Ralph Cowan’s ECA Projects

Womersley’s extension plans for the ECA were by no means the first. Proposals to extend and enhance the ECA go back as far as 1950²⁶. In 1954, a veritable list of the ‘Who’s who’ of Local architects who might design these extensions was sent to the ECA Secretary J.R. Brown by Alex Steele, Edinburgh City Architect²⁷. This list of fourteen architectural practices mainly based in Edinburgh included firms with long remembered reputations, such as Leslie Graham, Burnet Tait and partners, Neil and Hurd, Rowand Anderson, Kininmonth and Paul, and Basil Spence²⁸. Steele reported it wasn’t an easy list to compile and believed that he felt any extension work should be done by a firm with connections to the ECA generally; however the list didn’t take into account any architects within the school itself, although it did include two members of the board of Governors, J.A.H. Mottram and Ian. G. Lindsey²⁹. As head of ECA Architecture department, Ralph Cowan (b.1917) wrote a letter to principal Lyon in May 1955 proposing an extension to the East of the original building³⁰. Despite serious complaints of the quality of facilities from visiting representatives from RIBA in 1958 of the ECA’s facilities in this field, little progress was made³¹. In 1960, Principal Robert Lyon and Cowan concluded that the School itself had more than enough internal expertise to plan a new school for architecture³². Architectural students would be given nominal fees as draftsmen, staff would be paid agreed fees outside of teaching duties and complementary departments could design, murals, sculptures, ceramics and even furnishings³³. This was similar to what had been previously achieved at the Architecture extension completed at Cambridge (1959) which was conceived as a “live studio project” including staff design involvement³⁴. Cowan’s appointment as school Architect was confirmed³⁵. Sketch plans were submitted fairly quickly in 1960 to the Town Clerk for planning permission on 1 March 1960³⁶, Figure.11 and a programme of work for preparation of schedules, surveyors work and finished drawings was also drawn up around the same time³⁷. The working plans by Cowan were finalised and construction was to last 15 months³⁸. Figure.12 Cowan set up a practice, Ralph Cowan and Associates at 7 Graham Street, off Lauriston Place. Surrounding properties such as the Chalmers Church and adjoining hall on the corner of West Port and Lady Lawson street were bought for £10500 in late 1964³⁹. Figure.3 The fact that the College offered to let the Parishioners continued use of the site for two years highlights the speculative nature of buying these sites as and when they arose⁴⁰. Even with these purchases, the need for space remained, and the neighbouring Royal Infirmary offered rooms for College use⁴¹. The scheme encompassed the Vennel and parts of West Port. By this point building of the new Architecture School had begun at the end of Graham Street⁴². Figure.13. Completed in 1962 the Architecture School was a modern building with concrete cladding with what the Buildings of Edinburgh describes as an “Impressive tower of studio glazing seen from the West Port⁴³”. This modern concrete and glass unit contrasted somewhat with the red sandstone main building by J.M. Dick Peddie of 1909⁴⁴. Figure.14 The full development plan was written by mid 1965 and two more drafts would be amended and completed before March 1966, based on projected enrolments for the years 1973-74⁴⁵. Figure.15 A report of the specific needs of the school of Town and Country Planning also was released in October 1965.

While we can start to see Cowan’s vision for the ECA, it may be pertinent to note that the ECA was not the only educational institution with major plans for a place within Edinburgh’s built environment. A meeting at St Andrews House on the 18 October 1965 between Edinburgh University, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh Corporation, Scottish Development Department, George Heriots Trust, and ECA highlights just how audacious some of these plans actually were⁴⁷. This meeting was primarily to hear the newly created Heriot Watt University’s vision for its future, including a notion to buy up all the properties between Guthrie Street and the west end of the Grassmarket, with talk of demolition, the building of large slab blocks and raised pedestrian walkways⁴⁸. While these plans were quickly dismissed at the time⁴⁹, contextually they may not be quite as outlandish as they would seem in retrospect, especially when considering the scale of development proposed for Edinburgh and the parallels that can be drawn to the scheme we will look at by Peter Womersley for the ECA.

Womersley’s Scheme?

The first time Peter Womersley met the Extensions and Maintenance Subcommittee the embryonic idea of his overall plans was already being formulated, though surprisingly the suggestion of a grand idea actually came from T.T. Hewitson, the Corporation Planning Officer, who suggested enlarging the site to include north of West Port, going as far as King Stables Road⁶¹. Encouraged to be ambitious, Womersley presented he idea of building with bridges, creating an interconnected megastructural campus that would span roads and spread from the original site on Lauriston Place all the way to the west of the Grassmarket⁶². This would seem like a prudent idea considering Womersley talked with representatives from Edinburgh University whom were keen on utilizing the Lister Trust site on Keir Street and sections of Lauriston Place to build on for their own projects; leaving the only feasible direction for expansion the area to the north. Another possible issue with the original site was the news that Womersley had garnered from the City Chambers that Lady Lawson Street among others was to be widened⁶³. Road widening connected to the proposed Inner Ring Road can be seen in both Cowan’s College development plan and early projected designs from the Edinburgh Corporation in 1963. Figure.16 Figure.17 While the final Ring Road plans went through The Meadows and not Lauriston Place, Womersley’s plans would be based on the earlier (1963), and not later road layout.

