The London Journal

A Review of Metropolitan Society Past and Present

ISSN: 0305-8034 (Print) 1749-6322 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yldn20

Ossulston Street: Early LCC Experiments in HighRise Housing, 192529

Simon Pepper
To cite this article: Simon Pepper (1981) Ossulston Street: Early LCC Experiments in High-Rise
Housing, 192529, The London Journal, 7:1, 45-64, DOI: 10.1179/ldn.1981.7.1.45
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/ldn.1981.7.1.45

Published online: 18 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 48

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yldn20
Download by: [82.12.11.240]

Date: 29 July 2016, At: 11:14

Ossulston Street:
Early LCC Experiments in High-Rise Housing,
1925-29
SIMON PEPPER

HE Ossulston Street estate, located between Euston and St Pancras stations, is one
of the most distinguished products of the London County Council's Architect's
Department. It was built between 1928 and 1937 in a style strikingly different from
the 'Municipal Neo-Georgian' generally favoured by the LCC for its flatted blocks during
that period. Its rendered and painted walls, imposing archways and the overall scale of its
blocks - the longest of which runs continuously for more than 200 yards - have even been
seen to provide a close British parallel to the architecture of the Karl Marx Hof, the most
famous monument to Viennese civic socialism. Despite the architectural merits of the
existing scheme, even greater historical interest attaches to two previous LCC projects for
the same site. Between 1925 and 1929 Ossulston Street was the setting for two of the
earliest attempts by a British local authority to build high-risel housing for working-class
tenants. The two abortive schemes also included an exceptional range of social facilities,
local shopping, commercial premises and housing for both working-class and private
sector tenants. Had they been built as planned, either would have had a good claim to be
the first comprehensive redevelopment sponsored by a local authority, as well as the first
high-rise council flats.
The doubtful distinction of building the first British high-rise council flats went eventually to the City of Leeds, where the Quarry Hill estate was constructed between 1936 and
1941.2 It was the LCC, however, which has always been regarded as the authority mainly
responsible for the general introduction of high-rise housing in their post-war schemes at
Woodberry Down, Akroydon, Roehampton and Loughborough Road. Although the
Ossulston Street proposals have no real claim to primacy in these terms, they do make it
clear that local authority interest in high-rise housing has a much longer ancestry than is
generally recognised. The objective of this paper is to recons.truct in as much detail as
possible the circumstances surrounding the original designs for an estate which, to anticipate one of my conclusions, was seen by the county council as a test bed for a wide range of
new ideas for working-class housing in the inner city. The planning considerations which
persuaded the LCC to pursue the proposals for nine-storey blocks will be set beside the
associated proposals for servicing and lift access systems by which it was hoped, not merely
to render such accommodation acceptable to the tenants, but to offer an attractive
alternative to the five- or six-storey walk-up tenements.

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

The Site and Its Development

Ossulston Street was built during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries as part
of what was then known as Somers Town,3 a development which had never become
fashionable and, by the beginning of this century, had deteriorated into a slum notorious
for its overcrowding, squalor and vice.4 Between 1900 and 1939 much of the original
property between Euston and St Pancras (see Plate I) was to be redeveloped. Before the
Great War the LCC completed its Churchway Estate to relieve overcrowding in the west
London Journal 7, (1), 1981

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

OSSULSTON

47

STREET

Or:1mberlain
House
ccmpeted

1929

~
Vi

Levifa
fbuse
1930-35

~$e~ise

Goods
Depot

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

Pr;vate
Tenants'
Garden

New British
Library
Site

street
Market

Euston

Road

IIII
1925 SCHEME

1927 SCHEME

Plate II.

of the area. The county council began its post-war involvement in Somers Town early in
1924 when it was asked by the Ministry of Health to comment on the St Pancras Borough
Council's plan for the redevelopment of a one-and-a-half acre site at Wolcot Street, in the
north of the area. The county council's technical officers (architect, valuer and medical
officer) expressed severe reservations about the borough's proposals which, in their view,
were far too limited in scope. The pressing need was for a comprehensive scheme for the
reconstruction of the slums between Chalton Street and Ossulston Street, as well as for the
railway goods depot between Ossulston Street and Midland Road.5
Despite the reservations of the LCC, St Pancras Borough Council remained determined to restrict its own intervention to the Wolcot Street site. The LCC recommended to
the Ministry of Health that the scheme should receive no subsidy but, after an approach to
the Minister from the local MP, the borough council was allowed to proceed and the
project was completed in 1926. Negotiations with the railway owners for a joint improvement scheme were only slightly more fruitful. Throughout 1924 the LCC attempted to
persuade the LMS railway company to participate but succeeded only in getting the
company to agree to sell its land in the strip between Chalton Street and Ossulston Street
(which will be referred to from here on as the Ossulston Street site). The goods depot, a
Plate I. Somers Town, from O.S. 25-inch plan, 1870. Reproduced by permission of the DirectorGeneral, Ordnance Survey. Crown Copyright.

