Foster's Spitalfields: Trial and Error and the Tension Behind Its Redevelopment

FOSTER’S SPITALFIELDS: TRIAL AND ERROR AND THE TENSION BEHIND ITS REDEVELOPMENT

KSAWERY SABBAT UP659588 Having thrived as a centre of commerce since 1682, Spitalfields and its community had all but run out of steam by the mid 1980s. On the doorstep of the irresistibly expanding Square Mile, development of the East End with its poverty-stricken and scruffy streets was inevitable. Whilst the need for evolution was never doubted, the process and objectives were hotly contested by architect, developer, community and council alike. When eventually the project came to fruition, the former wholesale fruit and vegetable market had mutated beyond recognition, into a hybrid Figure 1. Foster's Building from Ground Level development combining glistening corporate facades with elegant Victorian wrought iron. Whilst the stallholder market remains the centrepiece of the site, Foster’s Bishops Square development houses high-tech City businesses. Within the constraints of a Developer’s masterplan, this juxtaposition was a diplomatic solution to the huge controversy surrounding the history of the site, and associated social, economic and cultural factors.

The Spitalfields Market site has a very rich history (see appendix, p. 13) that can be traced back to Roman times, when it was used as a cemetery. Extensive archaeological digs from 1998 to 2004 unearthed numerous buildings, skeletons and artefacts, adding significant further architectural challenges. Furthermore, as the site of a market for over 350 years, the district had a growing reputation as a multicultural neighbourhood, with wave after wave of immigrant communities attracted to the area’s commerce. From the Huguenots in the 1700s, through the Pogrom-driven Jewish influx of the late 1800s onwards, to the post-Raj period when it was dubbed ‘Banglatown’, each culture had its own influence, culminating in a very deeply rooted and proud community that exists to this day. It was clear that the “history had to be actively and carefully dealt with” (Whitby, 2015), even as the urban fabric that had matured over centuries was being threatened by the expansion of the city.

With the financial services sector of the City looking to expand, the latest chapter in this tangled history of Spitalfields starts with the Figure 2. Archaeologists Working on Sarcophagus 1987 purchase of the site by the Spitalfields Development Group (SDG), a joint venture between contractors Balfour Beatty and Costain. During this time the fruit-and-veg market itself was enjoying a period of growth but its inner city, poor and tired location was quickly becoming too congested. Trade was beginning to suffer, and a move to a purpose-built site with better infrastructure was mooted. Simultaneously, while the boom-and-bust 1980s were economically volatile (see appendix, p. 16), property prices by 1987 were high, and Spitalfields found itself in direct competition with other brownfield development zones with lower land values, such as Canary Wharf. This trifecta of economic, social, and physical constraints provided the SDG with a lucrative opportunity to “break down the glass wall between the City and the East End” (Estates Gazette, 1988). However, over the following years, the development caused huge problems, with as many as 121 Pressure groups formed against the development, all sharing the ironic view that the “threat now is not of poverty but of wealth” (Worsley, 1988, p. 104), but each with a unique set of demands.

This, along with further economic volatility, public sector inertia and the trial and error nature of design and planning restrictions, were the backdrop for the convoluted and protracted process of delivering a “premier indoor market and retail attraction for all” (Old Spitalfields Market, 2015). From the point at which SDG acquired the site to the point at which the Foster building was completed took 19 years, opening 11 years later than the originally planned completion date of 1994. There were several reasons behind this, including a constantly changing political landscape, a volatile economy, pressure groups, business disagreements and planning battles.

“At different times Labour, Liberal and Conservative administrations at Tower Hamlets and at the GLC [Greater London Council] have been involved in schemes” (Forman, 1989, p. 255)

At the start of the Spitalfields development, Tower Hamlets was a Liberal-controlled council. This was beneficial to the project, as the climate was pro-business and pro-development, especially during the property boom. Nevertheless, in order to change the purpose of the site from market use to mixed-use, SDG had to seek an act of parliament, duly granted in 1990, by which time there was a full economic downturn. Then, in 1994, at the height of the recession, Labour were re-elected, causing immediate re-evaluation of the ongoing development, as well as changing some of the planning regulations. On top of these difficulties, protest groups were doing everything in their power to stall development in the area, even launching a judicial review following a failure to conduct an environmental impact survey. These groups also discovered a potential conflict of interest as one of the advising architects was also an advisor to English Heritage (Gardiner, 2002).