Womersley had been proactive in his first three months as College Architect. His initial ambitions were clear, i.e. to scrap and redesign plans for the Sculpture building followed by Town and County Planning then Design and Crafts⁶⁴. Plans were agreed In principle by the Extensions Committee who said that compulsory purchase orders should be sought for the south side of West Port as far as the Salvation Army building, hoping a Comprehensive Development Area could also be earmarked⁶⁵. Following these applications Hewitson called a meeting with both Edinburgh University and ECA to discuss their respective needs as to the sites and land use in the areas already discussed. This meeting is where we get first mention of street widening projects in both Lauriston Place and the West Port⁶⁶, Figure.16 and apparent lack of direction from Edinburgh University building projects on both the Keir Street site and the Grassmarket generally. The Town Engineer had earmarked a site between Keir Street and the Vennel for a carpark to hold 300 cars for Royal Infirmary parking⁶⁸. With opposing schemes and confusion it is hardly surprising Womersley and the Planning officer had sought an alternative site for College extensions. Another meeting in September 1967 including representatives from the Corporation planning and engineering departments was held to discuss sites and possible purchases from the Corporation after acquisition of properties in the West Port to facilitate projected slum clearance and road widening projects⁶⁹ Principal Stanley Wright was keen to get assurances from the Corporation that these sites would become available to the School as Womersley was showing his sketches for proposed developments⁷⁰. This meeting is also when we get the idea that the School of Planning has been earmarked for proposed site adjacent to Lauriston Place.

At the next Extensions Meeting, Womersley presented his overall plan to the Subcommittee, stating that Hewitson had seen it and was satisfied with the concept⁷¹. Womersley has also completed sketches of his newly designed Sculpture School, now on a single floor stretching down the south side of West Port as far as the proposed bridge that crosses the street⁷². Figure.18 The plans and designs were generally well received, committee agreed to designs in principle and Womersley was asked to build a model for the Corporation planners and the Scottish Education Department (SED)⁷³. However as we will see, the plan also had allocated parking underneath the building, which later became a contentious issue⁷⁴. The architect agreed to work with the existing College surveyors and recommended Ove Arup as engineers for the projects going forward⁷⁵.

While all seems well between the Building and Extensions Subcommittee, the Corporation Planners and the College architect, opinions behind the scenes were not so positive. At a Governors’ meeting in November 1967 Her Majesty’s Inspector Gray had set out the SED’s position as unsupportive of the extended site unless the College could prove that there was no way of limiting the extensions to the original site boundaries⁷⁶. Not surprisingly in the wake of national financial cutbacks, the SED were already concerned about the possible cost implications of such an extensive building programme and required the College Surveyor to look at the costings closely⁷⁷. To further back their cost worries the SED reminded the Board of a letter that was sent earlier the same month stating the Governors’ must “exercise proper control” and not to exceed costs set out by the Secretary of State⁷⁸. While we must see this as a reflection of Government spending controls, this can also be directly related to the Cowan complaints of financial restrictions mentioned in his comments of 1965.

While it becomes clear to the reader that the SED did not seem to be on side of the larger project it is difficult to tell whether Womersley was actually aware of their opposition as the institution controlling the finances for the project. At the beginning of January 1968, Womersley had completed the Phasing plan with an attached capital expenditure report by the College surveyors Gibson and Simpson⁷⁹. Womersley’s full phased plan was presented to the Extensions Committee, including a detailed report setting out reasons for a shift in site boundaries in which Womersley detailed the public road widening schemes by the Edinburgh Corporation which affected both the West Port and Lauriston Place⁸⁰. These would hamper sticking to the original site although the Corporation plan for slum clearance on both sides of the West Port planned for 1968-70 would make way for development on these sites⁸¹. In addition to issues with the changing road layout, the architect cited how other institutions in the area would limit development, referring to The Vennel Nursery School, Fire Station on Lauriston Place and Salvation Army Building in the West Port/Grassmarket, all in the way of prospective College building⁸². These plans were generally supported by Hewitson in his capacity as Town Planning Officer, who had suggested the expanded site including the area to the north of the West Port on first meeting Womersley⁸³.

The site plan and phasing was as follows:

Coloured Phasing Plan - set out with costs by Surveyors, Gibson and Simpson

Phase1 Autumn 1968 – Autumn 1970 (Orange) Sculpture with garage underneath £500,000

Phase2 Autumn 1969- Autumn 1971 (Brown) Architecture and Town Planning £280000

Phase3 Autumn 1970- Autumn 1971 (grey) Original Building alterations £300000

Phase4 Autumn 1970- Autumn 1973 (green) Design, Lecture, Library, Union and Dining; with garage under. £1250000

Phase5 Autumn 1972- Autumn 1975 (Red) Drawing and Printing with Arch and Design; garage under. £1260000

Sixth and seventh phase (blue and yellow) 1973-77 not yet costed as out-with expenditure period…⁸⁴ Figure.19

It was decided to apply for Comprehensive Development Area status but there were two clouds on the horizon: Curbs on spending on the one hand, and restrictions imposed by the SED related to the provision of parking on the other⁸⁵. There was also discussion of the possible purchase of a large number of properties in the West Port, but no action was taken on this matter as the residents of the non-commercial properties had secure tenancies which would have rendered ECA liable to rehouse them⁸⁶.

