Tl1e Beginnings of the Fun Palace

Joan Littlewood may bave felt she bad wasted her time explaining her dream of a 'people's theatre' to Price, but he had been listening after aJl. AIl he recalled clearly:

Joan was leaving Theatre Workshop because she was fed up that they were being courted by the West End theatres .... So she went via Algeria to Africa. She said 'tuck the thea.tre'.

And that's when I met her, Sbewasjust about to leave.", She talked about what She thought, not 'theatre', sbe didn't use the word 'theatre', but bow sbe'd like to give people a chance to activate their own lives, in learning and appetites and how to behave. And haVing learned that you were really rather a b~ht person, you'd go back to your old man or your wife and decide that it wasn't so bad after all, So, it was a launching pad for finding yourself, Her brief to me was, 'I'm doing this in any case, I Joan. You tell me whether architecture can help,"

Price had become quite taken with Littlewood's idea,and in early 1963, soon after she left for .A.frica to begin filming The Lion and the Jewel he began jotting down his own ideas for the project:

We are apathetic people, ifwe do not now attempt to make a new art of liVing, instead of escaping from living into rather dreary 8J't. AB a temporary measure tns propoaalhas been put forward that every town should ha.ve a. space at its disposal where the latest discoveries of engineering and science can provide an environment for pleasure and disoovery, a place to look at the stars to eat, stroll, meet and play.1!

While his office produced drawings for the London Zoo Aviary, Price began work on the Fun Palace and although. be was certa.inly committed to paid work, his heart was now in this new project, Price began to correspond with Littlewood while she was in Africa and by the time she returned to England in 1963, they had become close friends. Littlewood, however, still had no idea of his interest in an alternative people's theatre; much less that be had actuaJ.1y produced designs for it.

Shortly after her return to England, she visited Price's office.

He gestured toward a drawing board covered with a number of incomprehensible diagrams and sketches of her theatre. Littlewood recalled their conversation:

The drawing was almost inexplicable. I could make out fili8ree towers varied areas at different levels, there were galleries, gantries and escalators-it looked airborne.

'Can it be kept clean?'

'It's a self-washing giant.'

And those things?'

Movmg walkways and catwalks. No, you're pointing at the radial escalators, They can be steered.

66 The Architecture of Cedric Price

'It's not easy to read.'

'It's a mobile, not a watercolour. And I am rather busy."

This was Littlewood's brusque introduction to Price's architectural interpretation of her idea. The drawings were so abstract and diagrammatic that she still had no idea of what it might finally look like. Nevertheless, it seemed to be happening, and with Price on her side, she threw herself into the effort:

I'd never been more serious about anything. Since childhood, I'd been adding to the list of delights this century owed us, but I'd never found anyone to work with me on it. Now this young architect was actually trying to realise it.

I began listing all the activities that would be possible in a palace of the future,"

By early 1963, Littlewood had once again settled in London, and she rejoined the Theatre Workshop where she produced the hit production, Oh, What a Lovely War. However, her still unnamed project had become a major preoccupation, and she devoted

an increasing amount of time to it. Price variously referred to the project as the "idea", "dream", "palace" or "mobile", until he conceived of an appropriate moniker: 'the Fun Palace', to which she responded, "It's so wrong, it's right.'''' The newly christened Fun Palace was no longer just Littlewood's private dream, but now a full-blown collaboration with Priee.

Earlyconcept"uaJ sketch of Fun Palace interior, c 1963 Image courtesy of

Cedric Price Fonds, Collection Centre Canadien d' Architecturel Canadian Centre for Archite e eure, Montreal

The Beginnings of the fun Palace

The Fun Palace concept evolved gradually at first, and Littlewood and Price began to define its objectives in a series of manuscripts:

By careful planning we could have an environment in which the human mind and spirit may either relax or find the stimulus and delight which leads to creative activity .... This series of forms, these ideas, shall not be seaJed or enclosed by some limiting scheme or statdstacal or sociological theories regarding the activity of the people, but in their incompleteness the place will leave to people themselves the possibility of developing new experiences for themserves.s

Littlewood went on to suggest that the exploratory and educational aspects of the Fun Palace were remedies for the shortcormngs of the British educational system-a system she felt was elitist and could not meet the demands of modern technology.

Although Littlewood was also strongly committed to the educational aspects of the Fun Palace, she was reticent to stress this: "I think we should keep 'learning' out of it. It's a stupid word."? Littlewood's sentiments belie her rhetoriC, since she cared deeply about education; she simply disliked the word 'learning', with all its exclusive and elitist connotations. Her real goal was to emancipate and democratise education:

Interior perspective

of the Fun Palace, e 1964 Pink and green pencil

on wove paper

Image courtesy of

Cedric Price Foundation, Collection Centre Canadien d'Architecturel Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal

/

68 The Architecture of Cedric Price

Nineteenth century society worked on the principle of 'higher education' for a minority, and that education was designed merely to perpetuate the status quo; museums and art centres were built 'to form and promote a taste for the beautifuL. [and to] humanise, educate and refine a practical and laborious people'. These concepts have not changed and our society is perpetuating obsolete forms in which human energy can no longer be contained. The most important aspects of human development are still ignored by town planners and the problem of alleviating human misery, despair and apathy is

so acute that every skilled teacher, cybernetician and artist must be recruited for the war on dullness,"

Price and Littlewood regarded the Fun Palace as a creative and educational outlet for leisure time. Post-war projections had indicated that the current trend towards shorter working hours would continue, and that workplace automation would soon lead to a predominantly leisure-based economy for Britain.

Leisure soon became a major political, economic, social, and architectural issue in Britain, and was a key element of the

1959 Labour Party platform. British social critics and politicians alike sought (sometimes in a rather patronising and puritanical spirit) to channel working class free time away from idleness and unacceptable forms of leisure (such as crime, alcoholism, and political revolution), towards new constructive and productive uses, through newly organised recreational, educational (liberal)

or consumerist (conservative) ventures. A 1963 editorial in New Statesman, entitled "The Terrible Challenge of Leisure", addressed the lingering suspicions surrounding free time: "Leisure is still confused with idleness-and sin. Too many of us still uncritically accept Dr Johnson's axiom: 'A man is never so innocently employed as when making money?"

In Fun Palace memoranda, Price and Littlewood used the terms "learning" and "leisure" more or less interchangeably because

they believed in the Fun Palace as a constructive use of free time. In a 1964 lecture, Price made the Ruskinian argument that work and enjoyment need not be mutually exclusive, stating that it was "essential to eliminate Ethel unreal division between leisure and work time"." Yet, given the uncertainties of British society and this economy, it was impossible to predict what the future would bring; whether free time or skills retraining would come to dominate

the needs of the nation. Price explained that in the Fun Palace "there were leisure skills, cooking and all that, but there was new learning as a leisure activity. We didn't know which way it would be categorised, we didn't care. We couldn't predict,'?'

Their many notes and manifesto drafts indicate that the Fun Palace was intended explicitly as a response to the social and economic crises that plagued post-war England, and especially to the wa,y in which technology promised to erase the distinctions between work, education, and leisure.

