1 10 61 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/968a269d300a98fd397e25e011dc0c55.pdf 1f46d1bcfe89abd69d12552c9c98706d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Harrogate Founding Congress Subject The topic of the resource The Harrogate Congress was the founding of NAM. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Various Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 21-23 November 1975 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A New Architecture Movement Subject The topic of the resource 2 sided report arguing for a New Architecture Movement Conference Description An account of the resource s A NEW ARCHITSCTURE MOVEMENT The Architects Revolutionary Counzil understands the need for a new architecture movement, and is glaé to instigate it. ARC has no intention / of becoming a mass movement itsel?. The new architecture movement wii be seriously concerned with the Social responsibility of architecss and the framework in which architecture is practiced. ARC hoses to bring a moral and social consience to the architectural prozession. It hopes to end architecture as an elitist profession and direcsly relate architects to those who them the most, our true allies, th: people. .3. So that people may control their environment. At the moment people have insufficient control of their environment in terms of planning and the use of resources. The Green Paper on Neighbourhood Councils now passing through Parliment gives only limeted participation to the people and by its lack of power reduces these Councils to purely advisory bodies easily over ruled. .Action must be taken with the goverment to give real power to the Neighbourhood Councils, 4, The environmental professions Should be subject to the democratic control of the public. In 1938 the Architects Registration Act came into being, due to the pressure from the RIBA to create a legal closed shop for the profession, while the Governments responsability for the public was sufficed by protecting them from sham architects. In todays society of worker control, user democracy and public accountability the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom is obviously unacceptable, ARCUK must be reconstituted by Parliment to ensure that the public has adegate control of the architectural profession, Below are just some of the reasons for forming a new architecture movement:-= 1. To create a situation where arczitects work for the real clients the users. This can only be achieved if the users become the clients with the control of the capital fo> projects. Decentralisation of power and increased democracy are essens:al concepts of this direction and architects should play an active vole in obtaining them. But as individuals architects have no power, because they are controlled by the providers of the resources fo> projects. When architects combine they have only limited power whica is quickly shattered by the non- essentialality of their position in society. Thus architects have to gain public support for socialisirg their task, to be able to exert any worthwhile pressure. With this in nind a new movement could aim at putting architects talents at the aisposal of the public and because this idea is truly in the interests of the public it is capable of mobilising public support. 2. To make arthitectural services ay2ilable to all sectours of society. At present the architectural profession works for just two areas of society, firstly the rich minority and the powers of industry commerce and finance: secondly for local or national goverernment bureaucracies distant from the public they vainly try to serve. The majority of the population has hever had access to the aechitectural profession and so have been restricted in improving the quality of their environment. The self help attitude can only help a few people, while an architectural service could help those without ¢he time or resources of their own. The national health service was not created by doctors or patients on their own, but only came about when enough pressure was brought on the goverment to create it, Similarily neither architects ror the public on their own can create an architectural service that with all the ills of our present environment, movement will have to be responsable for taking action government, with the SS ee effectively deals A row architecture ye reeve 5. Architectural education should be controlled by a body equally representative of the public, the profession, the teachers and the students. At present architectural education is controlled by the RIBA, a private club, through its Board of Education, which has powers of recognition delegated from the RIBA controlled ARCUK, Government funding of architectural schools and students is dependant on this recognition, Thus the public pays for an architectural education over which it has no control, to produce architects over which it has no control, to create bad environments it can do nothing about. A reconstituted ARCUK could operate a new democratic Board of Architectural Education, 6. So that the RIBA's pretence at speaking as the "voice of architecture". ends. The RIBA is effectively controlled by a small group - of principal architects, and its "voice" is stongly in line with their own minority interests. Most of the group belong to the Association of Consultant Architects, a private practice organisation, Evidence for this the RIBA's determination to save the fixed fee scale now under attack by the Monopolies Commission. Their lack of interest in the dangers exposed by the Summerland Fire and the use of High-alumina eé@ment. Their reluctance to expose incompetant and corrupt architects, A new architecture movement must stand for all that is socially responsible in architecture, 7. The RIBA is not a progressive body. Many people have tried to create change within the architectural profession through the RIBA, most have totally failed. The RIBA is glad to absorb progressive ideas and people, in an attempt to portray an outward looking front, but in reality to smother people and their ideas in tedious committees and lengthy red tape. The result being to tire people out and make their ideas so impotent as to be harmless to the continuance of the RIBA's status quo. A new architecture movement must not be a stagnant tedious body, but vital, fleixable and ever responsive to the changing needs and ideals of progressive people. The first five points indicate the need for Goverment action, while the last two show the great inadequacies of the RIBA. Together they reveal some of the logic behind forming a new architecture movement. Once a new architecture movement has gained a wothwhile base in the architectural arena it can begin to gain the Support of the public in accomploshing its objectives. The first stage along this road will be to found a movement at a national conference of all interested parties. ARC hopes that its responsible role in this is understood, we are not trying to force anything upon anybody, we welcome critisism and constructive ideas, we abhor dogmatism. We would be grateful for as much help as possible-in this, and are asking for help, to get as Many people as possible to the conference, to make contributions, to help with the conference organisation e+.-. to make architecture socially responsible, CONFERENCE FORMING A NEW ARCHITECTURE MOVEMENT FRIDAY OCT. 31st 3pm. to SUNDAY NOV. 2nd. 5pm. MORECAMBE Bed and Breakfast £2.00 plus evening meal an extra £1.00 Conference fees £1.00 or what you can afford. Booking and information from:-— ARC 11 Percy Street, London w1 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARC Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource undated https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/8ee7418d360475df4c1352ff3d3d9b51.pdf 71737d6bd29a58464842d3bd4038bef3 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Liaison Group Including London Group Subject The topic of the resource Liaison Groups: NAM was initially structured as local groups. There was also a Liaison Group whose role was to coordinate the different groups, deal with correspondence and arrange the next annual conference. NAM campaign groups, which were largely autonomous, worked across local groups to develop their ideas. They arranged their own conferences and reported through SLATE and annually to the NAM Congress. The seven different campaign groups listed had members from a variety of local groups. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Various Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976-1979 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Challenge to the Architectural Profession Subject The topic of the resource Article by Anne Karpf about NAM following the first NAM meeting in May 1976 in Covent Garden “Professional Revolutionaries: The Challenge to the Architectural Profession from TwoRadical Groups of Architects--the New Architecture Movement and the Architects' Revolutionary Council'” Description An account of the resource ANNE KARPF looks at the challenge to the architectural profession from two radical groups years were developers’ pimps, skilled in of architects the New Architecture Movement and the Architect's Revolutionary Council. Both argue that architects are more identified with property speculators than with the workers were economically impotent by- people they should serve and that a more accessible, more publicly accountable architecture is necessary to counter the mistakes of current practice. Cynics might say that the rotten reputation currently enjoyed by architects isafunction of a similar condition in their buildings. Certainly the architect no longer represents to the public that enviable synthesis of artist and scientist, the practical dreamer operating in the moral vacuum of art. Indeed, since the community action eruption of the late Sixties, they have been lambasted by tenants demanding satisfaction, and now a group of radical architects in London are demanding that they be allowed to give it. standers. And some of those self-same archi- tects are now trying to use tlhe present relative slumptojustify past profligacy. On the public side, ever since ‘partici- pation’ became the fashionable palliative, you frequently hear miserable tenants challenging architects to come out from their tarted-up Islington terraces and try living in one of their creations. And when architect Erno Goldfinger did, it proved a Jolly publicity stunt which only threw into relief the incompatibility between drawing- board inspiration and the realities of indigenous working-class culture. Why did architects allow themselves to be used in this way and continue to be identified with ‘them’ rather than ‘us’? The explanations of NAM and ARC are an The New Architecture Movement (NAM) is a broadly-based front of radical architects Press meeting at the A.A for A.R.C, and arose out of a conference at Harrogate last November called by the more tightly- knit Architects Revolutionary Council (ARC). Both groups are profoundly critical party. of the profession in its internal organisation and its relation to the rest of society and would appear to be voicing the daily archi- tectural Brievances of much of the popu- lation At its most basic, they argue that archi- tecture cannot be separated from its political implications and social obligations; that art for architects’ sake is not an acceptable dictum by which to build Our cities that architecture, particularly as promulgated by the Royal Institute of British Architects {RIBA), has become an apologia for archi- tects and is not accountable to the people who have to live in and with their work They maintain that this has come about because of the System of patronage, both public and private, which effectively dis eniranchises the vast majority of the popu lation wl h has no say in the design Or use of profession as a homogeneous whole, equally culpable or blameless of the misdeeds per- petrated in its name. There are over 20 000 registered architects in Britain, distributed fairly equally between private architectural practices and the public local authority sector. In the private sector, only about 20% and that the present professional relation- uncompromising indictment of the structure of the profession and its institute. Firstly, it is wrong to conceive of the Developers’ pimp: Penitent architects seeking to exonerate rest — all those in the public sector and 80% ship excludes perhaps the most important That this has been deleterious is plain for all to see, since the turn-of-decade property boom obligingly furnished us with some particularly graphic examples. Legendary and often empty office blocks are the particular product of private patronage, while comprehensive redevelopment and high-rise tower blocks were the contribution are principal partners in firms and they of public patronage. themselves claim that they were only the icing on the speculators’ cake and that the meal could have been made without them. They only tinkered with its appearance, but were innocent in dreaming up the recipe. in private practice —are salaried, paid by the state or their bosses, the private principals. In the boom, the earnings of private principals shot up with the increase in building prices. The RIBA deny that archi- tects made a bonanza in these years, claim- ing that the increased costs of Tunning an rhis is belied by reality: one architect said in 1971, ‘the most successful architects are those who understand property values and architectural practice simply kept pace with he mechanics of property development’, inflation. NAM and ARC disagree; they ind another gave his name colloquially to a show that the increased profits during these series of planning loopholes which en- years were not equitably distributed to gendered maximum floor space. At their salaried employees and, moreover, that the the building-user are rarely the same being worst, successful architects in the boom bulk of the really lucrative work could only live in buildings, but have never employed an architect, fall into that category, indicating quite clearly that the architect’s client and $56 AD/9/76 procuring planning permission; tenants and are paid according to a mandatory minimum fee scale as a percentage of the construction costs of the buildings they undertake. The Dennis Crompton its environment. Those of us who use or RIBA-baiting Both NAM and ARC are in a sense most comfortable when on RIBA-baiting terri- tory. That is not to say that they do not have proper ideologies of their own, but it is evidently easier to ram against a clearly- defined enemy rock than to flounder ina sea of abstract theory. Perhaps NAM’s most effective marriage of thought and action arose out of its oppo- sition to the RIBA’s recent submission to the Monopolies Commission on the case for minimum mandatory fees. They them- selves acknowledge that this stimulated them to focus their opinions. They submitted a carefully worked-out counter-report, which concluded that ‘the current fee system is not intrinsic in the system of architectural ser- vices (which the RIBA had maintained) but a gratuitous market device procuring uni- lateral benefits to architects’. Where the RIBA held that the minimum fee system gave the client a network of assurances which guaranteed high quality work, NAM showed that such assurances are part of the normal legal safeguards which operate quite apart from any RIBA quid pro quo. Where the RIBA claimed that the absence of a price floor would create under-cutting, which’in times of slump would put archi- tects out of business, NAM suggested that architects, because of their low level of capital investment, have the capacity to withstand such fluctuations. Likewise, there is an acute conflict between the wish to maintain a federalist, loosely-grouped, locally autonomous struc- ture and the need to present a concerted becoming bureaucratic? How to inculcate into alienated and passive tenants the con- fidence and ability to take decisions? Will they be of any value without corresponding changes in land tenure, for what use is power over building without control over land? And how to deal with the truly national decisions, some of which will always have to And where the RIBA was adamant that This multi-story car park is part of a proposal f the low elasticity of demand for architects means that a reduction of fees would hardly increase the volume of work — architectural sharply-defined plan of action, which has the costs being only a small percentage of total virtue of attracting support and might help costs, and architects, without rival substitutes, being unable to attract work from other sources NAM put it that lower charges would enable potential user-clients who can only afford small sums to initiate small-scale schemes and that was the whole point. All well and good. NAM argues its case with quite sharp legal logic, but disarmingly concedes that the whole subject is hardly quintessential, but simply a good one to get stuck into. to build a mass movement. To what extent is that possible? NAM sets itself an ambitious target: if it does not succeed in carrying with it 10-20% of the architectural electorate within 5 years, then it feels it may as well disband and join the tighter-knit caucus of ARC. National Design Service In the crude language of advertising, they need a selling pitch. Perhaps their notion of And this raises some quite fundamental a National Design Service (NDS) serves this conflicts endemic to any group lobbying for function but, though admirable as a pure change in capitalist society. One might concept, it is fraught with difficulties. protest that NAM’s Report to the Mon- The argument runs like this: You counter opolies Commission is hardly more than a the remote, unaccountable nature of archi- reasonably sophisticated, highly enjoyable tectural practice, both public and private, by exercise in pretend-litigation, a polemic, and that any serious move to radically alter the profession and its place in society must start by looking outwards at the rest of society, the financing of local building to feed this for change within the one is ineffectual without change in the other. And up pops that ‘Socialism in One Country versus World Revolution’ tussle, popularly transmogrified into a chicken-egg conundrum. NAM and ARC both concur on this one, and hold — if only to maintain their buoyant sense of optimism that ‘to change every- thing else involves a milennial struggle: in the nicaulime, what do architects do at their brought about? How to prevent it from drawing-boards? You operate from 9 to 5 as an architect, and that is your sphere of action; there is limited yalue in being an evening-class politician’ (NAM member). 5 Ny hal grafting on to local authorities a freely available National Design Service, decentra- lised and controlled by the people. You alter service. And thus you pervert the tendency of private practice to answer to owner rather than user and the inclination of the public sector to, at its best, put the national interest before the local. It is perhaps unfair to put NAM’s serious proposals into political baby language like this, since they are acutely aware of the questions therein begged. How can this be en See 557 _be handled by sizeable practices. Since only 1500 of the 4000 private firms in this _Country have more than 5 members and far s fewer are large enough to handle the really Major schemes, the substantial benefits a ‘accrued to a small but powerful minority. ip at makes this minority doubly PoWerful is its position in the RIBA. On the last RIBA Council, the largest single group _Were the principals in private practice, who Constituted 34 out of the Council’s 60 members. Of the replacements to the Council announced on June 3rd, 1976, once “#€ain_ the private principals dominate, exceeding the aggregate of all other groups (public sector, salaried private sector). How _can the RIBA speak for the vast majority of _architects who are salaried (80%), asked a Council member recently, when so few are = the Council, and when the voting system invariably favours the big names? The RIBA concedes that its head and lungs are domi- hated by the senior partners of established practices, but puts this down to the un- willingness of salaried architects to become involved and to the reluctance of employers to release their employees for RIBA duties. All this goes a long way to explain ARC’s angry criticism that the RIBA failed to come Out on the side of ‘the people’ in those demolishing years. Dog doesn’t eat patron. —arr Ree — tethroneet——ee or the comprehensive re-development of the central business area of the London suburb of Ealing. It has the full backing of the local council, but not the majority of residents. If it is built, it will mean the destruction of what little remains of Ealing's village character, the rehousing of local residents and the economic ruin of existing small businesses. be made, unless a magic wand waves in a pre-industrial mode of anarchism which renders al such considerations irrelevant? On this last, they suggest a parallel with the division of labour between general practitioner and hospital, mutually inter- dependent, but taking responsibility for dif- ferent kinds of decisions. Their extended analogy between their hoped-for NDS and the existing National Health Service might provoke wariness, if not cynicism, in patients who feel that the present health service expropriates their capacity for self- -determination quite as much as being an impotent tenant. Sensibly, NAM plans to work on more concrete and immediate themes for the time being. They aim to do a treatment of the RIBA code of conduct, on the lines of their Monopolies Commission Report. They intend working on the possibility of in- creased unionisation for architects, either to better their membership of and represen- CAPTIONS FOR PROFESSION REVIEW however piecemeal and undramatic, Students of Brian Anson, a teacher at the Architectural Association and founder of ARC, have been working for a year with tenants in Bootle, his home town, managing to reverse a local authority clearance order and now devising a rehabilitation scheme where tenants control the design, financing and rate of building. ARC have been work- ing for free with the Ealing Town Centre Action group, designing according to their behest and needs. The ASSIST group of Glasgow has been organising public- participation rehab in the Govan tenement area, responsible to the local community association. The Support group, now in embryonic stage, plans to engage in a similar kind of community architecture. And in private practice, Rod Hackney in Macclesfield helped the local action group create their own improvement proposals and implement them. Says Hackney, ‘people working for me have to live with the question is not ‘what forms?’ or ‘which ference in Hull. They claim that such shock described in the morally neutral currency of ‘aesthetics’, devoid of political content for the people affected, the more elitist and the more removed from the political review of ordinary people become the experts who use this currency’. Nevertheless, conclude NAM, “we've got to grasp that nettle at some stage or other’. in all this? In a sense, theirs is an easier situation. They see themselves as a small, tightly-knit module, the vanguard (and therefore able to exult in their romantic, architects do all the acting, can be just conspiratorial closeness). This relieves them another way of disenfranchising the power- of the need to attract wide support (and the less: as planner John Turner has said, ‘while conflicts which this entails). They created acting for the poor may be very rewarding NAM for that. They have also been lucky for the professional, it effectively minimizes and industrious in having practical the necessity for any of the Tules of the schemes to engage in local communities, to game to be changed so as to include the poor demonstrate the practicability of their themselves’. techniques?’, but ‘who are my patrons?’, for it is this which draws up the whole chain’. In this, they follow planner Robert Goodman, who is aware of how distancing art-talk can says NAM, ‘either more brave than us, or be and that ‘the more architecture can be theory and to show themselves as more than just the debating society which both groups dread becoming. absorbed into the political bloodstream and simply help it flow smoother. Similarly, he was. Now, will we listen? community action, where supposedly radical This is not what NAM and ARC want nor does it have to happen. Indeed, there are several small-scale, locally-based experiments going on at the moment which indicate how They have just produced their first broad- side, ‘Red House’, and, with enviable realistic architect accountability can be, $58 AD/9/76 tote re eercart LAL eee } Ealing residents have called in ARC to fight the communities. And if the residents don’t like tation within the existing unions — UCATT (construction workers), ASTMS (manage- ment) and NALGO (local government officers) or to create alternative struc- tures. (‘Architects are somewhere in the Stone Age as far as awareness of their real-life political predicament’, one of them International. They are working towards co-ownership working relationships within has said), Another group is looking at what they hope will eventually become a offices similar to Yugoslavia, where the law architectural education and eventually they new school of architecture and intend to limits practices to no larger than 5 and will take up with aesthetic matters. This latter is hard for them: since their inception, they have mustered much of their energy from debunking the supremacy of the ‘artiness’ of art. As they say, ‘the radical hold a dress rehearsal in the form of a decisions are shared. : council-backed redevelopment scheme (top). After public meetings and extensive surveys, ARC drew up an alternative (bottom) and are now preparing evidence for a government enquiry. our work, they ring our doorbell at midnight and tell us it’s a load of rubbish’. Concomitant with these external changes, optimism and the support of foreign NAM wants the profession to heal itself colleagues, they make plans for an ARC inside. This would include co-operative and summer school next year. Meanwhile, critics might unkindly allege, they can amuse themselves with radical foreplay, such as their disruption of the recent RIBA con- Behind al these changes is a fundamental change of attitude. Tom Woolley, teacher at the AA and part of the Support group, puts it like this: ‘Professionals, not just architects but doctors and others too, think they know what people need, and this becomes insti- tutionalised. People hand over responsibility to the professionals, and we want to get people to take it back into their own hands. We’re not saying there’s no expertise involved in building, but