24
August 2016 / revised 19 September 2016
TO:
Ben
Eley
Conservation
Officer
Environment
and Planning
City
of London
Guildhall
PO Box 270
London,
EC2P 2EJ
Annie
Hampson
Environment
and Planning
City
of London
Guildhall
PO Box 270
London,
EC2P 2EJ
RE: Consideration
of Bernard Morgan Section House, Golden Lane, as a non-designated heritage
asset
Dear
Mr Eley and Ms Hampson,
I am
writing in further clarification of my request that the City of London
Corporation recognise Bernard Morgan Section House, Golden Lane, as a ‘non-designated
heritage asset’.[1] The section building and its landscapes are of particular
‘special interest’ to the local and wider communities. The urgency of this
request is associated with the commencement of preliminary works for the
demolition of Bernard Morgan House and the pending application to demolish the
building and erect a new residential housing scheme as detailed in Planning
Application Ref. 16/00590/FULL.
Prior
to considering the points below I want to remind you of the NPPF requirement
that any proposed scheme act in ‘conserving and enhancing the historic
environment’, with local authorities being required to give ‘great weight‘ to
the impact on ‘the significance of a designated heritage asset’, such as Golden
Lane Estate and Barbican Estate. The City of London’s own Golden Lane Estates
Listed Building Management Guidelines acknowledges the ‘holistic significance’
of Golden Lane Estate and its ‘surrounding urban fabric’, including the site of
Bernard Morgan House, which is in immediate proximity to Bowater House, the
southernmost building of the estate. Finally, I also remind you of Core
Strategic Policy CS12 of the City of London’s Local Plan, which seeks to conserve or enhance
the significance of the City’s heritage
assets.
Bernard
Morgan House merits recognition as a non-designated historical asset as it
satisfies the definition of such assets on the basis of its contribution to
communal heritage. This is both historical, in terms of its cultural resonance,
and architectural, in terms of the building’s sympathetic visual and contextual
relationship – evident in the massing, scale and modernist architectural design
- to the immediate townscape, including the Grade II-listed Golden Lane Estate
and Barbican Estate, Jewin Welsh Church, Cripplegate Institute and Fortune
Street Park.
Bernard
Morgan House is an integral part of a unique, balanced urban composition that
illustrates both the best of the principles of post-war modernist architectural
and urban design (light, function, communality), exemplified in the neighbouring
works of Chamberlin, Powell and Bon, together with the influential contemporaneous
theories of townscape advocated by such figures as Gordon Cullen (which
culminated in his Concise Townscape,
1961). Bernard Morgan House is also acknowledged as a noted example of a
modernist interpretation of the Police Section House typology. The destruction
of this commendable building would both destroy the coherence of this urban assemblage
and undermine the architectural presence of the adjacent buildings – a great loss
given the internationally-recognised reputation of Golden Lane Estate and the
Barbican, two enormously significant post-war works by Chamberlin, Powell and
Bon.
In light of the points below, I also note the ‘Design and Access
Statement’ of Application 16/00590/FULL
Bernard Morgan House Redevelopment provides a cursory and poorly illustrated description of this
historically resonant building and its rich historical context. Furthermore the
report by Peter Stewart Consultancy, which is appended to this application’s ‘Design and
Access Statement’, contains
numerous dissuasions and does not fully acknowledge the significance of the
existing building or the deleterious affect that would be caused on the
existing townscape and listed buildings caused by its demolition.
The
significance of Bernard Morgan House and the larger townscape to which it
contributes is detailed below:
1.
Architectural Context
1.1
Golden Lane Estate
Bernard
Morgan House is directly opposite Bowater House, Golden Lane Estate, an
internationally significant urban and architectural design the Journal Building noted ‘set the model for
high-density urban villages, which was rarely if ever emulated’.[2] (The scheme received
Housing Awards from Building in 1961
and 1965.)
From
its inception, the significance of Chamberlin,
Powell and Bon’s design for Golden Lane Estate was widely acknowledged. The
competition-winning scheme by Geoffrey Powell in 1952 was published in the
architectural and general press from that year onward, with the scheme featuring
in the public exhibition of the competition held at Guildhall and opened by the
Lord Mayor of London in March 1952.[3] The scheme was rightly
praised by the City of London for its urban reinvention of a blighted bombed site
and provision of high-density residential accommodation – accommodating 200
people per acre on a 4.7 acre site – through a sympathetic and carefully
designed combination of sequential open spaces, in the form of courtyards and
sunken gardens, and built architectural forms.