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

48

SIMON PEPPER

valuable tract fronting on to Euston Road, was to await development as a new suburban
railway terminus.6 At the time of writing it is still undeveloped, although now cleared as
the site for the new British Library. By early 1925 the LCC had agreed to purchase a large
part of the Ossulston Street site from the railway and a number of lesser owners, and were
committed to undertake the redevelopment themselves. 7 A public local inquiry was held in
June. The compulsory purchase order for the remaining properties was confirmed by the
minister in November 1925.
The problems of developing Ossulston Street, together with an initial design proposal)
are set out in the report presented to the LCC Housing Committee in January 1925 by
George Topham Forrest, Superintending Architect to the Council. The 8.8 acre site was
long and thin: 450 yards long by 84 yards wide (Plate I). As we have already seen, the land
facing it across Ossulston Street was earmarked for intensive development by the railway
which, in the view of Topham Forrest, would result in a high building and a considerable
increase in the volume of traffic along the eastern site boundary. The future of the land to
the west of Chalton Street was uncertain, but here too the architect anticipated 'the strong
possibility of these buildings being shortly swept away and their site being occupied by
much higher buildings'. Half a century later the three-storey buildings on the west of
Chalton Street are still standing; but the possibility, perhaps even probability, of higher
buildings on both sides of a narrow site led Topham Forrest to recommend the setting back
of the council's proposed blocks from both site boundaries to avoid overshadowing of the
lower floors. This decision, of course, made the site effectively even more narrow, leading
the architect to conclude 'that the only way, in the circumstances, the full utilisation of the
land can be obtained is by building up higher than the normal five storeys'.8
How much higher? The London Building Act of 1894 imposed a height limit of 80ft
along the building line, with a further two floors of habitable rooms permitted in the roof
space.9 It was these rules that gave the typical turn-of-the-century metropolitan building its
double row of dormer windows. With shops at ground floor level and flats above, the Act
permitted the construction of blocks of up to some ten storeys.
There was never any question of the LCC attempting to breach the limits imposed by
the London Building Act. During the 1920s there was much discussion of a greatly
increased height limit, which was favoured by some commercial developers who argued
that office building of up to 250ft would free land for reduced housing densities in inner
areas. 10 There were also proposals from the lunatic architectural fringe for blocks of flats of
up to 25 floors.ll Topham Forrest, however, was not an uncritical advocate of high-rise
living: on a number of occasions he made quite unambiguous statements in support of
low-rise, low-density housing as the preferred form. His point, quite simply, was that if the
Council built only to five or six floors on expensive sites, the lower floors would almost
certainly be overshadowed by other developers taking full advantage of the rules currently
in force. This said, the architect was clearly fascinated by the opportunities presented for
technical developments.
Steel Frame Structures and Lifts
In 1924 Topham Forrest visited the United States on behalf of the LCC Building Acts
Committee to study the construction of high-rise buildings. 12 He returned full of enthusiasm for the potential of steel-framed structures in housing: to him they seemed to offer
flexibility in planning as well as considerable savings in bricks and bricklayers. Ever since
the Great War the building industry had suffered from a shortage of craftsmen, in

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

OSSULSTON

STREET

49

particular bricklayers. Moreover, the steel industry had been searching anxiously for
alternative outlets for its greatly expanded output. During the mid-twenties, the government (not for the first or the last time) pinned many of its hopes on steel-based industrialised building systems as a means of achieving its housing targets.13 The time was ripe for
Topham Forrest's suggestions that higher tenement blocks would both need and justify the
use of a light steel frame, with precast concrete floor and wall panels, and only an external
skin of brickwork.14
Lifts were the other critical technical factor. It was accepted by the LCC that fivestorey walk-up was the normal maximum for their own tenement blocks although a
number of inter-war schemes included six floors, with the top two floors occupied by
maisonettes. The ministry view of the subject was that blocks of more than three floors
were undesirable, and that local authorities compelled to think in terms of higher tenements should begin to explore alternatives to staircase access.1S In 1920 the LCC Housing
Committee reported that it had 'decided as an experiment, with the approval of the
Minister of Health, to arrange for the construction of an electric passenger lift in the third
section of dwellings to be erected on the Tabard-street estate' .16 The lift was installed in
1922.17 Thus, when the idea of high-rise housing for the Ossulston Estate began to take
shape in 1924, the council already had some experience of a passenger lift installation in a
working-class block. To this was added the accumulated experience of private mansion
block construction and the lessons from Topham Forrest's recent American study tour.
Up to nine floors, reported the architect, low-speed passenger-operated lifts would
operate successfully 'without involving inconvenient waiting by the people on the ground
floor waiting to go up'. For higher blocks, the lifts would have to be high-speed and
attendant operated, and would probably have to be planned in pairs.18
Economics and Politics of the Scheme
Topham Forrest conceded that nine-storey lift-served blocks would still be too expensive
for working-class housing, and it was from this point that he introduced the possibility of
'some kind of development which would include a proportion of buildings which would
carry higher rentals' .19 Private flats, offices and shops were all included in this original
scheme. Later the idea of much larger-scale commerciallettings was floated. During 1925
and 1926 Colonel Levita, Chairman of the Housing Committee, negotiated with the
proprietors of the Covent Garden Market with a view to incorporating the fruit and
vegetable wholesale market in basement or podium warehouses which were, it was
pointed out, conveniently close to a number of main line railway termini.20 This plan
eventually came to nothing. Later still the proposals for Ossulston Street were to include a
two-deck commercial car parking garage but, as we shall see, this too was finally taken out
of the scheme.
Although detailed costings of all components of the scheme have not been found, it is
quite clear that the private sector development - whether residential or commercial- was
to contribute somewhat more than the minimllm economic rent, with the surplus being
used to offset the losses on the working-class housing. At first sight, such an arrangement
seems most unlikely to have been approved by the Ministry of Health. In the mid-twenties
cross subsidies were not permitted between the separate revenue accounts maintained by
each local authority for state-aided housing built under the different terms of the 1919,
1923 and 1924 Housing Acts. Yet the logic of Topham Forrest's proposal for joint public
and private sector development led inescapably to some kind of cross subsidy. To avoid