“While waiting for its plans to mature and raising much cash by building banks on Bishopsgate and flats on the market’s North side, SDG let the market, on a subsidised basis, to local enterprises and sports clubs” (Clover, 2002)

Following the recession of 1990, development had anyway ground to a virtual halt. With no end in sight, SDG opened the space in February 1992 as part of a ‘Temporary Use’ programme. This included an interim leisure centre and football pitches. The market was reopened and local labour was used to construct a food court. This created 400 jobs and gave space to 50 business start-ups. The temporary use scheme was a resounding success, so much so that it was said to have “the potential to trip the whole project up” (Whitby, 2015). Although this was a scheme by the developers to make use of the space whilst waiting for planning and funds, its prominent success was used by dissidents as a reason why the market shouldn’t be levelled and developed!

“When we closed it off we were expecting to move on quickly to the next stage of development. Unfortunately the difficulties in juggling so many different demands, together with planning delays, have prevented that happening” – Michael Bear (Sturrock & Thompson, 2009, p. 33)

Another cause of delay was the activism of diverse pressure groups or individuals, each with a unique point of view concerning Spitalfields. The largest of these was Spitalfields Market Under Threat (SMUT), who represented a diverse group of protestors including the Spitalfields Historic Buildings Trust, The Spitalfields Community Association, and the East London Mosques Group, but more broadly professed to represent the local community and to broadcast their views. SMUT prided themselves on “turning up both illegalities and inconsistencies in SDGs endless revisions” (Winterson, 2001), launching judicial reviews, and organising protests. Whilst the general consensus was that development was inevitable, and perhaps necessary, there were still plenty of reservations. Above all were the civic shortcomings of the development: very few jobs were to be provided to

2 those from the local community; development of the market and surroundings would have driven up the cost of living and of rents, so forcing many to move away; and initially, the development was going to be far more corporate in nature, giving the site a day use only, not a 24hr use.

As the project advanced, public debate raged and the largest issue was fast becoming the design of the building. Firstly, the design was considered overwhelming for the site, and out of proportion with the urban fabric. Secondly, the design was said to be far too generic, with one local resident rueing a lost opportunity to achieve a development that is “exciting and keeps the personality of the area, which is fast disappearing” (Clover, 2002). Finally, the building was considered very unsympathetic to the history of the site, both in terms of preserving its archaeological interest, but also preserving the 1928 market structure that was considered suitable to its function. There was a growing feeling that neither the architect nor the developer were listening to local stakeholders. Television personality, architectural historian and Spitalfields resident, Dan Cruickshank, believed that Foster should be “reinforcing what is special, not ignoring Figure 3. Will Alsop's Counter-Proposal it. They should respect the archaeology, the history and the use of the existing buildings”. The scheme received plenty of staunch criticism from other members of the creative industries including Terence Conran and Tracey Emin, but perhaps most significantly from Will Alsop. Alsop was a peer of Foster’s, who submitted an alternative scheme (figure 3), crucially preserving the 1928 market extension and providing the required commercial area, by lifting the scheme off the ground and placing it on pilotis.

SMUT activist Jemima Broadbridge argues: “Spitalfields residents do not want their market replaced by a soulless office development, a windswept corporate plaza and chain stores. A more imaginative solution needs to be found” (Clover, 2002)

In the end, faced with the perception of an inevitable outcome, many action groups decided to give up after such a drawn out dispute. While doubts about the suitability of the scheme still linger to this day, a significant portion of activists turned to focus on the prevention of development on other surrounding sites, such as the London Fruit and Wool Exchange. A few pressure groups still remain, most notably The Spitalfields Trust, which, along with its figurehead, Dan Cruickshank, is currently protesting against the development of Norton Folgate, adjacent to the Bishops Square site. As recently as the 19th July 2015, Cruickshank organised and took part in a protest against this development, that attracted as many as 500 protesters (Brooke, 2015).