The decision not to ask the SED for further funding for property acquisition would seem to be well timed considering on 19th of March 1968, the committee met with four delegates from the SED who promptly reminded them “it’s not propitious to spend large sums of public money at the moment.”⁸⁷ In spite of this, Principal Wright backed Womersley’s plan on the basis of projected growth that had been discussed at length between College staff and HM inspectorate⁸⁸. He also reminded the SED representatives that the lease on current rented property of The School of Planning (48 Manor Place) expired in 1972⁸⁹. At this point the SED representatives questioned the need for student hostels as part of the Kings Stables/Grassmarket development, but were reminded that senior students often worked late into the night⁹⁰. There is of course a larger argument for housing students within a university development. During this post war period the ideas of the student citizen, the urban university community and cross fertilized learning becomes a factor. especially in the newly built Universities of the early 1960s attempting to house students on site partially as they were often out of town but also to do with new ideas about the student citizen as a social and cultured citizen, and above all, an adult⁹¹. Although the ECA was a city centre site the ethos here would certainly seem to correlate, though as Stefan Muthesius points out, by the late sixties a lot of these ideas and the modern institution that bore them had been deemed “a sham”. ⁹²

Whilst student accommodation was to be questioned, another aspect was rehousing the student club for the College. One idea involved buying the Uniroyal Club in Merchiston Place after their initial search had been fruitless⁹³. Even though the College had been offered a £25000 SED grant to purchase a new student club as the existing site was in Lauriston Place and would be lost in site clearances for building the Planning School, the fund had a time limit of March 1969. It was proposed that Chalmers Church could be renovated to house the club at minimal cost, and Womersley who was asked to check the feasibility of the idea⁹⁴, but found it would be very expensive⁹⁵. Following this it was decided that 34/38 West Port was to be adapted for student club as a more economical alternative⁹⁶. However club warden, Mrs Russell, was unhappy about the location due to her often finishing late into the evening, this issue along with her unwillingness to move into one of the vacant Keir Street tenements was enough to merit the Principal, Vice principal and Secretary being asked to discuss the situation with her⁹⁷. Whilst these decisions on the site of a social club seem minor, they highlight just how many people had power to change the course of direction of planning decisions.

While some purchases of property went ahead⁹⁸, the SED’s doubt about Womersley’s scheme was still apparent. Although the SED wrote to the College on 27 May 1968 stating they would like to see the Principal’s reorganization proposals for the new Design School before they made a decision regarding Kings Stables/West Port site, the Chairman of the College Committee revealed at a meeting in June 1968 that formal application to the Corporation had been submitted to have the entire site re-zoned for cultural and educational purposes⁹⁹. This show of support from the College was reiterated the following week as Womersley himself stated he cannot go ahead with plans, even for the Design School, until the site was no longer being disputed¹⁰⁰. It was however decided that the Planning Building could be developed as its Lauriston Place/Keir Street as that site was not in dispute¹⁰¹.

While there was no direct dispute about the Lauriston and Keir Street site between the SED and the College, the site was not without its own issues, including that of controlled tenancies enjoyed by residents¹⁰². Tenancy issues would continue to be a factor that would linger. College legal advisors had approached the tenant at 48 Lauriston Place to see if she would waive her tenant’s rights in November 1968, but she would only accept an offer of suitable accommodation and this was accepted. Whilst advisors asked for authority to acquire accommodation for her and to reopen negotiations with two tenants of 23 and 29 Keir Street respectively to see whether they would accept £500 each for waiver of their rights¹⁰³. Properties on the north side of Keir Street would be offered to them but as they were eventually to be demolished too, tenants might refuse¹⁰⁴. This is perhaps a good reflection of why the SED were very wary about getting into buying up properties without Corporation assurances.

In September 1968, Womersley wrote to Brown complaining that the SED were “shortsighted” in their lack faith in the overall scheme¹⁰⁵. Saying that three schools in the next ten years may solve immediate problems but it leaves the “future beyond that as just a large blank”, the SED’s comment about not ruling out a possible future development north of West Port was just “a sop”. He urged the College to keep buying up the land north of the West Port as it was obvious to him following conversations with Hewitson that the Argyll Trust would buy up all the land down to the Grassmarket leaving the College with no hope in this area¹⁰⁷. The opposition was even more clearly described in a letter from Governor G.A. Lyall to Brown.

“I am writing you this note, wearing my hat as a Governor of the ECA … to ask if you are aware of the discussions that have been going on for a good many months now about the development –long and short term- of the ECA… Peter Womersley produced plans and a model which are the subject of discussion between the town planning department of the city and the College’s legal advisors. These plans would mean that eventually the new College building would form the entire west wall of the Grassmarket and could be of the greatest benefit to Edinburgh… I was appalled to find the SED interjecting…it did seem to me that the SED by this letter was entering into realms of civic planning which belong much more to your department than to theirs. If you are not aware what has been taking place, I should be pleased to arrange for you to see the model and anything else you wish”¹⁰⁸. Figure.20

However, as we have seen the split between the views on Womersley’s plan between the SED and the College does not seem to deter the College from being ambitious. The College Committee were in favour of the school gaining a foothold in owning the land even if north of the West Port would not be developed over the next ten years¹⁰⁹. This stance was reiterated in a meeting of the Extensions Committee in October 1968, stating they were “firmly convinced that the existing site is inadequate to meet the foreseeable needs of the College and that further representation be made to the Scottish Education Department to authorise an extension of the area for College development on to the West Port/Kings Stables Road site”¹¹⁰. The College decided they should seek early agreement with the Corporation to strengthen their argument when they next approach the SED.

At an Extensions and Building Work committee on the 2nd of October 1968, the SED decreed that only two of the three proposed buildings (Planning, Sculpture and Design) could go ahead in the next five years. In those five years one additional development might be permitted and any College development must stay within the original site boundaries due to “financial resources and existing pressures”¹¹¹. Furthermore the SED highlighted parking in another letter of mid-October 1968; while the Planning Building had been approved in principle, proposal for underground parking cars went against government policy that town centre developments should only provide parking for operational vehicles¹¹². Eventually, it was agreed parking that staff would need to bring their cars to work in order to travel to the emerging Heriot Watt campus at Riccarton, as well as for field trips with students¹¹³. This was accepted as an exception and in some ways a small and unusual win for Womersley and the College.