The Golden Lane Estate project was selected by
the Modern Architectural Research Group (MARS Group) as an essential part of
the British presentation to the Congrès internationaux d'architecture moderne
(CIAM) conference in 1953, at which prominent modern architects – including le
Corbusier – assembled to discuss the urgent problem of post-war housing.[4] As early as 1957 – while still
under construction – Golden Lane Estate was already a ‘landmark in London’ the
‘best known housing scheme in London’ and an acclaimed ‘pioneering work of its
kind’[5]. In particular, Bowater
House and Cuthbert Harrowing House on the southern boundary of Golden Lane
Estate were praised for the ‘ingenious modelling’ and ‘appropriate sense of
scale’ these buildings provided in relation to the immediate urban context.
Golden Lane Estate, the Architects’
Journal (the leading trade publication) concluded, is ‘an estate which is,
and ought to remain, one of the show places of the City of London’.[6] This significance must be
acknowledged by following the NPPF
requirement that any proposed scheme act in ‘conserving and enhancing the
historic environment’, with local authorities being required to give ‘great
weight‘ to the impact on ‘the significance of a designated heritage asset’.
In particular, the precedence and design relevance of Golden Lane Estate
to the adjacent townscape, including Bernard Morgan House, can be summarized in
three interconnected points: 1. the
importance of the collective urban assemblage, vital to ‘place-making’; 2. the
importance of visual connectivity, in which buildings, open spaces and adjacent
surroundings are related to one another; and 3. the prevalence of open spaces.
1.1.1.
Collective Assemblage
As
Peter Chamberlin noted, the practice of Chamberlin, Powell and Bon were
‘concerned with the design of a group of buildings in close proximity to each
other as if they were a single problem in design’. In this way, the design of
Golden Lane Estate was intended to integrate buildings and the spaces between
buildings in a resonant single collective assemblage, illustrating how ‘One of
our principal interests has been the creation of places’.[7] The design for this scheme
‘succeeded in giving character’ to the project site, the City of London noted
in their 1952 award of the competition, which praised the ‘great variety of
views through the site’.[8] For Elain Harwood - the
leading expert on Chamberlin, Powell and Bon and senior architectural
investigator for Historic England (and former head of postwar listings for
English Heritage) – the whole of Golden Lane Estate is ‘a single piece of
architecture’, a collective
assemblage that suggests ‘the possibility of modifying the surrounding area’.[9]
This
attention to urban composition reflected the influence of the architect
Frederick Gibbard’s notions of mid-century urban and residential planning, together
with the influence of Gordon Cullen, who was then publishing his ideas on townscape in a
series of articles in Architectural
Review, which would later be collated in his Concise Townscape (1961). Cullen specifically refers to Golden Lane
Estate in Concise Townscape and he
worked for Chamberlin, Powell and Bon during 1956, producing illustrations of
their scheme for the Barbican Estate, which extended the urban and
architectural principles established in the design of Golden Lane Estate.
1.1.2
Visual Connectivity
Key
to Cullen’s notion of townscape was the idea of visual permeability and the
termination of vistas. The design for Golden Lane Estate recognizes the
importance of visual connections, which form the means of producing
architectonic relationships between built forms and open spaces, such as the
courtyards and sunken gardens, together with providing a means of way-finding
for pedestrians transiting the site.
The perspective
rendering of the competition design for Golden Lane Estate, prepared for the
Guildhall exhibition and widely published in the press, illustrates the
interconnectivity of these spaces and buildings. The intention for openness and
permeability through and across the estate is clearly illustrated - pedestrians
are shown transversing the site and surrounding townscape, accessing the sunken
gardens, and navigating into and through the estate using the visual
connections established by the architectural design. The buildings on the
estate are sympathetically scaled to anticipated development on its boundaries,
relating in height and massing to a larger urban grain of 4-6 storey buildings.
The
visual permeability and relation of built forms and open spaces is evident in
the completed Golden Lane Estate, as illustrated in the lavish photographic
documentation published by the City of London in their ‘The Golden Lane Estate.
Corporation of London’ (1961) brochure celebrating the conclusion of the
project.
