IZAN

.
WWONINE
26

Hol
NA

4
de
16
FINE ARTS

4
H67
6750

SA

ae
MAMADALITAT

STOI
YWE She
LIN
TON
MAMAN
NILAM

L
AAKERSIANA
 1A

SA
20

gal
252

Se
11

GUNUDULLUT

Paxton First Sketches for the Crystal Palace

's

OF

UNIVERSITY MICHIGAN LIBRARIES

THE CRYSTAL PALACE ļ1. 18

The Structure , Its Antecedents

Immediate Progeny
Its
and

AN EXHIBITION

SMITH COLLEGE MUSEUM OF ART

OF

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE TECHNOLOGY

Northampton Mass
,

1951
 Fine Arts
NA
6750
· b 6
HOT
FOREWORD
Centenaries , in the realm of the arts , are something more than
tactful reminders of history and the occasions for pious observances .
The hundred years that have passed since the ending of a distinguished
career , or since some famous cultural event , provide just sufficient
time to prepare the world for a more - or -less permanent assessment
of that career ' s distinction , or of that event ' s broader and deeper
significance .

Turner , for example , the greatest English artist of the 19th cen - .
tury , died in 1851 and is certainly ready ppraisal which

for
final

re
a

-a
has yet The principal event conspicuously
, its

make appearance
to

of

, of
celebrated 1951 however was not the centenary the death
,
in

Turner but the centenary the Great Exhibition London

of

of
1851

in
the first international exposition The official recognition this an

of
.

niversary was another British exposition but national and not

an
,

the spring a
of

international one the Festival Britain held London in

in
,

of

and summer months

on

the south bank the Thames with related

,
exhibitions elsewhere the British Isles
in

.
To

mention the Great Exhibition the same breath with the

in
of

landscape art Turner and with the implication thereby that was

it
important artistic manifestation might seem almost ludicrous but
an

for the remarkable building which housed The reputation

of
the
it
.

Crystal Palace rebuilt

of

54
Sydenham south London
at

1852
in
,

original appearance Hyde Park gradually faded -

its

as
after the
in

century wore But ever since its mortal members crashed is to

on

19th
.

fame has been reviving

of

its

total ruin the fire 1936 Now

in

it
,

as

generally recognized perhaps even somewhat exaggeratedly the

—

greatest single architectural achievement Age

of

the Victorian
in

Britain
.

This exhibition of The Crystal Palace The Structure Its Ante

,
“

cedents and Its Progeny organized by the Smith College Museum

,
”

Art and the Massachusetts Institute cannot hope

of

Technology
of

at ,

vie with the official British exhibition lately held the Victoria
to

and Albert Museum

of an

London institution which some sense

in

is
in

the Great Exhibition

of

child 1851 Nor does this publication

a

pretend rival the handsome Commemorative Album compiled by

to

Mr Gibbs Smith that Museum and published last year That

of
H
C
.
.
.

.
in Arts

is a very fully illustrated picturebook ; this is not even a catalogue ( in

the ordinary usage of the word ) of our exhibition as shown in North
ampton and in Cambridge this fall. Rather it offers only a long --
ish essay which may help to provide the reasons for devoting an entire
exhibition to a single British edifice whose centenary happens to fall
this year and also to offer a more detailed explanation of the particu
lar visual material shown than can be readily given in a series of wall
labels . The essay is not illustrated , since to attempt to do so would
have been largely to repeat what has been so profusely supplied in
the Victor and Albert publication , drawing chiefly on the superb con
temporary volumes concerning the Palace whose plates , in the original
or in enlarged photographs, provide the greater part of the items
actually shown in our exhibition .
These publications may be briefly noted here , with merely some
general indication of the sorts of correlative visual documents that
are also included . The three most useful are :
Comprehensive Pictures of the Great Exhibition of 1851 , Lon
don , Dickinson Brothers , 1854 , 2 vols.
Downes , Charles, The Building erected in Hyde Park for the
Great Exhibition , London , John Weale , 1852 .
The Illustrated London News, London , 1850 -52 , vols. XVI
XXI.
Other more special items (disregarding various single prints of
the exterior or the interior ) are :
. Grand Panorama of the Great Exhibition of All Nations. (Wood
engravings from the Illustrated London News, hand - colored
and mounted as a continuous scroll 20 feet long . )
Lane 's Telescopic View of the Great Exhibition of 1851 , (Col
ored lithographic peep -show with Queen Victoria opening
the Exhibition on May 1, 1851 . )
Cruikshank , George , 1792 - 1878 , [ The Great Exhibition ]
Eleven humorous etchings concerning the Exhibition .
Various tickets, invitations , etc ., related to the Exhibition .
Perhaps regrettably , it has not been possible to include even
samples of the original contents of the Crystal Palace . But this exhi
bition is specifically devoted to the edifice that housed the Great Ex
hibition rather than to the Exhibition as a whole as was that at the
Victoria and Albert. Originally it was intended to provide also at
least some of the more striking material that had been shown in the
American section . To have had one of the several versions of Hiram
Power ' s “ Greek Slave ” shivering again in a red velvet tent would
at least have been highly diverting ; to have shown the original model
• of Cyrus McCormick 's Virginia Reaper would certainly have been
edifying . But particularly we must regret the exclusion of examples
of American daguerreotypy of the period which provided one of
the most significant illustrations of American achievement in the Ex
hibition ; for Beaumont Newhall, Curator of George Eastman House
in Rochester , most generously took the trouble as it proved in vain
- to indicate for us precisely what should be displayed in such a sec
tion of our exhibition .
However , a considerable part of the contents of the Crystal
Palace appear in all their incredible variety and profusion in the
Dickinson color plates ; while to cover their story in any detail would
remove our exhibition from the architectural field , in which the Palace
was a triumphant event , to that of industrial art, in which it is more
generally considered to have represented a cataclysmic debacle . (See
Pevsner , Nikolaus , High Victorian Design , London , 1951 . ) The vol
ume of Reports of the Juries , Printed for the Royal Commission ,
London 1852 , is included in the exhibition in a presentation copy as
also the lavishly illustrated Crystal Palace and Its Contents, London ,
W . M . Clark , 1852 , and the three volumes of the History and De
scription of the Crystal Palace and the Exhibition , London and
New York , n . d .
Material to illustrate most of the structures by Paxton and oth
ers which were direct antecedents of the Crystal Palace and also those
contemporary and slightly later structures that may be considered

its
siblings immediate progeny have been selected from
or
its

various
The larger part
be

of
sources that need not recorded here detail
in

(
.) .

this correlative material comes from my own files

of

The work and cost preparing this exhibition have been shared
between the Smith College Museum Art and the Massachusetts
of

Technology most
of

Institute the material having been acquired

byof

originally Smith and the enlarged photographs and their mount

ing being the Institute The planning
of

of

contribution
the the ex
.

jointly the work

of

hibition has been the Smith Museum staff and

at
of

of

Professor Herbert Beckwith Director Exhibits the Institute

,

and his staff

.

The essay which follows my book

of

drawn from the text

is

Victorian Architecture Britain The Early Phase

in

1835 1855
,

,
-

which due appear during 1952

to
is

Hitchcock
H

R
.
.

October 1951
,
 PAXTON AND THE CRYSTAL PALACE
The history of the development of iron construction is very long
• and complex ; moreover it is essentially international. Even though
the achievements of Early Victorian England provide a sort of
culmination to the general story of the use of iron in build
ing , at least down to the introduction of structural steel in place of
.. cast and wrought iron around 1860 , there was on the Continent and
in America in the same period important activity of comparable scale

. and of equal technical ingenuity . In the 40 ' s , J . A . Roebling ' s early

wire - cable suspension bridges, across the Ohio at Wheeling and the
Monongahela at Pittsburgh , illustrated a transatlantic boldness of
attack beyond that of contemporary English engineers . James
Bogardus in his own building in New York first showed as early as
• 1848 that permanent urban structures could be successfully built of
cast iron both inside and out. Likewise , in assessing the achievements
of this period , many historians have considered Francois Duquesney 's
Gare de l'Est in Paris superior to its great English rivals. Less justi
fiably , moreover , the magnificent domed court of Bunning 's Coal Ex
change has been ignored by most writers in favor of Henri La
brouste 's Bibliothèque Sainte Geneviève in Paris . The Coal Exchange
is , I believe, the foremost early example of the frank and elegant use
of a coherent system of iron structural elements inside a masonry shell .
Major English achievement in iron structure did not begin with
the Victorian Age . Many of the principal English contributions to
the "history of iron construction had been made in Georgian times . The
first iron bridge was built in Coalbrookdale , Shropshire, in the 1770 ' s
to the design of Thomas F . Pritchard , an architect . ( The village to
day is appropriately called Iron Bridge !) A complete interior skele
ton of iron was first used by William Strutt , a millwright , in a calico
mill at Derby ,
in 1792 and shortly thereafter in another mill at Belper .
The suspension bridge which is still the longest in the British Isles
was built across the Menai Strait in 1819 - 24 by Thomas Telford , a
civil engineer who had first been trained under the great architect
• Sir William Chambers. Well before the 18th century was over , cast
iron columns were being freely and frankly used in various sorts of
buildings throughout England , particularly to support the galleries
in churches . By the time of the Menai Bridge such columns rose tree
like, crowned with naturalistic copper palm leaves , in the kitchen of
the Regent ' s Pavilion in Brighton ; they also appeared , with less
flamboyant embellishments , the middle of several of the palatial
in
;
reception rooms there as well while the whole staircase was of iron in
an openwork Chinese design of very great elegance and ingenuity . In
John Nash ' s other most famous works , the Regent Street Quadrant
and Carlton House Terrace , the Doric columns of the colonnades con
sisted of heavy fluted cylinders of iron .
But the Victorian decades had also their major achievements
whose significance is not the less because they come relatively late
in the general story . Paxton 's
Crystal Palace in particular should be
considered not so much a forerunner of later 20th century devel
opments but as the final term in a series of steps toward complete iron
and glass construction going back some three quarters of a century .
Its immediate forebears , however , were definitely Victorian .
The Great Conservatory at Chatsworth , designed in 1836 , begun
in 1837 , completed in 1840 and demolished in 1920 , was the first con
siderable edifice planned by one of the most brilliant and characteris
of

the Victorian age Joseph Paxton but

tic

men this case with

,

in
;
of

as
the assistance design the architect Decimus Burton Paxton
in

,
.
everyone knows was neither engineer but gar
an

architect nor or an
,

a
dener and more specifically horticulturist plant specialist Yet
,

, . , of
as

his name known builder thousands who have never heard

is

to
a

the railway station architects Francis Thompson and Lewis Cubitt

,
-

even perhaps that once highly publicized engineer

of

Brunel
or

K
I.
.
Before his life work was done Paxton was be railway director
to

a
's

knight He had also distinguished

of

member Parliament and

,
a

a
.
- as

an
of

of

career planner parks and suburbs age little addicted

in
a

large scale planning

all

as
without losing his earlier preëminence
to

horticulturist
a

by

Born Paxton was employed

1803 the Royal Horticultural
in

Society their grounds

at

Chiswick when he
as

undergardener
an

in

the sixth Duke

of

Devonshire
of

first attracted the attention Estab

.*

1826 and married the next year he rose rapid

at

lished Chatsworth
in

,
ly

the duke service be Head Gardener then Forester and

to
in

in
,

,
's

Minister Works Close collaborator

of

of

effect the Cavendish the

.
“

real friend well de

as

duke all his ventures and interests he was

in

spite the enormous difference their rank

in

of

of

Paxton granddaughter Violet Markham account his life and that his
's

's
*

patron Paxton and the Bachelor Duke disappointing but the most
is

is

1935
,

it
(

his History
of

of

compendious single account his career Francis Thompson Chats

in
.

work there omitting for

of

worth 1949 also inadequate his coverage Paxton

in
is

,
's
(

Lily
of

50

example all reference

to

Paxton own house and the House 1849

to

,
's

-
of

which the prime prototype the Crystal Palace

is

.
 When Paxton first came to Chatsworth , Sir Jeffrey Wyatville 's
building operations there were well under way . These included much
work on the main block of the house as well as the construction of a
long service wing with huge loggia tower at the end . Wyatville 's
a
campaign at Chatsworth continued through the 30 ' s , setting the pace
's

for

of
for Barry contemporary the Duke Sutherland Trent

at
work
ham Park The gate lodges which might well have fallen within the

,
.

