform quayside was planned, though it was never finished.
Putting the housing stock back took close to 400 million bricks, and brickworks went up all around London to supply them. In 1668, 1,450 houses were built; by the end of 1670 about 6,000 stood. By March 1672 the word going around was that the city had largely come back from its own ashes.
The map, though, stayed where it was.
How Rome Did It
Rome had faced the same thing sixteen centuries earlier. The city burned in 64, and Nero redrew it.
The Roman historian Tacitus set it down in the Annals. Streets laid along measured lines, thoroughfares widened, building heights capped, open ground left between blocks, colonnades put up along the fronts of the tenements. Shared walls between buildings were forbidden.
The order is what matters. Nero absorbed the cost of rebuilding. He undertook to build the colonnades at his own expense and returned cleared sites to their owners. He offered bounties too, scaled to a man's rank and means, to anyone who finished building inside the deadline. Then he drew the new streets. He did not push the bill downward.
Rome had its own troubles. Rebuilding went slowly, and Vespasian, who took the throne five years after the fire, had to let anyone take over and build on a plot whose owner had not. But Rome had a treasury that could carry the cost. London had a duty on coal.
We think of catastrophe as a blank page. Burn a city down and surely anything can be drawn on the space that is left.
But somebody still owns the space. London put its old lanes back not for want of imagination, but because every lane had someone who would have to be paid.
Rome paid from the top. London paid what it could afford.
Fire erases a city. It does not erase who owns the ground.
- Source ↗ Ian Archer, "Facing up to catastrophe: The Great Fire of London," Faculty of History, University of Oxford
- Source ↗ "Three myths about the Great Fire of London," London Museum
- Source ↗ Catalog note on the Wren and Evelyn rebuilding plans, London Museum
- Source ↗ "Great fire of London: How science rebuilt a city," Science Museum
- Source ↗ "An Act for rebuilding the City of London," UK Parliament
- Source ↗ "Charles II, 1666: An Act for rebuilding the Citty of London," Statutes of the Realm, vol. 5, British History Online
- Tacitus, Annals, Book XV, ch. 43
- Suetonius, Life of Vespasian, 8.5
- Michael Hebbert, "The long after-life of Christopher Wren's short-lived London plan of 1666," Planning Perspectives, vol. 35, no. 2, 2020
댓글
댓글 쓰기