Vélizy’s 1994 monospace concept was no masterpiece, but was the best of an uninspired bunch.
It seems relatively difficult to envisage now, but in the early 1990’s, the future looked decidedly MPV-shaped; particularly amongst the European car makers, who in the wake of the creative and commercial success of the innovative Renault Espace were falling over themselves to get something vaguely monospace to market.
The MPV concept appeared to particularly chime with the French motorist, who was generally characterised by preferring pragmatism over overt statements of power or affluence. In 1991, Renault once again set the pace with their Scenic concept, but three years would elapse before Art Blakeslee’s Citroën studio presented the double chevron’s response: Xanae.
Star of that year’s Paris motor show, the Xanae concept offered a vision for a new type of Citroën, one aimed squarely at this burgeoning segment. Sized between C and D-sectors with a clear stylistic reference to the concurrent Xantia model, Xanae appeared to many observers as a distinct and distinctive hint to what customers could expect from Citroën within a comparatively short space of time — a spokesperson telling reporters, “we wanted to create something that was totally new: a cross between a saloon and a people carrier.”
Exterior design was the work of Dan Abramson, who was recruited in 1984, remaining at Citroën’s Vélizy studios for another twenty one years, penning a staggering amount of chevron-badged models over that period, the most notable of which being the production C6 design. The styling narrative behind Xanae, as recounted by Blakeslee at the time, was that of an eye.
The Xanae, he told the UK’s Channel 4 Without Walls programme, was really a giant eye, looking out for and protecting its occupants in what was seen as an increasingly hostile and dangerous driving environment. Hence the distinctive shaping of the headlights, daylight openings, and even the side rubbing strips.
With any creative endeavour, the end-result is usually predicated on the brief that initiates it. In this case, both Blakeslee and Abramson appear to have been hamstrung by an edict of, ‘make sure it vaguely resembles a Xantia’. Later, Citroën’s Claude Santinet would damn the Blakeslee designs in the following terms: “ …inside Citroën, I don’t think we had the man with the ability to lead the design team”. But in his defence, the veteran Design Director not only had Xavier Karcher to contend with, but a hidebound PSA board, led by ultra-conservative Jacques Calvet, so there was plenty of responsibility to go around.
There were some nice touches to the Xanae concept, but what appeared vaguely progressive then, now seems slightly timid, not merely due to the passage of time, nor indeed the watered-down production cars which were inspired by it, but because it embodied a rather thin vision from which to draw an entire generation of production cars. Certainly, it seems counter-intuitive to base a concept on styling cues of a model already two years on the market, if the idea was to prefigure the future.
Xanae (which does appear to suggest some kind of domestic cleaning product), was the direct inspiration for the underwhelming 1999 Xsara Picasso and the lumpen 2000 C5 models, neither of which will be remembered with a great deal of admiration for their visual execution. Because frankly, from 1996’s Saxo until the 2004 C4, there really wasn’t a production Citroën design worth mentioning in anything but derogatory terms.
On balance therefore, the Blakeslee era at Citroën was not a creative high-point. A cogent argument could be made to suggest it was in fact, its nadir. The production designs created under his leadership probably did more to banish the idea of Citroën as design leader, ceding one of the marque’s pillars to its rivals. That Patrick le Quément was overseeing concepts and production cars of far superior quality and visual appeal at Renault should really be all the illustration required.
Jean-Pierre Ploué and his successors may have laboured to recalibrate the direction of travel in Blakeslee’s wake but Citroën’s visual identity had probably drifted too far. Today, management appear content to see this fragment still further, seemingly satisfied with Citroën’s USP consisting entirely of Airbumps. Not much of a foundation for a marque — especially one with such a rich design history.
Of course it is hardly fair to heap opprobrium on either Blakeslee or the Xanae’s shoulders — by the standards of the time, it was quite a decent piece of work. Its sin, (if any) is one of omission, but frankly, this entire era could usefully be summed up in similar terms.
‘Tis odd, but I do recall seeing the Picasso for the first time at a show. I must have been been distracted by the big wheels and sudden paint because I remember thinking, “That doesn’t look bad.” In my partial defence, I was young(er) and (even more) stupid then.
I shall now go and sit on the naughty step for my sins.
I don’t think basing a future generation of Citroën cars on Xantia cues was such a wrong idea. I’m not speaking here of details of design execution, but of the two most distinctive features of the Xantia: a long wheelbase and well-defined edges. For me it’s the essence of Citroën’s design in the Opron era. The Xanae has them, while presenting more rounded, fluid shapes.
The problem is that I see almost nothing of it in the production cars. Yes, the Picasso has a long wheelbase, but that’s about it. The rest is utter blobbyness, as discussed here for the Xsara and the C5. Only with the C3 and especially later the first C4 they started to present designs again that didn’t make me cringe when I saw them.
The Xanae has some nice aspects and had more of it made to production the Picasso would have been better.
It says a lot that the concept cars of M. Blakeslee look so realistic while his production cars were neither classic, futuristic nor straight contemporary. The C5, in my view, owes almost nothing to any Citroen and is a wierd mix of other shapes and a melange of what some people *think* an Asian car is like.