Head Gardener purview were by Wyatville also while the most

;
,
's
Romantic model village Edensor was built

of
complete illustration

,
a
might by the obscure John Rob
. or

for the duke one say compiled

Derby The Great Conservatory however was certainly
of

ertson

,
Paxton everything that mattered structurally despite Burton
in

,
's

's
design
on

collaboration the details the of

.
The chief prototype conservatory was the
of
the Chatsworth
This had likewise been the proj
at

Hove the early 30

, of

Anthaeum
.
Henry 's
Phillips Brighton
of

of
ect horticulturist But the advice
a

.
the supervising architect Anson Henry Wilds was not followed
of

and this first great ferro vitreous bubble collapsed even before was

it
-

completed Another Brighton architect Charles Augustus Busby

so
,

,
.

of

often the collaborator Wilds and his father undertook

to
rebuild
the Anthaeum but nothing came ,
of

his scheme probably because

funds were not forthcoming The ruins still remained ,

on
the site until
.

be built there for the

50

the mid when Palmeira Square began

to
-
's

Goldschmids
.

No
at
of

The Duke Devonshire had taken the house Chiches 14

.
Kemp Town res
on

ter Terrace 1828 From then he was often

in

in

in
.

's or
Brighton and Paxton was frequent visitor Whether he
at

idence
a

Phillips landscaped the slopes Kemp Town

of

of

front the duke

in

house Paxton must certainly have known all about the unhappy An
,

thaeum fiasco from the beginning The legend that he explored the
.

was designing the Crystal

he

crumpled remains the time

it at

1850
in

Palace can hardly be true doubtless represents however the trans

,

,
he ;

at

visit the time the collapse perhaps

, of

of

ference date made

or
in

when the Chatsworth Conservatory

30

few years later the mid

in

,
a

-
's

was first being planned

.

There were certainly important resemblances between the two

course nearly identical The Chats
of

edifices which were function

in
, ,

, ,

worth conservatory however was oblong plan not round like the
in

Anthaeum and its roof rose from the ground not one arc but
in
in
;

two like cusped arch Yet all the ribs were curved elevation like
in
,

and even the ridge and furrow arrangement

of

those the Anthaeum

-

-
of the segments of large panes of glass carried
the outer covering ( of
in wooden sash ) may well have been an echo of the pointed lobes of
the Brighton edifice. These lobes in turn will have been suggested by
the oriental domes of Porden 's , Repton 's and Nash 's designs for the
Royal Pavilion (which derive ultimately from the Indian buildings
illustrated in Thomas and William Daniell 's Oriental Scenery , 1795
1807 ) . There is no residue of orientalism , however , about Paxton 's
famous ridge - and -furrow system of roofing as it was developed at
Chatsworth in the 30 's . In particular the hollowing out of the
wooden members at the base of the ridges , so that they might serve as
gutters , was certainly his personal invention .
Of the Great Conservatory at Chatsworth there remains today
only the low masonry wall around the edge to which the bases of the
curved iron ribs were once anchored ; but the tremendous size of the
area which was entirely roofed by Paxton with glass — 277 feet by 123
feet , and thus of the order of magnitude of even the largest spans of
the day , those of the early railway station sheds — is still sufficiently
evident to the visitor . The roof once rose 67 feet above the ground ,
creating a most impressive effect of interior arched volume. This
could be most dramatically appreciated from what contemporaries
describe as the “ light and elegant ” gallery ; this was carried all
around the sides , presumably at the level of the cusp . The staircase
up this gallery was romantically
led

to

which hidden one

in
, of

the corner rockeries for Paxton was the last great rockery design
;

the gigantic artificial rockwork the Chatsworth gardens still

er

as

in

be
do

makes evident those who not take real

to

to
it

The conventional arched and pilastered entrance doorways

the ends of the Conservatory presumably due Burton were awk at
to
(

ward and overscaled intrusions the delicate transparency

of

the
in

whole but their large size permitted carriages

as

construction be
to
as ;
a

driven right through

at

of

was the Queen the time her visit

to
,

's

Chatsworth 1843 with Albert and the Duke of Wellington Under

in

neath the conservatory small railway ran all the way around
to
a

carry fuel and heavy plants thus even here those iron rails
on

which
—

the new Victorian Age was generally moving forward played their
so

small part The demolition the Great Conservatory

of

1920 was
in
; .

great loss but even the Cavendishes after World War found the
a
of

the coal required keep such

at

cost tropical tempera

to

vast area
a

ture altogether excessive

.

The year after the Queen visit the Chatsworth Conservatory

to
's

palm stove use the contemporary term was planned for the
to
a
“

(
”

Royal Botanic Gardens

at

Kew accommodate the most lofty and

to

.
the most delicate of the tribe ” of Palmae. “ Under the botanical direc
tion of Sir William Jackson Hooker , the enlightened and public
spirited Curator of the Royal Gardens,” to quote the Illustrated Lon
don News , Decimus Burton designed a structure which seems to de
rive directly from that with which he had been associated at Chats
worth . The Kew Stove is little larger , although it is longer — 362
feet - but the central pavilion is only 106 feet wide and 62 feet tall,
while the wings are 56 feet wide ( the precise width of Robert Stephen
son 's and Francis Thompson 's Derby Trijunct Railway Station cen
tral span five years earlier ) and only 33 feet high - loftier Palmae
( and doubtless as delicate ones ) could still grow at Chatsworth !
The Kew conservatory , however , is much more beautiful than
the Chatsworth one can ever have been . For the smooth glass surfaces
are more bubble -like and the repetition of the curved form of the pro
jecting central pavilion in own upper stage and the end wings
its

,
in
as

as

masonry elements provides

of
well the complete absence visible

,
of of

more perfect realization the ferro vitreous dream The heating

a

.
by

was from below coils pipes under perforated cast iron slabs
,

something premonition the popular methods

of

of

. of

of
one domestic
a

heating the mid twentieth century

in

The interior has its special visual delights gallery carried

is
a
:
around the crossing one may supported only

on
call and
so
if
,

it,
“

single lines piers where cses the transepts spiral stair

of

traverses
it

A
the .
“

cage placed right

on
of

case carried delicate vertical iron the

is
in
,

,,
15
bo
a

45

main longitudinal axis The glass square feet were

of

which 000 squas

,

,
.

at

of
70

required less than the 000 used Chatsworth because the

,

,
(

unfurrowed surfaces slightly tinged with green temper the sun

is

to
,
)

light This gives the foliage filled

an

agreeably subaqueous quality

to

-
.

interior
.

by

of

The ironwork was provided Richard Turner the Hammer

Works Dublin He was very soon undertaking also span
to

smith
,

(
.

the considerably broader shed the second Lime Street Railway Sta
of

Liverpool with curved principals tied and

at

of

tion different sort

a

braced internally with wrought iron rods

of

complicated system
a

.)

The detailing remarkably simple and

at of

the cast iron members here

is

graceful only the top and bottom ends the buttresses bracing
of
;

the clerestorey are there purely decorative scroll forms Whether

-

.
“

or
be

this restraint should credited Turner Burton not clear

to

to

is

What clear that architect and contracting engineer collaborated

is

is

here more harmoniously than railway architects and engineers usually

-

railway stations association with Sir

on

did Turner work done

in
,
.
(

, 's

Lime Street has for example

at

of
no

William Tite such refinement

,

,
detail ) . In the total absence of visible masonry elements the architect
was spared the temptation to overscale the design ; or perhaps , like
Francis Thompson in the Derby Trijunct Station shed of 1839 , Bur
ton already had an inkling of the new visual possibilities of iron not
altogether surprising in one of his Late Georgian antecedents . (He
had been in practice by this time for twenty - five years , having begun
very young to design for his father , the great London builder , James
Burton .)
No other English work in iron compared as yet in scale with
these two giant greenhouses . But the proposal of a Mr.
Gye at this
time to provide a ferro - vitreous covering for the entire length of a
London street at least deserves mention . Paxton was to make a simi
lar suggestion at the height of his fame in the early 50 's. The great
examples of covered shopping streets , however , are all continental
not British , although they were in fact often built with British capital .
IfVictorian ferro -vitreous architecture began with a commission
from aduke, Victorian prefabrication in iron may almost be said to
have begun with a palace for a king . Of Eyambo ' s background less is
known than of the Cavendishes ', but his modest kingdom was on the
Calabar River in Africa . A neighboring prince having obtained from
England a prefabricated house of wood , King Eyambo applied to a
Mr
him

. Laycock of London in 1843 to send iron building

to
an

out
house himself and his three hundred and twenty wives the unsubdi
—
by

only
50

vided upper floor feet feet must have provided none too
30
,

generously for extensive The ground floor might be said

so

harem
a

Anglo Palladian plan with central hallway and four corner

an
to

have
-

rooms Iron verandahs surrounded the whole and the central section
an .

extra story above the hip roof terminate battlements

to

rose
in

, .
built was actually not entirely
of
of

Because cost the edifice iron

as
,
as

the king had requested but partly

of

wood
,

considerably greater export

of

The next year iron houses be

in a

gan be reported the press but undoubtedly the iron prefabrica

to

tion industry had actually had significant pre Victorian beginnings

-

.*

Wood Weygood London were regularly shipping ware

of

Co
,

&

.
as

well Africa and the West Indies 1844 Peter

as

houses houses
to

in

.
of

Thompson Commercial Road Limehouse London was active

are in
,

,
of

as

as

Lockkeepers houses along canals made known early

iron slabs
1790
'

.
*

Richard Sheppard Cast Iron Building very much lengthier

1947 rather
if
in
,

,
A
.
(

be )
)

early prefabrication
will Gloag and Bridgewater
of

confused account found

in
,

, ,

History Castiron Architecture Eventually Bannister

of

1948 studies
in

C
A

of T

's
.

