Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:26:17.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teamwork or Masterwork? The Design and Reception of the Royal Festival Hall

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2016

Miles Glendinning
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For us, a man is a hero and deserves special interest only if his nature and his education have rendered him able to let his individuality be almost perfectly absorbed in its hierarchic function, without at the same time forfeiting the vigorous, fresh, admirable impetus which make for the savour and worth of the individual.

Hermann Hesse, Das Glasperlenspiel (1943)

One of the most enduring themes in the creation and reception of architecture has been the tension between its definition on the one hand as an autonomous ‘art’ practised on the drawing board by individual artists, and on the other as a social activity structured by complex external relationships. That tension was already evident in the Vitruvian distinction between visual, practical and structural qualities. In nineteenth-century England, the issue of individual versus collective ‘authorship’ became bound up with the Puginian tradition of moral and polemical debate, with its stress on strong polarizations of values; hence, the 1892 book, Architecture a Profession or an Art, edited by two protagonists of the latter viewpoint, Norman Shaw and T. G. Jackson. Each succeeding movement — Arts and Crafts, Beaux-Arts and so forth — put forward its own reformist reformulation of the art-versus-society relationship, but it was only in the twentieth-century Modernist years, when ‘language’ and propaganda became as essential as ‘design’ to any architect of standing, that the landscape of architectural criticism and debate finally became dominated by these rhetorical, socio-architectural recipes of reform. Diverse and impassioned concepts of the role of architecture clustered around key individuals or organizations, and around their most important buildings and programmes, whether a ‘traditional’ grand building such as Coventry Cathedral (Basil Spence, 1951–62) or an entire new town. There was high esteem for ‘heroic masters’ and iconoclastic utopianism, of the kind that was largely responsible for the break-up of CIAM in the late 1950s; and at the same time, there was the pervasive influence of communal ideologies and state intervention, and the high status of ‘public’ architectural design offices such as the London County Council (LCC) and Hertfordshire County Council. Nowhere, however, was there a simple, extreme polarization of values; rather, there was a constantly shifting mosaic.

Type
Research Article
Information
Architectural History , Volume 46 , 2003 , pp. 277 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

Key to Abbreviations

EULSC

Edinburgh University Library Special Collections, Matthew papers

KMP

Matthew family papers, Keith Marischal, East Lothian

LMA

London Metropolitan Archives

LUAS

KMP, lecture transcript files, text of Matthew lecture to Liverpool University Architectural Society, 23 November 1951.

1 Hesse, Hermann, Das Glasperlenspiel (Zurich, 1943; Engl. trans., New York, 1969), p. 13 Google Scholar.

2 Saint, Andrew, The Image of the Architect (New Haven and London, 1983), pp. 60–71 Google Scholar; Bullock, Nicholas, Building the Post-War World (London, 2002)Google Scholar; Muthesius, S., The Postwar University (New Haven and London, 2000), pp. 8–9 Google Scholar,105,110, and 284-86; Glendinning, M. and S. Muthesius, , Tower Block (New Haven and London, 1994), pp. 104-09Google Scholar; Reception theory: cf. the work of phenomenologist Jauss, Hans-Robert, e.g. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception (Minneapolis, 1982 edition)Google Scholar.

3 See for example Project on the City 2: Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping, ed. Chung, C. C., Inaba, J., Koolhaas, R., Leong, S. T. (Köln, 2001), pp. 129 Google Scholar and 171; Jencks, C., The New Paradigm in Architecture (New Haven and London), 2002 Google Scholar.

4 To Build a Cathedral, ed. Campbell, L. (Coventry, 1987)Google Scholar; L. Campbell, , Coventry Cathedral (Oxford, 1996)Google Scholar; A. Saint, , Towards a Social Architecture (New Haven and London, 1987)Google Scholar.

5 LMA, file CL/GP/2/93, General Purposes South Bank Subcommittee, 24 July 1950, report by Clerk, 16 August 1950.

6 RIBA Journal, August 1949 (news cutting, KMP).

7 ‘The Festival Hall: Musical Centre of London’, The Times, 4 May 1951, p. 5; News Chronicle, 16 May 1951 and 9 May 1951 (news cutting, KMP); Daily Dispatch, 4 May 1951 (news cutting, KMP).

