A Thread through Europe

1

A thread through Europe.

Author: Paul WestwoodTutor: Peter Blundell JonesDate: October 2008

Den Haag

Antwerp

Stockholm

Copenhagen

Hamburg

She�eld

London

Paris

Strasbourg

Zurich

Marseille

A thread through Europe

3

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my tutor Professor Blundell-Jones, my Mum for her support, and the people in Europe who assisted my search for some of the more obscure buildings.

A thread through EuropeFig.01 Grindelburg Hochhauser, Hamburg

5

Introduction

A Personal Investigation 7

Context

Architectural practice in Post-War Britain 10

Lewis Womersley 1953-1964 13

Grandeur and Inspiration: The Trip to the Unité d’habitation with the Treasurer 17

Skyscrapers will draw the world’: Harold Macmillan visits Sheffield 25

A Thread through Europe: Mass Housing in Europe 1955. 27

A Thread Through Europe

My Trip 31

Prefabrication Bellahøj & Søndermarken 35

Filling the Void Grindelburg Hochhauser & Cité Rotterdam 43

Inspiration Kiel 53

Site Restrictions Meudon Les Blancs 59

Technical Matters 64

The Aftermath 66

Conclusions

Conclusion 68

Park Hill: The Future 70

Bibliography

Books 76

Journals 77

Image Index 78

Contents

A thread through EuropeFig.02

7

A Personal Investigation

When Park Hill was completed in 1961, it was the future. Sitting on the edge of the city

centre, like a commanding concrete cliff; It was meant to be a utopia, people living in a manner

that they have never lived before. ‘Of international importance’1, It was the first built manifes-

tation of the idea of access decks in Britain and was to displace people from their damp slum

housing and give them homes built for heroes.

Over time Park Hill became a casualty of circumstance, ‘1950’s brutalism never caught

on, housing policy changed, steelworkers were made redundant, and fractured families re-

placed rooted communities’2, but for a while it was a huge success, with people acclimatising

to the idea of Flat life, a previously unfamiliar notion to the typical Englishman. Some fifty

years after its completion, Park Hill is undergoing a renaissance, led by the developer Urban

Splash, whose approach to the project is more about ‘grass roots street wise realism’ than ‘a

wishy washy form of neo-utopian idealism’3. Urban Splash appointed architects Studio Egre-West

and Hawkins Brown, the latter of whom I was fortunate to work for during my Part 1 place-

ment from July 2006 to August 2007.

Huge amounts have been written about the historical, architectural and sociological

impacts of Park Hill, and having worked in depth on the project for a number of months and

lived in Sheffield for four years, I am in a position where I understand both physical complexi-

ties of the building and also its relationship with the wider urban context.

‘Park Hill should never have been built, but then the same could be said of the Great Pyramid

of Cheops, The Tower of London, or the Eastern State Penitentiary at Philadelphia’4

I aspire to investigate the context in which it was conceived and delivered and thus

have found myself drawn to the reign of Lewis Womersley as the Chief Architect of Sheffield

City Council from 1953 to 1964, an age which propelled Sheffield onto a global stage and cul-

minated in the publication of ‘Ten Years of Housing in Sheffield’ in English, French and Russian.

In addition, a special edition of Architectural Design dedicated to Sheffield was published in

September 1961, and in 1963 the RIBA conference took place in the City.

Introduction

1.Excerpt from English Heritage Listing Document for Park Hill.

2.Hawkins Brown Project Abstract; www.hawkins-brown.co.uk.

4.Saint, A; Park Hill: What Next? AA Documents, London, 1996. P15

3.Curtis,W; Mending Mod-ernism, Architectural Review, March 2007,p74


Fig.03

9

Introduction

My Research question asks ‘How did such an enormous scheme, the creation of two

inexperienced architects come to command such acceptance from Sheffield City Council?’

Whilst researching this question I came across original documentation from a European

study trip that was undertaken in 1954. In this trip Womersley led a deputation of delegates

from the City Council on an extensive tour throughout Europe, visiting a series of mass

housing schemes, which were to have a significant role in determining the final design of the

building. The trip was documented and a public exhibition of the findings displayed in the City

Library. By undertaking the same tour which the group completed in 1954, I wish to reflect

upon the different paths that these buildings may have taken, and 54 years later to see how the

precedents have compared against the soon to be reinvented Park Hill. By studying how these

buildings responded to time may offer some guidance in the direction in which the redevelop-

ment of Park Hill may move.


5.Gold, JR; The Practice of Modernism, Routledge 2007. P44

Architectural Practice in Post War Britain

The following chapter attempts to provide an insight the nature of architectural practice in

post-war Britain, also concentrating on the context of Lewis Womersley’s appointment as

Sheffield City Architect in 1953. It was a time when Architectural Practice in Britain was

completely different to what it is today and understanding it is an essential backbone to this

dissertation.

The decision made by the British government to make local authorities responsible

for delivering schools and housing programmes had improved the image of public service; and

for a brief period of time, architects felt valued in doing their duty in the process of rebuilding

Britain.

The role of the local authority was much different than in 1939, and at the same time

Britain was experiencing a notable increase in the number of registered architects, which

were set to increase by 40 percent over two decades. This rise reflected the need for more

personnel to carry out the increased volume of work, and the fact that architects were to

become more specialised in a specific field.

Before the second World War most local authorities had no distinct architect’s depart-

ment, with architects working as members of offices run by the borough surveyor or city

engineer, this pattern was set to continue amongst the smaller local authorities, but for larger

authorities a seismic shift in their working methods had commenced. The government had

taken the decision to give local authorities greater power and ordered them to prioritise

housing, a step which was to dramatically alter patterns of architectural employment. Lo-

cal Authorities had set about the task in different ways, some immediately began recruiting

staff and teams of architects to undertake the new work, others considered that they had

no need to employ architects to design dwellings for the working class as their engineers

were adequately qualified. Larger cities would generally have more work, and so were forced

to increase the number of architects they employed. In 1956, the London County Council’s

(LCC’s) Architects Department had staff of around 3000, including in excess of 750 qualified

architects ‘arguably making it the world’s largest architectural practice.’5 The LCC developed a

11

Architectural Practice in Post-War Britain

6.Saint, A; Park Hill: What Next? AA Documents, London, 1996. P15

7.Gold, JR; The Practice of Modernism, Routledge 2007. P45

reputation for harnessing the energy and innovation of recent graduates, who worked un-

der the wing of the Chief Architect who would guide their designs through the beaurocratic

system and make them possible, this had been ongoing since the 1890s when London County

council had built the first noteworthy British Public Housing Estate in Bethnal Green. In the

period after the war, the LCC was now big enough to handle all aspects of the designing and

building of projects in house, meaning that employees could choose to specialise in an aspect

of the process of design without having to carry out tasks which they were less interested in.