While the connections to Heriot Watt were fundamentally educational there were also architectural ramifications. An agreement had been finalised in 1968 that planning and architecture teaching would have direct links between the two institutions¹¹⁴. While Heriot Watt had once been keen to occupy the Grassmarket on a grand scale, their move to Riccarton created space for Womersley’s overall vision¹¹⁵. After much deliberation, Heriot Watt had been decided as the best option for collaboration in these areas opposed to Edinburgh University due to a number of factors, not least Percy Johnson Marshall’s objection to training undergraduate town planners¹¹⁶. A further factor was a concern raised by College Governor William Kininmonth that Edinburgh University would use the possible collaboration as the first step to a complete takeover of the College by the University; in no small part due to Sir Robert Matthew’s suggestion of the College’s School of Architecture becoming part of the newly created School of the Built Environment at the older institution¹¹⁷. Sir Robert Matthew (1906-1975)had a long history with the ECA having studied there well before his time in London running the London County Council’s Architect’s Department. He then returned to head the Architecture department at the Art College as well as teaching at Edinburgh University¹¹⁸. His contentious departure from ECA in 1954, to work only at Edinburgh University, may well have given Kininmonth reason to worry¹¹⁹. One could see the apparent attempt to bring the ECA’s architectural teaching under the umbrella of the University as a power-play by a man that Ralph Cowan had described as having “emanated Power”¹²⁰. Matthew was unimpressed by the hierarchy at the College, during a speech in 1954 he stated that “the College is run by Edinburgh Corporation…Governors are the Finance Committee of the Corporation… while... most of the finance comes from the SED”, adding that he though the Architecture School should be run by “academic staff like a University Department”¹²¹. It was also clear that Matthew held contempt for Edinburgh’s ‘provincial’ artistic and architectural elite¹²². One might also wonder if there might have been some personal rivalry between Kininmonth and Matthew. It could also be suggested that Kininmonth was more a part of the Edinburgh establishment than Matthew in this period, Kininmonth certainly had powerful Edinburgh based friends, such as the lord Provost¹²³. The fear of becoming subservient to the University may seem like a side track but it does highlight how the College was trying to keep itself independent and grow in a period where they may have been at risk of being swallowed up by a larger institution.¹²⁴

Whilst there was still doubt about the SED and the College coming to an agreement for the entire scheme, the Planning Building was approved for the site boundary facing Lauriston Place in October 1968¹²⁵. To the delight of Professor Travis, Head of Planning, the model and plans were presented to the Extensions Committee in March 1969.¹²⁶ Figure.21 Figure.22 Travis commended Womersley on “consulting him at each stage of the planning”.¹²⁷ The Building was to be built of rough concrete, with forced air heating and ventilation with the outside sealed for noise reduction to combat the increased traffic noise from the Lauriston Place. This highly articulated and technical building has much in common with the forms and materials of Womersley’s Nuffield Transplant unit at Edinburgh’s Western General Hospital (1968). Figure.23 While this was not the first specialized transplant unit in the country, the brief for the Planning Building certainly had similar technical aspects to the design and was to be built of a number of highly articulated concrete units and linking bridges like the Nuffield unit. However, the brief for the Planning Building remained somewhat fluid, and started to expand. Principal Wright proposed a link building between the Building and the existing Architecture Building¹²⁸. This link was to provide extra staff and student dining facilities including a kitchen extension, student common rooms, lecture halls and basement storage¹²⁹. These proposals were accepted by the Extensions Committee, and were to be submitted to the SED along with smaller proposals for general changes to the historic Main Building¹³⁰. These shifting goalposts were not unusual in a large project, but help us understand how many differing views Womersley was attempting to appease. Certainly some Governors were not convinced about the link idea, suggesting there may “be serious architectural problems in designing a building to fit in between the architecture school and the new planning school” while the functional aspects of the link building were also questioned¹³¹. It was decided that the Principal should consult the HM Inspectorate and if they agreed then Womersley would be given a remit to design and submit estimates. These views were by no means unqualified as Sir Michael Laird and William Kininmonth, both architects of notable reputations were in attendance.

The Beginning of the End?

During the second quarter of 1969, the SED confirmed that the cost of the new Planning School should be no more than £162186, yet Womersley’s first minimum estimate was £238000.¹³³ The initial reaction was for the architect, Professor Travis, Principal and Vice Principal to prepare a case for justifying an increased grant from the SED.¹³⁴ By June 1969 Womersley was confident that the variance of £60000 could be smoothed out with the SED and they would meet extra costs, as their given figure was deemed completely inadequate for this type of building.¹³⁵ It was agreed that it was advisable to try and reduce the costs; Travis and Womersley were to work together.¹³⁶ After reducing the variance from £60000 to £28000 it was suggested by Arup engineers that “by a means of direct negotiation with contracting firms, it would be possible to reduce the gap even further”.¹³⁷ However the subsequent meetings with the College surveyors did not go well. A letter of 27 October 1969, stated they had grave doubts about the soundness of design team’s current contract proposals and the cost estimates on which submissions were proposed”, and asked to be released from their contract as a result.¹³⁸ The Principal reminded everyone at this point that the Planning School was struggling for accommodation so it was imperative the job went ahead soon, and Womersley and Arup were asked to revise costs again.¹³⁹ By November Womersley had managed to reduce costs to within the SED guidelines, but the Governors were showing signs of concern and stated that they “strongly advise” all contractors to be under the “responsibility of a main contractor”.¹⁴⁰ Concerned costs may spiral Womersley was asked to redraft his proposal with help from Mr Cottier from the Board before submission to the SED.¹⁴¹ By the end of November, forms had been submitted to the SED and Cottier supported the system of working with direct and separate contracts for the trades as the College could control the contracts directly.¹⁴² This decision contravened the earlier Governors concerns and Womersley had actually suggested a Master of Works position back in March of 1969.¹⁴³ The SED had confirmed the employment of this position but their suggested pay scale was deemed inappropriately small,¹⁴⁴ probably helping instigate the need for direct contracts suggested by the Engineers,¹⁴⁵ later supported by Cottier.¹⁴⁶

