History of developments of Barbican complex in the City of London

Architectural History Thesis | TU Delft

History of development of the Barbican complex in the City of London

Hyeonsu Yang (MSc3, 1535188 murmusic@gmail.com) | Prof. Hans van Dijk | April, 2011

CONTENT

Abstract Introduction Main discourse A. Historical Context 1. Cumulated problems since the Industrial Revolution 2. Unique Contexts and Features of the City of London 3. Influences of the Second World War

B. Precedential Ideas for London 1. Bressey and Lutyens Plan 2. Abercrombie and Forshaw plan 3. Holden and Holford plan

C. Early Proposals for the Barbican area 1. New Barbican Committee’s plan 2. LCC and the Corporation’s plan in 1955 3. Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s plans in 1955

D. Revised plans after 1955 1. Influences of Duncan Sandys 2. CP&B’s 1956 plan and the later revision before 1959 3. CP&B’s 1959 plan and the later revision

Conclusion Bibliography

-1-

Abstract The Barbican estate is considered that is the very unique and unusual project to be realized in the British context: unlike other council housing planned and built during the post-war time, the Barbican estate was the result of long-cumulated proposals closely connected to the context of the City of London. The study is focused on tracing the history of the development of the Barbican estate in order to reveal which aspects during the process gave influences to the final plan of the Barbican estate by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon in order to understand how the project of the Barbican emerged and why there are a lot of opinions divided into light and shadow. I am concerned with five issues. Firstly, I will discuss what influences of the Industrial Revolution to British cities, impacts of the Second World War, and unique features of the City of London made a specific environment to emerge the precedential proposals for London. Secondly, how ideas contained in the precedential proposals for London were reflected into the early plans for the Barbican area. Thirdly, I will investigate what are the early plans for the Barbican area under the ideas of the precedential proposals, what are major purposes behind them, and how they gave influences to the later plans. Fourthly, how to modify the 1955 plans by Chamberlin, Powell, and Bon since 1955 and the reasons behind plans’ revision will be discussed.

Finally, I will observe which features of the Barbican estate make different contrast to other post-war council housing and different opinions.

-2-

Introduction The Barbican estate which has various public facilities and the famous Barbican art centre are placed in the City of London. The development of the Barbican area emerged at the middle of 1950s as the post-war reconstruction for inner London, and the whole construction of the Barbican estate was completed in 1982: it is the long-term development that spent almost 30 years.

Comparing to other council housings during post-war reconstruction periods, tenants groups, a location, merging with unique functions like the Barbican art centre, the appearances of the Barbican estate and etc make great different characteristics, and its distinctive features also produced divided opinions, light and shadow point of views, toward the Barbican estate since planning of the Barbican estate:1 one side that people consider the Barbican estate is successful is related to an inner city housing development, which were not popular during the post-war time, and the Barbican art centre. Opposite thoughts were connected to several critics about the housing estate for the welloff, labyrinthisch public passages, the enclosing characteristic of the Barbican estate, ugliness of its appearance, and etc.

In order to understand how the development proposal of the Barbican area were emerged and how the Barbican estate became different comparing to other post-war mass housing projects like Park-hill, Alton Estate and Robin Hood Gardens, and why totally different opinions toward the Barbican estate emerge at a same time, tracing of its development history and influences to the process of planning by the architects, who were Chamberlin, Powell, and Bon are the essential first step. In this paper, the study is focused on analysis how various aspects from historical backgrounds to characteristic of architects gave continuous influences and were reflected to the development plan of the Barbican complex, and, especially, is tracked historical backgrounds and a chronicle of the development of the Barbican estate till 1982: through historical tracking as an analytic method, I will investigate how series of aspects from cumulated social problems since the Industrial Revolution to characteristic of three architects who were Chamberlin, Powell and Bon gave influences how the development of the Barbican were formed.

There are five categories: first, I will focus on historical contexts that became foundation to emerge precedential proposals for London. Those aspects is connected to cumulated social problems since the Industrial Revolution such as lacks of housing and degradation of living surroundings, specific features of the City of London, which are connected to dramatic reduction of population and unique electoral system, and impacts of the Second World War. Second, I will observe three precedential proposals for London in order to reveal which thoughts in the proposals gave influence to the Barbican plans. Since these plans which were produced for the future of London from 1930s to 1940s reflect predominant perspectives at that time, it is important to understand what kinds of thoughts lay under the Barbican estate and how the Barbican project was formed. Third, I will focus on four early development proposals for the Barbican area: since each development was produced 1

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p223-225 -3-

under different perspectives toward the Barbican area and those differentiations were reflected into the later process of the development of the Barbican estate. Fourth, I will trace back to revised proposals by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon from 1955 till 1982 in order to understand what influences gave impacts to revise the development plans for the Barbican area: between the final plan of the Barbican estate and 1955 proposals by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon have great differences, since there were continuous modifications of the plans after 1955. Finally, I will observe assessments of the Barbican estate and the reasons of them: although there were a lot of ideas and practical considerations carefully reflected during the development of the Barbican estate, some aspects are positively considered but others are regarded as negative sides. Understanding the origins of those results is essential in order to learn from the Barbican estate.

Historical Context The Barbican estate was

proposed and

constructed for devastated areas in the City of London, which were bombed by Germany during the Second World Wars, so it is commonly considered one of the post-war reconstruction developments such as Park Hill in Sheffield, Alton estate or Robin Hood Garden in London. Because the emergence of those council housings was also related to Britain’s contextual situations at that time: for example, Figure 01 Map of Greater London. Red color means the City of London, and other colors show later extension of Greater London.

devastated

urban

areas

and

buildings by Blitz during the Second World War led lacks of living places. 2 Therefore, one of most urgent issues was supplying houses to

everyone. 3 The Barbican area, in case, laid behind much more complex contexts. In fact, the Barbican area is located at the Northern part of the City of London. It means that London was the largest city in the United Kingdom and also the capital of the Imperial at that time, and the City area, especially, represent the heart of the Imperial: the City of London also had unique characteristic related to economy and electoral system. On the other hand, London as an old trade city was suffering from both significant pre-war social, economical and physical problems by the Industrial Revolution and mass devastation during the Second World War.

2

Graham Towers, Shelter is not Enough (the United Kingdom: the Policy Press, 2000), p19

3

Graham Towers, Shelter is not Enough (the United Kingdom: the Policy Press, 2000), p19 -4-

Those aspects formed the backgrounds of the emergence of several proposals for London from 1930s to 1950s, and those precedential plans formed the foundation of the development of the Barbican estate.

For those reasons, the development of the Barbican area has to be understood not only as a post-war reconstruction but also as reactions related to the unique features of the City of London.

Figure 02 Demographical changes of Greater London

1. Cumulated problems since the Industrial Revolution Although the population of the City of London right after the Second World War dropped till around 5,0004 because of mass devastation by Blitz during the Second World War, the tendency of decreasing population of the City area already started around the middle of the 19th centuries. On the other hand, the

Figure 03 Demographical changes of outer London

population of inner and outer London except the City area continuously and rapidly increased before the war: the total population of the Greater London raised up with to eight times from one million in 1801 to eight millions in 1951 as much as the Greater London was quickly expanded.5 It was influences of the Industrial Revolution.

As Norbert Schoenauer points out in ‘6,000 years of housing’, when the Industrial Revolution entered its

Figure 04 Demographical changes of outer London

second phase based on coal from water, the selection of industrial sites was then based on a number of different and complex considerations: it means economic and demographic considerations became much more important to decide the location of industrial developments. 6 And these changes led the cities became more important for industrialization. Towns and cities extended in size as much as their populations increased, because of mass migration of population from rural area to cities for getting jobs.7 In the end, it caused the social problems that originated from outmoded housing multiplied and

4

Barbican, Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume 1 (London: English Heritage & Corporation of London, August

2005), p18 5

“London through time: Population Statistics – Total Population”, Avision of Britain through time, 19 November 2009,

http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/data_cube_page.jsp?data_theme=T_POP&data_cube=N_TOT_POP&u_id=10097836&c_id=10 001043&add=N (accessed 01 April 2011) 6

Norbert Schoenauer, 6,000 years of housing (New York, the United States of America: Norton, 2000), p290

7

Norbert Schoenauer, 6,000 years of housing (New York, the United States of America: Norton, 2000), p290 -5-

Figure 05 The General Post Office in St Martin’s le

Figure 06 Carl Giles, “Why do you always have to be awkward,

Grand in the City of London in 19th century

Grandpa-telling that smog inspector that you’re 97, lived here all your life and love it?”

cities could no longer efficiently control their growth: Industrialization and urbanization, or urban sprawl, brought about overcrowded slums.8 With mass impacts to cities by the Industrial Revolution, one unique feature, Britain as an island country, added fuel to cities to enlarge. 9 Since there was no defense consideration for city expansion in 19 centuries, in contrast to previous eras: when city expansion was planned carefully costs for the necessary defense installations was weight until 18 centuries. At that time, prevailing liberal spirit tempered only by available transportation modes. 10 Moreover, by the end of the eighteenth century some well-off families in England had already begun to abandon their town houses in deteriorating cities perceived to be congested, polluted, and crimeridden: they fled to the countryside. 11 ‘Oliver Twist’, the novel by Charles Dickens and Carl Giles’s a famous British cartoons12 vividly, for instance, described how living qualities in old towns and cities was terrible and London Smog, or Great Smog which led Londoners were choking on it that would claim 12,000 lives by 195313 proved how inner cities were polluted at that time. William Blair gave a description:

‘Human beings, hogs, and dogs, were associated in the same habitations; and great heaps of dirt, in different quarters, may be found piled up in the streets. Another reason of their ill health is this, that some of the lower inhabitations have neither windows nor chimneys nor floors, and were so dark that I can scarcely see there at midday without a candle. I have actually gone into a ground floor bedroom, and could not find my patient without the light of a candle.’