This culture meant that the LCC stood at the head of practices in the UK, giving it an element

of prestige. According to the John Summerson it was one of the places that young architects

most wanted to work, and its unique culture meant that it felt more like a postgraduate forum

for ideas and discussion, rather than what people had come to think of a traditional archi-

tectural practice. The Architects Department had regained the responsibility of housing from

the Valuer’s Department, and worked alongside surveyors, engineers, valuers, clerks of work

and administrative staff, with an importance place on high standards and innovation. All these

resources meant that the LCC had the luxury of being able to carry out research and experi-

ment in high-density urban housing. ‘The LCC and Sheffield were the first Public Authorities of

the Post-War period in Britain consistently to tackle the idea of radical innovation in housing

Form’.6 The fact that they were deemed to be at the cutting edge of architectural Innovation

made life at the LCC great fun, there was no discipline or central control, you ignored the

design briefs and got on with designing what you, as an architect, thought was the best for the

people’.7

What’s more, time spent at the LCC was thought to add impact to a curriculum vitae,

and it seemed the preferred path for any young architect to go and work for an ambitious

local authority, it also made economic sense, was reasonably well paid, and had good pensions.

Besides, the private practice sector found it difficult to recover from the war and was in an

uncomfortable state.


Fig.04 Image of Lewis Wom-ersley in front of a newly completed Park Hill. The original image was modified as part of the British Pavil-lion at the Venice Biennale in 2006, which focused on Shefield.

13

Lewis Womersley

Given the success of the LCC, Lewis Womersley arrived in Sheffield from Northampton

in February 1953. Smith and Lynn, recently graduated, decided to apply to work under Wom-

ersley, who had built a powerful reputation from his time in Northampton, and had inherited a

promising situation in Sheffield.

‘Having qualified Jack and I thought about starting up in private practice, but soon we realised

that the future was in Local Government. And so we watched who was where, and who was

going to be moving where. We discovered that Lewis Womersley was going to be moving from

Northampton (where he had a good reputation) to Sheffield. And so we wrote to him, and got

a telegram back. Within two weeks we found ourselves working in Sheffield.’8

Shortly after his arrival, Womersley quickly established a Central Areas Division to

specialise in the urban renewal of the City Centre. What he was shortly to find out was that

town planning powers came under the control of the City Engineer Henry Foster. Womersley

appointed Andrew Derbyshire as Assistant City Architect in 1955, part of his job description

was to lead the Central Areas Division, which, as Derbyshire recalls

‘Was invented to try and get central area redevelopment out of the hands of the City Engi-

neer. He was the Planning Officer. Lewis Wormesley (the city architect) desperately wanted to

be Planning Officer and he wanted my help. I thought that he was quite right, so we struggled

away for a long time to try and get it out of that setting. But the City Engineer was a very

powerful man and he had a lot of money. The Committee responsible for roads supported

him’9

The engineers had a low opinion of the architects, and of course had a competing vision

for the future of Sheffield. The City Engineers had drawn up a plan for the Central area of

the city to be divided into three parts, The Moor, a shopping street with vehicular access, the

Centre, containing the public buildings, and the Sheaf Valley. Their plans revolved around build-

ing a series of extensive roads through the City Centre, and they resisted the ‘encroachment

of architects into their territory.’10 The architects’ plans for the City Centre partly overlapped,

8.Smith, I; Park Hill Lecture, University of Sheffield, 2008

Lewis Womersley 1953-1964

9.Gold, JR; The Practice of Modernism, Routledge 2007. Pp75

10.Gold, JR; The Practice of Modernism, Routledge 2007.

Pp75


15

and partly questioned the Engineers’ proposals. The same situation was developing in Birming-

ham, where the architects had little influence in the designing of the road network through

the City Centre, this situation eventually changed by the 1960’s but by then many of the key

decisions regarding City Centres had already been made. Womersley managed to gain control

over Development Control in the Central Area, but it turned out to be less of a victory than

he would have anticipated. It involved lengthy negotiations, which were designed to improve

the quality of the built fabric outside of Sheffield,

‘The Engineers had given us development Control and we weren’t making much of that. It

relieved them a lot of worry and anxiety. It was rather a clever move really, it involved us in a

lot of useless negotiations and left them free to get on with their roads’11

Park Hill was designed by Lynn and Smith, two architects without previous experience in

architectural practice, Womersley was respected as a rising star of British Architecture. Whilst

studying at Newcastle University, Lynn submitted an entry for the Golden Lane Housing Com-

petition in 1952. His scheme was unplaced and unpublished but contained the essence of Park

Hill’s ‘Streets in the Sky’. Womersley was trying to assemble a talented team to rejuvenate

Sheffield, and he immediately took a liking to the men and their ideas.

Their masterplan for Park Hill would have been too much for Sheffield city council to

handle at once, so Womersley set about planning how he could convince the council that his

ideas were valid, the following chapter details the three significant moments in this process. In

his book Park Hill: What Next?, Andrew Saint hints at Womersley’s tactics for getting the build-

ing accepted, my studies hope to unravel these moments in a more significant depth.

11.Gold, JR; The Practice of Modernism, Routledge 2007.

Pp44



Fig. 05 Le Corbusier’s scheme at Algiers.

Fig. 06 Le Corbusier’s Ville Radieuse

Fig. 07 The newly completed Unité d’habitation in 1952.

17

Grandeur and Inspiration: The Trip to the Unité d’habitation with the Treasurer:

The first significant moment in the acceptance of Park Hill occurred when Womersley took

Jack Lynn, Ivor Smith and the City Treasurer to Marseilles. They showed the Treasurer the

Unité and told him that it could work in Sheffield. They were inspired by ‘the masculinity of the

Unité’1, but also by previous pieces of Le Corbusier’s work, notably the scheme that he had

designed at Algiers, and the Ville Radieuse. But, like many of their contemporaries, Corbusier’s

‘Towards a New Architecture’ inspired Lynn and Smith more than anything else, Smith recalls a

conversation he had had with Alison Smithson in which she exclaimed that whenever she felt

depressed she picked up this book and it gave her hope. Such was the impact it had. 12

‘I think that back then these guys had a bigger influence on us than any of the architects of to-

day have on architecture students. It was because these men had invented a new architecture.

Even though that wasn’t strictly true, (for it had been germinating for a long time) it was how

we saw it.’13

Ivor Smith’s thesis project, Jack Lynn’s entry to the Golden Lane Competition, as well

as that of the Smithsons’ had incorporated the idea of decks. Le Corbusier had initiated the

idea of la rue interieure, but Lynn and Smith had thought it would be better if the deck was on

the outside of the building, that became elemental to all of their work. They didn’t like the nar-

row access balconies in slab blocks of flats or the landings in tower blocks where:

‘You were literally landed with the 4 or 6 people with whom you shared it, and it wasn’t so

good if you didn’t get on with them, but if you lived along a street you had a choice of 1neigh-

bours’14

The Unité d’habitation could be described as the most influential of all of Le Corbusi-

er’s buildings. Completed in 1952, as the culmination of some 30 years of research, it has been

blamed for launching a thousand brutalist concrete buildings around the world, (Park Hill being

one of the most prominent examples). It was never intended that the purpose of the tour was

to find a building in Europe that could be replicated in Sheffield, but the Unité undoubtedly had




Grandeur and Inspiration


Fig. 08 La rue interieure, Unité d’habitation

Fig. 09 Offices on the street, Unité d’habitation

Fig. 10 The rooftop, Unité d’habitation

19

15.M Spring, Building News, Issue 38, 26.09.08, p45


a major influence on the Design of Park Hill.