At the beginning of 1970, the Link Building was still being discussed between the College and the SED. The SED referred to the letter of October 1968 which stated that the College could have only one building a year due to governmental cuts to education budgets.¹⁴⁷ Furthermore, the College would not be able to start more than two projects by 1973-74, first being the School of Planning then “one more in the ensuing five years” and the position still stood.¹⁴⁸ However, softening their stance somewhat, if the proposed link building and a second new school was less than £500000 it might be approved following submission.¹⁴⁹ While this step forward with the Link Building is one aspect of the correspondence, another related to the larger plan where Wilson stated “I should add that, on the wider question of future developments of the College generally, our understanding is that the Governors are now more sanguine than they were previously about the prospect of containing such development (other than any hostel development which may be approved) on the south side of the West Port.”¹⁵⁰

While it seems that the SED had started to draw a line under the overall plan restrictions the Corporation had not. At a Governors’ Meeting in February 1970 it was intimated that Hewitson had asked for a meeting to discuss developments north of the West Port.¹⁵¹ Hewitson had pointed out that “a determination of a plan for this area depended, to a large extent, on a decision regarding the College proposals”.¹⁵² It was agreed that Principal, Vice Principal, and Secretary Brown would meet him informally then inform SED about the possibility of acquiring some sites north of West Port.¹⁵³ This meeting was to prove enlightening as what transpired was planning applications had been received for a 500 bedroom hotel in the Grassmarket and a proposal for Argyle Securities to extend eastwards from their corner site adjacent to Lady Lawson Street along the north side of West Port.¹⁵⁴ All of these proposed developments seem to sway the Principal that the original site restricted to south of the West Port was the best course of action, proposing the Corporation should clear the area to facilitate.¹⁵⁵ Somewhat aligned with the SED stance, the Link Building which Wright had been advocating seems to have become his main focus. Accordingly, when Womersley presented his plans for the link, Wright made a number of seemingly new stipulations.¹⁵⁶ In addition to the original needs already mentioned, a private dining room, staff bar, staff buffet service and a teaching space for first year design were now to be included. These were all approved along with Womersley’s proposed designs by the committee.¹⁵⁷ Although some of these additional proposals for the link building seem like personal additions by the Principal, the lack of facilities for certain departments was obviously a key issue due to the ad hoc and piecemeal facilities for these departments.

One specific case was that of the Design School. J Kingsley Cook, Head of Design had written to Principal Wright back in October 1968 co complain about “the very serious situation” of 50 first year design students crammed into the basement of a “condemned church”, and how the students must have a “terrible impression after most having attended new secondary modern schools”, Cook felt like they were being fobbed off.¹⁵⁸ Secondary Modern Schools had often been built in a modernist style and could be considered in line with new educational theory, but would also have in some ways primed a student in new modernist taste.

Suggesting Womersley could easily design multi-purpose studios that could be shared by first year design, tapestry and weaving classes, Cook argued that Design was being side-lined in favour of other departments.¹⁵⁹ In fact, the Design School was at one point during late 1968, before the Planning school took priority, projected to be built on the site of a Corporation owned Nursery on the south of the West Port.¹⁶⁰ Following this possible but quickly deemed unlikely idea of buying up more property, Cook also suggested knocking down Chalmers Church and building a three story building on the site for first year general classes and weaving and tapestry.¹⁶¹ Following further suggestions of temporary accommodation in front of the Main Building, it was decided heads of schools were to discuss with Womersley and the Corporation would be asked about the nursery.¹⁶² At the extensions committee in February 1970, Womersley presented estimated costs and reported that due to financial restrictions the sculpture building should be built after the link as Design school would cost £750000. However, it seemed that the head of the Sculpture School was actually fairly happy with their accommodation.¹⁶³

At a Governors meeting in march 1970 the Principal explained that he had talked to Cook about Womersley’s phasing plan order, beginning with the Planning Building (£250000) then link building (£200000) and finally the School of sculpture and administration building (£300000) all which fell within the SED proposed budget.¹⁶⁴ Cook strongly recommended building a Design School using the £500000 allocated for the proposed link and sculpture buildings.¹⁶⁵ This new building proposed on the north side of Keir Street could house dining hall and other amenities that could be transferred to link building at a later date.¹⁶⁶ It was decided at this point that Planning and Link were indeed first in line.¹⁶⁷

