Humanities Assignment | Issues In Contemporary Architecture

ARC204
Sheffield School of Architecture
Year 2 | 2012-2013
Evgenia Vlachaki
110175500
Contents

Context

Project Information

Architecture and Delight

Technology

The Architectural Profession

Conclusion

Bibliography

Illustrations

2
With the following audit I will examine the Fun Palace (1961)
designed by Cedric Price discussing it through the themes of
Architecture and Delight, Technology, and the Architectural
Profession.

Context

The Fun Palace was conceived and designed in Britain of the

1960’s. At the time architecture was constrained not only by Fig.1
post-war office practices but also by a Functionalism that had Proposed site, Lea Valley, London
become dependant on the forms of the pre-war International
style.1 However, the Situationist movement was already
“challenging rules of urbanity”2 by taking into account
emotional effects and designing situations and ambiances
rather than definite forms and structures. During that time,
technology and science were flourishing thus providing more
and more tools and expertise to architects and designers of
radical visions. It was only natural that technology was about
to become one of the main sources of architectural inspiration.

Project information

A result of collaboration between Cedric Price and Joan

Littlewood, the Fun Palace was a visionary and radical
proposal, which clearly challenged the traditional notions of
conformed environment and built form. It proposed an
architecture that was “no longer merely static, but instead
comprised of spaces in time that both informed and were
informed by the complex social, economic and cultural
changes of dynamic societies”3.

Architecture and Delight

Delight in architecture is an entirely subjective notion. In order

to ignite discussion, delight will be firstly defined as leisure;
the “use of free time for enjoyment”4. Secondly, delight will be
interpreted as the element of uncertainty , which in the Fun
Palace is represented through the ever-changing nature of an
educative entertainment centre, which offers unlimited choices
of space and activities to its users.

In the early sixties, Cedric Price translated Joan Littlewood’s Fig.2

idea of ‘a people’s theatre’ and expanded it to design the Fun The Fun Palace, a ‘university of the streets’

1
Crompton, Dennis. A Guide to Archigram 1961-74. p. 418, New York: Princeton Architectural, 2012. Print.
2
Spiller, Neil. Visionary Architecture: Blueprints of the Modern Imagination. p.44. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2007. Print.
3
"Cedric Price and the Fun Palace." Citymovement., 24 Mar. 2012. Web. 10 May 2013.
4
"leisure." Definition of in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English). Web. 12 May 2013.
<http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/leisure>.

3
Palace. Joan wanted to create a place, which would
encompass an entire list of delights she felt their century owed
to them. The activities suggested for the Palace where
therefore revolving around the notions of pleasure and gaiety.

In Post-war Britain, shorter working hours and automation of

jobs due to the evolution of technology were leading to a
leisure-based economy. Thus, “leisure became a major
political, economic, social and architectural issue” 5. Politics
revolved around controlling the working class away from illegal
or revolutionary activities and closer to new recreational,
educational or consumerist diversions. Cedric Price was one of
the first people who actively recognized that the division
between work and leisure was no longer relevant. His Fun
Palace would offer leisure to the working classes as a
constructive use of time by combining new forms of ‘learning’
with pleasure through a wide range of ‘fun’ activities, which
Fig.3
were addressing individual needs. The large kit of parts with
The Fun Palace,
which people could entertain themselves, forgetting their proposed activities
monotonous routine for a few hours, was designed as “an
exciting journey of creativity, learning and personal
development”6. Learning seized to be synonymous to
education and was based on the premise that people chose
what they wanted to learn about without being controlled by
institutions. These notions were clearly supported in the
Promotional Leaflet for the Fun Palace:
“Those who at present work in factories, mines and offices will
quite soon be able to live as only a few people now can:
choosing their own congenial work, doing as little of it as they
like, and filling their leisure with whatever delights them. Those
people who like fiddling with machinery and pressing buttons
can service and press buttons in the robot-manned factories”.7

Joan Littlewood, co-designer of the Fun Palace, worked on

defining a open-ended list of possible spaces and activities
that could possible take place in the “laboratory of fun”8 and
‘learning’. The flexible centre would accommodate spaces for
various pass times (Fig.3). Proposed spaces included the “fun
arcade”, the “music room”, the “science playground” and the
“plastic area”9 all of which aimed at offering alternative