Le Corbusier’s intention for the building was to generate a ‘a magisterial work of ar-

chitecture, the product of rigour, grandeur, nobility, happiness and elegance’15. The first notable

difference one draws between the Unité and Park Hill, (or in this case Marseille and Sheffield)

is the climate. The combination of glorious sunshine, precious views and the local aggregate

in the concrete (used widely throughout the City) ‘makes the building glow in the sunshine

like Travertine Marble’16, Park Hill is rarely afforded such glorious sunshine, and the water and

pollution stained-concrete really does show its age. In spite of being 56 years old there is

still a valiant quality to the Unité’s concrete. The good condition in which one finds the build-

ing today is no accident, as for the past 20 years the building has been scheduled as an official

architectural monument by the French Government, and is programmed to achieve the status

of World Heritage Site by next Year.

A major reason for the success of the Unité is that it was originally intended to be,

and still is a mixed use building, with many of the amenities required for modern living, shops,

a restaurant, a nursery, a gymnasium and a cinema. The shopping floors of the building, on the

seventh and eighth floors are still the heartbeat of it, and although all but one of the original

shops have been forced out of business, they have been replaced by small practices of consul-

tants, translators, medical practitioners, and architects. The hostel, which was taken over by

Dominique Gerardin, and has had the interiors restored, (she also improved the restaurant)

and it exists today as a fully working hotel. As a visitor one is free to explore the building, eat

in the restaurant, stay in the hotel and walk freely throughout the building without preying

eyes and apprehensive glances.

The quality of the flats, when added to the social amenities, mean there are still 50

or 60 residents who have lived in the building from the start, however the average age of a

resident in the building is 40-45, which is reasonably high and due to the fact that the Unité

sits in one of the more expensive suburbs of Marseille. Despite this I found the roof terrace

full of children playing in and around the paddling pool, much as Le Corbusier’s original vision

depicted.



Fig. 11 Le Corbusier’s Unité d’habitation from the rooftop. School children playing in the foreground with magnificent views over Marseille beyond.

21


015

A thread through EuropeA thread through Europe

Fig. 12 Le Corbusier’s Unité d’habitation from the adjacent football pitch. Restoration work is currently ongoing.

23


The build quality was undoubtedly better than many of the buildings I was to see on

my Tour of Europe, with the services still working to this day, the building is naturally venti-

lated although a number of residents have installed air conditioning units (which can be hidden

successfully within the balcony). The decay in the reinforced concrete is a defect in many of

the buildings built in this era, and it is now being repaired at a cost of £7,000,000. This decay

has been attributed to numerous factors, including age, thin cover of concrete over reinforcing

bars, bad concrete mix and the salty coastal air. The concrete was also repaired in 1986, which

has proved ineffective over time, but now the problem has been handed over to the French

government’s Architecture Department for historic monuments. 59% of the funding for this

comes from the French government, meaning that residents’ contribution is limited to ap-

proximately £8,500 per flat.

‘We get the public expertise and finance only because the building is a scheduled monument.

Otherwise, we couldn’t afford it’17

My trip to the Unité showed what I considered to be one extreme of the treatment of Post

War mass housing, that is of becoming an architectural monument. Vast amounts of money

have been spent on restoring the original characteristics of the building. But the trip to the

less well known examples would offer a different kind of approach, I was interested in how

would these buildings have last lasted if vast amounts of money had not been spent on their

upkeep.



015


Fig.13

25

Skyscrapers will draw the World: Harold Macmillan visits Sheffield

Following on from the trip to the Unité, the second step towards the acceptance of Park Hill

didn’t actually involve visiting a building, but served to change public perception of the propos-

als at a time when the debate over high density flats in Sheffield was ongoing.

The 1945 general election had seen the return of a Labour Government who were adamant

that council housing should be available for anyone that wanted it. The first examples of post

war housing were inevitably houses rather than flats, due in no small part to the speed in

which they could be erected. These varied from prefabricated bungalow housing which could

be delivered in three parts, to two storey houses erected from steel and precast concrete

panels. There existed ‘A new idealist attitude to flats, particularly amongst architects and plan-

ners, but transmitted very effectively to other professionals and politicians concerned with

housing.’18 That year the LCC had produced a penguin publication, including Walter Gropius’

famous diagram, which demonstrated that higher flats at higher densities could actually im-

prove amounts of sun lighting and open space.

Harold Macmillan had become housing minister in 1951,with the new Conservative

government, and was charged with delivering 300,000 new dwellings per year. By 1953 he had

achieved this but at the cost of relaxed building licensing, and a drastic reduction in dwelling

size. ‘In 1953 the average 5 person council house dwelling was over 110ft smaller than in 1951,

a reduction in floor area of over 11 percent.’19

In 1953, a white paper ‘Houses, the next step’ was released by the Government which

stated that housing production of 300,000 dwellings per year would be maintained, but much

of this would now be met by the private sector. Slum clearance was also to be resumed as

the prime concern for local authorities, this meant building at higher densities in central sites

meaning more use of flats. At which point Lynn and Smith were switched to the Park District,

at the time a slum with notorious criminal undercurrents. By July 1953 they had formulated an

outline plan for the whole of what was to become Park Hill and Hyde Park .

In December 1953, Harold Macmillan had been invited to Sheffield by Womersley, seen the

18.English J, The future of council housing, London 1988. Pp235

19.English J, The future of council housing, London 1988. Pp235

Skyscrapers will draw World!


proposals for Park Hill and accordingly told Sheffield Star reporters that Park Hill would

‘Draw the world’20. (The front page of that day’s edition of the Sheffield Star is shown on page

24). This did a lot to sway public perception and was also a definite incentive for the council,

at a time when Leeds was threatening Sheffield’s position the major city within the county of

Yorkshire.

20.Sheffield Star, 12th De-cember 1953.p1

27

A Thread through Europe: European Tour 1955

‘Looking at the position today, with the 955 flats of the Park Hill multi-storey redevelopment

scheme compete and occupied; with 17 multi-story point blocks under construction, it seems

difficult to realise that only in 1955 did Sheffield decide to build high flats at all following a

study tour of the Continent in 1954’21

The third and final step that Womersley took in a bid to convince the council that

high density housing was appropriate in Sheffield was to organise an extensive study tour of

Europe.