14

It means that British peoples, especially well-off groups like lawyers, rich merchants, bankers and etc,

8

Norbert Schoenauer, 6,000 years of housing (New York, the United States of America: Norton, 2000), p290

9

Norbert Schoenauer, 6,000 years of housing (New York, the United States of America: Norton, 2000), p306

10

Norbert Schoenauer, 6,000 years of housing (New York, the United States of America: Norton, 2000), p306

11

Norbert Schoenauer, 6,000 years of housing (New York, the United States of America: Norton, 2000), p303

12

Robert Melville, “Giles”, The Architectural Review (March 1957), p177-182

13

Michelle L. Bell, Devra L. Davis, and Tony Fletcher, “A Retrospective Assessment of Mortality from the London Smog

Episode of 1952: The Role of Influenza and Pollution”, Environmental Health Perspectives volume 112 (January 2004), p6-8 14

Parliamentary papers 1816, vol IV -6-

did not care of distances between their homes and workplaces, but considered much more living environments. This new trend was also abetted by the fact that to have a landed estate was in reality a prerequisite for advancement in society and a qualification for voting, serving as a magistrate, and entering Parliament.15 2. Unique Contexts and Features of the City of London The trend of suburbanization by welloff groups rooted to the influences of the Industrial Revolution and the evolution of transportation caused the rapid decrease of the City of London’s population: The City’s residential 120,000 Figure 07 A graph showing the total population of the City of London since 1801, with censuses every 10 years.

population before

the

of Second

approximately World

War

dramatically dropped down till one-sixth scale; its population of around 20,000 in the middle of 18th centuries. Since its radical changes in

contrast to other inner London areas was due to unique contexts and features of the City area. First, in the 12th century, the City was given the right to choose its own sheriffs (from “shire reeve”), and also allowed to collect its own taxes. 16 The City of London has been granted various special privileges since the Norman Conquest such as the right to run its own affairs17 partly due to the power of its financial capital. These are also mentioned by the Statute of William and Mary in 1690.18 It became the foundation of two unique political systems: one is the independent local authority, the Corporation of the City and the right to elect their own mayor. 19 For the reason the City of London also is made up of 25 wards like Greater London has their local boroughs. Another aspect is unique electoral system: most of its voters are representatives of businesses in today, however its ancient wards have very unequal numbers of voters. In elections, both the businesses based in the City and the residents of the City vote. It means that number of people who can vote is directly related to the power of the City Corporation.20 Second, in the second half of the 19th century, much of the Barbican area was bought up by

15

Aslet, Clive, and Alan Powers, The National Trust Book of the English House (Harmondsworth: Viking in association with

the National Trust, 1985), p98 16

“Rise of the City of London”, Barbican living, http://www.barbicanliving.co.uk/h7b.html (accessed 01 April 2011)

17

“The Corporation of London, Its Rights and Privileges”, Wattpad, http://www.wattpad.com/9747-the-corporation-of-london-its-

rights-and?p=1 (accessed 01 April 2011) 18

Statue of William and Mary, confirming the Privileges of the Corporation, A New History of London: Including Westminster

and Southwark (London, 1773) 19

“Rise of the City of London”, Barbican living, http://www.barbicanliving.co.uk/h7b.html (accessed 01 April 2011)

20

Borer, M.I.C,.The City of London - a history (New York: D.McKay Co, 1978), p112 -7-

the new railway companies for goods terminals, although banking and commercial were also major industries in the City: the Bank area shows that financial and commercial business are still major industries. Warehouses and other industries such as sweatshops and wholesale textile trade companies were placed in and around the Barbican area.

Warehouses replaced houses, and residents moved out: furthermore, the new railway stimulated people to exodus toward the countryside even though the City of London was still historical core of London and

Figure 08 Blitzed Streets in London

the heart of the Empire.21 3. Influences of the Second World War The Second World War made the situation even more difficult. First, it caused mass destruction in London in contrast to the First World War. In case of London, every street from Moorgate to Aldersgate Street, covering thirty five acres in a single night of incendiary bombing, or called Blitz, on 29th December 1940 was destroyed. St Giles Cripplegate was burnt out, only the walls and tower remaining standing. By

Figure 09 The City of London after the Blitz

the end of the war, the area of devastation in the City included a much wider area to the south and east of the Barbican itself.22 The blitzed areas of the City amounted to 25 percent of its total area. 23 For the mass destruction in the City area led to decrease residential population dramatically. In the early 1950s, the City’s population was around 5,000.24 Second, very little new housing was built during the Second World War. For two reasons brought about the severe housing shortage throughout the country:25 not only housings for working classes but also well-off groups suffered.

Moreover, after the war even more pressure was added to the housing shortage by the impact of delayed marriage and the ‘baby boom’. 26 Cohesion between problems by the war and unique features of the City of London created complex conditions for reconstruction and the background of precedential proposals for London from 1930s to 1950s, although impacts of the war made housing a

21

“19th and 20the centuries”, Barbican Living, http://www.barbicanliving.co.uk/h1g.html (accessed 01 April 2011)

22

“Barbican after the War”, Barbican Living, http://www.barbicanliving.co.uk/h6a.html (accessed 01 April 2011)

23

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p48-51

24

Barbican, Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume 1, August 2005, English Heritage & Corporation of London, p18

25

Lan Colquhoun, RIBA Book of British Housing (London: RIBA 2008) p6-7

26

Graham Towers, Shelter is not Enough (the United Kingdom: the Policy Press, 2000), p19 -8-

core issue of public policy and a major new building programme was put in place by the following Labour government.27

Precedential Ideas for London From the middle of 1930s to the end of 1940s, several plans for the future of London were produced by various groups. Although the development of the Barbican estate was officially approved by the City of Corporation in November 1959 28 those precedential proposals as reactions against the serious situation by contaminated problems from the Industrial Revolution to the Second World War provided fundamental ideas for later urban planning and reconstruction in Britain. Even though there were no proposals directly connected to the Barbican area at that time, three of precedential proposals gave influences in order to mould the Barbican estate as a reconstruction project and also reflected their thoughts into the development of the Barbican area: the first proposal is Bressy and Lutyens plan, the second is Abercrombie and Forshaw plan, and the last is Holden and Holford plan.

It means that the final form was the result of a period of planning that stretches back into 1930s and the Barbican should be considered as a monument to the ideas of pre- and post-war efforts to modernize London.29 1. Bressey and Lutyens Plan The first idea for the development of the Barbican area can be found a clue from a plan of Sir Charles Bressey, the civil engineer, and Lutyens, the architect. Under supports of Royal Academy Planning Committee they published their plans in a small book, London Replanned, after the Blitz, 1942.30 This report which suggested a very planned city31 was based on their previous research: The Highway

Development Survey for Greater London, which reviewed London’s road needs and recommended the construction of many miles of new roads and the improvement of junctions at key congestion points were produced by Sir Charles Bressey and Sir Edwin Lutyens in 1937 32 and they also published it as a Ministry of Transport report in 1938.33 Amongst their proposals was the provision of a series of orbital roads around the city with the outer ones built as American-style Parkways – wide, landscaped roads with limited access and grade separated junctions. The reason why Bressey and

27

Graham Towers, Shelter is not Enough (the United Kingdom: the Policy Press, 2000), p19

28

Jon Lang, Urban Design: A Typology of Procedures and Products (Oxford, UK: Architectural Press, 2005), p166

29

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p41

30

London Replanned, Country Life (London: Royal Academy Planning Committee, 1942)

31

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p41-3

32

The Highway Development Survey, (London: 1937)

33

“Bressey, Sir Charles Herbert (1874-1951)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, October 2004,

http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/101032053/Charles-Bressey (accessed 01 April 2011) -9-

Lutyens produced the former proposals before the Second World War, it should be considered that Bressey, in January 1935, was appointed by Minister of Transport, Leslie Hore-Belisha, in order to prepare a report on London's future road transport requirements up to the mid-1960s, and he was assisted by architect Sir Edwin Lutyens.34 And those perspectives, thoughts about infrastructures for future, reflected into the later plan, London Replanned.

Figure 10 Highway Development Plan (Greater London) 1937 by Bressey and

Figure 11 London Replanned (book cover)

Lutyens: Hackney – Stratford – Wanstead – Lee Valley road plans

1942 by Bressey and Lutyens

In London Replanned, Bressey and Lutyens combined together between two different purposes: one is vision an imperial city of grand vistas and monumental buildings like Lutyens’ Persian Oil Company Building in Finsbury Circus (now demolished), and another is the introduction of a very modern infrastructure of ring roads and new Underground railways linking the railway termini moved to new sites in some case. The aim in their plans is to create the vision of the imperial city with a transport system in order to overcome the limits of London’s medieval road system at once. 35 It could guess thinking about renewal infrastructures came from the former plan. Although it nowadays seems hard to understand why the idea related to image of London as heart of the Empire suddenly was implanted, this idea was strongly connected to the statue of London, especially the City of London. They dreamed a homage to Wren’s plan for the City produced after the fire of London and its aim was to remind people that London should aspire to an urbanism produced after the fire of London and its aim was to remind people that London should aspire to an urbanism that was planned rather than evolved from the primordial soup of laissez faire development. 36

34

“Charles Bressey”, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bressey (accessed 01 April 2011)

35

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p41-3

36

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p41-3 - 10 -

Figure 12 Rashtrapati Bhavan, formerly the Viceregal Lodge designed by Lutyens, and adjacent buildings illuminated for the Republic Day.

Although the Second World War postponed the implementation of Bressey and Lutyens’ recommendation, they subsequently featured in a number of post war reports such as Abercrombie’s County of London Plan and the Greater London Council’s 1960s London Ringways scheme.37 It means the vision that the infrastructural plans of Bressey based on Lutyens’ grand vision was conditioned by post-Imperial concerns that reflected a new social, democratic, commonwealth Britain was continuously pick up and developed in later reconstruction plans for the City of London related to the Barbican area though Bressey and Lutyens’ proposal was not directly related to the development of the Barbican estate.38 2. Abercrombie and Forshaw Plan

‘There is no doubt whatever that if the full resources of modern building science and the skill and imagination of modern architects are used in every house, whether a small two-storeyed house or a flat, [they] will be as good as the best that London has known in the past. A new London, clean, humane and beautiful will grow out of the County Plan.’

