Arup-An Engineer's Effect On Modern Architectur

Adam Bear
An Engineer’s effect on Modern Architecture, Covering Page
An Engineer’s effect on Modern Architecture
Collaborative Design and Total Architecture since 1935
Adam Bear 791320
BA (Hons) Architecture Design and Structures
University of Plymouth
ARCO317 Dr David Willey
Frances Crowe
Adam Bear
An Engineer’s effect on Modern Architecture, Declaration
Declaration
This is entirely my own work.
791320.
Adam Bear
An Engineer’s effect on Modern Architecture, Abstract
Abstract
The general impression created by recent writing does not sufficiently recognise Arup’s
influential concerns for Collaborative Design and Total Architecture. This essay attempts to
readdress the balance. These concerns can be traced back to Arup’s involvement with
Lubetkin and Tecton in the 1935 Highpoint One flats at Highgate. At Highpoint One Arup’s
previous role of an enabler, in zoo projects, changes to that of an educator collaboratively
designing with Lubetkin in plan and section. Total Architecture is seen in Climbing
Shuttering, “a sensible way of building”1 a monolithic structure such as Highpoint’s. The
concern for Collaborative Design and Total Architecture is still valued by the Arup group
and can be seen in their work, which continues at the high quality that Arup’s teaching
prescribed.
1
Ove Arup, RIBA Journal, Royal gold medal address ‘Art and architecture: the architect and engineer
relationship’, August 1966, page 352
Adam Bear
An Engineer’s effect on Modern Architecture, Preface
Preface
Studying BA (Hons) Architecture Design and Structures at the University of Plymouth has
inevitably lead me to an interest in the works of the so called architectural engineers. So
called! As if not all engineers can see their work as more as an art than a science. Sadly
there is some truth in this. However as software2 used by engineers progresses from
analysing structure to sizing members, it appears hopeful that engineers will be able to
pursue a more holistic approach to design. Candela, Brunel, Telford and Arup all managed
to do this, considering their work as both an art and a science. Here I am concerned with
Arup’s much run horses of Collaborative Design and Total Architecture in the 1970’s and
60’s but receiving little attention in modern writing. Frampton lists Arup only once in the
index, for Stansted “Foster Associates have been brilliantly assisted by the engineering skills
of Ove Arup and Partners.” 3 Frampton completely fails to mention Arup’s involvement in
Highpoint One “a masterpiece even by the standards of today.”4 Frampton also neglects
Arup’s involvement in MARS and ATO.5
I thank my fiancée Elizabeth for all her patience, my father Stephen for his thoughts
especially on Design for Manufacture, and not least my tutors David and Frances for their
continued efforts.
2
Integer http://www.integer-software.co.uk/ , [05/02/2004]
3
Kenneth Frampton, Modern architecture a critical history, Thames & Hudson, London, 1980, page 305
4
Ibid, page 252
5
Ibid, page 253
Adam Bear
An Engineer’s effect on Modern Architecture, Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
The Egan Report 2
Design For Manufacture 4
The Arup Company 5
Total Architecture 8
Highpoint One........................................................................................................... 10
Arup, Lubetkin and Tecton 11
LCC Regulations 12
Slenderness Ratio 13
Lubetkin’s Grid 14
Arup’s Parallel Beams 15
Climbing Shuttering 18
After Highpoint One.................................................................................................. 21
Total Architecture, Value Engineering and Design for Manufacture 22
Arup Associates 23
Department of Mining and Metallurgy 24
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 26
Cause 27
Effect 27
Bibliography by date................................................................................................. 29
Notes 29
Appendix A, Chronology ............................................................................................. 1

Notes 1
Appendix B, Benefits of the inter relationship between Architects and Engineers .... 1
Integration 1
Priorities 2
Fame 3
Rice Francis Ritchie 3
Conclusions 4
Appendix C, Slenderness Ratio λ ................................................................................ 1