In the 1950’s Sheffield was suffering from a lack of land within the city limits, and rath-

er than spending more time and money on the significant infrastructure required for suburban

developments, had reached the decision that they ought to consider developing urban sights

at higher densities. Sheffield was not alone in reaching these conclusions and even as far back

as 1890; the LCC had already begun developing Britain’s first public housing estate of note at

Boundary Street.

The deputation consisted of Alderman C.W, Gascoigne B, (Leader of the City Coun-

cil), Harold Lambert (Deputy Chairman of the Housing Committee), Lewis Womersley (City

Architect) and Henry Smith (General Manager of the Public Works Department). The reason

for engaging on a European tour was that the countries the group visited have a ‘far greater

experience of housing developments of this kind than have the English’22, in countries such as

Denmark the government had already started providing financial incentives for non-traditional

building methods. The experience gained from these developments, particularly the fact that

they had managed to greatly reduce the cost difference between multi storey flats and houses

was significant; in England this cost disparity was seen as an argument against building high-

rise. The deputation publicly expressed their gratitude at being allowed to undertake in such a

journey and it is worth noting that in 1955, the prospect on being involved a three week-long

study tour of Europe, was far more significant than it would be today. Ivor Smith, who had

been involved in the trip to the Unité comments;

21.Ten Years of Housing in Sheffield, Sheffield, 1962. Foreword

A Thread through Europe

22.Multi Storey Housing in Europe, Sheffield, 1955.p6


015


Fig. 14 Typical Sheffield hous-ing pre slum clearance.

29

‘To go abroad on holiday at that time was a privilege enjoyed only by a few’23

But it was also hoped that the cost of the trip would be seen in its true perspective when at

this time the anticipated cost of constructing Park Hill was expected to be around £5,000,000.

If the council were going to spend that amount of money, it was important that they got it

right! Womersley had managed to convince them that no matter how many details, scaled

drawings or photographs they were to look at, they could not be regarded as a sufficient sub-

stitute for personal inspection. The itinery selected was based on information that had been

supplied by the Ministry of Housing, in addition the delegation were also received by officials

from each of the countries visited, who arranged the detailed programme. The countries they

visited included Denmark, Germany, France, Belgium and Switzerland. The delegation had re-

turned from the study trip ‘well satisfied that they had learned many lessons from the projects

visited which can be put to good use in respect the social, architectural ad economic aspects

of the multi storey flat schemes which are now in course of preparation for this city”24

Much to Womersley’s pleasure, the deputation had returned firm believers in the

concept of multi storey housing. Although there remained some debate regarding Flat life vs.

Housing, by this stage Park Hill had gone too far, and it was in 1955 that the City Ministry of

Housing gave Park Hill the official go ahead. Lynn and Smith then undertook detailed design.

Womersley had built a team up behind him that was capable of transforming the city and

putting it on the map. A special edition of Architectural Design dedicated to Sheffield was

arawhich proved to be the highpoint of Womersley’s reign. He left for private practice in 1964

with Park Hill completed, but it was just part of the legacy he left, which at the time was the

largest collection of innovative and stimulating Public Housing in any city in England outside of

London.

A Thread through Europe


24.Multi Storey Housing in Europe, Sheffield, 1955.p36


Den Haag

Antwerp

Stockholm

Copenhagen

Hamburg

She�eld

London

Paris

Strasbourg

Zurich

Marseille

Fig.15

31

My Trip

When planning the most effective way to undertake my research over the summer I decided

that that the best way to try and explore Europe was to work for one of the practices that

were at the forefront of the modernist movement in Europe. My employment at Tengbom Arki-

tekter Ab25 in Stockholm, Sweden, offered a base point from which I could explore the North-

ern European buildings.

The tools of my trip were to be the camera and then pen, and my transport was

mainly by rail and bicycle. In 1955, officials in each country had received the deputation and

transport was also arranged locally. Without the benefit of being taken around and navigated

to the buildings, a large amount of time was spent researching the buildings and finding their

exact location; many of the buildings visited are not considered to be of exceptional architec-

tural merit and simply an insignificant piece in the expanding suburbs of some of the largest

conurbations in Europe.

I spent a significant amount of time at buildings trying to establish the pattern of use,

levels of dereliction and how the buildings had all responded to time. Where possible I sought

to find people with whom I could communicate and were willing to offer opinions and experi-

ence of how the places had changed and what they were really like to live in.

I had taken inspiration from the book Lived in Architecture by Phillipe Boudon, first

published in 1969. The book visited Le Corbusier’s scheme at Pessac near Bordeaux, where

he had designed a new settlement called Quartiers Modernes Fruges. Corbusier had produced

a series of how cost housing units, which he hoped would provide a container in which the

inhabitants would live their daily lives. What he hoped for and what he achieved are two differ-

ent things. At Pessac, le Corbusier accidentally produced ‘a kind of architecture that lent itself

to conversion and sculptural ornamentation’26. Rather than inhabiting the units passively, the

inhabitants decided that they were going to live in them in a more active manner. ‘In doing so

they showed what living in a house really is: an activity.’27

The Unité exists today as a monument, vast amounts of money have been spent to

preserve it in a ‘heritage’ way. I was interested in what had happened to the other estates

which the deputation visited, the ones which little is known about. Without the incessant flow

My Trip

25.Tengbom are currently the third largest practice in Sweden, and are considered to be amongst the leading architectural practices in Scandinavia. The practice was founded in 1905 by the architect Ivar Tengbom, who designed the Stockholm Concert Hall (1923-1926) at Hötorget Square, which along with Eric Gunnar Asplund’s Stockholm Public Library are the primary examples of Swedish Neo-Classical Architecture of the 1920’s. The key building that they went on to design in the Post-War period were HotorgsCity, a series of high-rise commercial build-ings that were to mark what was thought to be the City’s new centre of gravity, and known locally as the ‘Five Trumpet Blasts’. Today they have offices in Stockholm, Kalmar and Gohenburg, The Stockholm office, the main Tengbom office is made up of over 100 staff.

26.H.Lefebvre in P.Boudon, Lived in Architecture, MIT Press 1972, Preface

27.H.Lefebvre in P.Boudon, Lived in Architecture, MIT Press 1972, Preface


Fig. 16 Image from P.Boudon, Lived in Architecture, showing (left) Le Corbusier’s original design, and (right) the same elevation having been adapted by the occupants.

33

of tourists and publicly financed restoration work, how they have responded to real life and

whether they may have been adapted over time, had been painstakingly preserved, or even

demolished. The following depicts selection of the schemes inspected.

My Trip


Fig. 17 Bellahøj from above 2008 Fig. 18 Bellahøj from the adjacent Park 1955.

