Back to the Future

'Everything proceeds from everything else' – Leonardo Da Vinci – Notebooks.

 

           The Leonardo table by Designalexable is a 3D representation of the Da Vinci drawing proportions of the human figure according to Vitruvius. Being involved in any creative area intensifies the curiosity about where ideas come from, even though it is not difficult to see how an idea such as the Leonardo table comes into being. It is simply a case of looking at an artwork as an influence for something new; a two dimensional Renaissance picture becoming a three-dimensional object formed from modern materials. Although the primary influence for turning an old image into a modern table came from my interest in the work of the Italian artist Fornsetti. This made me wonder why; especially in architectural education, there appears to be an absence in teaching about the history of design. As David Hockney says in Secret Knowledge, “we seem to live in an arrogant age and the idea that there is not much to learn from the past is rather disturbing”. This is all the more curious when we look at modern design icons and we trace their roots and influences from the past. 

 

          With very little research we can see that the Mies cantilever chair of 1926 has its seed in the Victorian metal rocking chair of 1850. It is not that the design was copied, but that technology allowed a solution, which in the case of the metal rocking chair was to emulate in metal what was already being made in wood. With the Barcelona chair we might see the seed of the design in the Roman 'X' framed chair of AD 250 and the multiple variations of this that followed. Don't get me wrong, the Barcelona chair is indeed beautiful; and it is genius to make something that appears so modern, even today, from slight variations to a design that had been in existence for centuries.

          The Casa Malparte on the island of Capri may have its root in the stone stair behind the Italian author. Consciously or sub-consciously it is a form that has a particular Italian origin. This does not detract from it being remarkable to see that form reinvented to become an entire elevation of a house.

         The idea that an idea comes from a pristine virgin birth is misleading. Designs have their own inbuilt evolution that starts with the seed of inspiration that is wrapped around a problem to be solved. None of us likes problems, but we should because problems are the starting point of creativity. It therefore stands to reason that when faced with a problem the natural thing to do is to look at how other people might have tried to solve it. Buildings are complex objects that contain a strong visual element and it should not surprise us that in an age when architecture is presented in images that architects are affected by images.

            We might therefore look at Cranfield School by Foster and see Corbusier's Maison Monol (1920). And in the Maison Monol we might see inspiration from the Hed Sed Court at the Step Pyramid, which is itself a stone manifestation of the Arab huts on the salt mashes of the Euphrates (situated in modern day Iraq). When we perceive it as part of a history 'Modernism' does not seem so modern.

              A building that has always attracted me is The Glass Pavilion (1914) by Bruno Taut. I looked at the model of this and using Photoshop, stretched it until I found that it looked a little like 'St Mary Axe'. It is well known that Foster is a big fan of Bruno Taut and I would love to know if this was the origin of 'the Gherkin'. I don't know if it was, but I do know that a knowledge of history is necessary for this form of game playing. As Foster said in his TED talk (Munich, Germany Jan 2007), “as an architect you design for the present, with an awareness of the past, for a future that is unknown”.

        Following this thread I noticed that the Bruno Taut Chicago Building (1922) and the Saudi tower by Foster may also be related.

        As do the Aalto Finnish Pavilion for the NYC expo (1939) and Foster's Wallbrook (2010) development.

       Similar solutions will produce similar forms and a preference for a 'traditional' or a 'modernist' form should be seen as absurd as each solution should be defined by its own context. Of course, in examples such as the Millennium Dome and its antecedent, the Dome of Discovery at the Festival of Britain (1954), this context can be symbolic. The Alvaro Silva museum in Port Alegre, Brazil (2009) appears to have an influence from Corbusier's Palace of Justice, Chandigarh, India (1953). These are different buildings with different uses. So, rather than the idleness of imitation, we might consider this as the passing of the baton of history. There are residues in the modern, that even if we are not aware of them, give the building substance. As Goethe said: 'Tradition is the tending of the fire, not the worship of the ashes'. 