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

50

SIMON PEPPER

overshadowing and to make proper- use of expensive land, went the argument, the scheme
would have to be high: high flats could only be paid for by including a proportion of
building carrying higher rentals.
In fact, what 'might be called the 'total economy' of the Ossulston Street scheme was
not rejected out of hand by the ministry. As late as December 1926, when Colonel Levita
reported negotiations with the Covent Garden Trustees and ministry officials, it was stated
that the minister 'having an open mind on the subject, thought that the provision of high
buildings on this area was clearly indicated and that he would raise no objection to the
lower part of such buildings being devoted to commercial purposes' .21Later, to be sure,
the ministry insisted that the lifts serving floors of working-class flats should be fully
financed by the working-class rents. Similar provisos were attached to approvals for the
advanced servicing systems. Even so, the underlying principles of joint public and private
sector development were not challenged, still less rejected, in the formative stages of the
scheme.
Another factor which needs to be introduced (but not explored exhaustively) at this
point concerns the political complexion of the LeC. Since 1907 the county council had
been controlled by the Moderates and Municipal Reformers, as the Conservatives were
known in London politics. The Moderates had a long history of interest in the idea of
public housing carried out in partnership with private enterprise. Indeed their attacks on
the Progressives' (Liberals') direct labour housing schemes, the LCC-owned brick factory
at Totterdown Fields and the losses on the council's river ferries were a major feature of
the local election campaign of 1907.22Before the Great War they tried to develop parts of
the White Hart Lane and Old Oak estates as private garden suburbs and, when frustrated
by the existing housing legislation, obtained a special local act to give them the necessary
powers.23 Immediately after the Great War the southern sections of the Roehampton and
Bellingham Estates were developed privately, and 20 per cent of the satellite town at
Becontree was set aside for the same purpose. 24Ossulston Street went rather further than
these schemes in the degree of physical integration proposed. Both sectors were to share
the same building. This long-standing attachment to the idea of joint development on the
part of London's Conservatives sheds an interesting light on what otherwise might be seen
as the product of ambitious municipal socialism.
The First Design (1925)
In Topham Forrest's first design the different users of the nine-storey blocks were separated vertically. On the ground floor there would be shops or showrooms. The first floor
would be utilised for suites of offices which could be let either separately or with the shops.
The two floors above would accommodate 'flats of a character superior to the ordinary
working-class dwellings'. Working-class flats were to be located on the upper five floors.
There was, of course, no suggestion that all classes should mix freely. As the architect
pointed out: 'It is an essential of this idea that the superior flats should be segregated from
the shops and working class flats. Each class of property should have its own entrance and
the entrances should be as remote from one another as possible.'25
The drawings presented to the housing committee in January 1925 are no longer to be
found in the Greater London Record Office. However, in February both the Builder and
the Architects' Journal carried similar stories on Ossulston Street and published a site plan,
perspectives (Plate III) and floor plans - including one for the upper working-class floors
(Plate IV).26 The plan showed five 9-storey blocks arranged in a row along the site,

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

OSSULSTON

STREET

51

separated by formally landscaped areas. Each block was planned around a landscaped
quadrangle (with the exception of one half-block, designed in this clumsy way to preserve
the Chalton Street church and the National School). Although these internal quadrangles
would probably have been rather dark, Topham Forrest was at pains to emphasise that 'at
least as much open space would be provided in this scheme as would be provided by the
normal five-storey development' .27 He also proposed that the lifts should serve the flat
roof, which would be relatively free of chimneys and smoke (see below), and equipped
with a safety rail. The flat roof, he argued, would be a 'valuable adjunct' to the other open
spaces.28
Access to the standard block was by means of six staircase and lifts shafts, each serving
either two or three flats per landing. This was a highly uneconomic arrangement and can
only be explained by two factors: the need for ventilation and the wish to avoid access
galleries. The importance of through-ventilation was stressed in all contemporary design
manuals and, given the nineteenth-century legacy of back-to-backs, courts and cellar
dwellings, it is readily understandable. It was unthinkable that working-class flats could be
designed with a double-loaded internal corridor, which was obviously the most efficient
access system and one that was by then commonly used in private blocks.29 An open access
gallery running along one side of the block was the obvious alternative and, despite the
exposure to wind and rain and a lack of privacy, this was the system most generally
adopted for local authority flats between the wars.30 However, Topham Forrest felt that
open galleries would be unacceptable for high-rise blocks. The following passage was
struck out of the report presented to committee, but it is still legible and gives a clear
impression of the architect's thinking on this subject.
I do not think that in a building of this height the balcony form of approach to the
various tenements by a series of entrance doors in the external wall would be
feasible, because at the higher levels in stormy weather the balconies would be so
windswept that they would become extremely disagreeable in use, and possibly even
dangerous. Moreover, at this height, the wind pressure would be so great that there
would be a danger of the front doors being torn off their hinges; and when they were
opened, the draughts would be insufferable.31
Thus, 'through-ventilation' and the need for enclosed access lobbies, meant that the
distribution of stairs and lifts, an expensive item, was bound to be uneconomic.
The flats themselves were designed to much higher standards than was usual in LCC
tenements. In terms of the space provided in different rooms, the first Ossulston Street
flats were more generous than any other units designed by the LeC between the wars even including the so-called 'New' types introduced in the mid-thirties for their more
prosperous tenants. In Ossulston Street a separate bathroom, containing a bath and w.c.
but no wash basin, was provided in each unit: whereas in the so-called 'Normal' LCC flats
of the 1920s a bath was provided in the kitchen beneath a folding worktop. The Ossulston
Street kitchens, moreover, were l~rger than those of 'Normal' flats and were clearly
intended to be used for cooking as well as food preparation. They were working kitchens in
the modern sense, not sculleries.
The internal circulation was also better than usual. Although in some flats the living
room formed part of the main circulation, no bedroom opens directly off the living room. 32
All Ossulston Street flats had a pram-parking space in the entrance lobby or off the
bedroom corridor and a private balcony overlooking the courtyard making it possible 'for
the baby to sleep in the fresh air'. In this last respect, Ossulston Street was ahead of its time.

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

52

SIMON PEPPER

Plate III. Topham Forrest, First design for Ossulston Street flats, perspective (Architects' Journal,
February 1925).
The Central Heating System
When the first scheme was published early in 1925, the central heating system aroused a
good deal of professional enthusiasm. The word 'enthusiasm' is used advisedly to express
the sort of superficial delight in things modern that has characterised
much of the
architectural profession's response to high-rise housing and all that went with it. It needs to
be said, therefore, that there were a number of very down-to-earth practical reasons for
the adoption of central heating at Ossulston Street.
Most important was the question of smoke pollution - an appalling problem in the
central areas of London during the 'twenties, and particularly so in an area dominated by
major railway termini and gasworks. In 1923 the Ministry of Health had published the
report of the Departmental
Committee on Smoke and Noxious Vapour Abatement.
Taking this report as his cue, Sir Edgar Bonham Carter raised the matter in the county
council meeting of May 1923 and successfully moved a resolution that:
... it be referred to the Housing Committee to consider and report ... whether it is
practicable and advisable to adopt further methods in the Council's future building
schemes to provide smokeless arrangements
for warming rooms, supplying hot
water and for cooking; and, in particular, whether it is practicable and advisable to
provide any of the Council's future tenement buildings with a central system of hot
water supply, whether for warming and domestic purposes, or for domestic purposes
only.33

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

OSSULSTON

STREET

53

Plate IV. Topham Forrest, First design for Ossulston Street flats, plan
(Architects' Journal, February 1925).