Fig. 19 Diagram showing elements of the building cast using the hydraulic jack system. The precast components shown belwo would have then been attached to the structural frame

Fig. 20 Images taken whilst

visiting the Neilsen-Larsen factory in 1954

35

Prefabrication: Bellahøj & Søndermarken, Copenhagen

In 1946, shortly after the end of World War II, the lack of housing units in Denmark

was estimated to be 50,000. The government had founded the Ministry of Housing, in addition

to the Institute of Building Research, which saw a shift towards non-traditional building meth-

ods. Industrialised building methods using concrete were attractive for a number of reasons,

partly because they could be sourced from local building materials, and in addition they could

be handled by unskilled labour. In 1947, a new law was passed that made government econom-

ical support possible for building projects where new building materials or construction meth-

ods are being used. Housing estates were no longer to be seen as singular events, but part of

a continuous production based upon the notion of repetition. This development, started at

Bellahøj, one of the first schemes that the group visited.

Bellahøj is a large housing project situated 5km North West of Copenhagen. Compris-

ing of twenty-eight high-rise point blocks set within green woodland. The housing project was

one of the first ever built in Scandinavia, and when completed in 1956 was the first high rise

apartments in Copenhagen. The Great Danish Landscape Architect C Sørensen, lived in one of

the penthouses until his death. The scheme itself was financed by 5 different building societ-

ies, each employing their own architect with overall coordination being carried out by the

Copenhagen City Architect. The variations within the schemes then came with each architect’s

different approach to the treatment of balconies and patterns of facing blocks.

Of particular interest in these schemes were the construction methods, which were

featured in Architect and Building News in october 1952, and remarkable for the use of sliding

formwork raised by hydraulic jacks. The scheme was constructed from the Neilsen-Larsen con-

struction method, which had been subsidised by the government and was to be heavily used in

the schemes that I visited in Copenhagen. The deputation visited the factory of Neilsen-Larsen,

whose system went on to be used widely around Europe in the forthcoming years, until a par-

tial collapse of Ronan Point Tower in London in 1968, which started to change the perception

of prefabrication.

The blocks are scattered around the park, with a ‘delightful existing restaurant’28 forming the

centerpiece of the scheme. In 1954, the scheme was regarded as providing exceptional ameni-

ties, and included an open-air theatre, a well-equipped laundry, a kindergarten school and a

28.Multi-Storey Housing in Europe, Sheffield, 1955. p8

Prefabrication


Fig. 21 Bellahøj September 1954 Fig. 22 Bellahoj September 2008All Original features of the facade still remain.

Fig. 23 Bellahøj Kindergarten September 1954 Fig. 24 Bellahoj Kindergarten September 2008The Kindergarten, located on the ground floor of one of the point blocks, still shows sign of use. I visited the building during the Summer holdays. Original photo was taken from the playground which I was unable to access.

37

youth hostel. Today many of these amenities are still well used; the woodland surrounding the

blocks is well preserved and softens the uncompromising concrete facades. These areas are

not only used for navigating between the apartments and the city but a genuine place to relax.

At Sondermarken, Copenhagen the same type of faced construction was used, with the only

changes that seem to have taken place to the façade composition seem to be a reinterpreta-

tion of the balcony, having been made into an internal space through the addition of windows.

The schemes in Copenhagen, whilst not being the most interesting architecturally, still provide

living for a wide range of inhabitants, wheras the unite contains residents of an average age of

45, the schemes in Copenhagen seemed to be inhabited by a younger demographic.

What both schemes have done successfully is to maintain the social amenities that were at its

heart when it was conceived, in addition to this the structural integrity of the blocks has been

maintained. The state of the amenities within the estate often offers a gauge to how well the

estate is fostering a sense of community; it was to become a common reference point for all

the schemes that I visited.

Prefabrication


Fig. 25 Bellahøj September 1954 Fig. 26 Bellahøj September 2008Original photograph was taken from first floor of the construction site, my photo is taken from ground floor level.

Prefabrication

39

Fig. 27 Søndermarken September 1954 Fig. 28 Søndermarken September 2008Green windows on the right of the facade have been installed to appropriate the balcony space.


41


014Fig. 29 Søndermarken September 2008


Fig. 31 Grindelburg Hochhauser construction Fig.30 Grindelburg Hochhauser from above 2008

Fig. 32 Hochhauser buildings under construction, 1953

Fig. 34 Section through high blocks, with sketch of typical living room.

Fig. 33 Hochhauser buildings under construction, 1954

43

Filling the Void: Grindelburg Hochhauser, Hamburg & Cité Rotterdam, Strasbourg

No Dwellings 1,500

Grindelburg Hochhauser in Hamburg gave a different impression when compared to the estates

in Copenhagen, whereas the developments in Copenhagen still had a definite community

atmosphere, the Hochhauser is located just a short train ride from the centre of Hamburg,

and has a corporate presence. The typical approach of distributing amenities such as schools

and offices and shops throughout the estate was replaced by a methodology, which saw whole

buildings dedicated to singular functions. The entirety of one of the blocks is still used as an

office for example. The scheme itself consists of 12 slab blocks, varying in height from 10 to

15 storeys. The blocks are all laid parallel to the main arterial road, which passes, alongside the

site, and are staggered to give the maximum impression of open space. Another of the blocks

consists entirely of single person units. The deputation were impressed with the skilful way in

which the architects had provided generous space between the blocks, and as a result pro-

vided an impression of being more space between the blocks than there actually is.

The building themselves have remained in good condition, the brick facades still in

perfect condition, and have been well maintained since the completion of other buildings. Al-

though more expensive than the construction of the scemes in Copenhagen, the building was

constructed from a partially glazed German brick, which has aged well and is not subject to

many of the problems I had found with the reinforced concrete buildings.

Filling the Void

A thread through Europe Fig. 35 Grindelburg Hochhauser

45

Fig. 36 Grindelburg Hochhauser 1954 Fig. 37 Grindelburg Hochhauser 2008

Brick facade remains in perfect condition unlike many

of the reinforced concrete buildings I visited.

Filling the Void


Fig. 39 Image of the win-ning competition scheme, designed M Beaudouain.

Fig. 40 Map drawn by a local giving me directions to the development

Fig. 38 The scheme opens up to the river which runs adjacent to the site.

47

Cité Rotterdam

Architect; M Boudouain

800 dwellings

The scheme was the pilot project for the French government’s programme of 10,000 apart-

ments a year of standardised construction to be built at various points in the country. The

Architect M Beaudouain (also the President of the French Society of Architects at that time)

was chosen from among the 30 applications that were submitted. The scheme was completed

in just 15 months at an ‘unprecedented low cost’29

The scheme in Strasbourg was praised for its careful study of orientation and the intelligence

of the block placement, which manifests itself I a large irregular open public space, which is

widely open towards the south end and protected by higher locks at the North End. This large

sunny enclosure ‘is subtly divided into areas according to the ages of its inhabitants’30. Towards

the North End of the scheme two low-rise primary schools are located, with large south

facing windows allowing sunlight to pour into the classrooms, opening out onto sand pits and

play spaces for children, and as one moves futher South a large area has been designated as a

park, with ‘winding paths, flowers, shrubs and trees for the enjoyment of the adults’1. If high-

density dwelling was to work this open space was of vital importance, not only to provide

recreational facilities for the inhabitants, but also to provide a visual contrast to the concrete

facades.