The Beginnings of the Fun Palace

Automation is coming. More and more, machines do our

work for us. There is going to be yet more time left over, yet more human energy unconsumed. The problem which faces

us is far more than that of the 'increased leisure' to which

our politicians and educators so innocently refer. This is to underestimate the future. The fact is that as machines take: over more of the drudgery, work and leisure are increasingly irrelevant concepts. The distinction between them breaks down. We need, and we have a right, to enjoy the totality of our lives. We must start discovering now how to do soyl

Price expressed the transformation in terms of a dissolution of the old leisure/work time dichotomy, and proposed a new synthesis or unification of the two:

The division between work and leisure has never been more than a convenient gene.ralisation used in summarising conscious human activity-voluntary and imposed. Both the nature and scale of conditions causing or requiring imposed activity have changed to such a great extent over the past 25 years that even the convenience of such a drvision is

no longer acceptable.

The present sociopolitical talk of increased leisure makes both a slovenly and dangerous assumption that people on the one hand are still sumciently numb or servile to accept that the period during which they earn money can be little more than made mentally hygtemcally [sic] bearable and that a new mentality is awakened during periods of self-Willed activity_l3

Littlewood, equally explicit about her desire to redefine leisure in post-industrial Britain, agreed that the distinction between 'work' and 'leisure' was no longer relevant.

So, how are we to use our freedom from unnecessary labour? We shall be caught short again, as we were after the invention of the steam engine, if we don't look out ... 'work' and 'leisure' overlap and merge: life becomes a whole.14

For Littlewood, the Fun Palace would realise the social coming-toconsciousness that she and Brecht had envisioned for the theatre. Her bitter experience with Theatre Workshop had proven the limitations of achieving such a goal with conventional theatre. In her notes, she wrote:

... these experiments may have seemed to fail, but their inspiration spread; and they prove thepossibillty of human advance through the cooperation of men and women With a Wide variety of training and experience but a common language, working together for an important end.L6

70 The Auhitecture of Cedrlc Pl"lce

She stressed the urgency of identifying whether or not the Fun Palace might succeed where other attempts had failed.

The Fun Palace thus became a problem of finding a new architecture for the new leisure society. However, neither Price nor Littlewood felt that there were many useful architectural models on which to base their project. Other British architects were also beginning to grapple with the issue of increasing free time. The Architects' Journal devoted more than half of its January 1965 issue to the architectural problems posed by the "age of Ietsure"." At the time, the building types directed toward leisure were largely limited to adult education schools, movie theatres, and sports facilities, such as bowling alleys and race tracks (greyhound racing was extremely popular among the middle class), and the Crystal Palace Sports Centre. A notable exception was Centre 42, a theatre which grew out of playwright Arnold Wesker's efforts to bring

culture to the trade unions. '

The only contemporary project which came close to the spirit of Price's work was architecture student Mik.e Webb's Sin Centre, 1959, his thesis project for Regent Street Polytechnic." He had designed an innovative entertainment centre for the site of the Empire Theatre at London's Leicester Square, incorporating several radical concepts. Pedestrian and vehicle circulation were brought together along spiralling ramps. Floor decks were made of pre-stressed aluminium, allowing a degree of 'live' vibratory responsiveness in the structure. Heating and ventilation ducts snaked through the helical matrix, and most of the structure was wrapped in a tensile skin of plastic and steel cables. Webb's Sin Centre was such a radical departure from the architectural norms of the day that, even though it had been published, it was rejected

Mike Webb Entertainments Centre (Sin Centre) Model, 1959-1961 Black and white photogra.ph

Image courtesy of Archigram Archives

The Beginnings of the Fun Palace ~

by his tutors until James Stirling intervened on his behalf. The Sin Centre became an icon of the Archtgram group, formed in 1961 by Webb and a handful of other young architects. However, although the Sin Centre predated the Fun Palace, Webb expressed doubt that his ideas had any significant impact on Price's designs for that project.

Price and Littlewood found their greatest inspiration in England's historical architecture of 'fun': pleasure domes, follies, music

halls, public gardens, and so forth. There had in the past also been philanthropic efforts to build facilities for working class leisure and education, notably Sir Walter Besant's People's Palace. The social plight of east London had been the subject of numerous books and articles, but had failed to attract widespread public attention until the publication of Besant's 1882 novel, All Sorts and Oonditions

of Men: An Impossible Story.18 In the book, Besant describes a People's Palace-an educational and recreational facility for the disadvantaged of London's East End. After a groundswell of public support, Besant established a foundation to promote the idea of the People's Palace. It was built in 1887 on Mile End Road and continued to operate until 1953, (the same year that Littlewood moved to the Theatre Royal in the East End). In 1954, the People's Palace was taken over by Queen Mary College, although amateur theatre groups continued to use the Great Hall 19

The only historical models which appealed to Price and Littlewood were London's great public pleasure gardens of the eighteenth century at Vauxhall and Banelagh, which served the broadest possible demography of London until the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Since Littlewood's 'idea' prescribed no particular programme

or fixed activities, Price decided that it should have no specific

form and no fixed floor plan. It would not be truly 'complete' or even a 'building' in any conventional sense of the word. Was it possible that the users could 'design' it as they used it? Rather than design a conventional building to contain Littlewood's fluid and

71 The Architecture of Cedric Price

Thoma.s Bowles

London's Ranelagh Gardens, 1794 Hand-coloured engraving 21x40cm

Image cou~tesy of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Library

transformational programme, Price began to conceive a skeletal framework, like a garden trellis, within and around which activities might grow and develop:

Its form and structure, resembling a large shipyard in

which enclosures such as theatres, cinemas, restaurants, workshops, rally areas, can be assembled, moved, rearranged and scrapped continuously. Its mechanically operated environmental controls are such that it can be sited in a hard dirty industrial area unsuited to more conventional types of amenity buildings.20

Price started to percieve the Fun Palace as an 'anti-building', even referring to himself as an 'anti-architect':

The varied and ever-changing activities will determine the form of the site. To enclose these activities the anti-building must have equal fleXibility. Thus the prime motivation of

the area is caused by the people and their activities and the resultant form is continually dependent on them. The fact that such enjoyment does take place within the pathetic areas in London's slums gives a clue to the immense potential for enjoyment in an area which encourages random movement and variable activities.21

The variability of the Fun Palace would not be based on physical obsolescence, fashion or taste, (as it was in Archigram projects), but on the constantly changing programmatic needs of the users.

The Fun Palace programme would be ad hoc, determined by the users and, like a swarm or metsorologtcal system, its behaviour would be unstable, indeterminate, and unknowable in advance. Yet, even without a speciftc programme or objective, the Fun Palace would have to self-regulate, and its physical configuration and operations would need to anticipate and respond to probable patterns of use.

Price realised that the solution to the problems posed by the Fun Palace lay in the fields of cybernetics, game theory, and computer technologies that he had learned of through lectures at the ICA.22 The Fun Palace would need to be able to 'learn' behavioural patterns and 'plan' for future activities by modelling these according to cybernetics principles and game theory strategies. It would thus

be able to antictpate unpredictable phenomena, because instead of

a determined programme, it would rely on probability to adjust its programme to accommodate changing trends and eventa='

Cybernetics allowed dynamic systems to self-regulate and selfcorrect without an end-state or definite telos. The performative objectives of cybernetics are in reality fluid criteria and are as subject to modi.fl.cation as is the system itself.

Norbert Wiener's pioneering theories in the field of cybernetics provided the basis for a new theory of the behaviour of unstable

The Bef!lnnln!!s of the FunJ>a.lacj! U

systems.Z4 Although cybernetics was commonly associated with computers and information technology, Wiener felt that it was really a model of the natural processes which permit all living things to actively maintain the conditions of life in a changing world. He cited French physiologist Claude Bernard, who in the early nineteenth century had described the function of feedback systems that enabled living organisms to maintain homeostasis despite unstable environmental conditions. The principles of cybernetics would prove to be crucial to the ability of the Fun Palace to adapt to a constantly evolving programme. While cybernetics would regulate the short term behaviour of daily activities, game theory would provide a means of establishing long term performative strategies.