 

          The Balancing Barn in Suffolk, England by MVRDV with Mole Architects (2009) may be a relative of the Mausoleum Presidente Castelo Branco in Fortaleza, Brazil (1970) by the architect Sergio Bernardes. But the Mausoleum itself contains strong influences from the work of the Italian architect Carlo Scarpa.

         Could the seed of inspiration for The Sage in Gateshead by Foster be The Japanese Pavilion by Shineru Ban with Frei Otto and Buro Happold at the expo in 2000? This has a similar source to the Weald and Downland Museum Gridshell (2002) by Edward Cullinan Architects with Buro Happold acting as Engineers. The Japanese pavilion itself draws on a Japanese past and a technique of construction using lightweight materials that goes back centuries, although reinterpreted to the point of invention.

             The proposal for the Gwanggyo City Centre by MVRDV Architects (2009) looks like a very modern product - a product of the concerns of today - and yet The Crystal Chain (1919) by Walter Gropius has similarities and was conceived before 'green' was considered a design objective.

              History continues, often presenting itself as 'modern', from the proposal by Mies for a Glass skyscraper (1920) to the Herzog & de Meuron at Cottbus University Library, Germany (2010). “Genius”, as Einstein noted, “is being able to hide your sources”.

          Gropius designed the Kapp Putch Memorial in 1921 but it looks like any number of projects from the late 1990s. But, what was Gropius looking at? An early design by Gropius is The Block House, which is essentially a traditional timber frame house on the Scandinavian model. Timber frame houses, both the English and Scandinavian forms are prefabricated modules with site finished, lightweight, infill panels. Soon after designing 'The Block House' Gropius became seen as the innovator of prefabrication. What I understood when studying this was that Gropius translated a traditional vernacular technique into modern materials and construction methods, and in doing so, 'invented' a new form of construction. From the old came the new through a way of seeing, not from how the thing looked, but the idea embedded within it.

             The Louvre Pyramid by I. M. Pei (1989) is not the radical piece of modern architecture it was once said to be. The Pyramid form is ancient and it was Napoleon who re-discovered the Egyptian sites, bringing his findings back to the Louvre which became the centre for Egyptology (see History of Napoleon, Vincent Cronin). So the form of the visible part of the building (most of it is underground) is locked into the history of the Louvre. The glass pyramid further respects this context, since the pyramid form has a smaller mass than a comparable rectangular enclosure. The transparent nature of the building further reduces its impact as the main Louvre building can be seen through it. The building may be modern, but it continually reinforces its context and this makes it a better solution than a more traditional approach. Although, what could be more traditional at the centre of Egyptology than a pyramid?

            'Modern' architecture likes to portray itself as original and yet when we look at the Seti I complex at Abydos, Egypt we can see many modern buildings with echoes of that simple form. 

         About three years ago Designalexable created a design by inverting the contours of the River Thames as the structure and making a viewing platform with the underside in polished stainless steel to reflect the river for The World Turned Upside Down Café, London. For me, the interesting thing is that similar forms, the contour ribs that form the structure have since appeared elsewhere. For example, Zmianatematu Café in Poland by xm3 Architects and again in an even closer resemblance in Greenhouse by Jenny Sabin in the USA. 

          The Designalexable design was completed before the others, but was never built or published, so could not have been seen. How could such similar ideas all come about in different parts of the world, completely independent of each other? Could it be that ideas have their time and emerge simultaneously when the possibility for their existence comes into being or could it simply be that a progression of other ideas that have become a common currency lead to particular forms? It could be the progression of technology, the progression of ideas or the progression of fashions or forms. Whatever the route of a design, it seems that everything is part of a progression of something else. That progression can be corralled together in one simple word: History.