The plot size is fairly similar to that at Park Hill, but has a lower density, giving the impression

of more public space, in addition the composition of the façade is the most similar to Park Hill

from all the schemes visited.

1 The Builder, November 27th 1953, p823

29.The Builder, November 27, 1953 p823

30.The Builder, November 27, 1953 p823

Filling the Void


Fig. 41 Cité Rottedam September 1954 Fig. 42 Cité Rottedam September 2008The landscape between the blocks remains notewor-thy today, great care is taken to ensure its upkeep. Blocks have been completey obscured by the growth of trees.

49

Fig. 43 Cité Rottedam September 1954 Fig. 44 Cité Rottedam September 2008

Filling the Void


51Fig.45 Cité Rottedam September 2008


Fig. 46 Plan of developement of Kiel showing distribution of blocks.

Fig. 47 Image showing rear elevation of typical block, with access from elevated deck.

Fig. 48 Typical section through block.

53

Inspiration: Kiel, Antwerp

Architects: Maes Maeremans & Braem

The scheme at Kiel, Antwerp is of a similar scale to the Cité Rotterdam, and was noted at the

time as being the most exciting scheme inspected by the deputation. In the interim period,

great care has been taken in ensuring that the quality of the development has been maintained.

I coincided my visit with an exhibition commemorating 50 years of the building, which con-

tained the original model of the scheme and an exhibition charting the buildings history. Care

has been taken to upkeep the original details of the building; in fact many of the flats have kept

the original features.

The scheme consists of flats of 9 and 13 storeys raised on pilotti above the ground

level, drawing obvious inspiration from Le Corbusier’s Unité d’habitation in Marseille. There are

several other details which bear an obvious resemblance, from the sweeping entrance canopy

to the emergency stair on the outside of the building. Unlike the Unité, the scheme employs

external access decks effectively attached to the outside of the building.

The deputation noted the skill with which the massing had been distributed through-

out the site, on the long narrow half of the site 9 storey blocks are placed in echelon fashion,

at an angle to the roadway, with the 13 storey blocks placed around the perimeter, with the

area in between laid out for recreational facilities, including what are still kept as immaculate

lawns to this day. Car access was considered, and so the scheme incorporates short cul-de-

sacs giving vehicular access to the blocks. It was noted that the architects expected 50% of

tenants to own cars. The heating system for the flats forms the architectural centrepiece of

the scheme, but unfortunately the chimney no longer stands at the heart of it, taken down due

to instability issues.

Obvious similarities can be drawn between this scheme and the Unité, the only other

scheme I visited which would be considered of exceptional architectural merit. The completed

building was published in architecture magazines across Europe

Inspiration

Fig. 50 Kiel from above 2008Fig. 49


Fig. 51 Kiel September 1955 Fig. 52 Kiel September 2008The large chimney in the original image and the growth of plants within the landscape make the two images unrecognisable.

55

Fig. 53 Kiel September 1955 Fig. 54 Kiel September 2008Cul-de-sacs were implemented into the de-sign, with the anticapted on set of the motor vehicle.

Inspiration

A thread through EuropeFig. 55

57

Inspiration

Fig. 58 Images from exhibiton celebrating fifty five years since the buildings completion.

Fig. 56 Image showing original chimney as the architecturalcentrepiece of the scheme

Fig. 57 Blocks laid in echelon fashion along the access road.


Fig. 59 Meudon Les Blancs September 1955 Fig. 60 Meudon Les Blancs September 2008Original metal windows have been replaced by PVC units with extenal blinds. Blank facades have been covered with black tiles to disguise the badly deterio-rated concrete.

59

Site Restrictions: Meudon les Blancs

The scheme at Meudon was perhaps the most difficult to unearth, indeed without the

help of a local historian, with whom I could only communicate in broken French, I anticipate

I would not have located the building at all. Meudon is a charming area located on a steep hill

on the outskirts of Paris, which has a wonderful history of housing, I was taken on a tour of a

cluster of houses designed by Jean Nouvel and to the birthplace of the composer Wagner.

However the scheme which I inspected at Meudon had the lowest space standards of

all the schemes which I visited and perhaps is also one of the most neglected. Constructed

at a particularly low cost, the dwellings were designed around a system whereby each pair of

flats could become a single dwelling, in addition to this only one sanitary fitting, a combined

sink and shower is provided in addition to the WC. Upon conversion the kitchen in the pair of

flats becomes a bathroom for the single flat.

Site Restrictions


61

Fig. 61


Fig. 62 The Hague September 1955 Fig. 63 The Hague September 2008The was unale to find the view from which the 1955 photograph was taken. This may suggest that some parts of the originalscheme have been demolished.

63

Site Restrictions

Fig. 64 The Hague September 2008


What else did the building visits achieve?

01_There was not a great difference between continental and British space standards so far as

the living rooms and bedrooms were concerned. Kitchens, though not larger than in England

were extremely well equipped in the projects inspected in Copenhagen, Antwerp and Zurich

. It was important that the kitchen was intelligently planned and equipped, as to provide the

most efficient use of space in these more costly dwellings.

02_Placing the toilet internally on the plan was a previously unheard idea to many people in

England. The benefits of this idea, which had been completed successfully at Cite Rotterdam in

Strasbourg, outweighed the disadvantages by a considerable amount. Although no natural light

would be provided, plumbing could then be prefabricated and pipe work located centrally in

the building, making the prospect of freezing in the winter months far less likely. The sitz baths

also used in the scheme in Strasbourg provided a realistic alternative to the larger and more

traditional bathtub.

03_The majority of the schemes visited also included protected private balconies, which were

be used throughout Park Hill scheme and offered a certain degree of compensation to the

lack of garden. The ability to store a pram or take an occasional meal on these was deemed to

provide amenities that far exceed those of a traditional Sheffield back to back.

Why are the schemes still successful?

The success of these schemes is directly related to the success of the housing organisations.

In the ‘50s the housing organisation was common across all of the major European countries

visited in the tour (France being the only exception to the rule). The majority of projects

that I visited were built and managed by Housing Associations or building societies. Competi-

tion between this societies stimulated good design, and as a result the organisations invested

in employing the best architects and engineers. Non-profit Building Associations worked in

65

close collaboration with Local Authorities to build and administer blocks of flats available to

the general public. The Ministry of Housing controlled rents, inspected the balance sheets and

profits were set aside for new construction. The Ministry also acted to approve plans prior to

issuing loans for building, allowing them to maintain quality control over the developments. The

state or Local authority were not responsible for the building of the homes.

Park Hill initially enjoyed extensive critical approval. Significant efforts were taken to

ensure that the incoming community settled in to their new environment. Joan Demers, the

housing Welfare Officer, assisted the settlement of newcomers, and helped forge the com-

munity associations. The efforts to forge a community gradually disappeared and along with a

whole other series of details to do with the physical fabric and shifting social sands the build-

ing failed.