.
.
(

when published will provide really scholarly account which his article the
in
,

Architectural Review 1949 gives exciting foretaste

an
,

.
10
 at home with the construction of temporary churches of wood , of
which examples were going up in the mid - 40 ' s at Kentish Town , at
Hampstead and at St. John 's Wood in and near London . But he also
sent out a metal church to Jamaica in 1844 . The side walls were
framed with cast iron pilasters which supported a framed roof of
wrought iron . The cost was but £1000 for an edifice 65 feet by 40 feet
with a chancel 24 feet by 12 feet and a western tower. Henry Grissell ,
who had held the masonry contract for the Kew Palm Stove , sent
out a prefabricated building to Mauritius to be used as officers ' quar
ters, as well as one for
hospital and another for lazaretto
a

.
“

”
Intrinsically more interesting were the iron lighthouses

of
the
Perhaps the first was that erected Morant
40

and early

at
50

.
's

's

Point Jamaica by Alexander Gordon this was completed by 1841

, ,

.
44

When 1843 the contracting engineers Cottam and Hallen set

in

,
-

up lighthouse their yard near Waterloo Bridge London the

,
in
a

structure attracted much wider attention however since provided

it
,

of
conspicuous the skyline south

of
for short time feature the
so
a

Thames After disassembly this was sent out Bermuda there

to

it
;
.

permanent site The metal shell was then weight

on

its

was erected
re
-

by filling up the spaces with bricks and concrete between

at

the base
ed

the outer casing and the central spiral stair This lighthouse was
.

at
130 feet tall and tapered upward

24
of
from diameter feet the
as a

base feet just below the top much Gordon had done Above
14
to

.
's
that point the outer shell flared out again support

20
gallery
to

a
by

feet diameter which was protected delicate iron railing Gor

in

(
gallery had been less elegantly supported
on

don open brackets

.)
's

Above the gallery was the sided glass lightroom with

16

covered

a
-
of

cone shaped roof iron The principal components were 135 cast iron
.
-

56

plates those inches square and those above dimin

at

the base
,

ishing with the taper all being bolted together through internal
,

The upper portion had wrought iron

of

flanges interior casing

an
In .

1851 the United States government ordered corrugated iron

a

lighthouse from John Walker the same year Gris

of

London and
,

in

sell sent one made wrought iron elements out the Bar
to
of

cast and
badoes Sir Henry Groves later famous for his Dictionary Music
of
,

,
.

by

began his extraordinarily varied career supplying two iron light

40

in

houses for erection Bermuda the These are but few

in
in

a
's

rather considerable activity

, of

stances this field which continued

in

,
a

the Crystal Palace

of

course well beyond the period

of

. .

Nor was this activity limited the export trade Whether Bush
to

first erected his Goodwin Sands lighthouse dry land

on

irrelevant
is

, .

For near Doric capital

its

this svelte reverse tapered column with

,
in

-
the exterior caisson , as well as the interior iron pier and the spiral
steps projecting from it , were certainly all cast to specification in ad
vance quite like those of Gordon 's Morant Point lighthouse . Yet such
structures , although closely related to more characteristic prefabri
cated products , do not represent quite what is ordinarily meant by
prefabrication today , since they were not made up from parts indus
trially produced in identical series .
Less special uses of prefabricated iron elements are perhaps more
significant even though these elements will for the most part have been
“ custom made ” for a particular job . By 1850 James Ponsford , with
out benefit of either engineer or architect , was completing an enor
mous flour mill in Upper Thames Street in London that was a full
eight storeys tall. In this edifice light rolled - iron joists (wrought ele
ments , that is ) were carried by sockets in heavy cast iron girders
which were supported on the usual cast iron columns . But externally
iron was not being used for industrial or commercial buildings in Eng
land any more than it was for domestic or monumental structures in
the late 40 ' s . Indeed , of the various elements of iron interior structure ,

the
only cast iron columns were ubiquitously used , despite variety

of
available systems some developed locally some borrowed from
,
,

France for producing supposedly fireproof floors with metal ele

,

"
“

ments Modern historians give great significance therefore Ameri

to
,
,
.

this period The building which James Bogardus

at

can achievement
.

for his own use New York 1848 with exterior frame
an

erected
in

,
in

well was undoubtedly the first

as
an

interior skeleton
as

of

cast iron
,
be

of
storeyed urban structure built entirely both inside and out
to

,
masonry edifice Yet the depend
as

iron permanent alternative

to
of . of a

the Bogardus Building English experience increasingly

on

ence
is

evident Just before this for instance Bogardus had spent some ten
,

years work and study England Moreover like other American

in

,
.

depend the published researches

he
of

of

builders the time

on
to

had
,

Hodgkinson and Fairbairn for his technical

as

such British engineers

information about the general structural possibilities metal
as
of

also
,
of

of

for precise figures comparative strength types

on

the various
of

iron and different beam sections

-

and early prefabrication

its
40

50
In

the late iron rose

to
in
's

's

Victorian climax corresponding what Caroll Meeks has called the

to
,

classical period railway station design The big cast iron windows
of

.
“

by

made for the palace Egyptian prince and exported

an
of

Cairo
to

course merely large scale

of

of

Belfast
ex

Adam 1849 were

M

in

,
’

amples no particular interest either techni

of

of

decorative detail and

cally artistically But the California gold rush that year and the
or

in
.

12
 increasing paceof British emigration to Australia provided new and
avid markets for completely prefabricated structures . The iron houses
and warehouses , produced by E . T . Bellhouse of Manchester , pri
marily a millwright , seem to have been sent to San Francisco in the
greatest profusion . But the lack of building materials and of building
workers there drew to the booming West Coast town prefabricated
structures from all over the world and made of all sorts of different
materials . Some houses even came ready -built from China and from
New Zealand , two countries which might have been thought at this
time to be consumers rather than producers of such highly industrial
ized items.

John Walker of London , who supplied a lighthouse in 1851 to

the United States government as we have seen , was producing corru
gated iron houses for California two years before that. He also held
various British Government contracts for supplying iron houses in
quantity for emigrants to Australia . Other manufacturers , particular
ly in the big British ports , busied themselves with prefabrication for
export , particularly Samuel Hemming of Bristol . He had started out
in the business by making a house for his own son who was emigrating

to Australia . By 1854 , when Hemming and the other prefabricators

were forced to shift to the production of barracks for the Crimean
War , Hemming 's Clift -House Works had sent whole streets of shops
with dwellings over them , many churches and chapels , and even a
complete theatre to Australia . At the same time W . & P . M 'Lellan
of Glasgow sent out a large iron mansion for the Mayor of Melbourne.
The innovation -minded James Edmeston provided in 1854 an orna
mental clock tower , whose cast iron frame was filled with glazed terra
cotta , for erection in the city of Geelong . This curious object even
roused the enthusiasm of that bigoted journal of religious architecture,
the Ecclesiologist ; their reviewer poetically envisaged “ cathedrals of
porcelain ” rising in the near future both in the Antipodes and at home.
Iron frames covered with corrugated sheets were the stand
iron
ard product ; and roofs of the latter material still , I understand , a
are
conspicuous element in the antipodean scene . But wood entered into
many of the prefabrication schemes and also other metals than iron ;
houses partly of zinc, for example , were sent to Australia by J . Mid
dlemass of Edinburgh in 1853 . Houses of glazed clay slabs set in iron
frames were exhibited by Edmeston in 1852 , two years before
his

ornamental Geelong clock tower was made Even Bielefeld the

,
C
.

.
.
F

papier machémanufacturer whose famous catalogues display the pro

,
-
of

fusion cheap and generally rather meretricious ornament that was

freely used
40

50

on
so

the and interiors and even exteriors

in

in

,
's

's

13
caught . For he showed a project for “ portable ” houses
the infection
whose iron frames were to be filled with panels of waterproofed
papier maché , an early version of modern wall -board. All told , the
excitement and enthusiasm over prefabrication in various materials
in the early 50 's was comparable to that a hundred years later after
the Second World War and perhaps relatively more productive of
effective results .
Even the leaders of the Ecclesiological Society were ready to
lend aesthetic tone to the new development . First they persuaded
Peter Thompson to accept their advice on the ritual arrangements of
his temporary churches , which were chiefly of wood with brick filling
but occasionally , as we have seen , of iron . In 1853 they went further ,
commissioning their most “ correct ” architect , R . C . Carpenter , to de
sign a model church of iron . The project proved abortive because of
Carpenter 's well

as
health and early death for another

as
ill

1855
and more crucial reason For the English bishops refused consein

to
.

or

crate iron structures parish district churches and such edifices

as

could therefore only be set up for temporary use replaced later

be
to
by more permanent masonry structures any case 1855 actually
In

,
.

represented downward turning point the development

of
iron
of in
a

construction Britain after the heyday enthusiasm for new mate

in

rials earlier the decade

in

At Balmoral 1851 Bellhouse set up Prince Albert order

to
in

's

by
prefabricated the Prince having been much impressed
ballroom
,
a

Bellhouse houses for emigrants that were shown that year

at
the
's

Great Exhibition Although some new construction the most per

in
.

materials the local Flintshire granite was already under

of

manent
,

year
or

way
at

Balmoral and much more was follow two elabo

to

in

,
a
of

rated with all the romantic paraphernalia the Scottish Baronial

,

the Royal Patron the Exhibition was delighted have this oppor
to
of

tunity display his intense personal interest

as

as

technical well
to

in

artistic progress One wonders Bellhouse emigrant houses

if
.
(

's
“

henceforth carried the inscription By Appointment

)
!"
“
M

This brings the story of metal construction that extraordinary

2
.
:

to

All
of

house the Great Exhibition

to

edifice which was erected 1850

in

1851 the first international exposition and certainly one

of

Nations
,

the Victorian Age This was the largest

of

of

the climactic events

.

example doubtless that the world has ever seen prefabricated de

of
,

mountable and remountable construction and certainly the most

—

,
. -
“

famous ferro vitreous monument The 1851 Exhibition Building was

-

by

early named the Crystal Palace clever journalist and his happy
a
“

14
inspiration actually played some part in the original acceptance of
Paxton 's extraordinary project .
The Crystal Palace was first built in Hyde Park in 1850 -51 to
house the Great Exhibition of 1851 and then reërected , in considerably
changed form , at Sydenham in 1852 -54 . It is so important technical
ly , artistically , and even ( in connection with the Exhibition it housed ) :
philosophically, that it could hardly be adequately discussed in a vol
ume, much less a single essay . Indeed several volumes were devoted
to it while it was news ; and in 1937 , after the Sydenham Palace had
been demolished by fire , a modern monograph recorded complete

its
history The general bibliography

of
works which has received

it
in
.*

serious discussion would occupy many pages while

of
list more

of a
casual and passing references would

be
like list references

to
a
Its iconography that the pictures made

of
Hamlet and
i
is

it
,
.
“

pe
by

reproduced every medium from photography to the various

to
culiar processes -
of

industry
art industriegraphy

as
Victorian
art would be almost con

,
-
as

siderable bibliography
theebibliography
.

Of all this flood material the book called The Building erected
of

Hyde Park for the Exhibition London John Weale 1852 by

in

by ,

,
Charles Downes Architect with scientific description Charles
,

Cowper Assoc Inst perhaps the most valuable Although

is
,

.,
C

E
.

.
.

.
the description only occupies forty five pages the twenty plates

six
,

,
-

-
all folding are lithographed with the greatest delicacy and precision
,

from drawings prepared by Downes under his direction

on
the
or
,

,
by

basis the original working drawings loaned the contractors Fox

of

,
and Henderson From these plates the original struc
of

facsimile
a
.

ture could be correctly built today The same cannot be said least at
,
, .

without considerable exaggeration

of

any
of
the published records
other major edifice
of

the past
.

Of more equal value for the method

of

than construction was

in

as great
of

as

this case importance the actual design the running

is
-

history the building both pictorial and literary that was provided
of

by the Illustrated London News The publication there

on

June
22
,
.

the official Building Committee

of

1850 own design which was pre

,

,
's

pared only after the decision not commission any

of

the entrants
to

the preceding competition had been announced was followed by

in

the epoch making and doubtless technically unethical presentation

—

—
-
On

by

this book 1851 and the Crystal Palace Christopher Hobhouse

,
*

have
,
I

heavily the next few pages particularly

of

drawn dating personnel

in

for details
,

and statistics later account given Yvonne ffrench The Great Exhibition
in
is
A

,
.

of

of

1950 which corrects some Hobhouse errors concerning the inception the
(

's

venture
.