The committee investigated the matter for over a year34 and in November 1924 reported
back to council that, although it was not possible to recommend central heating schemes as
a matter of general policy, an experiment should be launched in one of the next blocks to
be erected in order to test actual costs, performance and tenant reaction to the two
schemes.35 The timing was just right. The decision to carry out these experiments must
have been taken when Topham Forrest's preliminary proposals for Ossulston Street
were taking shape, and it is not surprising to find that this scheme was chosen for the
experiments.
Other practical factors were seen to weigh in favour of a central heating system for a
high-rise project. The delivery of coal to the flats, and the subsequent disposal of ash had
long been recognised as one of the hardships of multi-storey living. It was heavy and dirty
work to carry buckets of coal up perhaps five floors from the communal hoppers in the
courtyard. Even with lifts the activity was clearly at odds with the architect's vision of
modern life. Perhaps even more significant in the minds of the designers, was the considerable cost of flues.36 In the 'Normal' LCC tenements, separate flues served the

54

SIMON PEPPER

combination grate in the living room, the copper in the kitchen, and the fireplace in the
principal bedroom. In private flats it was normal for most bedrooms to have fireplaces. All
of this meant that a significant amount of space on the upper floors was taken up by the
flues from the floors below. Moreover, the complexity of the flue system, as well as the
costs of flues serving the lower floors, increased with the height of the block.
Thus it was that in Topham Forrest's first nine-storey scheme it was proposed that
heating for all units, whether public or private, should be provided by a hot water
circulation system with radiators. Cooking was to be by means of gas stoves. However,
open fireplaces with combination grates were to be retained in the living rooms to serve as
a 'stand-by in case of the failure of the gas supply to the gas cookers'. Wash coppers were
no longer to be installed in individual flats: instead there was to be a number of small
laundries and drying closets, the heat from these being drawn from the common plant.

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

The Second Scheme (1927)

The first scheme was presented, quite explicitly, as a tentative solution. Nonetheless, the
committee expressed itself well satisfied with the proposals and instructed the architect
and the other officers to proceed with design development.37 As we have seen, the scheme
was released to the press and, later in the summer, money was voted for the drawings to be
framed for the Royal Academy Exhibition.38 It is difficult to say what happened after this
because, although development work continued, including negotiations with possible
commercial users, no further designs are to be found until very different proposals claimed by Topham Forrest to be based on the Viennese Hote - were presented in the
summer of 1927.
In such cases, simple explanations are probably the best. It is my hunch - and it can be
no more than a hunch - that the first scheme proved too crude and, despite its frame
construction, too inflexible for profitable design development. Thus, it comes as no real
surprise to find the first scheme replaced by a second in 1927. What is surprising is to find
that so many of the more adventurous qualities of the first scheme had been both
perpetuated and developed in the second. High-rise flats for both working-class and
private tenants, commerciallettings, shops and a wide range of social facilities were all
now included in a scheme of much greater architectural sophistication.
Topham Forrest presented his second scheme to the committee in July 1927. Where
the first scheme rose to nine storeys on all sides, the most prominent feature of the second
was a broken roofline ranging from three to six storeys in height over much of the site, but
rising to nine-storey towers in two places. In the southern block (later named Levita
House), the nine-storey tower contained middle-class flats (Plate V). The quadrangle of
the northern block (now Walker House) contained a landscaped podium over a two-deck
car-parking garage, from which rose another nine-storey tower containing working-class
flats.
Once again Topham Forrest emphasised the importance of daylighting and ventilation; solutions to these problems, rather than any stylistic devices, were what had
impressed the architect when he visited the Viennese housing projects earlier in the same
summer.
The design has been greatly influenced by my recent study of the high buildings
erected by the municipality of Vienna and has developed primarily from the study of
the best way of giving the new accommodation the greatest possible supply of light

OSSULSTON

STREET

55

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

and air. It is found that this can be accomplished most effectively by varying the
height of portions of the buildings, and from this comes the result that the architectural treatment relies for effect upon the disposition of the mass of the buildings
rather than upon detai1.39
Normally architects of this period stressed the importance of sound proportion and
well-executed but not fussy detailing. Topham Forrest sought to justify the use of complicated and interesting shapes.
The most interesting shapes were to be found in the southern block (Plate V), a single
complex building extending over the ground previously occupied by two-and-a-half blocks
of the 1925 scheme. Except for a row of single-storey lock-up shops fronting onto Chalton
Street, the buildings were to be from three to nine storeys high. In plan the block was an
angular figure-of-eight, with the two quadrangles serving the working-class flats and the
crossing occupied by the private housing. The flats in the central crossing enjoyed excellent views to the east and west over gardens, access to which was to be restricted to the
private tenants. On the east side a curving driveway brought taxis and private cars from
Ossulston Street to the private tenants' entrance and lift lobby.
Floor plans of the private sector units and the high-rise working-class flats in the centre
of the northern block have not been found. However, the number of flats and lifts per floor
suggests that each lift continued to serve two, sometimes three, flats per landing. The
working-class flats in the rest of the scheme were not exceptional, being for the most part
'Normal' LCC types with a gallery access. Indeed, the gallery now became a major feature
of the design, providing a series of semi-circular projections which are indicated on the
later plans to be lay-bys for prams.
Accommodation was provided for 2,862 working-class and 192 private tenants, giving
a planned site population of 3,054 at a density of 347 persons per acre (p.p.a.). Topham
Forrest noted that this was slightly below the density of 350-400 p.p.a. generally achieved
in LCC rehousing schemes, although somewhat higher than the 290 p. p.a. that would have
resulted had the scheme been designed to house only the 2,557 demanded by the ministry
after the local public inquiry. The ministry figure, he argued, 'would not result in the site
being utilised to reasonably good advantage' .40 Even so, the architect was at pains to point
out that his scheme did not cram the maximum possible number .of people on to the site.
Potential working-class housing had been los! by the provision of larger private flats and a
variety of other facilities. If working-class units were to be substituted in these cases, a
density of 370 p.p.a. could be achieved. Like many other early advocates of high-rise
housing, Topham Forrest defended it - not in terms of increased densities - but of raised
standards and improved amenities.
Ossulston Street was originally very well landscaped. Today the courtyards are tarmac
surfaced and filled with parked cars and single-storey blocks of lock-up stores. Only the
trees survive from the original scheme which, from the evidence of drawings and photographs, seems to have been laid out as a series of enclosed gardens with a formal pattern of
paths, trees and grassed areas (Plate VI). The roof of the parking garage was to have been
treated in the same way. Courtyards of inter-war housing schemes all too often ended as
little more than dustbin areas. Here the refuse was collected from the chutes in large steel
skips, which were removed from their chambers by a specially designed electric trolley.
Children were the other notorious destroyers of architect-designed landscapes and here,
as in the 1925 scheme, they were provided with play spaces on the flat roofs of the high-rise
blocks.

