DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

Demolishing Whitehall

Leslie Martin, Harold Wilson and the Architecture of White Heat

Adam Sharr Newcastle University, UK

Stephen Thornton Cardiff University, UK

First published 2013 by Ashgate Publishing

Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright © 2013 Adam Sharr and Stephen Thornton

Adam Sharr and Stephen Thornton have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi ed as the authors of this work.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafterinvented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

The Library of Congress has cataloged the printed edition as follows: Sharr, Adam. Demolishing Whitehall: Leslie Martin, Harold Wilson and the Architecture of White Heat / By Adam Sharr and Stephen Thornton. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4094-2387-4 (hardback) 1. Martin, Leslie, 1908-2000—Criticism and interpretation. 2. Public buildings— England—London. 3. Architecture and state—Great Britain—History—20th century. 4. Technology—Social aspects—Great Britain—History—20th century. 5. Whitehall (London, England)—Buildings, structures, etc. 6. London (England)—Buildings, structures, etc. I. Thornton, Stephen, 1970– II. Title.

NA997.M35S53 2013 725’.10942132—dc23 2013011980

ISBN 9781409423874 (hbk) Contents

List of Illustrations vii Illustration Credits xv List of Protagonists xvii Acknowledgements xxi

1 Introduction 1

2 A Hope of Better Times and More Spacious Days 35

3 Components of a Plan 63

4 Leslie Martin and the Science of Architectural Form 147

5 Lost in a Vortex 215

6 Conclusion 249

Bibliography 275 Index 291

List of Illustrations

1.1 The model submitted with the Whitehall plan showing the proposed megastructure, with Parliament Square in the centre 2 1.2 The model with Trafalgar Square bottom right, the Palace of Westminster top left and the proposed megastructure running across the model, above the centre 3 1.3 The Foreign Oce seen from Whitehall in 2011 4 1.4 The Post Oce Tower on London’s skyline, designed by Eric Bedford of the Ministry of Public Building and Works 5 1.5 Harold Wilson, the herald of White Heat, in 1965 with a telephone at his right hand 8 1.6 The cities of the future: a 1963 proposal for the comprehensive redevelopment of Piccadilly Circus in London designed by William Holford, featuring a ‘three level pedestrian system’. The statue of Eros is relocated to the centre of the Circus. The neo-classical façade far left – the end of Regent Street – is one of the few points of orientation. 11 1.7 Centre Point, designed by Richard Seifert 16 1.8 Trellick Tower in West London, designed by Ernö Gold nger 19 1.9 The freshness of new modern architecture. Hide Tower ats, Hide Place London SW1, designed for Westminster City Council and completed in 1961 to designs by Stillman and Eastwick-Field 20 1.10 Cushion printed with an image of Trellick Tower 24 2.1 Student residences at the University of East Anglia, designed by Denys Lasdun 54 2.2 Engineering Building at the University of Leicester, designed by James Stirling and James Gowan 55 3.1 The Admiralty 64 3.2 The Horse Guards 65 3.3 Banqueting House 66 3.4 Gwydyr House, the Wales Oce 66 3.5 Richmond Terrace 67 viii DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

3.6 Dover House, the Scotland Oce 67 3.7 The gated entrance to Downing Street 68 3.8 The Foreign Oce 68 3.9 The Cenotaph 69 3.10 Richmond House 69 3.11 New Scotland Yard, or ‘Norman Shaw North’ 70 3.12 The Treasury, known in the Whitehall report as the Great George Street Building 71 3.13 The tour groups and trac which dominate Parliament Square and Whitehall 71 3.14 Portcullis House 72 3.15 The Palace of Westminster 72 3.16 St. Margaret’s Church in front of Westminster Abbey, as seen from Parliament Square 73 3.17 The Supreme Court, formerly known as Middlesex Guildhall 73 3.18 Methodist Central Hall 74 3.19 The footprint of Inigo Jones and John Webb’s seventeenth-century plan to rebuild Whitehall, overlaid on the 1965 street pattern, as drawn in the report 75 3.20 The footprint of Christopher Wren’s seventeenth-century plan to rebuild Whitehall, overlaid on the 1965 street pattern, as drawn in the report 75 3.21 Charles Barry’s nineteenth-century plan to rebuild Whitehall. Note the proposed Westminster Abbey close, removing St. Margaret’s Church. Also the single mass of government oces, redeveloped riverfront and bridge over the Thames. Martin admired this plan, which was more ambitious than his own. 75 3.22 Lionel March’s working notes. Floor space studies for courtyard plans 78 3.23 Lionel March’s working notes. Studies of plot ratio, eciency factors and clerical area 79 3.24 Lionel March’s working notes. Translating abstract studies into plan form 80 3.25 Abercrombie’s 1943 County Plan for London envisaged this road network to create a pedestrianised precinct around Parliament Square. The Whitehall report notes that ‘Rebuilding has eliminated the line of the [curving] road which might have created the precinct’. 81 3.26 Gordon Cullen’s perspective envisaging a pedestrianised Parliament Square, from ‘Westminster Regained’ in the Architectural Review of 1947 82 3.27 Section through the Palace of Westminster showing the proposed road tunnel in the River Thames 82 3.28 1800 car parking spaces provided beneath the new development, mostly under private courtyards which would give natural light and ventilation, connected to the new road inserted in the river 83 LIST Of ILLuSTrATIONS ix

3.29 Proposed developments in and around the Whitehall area in 1964/65 84 3.30 ‘Natural routes from St. James’ Park to the river’ to be enhanced as pedestrian ways in the city 86 3.31 Key buildings aected by the proposal 88 3.32 ‘Clerical accommodation’ around Whitehall in 1964/65, labelled as follows: A is the Foreign Oce, B is the Great George Street Building, C is the so-called Bridge Street site including Scotland Yard; D is the Old Admiralty Buildings, and E is the Old War Oce and various ministries. 90 3.33 Plan showing oor layouts of the Foreign Oce and Great George Street buildings 92 3.34 Exploring building form on the site. ‘The same oor space planned around larger courts: buildings 12 storeys high’ 94 3.35 Further explorations. ‘The same oor space planned with a combination of six tall blocks 18 storeys high and low 4-storey frontages’ 94 3.36 Graph relating site area, oor area, plot ratio and building population. This graph would allow the most optimum con guration for new government buildings in Whitehall to be established. 96 3.37 Graph becomes layout. A gallery, highlighted in tone, links St. James’ Park with the River Thames and crosses Whitehall at high level. The thick line indicates the public street running alongside. 97 3.38 Section through Whitehall showing the approximate existing building lines (grey) and the new terraced blocks which step back to create more space at street level 97 3.39 Section showing the ‘principal gallery’ along which the oces are laid out. Ocials and public share the space, but at dierent levels. This is one of the few drawings in the report that shows the spatial qualities the designers imagined. 98 3.40 Isometric drawing of a ‘typical oce wing’ showing oces ‘clustered about vertical circulation points and internal spaces containing conference rooms, stores, and other common facilities’, the latter highlighted in tone. ‘At the top can be seen the roof terrace, in the centre a typical oce oor [here partitioned as cellular oces], and at the bottom the courts and main gallery circulation area.’ 99 3.41 Plan showing how the section reduces overshadowing 100 3.42 Galeria Vittoria Emmanuele in Milan 101 3.43 Table showing oor areas, in square feet, for government oces in Whitehall; as existing (left) and as proposed (right) 102 3.44 ‘The form of the service layout, of service points, sub-stations, loading bays and postal collecting and delivery points reects the form of the government oce layout above’. They connect with possible future developments in the government estate beyond the Whitehall plan, shown on the right of this drawing. 103 x DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

3.45 Model showing the condition of Whitehall in 1965. Westminster Bridge is bottom centre, the Palace of Westminster lower left, St. James’ Park top right. The Great George Street and Foreign Oce buildings are the two biggest volumes to the right of centre. 106 3.46 First phase. New parliamentary building, highlighted, with a new underground station and shopping concourse beneath. This phase would provide ‘decanting capacity’ to allow subsequent phases to proceed. 107 3.47 Second phase. The megastructure begins to emerge. Expanded development of the Bridge Street site to provide 396,000 sq ft of oces. Scotland Yard (the right hand building in black) is readdressed. 108 3.48 Third phase. Demolition and replacement of the Foreign Oce. 462,000 sq ft of oce space is provided with an extension of the underground car parking and servicing facilities. The case for demolition is made on the basis of eciency and optimisation. 109 3.49 ‘Diagram showing the main gallery and the oce wings. Secondary links of oces between these wings form porte-cocheres across the entrance to the courts. Car waiting spaces under these lead to Ministers’ entrances and connect to the underground garage’. 111 3.50 Fourth phase. Replacement of the Great George Street building. 522,000 sq ft of oce space created. East-west and north-south galleries are now fully established. The bridge spanning Whitehall, making a gateway into Parliament Square, is completed. Ministerial rooms are provided on the southern sides of the north-south blocks. 112 3.51 Fifth and sixth phases. The road tunnel is completed, along with new riverside buildings and terraces and gardens on top of the road. Scotland Yard is now locked into the megastructure. 113 3.52 Trac alterations made at this time, showing a largely pedestrianised Parliament Square 114 3.53 Gains in public space following the trac alterations 115 3.54 Illustration of the Thames front of the megastructure with the river and the road tunnel in the foreground. ‘The two levels of the promenade and the pier are shown […] the public way to St. James’ Park, the Embankment entrance to the shopping concourse and underground railway, and the entrance to the restaurants at the higher promenade level.’ 115 3.55 The so-called Broad Sanctuary site 116 3.56 The second stage of trac alterations, establishing a pedestrianised Government Centre around Parliament Square 117 3.57 Seventh phase, reinforcing the Parliament Square’s enclosure and emphasising gateways. A new building encloses Methodist Central Hall. The Middlesex Guildhall is demolished and replaced with a ‘major building of national or international signi cance’. Terraces and viewing galleries for major civic events are established. 118 3.58 Eighth phase, enclosing the west side of the ‘precinct’ with a hall of residence for MPs. The lost area of Victoria Tower Gardens is exchanged for new gardens along the river. 119 LIST Of ILLuSTrATIONS xi

3.59 Model photograph, showing the completed scheme with the Palace of Westminster and the river in the foreground 122 3.60 Plan showing the completed scheme 123 3.61 Model photograph showing the proposed enclosure of Parliament Square 124 3.62 Brunswick Centre showing the central street, now lined with popular cafés, restaurants and shops. Photographed in 2012 125 3.63 The Brunswick Centre seen from Marchmont Street, in 2012 125 3.64 University of London’s Institute of Education facing Bedford Way, its scale imagined in relation to John Nash’s Georgian terraces facing Regent’s Park. Photographed in 2012 126 3.65 The rear of the Institute of Education building, stepping down to meet Russell Square, in 2012 127 3.66 Whitehall realigned as a straight road between the megastructure and Trafalgar Square 128 3.67 ‘The line of Whitehall continued across the forecourt of Charing Cross Station and extended through the redeveloped Covent Garden area to the British Museum. The old line of Whitehall could remain as a pedestrian and visual link with Trafalgar Square[!]’ Inigo Jones’s Banqueting House would nd itself placed in the centre of the axis. 128 3.68 The grand axis plotted on a map of London, indicating connections with the Tate Gallery, National Gallery, National Theatre, Royal Festival Hall, Royal Opera House, British Museum and the proposed British Museum Library 129 3.69 Covent Garden piazza in 2005 131 3.70 Leslie Martin presenting the Whitehall plan at the press conference on the evening of 19 July 1965 132 3.71 Plan view of the model showing the nal scheme as proposed. Compare with 3.45 134 3.72 ‘It’s better with Radiation.’ In 1965, the white-coated scientist remained dependable and marketable, here selling the technological future to householders: radiation heating, backed by the full resources of the company’s technical sta. Taken from the catalogue of the Building Trade Exhibition of that year, an event opened by Harold Wilson 135 4.1 ‘Needs for Work’ exhibit, MARS Exhibition, New Burlington Galleries, London, 1938 150 4.2 The main façade at El Nuevo Baztan, the Goyeneche Palace, near Alcalà de Henares, Spain, attributed to Jose de Churrigera. Drawing by Leslie Martin reproduced in his PhD, The Spanish Baroque Architecture of Jose de Churrigera, submitted to the University of Manchester in 1936 151 4.3 The Morton House, Brampton, Cumbria, completed in 1938 152 4.4 Plan of the Nursery School in Northwich completed to designs by Martin and Speight in 1938 153 4.5 Detail of the Northwich school showing the timber frame construction with sliding timber window frames containing standard metal windows 153 xii DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

4.6 Cover of Circle 154 4.7 Unit-built station building at Queen’s Park station, London, completed in 1946 158 4.8 Publicity photo showing the key architects of the Royal Festival Hall in the new building: (left to right) Peter Moro, Leslie Martin, Robert Matthew and Edwin Williams 161 4.9 The Royal Festival Hall at the centre of the Festival of Britain in 1951. ‘[…] what they cannot feel is what we did, which is that we had instantly been transported far into the future […]’ 162 4.10 Leslie Martin and Associates projects for student residences in the 1950s and 1960s included the Stone Building at Peterhouse College Cambridge, completed in 1962 to designs by Martin and Colin St John Wilson. Photographed in 2012 166 4.11 Harvey Court, West Road, Cambridge, completed for Gonville and Caius College in 1962 to designs by Leslie Martin and Colin St John Wilson. Site Plan 167 4.12 The ecient and equitable section of Harvey Court. A common room, breakfast room and kitchen are located centrally in the basement. Student rooms face the court, which is at rst oor level approached by ights of steps. Each has a terrace and is served by a stair reached from the court via a circulating gallery. 167 4.13 The plan of Harvey Court showing its crosswall construction, with the individual rooms supporting the whole, literally and metaphorically 168 4.14 Harvey Court. View of terraced balconies and the courtyard 169 4.15 Harvey Court. View into the courtyard from the south showing the stepped southern block 170 4.16 The street elevation of Harvey Court facing West Road 170 4.17 A series of investigations into the auditorium type from Martin’s 1963 monograph Buildings and Ideas. These are projects designed by Leslie Martin and Associates for: (1) the University of Hull; (2) the Music School at Cambridge; (3) ‘a social building’ relating ‘indoor and outdoor auditoria to a common stage’; (4) a competition for the University of Bristol; (5) the Royal Scottish Academy in Glasgow. 171 4.18 Fresnel’s squares 172 4.19 Spread from J.S.D. Bacon’s The Chemistry of Life, published in 1944, showing the diagram which inspired Lionel March 173 4.20 Diagrams and models exploring alternative built forms on the same land area 174 4.21 Spread from The Geometry of Environment, edited by Lionel March and Philip Steadman and published in 1971 175 4.22 Comparative diagrams of Palladio’s Villa Malcontenta and Le Corbusier’s Villa Stein de Monzie at Garches from Colin Rowe’s ‘Mathematics of the Ideal Villa’ 177 4.23 Spread from D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson’s On Growth and Form 179 4.24 The Manor Road Library group, University of Oxford, completed in 1964 to designs by Leslie Martin and Colin St. John Wilson. Site Plan 180 LIST Of ILLuSTrATIONS xiii

4.25 The Manor Road libraries. Approach to the grand stair 180 4.26 Manor Road libraries. View of the complex looking down to the grand stair 181 4.27 Manor Road libraries. Reading room of the Bodleian Law Library, as built 181 4.28 Studies of library type form from Buildings and Ideas, 1983: ‘corner entrance, control and catalogue, L-shaped reading area, outside this L-shaped stack space and around this again a band of carrels […] the roof modelling is related to daylighting in the areas below’ 182 4.29 Section of the Manor Road building and rst-oor plan showing the grouping of the three library forms 183 4.30 The Zoology and Psychology building, South Parks Road, Oxford, designed by Martin and Douglas Lanham between 1963 and 1970. Photographed in 2012 184 4.31 Zoology and Psychology in 2012 184 4.32 Diagrams showing the grid applied to the site and ‘possible routes and grouping of accommodation’ 185 4.33 Zoology and Psychology. Elevation and rst-oor plan 185 4.34 The Manhattan grid in plan and section (left) and redesigned as a low-rise city (right), not dissimilar to the Whitehall proposals, without reducing the amount of useful oorspace 188 4.35 ‘Environmental areas’ and road networks in London proposed by Colin Buchanan following the 1943 County Plan for London 189 4.36 The ‘Foundling Area’ reimagined as a double-walled courtyard 190 4.37 The extension to Kettle’s Yard in Cambridge, designed by Leslie Martin and David Owers and opened in 1970. The original house is to the left and the gallery extension is to the right. Photographed in 2011 196 4.38 Upper oor of the Kettle’s Yard gallery extension. Photographed in 2011 196 4.39 Lower oor of the Kettle’s Yard gallery extension, in 2011. 197 5.1 Victorian heritage defender John Betjeman and Minister of Housing Richard Crossman at the Cropredy country fête in July 1965 232 6.1 The Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, completed to the designs of Powell and Moya in 1986 253 6.2 Site plan from 1978 showing proposed phasing of the Richmond House project and the terraced form behind the new and retained façades 254 6.3 Model of the Ministry of Public Building and Works’ 1969 design, led by architect W.S. Bryant, for a building containing government oces and a shopping mall (upper centre) on what became the Richmond House site 255 6.4 MPBW’s 1969 government oce design. Perspective as viewed from Whitehall 255 6.5 MPBW’s 1969 government oce design. Perspectives of the atrium in the centre of the open-plan oces (right) and the associated shopping mall (left) 255 xiv DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

6.6 Richmond House, completed in 1987 to designs by William Whit eld and Partners: ‘a kind of neo-tudor immediately evoking the Palace of Westminster’ 256 6.7 Façade detail of Portcullis House, designed by Michael Hopkins and Partners, its ‘eco-gothic’ styling derived from chimneys and ducts used for the natural extraction of hot air 257 6.8 Portcullis House with New Scotland Yard behind 258 6.9 Persimmon Homes’s development at Alexandra Park, Sunderland, under construction in 2012 260 6.10 The Metropol Parasol in Seville, Spain, completed in 2011 to designs by Jürgen H. Meyer, which is arguably the most dramatic example of parametric architecture yet constructed 265 Illustration Credits

Angus Montgomery Ltd: 1.5, 3.72 The Banbury Guardian: 5.1 British Travel and Holidays Association: 1.6, 1.9 Ricardo Brazão: 6.10 Cambridge University Press – Leslie Martin, Buildings and Ideas 1933–83: From the Studio of Leslie Martin and his Associates © 1983: 4.4, 4.5, 4.10–4.12, 4.16, 4.17, 4.19, 4.23, 4.28, 4.31, 4.32 John Donat/RIBA Library Photographs Collection: 4.27 Dover Publications: 4.22 Faber and Faber: 4.6 Thomas Faulkner: 2.2, 3.42 Guardian News & Media Ltd: 3.70 HMSO: 1.1, 1.2, 3.19–3.21, 3.25–3.41, 3.43–3.61, 3.66–3.68, 3.71 Stephen Kite: 4.13–4.15, 4.24, 4.25 Lionel March: 3.20–3.22, 4.20 MIT Press: 4.21 John Pendlebury: 3.69 People Will Always Need Plates: 1:10 RIBAPix / Architectural Press Archive: 4.1, 4.3, 4.6–4.8 Adam Sharr: 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8, 3.4–3.7, 3.11, 3.16, 3.61–3.64, 4.9, 4.29, 4.30, 6.2 Town and Country Planning Association: 6.3–6.5 xvi DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

University of Hull: 4.33–4.35 University of Manchester: 4.2 Edward Wainwright: 3.1–3.3, 3.8–3.10, 3.12, 3.14, 3.15, 3.17, 3.18, 6.1, 6.6, 6.7 Watts and Co: 4.18

We have made every eort to trace the copyright holders of images reproduced here. List of Protagonists

This list is provided for easy reference to some of the key characters involved in the story of the 1965 plan to redevelop Whitehall.