Adam Bear
An Engineer’s effect on Modern Architecture, List of illustrations
List of Illustrations
Figure: 1
Title: Slenderness Ratios
Page: 13
Source: Adam Bear, University of Plymouth, 2004
Figure: 2
Title: Lubetkin’s Grid
Page: 14
Source: Ove Arup, Architectural Design and
Construction, Planning in reinforced
concrete part I, July 1935, page 301
Figure: 3
Title: Arup’s Parallel Beams
Page: 15
Source: Ove Arup, Concrete and Constructional
Engineering, Competition designs for
working-class flats in reinforced concrete,
30th March 1935, page 220
Figure: 4
Title: Structural Analysis of Highpoint One
Page: 17
Source: Lubetkin / Tecton, Architects Journal,
Analysis of a building [Highpoint 1], 17th
January 1935, page 114
Figure: 5
Title: Traditional system of shuttering
Page: 18
Adam Bear
An Engineer’s effect on Modern Architecture, List of illustrations
Figure: 6
Title: Shuttering at Highpoint One
Page: 20
Figure: 7
Title: Site progress at Highpoint One
Page: 21
Source: Ove Arup, Architectural Design and
Construction, Planning in reinforced
concrete part II, August 1935, page 342
Figure: 8
Title: Tartan grid
Page: 24
Source: Michael Brawne, Arup Associates: The
biography of an architectural practice,
Lund Humpries, London, 1983, page 44
Figure: 9
Title: Department of Mining and Metallurgy
Page: 25
Source: Michael Brawne, Arup Associates: The
biography of an architectural practice,
Lund Humpries, London, 1983, page 50
Adam Bear
Introduction
In the aftermath of the Egan report it is a contemporary question to ask, how should
members of the building industry collaborate together for the benefit of all people inside
and outside the building industry? This question has been previously explored by the
author in ‘The benefits of the inter relationship between architects and engineers’6 and
this essay is a further exploration of those ideas. The main focus is Arup’s early work in
the 1930’s where the basic ideas of ‘Total Architecture’ and Collaborative Design were
developed. Key texts are a two part analysis on the subject of planning in reinforced
concrete7 written in 1935 and the winning entry of the working men’s flats competition8
written in the same year. The essay will examine a recent manifestation of Total
Architecture and Collaborative Design in the Egan report, where Egan encouraged the
removal of the adversarial ethos in the construction industry. It is seen that one company
that already strives towards goals similar to those of Egan is Ove Arup and Partners. Ove
Arup and Partners does not exclusively prescribe to Egan preferring their own track record
that has been informed by the work of Sir Ove Nyquist Arup. The theme of Collaborative
Design is identified in Arup’s involvement with Lubetkin in the Gorilla House, Penguin Pool
and Highpoint One. It is seen that this developed into Total Architecture at Highpoint One.
Arup’s concerns of Total Architecture and Collaborative Design were previously well
documented and as such have enabled Ove Arup and Partners to continue to work as
6
Adam Bear, The benefits of the interrelationship between architects and engineers, submitted to
competition run by the Institute of Civil Engineers, http://www.ukbear.com/adam/essay.html, [19/11/03],
See Appendix B
7
Ove Arup, Architectural Design and Construction, Planning in reinforced concrete part I, July 1935, page
297
8
Ove Arup, Concrete and Constructional Engineering, Competition designs for working-class flats in
reinforced concrete, 30th March 1935, page 218
[1/8]
Adam Bear
excellently as Arup intended. More recently there has been little historical or theoretical
discussion of Arup’s personal concerns, which have been overtaken by the multinational
enormity of Ove Arup and Partners. This lack of general attention to important ideas of
totality and collaboration, has contributed to the demise of excellence in the construction
industry, fought against by Egan.
The Egan Report
In 1998 Sir John Egan reported to the Deputy Prime Minister on the “scope for improving
quality and efficiency in UK construction.”9 The report recognised the difficulty but also the
merit in such an objective, “We know that it is not easy to sustain radical improvement in an
industry as diverse as construction. But, we must do so to secure our future.”10 The report
states that there exists a high level of fragmentation in Britain’s construction industry,
which leads to positive and negative outcomes. The principal benefit is flexibility in an
economic flux and the main disadvantage is extensive subcontracting, requiring
contractual relationships, that prevents teams from working in a continuous efficient
manner.11 The Egan report recognises the “strongly ingrained adversarial culture”12 in the
building industry, cultivated by contractors maximising profits to secure their economic
stability. The Egan report suggests that this problem can be overcome by the
government’s initiative in combating cowboy builders. Egan identifies five drivers for
change.13
1. Committed leadership
9
Sir John Egan, Rethinking Construction,
http://www.rethinkingconstruction.org/documents/Rethinking%20Construction%20Report.pdf, page 2
10
Ibid
11
Ibid, page 8
12
Ibid, page 9
13
Ibid, page 15
[2/8]
Adam Bear
2. A focus on the customer
3. Integrate the process and the team around the product
4. A quality driven agenda
5. Commitment to people
Egan summarises by emphasising that this report does not invite the construction industry
to do what it does better, rather to do it entirely differently.14
Robin Nicholson was impressed by Egan,15 in particular his identification of the
commitment to people as a driver, realising the “Cultural change of revolutionary
proportions”16 that this will require. The building industry has to move away from an
organisational structure where the purpose of the structure is not to increase benefit for
the client but is rather to “prevent the other party cheating you.”17 Nicholson points out that
“Clients see [architect’s] work as too expensive, slow, dangerous and poor quality, and think
that we are more interested in ourselves than our customers.”18
Rather than examining the Egan report in a protracted study, it is the intention of this
essay to study a case of excellent standards which exemplifies the Egan report’s
recommendations. Egan’s third driver, integrate the process and the team around the
product, points towards a multidisciplinary company that designs in consideration of the
execution of the design. The most well documented company of this kind is Ove Arup and
14
Ibid, page 43
15
Robin Nicholson, Constructing Change, The Architects Journal, 26th November 1998, page 62
16
Ibid
17
Ibid
18
Ibid
[3/8]
Adam Bear
Partners.19 By comparing Egan’s drivers for change and Arup’s main aims for the firm20 it
can be seen that both have concerns for the commodity of architecture to people (E5 and
A5) and a holistic integration similar to ‘design for manufacture’21 (E3 and A2). “Many
companies use structured, team based workshops to facilitate the integration and sharing of
views required for [Design for Manufacture] DFM.” 22 Robert Thorne also explains the link
between E3 and A2 by contrasting Arup with Gropius, “whereas Gropius looked upon the
finished building as the symbol of totality, for Arup it was the process by which the building
was created that mattered most.”23
Egan’s drivers for change: Arup’s main aims for the firm:
E1. Committed leadership A1. Quality of work
E2. A focus on the customer A2. Total architecture
E3. Integrate the process and the team A3. Humane Organisation
around the product A4. Straight and honourable dealings
E4. A quality driven agenda A5. Social usefulness
E5. Commitment to people A6. Reasonable prosperity for members
Design For Manufacture
Shortages after the second world war lead both Western and Japanese manufactures to
radically rethink their production processes. In the west General Electric
developed a process that has become known under the moniker of ‘value’, Value
19
Ove Arup and Partners, http://www.arup.com/, [21/11/03]
20
Ove Arup, Winchester meeting of Arup organization, Key speech, 9th July 1970, as citied in, The Arup
Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985, page 34
21
Karl T. Ulrich, Steven D. Eppinger, Product Design and Development, McGraw Hill, New York, 1995, page
179
22
Ibid, page 182
23
David Dunster, Robert Thorne, Arups on Engineering, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1997, page 236
[4/8]
Adam Bear
Engineering and Value Management. In Japan the Toyota manufacturer developed the
Japanese tradition of Kaizen ‘improvement’. These concerns have become known under
the moniker of ‘lean’, Lean Production and Lean Construction. Design for Manufacture
(DFM) uses lean methodology to remove any part from the product or process of
manufacture that produces waste and replaces them with parts that improves the quality
of the product. DFM has a strong synonym with Total Architecture encouraging designers
to consider the processes used during manufacture and construction when designing parts
and considering the final integration of these parts into an integrated design. Although
similar concepts, DFM and Total Architecture have been developed for different fields of
manufacture and construction, where DFM is concerned with large scales of units Total
Architecture is inherently more bespoke with smaller scales of units. As such DFM can be
considered the Arup’s antithesis to Total Architecture and will be explored later.
The Arup Company
Duncan Michael writes about values and change in the Arup Journal.24 Michael explores
the yin and yang of product and process, defined as what is done and how it is done.25
Michael reasons that engineers are concerned with high levels of reliability, often focusing
too closely on how, and “the price that society pays for this reliability is that the holistic skills
of engineers atrophy.”26 Michael continues by stating that in British culture “quantity and
quality are [considered] alternatives” 27 but prefers to think of the subject as “two axes of a
graph”28 where the quality of Arup’s work is enabled by its quantity. Michael makes a
24
Duncan Michael, Values and Change: benefit or problem?, The Arup Journal, January 2002, page 45, as
citied in, http://www.arup.com/insite/publications/Publication59.pdf, [31/12/03]
25
Ibid
26
Ibid
27
Ibid
28
Ibid
[5/8]
Adam Bear
general statement29 from which references to Arup’s work, including the Sydney Opera
House, the Millennium Bridge, and the Centre Beaubourg can be inferred. “It [Arup’s
quantity] lets us aspire,30 it lets us replay when we get a wobble,31 it gives us access to optimum
people in a remarkably fine-tuned way,32 and it moves the cash cliff edge over a bit.”33 Michael
warns that following the Egan report too closely could lead to becoming “Blind to the
humane, the creative and optimistic part of our needs.”34 Michael is primarily reminding the
Arup workforce that their values should be grounded in the values of Ove Arup, spelled
out in his key speech as: Excellence in all Ove Arup and Partners do, Prosperity, Fairness
and Integrity in their relationships.35 Although much has changed since Arup first defined
these values, the values themselves have been sustained, ensuring the continuation of the
Arup legacy. It is the position of this essay that Arup started a tradition of Collaborative
Design and Total Architecture that was not previously evident in modern architecture. It
therefore becomes an interesting question to ask what was Arup’s effect on
Modern Architecture? And in particular how did Arup start these traditions?
Arup’s concern with Collaborative Design can be traced back to working at Christiani and
Nelson where he learnt that “good design should embody a sensible way of building.”36 Arup
experienced this by being responsible for design, estimating and tendering, “the designer
29
Ibid
30
Sydney Opera House,
http://www.arup.com/insite/projectsheet.cfm?rid=28&q=sydney%20opera%20house, [21/11/03]
31
Millenium Bridge, http://www.arup.com/milleniumbridge/ [21/11/03]
32
Pompidou centre http://www.arup.com/insite/projectsheet.cfm?rid=11 [21/11/03]
33
Lloyds of London http://www.arup.com/insite/projectsheet.cfm?rid=3&q=tower [21/11/03]
34
Duncan Michael, Values and Change: benefit or problem?, The Arup Journal, January 2002, page 46, as
citied in, http://www.arup.com/insite/publications/Publication59.pdf, [31/12/03]
35
Ibid, page 45
36
Ove Arup, RIBA Journal, Ove Arup, Royal gold medal address ‘Art and architecture: the architect and
engineer relationship’, August 1966, page, 352
[6/8]
Adam Bear
must know not only the qualities of the material and the ways they are made, but also how they
can be built into the job.”37 Moving forward to when Arup had established his company, the
contemporary history of Ove Arup and Partners starts in 1957 when Utzon (Danish like
Arup) approached Arup for the engineering of the Sydney Opera House. It did not matter
to Arup that neither himself nor Utzon had any idea of how it would be built, “The shells
would be solved somehow – this scheme I wanted to go in for, with all I had.”38 What
mattered to Arup was the opportunity to create an icon for Sydney and his firm. Arup also
used the opportunity to increase understanding of the materials used and to educate
young members of his organisation. It was here that Peter Rice started his career with
Ove Arup and Partners that would encompass the most significant buildings of recent
times including Beaubourg Centre, Lloyds of London, La Villette and more. Rice’s career
has however already been discussed and need not be repeated here.39 By 1963 Arup had
already employed a group of architects, engineers and quantity surveyors but felt it was
necessary to “give this group an identity and to make it clear that it was a body of Architects
and Engineers working on an equal basis.”40 That identity was Arup Associates.41 In 1965
Arup held an interview with Peter Rawstorne and talked about collaboration between the
architect and engineer “you are making something which has to be thought out fully right
37
Ove Arup, Architectural Review, Arup Associations, November 1979, page 315
38
David Dunster, Arups on Engineering, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1997, page 247
39
Adam Bear, The benefits of the interrelationship between architects and engineers, submitted to
competition run by the Institute of Civil Engineers, http://www.ukbear.com/adam/essay.html, [19/11/03],
See Appendix B
40
Michael Brawne, Arup Associates: The biography of an architectural practice, Lund Humpries, London,
1983, page 7
41
Arup Associates, http://www.arupassociates.com, [31/12/03]
[7/8]
Adam Bear
from the beginning.”42 This is a view shared by Richard Rogers “I think Arups are very much
part of the design team.”43
Total Architecture
In 1966 Arup received the Royal Gold medal ‘for services to architecture’. Arup considered
that, “receiving a Gold Medal should be, not an impediment, but an encouragement to speak
ones mind.”44
“I think that more emphasis should be placed on the central position of design. As I pointed out
when I talked about my experience as a designer for a contracting firm, the design – and by that
I mean the total design, which embodies the manner of execution - this total design is the key to
the whole thing.”45
Robert Thorne describes Arup’s use of the words Total Design and Total Architecture as
“interchangeable ways of referring to the need for synthesis in the world[s] of design and
construction.”46 Further Arup naturally moved from the need for architects and engineers
to design collaboratively, “to the requirement that design and construction should be thought
of as parts of a single process.”47 There is little other recent writing on Arup rather than Ove
Arup and Partners. Dean Hawkes and Wayne Forster only briefly discuss Arup’s effect
before discussing Ove Arup and Partners recent work. “A particularly sophisticated
42
RIBA Journal, Ove Arup talks to Peter Rawsthorne, April 1965, page 180
43
Sir Richard Rogers, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th November 1995
44
Ove Arup, Institution of Structural Engineers, Gold Medal Speech, 11th October, 1973, as citied in, The
Arup Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985, page 46
45
46
David Dunster, Robert Thorne, Arups on Engineering, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1997, page 235
47
Ibid
[8/8]
Adam Bear
relationship between engineering and architectural intention was achieved in the 1930s through
the collaboration of Berthold Lubetkin and a group of consulting engineers.”48
Arup later expanded on Total Design or Total Architecture in his 1970 key speech. It
should be realised that Arup was seventy five years old and unaware he would live to
ninety two when he gave this speech, and must have been concerned with leaving his
imprint on his company before he died.
“The term ‘Total Architecture’ implies that all relevant design decisions have been considered
together and have been integrated into a whole by a well organised team empowered to fix
priorities. This is an ideal which can never - or only very rarely – be fully realised in practice,
but which is well worth striving for, for artistic wholeness or excellence depends on it, and for
our own sake we need the stimulation produced by excellence.”49
The Total Architecture theme was concluded in 1972 when Arup gave this speech to the
Institute of Civil engineers.
“One must somehow create the conditions which will allow such collaborations to take place,
and one must educate members of the building team to see their own contribution not as an end
in itself, but as a part of a common endeavour to create comprehensive, Total Architecture.”50
48
Dean Hawkes, Wayne Forster, Architecture, Engineering and Environment, Laurence King Publishing,
London, 2002
49
David Dunster, Ove Arup, Arups on Engineering, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1997, page 263
50
Ove Arup, Building Services Engineering Society, Inaugural Speech, The built environment, 26th October,
1972, as citied in, Ian Ritchie, (Well) Connected Architecture, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1994, page 21
[9/9]
Adam Bear
From this can be found the heart of the Arup principle: that when designing one should
consider the Vitruvian triad of firmness, commodity and delight51 not just from the
perspective of the client paying for the architecture or the customer inhabiting it but also
from the point of view of the contractor building, creating and executing the design. And
this is best done collaboratively as more perspectives on design can be developed. In
short design should embody the manner of execution.
Highpoint One
Having established a recent literature, it may seem contradictory to start investigating
sources predating the Second World War. Arup’s commitment to Collaborative Design and
Total Architecture although evident in the 1960’s and 1970’s has the texture of a much
worn horse. Rather than just being a stable master for Arup’s “hobby horse, teamwork and
all that”52 this essay must examine the origins, reactions and any antithesis to Arup’s
concerns for Collaborative Design and Total Architecture. These origins are most clearly
seen in Arup’s and his collaborator’s publications surrounding the Highpoint One flats at
Highgate completed with Tecton and Lubetkin in 1935. It shall be seen that Arup
collaborated with Lubetkin in the design of the structural system, rather than just enabling
as at earlier zoo projects. The design of climbing shuttering indicates that Arup considered
the sensible way of building a block of flats would be to use a monolithic structure,
eliminating the need for two thirds of the structure making a considerable saving.
51
Vitruvian Triad, http://www.dpz.com/news_commentaries_4.htm, [31/12/03]
52
[10/10]
Adam Bear
Arup, Lubetkin and Tecton
By the time that Arup came to work with Lubetkin and Tecton on Highpoint One, they had
already worked as a well integrated team on several previous projects. Firstly the Gorilla
House 1933 at London Zoo. This reinforced concrete shell with its resemblance to Arup’s
Canvey Island café and shelter,53 bears evidence to Arup’s ability to make a creative input
on the design process. Later the Penguin Pool 1934 also at London Zoo, showed Arup’s
ability to perform numerically himself complaining “that it was not easy.”54 Lubetkin’s
coaxing of Arup; “Come on, Doc. Life itself is difficult”55 shows the friendly relationship
they shared. As in the case of the zoo commissions (and later Finsbury health centre) the
contract for Highpoint One owed its origin to Godfrey Samuel’s contacts. The Gestetner
family were typical clientele of the early modern movement in England, “cosmopolitan,
wealthy [and] progressive in outlook.”56 Samuel Gestetner having unsuccessfully attempted
to provide accommodation for his employees in Camden Town, instructed Lubetkin to
prove his arguments for the cost-effectiveness of the Modern Movement. As Le Corbusier
had his patron Gestetner could be considered Lubetkin’s patron, even sponsoring him to
visit the USA to study tall buildings.57 Once Lubetkin had found a suitable site on Highgate
he set about the design of the Highgate flats.
53
John Allan, Berthold Lubetkin, Architecture and the tradition of progress, RIBA publications, London, 1992,
page 207, fig 6.5
54
William Tatton Brown, Architects Journal, Tecton Remembered, 23rd June 1982, page 35
55
Ibid
56
page 257
57
Ibid
[11/11]
Adam Bear
LCC Regulations
Arup had long been opposed to the London City Council (LCC) regulations and the
impositions they made on design. In the earlier zoo projects the Gorilla House and
Penguin Pool were defined as temporary structures and as such avoided the LCC
regulations. Highpoint was a different matter. Arup addressed his objections to the LCC
regulations to readers of the Architecture Design and Construction journal58 in a two part
analysis on the subject of planning in reinforced concrete.59 Arup also stated his
recommendations in the winning entry of the working men’s flats competition held by the