15
on July 6 alternative design by Joseph Paxton , who was neither
, of an

an architect nor an engineer nor even an entrant in the original com

petition . This irregular publicity undoubtedly played a great part in
the ultimate acceptance of Paxton ' s scheme. From the fencing in of
the Hyde Park site in August, the progress of the construction of the
Crystal Palace was illustrated almost step by step , with full explana
tions of the special machinery developed , accounts of the testing of
the strength of the materials at the site and even a full description of
Chance Brothers' glassworks near Birmingham , where the sheet glass
was blown in larger quantity than for any previous building . Finally
in August , 1852 , the News showed the disassembly of the structure as
the components were taken down and removed to Sydenham for re
erection . Later , in the next two years , the story of the building of the
second version at Sydenham was also well covered .
Prince Albert * for some time after his marriage to Queen Vic
toria had found no real place in the English scheme of things to exer
cise his undoubted talents . With his appointment in 1841 by Sir Rob
ert Peel as President of the Royal Commission supervising the deco
ration of Westminster Palace , his personal enthusiasm for the arts ,
at least , began to have a more public outlet . Thenceforth , as Royal
Patron of various semi- institutional bodies , he really had a sympathet
ic part to play in the life of his time and he played it on the whole
with tact and with assiduity , even at times with brilliance . In 1845
the Society of Arts received a Royal Charter and the Prince accepted
the Presidency . In 1846 the Society was reorganized and the first ex
hibition of “ Art Manufactures ” was held the following year. In con
nection with this exhibition the Prince first came into contact with a
contemporary who deserves to be as well known as Paxton — the very
phrase “ art manufactures ” was of his coinage .
A . H . Cole , a civil servant employed in the Record Office who
had been active in Rowland Hill' s campaign for the reform of the
postal service and the introduction of postage stamps, had two years
before won a prize offered by the Society for a crockery tea -service of
simple and even “ functional ” design and had then set up his own pro
gramme of art manufactures under the name of “ Felix Summerly . "
It was Cole , by 1847 a member of the Council of the Society , who or
ganized the exhibition of that year. Similar exhibitions were held
under his direction with even greater success in 1848 and 1849 . Look
ing forward two years , Cole then began to plan a more important ex
Miss ffrench 's account (op .
cit

of

* the Prince relation the Exhibition nat

to

is
.)

's

urally much more detailed than this can be and John Steegman
of

Consort Taste
in

also has important data part the prehistory the Exhibi

of
on

1950 the Prince

in
(

's

-
.

tion
.

16
hibition for 1851 ,undoubtedly with the approval of the Prince . This
was to be modelled on those that had been held in Paris every five
years since the beginning of the century , of which that of 1849 was
particularly notable despite the revolution of the previous year .
It was on his visit to the Paris exhibition with his younger friend
M . D . Wyatt that the idea of making the London exhibition of 1851
international first occurred to Cole as also to Francis Fuller , another
member of the Society ; but the original suggestion seems to go back
to Buffet , the French Minister of Agriculture and Commerce with
whom they were both in contact . That should provide an opportunity
for the English to learn from the products of their neighbors, nations
that were then admittedly superior in many branches of art manufac
ture. On June 30 the Prince gave his blessing to the ambitious scheme
for an international exhibition when it was presented to him by Cole ,
Fuller and Scott Russell , secretary of the Society , as well as by his
builder friend , Thomas Cubitt , who was then completing Osborne
House . He also suggested personally that a site in Hyde Park should
be sought for the exhibition rather than the modest courtyard of
Somerset House , which the Office of Woods and Forests had already
agreed to make available , or an alternative site that had been proposed
in Leicester Square . The next step was an arrangement with Messrs.
Munday , a firm of contractors , to put up the large sums judged neces
sary to carry out the exhibition project . This hasty contract was
superseded at the end of the year , when a Royal Commission to spon
sor the Great Exhibition was established by Parliament ; without
such national recognition the project would hardly have gone forward .
The Commission originally included Lord John Russell , then
Prime Minister , Peel, Gladstone and Cobden , certainly a distin
guished array of Victorian statesmen . As representatives of architec
ture and engineering , Charles Barry and William Cubitt, whom the
Prince had already consulted about the probable cost of erecting an
exhibition building in the Park , were also prominent members . Earl
Granville , a cousin of the Duke of Sutherland , was the active executive
as Vice President up until he became Foreign Minister the next year .
Granville worked in close association with a Committee from the So
ciety of Arts whose most energetic member was Cole ; and Cole was
( at least according to his own highly plausible account) the real brains
of the whole campaign . Subscriptions at first flowed in , led by £50 , 000
from S . Morton Peto of Somerleyton , the great railway contractor ,
whose fortune had evidently proved immune to the Hudson crash of
this year. Within twelve months , however , only another £30 ,000 had
accumulated . By then Cole and his associates had rounded up English

17
exhibits requiring , it was estimated , 400 ,000 square feet ; at least as
much and probably considerably more space would presumably be re
quired by the foreign exhibitors. How was the exhibition to be housed
- above all , what would housing cost

its

?
January 1850 Building Committee was appointed by the
In

a
Buccleuch and the Earl Elles

of
of
Commission On this the Duke
.

mere enthusiastic builders both had professional associates the ar

as
,

,
chitects Cockerell Barry and Donaldson together with the engineers
,

,
Robert Stephenson Brunel and William Cubitt brilliant ros
,

,
K

a
I.
ter . .
constructive talents Twenty acres lying opposite Prince Gate
of

's
the Park the spot first suggested by the Prince were now definitely
in

,
international competition was rather hur
as

the site and

an

selected
riedly organized Out the 245 designs submitted this competition
of

in
.

of
65 received mention while others which no less than came
18

12
,

(
from French architects and engineers were signalled out for further
)

"
higher honorary distinction Two ferro vitreous projects were finally
-
.
”

selected from the for still more exalted special mention One was
18

.
; - "
“
by Hector Horeau who had submitted iron and glass

an
scheme
,
a

-
design for the central markets Paris the previous year the other
in

was by Richard Turner Dublin the builder of the Kew Palm Stove
of

the new Lime Street railway shed which was not

of

and yet suc

as
(

cessfully completed with whom was associated his architect brother

)
of

of
Belfast had proved possible
If

to

Thomas erect either these

it
.

projects with the amazing rapidity and economy

of

Paxton and

if
's
as

later the resultant structure could have been successfully rebuilt

elsewhere Horeau the Turners might have won immortal fame
or
,

.
Rightly wrongly the Committee decided against commissioning
or

either of them
.

Horeau project five aisles were covered with single con

In

's

. or a

tinuously sloping gable Over the wide central aisle nave the
.

"

roof was have been supported by curved iron girders The outer
to

slopes were straight girders connected

to
on

rest the iron columns

to
by

spandrel brackets the latter perhaps acting

on
as

cantilevers the
,

,
-

principle those used by Reynaud

of

the second Gare

of

the sheds
in

du Nord Paris decade later The nave was tall

to

end
in

in
a

a
“

half domed apse

of

iron and glass and there were also be tran

to
-

septs The iron members were be broadly spaced and mostly rather
to
.
”

heavy most contemporary railway station sheds the

as

section
in

in
,

spandrels were
be

large open
of

filled with circles and scrolls frank

to
ly

decorative character
.
.

The Turners scheme was less prosaic had no less than five
It
'

the Brighton Anthaeum

of

domes descendants the central one 200

,

18
 feet high , the others 150 feet . These rose over a rectangular super
conservatory 1440 feet by 1060 feet within which a miniature railway
was to carry the public around , as inside the Chatsworth Conservatory .
The estimated cost was £300 , 000 , - a figure which doubtless gave
pause to a Committee that had thus far collected only £80 , 000 ! On
the strength of Richard Turner ' s great works at Kew and Liverpool
it seems not unlikely that this scheme, given such a period of several
years for construction as both the Palm Stove and the Lime Street
Shed had required , could have been successfully executed — but wheth
er it could later have been demounted and the components conomically
re -used is another matter .
The competition programme had stated that “ any cheap mode
of construction will be fully considered . ” But men as well along in
years and firmly established as were the professional members of the
Building Committee are likely to remember from their own bitter ex
perience that novel methods of design and construction often prove
much more expensive and time- consuming than their optimistic pro
ponents promise . In any case the Committee set out to prepare a
design of their own . As a matter of judgment they may have been
right or wrong . But they were not necessarily unethical , as many
claimed at the time , in disregarding designs which seemed to them
unfeasible of execution within the short year that remained before the
exhibition was to open ; for the programme did not commit them to
employ any of the competitors . Theoretically , the Committee's design

all
was intended to combine the best ideas obtainable from those sub
or

mitted least from the top synthesis this

of at

to
18

in
—

;
a
–

possible way utilizing the competitors designs definite reference

'

had been made the programme Were committee designs ever really
in

which the United Na

of

effective architecture recurrent illusion

—
in

tions Secretariat provides the latest doubtful example this group

—

should have produced something extraordinary for certainly in

it
;

the architectural and engi

of

cluded most the best British brains

of

neering professions Actually the design

be

presumed almost
to
is
.

entirely Brunel
; or

some say Donaldson and has generally

—

—
's

's

been loudly deprecated not however

as
of
as

all virtue
it

devoid
is

usually supposed
is

Not ineffective visually the Committee design influenced Her

,

's

holdt more his splendid Co

of

than decade later the treatment

in
a

penhagen Central Station might not even have been impractical

It
.

had there been more time

no

demolishing
of

erect
to

and also need

it

within two years the grant

as

of

the terms
it

of

the Park site

re
(

quired while also recovering as much the original cost

as

possible
of
)

19
by selling the used materials . But the drum of the dome alone ( of
some 200 feet in diameter ) would have required , it was estimated ,
, , ;
over 15 000 000 bricks these bricks would have become almost value
less when the building was demolished , just rubble to be carted away
and dumped for fill.
Hence , when the character of the Committee 's design was gen
erally known and it was actually offered to contractors for bidding , a
noisy storm of not unjustified criticism broke. It was this official de
sign which was published on June 22 in the Illustrated London News .
A lithographed pamphlet had also been prepared to present the proj
ect in full detail to such contractors as might wish to make bids. But
even the faith of the Committee ( or at least of the parent Commis
sion ) in its feasibility seems to have become shaken by this time. More
over the enemies of the whole idea of the exhibition , led in Parlia
,
ment by the revoluton - fearing Colonel C . DeL . W . Sibthorp of Lin
coln * attempted anew to quash the Royal Commission through the
establishment of a Select Committee of Parliament to inquire into
its

operations Salvation came like miracle from quite unexpected

a

a
.

quarter
.