Game theory, developed by John von Neumann in the 1920s, did not merely respond to changing conditions and suggest short term course corrections, but indicated long term strategies and modifications to the performative guidelines of complex systems, thus transcending the temporal limitations of cybernetics. In accounting for the indeterminate and synergistic interaction of factors, game theory resembled the dynamic behaviour of complex social and economic systems.

Von Neumann's mathematical theory of games also provided

the basis for the logical codes of the modern electronic computer, which have come to be known as the computer program. As early as 1927, Alan Turing suggested that alterations of the sequence of von Neumann's operating codes would create a virtual machine which could be made to emulate the behaviour of many different devices." A 'virtual architecture' like the Fun Palace, had no singular programme, but could be reprogrammed to perform an endless variety of functions. By providing methodologies for coping with indeterminate systems evolving in time, cybernetics and game theory established the groundwork for information and computer technologies as well as for virtual architecture.

The Fun Palace programme would therefore not be the conventional diagram of architectural spaces, but much closer

to what we might understand as the computer program: an array of algorithmic functions and logical gateways that control temporal processes in a virtual device. The three-dimensional structure

of the Fun Palace was the operative space-time matrix of a

virtual architecture.

A major turning point for the Fun Palace project occurred in

the spring of 1963, when Littlewood first learned of Gordon Pasko Pask, the "doyen of Romantic Cyberneticians", had already made

a name for himself as head of the British cybernetics foundation, Systems Research Ltd.26 Littlewood and Price wrote to Pask asking if he would contribute his expertise of the field to the project. It turned out that Pask was a fan of Littlewood's Theatre Workshop, and he wrote back offering to help out on the Fun Palace. He

was fascinated with the project,which he felt was more about "seeking the unfamiliar, and ultimately transcending it" than conventional "fun"."

74 The Architecture of Cedric Price

Gordon Pask

Image reproduced by permission of the Pask Archives

To Pask, the central theme of cybernetics was the study of the ways in which complex biological, social or mechanical systems organise, regulate and reproduce themselves, evolve, and learn."

He regarded cybernetics not as a unilateral system of one-way reactivity, but as a two way 'conversation' between entities. To Pask, cybernetics held particular promise for architecture and design, which he saw as essentially interactive Cor 'conversational') systems of human interaction." Architecture, argued Pask, is "only meaningful as a human environment. It perpetually interacts with its inhabitants, on the one hand serving them and on the other hand controlling their behaviour. "30 In other words, Pask believed that through cybernetic design, the architect could assume the role of social engineer.

Pask agreed to join the Fun Palace team and organised the Fun Palace Cybernetics Subcommittee, and along with Littlewood and Price, he became the third major personality behind the Fun Palace. He would gradually s.hift the focus of the Fun Palace from Brechtian theatre towards. cybernetics, interaction and social control.

The latest advances. in cybernetic technology appeared to hold endless promise as a means. of reconciling 'bricks and mortar' with the multivalent and ever-changing functions and programmes of the Fun Palace. Price and Littlewood's unbridled optimism for science and technology may seem ill-informed and charmingly naive,

yet at the time, many people :firmly believed in the limitless possibilities. that SCience and technology promised for the betterment of mankind, and they eagerly welcomed Pask's contributions. Still, Price didn't exactly agree with Pask's notion of the architect as social engineer. Instead, he trusted that the cybernetic control systems would enable him or any other paternal, controlling force to withdraw from the scene entirely. Price had hoped that an autonomous cybernetic control system would allow users to shape their own environments and their own goals according to their particular wishes and desires, not his or those of some elite intelligentsta.

At the beginning of its formation, Price and Littlewood remained circumspect and said little about the Fun Palace. As word of the project gradually leaked out however, architecture and design magazines began requesting details and plans of the building. Price initially refused all such requests. He claimed that it did not exist, that it was really only "a kit of parts, not a building. I doubt whether it will ever look the same twice".31 Littlewood and Price soon realised that if the Fun Palace were ever to become a reality they would need a great deal of help and support. Nevertheless, they remained cautious and initially discussed the idea only with a select group

of people. Yet, by mid -1 9 63, Littlewood and Price began recruiting people to work on the project.

The architectural and programmatic developments of the

Fun Palace were never solely the invention of its initiators. They were the products of an intense and close working relationship not only between Littlewood and Price, but also with the scores of enthusiastic scientists, sootologists, psychologists, cyberneticians, and politicians who volunteered their time and energies towards

the proj ect. Authorship of the Fun Palace was dispersed across the many designers, contributors, collaborators, and consultants, such that the final design amounted to an architectural cadavre exquise which represented something different to each member of the Fun Palace design team. In the end, the project was so collaborative that it is difficult to say exactly who designed what, its very authorship was as fluid and indeterminate as the design itself.

The Fun Palace was the right idea at the right time. People were interested in the technical challenges of such a place and fascinated by its creative and social implications. Price and Littlewood set up a series of consultant task foroes to begin the process of programming and planning the project. The Fun Palace project began to resemble a modern, secular version of the collaborative coming together of various disoiplines reminiscent of the nineteenth century visions

of the construction of medieval cathedrals. The result was the metasynthesis of architecture, theatre, technology, and cybernetics (which became increasingly important as the project progressed).

Within a few months, the list of Fun Palace consultants (see Appendix A) included such luminaries as Labour Members of Parliament Tony Benn, Tom Driberg, and Ian Mikardo, structural engineer Frank Newby, architect Yona Friedman, cybernetician Gordon Pask, award-winning producer Robert Whitehead, iconoclastic journalist and broadcaster Malcolm Muggeridge, and the aforementioned psychiatrist and author Morris Carstairs, who had given the 1962 BBC Reith Lectures on the challenges facing England in the twentieth century.:>2

I

I

r

1 --

Iii

76 The Architecture of Cedric Price

Conceptual plan, Fun Palace, 1963

Black penetl, black ink, graphite on wove paper 38.3 x 70.1 cm

Image courtesy of

Cedric Price Fonds Collection Centre Can,adlen d'Architecturel Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montrea'

..,, ........ (I.U

,~""~~ •• !.M_. ".l!'·~._1 ~

Price had already begun to design the structure of the Fun Palace. His initial 1963 design was for a series of 18.3 metre square structural steel grids topped with cranes to move modular elements into place. He sketched out a structural exoskeleton resembling a scaffold, equipped with travelling gantry cranes

to manoeuvre the various plug-in components. The users could improvise and change their own spaces, using the cranes to assemble prefabricated walls, platforms, floors, stairs, and ceiling modules. Once he was satisfied with this basic structural scheme, Price sought the expertise of Frank Newby with whom he had worked on the London Aviary.

Newby pointed out three problems with Price's initial structural scheme. First, to move objects from one end to the other, far too many cranes were required (one for every 18.3 metres). Second, vertical circulation-staircases as well as elevators and mechanical ducts-would have to run through the bays themselves, taking up valuable space and reducing the flexibility of the overall structure. Third, the entire structure would have to be fireproofed.