cement marketing group.60 Arup used these publications to oppose the LCC regulations,
stating that “it does not follow that what is right construction for steel is also the right
construction for reinforced concrete.”61 Arup reasoned that reinforced concrete can be used
to create an enclosure around a space as well as providing structural support. As such
Arup saw that this enclosure should be made to work structurally. Arup’s objection to the
LCC regulations was that the required slenderness ratio was “unreasonably low.”62
58
297
59
Ove Arup, Architectural Design and Construction, Planning in reinforced concrete part II, August 1935,
page 340
60
reinforced concrete, 30 March 1935, page 218
61
298
62
page 340
[12/12]
Adam Bear
Slenderness Ratio
It can be shown63 that an unreasonably low slenderness ratio demands that, for a given
effective length, the depth of a section is thicker than is reasonably required as depicted in
figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Slenderness Ratios 64
This is suitable for a steel structure because steel is not a suitable material to provide
enclosing space due to its high cost. Highpoint One was cast in insitu concrete where the
structure was used to enclose the spaces. However building regulations did not recognise
any implication in this differentiation of materials, the enclosure as a whole rather than
just a column can be used to provide structural support. Essentially the building
regulations failed to recognise that a structural slab with depth ‘d’ and a short breadth (i.e.
a column) as anything different from a structural slab with the same depth and a longer
63
See Appendix C, Slenderness ratio λ
64
Adam Bear, University of Plymouth, 2004
[13/13]
Adam Bear
breadth (i.e. a reinforced concrete wall). Due to a greater breadth the enclosing space is
in fact a more rigid structure than the column!
Lubetkin’s Grid
Lubetkin designed the structure as recommended by the LCC regulations, i.e. as one
would design a steel framed structure with intersecting perpendicular beams in a grid
formation, as shown in the figure 2a below. This is all Lubetkin was able to imagine,65 but
because of the intimate way Arup and Lubetkin worked together Arup was able to
introduce his solution as shown below figure 2b.
Figures 2a and 2b: Lubetkin’s Grid 66
Arup explained his architectural reasoning as; “the system of the structural grid [2a] gives
much less freedom of planning than the system of parallel beams [2b].”67 And Arup remarked
that “Lubetkin was delighted when I suggested leaving out the columns and most of the beams
allowing the walls to take over most of the work.”68
65
Jonathan Clancy, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th November 1995
66
301
67
Ibid
68
[14/14]
Adam Bear
Arup’s Parallel Beams
Having decided to use parallel beams as shown in figure 2b the only choice was which
way the beams should span, crossways or longitudinally, as shown below in the figures 3a
and 3b.
Figures 3a and 3b: Arup’s Parallel Beams 69
“In figure [3a] the columns can be moved along the lines of the cross beams, but longitudinally
it is very rigid, and it would perhaps be very difficult to arrange the rooms of varying size to
suit the regular bays formed by the cross beams. This system may, however, be the right one,
where it is desired to have very long horizontal windows, with only narrow columns between
the windows, or where the windows are to form continuous horizontal bands, in which case the
columns can be pushed back from the face and the cross beams cantilevered to carry the wall.”70
69
reinforced concrete, 30th March 1935, page 220
70
303
[15/15]
Adam Bear
Arup finds that in most cases, especially at Highpoint “the system in figure [3b] will be the
best as regards economy, freedom of planning and simplicity.” 71 It can be seen that in figure
3a walls still need to be provided to a width of four inches72 (101.6mm). Arup reasoned
that these walls could be made five or six inches thick to permit them to be reinforced and
carry structural load. Arup was aware that this would cost more but argued that this cost
is more than offset by the cost of beams and columns as in figure 3a.73 There is also
benefit in reinforcing these outer walls as shrinkage cracks are less likely to appear.74 In
figure 3b the outer walls provide structural support for two of three points, so “two thirds
of the necessary beams and columns can be provided by the outer walls, at very little extra
cost.” 75 In the case of Highpoint this economy can be passed onto Lubetkin who can
expect better fittings, Gestetner who can expect a cheaper contract and the customers
who can expect these better fittings and a lower rent. Apart from this there is the
consideration of architectural style resulting from the form of structure used, as can be
seen in figure 4 below. The journal article is a reproduction of drawings sent to students
of the Architectural Association in preparation of a visit to the Highgate site. This was
done with a view that students should be able to “examine the building with somewhat more
than a casual intelligence.”76 The diagram describes Lubetkin’s original approach as a
“paralysing forest of stancheons[sic]… limiting flexibility of design… inevitability of cracks….
expensive and slow in shuttering.” 77 By contrast Arup’s solution is hailed as “the thickness of
71
Ibid
72
Ibid
73
Ibid
74
75
303
76
Lubetkin / Tecton, Architects Journal, Analysis of a building [Highpoint 1], 17th January 1935, page 113
77
Ibid
[16/16]
Adam Bear
walls and floors is reduced by their continuality with each other… reduces the possibility of
structural cracks and shrinkage… quick and cheap for shuttering.” 78 This is Collaborative
Design, where Arup did not work as an enabler, as in previous zoo projects, but as an
educator,79 informing Lubetkin of the possibilities that better served their shared aesthetic.
All this would not have been possible however without Arup’s influence on the local district
surveyor80 to interpret the legitimacy of the LCC regulations as being irrelevant for the
modern material of reinforced concrete, in that the breadth of structural slab influences its
slenderness ratio.
78
Ibid
79
80
page 269
[17/17]
Adam Bear
Figure 4: Structural Analysis of Highpoint One 81
Climbing Shuttering
The structure of Highpoint One relies on the fact that reinforced concrete is considered a
monolithic material. As Arup put it “a stress or strain in any part can be felt in any other part.
If one point is in danger of being overstressed, other parts can be persuaded to come to its
rescue by suitable reinforcement.”82 To create such a large surface monolithically required
the use of a shuttering system. The standard system of shuttering as shown in figure 5
below, was known to be disadvantageous, in that a high cost was involved in skilled
labour and scaffolding. This system also created horizontal bands between lifts, an
aesthetic avoided in the Modern Movement. “The feeling of ‘surface tension’ which a wall
should have – achieved by keeping projections to a minimum.”83
Figure 5: Traditional system of shuttering 84
81
82
83
Report of MARS exhibition committee, Principle 3, 1935, as citied in, Ove Arup, Architectural Review, Arup
Associations, November 1979, page 317
84
[18/18]
Adam Bear
Sliding form shuttering involved the continuous poring of concrete and rising of the forms,
this method however did not allow the wall to be cast monolithically with the intermediate
floors. The cost of shuttering, at the time of construction, was considered to be “over a
third of the cost of the whole structure, and it is in this sphere the greatest economy can be
obtained by rational planning.”85 Arup recognised that the shuttering was often left to the
contractor and also that “the best result is naturally obtained if the method of construction is
taken into account when the plans are drawn up.” 86 Arup urges architects to consider if their
“purpose can be served by fitting [their] plans to suit a standardised method of shuttering, or
whether the case demands a more elaborate treatment, even at economic sacrifice.”87
Arup/Lubetkin/Tecton worked together intimately to design a new form of climbing
shuttering, as shown in figure 6 below. The system had already been in use in Europe by
J.L. Kier & Co.88 so it is reasonable to assume that Arup’s and Tecton’s collaboration on
this matter was concerned with successfully bringing this type of construction system to
England.
85
page 341
86
Ibid
87
Ibid
88
page 270
[19/19]
Adam Bear
Figure 6: Shuttering at Highpoint One 89
The shuttering is suspended from a temporary timber platform.90 The formwork can be
raised by tightening screws on the column. By this method the shuttering raises above
floor level until a new floor is cast where the columns are repositioned to that floor. The
shuttering also carries a cradle, as can be seen in figure 7 below. From this cradle the
walls can be washed down and otherwise treated and worked on.
89
90
page 341
[20/20]
Adam Bear
Figure 7: Site progress at Highpoint One91
In this shuttering can be seen the seed of Arup’s concern for Collaborative Design and
Total Architecture. The walls and plan of Highpoint have been collaboratively
designed by Arup and Lubetkin, with an effort to design by considering the very
method of construction. This is Total Architecture.
After Highpoint One
After Highpoint One came Highpoint Two where again Arup worked with Lubetkin. And
again Arup helped Lubetkin to achieve his new aesthetic goals, “Whereas Highpoint I stands
on tip toe and spreads its wings; Highpoint II sits back on it’s haunches like a Buddha.”92 In
1938 Arup left Kier to form the tripartite of ‘Arup & Arup’ a design and construction firm
91
Ibid, page 342
92
Anthony Cox, Focus, as citied in, R. Furneaux Jordan, Architectural Review, Lubetkin, July 1955, page 41
[21/21]
Adam Bear
with his cousin Arne, ‘Arup Designs’ offering separate design services, whilst Arup himself
practised as a consulting engineer.93 In 1946 Arup ended the contracting side of his
business and in 1948 formed Arup and Partners94 outlasting Tecton who disbanded in the
same year. 95 As previously noted the Architectural Association had a close relationship
with Lubetkin and Arup, and in 1953 Phillip Dawson having graduated from the AA joined
Ove Arup and Partners to work as architect in charge96 in the building group for factory
buildings.
Total Architecture, Value Engineering and Design for Manufacture
There has recently been a resurgence of Arup’s concern for collaboration and total
architecture, vindicated by the emergence of Value Engineering and Design for
Manufacture (DFM). These notions are similar to Arup’s concerns yet different enough to
be considered Arup’s antithesis. Value Engineering and DFM are both concerned with the
processes by which products are made. The Japanese car manufacturer Toyota is
accredited with having a major influence introducing what has become known as Lean
thinking. All of these methods have realised that wasteful elements can be removed from
construction and manufacturing processes by designing in consideration to the processes
used. VE, DFM and Lean thinking differs from Total Architecture in the number of units
involved respectively. Buildings are generally bespoke items with only small amount of
repetition compared to manufactured items such as mobile phones. Unfortunately this
difference has not discouraged the comparison to building cars to buildings. Arup himself
93
94
Ibid
95
page 614
96
Colin Boyne, Lance Wright, Best of Architects Working Details, Volume 1 External, The Architectural Press,
London, 1982, page 82
[22/22]
Adam Bear
did not appreciate the comparison, and discouraged the idea that a building could have all
wasteful elements removed by a quantitative analysis of unit cost. “Whether our manmade
environment pleases us or not, depends on unmeasurable qualities which can only be created by
artistic creation and dedication.”97 Arup’s sucint comparison of Value Engineering and Total
Architecture places importance, as Micheal did, on what is built rather than how it is built.
“The word ‘architecture’ somehow suggests a concern about the brief, about what we should
build, about function and delight, whereas ‘engineering’ suggests efficency in fulfilling the
brief. Both are needed, for whatever we build.”98
Arup Associates
In 1963 Arup considered that “building is in a state of flux.”99 Arup had already created a
“building group which included Architects, Quantity Surveyors and Service Engineers,”100 but
at this time Arup felt that there would be benefit in giving the group an identity as “a body
of architects and engineers working on an equal basis.”101 This was an important step for
Arup in moulding his company, to better deal with design in its totality. In the creation of
Arup Associates, Arup was able to directly implement Collaborative Design between the
professions of architecture and engineering, in the intimate manner that he had worked
with Lubetkin. The entire Arup group benefited from this by experiencing intimate
collaboration as no other company could have offered.
97
Ove Arup, The Structural Engineer, The world of the structural engineer, January 1969, as citied in, The
98
Ibid
99
1983, page 7
100
Ibid
101
Ibid
[23/23]
Adam Bear
Department of Mining and Metallurgy
Despite Arup’s previously published opposition to the structural grid giving “much less
freedom of planning,”102 Arup remarked that it would “suit a factory or office building.”103
Arup Associates have produced a great many buildings of this nature and have used a
structural grid throughout. The structural grid is however a simplification and is more
accurately described as a tartan grid. The tartan grid was first used in 1960 in the design
of the Mining and Metallurgy building at the University of Birmingham, as seen in figure 8
below. As future growth of the University was unpredictable, there was a call for a
structure which could easily be extended.
Figure 8: Tartan grid 104
102
301
103
Ibid
104
1983, page 44
[24/24]
Adam Bear
At the over check of the tartan grid four columns cluster together to form the perimeter of
a vertical service duct. One column from each cluster of four holds a structural load from
the precast concrete slab placed on it as shown in figure 9 below. Such a layout of
structure and services eases the growth of the University and its buildings.
Figure 9: Department of Mining and Metallurgy 105
Completed in 1966 the Department of Mining and Metallurgy building does not provide up
to date evidence that the firm of Ove Arup and Partners and Arup associates still value the
traditions of Total Architecture and Collaborative Design. Although, Arup Associates was “a
exercise in and a study of collaboration.”106 Arup did not want to contain the experiment to
Ove Arup and Partners and Arup Associates and saw the study as necessary “to give the
best possible advice to those architects who wish us to help them with their structural
problems.”107 Completed in 1991 Stansted Airport is Ove Arup and Partners and Foster
Associates evolution of the tartan grid, Total Architecture and Collaborative Design.
Whereas previously the columns had been arranged so that one column in a cluster of
105
Ibid, page 50
106
Ibid, page 7
107
Ibid
[25/25]
Adam Bear
four supported a grid at corners, at Stansted a cluster of four columns forms the base for
an umbrella of four diagonal members, acting against each other in tension. This umbrella
supports its own shallow dome roof as well as sharing the load with nearby umbrellas for
adjacent domes.
Conclusion
It is not so surprising that it was an engineer (a proffesion considered to be the underdog
for the first half of the 20th Century) who managed to bring about the synthesis between
architecture and engineering which resulted in Collaborative Design and Total
Architecture, when it is considered that it was architects who first drove to segregate the
two “sphere[s] of ideas.”108 There has long been a tradition of the “master builders.”109
Bruneleschi in one sphere discovered perspective drawing110 and in another found a
structural solution to the dome. As technologies used in construction grew more complex,
engineers came forward as specialists to understand the mathematical complexities of
structure, and architects did not keep pace. So engineers appeared to exist “in servitude to
architects.”111
“Watch the engineer there, don’t the great steel tubes of the bridge make him look small.”112
108
Ove Arup, Royal Society of Arts, Architects engineers and builders, 11th March 1970, as citied in, The
109
110
Richard L, Gregory, Eye and Brain, The Psychology of Seeing, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998, fifth
edition, Page 175
111
112
Female voice in TV archive as citied in, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th November 1995
[26/26]
Adam Bear
Cause
However even though architects did not keep pace with engineering spheres of ideas,
engineers such as Brunel and Telford understood that their work imposed upon the urban
landscape and sought to make this effect a positive one by understanding it as art. Telford
designed a gate for his bridges that is arguably recognisable as art deco but a hundred
years ahead of the style and when Brunel completed the Saltash bridge he put his name
on it and dated it like an artist signing a canvas.113
When Brunel and Telford received contracts for Industrial Britain’s infrastructure projects
(probably tendering a lower bid than architects), architects acted with tragic114
consequences. In 1834 the Royal Institute of British Architects was formed, and whether it
was intended or not, the result was a reduction in the ability of engineers to integrate an
architectural sphere into their engineering sphere. With the Modern Movement came a
new emphasis on the engineer as an educator, although new only in the complexities of
new materials used to take eccentric loads and the increased mathematical complexity this
created.
Effect
Arup demonstrated his ability in this manner with Lubetkin/Tecton in the Penguin Pool’s
complex geometry of reinforcement, yet this was still not Collaborative Design or Total
Architecture at its fullest conception. At Highgate Arup was able to move out of an
enabling mode and move into the mode of an educator, challenging Lubetkin to redraw
his structural grid as a series of parallel lines. As an enabler Arup could have kept quiet
113
Ian Ritchie, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th November 1995
114
Ibid
[27/27]
Adam Bear
but as an educator Arup helped Lubetkin achieve his aesthetic goals. This was a
Collaborative Design. In addressing the issue of Total Architecture the climbing shuttering
system was a sensible way of building a block of flats that allowed the outer walls and
structure to be treated monolithically, making a considerable saving. As Arup developed
these dual ideas of Collaborative Design and Total Architecture he developed his company,
and instructed its members to follow his ethos. This has resulted in the formation of a
great number of specialist Arup divisions, including Arup Acoustics, Arup Fire, and Arup
Associates. All of these companies attract highly skilled individuals and the Arup ethos
helps them to develop into some of the most creative collections of people in the world. It
is in this way that Arup had his greatest effect on modern architecture and the building
industry as a whole, by creating a tradition of Collaborative Design and Total Architecture
and a firm capable of sustaining these traditions. Outside the reaching influence that Ove
Arup and Partners holds, prominent figures such as Egan still foster Arup’s ethos of Total
Architecture and Collaborative Design (although perhaps under different monikers),
continuing the relevance of Arup’s effect on Modern Architecture and the building industry
as a whole.
[28/28]
Adam Bear
Bibliography by date
Notes
The bibliography establishes the knowledge of the author in the field of writing and
therefore, the author’s legitimacy. It is a resource for the reader keen to make their own
understanding of the subject, and given by date it is a record of flux in interest on the
subject. The type of source is important because assumptions made by the respective
authors about the reader. The resource types listed below vary from the respected but
read by few to the disrespected but much absorbed. The author of a book will assume
that their writing may be kept and honoured in a library, and will be careful of what they
say, but also that the cost of the book may be high so the reader has an equally high
interest. Periodical authors may assume that less copies of their work will find their way
into hallowed libraries, but also that due to low cost they will be read more widely. Slides
are an arrangement of ideas in a visual form, sometimes with notes, and not widely
available. As such the author may assume their audience captivated, basked in light
fighting off the surrounding darkness, and ready to assimilate the author’s ideas with little
questioning. Videos of broadcasted programmes are intended for wide audiences, and
may dumb down the important issues or they may isolate and focus the significant points.
Internet authors may not expect their work to last long, yet still work for their gargantuan
audience. Due to the ease of becoming an author on the internet, it is wise to question
the legitimacy of the author’s claimed expert opinion (this of course can be found in
bibliographies).
• Book
Periodical
¾ Slide
Video
o Internet
1933
Author Unknown, Architects Journal, Tecton: Gorilla House, London Zoo, 28th
September 1933, page 389
1934
John Haviden, Architectural Review, The penguin pool in the zoo, July 1934, page
17
Ove Arup, Concrete and Constructional Engineering, Design of piled jetties and
piers, 1934, as citied in, The Arup Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985,
page 11
[29/29]
Adam Bear
1935
Lubetkin / Tecton, Architects Journal, Analysis of a building [Highpoint 1], 17th