5
Mathews, Stanley. From Agit-prop to Free Space: The Architecture of Cedric Price. p.69, London: Black Dog Pub., ,2007.
Print.
6
Stanley Mathews (2006): The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture, Journal of Architectural Education, 59:3, p.39
7
Joan Littlewood, ‘Non-Program: A Laboratory of Fun’, Promotional Leaflet for the Fun Palace published in The Drama
Review: tdr, Vol. 12, No. 3, Spring, 1968, p. 128.
8
"Cedric Price & the Fun Palace." Citymovement., 24 Mar. 2012. Web. 10 May 2013.
9
The Fun Palace, Cedric Price and Joan Littlewood, The Drama Review: TDR, Vol. 12, No. 3, Architecture/Environment
(Spring, 1968), p. 129

4
occupations to a society of leisure. The people could then
choose to spend their time on ‘jobs’ they actually enjoyed, and
instead of thinking of work as a burden, the concepts of
delight and work could merge into one. Combining leisure with
learning in the Fun Palace introduced a completely unforeseen
approach to living. The more relaxed approach to work
advocated by Price could possibly lead to a rise in productivity
since individuals would be more likely to accomplish a task
they have chosen for themselves rather than a mundane
occupation imposed by society’s norms.

In one of his interviews with Hans Ulrich Obrist Price Fig.4

commented: “It wasn’t designed as a mecca or as a getaway Helicopter view of the Fun Palace
from living in London. It ways a launch pad for realizing how
marvelous life is”10 The designer’s philosophy behind the Fun
Palace was not one of Escapism. The alternative experience
would give the visitors hope and a good feeling about
themselves and their families. The sense of delight would
hopefully extend from the leisure time in the Palace to the
incidents of everyday life, like a chain reaction. Realistically,
however noble Price’s intentions were, they did not eliminate
the danger of people perceiving a space like the Fun Palace
as a getaway from responsibilities and chores. Such an
interpretation could eventually create chaos instead of delight
in a society where distribution of labor would rely completely
on people’s moods and appetites.
Fig.5
The Fun Palace, drawing by Cedric Price
Further on, in the Fun Palace delight is not merely expressed
as a product of leisure but also of uncertainty. Uncertainty was
represented by the adaptable and flexible nature of the ‘anti-
building’, which allowed people to “develop new experiences
for themselves”11 and through the multitude of choices offered
to the users. In order to allow this flexibility, the ‘device’ had no
designated function; anything could happen within.

Technology, a topic I will address in the second section of the

audit, played a major role in creating the sense of adaptability
and randomness, which Price believed could induce delight.
The elements of flexibility and adaptability were well illustrated
through Price’s unconventional plans (Fig.6,7). Plans included
“a high-level suspension grid, that would be the only fixed Fig.6
component of the structure, everything else was capable of Preliminary sketch of the Fun Palace floor
plan, showing areas of variable activity

10
"Fun Palace as a Key to Society." Interview by Hans Ulrich Obrist. Exhibition Design and Curatorial Practice / University
of Arts and Design Karlsruhe. 10 May 2013, <http://szenografie.hfg-karlsruhe.de/huo/archive.html>.
11
Mathews, Stanley. From Agit-prop to Free Space: The Architecture of Cedric Price. p. 68. London: Black Dog Pub.,
2007. Print.