39

- The County of London Plan Explained, 1945 Patrick Abercrombie prepared the County of London Plan of 1943 and the Greater London Plan of 1944 during the Second World War as a blueprint for London’ post-war reconstruction and development, and both plans so-called the Abercrombie Plan gave mass influences for later reconstruction and development in Britain. 40 Especially ideas and principles in the County of London

37

“Charles Bressey”, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bressey (accessed 01 April 2011)

38

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p41-3

39

E.J. Carter and Erno Goldfinger, The County of London Plan Explained (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1945), p31

40“Abercrombie Plan 1944”, Exploring 20thcentury London, http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/Collections-Research/Research/Your-Research/X20L/Themes/1337/1075/

(accessed01April 2011) - 11 -

Plan by Abercrombie and Forshaw for the London County Council (LCC) provided a guideline and a framework for later Holden and Holford plan of 1946 and gave influences to the development of the Barbican area with Holden and Holford plan. 41 The main proposal in the County of London Plan was to point out the main directions development and reconstruction of London: thoughts underlying the plans related to the confronted great changes and irregular growth of London in the past decades by the Industrial Revolution and the Second World War. In addition, the plan was prepared in anticipation of the end of the Second World War and the reconstruction after bomb damage and large movement of population. It particularly concentrated on five lacks of London, and the plan suggested to remedies:42 - The defects were traffic congestion - Depressed housing - Inadequacy and misdistribution of open spaces - Jumble of house and industries - Sprawl of London consequent suburbanization of surrounding country towns Abercrombie and Forshaw proposed a wholesale rationalization of London and its transport based on an underlying aim to release the capital

from

its

congestion

and

unhealthy living conditions in their plan.

The

main

tools

were

to

introduce new road and rail links to Figure 13 Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow?: Illustrations from cover of Ralph

speed through traffic across London,

Tubbs, Living in Cities, Penguin, 1942.

the relocation of industry, markets

and warehousing away from centres of population and the regeneration of the ‘Villages of London’.43 It presented that introducing new road and railway system were influenced by Bressey and Lutyens Plan, but Abercrombie and Forshaw’s choice of development tools are not related to conservative way. In fact, it was based on the modernism: for achieving the goal that means relocation functions by functions they suggested decreasing the density of housing in reconstructed parts of London and increasing the number of locally available community facilities.

To realize this they introduced two concepts. One is new satellite towns around London to re-house industries and populations displaced by reconstruction. 44 And Abercrombie and Forshaw

41

“Townplanning”, RIBA, http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/DrawingsAndArchives/Archives/TownPlanning.aspx (accessed01April 2011)

42

J. H. Forshaw and Patrick Abercrombie, County of London Plan (Macmillan & Co. 1943)

43

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p43

44

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p43 - 12 -

proposed that the City of London should have no resident population beyond the necessary people like policemen, clergy, emergency services staff and caretaker and the displaced population be housed on the periphery of the City in an inner London suburb such as the Borough of Finsbury for the City area to concentrate on the business district of London furthermore.

It

was

the

hidden

reason

why

Abercrombie and Forshaw re-employed Holden and Holford plan into their ideas. Because only the way for that workers from their suburbs to deliver efficiently to a sanitized work destination like factory of administrative industry was to introduce destination connected by ring roads and railway.45 Another key feature in the plans was

Figure 14 Modernist architecture and urbanism thus became central to Britain’s post-war reconstruction.

reconsidered how to divide up urban space and this characteristic was employed by subsequent plans for the Barbican. Reconsideration of the way of division of urban space was originated from change of urban structure in London. Because London, one of most long-established cities alongside Tames River, creates this city as one of major trade routes, it caused congested London and congested development: in the end, small groups of buildings around small courtyard fulfilled the entire London.46 For centuries before the Second World War this was sporadically seen as problematic, and it led various attempts that were less informal plan of urban dev e lo p me nt: t hes e a tte mpts at planning urban growth were based on the idea of introducing space to congested city and took the form of geometricising development into some Figure 15 Charley in New Town, 1948. Produced by Halas & Batchelor on behalf of the Central Office for information, for the Ministry for Town and Country Planning. This film showed that people considered how old towns

form of grid. Roads that met at oblique angles were replaced by right angled

and cities had bad qualities to live. However when the time came into 50s,

junctions and the spaces in between

heavy traffic congestions by new towns became one of urgent issues.

remodeled as squares or more

unusually circuses. This brought about the creation of the familiar pattern of squares in the West End

45

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p43

46

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p43-47 - 13 -

Figure 16 London, Social and Functional Analysis: from County of London Plan, Forshaw and Abercrombie, 1943; the basis of its planning was the division of the city into identified communities. Bobble boundaries showed re-distribution function by function.

and the inner suburbs in London.47 In the end, these solutions ironically produced worsen results: squares were not fitted into the poor sections in London and produced pressure to increase the price of land along with rapid increasing population.48 Both the cramped street plan of the old City and the equally cramped but more geometric street of Victorian inner suburb London brought about anathemas to the generation of planners and those planners produced new visions based on modernism architecture and urbanism like Abercrombie’s County of London plan and Greater London plan.

Abercrombie and Forshaw in their plan proposed one important concept: the first notion is the precinct. This was an alternative to solve the problems from the cramped streets of the old City and Victorian inner suburb London. A precinct was a less determined idea than a square with its connotation of terraces and gardens and provided many different functions containing to the establishment of the sense of community instead the idea of a regular space like many squares. In addition, the precinct, not like courtyards or squares, was a public space combining a community together with the potential meeting. The idea of the precinct also had the notion that it could be either

47

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p47

48

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p47 - 14 -

large or small depending on need. Therefore it was no doubt that precincts were recognized as a cross between Italian piazzas and American city blocks, and the main different between the idea of the square and the precinct seems to have been that the latter was a civic community space. In the London reconstruction plans, precincts were for replacing terraces of houses. Also the precincts were the places for shops, schools and community halls. In many ways, the precincts combining with a replanned road system gave more chances to create bigger spaces between thoroughfares, and became the building block of the reconstruction.49 In the City of London, around 25 percent of lands were demolished. 50 Those mass deconstructions created a lot of empty spaces

and

those

large

spaces

lent

themselves to replanning as precincts, whether as housing estate or shopping centres.

Furthermore,

another

aspect

of

51

the

consideration emerged to the rebuilding of the community

in

the

reconstruction

plans.

Separating people from traffic to reinforce add quality of the precinct area was essentially related to a pedestrian realm. The pedestrian precinct surrounded by new motor roads is a dominant feature of reconstruction parts of London.52 Those considerations can be found in the Barbican estate nowadays: flying terraced houses and pedestrian podiums provides more Figure 17 The Barbican estate in 2009. A important concept from the Abercrombie plan can be found: the idea of the precinct turned into playgrounds, and terrace houses and independent pedestrian way so-called ’Podium’ support the concept.

spaces and those areas which were the precincts contain various public functions from schools

to

gorgeous

gardens.

And

the

Barbican estate with pedestrian spaces totally is segregated from surrounding motor roads. And through County of London Plan and Greater London Plan London County Council (LCC) continuously took part in subsequent proposals of the Barbican area.

49

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p47

50

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p48

51

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p47

52

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p47 - 15 -

3. Holden and Holford Plan William G Holford and Charles H Holden who were consultants of the Corporation of London prepared a reconstruction plan, the ‘City of London Plan’ in 1947. LCC plans, the County of London Plan of 1943 and the Greater London Plan by Abercrombie, became a foundation for the ‘City of London Plan’.53 This plan by the Corporation had fundamental principle that the City should mainly be a district devoted to business and commerce with only a minimal resident population that are the utility workers to service the area: the plan for housing was a small development on the Barbican site at Bridgewater Square that these people would stay. Although the actual intention for housing was just more closed to accommodations, ‘the City of London Plan’ suggested a residential proposal at first.54 However shortage of houses in the City area strangely was not the core issue at that time. The first reason was connected to Britons’ perspectives toward the old cities. Another aspect was to introduce new transportation system to be fitted in the Modern Age. Although the City of London was severely destroyed by Blitz, recreation of a symbol as the heart of the Empire and modernization of the City of London considered more important rather than reconstruction as a livable place at that period.55 For all these reasons, housing issue became

secondary,

but

removing

the

City’s

traditional role as a storehouse and market for commodities for encouraging its traditional roles as a central service industries became the aim of the proposals for the City area. And, Holden and Holford adopted Bressey’s idea for a road and Underground railways around the City to control commercial traffic in the City for relieving congestion: It was the Abercrombie Plan’s influences and the underground railway is existed under the Barbican estate, even

Figure 18 Route 11(also called London Wall) in 1959

though only some ideas were realized.56 In order to encourage the construction of large modern office complexes in the City for replacing the great number of offices in small and cramped Victorian sites they proposed two ways.