we see ourselves as ‘enablers’ to help people to think about their environment and make the decisions about it themselves’. : One hundred years ago, William Morris said, ‘the architect is carefully guarded from the common troubles of common man, building for ignorant, purse-proud digesting machines’. He thought architecture could tactics are a quite legitimate means to an end — to decrease the credibility of the RIBA and eventually to destroy them. They are, more naive, depending on your point of view. In any case, they have burned their professional boats, which we haven’t’. Nevertheless, both groups — whatever their self-confessed problems — do perform important functions and provide a critique of the inadequacies of the present system of value to more than just disaffected young architects. For instance, they are rightly scathing about current public relations exercises in nominal participation which only be reborn when it became part of the Vanguard And what of ARC: where do they stand harm than good: radical antibodies are are no more eccentric in their analysis than masquerade as the real thing and do more life of the people in general. NAM and ARC ANNE KARPF isafreelance investigative journalist working in London. She previously worked OD research for TV documentaries for the BBC: Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Anne Karpf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived BD Article Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 19-Oct-77 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/c8f85d8be9d3340b2fac07d85f298e4f.pdf 2fcee7fff2866ed4c724fd285177fecb Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Miscellaneous Subject The topic of the resource Miscellaneous issues Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Various Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976-1980 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource New Architecture Movement - How it all began Subject The topic of the resource A personal description by John Murray Description An account of the resource NEW ARCHITECTURE MOVEMENT HOW IT ALL BEGAN - A PERSONAL DESCRIPTION User involvement in Design As the project architect of the new Edgewick Primary School in Coventry, I was briefed by the City Education Client Officer, a helpful, experienced and committed client. But when I asked him how I should accommodate useful suggestions from the new Head Teacher about the design of her new school he said, “Just ignore her”. I decided instead to ignore him and went on to work closely with the Head teacher, staff and pupils in developing the design of a successful and well-regarded Primary School adjacent to the existing Victorian Primary School, situated near a large Courtaulds factory and not far from the centre of Coventry. For me this was proof that the users of a building must be fully involved if the design is to be successful. It was a very important lesson and my respect for the committed Head has stayed with me ever since. Now of course, consultation and participation are an integral part of the design process. But in 1968 they were not. (I discovered that in 2014 because of a shortfall in school places, Coventry City Council decided to double the number of pupils so both schools were demolished and replaced by a large PFI school) Working for Tenants and Residents In the early 1970s many architects while working in offices were also providing free design advice and alternative schemes to tenants and residents groups faced with unacceptable redevelopment proposals. This work was in stark contrast to how they were earning their living during the day, but it taught both sides the benefits of having a design service available to and accountable to the people who used buildings. I was working for tenants in Newham while during the day I worked for BDP. BDP incidentally was a very good firm whose idealistic founding partner Grenfell-Baines stated it should be multi- disciplinary and fully involve and reward its staff. (3Rs, Responsibility, Recognition and Reward) (These ideas subsequently influenced the NAM Public Design Group’s proposals). At that time, my wife Ursula was working in a Community Development Project in Canning Town. Through her I became involved with West Ham tenants. Most private firms were not so good as BDP for salaried staff, hence salaried architects desire for change. The RIBA was seen to be a mouthpiece for private Architectural Practice. These ideas became more widespread throughout the profession both amongst salaried architects and teachers in schools of architecture. At the same time, new young Labour councillors, who had emerged from tenants’ struggles, were beginning to be elected and this encouraged the development of NAM ideas in councils, for example Haringey. Architects Revolutionary Council (ARC) While working in BDP, we used to occasionally visit the AA in nearby Bedford Square at lunchtimes. There was also an AA Studio in Percy Street near the BDP office. There I met the tutor, Brian Anson and his students. Brian had established with his students the Architects Revolutionary Council (ARC). They talked to us about ARC’s proposal for a New Architecture Movement to develop ARC’s ideas and especially to take on the RIBA, ARC’s bête noir. They were trying to encourage sympathetic architects, teachers and students to attend an inaugural conference to establish the New Architecture Movement. After I talked to Brian about my interest in public design he asked me to make a presentation about a national design service at the proposed conference. In November 1975 an advert appeared in the architectural press inviting participants to attend the inaugural congress of a hitherto unheard of New Architecture Movement in the unlikely setting of Harrogate. The congress, organised by ARC after discussion with sympathetic architects, brought together a considerable number of like-minded salaried architects and students. NAM was born 1 The New Architecture Movement Harrogate is a very attractive and stylish former spa town in Yorkshire. No doubt ARC chose it for that reason. I presented a paper on a National Design Service to the Congress. Apart from meeting many like- minded architects, the main thing I remember about the congress is the debate about the proposed structure for the New Architecture Movement. NAM Structure ARC proposed that an elected Leader and committee should govern NAM. This resulted in an animated debate. The women at the meeting persuaded the men that the New Architecture Movement should be structured like the women’s movement; ie, groups of people interested in particular issues who would come together as necessary, not at the diktat of a higher body. In retrospect I think this was NAM’s great strength so we didn’t spend our time nit-picking as would inevitably have been the case if we had agreed to the centrally controlled body that ARC wanted. It was eventually agreed that NAM should be structured as local groups. There was also to be a liaison group, whose role was to coordinate the different campaign groups, deal with correspondence and arrange the next annual congress. Groups would report to each other through a magazine called SLATE. Liaison Group I was involved in the first London liaison group and in due course we got a grant from the Rowntree Foundation, which enabled us to set up an office in 9 Poland Street. During the first few months after Harrogate, we discussed how NAM should develop. We drafted NAM’s objectives (attached) and organised our first meeting in May 1977 in Covent Garden to encourage more salaried architects to join. Anne Karpf reported the event very favourably in Building Design. Groups The following campaign groups developed over time: • Alternative Practice • Education • Feminist Group • Professional Issues (A number of us were elected to ARCUK to represent ‘unattached’ architects) • Public Design Group • SLATE • Trade Unions and Architecture These groups, which were largely autonomous, worked across local groups to develop their ideas. They arranged their own conferences and reported through SLATE and annually to the NAM Congress. Although I was involved in the liaison group and other groups, my main interest was in developing the ideas for a National Design Service. This eventually became the Public Design Group. It included one of Brian Anson’s AA students and architects and students from Sheffield and Nottingham. So we did a lot of travelling, usually meeting in Sheffield. See separate report on how the Public Design Group evolved and how its ideas were eventually developed in Haringey. NAM’s ideas became more widespread throughout the profession both amongst salaried architects and teachers in schools of architecture. John Murray NAM Founder Member 31 August 2015 2 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource JM Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2015 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/aac82d5f8ce62e5e4ddb537dd07068c3.pdf 6bc8206b78090255d2a1706f8048de61 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/975acf336f42d49fb9bb87b9adc4b845.pdf bdb9116c66e73f262684d81211b1b87a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Brian Anson/ARC pre and post Harrogate Subject The topic of the resource Various documents describing ARC ideas and activities See below Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARC Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1975-1976 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Brian Anson Letters and Documents 1974-1978 Subject The topic of the resource Brian Anson Letters and documents 1974-78 and AA Lecture 1974 from Albane Duvillier 4th Year AA Essay submissision 18.02.2008. Pia Arias Covent Garden Report about Brian Anson Description An account of the resource COVENT GARDEN Anglo Saxon and Early Medieval Westminster Excavations have confirmed that in the area of Covent Garden and Aldwych, there was the ex- tensive Saxon Settlement of Lundenwic: over 150 acres, with roads, lanes, houses and industrial buildings. It stretched from the contemporary wa- terfront inland of the Embankment probably to the old Roman road beneath Holborn and Oxford Street on the north, and from Aldwych in the east to Trafalgar Square. A wide range of Continental trading contacts, from Norway to France, is indica- ted by imported objects found in the site. Two ce- meteries have been found, one under what is now St. Martin-in-the-Fields, and another to the north in Covent Garden; the latter may have been included burial mounds. The Saxon town, which have gone through several phases of development, seems to have been occupied from shortly after 600 to so- metime after 850. The main excavation, at the Ro- yal Opera House, found traces of timber buildings nearly 40ft long, with lanes, industrial workshops and many signs of a thriving, congested urban spa- ce1. The Later Middle Ages Covent Garden was the name given, during the reign of King John (1199 - 1256), to a 40-acre patch in the county of Middlesex, bordered west and east by which is now St. Martin’s Lane and Drury Lane, and nor- th and south by Floral Street and a line drawn from Chandos Place, along Maiden Lane and Exeter Street to the Aldwych. An ancient footpath called Aldewichstrate (‘Old Farmstead’s Way’) issued from the west gate of the City of London at Fleet Street and Drewerie Lane branched off here to the north. In this quadrangle bordered by wall, the Abbey or Convent of St Peter, Westminster, maintained a large kitchen garden throughout the Middle Ages to provide its daily food. Directly to the north the monks also owned seven acres known as Long Acre, and to the south, roughly where the Strand Palace Hotel now stands, two smaller pieces of land known as Friars Pyes. The monks of St Peter’s Abbey cultivated orchards here, grew grain, and pastured livestock, selling the surplus to the citizens of London. These type of leases did eventually lead to property disputes throughout the kingdom, which the monarch King Henry VIII solved in 1540 when he dissolved the monasteries and appropriated their land. The next year, in exchange for some land in Devon, King Henry VIII granted both Friars Pyes to John Baron Russell, Great Admiral of England, and later the first Earl of Bedford. In fulfilment of his father’s dying wish, King Edward VI, bestowed the remainder of the convent garden in 1547 to his maternal uncle, Edward Seymour, the Duke of Somerset who began building Somerset House on the South side of the Strand the next year. By 1600 rapid growth here and outwards from the city alarmed the authorities, who made several Area Plan from the 1968 Draft Plan. (1) [1] The information about the Anglo Saxon excavation was decribed by Pevsner in his book London 6, Westminster. Pevsner Architectural Guides. attempts to halt, restrict or at least control the builders. None was properly enforced, especially when the Crown realized that fines for non-com- pliance amounted to a useful new tax. The plan- ned private developments of the C17 were able to evade these prohibitions by creating select, we- ll-built new districts that would not fill up with the disorderly and dangerous poor. In 1605, timber was prohibited for house fronts, and had to be replaced with bricks, though it was not given up for decades afterwards. Further Pro- clamations from 1615 tried to regulate floor hei- ghts and to enforce the use of vertical rather than horizontal windows.2 Planning Development The 4th Earl of Bedford decides to plan his esta- te with "buildings that would serve to ornament the town" and commissioned the Surveyor of the King's works to draw up a plan for an elegant square or piazza. During the years between 1615 and 1640, Inigo Jones (1573-1652) was the central figure in English architecture. Born in Smithfield - London, he became the Surveyor to the Kings' Works in 1614. Travelled to Italy and came back greatly influenced by Palladio, Bramante, Serlio, Scamozzi and Vitruvius. He established Palladianism as the Royal Style by dis- playing the Italian influence in the Queen's House at Greenwich, the alterations to St. Paul's Cathedral, the Banqueting House in Whitehall, the Queen's Chapel at St. James's Palace and the Piazza at Covent Garden.3 The Piazza counts as the earliest of the squares of London, laid out on the example of the Piazza at Livorno, the design made one composition with the existing mansion, Bedford house; taking charge of the side, and with streets entering at the middles of the north and east sides, and to the west side, where the center was taken by St. Paul's church. The houses had uniform façades, to make them individually inconspicuous and give them all together a palace air, a uniformity not achieved again in London housing until the C18. The owner cleared the land and laid out streets, but the houses were put up by agreements with speculating builders, who were then permitted to sell them on long fixed-terms leases. The landlord thus acquired the reversion of the properties and kept control of over the quality and design, without the cost of building them himself. Jones's plan also included London's first meows, that is streets meant for stabling and services (Maiden Lane, Floral Street): a device which encouraged the fronts of even very large houses to face directly on the street. And so, for all its quirks, Covent Garden begins the story of what we now think of as Georgian London.4 [2] LionelEsher,onhisbook“AbrokenWave:TherebuildingofEngland”,explainsthisperiodaswellasPevsneronhisseriesofArchitecturalGuides. [3] For more details on Palladianism and its references in English architecture, visit The National Trust website www.nationaltrust.org.uk [4] Inthearticle‘LondontheRing,CoventGardentheJewellofThatRing’:NewLightonCoventGarden,DianneDugganexplorestheEarl’sarchives and his intentions for the development of Covent Garden. Inigo Jones 1577 - 1652 (2) The Market The Piazza is half-filled by Charles Fowler’s Market House, built in 1828-30. Roofed over in the C19, and restored and converted into shops and restaurants by the GLC Historic Buildings Division in 1977-80. The- re were no British precedents for such an ambitious conversion and its immediate success inspired a host of imitations. Twenty years on, the market remains immensely popular, though the small independent shops of early years are less in evidence. Fowler’s structure remains almost intact, the best-preserved Late Georgian market house in England. It has three parallel east-west ranges, with external Tuscan colonnades of Aberdeen granite. The outer ranges are two-storeyed, and have at the outer angles low pyramid-roofed lodges. In the centre of each long side is a tall pedimented pavilion, curiously placed just east of the entrance passage. At the west end the central range stands free, a little set back. Above its columns a balustrade terrace and then the upper storey, pilastrered and with a big central pediment broken by a lunette. Through the middle of this range runs a glass and timber-roofed passage, with shops where herbs and flowers were sold. 5 The Piazza looking North, circa 1717-1728. (3) Their shopfronts were modified with plate glass in 1871-2. Segmental relieving arches above them, then a clerestory of rectangular openings with colonettes. Delicate produce was traded at the E end, which is different again: columns stand four deep across the whole width, making a continuous upper terrace. On the central pediment allegorical figures by R.W Sievier, of Coade Stone. The upper terrace has a glazed restaurant shelter added c.1985. Its wings evoke Fowler’s twin hothouses for the sale of potted plants, but with an obtrusive round-topped link between. The shelter first provided was modest, limited to a small area in the north court, to make it more spa- cious, twin roofs were raised over the outer courts, giving the markets its bulky external presence. In [5] “Covent Garden Market”, in Survey of London - Vol 36 The market building in the 19th century (4) 1874, W. Cubbit & Co added the iron columns and arches, and a glazed roof with an open clerestory. The offices were removed to the south court. Two oblong areas were sunk into the floor, to allow public access to the vaults running beneath. Fifty shops were created in all, some restored or replicated to Fowler’s design. Axonometric section of the Market (5) GLC Covent GArden Action Area Plan, 1978 - Covent Garden Committee St. Paul’s Church St. Paul’s Church by Thomas Homers Shepherd , 1828-31 (6) Built in 1631-5 by Inigo Jones in connection with the 4th Earl of Bedford. The first new parish church in London since before Elizabeth's time, it broke com- pletely with native architectural traditions: a new way of building, intended to suit the Protestant Church of England. The church is a perfectly plain oblong with no subdivision inside. Widely overhan- ging eaves, deep portico with two squares angle piers and two sturdy Tuscan columns between. The conceit of square piers derives from the Etrus- can temple as illustrated by Scamozzi, the rest from Palladio's Tuscan order, though with rather diffe- rent proportions. Originally there were six or seven steps up from the Piazza, so that the temple origin was more explicit. The church also points forward, to the simplicities of late C18 Neoclassicism. The Piazza lies at the east end. Contemporary evi- dence shows however that the altar was originally meant for the west end, with the entrance under the portico. The plan changed during construction, probably due to Bishop Laud's intervention.6 St. Paul’s Floor plan (7) [6] Pevsner, London 6 “Westminster” - Architectral Guide Series Though Jones’s conception can be savou- red undiluted, the church has had an unluc- ky history, and the visible fabric is mostly c18 or later c19. The red brick facing is as late as 1887-8 by A.J. Pilkington. Jones's walls, of rendered brick, were stone-faced in 1788-9 by Thomas Hardwick, but badly damaged by fire in 1795. Hardwick restored the shell up to 1798, renewing the portico. The west front has two more round-arched windows and a central doorcase with oculus over, i.e. the same arrangement as within the portico (if only because Butterfield's restoration erased lesser doorways benea- th the windows there, 1871-2). Low wings to each side: an original feature, made lower by Clutton. St. Paul’s burns on the 17th of September 1795 (8) Westminster City Council Archives Also by him, the semicircular steps and the holes cut to house the bells. The interior has a spare qua- lity that may not be far from what Jones intended, though nothing remains from his time. His ceiling is known to have been painted in false perspective. The present ceiling is compartmented plaster of 1887-8 to a more Jonesian design than Hardwick’s; it may well be Clutton’s brainchild, carried out by Pilkington. St. Paul’s Church Interior, 2007 (9) ©Steve Cadma, steve@stevecadman.me.uk The Royal Opera House Stands upon the site of the thea- tre erected by John Rich in 1731–2. It is the third theatre to occupy this site, both its predecessors were destroyed by fire. The first, designed by Edward Shepherd, was burnt in 1808, and the second, designed by Sir Robert Smirke, was destroyed in 1856. After this second fire, the present building was built in 1857–8 by E. M. Barry. After nearly two and a half cen- turies of theatrical usage 'Covent Garden' has earned many claims to fame—as a theatre still acting under the authority of letters patent granted by Charles II, as the scene of the triumphs of many great actors and musicians, and in recent years as the home of both the Royal Opera and the Royal Ballet.7 In 1983 there was an open competition to refurbish the existing auditorium and foyers, accommodation for the Royal Opera and Royal Ballet along with the rehearsal facilities and a second auditorium. Reconstruction of part of the Floral Hall and a ribbon of shops around the piazza. It was won by the architect Jeremy Dixon. The objectives of the project were: -To modernise the stage and scenery-handling facilities -To move the Royal Ballet to a permanent home at Covent Garden -To improve amenities for the public and make the theatre more accessible -To provide a decent canteen for the staff and performers -To improve rehearsal facilities -To bring the production workshops on site8 Axonometric view of the changes made by the Architect’s proposal (11) [7] Detailed information can be found in the Survey of London Vol 35 - www.british-history.gov.uk [8] The above is extracted from the Archtect’s website, www.dixonjones.co.uk/projects/royal-opera-house-covent-garden/ The Opera house and the Floral Market in 1892 (10) In the reconstructed Floral Hall, a grand pair of escalators (visible through the glass wall) to the Am- phitheatre Bar moves you to above level. Here they either remain in the upper foyer or proceed further directly onto the open loggia overlooking Covent Garden piazza. In place of the hierarchical public access of the old house – whereby the upper (i.e. cheaper) seats were reached from a separate side entrance –now this will cater to the audience from main Bow Street portico. A new public entrance from the northeast corner of the arcade that complete Inigo Jones’s square. The challenge was to meet all requirements of the Royal Opera House and at the same time to find an architectural approach that could respond to the diversity of the site context, bounded on the one hand by the implied formality of the market square and on the other by a series of typical Covent Garden streets with their ad hoc accumulation of uses and architectural styles. SOCIAL HISTORY As the eighteen century approached, the wealthy residents began moving westwards towards the newer squares of Mayfair and St. James. This produced a dramatic change in the social character of Co- vent Garden. Elegance was replaced by bohemianism as not only the poorer classes encroached on the area but also the writers and the theatre people. The theatres were re-opened and many new ones built. The Old Cockpit in Drury Lane was where the ordinary people of London flocked to see the plays of Will Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe and Ben Jonson. Running parallel to theatrical Covent Garden in the 18th and 19th century was the literary world, centred on the coffee-houses and taverns, which became fashionable overnight. By the late 18th century it was the lower class of citizens who were rapidly taking over the spacious, decaying mansions of the gentry. The mansions of the nobility were gradually converted into tenements9. In 1836, in Sketches by Boz, Dic- kens10 exposed the poverty of much of Covent Garden, of Drury Lane he wrote: Drury Lane, Seven Dials - Illustration by Gustave Doré(12) [9] Lionel Esher, “A broken Wave” [10] CharlesDickens,alongwiththeartists’movementofthattime,livedandgatheredinCoventGarden.Sohewaswellawareoftheconditionsand spirit of the place. ..."The filth and miserable appearance of this part of London can hardly be imagined...Wretched houses with broken windows patched with rags and paper; every room let out to a different family, and in many instances to two or even three - fruit and sweetstuff manufacturers in the cellars, barbers and red-herring vendors in the front parlours, cobblers in the back; a bird fancier in the first floor, three families on the second, starvation in the attics"... Conditions grew so bad that, early in the 19th century, the Duke of Bedford's Estate began a determi- ned effort to change the area from the "lower-class residential quarter" it had become, to a profitable commercial centre. Every decayed house was pulled down without any attempt to make it habitable until major new building work could begin. In 1830 the 6th Duke of Bedford had begun the process of redeveloping and transforming the place, under a Private Act of Parliament, he cleared away the old market stalls and constructed the present central market building. In 1890 the Bedford Estate surveyor recommended that: "All the courts be pulled down as a commencement of the general clearance which it is desi- rable to carry out in this neighborhood..new houses will be constructed, which as soon as they are completed will be leased to very desirable tenants... and by prohibiting without consent the whole or any portion of the houses being underlet, the objectionable class of tenants who for- merly were inhabitants of these houses are excluded..." As the 20th century began, the London County Council took over the role of property landlords of the Bedford Estate. By 1905 the great thoroughfare Kingsway had been constructed, and many streets, alleyways and courts were gone, linking the Strand and Holborn, it was a desirable improvement because it cut through a large amount of slum property. By 1961 the population was down to 4.060 and the area was a commercial jumble composed of a multitude of crafts and trades. The major industry was the fruit and vegetable market, which now occupied an area of 15 acres and was the largest in Great Britain. By that time it was under the control of the Government, who appointed the Covent Garden Market Authority to run it. Since the 19th century, traffic congestion in the market had been a problem. By the 1960s, it had reached a breaking point. Naturally, the area had been designed in the 1600s for horse cart traffic – not for lorries. The existing roads and buildings couldn’t handle the huge volume of produce being brought in for sale, so business began to decline. Because there was no room to expand, the CGMA commissioned Fantus, a firm of ma- nagement consultants, to consider the relocation and to investigate 2 sites: Seven Dials and Nine Elms. In 1966 they gained Government’s approval to move the market to Battersea. The 12 acres empty spa- ce was seen as an opportunity to redevelop the 96-acre site, defined by the five principal roads of the Strand, Kingsway, High Holborn, Shaftesbury Avenue and Charing Cross Road. In October 1965 a con- sortium of the GLC, Westminster City Council and Camden was formed, they set up a Planning team and instructed it to work under the authority of a “Steering Group” composed of the chief planning officers of the three local authorities.11 [11] Lionel Esher, “A broken Wave” The Draft Plan Covent Garden Area Draft Plan, 1968 (13) The Steering Group was chaired by Ralph Rookwood, with Geoffrey Holland, Brian Nicholls and Brian Anson as deputies. There were three main objectives in the official mind. First was the need to clear out a small amount of actual slum and a much larger amount of depressing and redundant warehousing and office space and some archetypically gloomy Victorian tenements. The second was the opportunity, at a time when such objectives seemed within reach, to improve the heavily trafficked main streets surroun- ding the area, traffic was a major preoccupation in the 60s, so new roads had to be proposed. The third and most exciting were to wrap round the historic core of Covent Garden an architectural backcloth which would rehouse and augment the indigenous population, together with the theatres, arcades, ho- tels, boutiques, bars, restaurants.12 According to Anson, the major elements of the plan itself had nothing to do with the real history and character of Covent Garden. For instance, the brief stated that they had to design a plan segregating pedestrian and vehicles, and their intention was to make the centre of the area traffic-free, but to compensate more roads had to be included and it resulted in a drastic road plan that threatened to demolish over half the area. The Market Piazza would be redeveloped as a major shopping and entertainment route, the Piazza would be revived with a national conference centre and hotels. “Multiple uses” was the prevailing wat- chword and “partnership” between the public and private sectors the technique, whereby the profits of the latter would go some (though not all) of the way to carry the burden of the former. [12] Brian Anson, “I’ll fight you for it” Shallow surveys were set on foot to discover what sort of dwellings the locals wanted, and the results were inter- preted according to what the brief required. The ragbag of tiny industries –violin makers, coppersmiths, theatrical cos- tumiers – the 34 bookshops, 26 stamp dealers and 124 pu- blishers, printers and engra- vers, not to mention the Opera House and 17 other theatres, all were happily recorded by young clipboard callers. Urban structure and visual character were analyzed after the man- ner taught by Kevin Lynch and Gordon Cullen, and pedestrian routes and habits carefully plo- tted. Anson claimed that they must have been protected, not driven out: “The interdependence of existing activities must be recogni- zed and special care is taken to avoid their accidental loss”, even if they “may need special accommoda- tion in terms of design, location and rental levels”. 