5
movement”12. The absence of doors and basic threshold
conditions would allow the visitors to experience delight
through the opportunity of unlimited choices of routes. A series
of cranes would allow operators to change spatial
arrangements according to the variable needs of visitors. The
undefined structure of the palace was the mean, which would
empower peoples’ rights of choice and self-direction.
Fig.7
Despite the efforts of Price and his collaborators to realize his The Fun Palace floor plan, final version,
showing moveable walkways and escalators
concepts of enhancing human life and human potential, the
post-war society proved reluctant and unwilling towards radical
change. The unlimited options of activities and spatial
arrangements could possibly confuse rather than amuse its
target audience. Instead of delight and joy, the uncertainty and
openness of the Fun Palace could result to anxiety and fear.
This would oppose Price’s and Littlewoods aspirations for a
pleasant leisure and learning environment for the British. The
mass production culture of the time, on the other hand,
presented clear choices to the people and was therefore a
safe and acceptable approach to living. This adherence to
traditional ways of thinking and reluctance towards change
was one of the reasons the Fun Palace was never completed.
In addition, the name given to the project was another
problematic area. Although Price and Littlewood did define
their design as a space for constructive recreation, the world
‘fun’ was still linked with negative connotations of “idleness”13
and guilty pleasures. Nowadays, the exact same notions are
more than accepted by society and architects still derive
concepts and ideas from the design of the Fun Palace.

Due to the fact that the palace never got built, it is hard to
evaluate its successfulness. The creation of emotions of joy
and delight, which Cedric Price felt architecture should provide
to the British society cannot really be evaluated or tested. The
Fun Palace was designed as a social experiment and I thus
believe that tangible results of this experiment would only be
possible to attain if the structure was actually ‘concretized’
and inhabited by its target audience. Nevertheless, it can be
argued that Price’s accomplishment is reflected in his clear
influence on the visionary and socially provocative architecture
that was produced alongside and after the closure of this
project. As the American writer and futurologist A. Toffler had Fig.8
The interior of the Fun Palace,
commented on Price’s architecture of the 1960’s, “whether or
drawing by Cedric Price,1965

12
"Cedric Price & the Fun Palace." Citymovement., 24 Mar. 2012. Web. 10 May 2013.
13
Mathews, Stanley. From Agit-prop to Free Space: The Architecture of Cedric Price. London: Black
Dog Pub., p.69, 2007. Print.

6
not precisely these visions become reality, the fact is that
society is moving in this direction”14.

Technology

The cutting edge technology of the 1960’s inspired and

supported the radical design of the Fun Palace. Without the
advances of engineering and computer technology, Price
would have never been capable of even conceiving his idea of
the self-regulating and interactive “spatial shipyard”15. Contrary
to the philosophy of mass production and uniformity that was
Fig.9
shaping the socio-economic scene in Britain, the architect
Access diagram
employed the advances of technology to device a system that
would recognize individual user needs and literally reshape and
adapt itself in order to address them.

Unlike other emerging visionary architects of the era, like

Archigram and Superstudio (Fig.10), who manipulated
technology with a certain naivety to create artful imagery for
their proposals, Cedric Price employed science and technology
to propose visionary but realistic schemes. He did not seem to
care about the ‘image’ of his drawings but rather their
substance. Unmoved by the Pop iconography that was so
influential to young architects in the sixties, Price preferred to Fig.10
present his complex machine, the Fun Palace, in an “accurate Design by Superstudio
and descriptive manner”16. He felt that was the best way to
convey the structure and technology within his scheme and he
never followed trends. Unlike Price, the Archigram group clearly
influenced by ideas of flexibility, and adaptable plug-in
elements created proposals, which were much less realistic in
terms of substance but used technology as “aesthetic and
symbolic imagery”17 targeting an audience responsive to
colourful imagery and Pop culture (Fig.11).

Price, being a firm supporter of new technologies, did not rest

on his own knowledge but often consulted and collaborated
with experts on different fields of technology and science to Fig.11
fully resolve his ambitious designs. He was the first architect to Peter Cook (Archizoom) Maimum Pressure
Area, Plug-In City, 1962-64, section
experiment with the emerging field of Cybernetics, which gave

14
Mathews, Stanley. From Agit-prop to Free Space: The Architecture of Cedric Price. London: Black
Dog Pub., p.14, 2007. Print.
15
Spiller, Neil. Visionary Architecture: Blueprints of the Modern Imagination. p.49. New York: Thames &
Hudson, 2007. Print.
16
Spiller, Neil. Visionary Architecture: Blueprints of the Modern Imagination. p.49. New York: Thames &
Hudson, 2007. Print.
17
Mathews, Stanley. From Agit-prop to Free Space: The Architecture of Cedric Price. p. 242. London:
Black Dog Pub., 2007. Print.

