1
Upper Lawn Pavilion by Alison and Peter Smithson Nicholas Oslington Kingston University 2
Contents Introduction 5 Chapter 1 ‐
CIAM 6
‐
Team 10
‐
Hunstanton School in Northfolk 7
‐
‘This is Tomorrow’ 11
‐
Patio and Pavilion 13
Chapter 2 ‐
Historical context 14
‐
Analysis of Upper Lawn Pavilion 15
Chapter 3 ‐
Architects; Alison and Peter Smithson 22
‐
Restoration; commissioned by Sergison Bates 24
‐
Conclusion 26
‐
Bibliography 29
‐
Illustration 30
3
4
Introduction This dissertation is composed of three main strands that will attempt to analyse and explore The Upper Lawn Pavilion by Alison and Peter Smithson. It will focus on the tectonic and material qualities of the building, and the ideas behind its design, explaining why this building is such a successful piece of architecture. In terms of historical context, this dissertation concentrates primarily on the period of the twentieth century between 1950 and 1960; a period of austerity and social change in wake of the Second World War. Chapter 1 explores Alison and Peter Smithsons involvement in the movement of contemporary art from CIAM to Team 10, underpinning a clear identification of their ideas. It will then introduce the Smithson’s brutalist approach to the School of Hunstanton in Northfolk, continuing towards the Independent Group and their ‘Patio and Pavilion’ installation at the exhibition ‘This is Tomorrow’. The aim of this chapter is laying a descriptive foundation for a better understanding of the ideas and theories behind Upper Lawn Pavilion. Chapter 2 analyses Upper Lawn Pavilion in detail, bringing forward Alison and Peter Smithson’s ideas from the ‘Valley Section’ described at CIAM’s tenth meeting and an attempt to describe the Smithson’s methods of as found through the ideas behind ‘Patio and Pavilion’, relating it to the exploration of context, materiality and construction, through text and illustrations. Chapter 3 explores the architects Alison and Peter Smithson, throughout their lives. It will then go into a description of their practise, attempting to provide an understanding of them as architects and as ordinary everyday people. An illustrated view of the Smithson’s, through the eyes of the architects who worked for them will also be examined, and how the employees were taken care of, as the Smithson’s office was highly motivated towards the 5
education of an architect. This will be followed by Upper Lawn Pavilion’s restoration work by Sergison Bates, in how they approached it in respect of what was already there. The dissertation will end with a conclusion, summarising the main points of the thesis, and explain why Upper Lawn has been such an influential building for contemporary architecture.
6
Chapter 1 In this chapter, the intention is to analyse and explain Alison and Peter Smithsons involvement in the movement of contemporary architecture. The aim is to gain thorough knowledge of their previous work, laying a foundation for their development of ideas and theories leading up to the Upper Lawn Pavilion, a fundamental place for dwelling. The Congress Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM) was founded June 1928 at the Chateau De La Sarraz in Switzerland. This new movement consisted of twenty‐eight leading European architects organised by Le Corbusier. ‘One of the results of CIAM was the spontaneous recognition by several younger groups of a shared way of thinking’1. In a post‐war Britain, facing a scarcity of resources and economic decline, the ideal vision of the Modernist utopia was no longer perceived as a fitting approach to place making, and art and architecture started to follow, what could be called, a more realistic path, which CIAM failed to respond to. After the congress at Hoddesdon in 1951, the individual groups of CIAM established sections for the younger generation of architects to participate in, with the intention of revitalising CIAM. However, this became an opportunity for the new generation’s doubts, about the effectivity of CIAM to emerge, with a sense of conflict starting to dominate the debates and meetings, fuelling a more rapid development of the organisation’s direction. At, what would become, the final Congress at Dubrovnik in 1956, the emerging ‘brave young men’ now bearing the name ‘Team 10‘, led their first meeting, during which Alison and Peter Smithson gave the influential ‘Valley Section’ presentation. The Smithsons 1 Alison and Peter Smithson, The Emergence of team 10 out of the CIAM,
Architectural Association (London), 1982 7