13 In 1968 the Plan was introduced in the most humane way possible: “One of the most exciting prospects is the opportunity offered by the removal of the market to cultivate experimental activities and new possibilities in urban living, small laboratory theaters, new combinations of indoor entertainment, small informal galleries combined with books and the modern equivalent of old coffee houses, linked with ar- tists’ studios, experimental film units... “the residential population would increase (from 2,347 to 7,000) as would space for hotels and entertainment, while office and warehousing space would be reduced. Ve- hicular traffic of all sorts would vanish underground, pedestrian radiating freely in all directions, often un- der cover, from a 3-acre garden that would replace the grim chasm of the ironically named Floral Street.14 Proposal for Road Network (14) Covent Garden Area Draft Plan, 1968 [13] Lionel Esher, “A broken wave” [14] Brian Anson, “I’ll fight you for it” Pedestrian Spaces (15) Covent Garden Area Draft Plan, 1968 The whole project, illustrated by expressionist drawings was uninhibitedly positivist: this would be the new heart of creative London. From Branson’s point of view, public participation was not as nearly as im- portant as economic viability; and with this being a £150 million project, with the private sector providing £110million, there was no question who it had to answer to. The struggle After the project was introduced to the public, major changes were made responding solely to the developers necessities. Little was left of the original plan and so the public, with the help of the press, became aware of the major faults, such as lack of housing and increasing traffic congestion due to the new commercial approach.15 By 1970, Anson was out of the team, and he made it his business to stir up the hitherto apathetic inhabi- tants against the intentions of his colleagues, with the premise that the working class had been left out of the plan by not considering enough accommodation for them, and the proposed ones would have higher rents that eventually would lead to their displacement. The artists joined the movement worried that their cheap accommodation would be eliminated too, and without it, their activity couldn’t flourish. In the Reverend Austen Williams, Vicar of St Paul’s Church, he found a sympathetic listener, and together they unfurled the banner of the defenceless poor and old. In 1971 the Covent Garden Community Association established itself with Anson and Jim Monahan orchestrating the first meeting. Monahan was an architecture student who rallied his classmates to hand out leaflets to every single building in Covent Garden for that first meeting. The demands were clear and a public statement was drafted: “This meeting calls on the GLC to publish in clear terms, what it intends to do in Covent Garden: to guarantee that the existing residents will be accommodated in the area at rents and rates comparable to those they now pay; to guarantee to people and organizations working here that they will not be bought or priced out by the GLC or private developers and to give a promise that the GLC will preserve the community.” Metting outside St. Paul’s Church (16) Coovent GardenCommunity Association The GLC/Camden/Westminster consortium split by political tensions and the GLC assumed the strategic responsibility which had been specifically reserved for it in the London Government Act. A Covent Gar- den Committee was set up, and it was chaired by Lady Dartmouth16. Born Raine McCorquodale, served in her local government for many years. As a member of the Conser- vative Party, she became the youngest member of the Westminster City Council at the age of 23. She ma- rried the Hon. Gerald Humphry Legge on 21 July 1948, and he became Earl of Dartmouth in 1962. They had [15] The above is part of Brian Anson’s statements, from his book “Abroken Wave” [16] More details on Lady Dartmouth’s life can be found on the local press’ obituaries, www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2016/10/21/raine-countess-spencer--obituary/ four children together: William Legge, 10th Earl of Dartmouth, Hon. Rupert Legge, Lady Charlotte, and Hon. Henry Legge. They divorced in 1976, after which she married Earl Spencer, Lady Diana’s father. Soon she was at odds with the planners. Her resignation in a blaze of pu- blicity was a further blow to the beleaguered GLC team. It brought to the side of the left-wing CGCA the powerful support of right-wing aesthetes and liberal conservationists. Against such a background the result of the 1971 public inquiry was predic- table: the Secretary of State, Geoffrey Rippon, gave the GLC its compulsory powers over the area, but at the same time listed the majority of its buil- dings, a secretly prepared list of 245 buildings drafted by two architectu- ral journalists, Dan Cruickshank and Colin Amery, was approved17; and decreed that conservation was to be the central object of the operation and that “full public participation” was to be the technique18. We saw in Covent Garden the first thoroughgoing exercise in public participation and one of the most successful because of the high motivation of the participating parties. The mechanism for this was the Forum, deliberately not a GLC creation but constituted from below to represent by election all the inte- rests in the area, including the Community Association, whose chairman took charge. While the planners churned out discussion papers, slide shows and questionnaires, and organized even more meticulous house-to-house surveys, the new attitude to Covent Garden took shape. It amounted to a charge of cons- ciousness. The time-honoured notion that knocking down worn-out buildings and replacing them with something better was a useful and often a profitable occupation was ruled out. 19 Covent Garden Community Association (18) [17] Miles Glendinning in his book “The Conservation Movement: A history of Architectural Preservation” explains briefly how the struggle over Covent Garden became a trigger for the Conservationist movement in the UK. [18] Brian Anson “I’ll fight you for it” [19] www.covent-garden.co.uk/histories/histories2.html Lady Dartmouth in 1954 (17) GLC Covent Garden Action Area Plan, 1978(19) “Housing gain” had become an obsession on both sides, despite the incurable deficiencies of schooling and the almost total absence of green space in this congested area. The official target was now to raise the resident population from 2.417 to 5.274 (with 1000 children under 15)20. The inflexible CGCA position was the defence of the village against the cultural and tourist invasion. “we ask that there be no galleries or studios in the principal shopping streets...no more museums... no conference Center... no more ho- tels, with loud coachloads of singing Germans arriving at 6 am”. Covent Garden must simply “provide a living, shopping and leisure facilities for the people who work in the entertainment industry, rather than tourist attractions...Covent Garden is not part of the West End.”21 [20] Greater London Council, Covent Garden’s Moving, The Covent Garden Area Draft Plan, 1968 [21] Greater London Council. Covent Garden Action Area Plan. N.p.: Greater London Council, 1978. GLC Covent Garden Action Area Plan, 1978(20) The Plan was printed in 1978, it was affectionately received by all. Density: “Few residents express dissatisfaction with their present accommodation on grounds of lack of privacy, shortage of external space, or noise...Covent Garden residents, in common with those from other parts of the city centre, have a long tradition of urban living and the concept of density is not sig- nificant in their conception of a living environment; the value of plot ratios to control building bulk and employment density is limited”. Zoning: “The Council considers that a mixed-used approach to development control will provide the best possible way of achieving the Plan’s total aims...interpreted as flexibly as possible in order to res- pect the delicate relationships” Housing: “All residents displaced by public development will be rehoused in Covent Garden if they so wish. The GLDP states that planning permission will not normally be given for a change from residential use. The Council will encourage proposals for the rehabilitation by the private sector of existing housing, provided these are not to the disadvantage of existing residents”.22 [22] Greater London Council. Covent Garden Action Area Plan. N.p.: Greater London Council, 1978 GLC Covent Garden Action Area Plan, 1978(21) Traffic: “The most heavily trafficked of the through-routes is Monmouth Street/St. Martin’s Lane which carries 1.100 vehicles per hour through the working day”. Commercial: “It will be the normal policy to prevent a change of use from a retail shop and other uses to showroom use in shopping streets”. Offices: “Each case will be assessed considering the nature of the activity and the benefits to the com- munity such as provision of residential accommodation, provision of specific benefits in the form of buil- dings and other facilities for use of the public, conservation of historic buildings and architecture, provi- sion of small office suites”.23 The defeat of planning in Covent Garden was not primarily a conservationist victory, it was a political one, won by working people under skilled middle-class leadership. Its central theme was that people are more important than architecture.24 [23] Greater London Council. Covent Garden Action Area Plan. N.p.: Greater London Council, 1978. [24] Brian Anson’s thoughts displayed on his book “I’ll fight you for it” RECENT VIEWS By the end of the 90s, Covent Garden established itself as a The place to go for retailing high brands, the market for rental skyrocketed. This encouraged the Westminster City Council to lunch an action plan to secure and im- prove the local environment for residents, businesses and visitors. Resulting from the combination of successful approach in other parts of London, public participation and the Metropolitan Police; it addres- sed problems in traffic, transport, street environment, anti-social activity and street safety.25 The draft plan for Covent Garden includes the council working with landlords to enable shoppers to pick up large purchases by car and to encourage walking. The plans also aim to improve street lighting, reduce 'physical clutter' that detracts from the street and increase street enforcement to tac- kle busking. Council leader Simon Milton says: 'The draft action plan demonstrates our commitment but this must be seen in the light of the city council's very difficult funding situation. We do not have the resources alone to bring about the vision set out in this action plan. If we are to succeed, we are looking for a com- mitment of funding and to work with communities and busines- ses in Covent Garden.'26 Further analysis had taken place, in 2006 the City Council drafted a Planning Guidance for Entertainment uses; to determine the land uses, functions, scale and environmental quality of entertainment in Covent Garden. The purpose was to establish policies regarding existing and new entertainment use and accom- plish a balance between the mixed use character of the place. Land Uses Plan - Planning Guidance for Entertainment uses, 2006 (24) [25] www.westminster.gov.uk/archives [26] Interview for the article “Garden army.” Property Week, 5 Dec. 2003, p. 62. Business Collection, Covent Garden Action Plan,2004(22) Westminster City Council Logo for the Covent Garden Action Plan (23) The struggle in Covent Garden has definitely shaped the conser- vationist movement in London. Postmodernist interventions, such as the Comyn Ching Triangle, have a possibility to be listed be- cause of the precedents set in the 70s. According to Farrell, it stands as one of Covent Garden's land- mark restoration and new-build scheme. Best described his own words, "The Comyn Ching Trian- gle, with much of Covent Garden, was planned to be demolished in the 1970s. Then the Triangle became part of Covent Garden's wonderful regeneration story. My involvement as architect for this urban block lasted over ten years. The public space in the mi- ddle links together restoration and new buildings: shops, offices, interior and exterior details. It is still one of the best things I've been involved with”27. But the area has also grown to become an important part of London’s commercial core, and in this matter recent planning policy for the Central Activity Zone (CAZ) has established stra- tegies outlining hierarchy areas where local authorities will be expected to direct housing, so the office space in central London continues to be a key generator of economic prosperity. Journalist Colin Marrs quoted London’s major Boris Jhonson in his Architects’ Journal article to defend this premise: “The heart of the capital is the foundation of London’s reputation as best city in the world in which to do business”28 Axonometric drawing of the Comyn Ching Triangle by Terry Farrell (26) [27] Interview for the magazine Building Design [28] www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/new-planning-rules-to-protect-city-from-residential-development/10004183.article Comyn Ching Triangle by Terry Farrell (25) List of Images and drawings No Title 1 Area Plan of Covent Garden 2 Inigo Jones 3 The Piazza looking North 4 The Market Building in the 19th century 5 Axonometric Section of the Market 6 St. Paul’s Church 7 St. Paul’s Church Floor Plan 8 St. Paul’s Church burns 9 St. Paul’s Church Interior 10 The Floral Market & the Opera house 11 Axonometric view 12 Drury Lane, Seven Dials 13 Covent Garden Area Draft Plan 14 Road Network 15 Pedestrian Spaces 16 Meeting outside St. Paul’s Church 17 Lady Dartmouth 18 Covent Garden Community Association 19 Conservation Area Boundaries 20 Proposals Map 21 Vehicle Network Proposal 22 Covent Garden Action Plan 23 Westminster City Council Logo 24 Land Uses Plan 25 Comyn Ching Triangle 26 Axonometric view of the Comyn Ching Triangle Author GLC Unknown Unknown Unknown GLC Thomas Homers Shepherd Unknown Unknown Steve Cadman Unknown Dixon Jones Architects Gustave Doré CGLC & W & LBC CGLC & W & LBC CGLC & W & LBC CGCA Unknown CGCA GLC GLC GLC Westminster City Council Westminster City Council Westminster City Council Terry Farell Architects Terry Farrell Architects Type Plan Painting Drawing Photograph Drawing Painting Plan Painting Photograph Photograph Drawing Illustration Drawing Plan Drawing Photograph Photograph Photograph Plan Plan Plan Logo Logo Plan Photograph Drawing Bibliography in alphabetical order 1. Anson, B. I'll Fight You for It: Behind the Struggle for Covent Garden. Cape, 1981. 2. Bradley, Simon, and Pevsner, Nikolaus. London. 6, Westminster. Pevsner Architectural Guides. New Haven, Conn. ; London: Yale University Press, 2005. 3. Cavanagh, Elaine. "Up for renewal." Estates Gazette, 19 Oct. 2002, p. 2. Business Collection, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=uokent&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA93116404&it=r&asid=- 17c76221e87cee84b155429f95d52535. Accessed 5 Dec. 2016. 4. Christie, Ian - Covent Garden: Approaches to Urban Renewal - The Town Planning Review; Jan 1, 1974; 45, 1; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 31 5. 'Covent Garden Market', in Survey of London: Volume 36, Covent Garden, ed. F H W Sheppard (Lon- don, 1970), pp. 129-150. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol36/ pp129-150 [accessed 10 November 2016]. 6. 'Covent Garden Theatre and the Royal Opera House: Management', in Survey of London: Volume 35, the theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, ed. F H W Sheppard (Lon- don, 1970), pp. 71-85. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol35/pp71- 85 [accessed 12 October 2016]. 7. Duggan, Diane - 'London the Ring, Covent Garden the Jewell of That Ring': New Light on Covent Gar- den. (Architectural History, Vol. 43, 2000), pp. 140-161 8. Esher, Lionel Gordon Balish Brett. A Broken Wave : The Rebuilding of England, 1940-1980. London: Allen Lane, 1981 9. Glendinning, Miles - "The Conservation Movement: A history of Architectural Preservation" - (New York: Routledge, 2013), 329 – 330 10."Garden army." Property Week, December 5, 2003, 62. Business Collection (accessed Decem- ber 5, 2016). http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=uokent&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%- 7CA111856021&asid=ccf23c7421f25d260c50d9c64c68293f. 11. Greater London Council, Covent Garden’s Moving, The Covent Garden Area Draft Plan, 1968 12. Greater London Council. Covent Garden Action Area Plan. N.p.: Greater London Council, 1978. 13. Hall, John - 'Covent Garden Newly Marketed', The London Journal, 1980 14.Matthew, H. C. G., Harrison, Brian Howard, and British Academy. Oxford Dictionary of National Bio- graphy from the Earliest times to the Year 2000. New ed. 2004. 15.O'Donovan Teige & Cooper - 'Covent Garden: a model for protection of special character?' - Journal of Planning & Environment Law, 1998 16.Richardson, J. Covent Garden. Historical Pubns, 1979. 17. 'The Bedford Estate: From 1627 to 1641', in Survey of London: Volume 36, Covent Garden, ed. F H W Sheppard (London, 1970), pp. 25-34. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-lon- don/vol36/pp25-34 [accessed 4 December 2016]. 18.Westminster City Council - 'Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance for Entertainment Uses', July 2006. 19.http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol36/pp25-34 http://www.coventgardenmemories. org.uk/page_id__37.aspx 20. http://thespaces.com/2016/02/17/is-architect-terry-farrells-postmodern-comyn-ching-triangle-in- covent-garden-worth-listing/ 21.http://www.e-architect.co.uk/architects/terry-farrell 22.http://www.sevendials.com/about-us/patrons/item/14-sir-terry-farrell-cbe-riba-frsa-fcsd-mrtpi 23.https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/new-planning-rules-to-protect-city-from-residential-deve- lopment/10004183.article 24.https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/big-names-rally-to-save-farrells-comyn-ching-buil- ding/10005959.article 25.http://www.bdonline.co.uk/farrell-submits-comyn-ching-for-urgent-listing/5080195.article 26.https://www.westminster.gov.uk/archives 27.http://www.gustav-mahler.eu/index.php/plaatsen/228-great-britain/london-londen/1381-covent-gar- den-and-drury-theatre 28. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2016/10/21/raine-countess-spencer--obituary/ 29. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/21/raine-countess-spencer-obituary 30.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3859566/Princess-Diana-s-stepmother-Raine-Spen- cer-dies-age-87.html 31. http://royalcentral.co.uk/other/private-funeral-for-princess-dianas-stepmother-raine-spencer-71011 32. https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/what-is-palladianism Bibliography according to type of sources History 1. Anson, B. I’ll Fight You for It: Behind the Struggle for Covent Garden. Cape, 1981. 2. Bradley, Simon, and Pevsner, Nikolaus. London. 6, Westminster. Pevsner Architectural Guides. New Haven, Conn. ; London: Yale University Press, 2005. 3. ‘Covent Garden Market’, in Survey of London: Volume 36, Covent Garden, ed. F H W Sheppard (Lon- don, 1970), pp. 129-150. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol36/ pp129-150 [accessed 10 November 2016]. 4. ‘Covent Garden Theatre and the Royal Opera House: Management’, in Survey of London: Volume 35, the theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, ed. F H W Sheppard (Lon- don, 1970), pp. 71-85. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol35/pp71- 85 [accessed 12 October 2016]. 5. Esher, Lionel Gordon Balish Brett. A Broken Wave : The Rebuilding of England, 1940-1980. London: Allen Lane, 1981 6. Glendinning, Miles - “The Conservation Movement: A history of Architectural Preservation” - (New York: Routledge, 2013), 329 – 330 7. Richardson, J. Covent Garden. Historical Pubns, 1979. 8. ‘The Bedford Estate: From 1627 to 1641’, in Survey of London: Volume 36, Covent Garden, ed. F H W Sheppard (London, 1970), pp. 25-34. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-lon- don/vol36/pp25-34 [accessed 4 December 2016]. 9. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol36/pp25-34 http://www.coventgardenmemories. org.uk/page_id__37.aspx Institutional Information 1. Greater London Council, Covent Garden’s Moving, The Covent Garden Area Draft Plan, 1968 2. Greater London Council. Covent Garden Action Area Plan. N.p.: Greater London Council, 1978. 3. Westminster City Council - ‘Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance for Entertainment Uses’, July 2006. 4. http://royalcentral.co.uk/other/private-funeral-for-princess-dianas-stepmother-raine-spencer-71011 5. https://www.westminster.gov.uk/archives 6. http://www.sevendials.com/about-us/patrons/item/14-sir-terry-farrell-cbe-riba-frsa-fcsd-mrtpi 7.http://www.gustav-mahler.eu/index.php/plaatsen/228-great-britain/london-londen/1381-covent-gar- den-and-drury-theatre Academic Publicactions 1. Cavanagh, Elaine. “Up for renewal.” Estates Gazette, 19 Oct. 2002, p. 2. Business Collection, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=uokent&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA93116404&it=r&asid=- 17c76221e87cee84b155429f95d52535. Accessed 5 Dec. 2016. 2. Christie, Ian - Covent Garden: Approaches to Urban Renewal - The Town Planning Review; Jan 1, 1974; 45, 1; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 31 3. Duggan, Diane - ‘London the Ring, Covent Garden the Jewell of That Ring’: New Light on Covent Gar- den. (Architectural History, Vol. 43, 2000), pp. 140-161 4. Hall, John - ‘Covent Garden Newly Marketed’, The London Journal, 1980 5. O’Donovan Teige & Cooper - ‘Covent Garden: a model for protection of special character?’ - Journal of Planning & Environment Law, 1998 Specialist Press 1. “Garden army.” Property Week, December 5, 2003, 62. Business Collection (accessed December 5, 2016). http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=uokent&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA111856021&asid=cc- f23c7421f25d260c50d9c64c68293f. 2. http://thespaces.com/2016/02/17/is-architect-terry-farrells-postmodern-comyn-ching-triangle-in-co- vent-garden-worth-listing/ 3. http://www.e-architect.co.uk/architects/terry-farrell 4.https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/new-planning-rules-to-protect-city-from-residential-develo- pment/10004183.article 5.https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/big-names-rally-to-save-farrells-comyn-ching-buil- ding/10005959.article 6.http://www.bdonline.co.uk/farrell-submits-comyn-ching-for-urgent-listing/5080195.article Local Press 1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2016/10/21/raine-countess-spencer--obituary/ 2. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/21/raine-countess-spencer-obituary 3.