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

56

SIMON PEPPER

Plate V. Topham Forrest, Model of second design for Ossulston Street fiats, southern block, 1927.

Shopping facilities were unusually plentiful. Altogether 35 lock-up shops were planned
for the south side of Phoenix Street and the Chalton Street frontage and, by setting back
the new housing from the Chalton Street building line, a wide pavement was provided for
the stalls of a (surviving) street-market. Possibly this support for the market had some
connection with the decision to incorporate two large public houses in an area already well
supplied with pubs. Normally the LCC did not build pubs on its inner estates and, at this
time, was debating its policy for the peripheral cottage estates. Eventually it was decided to
permit them in small numbers but to insist upon the provision of a 'refreshment room'
where non-alcoholic beverages would be served. It was this formula that was adopted for
the 'Cock Tavern' and the 'Somers Town Coffee House'.
More respectable social facilities were not lacking. Christ Church and the National
School (see Plate I) were both preserved, only to be destroyed in the last war. Premises
were found for the Salvation Army on the Ossulston Street side of the central block, and
an LCC Maternity and Child Welfare Centre was located on the corner of Ossulston Street
and Phoenix Street. During the 'thirties a site on the west of Chalton Street was earmarked
as a poverty relief centre.
The 1927 scheme, unlike that of 1925, contained no commercial offices. However,
Topham Forrest had been much impressed by the studios in some of the Viennese blocks
and he proposed to incorporate similar units 'which could be let to workers requiring
exceptionally good natural light' .41 The studios were to be served by lifts and located in the
southern block on the top floors of the six-storey wings facing Ossulston Street, thus
receiving north-east light. Although the studios formed part of the working-class housing,
they were clearly designed for an elite tenant - an artist or self-employed craftsman - able
to pay the increased rent for a large flat in a lift-served block. But the idea itself was new to
the LCe. Workers on other county council estates were permitted - upon application to
the committee and upon payment of a rent supplement - to carryon certain approved
trades and businesses from their homes. The Ossulston Street studios were certainly most
unusual in providing for a planned mixture of trade and housing within a predominantly
residential block.

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

OSSULSTON

STREET

57

Plate VI. Topham Forrest, Chamberlain House, Ossulston Street, October 1929. GLC.

Topham Forrest's second scheme was received with great enthusiasm. The architect
and his staff were formally thanked by the committee. 42 The perspectives were framed for
display at the 1927 Royal Academy Summer Exhibition and a model of the southern block
(Plate V) was placed on show in the foyer of County Hall where, in the words of the
Architects' Journal, it 'aroused not only interest, but a good deal of admiration' .43 Later in
the year, the model was exhibited in the lobby of the House of Commons.44 Neville
Chamberlain - a much more successful and popular minister of Health than prime minister
- agreed that the first phase, the so-called central block, should be named Chamberlain
House.45 The minister also laid the foundation stone in February 1928. Completion of all
but the north-west corner of Chamberlain House (Plate VI) was achieved in time for a
much publicised visit by the Prince of Wales i1}October 1929.46 By this time, as we shall
see, the Ossulston Street designs had been drastically changed and the scheme had ceased
to be the centre of architectural attention as the first high-rise council estate. Before
turning to consider these developments, however, a few words should be said about an
alternative source of professional interest: the All-Electric Flat.
The All-Electric Flat

Early in 1928 it was proposed that the flats in Chamberlain House should be wired for
electric heating and cooking as well as for lighting.47 The system did not, as is sometimes
supposed, depend entirely upon a single source of power. Although electricity was

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

58

SIMON PEPPER

originally conceived as an alternative to the central hot-water supply system, both were
eventually installed. The 'All-Electric Flats', as they quickly became known, were provided - some said over-provided - with coal fires, central heating and constant hot-water,
together with an electricity supply which included both lighting and power circuits. In
truth, the phrase 'All-Electric' indicated only that there was to be no gas.
The omission of gas was an important decision for the LCC. Before the Great War the
council's housing schemes had been fitted with gas piping for both heating and lighting but
during the 'twenties the choice of fuel became more complicated. Coal continued to be the
cheapest fuel for cooking, water-heating and space-heating and it was for this reason that
the Ministry of Health insisted upon the provision of coal burning grates in all workingclass dwellings despite the associated environmental problems. The council hoped to
install complete gas and electricity systems in their subsidised houses and to persuade the
fuel supply companies to bear a large part of the installation costs, a solution which would
have given their tenants a real choice. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the supply companies
proved reluctant to offer substantial concessions unless the houses were to be 'all-electric'
or 'all-gas' and the council was compelled either to opt for a single fuel, or to pay the full
installation costs of both systems. At this time both installation costs and consumption
tariffs favoured gas.48 Indeed, when the LCC Valuer and Engineer considered the problem in 1923 they concluded that 'the possibility of a general introduction of electricity in
the Council's dwellings are small'. 49 This view was unchanged when the matter was
reviewed in 1925.50 Of the 41,500 dwellings constructed by the LCC between 1920 and
1930, some 29,000 were fitted out for gas lighting, while only 11,500 were wired for electric
lighting (without power circuits in most cases). 51
During the second half of the 1920s, however, the electricity supply industry began to
fight for a major share of the domestic' market. Companies experimented with 'off-peak'
rates and 'all-in' tariffs and, probably most important of their promotional tactics, introduced 'double' tariffs giving separate consumption charges for power and lighting.52 There
was also a straightforward price war involving considerable cuts. In 1928 the St Pancras
Borough Council - the local electicity supplier - having already introduced all-in and
double tariffs, reduced its power charges (the important component of a household
electricity bill) from!d to id per unit.53 This reduction was sufficient to persuade the LCC
to adopt the 'all-electric' proposal for Ossulston Street on an experimental basis.
The installation comprised electric lighting for all rooms, an electric oven with two hot
plates for the kitchen, two utility points in the living room and one in each bedroom, and
an electric kettle which it was claimed would bring three pints of water to the boil in about
seven minutes; from what initial temperature we are not told. Stoves and kettles could be
rented or purchased from the St Pancras Borough Council. No washcoppers were provided; however, the district plant which heated the central heating radiators also provided
constant hot water to the kitchen and bathroom taps and this, according to local folklore,
was hot enough for the most scrupulous housewife's washing.
Re-Design