 

          So, History is not the enemy of innovation. It combines with contemporary culture to play with the present: Juno (goddess of childbirth) becomes a film about teenage pregnancy; Flora (Goddess of well-being) becomes a margarine, Nike (God of competition worshipped for winning) becomes a sports brand, Dido (Greek heroine sacrificed for love) becomes a singer of 'torch songs', Think of the pharmaceutical company Roche (C14th Saint protector against the plague) or the song 'Cecilia' by Simon and Garfunkel (St Cecilia patron saint of music). Hermes (messenger of the gods) becomes a fashion house, Minerva (as in Minerva books) takes its name from Minerva goddess of wisdom and art. The list goes on and on, embedded in attitudes, language and place names. If you live in London you will know the names Kings Cross, Brent Cross, and Charring Cross. These are names that mark the route of the funeral procession of Queen Eleanor. Edward I was so distressed at his wife's death that when carrying her back to Westminster wherever the funeral procession stopped he planted a cross (London. William Gaunt p74). And an awareness of that history creates a thread through the city, a different way of seeing. The most important thing about you as a designer is 'now', but 'now' has a context, 'now' has a history and this can be significant in the creation of the future. The past can be a generator of the future. Architects and designers always use history because to be interested in design is to be interested in design history and designers are affected by the designs they admire. Education and architectural education in particular, should not try to ignore this vast resource of ideas as it is not only a loss to the design world, but all those that live in a designed environment and in the 'modern world' that is almost all of us.

Look after your staircase... It may be the only diagonal you've got (2)

    

              In look after your staircase... It may be the only diagonal you've got (1) I was in raptures over the Nelson Stair in the Courthold Institute, Somerset House, and rather flippantly bemoaned that it is rare to see such flamboyant design in modern buildings. Of course, there are many modern flamboyant stairs and I thought that I would share a few that I like in the hope that they might inspire. 

Alex King is an architect and his design 'Santiago Townhouse' won the British Homes Awards in 2011 - Alex King Design / Designalexable, examples of his latest work can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yGQhlRz8mc

Politics, Planning and the Urban Street-scape

 

              'Planning' isn't working. If it were, the built environment would be better than it is: An application is submitted, fees paid, sometimes amendments agreed and permission granted or declined. This often produces an urban environment that is a variation on something like the above photograph. Something is wrong, for the time, investment and aggregate learning of all the professionals involved, surely the end result should be better and more humane. This is not a matter of lack of funds: £25,000 was spent installing seats, one of which can be seen in this photo – but, would you want to sit there? It could have been useful as a waiting area, only there are yellow line restrictions and concrete bollards to prevent this. The pavement was extended, only it uses the same surface as the road and with the bollards and yellow lines this has the effect of simply creating a dead zone. This is no accident, someone planned it, authorized the expenditure and instructed someone else to carry out the works and all of this was done with your money. When you are told there is no funding for essential services, think about the waste that removes funding from where it is needed most. £10,000 was spent on installing the metal polls with empty flower baskets - also in the photograph. If there had been plants in those baskets, they would be supposed to survive suspended next to a traffic intersection with no water supply. I am being unfair, there is a water supply: more money is spent on a van that travels around watering the plants – most of which drains onto the floor around the seat. This means that the plants die and yet more money is spent regularly replacing them. I am not a fan of the phrase 'less is more', but in this case it really does apply. Those seats, plant polls and tarmac required minerals and power to make the steel that is sprayed with some polluting polymer coating. They required petrol and diesel and created traffic for their installation, all of which contributes to the degradation of the environment. How was this environment created? Because somebody delegated, to somebody who delegated, to somebody who picked a spot on a map – not because something was required, but because “there seemed to be space and it wouldn't get in anyone's way”. What you see, your urban environment, is not the result of lack of money, it is the result of a lack of care, of lack of thought, and everybody suffers as a result. The businesses are closing as there are no customers and this is hardly surprising as the environment that has been created is uninviting. If the businesses close, they will no longer pay the business rates that provide the money for the street clutter that has been sprinkled in front of their windows and it doesn't have to be like this.