One is to create large site for office development. To achieve this they suggest the compulsory purchase of blitzed areas termed ‘Declaratory area’. Actually around 25 percent of the City was bombed and the Barbican area which is placed between Areas 2 and North Route 11, amounting to 40 acres was also comprised. They also tried to encourage to developments in the Declaratory Areas by developers, but, in case, the Barbican estate finally was developed by the Corporation of the City, the local authority for practical reasons. The zoning of these Declaratory Areas dictated the function of 53

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p48

54

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p48

55

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p48

56

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p48 - 16 -

buildings erected to encourage office development rather than prevent the previous functions through industry or warehouse development. The Barbican site, however, was proposed that this area would refill its pre-war use as an area of minor manufacturing and warehousing for textiles, predominantly carpets, wool and furs.57 Another

proposal

was

employing

zoning regulation to control the nature, not the form, of buildings erected in the City. These zoning regulations would offer advantages to developers who suggested large buildings sited well back from roads provide they were no more than 8 to 10 storeys high depending on their proximity to major monuments in the City like St Pauls’ Cathedral.58 It means that Holden and Holford ensured that no Americanstyle skyscrapers would be built. The Barbican site that is back of the site almost at the boundary of the City eventually became the place for the very tall point-blocks. Since consultants had little interest for development of the Barbican site unlike the major area around St Paul’s, London Bridge and the

Figure 19 Drawing of the Barbican area from Kenneth Browne’s feature on the LCC controlled South Barbican in Architectural

Review, 1962

Tower. Therefore, in these areas every effort was made to preserve the traditional fabric of the City and to ensure that new developments were sympathetic to the great symbols of the nation. However, unlike the recent suggestions Lutyen’s, Holden and Holford proposed not an Imperial London, but a sort of softly Americanized technocratic London of elegant offices set around precincts built no higher than necessary to preserve view of the dome of St Paul’s.59 One problem was Holden and Holford scarcely considered who worked in the City to be part of the City proper.60 Because they thought that only a small number of senior executives’ cars and delivery vans for supply would be necessary and allowed and those cars should be parked in new parking spaces built under new office blocks: around 5,000 executives were counted as car users. 61 It means parking areas would not be enough and be a bit far from working places, and moreover they intentionally did not count that other workers would use their own cars not public transportation. This consideration extracted two different conclusions. One was to preserve ancient monuments that were deemed part of the national patrimony and to improve its condition: historical structures also included

57

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p51

58

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p48-51

59

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p48-51

60

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p51-2

61

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p52 - 17 -

partly demolished buildings. Since Holden and Holford should consider 500,000 workers that would arrive everyday for work by public transport. But, unfortunately, spaces such as restaurants, cafes and cantons for lunchtime were not enough for all. For solving this problem they suggested the novel idea that the areas within the preserved remains of recently bombed national patrimony could be turned into garden precincts such as the ruins of ancient monuments and mini-parks for City workers to have their lunch. The preservation of the City Wall in and around the Barbican as well as that of St Giles, the first blitzed church in the City, also had a determining effect of the form and atmosphere of later Barbican developments. Another Holden and Holford also suggested a small housing development for the utility workers to service the area at Bridgewater Square of the Barbican site. 62 Because they only considered that only necessary accommodations would be for small number of the utility workers, but not for executives or other workers. It was also a result of influences by the Abercrombie and Forshaw plan.

To sum up, although the Corporation’s perspective convinced the plans should contain housing proposals because the Labour Government rejected this proposal,63 Holden and Holford plan created a foundation for emerging subsequent developments of the Barbican and their proposals from preservation of national monuments to purchasing the Declaratory areas compulsory were reflected into the Barbican estate. However, their opinion in the early 1950s was not connected to a social need, supplying houses in the City, and led to divide people in the Corporation into two camps and delay the development of the Barbican area.

Early Proposals for the Barbican area ‘More Should Live in the City Says Dean of St Paul’s’

64

The Second World War not only aroused mass destructions but also shortage of resources from labour to material. Under the situation, the government at that time introduced ‘Building License’ which was issued according to judgments about the availability of labour, materials and national priority of the proposed development. Without a building license no building could be erected and it actually blocked a lot of reconstruction developments for housing and industry. However, during 1947, mass squats in houses in the West End of London and rallies led to express general dissatisfaction about the government’s failure to build new homes for those made homeless by the war. Unlike Holden and Holford’s perspective, the housing crisis was not only among the poorer population but also many in the middle and professional classes. Moreover, damaged transport infrastructure made

62

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p48

63

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p48

64

The City Press(Headline), 1953 - 18 -

worsen situation: for instance, trains were always late.65 The effect in the City as well as in London in general brought about a questioning of the reconstruction plans for London, and dissatisfaction in the City emerged with general complaints about the slow pace of reconstruction. By 1952, a challenge against the policy of no housing in the City was increased and it also led a result of the predominant housing crisis. The Corporation in 1953 begun to consider new local government legislation that would make the power of a local authority depending on the size of its resident electorate, and this consideration was rooted on the unique political system of Figure 20 New Barbican P lan, 1954

the City of London.66 Those aspects produced several results: One was the Corporation produced the development of a huge residential estate for 6,500 at the Barbican when LCC proposed commercial based plans, in spite of two camps divided in the Corporation. Because the City’s electorate under the previous reconstruction proposals by LCC and

Figure 21 London County Council plan, 1955

the Corporation would number 200 residents and a vast non-resident business vote, and it produced fear of collapse of political power of the authority to the Corporation, even distinct of the Corporation.67 Secondly, the Tories abolished the license system which removed one obstacle to reconstruction in 1953 although Building License was still meaningful: the same government at that time called a moratorium on development that would take

Figure 22 The City Corporation plan, 1955

more than 10 years to complete, which put paid to the grandiose infrastructural plan for the City of this latter policy the Lord Mayor ruefully remarked: ‘Not a single yard of new road in 20 years; you cannot get into London, you cannot get out of it.’ 68 Anyway, behind removing the regulation there were the protests against it. Especially John Batty, Chairman of the City Improvements and Town Planning committee, said; ‘At this time four to five

Figure 23 Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s later plan

thousand craftsmen are unemployed whereas there were

only two thousand five hundred a year ago, hence the Government cannot use the excuse of no 65

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p56-7

66

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p57

67

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p57

68

Reported in the City Press, 19 September 1953 - 19 -

labour being available.’69 His strong appeal to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was decisive, and it extracted the interest of developments in the City area.70 The last was a formation of ‘New Barbican Committee’ as an informal pressure group for encouraging Barbican developments.

After the abolition of the license system, two different reconstruction perspectives emerged within the Corporation: People like AH Mealand, the first City Planner in the Corporation, preferred commercial-based developments and their viewpoint were rooted on previous planners such as Holden, Holford, and Abercrombie’s view of a City of model office blocks. Unlike architects and planners in the Corporation, others such as Alderman Sir Harold Webbe MP, Deupty A Instone and Alderman EF Wilkins, who were politicians in the City and the government wanted residential accommodation in the City. These two different perspectives were also reflected their basic thoughts and positions: the later group took more care of political and practical aspects related to the City of London than the former group at the time.71 After the City Press’s campaign for new housing with a call for an inquiry in to why the population of the City was only 5,000 in order to support the latter viewpoint in 1953,72 four proposals by New Barbican Committee, London County Council, the City Corporation, and Chamberlin, Powell and Bon architects group were produced for the Barbican site.

To understand why each plan had a different perspective, four specific aspects from the end of 1940s till 1954 should be considered: First, housing issue became crucial although it in 40s had been minor. For this reason Aeurin Bevan refused a building license for the Bridgewater Square development of 275 dwellings on the Barbican site in 1948 by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that would favour a site closer to other housing development of the Borough of Finsbury which is in inner London near the City. Yet, during the early 1950s, some people like EF Wilkins and Deupty A Instone argued and campaigned to build housing in the City. 73 Moreover, Harold Macmillan, the Minister of Housing and Local Government wrote to the Lord Mayor of the City for housing development in 1952:

‘This is the greatest and most pressing of our social need today. House production must be increased as rapidly as the resources of material and labour will allow…In addition you will make the necessary plans for an expanding programme over the next 3 years.’

74

Especially the opinion of the Minister of Housing and Local Government was decisive because every plan should be confirmed by the Minster after the introduction of ‘1947 Planning Act Local Authorities’. Moreover Public Health Committee’s recommendation to the Court of Common

69

Ibid. Report of address to the Court of Common Council (CoCC), (The name for the meeting of the elected members and

relevant offices of the Corporation of London.)

70

Reported in the City Press, 24 October 1952

71

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p57

72

Reported in the City Press, April 1953.

73

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p59

74

Report in CoCC minutes, 8 October 1953.

- 20 -

Council (CoCC) in the late March 1952, allowed making it possible for anyone working in the City to be eligible for inclusion on the Housing Register. 75 For this reason, four early proposals contained both commercial and residential plans from 1954 to 1955.

Secondly, there were emotional and financial arguments for the development of the Barbican site. One reason was that the Barbican area for many people was symbolic of the destruction of the war and the place after the blitzed in 1941 was still undeveloped in spite of its huge size which made it as more emblematic. Another reason was that the Corporation had compulsorily purchased the site by 1948. According to the estimates of an accountant reported in the City Press, it was costing the City 250,000 pounds per year to leave the area undeveloped. In addition, the main reason for the interest in the Barbican site was its size, 40 acres and position on the quieter edge of the City, both factors that it suitable for large-scale redevelopment, relatively free from the constraints that existed in the southern part of the City.76 Thirdly, due to one political reason and ‘1947 Planning Act Local Authorities’ the Corporation’s decision-making structure was changed. Before 1948, Improvements and Town Planning Committee (IPTC) had responsibilities for the new planning area. However, in order to prevent this committee from becoming too powerful, Public Health Committee (PHC) took the IPTC’s role in April 1948. Until 1957 members of the IPTC were given responsibility for commercial parts of the Barbican outside when the PHC had accountability for residential parts of the inner Barbican site, it brought about confusion of direction of development of the Barbican area. Because ITPC supported people in the Corporation who preferred office development over housing while PHC support the housing development: at that time, EF Wilkins, who was radical modernist and believed providing houses in the City was important, was the chief of the PHC.77 In 1951, by support of EF Wilkins, the Corporation got a chance to realize the City housing development on the Northern border of the City at Golden Lane over a building license78 and Geoffry Powell won an architectural competition for the Golden Lane for 900 residents in 1952: After the competition Powell form a partnership with Peter Chamberlin and Christof Bon who were Powell’s fellow lecturers in Kingston School of Art. 79 Golden Lane development meant that the City of London Plan turned to an idea that residents of City should be relocate to the City area but not to adjacent the local authority housing in Finsbury and build a new inner-city suburb, and it became a seed for rising to the later Barbican project. 80 In spite of the precedent of Golden Lane the Corporation decided not to construct housing in the City for financial problem. Because some people in the Corporation thought building housings in the City would lost commercial revenue and the decentralist policies of the County of London plan for controlling

75

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p59

76

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p66

77

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p59

78

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p59

79

the Architect’s Journal January 1953 a profile of CP&B quotes them as entering the competition in late 1951

80

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p62 - 21 -

congestions in the City although Abercrombie plan actually created more congestions in the City.81 These happenings exactly showed impacts of IPTC and PHC toward the Corporation.