Eric Bedford (1909–2001): Chief Architect at the Ministry of Works (later Ministry of Public Building and Works), 1950–70, most famously responsible for the Post Oce Tower (later the BT Tower).

John Betjeman (1906–84): Poet (Poet Laureate 1972–84), broadcaster, critic, and public personality. Betjeman was one of the most conspicuous gures in the movement to preserve Victorian heritage.

George Brown (1914–85): Labour Cabinet minister 1964–68, and deputy leader of the Labour Party (1960–70). The mercurial Brown was, as Secretary of State for Economic Aairs (1964–66), responsible for the ill-fated National Plan.

Colin Buchanan (1907–2001): Town planner, most famous for the inuential report, Traffic in Towns (1963). Buchanan prepared the report on trac that accompanied Leslie Martin’s Whitehall: A Plan for the National and Government Centre (1965).

Barbara Castle (1910–2002): Labour Cabinet minister 1964–70 and 1974–76. As Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (1968–70), Castle was a prominent political gure against putting modern buildings in Whitehall.

Richard Crossman (1907–74): Labour Cabinet minister 1964–70. As Minister of Housing and Local Government (1964–66), Crossman was important in the establishment of conservation as a matter of government policy.

William Holford (1907–75): Architect and town planner, instrumental in shaping the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, responsible for large-scale xviii DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL redevelopments in London in the 1960s; notably for Piccadilly Circus (unbuilt), Paternoster Square (built and since demolished) and at one point considered for the Whitehall commission.

Alec Douglas-Home (1903–95): Conservative Prime Minister 1963–64 and Foreign Secretary 1960–63 and 1970–74. Douglas-Home (intermittently Lord Home) was the driving force behind a campaign to demolish the Foreign Oce, and was Prime Minister when Leslie Martin was asked to reshape Whitehall.

Harold Macmillan (1894–86): Conservative Prime Minister 1956–63. Macmillan was Prime Minister at the start of the process that led to Martin’s appointment. For his decision to allow the demolition of Euston Arch, the Victorian Society dubbed Macmillan a ‘villain’.

Lionel March (1934–): Associate architect with Leslie Martin on the Whitehall plan, fascinated by the application of mathematics and computing in architecture. Director of the Centre for Land Use and Built Form Studies at the University of Cambridge 1967–72, subsequently Rector and Vice-Provost of the Royal College of Art and Professor of Architectural Design and Computation at UCLA.

Leslie Martin (1908–2000): Architect of the Whitehall plan. Now most famous for his leading role in designing London’s Royal Festival Hall, 1951, and his academic interests in reconciling science with art. Deputy Chief Architect and then Chief Architect to the London County Council 1948–56, private practice 1934-39 and 1956–83, and Professor of Architecture, Cambridge University 1956–72.

Edward Muir (1905–79): Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Works (later Ministry of Public Building and Works) 1956–65. Muir was the most senior ocial at the ministry responsible for the Whitehall redevelopment during the period in which Martin was appointed.

Charles Pannell (1902–80): Labour Minister of Public Building and Works, 1964–66. Pannell was the Martin plan’s most fervent champion on the Labour benches.

Antony Part (1916–90): Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Public Building and Works, 1965–68, and at other departments until 1976. Part was the senior ocial at the ministry responsible for the Martin plan, and chaired the Whitehall Redevelopment Policy Committee.

Nikolaus Pevsner (1902–83): Architectural historian most famous for the Buildings of England series, the so-called Pevsner guides. A founding member of the Victorian Society and its chairman at the time of the Whitehall plan. LIST Of PrOTAGONISTS xix

Geoffrey Rippon (1924–97): Conservative Cabinet minister 1963–64 and 1970–74. As Minister of Public Building and Works, Rippon announced the decision to demolish the Foreign Oce and appointed Leslie Martin to redesign Whitehall.

Duncan Sandys (1908–87): Conservative Cabinet minister 1954–64. As Minister of Housing and Local Government (1954–57), Sandys was involved in trying making conservation a more serious matter considered by government. He was also involved in the debates over the future of the Foreign Oce. Later he was inuential as President of the Civic Trust.

Evelyn Sharp (1903–85): Permanent Secretary 1955–66 at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, referred to in Richard Crossman’s Diaries as ‘The Dame’. During her period as the most inuential civil servant at the ministry, Sharp was a prominent supporter of modern redevelopment in Britain.

Harold Wilson (1916–95): Labour Prime Minister 1964–70 and 1974–76. As Leader of the Opposition, Wilson enthused about the ‘Britain that is going to be forged in the white heat of this [scienti c and technological] revolution’. As Prime Minister, this process mostly failed to ignite.

Acknowledgements

Both of us were born in the 1970s; the decade of glam rock, Watergate and the Austin Allegro. So this book joins a growing body of work about the history of the 1960s written by authors who have less personal investment in its heated debates. Although, if the popular saying is to be believed, we may remember as much about it as some people who were actually there. We are extremely grateful to those who do remember, in and around Leslie Martin’s oce at the time of the Whitehall plan, who have oered invaluable insights: Lionel March, David Lea, Peter Carolin, David Croghan, Trevor Dannatt, Dean Hawkes and Roger Stonehouse. While we may not always have agreed with them, we thank them wholeheartedly for their spirited input. Antony Vidler kindly oered both his reections from the time and a critical voice. Ian Rice’s 2004 article on the Whitehall plan in arq: Architectural Research Quarterly was an important starting point. Max Sternberg, Irit Katz Feigis and Felipe Hernández invited us to speak about Leslie Martin and Whitehall at Cambridge University’s Department of Architecture, in the building he knew so well, for the rst History and Theory seminar in the School’s anniversary year. If that were not pressure enough, Lionel March – co-designer of the Whitehall plan – joined us too. It proved a highly productive session and we thank all the participants for their contributions. The idea for this book, and then the dawning realisation that we might try to write it together, came to us during the regular weekly pub quiz at the Bunch of Grapes, Pontypridd. Our team-mates Simon Brodbeck, James Hegarty and Mike Thomas indulged our diversions into 1960s politics and architecture. Initial work towards this book was funded by one of the nal grants awarded by the Cardi Humanities Research Institute. Val Rose at Ashgate has been a wise and tolerant editor. Kathy Bond Borie and Lianne Sherlock have shepherded the book through production with care. xxii DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

AdaM SHaRR acKNOWlEdGEs:

I am grateful to the RIBA Drawings Collection, based at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, for limited access to the uncatalogued Leslie Martin archive. I hope they will soon be awarded the resources needed to make this important collection properly available to researchers. Fiona Orsini’s assistance proved invaluable in navigating the material that I was allowed to see. The Scottish Gallery of Contemporary Art in Edinburgh gave ecient and friendly access to Ben Nicholson’s correspondence, and Alice Strang kindly shared her unpublished work on Martin and Nicholson’s circle of friends. The librarians at Durham University were ecient in helping me to look through Peter Willis’s papers. Ed Wainwright went to Whitehall at sunrise on a summer Sunday in a last desperate attempt to take trac-free photographs of its buildings. Pippa Hitchcock provided an enthusiastic personal weekend tour of Martin’s Zoology and Psychology building in Oxford. Dean Hawkes rst piqued my interest in Leslie Martin when I was a doctoral student. Ten years ago, when we worked together, Simon Sadler suggested that a book on Martin was long overdue and that I should try to write it. Friends, colleagues and critics have helped me to think through some important questions: Sam Austin, Andrew Ballantyne, Tom Brigden, Nathaniel Coleman, Martyn Dade- Robertson, Mark Dorrian, Adrian Forty, Simon Hacker, Jonathan Hale, Andrew Higgott, Gillian Ince, Zeynep Kezer, Stephen Kite, Andrew Law, Katie Lloyd Thomas, James Long eld, Mhairi McVicar, Juliet Odgers, John Pendlebury, Flora Samuel, Mark Shucksmith, Mark Tewdyr-Jones, Chris Tweed, Geo Vigar, Ed Wainwright and Richard Weston. Ruth Thornton’s ingenuity found sources that no other librarian could. My parents, Chris and Colin Sharr, left art school at the beginning of the 1960s creative boom and went to all the right gigs. They’ve been hugely encouraging to a son who’s never been anywhere near as cool. With more patience than I deserve, Joanne Sayner continues to tolerate the contradiction between my academic interest in the idea of planning and my inability to plan our personal life more than a fortnight in advance. Last but not least, I would like to thank my co-author for many illuminating and entertaining conversations, and his talent for mining archive gold.

StEpHEN THORNtON acKNOWlEdGEs:

I am grateful to the ecient and friendly sta at one of the United Kingdom’s greatest treasures, the National Archives, Kew and also those who work at the Parliamentary Archives based at the Palace of Westminster, who were particularly helpful in my search for information about Charles (‘Charlie’, later Lord) Pannell. Though, like one’s own children, it is bad form to have favourites among the characters that come to light through academic study, I do hope that, if my contribution to the book achieves anything, it is to rescue Pannell from falling completely out of the annals of British political history. I would also like to thank the School of European Languages, Translation and Politics at Cardi University AckNOwLEdGEMENTS xxiii for its continued support, and the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Nottingham for arranging a fascinating tour of the Foreign Oce. For his continued support through the years and for encouraging my strange passion for the politics of the Wilson era in the rst place, I would like to thank Peter Dorey. Andrew Connell and Kevin Theakston also deserve warm acknowledgement for re-igniting this fascination with every conversation. Mark Donovan, Peri Roberts, Peter Sutch, Rosanne Palmer, Bruce Haddock, David Boucher, Steve Marsh, Hugh Compston, Karen Owen, Alistair Cole, Liz Wren-Owens, Jonathan Kirkup, Ian Staord, Roger Scully, Richard Wyn Jones, Mark Cooper, Iris Winney, Jenny Hulin, Mary Raschella, Claire Gorrara, Carlos Sanz Mingo, Kenneth Dyson, David Broughton, John Craig, Alasdair Blair and the aforementioned Joanne Sayner have also played very positive roles in getting me to the end of the book. My family, not least Sam Thornton, deserve much appreciation too. Ruth Thornton is the centre of my world. I would like to thank my co-author for introducing me to Leslie Martin and his astonishing plan to redesign Whitehall, and for proving the ideal writing partner. However, though I take my share for any mistakes, I’m not taking responsibility for any puns.

1 Introduction

This book is about a lost world, albeit one less than 50 years old. It is the story of a grand plan to demolish a large part of Whitehall, London’s historic government district, and replace it with a ziggurat-section megastructure built in concrete. In 1965, the architect Leslie Martin submitted a proposal to Charles Pannell, Minister of Public Building and Works in Harold Wilson’s Labour government, for the wholesale reconstruction of London’s ‘Government Centre’. Still reeling from war damage, its patched-up eighteenth- and nineteenth-century palaces remained the centre of a bureaucracy that had once dominated the globe. Martin’s project – hardly modest in scope or scale – proposed replacing these buildings with a complex that would span the roads into Parliament Square and re-frame the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). While only certain parts of the project came to fruition, and not in the way Martin envisaged, the un-built architecture will be the focus of this book. Two years before the Whitehall plan was delivered, Harold Wilson, then the youthful Leader of the Opposition, gave his famous ‘white heat of technology’ speech at the 1963 Labour Party conference in which he attempted to recast socialism ‘in terms of the scienti c revolution’. Wilson – the grammar school boy from Hudders eld who became a Cabinet minister by the age of 31 and rose to the top of his party though ability and craftiness – caught the mood perfectly, perhaps for the only time in his long political career, not just of the Labour movement but of Britain itself. Wilson’s architect, Professor Sir Leslie Martin, now merits a surprisingly modest mention in architectural histories of the post-war era. He was, however, one of the United Kingdom’s most respected designers in the mid-1960s. Son of Manchester’s Diocesan Architect, he had risen to lead the team who built London’s hugely respected Royal Festival Hall before becoming Cambridge University’s rst Professor of Architecture, a post alongside which he ran a busy practice. One of the rst architects in Britain to hold a PhD, he ‘believed in reconciling science and art’1 and sought to reshape architecture as a profession whose endeavours 2 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

1.1 The model would be grounded in academic research.2 The Whitehall plan represented a major submitted with advance in this research for him, an important study in a mounting sequence of the Whitehall design experiments that sought to identify the ideal geometries for organising plan showing the proposed space. During a Cold War technology boom characterised by ever more liberating megastructure, domestic appliances and ever more apocalyptic munitions, Martin believed that with Parliament architecture should nd rigour in universal truths obtained through scienti c Square in the method. Another northern-born former grammar school boy, equally prodigious centre in his chosen eld, he appeared well suited to take a signi cant role in Wilson’s promised scienti c ‘revolution’; one that was to involve tearing down the fusty institutions of Whitehall’s ancien regime and replacing them with an ecient white-collar headquarters. Architecture – whether built or un-built – displays the ideas informing its procurement and design. We will read Martin’s plan, and his unconventional scienti c approach to it, for their insights into the cultural and political scene of Britain in the 1960s and the particular idea of the future then envisaged. On one hand, the Whitehall plan can be read as an attempt to burnish the pride of an historic British state impoverished by the Second World War and divested of empire. On the other, presented to an administration elected on the promise of re-forging socialism in terms of a scienti c revolution, it can also be read as forward-looking and utopian, intent on demonstrating the value of technology as an instrument of popular salvation. Three years before the social unrest of 1968 in Europe and America, the outlook demonstrated by the project is at once optimistic INTrOducTION 3

1.2 The model with Trafalgar Square bottom right, the Palace of Westminster top left and the proposed megastructure running across the model, above the centre and paternalistic, simultaneously challenging and reinforcing a hierarchical social order at the scales of building, city and nation. From today’s perspective, when the idea of demolishing grand palaces like the Foreign Oce (Figure 1.3) designed by George Gilbert Scott3 – a proposal at the centre of the project – would seem ludicrous, the plan’s eager anticipation of a new future makes it an object of fascination. This is more than a parochial story about a few city blocks in Central London. For its architects, the plan was not simply a speci c proposal for a speci c site. Its designers envisaged it as part of a project to reimagine architectural thinking by applying scienti c method to artistic practice. They sought to renew modern architecture – rst consolidated between the wars in terms of a functional approach to space – for the post-war era, through a more rigorous optimisation of land use and built form. For the political actors, on a pragmatic level, the plan involved considering the redesign of certain streets and squares in the nation’s capital. More expansively, however, it represented a classic tussle between government departments, a ght fuelled by a conict between those who believed that Britain needed to discard much of its Victorian and Edwardian decoration in the name of ‘professionalisation’ and those who sought to preserve its ornate nery. The time when the Whitehall plan was commissioned and delivered – between Harold Wilson’s conference speech of 1963, brimming with anticipation, and the summer of 1966, the point at which the Labour government’s plans began to unravel in the face of a currency crisis – was a brief but highly distinctive era in British history. It was a time when a bright new future seemed not just possible 4 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

1.3 The Foreign but imminent, ushering in with it a new social order. In her history of Whitehall, Oce seen from Susan Foreman argues that, from a distance of a just a few decades, it is dicult to Whitehall in 2011 recapture the climate when, in her view, ‘the architects and planners of the 1960s made draconian proposals that, if implemented, would have signi cantly damaged the nation’s image of government’.4 Colin Brown, in his breezy journalistic history of Whitehall, is similarly incredulous, suggesting that Martin planned to turn ‘the centre of Whitehall into the kind of concrete jungle that so defaced our provincial towns and cities in the 1960s in the name of modernism’.5 Commentaries like this, however, tend to project today’s popular values back onto the time. In 1965, Martin’s vision was not commonly regarded, as Brown would have it, as a particularly wicked piece of vandalism, but rather as an armation of faith in the future.6 Charles Pannell told Harold Wilson with obvious sincerity that Martin’s plan had the potential to ‘raise a hope of better times and more spacious days’.7 To appreciate the Whitehall plan, then, it is necessary to remember its mid-1960s context, to appreciate the palpable sense of a new tomorrow represented, for example, by NASA’s Apollo missions and the televisions, many recently installed in British homes, which beamed astonishing images of rocket launches to millions, by the rst computers fed laboriously with punch cards, by the supersonic aircraft Concorde then under development and by the steel and glass shaft of the Post Oce Tower rising to command London’s skyline (Figure 1.4). The latter was opened by Wilson in October 1965, accompanied INTrOducTION 5 on this occasion by his young Postmaster General, Tony Benn; a gure who, in his sixties incarnation as Anthony Wedgwood Benn, was one of the gures most associated with the image of a modern technocratic nation fashioned in a crucible burning with White Heat. We will investigate the Whitehall plan and the notion of White Heat together because the architecture proposed, and the political story of the project’s genesis and demise, simultaneously reinforce and undermine commonplace assumptions about the preoccupations of that time. And the prominent preoccupations of the time help to explain how the Whitehall plan came about and why it was designed like it was. The rest of this introduction will detail the idea of White Heat to colour in the context for the following discussions. Chapter 2, following Pannell’s charming reference to ‘better times 1.4 The Post and more spacious days’, explores the impetus of the plan among civil servants Oce Tower on and politicians and the intrigues surrounding its architect’s appointment. Chapter London’s skyline, designed by Eric 3 examines the so-called ‘components of a plan’, describing the astonishingly Bedford of the wide-ranging proposals made by Martin and his associates. Chapter 4 studies the Ministry of Public architectural ideas at work, examining the intellectual foundations of the Whitehall Building and Works plan in the distinctive science of architectural form promoted by Martin and his colleagues. Chapter 5 reviews what happened to the proposals, unpicking how their implementation – seemingly inevitable for a time – slipped away, lost in a bureaucratic tangle. Chapter 6 outlines the surprising number of proposals that were implemented, many of them behind the façades of the historic buildings, and the signi cant legacies of the plan evident in today’s Whitehall. In a telling reection of our own times, it also describes how part of Whitehall was ‘outsourced’ by the government in 2001, sold to an oshore asset manager from whom it is 6 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL now leased back. We argue that the Whitehall plan had signi cant inuence on the academic discipline of architecture, on architectural culture, on the British construction industry and through its anticipation of digital design. The book is thus structured around the Whitehall plan’s rise and fall: where the project came from; what it was like; why it was like that; what happened to it; and its signi cant but unexpected continuing impact. We set out neither to promote nor condemn the Whitehall plan but rather to explore it as a proposal redolent of its time. Many of its fascinations lie in the details of the story so we will take the space to outline these suciently. We write for a broad audience, which means that specialist political historians and architectural historians may sometimes nd slightly more description here than they would if the book had been written just for them. Our story has parallels with the enterprise of so-called counter-factual history, examining what almost happened. It explains what would have been built had the short but distinctive period of White Heat lasted just a little longer.