While undoubtedly some of the blame for the Spitalfields farce lay at their feet, it would be unfair solely to vilify the developer and architects. It may well be a direct outcome of the local outcry and activism, but clear steps were taken by SDG to make the development kinder to its inhabitants. Following ongoing criticism concerning the lack of new employment opportunities, in 1992 SDG Chief Executive Michael Bear joined the Bethnal Green City Challenge, a regeneration company, with a view to create more local jobs. Furthermore, in 1997, SDG invested in Cityside Regeneration and City Fringe SRB. Over 12 years these companies created more than 4300 jobs, 600 businesses, built

495 new social homes and refurbished a further 1665, all in the surrounding areas. In addition, throughout the construction process 10% of the labour was sourced locally. Significantly, Allen & Overy, the City law firm and main tenant of the Bishops Square development, entered into a social deal promising employment from local pools, an education program to help local school children, and a youth training scheme. Finally, its employees contributed 27,000 hours of pro bono consultation to local charities. Also, Hammerson PLC, who bought a majority interest in SDG in 2000, co-funded the Spitalfields Employment Project, that ran from January 2006 to December 2008, and which aimed to employ 300 people, and train a further 220. In response to criticism surrounding the history of the site, Hammerson spent £4million on sponsoring the archaeological digs.

Area : 101 521m2. Height: 54m. 11 storeys 72,000 m2 offices, 3,700m2 retail, apartments, community facilities, cafes and restaurants. Developers: Hammerson PLC and City of London Corporation Architect: Foster + Partners Structural Engineer: Arup Design and Build Contractor: Sir Robert McAlpine Landscape Architect: Townshend Landscape Architects Primary Office Tenant: Allen & Overy Interior fit-out architects: Pringle Brandon Quantity Surveyor: Davis Langdon Project Manager: Second London Wall Services Engineer: Hoare Lea & Partners Planning Consultant: Montague Evans 2 Construction Cost: £168m - £1520/m Lease: £480/m2. Rent Roll: £34million PA

Figure 4. High Perspective View of Foster's Building

With tensions running high, Foster + Partners were criticised, often unfairly, for the lack of imagination of the scheme. This is not entirely their fault, as they would have been constrained by the 117 week Design and Build contract with SDG. Foster was introduced to the scheme at the RIBA work stage D, the point at which the project brief is fully developed, but where there is little or no detailed design. This meant that Foster had very little space to amend the brief to better suit the location or the needs of the general public. As a result the brief would have been very developer- driven, likely maximising useable office and retail space, hence profit margins. Sir Robert McAlpine were assigned as the main construction contractor. Interestingly, they had built part of the 1928 market extension that was knocked down to make way for the Bishops Square development. Furthermore, a guaranteed maximum price was agreed and there were added financial incentives for delivering the project early to a high specification, but this left Foster no time to make significant changes. In total the construction cost was £168m, of which £155m was spent on the office block, and £9m on external works including the landscaping

The first scheme for the redevelopment of Spitalfields was submitted soon after SDG bought the site from the Corporation of London. MJP Architects and Fitzroy Robinson & Partners were commissioned to design the first masterplan. This was perhaps the most sympathetic of the proposals, as it drew from traditional London streetscapes and Figure 5. Masterplans. Clockwise Fom Top Left:1987,1993, 1997, 2003 maintained a sense of community in the tight knit spaces (figure 5). However soon afterwards, following several disagreements, Swanke Hayden Connell Architects (SHC) were appointed as the new masterplanners. In 1991 SHC’s scheme was called into question by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), and shortly after this, in 1992, planning for Foster’s first scheme was rejected on the basis that it obstructed key views. The masterplan was once again revised in 1993, in a process more akin to trial and error, this time by Ben Thompson Associates and EPR Architects. This scheme included 4 acres of public and private open space but was far more corporate minded and included 250 Bishopsgate, the first building that was completed on the Spitalfields site. Yet another new scheme was proposed in 1997 when The London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange (LIFFE) decided to expand into a bespoke building independently designed by Foster + Partners on the site. In 1999, Foster’s second scheme won detailed planning permission, but by this time LIFFE had pulled out on the basis that they had moved to electronic trading instead of open outcry. This rendered Foster’s designs useless, as appropriate spaces had been specifically considered. This ended Foster’s interest in the Spitalfields development until 2001 when Hammerson PLC (who had recently purchased SDG) appointed Foster for a third scheme named Bishops Square, comprising of offices for international law firm Allen & Overy, a generous public space, along with apartments, restaurants, cafes and community facilities. The aim of this scheme was clearly to transform an existing backwater into a vibrant international community. Construction started in December 2001, finished in July 2005 and was handed over to Allen & Overy, after internal fit-out, in December 2006.