Finally,
the importance of views into and through the estate is recognized in the City
of London ‘Golden Lane Estates Listed Building Management Guidelines’, which
states:
‘The estate should be appreciated in its entirety:
not only its various components – residential, community, recreational,
commercial and the external spaces between buildings – but also its setting
within the surrounding urban fabric. The views from and into the estate have
become important, and part of its special architectural interest lies in its
relationship to adjacent buildings. Any developments on the immediate
boundaries of the listed area should take into account the significance of the
estate’s setting. No new buildings, infilling, removals
or extensions should be introduced which would be detrimental to the integrity
of the estate as a whole’.
1.1.3
Open Space
The
high-density occupation of Golden Lane Estate was offset by the desire to free
up as much as possible of the ground level to open pedestrian access. If
covered pedestrian ways and footpaths are considered as open space, as the
architects intended, 79% of the site area occupied by Golden Lane Estate is
open space. ‘The whole site is laid out as a pedestrian precinct’, the journal Builder explained in 1957,
‘The various blocks are so disposed as
to divide the site into a series of interrelated courts, differing both in
character and use. The ground level within these courts is strongly modulated;
the main pedestrian circulation is at ground level while the more secluded
courts, largely excavated to basement level, are finished with decorative
planting and paving.’[10]
Special
attention was paid to the design and construction of these external courtyards
and sunken gardens, which the architects envisaged would ‘be read as a picture
from the upper storeys of the flats’.[11] Chamberlin, Powell and
Bon considered the courtyards and landscaped areas of Golden Lane Estate as ‘outdoor living
spaces’ that were ‘accessible to everyone’.[12] For Powell, explaining
the scheme in a public lecture held at the Architectural Association and
sponsored by the RIBA in 1957, the transition between the residential
accommodation, which had been designed to ‘be flooded with light’, and the
urban open spaces of the surrounding townscape meant these open spaces are
considered ‘an extension of living space’.[13]
In particular, the original exhibition drawings
of the Golden Lane Estate scheme gave prominence to the sunken garden along
Fann Street, in front of Bowater House, which marked the southern boundary of
the estate and was originally intended to accommodate a children’s playground
and swimming pool - a functionality that illustrates the architect’s
recognition of this particular communal open space.
The
importance of the Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s evolving ideas on townscape, urban
planning and place-making – as expressed in Golden Lane Estate - were further
recognized when the practice were named ‘Men of the Year 1952’ by the Architects’ Journal[14],
with Chamberlin further receiving the 1963 RIBA Award for Distinction in Town
Planning.[15]
The modernist ambitions of their work were tempered by an acknowledgment of the
historical relevance of the urban realm, drawn from their shared love of
Italian civic architecture, and a desire, as Powell and Bon later explained, to
always ‘make the work fit it’.[16]
1.2
Barbican Estate
The
architectural and urban design ideas developed in the design and execution of
Golden Lane Estate were extended in the commission of the Barbican Estate in
1957. As Powell’s widow, Phillipa Cooper, noted, ‘The [City of London] Corporation was
very satisfied with the Golden Lane development and when it was nearly finished
they commissioned the partnership [of Chamberlin, Powell and Bon] to design and
supervise the building of the Barbican on thirty-three acres of Bombed sites to
the south, and virtually adjoining Golden Lane’.[17] The evolution in urban
and architectural design principles from Golden Lane Estate to the Barbican
Estate is obvious.
In particular, the Barbican development extended
Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s consideration of the townscape, as a collective
assemblage of interrelated and sympathetic built forms and open spaces.
Continuity and sensitivity were key design parameters and the urban scheme was
designed ‘as a sequence of open spaces leading from one to another’, which
fostered an interconnectivity between the Barbican Estate and surrounding
townscape. The architectural scale of buildings, as Chamberlin, Powell and Bon
acknowledged in 1959 - as they developed a scheme for the Barbican that
included Bernard Morgan House – progressed from an intimate and modest level,
evident at ground level and the scale of the Golden Lane Estate, Bernard Morgan
House and Jewin Welsh Church, to the northern podium level of the Barbican, and
finally terminating in the highpoint of the Barbican towers.[18]
The cumulative
significance of Chamberlin, Powell and
Bon’s design for the Barbican Estate is internationally acknowledged. The
Barbican, Harwood succinctly
notes, is ‘the greatest piece of combined urban
planning and architecture in Britain in the twentieth century’.[19]
2.