Finally, the 1947 Planning Act Local Authorities gave influences to four early plans: this act contained the requirement of devise three-dimensional comprehensive plans for areas of large scale redevelopment and the first Barbican plan was caused by this issue of comprehensive planning. 82 Different groups, which were New Barbican Committee, LCC and the Corporation, interpreted comprehensive planning, and the term was generally understood as a method of regulating the form and style of new building over a large area. The different translation of comprehensive planning presented different perspectives between planners and architectural professions. 83 The former, planners, saw it as a tool for enforcing a measure of regularity on sites where a number of planning applications. In this model the local authority would invent a plan for the general character of an area, which it would make available to developers who could then propose developments that fitted in with the overview. In case, LCC produced very detailed comprehensive plans which specified what was permitted in the architectural design of planning applications right down to even the level of window module sizes. On the other hand, the latter considered comprehensive planning in two entirely different ways. First, an injunction for proposing developments covered huge compulsorily purchased site. Second, it was as a design tool in the planning process. Especially this later view meant that in the early stages of planning a building the architects would submit a generalized three-dimensional plan of what was proposed, one where only massing and general appearance were shown, if this met with approval a more detailed design would follow. 84 1. New Barbican Committee’s plan The New Barbican Committee submitted their plan, ‘New Barbican Plan’ by Kedleigh, Horsburgh and Whitfield (KH&W) to the Corporation planning department in October 1954 when the LCC and the Corporation were working out their comprehensive plans for the Barbican site and their proposals is evaluated the most radical proposals at that time. 85 An architectural leader, Sir Gerald Barry formed the New Barbican Committee as a political pressure group to lead shaping the type of development that was to occur.86 The New Barbican Plan was based on their proposals for High Paddington two years earlier: this previous plan was for radical redevelopment of the Borough of Paddington, and the architects proposed to build a three-towered estate on top of Paddington Station for 8,000 people. 87 The

81

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p63

82

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p73-75

83

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p73

84

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p73-75

85

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p79

86

Jon Lang, Urban Design: a typology of procedures and products (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005), p165-166

87

Ibid, p481 - 22 -

proposals for High Paddington had architecturally various characteristics, and those features were reused for the New Barbican Plan. First, the architects introduced towers for supplying mass housing. In the High Paddington Plan, two out of three towers were terraces. Second KH&W suggested using the roof of train station and marshalling yard below for various amenities such as gardens, playgrounds, shops and etc for dwellers and citizens. Because of two features a ground level of the estate was separated from street vertically. A key idea behind the plan was the construction of the complex could be carried out using marshalling yard below so that local residents need not be displace from their homes until was complete and this consideration was strongly related to the post-war context in Britain. In addition it could be considered an attempt to combine the ideas from between the Chicago school which perfected the economy and technique of high Figure 24 High Paddington Plan by KH&W

buildings and Le Corbusier’s European philosophy of architecture which pointed the way to the multiple use of land through the symbolism of the Piloti.88 The programme specified that a single scheme should be built. It was for providing accommodation,

reducing

traffic

congestion,

preserving the few historical building that remained Figure 25 New Barbican Plan by KH&W

on the site, and having generous open space and gardens without overshadowing. The main goal was for creating a ‘city monument’ 89 through multi-use mega-structure by the radical modern architecture.90 The plan proposed excavating the entire Barbican site, 40 acres approximately, to a depth of 60 feet except around St Giles for the railway. The resulting space would be re-filled with warehouses and parking for 3,000 cars91 for the commercial zoning of the site

Figure 26 Drawing about an excavation of the Barbican site for warehouses and shops by KH&W

and be serviced by a road which passing through tunnels in the railway embankment and the bluff of St

Giles. Like the roof of the High Paddington by KHW this great hole would be covered and on top would stand a 40-50 foot podium of offices and commercial spaces surrounding a seven-acre park at 88

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p79

89

“New Barbican”, The Architects’ Journal 120 (1954), p456–66.

90

Jon Lang, Urban Design: a typology of procedures and products (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005), p167

91

Jon Lang, Urban Design: a typology of procedures and products (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005), p165-166 - 23 -

ground level in the centre. 92 And several ideas in the New Barbican Plan can be found in the Barbican estate by CP&B: towers and terraces, using piloti and separation between piloti and streets, various amenities and generous open space and gardens for both tenants and the citizens and reservations of the historical buildings, London Wall and St Giles are evidences. One interesting point was that Kedleigh, Horsburgh and Whitfield were asked to develop as much of the site as possible and to provide some contents to redevelop the site for office and commercial area under the City reconstruction plan. And those required contents were:93 - Adequtate parking facilities - Respect for the historical association, traditions and monuments of the City - To achieve a form of development that would pay its own way - Gardens and open spaces - A sense of community - Building in a form worthy of the finest City monuments in Contemporary material and in the service of contemporary necessities without undue overshadowing within and around the site And these requirements had similarity to the later requirement to CP&B. It means that those similar requirements guided the certain direction for redevelopment of the Barbican site and the New Barbican Plan became the example for the later design for the Barbican estate.94 Another importance aspect was that a reaction of KH&W who submitted their plan to Duncan Sandys, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, after rejection by the Corporation led new direction for redevelopment of the Barbican area as generous residential area in the City.95 Because of 1947 Housing Act, the Minister’s opinion was essential for approving any development by local authorities.

2. LCC and the Corporation’s plan in 1955 Although the Corporation, now Corporation of London, was originally the sponsor of the project because it had acquired freehold possession of 50% of the site by 1954 and had taken steps to acquire an additional 25%, the London County Council (LCC) also promoted the project. 96 After rejection of LCC’s 1954 comprehensive plans by the Corporation for too restrictive for encouraging developers to make proposal for the site, LCC produced Martin/Mealand Plan in 1955. The proposal consisted of a lower-density residential development with office building set in parkland, several

92

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p80-83

93

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p80

94

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p80

95

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p83

96

Jon Lang, Urban Design: a typology of procedures and products (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005), p165 - 24 -

blocks of building for general commerce and two main office towers.97 The flats were suggested as maisonettes over arcades of shops, a very standard at that time. The towers stood on Route 11 and faced away from the road and were surrounded by space, and the introduction of podium for pedestrian in the site presented separation to between motorway and walkway.98 On the other hand Planning Division of the Corporation suggested new plan whose density of development was between the two earlier proposals. It was predominantly a commercial development with residential buildings and two point towers. Unlike the earlier plans it had defined streets.99 Also the Corporation suggested medium-rise terraced blocks and more landscaping details that showed blocks of flats with gardens in front, and medium-rise point-blocks like Alton estate by LCC. Comparing to the earlier plans the Corporation only provided two point-towers to the rear of the site because of Holford’s dislike of towers. This latter plan adds two additional towers ranged along Route 11.100

Figure 27 Map of Barbican site from ‘Barbican Development 1959’ From the map, it could be recognized only some building survived from the Blitz and railway went through the entire Barbican site. And South Barbican side Route 11 was extracted from the residential development of the Barbican area in 1959.

97

Jon Lang, Urban Design: a typology of procedures and products (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005), p165

98

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p76-79

99

Jon Lang, Urban Design: a typology of procedures and products (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005), p165

100

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p76-79 - 25 -

The important aspect is both the LCC and the Corporation proposals represented their respective policies towards the Barbican site through the comprehensive plan: they included some housing provision on a 15-acre site around St Giles church. In both plans the housing was placed in the part of the site that attracted least commercial interest buy which had most visual potential and both plans seemed to envisage of sort of modern village around a church. As for the rest of the site, in both plans it was provided to shops and offices laid out along the old street pattern and imbued with the general blandness of town like Croydon and Stevenage. 101 It means those two proposals provided more specific guideline which functions would be located and how to deal with rather than the New Barbican Plan that presented architectural suggestions for the Barbican area. And also medium-rise terrace housing blocks were also re-employed to the latter plan by CP&B. 3. Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s plans in 1955 When LCC and the Corporation produced the redevelopment plan for the Barbican site based on commercial use although the type of accommodation which was similar to conventional local authority housing at that time offered, Wilkin’s point of view was, firstly, that there should be a more thoroughgoing attempt to look at developing housing in the City and, secondly, this should be based on units that would attract rents high enough to cover the commercial value of site in this part of the City. In this effect, Public Health Committee (PHC) considered housing-based development for permit, it meant that PHC felt that residential developments in the City should be for the well-off person reasonably rather than subsidized housing for traditional local authorities, and any residential redevelopment should be large enough to provide the City with a genuine electorate. 102 The well-off population in the City was not only related to financial aspect for the redevelopment of the Barbican site but also connected to residential electorate of the City. For the reason, Wilkins and the Improvements and Town Planning Committee had persuaded the Corporation to commission a report on the viability of residential development in the City from Chamberlin, Powell and Bon, who also were designing for Golden Lane estate in the City, in the autumn of 1954.

CP&B’s report was presented in June, 1955, and incorporated development its own plan for redevelopment of the Barbican site. 103 Chamberlin, Powell and Bon suggested that four-storey buildings were organized in a checkerboard pattern around a series of alternating public and private courts in order to be economically viable: a requirement of density for the Barbican estate was 300 persons per acre to house about 7,000 people 104 and CH&P suggest a high population density scheme (750 persons per hectare). 105 In the report, there were three characteristics. First, CP&B suggest that a development could be undertaken if the Corporation acted as developer and landlord

101

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p76

102

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p84

103

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p83

104

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p87

105

Jon Lang, Urban Design: a typology of procedures and products (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005), p166 - 26 -

as they were in a position to wait longer for a return: they pointed out any private developer would not take the Barbican area for development with short-term retune

when

the

site

would

be

developed as not commercial blocks but residential blocks. This advice created a unique feature of the later Barbican as a council estate for the well-off.106 Second, in the conclusion to

Figure 28 CP&B’s plan for the Barbican site

the 1955 study, CP&B also suggested extending the Barbican beyond its 25 acres to include a site to the north till Golden Lane.107 The reason behind the proposal was that CP&B considered extended area between the original Barbican site and the Golden Lane can be created buffer estate that would be, ‘intermediate between subsided Golden Land and the good-class flats proposed for the main Barbican area.’ 108 In the end, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government picked up this suggestion, and their proposal contributed to the later revision of the Barbican estate.