Even though the design of the Planning Building was finalised and the costs had been agreed, by June 1970 the reductions in cost were having their inevitable effects on the designs. As we have noted Womersley’s original plan responded to projected traffic increases and road widening in Lauriston Place (as well as the South-facing orientation of the main façade) by sealing the building; there were to be no opening windows, with ventilation being supplied mechanically.¹⁶⁸ The South elevation was also to be shaded by a complex set of mouldings to help shield traffic noise, not unlike the forms of Womersley’s Nuffield Unit. Figure.23 Unfortunately, to have the building sealed, soundproofed with no opening windows and a profiled cross-section toward Lauriston Place was deemed too expensive.¹⁶⁹ The forced air ventilation system and exterior ‘pods’ were also dropped due to strict economies and the building would need to have opening windows for ventilation.¹⁷⁰ Other cost implications due to changing fire regulations included a new stair and fire exit.¹⁷¹ The similarities here to another of Womersley’s projects in the Borders are reminiscent of, yet not limited to fire regulations. Womersley’s masterplan for a series of buildings for Roxburgh County Council would be limited to one phase after the local Ratepayers Association complained of rising costs and was also victim to the requirement of additional fire escapes due to updated Safety Regulations made in 1963.¹⁷² This project had been seen by Womersley as a ‘practice saving’ scheme only to be stopped after phase one.¹⁷³ The fact Womersley saw this as his next step to building his practice must be directly comparable to the ECA project in terms of his practice expansion. Another victim of the cost cutting of the Planning Building was the architect’s specified heating system. The SED’s technical advisors “made it abundantly clear that they were against a gas heating system due to the high running costs” as gas was projected to be £4000 per year more than oil for the projected buildings.¹⁷⁴ Yet as we now know this would be a false economy due to success of North Sea gas and steep increase in oil prices within a few years.¹⁷⁵

By December 1970 the initially suggested costs had doubled and Womersley reported that negotiations had completely broken down; the deficit was £111000.¹⁷⁶ Womersley had taken it upon himself to invite James Laidlaw and Sons Ltd construction to give a quote, even though at this point he felt that a complete redesign might be the only option.¹⁷⁷

The mention of a redesign seemed to spark something of a wave of sympathy from sections of the Extensions Committee. It was commented that Womersley had a bad deal as the brief had been based on the development plan of 1966, which was already out of date against the revised building codes and ”inadvertently” Womersley had accepted the Head of the Planning School as his client and had designed the building to his “Special requirements”.¹⁷⁸ Councillor Smith then asked Womersley and Ridley from Arup if they could build within SED budget, Womersley admitted he could not guarantee but could have sketches by end of January 1971 and working drawings by construction beginning July 1971. Womersley explained the building would have to be rendered block with short spans, low ceilings and little sound insulation.¹⁷⁹ During a period where both architect and engineer left the meeting room, it was decided that there was no point in trying to negotiate with the contractors and that a new design was the only way.¹⁸⁰

While Womersley was still out of the room, it was discussed whether he should charge for a new design; a nominal £1000 fee was discussed and it was concluded that a redesign should amalgamate both the Planning and Link Buildings together; although this may have consequences regarding the SED funding.¹⁸¹ On Womersley’s return to the room he was informed about the plan to appoint a surveyor, the issues surrounding fees from abortive work and the design of the two buildings becoming one project while suggesting he should take the weekend to consider his changing role.¹⁸² Womersley informed the Committee after a few days that he would draft a new design at no cost to the College and suggested a choice of surveyor stating the previous relationship may be problematic.¹⁸³ Surprisingly, the Committee suggested otherwise and unless Womersley pushed the issue Gibson and Simpson should be offered their previous role as surveyors to the College.¹⁸⁴ Even though the original surveyors actually turned down this position, it would be difficult to see the Governors’ stance as supportive of the architect.¹⁸⁵

It seems that this may have been the beginning of the end for Womersley. By February 1971 the SED had met the Governors and the question of both Womersley and Arup’s continued employment was raised with the Extensions Committee.¹⁸⁶ However, Governor Sir David Milne asked for “just and fair treatment for the design team” whilst wary of the legal repercussions on the board of Governors. Milne also suggested a coordinator was appointed to oversee a new brief as well as assessment of funds before any decision on design team replacement was considered.¹⁸⁷ Although in some respect the College were considering their stance, Councillor Smith pointed out that the SED had made it “abundantly clear” that that they could not take the risk of working with the current design team and their contracts could be terminated at this stage with no legal recourse; Smith seemed to support the SED and pointed out that they had “gone out of their way to provide funds” to enable the Planning Building and Link be completed by 1974.¹⁸⁸ Smith emphasized his stance that this should be resolved within a month and with regard to the proposal the design team be “given another chance” he pointed out that Womersley made no promises about being on budget, even with a new design.¹⁸⁹ The meeting between the Governors and the SED representatives confirmed the SED’s position on Womersley. Hamilton reported that the department, after careful consideration, were “ firmly of the view that there ought to be a change of architect”, and could not take the “risk of this happening again” due to the 112% increase in builders fees, costs of abortive work and the fact the surveyors had warned of the costs before they handed in their notice.¹⁹⁰ Councillor Smith said the surveyors should have no blame and should be asked if they would like to change their position on returning to work for the College after a new design team was found.¹⁹¹

Through the early part of 1971 it became very clear that the SED were firmly of the opinion a new architect and engineers were required and made it clear to the College that they had not given permission to use the letters setting out their position to terminate or ask for resignation from the design team.¹⁹² The SED felt one person from the College should speak to both Womersley and Arup separately and privately.¹⁹³ Although the SED did offer help to the College, “if it became a legal issue the College would have their full support”.¹⁹⁴ The SED stance left the College in the invidious position of clearing up any issues with architect and engineers. While the SED assured the College that senior accounting would write off aborted fees,¹⁹⁵ several Governors were unhappy at the attitude in pressing for the dismissal of the design team whilst completely reticent to get involved “in any way”.¹⁹⁶ A meeting was held on 15th March to discuss payment or indeed money owed to the College by the design team. The committee was generally unhappy about the SED’s attitude in regards to Womersley and Arup and the reclaiming of fees and select non-payment due to incompetence were deemed unreasonable.¹⁹⁷ It was decided that the Governors should convince the SED Womersley should be paid in full for work done in line with RIBA directives.¹⁹⁸ Governors generally agreed that the legal team should be in charge of paying fees and any recoup should be avoided at all costs.¹⁹⁹ Furthermore, although an account had been submitted to the SED neither Womersley nor Arup had been paid anything at all towards their work on the Planning Building.²⁰⁰ It was concluded that the College Secretary be asked both to bill up until work was stopped on 23 December 1970.²⁰¹