Newby designed a more efficient structural system consisting of 14 parallel rows of square service towers, 18.3 metres apart, forming two 18.3 metre side 'aisles' flanking the 36.6 metre-wide central bay. The resulting plan was a pattern of interlocking squares which Newby referred to as the "tartan grid ", The

tartan grid provided both structural stability and programmatic flexibility: Stairs, elevators, electrical cables, and mechanical ducts

Fun Palace, '1'96,]

Black ink, graphite, bla,ck and brown pencil, yellow and red adhesive dots on wove paper

36.2 x 70.2 em

','mage courtesy of

Cedric Price Fonds Collection Centre 'Canadien d' Architecturel Ca'nadian Centre for Architecture" Montreal

r~ a'TTTTo " /.f,l !l 0 II ~ D 11 a.." 17 I
l- I
r i . ..-,_r ~:.-U'
I ~ .. 'ill~ ',1'\7', -'>=-'
,11 .L ~' -I" 11- :0 ~tm-~-J1 "l~ ~ ~ , 0 I :II
-" ~/ 10
,., (
0 c /;' 11 i!
:,g( ". /.., - t_1
t, ~ 1 ~, \~8
~ 0 'll 13 , ,0
I //-"'-. _:_ .;__ / t 1 '--
I , ,\ '
-~ ,,' -: / - 0 II Q
---4
:;-1 <.
,,~ I" ./ ..-
~lr 'Il_;. "'.:: --"'.-Ii 0'
0 0 ~ -" 1l' ~T a Al'P "
11 J
-, j Co- ~ s,
-~ u
, r. ."..---..., __J
I \ Q~ -0 r -
o~ s, ~! E"') '~ o~
D_ D .: D fi, ~ u 0
K -- ),-, .t._
Ll J ~ ~...:..............u..._""" ~_~,o......~_

:r_,.._...r~_-

~,~ ~.-..Lo¥~ ~-..oQ.:"

~""~~''''''''''''''''''~ t.ro--"';I~~~"""

The Beginnings of the Fun ,Palace 1

were located in the square towers, leaving the bays themselves free of permanent obstructions. Newby's structural frame was 237.7 metres long and 109.7 metres wide. Price and Newby finally agreed on two overhead gantry cranes spanning the full 73.2 metre width of the two central bays. Mounted on rails, these cranes could travel the entire length of the Fun Palace and could access any POint of the interior space, thus eliminating the need to transfer loads from one crane to the next. Newby calculated the sizes and weights of the structural steel and began estimating the cost ofthe project, while Price refined the functions contained withln the supporting towers and developed a corrugated roofing system spanning 36.6 metres, whioh could be extended or retracted.

The final structural problem Newby faced was the requirement for fireproofing the structural steel. Since the Fun Palace was to be dismantled after its projected life span often years. Newby and Price agreed that either encasing the steel in fireproof concrete or using a concrete structure was out. Newby next proposed increasing the size and. weight of the steel to make it more fire-resistant, but that would have nearly doubled both the weight of the structure and the cost of the steel. After some research, he finally found the solution-a new American product called 'intumescent paint' which, when exposed to hlgh temperatures, would expand into a thermal barrier, protecting the steel from heat. Newby even ran sample tests to prove the paint's effectiveness to building officials in London.

Besides the stair towers, pivoting escalators and moving walkways would provide additional circulation. A membrane roof suspended from a cable grid covered most of the central space, with

opposite

Sketches servtce towers, Fun 'Palace, c 1963 Graphite, btaek and blue Ink, orange cray<.'" on wove paper

38.2 x 25.3c",

Image courtesy of

Cedric ,Price fonds Collection Centre Canadien d'Archltecturel Canadian Centre for Architecture, Mon,treal

Plan of structural system for the f"un Palac.e,.1963 Black ink, adhesive sc,reentone sheet, g'raphite on wove paper 38.4 l( 69.4 cm

Image courtesy of

C'edric Price fonds Collection Centre Canadien d" Architecture! Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal

18 The A"rchltecture of Cedric Pr.lce

I

CJ

I

!.Jc~ 'lIF 4-, ~11' q ',; ,~±;, ~G\ t~calQ+O-V::S .

'" (

FUN PALACE PROJECT

~~----------------------~

-

", ~ ... -

..

The Beginnings of' the Fun Palace

_1

FUN PALACE T

80 TheA

rchitecture of C

edrlc Price

operable 'skyblinds' over the central 'rally area'. Beneath the roof, floor, wall, and ceiling modules could be lifted into place by the overhead cranes which ran the length of the building. In the side aisles, movable decks could be positioned as needed for ancillary functions. The internal structures and elements consisted of inflatable plastic and standardised aluminium modular units which could be positioned and relocated anywhere within the overall structure. There would also be a complex system of environmental controls, generating "charged static-vapour zones, optical barriers, warm-air curtains, and fog dispersal"."

Virtually every part of the structure was to be variable, with the overall structural frame being the fixed element. The only 'permanent' levels of the building were the ground floor and the basement, which contained service areas, mechanical systems,

and parking. Except for temporary modules and kiosks, the ground floor was open, providing access to the various modes of vertical circulation. There would be no 'main entrance'-like London's public gardens, the entire ground floor would provide open access from

all directions.

With the Fun Palace planning and structural design under way, Littlewood and Price began to search for a suitable location, and financing for the project. Despite Price's keen interest in architectural adaptability to the ambient environment, and Littlewood's concern with local social conditions, it seems odd that during much of its development, the Fun Palace was non -site specific. Given the enormous impact such a building would have in a given area, environmental sensitivity was clearly not one of

opposite

Sketches for service towers, Fun Palace, e 1963

Graphite, red and purple pencil, blue ink and black ink stamp on wove paper 38.2 x 25.5 cm

Image courtesy of

Cedric Price Fonds Collection Centre Canadien d'Architecturel Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal

Analytical diagrams for access, enclosure and volume, Fun Palace, 1964 Black ink, adhesive screen tone sheet

on wove paper

26.9 x 76.2 cm

Image courtesy of

Cedric Price Fonds Collection Centre Canadien d'Architecturel Canadian Centre for .Al"'I;hitect\lre, Montreal

Ul.lam .!.1~lE1H lIlUS tW_'N!!! r.;l;$1I! ~s Ittll~
[!II. ~*"
0 0 0 0 0
L 0 Q 0 0 0
• • II!! ..
•• • • a ISfn·. f2l"f
· . . . 11I.'lI .. lt
t.1rrf!O
• • D'S a •• 0 0 0
1),< ,
~T·'\·r
1111"j,I
K1.t.&.J.'JlI f!iOc:litt~iA,s.
:P:t"lIilk The Beginnings of the Fun Patace

~J,D'lumt l,n··",·O-·l/U 11'rI,lrtWlChtt]

their principal concerns. However, both Littlewood and Price planned to adjust the design to locaJ conditions, and they had a general idea that it should be in working class east London, at a location along the Thames River. That is where they began to look.