displayed a series of five detailed design types, ranging from the metropolitan residence to the isolated country house, to demonstrate a clear idea that the differences between city and country ought to have consequences for the various types of dwelling. This new generation of young architects had come together through a mutual realisation of CIAM’s weaknesses, but also because of a mutual dependency, with Alison Smithson describing Team 10 as ‘a small family group of architects who sought each other out because each has found the help of others necessary to the development and understanding of their aim and individual work’2. Team 10, as a group, believed that CIAM had fallen out of synchronisation with contemporary contextual factors and recognised that the post‐war world brought with it new preoccupations. Reyner Banham described this as an awareness for, ‘husbanding the structures and resources still in existence rather than making ‘ tabula rasa’ and starting again’3. Team 10 did not want to be burdened by constant theorising and instead aimed to create an ideal society through building; a typical utopian aspiration, through a synthesis of idea and response. This new sensibility sought to bring an end to the flawed imitations of Le Corbusier’s work and the misconstruction of traditionalism; the rebellious act against the well‐intentioned harmlessness of architecture. Team 10 attempted to develop an architectural language that was not solely pleasing but also stirring through an affection for the honesty of building. In an article for ‘Architectural Design’ in 1953, Alison Smithson discussed the scheme for a house in Soho in which the structure was entirely exposed, with no internal finishes, defining this attitude as ‘a reverence for materials‘4. The emphasis was placed on being careful and understanding, viewing the materials as a response to the context. After nearly 3 decades Team 10 disbanded in 1981; ‘it ended the 2
Alison Smithson (ED), Team Primer, Studio Vista, 1968
3 Reyner Banham, The New Brutalism, The architectural Press, 1966, p. 70 4 Alison and Peter Smithson, ‘House in Soho’ Architectural Design, 23, 12 p. 342
8
way it begun – spontaneously’5, but its members, Alison and Peter Smithson in particular remained influential in a contemporary situation.
Figure 1: School of Hunstanton
In 1949 Alison and Peter Smithson won a competition to design a new school at Hunstanton in Norfolk; a project which represents a rich distillation of the Smithson’s emerging ideology and passion for honest construction. Formalised as a ninety metre long box which sat within a wide and flat coastal landscape, the honest expression of the structure gives the building a dramatic presence, ‘the construction is simple and clean: an uncovered welded steel skeleton, into which large panes of glass have been inserted’6. The material palette, drawing together steel, unpainted timber, yellow brick, and painted iron, represents a conscious decision to express the architecture directly so that it may be identified as a ‘made’ entity. A building that is ‘made of what it appears to be made of’7, the simplicity of the design also leaves many of the service elements exposed illustrating a clear intention to confront the inhabitant with the very parts of the building’s fabric. Whilst this apparent 5
Alison and Peter Smithson, Architecture is not made with the brain, Peter Smithson, p. 7 6 Claude Lichtenstein and Thomas Schregenburger, As Found, The Discovery of the Ordinary, Lars Muller, 2001 p.114 7 Reyner Banham, The New Brutalism, The architectural Press, 1966, 9
‘less is more’ approach alludes to the work of Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe, the Smithsons assert that they wanted to be even more explicit about the expression of these details, ‘Layering of structure at the naked stage, layering of reflection at the glazed stage’8, exposing them ‘as found’; the concept of ‘looking’ and ‘responding’ rather than veiling them in the way, they suggest, Mies often did. To accompany this sense of honesty about the way in which the building has been composed in terms of structure and material, the Smithsons also attempted to bring the building close to the landscape. The school is arranged around two green courtyards which, coupled with the extensive glazing, draw light deep into the plan and give the students calm spaces to look at. To further amplify this feeling of openness and being contained within a landscape the plan features loose circulation, with the intention of creating free flowing spaces as the enfilade arrangement draws you from the entrance through to the dining room and hall and to the landscape beyond. Hunstanton does not shy away from its context and its modernity and instead seeks to reconcile these two seemingly opposed elements. The honesty of structural expression gives the building a lightness, which allows it not only to sit in the landscape, but to become engaged in a dialogue with it.