Townscape
Given
this context, the sympathetic alignment and relational design of Bernard Morgan House to the surrounding
townscape, in general, and Bowater House of Golden Lane Estate, in particular,
is self-evident and indisputable.
2.1
An article on Bernard Morgan House
published in Architecture and Planning Journal (July 1962) confirms the design
intentions of J. Innes Elliott, the Chief
Architect and Surveyor of the London Metropolitan Police Force. The article
states:
‘One of the town-planning requirements was that the Golden Lane
frontage and building height should be complimentary to a neighbouring
six-story block of maisonettes. Another requirement was that the main entrance
should not be on Golden Lane itself. Bearing in mind the position and the
purpose of the Section House, the architects attempted to create a building
which would harmonise with the adjoining housing schemes but also would have an
added ‘civic’ feeling in keep with its use’.[20]
The
visual connectivity and references between these buildings is evident and
documented in precedent. Height relationships, set-backs from the street, and
landscaping shown in the archive drawings of Elliot’s design for Bernard Morgan
House all illustrate the deliberate reference to Golden Lane Estate. For
example, the site survey and set-out plan align to the southern boundary of
Golden Lane Estate, delineated by the sunken courtyard in front of Bowater
House. In section, the height of Bernard Morgan House is clearly related to
Bowater House, which in turn rises from Stanley Cohen House in height along the
Golden Lane elevation, with the sunken courtyards to Bernard Morgan House
employing the same design logic as those of Golden Lane Estate.[21]
The
success of this relationship is one that the local community, including
long-term residents who appreciate the communal heritage of this adjacency, together
with a number of architectural historians, including the Twentieth Century
Society (whose letter of May 2015 and subsequent report recommend listing
Bernard Morgan House), can attest.
2.2
Open Spaces
The
reference of Bernard Morgan House to Golden Lane Estate is also evident in the
landscape design and generous provision of external open space on the site of the
police section house. The sunken courtyards provide amenity space and important
visual connections between the communal interior spaces of the section house
and the streetscape. As Architecture
and Planning Journal specifically
noted of this intention: ‘although these
gardens are private they can be seen by passers-by and make a contribution to
the townscape’.[22]
The sectional adjacency of the sunken gardens of Bernard Morgan House and
Bowater House are obvious while passing along Golden Lane and Fann Street. In
particular, the surface treatments of these gardens compliment one another and
the planting of trees align to Golden Lane Estate along the Golden Lane
elevation and create strong visual connections across Fann Street. The
deliberateness and importance of the overall landscape design to the Bernard
Morgan House scheme is evident in the richly detailed landscaping plan, in
which the planting, hard landscaping (in terms of precast concrete slabs and
brick) share a similar attention to detail as Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s
scheme.[23]
In
this regard, Bernard Morgan House is aligned to Golden Lane Estate,
exemplifying a sensitivity to townscape that acknowledges the prevailing urban
and architectural ideas of the period and the precedent work of Chamberlin,
Powell and Bon. It also must be noted
Elliot and Chamberlin’s professional familiarity with one another extended to
their membership of numerous professional associations, culminating in the
architects both being awarded a CBE during the same awards ceremony in 1974.
3.
Recognition of Bernard Morgan House
Chamberlin,
Powell and Bon specifically recognized the contribution of Bernard Morgan House
to the townscape in their design
proposals for the Barbican Redevelopment, undertaken from 1956 onward.[24] This scheme was
commissioned and funded by the City of London and, the architects contended,
was intended to provide residential and cultural accommodation north of Beech
Street, including Golden Lane Estate and the current sites of Bernard Morgan
House and the Jewin Welsh Church. The design drawings show an especially
considered relationship – in terms of massing, bulk and height – between the proposed extension
of the Barbican Estate and the immediate townscape within this northern
precinct.
In an
elaborate report of their ‘Barbican Redevelopment 1959’, presented to and published
by the City of London in 1959, Chamberlin, Powell and Bon describe how the
‘elements in this urban group’, which includes the schemes for Bernard Morgan
House and the Jewin Welsh Church, ‘are cumulative in their social value’,
noting how ‘it is important that this area be developed sympathetically’
because of its architectural value as an assemblage.[25] In this regard,
Chamberlin, Powell and Bon specifically include Bernard Morgan House and the
Jewin Welsh Church within their plans for the Barbican Estate development
because of their contribution toward a coherent collective urban assemblage,
sensitivity of scale and design, and presence within a streetscape in which
‘the disposition of the space between buildings and its detailed treatment are
of vital importance’.[26]
This
sense of inclusion is indicated in the proposed boundary change of the
development to include Bernard Morgan House and Golden Lane Estate, together with
the elaborate illustrations of the built forms and open green spaces of Bernard
Morgan House and Golden Lane Estate within the representations of the larger
Barbican North Redevelopment. In this way, Bernard Morgan House is an important
component in the larger collective assemblage.