WHItE HEat

The term White Heat transformed quickly in the British popular imagination from a catchy slogan suggesting the intended direction of a particular party’s future policy into something that came to encapsulate the momentum of the time. As Dominic Sandbrook’s wide-ranging history of Britain in the 1960s, White Heat, has demonstrated, the term has become a shorthand for a period of British history, suciently molten to cover political, social, economic, cultural, urban and architectural territory. We will introduce several themes here to which later chapters will return. It is worth tracing White Heat back to its source: the annual Labour Party Conference of October 1963, held in the genteel Yorkshire seaside resort of Scarborough. It was unusually signi cant because it was certain to be the nal conference before a general election was to be held – one that promised to put Labour into power after over a decade in the wilderness – and it was the rst to be addressed by Wilson as party leader following the sudden death of Hugh Gaitskell earlier in the year. Gaitskell was on the right of the party and had tried to lead Labour away from its traditional goal of wholesale nationalisation, represented by the totemic Clause IV, Section 4, of Labour’s 1918 constitution, which called for the ‘common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange’. Unfortunately for Gaitskell, this ‘revisionist’ message was not welcomed by a large portion of the party. Wilson retained his predecessor’s belief that the Labour Party needed to change – losing three consecutive general elections was a less-than- subtle hint – but, being a more pragmatic gure, he decided to draw attention away from the problematic issue of nationalisation. Notionally on the left of the party, but actually a centrist whose main goal during his 12 years as Labour leader was simply keeping the party together, Wilson’s rst task was to create a new, vibrant but ultimately unthreatening symbol to represent the Labour Party INTrOducTION 7 of the 1960s. Drawing inspiration from years of involvement with a group of left-leaning scientists8 – a group including gures such as Nobel Prize–winning physicist Patrick Blackett and the inuential scientist-cum-novelist C.P. Snow9 – Wilson decided, rather at the last minute, to use ‘the Science Committee stu’ as the theme of his rst keynote conference speech as Labour leader.10 It was an inspired choice because, unlike the often-divisive content of Gaitskell’s speeches, the theme of scienti c modernisation gave all parts of the Labour Party something rousing to rally around. As Christopher Booker, the journalist and founding editor of the satirical magazine Private Eye, wickedly remarked:

‘Change’, ‘Technology’, ‘Automation’, ‘The Scientific Revolution’ – these were the glittering slogans of the new crusade. No mention of Clause Four or nationalisation or the dead motto of revisionism; the eyes of the faithful were lifted to new hills, misty, far off and shining in the dawn […].11

Wilson’s address raised the morale of the delegates enjoying themselves by the sea. In the most famous section of the speech, he declared:

[…] in all our plans for the future, we are re-defining and we are re-stating our Socialism in terms of the scientific revolution. But that revolution cannot become a reality unless we are prepared to make far-reaching changes in economic and social attitudes which permeate our whole system of society. The Britain that is going to be forged in the white heat of this revolution will be no place for restrictive practices or for outmoded methods on either side of industry.12

Later in the speech, Wilson added portentously that ‘in the Cabinet room and the boardroom alike, those charged with the control of our aairs must be ready to think and speak in the language of our scienti c age’.13 Not only was Wilson’s technophile address received rapturously in the conference hall, it also resonated with large sections of the press. It chimed with a public growing familiar with ‘miniaturisation, transistorisation, jet and rocket travel, wonder-drugs and new domestic chemistries, television and the computer’.14 Indeed, some Conservative ministers quietly acknowledged their admiration of it.15 Wilson’s rather mangled phrase which came to represent the spirit of the speech – ‘the white heat of the scienti c revolution’ – quickly became part of the political lexicon.16 White Heat also found resonance beyond Labour’s traditional working class supporters, with Wilson continuing Gaitskell’s quest to attract those growing numbers of more auent workers to the Labour banner, many of whom had abandoned the party in the 1950s.17 As David Mackie noted, the mood generated by White Heat transcended party politics, successful with ‘a great many of those uncommitted, unideological, largely unpolitical voters on whom Wilson had long ago set his accurate eye’.18 The idea of White Heat is thus linked inextricably with Wilson, not least in the period that he spent as Leader of the Opposition when he was regarded by many as ‘a genuinely shining gure’ (Figure 1.5).19 Wilson’s dazzle in the autumn of 1963 shone all the more by contrast with the rather less coruscating incumbent Conservative government. Having been in power 8 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

since 1951, traces of decay were clearly evident. Harold Macmillan, who had led the Conservatives deftly following the Suez crisis of the mid- 1950s, was on the point of resignation. He was struggling with his health and his usual air of insouciance was fading fast. His handling of the infamous Profumo aair – where he lost his Secretary of State for War to a scandal involving a spicy mix of high society, sex, spies and suicide – became seen as the most notorious evidence of this corrosion. Failure to gain entry to the European Economic Community was another good example, if less fruity. In the words of Sandbrook, by 1963, the government had become widely regarded as ‘anachronistic, befuddled and generally incompetent’.20 This impression was ampli ed by a generation of satirists, such as Peter Cook and David Frost, who were then making their mark on television through programmes such as Beyond the Fringe and That Was The Week That Was. Of one episode of the latter, 1.5. Harold broadcast in September 1963, Tony Benn recorded in his diary that the programme Wilson, the herald was ‘savage and brilliant in parts […] Not a single anti-Labour joke was made and of White Heat, even I wondered if it had gone too far’.21 The replacement of Macmillan as Prime in 1965 with a Minister by Sir Alec Douglas-Home, an aristocrat with a country estate the size of a telephone at his right hand small county, was a further gift to the satirists, failing to change the view of many that the Conservative government was seriously out of touch. Wilson made the most of this situation, using every opportunity to contrast the modern evocations of White Heat with the prevalent image of the Conservatives as amateur relics of an earlier era. Wilson dubbed Douglas-Home, who came to power only days after the White Heat speech, ‘an elegant anachronism’ in this ‘ruthlessly competitive, scienti c, technical, industrial age’.22 Douglas-Home’s elevation to the leadership through the mysterious process then used by the Conservative Party for appointing a new leader – via opaque consultations with senior gures in the party, the so-called ‘magic circle’23­ – was another political gift which Wilson was not shy to exploit. In January 1964, Wilson developed his technocratic theme in another famous speech, this time in Birmingham, in which he declared: ‘We are living in the jet-age but we are governed by an Edwardian establishment mentality’.24 Wilson suggested that the new year, an election year, oered an opportunity for INTrOducTION 9 transformation: ‘A chance to sweep away the grouse-moor conception of the Tory leadership and re t Britain with a new image, a new con dence’.25 Wilson suggested that it would take the election of a new socialist government to instill this new con dence, one that would nally make extinct the ‘amiable coelacanths no longer suited to the waters which lap the shores of the world in which we are living’.26 Wilson exploited to the full the idea of a future Labour government heralding the dawn of ‘a new Britain’ of modern professionalism, in contrast to the tweedy image of the tired Conservative administration.27 But the role that the Conservatives played in encouraging modernisation at the end of the 1950s and the start of the 1960s is a widely overlooked aspect of the White Heat phenomenon. Despite more than a handful of Bertie Wooster-ish characters, the Cabinets of both Macmillan and Douglas-Home contained a number of ministers with strong modernising tendencies. Indeed, notwithstanding the self-manufactured image of unperturbed Edwardianism that Macmillan sought to portray, he was, in reality, a complex individual. Although he certainly enjoyed his upper crust connections,28 he had been something of a Conservative rebel in the 1930s when MP for the constituency of Stockton-on-Tees in the industrial North East of England, famously writing a book, The Middle Way, which called for centralised planning and economic nationalism. Even Clement Attlee, Labour Prime Minister during the formation of the Welfare State, suggested that Macmillan was ‘by far the most radical man I’ve known in politics […] He was a real left-wing radical in his social, human and economic thinking’.29 Anthony Sampson summed up the Macmillan enigma thus: ‘half an intellectual, half a would-be aristocrat, […] beneath his tired Edwardian façade he nurtured strong radical instincts and a fascination with ideas’.30 Even Wilson, in retirement, acknowledged that, although Macmillan had the ‘style of the Edwardian age’, behind that facade of nonchalance was hidden ‘a real professional’.31 Turning to Macmillan’s unambiguously aristocratic successor, Douglas-Home – the Earl of Home until he renounced his peerage to become Prime Minister – one of the more surprising ndings of this book is clear support for Peter Hennessy’s discovery of ‘a modernizer lurking beneath the hacking jacket’.32 There are plenty of examples of proto-White Heat Conservative policies, many of which were responses to the failure of Britain’s economic performance to match that of her European neighbours. The emphasis on planning – in particular indicative planning (that is, setting targets for growth, which was to become a central trope of the White Heat discourse) – was evident well before the Scarborough speech. It is illustrated most signi cantly with the establishment, in 1961, of the National Economic Development Council (NEDC, or ‘Neddy’), which aimed to emulate the spirit of the French Commissariat général du Plan through regular meetings of industrialists, trade unionists, Cabinet ministers and other experts. Jim Tomlinson highlights other policies in a similarly technocratic vein, such as the better application of research and development resources, the expansion of technical education and a greater emphasis on regional development.33 Furthermore, Britain’s rst Minister of Science was appointed not by Wilson but by Macmillan.34 Thus, even Tony Benn has been keen to correct the lasting myth that the Labour Party enjoyed a monopoly on the political application of science and technology during this period, arguing 10 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL that it ‘is so closely linked in the public mind with Harold Wilson’s famous 1963 Scarborough speech that most people have forgotten that a grandiose adherence to technology characterised the Macmillan government’s thinking’.35 Indeed, the planning of potent White Heat symbols which are now rmly associated with Wilson, like the Post Oce Tower and Concorde, took place during the Macmillan years.36 It was also Macmillan who appointed Richard Beeching to write his inuential report supporting the closure of many railway lines and stations, all in the name of modernisation and greater eciency.37 Similarly, it was during this time that the Doric arch at Euston Station was famously demolished.38 To the Victorian Society, the pressure group established – signi cantly – in 1958 to protect increasingly threatened examples of signi cant Victorian and Edwardian architecture, Macmillan was not regarded an elegant throwback to a more genteel age but was rather ‘the villain’ directly responsible for the brutal ‘Euston Murder’.39 It was with the Conservatives under Macmillan, vigorously supported by Lord Home, as Foreign Secretary, that the decision was taken to demolish Gilbert Scott’s Foreign Oce building and, subsequently, to ask Leslie Martin to refashion Whitehall in a modern manner. In short, the image of ‘amiable coelacanths’ did not always t the reality. Despite such evidence to the contrary, the immediate pre-Wilson Conservative governments are not, generally, associated with the 1960s modernisation agenda. This failure is not because the Conservatives lacked suitable ideas, but rather because they tended to look rather uncomfortable and unconvincing when speaking the language of White Heat.40 Wilson, however, was uent in the patois and although, as will be seen, many of the White Heat-inuenced policies his governments introduced were not successful, it was Wilson who came to personify 1960s-style modernisation. One of the most powerful words in the new language that Wilson championed was ‘purpose’. He spoke, with typical boy scout-ish fervour,41 of a future socialist administration ‘applying a sense of purpose to our national life: economic purpose, social purpose, and moral purpose’, explaining that by ‘purpose’ he meant ‘technical skill – be it the skill of the manager, a designer, a craftsman, an engineer, a transport worker, a miner, an architect, a nuclear physicist, a doctor, a nurse, or a social worker’.42 Wilson’s emphasis on the importance of ‘planning’ has already been noted, which he regarded, rather vaguely, as a means for providing a basis of ‘purposeful unity’.43 Another White Heat trope – one particularly relevant for this book – was the phrase ‘cities of the future’ (Figure 1.6). It was much in evidence, for example, in a speech Wilson gave in Leeds in February 1964 on the topic of ‘Housing and Planning’. He promised that ‘we are going to create a great breakthrough in science and technology – not for further advances in the techniques of thermo- nuclear destruction, but to construct the cities of the future, cities worthy of our people’.44 The speech ends similarly. After promising that ‘we shall avoid the sordid, dingy achievements of a century ago’,45 Wilson concluded stirringly:

And we shall not succeed in this giant task unless we can call into action all our people – architects and planners, local authority representatives and traffic engineers, sociologists and town planners – to build the cities of the future in which people live a satisfying life and realise to the full the talents and potentialities within them.46 INTrOducTION 11

Leslie Martin and his associates’ plan to recon gure Whitehall can be regarded as a de nitive example of such ideas about the ‘cities of the future’ although – to stress the point made earlier – it was actually the Conservative government that gave them the opportunity. It was during the early months of Martin’s commission, to which he was appointed in April 1964, that White Heat – at least as articulated by Wilson – was reaching the zenith of its popularity, with the Labour Party then enjoying a healthy lead over the Conservatives in the opinion polls of almost 20 per cent.47 However, it needs to be highlighted that, even before Labour secured a very narrow electoral victory in October 1964, the public’s ardour for Wilson and his White Heat rhetoric had already started to cool. Despite Douglas-Home’s diculties in presenting himself in a modern fashion – failings of which he was only too aware himself48 – his old-fashioned decorousness was becoming more of an asset, particularly when compared to Wilson’s sometimes less appealing artfulness, and the Conservatives almost staged a remarkable recovery at the general election. It was a major spurt in support for the Liberal Party, under the breezy leadership of Jo Grimond, combined with peculiarities of the British voting system, which secured the narrow Labour victory. Indeed, fewer people voted for Labour in 1964 than they had in the general election of 1959, and, as Sandbrook points out, though ‘Wilson’s supporters often claimed that his modernising style and message had won it, […] in reality there was little evidence that this was the case’.49

1.6 The cities of the future: a 1963 proposal for the comprehensive redevelopment of Piccadilly Circus in London designed by William Holford, featuring a ‘three level pedestrian system‘. The statue of Eros is relocated to the centre of the Circus. The neo-classical façade far left – the end of Regent Street – is one of the few points of orientation. 12 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

This growing unease with aspects of White Heat was also felt by some natural Labour supporters in the few months before the 1964 election. For example, at this time, Peter Hall – early in a career that would lead to international renown as an expert on planning and urbanism – edited a selection of discussions about the direction certain policies would take should the Labour Party form the next government.50 Written by a variety of professional experts with connections to Labour, although the tone is generally upbeat, a nagging sense of anxiety haunts many of the pages even before the party’s victory. For example, the concluding chapter, written by Hall himself, described the heroic new ‘image’ of the Labour Party as one infused with ‘a spirit of ruthless rationality, a determination to solve problems by the cool application of scienti c principles’.51 He expressed serious doubt about whether, once in Oce, the Labour Party was capable of translating the bold White Heat ‘image’ into practice. The diculties in making concrete these abstract ambitions, Hall argued, were ‘colossal’ and, moreover, he suggested that there were simply ‘not the people in the country capable of doing the job’.52 He also made the prescient point that, to establish the policies associated with White Heat – including those designed to improve a precarious economic situation – would require, in the rst place, a period of sustained economic growth. Hall’s pessimism was well founded. White Heat degenerated rather quickly from the slogan that best encapsulated the promise of a fresh start for a ‘New Britain’ to become, in Richard Coopey’s words, ‘somewhat of a rhetorical albatross’; a promise that never looked close to being ful lled.53 Shortly after the fall of the Wilson government in 1970 – in a volume titled pointedly The Decade of Disillusion: British Politics in the Sixties – David McKie noted that, ‘with pleasing symmetry, though with a great deal of truly unpleasant anguish and pain, the late sixties were to see many of the ne political enthusiasms of the early years dwindle and die away’.54 Indeed, despite a general election victory in 1966 which secured the Labour government a more comfortable majority in the Commons, few governments have suered greater denigration than those led by Harold Wilson. Furthermore, much of this criticism comes from Labour’s own ranks, with David Marquand one of many to popularise the theme that this particular era was one of ‘lost innocence, of hopes betrayed’.55 Indeed, the maker of the White Heat speech himself is often regarded as being at the heart of this widespread disillusionment. As Mark Lawson wrote in his ctionalised account of the Wilson years:

Was there another politician who had come into office with so heavy an investment of hope from the public but left with that same account in such deep deficit? At first, Wilson had seemed to have it all: youth, energy, rhetoric, ideas. But a man to whom voters had given their belief had come to seem impossible to believe.56