8 Australian Broadcasting Corporation weekly digest, 9 June 1951 (news cutting, KMP).

9 News Chronicle, 16 May 1951; Our London Correspondence’, Manchester Guardian, 16 May 1951 (news cuttings, KMP).

10 H. Morrison, The meaning of this year’, The Times Festival of Britain Supplement (May 1951), p. 18.

11 Sadie, S. and Latham, A. (eds), The Cambridge Music Guide (Cambridge, 1985), p. 484 Google Scholar.

12 20th Century Architecture, 5, Festival of Britain, ed. Harwood, E. and Powers, A. (London, 2001)Google Scholar; Drew, J., introduction, Architects’ Yearbook, 4 (London, 1951)Google Scholar.

13 R. Lutyens, ‘London’s new concert hall’, Country Life, 28 July 1950, p. 292; R. Lutyens, ‘Buildings on the South Bank’, Guardian, 5 May 1951, p. 6.

14 Williams-Ellis, C., ‘Idea and Realization’, in LCC, Royal Festival Hall (1951), p. 13 Google Scholar; LCC, Royal Festival Hall (London, 1951), p. 10 Google Scholar; The Times, 4 May 1951 (news cutting, KMP).

15 Brett, L., ‘The South Bank Style’, Observer, 6 May 1951, p. 9 Google Scholar.

16 Blair, Tony: Royal Festival Hall, Royal Festival Hall 1951-2001, Past, Present and Future (London, 2001), pp. 32–33 Google Scholar.

17 Forty, Adrian, Building Design, 11 May 2001, p. 14 Google Scholar; Building Design, 9 May 1997, p. 5; Evening Standard, 17 April 2001; Forty, A., ‘Being or nothingness’, Architectural History, 38 (1995), pp. 31–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, also Gregory, R., ‘Return of the people’s palace’, Building Design, 4 May 2001, p. 10 Google Scholar, and 11 May 2001, p. 20.

18 McKean, John, Royal Festival Hall (London, 1992), pp. 2–4 Google Scholar.

19 Williams-Ellis, ‘Idea and Realization’, p. 15.

20 McKean, Royal Festival Hall, p. 4.

21 Esher, and Moro, P.: McKean, J., ‘An appraisal of the Royal Festival Hall’, in Carolin, P. and Dannatt, T. (eds), Architecture, Education and Research. The Work of Leslie Martin: Papers and Selected Articles (London, 1996), p. 44 Google Scholar.

22 Names on spine, interview with Stuart Matthew, 1995.

23 Esher, L., A Broken Wave (London, 1981), p. 66 Google Scholar; ARQ, vol. 1, no. 4 (2000).

24 Colossus: ‘A model for us all’, ARQ, vol. 4, no. 4 (2000), p. 291.

25 Martin rationalism: Martin, J. L., ‘The grid as generator’, in Urban Spaces and Structures, ed. Martin, L. and March, L. (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 6–27 Google Scholar; J. L. Martin, , Buildings and Ideas (Cambridge, 1983)Google Scholar; ‘A model for us all’, ARQ, vol. 4, no. 4 (2000), p. 291; see also Mac Journal, 1 (1994), pp. 7 and 40.

26 KMP, letter from Edwin Williams to P. Moro, 6 April 1972, and from Matthew and Martin to Royal Festival Hall General Manager, 10 April 1972.

27 Moral leadership: Architecture, Education and Research, ed. Carolin and Dannatt, p. 23. ‘Fell into place’: Times, 1 August 2000, p. 296; ‘A model for us all’, ARQ, vol. 4, no. 4 (2000), p. 291; Bullock, Building the Postwar World, pp. 62-63.

28 Powers, A., 20th Century Society Newsletter (September 2000), p. 30 Google Scholar.

29 ‘State within a state’: lecture by Andrew Saint at Twentieth Century Society conference on post-war architecture, November 1992; Laughlin, M., Gelfand, M. D., Young, K., Half a Century of Municipal Decline (London, 1985)Google Scholar; Young, K. and Rao, N., Local Government since 1945 (Oxford, 1997)Google Scholar.