            With a little bit of thought, planters could have been built on the ground so that the plants could be where they would naturally be and so require less upkeep. This would protect the pavement area making a more humane pedestrian environment. Short stay spaces could be provided in the 'dead zone' so that cars can pull over and access the businesses whose trade forms a large part of the economy. Sustainability includes economic sustainability, it is a fundamental part of that ecosystem.

            As it is, the tar-mac pavement is a false economy as metal barriers are then needed to differentiate between pavement and road and signs are required to direct traffic towards parking areas, that are not near the shops. Surely this is where 'planners' are desperately needed, not just on impressive master-plans, but on the small scale, everyday local environment. For all the talk of 'enhancement', local area plans, conservation areas and the importance of 'scale and mass', this is the actual result. Would not planning be of better use to Society, not as a judge of individual designs, but as a visionary act that is concerned with the spaces around the buildings as an aid to a better urban environment?

            You might have thought that in a time of austerity such wasteful practices would end. Well, think again: Oak posts have recently been placed at the end of each parking space in the local car parks and as this might damage the cars, signs have appeared stating that the Council cannot be held responsible for damage to the cars. To pay for this terrible waste of trees, the parking charges have increased. To avoid the increased charges people park in the surrounding streets, causing congestion and pollution as they cruise around looking for a space. Those that would tax you on the basis of your carbon footprint seem to be ensuring that it remains high.

           Instead of chopping down trees to stick in the ground at the end of each parking bay, would it not have been better to plant them? Planting trees is good for the environment both ecologically and visibly. If we breathe in our environment with all our senses we should not dismiss the importance that such small actions can make. I would suggest that planning departments might have their focus re-directed as curators of the street-scape with access to the funds that are currently used to litter the place with street junk. This is a different kind of occupy movement, one that is concerned with the space you already occupy, but which nobody seems too concerned about.

            With a little thought and care, the funding that Council's currently waste could be used to create a more attractive, more enjoyable, more ecologically sustainable urban environment. This will attract people and help the economy. All it requires is a little care and attention, is that too much to ask?

Alex King is an architect and his design 'Santiago Townhouse' won the British Homes Awards in 2011 - Alex King Design / Designalexable, examples of his latest work can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yGQhlRz8mc

Terminology, Heritage and being Modern

“Not even nostalgia is as good as it used to be”. - Alan Wicker, Journey of a lifetime. 2009.

                 Again, and again I am told that “the best use for a building is its original use”¹. It is a statement enshrined in UK legislation for the protection of the historic environment and yet if the statement were true, then Covent Garden should be a vegetable market, the Tower of London should be a prison with associated torture chamber and Marble Arch, which is sited on Tyburn, would start to hold public executions. Some might think that is a good idea, however the reply I usually receive is “not in the case of those examples, but generally the statement is true".  I beg to differ. Would the Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners conversion of a Spanish bullring into a shopping centre be better used as a place to 'fight' and kill bulls before a crowd of spectators? The Slave Market in Funchal, Madeira – is the best use for the square its original use? Is a Victorian workhouse that is converted into apartments actually 'better' as a workhouse? The relics of the past may look nice, but in reality you wouldn't want to live in the workhouse, and so unless the building has some significance as a museum; then in Conservation terms, it is simply a balance between the 'quality' of the original building and the design and construction of the conversion. Added to this would be ideas such as the best use for a building is a use that keeps the building in use and in the terms of society, provides something that society is in need of, such as accommodation. Change and subsequent alteration is often the result of obsolescence driven by social and economic reasons and too often statements are repeated to try to prevent change and support generalized views alleviating the necessity for actual thought.

Architects also repeat nonsensical statements, such as ' form follows function''². Form does not follow function, it follows intention. If an architect intends the form of the building to appear radical, then how the building functions will be subordinate to that intention. This should be worrying in an age of attention seeking buildings, because as Charles Eames said, “ the extent to which you have a design style, is the extent to which you have not solved the design problem” ³.