Ove Arup, Concrete and Constructional Engineering, Competition designs for
working-class flats in reinforced concrete, 30 March 1935, page 218
Ove Arup, Architectural Design and Construction, Planning in reinforced concrete
part I, July 1935, page 297
Ove Arup, Architectural Design and Construction, Planning in reinforced concrete
part II, August 1935, page 340
1936
Le Corbusier, Architectural Review, The vertical garden city, January 1936, page 9
1937
• FRS Yorke, Federick Gibberd, The Modern Flat, Architectural Press, London, 1937
1940
• Ove Arup, London’s shelter problem, 1940, as citied in, The Arup Journal, Volume
20, Number 1, Spring 1985, page 14
1942
Ove Arup, British Association for the Advancement of Science, Science and world
planning, 1942, as citied in The Arup Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985,
page 16
1947
Ove Arup, Architectural Design, Shell construction, 17 (11), 1947, as citied in, The
1953
• Kurt Vonnegut Junior, Player Piano, Macmillan & Co Limited, London, 1953
1955
R. Furneaux Jordan, Architectural Review, Lubetkin, July 1955, page 37

Ove Arup, The Listener, Modern architecture: the structural fallacy, 7th July, 1955,
as citied in, The Arup Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985, page 19
[30/30]
Adam Bear
1960
• Leonard Benevolo, History of modern architecture (volume 2), Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London, 1960
1962
Ove Arup, The Times, Coventry Cathedral: how the plan took shape, 25th May,
1962, as citied in, The Arup Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985, page 22
1963
• Colin Faber, Candela: the shell builder, Architectural Press, London, 1963
1965
Peter Rawsthorne, RIBA Journal, Ove Arup talks to Peter Rawsthorne, April 1965,
page 176
Ove Arup, Westminster Chamber of Commerce, The problem of producing quality in
building, 27th April, 1965, as citied in, The Arup Journal, Volume 20, Number 1,
Spring 1985, page 23
1966
Ove Arup, RIBA Journal, Royal gold medal address ‘Art and architecture: the
architect and engineer relationship’, August 1966, page 350
Builder Extraordinary, Ove Arup, BBC TV, 1966, as citied in, Grand Designs, The
Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th November 1995
1967
Ove Arup, Financial Times, Advances in engineering, 11th July, 1967, as citied in,
The Arup Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985, page 25
1969
Ove Arup, The Structural Engineer, The world of the structural engineer, January
Ove Arup, Jack Zunz, The Structural Engineer, The Sydney Opera House, Volume
47, Number 10, October 1969, page 419
1970
Ove Arup, Winchester meeting of Arup organization, Key speech, 9th July 1970, as
citied in, The Arup Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985, page 34
Ove Arup, Royal Society of Arts, Architects engineers and builders, 11th March 1970,
as citied in, The Arup Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985, page 27
[31/31]
Adam Bear
1972
Ove Arup, Building Services Engineering Society, Inaugural Speech, The built
environment, 26th October, 1972, as citied in, The Arup Journal, Volume 20,
Number 1, Spring 1985, page 37
1973
Ove Arup, Institution of Structural Engineers, Gold Medal Speech, 11th October,
• G.H. Hutton, A.D.G. Devonald, Value in Building, Applied Science Publishers,
London, 1973
Omnibus, The Sydney Opera House, BBC TV, 1973, as citied in Grand Designs, The
Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th November 1995
1976
• Brent C Brolin, The failure of modern architecture, Studio Vista, London, 1976
1997
¾ Pier Luigi Nervi, Cement and Concrete Association, 1997
1978
Ove Arup, The Building Centre, 18th May, 1978, as citied in, The Arup Journal,
Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985, page 46
¾ Ove Arup slide set, The Cement and Concrete Association, 1978
1979
1980
• Kenneth Frampton, Modern architecture a critical history, Thames & Hudson,

London, 1980
1981
• Peter Coe, Malcom Reading, Lubetkin and Tecton, architecture and social
commitment a practical study, University of Bristol, Bristol, 1981
• Akinori Kato, Pier Luigi Nervi, Process Architecture, Tokyo, 1981
Powel, Phillip Dawson, Cantacuzino, RIBA journal, Phillip Dawson [Gold Medal
Speech], Volume 88, Number 8, page 60
[32/32]
Adam Bear
1982
• Arup Associates, Arup Associates, Penguin books ltd, London, 1982

• William JR Curtis, Modern architecture since 1900, Phaidon, Oxford, 1982
Author Unknown, RIBA Journal, Gold medal awarded to Berthold Lubetkin, March
1982, page 6
William Tatton Brown, Architects Journal, Tecton Remembered, 23rd June 1982,
page 35
John S. Allan, Architects Journal, The unattached collaborator, 23rd June 1982, page
36
Colin Boyne, Lance Wright, Best of Architects Working Details, Volume 1 External,
The Architectural Press, London, 1982
1983
• Michael Brawne, Arup Associates: The biography of an architectural practice, Lund

Humpries, London, 1983
Finsbury health centre, Videocassete, British Universities Film and Video Council,
1983
1984
Lance Knobel, Ove Arup, Domus, Domus interview, Volume 646, page 2
1985
The Arup Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985
1986
Ove Arup & Partners, Ove Arup & Partners, Academy editions, London, 1986
1988
Jens Arup, Jack Zunz, Sir Ove Arup 1895-1988, Ove Arup Partnership, 1988
1989
Author Unkown, Architects Journal, Last rite up for Arup, 8th March 1989, page 6
D.T. Yeomans, Structural Engineer, An architect / engineer collaboration: the
Tecton / Arup flats, Volume 67 Number 10, May 1989, page 183
1990
• Trevor Draycott, Structural Elements Design Manual, Butterworth Heinmann,

Oxford, 1990
[33/33]
Adam Bear
1992
• Barry Smart, Modern Conditions, Post-modern controversies, Routledge, London,

1992
• John Allan, Berthold Lubetkin, Architecture and the tradition of progress, RIBA
publications, London, 1992
• Kenneth Frampton, Modern architecture a critical history, Thames & Hudson Ltd,
London, 1992
Martin Pawley, World Architecture, Inside the Arup archipelago, Number 18, July
1992, page 76
Richard MacCormac, Renzo Piano, Peter Rice, Richard Rogers, RIBA Journal, Peter
Rice Royal Gold Medal Address, September 1992, page 26
Richard Rogers, Richard Hough, Lorraine Lin, Alistair Lenczner, Architects Journal,
Peter Rice: Tributes to a great structural engineer and the designs which may now
never be built, 4th November 1992, page 8
1993
• Tony Buzan, The mind Map Book: radiant thinking, BBC books, London, 1993
1994
• Stephen Dobney, Arup Associates: selected and current works, The images
Publishing Group Ltd, Australia, 1994
• Peter Rice, An Engineer Imagines, Artemis, London, 1994
• Degenhard Sommer, Ove Arup & Partners Engineering the Built Environment,
Birkhäuser Verlag, Berlin, 1994
• Ian Ritchie, (Well) Connected Architecture, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1994
1995
• Hans Bertens, The idea of the post-modern a history, Routledge, London, 1995
• Kenneth Frampton, Studies in tectonic culture: The poetics of construction in
nineteenth and twentieth century architecture, MIT Press, London 1995
• Karl T. Ulrich, Steven D. Eppinger, Product Design and Development, McGraw Hill,
New York, 1995
Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th November 1995
The Late Show, Peter Rice, as citied in, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV,
14th November 1995
1996
• Kate Nesbitt, Theorizing a new agenda for architecture, An anthology of

architectural theory 1965-1995, Princeton architectural press, New York, 1996
• Marilynn B Brewer, Inter group Relations, Open University Press, Buckingham, 1996
[34/34]
Adam Bear
1997
• David Dunster, Arups on Engineering, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1997