As has been
40

said thePaxton had become something like

in
,

a
's

Devonshire He was furthermore

on of

of

Minister Works
the Duke
to

as
various outside planning operations well as
engaged

on
,
“

building commissions like Lismore Castle

on

the duke Irish estate

's

law George Henry

he

of

which had the assistance his son

in

in

. ,
-
-
(

Stokes that were quite conventionally architectural Paxton latest

)

's
significant construction special greenhouse for

an
however was
,

enormous water lily from Africa respectfully christened Victoria by

regia This edifice was relatively modest
60

size feet inches

in

6
.

inches but extremely interesting technically The lily pool

46

feet
,
9

was enclosed by delicate glass filled arcade and roofed over with
a

ridges and furrows horizontal iron girders

on

These were carried

,
as -

not the Great Conservatory arched ribs The span

on

of

the
in

girders was reduced by two internal rows columns rising

on
of

either
the pool
of

The idea attaching the outer skin glass and

of

of

side
.

only intermittently supporting iron beams supposed

to

wood the
is

to

have suggested itself study

of

of

Paxton from the structure the

to

the lily itself For the thin flat surfaces

of

of

leaves these tremendous

.

leaves were strong enough support good sized child because

of
to

the
a

reinforcements provided underneath by curved ribs tangent

of

web
a
of

of

The use the hollow interiors

to

the underside the iron columns

.

he

Wicked communistic foreigners could flock London warned the Parliament

! to

,
*

and probably overthrow the British Constitution

20
to carry the water from the gutters in the wooden furrows to the
ground has , I believe , no such precise botanical prototype, but many
hollow - stemmed plants might have suggested the idea . From this time
on “ Paxton roofs” and , more specifically , “ Paxton gutters ” became
common technical terms.
The possibility of adapting the construction of the Lily House to
the needs of a building to house the Great Exhibition occurred to
Paxton only in June . Among the Duke of Devonshire ' s vast interests ,
in which Paxton frequently represented him , was a large holding in
the Midland Railway . When he first mentioned his idea to Ellis , the
Chairman of the Railway , at the House of Commons on June 11th ,
the latter took him at once to see Cole at the Board of Trade. The
proposals for tenders on the Committee ' s plans were slated to go out
to contractors in about two weeks ; yet after this conversation Cole pro
posed ( and amazingly enough the Committee allowed ) the introduc
tion of a special clause in the advertisements for bids permitting con
tractors to submit tenders on alternative designs along with those
they might make on the Committee 's design . Certainly this was an
extraordinary idea and must have derived impetus from Cole
its

to
's
personal
of

tal lack faith the Committee scheme

in

.
's

extremely busy man was only after visit

an

Paxton was
It

to
a
.

the Menai Strait where his friend Robert Stephenson was setting

in
,

Bridge
he
place the final tube the Brittania that make
of

was able

to
,

his first sketches He may well have talked then Stephenson about
to
.

his ideas for the Exhibition building

or
But was day later

so
it

,
a
.

meeting the Midland Rail

of

while he was presiding over committee

a

way Derby that

he

an
at

of
first drew section and end elevation his
,

the blotting paper which lay before him

of
on

scheme see interior

(

front cover Returning Chatsworth after about ten days he began

to
)
.

up
, of

with the technical assistance

to

draw Barlow then

W

,
H

a
.
.

young engineer the Midland Railway staff more complete sketches

on

his project The extraordinary boldness this project may well

of

its of
.

something production certainly

to

of

owe the hurried conditions

;

creative imagination and not cold ratiocination called the tune

.

On his way back London after his sketch project was com
to

pleted Paxton met Robert Stephenson again the Trijunct plat

on
at ,

Derby probably by arrangement any case they travelled

In

form
,

up together and he really won the great engineer support for his
's

London he went first Stephenson suggestion

at

to

scheme
In

see
(

)
.

's

Lord Brougham who had been backing Sibthorp his opposition

to
in
,

the Exhibition and won him over his side The next day Stephen
to
,

.
of

son who had been the first chairman the Executive Committee
of
,

21
 the Royal Commission , took him to Lord Granville ; two days later he
was received by Prince Albert. The Prince had known the Great Con
servatory at Chatsworth since the royal visit in 1843 and was easily
persuaded to back Paxton . Still the Commission itself hung fire, de
spite the Prince 's and even the dying Peel' s strong approval . It was
only after the Commission had , properly enough , referred the matter
to its own Building Committee (who were , however , the joint au
thors of the official design ) that Paxton took the bold step of publish
ing his project in the Illustrated London News on July 6th . The fury
of the Committee at this appeal to the public can well be imagined ;
but Paxton must have known that higher authorities would condone
the irregularity , if they did not actually approve it. Public opinion
fortunately did approve, in part because Douglas Jerrold of Punch
provided the appealing name “ Crystal Palace ” for Paxton ' s design .
Paxton , preparing to take advantage of Cole ' s special arrange
ment about alternative designs , was by this time in touch with Fox
and Henderson , engineering contractors whom he knew well , and with
Chance Brothers of Birmingham , who were the only manufacturers
likely to be able to supply the quality and quantity of glass that would
be needed . Thus , by the 10th of July , Fox and Henderson were able to
offer , in addition to their tender on the Committee's design , an alter
native tender for a design developed in detail from Paxton 's sketches .
This “ Crystal Palace” , as Jerrold had christened it , they proposed to
erect and to remove after the close of the Exhibition for £79,800 , re
taining ownership of the components ; or , if it were preferred to leave
the Palace standing as the outright property of the Commission , they
would ask £150 , 000 . The first offer the Building Committee finally
accepted , after negotiating for an arched transept. This higher tran
sept would permit the retention on the site of a certain tall
elm

of
which Colonel Sibthorp had become the impassioned defender the
—

last card he had left play against the Great Exhibition

to

the transept originated with the Committee the

of

Since the idea

.

story that this was Barry contribution undoubtedly has some real
's

truth despite Paxton opposing claim actually

as

in ex

that was
it
's

ecuted his own idea any case Fox and Henderson agreed
in
;

to
)

clude the transept modified form without increasing their tender

in
a

All things considered that was notably generous gesture actually

.
;
a

the contract was later adjusted cover the additional cost Moreover
to

,
.

since the Commission was not yet chartered

as

corporate body Fox

,
a

and Henderson agreed no firmer legal basis than Lord

on

proceed
to

Granville personal word that the contract would be signed due

in
's

course Agreement finally came July 26th four days later Fox and
on

;
.

22
 Henderson took over the site , although the contract was not actually
signed until October .
A great many pages could be filled with startling statistics
about the Crystal Palace. Probably to us in the 20th century the most
extraordinary fact is that from August 1st , when Charles Fox began
a seven -weeks session of 18 -hour days on the personal preparation of
the working drawings, * to May 1st , 1851 , when the Exhibition opened
in the completed structure was but nine months . That is a period
more usually associated with human gestation than with the prolonged
campaigns of design and construction that have been required for the
flimsy pavilions of modern international expositions . The barest di
mensions may be given to indicate how great was the feat , not of
building the Crystal Palace at all ( which was great enough ) , but of
building it within the available time before the Exhibition was due to
open . The main area covered was 1848 feet by 408 feet , but an addi
tional area 936 feet by 48 feet extended along much of the northern
side . The main building rose in tiers , the second tier 264 feet wide and
the third 120 feet , to a height of three storeys , all covered with Paxton
roofs . High above the whole rose the barrel roof of the transept, fur
rowed likewise , some 135 feet from the ground at its crown . Of the
amounts of materials of various sorts used , one figure alone will serve
to give an impressive idea of the relation of the operation to the Eng
lish building industry of the Victorian age : the sheet glass , of which
Chance Brothers contracted to supply 900 ,000 square feet , was equal
to a third of all English glass production less than a decade before .
The lifting of the glass tax in 1845 had , however , enormously stimu
lated production in the previous five years . Beside this the more than
3 , 000 columns and the 200 miles of wooden sashbars seem less phe
nomenal . The cost of enclosing 33 , 000 , 000 cubic feet works out at a
little over a penny a cubic foot ; or , considering that the space was (as
it were ) merely rented from the contractors for some fifteen months ,
the rental was at the rate of less than a halfpenny a year per cubic
foot.
The three men primarily responsible for this marvelous feat of
rapid and economical space - enclosure were officially recognized at the
time as Paxton , Fox and William Cubitt , the chairman of the Build - 7
ing Committee ; for these three , along with Cole , were knighted in
1852 for their services . Paxton was the actual “ engineer - architect ” of
the building without a doubt , despite his lack of status in either pro
* the separate drawings were furnished , Henderson planned the production
As of
each the various components and got it under way , an equal feat of engineering
of
prowess .
fession ; Fox ( with his partner Henderson ) was the contracting engi
neer ; and Cubitt represented the interests of the corporate
client . As we shall see, one other man who received no knighthood ,
Owen Jones, also deserved major credit . He was responsible for most
of the surface decorative aspects of the Palace , particularly the col
our , something that we can apprehend today with less assurance than
the ingenuity of the structure and the elegant detailing of its compo
nents . Barry also made an important if minor contribution , whether
or not he deserves credit also for the arched transept ; for he suggested
the multitude of flags of all nations which enlivened the otherwise
rather flat and monotonous skyline.
In Paxton 's first sketch made on the Midland Railway blotter
( inside front cover ) the essential principles of both the design and of
the construction are clearly adumbrated ; even the ultimate arched
transept is perhaps implicit in the arched trusses that were provided
under the flat roof of the nave . Here , and in the preliminary design
published in July , the linking of the exterior piers is definitely arcade
like , as on the prototype Lily House. For there are capitals at the
springing of the arches and no vertical elements continue upward ,
through the spandrels . In the executed design the curved members
forming the spandrels are treated as braces and the column sections
extend to the top of each storey , enframing transom panels , each of
which is reënforced with a central circle recalling the braces below .
These braces terminate in arbitrary modillion - like curves against the
columns , each provided with a slight scroll enrichment . But the char
acter of the executed “ capitals ” , which are but moulded thickenings
of the octagonal shafts at the transom level , was as clearly determined
by the casting process as was the diagonal cutting off of the sharp
corners at the top of the spandrel openings and around the circles in
the transoms. This was done in order to avoid as far as possible the
small concave “ radii ” ( to use a technical term ) which are a source of
weakness in castings . (Why it is not done at the base of the spandrels
also , I cannot explain . )

There are many parallel refinements in the design of other com

ponents of the structure . Note the differences of detailing , for exam
ple , between the longitudinal lattice - girders , each cast in one piece ,
which supported the galleries and the much stronger trusses that car
ried the greater weight of the roof ; the latter were built up to the
same dimensions and in the same lattice pattern out of cast and
wrought elements . Then there is the graceful and expressive exten
sion of the corners of the flanges by which the separate sections of the
interior columns were joined together ; that was to provide clearance

24
for the wrenches , both when the bolts and nuts that held them
together were tightened at assembly and when they would need to be
loosened at disassembly .
Such detailing is based on direct knowledge of the production
methods that would be used for the separate parts in the factory , and
also on a long experience with assembly procedures such as Paxton
had never really had . This detailing , therefore , must be considered an
important part of the contribution of Fox and Henderson to the
design . The actual appearance of the original components of the
Palace could be studied ( until its unfortunate destruction in 1947 ) at
the Midland Station at Oxford . This was built by Fox and Hender
son , but without benefit of Paxton ' s collaboration , in 1851 just as the
Palace was reaching completion . Their bid was so much under any
other builder 's , it is surprising other complete stations were not built
in the 50 ' s entirely on the Crystal Palace system . There at Oxford
was a sample of the original Crystal Palace construction almost as
authentic as the great monument at Sydenham which burned in 1936 .

by
Being modest in size , moreover , design was not confused any
of its

attempt outbid the splendours the Hyde Park original Sample

to

.
bays this station should have been salvaged for provided
at

of

least

it
;

of
fascinating contrast the Ruskinian ironwork the court the
to

in
a

University Museum
of
Deane and Woodward 1855 59

-
.
's

The more carefully one studies the working drawings the more
convinced one becomes that the refinements design the Crystal of
in
its