8
Peter Smithson, The charged Void: Architecture, p. 40
10
‘Habitat in which are found, in some form or other, the basic human needs – a piece of ground, a view of the sky, privacy, the presence of nature and animals – when we need them and symbols of the basic human urges – to extend and control, to move.’9 The ‘This is Tomorrow’ exhibition at the Whitechapel Gallery in 1956, stands as a seminal movement within Alison and Peter Smithson’s theoretical development. The contributors to the exhibition included artists, musicians, graphic designers sculptors and architects. There were twelve separate environments in the exhibition, each created by a team of one architect and one sculptor, collaborating together on an unusual demonstration of the integration of the arts. The aim of the exhibition was to consider the future, but not in a prescriptive way, allowing the spectators to make sense of the illustrations from their own individual perspective. Using Le Corbusier’s four functions as a foundation, but redefining them with the modes of house, street, district and city, Alison and Peter Smithson suggested that architecture should be made with a consideration towards a way of life. Alison and Peter Smithson sought to create a dialogue between architecture and inhabitation and did so most prominently through their relationship with the work of the photographer Nigel Henderson. The Smithson met Nigel Henderson for the first time through the artist Eduardo Paolozzi in 1953, where Henderson and the Smithsons put forward an idea for an exhibition called the ‘Parallel of Life and Art’. Subsequently held at the Institute of contemporary Arts, the exhibition hosted a range of black and white photographs illustrating rawness and vulgarity of urban textures; four separate features were integral to produce this new approach; the first a formal legibility of plan; the plan layout had to be functional and rational, secondly a clear exhibition of structure; the design should display structural qualities, thirdly a valuation of materials for their inherent, as found qualities, and their truth to the 9
Peter Smithson, The charged Void: Architecture, p. 178
11
Figure 2: ‘This is Tomorrow’
idea that rawness of existing ‘as found’ materials should be celebrated, and finally a clear exhibition of services.’10 The Smithsons took a great interest in Henderson’s photographs taken of the East End of London’s working class society. A gritty realism was transformed into a beautiful rawness, ‘creating a romantic view of the working class man’11. Henderson’s work became a large influence in the Smithsons way of thinking, with his images centred on everyday life in the streets of post‐war East London directly presenting the viewer with the life as it was. He carefully studied people and their behaviour; his wife Judith was an anthropologist, musing over children playing in the street, the milkman and his cart, ‘the street as a place of meeting, communication, anonymity, and equality’12. These images inspired the Smithsons to open their eyes; to look at what was actually around them and appreciate what they saw, as they felt CIAM had failed to achieve. Realising their common interests, the Smithsons and Nigel Henderson formed the Independent Group, which consisted of a network of creative couples; an assembly of young artists, critics and architects who discussed key philosophical and cultural issues. ‘The general aim of the exhibition ‘This is Tomorrow’, as we see it, is exploration – an exploration in the field of ideas’13. The Smithson’s contribution to this exhibition, which took place in 1956, took the form of a installation entitled ‘Patio and Pavilion’, a primitive three walled shed constructed from timber with a corrugated plastic roof, ‘a rudimentary shelter and surrounding space […] filled with various objects’14 and was to become the earliest built manifestation of their ideas and ambitions. Around this ‘shed’ they arranged a random 10 Reyner Banham, The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic, The architectural Press,
1966 11 Peter and Michael Young, Family and class in a London Suburb, Kegan Paul and Routledge, London 1960 12 Claude Lichtenstein and Thomas Schregenberger, As Found, The Discovery of the Ordinary, Lars Muller, 2001 p.84 13 Claude Lichtenstein, As Found, Alison and Peter Smitson, p.182 14 Ibid p.178 12
series of ‘found’ objects gathered by Henderson and Paolozzi; an image of a lobster, bicycle parts, representatives of the ‘things’ which constitute a place, to form a space for inhabitation. Figure 3: ‘Patio and Pavilion’
In making this installation the Smithsons attempted to refer to the origins of place and shelter by suggesting that a simple structure with sides and a roof scattered with objects accumulated by the inhabitant represent the fundamentals of place making. ‘Patio and Pavilion’ contribute to the Smithson’s way of working, in that they explored and radically demonstrated themes and approaches despite the contradictory nature of the formal principles; a kind of symbolic habitat in which is found, in some form or other, the basic human needs. ‘A view of the sky, a piece of ground, privacy the presence of nature and animals when we need them to basic human urges – to extend and control, to move. The actual form is very simple, a ‘patio’ or enclosed space, in which sits a ‘pavilion’.’ 15 15 Alison Smithson, ‘’Parallel of Life and Art’’ by Nigel Henderson, p 115
13