If it had been 10% like the Xanae (“cleans under the rim, smells citrus fresh”) it’d have been 100% better.
It continues to be bemuse me the way in which manufacturers put out concepts that look like they could so easily become production reality and then follow them up with actual cars that are sad, watered-down production models. It’s like they deliberately over-promise knowing that the impending showroom fodder is going to be a disappointment, thereby exacerbating the impact – where is the logic and sense in that? Or, is it the designer’s revenge – getting their defense in first – stating, ‘this is what I really wanted to deliver, but the stupid management in the collars and ties insisted that all that could be afforded to be productionised was what’s coming at ya in 8-24 months’ time’.
The Xanae was not great, but elements were pretty good – on the inside, I like that ‘pod’ with all the minor controls on it just to the right of the instrument panel, for example – but the Xsara Picasso that followed it … well, we’ve done that one. Oddly, I have not before now seen the strand that leads to the C5 from this concept, but, thanks to Simon, I do now. The production Megane Scenic (as it was originally known) was a nicer piece of design than even this concept, let along the poor Picasso.
Citroën lost their sharpness when they flattened the chevrons. The key question for me is whether a different design director could have been more successful under Calvet’s shackles.
It’s been mentioned before, but it’s interesting to reflect on cars such as the BX and XM that were criticised at launch for being too conventional. Compare and contrast with what Citroën and DS offer now. Have they even fitted that interesting new non-hydropneumatic suspension design to a car you can buy yet?
Was the BX called conventional? Some called the XM conventional on the inside, which it was though not exactly ordinary either. The exterior is still outstanding for its coherent look.
I have the same recollection as jacomo – the BX was considered and marketed by Citroen itself as being quite conventional (‘Loves Driving, Hates Garages’). This relative conservatism was hardened by the face-lift which introduced the horror of conventional (if still non-self cancelling, I think) indicator/ headlamp wiper stalks. How I would give a minor but useful body part over now for such levels conventionality.
On the new C3, jacomo, I know what you mean, but it does feel like a small crumb of an improvement. What really shocked me about the new C3 I saw in a service station var park the other day was how huge it looked. It was parked next to a MkIV Golf and, although a tad shorter, in every other way it dwarfed it – especially in terms of height, and the visual bulk of the whole front end. It’s really not much smaller than the Cactus, which I hear is soon to get a face-lift, which will be interesting to see as I think it might prove tricky to pull off without disturbing what is a pretty cohesive design..
My criticism at the time was that it looked a bit too generic 1970s Italian Show Car. Which in fact it was, though at the beginning I was unaware who had designed it. It looked coherent, as Richard says, but it wasn’t ‘French’ enough for me. In the end I got to like it and, I suppose it was prescient, since design is now so universal. OK maybe not literally universal, I believe cars on the planet Tralfamadore still retain their distinctive quirkiness.
Actually, mention of Tralfamadore bring up the little-known fact (or well-known fact, if you know it already) that the author Kurt Vonnegut once ran a Saab dealership in the US.
http://www.saabplanet.com/vonnegut-saab/
Not especially relevant to the Xanae, I admit, but mention of Vonnegut in the context of Saab is always worth the mention of this quote:
“I believe my failure as a dealer so long ago explains what would otherwise remain a deep mystery: why the Swedes have never given me a Nobel Prize for literature.”
I seem to recall (I was young then) that the BX was considered quite conventional – comparatively speaking, I suppose. People expected more eccentricity from Citroen back then.
Personally I think Citroen are enjoying something of a creative revival at the moment. The new C3 hatchback presents as reasonably distinctive, vaguely fashionable, but non-threatening. Its underpinnings are entirely conventional, but tuned for comfort not ‘sportiness’.
Ok, small victories perhaps, but welcome ones.
Mentioned last month, I (re)draw your attention to the fact that the ever salt-pinch-taking Wikipedia’s entry for Matra designer Antonis Volanis credits him with Xanae.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonis_Volanis
I designed the Espace!
No, I did!
Naah. It was Kirk Douglas done it.
Considering the continuing rise of the small crossover the early 1990’s MPV future may still come to pass. They just won’t be little lemon wedges.
I played poker with Art Blakeslee in the 1980’s when we were both atChrysler/ Talbot/ PSA in Coventry and would love to contact him again. Can anyone help put us in touch please. Mike Judge ( mabjudge@hotmail.com)
Hello Mike:
Thanks for dropping in. Those were the late days of Talbot. Peugeots were designed in France – what were they doing all day at Whitley?
What did they do in Whitley all day, he asks: From my understanding, I believe the SA 103, part of the Citroen ECO 2000 project was built in Whitley at the time, a project I think Blakeslee was peripherally involved with. There may have been other projects carried out there as well.
Perhaps Mike could clarify?
They didn’t play poker in office hours, I assume.
How a car manufacturer that produced the DS, 2cv, CX, GS and earlier, the Traction Avant, can come up with such motoring brain death as the first Picasso, the early C3 and early C5 astounds me to this day. Unfortunately, or fortunately as their case may be, people seem to like dross, and they sold plenty……….