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3859566/Princess-Diana-s-stepmother-Raine-Spen- cer-dies-age-87.html Biography 1. Matthew, H. C. G., Harrison, Brian Howard, and British Academy. Oxford Dictionary of National Bio- graphy from the Earliest times to the Year 2000. New ed. 2004. Albane Duvillier, 4th Year, dip 7, essay submission for the Brave New World Revisited/Edward Bottoms appendix Brian Anson. Letter to Edward Bottoms, NOT FOR PUBLICATION. 18 February 2008 AA Project Review 1974-75 AA Project Review 1975-76 AA Project Review 1976-77 AA Project Review 1977-78 Brian Anson. “Let’s sing the Land Song”. Lecture, Architectural Association, London: 20 November 1974 AA Project Review 1974-75 AA Project Review 1974-75 AA Project Review 1974-75 AA Project Review 1974-75 AA Project Review 1974-75 AA Project Review 1974-75 AA Project Review 1974-75 Peter Cook’s unit AA Project Review 1974-75 AA Project Review 1975-76 AA Project Review 1975-76 AA Project Review 1975-76 AA Project Review 1975-76 AA Project Review 1975-76 AA Project Review 1975-76 AA Project Review 1975-76 AA Project Review 1975-76 AA Project Review 1976-77 AA Project Review 1976-77 AA Project Review 1976-77 AA Project Review 1976-77 AA Project Review 1976-77 AA Project Review 1976-77 AA Project Review 1976-77 Fred Scott & Bob Evans AA Project Review 1977-78 AA Project Review 1977-78 AA Project Review 1977-78 AA Project Review 1977-78 AA Project Review 1976-77 AA Project Review 1976-77 Brian Anson. “Let’s sing the Land Song”. Lecture at the Architectural Association London: 20 November 1974 Paul Bower : « The paper is over 8000 words long and includes no references as it was a typed manuscript. The paper comes courtesy of George Mills, one of Brian’s former AA students at the time and eventual col- league and friend » “We should sing the Land song again” This talk is about land. Who should own it, what is the power that it contains, what traps ownership of it may hold for common people – or for that matter rich people. It is not a definitive talk – that is it does not give a simple answer – yet it is topical in view of the Government White Paper. It is something in which I have always been interested and which I believe is, if not at the core of social prob- lems, pretty near the centre. It is such a vast subject that I am bound to miss much out, and likewise I am bound to annoy some in the audi- ence more learned than I on the matter, I don’t intend to and if I learn from them I shall be well pleased. I have some facts and some instincts. The facts are mainly in the paper that follows: my instincts are in a hum- ble way those of the great man whose picture appears on the poster; Padraig Pearce – they are with the landless man against the Lord of Lords and the breadless man against the master of millions. It is one of my basic beliefs that you cannot create a just situation from a basic injustice. It is clear to me that exploitation of land for private gain has been the second major course of injustice throughout the history of man, The first exploitation of man himself. Much of the misery, death and indignity that man has endured throughout history is in one way of another connected with avaricious schemes to deprive him of his land. I am aware that at certain times in history, and perhaps today is one of them, ownership of land has not been as helpful to the cause of a better society for common people – Engels, and to an extent Marx, were totally against returning the land to the people – at least whereby they became individual freeholders, Nonetheless I believe that the sacred connection between man and his land is still valid and I treat with suspicion any attempt to ignore it as something unimportant. The ancient traveller returning to his native soil knelt and pressed the earth to his lips manifesting his link to the elemental roots he must have if he is to remain sane. An aunt of mine died recently. Her body was taken by sea to Cork. Then by car to a little village outside Gal- way. They still have a simple tradition in the West of Ireland where the villagers come out 20 miles to escort the cortege into the village. She had been away for many years but her last wish was ‘take me home’. And that’s what the villagers were doing. The instinctive relationship to a sense of place that these two events illustrate are to me still very basic. I hope too many of you are not fidgeting and wondering the relevance of old ladies being taken back to villages or travellers weeping into the soil. I know you want facts, statistics and theories. There is no shortage of them, but the sacred relationship of people to land is possibly a greater truth for we are not in perpetual and rootless motion as the mid-cult trendies with their coffee table paperbacks or mobility theories would have us believe. So before I get down to some of the facts of history, I’d like to simply state where I believe the asnwer lies. Though I can’t as yet explain that it’s achievable. I believe that land must not be exploited for private gain in anyway whatsoever. In the contest of our mixed economy that means nothing less than taking ALL economic value out of land – in fact to make it VALUE- LESS. Paradoxically, in the context of our economically dominated society, to take a sacred element out of the system is to make it PRICELESS – which is what land is in reality. To my mind the common fact of history is the way that land has been exploited for monetary gain to the det- riment of civilised society. Why should we not put it in the same category as those other elements that we now consider priceless. Finite resources such as the air we breath are not yet part of the market mechanism – although in the centre of Tokyo one can ‘buy’ oxygen from a slot machine – and I take it no sane person here would advocate such a policy. The greatest, most priceless – although ironically not finite – resource of all, the human being, is not yet freed from the market system – but I take it no-one here would bring back slavery or the use of child-labour. We are capable now of considering the human resource as priceless – yet we had to struggle for the freedom – and the greatest opponents of the abolitionists were those who argued the collapse of our economic system should slav- ery go. Let us strive, therefore, to free land from the market. This is not day dreaming for at certain times in history, land has been viewed as a sacred and priceless element – and was arguably better cared for to the benefit of all. Sean O’Faolain has pointed out that the early Celts “...shared property in common and their hold on their land was absolute and incontestable. No Chief or King had any claim on the land and he could not legally dis- possess any family in his small kingdom...” The American Indians saw land as a gift from the great spirit and knew that they didn’t own it but held it in trust for future generations – and a whole ecological concept grew out of that belief. The downfall of that whole civilisation began with an attack on the land. “...the white man made us many promises” said Red Cloud of the Oglala Sioux “and he kept but one: he promised to take our land and he did”. I don’t know whether my concept can be made to work, anymore than the economic theories of Schumacher can be, but I think it’s in the right direction and I think it’s worth a try – in any case there’s been not other solution to the land problem in this country for the past six hundred years. I used to work for a stupid architect who, thinking he was a modernist, once said to me, that he was not inter- ested in anything written yesterday. I think the exact opposite and in order to learn what little I do know about the land problem I’ve had to go back a good many centuries. And so I begin in the past. But learning from the past is not the same as living in the past – so travelling through seven centuries as rapidly as possible I’ll end up with the current Government White Paper on Land Reform. And then if you’re still interested we can discuss it. We think we have a land hunger now and we think that the great inflation in land values of 1973 was an ex- traordinary event. The only extraordinary thing about it was that the Tory party at last publicly admitted the existence of what it euphemistically called “The unacceptable face of Capitalism”. According to Toynbee’s “English Social History” as long ago as the thirteenth century there was land hunger – too many people and not enough land in cultivation – greatly to the benefit of the landlords. Then the Black death wiped out half the population and the ensuing two centuries were to the benefit of the peasant – who struggled out of serfdom during this period. But by the sixteenth century land hunger was back fr the birth rate had wiped out the rav- ages of the plague and now there was a surplus of labour – the landlord was back in business. “Hence” as Toynbee states “The economic opportunity for the landlord to do what he liked with land so much in demand”. Worst of all the hated Enclosures Acts came into being at this time and ‘Economic neces- sity’ became the Tyrants’ pleas for much oppression when the common land was taken from the people. To be fair, I suppose, the landlord was under some financial pressure as inflation was running at a pretty high rate – between 1500-1560 food prices had trebled – but this plea of economic necessity went too far and became popular wisdom in later years when as Toynbee again says “ the dismal science of Political economy bore iron rule over the minds of men”. Tragically this dismal science has survived up to the present day and economic necessity is still an excuse for land crimes against the people. I am not an historian, but from what little I do know concerning the land question from the 12th century on and particularly with regard to the Acts of Enclosure, I acknowledge the tremendous complexity of the issue. What is not denied by any historian, however, is that the Common Law of England established under Henry II was an excellent foundation to work progressively towards a most just social system in society. Indeed much of that foundation has remained intact in such things as the jury system, and the birth of Parliamentary democra- cy. But not in the case of land, despite the fact that Trevelyan maintains that: “The starting point of our modern land law” began in 1275 under Edward I through his two statutes De Donis Conditionalibus and Quia Eviptores Laws which helped bring about the downfall of feudalism by vesting land rights largely in the King. I can’t see the reality of this, as in later centuries, particularly the 17th and 18th, the parliamentary democracy was largely controlled by politicians who themselves were large landowners. But to return briefly to the land system under the Common Law of the 12th to 15th centuries. It was John Stuart Mill who pointed out “it is custom, immemorial custom, which is the most powerful protector of the weak against the strong, their sole protector where there are n laws or government adequate to the purpose. That custom which even in the most oppressed condition of mankind, tyranny is forced in some degree to respect...” If there is any one major basis on which social life of England rested during the common law period it was this one of “immemorial custom” and particularly over land and tenant rights. The Durham Halmote Rolls pub- lished by the Surtess Society at the beginning of the 19th Century gives a vivid account of community life in Medieval Northumberland: “The dry record of tenures is peopled by men and women under the various phases of village life. We see them in their tofts surrounded by their crofts with their gardens of pot herbs. We see how they ordered the affairs of the village in matters concerning the common meal of the community. We hear of how they repressed their strifes and contentions, of their attempts, not always ineffective, to grasp the principle of co-operation. Local provisions for public health and general convenience are evidenced by the watchful vigilance of the village officials over the water supplies, the care taken to prevent the fouling of useful streams, and stringent by-laws as to the common place for clothes washing and the time for emptying and cleansing ponds and mill dams. labour was lightened and the burdens of life eased by co-operation on an extensive scale. A common mill ground the corn, and the flour was baked into bread at a common oven. A common smith worked at a common forge and common shepherds and herdsmen watched the sheep and cattle of various tenants when pastured on the fields common to the whole community.” According to Cardinal Gasquet writing in the early part of the 20th century – a review of the halmote rolls “leaves no doubt that the tenants, had a recognised right in their holdings, which was ripening into a custom- ary freehold estate.” Professor Thorold Rogers in his lectures on “the Economic Interpretation of History” given at Oxford in 1887, adds further evidence when he says that: “The peasant was rarely without his patch of land and beyond the plot which he held in severalty, the peasant had more or less extensive rights of common. The common, even if it did not afford herbage for his cow, was a run for his poultry, and assured him the occasional fowl in the pot.” The key phrase is “ripening into a freehold estate”. The immemorial custom backed up the obvious advantage of co-operative working may quite easily have developed over time into a well-nigh-unshakable social system based on co-operation and Communal ownership. That was well removed from despotic state control or bu- reaucratic Communism. Even Gordon-Rattray-Taylor in his recent and pessimistic book “Rethink” describes how one of the most com- mon topics of conversation during this time was the definition of a fair profit and he suggests that an individ- ual those aim was unlimited profit would have been forwned upon by society in general. Professor Rogers sums it up when he says: “...the rate of production was small, the conditions of health unsatisfactory and the duration of life short; but on the whole there were none of those extremes of poverty and wealth which have excited the astonishment of philanthropists and are now exciting the indignation of workmen. The age it is true had its discontents, and these were expressed in a startling manner. But of poverty which premises unheeded, of willingness to do hon- est work and a lack of opportunity, there was little or none. The essence of life during the Plantagenets and the Tudors was that everyone knew his neighbour, and that everyone was his brother’s keeper. My studies lead me to conclude that though there was a hardship in this life, the hardship was a common lot and that there was hope...” Three events changed all this, and in terms of the land problem changed the course of history: the Acts of En- closure, the dissolution of the Monasteries and the birth of the Industrial Revolution. The first two were to change drastically the ownership pattern of land; whether it be legal ownership or own- ership by ‘immemorial custom’. The industrial Revolution was eventually to create, amongst other things, the industrial city and the land problems that are with us still today. All three events together were to produce a new class of people which from now on was to lie at the very heart of the land problems: the “landless labourer”. In effect the industrial working class man was born, and his increasingly desperate plight was to complicate the land issue enormously right to to the present day. In future centuries some like Proudhon, the bourgeois Socialist and Parnell, the Irish Catholic leader would try to leas him back to that co-operative wonderland of individual ownership partly described above, while others like Marx and Engels would keep him away from such ownership and petit bourgeois traps in order that he might lead the socialist revolution. It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the religious validity of the Reformation in England. As so often in the past, and still today, religious friction has been used by the ruling class as a cloak to hide or evade real social problems. But the social upheaval caused by this event was enormous in England. Again the issue is complex with one side, such as the partisan Catholics, arguing that the Abbots, Monks and Priors were re- sponsible and benevolent landlords to their tenants, and that the dissolution of the monasteries robbed the communities of a sound and reasonably happy base for living. The passages I’ve quoted above by such as Pro- fessor Thorold suggest there is some truth in this. Others, not impressed by ‘other-worldly’ attitudes towards community structure place greater emphasis on the undoubted misuse of responsibility shown by many monastic settlements and suggest that long before Refor- mation the monasteries were being run by secular middle-men with an eye to profit. It is for the individual to make up his own mind on whether the dissolution was socially retrograde step or not. Personally I tend to agree with the Protestant Radical William Cobbett, that the event was more a social disas- ter than civilised progress. But again there is complete agreement by most historians on one significant point. Dramatic events in history are neither entirely good nor entirely bad. Henry VIII and later Edward VI having confiscated the monastic lands had a wonderful opportunity to redistribute it justly amongst the people and in fact some historians suggest that in Henry’s case this was the first intention. But as Trevelyan says in his English Social History “...the Exchequer was empty and the courtiers were greedy and the hasty sale of the lands to private purchasers was the course adopted. The dissolution of the monasteries and the confiscation of the property of the chantries and guilds resulted in the transfer of well over 2,000,000 acres of land into the hands of new proprietors. The change of ownership was disastrous for the poorer tenants although many of the stronger yeomanry class did very well out of it and their first step to becoming property owning capitalists. The new brand of owners, who had in many cases paid large sums for their land, began immediately a system of rack renting and encroaching upon common land. As regards the early acts of enclosure there are again mixed views. There is clear agreement that the very poor suffered enormously as their common land was enclosed and they were deprived of its benefits, When the Parliament, as it then became, was closed by law to anyone not a considerable owner of land it is impossible to argue the right of ownership of land by ‘immemorial custom’. And that is the only right the peasant had. Prior to the dissolution of the monasteries and the Acts of Enclosure this right was largely adequate. The vast reduction of small holdings left the peasant farmer helpless and the worthless compensation that he did, on occasion, get merely led him to the alehouse. Suddenly great numbers of people were homeless, job- less, half-starving vagrants. In connection with this Elizabeth in 1495 brought her Statute of Labourers. According to Professor Thorold the object of this celebrated or infamous act was threefold. 1.To break up the combination of labourers To secure the adequate machinery of control To make the peasant labourer the residuum of all other labour – or, in other words, to forcibly increase the supply Not long after, in 1541, the first Poor Laws came into being. So one way to look at the results of the dissolu- tion of the monasteries and the Acts of Enclosure is to see them as robbing great numbers of poor people of their customary rights in land by confiscation; creating a new rich and powerful minority owning large estates; creating in the process a new class, that of the landless labourer; the creation of poor laws and destitution on a large scale – culminating in the terrible state of the working class in the 19th century in England – and finally as being the origin of the class scars that mark our society today. Others argue that while the early acts of enclosure created social damage, the final enclosure Acts of the 17th century and early 18th century were a national necessity. England, in those days, did not yet have access to the great granaries of the world – such as Russia, and with an exploding population and the rapid growth of the cities, the country must produce much more food or starve. As the traditional small farming methods were wasteful they must be replaced by a more streamlined arrangement of land use. Whatever the merits of the latter argument, the 17th century was also the pinnacle of the landowning gentry class – and poverty amidst affluence was commonplace. The Acts of Enclosure were beneficial to sections of the population even including the yeoman class and many of the craftsmen, but a whole section of the poor were totally excluded. In contrast Denmark which proceeded with enclosure at the same time took into account the interest of all classes, even the very poorest, with excel- lent consequences in the Danish society of today. By and large I agree with first Cobbett, and finally Toynbee, the modern historian who says: “Henry VIII had been driven by financial necessity to sell most of the confiscated lands privately. The potential value of the land was much higher than the lay purchasers had paid. The ultimate beneficiary of the dissolution was not religion, not education, not the poor, not even in the end the crown, but a class of fortunate gentry whose power replaced that of the great nobles and ecclesiastics of the feudal ages and whose word was to be law in England for centuries to come...” So land hunger and its consequent exploitation is nothing new. What about rocketing land values? Again it’s all happened before as 19th century Scotland shows, to give just one example. In these islands it is the Scottish people like the Irish who know deep in their bones what land means – they suffered one of the worst indigni- ties of any nation – they were driven from their land by sheep – the Cheviot. But as John Prebble says in ‘The Highland Clearances’: “...the land owners could see no reason for complaint. Wool was making them rich. Wool had forced up the value of land all over the highlands. In five years the sale price of the Castlehill Estate had risen from £8000 to £80,000. Redcastle, which had been sold for £25,000 in 1790 was shortly to be sold (in 1817) for £135,000 and the Fairburn estate, which had yielded a rental of £700 in 1800 was now in 1817 worth £80,000 rental a year.” They had a rather quaint legal system in those days for at the trial of Patrick Sellar, one of the villains of the time who spent his time evicting poor crofters in order that his masters could make the sort of profits I have described, it was stated: “that a bed-ridden woman of 90 had been evicted from her house and died five days later in an outhouse (the cottage was in fact set on fire by Sellar while the woman still lay in her sick bed). This was not contested in court and the judge and jurors agreed that Mr Sellar could not be held responsible for the ‘natural tendency of a person to die if rendered suddenly homeless’.” This is just one of millions of examples whereby horrific and tragic death springs directly from private ex- ploitation of land. Only two weeks ago I read of how fifty square miles of this same countryside that Patrick Sellar ravaged in the early 19th century is to be sold on the international market so that Lady Sutherland may rationalise the other 100,000 acres of her ancestral estate. To rationalise means to provide a lucrative grouse shooting, salmon fishing, golf course for the multi-national oil magnates no doubt. First it was the Chevi- ot, then it was mid-century Shell-Esso man – BUT WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THE PEOPLE? Of course they never came into it. They never did in the past and if huge profits are to be made today from land they are likewise excluded. The Scots know that history will always attempt to repeat itself. In 1973 the last Tory government was deter- mined to bring its LAND DEVELOPMENT BILL in order to expedite the oil-rush. A spokesman stated publicly “We must have the platform building sites whether the people like it or not”. WE WILL BRING THE GREAT CHEVIOT IN WHETHER THE CROFTER LIKE IT OR NOT. But one last comment on Scotland. Even bureaucracies throughout history can occasionally make a statement that has the ring of pure simple truth about it. And the final statement of the Crofters Commission of 1892 said: “...the solution of the Highland Problem is not land purchase but the resumption of the Clansman’s right to occupy the Fatherland....” No mention of economic necessity or investment or a healthy economy – but a question of human RIGHT and a RESUMPTION of that right. Just think about it for a minute and ponder on modern interpretations: “The solution of London’s housing problem is a resumption of the old communities RIGHT to occupy the city....” “The solution to the Irish problem is a resumption of the Native Irish’s RIGHT to occupy the motherland.” And what is the land story in Ireland. I must confess that it was an interest in the history of that country that led to the beginning of my interest in the land problem. Land and the so-called Irish problem are synonymous and some of the greatest agitators for land reform in the 19th century came out of that country. I have already mentioned that the old Celtic order had a system of land ownership based entirely on the com- munity. A system of land control that was ta the base of social structure extraordinarily communistic in its character and in the truest sense of the term. Amongst the many dreadful deeds that England perpetrated against that nation, it’s attack on the land was par- amount in its destruction of a way of life. They first tried to conquer the land – and failed; they then tried to plant it with aliens and only partially succeeded, then they reinforced the little bit they could hold and invent- ed “The Pale” and finally in the great tradition of all imperial powers they partitioned it. In the early 1840’s two million people starved to death in Ireland and another two million emigrated with half of those dying in the coffin ships before reaching their destination – often because they were driven from the land. Never lecture an Irishman on Genocide. Nor indeed on the economic necessities that a poor landlord has to face. For it was as a direct result of land exploitation that Ireland changed overnight form being the fastest growing population outside China to the sparsely peopled land she is today. It was at the height of that famine that starving peasants were evicted from the land and when they built SCALPEENS to protect their shrivelled bodies from the weather. a scalpeen is a ditch with a bit of a roof over