Chapter 2 This chapter will focus on the historical context, materiality, structure and detailed description of Upper Lawn Pavilion. This will underpin an understanding of Alison and Peter Smithson’s architectural way of thinking, explaining their ideas and where they come from, not only relevant to this project, but through out the work of their careers. Alison and Peter Smithson used the houses they lived in as places for experiment, to try out their ideas and test institutions. Creating a dialogue between architecture and inhabitation, they took Le Corbusier’s restrictive four‐function model of living, working, recreation and circulation, and redefined it suggesting that architecture was to be made with consideration towards a way of life, with the ambition to look at what was actually around them and respond to it. The process of looking and responding was an attempt to make architecture, whilst adopting Modernist principles on material and construction, by seeking to deal with the concept of living. Since the Smithsons experienced the tension between city and country as a potential positive energy in their personal life and work, they decided to build their own ‘escape’ from the city, the Upper Lawn Pavilion. Alison and Peter Smithson first purchased the land in 1958; a farmstead and walled garden which formed part of the Fonthill Estate in Wiltshire, having been intrigued by this site in the midst of one of England’s grand cultivated landscapes for some years before the ‘Valley Section’ presentation at the CIAM Congress at Dubrovnik. The ideas they presented at this meeting were developed and most clearly illustrated at the ‘Patio and Pavilion’ installation, which explored the act of, ‘picking up, turning over and putting with’16 leading towards, as one could suggest, Upper Lawn representing the built manifestation of this concept. 16 Thomas Schregenberger, As Found, The Discovery of the Ordinary, p. 194
14
As aforementioned, Upper Lawn is located in the quiet countryside at the Fonthill Estate in Tisbury, Wiltshire. When Alison and Peter Smithson purchased the site, they were presented with the ruins of an 18th Century walled courtyard garden and a small farmstead cottage built in to the north wall (fig 4). The peripheral position of the cottage offered the best possible view of the surrounding countryside and formed a point of engagement between the more ‘formal’ landscape of the garden and the untamed Picturesque landscape of the estate beyond (fig 5). The Smithsons began demolishing almost all of the existing farmstead, keeping only the chimney and the surrounding courtyard walls. The principle architectural moves; centered the new pavilion around the chimney stack forming a new heart to the building, whilst also releasing a secluded space in the north east corner of the courtyard.
Figure 5: ‘Patio and Pavilion’
The Upper Lawn Pavilion, completed in 1961, seeks to return to the basic fundamentals of dwelling. The Smithsons created a new modest home, adopting approximately half the length and volume of the previous cottage and resolved a new spatial situation; a primitive two‐storey hut comprising a small timber box on top of the wall, with a glazed enclosure beneath. The ‘box’ which is delicately placed on the stone wall is constructed of a wooden frame clad with zinc, with all elevations containing window panels. Alison and Peter Smithson used the pavilion as an escape from city life, describing their time spent their as a series of, ‘endless camping out weekends’17. Thomas Schregenberger’s description of the ‘as found’, as an art of, ‘picking up, turning over and putting with; a careful consideration of ordering and an 17 Bruno Krucker, ‘’Complex Ordinariness’’ gta Verlag, 2002 p.40
15
Figure 4: Farmstead cottage
appreciation of the ordinary’18 suggests that a realism and sensitivity is most explicitly demonstrated at Upper Lawn through its engagement with the context and its relationship with the existing conditions. As a cluster, a piece of city if you will, the arrangement of the site demonstrates the picturesque qualities Alison and Peter Smithson were looking for, to find a peaceful place for dwelling; the Smithsons referred to the pavilion ‘from there’ brought into life’19. The journey towards the pavilion unfolds across a series of tight countryside roads over swallowed by the encroaching tree branches and tall hedges, already suggesting a sense of shelter. The journey follows through into the wilderness of fields and trees, a voyage seeking silence and separation from the everyday life. Arriving at the series of clustered buildings, one immediately becomes aware of the imposing stone wall. The presence of the wall encloses the ensemble of houses beyond Upper Lawn from the landscape of fields and woods, which falls away towards Fonthill. The wooden construction of the box on the wall has clearly aged, making it seem as if it has merged with the stone wall, making one feel as though this strong connection was intentional under the thought process of the Smithsons. The Smithsons method of ‘as found’ is carefully demonstrated through the reflection of two of the original windows within the stone wall; one window has been integrated into the interior of the building, while the other faces straight in to the courtyard garden from the lane.
18 Thomas Schregenberger, As Found, The Discovery of the Ordinary, p. 194 19 Alison and Peter Smithson, Italian thoughts, p. 20.