A classic example of hopes betrayed during the Wilson governments was that of the Department of Economic Aairs (DEA), rst established following the general election in 1964, whose emphasis on planning chimed with interests in modelling and quantitative techniques among academics and professionals in science, geography, urban planning and architecture. The story of the DEA was, in INTrOducTION 13 the bitter words of its rst Secretary of State, George Brown, ‘the record of a social revolution that failed’.57 Brown – a talented politician, but one who could famously hold a grudge much better than he could hold a drink – went on to claim that the DEA ‘was meant to be – and might have been – the greatest contribution to the recasting of the machinery of government to meet the needs of the twentieth century’. But it failed partly, in Brown’s view, ‘because it was betrayed by some of those who pledged to see it through’.58 With a relish for the potential of long-term planning typical of White Heat, the DEA was expressly created to counter the short- termism that both Brown and Wilson believed was the hallmark of the Treasury. In the words of the DEA’s rst Permanent Secretary, the central theme was ‘the recognition of the need to make rational choices about the development of various sectors of the economy, and to devise policies which would operate on individual parts of the economy’.59 Eectively the DEA60 – as with the Conservatives’ NEDC – was an attempt at incorporating economic planners in the ocial policy-making process, the twist in Labour’s experiment being that this process took place within a de ned government department. The highlight of the short-lived DEA was the National Plan that Brown launched excitedly on 16 September 1965. It pledged to cover ‘all aspects of the country’s development for the next ve years’ and listed 39 speci c actions designed to enable a 25 per cent growth in the British economy from 1964 to 1970.61 It was wildly optimistic. As Hennessy has pointed out, the British economy was weak, undermined by a highly unfavourable balance of payments, and lacked the wherewithal ‘for converting “parochial” wish-lists masquerading as plans into economic, industrial and social reality’.62 Worse was to follow in 1966 when this economic weakness – a situation inherited from the previous government63 – provided the backdrop to a series of damaging attacks on sterling by currency speculators. The government faced the choice of either devaluing the pound or introducing severe deationary measures in an attempt to salvage it. The latter course was chosen, and the National Plan was one of the rst casualties. Indeed, as Roger Opie expressed it, the government’s decision, ‘destroyed not only growth, but also the Plan for growth and the very idea of planning for growth’.64 This action also did little to prevent devaluation either, which occurred – further weakening the government’s reputation for eective economic management – the following year. Without its raison d’être, the National Plan, the DEA was mortally wounded and, with few caring, Wilson quietly dispatched the whole department in 1969. The story of the DEA, in which a new innovation was defeated through a combination of over-ambition, an unfortunate economic situation, poor institutional design, and departmental rivalry (in this case with The Treasury) is perhaps the most famous example of White Heat going cold. Another example concerns Wilson’s plans to modernise the British Civil Service in line with the White Heat resolve to ‘professionalise’ Britain. In February 1966, Wilson announced the establishment of a departmental committee of inquiry to examine the structure, recruitment and management of the Civil Service, based in Whitehall, on the assumption that it lacked a suitably professional ethos. Indeed, one of the most quoted sections of the report that followed this inquiry, known as the Fulton Report, accused the existing Civil 14 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

Service of being ‘too much based on the philosophy of the amateur (or “generalist” or “all-rounder”)’.65 Though the recommendations of the report did provoke some modest reform, it was again a combination of factors, including ministerial apathy and Civil Service obduracy, which led those keen on substantial change down the path towards disappointment. Indeed, Norman Hunt, a key member of the Fulton Committee, became notorious for his relentless lament for ‘the lost reforms’ of the 1960s.66 Less well known but equally radical plans to transform the Welfare State followed a similar path; one which led, for those committed to change, to considerable frustration and regret.67 And – as later chapters will illustrate – a similarly dismal fate awaited Leslie Martin and his associates’ plans for a coherent ‘National and Government Centre’ for the British capital.68 It would be wrong, however, to suggest that the idea of White Heat associated with the 1964–70 administrations of Harold Wilson resulted solely in disappointment. Following a period when commentators of various political hues lined up to kick Wilson,69 some revision has occurred since the early 1990s – encouraged by the measured biographies of Ben Pimlott and Philip Zeigler –­ and the constraints under which Wilson and his government operated have been made more visible. Furthermore, as Peter Dorey has noted, the failures in the economic sphere have, to some extent, unfairly obscured the perceived successes in other elds, such as constitutional and social reform.70 More speci c successes associated strongly with White Heat have been also highlighted, such as – after a rocky start – the Ministry of Technology (MinTech) which eventually became ‘the most comprehensive production ministry Britain has ever had’71 and the Open University, which, through the development of distance learning, provided opportunities for many thousands to enter the often-closed world of higher education. Despite initial mockery, the Open University – the ‘University of the Air’ as Wilson originally dubbed it72 – proved ‘a brilliantly original and highly ambitious institution which took the ideals of social equality and equality of opportunity more seriously than any other part of the British education system’.73 It was certainly one of the achievements of which Wilson himself was most proud.74 Furthermore, with regard to the much derided economic aspects of White Heat, from the perspective of the early 1990s, Pimlott anticipated that, following the conspicuous failure of the ideology of the unbridled market, favourable attention might again be paid to ‘the “white heat” approach with its stress on training and government-led investment’.75 The recent economic crisis sparked by the unfortunate activities of some foolishly unfettered banks suggests that not enough heed was paid to Pimlott’s prediction – even by post- Wilson Labour governments. It could be that, as O’Hara and Parr have suggested, ‘rather than being a “failure” or a “success”, Wilson was ahead of his time’.76

WHItE HEat, POpUlaR CUltURE aNd ARcHItEctURE

As we suggested above, White Heat has become a shorthand for various aspects of British political and cultural life in the mid-1960s. In cultural terms, it is associated with the lively output of a bright new generation of creatives. Initially at least, INTrOducTION 15 the rhetoric of White Heat praised youth and excitement, centred on the studios, stages and garrets of the capital. New talent spilled out of London’s art schools in particular, reinvigorating not just the elds of painting and sculpture but also pop music, fashion, advertising, satire, photography and entertainment. The products of this cultural boom – by the Rolling Stones, David Hockney, Mary Quant and Ken Loach to name a few famous examples – are still celebrated, performed, displayed, worn and traded worldwide. The American journalist John Crosby wrote on 30 April 1965 in the Daily Telegraph colour supplement – itself a fresh phenomenon – that London was ‘where the action is, the gayest, most uninhibited – and in a wholly new, very modern sense – the most coolly elegant city in the world’.77 Booker expanded this point, claiming that, by August 1965, the month after Leslie Martin’s plan for Whitehall was published:

England had been overtaken by nothing less than a social ‘revolution’. And that London itself, as the centre of this phenomenon, with its suddenly risen legions of pop singers and pop artists, its fashionable young dress designers and interior decorators and fashion photographers, its discotheques nightly crowded with Beatles and Rolling Stones, its hundreds of casinos, its new National Theatre and its daring young playwrights and daring young film-makers and daring strip-tease clubs, with its skyline dominated by the gaunt outlines of new glass- and-concrete towers – all set against a timeless background of Rolls Royces and Changing the Guard at Buckingham Palace and the swans on the lake of St. James’ Park – had been transformed almost overnight into ‘the most swinging city in the world’.78

There was a sense, felt acutely by many young people in so-called ‘Swinging London’, that the Britain of 1965 had emerged from post-war austerity and was, at long last, on the brink of a brighter future. The media celebrities of the age – pop stars like John Lennon and Mick Jagger, actors like Michael Caine and Terence Stamp, photographer David Bailey and fashion-models Jean Shrimpton and, a little later, Twiggy – suggested that class was becoming less of a barrier to success in Wilson’s Britain.79 Booker proposed that the cultural image of the era had three facets: one of ‘“youth’’, “vitality”, “creativity”, “originality”, “life” and “excitement”, a second of ‘‘classnessness”, and one more of “revolt” against “stuy”, “old-fashioned”, “bourgeois convention”’.80 These creative dimensions of White Heat have been characterised as a particular moment in British culture: where the established world of the well-heeled amateur appeared to be in retreat, challenged by the dynamic, purposeful, ‘meritocratic’81 and fashionably dressed young modernisers, mirroring the recent replacement of Macmillan and Douglas-Home’s ‘Edwardians’ by Wilson’s self-styled representatives of the ‘jet-age’.82 There are some important quali cations to this popular image of youthful, dynamic, classless creatives bursting onto the British cultural ‘scene’. First, while Wilson seemed to be the political gure most adept with the language of modernity, the cultural landscape of 1965 had, again, been forming during the Macmillan years. As the poet Philip Larkin famously pronounced, sexual intercourse started one happy day sometime between 2 November 1960 – the close of the famous trial that allowed the unexpurgated legal publication in the United Kingdom of 16 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

D.H Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover, to the consternation of the prosecuting council who felt that ‘wives and servants’ must not be able to see it – and 22 March 1963 – the release date of The Beatles’ rst album Please Please Me. Second, as Sandbrook highlights, even by the mid- 1960s, when the country was said to be ‘swinging’ vigorously, not everybody felt part of the achingly hip ‘New Britain’: ‘in truth, most people remained untouched by the swinging “social revolution” that was supposed to be shattering the old boundaries and creating a new class’.83 Young Londoners had a rather dierent cultural experience from most residents of Dundee, Sunderland or Swansea. Indeed, for many recent immigrants to the United Kingdom, enticed from the former colonies to provide a ow of cheap labour to British industry and frequently treated with racist condescension, it must have seemed too obviously to be white heat. To illustrate the limits of the new culture, Sandbrook notes that the United Kingdom’s top-selling album of 1965 was not by The Beatles – or the more edgy 1.7 Centre Point, Rolling Stones or rawer-sounding The Who – but was instead the soundtrack of designed by Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Sound Of Music.84 ‘Edelweiss’, he reminds us, as well as Richard Seifert ‘My Generation’ has a place on the soundtrack of this particular ‘revolution’. There is another quali cation too, concerning the place of architects among the eervescent youth of White Heat. In 1958, architecture was established in Britain as a profession requiring a minimum of seven years of study.85 If that were not long enough, then – in the mid-1960s, like today – many ‘young’ architects only established themselves in practice a few years after their quali cation, a time-lag illustrated by the occasional competition for new talent run by London’s Architect’s Journal named ‘40 Under 40’. So, while recent graduates of Britain’s ‘swinging’ art schools were achieving notoriety in various cultural elds in 1965, most of their architect contemporaries had little opportunity to exert signi cant inuence over the country’s cityscape until the 1970s. A handful of young ‘paper architects’ of the ‘swinging’ generation did achieve cult fame quickly, like the Archigram group (their name combining ‘architecture’ with ‘telegram’, that tool of rapid modern communication), whose Roneo-duplicated fanzines remain objects of fascination for historians.86 And there were plenty of exciting new British architects getting noticed – by Martin, for example, as one of the decade’s foremost architectural INTrOducTION 17 competition jurors87 – like Stirling and Gowan, and Ahrends, Burton and Koralek. However, these architects were older than Lennon, Quant or Hockney, or at least old enough for it to make a dierence.88 Indeed, many of the buildings now most associated with White Heat in Britain – the architecture of (Colonel) Richard Seifert, for example, or John Madin in Birmingham89 – came from the drawing boards of oces whose principals were signi cantly older and well established (Figure 1.7). Buildings by these architects and others like them, associated with the idea of White Heat, are now frequently vili ed and misunderstood outside architectural circles. ‘The rst, and most awkward, fact faced by the historian’ writing about post- war architecture in Britain, argued Adrian Forty in 1995, ‘is that the architecture of this period is widely thought to have been a failure’.90 It is appreciated very dierently to that of other European countries, he suggested:

In the [British] popular perception of post-war architecture, […] different senses of failure – aesthetic, technical, cultural, modernist – are muddled up together and not easily distinguished. There is, however, one feature that we can distinguish from all this confusion – and that is that the label of failure has been reserved almost exclusively for works built by the state. Although there have been some equally spectacular failures in private sector architecture, and many of the criticisms of modernism apply equally well to non-state works, these have hardly registered in general consciousness […] Why this should be is no secret, for architectural modernism in Britain has seemed (whether it really did so or not) always to have ridden on the shoulders of the welfare state, and so in turn was honoured in the welfare state’s prime, then maligned when the welfare state was condemned as anachronistic.91

Broadly, these attitudes still prevail.92 Like many criticisms of the Wilson governments in general, the ongoing and widespread denigrations of 1960s architecture in Britain have tended to lack nuance if not vituperation. In the revised 1992 ‘Foreword’ to his 1969 bestseller, The Neophiliacs, Christopher Booker characteristically lets rip:

If I had to cite just one instance of the destructive power of the Sixties dream it might be the way we became so excited by the vision of sweeping away large areas of our old cities and replacing them with vast new concrete housing estates and immense towers. When we look at the architectural chaos and inhuman desolation left by that time, we are seeing at least one aspect of the Sixties dream the nightmarish consequences of which few would any longer deny.93

Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton has been no less scathing. In a chapter, titled tellingly ‘The Architecture of Leninism’, Scruton lambasted the contemporaneous enthusiasms for pursuing rationality and expressing function in architecture.94 In particular, Scruton aimed his sights at the Centre for Land Use and Built Form Studies at the University of Cambridge, founded by Leslie Martin in 1967, whose intellectual agenda emerged in no small part from the Whitehall designs. Scruton was highly critical of the work by Martin, and his successor and collaborator on the Whitehall plan Lionel March, to ‘reduce architecture to mathematics’, a process that, in Scruton’s view: 18 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

involves a fragmentation of architectural thought, and stands in the way of any serious solution to the problems with which it pretends to deal. Yet it is capable of practical application: the results of which can be seen everywhere, and they are disastrous.95

Angrily – if not, perhaps, accurately96 – Scruton found Trellick Tower in Notting Hill (Figure 1.8), designed by Ernö Gold nger and constructed between 1967 and 1972, to be the embodiment of this thinking: a ‘contemptuous conception of life’s value’.97 It is high-rise social housing – the most readily identi ed symbol of the White Heat era, prominent on the skylines of many British cities – which has come to stand in the popular imagination for ‘modern architecture from the sixties’. And its poor reputation has helped to make that phrase pejorative in the United Kingdom. Some historians suggest that modern architecture was a rude interruption in what would otherwise be a satisfying continuity from past to present. They have promoted a particular vocabulary which emphasises modern architects’ ‘prejudice’ against the buildings of the Victorians, writing about architectural ‘mutilation’ and ‘wanton destruction’, suggesting that ‘blinkers’ were ‘imposed by’ the post-war age. Their rhetoric has dramatised the stories of ‘ ne’ historic structures whose ‘fate’ was ‘sealed’ by ‘philistinism’, of ‘magni cent landmarks’ subsequently ‘saved’ by a ‘revolt’ in ‘public opinion’.98 The tendency to paint modernism as especially aggressive is to forget that Victorian architects and promoters were often more aggressive in their large-scale redevelopments and so-called ‘restoration’ of historic buildings.99 It is also to forget that, at the time of White Heat, it was highly ornamented Victorian architecture in particular, like that of the Foreign Oce, which was understood as excessive and distasteful, and was seen as the rude interruption in the continuity of architectural history. This continuity was appreciated – following the story of Nikolaus Pevsner’s book The Pioneers of Modern Design – as a journey from the orderly perfections of the classical past to Palladian neo-classicism, to the beginnings of functional expression in Jugendstil, Art Nouveau and nineteenth- century engineering, to the modern pioneers of the Arts-and-Crafts movement and nally to the mainstream production of modern architecture.100 In the United Kingdom, ‘modern architecture from the sixties’ is now largely, and dismissively, associated with high-rise social housing: slab and point blocks likened to similar buildings in the communist East.101 Much of this architecture is criticised, rightly, because of the failure of ambitious new building technologies and the diculties people faced in comprehending the shared public space that was often made between buildings and on access decks.102 Its vili cation was sealed in Britain by the gas explosion at the Ronan Point tower in East London in 1968 which killed four people, alongside the widely publicised failure of projects overseas such as the Pruitt-Igoe blocks at St Louis, Missouri, demolished in 1972, and the inuential pronouncements of Prince Charles in the 1980s.103 Such architectural failures are often associated with the condemnation of White Heat, with the loss of optimism which followed the devaluation of the currency and the related loss of faith in technocratic politicians and professional experts. However, there is a tendency to tar the whole decade’s architecture with the same brush, to INTrOducTION 19 assume that the only buildings built were substandard social housing blocks and that they were instantly loathed. Yet, the widespread building of new public housing in Britain followed the huge destruction, displacement and homelessness caused by war, a growth in population whose housing needs had been deferred by wartime, and a desire to clear housing perceived as substandard. In the post-war era, there was a concerted aim to end cramped conditions, to bring to everyone what was felt to be a decent modern life with: mains water and sanitation, by no means universally available in pre- war social housing; improved space standards; clean, reliable, low maintenance heating; big windows providing plenty of natural light; green open space between buildings; and a more healthy environment in contrast to the cramped ats and houses, often with many people sharing a room, which had characterised the accommodation of 1.8 Trellick Tower previous generations. Not only were these priorities popularly welcomed, so too in West London, was the freshness of modern architecture (Figure 1.9). It is hard, now, to imagine designed by Ernö how dreary Britain’s post-war cities looked. Bomb gaps were common and many Gold nger of the surviving structures were shored-up with temporary props and makeshift repairs. Buildings were dirty, soot-blackened from the polluted atmosphere which was common before the Clean Air Act of 1956 and before central heating widely replaced coal res. It is, perhaps, no coincidence that leading post-war photographers, like Eric de Maré at the Architectural Press and the Picture Post’s famous Bert Hardy, tended to depict urban scenes in black-and-white images that emphasised dark contrasts, grainy textures and long melancholic shadows.104 In this context, modern architecture was perceived by many as not only bright, spacious and generous, it represented a radical and welcome departure from what was then perceived to be the drab cityscape of the pre-war past.105 It is also now commonly assumed that ‘modern architecture from the sixties’ stood for a state-led, top-down regeneration found guilty of indulging the 20 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

1.9 The freshness of new modern architecture. Hide Tower ats, Hide Place London SW1, designed for Westminster City Council and completed in 1961 to designs by Stillman and Eastwick-Field un-tested radical ideas of elite professionals.106 But it also stood for the social and artistic ambitions of its public- and private-sector promoters and designers, who were less concerned than their predecessors about dignifying class and wealth with ne materials and grand proportions. Rather, they sought to achieve, and express architecturally, a technically advanced and socially conscious society. ‘Being modern means being up to date’, writes Richard Weston, ‘but being a Modernist is an armation of faith in the tradition of the new’. This idea, he suggests, ‘emerged as the creative credo of progressive artists in the early years of the twentieth century’,107 characterised by, rst:

the promise of new freedoms in arranging both plans and facades to create […] the eternal qualities of architecture – the “masterly, correct and magnificent play of volumes brought together in light” experienced as an architectural promenade INTrOducTION 21

through the building. Secondly, it is an architectural system not a prescriptive style […] Thirdly, it aims to exploit machine-age technology and industrial production […] And, finally, it gives compelling formal expression to the New Spirit of modernity […] You can see over, under and through it, and its forms subtly evoke that most modern of machines, the aeroplane.108