it – hence the Irish saying that you can never stumble into an Irish ditch without falling down a chimney - They were evicted from the Scalpeens. When this matter was raised in the House of Lords in 1846, Lord Brougham stated: “It is the landowners inalienable right to do exactly as he pleases to do with his land, If this were not so money would no longer be invested in land.” Fortunately history is not all gloom, for 1846 brought something good to the land question in Ireland. It brought the birth of Michael Davitt. A man of high courage, moral no less than physical, a passionate man totally intolerant of cruelty and injustice, and most important of all the man who was to become the father of the LAND LEAGUE. But before Davitt a few words on James Fintan Lalov who died three years after Davitt’s birth in 1846. Where the latter was the father of the land league, Lalov is popularly seen as the prophet of revolutionary Irish land reform. The social system of 19th century Ireland gave supreme power to the landlord and no security to the tenant. The growth of the landless labourer, referred to above, was very rapid in Ireland. Lalov assumed “...the gen- eral and common right of all the people as joint and co-equal proprietors of all the land ... and no man had a right to hold one foot of Irish soil otherwise than by grant of tenancy from the people in common...” Lalov was not interested in nationalisation – but rather in co-operative ownership. He considered the posi- tion of the landless labourer to be beyond repair, and his theories have little connection with the dense urban problems of our day. Davitt’s views are more pertinent and in the end he was as suspicious of individual peasant ownership as an answer to the land problem as Engels was. The son of an evicted Mayo peasant Davitt moved into Revolutionary politics through an early five year spell in the Irish Republican Brotherhood, the Fenian forerunner of the modern IRA. In addition his foundation with Parnell of the Land League in 1879 increased his radicalism for the organisation, through technically legal, was animated by the spirit of social revolution. The battle cry of the Land League was simply the land of Ireland for the people of Ireland and its initial aim was the overthrow of an oppressive landlord class.. Davitt was eager to emphasise its universal implications and declared that “...the principles on which the land movement rests are founded on natural justice ... the cause of Ireland is the cause of humanity and labour throughout the world...” The problem arose, and still today arises, when Davitt had to consider what system would replace the landlord. The tenant farmers led by Parnell (who incidentally would never tolerate Trade Unions) were clear on the aims – their own holdings would belong to them. Davitt thought otherwise – in line with Henry George, whose famous book ‘Progress and Poverty’ had appeared in 1879 – he saw nationalisation, or state ownership of all land – as the solution. According to Davitt, “Land was a unique commodity, it was no man’s creation, it was essential to all life and it was fixed in quantity. It ought therefore to be directly owned and administered by the state. Private monopoly in land meant that the landlord appropriated most of the wealth produced by labour returning only a bare liv- ing to the tenant. Under national ownership the tenant would enjoy the full product of his industry and would have a virtual freehold, paying a tax equal to the annual value of the bare land, and observing certain condi- tions. he holding must be cultivated: it should not be larger than the tenant could personally manage – and the State should have the right to authorise mines and minerals worked in it. In general terms the ultimate outcome in Ireland, peasant proprietorship, was not the solution of the land problem at which he aimed. His suspicion of this ‘solution’ was matched only by the contempt of such an aim by Engels who declared:- “...for our workers in the big cities, freedom of movement is the prime condition of existence, and land own- ership can only be a fetter to them, Give them their own houses, chain them once again tot the soil and you break their power of resistance to the wage cutting of the factory owners...” In England the land of nationalisation theories of Henry George, the American author of ‘Poverty and Prog- ress’ were advocated thirty years later by another George, Prime Minister, Lloyd George. In his budget – his Peoples’ Budget as he called it – of 1909, he introduced taxes on land values. Looking back on them they were not startling – eg. one 1/2 penny in the pound on the added value realised by the sale of land where the com- munity had made that value possible. But they caused a tremendous political storm and the House of Lords (which incidentally Davitt had referred to as that Den of Land Thieves) rejected the budget, and a constitu- tional crisis ensued. Lloyd George travelled the country presenting the land issue – and in his famous Limehouse speech he de- scribed the landowners living on unearned profits as parasites: “Who created these increments? Who made that golden swamp? Was it the Landlord? Was it his energy? His brains? It is rather hard that an old workman should have to find his way to the gates of the tomb bleeding and footsore, through the brambles and thorns of poverty. We cut a new path for him, an easier one, a pleasanter one, through fields of waving corn.” But the land taxes brought in little revenue and were abandoned n the days of the coalition. Lloyd George continued to proclaim his belief in public landownership and a total abolition of freehold. In the mid-twen- ties he was the main force behind the Green Book and Brown Book. The former called for public ownership of all agricultural land and the latter for total nationalisation of all urban land. Had these proposals been adopted our economic situation today might well be different. The Green Book proposed that the vast, and growing numbers of urban unemployed world return to a coun- tryside that belonged to them and not the large landowning farmers. Advocates of Lloyd George’s policy formed an organisation called the Land and the Nation League and toured Britain advocating land nationalisation. But the opponents of public land ownership were beginning to dig-on and eventually even the liberal party was divided. The early planning acts form 1909 through to 1932 had not proved a success – perhaps because they were too loosely drafted on such a vital issue. It proved too costly to pay compensation for development refusal, and the collection fo betterment levies provd well nigh impossible. Three major inquiries, the Barlow, Scott and Uthwatt, in the 30’s and early 40’s agreed on the need for a na- tional land system. Ultimately the 1947 Planning Act took up Ultwatt’s main idea: a transfer to the State of all development rights in land. The three major principals of the ’47 Act were: Planning Permission required for all development (this for the first time). No compensation paid for refusal Betterment would accrue to the State through Development charges paid to a CENTRAL LAND BOARD. In addition, and in retrospect fundamentally, all land was expected to change hands at existing use value. This in theory Local Authorities could buy land cheaply. Three things happened instead: Owners held land back (they hoarded it) Privately land changed hands at market value – this keeping up the price Landowners sat back expecting a future Tory Government to repeal the Act. Which is exactly what happened in 1951. The Tories kept development control and the no compensation clause – but abolished the Central Land Board. Now an absurd, but legal, two-pricing system existed. Local Authority could still buy land at a price exclusive of development value – if they could find it. But private sales took place at full market value. The Tories 1959 Planning Act reinstated the full market value for all land exchange – from now on no more cheap land for public services and amenities. The market mechanism was in top gear. From the early 60’s to the present day has been the boom period when land prices have soared and massive unearned fortunes have been made in property. Prior to this time land and property was not even quoted on the Stock Exchange; now it occupies the front page of all financial papers. One meek and mild attempt was made by the Labour administration to stop this criminal profiteering – when it set up the Land Commission in 1967. It called for a 40% flat rate tax on development gains – but noth- ing much else was done. Local authorities could still not buy land cheap enough to build desperately needed homes. In any case, the Tories abolished the Land Commission in 1970. It was during this time 1966-1972, that land values rose 228% house prices rose 113% manual earnings rose 52% During this time, according to Counter Information Services, 100 men between them shared £400 million from property and land deals. During this time – the profits of the big private architects rose 118% while the number of new commissions rose only 34%. During this time a senior official in Manchester Corporation Planning Department said – “Land means mon- ey – not just money – it’s a gold mine”. During this time I personally watched the first Chairman of the Covent Garden Development Committee dan- gle prizes of enormous profit from inflated land values before the slobbering faces of Britain’s top developers. During this time I got sick to death of the professions I was in because of the way land was handled as a mar- ketable commodity and the way the architectural and planning professions made no move to change the situa- tion. And now we are at the White Paper. I’m not going to go into great detail over the Land Nationalisation Bill – for one things it’s not a very detailed document anyway and had been criticised as such by none other than the Labour Party Home Affairs Commit- tee – but in any case I should be concluding soon. It’s important to see the Bill as just another stage in a centuries long effort to sort out the and problem in our society. This really has been the whole point of my talk. To understand the present we must understand the past – then we might have some hope of getting things right in the future. Of course it depends on your own viewpoint in the end – some would say we don’t even have a land problem, and many Marxists take this view, but when in 1974 we have 9 million families living in slums and well over a million totally homeless, yet in the last ten years 100 men have made £400 million pounds profit from land deals – I can’t see that we don’t have a land problem. The ultimate aim of the Land Bill is to take from private individuals into the community purse the wealth real- ised from values created by the community and to enable local authorities to have a more positive influence on development in accordance with public needs. This ill be done (it is said) by: Giving Local Authorities strong compulsory powers to purchase land at existing use value Charging a 100% Development Land Tax (DLT) on all developed land. This means that when land is devel- oped, the increased market value of the land springing from the development will go to the community. The argument for this is that the infrastructure which creates the increased value was provided not by the developer but by the public who thus should benefit The ultimate scheme (100% tax) will not come in for some time, say 5 years (by which time incidentally if his- tory repeats itself – and on land issues history does repeat itself, the entire Bill will be repealed by a future Tory Administration). An interim scheme will charge a flat rate of DLT of 80%. Ironically this is less than can be charged under De- velopment Gains Tax – where the maximum is 83%. I find Anthony Crossland’s (the main sponsor) reasons for delaying the ultimate scheme puzzling to say the least. He is quoted as saying the land values would drop too suddenly if the 100% tax was introduced immedi- ately. In the context of the phenomenal rise in land values during the last 5 years, I should have thought we wanted values to drop drastically. Certain land users are totally excluded from the payment of Development Tax: Owner occupiers Agricultural land Forestry land Statutory undertakers Builders and Owners with planning permission on White Paper Day (12 Aug). In basic theory the profits from the development of land will either accrue to the Local Authority or the Exchequer. The Local Authority have the option, instead of granting planning permission (whereupon the developer pays out his DLT to the Government) can acquire the land by Compulsory Purchase – net of DLT – then ease it back to the developer at the Developed Value. Crossland described this at his press conference as “money for Old Rope” and calculated that the public would profit by £750 million. Others think differently – and argue that the taxpayer will have to fork out £500 to £1000 million merely in order to fund the purchasing of the land even at existing use value. It’s a moot point – although Local Authori- ties have no money – and the Government is hardly rich. But it’s more complicated and worrying than that. Tony Crossland has in some quarters been called the Devel- opers’ Saviour because of the possible implications of the Bill. The argument goes like this:- Local Authority somehow finds the money to acquire the land by CP. Local Authority cannot afford to do much with it – and can’t allow it to remain idle – as some interest changes have to be paid. So Local Authority attempts to lease it to Developer – at increased Developed Value (remember Money for Old Rope). Developer won’t consider anything not profitable. (He’ll go into oil, or art or pornography or something in- stead) Suddenly Developer is in the driving seat again. As always he’s got the Local Authority by the curlies – and of course all his negotiating skills come to the fore. And bingo – we’re back where we started. An unwanted office block on that part of the site and a bit of expensive Local Authority Housing on the other. There are many other obvious criticisms of the Bill which unfortunately ring true. The market in development land will dry up because owners will not bring land forward unless profit is guar- anteed. They will simply hold tight hoarding the land until a future Tory administration repeals the Bill. All this has happened before. If Local Authorities have the purchase money and the expert staff (and this is a very big IF), to ‘hunt down’ the land hoarders, great social hatred will be engendered. It is argued, justifiably, that Local Authorities lack the expertise to handle such massive land-banks as would be required to solve our housing and other social problems. Furthermore Local Authorities do not have a very good reputation of looking after land. That they have acquired – a glance at any city centre will prove that. Finally the whole process can be bogged down in inter-area arguments over the definition of development land – and this is especially in the contest of the general public antagonism and mistrust felt towards Local Authority planning departments. On the bright side the Bill, as expected, really smashes the more blatant property speculators. For example if a building like Centre point is not occupied within two years after construction date – then the Local Authority can acquire it at construction date value. In the case of Harry Hyams Empire this can be the difference between £5.5 million and a market value of £42 million. But as I said this sort of Government action was expected and could well divert attention from the more complex land issue. Reactions to the White Paper are mixed. The RTPI is split – with half warning the Government to go slow on Land Nationalisation and the rest saying do it in a big way. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities are wildly enthusiastic – I presume because they will be given the power to buy land cheaply and sell it dearly. This is a very attractive idea to any group of human beings. I would call that an emotional response. On the other hand the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers call it a blueprint for disaster – again I would think this is an emotional response – as the valuers commodity may well reduce in price – and no group of human beings like that idea. The Labour Party Home Affairs Committee chaired by Tony Beurn seems very disillusioned with the Bill – be- cause it is not strong enough or if you like not Socialist enough – you could call this an emotional response but at least it seems to pay some heed to historical truth. A final comment on the White Paper. Let me read you the paragraph on Land Disposal. ——– So what conclusions might I draw? I think the Bill will fail because it is not strong enough. I think most of the criticisms against it are valid, specifically I don’t understand why the 100% DLT could not be introduced immediately. I can’t understand some of the categories excluded from the force of the Bill – for example owners and builders already holding planning permission. I think the public’s disillusionment with the Local Authority power base (particularly in the light og recent corruption) is deeper than the Government thinks – and thus the increased powers of land purchase given to them is not so wondrous. But mainly I think the Bill will fail to solve the eternal land problem for two basic reasons: Nationalisation – or public land ownership is by itself neither here nor there – it is what one does the power of ownership that counts. And our representatives have not shown themselves responsible enough in recent years. Solving the land problem will not on its own solve the social problem – of production and power. My basic view at this stage is:- that first we must have total nationalisation of land immediately. Second: a new community-based power structure must be set up -possibly within the context of a Republic. Thirdly: public ownership of the means of production And fourthly, since none of the above have any meaning whatsoever without financial change, the Nationali- sation of the Banking System. Or if this seems too strong – the New Social Role of Money as James Robertson puts it. I have not stressed Nationalisation to such an extent because I believe in State Control – I do not – but rather because I believe more in balance as the real reality of social life – no-one can deny the existence of total im- balance on the issues I have mentioned. I am suspicious of the avalanche of books being written that pertain to be revolutionary but whose only message is: we will create a more just society if we only become good little people. Even dear old Schumacher’s book comes down to that. My view is get the balance back then we can make progress. To conclude: Land does belong to the the people – it belongs to you and to me – and thus to no-one in particular. This is not daydreaming, such a general attitude has been prevalent before in human history. That fact that our so- ciety, in terms of land-ownership, took a wrong turning somewhere in the past, and that our social system is based upon the consequences of that turning does not mean that we must forever live with it. For why should we accept that reality that has been forced upon us? The raped cities, the pollution or our environment, the millions of homeless, the hideous and unacceptable face of Capitalism, the death of Archi- tecture, the wars and the bombs and the bullets, the corruption of our representatives. We have the power to choose another reality. A reality based in co-operation, on the understanding that we can share things especially those common to all of us and vital to our existence. A reality based on past evidence – on a past when Arab and Jew did co-exist and not struggle over land – when Irish catholic and Irish Protestant did not kill each other over land. A past when the American Indian did offer to share his vast plains with the White Settlers and when the indigenous urban poor did share their land with those more well to do. I’m certainly not saying the answer is simple – I know that I personally must do much more studying of the issue. But if land does belong to the people, whether is it God-given or not, then at least I can begin from that basis and never flinch from that fundamental truth. If we wish to alienate people, make them sullen, make them desperate, and finally if we wish to experience more bombs, bloodshed and tragedy, then all history has shown the most effective way to accomplish this – cast them out, make them homeless – deprive them of their land. As I said I don’t know the full answer – I know it’s not simple – but I know that we are not going to reach it by picking ay a centuries’ old problem that came into being on the wave fo basic injustice. Out attitude must be more fundamental than that. 60% of the wealth of this country is owned by 3% of the population, and much of that wealth is in land. At the very least we must correct that situation. It may sound unhelpful but the best analysis of the situation I have come across is that which was printed in the events list. When Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries, which played some part in the Acts of Enclosure he did so by con- fiscation. Perhaps society will just have to confiscate the land back again – then we can begin solving the land problem. There are certain issues with which it is better to be angry rather than to have fashionable objectivity and kind- liness towards one’s adversaries. I think the existing power of the big land owners is such an issue. Bernadette Devlin ends her book “The Price of my Soul” in which she records her fight against the Unionist Party, with these words: “For half a century it has misgoverned us but is is on its way out. Now we are witnessing its dying convulsions. And with traditional, Irish mercy, when we’ve got it down we’ll kick it into the ground.” I have the same feeling over land ownership. I owe the title of this lecture to Dingle Foot who in a rather pessimistic article on the Land Problem as outlined in the White Paper, concluded: “We should sing the Land song again”. I agree and I’m going to. Of all people it was that old Tory Winston Churchill who led the singing of this song to vast open air meetings at the turn of the century. I’ll sing two original verses with the chorus plus three I’ve written to bring it up to date a bit. The tune is marching through Georgia. Sound a blast for freedom boys and send it far and wide March along to victory for God is on our side While the voice of nature Thunders o’er the rising tide God made the land for the people. CHORUS Hark the sound is swelling from The East and from the West Why should we beg work and let the landlord take the best Make them pay their taxes for The Land. We’ll risk the rest On the land that’s free for the people. CHORUS Why should Harry Hyams And the likes of Charlie Clore make their filthy fortunes from the homeless and the poor With their lousy architects Who are rotten to the core They all take the land from the people. CHORUS Why should Bonny Scotland Where the common folk are poor lose their homes and farmland to the oil rigs off the shore while the Multinationals just watch their profits soar from the land they took from the people. CHORUS But one day we’ll awaken with a passion that has grown to the sound of freedom boys. We’ll go and take our own And to Hell with Politicians and the lies that have sown We’ll take the land for the people. CHORUS The land, the land it’was God who made the land the ground on which we stand Why should we all be beggars boys With the ballot in our hand We’ll take the land For the people. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Albane Duvillier Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 18 February 2008 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/3a9f502870f65ee28d77a21263a93530.pdf 88e26df8d5133fce3cb39d0d9c0d6592 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Brian Anson/ARC pre and post Harrogate Subject The topic of the resource Various documents describing ARC ideas and activities See below Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARC Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1975-1976 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource ARC Subject The topic of the resource Single page introduction to ARC Description An account of the resource Over the past few weeks the Architects Revolutionary Council has been publ icising its aims in the press and media and pamphletting schools, papers and magazines. Certain MP's have also been given copies of our literature. This pamphlet expands our views and puts forward our strategy to bring about the architectural revolution. We see architecture today as criminal, in as much as it is practiced against the general welfare of ordinary people in Britain. These are the people ARC members see as their peers, not the present controllers and manipulators of our environment. Because of the injustice and chaos caused by architecture and its practitioners, we feel that though our approach is similar to other revolutionary groups, our enemy is slightly different. True, architecture is oppressive, exploitive, manipulative and ignorant of peoples desires, but in its present form it is also archaic, totally archaic. .: The practitioners and bosses of architecture are virtually unaware that they are so inadequate and i1]1 educated in terms of the directions that our society is trying to progress. Unlike unwanted governments, monarchies| or military Oppressors, they are unable to conmand physical force to directly implement their dictates. These two factors, unawareness and ill-equippedness make our enemy, the architectural establishment? vulnerable, yet unpredictable. We do not know how aware our eneny is of iteelf, or of the strength and versatility of ite opponents. The RIBA has resisted any real efforts to change this situstion, openly unwilling to ednit its social insdequacy and allow the emerging social forcee to influence its dictates. A more sensitive and socially responsive Overleaf is e primary action course, that we see as the foundeticn to the newarchitecturemovementcomingtofruition.heOeeaeeOecones tecChnicians, drsusguhgthetmeemnen aand studenetsn wiSatnheingetheourparosfessrions to Gscrarec,! SOCIAL HOMICIDE REV reason behind a structure manifesting itself, in the physical form was because it was croritenie. In terms of the scale of this manifestetion the equation is simple, the bigger the practice, the bigger the building, the greater. the profit and inevitebly the greater the social disruption and destruction. OLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE The Architects Revolutionary Council is not a populist movement. Unlike a total social revolutionary group, we are primarily concerned witn radical change within our *ield of work, that being architecture and How have we managed to achieve a total reversal in the eccepted reason for the existance of architects? 