16
Figure 6: Upper Lawn Pavilion, North façade with the Smithson’s Citroen DS on its first visit, spring 1962
Figure 7
This can be seen as a typical example of a Picturesque concept; a hybrid of complex ideas and issues, explored together, creating a more realistic sensation. Often found in ruins, this gives a unique feeling of intimacy by eliminating the toughness of the solid stone wall. The way the pavilion has been situated creates a clear connection between the building and its surroundings, embodying it almost with the character of a gatehouse, ‘a gate to a garden, to an open and closed situation’20. As one examines the Upper Lawn in detail it becomes clear that ‘the once light, shiny materials merged with the weighty peacefulness of the stone wall’21; the building lightly gleaming from the reflection of the sky. As you pass along the stone wall, they have kept an original opening in the wall as a gate with access to the courtyard garden. The old timber gates seem moist in how they have gathered moss and the timber has turned grey and fragile, beautifully complementing and becoming as one with the stone wall The timber panels around the windows of the pavilion are playing the 20
Alison and Peter Smithson, The Pavilion and the route’ Architectural Design, March 1965, p. 145 21 Bruno Krucker, ‘’Complex Ordinariness’’ gta Verlag, 2002 p.43 17
Figure 8: Gate into the Courtyard Garden
same role, not only aging within the wall, but also creating a relationship with the aluminium walls and roof sheeting. The materials have formed strong connections; carefully blending in with each other threw a kind of growth, strapping the building together as one, as if the intention was that the pavilion becomes more and more complete over time. Entering the main aluminium entrance door, punching through the heavy stonewall into a narrow corridor, one cannot resist but to stroke their fingertips along the rigid and unsmooth surface of the stone wall. One can feel the heaviness and thickness of the cornered wall as it bends in through the entrance, defining the space as even more enclosed and secure. The narrow space of the corridor continues to the very heart and centre of the pavilion, the chimney. Surrounded by glazing, the light pours in from the courtyard garden reflecting onto the polished concrete floor slab. The notion of walking from the wilderness outside the wall and entering the open but sheltered pavilion, gives the feeling of a private place of their own, separating to identical spaces of nature from ‘open’ to ‘enclosed’. Entering this more private passage with facing glazing continuing out into the garden, the open plan carries on through to a small kitchen also within the surrounding of glazing. Between the kitchenette wall and the main north facing stone wall, a space has been created for a bathroom. The full size glazed windows provides the small space with natural light and gives the illusion of an extended room size, ‘creating half open and half closed space system’22. The stone wall continues from within the bathroom where it creates a private interior space, through the glazed window, resuming its external presence to form an edge to the garden where it makes an enclosed exterior courtyard (fig 9). Approaching the kitchen and dining space from the bathroom, you pass along a space that hugs the folding glass doors, which open 22
Alison and Peter Smithson, The Pavilion and the route’ Architectural Design, March 1965, p. 143
18
Figure 9: the stone wall’s transition from interior to exterior
onto the courtyard garden. The space opens up into the living space, which occupies the same volume as the ancillary spaces, but in this instance, remains undivided only without the separating wall. The glazed windows in the kitchen and dining space are also used as doors, in the way that they have designed small rails into the concrete floor slab, creating small slots on the exterior part of the slab base (fig 10). By sliding the glazed doors aside, you fully open the kitchen and dining space area out to a large terrace of pebbles and stones within the garden space. ‘A attempt at a simple ‘Climate House’; being able to open up the service areas on the ground floor into the old paved areas or the garden, and rapidly close them down again when the weather changes’23. This carefully considered function illustrates how Upper Lawn’s relationship between interior and exterior becomes one, whilst retaining the feeling of a private enclosure.
Figure 11: Bringing the landscape in within
In the kitchen and dining space, a steep wooden stepladder connects the two floors. The upper floor consists of two open spaces set around the chimney; one with a wall to the north, with full height glazing facing into the garden keeping this room private from the lane, with the other clearly revealing a panoramic view towards the garden all the way around to the views of the woods of 23 Sergison Bates, 2G, Alison and Peter Smithson, p. 92
19
Figure 10: Concrete slots for sliding doors
Fonthill. These large pieces of glazing do not only present the view out towards the landscape, but views in and threw the pavilion. The upper floors are put together by large peaces of plywood, with a shiny finish resembling the polished concrete floors. The second fireplace is also situated on the first floor in the northwest corner of the pavilion; placed in front of the full height glazing looking out onto the woods of Fonthill, instantly creating an area for observation and relaxation. ‘A setting of rooms and small garden spaces which could be turned to the season… to the changes in ones sensibility’24. The precedence of local priorities are seen in the interior of the pavilion, where the combination of the raw materials of stone, concrete and wood give each individual room its own character. The structure of Upper Lawn is simple but ingenious, through the creation of a wooden frame box, which rests on one side of the structure, on the preserved stone wall of the old cottage, shaping the appearance of a section of the property itself. A large concrete beam spanning across two angled concrete columns cast within the polished concrete floor slab supports the other end of the wooden frame, with the central stability of the structure created by both the original stone wall and chimney; the chimney as the heart of the pavilion rising through the centre of the house. The effect of this simple but brilliant manner of structure, is the illusion of that the pavilion appears to be floating.