These aspirations are to be found in a variety of modern architectures which, not least in the 1960s, comprised far more than high-rise social housing. Some of the world’s most celebrated public buildings were produced in that decade: Coventry Cathedral, for example, designed by Basil Spence and consecrated in 1962; and Sydney Opera House, designed by Jorn Utzøn, whose construction started on site in 1963. On a more everyday level in Britain, numerous modern oces, shopping centres, factories, educational establishments, libraries and theatres were constructed across the country in the post-war era, some successful and others less successful.109 Such buildings were frequently imagined in terms of more open and more ecient spaces; qualities considered instrumental to the new age. It was this modern architecture which Wilson had in mind when he championed the ‘cities of the future’, where ‘modern science, modern technology, modern industry’ would create a new urban Britain, free from poverty and squalor.110 At the time of White Heat, this was an architectural vision of the future shared among most politicians, professionals and members of the general public. Indeed, ‘architects, builders, architectural publishers, ministries, developers and local authorities reached a near-consensus that modernism was the one true path for British architecture’.111 Many participants felt that they were contributing to the implementation of the new ‘cities of the future’ for the public good. David Kynaston argues that the built environment was one area in which ‘the modern had arrived with a vengeance’.112 As Noel Annan remarks, ‘perhaps no profession faced the future with such con dence as did the architects’.113 Debates about ‘modern architecture from the sixties’ are no longer a matter simply of journalistic and academic interest. They have resulted in the ongoing and widespread erasure of modern architecture from the fabric of British cities; sometimes because of technological failures and lack of maintenance, sometimes because of the increasing economic value of the sites they occupy, but often imagined as the cleansing of undesirable edi ces. Owen Hatherley has written about this phenomenon. He recalls J.B. Priestley’s pre-war characterisation of three Britains: rst, the patchwork of elds and stone walls of the agrarian landscape; second, the brick and iron landscape of the industrial revolution; and, third, the 1930s landscape of cinemas, arterial roads and Tudorbethan suburbia. To these three, he adds Britains number four and ve: ‘the country of the postwar settlement, of council estates, Arndale centres and campus universities’; and ‘the post-1979 [Britain] of business parks, Barratt homes, riverside “stunning developments”, out-of-town shopping and distribution centres’.114 ‘The ambiguous remains of the fourth’ Britain, he claims, is marked by ‘the fth’s frequent determination to wipe out any architectural trace of it, just as it tries to decimate the remnants of its collectivist politics’.115 While Hatherley’s turn of phrase might seem melodramatic, he is right that post-war modern buildings have been removed disproportionately 22 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL from prominent sites in British provincial cities in recent years.116 The landscape of today’s Britain may have embraced White Heat in the burgeoning of ubiquitous technologies – motorways, airports, mobile phone, broadband and CCTV infrastructures, plus white goods, personal computing and home entertainment systems – but the expression of such technologies in architecture, or the expression of the supposedly meritocratic and technocratic future their early manifestations once represented, seems to have become more dicult to accept. Leslie Martin did much to validate and consolidate modern architecture in universities, in the professions, in government and in the United Kingdom at large. A committee man active in professional circles117 as well as a designer, academic, researcher and teacher, he was one of Britain’s foremost architects at the time of White Heat and the Whitehall plan.118 By no means a member of the ‘swinging’ generation – instead a quiet and rather patrician gure born in 1908, a scholar119 whose hobby was cultivating rare breeds of British fruit tree120 – he was nonetheless an early proponent of modern architecture in the United Kingdom. With his partner Sadie Speight, he designed some of the rst modernist houses outside London in the 1930s. In the 1940s and 1950s, he became inuential in the adoption of modernism in the British mainstream: through his role as Deputy Chief Architect and then Chief Architect at the London County Council, which became Britain’s largest architectural oce;121 through his participation in various professional committees; through his inuence over architectural education; and even through occasional talks about architecture on BBC radio’s ‘third programme’, complete with associated articles in the Corporation’s weekly magazine The Listener.122 Although he was no household name even at the peak of his professional ascendance in the mid-sixties, he was highly respected among fellow architects. Martin is now surprisingly absent, however, from twentieth-century architectural histories except for acknowledgements of his role in the design of the Royal Festival Hall. While those who knew him, among whom he inspired immense respect, have celebrated him as a ‘colossus’123 of the architectural world, his work is otherwise largely forgotten. Today’s prominent architectural historians – many of them looking across the Atlantic from America – tend to prefer the avant-gardes which most presciently anticipate the next avant-garde. In consequence, aside perhaps from Le Corbusier and his last works, it seems that the celebrated architectural heroes of the 1960s are most often those whose radical ideas chimed with the student movements at the end of the decade: Archigram, for example, with their brightly coloured pop-up events which would save us from stodgy squareness; the Situationists whose megastructures were intended to overcome class-ridden divisions in cities; and Alison and Peter Smithson, whose later work is seen as tuning modernism back in to everyday life.124 In this context, Leslie Martin is imagined as part of a stuy establishment whose clammy hand on power and patronage the next generation sought to overthrow. But it is surely only in this context that Martin would seem conservative. Another group of architectural historians, usually British-based and often rather aristocratic, paint Martin and his contemporaries instead as the vandals of the sixties, all-too-ready to ‘destroy’ Britain’s distinguished ‘traditional’ buildings and the romantic streetscape of its historic towns and villages. INTrOducTION 23

This account is also rather simplistic: Chapter 2 highlights Martin’s caution over the demolition of the Foreign Oce, and Chapter 4 will show how he worked to discredit high-rise solutions in favour of lower-rise alternatives at a time when the government was eectively subsidising tall buildings. Nevertheless, to these historians, Martin was not part of a bright modern future but instead part of a dystopian fall. The anger of historians like these rst came to prominence through pressure groups such as the Victorian Society, which got noticed at the time of the Macmillan government’s decision to demolish the Euston Arch in 1961. That group’s formation indicates that, while many professionals and members of the public were embracing the modern, not everyone in Britain was convinced by rapid technological change. However, it was not until the later Wilson years that dissatisfaction with modern architecture became more widespread; a sense of disenchantment made ercer through the exposure towards the end of the decade of many examples of cost-cutting and unfortunate alliances between crooked professionals, contractors and local councillors – embodied most famously by T. Dan Smith in Newcastle whose practices became a by-word for corruption.125 Interestingly, as will be developed more fully in Chapter 5, some ministers in Wilson’s governments were already distancing themselves from certain dimensions of the modernist orthodoxy before the media fallout from the Ronan Point disaster and the various corruption scandals. Indeed, and in total contrast to the White Heat rhetoric, one of the lasting legacies of the 1964–70 administrations was the deliberate insertion, more rmly than ever before, of the idea of conservation into the political agenda.126 One of the members of Wilson’s Cabinet most associated with this was Richard Crossman, Minister of Housing and Local Government from 1964 to 1966. His Diaries reveal his signi cant battle with departmental convention – and, in particular, his redoubtable permanent secretary Dame Evelyn Sharp – to make the issue of historic building preservation a matter for serious consideration. In a review of his time at the Ministry, Crossman reected:

One of the areas in which I took a particular interest was historic buildings. When the 1966 election was won and I got my way, I insisted that there should be a new allocation of functions in the Ministry of Works and I got the whole of the listing of historic buildings and subsidies transferred and centralized in the Department. This kind of work was utterly despised by Dame Evelyn. She regarded it as pure sentimentalism and called it ‘preservationalism’, a word of abuse. She who counted herself a modern iconoclast took the extremely – yes, I will say it – illiterate view that there was a clear-cut conflict between ‘modern’ planning and ‘reactionary’ preservation. During my time as Minister, in speech after speech, I tried to break down this false dichotomy and to establish a new and sensible relationship between planning and preservation.127

In popular culture, this position, poised between two worlds, was perhaps illustrated most inventively by Ray Davies’ lyrics for the 1967 Kinks song the Village Green Preservation Society, which introduced an imaginary pressure group established for the preservation of ‘the old ways’, not least ‘strawberry jam’, ‘china cups and virginity’, although it also campaigned to protect ‘the new ways’ too. 24 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

As this book will explore, at least in some respects the Wilson governments were not slow to embrace the enterprise of conservation themselves. Like the White Heat label in general, a growing appreciation of the architecture built during that era has begun to replace the attacks of critics like Booker and Scruton. Some buildings have, themselves, become the objects of attention for conservationists. For example, the Post Oce Tower, that ‘uncompromising statement of technological optimism’,128 is one of a number of buildings representing the era which have been listed. Signi cantly, in 2003, when announcing this recognition of cultural worthiness, the then Minister of Arts, Tessa Blackstone, commented that structures like:

the BT Tower [as the Post Office Tower was later rebranded] and the ntl Broadcasting Tower [on Emley Moor in Yorkshire] are cultural and architectural icons of Harold Wilson’s “white heat of technology”. These buildings mark early milestones of Britain’s transformation into one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world today.129

Like the reputation of the Prime Minister most associated with White Heat, at least some buildings associated with its technophile vision of a ‘New Britain’ have been reappraised. Trellick Tower for example, which Scruton was not alone in reviling, has again become a highly desirable place to live. Indeed, its distinctive silhouette – alongside those of other modern London landmarks including the Post Oce Tower and Leslie Martin’s Festival Hall – is to be found celebrated on popular t-shirts, posters, crockery, and soft furnishings (Figure 1.10).130 Meanwhile, organisations like the Twentieth Century Society, itself modelled on the Victorian Society, are now ghting to keep modern buildings from the destruction which, in the 1960s, was wrought on some of their nineteenth-century forebears; understanding modernism as part of a long continuity of architectural history and trying to preserve from demolition the architectural traces of a 1960s culture which is, today, seemingly unfathomable.

1.10 Cushion printed with an image of Trellick Tower INTrOducTION 25

WHItE HEat aNd WHItEHall

Leslie Martin’s plan to redesign Whitehall goes almost unmentioned in the historical commentaries of the period. However, this attempt to retool the engine room of government is long overdue a detailed investigation. As will be demonstrated, this is a story of the intended dismantling of the seemingly tired and ineective relics associated with the age of Lord Palmerston to be replaced by the planned eciency of a ‘total’ modern vision. However, as will be developed in the next chapter, that vision was not summoned by Wilson – the herald of ‘New Britain’ – but instead by those ‘amiable coelacanths’ unfairly neglected in the story of Britain’s attempts at modernisation, Macmillan and Douglas-Home. That the project was scuppered during a period in which even the Wilson government began to lose faith in the future also suggests that this is an ideal case study of the era captured by the label White Heat. This story can be perceived in terms of a tension between tradition and modernisation, between a culture which seeks its reference points in a long history and a culture which seeks them instead in the idea of the future. It is a tension reected in the characters of the two protagonists named in the subtitle of this book – Harold Wilson and Leslie Martin – who, as far as we know, never met. Both could be regarded as stereotypical products of the ‘new class’: Yorkshire- and Lancashire-born grammar school boys who reached the summit of their respective professions through talent rather than their connections, uent in the language and demeanour of science and technology. Yet both, to diering degrees, seemed uncomfortable in rejecting the past and both came to suer considerable criticism from a younger generation for appearing to have become the quintessential gures of an establishment that they themselves had once challenged.

NOtEs

1 Andrew Saint, ‘The Cambridge School of Architecture: A Brief History’, Compendium (Exhibition Catalogue) (Cambridge: Cambridge Department of Architecture, 2006), p. 17. 2 Martin’s ideas will be discussed further in Chapter 4. See: J.L. Martin, ‘The State of Transition’ in J.L. Martin, B. Nicholson, N. Gabo (eds), Circle: International Survey of Constructive Art (London: Faber and Faber, 1937), pp. 215–19. (Reprinted 1971); J.L. Martin, ‘A Note on Science and Art’, Architects’ Year Book: 2, ed. by Jane Drew (London: Paul Elek, 1947), pp. 9–11; Dr. Leslie Martin, ‘Science and the Design of the Royal Festival Hall’, RIBA Journal, 59: 6 April (1952), 196–204. 3 Properly, since 1968, it has been The Foreign and Commonwealth Oce, but the old name is still widely used and we have preferred it here. Originally, the building also housed the Home Oce, the Colonial Oce and the India Oce. 4 Susan Foreman, From Palace to Power: An Illustrated History of Whitehall (Brighton: The Alpha Press/Sussex Academic Press, 1995), p. 188. 5 Colin Brown, Whitehall: The Street that Shaped a Nation (London: Simon and Schuster, 2009), p. 347. 26 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

6 The widespread British popular faith in ‘modernisation’ and technology at this time, and the enthusiasm for a new future, is discussed widely, for example in: Arthur Marwick, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 16–20; Dominic Sandbrook, White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties (London: Abacus, 2010), pp. 183–202. 7 National Archives (NA), PREM 13/3514, letter from Pannell to Wilson, 5 July 1965. 8 David Horner, ‘The Road to Scarborough: Wilson, Labour and the Scienti c Revolution’ in R. Coopey, S. Fielding, and N. Tiratsoo (eds), The Wilson Governments 1964–1970 (London: Pinter, 1993), pp. 48–71. 9 Both of whom became ministers in the 1964 Labour Government. 10 Ben Pimlott, Harold Wilson (London: HarperCollins, 1992), p. 302. 11 Christopher Booker, The Neophiliacs (London: Pimlico, 1992), p. 213. (First published 1969). 12 Harold Wilson, ‘Speech Opening the Science Debate at the Party’s Annual Conference, Scarborough’, Purpose in Politics (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964), p. 27. 13 Wilson, Purpose in Politics, p. 28. 14 Reyner Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1980). (First published 1960). 15 Pimlott, Harold Wilson, p. 305. 16 It is perhaps second only to ‘a week is a long time in politics’ as Wilson’s premier contribution to the annals of popular quotation. 17 Steven Fielding, ‘“White Heat” and White Collars: The Evolution of “Wilsonism” in R. Coopey, S. Fielding and N. Tiratsoo (eds), The Wilson Governments 1964–1970 (London: Pinter, 1993). 18 David McKie, ‘Introduction, in D. McKie and C. Cook (eds), The Decade of Disillusionment: British Politics in the Sixties (London: Macmillan, 1972), p. 3. 19 Peter Hennessy, The Prime Minister: The Office and its Holders since 1945 (London: Penguin, 2000), p. 288. 20 Dominic Sandbrook, Never Had It So Good: A History of Britain from Suez to the Beatles (London: Abacus, 2006), p. 539. 21 Tony Benn, Out of the Wilderness: Diaries 1963–67 (London: Arrow, 1988), p. 65. The BBC thought it prudent not to run the programme during 1964, the election year, for fear of compromising its reputation for impartiality. 22 Wilson quoted in Bernard Levin, The Pendulum Years, (London: Sceptre 1989), p. 247. (First published 1970). 23 Andrew Denham, ‘From Grey Suits to Grass Roots: Choosing Conservative Leaders’, British Politics, 4 (2009), 217–35. 24 Harold Wilson, The New Britain: Labour’s Plan Outlined by Harold Wilson (London: Penguin, 1964), p. 9. 25 Wilson, New Britain, p. 10. 26 Ibid., p. 14. 27 Ibid., p. 10. INTrOducTION 27

28 Though not of aristocratic stock himself – Macmillan was a scion of the famous publishing company – marrying Lady Dorothy Cavendish, daughter of the Duke of Devonshire, proved a valuable leg up the social ladder. There was a downside though, as Lady Dorothy conducted a relatively open aair with Conservative MP Robert Boothby for many years, with even the paternity of the Macmillans’ youngest daughter a matter of some debate, and much despair. 29 Cited in Sandbrook, Never Had It So Good, p. 69. 30 Anthony Sampson, Anatomy of Britain Today (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965), p. 74. 31 Harold Wilson, Memoirs 1916–1964: The Making of a Prime Minister (Weidenfeld & Nicolson and Michael Joseph, 1986), p. 199. 32 Hennessy, Prime Minister, p. 283. 33 Jim Tomlinson, ‘Conservative Modernisation, 1960–64: Too Little, Too Late?’, Contemporary British History, 11:3 (1997), 18–38. 34 That rst Minister of Science was the able if excitable Viscount Hailsham, though it must be noted that this appointment was not greeted with enthusiasm by many scientists (even Hailsham himself asked, rhetorically, whether the post was really suitable ‘for someone with a double rst in Classics, Philosophy and Ancient History’); and the ‘oce of the Minister of State’ itself was something of a Whitehall oddity, not being a full ministry – it was dubbed ‘an un-ministry’ by The Economist – and thus regarded as weak compared with more established departments. See Lord Hailsham, The Door Wherein I Went (London: Collins, 1975), p. 181, Sampson, Anatomy of Britain Today, p. 527. 35 Benn quoted in David Edgerton, ‘Science and the Nation: Towards New Histories of Twentieth-Century Britain’, Historical Research, 78:199 (2005), 92–112 (107). 36 Christopher Goldie, ‘“Radio Campanile”: Sixties Modernity, the Post Oce Tower and Public Space’, Journal of Design History, 24:3 (2011), 207–22. 37 Richard Lamb, The Macmillan Years 1957–1963: The Emerging Truth (London: John Murray, 1995), pp. 431–42. 38 NA PRO CAB/128/35, Cabinet Conclusions, 17 October 1961. 39 Ian Dungavell, ‘Saving a Century’ in The Building Conservation Directory (Tisbury: Cathedral Communications, 2008). It must be noted, in fairness to Macmillan, that not all his instincts were ‘murderous’, as it was during his period in oce that Downing Street was extensively, and expensively, restored. 40 Although some Conservatives – such as the minister who appointed Leslie Martin, Georey Rippon – were keen on modernisation, not all were. As Dilwyn Porter notes: ‘Many Conservatives, after all, were Conservatives because they liked things as they were’. ‘Downhill All the Way: Thirteen Tory Years 1951–64’ in R. Coopey, S. Fielding, and N. Tiratsoo (eds), The Wilson Governments 1964–1970 (London: Pinter, 1993). p. 25. 41 Both Wilson’s most authoritative biographers, Ben Pimlott and Phillip Zeigler, emphasise the inuence of Wilson’s childhood participation in the Boy Scout Movement on his personality. Scouting encouraged practical activities, with an emphasis on careful planning (‘Be Prepared’) but within the bounds of a very traditional, even nostalgic setting. In Pimlott’s words, the Scout Movement at this time represented ‘a last, moralising echo of Empire’. Zeigler suggested these two features of the Scouting Movement appealed to dierent aspects of Wilson’s personality: his ‘strongly romantic instincts relished the rituals, the oaths, the ceremonies around 28 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

the re; his urge to be practical and perpetually busy was indulged by the tying of knots, the building of camps, the preparation of maps and all the other arcane lore […]’. Pimlott, Harold Wilson, p. 11; Philip Zeigler, Wilson: The Authorised Life (London: HarperCollins, 1995), p. 6. 42 Wilson, New Britain, p. 14. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid., p. 57. 45 Ibid., p. 69. 46 Ibid. 47 Sandbrook, White Heat, p. 11. 48 Douglas-Home recalled this conversation with someone from make-up department prior to a television appearance: Q. ‘Can you make me look better than I do on television?’ A. ‘No.’ Q. ‘Why not?’ A. ‘Because you have a head like a skull.’ Q. ‘Does not everyone have a head like a skull?’ A. ‘No’. In Lord Home, The Way the Wind Blows (London: Collins, 1976), p. 203. 49 Sandbrook, White Heat, p. 17. 50 Peter Hall (ed.), Labour’s New Frontiers (London: Andre Deutsch, 1964). 51 Peter Hall, ‘The Long Term Objective: Investing in Skill’ in Labour’s New Frontiers, p. 172. 52 Ibid. 53 Richard Coopey, ‘The White Heat of Scienti c Revolution’, Contemporary Record, 5:1 (1991), p. 115. 54 David McKie and Christopher Cook (eds), ‘Introduction’ in Decade of Disillusion: Britain in the Sixties (London: Macmillan, 1972), p. 2. 55 David Marquand, The Progressive Dilemma: From Lloyd George to Blair (London: Phoenix, 1999), p. 155. 56 Mark Lawson, Enough is Enough: or, The Emergency Government (London: Picador 2005), p. 342. 57 George Brown, In My Way (London: Book Club Associates, 1971), p. 95. 58 Ibid. 59 Eric Roll quoted in Christopher Cliord, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Department of Economic Aairs: British Government and Indicative Planning’, Contemporary British History, 11:2 (1997), 94–116 (95). 60 Which wags in the Treasury re-interpreted as ‘the Department of Extraordinary Aggression’. Hennessy, Whitehall, p. 187. 61 Department of Economic Aairs, The National Plan, Cmnd 2764 (London: HMSO, 1965). INTrOducTION 29