At the International Committee on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) general meeting in Canada in 2008 there was much talk of 'the intangible spirit of place'. It was a buzz phrase that was repeated by different speakers, and was then repeated later in the committee magazine. 'Intangible' means 'not capable of being touched, not directly appreciable by the mind – unfathomable – but often noteworthy or influential nevertheless'⁴. The curious thing about the phrase 'intangible spirit of place', is that places and their individual components such as buildings are not intangible They can be 'touched' they can be 'appreciated by the mind and so could this phrase just be a way of avoiding doing enough homework to be able to explain to someone why something should be preserved? There is a very good argument here, that if someone cannot state why something should be protected, then they are probably not the person who should be trying to protect it. We can all agree that elements of the built environment deserve protection, but should there not be some rigor in how that protection is determined?

Most of the buildings and places that Conservation seeks to protect came into existence before planning and conservation and curiously many places have become worse since. There may be multiple reasons for this but surely formalized preconceptions bound by a set of generalized regulations play a part in the resulting environment, or why would the legislation and accompanying regulations exist? Sir John Soane altered many buildings at a time when there were no controls to stop him and it is ironic that there are now controls in place to stop anyone altering one of his alterations. If planning and conservation controls existed in his day, then many of the buildings he altered – such as the John Soane museum (Soane's house) in Lincolns Inn Fields, London, would not exist and that would be a great loss to the Capital. The historic built environment is interesting because it has been allowed to evolve unhindered, creating strange juxtapositions, unusual hybrids of past styles that have been over written and altered to produce a complex panorama presented with all the simplicity of an English village.

           Nostalgia for past can be seen as comforting, the picturesque nature of a 'timeless' scene conferring the idea of permanence in an ever more transient world. The BBC have produced a program entitled 'Heritage! The battle for Britain's past' (BBC i player) and it is a battle, but is it the battle the heritage lobby would claim? Heritage legislation is very powerful and yet would we legislate so that only old medical practices be used, old cars driven, old radios listened to and old Televisions watched simply because they are 'old' and should therefore be preserved? All of these artifacts may be wonderful designs and interesting as part of the development of technology seen in a museum or documentary, or collected by an enthusiast, and yet most people have opted for modern, up-to-date alternatives. Even those that find the allure of old timber frame buildings compelling as places to inhabit, want kitchens and bathrooms, and indoor toilets, and a water supply and glass windows, and electricity and gas and central heating, and insulation and carpets and telephones and dishwashers and washing machines; and for the Oxfordshire Conservation Officer who said that an old house couldn't have a garage because “that house would never have had one originally”, the house would never have had all of those other modern conveniences and she would be very disillusioned if she woke up in the morning and they were missing. Many 'old' buildings exist precisely because they have allowed adaptation, without those alterations would anyone choose to live there? No longer can people just alter their homes as they had once done in the past. We have effectively created legislation to protect the past by preventing the very things that created it. This is curious, as History is a record of change. If we look at an English timber frame building we may see a massive, over sized brick chimney on the flank wall and this will have been a later addition, an ostentatious statement by the owner proclaiming to their neighbours that they had the latest modern heating system in their house. Today such buildings may appear to many as generically 'old', but their accumulation of alterations to reach their present appearance raises the question of how prescriptive should heritage legislation be? As Goethe wrote, 'history is the fanning of the flames, not the worship of the ashes' ⁵.

             How heritage is presented is selective in the parts of history that it chooses to tell. As a post graduate student I proposed a piece on the resistance to alteration of a group of merchants houses in Bristol, England. What appears as an elegant Bristol street with fine details was built on money derived directly from the slave trade and what was called 'the golden triangle' ⁶. My thesis tutor informed me that I could not include such information as it was “social history” and yet most historic buildings are conserved precisely because of their social history. Could it be that some social histories show something constructed on human misery and that the movement to protect them falters when faced with the harsh reality of how they came into existence? Do the 'elegant facades' and 'fine details' somehow become less appealing when we start to understand where they come from; and would this change our desire to protect them?