• Alan Day, Digital Building, Laxton’s, Oxford, 1997
• John R Geist, The experience of modernism, modern architects and the future city,
E.F. Spon, London, 1997
1998
o Sir John Egan, Rethinking construction, 1998

http://www.rethinkingconstruction.org/documents/Rethinking%20Construction%20
Report.pdf, [31/12/03]
Robin Nicholson, The Architects Journal, Constructing change, 26th November 1998,
page 62
Alessandro Rocca, Ian Ritchie, Watson-Guptill Publications, 1998
• Richard L, Gregory, Eye and Brain, The Psychology of Seeing, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 1998, Fifth Edition
1999
• Vitruvius, Ten books on architecture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999
2001
• André Brown, Peter Rice, The Engineer’s Contribution To contemporary

Architecture, Thomas Telford, London, 2001
2002
o Duncan Michael, The Arup Journal, Values and change benefit or problem ?,
January 2002, as citied in,
http://www.arup.com/insite/publications/Publication59.pdf, [31/12/03]
o Arup annual report, January 2002
http://www.arup.com/about/pdfs/AnnRep2002.pdf [31/12/03]
• John Allan, Berthold Lubetkin, Merrel, London, 2002
• Nicholas Bullock, Building the Post War World Modern Architecture and
reconstructed Britain, Routledge, London, 2002
• Christopher Day, Spirit and Place, Healing our environment, Healing environment,
Architectural Press, Oxford, 2002
• Dean Hawkes, Wayne Forster, Architecture, Engineering and Environment,
Laurence King Publishing, London, 2002
2003
o Adam Bear, The benefits of the interrelationship between architects and engineers,
submitted to competition run by the Institute of Civil Engineers,
http://www.ukbear.com/adam/essay.html, [19/11/03], See Appendix B
[35/35]
Adam Bear
o Justin McGuirk, Cecil Balmond, The Guardian, Almost famous, Friday 19th
December, as cited in,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,117110,1109972,00.html,
[28/12/03]
[36/36]
Adam Bear
An Engineer’s affect on Modern Architecture, Appendix A, Chronology
Appendix A, Chronology
Notes
The timeline here flows from Arup’s birth to the time of writing. The intention of its
inclusion is to give the reader the background information in respect to the order of events
in discussion. As an appendix the opportunity is taken to make longer quotes than could
be afforded in an essay, it is a resource as much as the bibliography for the reader keen
to make their own understanding of the subject.
1895
Ove Nyquist Arup born in Newcastle 16th Aprill, to Norwegian mother and Danish
father veterinary commissioner to the Danish government.115
Arup lives first twelve years of life in Hamburg.116
1901
Berthold Lubetkin born in Triflis, Georgia.117
1907
Lubetkin schools at Triflis and Tenishevskaya gymnasium, St Petersburg.118

Arup Sent to boarding school at Sorø.
“Run more or less on English lines – we even played cricket!.”119
1913
Arup studies Philosophy and Mathematics at Copenhagen University.

“Once I had discovered what could and could not be discovered then I would be ready
what to do next.”120
1916
Lubetkin schools at 9th gymnasium Medvednikov, Moscow.121
115
John Allan, Berthold Lubetkin, Architecture and the tradition of progress, RIBA publications, London,
1992, page 205
116
117
1992, page 613
118
Ibid
119
Ove Arup, RIBA Journal, Ove Arup talks to Peter Rawsthorne, April 1965, page 176
120
121
1992, page 613
Appendix A, Chronology [1/1]
Adam Bear
Arup changes studies to engineering at Copenhagen’s Royal technical college,

which specialised in reinforced concrete.
“Having decided that philosophy would not solve the mysteries of the universe… wasn’t
sure of being artistically good enough to be an architect.”122
“I could at last [ least ? ] become an engineer. I was good at mathematics, physics, and
all that. Perhaps I could become an architect later on, once I knew all the technical
stuff.”123
1917
Lubetkin enrols at Stroganov, School of applied art, Moscow.124
1920
Lubetkin acts as military cadet and stand by dispatch rider for red army.125
1922
Lubetkin enrols at Berlin textile academy, attending classes in building technology

and reinforced concrete at Bauschule Charlottenburg.126
Arup graduates and takes job with Danish contracting firm Christiani and Nelson
(specialists in marine reinforced concrete structures) in Hamburg.127
1923
Lubetkin enters Architectural school at Warsaw polytechnic.128
1925
Lubetkin arrives in Paris and assists construction of Soviet Pavilion and kiosks by
Melnikov at Expositiondes arts decoratifs.129
Arup marries Dane, Li Arup and lives in Battersea.130
Arup becomes chief designer of C & N London office.131
122
123
124
1992, page 613
125
Ibid
126
Ibid
127
128
1992, page 613
129
Ibid
130
131
Adam Bear
1926
Lubetkin enters Ecole Spéciale d’Architecture.132
1931
Arup takes out patent for cooling tower design.133
1932
Lubetkin forms Tecton with Godfrey Samuel, Michael Dugdale, Valentine Harding,
Anthony Chitty, Lindsay Drake and Francis Skinner.134
Godfrey Samuel approaches Dr Phillip Ellman, his father’s physician. Ellman
encourages Tecton to work up the TB clinic.135
Godfrey Samuel’s cousin Phillip D’Arcy introduces Solly Zuckerman. Zuckerman
mentions that two gorillas were being kept in a lemur house. Lubetkin suggests
that the gorillas should have their own building. Matter referred to Dr Geoffrey
Vevers then to Sir Peters Chalmers Mitchell who then advised the council.136
“I am strongly of the opinion that we ought to provide adequate quarters for this unique
exhibition. Dr Ververs has taken up the idea with a very clever Russian architect, and we
hope to get plans and estimates within the next few days.”137
Lubetkin and Tecton work up initial design for Gorilla house in just four days.138
Arup starts work on Gorilla house with Lubetkin / Tecton at London Zoo.139
1933
Gorilla house completed.140

Contemporary LCC byelaws as applied by London’s district surveyors did not
recognise the panel as a structural member, treating it for calculation purposes as a
column. Classification of the gorilla house and, in 1934 the penguin pool as
‘temporary buildings’ allowed Tecton [and Arup] to evade this limitation.141
Lubetkin receives commissions for Penguin pool, Highpoint one and Plumstead
house with A.V. Pilichowski.142
Arup completes café and shelter, Canvey Island.143
132
1992, page 613
133
134
1992, page 108
135
Ibid, page 114
136
Ibid, page 202
137
Ibid, page 202
138
Ibid, page 202
139
Ibid, page 204
140
Ibid, page 613
141
Ibid, page 207
142
Ibid, page 613
143
Ibid, page 207
Adam Bear
Cement Marketing Company organise working class flats competition.144

Arup leaves C & N (uninterested in building and non civil engineering projects) for
Lotz and (fellow Dane Olaf) Kier.145
“I agreed on the condition that they would quote keenly for the work of Tecton and other
modern architects.”146
Arup suggests to Lubetkin leaving out some structure in highpoint one.
“Lubetkin was delighted when I suggested leaving out the columns and most of the
beams allowing the walls to take over most of the work.”147
144
D.T. Yeomans, Structural Engineer, An architect / engineer collaboration: the Tecton / Arup flats, Volume
67 Number 10, May 1989, page 185
145
1992, page 205
146
147
Ibid
Adam Bear
1934
Penguin pool completed148.

“A genuine attempt has been made to preserve the birds from boredom which generally
overtakes all zoo inhabitants.”149
Michael Dugdale leaves Tecton to establish an independent practice.150
Wells Coats designs Lawn Road Flats, Hampstead.
“It apparently did occur to either Wells coats or Maxwell Fry to span the in the other
direction, even though the floor spans were much greater. In spite of the ‘truth to
materials’ tenet of the modern movement, the concrete walls that provided the
architectural character of these buildings, were certainly not an expression of a natural
choice of materials. They could of just of well have been brick walls, and in fact would
have been better if they had. The formwork of the columns would have been easier to
make, and there would have been no risk of cracking developments at the column wall
148
1992, page 613
149
John Haviden, Architectural Review, The penguin pool in the zoo, July 1934, page 18
150
1992, page 286
Adam Bear
junction. It would have also been easier to provide thermal insulation, which was one of
the weaknesses of the Lawn road flats.”151
1935
Highpoint one completed.152

“If we assume that the idea of load bearing walls was the first decision, it was not
possible to use a floor based on transverse beams because, being monolithic with the
thin walls, the moment imposed on the latter would be too great. However, the plans of
the flats divided each arm of the structure in half, with the large living room occupying
most of one side. It therefore made good sense for the structure to be based on a spine
beam along a dividing wall, with floors spanning between this beam and the external
walls, and ‘columns’ supporting the spine beam could then be short sections of the
dividing wall. The external structural walls would serve to resist wind loads.”153
“Highpoint I was an orgasm.”154
“It mattered [to students of the AA] because it proclaimed that their modernism was
really a structural revolution, not just a style; it mattered if only as a symbol their
modern movement could be a reality not a mere protest.”155
Lubetkin receives commissions for Dudley Zoo, and Finsbury health centre as well
as winning competition (with Arup) for working class flats.156
“When considering the type of construction most suitable for a block of flats in
reinforced concrete, there are three main points to be borne in mind: (1) The
construction should be as economical as possible; (2) it should afford the architect the
greatest possible freedom in planning, and it should be worked out in worked out in
collaboration with the architect so that the plan and the construction form a unity; and
(3) it should be as simple as possible.”157
Godfrey Samuel leaves Tecton.158
Arup publishes articles in ‘Architectural design and construction’ on ‘the planning of
reinforced concrete.’
“If the old regulations are applied, the carrying wall will have to be calculated as a
column. This means, that only the core can be taken into account, and further as the
151
152
1992, page 613
153
154
R. Furneuax Jordon, Architectural Review, Lubetkin, July 1955, page 39
155
Ibid, page 40
156
1992, page 613
157
158
1992, page 286
Adam Bear
permissible slenderness ratios in the old regulations are unreasonably low, the result is a
very heavy and uneconomical wall.” 159
1936
Le Corbusier visits Highpoint I.

“The building is large enough to be an example, a proof. The ground floor here extends
like the suburb surface of a lake, absorbing easily the lines of traffic. These flats possess
the most important factor of all domestic architecture: sun, space and intimacy. The
building at Highgate is an achievement of the first rank, and a milestone that will be
useful to everybody.”160
Val Harding and Anthony Chitty leave Tecton.161
Lubetkin receives commission for high point two.162
1938
Arup leaves Kier to form Arup & Arup a design and construction firm with cousin
Arne, Arup Designs offering separate design services, whilst Arup himself practised
as a consulting engineer163
“If people chose to come to me as consultant, then neither Arup & Arup nor Arup
designs could bid for the job. That established clear lines. Of course the two personae
were quite clearly one and the same firm, but the advantage for our clients was that they
could employ as consultants, engineers who had a practical experience of buildings, or
on the other hand employ a building firm that was run by engineers.”164
Finsbury health centre and highpoint two completed165
“Whereas Highpoint I stands on tip toe and spreads its wings; Highpoint II sits back on
it’s haunches like a Buddha – the Buddha that squats, not the serene, comprehending
Buddha of the architect’s intention.”166
“Arup and Tecton began to move away from the wall frame type of structure with
highpoint II. The End wings used the wall frame and spine beam layout as before, but
the centre of the block had a frame running from front to back with clearly expressed
columns in the elevations.”167
159
page 340
160
Le Corbusier, Architectural Review, The vertical garden city, January 1936, page 9
161
1992, page 286
162
1992, page 614
163
164
Ibid
165
1992, page 614
166
Architectural Review, Lubetkin, July 1955, page 41
167
Adam Bear
Lubetkin receives commission for Air Raid Precautions (ARP) survey.168
1939
ARP report published.169

Lubetkin marries Margaret Church.170
Lubetkin buys upper kilcott farm, Hillesley Gloucester.171
1940
Lubetkin assigns Arup to ARP.172

Tecton disbanded.173
1942
“The creation of a fund of unbiased information available to all. This would mean the
setting up of institutions working for the benefit of society as a whole, who would
therefore probably have to be funded by the state. I enumerate at random some of the
services which should be rendered. One would be the proper scientific testing of all new,
and for that matter old, building materials.”174
1945
Lubetkin and Arup write letters to each other regarding the end of their work
together.175
Prestressed concrete becomes a domineering technique.176
1946
Arup ends contracting side of business.177
1947
Lubetkin accepts invitation to become town planer for Peter lee.178
168
1992, page 614
169
Ibid
170
Ibid
171
Ibid
172
Ibid
173
Ibid
174
Ove Arup, British Association for the Advancement of Science, Science and world planning, 1942, as citied
in The Arup Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985, page 16
175
1992, page 442
176
177
Ibid, page 238
Adam Bear
Agreement to dissolve Tecton as soon as feasible.179