Palace could be studied until unfortunate destruction 1947 in

or in
(

)
purely arbitrary touches
as

the little scrolls below the spandrels

at

the rather Saracenic cresting the roof edges both probably contri
,

butions Owen Jones For this new refinement evidently depend

of

is
.
on

ent not the traditional architectural designer

an
of

sensitivities
,

Jones retrospective background training but almost entirely

of

and
,
's

the producing engineers p comprena

peculiar comprehension once thorough
at
on

eculiar
,
,'
of

of

processes
processe manufacture components and
ofof

and subtle the

the the
the
of
,

the most dis

of
of

of

of

the rapid methods

most convenient and rapid methošure assembly and
—

and
of

assembly also should not be forgotten those components

on

should the
so
,, noit
it

, -
by

site means certain however that Paxton had nothing

It

in to
,
is
.

contribute here The ridge and furrow roof was completely his
.

large unlapped glass plates of size

of

he

vention from the use had

,

a
(

first persuaded Chance Brothers produce for the Chatsworth Con

to

the gutters scooped out

of

servatory more than decade before

to
a

of the furrows Above all the

at

the wooden members the bottom

,
.
by

sashbar cutting and finishing machines which the 200 miles and
,
of -

more wooden members were prepared receive the glass had been
to

,
25
 developed by and first used in 1838 at Chatsworth .
him The other
machinery for drilling and punching the iron parts at the site
used
was presumably Fox 's ( or Henderson 's ) adaptation of existing fac
tory tools ; but its presence at the site indicates a most elastic rational
ization of serial production , toward which Paxton may well have ma
terially contributed .
The most extraordinary aspect of the whole operation was what
today is called the “ production - engineering ” or what might also , in
military terminology , be called the “ logistics ” . For this tremendous
edifice was built - and could only have been built within the available
time — by a remarkably tight organization of the supply of materials
and the sequences of assembly . This was the equivalent , conceptually ,
of modern line - production in factories as developed for such com
plicated machine products as automobiles . A succession of teams of
specialized workmen followed one another along the length of the site
— foundation -layers, column - setters and so forth , down to the final
groups of sashbar -carpenters, glaziers and painters . Parallelly , sub
assembly teams built up on the site such larger components as the
fabricated trusses for the roofs and the laminated wooden arches for
the transept . All this implies a very nearly perfect correlation of the
sources of supply . As anyone who has been concerned with modern as
sembly procedures well knows , a slight shortage in one minor part,
say a particular size of nut , can bring the whole line to a stop . Exclu
sive contracts with the major suppliers — as with Chance Brothers
and Fox and Henderson ' s own prime responsibility for the manufac
ture of the metal components doubtless simplified the problem . But
the Commission had no such authority as a modern Government de
partment has even in peacetime ; the mere organization of the labor
forces must have required very exceptional talent on someone ' s part .
There was , for example , only one brief strike and apparently never
any shortage of specialized workmen .
It is tempting to continue with a discussion of the processes used
in building the Crystal Palace. The degree of their correlation is rare
ly equalled in the erection of 20th century skyscrapers and factories ;
their improvisation in 1850 was of the order of Henry Ford ' s princi
pal contribution to 20th century industrial methods. But it is more
important here to consider the effect of the general procedures of
construction on the resultant edifice . The utmost standardization of
parts was obviously essential to rapidity of erection ; this standardiza
tion merely carried further the modular planning and design implicit
in Paxton 's thinking for fifteen years , but it did carry it further . The
metal parts , at least , must require as little selection as possible in order

26
 properly together and fabricators the designers

at
the site

fit
to

'
'
of
achievement maximum interchangeability this respect even

in

—
more important because the components were be taken down and

to
production engi

of
later reassembled elsewhere implied real feat

a
neering Rationalization this order that had been attained by 1850

of
.

as
only few special products such

of
the case clocks and small
in

a
arms Yet the visual results such standardization were more signifi

of
.

cant architecturally than amazing rationale Modern building

its

in
.
dustry actually uses for most types construction far fewer factory

of
made parts than did the Crystal Palace hence the visual results

of
,
standardization are by no means commonplace even yet

.
Some refinements detailing have been noted already but the
of

,
all

the building must now still re

of

be
over effect considered for

it
,
-

mains respects unique worthwhile attempt

It
some also

to
to
in

is
, , .
imagine how the linear patterns which can be apprehended clearly

so
the contemporary woodcuts were modified their impingement
on in

in
the observer by Owen Jones much debated application

of
the
's

“
the decorative painting Of this
as
of

science colour he called

it
in
"

.
(

neither the contemporary photographs nor Dickinson and Baxter

. 's

's
colour prints provide completely persuasive evidence These visual
documents are certainly attractive but can they be considered accu
,

rate the extent that the line cuts undoubtedly are For there was
to

?
then no panchromatic film for use the camera and the colours
in

in
,

the prints even originally correct have faded unevenly

as
an
exami
, if
,

,
the same group immediately makes plain
of

of

nation several even

,

.
The predominant pale blue distance colour must have en
—
a
-

hanced the feeling

of

uncircumscribed space more than the colour

prints indicate As modern factory the view down the nave and
—
in
a
.

fortiori diagonal views the ground level the upper gal

or
on

from
a

no

leries which float space with connection with the outside shell
in

must have seemed like view forest For such views would have
in
a

.
by

been effectively unbounded visible walls yet measured and hence

,
by

the intersecting three dimensional grid

of

defined horizontal and

-

vertical coördinates provided by the iron structure The exhibits were

.
or

like furniture
or

room bushes wood for that matter like

in

—
in

,
a

machine tools factory this the prints both coloured and uncol
in

;
a
-

oured illustrate quite clearly They broke up the foreground irregular

.

and also masked the remoter distances The strong red

ly

the un
on
.

the girders condemned by most contemporary critics was

of

derside
,

repeated behind the railings the gallery and

of

the free standing

in

screens against which many

of

the exhibits were set certainly seems

it
;

most effective the colour prints For provides phrasing

of

sharp
in

it
.

a
27
accents in the Turnerian vagueness of the general light blue of the
metalwork , relieved otherwise only by the yellow on the diagonal faces
of the columns and on some of the moulded details . The most frequent
criticism of the colour was that it was more appropriate to wood than
to metal . But one of the dreary or horrid alternatives suggested by
hostile critics ( as more appropriate to metal ) was a brown - black , like
rusted cast iron , with golden yellow accents , surely a rather grim pro
posal!

its
The Palace seems to have framed unbelievably heterogeneous
contents with more grace and ease than might have been expected

.
They ranged from Hiram Powers white marble Greek Slave

to ”,
-
's

“
coy her velvet tent up the largest power machinery and down
in

of to
,

the most minute objects precious stones and metals The Crystal

.
Fountain exhibited by Osler Birmingham the few major
of

of
one

is
have been worthy

of
exhibits that seems the Palace itself But the
to

.
carriages were miracles of functional grace and elegance easily sur

,
their perfection
of

of
passing form and expression the details the
in

surrounding metal structure which highly praised Yet the

have so
I

.
new spacial effect was most fully appreciated before the contents were
installed and again after they were removed Of this effect the Mid
.

Oxford small and low could give idea but the

no
land Station
,

,
in

;
of

entirely arched
at
of

nave the second version the Palace Sydenham ,

like the original transept certainly gave some impression that por
of
,

the Hyde Park edifice the portion most generally appreciated

of

tion
,

by contemporaries see front cover

.
(

Hyde Park Colonel Sibthorp

In

had given scale the

of to
,

elm
's

transept The vaults traditional architecture not

to

speak
of

the
,
.

the finest existing ferro vitreous structures had pre

of

arched roofs
,
-

pared the way for aesthetic apprehension

of

tall spaces that were semi

cylindrical overhead The length was not great but what the interior
so
, .
at

facades the ends with familiar spoke pattern their vast

in

lu
a

nettes could provide bounding screen terminate the view The

to
,

.
as

as

transept was also much higher absolutely than the nave well
relatively undoubtedly extreme vertical dimensions
as

mountains
in
,
, ;

gorges are more awe inspiring than extensive horizontals

or

as
in
,
-

plains and deserts

at

least they were Victorians whose sensibili

. to
—

ties had been trained the Romantic Age

in

Spacially speaking the interior

of

at

the great wartime factory

,

the Crystal
of of

Willow Run near Detroit which most like the nave

is
,

Palace boring most people while the concourse the Grand

to
,

;
is

Central Station New York for all the solidity of its painted sky
in

of ,

is
,

not Although the character the space was more novel other parts
in
.

28
of the Palace , the achievement of space - creation was probably great
est in the transept . That is why it would be of interest to establish
finally whether or not the original suggestion for it was Barry 's. Cer
tainly his towered project for the second version of the Palace was
extremely unhappy and inappropriate to the tenuous materials ; but
that does not prove that his architect 's eye may not have originally
imagined the feature which crowned Paxton 's first Palace , however
much his idea was scaled down in execution .
The detailing, down to the giant electric clock hands which uti
lized the twelve spokes of the lunette to tell the time, was due to the
home- team of Paxton , Fox and Jones , and more specifically to
the last . Equally distinguished is the simple but frankly decorative
treatment of the staircase and gallery railings , which I suppose must
also be Jones 's . But I cannot leave the edifice which is generally
considered the greatest achievement of Victorian England without
a final comment of my own on the diagonal tying in the bays near the
transept . This was, of course , primarily structural and not decorative :
in intention , but never before nor since was it used with such immacu - :
late elegance and clean functional expressiveness . These almost invisi
ble lines defined still more precisely than the heavier structural mem
bers the subdivisions of the three - dimensional space around the “ cross
ing.”
But contemporary comment is more significant , both because
those who made it really had a chance to experience the Palace many
times , and because on the whole they were more capable of clear ex
pression than 20th century critics such as myself . For we are today
more befuddled than strengthened in our appreciation of the Palace
by our knowledge of how inadequately its promises have been realized
in later architecture . We are also at a loss , as with any destroyed
building, to determine how far our judgment of quality
its

raised
is

lowered by the character

of
or

the available visual documents this

in
—
or

case almost everything that the historian critic could ask for
.