“The scheme had transformed a former wholesale fruit and vegetable market into an eclectic, bustling urban quarter” (Foster + Partners, 2005).

Foster’s Bishop Square building is very modest by his standards, and “by not drawing attention to itself, more prominence is given to the civic spaces, the greenery, the market building and the retail pavilions” (Spring, 2005). Its form, although utilitarian, is immediately recognisable as vintage Foster, cleverly conceived with impeccable and seamless detailing. The steel frame structure allowed for both the ease and speed of construction and was a suitable material to deal with the ambitiously- designed spans. Only in plan does one realise the astounding scale of the building, as the

Figure 6. Plan View of Foster's Bishops Square

configuration of four 18m wide rectangles conceal the fact that the building’s plot is a 100m square (figure 6). Moreover the building is crenulated both vertically and horizontally, further distracting from its size. This technique also serves to reflect the intricate spaces of the original urban fabric. The building “steps back from the site in a series of green tiers with lush roof gardens overlooking the plaza below” (Foster + Partners, 2005) meaning that it is unimposing from the streets surrounding the market, thereby not detracting from it. However, from Bishops Square, the hierarchy of its structure gives it a degree of authority and presence. One of the main strengths of the scheme is that it integrates harmoniously with the Horner Market and the Brushfield Street Georgian façade through a glass roofed courtyard. This has created a permeable pedestrianised structure with new routes in and around the site and also created a new market space (named Crispin Place) providing flexible space for more stalls, restaurants and retail lots. This response is “a sympathetic transition between the Georgian buildings on the street and the new office buildings” (Intuitive Communications, 2007, p. 11), which actually serves to frame certain views across the site, including that of Hawksmoor’s Christ Church. Additionally, the building has been tailored to have little impact on the archaeologically sensitive site. Charnel House, the most significant of the 25 medieval buildings discovered “has been preserved and is exhibited with other artefacts within a sunken courtyard, protected beneath a glass pavement” (Foster + Partners, 2005).

“Sustainability is a word that has become fashionable in the last decade. However, sustainability is not a matter of fashion, but of survival” (Foster, 2003, p. 2),

This awareness is further facilitated by the environmental strategy. The scheme integrates one of the largest commercial photovoltaic installations in Europe, generating 54,000 kWh per year. The windows are all triple glazed, which in conjunction with its deep plan means that it performs well environmentally despite large swathes of glazing. Finally, turfed roofs and roof gardens not only

6 have a beneficial environmental effect, but also provide a pleasant, natural and social atmosphere for employees.

In the gap between Foster’s building and EPR’s 250 Bishopsgate, there is a landscaped courtyard designed by Townshend Landscape Architects. The courtyard proves more of an oasis, a regimented but natural escape from the surrounding busy streets and corporate lifestyle. It is widely used and provides a pleasant area for workers and public alike. It includes a covered performance space where there is an “ongoing programme of art installations orchestrated by the Spitalfields Development Group, which aims to celebrate Spitalfields' rich history and the evolving nature of the area” (Foster + Partners, 2005).

Once Foster + Partners were re-appointed to design Bishops Square, following the failure of the LIFFE building, there were several planning and physical constraints to deal with. The project was “complex and multi-faceted and there was no single solution that would satisfy all sides” (Intuitive Communications, 2007, p. 6). Foster had to achieve a building of significant architectural merit without compromising his surroundings, after CABE had blocked SHC’s master plan and two of Foster’s past proposals. The final consideration was “how to address such a sensitive site” (Whitby, 2015). Whilst the height was not strictly limited, avoiding a tall structure would prevent Bishops Square from detracting from the Horner Market, and this also prevented disputes concerning a ‘right to light’ that had blighted previous projects, but is a critical consideration in such tight, urban plots. The placement of the building also had to be carefully considered so as not to impede critical views, provide suitable pedestrian permeability and work complementarily with surrounding historical buildings. Foster had to deliver a specific brief within the planning and societal constraints. SDG and their main tenants for the development, Allen & Overy, required high area floor plans, on top of retail space to make the project commercially viable. Foster actually achieved 65% more floor area than he did in the gherkin skyscraper.