           When we look at the old buildings of our built heritage we are essentially looking at the edited highlights as 'bad' buildings do not survive. The buildings are then altered to suit modern tastes, so Nash's terrace at Regents Park (London) is Listed so that it can only be painted a particular shade of White – although when first constructed the buildings were painted Brown ⁷. The Acropolis, Athens (Greece) is maintained as a permanent ruin and preserved as such, reconstructed to a particular point in time. Like the Greek statues we see today, this is an altered state, an illusionary 'pure' sensibility of what never was – The Acropolis, like Greek statues of the period, were brightly coloured and yet are preserved as naked stone ⁸.

                The above picture ⁹ shows the construction in 1851 of The Crystal Palace in Hyde Park, the first major steel and glass building in England. If we look closely we can see the building professionals with their drawings, dressed in frock coats and top hats. This juxtaposition shows us the radical nature of this structure. Just as there was with the Millennium Dome by Richard Rogers, there was a debate after the exhibition on what to do with the building and an 'ideas competition' was held. A solution by the architect C. Burton proposed a space saving solution of standing the steel and glass building on its end to create a 1000 ft tower ¹⁰ – and the heritage lobby would have us believe that modern buildings are disconnected from the past? For today's design professionals it might seem that 'when I most want to be contemporary the Past keeps pushing in, and when I long for the Past..... the Present cannot be pushed away' ¹¹.

What to do with the redundant Crystal Palace, C. Burton 1851

          The Shard, would be an example of why generalized regulations can be out of sync with the reality of a modern structure. The Shard is an overtly modern building and yet from a distance appears more like a very tall Gothic spire. Some may argue with that analogy and yet in the view of London by Canaletti, published in 1753 ¹², we see a London filled with, what in 1753 would have been, very tall structures that are in the Spire-like form of The Shard. Therefore we have a very modern addition to the London skyline that can be

seen to have a particular historic resonance.

              If we move forward in time to 1889 we can find examples of similar tall structures in London's history, such as the 1,234 ft high tower, with its twelve pneumatic lifts, proposed at Wembley, London as a competitive response to the Eiffel Tower ¹³.

1,234 ft proposed glass tower, Wembley, London 1889

              The Shard may be the tallest building in London and yet at street level, because of its tapered form, it appears less overbearing than many smaller buildings. This does not mean that we shouldn't question the impact of tall buildings in a city such as London, but it does call into question decisions that reject tall buildings simply because of their height. As Richard Rogers said, “The Shard could have been a few floors higher and it would have made no difference to its impact at all”.

         Development can have a positive impact on Society, especially in times of austerity and we can see this in examples such as the Rockefeller Center in New York. The Shard does not contain such social drivers to the development as The Rockefeller Center¹⁴, although the development does include the regeneration of London Bridge Station as well as accessible pedestrian access. The Shard is a commercially driven building and yet it appears to have intensified the regeneration and popularity of the locality, which suggests that major development can have a positive social impact on an area, even if that was not part of the original intention.

          Attitudes against modern buildings in the UK by the Conservation lobby are always slightly absurd as it is not possible to just jump out of history. Modern buildings are not independent of everything that has gone before, that has accumulated to make up this moment in time. A modern building might reference a building from the 1920s, but that building may well be referencing a building that came before it, just because we no longer see the reference does not mean that it is no longer there. Design style is a language and like human language there is room for different languages and what is important is not the language itself, but what is being said. Jonathan Meades recently made an excellent television program about Essex and the Utopian projects that for a short while emerged in the UK and particularly in Essex. As with all Utopian projects they would eventually fail, but isn't it wonderful that someone tried to make things better for people: better living conditions, better communities, a better environment to inhabit than their 'normal' circumstances would allow. It does not matter if such enterprises were linked to commercial activities, designs that contain such an idea at their heart really are worth preserving and promoting.