1928-29

The story of Ossulston Street as a high-rise scheme was brought to an end in the winter of
1928-9. Matters came to a head in December when Topham Forrest told the housing
committee of his proposals for eight-storey lift-access blocks on the China Walk Estate,
Lambeth. Evidently the discussion revealed serious misgivings about high-rise housing in
general because, as a direct result of the meeting, the plans for both China Walk and

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

OSSULSTON

STREET

59

Ossulston Street were passed to the building and development sub-committee for special
consideration.54
The single criticism recorded in the sub-committee minutes touching the physical
character of the scheme concerned the decked parking garage under the podium in the
northern section. This, it was felt, was too close to the housing.55 The principal arguments
adduced against what were known as the project's 'Special Features' (private flats, studios
and the parking garage) were legal and financial. The LCC Solicitor had obtained counsel's opinion on the legality of the special features. He reported that 'subject to the consent
of the Minister of Health, the Council has power, if it thinks fit, to provide garages and
other commercial buildings at Ossulston Street and to maintain the buildings but not itself
to manage the businesses'. However, the sub-committee was advised that the 'Council has
no power to provide dwelling accommodation for other than the "working classes",
although this expression is a somewhat elastic one'.56
The opinion that council was acting ultra vires in the provision of private sector flats was
a serious blow to the scheme. Equally damaging was the financial evaluation of a scheme
that had been conceived less as a monument to a mixed society than to a mixed economy.
The special features were intended to be profitable: in the words of the sub-committee, 'to
give more favourable financial results than by erecting working-class dwellings alone' .57
Indeed, the LCC Finance Committee had required and received assurances on precisely
this point as recently as February 1928.58A year later, however, the valuer considered the
parking garage to be too risky. The 'economic rents' of the private flats were now
estimated to be 65s a week and the valuer doubted whether the units could be let at a price
which was, incidentally, three times more than that charged for the largest LCC dwellings
then built. Moreover, argued the valuer, if private tenants would not occupy the flats, it
would be scandalous - even in time of housing shortage - if working-class tenants were
asked to pay this much.59 Finally, long-term cost-in-use figures were now available from
the experimental lift installation at Tabard Gardens, and these indicated that unacceptable rent increases would have to be levied to cover the costs of the lifts in the workingclass high-rise block.60
The outcome was a series of recommended modifications approved by the full committee in February 1929. The private flats and studios were to be removed from the southern
block, and the parking garage was to come out of the northern section. The working-class
tower in the northern section was to be reduced in height to six floors, without lifts. For the
southern block, however, the sub-committee was reluctant to order amendments which
would 'entail the sacrifice of all the special architectural features to which publicity has
been given and which have been favourably received'. It advised that the side wings facing
Ossulston Street, where the studios were to have been located, should remain as six-storey
buildings and 'as a special case', that the central portion should be higher than normal with
a single lift. Working-class dwellings in this part of Levita House would be 'of a superior
type to those ordinarily provided in connection with clearance schemes and rents probably
up to 50 per cent more than normal' would be charged. As a quid pro quo for the poorer
people in the neighbourhood, it was recommended that some of the units in the northern
section should be designed 'without a central hot-water supply and possibly without the
"all-electric" installation and with a reduced standard of finish, for letting at specially low
rents' .61
Further modifications were approved in May 1929 which brought the scheme very close
to its present form. Topham Forrest removed the working-class 'tower' from the centre of
the northern section, which was designed now as a single elegantly landscaped quadrangle

60

SIMON PEPPER

with a formal entrance from the Clarendon Square fa~ade. When this part of the scheme
was eventually completed in 1937 it had been re-designed once again in the much 'harder'
quasi-Georgian, quasi-Modern style favoured by E. P. Wheeler, Forrest's successor.
May 1929 also saw the demise of the last high-rise floors in the central portion of Levita
House. Instead of the seven and eight storeys in the modified submission, it was to be no
higher than six floors, without a lift. The rooftop play space for the children of the superior
tenants was also abandoned at this time.62 However, the inhabitants of Levita House still
look out westwards over the space originally conceived as the private tenants' garden; and
they park their cars in the sweeping driveway where the LCC's first middle-class tenants
were to have dismounted from their taxis to exchange courtesies with a be-ribboned
commissionaire (Plate VIIB).