Moreover,
in this report Chamberlin, Powell and Bon specifically caution against
overdevelopment within the townscape comprising Golden Lane Estate, Bernard
Morgan House, the Jewin Welsh Church and Barbican Estate. Stressing the need
for continuity, sensitive urban grain and sympathetic height, bulk and massing
relationships between buildings and open spaces, the architects caution against
an overly ‘high density scheme of development’ on any of these these sites,
which they conclude would result in ‘blunt and oppressive enclosure by
buildings foreboding in scale’.[27]
4.
Prior Assessment of Bernard Morgan House
In
reference to the above points I content the assessments of the historical,
architectural and communal heritage of Bernard Morgan House by Historic England
and CgMs Consulting in June 2015 are
flawed and do not provide a cogent or effective appraisal of Bernard Morgan
House, particularly in terms of its contribution to townscape. Moreover the flaws in assessment by
Historic England and CgMs Consulting
are reiterated and compounded in the assessment compiled in the applicant’s
‘Design and Access Statement’ for Planning Application Ref. 16/00590/FULL.
Despite
these obvious relationships, the contribution of Bernard Morgan House as a
heritage asset and component of the immediate townscape is largely ignored in
the reports prepared by Historic England and CgMs Consulting in June 2015. I
note that these evaluations were commissioned by the City of London prior to
the sale of Bernard Morgan House by the City of London – in that regard it was
expedient that the impending sale was not compromised by the City of London
recognizing Bernard Morgan House as of historical significance. By contrast,
the contemporaneous letter and report by the Twentieth Century Society rightly
recommended that Bernard Morgan should be recognised as a Grade II listed
building.[28]
4.1 Historic
England Report
Although
it acknowledges Bernard Morgan House
is a ‘noteworthy example of the application of Modern Movement thinking to this
particular building type’, the Historic England report wrongly concludes
Bernard Morgan House ‘does not enjoy a strong visual or functional
interrelationship’ with Golden Lane Estate.’[29] This conclusion is erroneous for the following
reasons:
4.1.1.
The Historic England report does not effectively consider the contribution of
Bernard Morgan House to the immediate townscape. As I have noted above, Elliot
was keenly aware of the impact of Bernard Morgan House on the townscape and regulated
the design of this building and the gardens contained on site to augment and
contribute to this larger townscape. The success of Elliot’s design and contribution
of Bernard Morgan House to this townscape was acknowledged by Chamberlin,
Powell and Bon in their plans to include the building in the larger Barbican
Estate development – a scheme Historic England’s own senior
architectural investigator has rightly described as ‘the greatest piece of combined urban
planning and architecture in Britain in the twentieth century’.
The
design of Bernard Morgan House evidences the influence of Golden Lane Estate,
which the scheme directly faces, and the wider cultural context associated with
Cullen’s notion of townscape, the prevailing urban theory during the period
both Golden Lane Estate, which is specifically referenced in Cullen’s Concise Townscape (1961), and Bernard
Morgan House were designed. The massing and visual relationships between
Bernard Morgan House and Bowater House, Golden Lane Estate, including views
through and into the estate, are architecturally considered and obvious. This
is a matter of height relationships, set-backs from the street, and landscaping
illustrated in the drawings for Elliot’s section house and the specific project
description in Official Architecture
& Planning (1962).
4.1.2.
The ‘visual comparison’ Historic England makes between Bernard Morgan House and
Bowater House, Golden Lane Estate, makes sole reference to the external
detailing of the buildings, rather than the deliberately sympathetic massing
and scaling of Elliot’s section house. In this regard, it fails to appreciate
the scalar and massed relationship between Bernard Morgan House, Golden Lane
Estate, the Jewin Welsh Church and townscape that was recognized by Chamberlin,
Powell and Bon in their designs for the Barbican Estate.