          Conservation of the built environment is important as buildings and places become symbols of cultural identity: Big Ben, The Gherkin, The Shard or Buckingham Palace may symbolize London or England; The Eiffel Tower or the Louvre Pyramid may symbolize Paris; The Colosseum – Rome; The Empire State, The Chrysler, The White House – The USA; The onion domes of Red Square – The USSR; The Forbidden City, The Bird's Nest or the skyline of Shanghai – China, The Taj Mahal – India; A hotel in Dubai, a bullring in Spain or anything by Oscar Niemeyer in Brazil – all contain a cultural identity that speaks of place. With Ceausescu's palace in Bucharest Romania, a building becomes a symbol of an era; a symbol of political ideology that has raised such strong emotions in the collective memory of Romania's people that many have called for it's demolition. If Ceausescu's palace survives outside of recent memory it may become Romania's Versailles or be regarded in a similar way to The Tower of London. Within this list are modern buildings that take their place in history and this should teach us that Conservation is important, but so is modern creativity.

          In the debate about the conservation and Listing of buildings my favorite story comes from the architect Cedric Price. When it was proposed that his temporary housing be Listed, he petitioned that they be demolished, “they were never meant to last”, he said.

 

        Alex King is an architect working at Alex King Design / Designalexable, examples of his latest work can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yGQhlRz8mc

The image of Constable's Haywain with the addition of the Villa Savoye by Corbusier is by Alex King ©Alex King 1995.

'Heritage! The battle for Britain's past' can be seen on BBC i player, with new episodes every Thursday.

1 Planning Policy Guidance, UK heritage legislation. The statement has continued to be used in the subsequent legislation that has followed and is often repeated by heritage professionals.

2 Quote from architect Mies van de Rohe. This is a statement that, for decades, has been repeated by architects. Tom Wolfe in his book, 'from Bauhaus to our house' draws attention to the profession's penchant for repeating phrases with obscure or dubious meaning.

3 Charles Eames quoted by Demetrios Eames, TED talks 2007.

4 Webster's International dictionary 1998.

5 Johann Wolfgang vonGoethe quoted in 'The story of Philosophy' by Bryan Magee. 1998. ISBN 0 7513 3332 8.

6 Bristol slave trade: 'Conquerors of Time' by Trevor Fishlock, 1988, Chapter 7, Page 77.

7 See: Listing for Nash's Terrace, Regents Park, London.

8 The Parthenon, Mary Beard. 2002. ISBN 1 86197 301 2 – no individual quote was used, however this excellent book shows The Parthenon as a structure continually in transition to the point where in 1839 (photograph page 84) a mosque was constructed by the Turkish army in the centre of the building; which only had columns on three sides remaining. When this is compared with the current alterations seen in Dan Cruickshank's BBC report on alterations to the building, it is clear that most of the Acropolis that we see today is a modern construct.

9 Picture of construction of the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park. 1851: Source :Farringdon Historic Archive.

10 Picture Source: The Crystal Palace/Hyde Park/C1851/after the Great Exhibition: Public Record Office, London.

11 Robertson Davies, The Rebel Angels. 1983. P 124.

12 Old & New London. Vol 2. Thornbury Archive.

13 Wembley History Society, Grange Museum, The London 'Eiffel' Tower promoted by Sir Edward Watkin MP and his newly formed 'Metropolitan Tower Construction Company'. The glass tower was not the winner of the competition. The winner was an 'Eiffel' tower 'replica' that was 165 ft taller than the original. This was partially constructed, but never completed.

14 Dan Cruickshank, Adventures in Architecture P54-61 and also available as a BBC DVD.