7
birth to devices and systems that could create ‘conversation’
between the user and the machine through ‘feed-backing’ of
information. The Cybernetic Theatre designed for the Fun
Palace in collaboration with cybernetician Gordon Pask serves
as an example of how the system could “self-regulate its
actions”. Wires would link the seats into a feedback loop
connected through computers to the performers18 and
interaction would thus be achieved.

Finally, the temporary nature of the project allowed for use of

techniques and materials, which were not used in traditional
design. The Fun Palace resorted to ‘environmental controls
generating charged static vapor zones, optical barriers, warm-
air curtains and fog dispersal’19 in order to provide user control
over the elements. Cedric Price managed to design the Fig.12
promise of a personalized ‘bubble’ where each individual could Cybernetic diagram of the Fun Palace
choose his/her own atmosphere. In that sense, use of program by Gordon Pask
technology in Price’s architecture was clearly a means of
providing tailor made comfort to the user.

The Architectural Profession

Cedric Price had a very clear philosophy regarding the

architect’s role and what architecture should strive to achieve.
Before the 1960’s, architecture was exploited as “a way of
imposing order or establishing a belief that everything will be
okey if everyone behaves”20. Price wanted to redefine
architecture as a principle that did not create law and order
through fear and misery but through achieving a continuous
dialogue. His approach to the profession revolved around
issues of architecture for the people, the issue of time
in architecture and the necessity of building. All the
aforementioned topics were addressed in his design of the
Fun Palace.

Throughout his career Cedric Price had always tried to create

architecture that was anticipatory of the needs of people. In
his interview with Stanley Mathews he comments: “The Fun
Palace wasn’t about technology. It was about the people.”21 Fig. 13
User centered design was enabled through new technologies Isometric drawing of The Fun Palace by AA

18
Spiller, Neil. Visionary Architecture: Blueprints of the Modern Imagination. p.49-50. New York:
Thames & Hudson, 2007. Print.
19
Iles, Anthony. "Legislating for Enthusiasm: From Fun Palace to Creative Prison."Http://www.arcade-project.com/.
Arts Council England, 2009. p.2, Web. 10 May 2013. <http://www.arcade-
project.com/sacrifice/Legislating%20for%20Enthusiasm.pdf>.
20
"Fun Palace as a Key to Society." Interview by Hans Ulrich Obrist. Exhibition Design and Curatorial Practice /
University of Arts and Design Karlsruhe. 10 May 2013, <http://szenografie.hfg-karlsruhe.de/huo/archive.html>.
21
Cedric Price, interview with Stanley Mathews, transcribed tape recording, London, April 13, 2000.

8
such as Cybernetics which analyze trends in order to provide
space and activities according to individual needs of visitors.
In that sense, architecture became a conjoined collaboration
of the designer and the user (co-designer). In contrast with
most architects of his time and of the present, Price did not try
to impose any specific type of living for his audience. He, in
turn, tried to minimize the restrictions most buildings establish
for their users thus empowering freedom of choice and
improving quality of life.

Price thought of architecture more as a sequence of events in

time and less as defined objects. His adaptable and flexible
(Fig.13) designs are the proof of his preoccupation with the
issue of time. In the Fun Palace, movable units, walls and
partitions allowed for a variety of uses over a predetermined
life span. In addition, Price suggested that the scheme would
be viable for just 10-20 years due to the rapidly changing
Fig.14
needs of a technologically advanced society. After that period
Fun Palace notes and drawings
the building would be dismantled to allow room for something on flexibility of form
new and relevant to its socio-economic context. According to
the architect “the ages of a building are five –use, re-use, mis-
use, dis-use and ref-use- and its removal should be seen as
such an intellectual exercise demanding all types of social and
mechanical skills, as is its construction”22.