Figure 29 Drawing for housing typologies by CP&B

Third, Chamberlin, Powell and Bon introduce an idea of a ‘good class’ development in an ‘undesirable area109 in order to establish the viability of, ‘providing living accommodation for a large number of people, who could be expected to pay an economic rent’110, and then they suggested the fundamental guiding principle in their design which is based on simple contrasts like historicist plan / modern building and public formality / private informality in their design. Actually, the principle was originated from their architectural case-study about Dolphin Square which is a private estate for 3,000 people built on the Victoria Embankment in the 1930s. Because Dolphin Square which isolated from its surrounding and had its facilities such as parking and squash courts was evaluated successful and

106

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p84-87

107

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p88

108

Chamberlin, Powell and Bon Report on Proposed City Housing, p21

109

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p87

110

Introduction, Barbican Redevelopment, 1959, p2 - 27 -

the Inns of Court and the Albany on Piccadilly gave an effect to architects, CP&B also employed those features into their 1955 plan:111

‘On foot, these flats would be approached under arcaded ways opening onto small enclosed courtyards, as is the way in Albany or some of the chambers of the Inns of Courts.’

112

Why Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s proposal had a different direction in contrast to other early plans although their plan stood on the LCC’s plan and CP&B partly employed some ideas from both LCC’s plan and New Barbican Plan was that their plan was for residential development rather than commercial: for instance, CP&B picked up on the New Barbican concept they proposed car parking for 2,000 vehicles with 1,500 of these being allocated to the tenants in anticipation of an increase in car ownership and in subsequent designs this was Figure 30 Wren's Temple Bar now lives in Paternoster

increased to one car space for each dwelling.

Square, appropriately near St Pauls

Related to huge parking areas, they also suggest new technologies such as district heating and a Garchey waste-disposal system for modernizing lifestyle. And they followed the basic layout of placing the east-west orientated point-blocks along Route 11 for reducing the density of housing at the centre of the

design

and

creating

the

sense

that

the

development was walled city surrounded by towers.

The architects, however, did not chose aerial pedways based on the LCC scheme that it can be seen in the later Barbican plan but proposed that the Figure 31 Albany on Piccadilly

entire estate was pedestrianised: 113 the fact that

Powell and Bon regret that the idea of direct connection between the podium level and the street was not fully realized114 shows that the pre-context, guideline of the early plans from the LCC and the Corporation, continuously gave influences to Chamberlin, Powell and Bon to revise their plan: this idea was realized in Golden Lane. Another feature of courtyard type housings with scattered openspace was to isolation from the outside for achieving sense of community and creating tranquil 111

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p87-92

112

Confidential report to the Town Clerk on proposed City housing by Chamberlin, Powell, and Bon, June 1956.

113

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p84-95

114

Kenneth Powell, “Pioneering Urbanism”, The Architects’ Journal, (4 March, 1999), p24-25 - 28 -

residential districts in the City. Around the central piazza of St Giles were laid out three large blocks of housing subdivided into courts, with their own gardens traversed by covered walkways. 115 This idea also was not realized in the end because CP&B’s proposal was rejected by the LCC because of its high densities and despite the amount of open space, the lack of large ones. 116 However, the goal behind the idea was reflected into the later Barbican plan.

Both above-mentioned features were strongly related to methods for creating exterior environment of the Barbican estate. Since the central concept was for a large discrete development supported by suitable facilities built by the Corporation for well-off tenants in the City, CH&P considered how to appeal to wealth tenants: for wealthy tenants, they suggested ‘the prestige of the City’ and ‘a definite formality in the layout’ of the grounds and exterior space in the site and ‘some characteristics which are outstanding or unique’ and ‘informality’ for interior space including flats. For the reason, public areas and its exteriors present formality based on familiar symbols of plutocratic urbanism, restraint, regularity, vistas and piazzas when private space shows informality. 117 It means the pedestrianized estate and patterned blocks with small courtyards were for ‘a definite formality in the layout’ and their recommendation of re-erection of Wren’s Temple Bar in the Barbican site was to achieve ‘the prestige of the City’. It recalls the kind of monumental planning contained in the BresseyLutyens 1942 plans for the City. It was to create an up-market quarter with luxury flats and community facilities in a patrician landscaped environment to appeal the well-off rather than other ordinary estates at that time. Especially the second idea developed the idea of conservation of historical structures such as St Giles and London Walls and the mix of novelty and environmental historicism through formality and regularity is typical of the architect’s approach to later Barbican plans.118 On the other hand, the housing proposals were very modern. The design of the flat blocks used the idea of contrast, in the case between a blank façade to public space and a very informal and open inward face. The inner face would be a lush gardened area of wide balconies looking onto a garden, and the flats were designed to offer one large, open-plan living space extending to a balcony garden, which was really a kind of green end to the living space separated by a movable picture window. This open-plan area, with a kitchen at one end and balcony at the other, meant that other rooms like the bathroom and bedrooms became abbreviated ‘functional’ spaces and this too became the basic leitmotif for flat designs in CP&B’s later proposals.119 One interesting point was CP&B recommended importance of the ‘mental leisure as well as physical leisure for the tenants. So, they, at first, proposed building a cinema and moving the Guildhall School of Music and Drama (GSMD) into the Barbican with offering a theatre and a concert hall by using a cinema. And this recommendation became the foundation of the Barbican Art Centre. 120

115

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p84-95

116

Jon Lang, Urban Design: a typology of procedures and products (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005), p166

117

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p84-95

118

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p84-95

119

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p84-95

120

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p87 - 29 -

Revised plans after 1955 After rejection of CP&B’s 1955 plan, the firm remarkably revised the proposal for the approval of both LCC and the Corporation. Till the official approval of the revised Chamberlin, Powell, and Bon scheme in November 1959 by the City Corporation there were several important interventions during the process of modification of their plan and the project became the Barbican complex which contained a multi-level circulation system, tower, blocks, a theatre, restaurants, internal lawns and water gardens.

1. Influences of Duncan Sandys Duncan Sandys, the Minister of Housing and Local Government from 18th October 1954 to 13th January 1957, rejected the New Barbican scheme by KH&W in 1956 and Duncan Sandys sent his letter to the Lord Mayor with the reason of the rejection of the New Barbican proposals and his proposal:

‘My main difficulty in accepting this scheme is that it contemplates the construction of vast factory, office and other commercial premises, which would greatly add to the already excessive volume of employment Figure 32 London scene, 1959. The decentralizing plans of the LCC by 1953 created heavy congested streets in London and it emerged one major problematic issue.

in that area. Despite the welcome provision of some residential accommodation on a limited scale, there is, I am afraid, no doubt that, on balance, this plan would

appreciably increase the congestion in central London … Congestion is London’s most serious and intractable planning problem, and we cannot afford to do anything which would make it still worse. For this reason I have, not without regret, come to the conclusion that I must dismiss the (New Barbican) Committees’ appeal … In this connection, I am interested to learn that the City Corporation have themselves been considering how this same area might be rebuilt, and are thinking of including in it a certain amount of residential accommodation. I welcome this approach; for I cannot believe that it is good for the City to be choked by day and deserted by night. A better balance between commercial and residential use would, I am sure, benefit everybody in the long run … I am convinced that there would be advantages in creating in the City a genuine residential neighborhood, incorporating schools, shops, open spaces and other amenities, even if this means forgoing a more remunerative return on the land. Apart from providing dwellings for office workers, this would help bring back some life to the City outside business hours.’

121

121

Letter from Duncan Sandys, Minister of Housing and Local Government to Lord Mayor of London, 28 August 1956, Quoted

in CoCC Minutes, 20 September 1956, p275 - 30 -

In connection with ‘1947 Housing Act’, the Minister opinion was definite to approve the development, and Sandys’ opinion related to the development in the City seems to be dismissive of any plan that was based on commercial development with included residential accommodation 3 on a limited scale like the early plans by New Barbican Committee, LCC and the Corporation, but only CP&B’s plan included more housing and all the element listed by the Minister in his final paragraph although the plan had negative aspects; its use of high-density housing and commercial premised to make the plan pay its way. Duncan Sandys, as above-mentioned, considered the formation of a ‘genuine residential neighbourhood’ over income in his phrase, ‘even if this means forgoing a more remunerative return on the land’ as one of methods which could solve confronted problems, lacks of living place in the City and heavy congestion in London, so that the Minister’s intervention finally led that CP&B commissioned to revise their first plan. It meant the direction of the Barbican project turned into residential from commercial development.122 However, by 1956 the Barbican site had become divided into commercial and noncommercial areas. The non-commercial site became the area covered by the CP&B plans included a new extended area which was mentioned in CP&B’s 1955 report, north of the initial 25-acre site and extending up the Golden Lane estate when Martin / Mealand plan by LCC and Planning Committee in the Corporation took the commercial area around Route 11. 123 And the division of the area and the management caused frequent friction among facilities till 1956 and made a delay for revising the plan.124 2. CP&B’s 1956 plan and the later revision before 1959 After the decision of revision of CP&B’s 1955 plan,

some

members’

opinion

in

the

Corporation about adding new elements for approval the development caused that the early plan led to be fundamentally changed.

New elements meant two schools, one is the City of London School for Girl and another is the City of London School (for boy). Extra Figure 33 Prospect of eastern section of the CP&B, 1956

addition with high density housing proposal by

space.125

To solve high density problem and add two more school

CP&B in 1955 made a lack of open

the architects pointed out the need to satisfy three different requirements, which are the provision of high density housing, schools, and generous open space, at once. 126

122

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p95-96

123

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p95-96

124

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p115-119

125

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p97

126

Introduction, CP&B Barbican Redevelopment (1959), p 7 - 31 -

First, the flats were concentrated in compact blocks, three of which were thirty storeys high while most of the others were planned in long terrace blocks about eight storeys about ground level. For connection among various buildings, CP&B broke their podium directly connected to ground level and introduced two-storey podia with garage.