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

Conclusion

The first two schemes for the Ossulston Street site are described in the title of this paper as
'experiments in high-rise housing'. It should be clear by now that these were 'serious
experiments'. Certainly they have nothing in common with the many jeux d' esprits
produced by architects in the Twenties and Thirties on the theme of high-rise housing. The
scheme became a vehicle for the development of a whole range of design ideas: high-rise;
lift access; the use of new construction methods; new heating, cooking and refuse disposal
systems; and the planning of private and working-class housing and commercial premises
within a single development. Few of these ideas were new in themselves; yet their
combination in a single local authority sponsored scheme represents something of a
landmark in British planning thought. It is this that makes the Ossulston Street designs of
1925-9 interesting historically.
Nevertheless, it was the high-rise idea which captured public and professional imagination in the mid-twenties, and which brought down upon Topham Forrest's head the
criticism of the garden city partisans who took part in the discussions following his public
lectures at the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Architectural Association.63
Here it should be repeated that Topham Forrest was not an uncritical advocate of high-rise
living. However, he was seeking a wider range of housing options, opportunities for the
local authority architect to escape from the narrow choice represented by, on the one
hand, two-storey cottages at densities of twelve to the acre and, on the other, five- or
six-storey tenement blocks. His interest in alternative forms led him to introduce threestorey cottage flats on some of the inner-suburban estates and to experiment with fourstorey maisonette blocks, sometimes known as 'Cottage-upon-Cottage' blocks. Ossulston
Street should be regarded as part of this more general search for alternative housing forms.
It is often supposed that for essentially trivial reasons British local authorities were
misdirected by their architects and planners along the road which led eventually to the
high-rise housing misfortunes of the 1960s. Worse: it is suggested that British architects
and planners were captivated by the false doctrines of foreigners, in particular by the
Modern Movement designers of the German and Austrian republics and the evil genius of
French architecture and urbanism, Le Corbusier. Some incidents in the saga of Ossulston
Street might be seen to lend support to such views. If Topham Forrest is to be believed, the
architectural treatment of both abortive schemes was borrowed from foreign traditions:
that of 1925 from the United States; that of 1927 from Vienna. However, the architectural
appearance of the schemes must not be confused with the mainsprings of the designs. The
LCC was already experimenting with lift access systems for multi-storey tenement blocks

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

62

SIMON PEPPER

long before Topham Forrest visited either America or Vienna. The decision to develop
Ossulston Street using nine-storey blocks was taken as a result of the high cost of the site,
its narrow shape and the overshadowing that was anticipated from the redevelopment of
adjacent sites. Other novel features of the schemes - offices, private flats, studios and the
parking garage - were introduced in an attempt to minimise losses in what was recognised
to be an expensive building form. Although experimental in a number of areas, the scheme
was nevertheless based on the particular problems posed by an unusual site. There is not a
shred of evidence to suggest that it was undertaken in a spirit of self-conscious novelty, still
less that it was inspired by the writings or designs of continental European architects.
Ossulston Street was a British scheme. If it has to be regarded as the first step along the
road to disaster, it should be recorded as a British mistake.

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

Acknowledgements

This paper was presented to a meeting of the History of Planning Group held at the
University of Liverpool on 17 March 1979 under the chairmanship of Professor Peter
Hennock. I am grateful to the following people who have helped me with information and
criticism: Adrian Forty and Mark Swenarton of University College London, Stephen
Bayley of the University of Kent, Quentin Hughes and Francis Jones of the Liverpool
School of Architecture and Robert Thorne of the GLC Historic Buildings Division. I am
also grateful to the staff of the GLC, Greater London Record Office for permission to
publish photographs and documents in their care, and for their assistance and many
kindnesses during the research phase of the project.
NOTES
1 The term 'high rise' is used here to describe blocks of more than six floors which, by inter-war
standards, demanded lift access.
2 Alison Ravetz, Model Estate: Planned Housing at Quarry Hill, Leeds (1974). For a general
treatment of the subject see A. R. Sutcliffe (ed), Multi-storey Living: The British Working Class
Experience (1974).
3 Survey of London, XXIV, 118ff. See also D. J. Olsen, Town Planning in London: The Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries (1964) and The Growth of Victorian London (1976).
4 Conditions are described in Irene T. Barclay and Evelyn E. Parry, Somers Town Housing (1925)
and in the following LCC publications: Housing of the Working Classes 1855-1912 (1913), 39-41;
Housing: With Particular Reference to Post-War Schemes (1928), 145-50; Housing 1928-30
(1931), 74-78; London Housing (1937), 8~.
5 HWCC, Minutes (19 Mar. 1924), 195-7 in which a letter from the Minister of Health (dated 31
Dec. 1923) was further considered together with reports from the Valuer and the Medical
Officer. Texts of officers' reports in HWCC, Presented Papers (19 Mar. 1924), item 10.
6 Valuer's Report on negotiations in HWCC, Presented Papers (3 Dec. 1924), item 19.
7 HWCC, Minutes (4 February 1925),86-8, item 10.
8 Report by the Architect, in HWCC, Presented Papers (28 Jan. 1925), item 14.
9 London Building Act, 1894, s.41(2) and s.47. For a concise account of this act see, J. N. Tarn, Five
Per Cent Philanthropy (1973), 128-9.
10 A. S. Soutar, 'The Planning of Housing Schemes', Builder, CXVIII (1920), 227-8. Sir Richard
Paget made the suggestion in the discussion following Soutar's paper. See also 'Higher Buildings
for London', Builder, CXIV (1918),140; Malcolm Stark, 'Manhattan Blocks for London', ibid,
(1919),50; 'Tall Buildings for London: Discussion by the Architecture Club', A&BN, 120 (1928),
432-4.