Arup’s article on shell construction appears in ‘Architectural design’.
“Slabs have, of course, always been a feature of reinforced concrete design, but they
have almost been exclusively considered as members resisting forces perpendicular to
their own plane and therefore, mainly subject to bending. In the British Codes of
Practice and Regulations, for instance, there are no regulations for thin load-bearing
walls; a vertical slab is always considered as a panel held in position by a frame – a
wrong way of looking at it, leading to clumsy and faulty designs.”180
1948
Tecton formally dissolved.181

Arup forms Arup & partners.
1953
Tower cranes widely available, prefabrication techniques prove comparable in ease

to in situ.182
Government stops restricting the use of steel in buildings.183
Ove Arup made a CBE.184
Phillip Dowson joins Ove Arup & Partners.
Vonnegut publishes Player Piano.
“I guess the third ones been going on for some time, if you mean thinking machines.
That would be the third revolution, I guess – machines that devaluate human
thinking.”185
1955
Arup’s article on ‘Modern architecture: the structural fallacy’ appears in the listener.
“The engineer is probably as keen as the architect to evolve an exciting structural
solution but it his duty to point out to the architect that the beautiful structure is rarely
the same as the economical structure, though in some inspired solutions the two may
almost coincide, Yet in spite of this, I would count that there is something valuable and
178
1992, page 614
179
Ibid, page 614
180
Ove Arup, Architectural Design, Shell construction, 17 (11), 1947, as citied in, The Arup Journal, Volume
20, Number 1, Spring 1985, page 17
181
1992, page 614
182
183
Ibid, page 240
184
All about Ove, http://www.arup.com/about/ove1.cfm, [31/12/03]
185
Kurt Vonnegut Junior, Player Piano, as citied in, Barry Smart, Modern Conditions, Post-modern
controversies, Routledge, London, 1992, preface
Adam Bear
right in this architectural approach to structure, and many engineers might do with a
dose of it.”186
1957
Arup approached by Utzon for Sydney opera house.187

“The shells would be solved somehow – this scheme I wanted to go in for, with all I
had.”188
1963
Arup Associates formed.189

“We wanted to give this group an identity and to make it clear that it was a body of
Architects and Engineers working on an equal basis and dedicated to the task of
improving and reforming the design of buildings to take account of the many new
building techniques which are being developed.”190
Arup completes Durham footbridge, receiving Civic trust award 1965.191
“The purist will say that while I have an absolutely symmetrically free standing structure
yet I go and fix it at one end. That it is no longer pure. I wanted it to be pure. But even
so, not to have fixed it would have been carrying the logic too far. It would have meant
providing extra wind bracing, making it more expensive, less safe even. So I defend
what I’ve done – even if you could say it is no longer pure.”192
1965
Arup talks to Peter Rawstorne.

“When it comes to the question of collaboration which should exist between the
architect and the engineer, then, assuming you are looking for something special, that
you are making something which has to be thought out fully right from the beginning, or
that you are dealing with an industrialized building programme, this collaboration should
be a very intimate affair.”193
Arup talks to Westminster chamber of commerce.
“Design must take into account of purpose – and purpose is politics if you like. And
design must certainly take into account execution – in fact it is nothing else than
indicating a sensible way of building. So both client and contractor are involved in
design. As I use this word here, it is a vital link in the chain that leads to the realization
186
Ove Arup, The Listener, Modern architecture: the structural fallacy, 7th July, 1955, as citied in, The Arup
Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985, page 19
187
188
Ibid
189
Ibid, page 245
190
1983, page 7
191
Degenhard Sommer, Ove Arup & Partners Engineering the Built Environment, Birkhäuser Verlag, Berlin,
1994, page 105
192
193
Ibid, page 180
Adam Bear
of the project, in fact it is the key to the building. It includes all drawings, specifications,
descriptions and detailed instructions about what should be built and how it should be
built.”194
1966
Arup Associates receive RIBA award for Mining and Metallurgy building at University
of Birmingham, completed in the same year.195
Arup receives the Royal Gold medal ‘for services to architecture’.
“I think that more emphasis should be placed on the central position of design. As I
pointed out when I talked about my experience as a designer for a contracting firm, the
design – and by that I mean the total design, which embodies the manner of execution-
this total design is the key to the whole thing.”196
1967
Arup’s article on the ’Advances in Engineering’ is published in The Financial Times.

“The design must then be firmly anchored to the method of construction, and the
implications of a given choice must be understood by the legal, financial and political
authorities if best use is to be made of our technological potential. There is no easy way
to achieve this, but the progress which has been achieved lately, is I believe, largely due
to the fact that the interdependence of the different professions and institutions dealing
with building is better understood.”197
1968
Arup gives paper on ‘the world of the structural engineer’ to the Institution of
Structural Engineers.
“Engineering is not a science. Science studies particular events to find general laws.
Engineering design makes use of these laws to solve particular practical problems. In
this it is more closely related to art or craft; as in art, its problems are undefined, there
are many solutions, good, bad and indifferent,. The art is by a synthesis of ends and
means, to arrive at a good solution. This is a creative activity, involving imagination,
intuition and deliberate choice, for the possible solutions often vary in ways which
cannot be directly compared by quantitative methods.”198
“System engineering is an interesting and significant development. To me it is also
significantly alarming. There are two things I am worried about: first, the quantity
194
Ove Arup, Westminster Chamber of Commerce, The problem of producing quality in building, 27th April,
195
1983, page 194
196
197
Ove Arup, Financial Times, Advances in engineering, 11th July, 1967, as citied in, The Arup Journal,
Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985, page 26
198
Adam Bear
syndrome: The idea that everything can be measured, multiplied with a unit rate to
arrive a value in dollars. This is the so called scientific method, and it is evading
territories where it simply does not apply… The area of what can be measured is
expanding all the time, but doesn’t mean that we can ignore which can’t be
measured [art]. It may prove even more important. 199
1969
Mr Jens Arup gives paper on the Sydney Opera House on behalf of his father Ove.
“What price art? [sic] Is it worth striving for perfection for its own sake, for the quality
of one kind or another? Or should it only be pushed so far as our computer tells us it
yields a financial return?”200
1970
Arup gives his key speech.

“The term ‘Total Architecture’ implies that all relevant design decisions have been
considered together and have been integrated into a whole by a well organised team
empowered to fix priorities. This is an ideal which can never - or only very rarely – be
fully realised in practice, but which is well worth striving for, for artistic wholeness or
excellence depends on it, and for our own sake we need the stimulation produced by
excellence.”201
Arup delivers paper on ‘Architects, engineers and builders’ to the Royal Society of
Arts.
“I use the words ‘total design’ to distinguish it from what usually goes under the name of
design, or is called a sketch, scheme, blueprint or plan – which are generally only partial
designs, ranging from mere recording of a tentative idea to what almost accounts to total
design which only needs to be supplemented by the detailing of certain parts or site
arrangements carried out by manufacturers, contractors, or specialists. Such definitions
are always somewhat arbitrary or blurred at the edges, but the idea of total design
implies that sufficient decisions have been made and recorded to enable others skilled in
organizing such work to carry it out.”202
“Total architecture is not just a matter of creating a sculptural monument which
enhances our visual environment, or a matter of fulfilling certain functional requirements
or satisfying the need for ‘firmness’. It is all these things together, and moreover they
have to be achieved at a cost the client or community can afford, and therefore must
embrace the art of building in a practical, sensible way.”203
“To reach this state of understanding between members reared in different
establishments where no thought is given to their own discipline, takes time. Ad Hoc
199
200
Ove Arup, Jack Zunz, The Structural Engineer, The Sydney Opera House, Volume 47, Number 10,
October 1969, page 420
201
202
Ove Arup, Royal Society of Arts, Architects engineers and builders, 11th March 1970, as citied in, The
203
Ibid, page 31
Adam Bear
teams, hurried thrown together for the duration of one job, are useless for the production
of quality, unless the coordination of work takes place at a higher level between
principals who agree on the total aim. They have to get acquainted with each other’s
territory, to understand at least the principles followed and the aims pursued. They have
to approve of these aims, and they must come to like each other, or at least accept with
tolerance and humour each others idiosyncrasies. They must for a large extent be
prepared to sink their own personalities in that of the group, forgetting status, position,
and personal or professional pride.” 204
1971
Arup Associates complete Horizon Factory for John Player and Son, receiving RIBA
award the following year.205
Ove Arup & partners complete Barbican redevelopment & arts centre London,
receiving Institution of Structural Engineers Special Award in 1981.206
Ove Arup given a knighthood.207
1972
Arup gives inaugural speech ‘The built environment’ to ‘Building Services

Engineering Society’ at the Institution of Civil Engineers.
“One must somehow create the conditions which will allow such collaborations to take
place, and one must educate members of the building team to see their own contribution
not as an end in itself, but as a part of a common endeavour to create comprehensive,
Total Architecture.”208
“Like the medicine that cured the fever and killed the patient. We must understand that
everything we do affects everything else, and that we must consider the consequences of
our actions. Efficiency in achieving our narrow aim at the lowest cost to us or our client
can not remain our only yard stick. Systems engineering and value engineering attempt
to take into account the effects of a given technological decision when assessing its
merit. But merit is still equated with cost efficiency. This is entirely different from
human welfare.”209
“Lubetkin detailed the lift cage and shaft in tubular steel and netting, light and elegant,
and between us we dealt with waterproofing , insulation, surface treatment of concrete,
etc., in a very dilettantish way, I am afraid. It had to be cheap, and shoddiness gradually
resulted, as with all these modern Corb inspired buildings. I dealt with the structural
design, suggesting doing away with columns and beams in side the concrete box – which
204
Ibid
205
1983, page 196
206
1994, page 105
207
All about Ove, http://www.arup.com/about/ove1.cfm, [31/12/03]
208
1972, as citied in, Ian Ritchie, (Well) Connected Architecture, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1994, page 21
209
Adam Bear
pleased Lubetkin – and organizing the construction, devising a special moving platform
raised by jacks from which formwork was suspended. And I had to fight the authorities
about the bye laws and concrete regulations. So between us it was the complete
integration of design and construction.”210
1973
Oil Crisis.211
Ove Arup & partners complete Sydney opera house, receiving Institution of
Structural Engineers Special Award in 1981.212
Arup receives Gold medal from the Institution of Structural Engineers.
“All my life the things I have spent my life trying to say are simple, commonplace, and
obvious, things that every moderate person would understand. For instance: that design
and construction are interdependent and must be adjusted to one another… that to start
thinking about the cost of what you are designing after you have designed it, is a bit
late.”213
1976
Arup Associates complete Sir Thomas White building, St John’s College Oxford,
receiving RIBA award 1981.214
1977
Arups & Partners terminated.

Ownership transferred to two companies, Ove Arup and Partners and Arup
Associates.215
Ove Arup & Partners complete centre Pompidou receiving Institution of Structural
engineers award in 1977.216
1978
Death of Margaret Lubetkin, Lubetkin begins writing Samizdat.217

Arup Associates Complete Lloyd’s of London Administrative headquarters, receiving
RIBA award 1981.218
210
Ibid, page 42
211
212
1994, page 105
213
Ove Arup, Institution of Structural Engineers, Gold Medal Speech, 11th October, 1973, as citied in, The
214
1983, page 197
215
216
1994, page 107
217
1992, page 570
Adam Bear
Arup Associates complete Gateway House 1, receiving RIBA award 1979.219

Arup Associates complete CEGB South west Region Headquarters Bristol, receiving
RIBA award 1980.220
Arup gives talk at ‘The Building Centre’
“For it can be argued – as I have done for 40 years – that what I call Total Design is the
key to what is built. If the design is right, and, if it executed as intended, then the job
will be right.”221

“Wer die Wahrheit kennet und sagetsie nicht,
He who knowest the truth and doesn’t speak out
der ist fϋr wahr ein erbärmlicher Wicht
he is indeed a contemptible lout!”222
1979
Arup looks back on the 1930’s in Arup Associations.