The Isle of Dogs

Littlewood felt strongly that the Fun Palace should not be located in the London's West End theatre district:

Now that people have gained or are gaining money, time and freedom, they need not one, but many forms of enj oyment. Often at the moment they are at a loss and are forced to patronise the limited form of entertainment offered by the Victorian theatre buildings and expensive restaurants of so-called theatre land, which is, in effect, one of the most dreary and obsolete parts of London from an architectural and social point ofView.~4

In the spring of 1963, Littlewood was on a visit to the Isle of Dogs in east London, when she came across six acres of desolate land on the banks of the river Thames at Glengall Wharf. The Isle of Dogs was formed by an oxbow bend in the Thames, and Glengall Wharf was accessible both by road and by water, and was located in the heart of the East End. Once the prosperous centre of London's shipping and ship building industries, the area had been hard hit by wartime

Diagrammatic sectton

of Fun Palace, 1963

Black ink, black felt tip pen, graphite, ink stamp on wove paper

38 x 69.5 ern

Image courtesy of

Cedric Price Foods Collection Centre Canadien d'Architecturel Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal

-, r--~---------~,~~--

, I

82 The Architecture of Cedric Price

ft'

bombing and by the subsequent post-war- de-Industrialisation

of England, leaving abandoned wharves, vacant lots and unemployment as shipping pulled out. After some research, Littlewood found that Olengall Wharfwas zoned. for public use, and decided that it would make the perfect location for the Fun Palace. Excited, she took Price to see the site, narrating her vision as they walked: "I can see it, on festival nights-fireworks, water jousts, riverboats coming and going."35 .After their visit, Price agreed that Glengall Wharf would be the perfect location. At last it seemed they had found a home for the Fun Palace.

The derelict Glengan Wharf area came under the auspices

of the London Oounty Council Parks Committee, which was responsible for the management and development of 7,000 acres of 'open spaces' vvithin the llO square mile London area. Price and Littlewood needed to gain approval from the Committee to use GlengaJl Wharffor the Fun Palace. They had every reason to hope for a favourable reception to the idea, based on the fact that the Committee's open space policies closely adhered to the master plan for London developed some 20 years earlier by Sir Patrick Abercrombie. Among other things, the Abercrombie Report, 1944, had anticipated the future need for open space to accommodate increased leisure.

The report placed particular importance on increasing public access to the Thames. Bomb damage and post-war industrial obsolescence had made the acquisition of new open space in London's East End feasible, particularly along the Thames, where

·1 XL~L:~J/?lz:<l?1 /

!r~.!III~t ('~~I

;lateral section through

'Fun Palace, c 1964 -

Pen and black ink, black felt tip pen, g,raphi,te

and adhesiv(ltran.sfer

on wove, paper

38.1 x 75.;1, cm

Image courtesy of

Cedric Pric(l 'Fonds Collection Centre Canadien d' Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montr'eal

"many of the industries and warehouses take up considerably more of the river frontage than is justified by the use they make

of the rrver'?" In particular, Abercrombie had recommended the rehabilitation of ruined and disused wharves on the Isle of Dogs into public space. Despite their optimism, Price and Littlewood felt that they should proceed cautiously and not approach the Parks Committee until they had a chance to gauge local public opinion on the project.

Although rumour of an imminent 'Fun Palace' had been rife for some time, Littlewood finally went public with the project on the BBC's Monitor programme, on 28 April 1963. The television audience that evening was unusually large, since Labour MP Tom Driberg had already alerted the public that an important announcement would

be forthcoming in his column in that morning's edition of Sunday Citizen. News of the Fun Palace unleashed a flood of response from media, corporations, and private citizens. Littlewood and Price received scores ofletters of support from people hoping to join the effort, and from companies eager to use the Fun Palace as a publicity outlet for their products. Support began to gather behind the project from many quarters. Offers of assistance poured in from companies and individuals alike.

In his column the following week, Driberg wrote:

Those who took my hint and watched Joan Littlewood on Monitor seem to have enjoyed their exposure to her remarkable personality. Already the creator is working hard on practical plans. So is the young architect, Cedric Price, whose contribution to the project should be particularly important and exciting .... He has a remarkable experimental mind; and (as with Joan Littlewood's) his dreams, however fantastic,

tend to come true.57

Driberg concluded his column with a plea to the LOC to permit the use of the Isle of Dogs site.

In anticipation of the potential difficulties and bureaucratic roadblocks ahead, Price and Littlewood began to cultivate support among the power elite. With Driberg already among the most ardent fans of the Fun Palace, they enlisted the support of Ian Mikardo,

a Labour MP from Poplar and member of the Labour Party Ways and Means Committee." Mikardo could easily navigate London politics, and promised to be a very influential advocate. On seeing the plans for the first time, he commented: "Better than I thought. It's not just roundabout and swing. It's the fun of learning."39 Price and Littlewood also began to make inroads within the theatrical community, winning over actor Zero Mostel to the Fun Palace cause. Playwright Frank Norman liked the idea, but felt it was better suited to America. "It's for my own country first", replied Joan.40

Price also made appeals for backing to dozens of British corporations, including English Electric, Pilkington, Upjohn Pharmaceuticals, Boots Chemists, Schweppes, and Guinness.

84 The Architecture of Cedric Price

Si~ Patrick Abercrombie's redevelopment plan for London, 1944

THE COUNTY Of LONOON (THE A~"'S SHOWN ElV;C.l( ... IIE THOSE FIIOM WHICH DECENTRAlI5.0.TION IS PIIOPOSED)

OUTER COUNTRY RINC

CRUN BELT RINC

Representatives of Pilkington Brothers Glass Ltd met with Price

to discuss the use of the Fun Palace as a test bed for their glass products. He began discussions with the Sandvik. conveyor company about the costs and capabilities of their escalators and moving walkways. Price and his assistant, architect Stephen Mullin, also met with company engineers from Mickleover Transport to discuss their new CLAMP system of rapid, prefabrication constr-uction. Price wrote to UNESCO, the Belgian Minister of Culture, and to Robert Moses, who was busy putting the finishing touches on the 1964

New York World's Fair. Littlewood appealed for funding to Sidney Bernstein, founder and chairman of Granada TV, and patron of

arts and education,"

One supporter of the project, not realising that Littlewood and Price were already way ahead of them, wrote to suggest that they look into the work of Buckminster Fuller and Charles and Ray Eames. A Polish woman wrote requesting details of the Fun Palace so that a similar project might be started in Warsaw. Someone helpfully sent in a press clipping describing plans for

5

ff .1

f.ru!'O-'? ... r s~ ~, pd'~C:,-<."'- S';j~. r--.;,~", f'-"-'''''' ~~,

1"._",...._,_." « ...... ~4.......:....... .., r....... ae- P<1SHIi't'l( vP"'T'K€" DA(Sf(~.

'-.,./ \-...1

x

86 The A...:hltecture of Cedric Price

Draft of promotional literature for the fun Palace, 1963

Black pencil, graphite, black, blue and red ink on stapled wove paper

27.S x 23.2 cm

Image courtesy of

Cedric Pr·ice fonds Collection Centre Canadien d'Architecturel Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montrea,1

Wonderama, a commercial theme park planned for Morecambe in Lancashire (loosely based on Disneyland and the forthcoming New York World's Fair).42

London newspapers began to pick up the story, and the extensive coverage was generally enthusiastic. Daily Herald columnist Henry Fielding wrote an article entitled, "Nothing but Fun on the Isle

of Dogs", in which he describes the Fun Palace as Littlewood's longheld vision:

Joan Littlewood, the Theatre Workshop person, has little

in common with Kubla Khan-except that she, too, wants a pleasure- dome .... 'It's an idea I've had ever since I was a little girl', she told me. 'Some place where anything can happensinging, dancing, acting, drinking, necking.' She reckons that London needs cheering up. As she says, in the eighteenth century we were great hands for pleasure gardens, such as Vauxhall and Ranelagh. Then we had an industrial revolution. About the same time that we discovered the Division of Labour, we discovered the Division of Fun (Fielding's Theory).43

The Bolton Evening News printed an article on the Fun Palace entitled, "Pleasure Park of Rare Design" which emphasised Littlewood's concept of creative leisure.