Figure 7. West Elevation

Figure 8. West Section

From urban deterioration and deprivation, rapid deindustrialisation and unemployment, through the economic benefits of wealth creation, jobs and investment, to meeting the outcry for conservation, the urban atmosphere in Spitalfields has undoubtedly changed. Despite all of the valid points of view and persistent controversy, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the development was a relative success. Success can be measured through critical acclaim and awards, and Foster’s design won three:

 London Planning Awards – Best New Public Space  London Planning Awards – Best Built Project Contributing to London’s Future [joint winner]  Regeneration Awards – Best Commercial-led Regeneration Project.

However, these are developers’ awards, not architectural or societal awards and may not take into consideration the aspects that truly matter in a community or the effect on the urban grain. Another measure of success is by the assessment of those in charge. Michael Bear stated that “if the market loses its character, ultimately we will have failed” (Sturrock & Thompson, 2009, p. 38). Not only has this been avoided, but the development has enhanced the market, through restoration of Old Spitalfields Market and the interplay with Foster’s Bishops Square. Furthermore, business is thriving, all of the retail units are occupied and the office space is being utilised. It is clear that “the twin forces of conservation and economics have radically changed Spitalfields” (Worsley, 1988, p. 105). Foster’s masterful architecture defines the development. Disappointingly, we will never know what Foster’s response would have been without the constraints of a design and build contract as there is definitely room to improve concerning sympathy towards both the locality and history and the design.

“It's a battle whose outcome will have repercussions far beyond Spitalfields. It will set the agenda for the much larger plans for offices now being contemplated in a tight ring all around London's old financial core”. (Sudjic, 2001)

As the city continues its expansion into the East End, the Spitalfields redevelopment will set a precedent and act as a catalyst for revitalisation of surrounding spaces (see appendix, p.17). Already, many major developments are awaiting planning permission, counting The Bishopsgate Goodsyard, the Fruit and Wool Exchange, Norton Folgate and Shoreditch High Street amongst others. All are as controversial as Spitalfields and proving to be very contentious. Hopefully, the developers can learn from their mistakes and shortcomings, if only to avoid a 19 year long construction period.

Figure 9. Bishops Square Landscape

Bibliography Baillieu, A., 1987. New Controversy Over Spitalfields. Building Design, 10 April, p. 1.

BBC, 2012. Fruit and Wool Exchange plans approved by Boris Johnson. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19896394 [Accessed 21 July 2015].

Bear, M., 2011. Spitalfields: Opportunity through Regeneration. s.l.:s.n.

Bishopsgate Institute, 2015. Bishopsgate Institute Library Catalgue and Archives. [Online] Available at: http://www.bishopsgate.org.uk/LibraryCatalogue.aspx [Accessed 20 July 2015].

Blackler, Z., 2002. Spitalfields Campaign to Fight on as Scheme Gets Go-Ahead. The Architects' Journal, 17 October, p. 15.

Booth, R., 2001. Dual Threat to City Fringe. Building Design, 9 November, p. 6.

Booth, R., 2001. Foster's Back at Spitalfields Helm. Building Design, 15 June, p. 3.

Brooke, M., 2012. Assembly’s John Biggs joins battle to save London Fruit & Wool Exchange. The Docklands & East London Advertiser, 17 October.

Brooke, M., 2015. 500 protesters join hands in ‘human chain’ protest over Norton Folgate Liberty. The Docklands & East London Advertiser, 19 July.

Building Design, 2002. Spitalfields Demolition Go-Ahead. Building Design, 18 October, p. 1.

Building, 2005. City on the March. Building, 14 October.

Clover, C., 2002. Old Timers Versus City Slickers: The Fight Goes On . . .. The Telegraph, 11 May.

Derbyshire, B., 2014. Too Academic, Sensitive and Complex for Corporate London. Building Design, 30 July, Volume July.

Dunton, J., 2015. Bishopsgate Goodsyard Takes Step Forward. Building, 20 July.

Fletcher, R., 2001. Law Firm to Build Spitalfields HQ. The Telegraph, 14 October.

Forman, C., 1989. Spitalfields - A Battle for Land. s.l.:Hilary Shipman Ltd.

Foster + Partners, 2005. Bishops Square - Press Release 06/10/2005. s.l.:s.n.

Foster + Partners, 2005. Bishops Square, London, UK 2001 -2005. [Online] Available at: http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/bishops-square/ [Accessed 20 July 2015].

Foster, N., 2003. Architecture and Sustainability, s.l.: s.n.

Foster, N., 2008. Foster + Parners: Catalogue. London: Prestel.

Gardiner, J., 2002. CABE Puts Pressure on Spitalfields. Building, 25 January, p. 16.