“I owe a great debt to Lubetkin and Tecton. They taught me that architecture can only be
produced by trying again and again until a satisfactory solution has been reached, and
that the engineer, bent on creating logical, elegant and buildable structure, must realise
that there are more important aims which may take precedence, even at the cost of a
distorted and more expensive structure. The architect on the other hand must realise that
the engineer’s aim is important and should not be jeopardised at were whim, and that
there may be case for a fresh look if it can’t be achieved with the present
arrangement.”223
1980
Arup Associates complete Trebor factory Colchester, receiving RIBA award 1983.224
Frampton writes on critical regionalism.
“Critical Regionalism has to be understood as a marginal practice, one which, while it is
critical of modernization, nonetheless still refuses to abandon emancipatory and
progressive aspects of the modern architectural legacy. At the same time, Critical
regionalism’s fragmentary and marginal nature serves to distant it both from normative
optimization and from the naïve utopianism of the early modern movement. In contrast
to the line that runs from Haussmann to Le Corbusier, it favours the small rather than the
big plan.”225
218
1983, page 198
219
Ibid
220
Ibid
221
Ove Arup, The Building Centre, 18th May, 1978, as citied in, The Arup Journal, Volume 20, Number 1,
Spring 1985, page 46
222
Ibid, page 47
223
224
1983, page 198
225
Kenneth Frampton, Modern architecture a critical history, Thames & Hudson Ltd, London, 1992, page 327
Adam Bear
1981
Phillip Dowson receives RIBA Royal Gold Medal.

“I joined Ove Arup and Partners in 1953 and the architectural practice was really born
out of wedlock in 1956 when I was commissioned to do some work by Somerville
College. This required a reassessment of what we should do in the future, either
separately or together. By then a close working relationship developed between Ronald
Hobbs, Derek Sugden an myself. Together we had designed some industrial buildings
and became close colleagues, which we have remained ever since. In the event, the
infant was formally christened Arup Associates in 1963.”226
1982
Lubetkin receives Royal Gold medal for Architecture.227

“So the art that started as a protest and stimulus of change became and remains
institutionalised and adopted by those who main preoccupations is to prevent change
whilst appearing to welcome and promote it. The stationary masquerading as progress.
And here we are, up against the very nexus of the so-called post-modernism.”228
“The epigones, the rearguard reactionaries, specialise in attacking what they like to call
the international style, which I think is humanities greatest invention since the roulette
wheel. How is this style to be identified? What are the common features and shared
assumptions that define it? What is there in common between Siedlung Weissenhof near
Stuttgart and the penthouse on top of highpoint?”229
Phillip Dowson appears in ‘ Best of Architects Working Details’ in reference to roof
and wall design of a factory at Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire.
“Designed by Ove Arup and Partners: Phillip Dowson and Francis Pym (architects in
charge).”230
1984
Arup interviewed by Lance Knobel for Domus.

“After a lifetime of working with architects, what do you think is necessary for fruitful
collaboration between the two professions? You need engineers who have a feeling for
the architecture and architects who have a feeling for the integrity of the idea. I think
engineers are better for integrity, but architects are better for human things.”231
226
Powel, Phillip Dawson, Cantacuzino, RIBA journal, Phillip Dawson [Gold Medal Speech], Volume 88,
Number 8, page 60
227
1992, page 615
228
Ibid, page 587
229
Ibid, page 588
230
Colin Boyne, Lance Wright, Best of Architects Working Details, Volume 1 External, The Architectural
Press, London, 1982, page 82
231
Lance Knobel, Ove Arup, Domus, Domus interview, Volume 646, page 2
Adam Bear
1986
Ove Arup and Partners complete Lloyd’s of London redevelopment, receiving

Institution of Structural Engineers Special award in 1986.232
Ove Arup and Partners complete Hong Kong & Shanghai bank headquarters,
receiving Institution of Structural Engineers Special award in 1987.233
1988
Arup dies 2nd February aged 93.
1989
Peter Rice reads eulogy for Ove Arup.

“Rice was clear that what Arup did was to apply no nonsense Danish engineering to
modern architecture. Although he did not say in so many words, Rice suggested that it
was Arup and not Tecton who thought of cantilevering the ramps of the penguin pool,
and Arup who transformed the significance of Highpoint by using slabs and cross walls
instead of columns and beams.”234
1990
Lubetkin dies 23rd October, Bristol.235
1991
Ove Arup and partners complete Century tower Tokyo, receiving Institute of
Structural Engineers special Award in 1992.236
1992
Peter Rice receives Royal Gold Medal.237

Peter Rice dies 25th October.238
Martin Pawley’s article ‘Inside the Arup archipelago’ appears in World Architecture.
232
1994, page 109
233
Ibid
234
Author Unknown, Architects Journal, Last rite up for Arup, 8th March 1989
235
1992, page 615
236
1994, page 113
237
Richard MacCormac, Renzo Piano, Peter Rice, Richard Rogers, RIBA Journal, Royal Gold Medal Address
1992, September 1992, page 26
238
Richard Rogers, Richard Hough, Lorraine Lin, Alistair Lenczner, Architects Journal, Peter Rice: Tributes to
a great structural engineer and the designs which may now never be built, 4th November 1992, page 8
Adam Bear
“Does an engineer have to sympathise totally with his architect client in order to make
the relationship work? Or can he stand back, be aloof, design for anybody? Balmond
replies. ‘The important thing for an engineer is to understand certain hypothesis that an
architect is subscribing to,’ he says. ‘As a designer, you can’t spread yourself among
many hypotheses. You can only work with one, two, maybe three architects. With an
understanding of art and your science, you can work towards a hypothesis giving
options, and from that comes a dialogue.”239
1995
The Unseen Hand broadcasted by the British Broadcasting Corporation, on 14th

November 1995, as part of the Grand Designs series.
“Engineering is about wanting to change and historically we’ve paid for it. We were
burnt at the steak as alchemists. We were thrown out of the country when we discovered
iron, and we were called oily rag trades at Oxford university in the 1950’s and only got
university status in the 60’s.”240
“Watch the engineer there, don’t the great steel tubes of the bridge make him look
small.”241
“There are some engineers who suddenly develop a sort of arrogance, who even develop
a sort of architectural response, in the mistake that they believe the engineering of
something is the architecture.”242
“Our problem is we work with architects, and they are specially trained at architecture
school to be arrogant. So we have to do our best to keep up.”243
“The exhibition at the [1998] Royal Academy where Foster, Rogers and Sterling all
exhibited their work, a lot of people know that Arups was the engineer for all those
projects and a lot have said it should have been Foster, Rogers, Stirling and Arups. That
should have been the name of the exhibition, because probably in fee terms, in money,
probably people paid Arups more to design those buildings than the architects. It
wouldn’t surprise me, we should have our name on the program anyway.”244
“I think Arups are very much part of the design team, they should be credited, they are
credited, but their role is not credited by society. I think that from my point of view, it’s
a mistake. It sort of makes architects out of scale and I don’t like that. In other words it
tends to make architects look very bad or very good if you like. But it’s the architect
who takes credit at both ends and I don’t think that’s a good idea because it’s not the
reality.”245
“A man [Arup] determined to bring together architecture, technology and humanity.”246
“He [Arup] had this belief in excellence and humanity and the importance of design, in
the benefits of design for other people. And so I think people work here not for the
239
Martin Pawley, World Architecture, Inside the Arup archipelago, Number 18, July 1992, page 77
240
Chris Mc Carthy, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th November 1995
241
Female voice in TV archive as citied in, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, 14th November 1995
242
William Aslop, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th November 1995
243
John Thorton, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th November 1995
244
Chris Wise, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th November 1995
245
Sir Richard Rogers, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th November 1995
246
Male voice in Builder Extraordinary as citied in, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th
November 1995
Adam Bear
money, they obviously need to get paid , they don’t work here to make a lot of money
they work here because they believe in something the old man believed in, which is a
slightly humanist approach for engineering.”247
“The main aims of the firm are Quality of work, Total architecture, Humane
organisation, Straight and honourable dealings, Social usefulness and Reasonable
prosperity for members.”248
“In the sense that they will go and get the young architect whilst he is still a student and
once you’ve got him you’ve got him for life. There looking for the ideas and the
relations that will develop later between people and that is their fundamental
strength.”249
“If there are two people sitting having a discussion and your talking about the design,
like the south bank route, at the end of it something comes out of that discussion which
is then drawn by the architect, in my view that doesn’t mean that it’s the architect’s
design.”250
“The architect daren’t say anything too hard about the engineering because out will
come the numbers or the formulas or non linear analysis, and the poor architect is going
to go ‘ermt?!’. And the same for the engineer, that he looks at the architect and he
daren’t saying anything too hard about the aesthetics, because unless he spent twenty
years privately studying doing art history, and all the rest of it, which he probably hasn’t
had time for. He daren’t say anything too much about colour or form or fluidity of
material. The way the architects expressing it. So you get this conspiracy of silence.”251
“When Brunel completed the Saltash bridge, he put his name on it, like an artist signing
and dating a canvas.”252
“It was only when the infrastructure projects of Great Britain, in Great Britain, started
like the railway station the bridge and so on, and suddenly the architects were saying all
theses jobs are going to engineers, Brunel and Telford and so on. And so they got a bit
humpy so they said how do we get a lobby group together and formed the Royal Institute
of British Architects in 1834. In a sense that’s been the tragedy of architecture ever
since. It’s the fact that you’ve disassociated between two key members who design
buildings and structures in our environment.”253
“Ove Arup in many ways invented the modern movement in Britain. If you look at some
of the early modern movement buildings here, such as the penguin pool at London zoo,
you’ll see that although he is working with a very very intelligent architect, it was Arup
the engineer who showed the architect how to build his dream. And at highpoint one,
Lubetkin wanted to build in a simple concrete structure, like a big egg crate in the sky.
That’s all he can think of, simple concrete structure. Arup said forget all that, what you
can do is let the walls take all the weight, so you don’t need this beam structure in the
centre. So there the engineer was telling the architect to turn his plans upside down, or
247
John Thorton, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th November 1995
248
Arup quote on plaque as citied in, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV, 14th November 1995
249
250
Chris Wise, Grand Designs, The Unseen Hand, BBC TV14th November 1995!
251
252
Ibid
253
Ibid
Adam Bear
even throwing them in the waste paper bin and starting again. So he was a teacher
teaching architects how to be modern.”254
254
Adam Bear
An Engineer’s affect on Modern Architecture, Appendix B, Benefits
Appendix B, Benefits of the inter relationship between Architects

and Engineers
Architects and Engineers do not always get the best from each other; for the sake of
excellence this should not be. Architects and Engineers are two ends of the same
spectrum, but by commonly failing to embrace the other side of the spectrum, holistic
ideals are rarely realised. The problem is that Architects and Engineers methods of solving
problems are different. And more importantly they rarely respect and admire each other’s
ability to solve problems. So when they might be able to help each other, stubborn
superciliousness can stand in the way of collaborative design. Arup planned a better way,
Total Architecture.
“The term ‘Total Architecture’ implies

that all relevant design decisions have
been considered together and have been
integrated into a whole by a well
organised team empowered to fix
priorities. This is an ideal which can
never - or only very rarely – be fully
realised in practice, but which is well
worth striving for, for artistic wholeness
or excellence depends on it, and for our
own sake we need the stimulation
produced by excellence.”255
The paragraph brings up three important issues;
All design decisions, whether Architectural or Engineering must be considered