In
this regard to the detailing of Bernard Morgan House, the report by Historic
England is largely based on the material description of the building supplied
to Historic England by the City of London. This description by the City’s
surveyors makes several omissions, such as failing to recognise the
significance of the elevational use of flint and the landscape treatment of the
site.
4.1.3.
The Historic England report is incorrect in asserting Bernard Morgan House - in
its function as a police section house - did not enjoy a functional or communal
relationship with Golden Lane Estate.
Bernard
Morgan House was designed as a hostel for single police officers.[30] Married officers were
accommodated as key workers on Golden Lane Estate. A City of London brochure on
Golden Lane Estate, published after the completion of Bernard Morgan House,
notes original tenants of Golden Lane Estate included ‘members of the City
Police Force’.[31]
As colleagues and neighbours, these police officers and residents of Bernard
Morgan House and Golden Lane Estate were immediately adjacent and to one
another in both their professional and social lives.
This
synergistic relationship is an example of the interconnected communality deliberately
fostered by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon in their designs for Golden Lane Estate
and Barbican Estate. This is further evident in the importance they afforded to
the social aspects of both schemes, with, for example, the Community Centre of
Golden Lane Estate forming the stated communal and visual focus - together with
Great Arthur House – of the entire scheme. (The full plans for Barbican North
Redevelopment further augmented this social cohesion by including a City
Residents Association building that was visually connected to the Golden Lane
Community Centre, Jewin Welsh Church and Bernard Morgan House.)
As
the history of urban section houses also illustrates, the accommodation of law
enforcement officers in these facilities was deliberately intended to
contribute to the immediate community. This civic and communal function of section
houses is recognised in Historic England’s own ‘Principles for the Selection of
Listed Buildings’. The architect’s specific intention with Bernard Morgan House
is indicated in the desire to foster the ‘civic feeling’ and sense of
harmonious inclusion described in the Architecture and Planning Journal article on the building. Finally, oral
histories of life on the estate by longtime residents of Golden Lane Estate refer to the sense of safety and communality afforded
by the presence of Bernard Morgan House and its occupants.
4.2
CgMs Consulting Report
The report by CgMs Consulting (June 2015)
similarly recognises the modernist architectural principles employed in Elliot’s
design of Bernard Morgan House, before wrongly concluding ‘in terms of scale
and quality of detail, [the building] fails to match’ the quality of Golden
Lane Estate.[32] This conclusion forms the basis for recommending
Bernard Morgan House does not meet the requirements for listing.
Despite this reference to the ‘scale’ of the
building in relation to Golden Lane Estate and, by inference, the surrounding
townscape is left entirely unsubstantiated in the CgMs Consulting report, which
concentrates exclusively on the materiality of the building, rather than the
scale and massed relationships to Golden Lane Estate, Jewin Welsh Church,
Barbican, Fortune Street Park and the surrounding townscape. To reiterate,
despite this single reference to ‘scale’ there is no further mention - or
explanation - of how the scale of Bernard Morgan House, in the opinion of CgMs
Consulting, does not relate to Golden Lane Estate. This is a critical error in
this report, which concludes ‘Bernard Morgan House is not considered
architecturally to complement the Golden Lane Estate’. As the information above
asserts, the conclusion of CgMs Consulting is erroneous given Elliot’s stated
intention to relate the design of Bernard Morgan House to Golden Lane Estate.
5. Conclusion
On the
basis of the information outlined above, I urge the City of London to recognise
Bernard Morgan Section House as a ‘non-designated heritage asset’. The failure
to acknowledge the importance of Bernard Morgan House by the City of London
will result in the irrecoverable loss of a townscape that is unique, coherent
and of international significance.
I
suggest the reports submitted by Historic England and CgMs Consulting fail to
recognise the value and contribution of Bernard Morgan House to the larger
townscape. Neither report provides a substantive discussion of the massed and
scalar relationships of Bernard Morgan House to the hugely significant local
context, which includes Golden Lane Estate and the Barbican - two of the finest
works of modernist architecture in the United Kingdom. The errors and
misjudgments of these reports have been referenced and compounded in the
materials assembled for Planning Application Ref. 16/00590/FULL.
Finally,
in light of the preceding information and the considered contribution of
Bernard Morgan House to the adjacent townscape I trust the utmost attention is
given to this request for the City of London Corporation to recognise Bernard
Morgan Section House as a ‘non-designated heritage asset’.