62 Hennessy, Prime Minister, p. 304. 63 According to James Callaghan, on the day he became Chancellor of the Exchequer, his Conservative predecessor, Reginald Maudling, was in No.11 Downing Street to collect some belongings and, on leaving, stuck his head round the door to remark, ‘Sorry, old cock, to leave it [the economy] in this shape’. James Callaghan, Time and Chance (London: Collins, 1987), p. 162. In 2010, this situation was reversed, with Labour’s defeated Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, leaving a note for his successor which read, ‘Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left’. Plus ça change. 64 Roger Opie, quoted in Eric Shaw, The Labour Party since 1945 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), p. 207. 65 The Fulton Report quoted in Hennessy, Whitehall, p. 195. 66 Norman Hunt (later Lord Crowther-Hunt), quoted Hennessy, Whitehall, p. 206. 67 Stephen Thornton, ‘A Case of Confusion and Incoherence: Social Security under Wilson, 1964–1970, Contemporary British History, 20:3 (2006), pp. 441–60. 68 Leslie Martin and Colin Buchanan, Whitehall: A Plan for the National and Government Centre (London: HMSO, 1965). 69 For some particularly splenetic examples, see Paul Foot, The Politics Of Harold Wilson (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968) and Andrew Roth, Sir Harold Wilson: The Yorkshire Walter Mitty (London: TBS The Book Service, 1977). 70 Peter Dorey, ‘Conclusion’ in P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964–1970 (London: Routledge, 2006), p. 360. 71 David Edgerton, ‘The “White Heat” Revisted: The British Government and Technology in the 1960s’, Twentieth Century British History, 7:1 (1996), 53–82 (66). 72 Wilson, Memoirs, p. 195. 73 Pimlott, Harold Wilson, p. 515. 74 Ibid., p. 601. 75 Ben Pimlott, Frustrate Their Knavish Tricks (London: HarperCollins, 1994), p. 36. 76 Glen O’Hara and Helen Parr, ‘Introduction: the Fall and Rise of a Reputation’, Contemporary British History, 20:3 (2006), pp. 295–302 (p. 300). 77 Booker, Neophiliacs, p. 18. 78 Cited Ibid., pp. 16–17. 79 Not that all these celebrities– known by some as the ‘New Aristocracy’ – were authentically ‘working class heroes’. Ibid., p. 20. 80 Ibid. 81 A term advanced by Michael Young in 1958 to describe success according to merit rather than class or connections in The Rise of the Meritocracy (London: Thames and Hudson, 1958). 82 In the summer of 1965, when Leslie Martin delivered his plan to Charles Pannell, the new mood even made inroads into that seeming epitome of amateurish Edwardianism, the Conservative Party, which, following the resignation of Douglas- Home, held, for the rst time, an election to nd a new leader. The victor was Edward Heath, another former provincial grammar school boy – this time from Broadstairs, 30 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

Kent – whose path to the prize was well lubricated by of the aura of modernisation and the image of ‘Wilsonian classnessness’. David Wood quoted in Arthur Marwick, British Society Since 1945 (London: Penguin, 1996), p. 159. Thus, even if it was all something of ‘a dream’, for a few months at least, the professional, modernising, youthful atmosphere of White Heat inspired changes even in the more unlikely corners of British society. 83 Sandbrook, White Heat, p. 275. 84 Ibid., pp. 412–13. 85 A change due in no small part to the inuence of Leslie Martin, as will be discussed below. 86 Simon Sadler, Archigram: Architecture Without Architecture (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2005); Beatriz Colomina and Craig Buckley (eds), Clip, Stamp, Fold: The Radical Architecture of Little Magazines 196X–197X (Barcelona: Actar, 2010). 87 ‘Some time in the early 1960s, Sir Leslie Martin was called upon to advise on the development of the new University of East Anglia. A story has it, taking a comfort break after a tour of the site, he remarked to a colleague standing next to him: “I think we’ll give this one to Denys [Lasdun] ”. The story is possibly apocryphal but it contains a germ of truth. Martin’s importance in the history of post-war architecture is unquestionable […]’. Colin Davis, ‘Scrapbook Substitute for Real History: Review of Architecture, Education and Research’, Architect’s Journal, 16 January (1997), 52. 88 Antony Vidler, James Frazer Stirling: Notes from the Archive (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011); Kenneth Powell, Ahrends, Burton and Koralek (London: RIBA Publishing, 2012). 89 Alan Clawley, John Madin (London: RIBA Publishing, 2012); Martin Pawley, ‘Obituary: John Seifert’, The Guardian, 29 Oct (2001) [available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/ news/2001/oct/29/guardianobituaries.arts]. 90 Adrian Forty, ‘Being or Nothingness: Private Experience and Public Architecture in Post- War Britain’, Architectural History, 38 (1995), 25–35 (25). 91 Ibid., p. 27. 92 Since Forty wrote in 1995, some prominent post-war private sector projects have also been demolished, notably shopping centres like the Tricorn Centre in Portsmouth designed by Owen Luder and the Bull Ring in Birmingham designed by James A. (Jim) Roberts. Meanwhile certain public sector buildings have been reworked for private sector occupation and have since become celebrated, famous examples including Keeling House in East London designed by Denys Lasdun and Park Hill in Sheeld designed by Jack Lynn and Ivor Smith. 93 Booker, Neophiliacs, pp. 11–12. 94 Roger Scruton, The Aesthetic Understanding: Essays in the Philosophy of Art and Culture (Manchester: Carcanet Press, 1983). 95 Scruton, Aesthetic Understanding, p. 188. 96 There are several reasons why this seems a poor example. For example, Trellick is unusual as many high-rise housing towers were system built and it is instead a ‘bespoke’ design. And, unlike those repetitive system built towers, more functionally conceived, Trellick is more sculpturally composed. 97 Scruton quoted in Nigel Warburton, Ernö Goldfinger: The Life of an Architect (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 3. INTrOducTION 31

98 Gavin Stamp, ‘What did we Do for the Victorians?’ in Rosemary Hill, Colin Cunningham and Aileen Reed (eds), Victorians Revalued: What the Twentieth Century Thought of Nineteenth Century Architecture (London: The Victorian Society, 2010), pp. 7–26. 99 For example, compare Charles Barry’s extensive nineteenth-century plan to rebuild Whitehall – described in chapter 3 – with Martin’s twentieth-century one. 100 Michael Hall, ‘How the Tide Turned for Victorian Gothic Churches’ in Rosemary Hill, Colin Cunningham and Aileen Reed (eds), Victorians Revalued: What the Twentieth Century Thought of Nineteenth Century Architecture (London: The Victorian Society, 2010), pp. 47–63 (p. 51). 101 Greg Castillo, Cold War on the Home Front: The Soft Power of Mid-Century Design (Minneapolis: University of Minnessota Press, 2010). 102 Oscar Newman, Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City (London: Architectural Press, 1973); J.G. Ballard, High Rise (London: Cape, 1975). 103 On Pruitt-Igoe: Roger Montgomery, ‘Pruitt-Igoe: Policy Failure or Societal Symptom’ in Barry Checkoway and Carl V. Patton (eds), The Metropolitan Midwest: Policy Problems and Prospects for Change (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), pp. 230–239. On Ronan Point: Jon Bird, Mapping the Futures: Local Culture, Global Change (London: Routledge, 1993), p.131. On Prince Charles: Charles, Prince of Wales, A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture (London: Doubleday, 1989); Andreas C. Papadakis (ed.), AD Profile: Prince Charles and the Architectural Debate (London: Academy Editions, 1989). 104 This was a continuation of inter-war photographic tropes – inspired by the likes of Man Ray – but it certainly seemed appropriate for the bomb-damaged cityscape of post- war Britain. 105 This impression was reinforced by the 1951 Festival of Britain, which will be discussed in Chapter 4. Harriet Atkinson, The Festival of Britain: A Land and its People (London: I.B. Tauris, 2012). 106 Diane Ghirado, Architecture After Modernism (London: Thames and Hudson, 1996). 107 Richard Weston, Modernism (London: Phaidon, 1996), p. 7. 108 Ibid., pp. 9–10. 109 The recent series from the Twentieth Century Society and RIBA Publishing on twentieth-century British architects illustrates some of the buildings produced at this time. Titles include volumes on the work of many notable practices who don’t merit a substantial place in any single volume history of twentieth-century architecture, but who nevertheless produced remarkable buildings in Britain’s suburbs and provincial cities: Ahrends, Burton and Koralek; Aldington, Craig and Collinge; Chamberlin, Powell and Bon; Leonard Mannaseh; McMorran and Whitby; Powell and Moya; Ryder and Yates. 110 Wilson, New Britain, p. 57. 111 Simon Sadler, ‘British Architecture in the Sixties’ in Chris Stephens and Katharine Stout (eds), Art & The 60s (London: Tate Publishing, 2004), p. 117. 112 David Kynaston, ‘Rock and Rollers’, The Sunday Times Magazine: 50th Anniversary Edition, 5 February (2012), 15. 113 Noel Annan, Our Age (London: Fontana, 1991), p. 394. 114 Owen Hatherley, A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain (London: Verso, 2011), pp. xxxiv–xxxv. 32 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

115 Ibid., p. xxxv. 116 Reasons for this include the relative lack of statutory protection given to post-war modernist buildings, both in terms of high-grade listing and their inclusion within the boundaries of conservation areas. Also that their sites tend to be bigger plots, on the perimeter of city centres, which often suit the particular commercial priorities of developers. 117 Martin’s adroitness at handling committees emerged during his time with the London, Midland and Scottish Railway from 1939 to 1948 and with the London County Council from 1948 to 1955. He is famed for his role as a competition juror and for his handling of the RIBA’s Oxford Conference in 1958, which established the pattern for architectural education that largely still persists today (see Chapter 4). His committee membership at various times, particularly in the 1950s, was extensive: ‘Dr. Martin has been a member of the RIBA Council since 1953 and has also served on the Board of Architectural Education and the following Committees: Executive Committee, Salaried and Ocial Architects Committee, Science Committee, Prizes and Scholarships Committee, Town and Country Planning and Housing Committee, Joint Committee of London Architects, Quality Surveyors and Builders, Competitions Committee, and the UK and the UK Committee of the International Union of Architects. In 1955, he was elected a Vice-President’. Undated typescript in the Peter Willis Papers, Durham University, WIL/E1/17. 118 The list of Martin’s achievements at the end of his monograph Buildings and Ideas – while highly edited in retrospect – gives evidence of his many appointments and invitations: Leslie Martin, Buildings and Ideas 1933–1983: From the Studio of Leslie Martin and his Associates (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 231. 119 Peter Carolin con rms that, alongside his architecture books, Martin’s library contained essays and poems by T.S. Eliot, poems by Spender and other 1930s gures, I.A. Richards on literary criticism, Helen Gardiner on Eliot, Herbert Read (a friend), A.V. Alexander (the Manchester professor of philosophy who he often quoted), Bertrand Russell, C.P. Snow and a little Karl Popper. In ction, it included Georges Simenon (whom he evidently loved), P.G. Wodehouse and John Galsworthy. Email from Peter Carolin, 25.06.2012. 120 When Martin moved from Hertfordshire to Cambridgeshire in 1956, his collection of trees was transplanted. 121 Nikolaus Pevsner wrote in 1956, welcoming Martin to his professorship in Cambridge, with only some hyperbole: ‘The work Dr Martin has done for London is prodigious. The intensity with which he has impressed a character, his character, on certain stretches of London must be seen, by walking round, to be believed. It can only be compared with that of Wren’s impress on the City of London. In the case of Wren the medium was churches, in Dr Martin’s case it is primarily dwellings (though also schools), dwellings in terms of cottages, blocks of ats, and of moderately sky-scraping point-blocks of ats’, ‘Welcome to Professor Martin’, Cambridge Review, 10 November (1956), 136–7. 122 Four Listener articles were published although there seem to have been more talks. The articles are: J.L. Martin, ‘A World Inside a Frame’, The Listener, 41:1044 (1949), 148, J.L. Martin, ‘The Bauhaus and its Inuence’, The Listener, 41:1053 (1950), 527–9; J.L. Martin, ‘Building London’s New Concert Hall’, The Listener, 44:1125 (1951), 231–232; J.L. Martin, ‘The Language of Architecture’, The Listener, 53:1354 (1956), 233–5. Martin does not include these articles in the rather selective list of his publications in his monograph Buildings and Ideas. One radio listener was the artist Ben Nicholson – of whom more below – who wrote to Martin in 1954: ‘d Leslie V. nice to hear part of your modulor (modula) talk this evng on my radio – quite a while before I was certain that INTrOducTION 33

it was your voice then certain tones phrases and ideas that came popping out made me certain until nally I was more than certain* […] *how well you broadcast’. Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, Edinburgh. Collection GMA 70/3/14/2. 123 Peter Carolin, ‘A Model for us All’, arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 4:4 (2000), p. 291. 124 Sadler, Archigram; Simon Sadler, The Situationist City (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1999); Max Risselada (ed.), Alison & Peter Smithson: A Critical Anthology (Barcelona: Ediciones Poligra a, 2012). 125 John Pendlebury, ‘Alas Smith and Burns: Conservation in Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Centre 1959–68’, Planning Perspectives, 16:2 (2001), 115–41. 126 John Delafons, Politics and Preservation: A Policy History of the Built Heritage, 1882–1996 (London: E&FN Spon, 1997). 127 Richard Crossman, The Diaries of a Cabinet Minister: Volume One, Minister of Housing 1964–66, (London: Hamish Hamilton and Jonathan Cape, 1975), p. 623, diary entry for 11 August 1966. 128 Sandbrook, White Heat, p. 44. 129 Blackstone quoted in David Prudames, ‘It’s Back To The Future As Hi-Tech Icons Get Listed Status’, Culture 24, 26 March (2003) [available at: http://www.culture24.org.uk/ science %26 nature/technology/art15684]. 130 For example, from http://blog.notonthehighstreet.com/2011/02/24/sta-picks-nicola- loves-the-trellick-tower/: ‘Nicola, our very cool production co-ordinator, has chosen the Trellick Tower cushion by The London Gift Company as her all-time favourite item from the site. “Saturday mornings riing through the treasures of Portobello market is my weekly treat. This cushion of the iconic Trellick Tower that looms over my favourite street brightens up my room and reminds me just how much I love our diverse and interesting city”.’

Bibliography

Alexander, Christopher, Notes on the Synthesis of Form (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1964). ———, ‘A City is not a Tree’, Architectural Forum, 122:1 (1965), 58–61 and 122:2 (1965), 58–62. Alexander, David, ‘Whitehall Plans’ in Town and Country Planning, February (1970), 119–22. Annan, Noel, Our Age (London: Fontana, 1991). Ansell, W.H. ,‘Review of the RIBA Prizes and Studentships, 1930’, RIBA Journal, 8 Feb (1930), 224–35. Atkinson, Harriet, The Festival of Britain: A Land and its People (London: I.B. Tauris, 2012). Bacon, J.S.D., The Chemistry of Life (London: Watts and Co, 1944). Ballantyne, Andrew and Law, Andrew, Tudoresque: In Pursuit of the Ideal Home (London: Reaktion, 2011). Ballard, J.G., High Rise (London: Cape, 1975). Ballieu, Amanda, ‘Architecture: The Mandarins Meet Their Match’, The Independent, 3 February (1993) [available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/ art/news/architecture-the-mandarins-meet-their-match-when-the-royal- ne-art- commission-decrees-governments-defer-but-in-paternoster-square-it-is-being- spurned-corrected-1470519.html]. Banham, Reyner, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1960). ———, Megastructure: Urban Futures of the Recent Past (London: Harper and Row, 1976). Barker, Felix, with Paulson, W.R. and Wul, Louis, Riverside Highway: The Evening News Plan – A Plan for a Thames-side Road to Help Solve the London Traffic Problems of Today and Tomorrow (London: Evening News, 1956). Bell, Daniel, The End of Ideology (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1959). Bendixson, Terence, ‘Whitehall Plan Welcomed by Government: Through Trac to Bypass Parliament Square’, The Guardian, 20 July (1965), 1. ———, ‘Knight in Shining Armour’, The Spectator, 31 March (1967), 374. 276 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

Benn, Tony, Out of the Wilderness: Diaries 1963–67, (London: Arrow, 1988). Betjeman, John, ’A Preservationist’s Progress’ in Jane Fawcett (ed.), The Future of the Past: Attitudes to Conservation 1174–1974 (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976), pp. 55–64. Bien, John, ‘Obituary: Tory Man of Europe; Lord Rippon’, The Guardian, 30 January (1997), p. 17. Binski, Paul, Westminster Abbey and the Plantagenets: Kingship and the Representation of Power 1200–1400 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). Bird, Jon, Mapping the Futures: Local Culture, Global Change (London: Routledge, 1993). Blake, Lord, ‘Macmillan, (Maurice) Harold, rst Earl of Stockton’ in C.S Nicholls (ed.), The Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). Booker, Christopher, The Neophiliacs, (London: Pimlico, 1992). Booth, Cherie, and Haste, Cate, The Goldfish Bowl: Married to the Prime Minister 1955–1997, (London: Chatto and Windus, 2004). Booth, Philip, and Taylor, Nicholas, Cambridge New Architecture (London: Leonard Hill, 1970). Boulting, Nikolaus, ‘The Law’s Delays: Conservationalist Legislation in the British Isles’ in Jane Fawcett (ed.), The Future of the Past: Attitudes to Conservation 1174–1974 (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976), pp. 9–34. Boyne, Colin, ‘Editorial: Looking After Number One’, The Architect’s Journal, 8 December (1965), 1353–4. Bradley, Simon, and Pevsner, Nikolaus, The Buildings of England: London 6, Westminster (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). Braham, William W., and Hale, Jonathan A. (eds), Rethinking Technology: A Reader in Architectural Theory (London: Routledge, 2007). Brown, Colin, Whitehall: The Street that Shaped a Nation (London: Pocket Books, 2010). Brown, George, In My Way, (London: Book Club Associates, 1971). Buchanan, Colin, The Buchanan Report (London: HMSO, 1963). ———, Traffic in Towns: The Specially Shortened Edition of the Buchanan Report (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1964). Bullock, Nicholas, Building the Post-war World: Modern Architecture and Reconstruction in Britain (London: Routledge, 2002). Callaghan, James, Time and Chance, (London: Collins, 1987). Campbell, Louise, ‘Constructivism and Contextualism in a Modern Country House: The Design of Brackenfell (Leslie Martin and Sadie Speight, 1937–38)’, Architectural History, 50 (2007), 247–66. Carmona, Michel, Haussmann: His Life and Times, and the Making of Modern Paris, trans. by Patrick Camiller (London: Ivan R. Dee, 2002). Carolin, Peter, ‘A Model for us All’, arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 4:4 (2000), 291. Carolin Peter, and Dannatt, Trevor (eds), Architecture, Education and Research: The Work of Leslie Martin – Papers and Selected Articles (London: Academy Editions, 1996). Castillo, Greg, Cold War on the Home Front: The Soft Power of Mid-Century Design (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010). BIbLIOGrApHy 277

Chadwick, George, A Systems View of Planning (Oxford: Pergamon, 1971). Charles, Prince of Wales, ‘A speech by HRH The Prince of Wales at the 150th anniversary of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), Royal Gala Evening at Hampton Court Palace’, 30 May (1984) [available at: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/ speechesandarticles/a_speech_by_hrh_the_prince_of_wales_at_the_150th_ anniversary_1876801621.html].

