SAHGB Publications Limited Plans of the New Town of Edinburgh Author(s): M. K. Meade Source: Architectural History, Vol. 14 (1971), pp. 40-52+142-148 Published by: SAHGB Publications Limited Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568296 . Accessed: 25/03/2013 16:44 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. SAHGB Publications Limited is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Architectural History. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 132.206.27.24 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:44:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Plans of the New Town of Edinburgh byM. K. MEADE The Edinburgh Town Council minutes for 6 June 1767 record that: 'On Wednesday last the Magistrates of Edinburgh conferred on Mr James Craig, Architect, a gold medal with the freedom of the city in a silver box, as a reward of his merit for having designed the best plan of the New Town.' Despite the importance of this plan (Fig.33a) unfortunately little is known of its architect'sbackground. Born c. 1740,James Craig's father was an Edinburgh merchant, his mother a sister of the poet JamesThomson, best remembered as the author of RuleBritannia and The Seasons.No record survives of his early education and though he is supposed to have received his architecturaltraining under Sir Robert Taylor, this would appearto be a confusion with a namesake. An obscure young man then, the New Town Competition of 1766-67,was to bring him sudden fame. Extension of the Royalty of Edinburgh was by no means a new idea, and Craig's award-winning plan must be seen as the culmination of a series of attempts to enlarge the city. The Old Town was hemmed in on its long ridge with the ground falling steeply away to rise abruptly on an open plain to the south and to the north on a broad ridge. The hollow on this side was partly filled by the North Loch. As early as the 1680sJames II had encouraged improve- ment and expansion and a bridge programme to improve access was mooted. All was curtailed, however, by the Revolution of 1688.The issue was not taken up until 1720,when the Council acquired the Loch Bank Estate(on the north side of the North Loch). A residential quarter was to be established, further properties bought and the loch transformed into a canal. To this end an act was passed in 1723, but in the face of local opposition and a tight financial situation there was no immediate sequel. For long only small unrelated schemes were to make headway in the hands of private enterprise. Extension of the city was not only being considered at home. The correspon- dence of John, 11th Earlof Mar, exiled for his part in the '15, contains important presages both of the North Bridge and Craig's plan. In a letter of 1728, Mar recommends an almost identical site for a new town on the broad ridge to the north, '.. having a noble prospect...' and '.. a fine opportunity for gardens down to the North Loch and one on the other side towards Broughton'. But if the Royalty was to have a planned expansion, the initiative had to come from the Town Council. Here, however, the opposition lobby continued to put up strong resistance,and the subsequent 'Proposals'of 1752and 1759(of great interest as town planning documents of the period) produced in fact no more tangible results, apartfrom John Adam's Exchange, than those of 1720-23. Only in 1763was the North Bridgescheme pursued with any success. In July 40 of that year the ScotsMagazine published an article on the bridge, illustrated This content downloaded from 132.206.27.24 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:44:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions with a proposed elevation.' The latter was reissued with a plan of the city MEADE:NEW showing an advanced 'ringroad scheme' converging on the new bridge (Fig. TOWN OF 32b).4 The road plan and elevation are particularly interesting as they bear EDINBURGH Craig's signature, the earliest extant example of his work and proof of his connection with extension schemes for the city at least three years before the competition of 1766. Behind the proposals stands the commanding figure of George Drummond. First elected Provost in 1723, he became a most active supporter of the city's expansion. It was Drummond who saw the advantage of first securing accept- ance of the bridge: this achieved, his main objective, the development of the fields to the north, would more easily follow. In 1766Drummond gained the provostship for the last time. He died before the end of his tenure, but the opposition had been overcome: the North Bridge was under construction,' and on 22 March the Town Council had announced its intention of holding a public competition for the design of a new town. Altogether six plans were received, and on 2 August Drummond announced the Committee's decision that plan No.4 by Mr JamesCraig, architect, held the most merit. The committee of adjudication included 'among the artists the MessrsAdams by whom several alterations were made to the plan'. Obviously the committee was not entirely satisfied,and from August 1766to July 1767a series of protracted discussions ensued in which Craig apparently made several amendments and finally produced a new plan. Some light may be thrown on these proceedings by a 'Plan of Edinburghand Places Adjacent' (Figs 33a & b)6 published by John Laurie, an important Edinburgh cartographer, in 1766. Though on a very small scale, this plan shows the projected new town. Laurie had been called upon to prepare the ground survey for the competition7 and producing an accurate and up-to-date map that same year, he would have every interest in making use of the award-winning design. Engraving on copper, corrections could easily be made and two editions of his plan exist showing different layouts for the New Town (Figs 31a&b).These very possiblyillustrate Craig's initial project or the subsequent amendments proposed to the com- mittee prior to the manuscript plan of July 1767.8 The success of Craig'sscheme owes much to his simple but effective use of the site, with the central axis terminated by squares on the crown of the ridge and transversestreets connecting the parallel Queen and PrincesStreets on the slopes. The latter, having buildings on one side only, provide magnificent views (as Lord Mar predicted) down to the Forth or across to the Old Town and the Castle Rock. The rectilinear design is largely imposed by the site, and it would therefore seem unfair to criticize Craig'slack of originality.Moreover, Craig was not required to produce a grandiose plan on the lines of those illustrated in Patte's Monumentsdriges d la gloirede LouisXV, but a viable housing scheme to relieve overcrowding of the Old Town as well as providing suitable accommodation for its wealthier inhabitants. In October 1767Craig went to London on council business. Capitalizing on his success, he promptly made himself known at Court, and presented his New Town plan to King George III,to whom the origin of some street names is owed. An early print of the plan9 dedicatedto the king, omitted any reference to the Town a snub Council, which caused some offence to the magistrates. 41 This content downloaded from 132.206.27.24 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:44:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCHITECTURAL This arrogance in his dealings with his clients was to be a recurring trait of HISTORY 14: 1971 Craig's character and one which probably contributed to the decline of his practicein later years. Now well established, Craig saw fit to suggest certain improvements to his Gold Medal plan. The London episode may have brought him into contact with John Gwynn's contemporary town planning proposals for that city. Possibly he gained some knowledge of the Woods' work in Bath or, more simply, he was tempted to return to the earlierversion in the John Lauriemap of 1766(Fig.31a). At least in 1774he presented two circus projects(Figs34a&b)" sited at the junction of FrederickStreet and George Street in the centre of his plan. Building had only just started on the east end of George Street, but the circus scheme was not taken up by the authorities. Placed on the crown of the ridge, the sharp fall in ground on either side would probably have required considerable banking to handle the design successfully, and for the Town Council the loss in housing, and consequently feu-duty, must have been the main disadvantage. A circus scheme was still being considered in 1780-82as Ainslie's map shows (Fig.32a)", but, though this version is reduced to a more practicalsize, it was finally passedover and Craig'soriginal plan followed. In 1773 Craig had designed St James' Square (Fig.35),12commissioned by Walter Ferguson, Writer to the Signet, as a private speculation. In this case Craigalso provided the elevations, severe ashlarfacades broken only by slightly projecting bays and treated as a unified composition.