The Aftermath

As early as 1965, new solutions to housing were being sought to the problems that had arisen

from mass housing built in the post war period. The name of Le Corbusier was now held with

much cynicism, and he was rather unjustly held to blame for the bad imitations that had been

built throughout Europe, which had only shallow connections to his own work.

Amongst the most vociferous cynics to ‘the machine age’ was a man called Lucien

Kroll who had drawn comparisons between modern architecture and military uniformity;

draining out any notion of ‘self ’ and reducing the inhabitants to rigid conformity.

‘The modernists invented very detailed servicing grids, obsessive standards for dwellings,

brutal prefabrication systems and a complex administrative mechanism to produce primary

elements cheaply.’31

The most extreme case of this idea was Hannes Meyer’s programme for ‘measuring functions’,

in which his scientific based methods reduced all variables to quantitative assessment. It is

obvious that there are certain variables within a house that can fairly easily be measured, the

amount of water required for the inhabitants’ daily use being a pertinent example. Less easily

measured are views, feelings and emotions, and where Meyer’s programme fell apart was try-

ing to quantifiably measure the immeasurable.

Kroll argued that that architecture ought to be more liberated, and once again em-

brace the vernacular, local context, and user’s needs. Still using technology, but in a far more

humane way. He had first achieved recognition with his design for the medical faculty buildings

of Louvain University, built in the early ‘70s. Kroll was one of the pioneers of the notion of

participation and the final design had been achieved through a series of group design sessions

involving not only the client, but future users and architects. The process was deliberately

unpredictable and the end result attempted to recreate some of the unpredictability of the

tradition organic growth of a town. His methods were notable particularly as housing policies

of the Post-War period had assumed that people are helpless and inert consumers and had

chosen to ignore their ability and their desire to shape their own environment. ‘We re paying

today for confusing paternalistic authoritarianism with social responsibility… let’s give people

a chance and have housing that works!’32

31.L, Kroll, The Architecture of Complexity, translated by Peter Blundell-Jones, London: Batsford 1986. p12

67

In his book The Freedom to build, John Turner argues that when the inhabitants are free to make

their own contributions to the building process, from inception through to completion, the

participation stimulates individual and social well-being.

Urban Splash are considered to be amongst the developers who invest the most time and ef-

fort into gauging what a community thinks prior to developing proposals.

‘We started the dialogue very early on in the process. We started with a blank sheet of paper.

We probably started too early because the residents wanted answers not further questions.’33

With previous developments they have taken existing residents on tours throughout the coun-

try, collaborated with them on the name, and asked the community what shops they wanted.

The same process is currently ongoing in Sheffield and given the sheer scale of Park Hill the

imporance of this cannot be underestimated.

32.C.Ward, When we build again lets have housing that works!,London: Pluto Press, 1985, p.10

33.Urban Splash, New Isling-ton, p10.


Conclusions

My initial research question asked ‘How did such a massive scheme, the creation of two inex-

perienced architects come to command such acceptance from Sheffield City Council?’

The acceptance of the building came as a result of a series of shrewd moves made

by Lewis Womersley, a man who had built a team around him with fresh ideas that were to

completely rethink housing in Sheffield during the next ten years. Jack Lynn and Ivor Smith

were two recent graduates and worked together on the design of Park Hill, whilst Womersley

guided their designs through the complex political system. This method of practice whereby

recent graduates were taken under the wing of an established architect was also being used

to note worthy effect at the LCC. The acceptance of the building came in three major steps,

with Womersley leading a tour to the recently completed Unite d’habitation in Marseille with

a party including, most importantly, the City Treasurer. In December of the following year, the

second significant moment was documented on the front page of the Sheffield Star, with Har-

old Macmillan proclaiming that the Park Hill development would draw the admiration of the

world, a poignant moment for Sheffield, which for the first time was feeling the pressure from

the threat of Leeds becoming Yorkshire’s premier city. The final step was a comprehensive tour

of multi storey housing in Europe, following which the council were sufficiently convinced that

Lynn and Smith’s design for Park Hill was an appropriate proposal for Sheffield.

By recreating the European tour, I have unearthed information about how these build-

ings function today and gathered ideas that may be applied to the redevelopment of Park Hill

to ensure that the building may relive its success in the early ‘60s. At the outset of my trip I

had wondered how the inhabitants of these buildings had changed them over time. The major-

ity of the buildings are still lived in today as they had intended to be on their inception. I was

surprised by how little the residents had done to personalise their surroundings. Wheras the

inhabitants of Le Corbusier’s scheme near Pessac had actively altered their surroundings to

cater for their individual needs, the only changes I witnessed with rather superficial in com-

parison, mainly involving the reinterpretation of balconies and the additional of satellite dishes.

Leon Kroll’s commentary on modernist architecture removing people’s ability to

69

shape their environment would appear to be correct, but the people I met seem to still enjoy

living in these buildings.

The paths these buildings have taken in the last 54 years is very different. At one

extremity are the Unité d’habitation and Kiel, the two buildings considered to be of the high-

est architectural merit. Both of which have been restored in a ‘heritage’ way. Vast amounts of

money have been spent on their upkeep and they are considered to be amongst the seminal

examples of multi storey housing in post war housing in Europe.

At the other end of the spectrum are the schemes at Meudon, Paris and in the Hague.

Suffering from neglect and with residents who seemingly care very little about the appearance

of their grounds. The redevelopment of these buildings would essentially require an approach

markedly different to the methods employed in Marseille and Antwerp, which essentially would

be to take as much away as possible and start again.

Park Hill sits in the middle ground between both extremities. On one hand there is

the need to reinvent the image of the building, but on the other hand there exists sufficient

intelligence within the scheme for it to be successfully reinterpreted today. Moreover the most

important aspect of the upkeep of these buildings is the maintenance of the local amenities to

provide points of social condensation which are so important to fostering a sense of com-

munity. The maintenance of the physical fabric, particularly the repair of reinforced concrete is

also an important aspect of the upkeep of these buildings.

The need to reinvent our modernist heritage is an issue that has become very topi-

cal, after all major revolutions in architecture occur very rarely, and the Modern movement

is the last significant movement the world has witnessed. It has yet to be replaced by another.

Attending the Architectural Review’s ‘Mending Modernism’ Conference as part of my research,

highlighted several important buildings that have recently been revamped, particularly apt ex-

amples are the Barbican Estate and the Brunswick Centre, aswell as the ongoing debate as to

the benefits of refurbishing Robin Hood Gardens.

Aside from the built fabric, the knitting together of the community is so important with

these schemes, and if Urban Splash can successfully do this then the evidence I gathered from

around Europe would suggest that Park Hill can work again.


Fig. 65 Images of Park Hill demolition

Fig. 66 Stripping back the facade to it’s structural frame.