together, by a knowledgeable team.
Those members must be willing to maintain priorities, only seeking solutions that
fully satisfy prioritised goals and intentions.
That such a team will require the humanity to relinquish their personal desires of
fame, and this is hardest to do but worth the effort.
Integration
Arup had always considered the integration of designing and building an important one.
Arups originally covering contracting “The advantage for our clients was that they could
employ, as consultants, engineers who had a practical experience of buildings, or on the other
hand employ a building firm run by engineers.”256 After the war contracting was removed
from the business, becoming unprofitable and joyless due to government restraints. The
connection between designing and building however was still strong enough for Arup to
employ a group of people comprising of architects, quantity surveyors and service
255
256
Ibid, page 238
Appendix B, Benefits [1/1]
Adam Bear
engineers. In 1963 Arup felt the need “to make it clear that it was a body of Architects and
Engineers working on an equal basis”257 and renamed the group Arup Associates. Arup
rightly expected the building industry to be shocked by this, giving further defence for his
decision in a public letter he stated; restructuring improves “our ability to serve
architecture.” Arup Associates describe themselves as seeking “the objective of quality and
efficiency within a changing building industry”258 by sharing resources and skills with Ove
Arup and Partners. Arup Associates key advantage over other practices is that they are
part of the Arup company. By being in the same company they share an identity, which is
harder to do when different companies work together.
Priorities
Beaubourg is famous for its Architecture and Engineering, but it is only famous because
the Architects and Engineers shared an identity as creators willing to take risks. The
competition was open and received 687 entries. With such a large number of entries
neither the Architects (Rogers and Piano) nor the Engineers (Rice, Arups) expected to win.
Anyway they were already entering other competitions seriously. Winning was not the
point rather, “to explore relationships and design.”259 The freedom of not expecting to win
allowed Rice to prioritise intention over cost. Piano’s and Roger’s intention stemmed from
Archigram with the belief that “culture should not be elitist, that culture should be like any
other form of information: open to all in a friendly, classless environment.”260 This implied that
Rice’s job was to design a large open steel frame. Rice, perhaps because he was from
rural Ireland, “wanted to make Centre Beaubourg an accessible place… where you could feel
good, not afraid and over-humble.”261 Here then was a situation where Rogers and Piano
had a noble intention and Rice was enthused with agreement. Rice could have used a
standard beam and column solution, but Rice could see this was too ungainly for such an
open intention. Rice also had problems with extruded steel, if this was going to be an
accessible place for people, then it needed to lose the machined quality of extrusion
especially considering the scale of Beaubourg.262 Looking at 19th century structures Rice
saw that cast steel was crafted, with varying inflexions and tone that could make
Beaubourg accessible. Extruded steel is easier and cheaper to produce than cast steel,
extruded steel also has a tested history of safety regulation. Even so using humanly cast
steel was so important to Rice, that no argument could have deterred him. The cast
accessibility or humanisation of Beaubourg has here been prioritised over all the reasons
why using cast steel was the wrong choice.
257
1983, page 7
258
Arup Associates, Arup Associates, Penguin books ltd, London, 1982, page 7
259
Peter Rice, An Engineer Imagines, Artemis, London, 1994, page 25
260
Ibid
261
Ibid, page 30
262
Ibid
Adam Bear
Fame
Teams working in this way, knowledgeable in Architecture and Engineering and willing to
make priorities, need a third quality. For ideas to mix and grow there can be no struggle
for superiority amongst members, otherwise people will keep their ideas quiet and alone
instead of sharing. This is the hardest quality to achieve in a team, for it is against
common practice to counteract personal success, but when group success becomes more
important than fame and fortune, ideas will flourish. Arup knew that this is hard to do,
assuming that it never or only very rarely is done; Beaubourg being such a rare occasion.
Beaubourg was a big project and was obviously going to receive attention and make a few
people famous. It is admirable that in this potentially competitive environment Rice did not
take credit for everything. The biggest Engineering challenge for Beaubourg was the
requirement of a clear span of 48.8 meters capable of supporting heavy loads at any
point. The solution was based on Heinrich Gerber’s 1867 bridge, where the outer spans of
the bridge were used to cantilever the middle span, this system was economical to
produce and easy to erect. Lennart Grut is accredited to suggesting the use of a propped
cantilever in a similar manner but rather than using mass to produce the moment needed
to lift the centre beam, the gerberette was tied down to the ground. The design of the
gerberette becomes an essay on how to cast from steel and the forces applied to it,
slender where forces are applied and strong where the moment is greatest pinned at the
column. Without the honesty in the team, Rice may not have given Grut credit or Grut
may not have mentioned anything in the first place.
Rice Francis Ritchie
Adrien Fainsilber had won a competition for a museum of technology and science in La
Villette. At the suggestion of the French government Fainsilber contacted Rice. There is a
discrepancy as to whether Rice contacted Martin Francis who contacted Ian Ritchie263 or
vice versa.264 Rice suggested forming a RFR to be shared equally among them. This
gesture of equal respect for younger members is made only more prominent by the
discrepancy. Rice describes RFR as “an engineering group but with the involvement of
architects giving it design aspirations.”265 The work of RFR then is possibly the best
description of benefits of the inter relationship between Architects and Engineers.
Fainsilber designed a glass façade which he described as a transparent bio climate,
although the Pilkington structural glass system was available Rice could not miss the
opportunity to create something better suited to the intention and site. Ritchie shared his
experience of the Sainsbury centre, he found that the view from his glass wall was
impaired by the structure supporting it, suggesting a cable stay system would have given
a better view of transparency.266 This idea was developed by Rice into a horizontal
prestressed transom truss and tension net. The trusses are prestressed so that they work
263
Ibid, page 183
264
Alessandro Rocca, Ian Ritchie, Watson-Guptill Publications, 1998, page 9
265
Peter Rice, An Engineer Imagines, Artemis, London, 1994, page 183
266
André Brown, Peter Rice The Engineer’s Contribution To contemporary Architecture, Thomas Telford,
London, 2001, page 67
Adam Bear
in tension and compression as they support positive and negative air pressures
respectively. Lateral stability of the truss is defined by the connection between four panes
and the centre member of the truss; here two lines of possible rotation (in lateral
instability) meet. The use of a ball bearing in the transom members creates a tolerance in
one line of rotation while the rigidity of glass defies the other line of rotation. Typically for
Rice the bearing satisfies his architectural intention and engineering requirement
symbiotically. A simpler and cheaper alternative would have been to use a plate to spread
the load but this would have ruined the transparency of the façade, the very intention of
using glass.
Conclusions
For those working in the building industry, the benefits of an inter relationship - or better
a symbiotic relationship - between architects and engineers are the very same as the
requirements. By working together and sharing knowledge efforts will be informed and
understanding of the needs of others. By maintaining priorities there is great opportunity
for innovation and creation, as Arup put it to “conjure forth that mystical spiritual quality
which is the essence of art.”267 And by letting go of personal success and instead focusing
on group success, ideas will be released from fear of missing credit when it is due.
For everybody living in the built environment the benefit is simple. Better buildings. For
when intentions are sound and ethical, as in Beaubourg where great care was taken so
that no one would feel as if they did not belong there, it is the people at mass which will
feel the greatest benefit.
267
Ibid, page 15
Adam Bear
An Engineer’s affect on Modern Architecture, Appendix C, Slenderness Ratio λ
Appendix C, Slenderness Ratio λ
λ Slenderness ratio
i Radius of gyration
Le Effective Length
L Length
I Second moment of area

b Breadth
d Depth
A Area
The slenderness ratio of a section is defined as equation 1

Le
Equation 1. λ=
i
Appendix C, Slenderness Ratio λ [1/1]

Adam Bear
Figure 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d268
Where both ends of the section are fixed as shown in figure 1a above, the effective length
of a section is defined as equation 2
Equation 2. Le = 0.7 × L
Substituting equation 2 into equation 1 gives

0.7 × L
Equation 3. λ=
i
The radius of gyration of a section is defined as equation 4

I
Equation 4. i=
A
The second moment of area of a rectangular section is defined as equation 5

bd 3
Equation 5. I=
12

bd 3
Equation 6. i=
12 × A
Area of a section is defined as

Equation 7. A = bd

bd 3
Equation 8. i=
12 × bd
Equation 8 simplifies to
d2
Equation 9. i=
12
d
Equation 10. i=
3.464
Substituting equation 10 into equation 3

0 .7 × L
Equation 11. λ=
⎛ d ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ 3.464 ⎠
268
Trevor Draycott, Structural Elements Design Manual, Butterworth Heinmann, Oxford, 1990, page 25
Adam Bear
0.7 × 3.464 × L
Equation 12. λ=
d
2.424 × L
Equation 13. λ=
d
For a given length of a section its depth is governed by rearranging equation 13

2.424 × L
Equation 14. d=
λ
As the slenderness ratio decreases the depth of the section must increase. An
unreasonably low slenderness ratio demands that the depth of a section is thicker than is
reasonable.

Arup-An Engineer's Effect On Modern Architectur

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arup-An Engineer's Effect On Modern Architectur

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adam Bear

An Engineer’s effect on Modern Architecture, Covering Page

An Engineer’s effect on Modern Architecture

Collaborative Design and Total Architecture since 1935

Adam Bear 791320

BA (Hons) Architecture Design and Structures

ARCO317 Dr David Willey

This is entirely my own work.

previous role of an enabler, in zoo projects, changes to that of an educator collaboratively

Shuttering, “a sensible way of building”1 a monolithic structure such as Highpoint’s. The

inevitably lead me to an interest in the works of the so called architectural engineers. So

Arup’s involvement in MARS and ATO.5

Appendix A, Chronology ............................................................................................. 1

Appendix C, Slenderness Ratio λ ................................................................................ 1

industry, fought against by Egan.

The Egan Report

economic flux and the main disadvantage is extensive subcontracting, requiring

contractual relationships, that prevents teams from working in a continuous efficient

building industry, cultivated by contractors maximising profits to secure their economic

2. A focus on the customer

3. Integrate the process and the team around the product

4. A quality driven agenda

to do what it does better, rather to do it entirely differently.14

Robin Nicholson was impressed by Egan,15 in particular his identification of the

commitment to people as a driver, realising the “Cultural change of revolutionary

that we are more interested in ourselves than our customers.”18

product, points towards a multidisciplinary company that designs in consideration of the

was created that mattered most.”23

E1. Committed leadership A1. Quality of work

E2. A focus on the customer A2. Total architecture

around the product A4. Straight and honourable dealings

E4. A quality driven agenda A5. Social usefulness

E5. Commitment to people A6. Reasonable prosperity for members

Design For Manufacture

radically rethink their production processes. In the west General Electric

The Arup Company

therefore becomes an interesting question to ask what was Arup’s effect on

part of the design team.”43

the whole thing.”45

the collaboration of Berthold Lubetkin and a group of consulting engineers.”48

imprint on his company before he died.

our own sake we need the stimulation produced by excellence.”49

Institute of Civil engineers.

in itself, but as a part of a common endeavour to create comprehensive, Total Architecture.”50

this is best done collaboratively as more perspectives on design can be developed. In

short design should embody the manner of execution.

Having established a recent literature, it may seem contradictory to start investigating

Arup, Lubetkin and Tecton

wealthy [and] progressive in outlook.”56 Samuel Gestetner having unsuccessfully attempted

to provide accommodation for his employees in Camden Town, instructed Lubetkin to

he set about the design of the Highgate flats.

to create an enclosure around a space as well as providing structural support. As such

Figure 1: Slenderness Ratios 64

in fact a more rigid structure than the column!

introduce his solution as shown below figure 2b.

Figures 2a and 2b: Lubetkin’s Grid 66

allowing the walls to take over most of the work.”68

Arup’s Parallel Beams

Figures 3a and 3b: Arup’s Parallel Beams 69

than a casual intelligence.”76 The diagram describes Lubetkin’s original approach as a

“paralysing forest of stancheons[sic]… limiting flexibility of design… inevitability of cracks….

Figure 4: Structural Analysis of Highpoint One 81

rescue by suitable reinforcement.”82 To create such a large surface monolithically required

Lubetkin / Tecton, Architects Journal, Analysis of a building [Highpoint 1], 17th

R. Furneaux Jordan, Architectural Review, Lubetkin, July 1955, page 37

The Arup Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 1985

Berthold Lubetkin born in Triflis, Georgia.117

Lubetkin schools at Triflis and Tenishevskaya gymnasium, St Petersburg.118

Arup studies Philosophy and Mathematics at Copenhagen University.

Lubetkin schools at 9th gymnasium Medvednikov, Moscow.121

Arup changes studies to engineering at Copenhagen’s Royal technical college,

Lubetkin enrols at Stroganov, School of applied art, Moscow.124

Lubetkin enrols at Berlin textile academy, attending classes in building technology

Lubetkin enters Architectural school at Warsaw polytechnic.128

Lubetkin enters Ecole Spéciale d’Architecture.132

Arup takes out patent for cooling tower design.133

Gorilla house completed.140

Cement Marketing Company organise working class flats competition.144

Penguin pool completed148.

Highpoint one completed.152

Le Corbusier visits Highpoint I.

Lubetkin receives commission for Air Raid Precautions (ARP) survey.168

ARP report published.169

Lubetkin assigns Arup to ARP.172

Arup ends contracting side of business.177

Lubetkin accepts invitation to become town planer for Peter lee.178

Agreement to dissolve Tecton as soon as feasible.179

Tecton formally dissolved.181

Tower cranes widely available, prefabrication techniques prove comparable in ease

Arup approached by Utzon for Sydney opera house.187

Arup Associates formed.189

Arup talks to Peter Rawstorne.

Arup’s article on the ’Advances in Engineering’ is published in The Financial Times.

Arup gives his key speech.

Arup gives inaugural speech ‘The built environment’ to ‘Building Services

Arups & Partners terminated.

Death of Margaret Lubetkin, Lubetkin begins writing Samizdat.217