127

In

addition, changed building forms and its location led the design specification of the two Barbican areas differed greatly. In the south estate every effort was made up design for affluent taste while in the north Figure 34 map of the boundary for the Barbican

estate near Golden Lane the guidelines of standard

development in 1956

council housing dominated. Because north of the tower blocks lay the estate of subsided housing proposed to link the Barbican with Golden Lane for creating buffered estate between the well-off tenants in the south Barbican and normal subsided tenants in Golden Lane. Therefore this area of terraces and one slab point-block was consisted to smaller and lower elements those on the south estate. Flats on the southern estate the architects improved their earlier notion of large open plan living spaces with deep balconies through many ‘en-suite’ rooms that could

Figure 35 CP&B’s 1956 proposal

be separated by sliding partitions or partial walls. And they introduced maisonette in flats because of influences of Le Corbusier’s Unite d’Habitation. The most majority were to be one-, two-, or three room flats or put differently, one- and two-bedroom flat; 968 one-bed and 1,004 two-bed out of 2,002 flats.

Why architects suggested around 83 percent of the flats were one- and two-bed flats was that they guessed majority of tenants on the estate to be young people, and only a very few have families.

Therefore,

two-and

three-bed

flats

were

all

maisonettes that would allow space for the dramatic Figure 36 Underground plan, CP&B’s 1956 proposal

internal architecture for ‘good class’ and 83 percent flats for single and young couples were reflected in

127

Introduction, CP&B Barbican Redevelopment (1959), p 7 - 32 -

the very adult leisure feature of the flats with the lack of district room, the stage-like kitchens and the open double height spaces.128 Secondly, shops in the 1955 plan was dropped for three reasons; Martin / Mealand commercial development scheme, negative advise of business feasibility about shops in the site by consultant estate agents Goddard and Smith, and the opinion of Duncan Sandys. The minister, in his letter, commented ‘the quiet and sense of seclusion which should be characteristic of residential neighbourhood,’129 and the architects felt that shops would be alien to spoil tranquil environment of the Barbican estate.130

I guess the decision of removing shops was very helpful to solve high density

problem and lack of large open space. Instead of dropped the shops the architects insert facilities for physical recreation with previous suggestion of theatre.131 However, swimming bath and gymnasia were not realized in the end.

Figure 37 Plans and elevations of the Barbican towers from

Figure 38 Terrace flat plans and perspective drawing from the

the 1956 CP&B Barbican Development document

1956 CP&B Barbican Development document

Third, a definition of open space in the Barbican was changed: in the 1955 plan the nonresidential areas were planned as civic spaces, but those spaces converted into enormous private reserve for the residents with the accent on peace and seclusion and then it led the removal of civic symbols such as the grand entrance and Temple Bar. It was also the influence of the minister’s opinion, and their summery of principle, ‘a pedestrian oasis within the residential area’, showed the private-enclave spirit of the Barbican rather than the civility of CP&B’s first proposal. The architects provided two large open squares linked to the north by a spa-town crescent facing a collegiate quad housing the schools, theatre and concert hall instead of the shopping arcade and piazza.132

128

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p100-105

129

Letter from Duncan Sandys, Minister of Housing and Local Government to Lord Mayor of London, 28 August 1956, Quoted

in CoCC Minutes, 20 September 1956, p275 130

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p99

131

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p109

132

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p99 - 33 -

Fourth, the 1956 proposals contained detail description and illustrations to meet more required detail and these details gave the architects to emphasis the design of affluence and to imaginatively

describe

it.

For

instance

their

description of the ‘treatment of open space’ has, in places, the quality of a real-estate brochure, ‘The open between the buildings contains many different elements some having a useful purpose while others are only included for delight … Near the east Figure 39 Model of Stockholm town centre reconstruction

end of the shallow ornamental water, at the top of the cascades, is a fountain placed on the axis of the conservatory:133 the latter is surrounded by a basin at the bottom of the cascades. Aquatic plants would be encouraged to grow in this basin to echo the luxuriant growth of the of tropical plants within the conservatory … The several terraces, paths and elevated walkways connected by stairs and ramps are arranged in a consciously complex way in order to provide a number of devious routes throughout the site along which people may walk without

Figure 40 Illustrations of South Barbican by Kenneth

feeling that they are treading the same path too

Browne in The Architectural Review, may 1960

often: this deliberate intention of the design is epitomized in the evergreen labyrinth.’134 Lastly, from 1957 to 1959, there were two committees controlled the Barbican development.

The Barbican Committee by EF Wilkins, the chairman covered the South Barbican site of 25 acres, while the ITPC controlled development in the northern 10-acre site. In the end CP&B and the Barbican Committee covered the entire Barbican area,

but

ITPC’s

struggle

for

commercial

development and noncooperation to CP&B led that Figure 41

Illustrations of South Barbican by Kenneth

Browne in The Architectural Review, may 1960

the Barbican project was delayed because of frequent friction between the Barbican Committee and Improvements and Town Planning Committee

133

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p100

134

Ibid, p 10.

- 34 -

(ITPC) after the second plan by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon. During this period, however, there were several important aspects can be found: first, through continuous battles between two committees, it could be possible that one committee, the Barbican Committee, took the whole responsibility for the Barbican development. It means fixing the certain direction for the development. Second the Barbican Committee and CP&B earned more time to carefully consider their plan. Actually many other additions such as a lending library for the City of London and hotel for businesspeople could be reflected into the later Barbican development: those programmes were not enough at that time. And emerging voices of re-consideration to preserve London’s Victorian heritage also gave influences to the later plan. Finally, the tour of new European architecture undertaken by Wilkins and the Barbican Committee with Peter Chamberlin acting as cicerone in October 1958 in order to educate the committee and junior staffs about the best examples in Germany, Sweden and Italy gave a great impact to members of the committee, architects and their staff, and even the later revision. The Hansa district, the site of the 1957 Interbau exhibition which included Le Corbusier’s Berlin Unite d’Habitation became examples and Hans Scharoun’s Berlin Philharmonie Hall, new shopping centre with its podium in Stockholm, and some tower block in Milan and the theatre in Verona which they visited helped the architects to realize their projects in detail.135 Especially the design of the art centre was improved and more materialized.

3. CP&B’s 1959 plan and the later revision

Figure 42 Model of the 1959 Barbican design

Figure 43

Photo about the construction of the arts

centre in 1970s

‘If someone had prophesied a few years ago that the City Corporation (of all people) would be promoting in 1959 Britain’s most imaginative scheme for big-scale central area redevelopment, they would have been sent away to have their head examined.’

136

When the architect revised their 1956 plan for the 1959 plan CP&B confronted three principle

135

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p115-120

136

Graeme Shankland, ‘Barbican and Elephant’, Architectural Design (October 1959), p416.

- 35 -

problems: there were density of accommodation, the creation of enough space to meet the requirement of the outline planning approval and the layout of the central area to include the schools, arts centre and Redcross Street Bridge. Chamberlin, Powell and Bon proposed their more realistic plan in detail although it was less an advert than the earlier plans.137 In order to solve the first problem, the Figure 44 Plan of terrace block, 1959 Barbican plan

architects should control density problem: The LCC outline planning approval conditions concerning the population density and space provision for the residents and the school meant that out of the 25 acres of the main Barbican site only 14 were available for buildings. First, they suggested simpler gardens divide into a lawn and a large lake by reducing

formal

garden

around

pyramidal

greenhouse and removed physical leisure facilities and the boy’s school to make more space. Second, CP&B reduced the population density from 300 to 230 persons per acre to make five acres, increased Figure 45 Axonometric diagram of flat in Willoughby

the height of the towers from 30 to 37 storeys, and

House after 1959

decreased the size of flats. Third, they suggested

employing spaces vertically. For instance, the girl’s school passes under one of the residential terraces. At that time, the provision about a lending library was changed to enlarge, so the arts centre in the end went down. It was also related to residents: when it would build on a ground, it would create the disturbance to residents.138 In connection with density problem, the architects should reduce density of housing and increase living space at once. In the 1956, the consulting estate agent, Goddard and Smith recommend to CP&B to introduce one-and two-bed flats for young singles and couples because the demanded houses for those people were not enough at that time. However, in the 1958, the consultants changed their position and re-recommended that that the South Barbican estate be designated for families. As a result the size of flats across the estate became much more varied, ranging from bed-sits to four bedroom flats in the towers and moreover, 14 five-bedroom houses were created. For the reason, South Barbican was planned for more families and the well-off, but the northern Barbican, which is more far from St Paul, contained the smallest flats for poorer young people. And towers were made up of two three-bedroom and one four-bedroom flat per floor over 37

137

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p131

138

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p131-133 - 36 -

Figure 46 Section of North Barbican, 1959 Barbican plan

Figure 47 Section of East, revised 1959 Barbican Plan

storeys and became more luxury as much as penthouses. Penthouse’s rooftop promenade was disappeared and this idea was turned into individual patios. These different types of dwellings signified luxury in different ways, but a key concept of the architects’ vision of gracious living was the dramatization of space, the transformation of the space into a performance area or the spaces that fostered social interaction and made people look good. One big difference was dwelling types became more conventionalized and internalized than before. Spaces were divided by walls and screens were less used, but they followed Le Corbusier’s view that each space should be divided by function, like division between bedroom and dress-room.139 It means the Barbican contained normal flats like other council housing at that time and luxury housings for the well-off. And it was very unique in British context.

139

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p133-136 - 37 -

Figure 48 Sketches by Dr Richard Southern showing the different performance types

The Arts Centre in the 1956 proposal was a concept related to the theatre and concert hall as a part of the school complex (GSMD). In the 1959 proposal, the arts centre separated the school complex and was placed opposite site of the girls’ school. A lake separated each program. Why the arts centre became an independent program was three reasons: one was density problem caused by enlarging the lending library, second was for financial support from the Corporation, and the last was a shortage of performance venue in London at that time. Even Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) was looking for theatre and concert hall. For those reasons, the architects suggested that this small school facility would be attractive to entire professional theatre companies and orchestras: 140

‘The schedule of accommodation includes, as well as the many teaching rooms, a small theatre and concert hall both of which are to be designed to house public performances by professional theatrical companies and orchestras as well as serve the needs of the school.’