4 planning. Having said that, 1t would be naive to think that our writings and activities will not effect social change, we will have failed if they ao not. We are initially concerned with the heightening of the awareness, of our colleagues, the creation of a real empathy with the users of our designs, then producing a solidarity based on whst we see as a just cause. Our cause is a just one and we are committed to instigating our policies and strategies to bring about architectural revolution. A complete evaluation of almost any building erected in the vast two or three decsdes will show,in social terms, firstly how vowerful architecture has become and secondly, how the abuse cf that power has brought sbout a destruction of our culture. Architecture has ceased to function fcr the good of people, it now functions to satisfy profits, ego's end abstract aes thetics. That is the shameful cafession architecture has to make to society, now. ARCHITECTURAL SUICIDE Public sector architecture has pernetrated a syate of ugly, dominating and vast developments in the neme oF society,in the vretence thet it is 1 *the power structure, based on the economic infrastructure, yropned un end reinforced by the media and supported by the educations] couses. The architectural profession has been instrumental in the destruction of the physical rabviec of society, when its major purpore should have been the exact opposite. Collectively the architects, technicians, draushtemen and students in the profession have either eagerly participated or silently carried cut a systematic annihilation of our great citics and many of their cultures and sub cultures‘,In many ways architecture has created more havec and destruction than the Lurtwaffe in World War Two. The only difference being that architecture has hidden behind the viel of redevelorment or rehabilitation. The war was destructive in many obvious and clearly definatle ways. Architecture has been a ict more subtle.... but make no mistake the result has been precisely the same. Germanys motives in that war were also easily identifiable ond we found them very easy to hate; their succinct eggressive nature was plain to see. Yhe reasons for the architectural force taking over the aggressors rele is not as clear, yet in the vrivate sector the answer is simply profit. Though actual. building fascades varied, irrespective of purpose or locetion, the At peony ARC is uncertsin what grounds the establishment will submit on; what its greatest weaknesses ara Also we are uncertain of its potential | towards the areas of society that need our aseistance. The RIBA is too severity in repressing the indictments we are going to make, and ite i committedto the wealthy to change its direction,without loosing Sauce and capactty to resist a real attack on its very foundation, As well e2 cur j Jeapordizing ite professional status with that section of society. This manifesto, which basically states our beliefs, it is imperative that we dependance unon architecture being profitable is ruining cur environment, riot limproving it. Architecture in ites existing form is far too svorerveent lay down certain ground rules. On achievement of the mass movement which i we are striving for, theee ground rules can be used as a future basis oF : etarting point for the new architecture movement. It is our belief, in i® pefering te the RIBA and its members as the enemy or the establishment, to the economic structure to assert its real social responsibility. Therefore we are committed to its destruction and the replecement of it with » syetem of enviromental design that takes people as its peers, not money. that there exists a distinct 'us and them’ situation in architecture and Lanning. There are those who wield the power and those who are subject o it. The wielders are the RIBA, the principles in private ‘practice and the heads of lccal government denartment:. Avle recruits for these posit- ions are always in the pipeline thanks to the educationalists who constantly feed this archaic, yet, powerful group. Obviously we are aware - thede consciences and commence wor thet this nower structure is cubscrviant te finenciers, cornoraticns and rich clients, anc cf course develomers and syecalators. This heirerchy has always been eble to rely on the technicians, partially qualified designere end drevcatemen,who make un the bulk of people in tie offices, to carry out their dictates unquestioningly. They are guilty of silent ecquiesenct, working without a »rincipled mind, ebusing their conrciences, end foregoing eny rocial morale they may heave had. The resui+ of this power abuse ond cocial disregurd, is a lousy environment, Uroun chacs, rural decay, cocinl disruption, psychological disorders...architectural suicide. : solying housing and educational problems. Most of these prcviems are partially inFated by architects and planners thinking they can disgnose a society without even coming into contact with that society. In all honesty all that architects really need to know about people is that they are mostly between four and six feet high and take up varicus amounts of space, dependant on the activity they are involved in, That has been elmost the sum totel of expertise architects have applied to their buildings in distinct human terms. Architecture has successfully reduced people to the status of a design element, to be taken into account with all the cther elements such as lighting, plumbing, car parking etc. architectural order must remove them and begin to redirect our exnertise Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARC Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Undated https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/301e024af37cb9bfa60ac6b10d1fab1d.pdf a62fbc35fa44df6cdf0d96109b44aca9 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Harrogate Founding Congress Subject The topic of the resource The Harrogate Congress was the founding of NAM. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Various Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 21-23 November 1975 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Harrogate Congress Subject The topic of the resource Flyer for Harrogate Congress 1975 single 2-sided paper Description An account of the resource PROFESSIONALS. TOGETHER / 09gL8KS Rio NEW ARCHITECTURE MOVEMENT Harrogate Congress 21:23Wev Costs from £1059 inclusive Info from Wew Architecture Movement 10 PERCY STR. LONDON WI O17 636 0798 NEW ARCULSECTURE MOVEMENT CONGRESS - 21st to 23rd NOVEMBER 1975 Royal Baths Conference Centre Harrogate FRIDAY 21 NOVEMBER TIMETABLE 13.60 to 15.00 1. Registration of Delegates and Guests at Royal Baths Conference Centre. 15,00 to 15.30 3. Afternoon tea. 15,0 to 17,00 4, Opening Plenary Session. i) Initial address ii) Discussion and Initial Motion. 17.15.%o 19.60 5. Working session groups (1 to 6) to formulate approach and assess validity of the task. 6. Bar open between 19.00 and 22.30. 19.00 to 20.00 7. . Cold Buffet. 20.00 to 22.00 8. Optional Plenary Session. 22.30 9, Conference Centre closes. SATURDAY 22 NOVEMBER 10, OO: te 11,00 1. Plenary Session. dO%6T23202.Morningcoffee. 11.30 to 13.00 . 3. “Working Session 15400. to-14..00 4. Conference Session. 16.00 to 16.30 5. Afternoon tea. &B.30 to 18.00 6. Conference Session. 7. ‘Bar open between 18.90 and 23.00 29.00 to 21.00 8. Buffet Supper. 21.30 to 23.00 9. Optional Conference Session. 23.00 10. Conference Centre Closes. SUNDAY 23 NOVEMBER 10.00 to 11.06 54 20.06 Lis Ti .30 €6 13.00 55.00 to. 14.00 14.00 to 15.00 £3.30 Conference Session. Morning coffee. Closing Session. Meeting of Elected Officials. Buffet lunch. Conference closes. 23.06. 06 15.30 2. Registration of Delegates at hotels and guest houses. 13.00 to 15.00 Free time, no lunch given. An onportunity to view Harrogate. DH uv & W DN EH BeilOeeeRe Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARC Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Nov-75 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/115ed8e73d25d45b6ddbc509a7deb384.pdf 4086fe868f9479dc972cbec233bf8316 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Miscellaneous Subject The topic of the resource Miscellaneous issues Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Various Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976-1980 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Architectural Profession Subject The topic of the resource A Short History of the Architectural Profession. A5 Booklet inc. 23 pp. Description An account of the resource bia. A SHORT HISTORY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION SYSZ IFCRIME DOESaNT PAY... LUHEREGE |ARCHITELTS AL THEIA Mo NEY? Preface The purpose of this thesis is to show the development of the architectural profession from its origins to the present day. With its development it has become obvious that to do the subject justice, it would need to be a book in its own right. Therefore, it is much regretted that too many issues are dealt with far too briefly, but I do believe that it is of sufficient credibility to be worthy of note, and a valuable introduction to the subject for people becoming interested in the profession for the first time. There is a short reading list at the end for those interested in understanding my source of material. I hope that within a few years it might be possible to create the book this subject demands. My thanks to Brian Anson, George Mills and the year I spent as a member of the Architects Revolutionary Council, which enabled a concentrated study of the architectural profession. I hope that this study reflects a socialist perspective and I thank the Communist Party of Great Britain for improving my Marxist analysis, at which Iam no expert. I dedicate this work to the principle of the New Architecture Movement: "For all, a better environment", Front illustration by kind permission of L, Hellman. Other illustrations courtesy of ARC. ma ~-=_Go.e NEW ARCHTTECTMRE WOVEYENT CONTAVT ADDRESS c/O J. Broming, 36 Elm Grove London N.8-. over Europe separated it from the cultural tradition of these other European states. 1 In England, this had the effect that anyone claiming to be an architect could not just develop from his home culture, but had to deliberately study the architecture of Italy, and later Greece. This was the first impetus to separate master builder from architect. Inigo Jones was the person responsible for introducing classical architecture to England. He is also significant because his position as Court Architect revealed the need of the Crown to create its own impressive buildings. It also helped to make the style fashionable and created the demand for more architects capable of designing in this style. Right from the start we can see how an idea or fashion is introduced by the elite of society, the Crown, taken up by the nobles and lords, made popular, plagiarized and finally, scrapped when it has become common, by the introduction of a new style. The timescale of this cycle is dependent upon the amount of building being done at any one time, i.e. fashions come and go much quicker when there is a lot of work about. Architects found that the application of styles was both helpful and unhelpful in the struggle to maintain their position in society. Styles helped architects because they were the people who chose the new fashion and, therefore, were the leaders. Styles hindered them because the styles were quickly copied and circulated amongst builders, which meant that the architects’ leadership was constantly being undermined. Architects began to feel that being dedicated followers of fashion was not likely to be a lasting solution to the maintenance of their status in society and other means should be found for spreading the influence of architects to strengthen their position. The great fire of London in 1666 provided the first opportunity for architects to spread their authority in a more general way. Wren's plans for London, whilst not being wholly implemented, clearly show that the architectural role had developed aspirations for the total control of the built environment. Another aspect revealed was the difficulty of construction supervision and the number of jobs an architect could handle. Wren found it necessary to concentrate on the construction of St. Paul's to such an extent that he moved into a house with a clear view of the Cathedral. This meant that he had to rely on juniors toa large extent to detail and supervise the construction of the many parish churches that bear his name as architect. After Wren, it is possible to trace the history of the architect “through a number of architects at any one time, Hawksmoor and Vanborough, the Adam Brothers, etc. This plurality of architects developed an awareness in the higher classes of society of architecture and architects. Though some builder craftsmen became acceptable architects, it was quite common for the gentry to dabble in architecture themselves. Indeed, any man pretending to be educated in the eighteenth century was expected to know the classical orders of architecture and to be capable of creating a classical composition himself. 2 The purpose of this thesis is to show the development of the architectural profession from its origins to the present day. It is not a history of architects or styles, though they are significant factors, but it relates more specifically to the role of the architect in society, and how he has organised himself to fulfil that role. The term "architect" at a basic level means a designer of buildings. The word itself comes from the ancient Greek and Latin via Vetruvius etc., but it is probable that the role of the architect started long before the Greeks. The origins of architecture lie in vernacular buildings, which simply stated means vernacular build- ings are not designed, but grow from the skills and traditions of a particular culture. Ina culture where men are not equal and where kings and lords wish to show their power, or that of their religion, large and impressive buildings are an ideal medium for their needs. It follows that vernacular buildings are inadequate for the purpose due to their common character, but no one knows how to build anything else. To build something extraordinary needs planned instructions as to how to proceed with the construction, and in order that this may be done, plans or pictures or models of the finished product have to be made. Generally, any culture that begins monument building takes its vernacular building as a starting point and then proceeds to scale it up. Some people have said the Pathenon was a scaled-up Greek house. In Europe, this meant that until the advent of the renaissance the architect's role was played by a master craftsman who applied his art and skill ina scale greater than his vernacular origins. As these buildings grew from vernacular scale buildings they took with them the relationships of that society as expressed in built form, and while they created some vast cathedrals, castles, etc., it was still possible for them to relate to the people they were built for. Self- conscious man, or modern man, is often thought to have come about with the renaissance. the vernacular traditions still continue for the majority of buildings, special buildings that needed to be uncommon were designed as a conscious choice of styles and systems, not necessarily related to the culture of the society for which they were intended. houses of Venice, Milanetc. In architectural terms, this means that while Italy was the founder of the modern renaissance man, in part due to the development of capitalist enterprise, hence the great trading The rise to power of traders, such as the Medici, had to be demonstrated publicly through the patronage of the arts andan impressive building programme. reflected the need of the nouveau riche to associate themselves with the wealth and authority of previous ages. That is why, not unnaturally for Italians, they turned to the glorious past of the Roman Empire for inspiration. Thus, whilst the renaissance very clearly had historical and traditional values for Italy, its subsequent stylistic application all The buildings 3 an architect often measured his own building works. Coupled with this was the extent to which "contractors" or master builders could mis-manage the accounts of projects. This led the public in the form of clients, or the higher classes of society, to complain that the whole building industry was immoral and criminal - they made no distinction between architect, measurer or builder. The growth of the industry had led to the establishment of many people claiming to be architects, and many new building firms or contractors. This caused such confusion and disarray that the more thinking architects began to try to find solutions to the problem. Though the solution to the problem was probably never seen clearly by anyone or any section of the building industry, it is true that architects were the first section to crystalise their views and form a pressure group to achieve their aims. Evidence shows that there were five groups whose separate positions were beginning to clarify from the confusion caused by the sudden growth of the whole building industry. By looking at each section and how they came to terms with their problems, we may obtain some idea of the complexity of the problem. Firstly, at the top of the tree was the client, either personal or corporate. His problem was that he did not know whether he was being cheated or not. This could only be solved if there were ways of ensuring that the people employed were honest, and if not there was some way of checking on what they had done. In essence, the separa- tion of jobs did this because each section could then be checked and played off one against the other. The problems were more complex for the architect: - he had to convince the clients that he was honest. - his social status was being eroded by the number of people claiming to be architects. - his role was threatened by confusion with, and takeover by, contractors. - he was restrained if involved in one building firm, by the geographical locality and workload capabilities of the firm. In about 1820 a number of architectural societies were formed to discuss and learn about architecture. These appeared in London, Liverpool, Manchester, etc. and reflected the growing popularity amongst the bourgeois for "learned societies". The formation of the Institute of British Architects in 1833 was an attempt by the profession to use the disguise of "learned society" to create a trade association for the profession. Consequently, the Institute could not become just a London-based "learned society" like the Royal Academy, but had to become the federated control of all the architectural clubs inthe country. Because it allowed membership of measurers (the forerunners of quantity surveyors) it was not felt satisfactory by a small but professionally-orientated number of architects. They believed that to overcome the problem of dishonesty in the profession, it was necessary that architects should not measure their own, or other architects', work. This would then clear architects of the charge of measuring dishonestly so as to increase their own fees. + This initial popularising of architecture in high society enabled it to be talked about and discussed as an entity in itself without which it is unlikely to have weathered its first crisis in the 1820s and 1830s. The growth of architectural awareness was considerable during the eighteenth century buts its examples were naturally restricted by the amount of buildings undertaken. It was not to be until the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the boom of the Industrial Revolution that architecture was to take its next step. Before going on to the effects of the Industrial Revolution, it would be wise to have a look at the building industry and its organ- isation. As we have mentioned, the architectural profession was a very elite service industry and because of this, it was possible to enter it from above, or by sweat and graft from below. that those who attained the acceptable title of architect found it in their interests to preserve, as far as possible, their elitist position. This meant that though many master craftsmen aspired to being architects, very few actuallymade it. of buildings was basically carried out intwo ways. the owner or his agent, whether he be an architect or master builder, would contract a mason to do the masonry, a carpenter to do the carpentry, etc., all ona separate agent-contrator basis. way, which developed increasingly towards the 1800's, was that the owner would sign one contract with one man, who then either carried out the work from his own firm, or sub-contracted for the separate tasks. This gave rise to the "contractor", whose traditional unpopularity grew from two main points evident initially. the skilled tradesmen thought he was poaching on their right to make direct contracts with the owners and, secondly, architects feared that he might try and take over their role as co-ordinators and designers of the project. During the eighteenth century construction The first was that However, the craftsmen were the most obviously upset for the traditional craft guilds dating from mediaeval days were not disposed for either one craft or another to dominate the industry. felt even more snubbed bya non-trade "contractor", they were 80 unprepared to co-operate between trades guilds that they were powerless to prevent the development of contractors. Indeed, their frustrations were so acute and so lacking in ideas as to how to surmount the problems that there was considerable violence on sites in and around London during 1824. This led to discussions in the House of Commons on the subject, but from lack of evidence to the contrary, it appears the skilled tradesmen were sadly forced to accept the position and loss of responsibility. Their weakened state has since led them into narrower and narrower specialisation and reduction of their skills, 80 as to enable the eventual mechanisation of their tasks. From the end of the Napoleonic Wars trade and industry in England began to develop under the influence of the Industrial Revolution. There was a noticeable increase in building with the re-investment of war bond money. This first property boom brought to the fore all the ongoing trends and antagonisms. Apart from the building site riots, there were problems at the other end of the profession too. The pricing of building construction was often done by architect measurers ~ This ensured The second Firstly, Whilst they g The effect of the Arts and Crafts Movement on the architectural profession was minimal. Stylistically it offered a great wealth of ideas as expressed by people like Ruskin and Morris, and built by Nash, MacIntosh, Voysey, etc. However, in terms of the trend of the ages it was seen as old fashioned, romantic and impractical. Whilst it had cause to complain about the reduction of craft skills due to technology, it failed to realise that the main alienation caused by machinery was for the workers an economic problem. It was no good working in a nice jug if it cost twice as much as a manufactured jug, and consequently was never sold. People were not in a position to complain about their intellectual exploitation if they could not afford to provide themselves with food, clothing and shelter. The Arts and Crafts Movement was basically an upper or middle class concern, they could not really come to grips with any solution to the problem as expressed by socialism. William Morris had a great influence on the Arts & Crafts Movement, and socialism had a great influence on Morris, but the confusion of the Movement came about as a result of its romantic approach to the past. This lack of perspective created a mixture of inadequate solutions to the problem that could never be put strongly in public due to their own weaknesses. If the public arena for debate was not fertile ground for the Movement, it could only retreat into itself, turning its back on the world and living out a romantic dream in the hills of the Cotswolds or in Wales. It isa pity, but understandable, that the Arts and Crafts Movement was not of major importance for it was developing in architecture the qualities found in English vernacular buildings and it would have greatly added to our present cultural condition. As such, the only influence it had was to slow down the technical professional development of architects by its insistance that design and art are not measurable standards and, as such there could be no measure of the competence of an architect. Over the period 1890 to 1920, the profession felt that it had proved itself and its place in society but still suffered from the actual disposability of its services. There was no legal definition of what an architect was, and there was no necessity by law to employ one. These insecurities were well founded for during the 1914-18 war, the Government made no special use of architects, and the depression of the 1920s clearly revealed the vulnerability of the profession. The depression, therefore, brought to the front all pressures for registration of architects and for legislating for the use of architects. In this way, it was intended that all design work for buildings would have to be designed, by law, by architects, and that all architects should be registered with the government in a similar fashion to doctors. This would have provided the architect with an unquestionably secure position in socicty, it was after all their vulnerability to unemployment and replacement by engineers, builders, etc. that worried them most. The RIBA's report of 1943 revealed that architecture necessitated extensive planning and that in the theme of the report, outside central London itself, there were very few buildings of architectural merit, i.e. what Hitler was not going to blitz the RIBA would. There was much discussion on planning and groups like the Mars group drew up plans for the near total rebuilding of London. The expansion of the professional arena and examples of planning proposed by Corbusier, etc., led to the development of the Town and Country Planning Act, passed shortly after the end of the war. Town Planning became a profession in its own right which furthered the cause of expanding the profession while maintaining an increase in status. The other aspect the war created was the substantial growth of government influence and work in the building industry. The future for the architectural profession seemed set fair to prosper after the war but it is important to realise the contradictions now apparent to us were in existence then. profession after the war became synonymous with talking about the RIBA. The RIBA asa