In the Daily Telegraph, Harold Atkins published a particularly astute article touching on several key issues of the Fun Palace, including the project's relation to the traditional English popular entertainments that Littlewood admired, and Price's methodology of "calculated incompleteness","

The East London Advertiser joined in the furore with an article entitled "Joan Has Her Eye on a Fun Palace", which again described the Fun Palace as Littlewood's project, making no mention of Price, and even attributed the design to a different architect. Architecture journals began to show interest too. In the autumn of 1963, Michael Myers, editor of the Royal College of Art's magazine, ARK, offered to include the Fun Palace in a forthcoming issue on utopia.45 Now that the word was out, Joan felt relieved, and wrote:

I could visualise such a place, light, almost airborne, yet grounded in engineering skill, such as had never before been realised. I tried to explain the concept; I wrote and talked at universities and schools, to any assembly interested. I tried cyberneticians and politicians. I was glad when Cedric Price finally allowed his drawings to be reproduced."

Word of the Fun Palace also spread to the United States. Lincoln Center director Robert Whitehead wrote from New York, enquiring about the progress of the Fun Palace. The American architect Philip Johnson proclaimed it, "a new step in the world'',"

The Fun Palace was not the only architecture to cause a stir that summer. In June, 1963 Archigram had their first group exhibition

The Beginnings of the Fun Palace

at the lOA, entitled The Living Oity. A review by 'Astragal' in The Architects' Jo urn aJ both criticised and praised Archigram's efforts, and prodded the Fun Palace team to avoid 'pomposity':

In its nutty way ('frantic' according to the designers) the exhibition is a contribution to the present debate on city planning, using This Is Tomorrow techniques to spell the message that the urban scene is full of Visual and other excitements, and that a city without them is not a city. But a Living City is also a city with people, and there are no people in this exhibition-or, if you read the visitors to the exhibition as people, then they are not in a city. This is fine if, in abstracting people and city from their normal relationship in the streets, you can say something about that relationship that gets overlooked in real life. In the end, this exhibition does, but you have to read the catalogue to get it, and you can do that without Visiting the exhibition .... Only DO visit the show, because it is good clean urban fun in its own right, and some sort of preView of what Joan Littlewood's Fun Palace could be like if it isn't overcome by pomposity."

Price thanked Astragal appropriately for his advice, writing to the editor: "With reference to Astragal's comments on Joan Littlewood's Fun Palace for which I am the Architect, I would like to say, from the bottom of my arse, how deeply I appreciate his timely warning". 49

That same summer, Littlewood began work on a Fun Palace promotional film. She contributed 2,000 pounds of her own money to pay for a model of the project, to be used in the filmtng. Newby, Price, and Stephen Mullin, constructed an intricate model of the Fun Palace, with miniature framework and operating panels. A friend at the BBC donated a studio and camera crew. Three Theatre Workshop actors volunteered their services, and Shelagh Delaney, author of A Taste of Honey, offered to act as 'cheerleader' for the film. The film was shot, but never completed. The footage was lost for nearly four decades but recently discovered and, along with the Fun Palace model, is part of the Cedric Price collection at the Canadian Centre for Architecture

in Montreal.

In May 1963, Price made his first inquiry to the London County Council eLLC) Parks Committee, not specifically about Glengall Wharf, but more circumspectly as to the possibility of using public land on the Isle of Dogs as a site for the Fun Palace. At the time, the chairman of the Committee was Sidney Melman, an elected Labour member of the LLC from Lambeth. Melman headed the Parks Committee from the early 1950s until its dissolution in 1964.

By all appearances, the proposed Fun Palace at Glengall Wharf would be an ideal application of the recommendations of the 1944 Abercrombie Report, but the Committee was apparently somewhat taken aback by the unusual proposal. A few days later a letter sent from the LOO Comptroller's Office to Price and Littlewood offered ominous reassurance: "Whatever appearance we may have given

88 The Architecture of Cedric Price

I can assure you that we comprehend what you have in mind and that your proposal will be most carefully considered."?

Although Glengall Wharf was their preferred site, Price chose to reveal their interest in that particular location rather slowly. In June, Price had met with John Craig of the LCC Planning office, to discuss the application requirements for several Isle of Dogs sites, including Glengall Wharf. A fortnight later, Craig wrote Price requesting six copies of the Fun Palace proposal. He also sent Price a copy of Werner Ruhnau's proposal for 'air architecture' which he thought the architect might find interesting and relevant to the Fun Palace. Rulmau, working With French artist Yves Klein, envisioned using technology to create a paradise on earth and proposed the climatic conditioning of large parts of the earth's surface. Given the fanciful improbability of Ruhnau's project, one has to wonder just how seriously Craig and the LCC actually regarded the Fun Palace proposal.

Undeterred, Price arranged a meeting with the Parks Committee to request the use of G lengall Wharf for the Fun Palace. Littlewood recalled the meeting:

Price and I were summoned to a meeting of top-level London County Council offlciala and questioned closely as to the whys and wherefores as well as the architectural innovations. They were shown the plans.

'And how do you propose to finance it?'

'We hope to have government support. There is a sixpenny rate for cultural purposes. Also some private investor or syndicate will recognise the value of the experiment and support us. At the moment we are financing it ourselves.'

'There will have to be a great deal of discussion before you receive an answer to your request for the use of the land at Glengall.'51

The Committee was on recess for the rest of the summer, and would not consider the Isle of Dogs site until September.

On the Isle of Dogs, there was already mounting opposition by local residents fearful that the Fun Palace might attract the 'wrong sort'

to the Glengall Wharf community. Members of the Millwall Residents Association (MLA) wrote to Littlewood to express their concerns about the effect the project would have on their neighbourhood. She wrote back, asking if she might meet with them to explain the project and alleviate their fears.

The MLA accepted her offer, and the MillwaJl Residents Newsletter announced to its readers that she would be speaking at their meeting in S eptember. 52 Littlewood realised that Without the support of the Millwall residents, the Fun Palace would face a difficult road. To

avoid further alienating them, she reluctantly cancelled a scheduled segment on the BBC's Tonight programme, which had planned to feature the Glengall Wharf site as a done deal.

Since real progress on Glengall Wharf would have to wait until the LCC Parks Committee reconvened in September, in the summer of 1963, Price, Littlewood, and their growing army of volunteers had

The Beginnings of the Fun Palace

Interior pe,.spective of the Fun Palace, 1961-1965

White gouache and black Ink on gelatin sllve,. print 12.6 x 24.8 em

Image courtesy of

Cedric Price Fonds Collection Centre Canadien d'Archltecturel Canadian Centre fol' Architecture, Montreal

10 The Architecture of Cedric Price

little else to do than refine their ideas on the Fun Palace. While Price concentrated on the technical functionality of the Fun Palace, Littlewood concentrated on new ways to promote the idea and gain public support. In order to raise money and win popular backing for it, she decided to launch a publicity campaign, and wrote and directed half a dozen television commercials asking for contributions and support. In September, Price hired Douglas Smith and Ruddle as quantity surveyors to help develop a budget for the eventual construction of the building.

Price and Littlewood continued to work on publicity together and produced numerous drafts of publicity pamphlets. One such pamphlet, in the form of a questionnaire, indicates their keen awareness of the role the Fun Palace could play in the new Bri tam, in which social mobility and changes in employment were suddenly possible:

Have you changed your job? Did you want to?

Do you enjoy routine?

Do you make your own discipline? Do you enjoy disaster?

Do you hate the neighbours? your own family?