Even among contemporary comments mere uncritical praise

is

hardly worth quoting The blanket condemnations Pugin Rus

of

or
.

kin men instinctively unsympathetic the whole mid 19th century

to
,

-
as of

industrial age
of

which the Palace was the finest flower are also

,

little interest comments its real effect Yet paradoxically

on

for railway stations some

as

Ruskin did have for this structure

,

approximation
of

kind 20th century functional aesthetic

of
a

:
“

grant such things many prosaic virtues just

he

was ready
to

so
to

they made no attempt whatsoever

as

long enter the sacred realm

to

of Architecture But there were many others who could see

at

least
"

.
”

29
 vaguely what Paxton and his associates were adding to existing con
cepts of architecture , even though they were quite unable to advance
those new concepts in their own work .
In 1851 the Royal Gold Medal in architecture was, on the recom
mendation of the Royal Institute , presented to T . L . Donaldson
and not in this year, nor in any other , to Paxton or to Fox , it might
be noted . Relatively unproductive as an architect , Donaldson is not
a major name to posterity . But he was one of the doyens of the
profession in 1851 . He had , moreover , been head of the only school
( that at University College, London ) where anything like a profes
sional curriculum in architecture was offered in Early Victorian Eng
land . He was also a member of the Royal Commission 's Building
Committee and seems to have shared with Brunel the onus of respon
sibility for the fated project which Paxton happily super
ill

had

so
-

's
the tribute that Donaldson paid the Crystal Palace ac

to
seded

in
;

cepting his Gold Medal

To
therefore the more remarkable

it
is

him

as he .
of

was the most successful edifice modern times and was careful

;
“

”
as

note that much credit went Fox and Henderson Paxton

as to

to

to

of ,
well mention the major contributions
as

of
Owen Jones and
to

his Committee colleague Barry He did not bring Wil

of
the name

in
,

I .

responsibilities
at

liam Cubitt all however and suspect that Cubitt

,

's
had been largely nominal financial character
or

in

More critical comment can well

be

taken from anonymous

the Ecclesiologist For that was the organ clique an
of

of
writer
in

a
.

fanatical specialists Gothic church architecture who were least like

in

one might have supposed

ly

be even interested ferro vitreous

to

in
,

-
building exept for their subsequent commission
of

1853 for model

a
of -

cast iron When considering the Palace architectural

as
an

church
!

work the magazine critic repeated Ruskin strongly negative opin

,

'
's

: s

but with more graciousness and balance Lost

at
ion admiration
in
,

the unprecedented internal effects engineer

he

found that
it
is
, ”

ing the highest merit and excellence but not architcture

of
—

—
”

tenable critical position even today Yet

as

say
of

course
to

which
is
,

,
a
-

he did that form wholly wanting indicated considerable visual

is
,

more probable that the writer had

or
as

insensitivity very limited

is
of ,

definition what constitutes form architecture The complaint

in

.
"
“

that infinite multiplication ar

of

destructive the Palace claim

is

to
's
“

chitectural merit was not without perspicuity For there certainly

,
”

serious aesthetic argument not only concerning the

, of

lies the crux

,
a

Crystal Palace but concerning the claim ofmuch the best building
of

Recog
of

be

the present century architecture the fullest sense

to

in

nizing however that the Palace was temporary structure the Eccle
,

,
a
30
.)
1
a siologist 's reviewer felt that its virtues were parallel to those of archi
ture , as might be those of an oriental monarch 's tent; but architecture,
by their definition (and by many others ' — today one would perhaps
+ rather put it monumental architecture ) must have relative perma
1 nence .
=
P What I have said earlier about the qualitative similarity of
the space in the nave of the Palace to that in modern factories was
= acutely , if negatively , recognized ( at least in one aspect ) by the critic 's
! remark that the Palace was not an “ organic whole ” . He pointed out
that it could be enlarged or reduced in size without any real effect on
its visual qualities . “ Organic ” has several meanings in relation
60

.I
1 to architecture ; in some ways — in terms of process — the Palace

1 is one of the most completely organic edifices ever planned and built .
But visually the critic was right ; the Palace was not , like a Butterfield
= church or a Frank Lloyd Wright house , an “ organic whole ; ” rather ,

= like a Kahn factory, the Palace was extensible or retractible without

essential modification of character . It is sad to note , finally , that the
= Crystal Palace actually discouraged , at least temporarily , the Ecclesi
=
ologist 's bold “ dreams of erecting churches , or at least clerestoreys , of
iron and glass .”
3
A correspondent wrote into the magazine, after this article had
appeared , with warmer praise . He found the “ skill , ingenuity , and tal
daring though not enduring
its

ent in that
as

as
construction
so
,

,
.
.
.

of the most glorious mediaeval piles the construction almost invari

is
:
its

of
ably real and all beauty depends the development that con
on
,

the most sophisticated

of

struction italicize favorite catchword

a
I
.”

by
of

criticism the day was probably introduced James Fergusson

it
—

and perhaps indicates his authorship this letter This writer pre
of

.
of

ferred the tall proportions the transept the squat proportions

to

the nave and also regretted that the roof was invisible from the
of

exterior except over the transept both were understandable reac

;

tions which might easily

be

echoed today
.

He
of

the success
on

then commented with enthusiasm Owen

Jones polychromy Over all polychromy was major critical excite
a
-
.
's
of

ment the moment even though was not yet generally accepted
it
,

as

as employed extensively
on

desirable nowhere had the

so

been
it
;

Palace Looking down the nave the ends seemed disappear

to

in
a
.

light blue fog the writer noted because the handling

of

of

the various
,

triumph
of of

colours This could be considered failure architec

or or
a

a
.

tural expression according one acceptance rejection the Pal

to

of 's

ace revolutionary new concept interior space

's

31
 The writer concluded that the “ forte of the [ iron ] style is clearly
not in beauty .” This is surely true enough if beauty be associated , as
it had been in the 40 's , chiefly with the stone architecture of 14th
century England and of cinquecento Italy . But this critic actu
ally preferred what he called “ reality ” in architecture. To distinguish
“ reality ” from “ beauty ” , as he did , was equally necessary in order to
appreciate Butterfield ' s revolution of these same years in masonry
church -architecture .
The foreigners who came to London for the Great Exhibition
were if anything , more enthusiastic about the Crystal Palace than
,
the British . The Palace itself was for them the chief exhibit . Where
as to the British , who wanted to sell their goods, the fact that the tech
nical gadgetry of the Yankees and the traditional artistic taste of the
French as illustrated at the Exhibition were showing up their own
best efforts in several departments of “ art - industry ” was understand
ably disturbing and tainted somewhat their appreciation of the edifice
that housed the exhibits . Reichensperger was a German ecclesiologist
— or at least a learned gentleman whom the Ecclesiologist accepted
as a leader in their special , rather purely Anglican , “ science ” . He was
quoted as finding the “ total effect of the interior magic and almost in
toxicating ,” even though the “ high sense of the beautiful ” was over
looked . Paxton , he felt , had executed his task as an engineer rather
than as an architect , providing a tent not a building . ( Functionally ,
it might be remarked , this was obviously the most sensible thing to do
for an exposition hall . )
The eulogies have at least been sampled . Fame, the ancients ' re
ward for virtue , assured the Palace an intangible immortality in the
minds and even the hearts of men . When the end of the Crystal Pal
ace' s fifteen months of life came in the summer of 1852 , the other re
wards of grace it received could only hearten the most pious Christians
and yet also confirm the less religious consolations offered by Victori
an biologists . Although the attempts to achieve perpetuation of the
Palace on its original site failed and the original contract with Fox
and Henderson to disassemble the structure was therefore carried
through , the components of the Palace rose from the dust of Hyde
Park to physical reincarnation on the Sydenham heights in the years
1852 -54 . Yet there was something a little unsatisfactory about this
resurrection of the flesh . The afterlife in the southern suburbs , filled
though it was with the susurration of palm trees and with adolescent
voices singing the Allelulia chorus , was increasingly inglorious . I
never saw it myself , but in late photographs the Sydenham Palace
suggests less a resurrected body according to the Christian doctrine

32
than one of those embalmed corpses of heroes which cultures more un
reservedly materialistic than the Victorian expose to the public gaze .
By the time the Palace was finally cremated by accident in 1936 , the
odor of sanctity had , I judge , given place to something distinctly
mustier ; but the final fiery obliteration of the physical integuments of

Its
spirit today

its
the Palace revived fame certainĪy more respected

is
.
than ever
.

Concerning the afterlife the Crystal Palace was really the

of

it
,
agnostic biologists who had the better argument Superiority

of
the

.
that aspect even actual superior
ityof

inheritance sometimes this

in or
in
—

,
the parent was evidenced numerous early progeny even
to

,
–

though the strain miscegenation

deteriorated
within through

a
few years Today vast array
modern buildings claim descent

of
a
.

less genealogical plausibility

as
from the Palace with more
or

from
or ,

,
Charlemagne William the Conqueror Many 20th century archi
a

.
tects might with more reason introduce Paxton into their professional
names than John Buonarroti Papworth did that Michelangelo

of

.
Beside descendants the Palace also had its brothers and sisters All
,

.
except the little station
at

Oxford were still born but they are inter

,
-
esting none the less
of

of
illustrations the limitations Paxton
as
-

an -

's
as

imagination engineer architect

-

For Paxton seems have readily accepted the theoretical dis

to

tinction that his critics made between ferro vitreous and other sorts
-
at
of

he

architecture was restoring for

In

the church Baslow which

,
.
at

his duke the very moment the Palace was erecting his respect for
,

its original 13th century style and his handling the ritual arrange
of

ments met with the full approval the Ecclesiologist At Lismore

of

in
.

England and
at

at

Ireland for the duke Mentmore Ferrières

in
,

in

rather his collaborating kinsman

or

France for the Rothschilds

he
—
,

accepted the most conventional standards the age

of

Stokes
—
G

H
.

for eclectic architectural design stone But where Paxton thought

in

the articulated and translucent structure the Crystal Palace appro

of

priate
as

were certainly not for the restoration however dras

it
—

Derbyshire churches and Irish castles nor for the palatial

of

tic
,

,
of

housing international financiers his mind remained creative

—

Moreover these later ferro vitreous projects he was now perhaps

in
,

more creative architecturally than technically since the major techni

,

cal problems of the new building method had already been solved
.
of

the wave general enthusiasm

of

that greeted the opening

In

the Crystal Palace was natural that Paxton should be called upon
it

of

structures Graciously
he

provide designs for all sorts complied

to

33
with most of these requests and on some occasions he seems to have
come forward with unsolicited suggestions . He submitted in 1851 a
project for roofing the court of the Royal Exchange with iron and
glass , something actually not accomplished until much later. He sup
plied a design for a large glass -and - iron covered exercise room ( 200
feet by 72 feet ) to be attached to the City of London Hospital for
Diseases of the Chest at Victoria Park ; rather over - elaborate in de
tail, it was technically remarkable for the inclusion of a scheme of what
we would today call “ air - conditioning ” . This was never built .

The elaboration of the exterior in this project may have been in

response to various adverse comments on the simplicity of the design
of the Crystal Palace itself. Several such were reported in the Builder
in 1851 by James Edmeston . An unnamed Dutch architect , also
quoted in the Builder , claimed with some justice that ferro- vitreous
construction lacked surface relief and further urged that more should
be made of the opportunities iron provided for adding inexpensive
cast ornament to structural members . Even C . R . Cockerell , when he
came to " the vast importance of iron . . . . in its artistic application ”
in his sixth Royal Academy lecture in 1852 , stated ex cathedra ( and
effectively in answer to Ruskin ) that it was “ an error to suppose the
material incapable or unworthy of decoration ” .
Since iron -casting offered endless opportunities for mass -pro
duced decoration as well as for innovations in basic structure , the sim
plicity and functional elegance of the earliest ferro - vitreous buildings
were soon rejected . The rising horror vacui of mid - century taste ( so
evident in the contents of the Exhibition ) led to excessive elaboration
of detail in iron structural elements as the later 50 ' s and 60 ' s devel
oped a more self- conscious phase of Victorian style . More accurately ,
the engineering line of structural development and the line of archi
tectural exploitation , conceived largely as a matter of decorative elab
oration , now took separate paths. The divorce between the two was
not serious before the Palais de L ’Industrie was built for the Paris
International Exposition of 1855 . But that edifice reverted to the hy
brid principle of the Committee 's scheme for the London edifice . The
rather able railway - station architect F . A . Cendrier surrounded the
engineer Viel' s bold metal and glass shed with masonry walls , initiat
ing a new and less coherent mode for exposition buildings . Even the
handling than Fox
its

metal work was heavier and less advanced in

the ma
of

and Henderson although the restrained ornamentation

,
's

sonry walls was not allowed corrupt the sternly functional forms
to
of

the interior ironwork

.