30 Builder, 16 December 1949; interviews with A. Ling, 1987, and J. Whitfield Lewis, 1987.

31 LMA, file LCC/Min/11620, Report by Architect to Town Planning Committee, 4 May 1949; file LCC/Min/11701, Town Planning Committee 1 October 1951 presented papers; LCC/Min/11674, Town Planning Committee, 10 December 1951; LCC/Min/11680 and 11675.

32 ‘Anti-official’: KMP, letter of 5 July 1947 from Matthew to Budden.

33 KMP, letter of 21 June 1948 from Manzoni to Matthew.

34 KMP, letter of 27 November 1946 from C. S. Mardall to Matthew.

35 KMP/LMA, Cabinet Office meetings files, notes of 13 March 1947 meeting. Marmaras, E. V., ‘Central London in the 1950s’, Planning History, vol. 19, no. 2 (1997), p. 12 Google Scholar.

36 L. Campbell, Coventry Cathedral, pp. 273-74; Ockman, J., Architecture Culture 1943-1968 (New York, 1993), pp. 27–30 Google Scholar,47-54.

37 LMA, file LCC/Min/6483.

38 Saint, , Towards a Social Architecture; Circle, ed. Martin, J. L., Nicholson, B., Gabo, N. (London, 1937)Google Scholar; Martin, J. L. and Speight, S., The Flat Book (London, 1939)Google Scholar; Architecture, Education and Research, ed. Carolin and Dannatt, p. 19; see also A. Powers, , Serge Chermayeff (London, 2001), pp. 97–103 Google Scholar.

39 LMA, file LCC/Min/6483.

40 KMP, lectures to Manchester Luncheon Club, 18 February 1955, and Institute of Public Administration, London, 27 March 1961.

41 Geddes: Welter, Volker, Biopolis (Cambridge (Mass.), 2002)Google Scholar.

42 EULSC, file MS2536, notes for May 1970 talk at RIBA by Williams-Ellis.

43 Planetarium: KMP/LMA, Cabinet Office meetings files, 13 March 1947 meeting. Centre for musical activities: KMP lecture transcript files, text of Matthew lecture to Devon and Cornwall Society of Architects, 27 March 1953.

44 Siry, J. M., ‘Chicago’s Auditorium Building’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 57, no. 2 (June 1998), p. 152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 KMP, notes of meeting with Nicholson, 27 January 1947; EULSC, file MS2536, notes for May 1970 talk at RIBA by Williams-Ellis. Brief by council: LMA, file CL/GP/2/96, General Purposes Committee papers, 16 June 1947.

46 ‘Bare list’: LUAS.

47 Budden, KMP, 5 July 1947 letter from Matthew.

48 Tour: KMP, July letters to Council Leader and Chair of General Purposes Committee; Göteborgs Konserthus, Göteborg, 1939.

49 ‘Administration: Folkets Hus’, Undervisning (1943), p. 111; KMP, Festival Hall cuttings file, 1946 roneoed drawings of proposed Radiohuset.

50 KMP, letter of 29 August 1947 from Matthew to Allen; LUAS.

51 ‘Not a difficult decision’: LUAS. LMA, file LCC/Min/6490, papers of General Purposes Committee, May-July 1948. ‘Lying flat’: interview with Stuart Matthew, 1995.

52 LUAS.

53 Rectangular versus fan shape: RIBA Journal (August 1949), p. 436; LUAS.

54 ‘Dudok’ manner: interview with P. Moro, 1995. Ideal was Soviet skyscrapers: interviews with A. Ling and Percy Johnson-Marshall, 1987.

55 Reiach discussions: LMA, minutes and presented papers of General Purposes Committee, 12 July 1948, 7 October 1948, and 4 December 1948 report by Matthew to South Bank Subcommittee.