Figure 12: Construction of the chimney Figure 12: Structure of the Pavilion
Figure 13: The Floating Pavilion
24
Neil Bingham, Country life, volume 198 no1 2004, Peter Smithson quote p.49
20
Figure 14: Original plan of Upper Lawn
The garden courtyard; created by the surrounding masonry wall, is a grand but defined space, consisting of tall trees, ungroomed peacock bushes, terrace spaces and a large grass lawn. In the east corner of the courtyard Alison and Peter Smithson situated a concrete inglenook for firewood, with the opportunity to move up a set of stairs cast into the concrete. The courtyard was the biggest and most powerful ‘as found’ object kept, as this was one of the most important parts of the farmstead cottage they reserved, ‘appropriated, remade and by adjustment’25. Additionally kept in the centre of the garden is a deep freshwater well, with a layered concrete gutter running towards the pavilion, dividing the grass pitch from the pebbled stone terrace. The pavilion is placed on top of a concrete slab, approximately 30 cm above the garden level, which functions as a doorstep, following the structure around as a separate layer. It also sparks connotations of the pavilion ‘as a Greek temple’. 25
Sergison Bates, 2G, Alison and Peter Smithson, p. 95
21
Chapter 3 The final chapter of this thesis will concentrate primarily on Alison and Peter Smithson, as architects, and how they have evolved to become an influential inspiration for the architecture, which is made today, through an examination of the restoration work undertaken by Sergison Bates. In addition to this, this chapter will also take a summative glance at the well resounded ideas and theories of the Smithsons, through the context of their studio. Alison and Peter Smithson began their exciting and influential journey towards a new modernist direction in architecture at the start of their careers, continuously trying to integrate their multifaceted approach into a larger perspective, either through projects or written work. The Smithsons use of architectural language, in the linguistic sense, is something that came to dominate the deployment of their ideology. The use of the prefix ‘re’ is a tactic they consistently used throughout their careers, representing a method and approach of not creating something new, but as with the Upper Lawn Pavilion, selecting an existing situation and re‐interpreting or re‐defining it. The prefix ‘re’ is, in other words, a result of their response to the contextual situation confronting them after the war; the context that fuelled their reformation of CIAM. After winning the Hunstanton competition in 1949, they started a practice in their South Kensington home. The employees were well taken care of and described it as ‘being included as if they were part of a large family’26. Alison and Peter Smithson separated work from the feature of lunch and dinner, where everyone in the office would bring something they had made, and eat together. However for the Smithson’s there was no separation between work and life; work was their life. The Smithson’s dedication to completing a piece of 26
Alison and Peter Smithson, Architecture is not made with the brain, Louisa Hutton, p. 52
22
Figure 15: Alison and Peter Smithson at their Kensington home
work all came down to the detail; that detail defined construction and made it possible to build. ‘one learns how idea becomes strategy, and how that strategy became the rules for detail’27. They had a devotion and seriousness towards their work engagement, their discipline to see projects through, which was a valued skill taught to the architects working for them; ‘the most valuable thing a student or architect can learn is the discipline of order and filing’.28 The Smithson’s office was very much about the education and involvement of the architect, not only for their employees, but also themselves. A day at the office involved open group discussions enabling different views and aspects to the design work. Peter Salter worked for the Smithson’s for a number of years and later mused on this approach, asserting that, ‘relationships to people and ideas are formed around common interests, attractions and time, it all melds together when one begins to design’29. As with the beliefs they held towards engagement with a situation and context, Alison and Peter Smithson transposed this sensibility into the everyday life of the office, engaging with their staff for the benefit of the proposition. Alison and Peter Smithson created a series of rules, a strategy for the different types of drawings that were composed in the office, which were developed to ensure accuracy of production information in relation to the design approach. In their projects they spent money on haptic elements that the inhabitants would closely engage with such as doors and windows. Ultimately this led to ‘an economy of means’, with their buildings often completed with the ceilings and, sometimes, walls left bare, to be experienced as they were constructed with the services mounted on the surface.