Do you wish to know more about yourself? your mind?

your emotions?

about science? art?

history? politics? economics?

Do you suffer from boredom? overwork?

loneliness?

overcrowding?

12 or more yeses [sic], read on.S3

At the same time, Price prepared a public report describing the goals of the project:

Each age projects its ideals in its architecture, sculpture, theatre, painting, literature and in apparently spontaneous expression in the streets, public houses and work places. Leisure and freedom from war and want have been necessary for the development of civilised arts and crafts, and during such times man's taste for danger and conflict has been channeled into art, science and sport.

We have entered now into an age of leisure and freedom from war with the equipment to enjoy it. Much of the education still practiced in schools and universities is obsolete and the ma,jority have to find their own way of surviving the pleasures of planet dwelling.

One of the fust needs is for areas in each city where we can learn to work and play. Space is needed and good sites by rivers and water, where the background of movement and space can be enjoyed. There should be allowance made for many forms of activity, which should not be dictated."

As the summer of 1963 ended, Littlewood finally made her way to the Isle of Dogs to her long-awaited meeting with the

92 The Architecture of Cedric Price

Millwall Residents Association. The meeting was held in St Paul's church on West Ferry Road in Millwall, where some 200 people

had gathered to hear what the famous producer had to say. The residents had grown weary of asking the LOO for better housing and transportation. They had supported Littlewood's Theatre Workshop for years, but were skeptical and suspicious of her latest venture.

Littlewood was kept waiting through a series of reports and complaints about local government and the lack of services. Finally, when it was her turn to speak, she was met by stony faces and an ominous silence. This 'woman of the people' Ironically found herself at odds with the working class audience, who did not fancy outsiders or 'art'. The association chairman, Bill Willson, introduced her to the audience, then turned to her and warned:

"You can say what you like in this hall, provided you don't bring in politics, racial diacr-trnination, or religion."55

Littlewood began to talk about the deplorable conditions for living, working, education, and leisure on the Isle of Dogs. She tried to dispel their fears, and described the Fun Palace as an opportunity to improve their community. She reminded them that government money-their own taxes-would be available, and concluded:

Popular education is declining and so is government planning. We cannot afford to waste human talent. There is unexplored talent in each child. Let's get our priorities straight."

The crowd was relieved to hear that their worst fears were unfounded, and she actually received a round of applause. It

was time for questions and answers: One dockworker interrupted, calling out, "sounds to me as if you're going to encourage a parcel of whores about the place", to which Littlewood replied,

"they don't need the Fun Palacs.?" A woman then added: "Oh,

if I thought it was that kind of place, I might leave him [pointing to her husband] for a night or tWO."58 The audience erupted

in laughter.

By the end of the evening, the mood in the hall had changed entirely. The Millwall residents began to see the possibilities

of the project, and to throw their support behind it, even though their previous experiences had left them cynical as

to Littlewood's chances of finding cooperation with the LOe or the Port of London Authority (PLA). Association chairman Bill Willson addressed Littlewood:

Well, Joan, I came here to tear you and this fun affair to pieces, but you've got something. Maybe your movement will bring us transport and better housing. I reckon we should back you up, fight for you like we've been fighting for that bridge down the road. Not that we can see much sign of it yet, though. Nevertheless, you yourself, personally, will

The Beginnings of the Fun PalaCE

always be welcome on this island [meaning the Isle of Dogs, not Britain].,.. I propose to present you with those sentiments in the form of a motion: that we, the citizens of Mill wall, members of the Tenants Association, thank the speaker for coming here to address us and assure her of our support in her worthy mission.59

Although Littlewood's mission had ended in success, The Evening Standard preferred to emphasise the contentious beginnings

of the meeting:

Controversial theatre producer Joan Littlewood's plan for a giant entertainment centre on the Isle of Dogs has sparked off a large number of protests from the island residents. Millwall Resident' Association was 'shocked' when it first heard of the plans which they said would drag the area down and attract undesirables. 'We want to know exactly what Miss Littlewood proposes to put on the island', said association secretary Mr. Bill Willson. 'It could be an embarrassment to the residents.'6o

One might suspect that The Evening Standard reporter left the meeting early. The bad press did not help the Fun Palace cause, especially with the LCC Parks Committee decision looming.

The Fun Palace was also coming under fire from other quarters.

At a drama conference entitled "The Theatre of the Future, held in Edinburgh the same month, Littlewood was challenged by the Irish director James Fitzgerald, suggesting that Joan's idea was, "absolute bloody nonsense .... I don't want that sort of place. It's

a waste oftime."61 The ensuing argument between Littlewood and Fitzgerald made the headlines in The obeeeve» in "Nonsense Row at Drama Conference" .62

By mid-September 1963, Littlewood and Price tensely awaited the Committee's decision on Glengall Wharf. The public's attitude towards the Fun Palace was mixed. By now it had a cadre of devoted enthusiasts representing both the intelligentsia and the 'common man'. But the newspapers seemed to feel that discord made better headlines, and the press began to emphasise the negative reception. Still, the Fun Palace team remained optimistrc.

The bombshell dropped, however, on 13 September 1963, when the team receieved a letter arrived from Sir William Hart, clerk of the LCC Parks Committee:

The chairmen of the committees concerned have now considered the possibility of granting a lease to Miss Joan Littlewood's Committee of the site of 5 1/2 acres (including Glengall Wharf) in the Isle of Dogs developed for the Fun Palace project outlined in the notes and drawings.which you supplied. I regret to have to say that, because of certain legal and planning difficulties relating to the site, the Council is unable to make the site available for this purpose.

94 The An:hltectut"e of Cedric Price

The Chairmen were, however, impressed with the imaginativeness and potentialities of the project and the possibility of finding an alternative site is being explored.

I should perhaps say, however, that the possibility of finding riverside land of the area required in that part of London seems to be remote, and the cost would be exorbitant. 63

The summary rejection of Olengall Wharf devastated Price, Littlewood, and their supporters.

Still, their spirits were lifted somewhat by the hope of finding an alternative site. Although Glengall Wharf had been turned down for apparently bureaucratic reasons, the generally positive reactions of the Council indicated that the LCC might eventually support the project. It appeared to Price and Littlewood that the rejection of Glengall Wharf was truly based on the stated "legal and planning difficulties" and not a failure of nerve ,64 They felt confident that another suitable site would be found, sooner or later.

Moreover, the chairman of the Committee, Sidney Melman (who later became director of the Lea Valley Trust), was particularly enthusiastic about the Fun Palace, and he later became secretary of the Fun Palace Charitable Trust. As head of the Parks Committee, Melman was eager to explore new and venturous recreational opportunities, especially for young people. He genuinely understood the Fun Palace, and gave the project his wholehearted support. He later recalled that, to him, "the Fun Palace sounded like a wonderful opportunity, a chance to experiment and try something new",55

Still, it was obvious that the Fun Palace would take time. At an organisational meeting held on 10 October 1963, the idea of setting up the Fun Palace Charitable Trust was suggested. Littlewood thoroughly supported the idea.

Despite the Parks Committee rejection of the Glengan Wharf site, the LCC nonetheless appeared to take the project seriously. On 7 November 1963, Cedric Price met with the LCC Architects Office, Theatres Division, to discuss building and life safety code aspects

of the project. The unusual nature and design of the Fun Palace posed a challenge to the review process, but the LCC Architects Office agreed to consider the structure as a single public entertainment building, and ruled that the movable units did not pose an inordinate fire risk. Their calculations indicated that the size and capacity of the Fun Palace would require 200 exits. Price was also advised that the project would be under the jurisdiction (and censorship) of the Lord Chamberlain. At a second meeting on 14 November, Price and Newby outlined building regulations and established the fire-proofing requirements for the Fun Palace structure.