56 Interview with W. Allen, 1996; LMA, papers of General Purposes Committee, 12 July 1948; Builder, 28 May 1948; T. Dannatt, ‘Towards a new order’, in Architecture, Education and Research, ed. Carolin and Dannati, pp. 13-25; Martin and Speight, The Flat Book.

57 Interview with W. Allen, 1996.

58 Approvals: LMA, file LCC/Min/6491. ‘One of the historical buildings’: LMA, 23 August 1948 report by Architect for 4 October 1948 General Purposes Committee. Acoustic advisers: EULSC file MS2537, draft of Heriot Watt Symposium on Aesthetics, 1 August 1974; ‘The South Bank concert hall’, Builder, 17 December 1948, p. 713; ‘Reverberation’, Builder, 8 April 1949, p. 434.

59 LUAS; LMA file AR/BR/16/LA/0348/C/TP, memorandum of 24 August 1948 from A. G. Ling; W. Allen, RIBA Journal, August 1949; interviews with W. Allen and L. Martin, 1995; LMA file L.C.C. /Min/6491; P. Parkin, W. Allen, H. Purkis, W. Scholes, ‘The acoustics of the Royal Festival Hall, London’ (October 1952) (DSIR paper).H. Bagenal, ‘Concert Halls’, RIBA Journal (January 1950); Bullock, Building the Post-War World, pp. 62-63.

60 LUAS; interviews with W. Allen, P. Moro, 1995.

61 LMA, reports dated October 1948, 4 December 1948 in presented papers for South Bank Subcommittee; Architects’ Journal, 9 February 1950 (news cutting, KMP).

62 Interview with Percy Johnson-Marshall, 1987, and W. Allen, 1995.

63 Interview with Moro, 1995.

64 Interviews with Moro and Martin, 1995.

65 November 1949 scheme: interview with W. Allen, 1995; LMA file LCC/Min/6491,1 December 1948 report to General Purposes (South Bank) Subcommittee, 7 December 1948.

66 LMA file CL/GP/2/96, joint report 9 February 1949 to General Purposes (South Bank) Subcommittee and papers of subcommittee meetings, 6 and & December 1948 and 14 February 1949; interview with W. Allen, 1995. ‘Steel shortage will delay South Bank’, Evening News, 29 April 1949 (news cutting, KMP); ‘Design of Thames concert hall’, Times, 30 April 1949 (news cutting, KMP).

67 Tenders: Evening Standard, 29 April 1949; The Times, 30 April 1949. ‘The South Bank Concert Hall’, Builder, 6 May 1949, pp. 547-52; interviews with Moro and Martin, 1995.

68 Interviews with Moro and Martin; Architects’ Journal (June 1951), pp. 170-71.

69 Interview with Moro.

70 Interviews with Moro and Martin.

71 ‘Frenzy of energy’: LUAS.

72 KMP, manuscript diary of 1949 US trip.

73 KMP, letter of 9 August 1949 from C. E. Nicholson to Matthew in Chicago.

74 KMP, letter of 6 August 1949 from Martin to Matthew.

75 ‘All my energies’: KMP, letter of 30 December 1949 from Matthew to Wyndham Gooden. Attlee speech: ‘A renaissance in London’, The Times, 13 October 1949 (news cutting, KMP); RIBA Journal (August 1970), p. 345.

76 Orchestra controversy: LMA, file CL/GP/2/93, Conference on Concert Hall Musical Policy and Management, 7 July 1949. Naming rows, LMA, file CL/GP/2/92, letter of 6 October 1949, Matthew to Roberts; 30 January 1950 papers for South Bank Subcommittee; 2 February 1950, letter from LCC Clerk to Sir Alan Lascelles, Private Secretary to the king and 20 February 1950 reply; report to General Purposes Committee, 6 March 1950; South Bank Subcommittee, 13 March 1950.

77 Eastwick-Field: Architects’ Journal, 24 August 1950 (news cutting, KMP).

78 Corbusier: Harwood and Powers, Festival of Britain, pp. 8-10; Wright: interviews with Lorna Matthew and Leslie Martin, 1995.