The death knell finally tolled for the design team at a meeting of the Extensions Committee on 28 May 1971. It was decided not to go any further with the two projects. A new brief should include both Planning and link as one building, while it was formally decided to terminate the agreement with the design team due to the increase in costs.²⁰² As this was agreed, it was also decided to minute the fact that “in normal circumstances it would have been preferable for the design team to carry on with their contracts providing new designs with no further cost to the College”.²⁰³

Wasting no time, a delegation of four was chosen to represent the Governors at meeting with SED to resolve the matter of current design team. Womersley would have his last word during a meeting of the Subcommittee to employ a new architect.²⁰⁴ A letter from the president of RIAS was sent to the Board of Governors after Womersley had complained that the College was proposing to appoint another architect for the Planning Building before his fees had even been resolved.²⁰⁵ While Councillor Smith as head of both the Committee for building and the one for appointing the new architects, in reply merely explained that the Planning Building had been abandoned, Womersley’s appointment terminated and the new project was a different and larger one.²⁰⁶

J. Anthony Wheeler (1919-2013) of Wheeler and Sproson was chosen as College architect on 5 March 1971,²⁰⁷ Wheeler was chosen from a short list of six firms including such Edinburgh heavyweights as Robert Matthew Johnson-Marshall (RMJM), Reiach Hall and Partners, and Spence Glover and Fergusson.²⁰⁸ What was labelled the Edinburgh College of Art Building Developments Phase 1 brought together the previously separate Planning and Link buildings.²⁰⁹ Figure.24 When Wheeler Accepted his role he very quickly nominated the engineer Andrew G Weir from Wheeler and Sproson’s own in-house firm.²¹⁰ After trouble with the previous engineering firm this may very well have been a deciding factor in their initial appointment. Wheeler and Sproson were also an established firm with large scale projects under their belt, such as housing developments at Glenrothes, Burnisland and Cumbernauld.²¹¹ As we can see by the building that now stands proudly on Lauriston Place, Wheeler and Sproson’s designs comprised a modern flat roofed monumental L-shaped block, joined to the Cowan designed Architecture Building (now North East Studio Building). This design included some of the disputed parking facilities. The building is faced with red sandstone, a planned complementary material to its existing neighbours, i.e. the original art school and the fire station.²¹² Wheeler and Sproson’s whole plans included the revamping of the gateway and side entrance, figure.25 enclosing the site and recreating a classical typology for an educational institution by making the site a three sided but enclosed cloister. The plan also shows other prospective developments such as a main entrance and more buildings along the south side of the West Port. In 2018 the purchase of the long desired fire station completed the cloister for the ECA enclosing the site with College Buildings. Figure.26

The Wheeler and Sproson plans were quickly accepted, a full planning application was submitted in April of 1972 with development dates of Early 1973- Early 1975 with an estimated cost of £800000.²¹³ When looking at the (now titled) Hunter Building (1977) today it is still sensitive to its surroundings and is a very much a functional structure. Figure.27 While this is true, we must ask is this a reflection on Womersley’s apparent failure to complete even his first full building for the College? Let us consider what Wheeler and Sproson inherited; both Womersley’s phasing/costing plan and Ove Arup’s engineering reports are found in the Wheeler and Sproson files relating to the Lauriston building, which clearly shows Womersley and Arup’s progress was not completely disregarded.²¹⁴ Figure.19 Figure.28 The purchases for site clearances had already been made and the demolitions completed. The site was finalised and the two projected buildings had been amalgamated into one plan. Furthermore, the brief had been rewritten, parking allowances given permission and the Inner City Ring Road had been scrapped. While there were surely many details still to work out, all of these considerations had been dealt with. We can also ask ourselves, was Womersley outside of the ‘Edinburgh architectural elite’, like Matthew had complained on returning to Edinburgh? Womersley, with his small Borders-based practice may not have had the political and institutional support perhaps some others in his field did, while this can only really be a speculation without further investigation, one might wonder.

Conclusions

What becomes apparent early on in Womersley’s tenure as ECA architect is that there was a number of people to please. From the outset the SED was seemingly opposed to the expanded site. The Governors, the Heads of Departments, even the Student club warden, Mrs Russell all had to be considered. There was also the public voice, not least after they had spoken out against the ring road. Overall, the proposed “decked, multi-level redevelopment” of the Southside by Percy Johnson Marshall would have long running objections in Edinburgh;²¹⁵ with locals George Square is often still seen as a blight. The demolitions involved with these developments were to directly give to rise to heritage bodies such as the Edinburgh Georgian Society (1956), later to become the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, which is still involved in screening planning applications to this day. The organization of such heritage bodies would definitely make large developments like Womersley’s more of a risk for both the SED and their Governmental masters, who would have been more than aware of this.