Glancey, J., 2001. Office Politics. The Guardian, 17 December.

Halliday, S., 2014. London's Markets: From Smithfield to Portobello Road. s.l.:The History Press.

Hammerson PLC, 1999. Hammerson Acquires Central London Development Scheme. [Online] Available at: http://www.hammerson.com/media/press-releases/acquisition-10/ [Accessed 21 July 2015].

Hammerson PLC, 2002. Hammerson Agrees Terms with Allen & Overy for Lease of 70,000m2 Spitalfields Office Scheme, s.l.: Hammerson PLC.

Hammerson PLC, 2005. Hammerson and the Corporation of London Complete Bishops Square. [Online] Available at: http://www.hammerson.com/media/press-releases/hammerson-and-the-corporation- of-london-complete-bishops-square/ [Accessed 15 July 2015].

Intuitive Communications, 2007. Spitalfields: A Reflection of Success, London: Hammerson PLC & City of London Corporation.

Jenkins, D., 2009. Norman Foster Works 5. London: Prestel Publishing.

Kennett, S., 2005. The City Meets Spitalfields. Building Services Journal, October, pp. 16,17.

Lewis, J., 1997. Locals Line Up Against Spitalfields Proposal. Building Design, 2 May, p. 1.

London City Council, 1957. Survey of London: Voulme 27, Spitalfields and Mile End New Town. London: F H W Sheppard.

Long, D., 2011. Hidden City: The Secret Alleys, Courts and Yards of London's Square Mile. Stroud, Gloucester: The History Press.

Lynch, R., 2014. British Land Set to Blossom with Spitalfields Project. The Evening Standard, 19 December.

Marks, S., 2002. Foster Redesigns Spitalfields Plan. THe Evening Standard, 11 March.

McKenzie, M. & Daykin, A., 2007. Pavillions at Old Spitalfields Market E1, London: Museum of London Archaeology Service.

Old Spitalfields Market, 2015. OSM Facebook. [Online] Available at: https://www.facebook.com/oldspitalfieldsmarket/info?tab=page_info&__mref [Accessed 23 July 2015].

Packer, N., 1994. Spitalfields Residential Development Will Offer Opportunities to Independent Architects. The Architects' Journal, 23 Febuary, p. 5.

Pettinger, T., 2012. UK Economy in the 1980s. [Online] Available at: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/630/economics/economy-in-1980s/ [Accessed 20 July 2015].

Powell, K., 2005. New London Architecture. 2nd Revised Edition ed. London: Merrell Publishers.

Richards, J., 2005. Hammerson - City of London Offices Presentation. s.l.:s.n.

Richards, J., 2006. Hammerson - The City of London Office Market. s.l.:s.n.

Slavid, R., 1997. LIFFE Goes on in Spitalfields. The Architects' Journal, 8 May, p. 13.

Spring, M., 2005. 19 Years, 17 Architects and a Rich Roman Lady. Building Design.

Spring, M., 2005. The City Marches East - Bishops Square, Spitalfields. Building, 16 September, pp. 64-71.

Sturrock, J. & Thompson, J., 2009. New Heart for an Old Soul - Spitalfields Revitalised, s.l.: Spitalfields Development Group.

Sudjic, D., 2001. Generation Gap Opens in Battle for Spitalfields. The Observer, 2 December.

Sudjic, D., 2001. Save Spitalfields from Market Forces. The Observer, 15 July.

Taylor, D., 2001. 'Scaremongers' in Spitalfields Row. The Architects' Journal, 16 August, pp. 4,5.

The Architects' Journal, 1989. Developers Deny Spitalfields Coup. The Architects' Journal, 1 March, p. 11.

The Architects' Journal, 1989. Killingfields. The Architects' Journal, 26 July, p. 13.

The Architects' Journal, 1991. Spitalfields: Foster Thinks Big. The Architects' Journal, 16 October, p. 9.

The Architects' Journal, 2011. City Architecture: Redesigning the City of London 1991 - 2011. The Architects' Journal, 20 January, pp. 19-123.

The Docklands & East London Advertiser, 2012. Spitalfields Heritage Threat. The Docklands & East London Advertiser, 18 October.

The Gentle Author , 2015. D-Day for Norton Folgate. Spitalfields Life, 21 July.

The Gentle Author, 2014. Market forces: Spitalfields children at the start of the 20th century. The Guardian, 25 October.