Fig. 67 Domestic Inspiration from the Unite

71

Park Hill The Future

We have already established that the building Ivor Smith and Jack Lynn design was heavily influ-

enced by Le Corbusier’s work, but what can we take from the current state of the buildings I

visited that is relevant in its redevelopment?

In February 2008, Urban Splash took the design team on a study trip to the Unite, and it

served to confirm their conviction that what they were doing at Park Hill was the right thing

‘It reaffirmed the whole team’s belief that it was possible to create a ‘big’ housing scheme that

had a consistency of design that passed through from the large scale moves to the more intri-

cate and domestic elements of design.’34

The problem of balancing the reinvention of the building whilst keeping its original

essence is a difficult one. On one hand there is the need to need to completely reformulate

the building and transform public and media perception of the ‘brutalist monster’; and on

the other there is the need to go through a detailed process with English Heritage to ensure

that the proposals preserve rather than obliterate the original character of the building. The

starting point with the approach is to strip the building back to what they believe is it’s core

essence and start from there.

‘If we were to distil our attitude down, it has been to amplify what is already good about the

building (and there is a lot) and remove and transform in areas where the building has been

unsuccessful.’35

They were impressed by the ingenious features that maximized the use of space within the

flats, which themselves were well planned but relatively tight. The team have borrowed some

of Corb’s ideas for storage and lighting and translated it into something that is relevant for

today. They were particularly impressed, for example, by the pressed aluminium kitchens on

which Corbusier collaborated with Charlotte Perriand. Noting the sensitivity with which these

features have retained use confirmed for Urban Splash that it is more appropriate and worth-

while to make the flats at Park Hill special, rather than ‘reverting to the commercial imperative

of housing fit out ‘by numbers’’36

34.Interview with Greg Moss, Park Hill Project Associate, Hawkins Brown




Fig. 68 Images of typical apartment ‘cluster’ which the building is made up of.

73

But it is not just the Unite that should provide inspiration for the reinvention, but the

building ought to be grounded in an architecture that has come as a result of propoer con-

sultation with the local community. The success of the more ordinary schemes I visited also

highlights the everyday amenities which are so important to its success. Urban Splash have

taken the decision to massively increase the commercial area within the building, in an effort

to make Park Hill a place that ‘you wouldn’t leave Sheffield without visiting’37.37.Interview with Greg Moss, Park Hill Project Associate, Hawkins Brown


75


Bibliography

Books

Blundell Jones, Peter. Petrescu, Doina and Till, Jeremy eds. Architecture and Participation, Spon Press,

London and New York 2005.

Blundell-Jones, P; Modern Architecture Through Case Studies; Architectural Press, 2002

Boudon P, Lived in Architecture, MIT Press, 1972

Curtis, WJR, Modern Architecture since 1900, Phaidon 1987

English J, The future of council housing, London 1982

Frampton K, Modern Architecture: A critical history, Thames and Hudson 1987

Glass, Dr J; The Future of Pre-cast Concrete in Low rise Housing; Oxford Brookes University.

Gold J, The Practice of Modernism, Routledge 2007

Gold J, Experience of Modernism, London, Spon Press, 1997

Hultin, O; The Complete Guide to Architecture in Stockholm, Arkitekter Vorlag AB 1998.

Jencks, C. Modern Movements in Architecture. Penguin. Harmondsworth, 1973

Kroll, L; The Architecture of Complexity, translated by Peter Blundell Jones; B.T Batsford Ltd, London,

1986

Le Corbusier, Vers une architecture \ Towards a New Architecture, London: Rodker 1927

Monies F, Contemporary Danish Architecture, Copenhagen 1958

Multi-Storey Housing in Europe, Sheffield, March 1955

Ockman J, Architecture Culture 1943-1968, Columbia 1993.

Saint A, Park Hill, What next? AA Documents, London 1996

77

Ten Years of Housing in Sheffield, Sheffield, April 1962

Tengboms, Ett Arkitektskontors Utveckling Sedan 1905.

Verlag HC, Die Grindelhochhauser, Hamburg 1988.

Ward C, When we build again lets have housing that works!,London: Pluto Press, 1985,

Journals

Architecture d’Aujourd hui, no 54, 1954 p9,88

Architecture d’aujourd hui, no 57, 1954 p66-70

Byggekunst, 1955, no 1, p1-28

Techniques & Architecture no 459, Apr 2002, p20-97

Prefabrication 1957 Aug, 465-467

Architectural Review, Mending Modernism, Mar 2007

New Statesman, 30 June 1961

Building, Issue 38, 26 September 2008.

Architects Journal, Special issue. Housing vol. 227, no. 8, 2008 Feb. 28, p. 27-63

Newspapers

The Sheffield Star, Saturday December 12th 1953, p1,5

A thread through Europe Image Index

Fig.01: Photograph taken by author

Fig.02: Smith, I; Park Hill Lecture, University of Sheffield, 2008


Fig.04: Designer’s Republic from the Venice Biennale 2006









Fig.13: Sheffield Star, Dec 12th 1953


Fig.15: Map created by author

Fig.16: Boudon, Lived in Architecture, MIT Press, 1972, pp34/35

Fig 17: Google Earth image

Fig 18: Architecture d’aujourd hui, no54, 1954, p88

Fig.19: Architecture d’aujourd hui, no54, 1954, p88

Fig.20: Multi Storey Housing in Europe, Sheffield, March 1955. P22

Fig.21: Multi Storey Housing in Europe, Sheffield, March 1955. Cover Image









Fig.30: Google Earth image

Fig.31: Verlag. H.C, Die Grindelhochhauser, Hamburg, 1988. P121

79







Fig.38: The Builder, November 27th 1953, p823

Fig.39: Architectural Design, February 1953, p33

Fig.40: Map drawn by stranger






Fig.46: Image from brochure at Kiel Exhibition




Fig.50: Google Earth Image
















81

Fig.65: Hawkins Brown, Issue 6 (available at www. Hawkinsbrown.co.uk)p8


Fig.67: Photographs from Greg Moss, Hawkins Brown



83



When Park Hill was completed in 1961 it was the future. Conceived and delivered in a completely

different world to that in which we live today; over time it became a casualty of circumstance, but even

accepting its flaws, few can describe it as ordinary.

Having worked extensively on the project during my Year Out, and lived in Sheffield for four

years, I am in a position where I understand both the physical complexities of the building, and it’s

relationship with the wider urban context. Much has been written about the building, but we know

less about the political context in which it was conceived, particularly how such an enormous scheme

designed by two inexperienced architects, came to command such acceptance. My dissertation focuses

to some extent, on one man, Lewis Womersley; the man who skilfully managed to convince the council

that Park Hill could work through a series of cunning moves culminating in an extensive tour of Eu-

rope, which he led in 1954.

By recreating this tour it will enable me to understand where Park Hill originated from, and

also inspired by the book Lived in Architecture by Phillipe Boudon I hope to study how these buildings

have responded to time and inhabitation, and how they may once again influence the future direction

of Park Hill.