This story of ‘almost happened’ is not by any means a singular one for Edinburgh. The unbuilt ‘Opera house’ had and almost parallel timeline as well as being prolonged/protracted then ultimately unrealized.²¹⁶ The ‘opera house’ project was similarly beset by concerns about its cost and the cost control competence of its designers; there were also worries about the impact of the building on views within the city, while William Kininmonth’s designs were a source of concern for the Scottish Office.²¹⁷ Furthermore, the suggestion of an embarrassment to the “Secretary of State” is a reminder of how much of a political reflection these large schemes were.²¹⁸ As at ECA, questions of finance and architectural networks conspired against the project, which ultimately was abandoned in 1975 when the money ran out. This comparison is useful in more than just failed local project, the fact that both higher education and ‘the arts’ had been receiving public subsidies since 1945 with the idea to educate and ‘culture’ the population; effectively to reform public taste.²¹⁹ These can be seen under one umbrella along with larger ideas of the welfare state. At the opposite end of the period in question, Tony Crosland as Secretary of State for the Environment told us the “Party is Over” in regards to public expenditure and the release of 1975-76 Arts Council Report (the Arts in Hard Times) both show just how the tides had turned since the hopeful Education Buildings of the Early 1960s.²²⁰ However, as we have seen already, the budget restraints started in the mid 1960’s.

The letters and reminders from both the Corporation and the SED about the curbs set out by the Government were after all the given reason this scheme wasn’t realised. Yet this would seem an easy and simple answer to a large and complex set of situations that would end up in a four year and seemingly fruitless result. The funding issues start with Cowan who complained in 1960 that the SED’s suggested building budgets were far too low for a quality Art School Building project, for example, ashlar cladding would have to be reduced to concrete panels amongst other savings.²²¹ Elain Harwood and Alan Powers mention in regards to housing in the period that “ a problem was the sheer difficulty with producing good architecture within cost limits”, and how now celebrated housing projects were severely criticised at the time (1965-1973) for cost and time overruns, this is some ways give us context of the Womersley project in broad terms of public funding of the period.²²² Moreover, the article reframes the ‘difficult’ period in starting in 1965 and not the common 1970 reading, which helps frame the ECA projects too.²²³ While Womersley was blamed for the increases from projected costs by the contractors, money wasn’t the only reason, the Wheeler and Sproson planning application tells us their projected costs were £800000, this was almost double Womersley’s budget for the two, then single project, for the same site.

The Edinburgh ring road idea was thrown out with public objection. In other places like the charges of corruption at Newcastle and a reduced Glasgow ring road these mass and comprehensive plans would become toxic in the eyes of the public.²²⁴ As Richard Williams points out the late 1960s was a tumultuous time for modern architecture introducing his article on changes to the architectural press by the beginning of the 1970s by saying, ‘It would be easy to argue the British architectural profession was in crisis in the late 1960s’.²²⁵ He goes on to highlight the changes in Architectural Review’s Manplan issues that were broadly environmental and Architectural Design’s special issues on supposedly non architectural subjects including Education, but also highlighted the changing public opinion.²²⁶ The public had fallen out of love with modern architecture at just the same time as Womersley was trying to build a concrete megastructure in a disputed area such as Education. As early as 1960, Cowan was making comparisons to these earlier schemes. He had pointed out that Newcastle, Liverpool and Cambridge were all expanding.²²⁷ Cowan had also submitted statistics to an alterations committee comparing Edinburgh to Manchester and Liverpool to which had been chosen as they were similar in size and attached to existing pre-war buildings like ECA.²²⁸ As we have seen, educational institutions of the period had been seen to have failed after the cohesive plans of the early sixties. Womersley’s expansive plans can be seen against the backdrop of these negative public reactions, woven into the centre of Edinburgh, bridging over roads, walkways in the sky and vast modern complexes would all be tarred with the same brush. As we have also seen, Edinburgh had objected before, the bodies that ran the College would be aware that a concrete megastructure such as Womersley’s might have another ’violent reaction’.

Was there a power struggle between the Corporation (City) and the SED (Government)? If the Corporation had indeed been in control of the College until as recently as 1960 this may have been the case. While this may be speculation, the relationship between local and national or Edinburgh and Westminster has from the very inception been something of a power struggle. There can also be the suggestion that Womersley was the victim of what Robert Matthew described as Edinburgh architectural elite?

What we do know is the suggestion of direct negotiations with contractors in place of a Master of Works that might have led to cost variances were actually Arup’s suggestion (supported by Cottier) and not Womersley’s at all. The brief Womersley was given was out of date and his ‘client’ for the Planning Building was not holding the purse strings. Further to this, all the other voices at the College who would redirect Womersley during his tenure due to separate opinions and ambitions, often encouraging him to be bold against the direct warnings of financial constraints. The site was constantly changed due to the differing and conflicting views, the project varied due to expanding lists of requirements and Womersley, no matter how amiable, couldn’t please everybody.

This dissertation has looked a three College architects, two who managed to design finished projects, and Womersley who failed to get even one of his buildings to a stage of completion. Let us not forget that both Cowan and Wheeler had plans to build more, Cowan with his Sculpture Building, as part of his bigger plans before giving notice and Wheeler, with a more ambitious scheme than was built, including a new front entrance on the West Port. Figure.24

The easy assumption of increased costs and financial constraints that started in the mid 1960s worsening as we move into the 1970s as the only reason Womersley’s scheme was not built seems all too simple. The vastly increased budget for Wheelers Hunter Building would certainly suggest otherwise. Only after an examination of the archival material do we see the tensions between the ECA, SED and the Edinburgh Corporation. While the rise of Heritage bodies and negative public opinion must have played a role, poor brief, conflicting visions, an ever changing site, wider unease of large scale planning and personal ambitions were all factors. Thus, this appraisal says a lot about the realities of getting such a large scale and audacious project built, especially in such a difficult period, financially and politically. Womersley’s proposals for the ECA may not be to everybody’s taste, some may see this as a save for the city of Edinburgh, but this ambitious, fully integrated, technically advanced scheme may actually have been doomed from the beginning. Although this text as intended is fundamentally a historical account of what happened; the fact this project failed and it’s part in Womersley’s subsequent withdrawal from British architecture, it might be just as easily added to the list marked tragedy.