———, A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture (London: Doubleday, 1989). Chomsky, Noam, American Power and the New Mandarins (London: Penguin, 1969). Chorley, R.J., and P. Haggett (eds), Models in Geography (London: Methuen, 1967). Clawley, Alan, John Madin (London: RIBA Publishing, 2012). Cliord, Christopher, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Department of Economic Aairs: British Government and Indicative Planning’, Contemporary British History, 11:2 (1997), 94–116. Cocke, Thomas, and Donald Buttress, 900 Years: The Restorations of Westminster Abbey (London: Harvey Miller, 1995). Cohen, Michael, James March and Johan Olsen, ‘A Garbage Can Model of Organisational Choice, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17:1 (1972), 1–25. Colomina, Beatriz, and Buckley, Craig (eds), Clip, Stamp, Fold: The Radical Architecture of Little Magazines 196X–197X (Barcelona: Actar, 2010). Cooke, Catherine, ‘Form Is a Function X: The Development of the Constructivist Architect’s Design Method’, AD Profile 47, Architectural Design, 53:5/6 (1983), 34–4. Coopey, Richard, ‘The White Heat of Scienti c Revolution’, Contemporary Record, 5:1 (1991), 115–27. Coopey, Richard, Fielding, Steven, and Tiratsoo, Nick (eds), The Wilson Governments 1964–1970 (London: Pinter, 1993). Cotton, Michelle, Design Research Unit 1942–72 (Köln: Koenig Books, 2011). Coyne, Richard, Derrida for Architects (London: Routledge, 2011). Crinson, Mark, and Lubbock, Jules, Architecture: Art or Profession – One Hundred Years of Architectural Education in Britain (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1996). Croghan, David, ‘Daylight and the Form of Oce Buildings’, Architect’s Journal, 22 December (1965), 1501–7. Crossman, Richard, Planning for Freedom (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1965).

———, The Diaries of a Cabinet Minister: Volume One, Minister of Housing 1964–66, (London: Hamish Hamilton and Jonathan Cape, 1975).

———, The Diaries of a Cabinet Minister: Volume Two, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons 1966–68, (London Hamish Hamilton and Jonathan Cape, 1976). Cullen, Gordon, ‘Westminster Regained’, Architectural Review, November (1947), 159–70. Curtis, William, Denys Lasdun: Architecture, City, Landscape (London: Phaidon, 1994). Dalyell, Tam, ‘Lord Kennet’, The Independent, 12 May (2009) [available at: http://www. independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/lord-kennet-writer-and-labour-politician-who- defected-to-help-form-the-sdp-then-later-returned-1683147.html]. 278 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

Dannatt, Trevor, Modern Architecture in Britain (London: B.T. Batsford, 1959). ———, ‘Trevor Dannatt Praises the Profound Love of Quality’, RIBA Journal, August (1973), 382–3. Darling, Elizabeth, Re-Forming Britain: Narratives of Modernity Before Reconstruction (London: Routledge, 2007). Davey, Peter, ‘Commons Sense: Parliamentary Building, Westminster, London’, Architectural Review, February (2001), 36–43. Davies, H.W.E., ‘Brian McLoughlin and the Systems Approach to Planning’, European Planning Studies, 5:6 (1997), 719–29. Davis, Colin, ‘Scrapbook Substitute for Real History: Review of Architecture, Education and Research’, Architect’s Journal, 16 January (1997), 52. Delafons, John, Politics and Preservation: A Policy History of the Built Heritage, 1882–1996 (London: E&FN Spon, 1997). Denham, Andrew, ‘From Grey Suits to Grass Roots: Choosing Conservative Leaders’, British Politics, 4 (2009), 217–35. Dickie, John, Inside the Foreign Office, (London: Chapmans, 1992). Doig, Alan, ‘The Privatisation of the Property Services Agency: Risk and Vulnerability in Contract-Related Fraud and Corruption’, Public Policy and Administration, 12:3 (1997), 6–27. Donnelly, Mark P., Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (Harlow: Longman, 2005). Donoughue, Bernard, The Heat of the Kitchen, (London: Politico’s, 2003). Dorey, Peter (ed.), The Labour Governments 1964–1970, (London: Routledge, 2006). Dungavell, Ian, ‘Saving a Century’ in The Building Conservation Directory (Tisbury: Cathedral Communications, 2008).

———, ‘What About the Edwardians?’, in Rosemary Hill, Colin Cunningham and Aileen Reed (eds), Victorians Revalued: What the Twentieth Century Thought of Nineteenth Century Architecture (London: The Victorian Society, 2010), pp. 101–14. Durand, Jean-Nicolas-Louis, Précis of the Lectures on Architecture (Los Angeles: Getty, 2000) Dutoit, Allison, Odgers, Juliet and Sharr, Adam (eds), Quality Out of Control: Standards for Measuring Architecture (London: Routledge, 2010). Edgerton, David, ‘The “White Heat” Revisted: The British Government and Technology in the 1960s’, Twentieth Century British History, 7:1 (1996), 53–82.

———, ‘Science and the Nation: Towards New Histories of Twentieth-Century Britain’, Historical Research, 78:199 (2005), 92–112. Eisenman, Peter, ‘Towards an Understanding of Form in Architecture’, Architectural Design 33 (1963), 457–8.

———, Inside Out: Selected Writings 1963–1988 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004). ———, The Formal Basis of Modern Architecture, PhD, Trinity College, University of Cambridge, 1963. Subsequently published (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2006). Feaver, William, ‘Return of the Circle’, The Observer, 26 February (1982), 29. BIbLIOGrApHy 279

Feenberg, Andrew, Alternative Modernity: The Technical Turn in Philosophy and Social Theory (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995).

———, Questioning Technology (London: Routledge, 1999). Fielding, Steven, ‘“White Heat” and White Collars: The Evolution of “Wilsonism’, in R. Coopey, S. Fielding, and N. Tiratsoo (eds), The Wilson Governments 1964–1970, (London: Pinter, 1993). Foot, Paul, The Politics Of Harold Wilson (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968). Foreman, Susan, From Palace to Power: An Illustrated History of Whitehall (Brighton: The Alpha Press/Sussex Academic Press, 1995). Forshaw, J. H. and Abercrombie, Patrick, County of London Plan (London: Macmillan, 1943). Forty, Adrian, ‘Being or Nothingness: Private Experience and Public Architecture in Post-War Britain’, Architectural History, 38 (1995), 25–35. Frampton, Kenneth, ‘On Leslie Martin’, arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 5:1 (2001), 11–12. Gans, Herbert J., The Levittowners: Ways of Life and Politics in a New Suburban Community (London: Penguin, 1967). Ghirado, Diane, Architecture After Modernism (London: Thames and Hudson, 1996). Giertz, L.M., SfB and its Development 1950–1980 (Dublin: CIB/SfB, 1982). Girouard, Mark, ‘Stirling, Sir James Frazer (1924–1992)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) [online edn, Jan 2012, available at: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/51331]. Glancey, Jonathan, ‘Time is Ripe to Revive Rippon’, Building Design, 30 April (2010), 20. Glendinning, Miles, ‘Teamwork or Masterwork? The Design and Reception of the Royal Festival Hall’, Architectural History, 46 (2003), 277–319. Gold, John R., ‘“Commoditie, rmenes and delight”: Modernism, The MARS Group’s “New Architecture” Exhibition (1938) and Imagery of the Urban Future’, Planning Perspectives, 8:4 (1993), 357–76. Goldie, Christopher, ‘“Radio Campanile”: Sixties Modernity, the Post Oce Tower and Public Space’, Journal of Design History, 24:3 (2011), 207–22. Grin, Miriam, ‘This Term’s Slade Lectures’, Oxford Magazine, 14 March (1966), 326–7. Gropius, Walter, Scope of Total Architecture (New York: Collier, 1962). Hagan, Susannah, Digitalia: Architecture and the Digital, the Environmental and the Avant- Garde (London: Routledge, 2008). Lord Hailsham, The Door Wherein I Went (London: Collins, 1975). Hall, Michael, ‘How the Tide Turned for Victorian Gothic Churches’ in Rosemary Hill, Colin Cunningham and Aileen Reed (eds), Victorians Revalued: What the Twentieth Century Thought of Nineteenth Century Architecture (London: The Victorian Society, 2010), pp. 47–63. Hall, Peter (ed.), Labour’s New Frontiers (London: Andre Deutsch, 1964). Hamilton, Keith, ‘Accommodating Diplomacy: The Foreign and Commonwealth Oce and the Debate over Whitehall Redevelopment’, Contemporary British History, 18:3 (2004), 198–222. 280 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

Harwood, Elain, ‘Obituary: Eric Bedford’, The Independent, 14 August (2001). Hatherley, Owen, A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain (London: Verso, 2011). Hawkes, Alex, ‘PFI deal costs Treasury and tax man £17m to stay in their own building, and that’s just since the election’, The Guardian, 19 November (2010) [available at: http:// www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/19/treasury-17m-p -building-deal]. Hawkes, Dean, ‘The Cambridge School: Tradition, Research, Practice’, Architectural Review, May (1984), 32–37. ———, ‘The Cambridge School and the Environmental Tradition’ in The Environmental Tradition: Studies in the Architecture of Environment (London: Routledge, 1995). ———, ‘Only Connect …’, arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 4:4 (2000), 302–3. ———, ‘Necessity and Poetry: David Lea’s Bridge Pottery’, arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 6:2 (2002), 130–43. Hawkes, Dean, McDonald, Jane and Steemers, Koen (eds), The Selective Environment: An Approach to Environmentally Responsive Architecture (London: Routledge, 2001). Healey, Denis, The Time of My Life (London: Michael Joseph, 1989). Hebbert, Michael, ‘Engineering, Urbanism and the Struggle for Street Design’, Journal of Urban Design, 10:1 (2007), 39–59. Hennessy, Peter, The Prime Minister: The Office and its Holders since 1945 (London: Penguin, 2000). ———, Whitehall (London: Pimlico, 2001). ———, Having It So Good: Britain in the Fifties, (London: Allen Lane, 2006). Higgins, Hannah, The Grid Book (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2009). Hillier, Bevis, John Betjeman: The Biography (London: John Murray, 2006). Hilton, Anthony, ‘Has PFI Failed its Screen Test at the Treasurey?’, The Independent, 9 June (2012). Lord Home, The Way the Wind Blows (London: Collins). Horner, David, ‘The Road to Scarborough: Wilson, Labour and the Scienti c Revolution’ in R. Coopey, S. Fielding and N. Tiratsoo (eds), The Wilson Governments 1964–1970 (London: Pinter, 1993). Hughes, Jonathan and Sadler, Simon (eds), Non-Plan: Essays in Freedom, Participation and Change in Modern Architecture and Urbanism (London: Architectural Press, 2000). Irving, Robert Grant, Indian Summer: Lutyens, Baker and Imperial Delhi (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981). Jackson, Anthony, The Politics of Architecture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970). Keller, Sean, ‘Fenland Tech: Architectural Science in Postwar Cambridge’, Grey Room, 23, Spring (2006), 40–65. ———. ‘Systems Aesthetics, or How Cambridge Solved Architecture’ in Tim Anstey, Katja Grillner and Rolf Hughes (eds), Architecture and Authorship (London: Black Dog, 2007), pp. 156–63. ———. ‘The Anxieties of Autonomy: Peter Eisenman from Cambridge to House IV’ in Robin Schuldenfrei (ed.), Atomic Dwelling: Anxiety, Domesticity and Postwar Architecture (London: Routledge, 2011), pp. 127–48. BIbLIOGrApHy 281

Kennett, Wayland, Preservation (London: Temple Smith, 1972). Kingdon, John, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, 2nd ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 2005). Kite, Stephen and Menin, Sarah, An Architecture of Invitation: Colin St. John Wilson (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2005). Kepes, György, The Language of Vision (Chicago: Paul Theobold, 1947). Krüger, Mario, ‘Extending the Creative Process in Portugal’, arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 4:4 (2000), 304–5. Kynaston, David, ‘Rock and Rollers’, The Sunday Times Magazine: 50th Anniversary Edition, 5 February (2012), 15. Lafollette, Marcel C. and Stine, Jerey K. , Technology and Choice: Readings from Technology and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991). Lamb, Richard, ‘Sandys, (Edwin) Duncan, Baron Duncan-Sandys (1908–1987)’, The Dictionary of National Biography 1986–1990 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 396.

———, The Macmillan Years 1957–1963: The Emerging Truth (London: John Murray, 1995). Landau, Royston, New Directions in British Architecture (New York: G. Brazilier, 1968). Lawson, Bryan, ‘Geometry, Pattern and Typology’ in Nicola Jackson and Ian Latham (eds), Building Ideas – MJP Architects: With Essays and Speculations by Richard MacCormac (London: Right Angle, 2010), pp. 14–33. Lawson, Mark, Enough is Enough: or, The Emergency Government (London: Picador 2005). Le Corbusier, Toward an Architecture, trans. by John Goodman (New York: Getty Publications, 2007). Lea, F.M., Science and Building: A History of the Building Research Station (London: HMSO, 1971). Levin, Bernard, The Pendulum Years (London: Sceptre 1989).

———, ‘Times Remembered in the Royal Festival Hall of Fame’, The Times, 7 May (1976); reprinted in arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 4:4 (2000), 307–8. Levin, Miriam R. (ed.), Cultures of Control (London: Routledge, 1996). Lewison, Jeremy, ‘Circle – A Determining Eect on the Practice of Architecture’, arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 4:4 (2000), 306–7. Lootsma, Bart, Superdutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands (London: Thames and Hudson, 2000). Lynn, Jonathan, and Anthony Jay, The Complete Yes Minister (London: BBC Books, 1989). MacCormac, Richard, ‘Buildings, Ideas and the Aesthetic Sense’, arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 4:4, 300–302. Macphee, Graham, The Architecture of the Visible: Technology and Urban Visual Culture (London: Continuum, 2002). March, Lionel, ‘Modern Movement to Vitruvius: Themes of Education and Research’, RIBA Journal, 81 (1972), 109.

———, ‘Geometry and Arithmetic’, RIBA Journal, 86 (1979), 171. 282 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

———, ‘Setting Out the Possibilities: Leslie Martin and the Advancement of Architectural Knowledge’, arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 4:4 (2000), 297–9.

———, (ed.), The Architecture of Form (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976). March, Lionel, Echenique, Marcial and Dickens, Peter (eds), ‘Models of Environment’, Architectural Design 41, (1971). March, Lionel and Steadman, Philip, The Geometry of Environment (London: RIBA Publications, 1971). Marmaras, Emmanuel and Sutclie Anthony, ‘Planning for Post-war London: The ThreeIndependent Plans, 1942–3’, Planning Perspectives, 9:4 (1994), 431–53. Marquand, David, The Progressive Dilemma: From Lloyd George to Blair (London: Phoenix, 1999).

———, ‘Prentice, Reginald Ernest [Reg], Baron Prentice (1923–2001)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) [online edn, Jan 2011 available at: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/75257]. Marsh, David and Rhodes, R.A.W. , Thatcherite Britain: An Audit of an Era (Buckingham; Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1992). Martin, J.L., Juan de Herrera (1530–97): His Life, Art, and Influence on the Architecture of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries in Spain, unpublished MA thesis, University of Manchester, 1932.

———, The Position of José de Churrigera in the Development of Spanish Baroque Architecture, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Manchester, 1936.

———, ‘Architecture and the Painter, with Special Reference to the Work of Ben Nicholson’, Focus, 3, Spring (1939), 60–66.

———, ‘The Research Unit of the Architect’s Oce, London, Midland and Scottish Railway’, RIBA Journal, April (1941), 107.

———, ‘An Experimental Station Building by the London & Midland & Scottish Railway Architect’s Oce’, RIBA Journal, December (1945), 43–9.

———, ‘Unit-built stations. Part 1. The Early Developments’, Architectural Review, March (1946), 77–8.

———, ‘Science in Building’, The Advancement of Science: The Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. New Quarterly Series, 3:11 (1944–46), 267–80.