private club is governed by a democratically elected Council. The Council is responsible for the actions of the Institute. However, it must be remembered that the RIBA was founded to further the existence of private practice architects, and had been very successful inthis task. therefore, fell to those who had helped, or were helping, in this task. The Council clearly aligned itself to the interests of private practice. The method of election to the RIBA Council was by national elections and this meant that you had to be reasonably well known to become elected. This process naturally favoured the big names of private practices. Since the war an increasing number of architects have been employed by the state and while they have not directly contributed to the existence of the private practice sector, their existence has been ured to demonstrate the size and usefulness of the whole profession. During the 19408 and 1950s there was an architects’ and building technicians’ union (ABT) which was the only organised voice of architects to express the salaried-architects' viewpoint. This union was for a long time communist controlled and due to an increasing divergence between its executive and members, it faded into obscurity by the 1960s. Members of the union were responsible for the "peoples detailing" era of the London County Council, but their influence ind; recent years appears non-existent. However, the existence of this group with alternative viewpoints to the RIBA did show the diverging directions of the architectural profession, The modern movement in architecture only got off the ground in this country with the Festival of Britain in 1951. In this it was aided by the new Town and Country Planning Acts and by @ mixed inspiration of Scandinavian furniture and plastics, the Mediteranean derived architecture of Corbusier, plus the usage of technical terme "functional and "mechanical aesthetics". The architectural The control of the Council, te This small group of eight has slowly been whittled down by over-work, absorption, promotion and even rejection, toa total of four, three of whom are now such high-ranking public architects that their ties to the Salaried Architects Group is more history than fact. After four years of considerable effort, they have achieved the improvement of the Code of Conduct relating to salaried architects and their responsibilities. However, the code is useless without any backing or testing of its validity. The influence of the salaried architects group was reflected in the RIBA Council's choice for President for 1973-75, Fred Pooley. Fred Pooley was the first public architect to become president of the RIBA and although he started out fairly succes sfully, the financial difficulties of the Institute did not allow the development of Alex Gordon's Action Paper, regarded as a very progressive pro- gramme for the RIBA. Added to this, the collapse of the building industry in 1974 created a strong dernand from private practice for the RIBA to appeal to the Government for more work. At this task Pooley was ineffective and not cut out to do the tasks the times demanded of him. On finishing his term of office, Fred Pooley became the head of the GLC's Transport Planning Department, 2 nice cosy job. During his last year as President, he was nea rly completely ignored in favour of the president-elect, Eric Lyons. Due to the circumstances of architectural depression and RIBA stringency, the salaried architect group should have mounted a big campaign to protect the interests of their group. However, their absorption in altering codes of conduct and involvement with the RIBA Council isolated them from the mass of public architects. That they are less effective than the Association of Official Architects reflects their isolation and lack of organisation. The challenge created by the emergence of the SAG did lead to the formation of an Association of Consultant Architects. This group is for private practice principals only and having a formal and well- financed organisation, is beginning to have effect. They produce policies and express opinions in the architectural journals which are consistently unsocial. Eric Lyons had been chairman of ACA in the past, but to enhance his attempts to become president he left the organisation. He had all the grooming for presidency necessary, 4 good profitable practice that did work considered to be progressive, SPAN housing etc., and from the moment he was made president-elect he ran the RIBA ina manner to which the ACA was accustomed. The building boom also gave rise to another radical architects’ group. The fight to save Covent Garden and other town centre battles gave rise to people like Brian Anson and the wave of trouble in architectural schools in 1972-73: Hull, Kingston upon Thames, Northern Poly and Cheltenham. In 1973 Brian Anson and others founded the Architects Revolutionary Council, and through an article in the summer of 1973 in Building Design and through public meetings, gave the group a public face. There had been Architects Registration Bills before Parliament since 1890 but because the RIBA had never sponsored these Bills, due to the action of the Arts & Crafts Movement, nothing had come of them. However, with the pressures of the depression, they joined in and finally championed the fight for the Architects Registration Acts. This also healed the split in the architectural profession between the RIBA and the Society of Architects, which would have challenged the supremacy of the RIBA if the RIBA had failed to champion the cause for registration. In the course of the fight the two institutes merged in favour of the RIBA. The Architects Registration Bill put to the government sought the registration of architects and their statutory usage on buildings over a certain size. Due to the number of exceptions to this rule, which would have been necessary, the opposition of other interest groups, the views of the Arts and Crafts Movement, felt that while it was necessary to ensure the quality of architects, it was not necessary to enforce their usage on the public. Fortun- ately, the compromise that the Acts of 1931, 1934 and 1938 evolved was to protect the. public from incompetent architects by government registration and no statutory usage of architects, which ruled out an architect monopoly, The architectural profession had obviously hoped for the complete statutory provision but accepted that its own lack of prestige ruled this out for the time being. Clearly, the profession had to use the provision of the Act to strengthen its own position and so gaina better point of advantage to grasp the final part later. The Act of 1938 registering architects and setting up a body to administer the Act was designed to give the profession as a whole a major say in how it should be run. The theory was that architects knew best about architecture. The Act set up a Council of members of the profession and there was also representation of other interest groups in the building industry and government agencies. The representation of architects on the Council was proportional to the number of architects registered with the Council and it was also divided into the number of clubs and societies that represented architects. It had to represent all registered architects and there is even a section on the Council for those not attached to any organisation, although the fact that they were uninterested in organisations indicated their lack of concern in the Architects’ Registration Council of the United Kingdom, and so these seats are nearly always vacant. Due to the growth of the representation of architects and the static and out of date representation of other interests, architects’ control of the Council has increased over the years. The RIBA, after its amalgamation with the Society of Architects, was the largest body representing architects on the ARCUK Council and as some of the other bodies, such as the Architectural Assoc- ation, were also RIBA members, it turned out that right from the guises the RIBA had a majority membership of the ARCUK Council. etc., it was (S$ It was widely believed by architects that the introduction of industrialised buildings and/or components would lessen the cost. This is not the case. The introduction of industrial components lessened the amount of labour involved, which meant a greater potential for profit for the producer, once the item had been produced, transported, erected and paid for its capital investment of factory production, it was no cheaper to use than normal methods. These factors created the modern style that gradually caught on. That its later stylistic title should be Brutalism and Neo Brutalism accurately reflects its human commitment. The other aspect to emerge after the war was the building consortiums, CLASP, SEAC etc., where it was hoped to produce the "standardized system", but while these may have reduced costs in steel purchase initially, they are no longer economincally competitive. The existence of these buildings in Britain has always been disliked by the populace at large for whom they have no connection with their culture. Financed by financiers and construction magnates for their potential profit by reduction in labour hours and skills, the architect could do nothing about the situation. Most were happy that a modern movement had at last arrived, those that disliked it were unable to counter it because their ideas were more expensive, which led them to being regaled as fuddyduddies and in search of large fees. The modern style became equally popular in the public sector, where many of its worst attributes were developed, CLASP, tower blocks of flats, etc. The modern movement was acceptable to architects as being the first style created by modern technology controlled by modern bureaucracy: two elements of today's ruling class which architects wished to be part of. During the 1960s the avant-garde was the focus of architectual attention and such groups as Archigram and Super Studio dominated the media. The purpose of Archigram and the avant-garde generally is to pose alternatives that look like the way ahead without fundament- ally altering anything. This diversion of focus from the true restraints on architecture by the avant-garde is often confused with being the revolutionary side of architecture, it quite clearly is not. The acceptance of technology and land ownership patterns show that Archigram postulates a fashion and nothing else. As with the formation of the RIBA in the 1830s it is discernible that the dedic- ation to fashion is a shallow ambition. In the late 1960s the ''Eco-freak" broke on the architectural profession, Street Farmer, Blue Print for Survival, etc. There is much of importance in the rational use of technology and points in two directions, one a more rational local use of energy and resources and secondly a national and international policy on energy and resources. It is interesting to see the effect of Street Farmer and green ie beautiful on the revamped Archigram, "butter wouldn't melt in my mouth". The growth of the architectural profession has been most spectacular in the public sector where 50% of architects are now employed. Addedtothis,ofthe50%intheprivatesectoronlyabout th : ARC had a slow beginning in 1973-74 but a strategy aimed at ending the RIBA and the creation of an architectural role serving the public was formulated. 1973 also saw the formation of the Schools of Architecture Council. This body was to replace the defunct Heads of Schools Committee of the RIBA. It was intended to give more of the role of a forum to this and they felt it necessary to have not only heads, but other staff members too. It was then also decided to have students as well (God knows how!). The result was a Council of 38 British Schools of Architecture, with 38 heads of schools, 38 staff and 38 students, The SAC has had three annual conferences since 1973. These conferences have given the students a focus of action and since Easter 1974 at Bath, every SAC AGM has been preceeded by a two-day student conference. Suggestions at these gatherings on forming another national architectural student organisation have always come to nothing. During 1973-74 the two RIBA student councillors visited over half the schools of architecture and produced an irregular news sheet. This work was carried on the next year by Cliff Collins and Dave Taylor, and.some progress has been made with keeping students informed. The main alternative organisation during 1975 has been ARC, which in the summer of 1975 set out to attack the RIBA and expose ite failures. This campaign met with some success and thanks to some advantageous publicity about their work in Ealing, the group gained considerable notoriety. a new movement in architecture and this was formed at a congress organised by ARC at Harrogate. The New Architecture Movement is now a body in its own right with a growing number of similar movements in other professions, including planning. The possi- bilities for the N. A.M. are discussed in the last section. ARC's next step was to instigate This brief review of architectural organisations active since the war has highlighted the non-RIBA organisations, but it must be remembered that during all this time the RIBA has grown in numbers and strength. The RIBA's most recent moves show its direction for the future. Firstly, the attempt to reintroduce the fellowship status reflects the disatisfaction of the higher echelons with the general status of being a plain ARIBA member. They believe that now the profession is so large and specialised into so many separate areas that it would not harm the profession to reintroduce the master- craftsman classification, legislation for the use of architects ina statutory fashion, and they believe that now there are enough architects to make this practicable. They want the average architect as office fodder, with only Fellows as bosses. Thus, they have to put up with the temporary loss of Thcy hope that eventually they can gain elitism of the profession just so that they can eventually get their pan on all the work by law, and then reinstate the elitist fellowship class, 13 Ib The effect of the present economic depression has also accelerated a change in.the structure of practices. The depression has closed many small offices either totally or by mergers into larger practices. Only those offices with sufficient funds have been able to crawl to the OPEC countries for work. The combination of reducing the number of practices and earning foreign money is a typical capitalist development, the only surprise is that it has not happened so strongly before. There is also at present the first call from the RIBA for architectural practices to be able to "certificate" designs for building regulations. This is unlikely to help architects as if it were ever implemented it would probably be ona practice basis and, therefore, only help established practices. It would also make it far more difficult for new practices to start up and so further accelerate the reduction in the number ofoffices. However, the main reason for rejecting this idea is that it would not guarantee the public from unsafe buildings. At the moment, building inspectors are appointed and supervised by the government which ensures the principle of public accountability. The architect- ural profession is controlled by its own private club and the public would have no way to gain accountability from architect building inspectors in private practice. Needless to say, any office that had the power to certificate its own designs would be very open to the possibility of bending the rules and creating buildings which were not sound. Any attempt on behalf of the private practice to gain legislation which puts its usage into the statutory monopoly direction must be stopped. The suggestion arises out of the frustration architects face with local government bureaucracy, ways must be found to increase the effectiveness of these government agencies without losing public accountability. The RIBA in its role as guardian of private practice, has tried to appease the criticism levelled at architecture by the public. The criticism is of all the boring, inhuman creations of architects, both public and private - tower blocks of offices and flats being the main enemy. The RIBA has, however, not countered this criticism by complaining about the inadequate resources made available for buildings, but in two different ways. Firstly, European Architectural Heritage Year (1975) was used as a promotion exercise to gain rehabilitation work and, as usual, failed to point out the real problems facing architecture. This involved their public face and was regarded by them as a good public relations exercise. The second method was not public and related to the architectural clients specifically who are now almost completely composed of commercial giants and government departments. These bodies and their juniors are interested solely in the economics and technicalities of projects. The modern client is addicted to technical bureaucratic competence and to appease them the RIBA bas embarked on a major drive to improve the "competence" of architects. 20% of architects can claim to be principals or partners in : practices. This change in the profession from a near complete membership in private practice principals to where now 70% - 80% of architects are employed and salaried, has not yet altered the character of the profession. During the 1950s and 1960s architecture had a more or less constant growth both in quantity of work and number of architects, and as is usual with architects, when there is plenty of work they are found at the drawing board, not creating new philosophies of work. However, over this period certain small groups appeared on > the scene. The chief architects of local authorities, both county and borough, formed their own separate association, which have only recently merged to form the Association of Official Architects. The AOA as a body composed of principals in public offices has never spoken as the voice of public architects, and indeed many of its members are akin to the aims of private practice. This lack of support from what should have been its grass roots job architects has made it virtually ineffective. Whilst it could have been useful in putting forward different views to the profession, it appears that it is absorbed and in agreement with the role of the RIBA as the guardian of the profession. There was for a number of years a British Architectual Students Association which grew out of the difficulties and worries of students during the 1960s over the way the RIBA was hustling and closing schools. This reached a peak in 1968 when BASA sent a delegation to the International Union of Architects in Vienna. 1968 being the year of student revolt, the world around, it was not surprising that there was a scene at the conference which led to the walk out of a number of student sections, Spain and Italy inparticular. Out of this walk-out group came the Vienna Manifesto which was published as the first copy of ARSE, Architects, Radical Students and Educators. This group published about eight magazine issues, the quality and content getting heavier with each issue, until in about 1971-72 the group dried up with many of its members violently disagreeing. Some felt architecture was worth fighting for, others felt that you had to change the rest of society before anything could be ¥ done about architecture. BASA ran out of steam a little earlier, after it had been given the kiss of death by receiving money from the ? RIBA. The radical stirrings of ARSE and society in general from 1986- 1970 did lead to a movement of large numbers of salaried architects in the profession. This focused on the RIBA in the AGM of 1969 when Kate MacIntosh and a few others complained that salaried architects were unable to get elected to the RIBA Council because of its national election methods. This led to the formation of an ad hoc informal Salaried Architects Group who persuaded the RIBA to have regional as well as national elections for Council, and over 1971-72 eight salaried architects were elected to the RIBA Council. 14 20 to attempt to change architecture, we need to know not only the history of our profession, but also the character of our architects. As previously stated, if architecture is to be of use to society, it must be of service to the majority of the population, and as we know this is impossible until the public has gained real power. We must clearly understand this and work towards its solution, both in society at large and particularly in architecture. The character of architects can be looked at from various points of view: family background, aspirations, education and personality. The majority of architects come from middle-class families, a high proportion from creative familities one way or another. There are obviously a minority from upper and working classes. The pre-college education of architects has now become standardised to the realisation of two 'A' level passes necessary to enter a course in architecture. This requirement introduced by the RIBA from its 1958 Oxford Conference on education was seen ae one step to raising the status of architecture. It had, of course, a desired side effect of severely limiting those gaining architectural qualifications by working up from tea boy to technician to architect. It also resulted in giving an advantage to middle classes and above, because as we all know the working class child has far less chance of getting a good enough education to get to college. There follows several points where Ibelieve policies and actions must be-formulated. They are not comprehensive in range or quality but Ihope will be useful. Of the people who do arrive ata school of architecture, a surprising number aspire to use their creative skills for the benefit of others. so they have been restricted in improving the quality of their environ- ment. The Self Help attitude can only help a few people, while an architectural service could help those without the time or resources of their own. The National Health Service was not created by doctors and patients on their own, the government had to doit. Similarly, neither the architect nor the people can create a national architectural service without the government's help. Action must be taken with Very few are openly in it for the money: slightly arty career and the hoped-for status in society. However, many socially minded aspirants are to be found tied down with a mortgage, car and two kids by the time they are thirty, and naturally enough their prime concern is earning a living for the family. The creativity side of the skill provides the growth of the desire for non-conformity and competitive individualism, this always contradicts with their social aspirations for society, for it makes them loath to work with other people. Whilst an architect is aware of the complexity of society, he is, because of his cult of the individual, very wary of co-operating with others to fight for the individual. This gives rise to the common problem for architects, they see combining 2. Many of the frustrations of architects are due to the distance between designer and user, and these are reflected in the quality of their work. Red tape that hinders the process must be fought against, is there any reason why publice offices could not have architects or groups responsible to geographical areas, and workthere ? Take advantage of the RIBA's new code of conduct which stimulates the responsibility of the individual architect. If our aims are genuinely in the public's interest, we will all benefit from designing with government building agencies as well as the users. This policy is being encouraged in the private sector, where of course, it is doubtful if the public will benefit at all. 3. So that people can have a direct control over their environment. At the moment, people have insufficient power of control over changes in their environment, in terms of planning and the use of resources. The Green Paper of Neighbourhood Councils now passing through Parliament gives only token participation to the people and by not giving any real democratic power, restricts these councils toa purely advisory role. This advisory role will not give people any greater control, it is just a confidence trick. Action must be taken with the government to give real power to the Neighbourhood Councils. 4. The public's safeguard against bad architecture is now totally inadequate and ARCUK's role is more of a hindrance to progress to solve a problem as a negation of the individual and, on the other hand, clearly desire to create more individuality, but are loath to co-operate to achieve it. Architects in this state will participate in debates on how to improve architecture, but will not commit themselves to any action to achieve it. They will only participate so long as their total individuality is permitted. It is probable that the majority of architects join the RIBA not to further architecture but to gain the initials RIBA, which they wrongly believe essential to practice as anarchitect. This is why the RIBA is run by a disproportionately small minority. What must be done to achieve co-operation and action from architects is to make perfectly clear that the course of action taken up is to further the individual it still has the feeling of a 4, To make architectural services available to all sectors of society. At present, the architectural profession works for just two small sectors, firstly the nich minority and the powers of industry, commerce and finance, and secondly, for local or national government bureau- cracies, insensitive to the public they pretend to serve. The majority of the population has never had access to architectural services and the government to set up an architectural service available to all of society. thana help. The architectural profession and education should be development of all people - not, as many fear, to reduce us all to the lowest common denominator. controlled by a body equally representative of the public and the profession, Books which may be of interest to you: February, 1976, BB oo daily ADAM read the PURSER Those people who see the need for national collective action must not move 80 fast as to isolate themselves from what politically ies not a very advanced mass of architects. However, it is already necessary to have some services provided for the movement as a whole, newsletter, liaison, conference organisation. Here it is essential to see these needs as services to the whole movement, there must be no domination by an executive body. As such, I would see any person acting in this capacity strictly as a servant of the movement. ARC mectine This course of action must be the basis of the movement for some time, indeed it would be negation of my principles to suppose any other ideal, other than full individual participation in the movement. We must all be aware that this degree of total decentralisation aleo has its dangers. Firstly, it may lack a competent approach to key issues that could be provided by collective resources. it may produce different views on the same subject and so confuse an attack on some issues. What is essential is that the differing views lead to the best attack on a common enemy. The tool of organisation is a double-sided weapon, lack ofit advances confusion, heavy handed use of organisation reduces the participation of the membership at large and so decreases the strength of the organisation. In the future, the New Architecture Movement will have to develop a democratic process that promotes personal participation and collective action, At present, the membership is informal and we rely on voluntary work to respond to as many of the issues a6 possible. movement grows, it will necessitate more action in a more concerted way onissues. Eventually, it will be taking on 60 many issues that it will only be effective if it is capable of day to day decisions, though this is some way away. My commitment is to changing society and architecture. not set a dealine for this to be achieved, but I will do all I can to develop it in the best and most viable way possible. As the Secondly, I have "For All, a Better Environment" and the Cornish motto, "One forAll and All for One". The Development of the Architectural Profession, Barrington Kay. Architect and Patron, Jenkins. Town and Revolution, Anatol Kopp RIBA Journal, June 1975, Article on the Architectural Profession. Adam Purser, Morning Star The Paper of the Left Eile es arenas in, LO Artominnr” Qe! Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Adam Purser Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan/John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Feb-76 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/55c71b1dd9b2cf8279144a4c1973a0cf.pdf a46174680044505fcd15c4d9bc5e1139 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Brian Anson/ARC pre and post Harrogate Subject The topic of the resource Various documents describing ARC ideas and activities See below Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARC Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1975-1976 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Report Subject The topic of the resource ARC Report Argument for change (6pp). 2 copies Description An account of the resource ARCHITECTS, STUDENTS, TECHNICIANS & C MIiTwp oa GOs THE ARCHITECTS REVOLUTIONARY 11, PERCY STREET, LONDON W TEL. 011.636.0974 XT 27 ARC calls on all those architects and others involved in the built environment who believe that we should cease working only for the rich and powerful minority or the bureaucratic cietatorships of central and 15¢e21 government and offer our skills and services to the local communities which have little chance to work directly with architects ana architecture. ARC maintains that the profession 2s.it now stands is a luxury profession and that because of this the architect is caught in the narrow trap of economic viability and profit, ARC further maintains that the RLBA Qrspogates this narrow luxury characteristic and ig thus directly responsible for the malaise of architecture ant the state of our cities, ARC believes that their are thousands of architects who would welcome a new franework through which they could work directly for the local communities which would then become the renal clients with alk the power ana privilege of traditional clients, ARC believes that the problems of architecture are all around us, but that people who suffer from them cannot afford architects to solve then; neither can architects afford to tackle them. It is this trap we wish to break, ARC is well aware that to achieve a new framework for architecture there will have to be radical changes in our present political and econonic system. Nevertheless first architects and students must denonstrate that they are prepared to fight for a new system in their Own art. ARC specifically believes that the students in the schools of architecture ery out for a new educational systen to replace the existing one where they are trained as fodécr for the profit orientated professional systen existing now. ARC calls on all these people to join together to forn a new international movement ond through solidarity help bring about the architectural revolution, The Draft Manifesto, REMEMBER UNITY IS STRENGTH. ARCHITECTS UNITE FOR THE REVOLUTION. REJECT THE RIBA, VICTORY TO THE ARG. Sopa Seg Pn thghtasTe | PURTHER COPIES oF THE LAMPHLET(15p each) and | |POSTERS (20p each) ARE AVAILABLE FROM:— ,ARC, 1 PERCY STREET, LONDON W.1. SS What is ARC. It is a movement of architects, students and others, which believes that creative architecture should be available to all people in society, regardless of their economic circumstances. It is a movement committed to revolutionary changes within the architectural establishment and spec— ifically to the replacement of the RIBA by a new architectural systen. Why is ARC needed. The term 'crisis in architecture’ is common today and not only because of Malcolm MacEwans book; the press is constantly filled with statements of alarm, disgust and desperation over the state of architecture and the dilema in which architects find themselves. We in the movement would refer everyone to MacEwans book which soundly castigates the RIBA, for in general terms we agree with his analysis, BUT WE DO NOT AGREE WITH HIS SOLUTIONS OR CONCLUSIONS. His radical reformist policy, which accepts the continuance of the RIBA, is doomed to failure, in the context of our architectural system, because, as Afidre Gorz says!....reformism rejects those objectives and demands, however deep the need for them, which are incompatible with the preservation of the systen..". Architecture should be done in the service of society. Social ethics and justice should be pur criteria, We all know this is not so and that the architectural profession has far too frequently been motivated by anti-social values. The profession is full of the whining and wheedling of the RIBA at the moment over the disasterous slump in the professions work load. Delegations to the government, lobbying of MP's anc Pooleys recent plea to all architects to donate £10 to the RIBA; these are all signs of a panic rush to protect the status quo. The reasons for Pooleys begging are, in his own words,"....that a strong RIBA is neccessary to the survival of practices everywhere and the achievement of a stable building programme. Apart from the fact that this is not even true (greedy large practices are at least partially responsible for the dilema of the small enterprise), there is not a word about the quality of the environment, nor about the dramatie social changes trying to break through igi our society, and in which architecture must play a part if it is to’have any credibility at all. The common ownership of workplaces, the desire for local control, the semi slavery of the technicians in the profession; there is no evidence that the RIBA is stimulated by such ideals. The RIBA's yearning for a stable buildigg programme is a wistful reference to the boom years of the late sixties and early seventies, Those boon years tell the whole story and they are the prime reason why ARC maintains that only revolution will do. This graph showing the rise and fall of commissions in the world of architecture, shows clearer than any words, just where the profession and the RIBA have stood in relation to our society in recent years. This coincides exactly with the Office Boom. So we know who the friends of the RIBA were, and why the profession is bemoaning the rec:. a .. The years of 1969 to 1975 will be remembered for a long time to come. They are our generations architectural heritage. T 200 VALUE OF COMMISSIONS/LAST DECADE. aMILLION 64 ‘65 ‘68 *"7071727374 41200 4000 +1. 800 600 % 400 = & RLenene) In this period the price of building and of land,rocketed;the term ®the - unacceptable face of capitalism’ was coined; the speculator and the developer became the villains in our society and corruption in the saintly architectural profession began to break through the thin veneer of ‘creative professionalism! that the RIBA had fostered for so long.In the words of many comnentators,"it was only the tip of the iceberg". Yet during that time leading members of the profession (some now on the RIBA Council) were saying such things as; iT+ is ridiculous not to develop the site to its fullest potential.... there is no point in underdeveloping on valuable land.." Pritzroy 2tobinson. "The most successful architects are those who understand property values and the mechanics of property development". iYes we did work for the spivs(developers) and when we did we felt terrible hypocites,.... but what could we do". Anonymous architect Building Design 4/75. Of course the RIiBa did not officially endorse such views, but neither did it, during these years of physical and social rape, once cry out in protest. For those in the movement, these past years have been the final straw. Like many others we have waited to sce the profession::face up to it's social responsibility and we were willing to accept even gradual reform as long as wecould see a sign of social spirit. We now see that we could wait forever. In our view, the greatest and lest chance for the RIA came in the property boom. This is when the profession could have been the vanguard in environmental ethics and morality. Instead the RIBA showed its true character and sided with the criminals who exploited the inflation in land and construction costs. The RIBA is part of the free market system and that is why the institute is in such a turmoil now as that system is under such an attack. We all know whit that system has done to our physical and social environment. Since 1971 three times as much capital has gone into property develop- ment as into our industrial production. The RIBA cannot imagine itself outside this system, and nor has it the traditions to do so. It has, however, always had a mandate to do so, as it's charter specifically demands that it'advance civil architecture'. This can only br inter- preted as serving society, which it has never done though it takes £100,000 a year from the taxpayer in tax and rate reliefs for this purpose. Where other professions have made moves forward in terms of social service,(some tentative like Legal Aid Centres; some which embrace the whole society, like the NHS) whilst the RIB: has only become more associated with the rich and powerful. So the RIBA is not fit to govern the world of architecture, nor is it capable of any reform of lasting value to socicty. 'The institute is dead! says MacEwan, but then he goes on to say 'The institute on the other hand is alive and well', THE INSTITUE IS NOT DEAD! 80j of arch- itects belong to it and it is the mouthpiecs of architecture in our society. Owen Luder. Louis Hellman(Ad cartoonist) was certainly right when he said of the ” RIBA "... the people at the top of this keeping things the way they are..." place have a vested interest in Architecture, said Hans Meyer in the 1930's'is +imes been wielded by the ruling class in his book 'Wasteland' says 'Bhe history of those whe had the power to build. Rembrandt's accomplished in poverty and rejection. governments, churchmen, merchants and speculative would not exist....because they would not Architects have always allicd themselves No-one can deny this. But we can change a weapon that can be used for the good the cause of those who live in degrading a weapon that has as all of human society’. Stephen Kurtz of architecture is the history greatest work was But without kings, noblemen and builders, architecture otherwise have functioned. with the rich and powerful’. this, and turn architecture into of society and particularly in environments. WHY THE TIME IS RIGHT. The many critics of the RIBA call for reform,. We eall for REVOLUTION and say DO AWAY WITH THE RIBA; It is an enemy of enciety, and the dictator of the lives of the poor and underprivileged. It is in the path of progress and must be swept away, it has abused the trust of society and must now go,to allow a humane and just design profession to flourish. The ARCHITECTS REVOLUTIONARY COUNCIL sees itself in the tradition of past revolutionary movements in architecture; the Constructivists, ARSE, Atelier Populaire. These movements did not succeed because the time was not right, but they planted fertile seeds. WE BELIEVE THAT THE TIME IS RIGHT and we in ARC want to play our full part in the creation of the new mass movement in architecture. But this can only come about with your aid. There are over twenty thousand registered architects in this country. Per head of population this is more than any country in Burope. Over 80% of these registered architects are members of the RIBA. 807% of all architects are salaried;IE.they work for other architects. This alone should be unacceptable to the society that pays for their training. It is the taxpayers money that provides the grants to train architects to deal with the environmental prepblems of society. Architects do not repay this debt in any way at present,they are unaccountable and irresponsible to that society. Trained people are foreed to work in and are exploited by a bosses orgamisation;the RIBA, A large proportion of the archit—- ectural work is handled by a small proportion of the membership who have built up large practices. The RIBA has always been run by such people and thus the status quo is maintained. The tendency has been to become big and powerful with the emphasis on streamlining and management techniques. The RIBA's ethic, if it can be said to have one, is that of narrow professionalism; a service to the client. These days the client cannot be identified with the society and frequently not even with the user. All this is in direct contrast to the moves going on in our society; the themes of local autonomy and preservation, the revival of craftsmanship and e more human approach to developing the environment. Over half our urban environment is economically impoverished and environmentally deprived.The communities within these areas have helped through taxation,to train the profession. This profession returns none of this aid and where it does not ignore these areas (commissions do not come from the poor areas)it helps in the rape of them through development or subtle gentrification. The RIBiA upholds a 19th century elitist position and deliderately keeps lay people out of its club. This is particularly true as regards the yawning gulf between the profession and the working classes. The RIBA has a code that seeks to cushion its members from adverse eritisism;it is more important to the RIBA that members should be loyal to each other and to the institute, than to the society that it is supposed to serve. It refuses openly to condemn aparthied and therefore has no regard for civil justice. If it cannot have such principles fron 4000 miles how can we expect justice from it on the home front. It has never developed even such esoteric concepts as the competmtion systen, because the ruling elite wish to keep the rewards for themselves. But the RIBA and its ruling establishment, has worked itself into a trap from which it cannot escape. It's greed, especially over the last decade, and its narrow objectives have put it in such bad repute, that i it is fighting a last ditch battle to try +o build an acceptable image. It will not succeed. The 3000 unattached architects have already co clained in a recent survey that the RIBA has done nothing for architec— ture. Members of Parliament attack it for its social sins. The public and especially those in the poorer areas, now See along with the local bureaucrats and speculators who have ruined their lives, environments and communities, the subtle villian of the piece is the RIBA. « The people living ig. these communities are particularly incensed because the professiom passed itself off as being socially conscious. * But the tables are turning because of the massive number of redund- ant architects who will soon condemn the RIB for not building a firm social working base for architecture. Over a thousand architects will be out of work by Christmas and more than 60% of graduates will not. find employment this sumuier. These unenployed architects can blame, with some justification, world inflation and recession for their plight, but the main problem is the Brcedy inflexible char-cter of the profession. And as the redundancies occur who will be hit first? Not the powerful principles who run the big practices and back up the elitism of the RIBA, It will be the salaricd architects and technicians, the people who do the real work in architects offices. 411 those soon to be redundant should know that there has never been a lack of work. A large part of our environment is a slum and getting worse. But the RIBA has never taken the trouble to-ferge the professicn into.an organiser capable of tackling these problems. The first prerequisite of such capability is thw desire to do sonething about it; this presupposes a social conscience,,. Sonething the RIBA has never had. For Teasons such as greed and aloof-— ness the RIBA is incapable of dirtying itself at the level of the problen. The RIBA has no meaning fbr our siciety; a society that requires connit-— ment to a cause. It has no meaning for architecture students iciomelat continues to control their destiny. It has meaning to many purely as an enticement to letters after ones name, as a path to commissions or jobs. Soon there will be no jobs left. THE PRESENT SITUATION IN aRc. : ? The movement began sone eighteen months ago, when two architects, one English and one dugoslavian, decided that an international movenent was needed to take the profession out of its elittst and capitalistic franewrk and make it responsible to society. There was particular need to deliberately align the profession with the poorer areas of our environment were connection with architecture is non-existant. eSLL__e a_ But useless as it is the RIBA will not relinquish. power voluntarily. The status quo will not easily abdicate in the face of reason said Harold Laski. He was right. A strong architectural revolutionary movenent must keep attacking the RIBA, until the power is rested from them an@ a new order established. Prior t5 this, hope only “iny with the few. architects and students deeply commited to an architecture for all people Now many more will comnait themselves, because they are left with no other option. The new systen of architecture will need to be based on & mass movement just as the RIBA is, otherwise there can be no progressive and creat— ive attack on the environmental problems of our society. That is why the ARCHITECTS REVOLUTIONARY COUNGTT, does not pretend to’ be the new movenent, nor indeed itts embryo. ARC has constantly seen itself as 2 stall commited hovement totally opposed to the present setup. It wpuld also oppose the new movenent should it show tendencies +o beconing a bureaucracy intent -oh precerving - itself’ to the deteriment of society. ARC sees itself as helping to bring the new movenmnt abou and ciets nessessary acting as its vanguard. To this end it is organising a national convention in the Autumn ,of all erchitects, technicians, students and others who wish to see revolutionary changes within the profession. Seperate literature will be published shortly concerning this convent- ion. As regards ARC itself there is still much to be done to build the group into an effective architectural guerilla force, What follows is a brief history of the trovenent so far and ways in which you maybe able to help if you feel yourself committed. For as Malcolm X once said "...if you're not part of the solution your part of the problen". - Sorts ane wokeEERE) instincts of the founders was that there already , isted many hundreds, if noy thousands, of architects who are a part of th a novel ent in spirit; what was needed was to forge them into a ; Llective and formidable force for revolutionary change in the profe- ion. Commonsense demanded that national move nents be constructed first, i this penDnlet refers only to the English group. However it is known at there are embryonic cells in eight other countries so far; USA, rentina, Italy, Jugoslavia, France, Norway, Ireland and Scotland. In > course, perhaps within two years, the first ARC INTERNATIONAL will sur. 2 main core of the English movement is in London, and contains, in lition to architects and students, eae eee and lawyers. All the core ibers have worked extenisively in conmunity action and believe that, lid though that method ae it will not achieve total freedom in the fironnental field on its own. The profession themselves neve to be 7olusionised to aid community action. During the ee year the movement 3 been building strength based on commitment (for exareple one or two ve left because they could not live up to the idea which denanés tting the cause of the revolution before conventional success in arch—- scture. Others have joined after long and serious thought.) 2 core members have lectured at colleges in England, Ireland and Scot-— id, In addition a small group recently travelled throughout jimerica aking at colleges in Boston, New York, Chaoe San Frensisceo, Los and many other cities. One of the founder members recently essed the conference of the ¥oung Liberals. (We do not align with this ty but we will proclaim ARC anywhere) . sause eventually we will need parliamentary backing, the niovement is the process of naking contact with appropriate IP's Our contazvts th the unions are also developing and at the right t e we expect full oport fron*then, > moverient is drafting ideas for a new system of educathon; for the new 1ancial structure. (how architects would be paid under the new soc-— lly orientated system) and for the other ideas. These will be put to > Autumn convention as ARC's contribution to the mass movement. July the main core of the English movement(in LOndon) will have split, produce at least three new cells om units, in the Provinces; on the st coast, in the North West and in Scotland. Because these cells will constructed by totally committed ARC members we will be certsin of ar healthy cells by summer. iT CAN YOU DO. thin in,your practice, college or locality you can try to build up a it that would strive for the establishment of a new system of architectu re, based on the draft manifesto. It is better to have four people 9 can trust each other than a loose unit of ten. Remember unity is rength, and you will not te alone. Contact the main movement to let us ow you are attempting to build a cell then keep us in contact and let know your views. have a fairly extensive network of people throughout Britain and we ybe able to put you in touch with others in your locality. Your help 11 be needec in setting up the Autumn convention and to th@s end the C main group will be calling a meeting of all the British members rly in Summer. nally always remember that the reason that the status quo is preserved because peopel think they are alone. The minute two people get sether and say ew can do something, then a movement is born. This is wha at we said and a movement has been born and we shall win, because the me is right. chitects unite for revolution TORY TO THE ARC. cS Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARC Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource undated https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/8e60c031439748d15514c052aa41a0f6.pdf c8f8efae586dc075b8eaf08a03d40dde Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Harrogate Founding Congress Subject The topic of the resource The Harrogate Congress was the founding of NAM. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Various Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 21-23 November 1975 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Harrogate Subject The topic of the resource Tourist visitor leaflet for Harrogate - from 1st NAM Congress, 1975 Description An account of the resource CONISTONE &KILNSEY CRAG Holiday Centre for the Yorkshire Moors & Dales Harogate, one of the most beautiful towns in Europe, builttoatractvisitors,liesinthe centreofBritain.Itis easily reached by road, rail or air YORK we —. iv Mi oea eed CS enreas es a beautiful countryside, the town combines a sense lined avenues and of being an urban centre with its elegant tee ers ura Ee aee Feeen rn SR aLe ae Sa ee eeeeeee jelight and car parking isplentiful prising that, with these amenities, Harrogate Barncat) Barn Fel) an ens ores Doo eeaeeeen ee aea teeming with history, and in close proximity to the National Parks oftheYorkshire DalesandtheNorthYorkMoors. eet leastoftheseoneofthewonders uc ta) Ree et oftheworld,Fountains and the most picturesque of country towns and UU Licemetne Uns aL ts eeeora Plentiful and coach excursions are regularly provided MOORS Vir PARK ASO Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Harrogate Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1975 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/d52aeff0665a062b5836b6b5fca6a5eb.pdf 21caca75cd76e86f29081cf7f930ab18 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/7d03c81cb5f0bf1d90d0cceb25da9d19.pdf 2ef6dbe5cce1fa02246126c82d321fa2 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/424e7dc6cda2d0d5af47d238235463ab.pdf b1932c2f2c93689a66319e1d62360588 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Liaison Group Including London Group Subject The topic of the resource Liaison Groups: NAM was initially structured as local groups. There was also a Liaison Group whose role was to coordinate the different groups, deal with correspondence and arrange the next annual conference. NAM campaign groups, which were largely autonomous, worked across local groups to develop their ideas. They arranged their own conferences and reported through SLATE and annually to the NAM Congress. The seven different campaign groups listed had members from a variety of local groups. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Various Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976-1979 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource LIAISON GROUPS Subject The topic of the resource New Liaison Group formed every year; 1975-76: John Allan, JB, John Murray, DR. 1976-77: Andrew Brown, BM, NM, KP, MR, IT. 1977-78: NA, SB, DB, DB, DG, CL, RM, JS, BS, DS. Five files: 1. Harrogate/Liaison Group Nov 75-April 76; 2. NAM 75-76 Liaison Group; 3. NAM Liaison Group 1976; 4. NAM Liaison Group 1977; 5. NAM Liaison Group 1977-78: Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Liaison Group Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan/John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79