34
 In the years 1851- 54 , however , many ambitious cities in England
and throughout the world projected Crystal Palaces largely based
on the Paxton model — New York , Belfast , Dublin , Munich , Copen
hagen , and even such British resorts as Cheltenham and Stoke Dama
rel , may be mentioned . For the New York Palace, Paxton sent over
a design in 1851 . This project was for an edifice 600 feet by 140 feet

6 inches divided into a nave and two aisles . The gabled nave roof was

to be supported on principals of timber , not iron . Turrets were to rise

at the angles , as on the exercise - room project for the Victoria Park
Hospital , which this design also followed very closely in the elaborate
detailing of the exterior . The simpler interior should , however , have
been one of Paxton ' s best efforts. Coupled iron columns were to divide
the nave from the aisles ; narrow galleries would have run the whole
length at clerestorey level, and these were to be supported on span
drel -brackets similar to those which formed an arcade over the col
umns. The composition would have been more conventional than that
of the London Palace , but clearly conceived and nobly scaled through
out.
Bogardus 's scheme for the New York Palace was bolder and a
much better example of thinking in terms of " remountability ” . The
Renaissance arcading of the exterior walls of his enormous rotunda
was to consist of precisely the samemembers that were then most pop
ular in America for the fronts of cast iron commercial buildings . So
large was the diameter of the edifice that the individual components
could be straight in plan and hence readily sold to builders for use in
business structures after the Palace was disassembled : that was cer
tainly a very sound idea . Too bold even for the expansive 50 's, how
ever , was Bogardus ' s idea of roofing the structure with sheet iron sus
pended from radial rods that would follow a catenary curve down
from a tall central observatory tower to the outside walls. Even today
suspension principles in architecture are more talked about than ex
ploited at large scale . But with John A . Roebling planning to span
the Niagara River with one of his wire- cable bridges at this time, it is
not really surprising that the ingenious Bogardus should have pro
posed to utilize a similar principle to hang a roof over an enormous
exhibition hall.
The executed New York Crystal Palace in which the 1853 Ex
hibition was held need not concern us much : it cannot have been one
of the best - favored children of the London parent and an early holo
caust precluded any detailed portraiture by photography . Its blazing
end foreshadowed the ultimate destruction of the Sydenham Crystal
Palace in 1936 ; more significantly it was a warning of those great ur
ban fires of the early 70 ' s in America when the wisdom of the more

35
conservative British in not emulating Bogardus 's iron - fronted shops
and warehouses seemed to be confirmed .
Far finer than the New York Palace was that built in 1852 for
the Great Industrial Exhibition of 1853 in Dublin . This was designed
and built by John Benson of Cork , who was knighted , as Paxton had
been , on its completion . Benson was the winner of a competition in
which Deane and Woodward (also of Cork ) were second ; Richard
Turner , once more out of luck as in the London competition , was
third .

Benson 's earlier Cork exhibition building , built in 1851 - 52 , had

had wooden arches and very little structural iron . For the Dublin Pal
ace, Young and Co . of Edinburgh supplied cast iron columns , al
though Turner received the contract for the laminated wooden arched
girders closely resembling those of the transept in the London Palace.
The plan consisted of three parallel naves 425 feet long , each ending
in a half - dome. The central nave was 100 feet wide , those at the sides
being 58 feet . There were also four aisles , two between the naves and
two others along the outer edges . Each of these was 25 feet wide and
had upper galleries . The vitreous element was here even more in abey
ance than the ferrous ; only the crown of the nave roofs was filled with
glass , while the half -domes were covered externally with waterproof
cloth . Yet despite the relative solidity and opacity of the exterior, the
harmony of the 'various curved forms, particularly at the half-domed
ends, seems to have given the Dublin Palace something of the bubble
like quality of the Kew Palm Stove . Except for the simple foliate cap
itals of the iron columns, there was even less arbitrary ornament than
at Hyde Park . But the structural diamond pattern of the arched
trusses of the principal nave was agreeably echoed in the similar pat
terns of the gallery trusses and even in the design of the gallery rail
ings. This great work of Irish architecture deserves to be much better
known .

While the possibility still remained of retaining the original

Crystal Palace on Hyde Park site gigantic Winter Garden
its

as

,
a
its

Paxton prepared design for enlargement which model was

of of
a

placed He proposed
on

view inside the Palace the spring 1852

in

the building
at
of

extend the lowest level

to

each end order

to
in

form vast exedras enclosing

courts contain large sized scientific
to

-
at

exhibits Four towers were

of

have been added also each end the

to
.

original edifice these were for ventilation and also mask the chim
to
;

op

neys the heating apparatus

of

Two would be the corners

of

the
.

highest tier
of

the nave each rising two tiers more with two others
,

,
36
above the corners of the middle tier, each rising one tier more. All
this would have been carried out on the existing module and with
the identical vocabulary of construction and detail . In addition to pro
viding ventilation , Paxton evidently hoped , by thus raising the ends
according to Barry 's favorite compositional formula , to make the
whole Palace more organic in design : one fears it would have had no
such happy result but merely have confused the simple regularity of
the original scheme.

Parliament the end insisted that the site be cleared . A private

in
company was therefore formed to buy the materials from Fox , Hen
derson and Co . after their disassembly and to erect with them a per
manent exposition structure at Sydenham . The Builder published a
project by a Mr
. C . Burton for a tower 47 storeys high to be reassem
bled from the materials . ( This was before the Sydenham site was ob
tained .) No man -made structure before the Victorian period was over
was ever to reach a comparable height . Yet it was stated that Fox
and Henderson were convinced it could be safely erected ; one wonders
how they would have braced it against wind - stresses .
Actually , as everyone knows , the second Crystal Palace was the

its
work of the same men who had been chiefly responsible for first
Paxton Fox and Henderson with Owen Jones ad

as
incarnation
,

,
of

Sir William Cubitt

on

visor decoration One hears no more

.
(

.)
Barry also made suggestions for improvements the design for
to

;
“

tunately this case they were not incorporated Barry son Alfred
in in

's
his Life his father with proper filial piety that they
of

remarks
,

,
would have done much from ugliness building which
to

redeem
,
a
“

has the advantage conspicu

of

enormous scale and which must be

,

The plan proposed would

of

ous feature every view the environs

in

have had striking and even magnificent effect and one moreover
,

it ,
a

unique regret that even when rejected

its

kind Few can fail

in

to

,
.

was not allowed suggest some bolder and more artistic effect than
to

as

the existing building Superior the relative simplicity

, 's of
is

seen
in

.”

the executed Palace must seem 20th century taste without Barry
to

three pointed domes rising where the three transpts cross the nave
,

placed where they would

do

and the nine additional domed turrets

(

the most damage Paxton clean silhouette would seem

to

it
,

,
's

!)

Barry suggestions may have stimulated Paxton prepare more

to

a
's

elaborate design this superb scheme three domed pa

of

his own
of In
.

vilions were front the main line the tall nave The re
, of

stand
to

in

versed curved features that crown these domes providing piquant

an a

their bubble like transparency almost like

of

climax
to

seem echo
,
-

the Brighton Anthaeum Owen Jones was use similar oriental mo

to
.

37
tifs in his projects for a Paris Crystal Palace to be built on the
heights of St. Cloud * and for a North London Crystal Palace at
Muswell Hill dating from the end of the decade — two of the finest
of many unrealized ferro - vitreous dreams . These later designs by
Jones and his recognized position as an authority on Saracenic art
suggest that Paxton , in this alternative project , was really influenced
by him rather than by Barry . In any case this scheme represents the
culmination , on paper , of Paxton 's career as a designer of buildings
of iron and glass .* *
The idea of the continuous arched roof over the nave in the exe
cuted Sydenham Palace will have been inspired by Benson ' s Dublin
Palace , it must seem , as much as by the original Hyde Park transept.
The expression , however , is less regular ; for the arched lattice trusses ,
now of metal rather than of laminated wood , were used only intermit
tently along the nave . They therefore broke up the continuity of the
interior volume in a rather unfortunate way . In the center of the
building the roof of the main transept was carried still higher than
those of the nave and of the transepts at the ends . In all three cases
the transept ends , moreover , were buttressed by rising tiers of regu
lar horizontal construction . This treatment seems to parody the sort
of pyramidal composition which is a suitable expression of masonry
mass ; it is certainly not a very happy arrangement of the outer web
of a transparent volume. Unhappy also , as a comparable parody of
masonry design , are the broad bands ,, corresponding to the main
diamond - trussed arches inside , that form a projecting frame around
the arches of the transept ends on the garden side .
Storms and a fire during construction gave the prophets of dis
aster cause to shake their heads , but the Sydenham Palace went up
in two years and was opened in 1854 . The terraces and elaborate gar
dens extending down the slope are perhaps the most considerable ex
ample of Paxton ' s work as a gardener . But the eclectic virtuosity of
the garden design here is inferior in interest to what he did at Chats
worth , within a frame that went back to Capability Brown , or his
suburban parks at Birkenhead and elsewhere . More interesting than
the executed scheme was an earlier proposal with a considerable resi
dential area on the northwest .
* Actually several alternative designs for this ' are bound together at the Victoria and
Albert Museum . Particularly interesting is the inclusion of photographs of wooden
models of the designs set on a clay model of the terrain .

** The drawing is in the collection of J. W . Carter . It is destined to go to a muse

um or library eventually and was shown at the Crystal Palace exhibition at the
Victoria and Albert Museum this year .

38
 The water towers which rose at either end of the Palace , although
they had cone -shaped ridge - and -furrow roofs of the Paxton type,
were entirely Brunel ' s work . With their overhanging observation gal
leries , they were rather clumsy in silhouette and their heavy metal
work contrasts disagreeably with the delicacy of the Paxton - Fox
Henderson membering on the Palace. From a distance , however , they
were not ineffective vertical accents .
Various courts ” , illustrating
“ past styles of architecture ,
were set up the ground floor of the Palace in the side aisles . Owen
on

Jones , Matthew Digby Wyatt, E . M . Barry and others were respon

sible for these , not Paxton . They had no connection at all with the
ferro-vitreous architecture around and above them , indeed their very
presence must seem to us an anomaly today . But Jones , Wyatt , and
.--
.
all

even young Barry gave evidence later that they understood quite

;
well the visual possibilities Paxton ferro vitreous style Hardly
of

at ”.
"
's
covered market was now proposed home
or

, or
glazed arcade
a

Mammm
Crystal Palace construction

or
abroad but what
of
was said be
to
in it

”
more strikingly the modern English style style not all rep

at
,

;
a
“

”
resented the Architectural Courts
in

Wherever ridge and furrow roofs were used

Paxton

as
,

in
-

-
's

much railway station work the relationship the original Palace

to

be is
,

direct for the device was protected by patent Such things may all
,

considered legitimate descendants the Hyde Park edifice

of

the

in
first generation The Oxford Station
of

Fox and Henderson that has

, .

been mentioned however and smithy that they built the Ports at
,

mouth Navy Yard

or

1852 whether not these actually incorporated

in

actual materials from the Hyde

as

the latter was expected

do
to

—
--

Park structure are siblings rather than children the original

of
,

Crystal Palaces and actually senior that which survived down into
to
at

our own day Sydenham

.

39