141

And through Dr Southern’s recommendation about the size of a theatre and concert hall and the way how to use the space flexible for any kinds of performance and reference of Theatro San Erasmo in Milan and Berlin Philharmonie Hall by Hans Scharoun the architects developed the typology of multi-use performance hall with appropriate seats: recommendation for enough seats was over 780.142 In late 1959, the Corporation Court of Common Council officially accepted the Barbican Redevelopment Proposal and the construction work began in 1960. Although there were a lot of considerations about Building Finished and Construction in the 1959 proposal, the architects rethought many of their designs. In November 1959, the structural engineer Ove Arup proposed structure of the terraces at the Barbican, because Arup pointed out concrete slab floors was narrowed related to its span, and then suggested two solutions: one was that the beam could form the balcony parapet for the flats to keep thickness of the concrete slab floors and another was not using prestressed concrete section made off-site, but pouring concrete moulded in site: it was also possible

140

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p151-152

141

Barbican Redevelopment Proposals, 1959, p 33.

142

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p151-152 - 38 -

to reduce costs. After the recommendation, the architects decided to use concrete as the facing material and it was a result of advances in concrete technology related to the joints to achieve

fine

tolerances

against

weather.

Furthermore, these joints could be hidden by pick-hammering the surface of the concrete to create a rusticated effect. The effect of choice to use in situ moulded, rough-finished concrete was to make the whole development more unified, heavy and monolithic, whereas the earlier idea would have created a bright, Figure 49 Auditorium of the Berlin Philharmonic Hall by Hans Scharoun, 1956

smooth, refractive effect. For maintenance, the new concrete finish is evaluated better choice than marble cladding. And the façade of the tower and its height were also changed. They were increased in height to 43 and 44 storeys and became highest residential floors in Europe at that time. The lattice facades of towers were disappeared and the appearance of tower had the new heavy architectural language.143 The flat roof of penthouse was

Figure 50 Section through Barbican theatre and surrounding structures from Barbican 1971(CACA)

replaced by pairs of barrel vaults. It was influence of Le Corbusier’s late works such as

Notre Dame De Haut Ronchamp and Maisons Jaoul. While the exterior of the reduced became more solid the interiors were made less open and their plan reduced to very practical and conventional flats: the locus of luxury move back to the terraces. Moreover, the number of larger accommodations was increased. In the final design of the accommodation there were 428 five-to seven-room housing indicating that the built Barbican would be more up-market than the proposals with various sizes of flats.144 However, the final proposal for the arts centre was submitted in 1968 and finally accepted in 1971 only two years before the completion of the residential areas of the estate and the entire construction was completed in the early 1980s. It was connected to tenants’ power. If the arts centre was placed side of lake based on the 1959 proposal it would be possible to disturb tranquil environment for living. Therefore the arts centre, in the end, was relocated under the Crescent at

143

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p153-160

144

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p160 - 39 -

northern Barbican and became less recognizable.145 Even the internal street to connect to the arts centre made more difficult to find the way, the inner street finally was installed marks to find where people stand and would want to go.146

Figure 51 Shakespeare Tower, one of the three residential point-

Figure 52 View toward Great Arthur Tower from Seddon

towers

House and Bunyan Court

Conclusion The Barbican estate is beloved and enrolled as the national heritage but also becomes the object for blame at the same time. Through the history of the development of the Barbican estate it can be traced which aspects originate this white and black opinion and what kinds of thing we should learn for the future. For instance, why the Barbican estate is kind of mixture between conservative and modern architecture we can be found educational system and historical context at that time: at Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s generation people in UK normally learn modernistic approach and traditional ways of architecture. And modern architecture and urbanism at the time were considered as one of methods for overcoming piled problematic situation. Although it was not clear how these three architects gave influences, one thing their different background also gave mass influence to the Barbican project.

I also partly agree that the Barbican estate is unique and unusual in contrast to other council housing at that time. Someone might argue that it is not comparable to other council housings like Rayner Banham’s critic: ‘The Barbican, to put it bluntly, is Britain’s largest voluntary ghetto – but not for the reason of high rents alone. It matches in its style and planning, architecture and amenities,

145

David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004), p160-197

146

Frank Landa, ‘From labyrinth to legibility’, The Architects’ Journal (20 November 1997), p78-79 - 40 -

what is now the prime educated middle-class dream of a good life in the city, established as a Standard Modern Future by Le Corbusier in the twenties, and indoctrinated into most of us ever since.

Hitherto, through the ironies of the financial and administrative structure of Britain, it has been available only to the working classes – who generally haven’t cared for it much. At the Barbican, for the first time, the progressive establishment are having to swallow what they have previously stuffed down the throats of the laboring poor.’147 However, most of critics fail to notice the historical context related to the Barbican area, pragmatic aspects and even a lot of failure of social housing in UK after 1960s. I think the most value from the Barbican estate is consideration of pragmatic aspects (management, financial problem, architectural suggestion and so on) for mass development, careful discursions for leading right decisions for the development and meaning of life in the city in these days should re-consider through the Barbican estate.

147

Revner Banham, ‘A Walled city’, New Society ( 24 October 1974), p 222 - 41 -

Bibliography

Book & Report 1. David Heathcote, Barbican: Penthouse over the City (Great Britain: Wiley, 2004) 2. Norbert Schoenauer, 6,000 years of housing (New York, the United States of America: Norton, 2000), p290, 303, 306 3. Aslet, Clive, and Alan Powers, The National Trust Book of the English House (Harmondsworth: Viking in association with the National Trust, 1985), p98 3. Barbican, Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume 1 (London: English Heritage & Corporation of London, August 2005), p18 4. Lan Colquhoun, RIBA Book of British Housing (London: RIBA 2008) p6-7 5. London Replanned, Country Life (London: Royal Academy Planning Committee, 1942) 6. Graham Towers, Shelter is not Enough (the United Kingdom: the Policy Press, 2000), p19 7. London Replanned, Country Life (London: Royal Academy Planning Committee, 1942) 8. The Highway Development Survey, (London: 1937) 9. Barbican Redevelopment Proposals, 1959, p 33.

10. Letter from Duncan Sandys, Minister of Housing and Local Government to Lord Mayor of London, 28 August 1956, Quoted in CoCC Minutes, 20 September 1956, p275 11. J. H. Forshaw and Patrick Abercrombie, County of London Plan (Macmillan & Co. 1943) 12. Introduction, CP&B Barbican Redevelopment (1959), p 2, 7 13. Jon Lang, Urban Design: a typology of procedures and products (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005), p165, 166 14. Confidential report to the Town Clerk on proposed City housing by Chamberlin, Powell, and Bon, June 1956.

15. Chamberlin, Powell and Bon Report on Proposed City Housing, p21 16. E.J. Carter and Erno Goldfinger, The County of London Plan Explained (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1945), p31 17. Ibid. Report of address to the Court of Common Council (CoCC), (The name for the meeting of the elected members and relevant offices of the Corporation of London.)

18. Ibid, p10, 481 19. Reported in the City Press, 24 October 1952 20. Reported in the City Press, April 1953.

21. Report in CoCC minutes, 8 October 1953.

22. Reported in the City Press, 19 September 1953

Journal Article 1. Robert Melville, “Giles”, The Architectural Review (March 1957), p177-182 2. Parliamentary papers 1816, vol IV 3. Michelle L. Bell, Devra L. Davis, and Tony Fletcher, “A Retrospective Assessment of Mortality from the London Smog Episode of 1952: The Role of Influenza and Pollution”, Environmental Health Perspectives volume 112 (January 2004), p6-8 4. Borer, M.I.C,.The City of London - a history (New York: D.McKay Co, 1978), p112 5. Barbican, Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume 1, August 2005, English Heritage & Corporation of London, p18 6. Frank Landa, ‘From labyrinth to legibility’, The Architects’ Journal (20 November 1997), p78-79 7. Revner Banham, ‘A Walled city’, New Society ( 24 October 1974), p 222

- 42 -

8. Graeme Shankland, ‘Barbican and Elephant’, Architectural Design (October 1959), p416.

9. Kenneth Powell, “Pioneering Urbanism”, The Architects’ Journal, (4 March, 1999), p24-25 10. “New Barbican”, The Architects’ Journal 120 (1954), p456–66.

11. the Architect’s Journal January 1953 a profile of CP&B quotes them as entering the competition in late 1951

Electronic Sources 1. “London through time: Population Statistics – Total Population”, Avision of Britain through time, 19 November 2009, http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/data_cube_page.jsp?data_theme=T_POP&data_cube=N_TOT_POP&u_id=10097836&c_id=10 001043&add=N (accessed 01 April 2011) 2. “The Corporation of London, Its Rights and Privileges”, Wattpad, http://www.wattpad.com/9747-the-corporation-of-london-itsrights-and?p=1 (accessed 01 April 2011) 3. “Rise of the City of London”, Barbican living, http://www.barbicanliving.co.uk/h7b.html (accessed 01 April 2011) Statue of William and Mary, confirming the Privileges of the Corporation, A New History of London: Including Westminster and Southwark (London, 1773) 4. “Barbican after the War”, Barbican Living, http://www.barbicanliving.co.uk/h6a.html (accessed 01 April 2011) 5. “19th and 20the centuries”, Barbican Living, http://www.barbicanliving.co.uk/h1g.html (accessed 01 April 2011) 6. “Bressey, Sir Charles Herbert (1874-1951)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, October 2004, http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/101032053/Charles-Bressey (accessed 01 April 2011) 7. “Charles Bressey”, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bressey (accessed 01 April 2011) 8. “Town planning”, RIBA, http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/DrawingsAndArchives/Archives/TownPlanning.aspx (accessed 01 April 2011) 9. “Abercrombie Plan 1944”, Exploring 20th century London, http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/CollectionsResearch/Research/Your-Research/X20L/Themes/1337/1075/ (accessed 01 April 2011)

- 43 -