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

OSSULSTON

STREET

63

11 Harold Falkner, 'A Rehousing Suggestion', Builder, CXXXII (1927), 75-6.

12 G. Topham Forrest, The Construction and Control of Buildings and the Development of Urban
Areas in the USA (LCC, 1925).
13 R. B. White, Prefabrication: A History of its development in Great Britain, (HMSO, 1965) and
Marian Bowley, The British Building Industry: Four Studies in Response and Resistance to
Change (1966).
14 HWCC, Presented Papers (28 Jan. 1925) item 14, 6: 'As regards construction, if the walls 'were of
brickwork, their lower part would have to be very thick, and this would require a very great
number of bricks and, consequently, of bricklayers. I should, therefore, propose to use light
skeleton steel framing as the basis of the walls and partitions, the outside enclosing walls
consisting of panels with a veneer of brickwork externally and porous concrete internally, the
interior sub-dividing partitions to be formed of porous concrete; the whole, both externally and
internally, being supported by cross girders. It will thus be seen that the brickwork would be
confined to the external veneer and the few chimney breasts and stacks, a fraction only of what
would be required for normal brickwork construction.'
15 Ministry of Health, Manual on Unfit Houses and Unhealthy Areas (1919), 17. The ministry also
recommended a redevelopment density of no more than 20 houses to the acre (say 80-100
persons per acre).
16 LCC, Minutes (26 Oct. 1920), 648.
17 Ibid., (9 May 1922), 580, records acceptance of a 775 tender for an electric passenger lift in
Geoffrey House. The notice listing rules and instructions for its use is to be found in the Greater
London Record Office.
18 HWCC, Presented Papers (28 Jan. 1925), item 14, 3.
19 Ibid., 4.
20 HWCC, Minutes (1 Dec. 1926), 911-12.
21 Ibid.
22 G. Gibbon & R. W. Bell, History of the London County Council 1889-1939 (1939),94-104,376.
23 LCC, Housing of the Working Classes 1855-1912 (1913) 29-30, 73. In its early form, of course, the
involvement of private enterprise was seen as a possible escape route from the working class
housing projects inherited by the Moderates: partnership was seen as the next best solution. For
the politics see S. N. F. Brookhouse, 'White Hart Lane 1898-1915: An Early London County
Council cottage estate' (B. Arch. dissertation, Liverpool University, 1979).
24 LCC Housing (1928), 69, 79, 91. At Becontree the LCC wanted to enlist private resources and to
avoid their largest estate becoming a single-class ghetto. C. F. Winter, 'The LCC Becontree
Estate' (B. Arch. dissertation, Liverpool University, 1980).
25 HWCC, Presented Papers (28 Jan. 1925), item 14, 4.
26 Builder, CXXVIII (1925), 258 and Architects' In/. [AI] 61 (1925), 339-43.
27 HWCC, Presented Papers (28 Jan. 1925), item 14, 7.
28 Ibid., 6.
29 That is, a corridor running along the middle of a block, with front doors opening off it on both
sides. The central corridor thus served two rows of flats, instead of the single row served by an
access balcony. For the architect's comments on the access systems employed in LCC blocks see,
HWCC, Presented Papers (19 Mar. 1924) item 34, 3. Some years later the medical officer
described a proposed double-loaded corridor block as 'back-to-back flats' , see HWCC, Presented
Papers (26 Feb. 1930), item 6, 1.
30 During the 'thirties a few local authorities (notably the LCC and Liverpool) built a small
proportion of staircase-access blocks for letting at higher rents. The staircase served two or three
flats per landing and was protected from the weather.
31 HWCC, Presented Papers (28 Jan. 1925), item 14, 4.
32 The elimination of the corridor inside the flat as a means of saving money was a feature of the
cheaper LCC units.
33 LCC, Minutes (15 May 1923).

64

SIMON PEPPER

34 HWCC, Presented Papers (26 Mar., 16 Apr. and 21 May 1924).

35 HWCC, Minutes (19 Nov. 1924).
36 This aspect of the proposal was emphasised in Topham Forrest's report, HWCC, Presented
Papers (28 Jan. 1925), item 14, 6.
37 HWCC, Minutes (4 Feb. 1925), 86-7.
38 Ibid (6 July 1927), 227.
39 HWCC, Presented Papers (6 July 1927), item 14. An account of the second proposal, closely
based on Forrest's report to the housing committee, is to be found in B. S. Townroe, The Slum
Problem (1928), 164-70. Forrest's visit to Vienna was authorised in May; HWCC Minutes (10
May 1927), 706. If the architectural treatment of the scheme was in fact strongly influenced by the
Viennese schemes, as Forrest claims, one can only remark that his department must have worked
very fast.
40 HWCC, Presented Papers (6 July 1927), item 14, 1. Other statistics are summarised on 5 and 6 of
the architect's report.

Downloaded by [82.12.11.240] at 11:14 29 July 2016

41 Ibid., 4.
42 HWCC, Minutes (6 July 1927), 636.
43 AJ, 66 (1927), 117.
44 Hansard (Parliamentary
Debates, Commons, 1927) vol. 209, Col. 399.
45 LCC, Minutes (23 Nov. 1927).
46 Site progress photographs
in the GLC Record Office.
47 HWCC, Minutes (1928), 22 and 424-5.
48 The terms offered by gas and electricity suppliers at the Bellingham and Becontree Estates are to
be found in HWCC, Building and Development
Sub-Committee,
Minutes (28 July 1920), 507;
Ibid (27 Oct. 1920), 619-21.
49 Ibid., (21 Feb. 1923),95-7.
50 HWCC, Presented Papers (4 Feb. 1925), item 16.
51 LCC, Minutes (9 Dec. 1930), 942.
52 For general accounts of the electricity supply industry see: H. H. Ballin, The Organisation of
Electricity Supply in Great Britain (1946); Political and Economic Planning (PEP), Report on the
Supply of Electricity in Great Britain (1936) and the Annual Reports of the Electricity Commissioners (1920-). I am grateful to Adrian Forty for bringing these sources to my attention and for
giving me a sight of his unpublished paper, 'Electricity Supply and Household Formation' (1976).
For gas see D. Chandler and A. D. Lacey, The Rise of the Gas Industry in Britain (1949); Stirling
Everard, The History of the Gas Light and Coke Company 1812-1949 (1949).
53 HWCC, Minutes (1928), 528.
54 HWCC, Minutes (12 Dec. 1928), 1090.
55 Building and Development
Sub-Committee
of HWCC, Minutes (12 Dec. 1929), 199-200.
56 Ibid., 199.

57 Ibid.
58 Finance Committee,
Minutes (8 Feb. 1928).
59 HWCC, Presented Papers (12 Dec. 1929).
60 Building & Development
Sub-Committee,
HWCC, Minutes (12 Dec. 1929),200.
61 Ibid. (20 Feb. 1929), item 62.
62 HWCC, Minutes (8 May 1929), 485-92.
63 G. Topham Forrest, 'The Architectural
Development
of American Cities', JnlRIBA, XXXII
(1925) 469-85 and Builder, CXXVIII (1925), 790-3; 'Housing in London' AA Jnl41 (June 1925),
4-14, and 'Mr G. Topham Forrest at the AA', AJ 61 (1925),904-5.