The Gentle Author, 2015. Save Norton Folgate. Spitalfields Life, 8 Febuary.

Wellman, P., 2010. Bishopsgate Goodsyard. Estates Gazette, 15 January.

Whitby, I., 2015. Foster + Partners and the Spitalfields Redevelopment [Interview] (7 July 2015).

Winterson, J., 2001. Spitalfields. [Online] Available at: www.jeanettewinterson.com [Accessed 20 July 2015].

Worsley, G., 1988. Saving Spitalfields. Country Life, 11 Febuary, pp. 103-105.

List of Illustrations

Figure 1. Foster’s Building from Ground Level 1

[Photograph] Fosterandpartners.com

Figure 2. Archaeologists Working on Sarcophagus 1

[Photograph] (Bear, 2011, p. 66)

Figure 3. Will Alsop’s Counter-Proposal 3

[Render] (Spring, 2005)

Figure 4. High Perspective View of Foster’s Building 4

[Photograph] jssl.com

Figure 5. Masterplans. Clockwise from Top Left: 1987, 1993, 1997, 2003

[Sketches] (Bear, 2011, p. 75)

Figure 6. Plan View of Foster’s Bishop Square 6

[Technical Drawing] Fosterandpartners.com

Figure 7. West Elevation 7

[Technical Drawing] Fosterandpartners.com

Figure 8. West Section 7

[Technical Drawing] Fosterandpartners.com

Figure 9. Bishops Square Landscape 8

[Photograph] Fosterandpartners.com

Appendix

Historical Timeline of the Spitalfields Site

AD 300/400 The site of a Roman Cemetery 1197 Priory of St. Mary of the Spittle, a medieval hospital 1669 Site becomes a firing range, home to the Honourable Artillery Company 1682 King Charles II, allows the area to become a market 1700’s Large number of Huguenots (French and Flemish Protestants) settle in the area. They become renowned for their silk-making expertise 1875 Robert Horner purchases the market lease at a public auction 1880 Mass Jewish settlement in Spitalfields starts. Invention of the sewing machine mechanises the growing clothing trade in the area. 1887 The ‘Horner Market’ is officially completed 1900’s New wave of settlement. Brings Maltese, Irish, Scottish, West Indian, Somalian and Bangladeshi communities to Spitalfields 1920 The Corporation of London acquires control of the market. Started a long period of growth 1928 Extension to the existing Spitalfields market. Partly constructed by Sir Robert McAlpine, who later build the Foster + Partners Bishops Square Development. 1940’s Market Traders get together to purchase a Spitfire to help the war effort. It was called ‘Fruitaition’

Timeline of the Spitalfields Site Redevelopment

May The Corporation of London puts the 5ha market site on the market. Primarily to 1986 compete with the Docklands to house London’s growing financial sector September -The Spitalfields Development Group (SDG) acquire the site 1987 -The first scheme is quickly put together and completion is set for 1994 -MJP and Fitzroy Robinson and Partners are commissioned to design the scheme October An alternative scheme is proposed by Save Britain’s Heritage. 1987 1989 Act of Parliament approved for the market to move January -New architects: Swanke Hayden Connell (SHC) brought in to help MJP. 1989 -Hunt Thompson, Allies and Morrison, Edward Cullinan and Pollard Thomas &Edwards in too. August -Previously appointed firms fall out with SHC and resign 1989 -More new architects appointed: Colquhoun & Miller, Ian Ritchie, Burrell Foley and Santiago Calatrava March The Fruit and Vegetable Market moves to Temple Hill – a purpose build site that 1991 cost SDG £50million May -SHC’s scheme called into question by CABE (Commission for Architecture and the 1991 Built Environment) -New Masterplanner: Ben Thompson Associates, to work with EPR architects 1992 Tower Hamlets develops 118 social homes and a sports centre with funds from the SDG February Temporary use given to the market as the property market is in the midst of a 1992 recession April SDG Chief Executive joins the Bethnal Green City Challenge (BGCC) – a 1992 regeneration company with a view to create more local jobs and provide adequate social housing June Foster + Partners first scheme rejected by planners as it threatened key views 1992 across the site 1993 The Ben Thompson masterplan has planning consent granted by Tower Hamlets 1997 SDG contributes to two more regeneration companies: Cityside Regeneration and City Fringe SRB 1997 SMUT (Spitalfields Market Under Threat) the largest pressure group, launch a Judicial review claiming that the development was not lawful as no environmental impact survey was conducted at the time. 1998 Archaeological dig begins led by the Museum of London Archaeological Service (MoLAS) 1998 The first office building is completed – ABN Amro offices at 250 Bishopsgate. Designed by EPR architects. Now leased by RBS. 1998 SDG in conjunction with St. George develops a classical brick terrace of 187 houses on Folgate Street, the North Boundery of the Spitalfields development. 1999 -The intact remains of a rich young Roman lady are found within a stone sarcophagus -Ballymore buy the Old Spitalfields Horner Market August Foster + Partners Second wins detailed planning permission, but is rejected by 1999 LIFFE (London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange) because of a move towards electronic trading which meant that internal spaces were designed for a now nonexistent function.