27 Alison and Peter Smithson, Architecture is not made with the brain, Peter Salter, p. 41 28 Alison and Peter Smithson, Architecture is not made with the brain, Hutton quotes Peter Smithson, p. 52 29 Peter Smithson, Conversations with Students, p. 92
23
The Smithson’s were not afraid to develop and test ideas, which was an important part of their design process, with writings and theories often presented to the office, if relevant to the ongoing work. After many years they established a range of ideas: the concepts of ‘Pavilion and Route’; a creation of a new kind of building, sensible of both present and emerging urban patterns, and that of ‘Cluster’; anything coming together, emerging through the Upper Lawn Pavilion. The notion of ‘cluster’ was most particularly about the street or space in between a group of buildings, or separate dwellings, through which a sense of togetherness, connection and linkage of social activity was born. Restoration by Sergison Bates The Upper Lawn Pavilion was purchased by Ian and Jo Cartlidge in 2002. Owing to poor maintenance and the deterioration of the building fabric, Upper Lawn found itself in need of attention. A significant amount of trees planted by the previous owner had, as Jonathan Sergison described it, turned the garden into a ‘’jungle’’30, and had swamped the pavilion. Ian and Jo Cartlidge commissioned the studio of Sergison Bates to undertake a programme of restoration work. An important part of the design process was to respect what was already there, utilising the same principles and ideas the Smithsons employed. Observation played a large role in Alison and Peter Smithson’s work and an aspect of this is the consistency in choice of materials; developing an understanding of how they would change over time and begin to work together. Sergison Bates observed Upper Lawn and was consistent in the choice of materials in respect of not extinguishing the pavilions true and original trace. When taking the house apart, Sergison Bates understood that Alison and
30 Sergison Bates, 2G, Alison and Peter Smithson, p. 101
24
Peter Smithson knew from the beginning that the choice of materials would merge together, creating a singular identity. The Smithson’s ideas of a conceptual construction were revealed; unlike traditional routed frame doors, the original doors were built up in three different layers. They built through their drawings, not in the practical way a builder would construct. The teak panels, the kitchen joinery, and the insulation was replaced where needed, but with few adjustments everywhere else. In addition to the array of trees planted, a timber shed had been built in the garden dominating the space between the pavilion and the inglenook. Sergison Bates demolished the shed and, fortuitously, managed to source some of the aged teak to be reused, replacing some of the panels on the glazed sliding doors. During the restoration, an under floor heating system was introduced to the upper floor of the pavilion, which also allows heat to radiate to the ground floor, removing the need to excavate the concrete slab. When relaying the floor they used the same original plywood panels the Smithson’s had inserted; only having to sand them down. One of the most innovative new designs of the pavilion was the design of an external table, which was an effort to formalise the terrace. Sergison Bates cast a new permanent concrete five‐legged table, choosing this material with an inspiration from the Smithson’s step and slab design of the external inglenook, and also because of how Alison and Peter Smithson had introduced the concrete structure inside the pavilion. The table sits on a concrete slab, which has a relationship to that which was poured for the original pavilion. The slab was originally surrounded by shingles, but has been replaced by brick paviors in recent years. The restoration was about being completely quiet and not returning the pavilion to new, but to more of a sort of middle life, where the trace of the Smithson’s inhabitation was not lost, but instead embodied in every physical and atmospheric part of the building. A conversation in politeness, when was it no longer appropriate to make new, this was what it was about; the idea of trace, Ian and Jo Cartlidge did not 25
Figure 16: External concrete table
want to lose this, a restoration built over a period of occupancy. Today, the Cartlidge family continues to use the Upper Lawn Pavilion in the same way Alison and Peter Smithson did, an escape from city life. Conclusion Alison and Peter Smithson have left their footprint as two of the most influential architects in contemporary history. Upper Lawn Pavilion formulates the idea of growth of materials, as aforementioned, the building becomes more and more complete over time. One can view Alison and Peter Smithson in a similar way, as they have approached architecture with strong ideas and theories, carefully considering the relation to an idea on paper and an idea which would actually work in the reality of life, they have become an architect couple, which seems to be more and more understood over time. Upper Lawn is a piece of work, which stood the Smithson’s close, not only through the building, but also because of the feelings and memories which were created here. It is a primitive place for dwelling, where the simplicity of the pavilion and its undertaking, makes relations meet, imposing