Regards,
Dr.
Mark Campbell
PhD (Princeton University), MA, B.Arch
(Hons.)
Fulbright Scholar, Princeton Honorific
Scholar
Director, MPhil in Media Practices / AA
Research Cluster
Architectural Association
36 Bedford Square
London, WC1B 3ES
Editor, The Journal of Architecture
(Routledge & RIBA)
Royal Institute of British Architects
66 Portland Place
London, W1B 1NT
Visiting Professor
School of Architecture
Southeast University
2 Sipailou
Nanjing
Jiangsu
China, 210018
[1] The NPPG defines a
Heritage Asset as: ‘A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape
identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in
planning decisions, because of its heritage interest’. http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/policy/achieving-sustainable-development/annex-2-glossary/
[2] ‘
Winning Combinations’, Building, 11
July, 2008; 50-54.
[3] The Times, 11 March, 1952. Geoffrey Powell, Biographic File, RIBA Archive.
[4] ‘Housing
at Golden Lane’, Architectural Design, July 1953; 190-192.
[5] ‘Golden Lane, Finsbury;
Architects: Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’, Architecture
and Building, 29 August, 1957; 271-289.
[6] Bowater
House, Golden Lane Housing estate, London, E. C. 1; Architects: Chamberlin
Powell & Bon
Architects'
Journal, 29 December, 1960; 931-942.
[7] Peter Chamberlin, ‘Architect’s
Approach to Architecture’, RIBA Journal,
June 1969; 229-235.
[8] ‘Golden Lane housing scheme, Finsbury, E. C. 1’, Architects’ Journal, 6 March, 1952; 298.
See also
Architects and Building News, 6 March, 1952; 274-78.
[9] Elain
Hardwood, Chamberlin, Powell and Bon
(London: RIBA Publishing, 2011), 34-35.
[10] ‘Golden
Lane Housing Scheme, Finsbury; Architects: Chamberlin, Powell & Bon’, Builder,
November, 1957; 851.
[11] ‘Golden Lane Housing Scheme,
Finsbury EC1’, Architectural Review (January 1954); 52.
[12] ‘Housing at Golden Lane’,
Architectural Design, July 1953; 190-192.
[13] Geoffrey Powell, ‘Golden Lane Housing Scheme, Finsbury; Architects: Chamberlin,
Powell & Bon’. Lecture, published in AA Journal, April 1957;
214-223.
[14] ‘Men of the Year 1952’, Architects’ Journal, 15 January, 1953;
72.
[15] Peter Hugh Girard Chamberlin,
Biographic File, RIBA Archive.
[16] Kenneth Powell, ‘Pioneering
Urbanism’, Architects’ Journal, 4
March, 1999; 24-25.
[17] Phillipa Cooper, letter to the
RIBA, November 26, 2000. RIBA Archive.
[18] See Chamberlin, Powell and Bon,
‘Conclusion’, ‘Barbican Redevelopment 1959’ (City of London Corporation, 1959),
47.
[19] Harwood, Chamberlin, Powell and Bon, 1.
[20] ‘Finsbury
section house for the Metropolitan Police, London; Architect: J. Innes Elliott’, Official Architecture & Planning, July 1962;
369-373.
[21] See Drawings 1-9, NW2/58008.
Finsbury Section House. London Metropolitan Archive.
[22] Official Architecture & Planning;
370.
[23] See Drawing 3, NW2/58008.
Finsbury Section House. London Metropolitan Archive.
[24] Chamberlin,
Powell and Bon’s design proposals for the ‘North Barbican Residential
Development’ are first explained in their ‘Barbican Redevelopment 1959’ (City of London Corporation, 1959) and then
expanded upon in a series of drawings held in the London Metropolitan Archive.
[25] Chamberlin, Powell and Bon,
‘Barbican Redevelopment 1959’ (City of London Corporation, 1959), 1, 17, 54.
[26] ‘Barbican Redevelopment 1959’,
5.
[27] ‘Barbican Redevelopment 1959’,
3.
[28] Twentieth Century Society letter
(22 May 2015).
[29] Historic
England Report (26 June 2015).
[30] Official Architecture and
Planning, 370.
[31] ‘The Golden Lane Estate.
Corporation of London’ (City of London, c. 1961), 4.
[32] CgMs Consulting Report (June 2015)
No comments:
Post a Comment