On the evening of the same day, Price attended Constant Nieuwenhuys' lecture at the lCA during which he announced his New Babylon project to the English audience."

In light of the Fun Palace, it is worth revisiting Victor Pasmore's introduction to Nieuwenhuys' lecture:

The Beginnings of the Fun Palace

Buildings will be scaffolded above ground and they will provide an adjustable network of apartments, open spaces and areas: a shifting labyrinth to be explored and enjoyed. The architectural pattern encourages adventure, movement and chance encounter. Instead of living in static communities, people will be free to experiment with their environment."

Although the text of Nieuwenhuys lecture is now lost, he published a version of his lCA talk a few months later in lirclJ.itectural Design:

Since the beglnnjng of this century there has been constant discussion about the creative faculties of the human race, and more than one avante-garde [sic] movement has declared itself in favour of a poes1e faite par taus.6?

Thanks to computers, Nieuwenhuys concluded that "the only activity unaccessible [sic] for the computer is the unforeseeable creativity that makes man change the world and reshape it after his capricious needs" .68 He cited Johan Huizinga's concept of

the homo ludens ('man at play'), "a man who escaped reality in substituting another dream 'reality' that should help him to forget the unsatisfying circumstances of.his actuallife".69 The life of

the new homo ludens would be so creative that art as a distinct activity would become obsolete (an idea previously endorsed by William Morris). For this new breed of humanity, Nieuwenhuys proposed his New Babylon "flexible, changeable, assuring any movement, any change of place or change of mood, and any mode of behaviour"?"

New Babylon was to be an ad hoc place, without determined plan, "every element would be left undetermined mobile, and flexible" .71 It begged comparison to the Fun Palace, but was however, an aesthetic fantasy that lacked concrete detail or the effort to make it a reality. Though far less aestheticised, the Fun Palace was a genuine and very realistic proposal.

96 The Architecture of Cedric Price

Constant Nlcuwenhuys in his studio with New Babylon modelS

Constant Nleuwenhuys, New Babylon, 1962 Image couteP'SY of G'emeenstemsueum, The Hague

Price was certainly intrigued and excited with Nieuwenhuys' radical architecture, and on a mock-up of a Fun Palace brochure, Price scrawled "New Babylon-Constant" across the top of the first page. Price was evidently pleased with the progress of his own project, and added in the margins, "Herman's Hermits, Something Good"_72

On 20 November 1963, Littlewood met with Victor Mishcon,

a Labour MP from Lambeth. Mischon was a solicitor (and later became the 'legal eagle to the rich and famous'), arts supporter, and member of the 'inner cabinet' of the LCC and had been an early supporter of the 1951 Festival of Britain. He had followed

the progress of the Fun Palace with great interest, and Littlewood brought him up to date on the loss of the Glengall Wharf site. Mishcon surmised that impending government plans to replace the LCC with a new Greater London Council (GLC) might bode well for the project (he couldn't have been more mistaken). He was also involved with the Donmar Warehouse Theatre, started by theatre impresario Donald Albery and ballerina Margot Fonteyn in 1961, and asked if the Fun Palace might be able to use the Donmar space for a year or so. Littlewood politely declined, explaining that it would take at least two years to get it running.

Littlewood and Mishcon also discussed the possibility of locating the Fun Palace in the Battersea Festival Gardens. The old Battersea Fun Fair had become rather seedy, but the operators still had a long lease on the property. Perhaps, wondered Mishcon, the Fun Palace could function in the same venue?73

Mishcon wrote to Sidney Melman to enquire about the use of the Battersea site, and Melman explained that the site adjacent to the Battersea Fun Fair was not feasible, but assured Mishcon that the LCe was seriously considering the project, and was still looking for a suitable riverside site.

Although Littlewood declined the Donmar space for the Fun Palace, she and Price did make a different proposal for the site.

Constant Nieuwenhuys Group Sector from the New Baylon project, 1962 Image courtesy of Gemeenstemsueum,

The Hague

The Beginnings of the Fun Palace '

In October 1963, Price designed a small pub/performance space where Littlewood could. stage events. His loose charcoal sketches of the unrealised Donmar project show a bar, furniture, and movable elements, such as platforms and chair/table units which could be grouped and rearranged. There was a small stage composed of warped planes, and a 'conversation box'."~

Ironically, two days after the LeG's rejection of Glengall Wharfm September, Littlewood received a supportive letter from the Millwall Residents Association who, despite press claims to the contrary, had rallied in support of the Fun Palace:

Dear Miss Littlewood,

May Ion behalf of the Committee of the above asaoetanon, and members sa;ythank. you very much for coming along to our meeting, and explaining your idea for bringing culture and pleasure to the riverside and your wish to establish this on our 'little island'.

The members thoroughly enjoyed your speech, and I feel sure they will, in the maJority hope that your dream will become a reality here.

Personally, I myself had mis-giVing before your explanation; now, I am wh.ole-heartedly for you. Youca.n rest assured that we shall have further discussion on the subject .... I trust you too enjoyed your evening with us, and I do hope it will not be your last at the MillwaJl Resident Association Meetings.

Bill Willson. 75

The Millwall residents did not yet know of the rejection of Glengall Wharf. When word reached Willson of the Lee decision, he wrote to Littlewood again to underscore their community's support for the project,and to suggest other sites.

98 The· A..ehitectunl of Cedric: .Price·

Sketched: Interior pers'pectlv·e ·of Donmar Theatre, london, .·963 Graphltil, black

pencil, blac;k chalk

on woye ,paper l8J(69cm Ima,gecourtesy of

Cedric P·rice Fonds Collection Cent"'e Canadien d'.Arc'hltecturel Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montre·al

The next day, when Littlewood telephoned the PLA, she was told, "Land? There's no land available, None at alL"'76 In November, she and Price met with HW Ellis, to discuss other Thameside options. The PLA had jurisdiction over any proposed construction along the river, but the only site they actually owned was at St Katherine's Dock and were already exploring development options for the

site, including a hotel, a cinema, bowling alley, and a Canadian exhibition centre,

The Millwall residents, now firmly on Littlewood's side, had begun their own search for a home for the Fun Palace on the Isle of Dogs, But, like Littlewood, they had also run into bureaucratic roadblocks, and began to share her sense of frustration:

We have replies from the LCC regarding suggestions for the 'fun palace' including the Saunderness Road site,

In every case they have claimed they are already earmarked for some other project; however you can rest assured that we will continue to pursue the matter, and if necessary pull them to pieces should they fail to carry their plans out, We have in mind at the moment West Ferry Road Site which is so they say due for a park, This is opposite

the Tooke Arms, we had promises two years ago this would commence last September and so far there are no visible signs, we are wanting replies to our letters, if there is no satisfaction we shall press for your idea on that site,77

It was clear that the Fun Palace enjoyed the support of Sidney Melman, Parks Commissioner, as weil as many others in the London County CounciL Despite the setbacks, Littlewood, Price and Fun Palace team members felt sure that they would find a site,

Axonometric interior view with furniture, Donmar Theatre, London. 1963

Black Ink, graphite. black pencil on wove paper

3.3 x 71.1 cm

Image courtesy of

Cedric Price Fonds Collection Cent,re Canadien d'Archltecturel Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal

! 7

The Beginnings of the Fun Palace 91