them to do activities and tasks together, disconnecting one’s self from the city life and its forged ways of satisfaction. The details within the connection of materials are somewhat unseen when the Upper Lawn is in use, a descriptive ambition to allow the materials to blend in, making it seem as simple as possible; architecture happens in the background. As for people who have visited the Upper Lawn, it leaves an emotional imprint of peacefulness and beauty of the pavilion and its surroundings. The careful consideration of ordering and the appreciation of the ordinary, suggests that their idea of realism and sensitivity is most explicitly demonstrated at Upper Lawn, through its engagement with what is there and its re‐use of the existing conditions. The Smithson’s approach of a continuous experience to a place where the messiness of life could play out, sits within the 26
simplicity of honest construction and how the primitive box structure merges in with the stone wall and surrounding landscape. This is a true example of an idea which as been successfully translated into built form. The accomplishment of this building has inspired modern architecture till this present day, as architects like Sergison Bates respond towards their work, with the echoes of Alison and Peter Smithson in the background. This is strongly illustrated in their project for urban housing at Finsbury Park in London, which presents three separate blocks wrapped with brick facades, capped with a concrete roof plate carefully dressed with profiled aluminium. Sergison Bates value the brick as a means of ‘honest construction’ but like the Smithsons they also use it as a tool of decoration, ‘having a clear worked out a strategy for how brick can contribute to a bigger ambition, which in this sense means that the authenticity can be equated with the predominance, if not exclusive presence, of ‘brickness’.’31 By composing buildings in materials that are in themselves ‘made’ Sergison Bates can well be defined as ‘realists’ because there is a very clear and confrontational presence expressed by their architecture. Alison and Peter Smithson built on other people’s ideas, created their own, and passed them on. Ending an essay is always complex, even though you know what has to be said, but if someone has already said it better, steal, and go out strong; ‘Thinking of Alison and Peter Smithson’s ideas, one might think of specific things; the indistinct shadow of a bicycle wheel on a corrugated plastic roof, the brush strokes of black paint on a steel beam, the uncertain flatness of thin aluminium sheet reflecting the sky. For us, the lasting beauty of this work is the discursive balance between the idea and the making of the object, where the Smithson’s had the undertaking to realise a building that communicates at an emotional level, beyond ideas.’32 31
Sergison Bates architects ‘’Papers 2’’ Brickness, p 97
32 Alison and Peter Smithson, Architecture is not made with the brain, Peter St John,
p. 72 27
Bibliography: -
Reyner Banham, New Brutalism, Architectural Press, 1966 Sergison Bates, Papers 2, Gustavo Gili, 2007 Sergison Bates, 2G, n. 34 Neil Bingham, Country life, volume 198 no1, 2004
-
Nigel Henderson, Alison Smithson, ‘Parallel of Life and Art’, Thames & Hudson; Edition1, 2001
-
Claude Lichtenstein and Thomas Schregenberger, As Found, The Discovery of the Ordinary, Lars Muller, 2001
-
Bruno Krucker ‐ ’Complex Ordinariness’ gta Verlag, 2002
-
Alison Smithson, Theory and History Papers 1.82, Team 10 out of CAIM, 1982 Alison and Peter Smithson, Italian Thoughts, Stockholm, 1993
-
-
-
Alison and Peter Smithson, from the House of the future to the House of today, 2004 Alison and Peter Smithson – Changing the Art of Inhabitation, 1998 Alison and Peter Smithson – The Shift, Academy Editions, 1983 Alison Smithson, Team 10 Primer, Studio Vista, 1968 Alison and Peter Smithson, The charged Void, Architecture, Monacelli Press.2001 Alison and Peter Smithson, Architecture is not made with the brain Colin St. John Wilson, The Other Tradition of Modern Architecture
Word count (quotes and other texts not included) = 6081 28
Illustration Credits Figure 1: http://www.williemiller.co.uk/johnbetjemangoesto hunstanton.htm Figure 2: Thomas Schregenberger, As Found, The Discovery of the Ordinary, p. 181 Figure 3: Thomas Schregenberger, As Found, The Discovery of the Ordinary, p. 198 Figure 4: Dirk van den Heuval, Alison and Peter Smithson – from the House of the Future to a house of today, 1962, p. 153 Figure 5: Authors photograph Figure 6: Dirk van den Heuval, Alison and Peter Smithson – from the House of the Future to a house of today, p. 161 Figure 7: Dirk van den Heuval, Alison and Peter Smithson – from the House of the Future to a house of today, p. 162 Figure 8: Authors photograph Figure 9: Authors photograph Figure 10: Authors photograph Figure 11: Dirk van den Heuval, Alison and Peter Smithson – from the House of the Future to a house of today, p. 158 Figure 12: Dirk van den Heuval, Alison and Peter Smithson – from the House of the Future to a house of today, p. 156 Figure 13: Dirk van den Heuval, Alison and Peter Smithson – from the House of the Future to a house of today, p. 156 Figure 14: Bruno Krucker, ‘’Complex Ordinariness’’ gta Verlag, 2002 p. 51 Figure 15: http://jenniferdowland.com/blog/wp content/uploads/2010/08/a_p.jpg Figure 16: Sergison Bates, 2G, n. 34. p. 102
29
30