———, ‘Lazlo Moholy-Nagy and the Chicago Institute of Design’, Architectural Review, March (1947), 225–6.

———, ‘A Note on Science and Art’, Architects’ Year Book: 2, ed. by Jane Drew (London: Paul Elek, 1947), pp. 9–11.

———, ‘A World Inside a Frame’, The Listener, 41:1044 (1949), 148. ———, ‘The Bauhaus and its Inuence’, The Listener, 41:1053 (1950), 527–9. ———, ‘Building London’s New Concert Hall’, The Listener, 44:1125 (1951), 231–2. ———, ‘Walter Gropius, 70 years’, Architects’ Year Book, 5, ed. by Jane Drew (London: Paul Elek, 1953), 27–8.

———, ‘The Language of Architecture’, The Listener, 53:1354 (1956), 233–5. BIbLIOGrApHy 283

Martin, J.L., Nicholson, B. and Gabo, N. (eds), Circle: International Survey of Constructive Art (London: Faber and Faber, 1937). Martin J.L. and Sarimento, E., ‘Masks and Monuments of the Spanish Baroque’, Architectural Review, May (1933), 193–7. Martin, J.L. and Speight, S., The Flat Book (London: William Heinemann, 1939). Martin, Leslie, ‘Science and the Design of the Royal Festival Hall’, RIBA Journal, 59:6 April (1952), 196–204. ———, ‘Completion of the Royal Festival Hall’, Architectural Design, January (1957), 25. ———, ‘Conference on Architectural Education’, RIBA Journal, June (1958), 279–82. ———, University of London – Outline Development Plan for the University Precinct: Report by Planning Consultant Professor Sir Leslie Martin in association with Trevor Dannatt (London: University of London, February 1959). ———, ‘The Collegiate Plan’, Architectural Review, July (1959), 42–8. ———, ‘Science Buildings: Notes on the Study of a Building Type’, Architectual Design, December (1964), 595–602. ———, ‘Sir Leslie Martin: Selected Works’, Architectural Design, 9, September (1965), 430–39. ———, ‘An Architects’ Approach to Architecture’, RIBA Journal, May (1967), 191–200. ———, ‘Architects’ Approach to Architecture: Sir Leslie Martin’, RIBA Journal, May (1967), 191–200. ———, ‘Education Without Walls’, RIBA Journal, August (1968), 356–61. ———, ‘Leslie Martin’ [Tribute to Ben Nicholson] in Ben Nicholson: a Studio International Special ed. by. Maurice de Sausmarez (London/New York: Studio International, 1969). ———, ‘Education Around Architecture: Address to the RIBA Conference, Birmingham, 1970’, RIBA Journal, September (1970), 398–402. ———, ‘Leslie Martin on the Bridges Between the Cultures’, RIBA Journal, August (1973), 381–8. ———, ‘Notes on a Developing Architecture’, Architectural Review, July (1978), 11–17. ———, Buildings and Ideas 1933–83: From the Studio of Leslie Martin and his Associates (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). Martin, Leslie and Buchannan, Colin, Whitehall: A Plan for the National and Government Centre accompanied by A Report on Traffic (London: HMSO, 1965). Martin, Leslie and March, Lionel, ‘Land Use and Built Forms’, Cambridge Research, 3 April (1966), 8–14. ———, Urban Space and Structures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). Martin, Reinhold, The Organizational Complex: Architecture, Media and Corporate Space (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2005). Marwick, Arthur, British Society Since 1945 (London: Penguin, 1996). ———, The Sixties: Social and Cultural Transformation in Britain, France, Italy and the United States 1958–74 (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1998). McGinty, Stephen, ‘Sex and the Celebrities’, The Scotsman, 24 March (2012), 30. 284 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

McKean, John, Royal Festival Hall: London County Council, Leslie Martin, Peter Moro, Architecture in Detail Series (London: Phaidon, 1993). McKie, David and Cook, Christopher (eds), The Decade of Disillusionment: British Politics in the Sixties (London: Macmillan, 1972). Miller, Mervyn, ‘Holford, William Graham, Baron Holford (1907–1975)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) [online edn, Jan 2011 available at: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/31245]. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Historic Towns: Preservation and Change, (London: HMSO, 1967). Montgomery, Roger, ‘Pruitt-Igoe: Policy Failure or Societal Symptom’ in Barry Checkoway and Carl V. Patton (eds), The Metropolitan Midwest: Policy Problems and Prospects for Change (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985). Morgan, Janet (ed.), The Backbench Diaries of Richard Crossman, (London: Book Club Associates, 1981). Mullins, Charlotte, A Festival on the River (London: Penguin, 2007). Newman, Oscar, Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City (London: Architectural Press, 1973). Norberg-Schulz, Christian, Intentions in Architecture (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1968). Nowotny, Helga (ed.), Cultures of Technology and the Quest for Innovation (New York: Berghahn, 2006). Odgers, Jo, Samuel, Flora and Sharr, Adam, Primitive: Original Matters in Architecture (London: Routledge, 2006). O’Hara, Glen and Parr, Helen, ‘Introduction: the Fall and Rise of a Reputation’, Contemporary British History, 20:3 (2006), 295–302. Orcar, Malcolm, Review of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI): A Performance Perspective (UK) (Saarbrücken: VDM, 2011). Papadakis, Andreas C. (ed.), AD Profile: Prince Charles and the Architectural Debate (London: Academy Editions, 1989). Part, Antony, Making of a Mandarin (London: Andre Deutsch, 1990). Pavitt, Jane and Crowley, David (eds), Cold War Modern: Design 1945–1970 (London: V&A, 2008). Pendlebury, John, ‘Alas Smith and Burns: Conservation in Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Centre 1959–68’, Planning Perspectives, 16:2 (2001), 115–41. ———, Conservation in the Age of Consensus (London: Routledge, 2008). Pendlebury, John and Strange, Ian, ‘Urban Conservation and the Shaping of the English City’, Town Planning Review, 82:4 (2011), 361–92. Pérez-Gómez, Alberto, Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1993). Pevsner, Nikolaus, ‘Welcome to Professor Martin’, Cambridge Review, 10 November (1956), 136–7. ———, Pioneers of Modern Design: From William Morris to Walter Gropius (London: Penguin, 1960). BIbLIOGrApHy 285

Picon, Antoine, ‘From “Poetry of Art” to Method: The Theory of Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand’ in Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand, Précis of the Lectures on Architecture (Los Angeles: Getty, 2000). ———, Digital Culture in Architecture: An Introduction for the Design Professions (Basel, Birkhäuser, 2010). Pimlott, Ben, Harold Wilson, (London: HarperCollins, 1992).

———, Frustrate Their Knavish Tricks (London: HarperCollins, 1994). Ponting, Clive, Breach of Promise: Labour in Power 1964–1970 (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1989). Popper, Karl, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). Porter, Bernard, The Battle of the Styles: Society, Culture and the Design of a New Foreign Office 1855–61 (London: Continuum, 2011). Porter, Dilwyn, ‘Downhill All the Way: Thirteen Tory Years 1951–64’ in R. Coopey, S. Fielding, and N. Tiratsoo (eds), The Wilson Governments 1964–1970 (London: Pinter, 1993). Powell, C.G., The British Building Industry Since 1800: An Economic History (London: E&FN Spon, 1996). Powell, Kenneth, ‘Lasdun, Sir Denys Louis (1914–2001)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Jan 2005 [online edn, Jan 2011 available at: http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/75034].

———, Ahrends, Burton and Koralek (London: RIBA Publishing, 2012). ———, Powell & Moya (London: RIBA Publishing, 2012). Powers, Alan, ‘Alan Powers Remembers Sir Leslie Martin’, Twentieth Century Society Newsletter, September (2000), 30–31. Pringle, John and Berry, John, ‘Heating and Ventilation: Act of Parliament’, Architecture Today, 50 (1994), 53–4. Reed, Aileen (ed), Victorians Revalued: What the Twentieth Century Thought of Nineteenth Century Architecture (London: The Victorian Society, 2010), 101–14. Rice, Ian, ‘Ziggurats for Bureaucrats: Sir Leslie Martin’s Whitehall Plan’, arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 8:3/4 (2004), 313–22. Richards, J.M., ‘Public’s View Sought on Whitehall Building and Road Proposals / Tunnel to Provide Trac Free Area’, The Times, 10 December (1969), 10.

———. ‘Uni ed Control of Building Projects Could End Whitehall Confusion’, The Times, 13 March (1970), 7. Riding, Christine and Riding, Jaqueline (eds), The Houses of Parliament: History, Art, Architecture (London: Merrell, 2000). Risselada Max (ed.), Alison & Peter Smithson: A Critical Anthology (Barcelona: Ediciones Poligra a, 2012). Roth, Andrew, Sir Harold Wilson: The Yorkshire Walter Mitty (London: TBS The Book Service, 1977). Rowe, Colin, The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa and Other Essays (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1976). 286 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

———, As I Was Saying: Recollections and Various Essays, Vol. 1 (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1996). Sadler, Simon, The Situationist City (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1999). ———, ‘British Architecture in the Sixties’ in Chris Stephens and Katharine Stout (eds), Art & The 60s (London: Tate Publishing, 2004). ———, Archigram: Architecture Without Architecture (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2005). Saint, Andrew, Richard Norman Shaw (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976). ———, ‘The Cambridge School of Architecture: A Brief History’, Compendium (Exhibition Catalogue) (Cambridge: Cambridge Department of Architecture, 2006). ———, Architect and Engineer: A Study in Sibling Rivalry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007). Sampson, Anthony, Anatomy of Britain Today (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965). Sandbrook, Dominic, Never Had It So Good: A History of Britain from Suez to the Beatles (London: Abacus, 2006). ———, White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties (London: Abacus, 2006). ———, State of Emergency: The Way We Were – Britain 1970–1974 (London: Penguin, 2010). Sarkis, Harshim, Le Corbusier’s Venice Hospital and the Mat Building Revival (London: Prestel, 2002). Sassi, Paola, Strategies in Sustainable Architecture (London: Taylor and Francis, 2005). Schuldenfrei, Robin (ed.), Atomic Dwelling: Anxiety, Domesticity and Postwar Architecture (London: Routledge, 2011). Scott, Felicity D., Architecture or Techno-Utopia: Politics After Modernism (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2007). Scruton, Roger, ‘The Architecture of Stalinism’, Cambridge Review, 16 November (1976), 36–41. ———, The Aesthetic Understanding: Essays in the Philosophy of Art and Culture (Manchester: Carcanet Press, 1983). Seddon, Jill, ‘Part-Time Practice as Before: The Career of Sadie Speight’ in Elizabeth Darling and Lesley Whitworth (eds), Women and the Making of Built Space in England 1870–1950 (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2007), pp. 143–62. Seldon, Anthony, ‘Barbarians in Whitehall’, The Times, 6 November 2000. ———, The Foreign Office: The Illustrated History (London: Harper Collins, 2000). Sharr, Adam (ed.), Reading Architecture and Culture: Researching Buildings, Spaces and Documents (London: Routledge, 2012). Shaw, Eric, The Labour Party Since 1945 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996). Snow, C.P., The Two Cultures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Stamp, Gavin, ‘What did we Do for the Victorians?’ in Rosemary Hill, Colin Cunningham and Aileen Reed (eds), Victorians Revalued: What the Twentieth Century Thought of Nineteenth Century Architecture (London: The Victorian Society, 2010), pp. 7–26. Steadman, Philip, Evolution of Designs: Biological Analogy in Architecture and the Applied Arts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979). BIbLIOGrApHy 287

———, Architectural Morphology: An Introduction to the Morphology of Building Plans (London: Pion, 1983). Stevens, Thomas, ‘The Third Force in English Architecture: The Work of Sir Leslie Martin’, Architectural Design, September (1965), 429–48. Stonehouse, Roger, ‘Continuing Lines of Thought: The Work and Teachings of Leslie Martin’, Architects Journal, 5 October (1983), 55–70. ———. Colin St. John Wilson: Buildings and Projects (London: Black Dog, 2007). ———. Trevor Dannatt: Works and Words (London: Black Dog, 2008). Stonehouse, Roger and Stromberg, Gerhart, The Architecture of the British Library at St. Pancras (London: Taylor and Francis, 2004). Summerson, John, ‘Introduction’ in Trevor Dannatt, Modern Architecture in Britain (London: B.T. Batsford, 1959). ———, Inigo Jones (London: Penguin, 1966). Swenarton, Mark, Homes Fit for Heroes (London: Ashgate Publishing, 1983). Taylor, Nicholas, ‘Half a Plan for Whitehall’, New Statesman, 13 May (1966), 701. Taylor, Nigel, ‘Anglo-American Town Planning Theory Since 1945: Three Signi cant Developments but no Paradigm Shifts’, Planning Perspectives, 14:4 (1999), 327–45. Tewdwr-Jones, Mark, Urban Reflections: Narratives of Place, Planning and Change (Bristol: Policy Press, 2011). Theakston, Kevin, ‘Evelyn Sharp (1903–85)’, Contemporary Record, 7:1 (1993), 132–48. ———, The Civil Service Since 1945, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995). ———, ‘Richard Crossman: The Diaries of a Cabinet Minister’, Public Policy and Administration, 18:4 (2003), 20–40. Thornton, Stephen, ‘A Case of Confusion and Incoherence: Social Security under Wilson, 1964–1970’, Contemporary British History, 20:3 (2006), 441–60. ———, Richard Crossman and the Welfare State (London: I.B. Tauris, 2009). Thorpe, D.R., Alec Douglas-Home, (London: Politico’s, 1996). Thurley, Simon, Whitehall Palace: The Official Illustrated History (London: Merrell, 2008). Till, Jeremy, Architecture Depends (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2008). Tomlinson, Jim, ‘Conservative Modernisation, 1960–64: Too Little, Too Late?’, Contemporary British History, 11:3 (1997), 18–38. Toplis, Ian, The Foreign Office: An Architectural History (London: Continuum, 1987). Tufte, Edward R., Envisioning Information (Cheshire CT: Graphics Press, 1990). Upitis, Alise, ‘Personality, Consumption and Architectural Pedagogy in the UK, 1958–1968’, arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 12:3–4 (2008), 325–35. Vesely, Dalibor, Architecture in the Age of Divided Representation: The Question of Creativity in the Shadow of Production (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2004). Victorian Society, Report 1962–1963 (London: Victorian Society, 1963). Vidler, Anthony, Histories of the Immediate Present: Inventing Architectural Modernism (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2008). 288 DEMOLISHING WHITEHALL

———, ‘Diagrams of Diagrams: Architectural Abstraction and Modern Representation’ in Mark Garcia (ed.), The Diagrams of Architecture: AD Reader (London: John Wiley and Sons, 2010), pp. 54–63. ———, James Frazer Stirling: Notes from the Archive (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011). Vigar, Geo, The Politics of Mobility: Transport Planning, The Environment and Public Policy (London: Taylor and Francis, 2001). Warburton, Nigel, Ernö Goldfinger: The Life of an Architect (London: Routledge, 2004). Wentworth Thompson, D’Arcy, On Growth and Form (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Weston, Richard, Modernism (London: Phaidon, 1996). White, Michael, ‘Lord Kennet’, The Guardian, 12 May (2009), [available at http://www. guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/12/politics-society]. Whitehead, A.N., Process and Reality (London: Macmillan, 1979). Wigley, Mark, ‘Network Fever’, Grey Room, 4 (2001), 82–122. Williams Goldhagen, Sarah and Legault, Rejèan, Anxious Modernisms: Experimentation in Postwar Architectural Culture (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2001). Williams, Marcia, Inside Number 10 ( London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1972). Williams, Raymond, The Country and the City (London: Chatto and Windus, 1973). Wilson, Alan, Entropy in Urban and Regional Modelling (London: Routledge, 1970). Wilson, Colin St. John, Architectural Reflections: Studies in the Philosophy and Practice of Architecture (London: Architectural Press, 1992). ———, The Other Tradition of Modern Architecture: The Uncompleted Project (London: Academy Editions, 1995). Wilson, Harold, The New Britain: Labour’s Plan Outlined by Harold Wilson (London: Penguin, 1964). ———, Purpose in Politics (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1964). ———, The Labour Government 1964–1970: A Personal Record (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson and Michael Joseph, 1971). ———, Memoirs 1916–1964: The Making of a Prime Minister (Weidenfeld and Nicolson and Michael Joseph, 1986). Wittkower, Rudolf, Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1999). Woodman, Ellis, ‘Centre for Alternative Technology Education Building by Pat Borer and David Lea’, Building Design, 25 June (2010). Young, Michael, The Rise of the Meritocracy (London: Thames and Hudson, 1958). Zeigler, Philip, Wilson: The Authorised Life (London: HarperCollins, 1995). [n.a] ‘Housing development, St. Pancras, London NW: Professor Sir Leslie Martin and Colin St. John Wilson, Assistant Architect: P.G. Hodgkinson’, Architectural Design, January (1959), 279–82. [n.a.], ‘Area Would Gain Sense of Enclosure’, The Guardian, 20 July (1965), 6. BIbLIOGrApHy 289

[n.a.], ‘Bold Plan to reshape heart of the nation’, The Daily Telegraph, 20 July (1965), 18–19. [n.a.], ‘Design for the Seat of Government’, The Guardian, 20 July (1965), 8. [n.a.], ‘London Plans’, London Evening Standard, 20 July (1965), 6. [n.a.], ‘Parliament’s Precincts’, The Times, Tuesday 20 July (1965), 11. [n.a.], ‘Reshaping of Parliament Square Proposed’, The New York Times, 20 July (1965). [n.a.], ‘London Plans a New Look’, The Washington Post, Sunday, 25 July (1965), G5. [n.a.], ‘MOPBW: The Whitehall Plan’, The Architect’s Journal, 28 July (1965), 178. [n.a.], ‘Whitehall Plan’, Country Life, 29 July (1965), 270. [n.a.], ‘Civic Trust Deputation on the Whitehall Plan’, 8 December (1965), 1358. [n.a.], Royal Institute of British Architects Plan of Work [1st edn] (London: RIBA, 1967). [n.a.], ‘Bulldozers to Start Attack on Whitehall in 1969’, The Guardian 18 October (1967), 5. [n.a.], National Building Specification 1973 [ rst edition] (London: NBS Ltd, 1972). [n.a.], ‘Guide to the AJ Information Library’, Architect’s Journal, 11 October (1972), 833–48. [n.a.], ‘Government Oces Get Go-Ahead’, Architect’s Journal, 9 August (1978), 244. [n.a.], ‘Lord Kennet’, The Telegraph, 11 May (2009), [available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/obituaries/politics-obituaries/5309774/Lord-Kennet.html].