79 Acoustic crisis: interview with W. Allen, 1995; Parkin, Allen and Scholes, Acoustics.

80 Checking: LUAS; interview with Moro.

81 Shove appointment: LMA, council meeting papers, 26 July 1949; Shove controversies: LMA, file CL/GP/2/93, papers for South Bank Subcommittee, 24 July 1950; report by Clerk, 16 August 1950; Daily Express, 4 May 1951 (news cutting, KMP); LMA, file CL/GP/2/100, letter of 13 June 1951,14 June 1951 Report by Clerk to General Purposes (Staff) Subcommittee; 2 July 1951 General Purposes Committee report; 30 July 1951 interview papers for General Manager; 10 February 1954, report by Clerk.

82 Williams-Ellis: EULSC, May 1970 text for talk at RIBA

83 Martin at meeting: KMP, letter of 6 August 1949 from Martin to Matthew. Planning advances: Architectural Review (November 1956), p. 317; LMA file LCC/Min/6491, papers for General Purposes Committee 29 November 1948; (Stepney-Poplar) Joint Report of 10 April 1946; KMP, text of Matthew lecture at Oxford, 21 January 1947, and text of ‘Replanning Britain’ lecture, October 1947. Live exhibition, Lansbury: LMA, General Purposes Committee papers, 7 January 1949, and Council, Festival, The Story of the Festival of Britain (London, 1952), p. 9 Google Scholar; LMA, file LCC/Min/11620 and 11621; The Sphere, 18 November 1950 (news cutting, KMP); Dunnett, H. M., Guide to the Exhibition of Town Planning and Building Research (London, 1951), p. 1 Google Scholar. Richards attacks: KMP, 26 June 1948, Matthew report on Sweden visit. 21 June 1948, letter from Manzoni to Matthew. Housing row, reorganization: Glendinning and Muthesius, Tower Block, p. 25; LMA, file LCC/Min/6490, report of 9 July 1948 by Clerk; Housing and Public Health Committee 2 October 1948 report on organization of Walker’s staff; Architects’ Journal, 10 March 1949, 17 March 1949, 26 May 1949 (letters from Furneaux Jordan and Rushton); 19 May 1949 (letters from Mills and Richardson); 2 June 1949 (letter from Lubetkin), 9 June 1949 (letter from Robert Gardner-Medwin); also see Builder, 13 May 1949, 27 May 1949 (all news cuttings, KMP).

84 ‘Puts me on my mettle’: KMP, letter of 7 July 1950 from Matthew to Adrian Ashton; KMP, text of Matthew lectures, 31 January 1951, to Architectural Association, and 18 February 1955, to Manchester Luncheon Club.

85 Glendinning and Muthesius, Tower Block, pp. 104-05; Builder, 16 December 1949 (news cutting, KMP). ‘Crits’, ‘formalists’: interview with Whitfield Lewis, 1987, and KMP, letter of 22 January 1952 from Lewis to Matthew.

86 Abercrombie, P., Building (May 1951), p. 81 Google Scholar.

87 Architectural Review (November 1956), p. 324.

88 Congratulations on new appointment: for instance KMP, letter from R. Gardner-Medwin to Matthew, 13 January 1953. ‘Ultimate finishing school’: Croft, Catherine, ‘L.C.C. Open Day’, Building Design, 22 March 2002, p. 20 Google Scholar. Lucas’s group: interview with Martin Richardson, 1989.

89 Matthew on London local government reorganization: KMP, text of 12 June 1962 lecture at AA, ‘The New London Boundaries’.

90 Later vicissitudes of Festival Hall: KMP, letter of 1 April 1952 from Moro to Matthew; LMA, files LCC/GP/2/108, LCC/GP/2/99; Building Design, 3 November 1995, p. 2, Building Design, 4 May 2001, pp. 10-11; Building Design, 11 May 2001, p. 21. McKean, Royal Festival Hall, p. 15.

91 ‘Scottish cavalier’: Saint, , Towards a Social Architecture (1987), p. 247 Google Scholar.

92 See for instance, Glendinning and Muthesius, Tower Block, p. 110 (Matthew in 1958 on ‘solving, architecturally, the most difficult of social problems’).