January Second office completed – serviced offices at 288 Bishopsgate. Designed by Foggo 2000 Associates. March Property group Hammerson PLC acquire SDG 2001 June -Foster + Partners appointed by Hammerson PLC and SDG for a third scheme. 2001 -Contract signed with key tenant Allen & Overy. This helped push planning permission through. October Third office completed – RBS offices at 280 Bishopsgate. Designed by Foggo 2001 associates November SMUT (Spitalfields Market Under Threat) and architect Will Alsop submit a counter 2001 proposal to the Foster + Partners scheme, with the aim of preserving the 1928 market extension. January Foster + Partners design for Bishops Square comes under heavy criticism from 2002 CABE November Foster + Partners revised scheme wins planning permission. 2002 2004 Archaeological dig finishes having unearthed 25 medieval buildings, 10,600 skeletons and several other artefacts including two bottles of Madeira wine from a house demolished in 1682. March In 12 years BGCC, Cityside Regeneration and City Fringe SRB have created more 2004 than 4300 jobs, 600 businesses, built 495 social homes and renovated a further 1665. September Bishops Square Completed by Sir Robert McAlpine 2005 November -Julian Harrap Architects and Jestico +Whiles start the restoration of Old 2005 Spitalfields Market -Lyons Sleaman Hoare complete a mezzanine level in the market December Allen & Overy to complete move into the Bishops Square Development follow 2006 completion of interior fit-out by Pringle Brandon 2008 Restoration work of Old Spitalfields Market is completed 2009 Refurbishment and extension to the Grade II listed St. Botolphs’s Hall, in Bishops Square completed by Matthew Lloyd Architects January 2009 -Completion of Eden House by Scott Brownrigg Architects. Bordering on Bishops square. -Widely considered the final piece of the Spitalfields Market Development Area

Economic Indicators

House prices are an accurate representation of the property market.

List of Buildings and architects involved in the Extended Spitalfields Redevelopment

Additional Date Value Location Information Completed Function Architect Developer Size (m2) (£) Offices, First completed originally 250 building of the EPR 1998 for ABN SDG 23,000 Bishopsgate Spitalfields Architects Amro, now Redevelopment RBS 288 Foggo 2000 Offices SDG 2,300 46m Bishopsgate Associates 280 Offices for Foggo 2001 SDG 250,000 111m Bishopsgate RBS Associates SDG / Bishops Offices & Foster + 2005 Hammerson 101,521 168m Square Retail Partners Plc Jestico & Old Whiles and Spitalfield 2008 Retail Julian Ballymore Market Harrap Restoration Architects Matthew Spital St. Botoplh’s Historic Hammerson 2009 Lloyd 300,000 Square Hall Building Plc Architects Matthew Hammerson Bishops St. Botoplh’s 2009 Residential Lloyd UK / Native 5.3m Square Hall Extension Architects Land Royal Scott Spital London Eden House 2009 Office Brownrigg 5,400 Square Asset Architects Management M&G Real Estate Brushfield London Fruit & Office & Bennetts (purchased 32,500 200m Street Wool Exchange Retail Associates from Exemplar) Office, Hammerson Bishopsgate Retail and Farrells Plc and 350,000 Goodsyard Residential Ballymore 22nd July 2015, Office, Norton Tower Hamlets Retail and AHMM British Land 29,700 Folgate rejects planning Residential permission Shoreditch Hammerson 32,500 High Street Plc 22 Office & PLP Axa Real Bishopsgate Retail Architecture Estate

Map Showing development Sites. 1:2500