Finally, Price questioned the necessity of building by stating

“architecture is not always the solution to every problem”23. He
was opposed to standard notions of solid architecture and
was more interested in its “elusive, enticing and open-ended
nature”24. The Fun Palace he proposed a framework that
dispensed traditional notions of utility and stability. All of his Fig. 15
views on the architectural profession seemed radical and Centre Pompidou by Richard Rogers and
controversial at that time and although most of his projects did Renzo Piano

not get built they did serve as a starting point of architectural

dialogue. The Fun Palace particularly, was one of the most
influential projects of the 1960’s that clearly acted as a
stimulus for a number of architects such as Richard Rogers
and Renzo Piano (Fig.14) and the Archigram group.

22
“Cedric Price Talks at the AA”, AA Files No. 19 (Spring 1990), p. 34
23
Stanley Mathews (2006): The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture, Journal of Architectural Education,
59:3, p.42.
24
Melvin, Jeremy. "Cedric Price." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 15 Aug. 2003. Web. 10
May 2013. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/aug/15/urbandesign.artsobituaries>.

9
Conclusion

Cedric Price’s contribution to the architectural profession was

of great significance. It raised issues of relevance of building
and the importance of considering social, political and
economic aspects to address specific needs as a means of
enhance people’s quality of life. Although most of his work was
not realized or tested, his analytical, user-centered approach
to design and his visionary thinking ignited conversation, which Fig.16
Drawing of the Fun Palace
seems relevant to this day. In a sense, the Fun Palace acted
as a toolbox for producing the future of architecture.

10
Bibliography

Part of the bibliography is used in the audit to help me support my arguments while the rest served as
background reading.

Lectures of The University of Sheffield

Meagher, Mark. "Technology and Art." Technology and Art. United Kingdom, Sheffield. 1 Mar. 2013. Lecture.

Parvin, Alastair. "Architecture and Delight." United Kingdom, Sheffield. 12 Apr. 2013. Lecture.

Schneider, Tatjana. "The Futures of the Profession." United Kingdom, Sheffield. 26 Apr. 2013. Lecture.

Print

“Cedric Price Talks at the AA”, AA Files No. 19, Spring 1990

Crompton, Dennis. A Guide to Archigram 1961-74., New York: Princeton Architectural, 2012. Print.

Joan Littlewood, ‘Non-Program: A Laboratory of Fun’, Promotional Leaflet for the Fun Palace published in The
Drama Review: tdr, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.127-134, Spring 1968.

Mathews, Stanley. From Agit-prop to Free Space: The Architecture of Cedric Price., London: Black Dog Pub.
,2007. Print.

“Obituary: Cedric Price 1934-2003”, Architectural Research Quarterly vol. 7 is. 2, June 2003, p 113-118.

Price, Cedric, “The Fun Palace” Cedric Price, Architectural Association works 2, Architectural Association,
London, 1984. p. 60.

Spiller, Neil. Visionary Architecture: Blueprints of the Modern Imagination. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2007.
Print.

Stanley Mathews (2006): “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture”, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol.59, Is.3.

“The Fun Palace, Cedric Price and Joan Littlewood”, The Drama Review: TDR, Vol. 12, No. 3,p,127-134
Architecture/Environment, Spring, 1968

Online

"Cedric Price Archive." CCA RSS. Web. 10 May 2013.

<http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/collection/540-cedric-price-archive>.

"Cedric Price Architect (1934-2003)." Web. 10 May 2013. <http://designmuseum.org/design/cedric-price>.

“Cedric Price, interview with Stanley Mathews”, transcribed tape recording, London, April 13, 2000.

"Cedric Price and the Fun Palace." Citymovement., 24 Mar. 2012. Web. 10 May 2013.
"leisure." Definition of in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English). Web. 12 May 2013.
<http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/leisure>.

"Fun Palace as a Key to Society." Interview by Hans Ulrich Obrist. Exhibition Design and Curatorial Practice /
University of Arts and Design Karlsruhe. 10 May 201.,
<http://szenografie.hfg-karlsruhe.de/huo/archive.html>.

11
Iles, Anthony. "Legislating for Enthusiasm: From Fun Palace to Creative Prison."Http://www.arcade-project.com/.
Arts Council England, 2009. Web. 10 May 2013.
<http://www.arcade-project.com/sacrifice/Legislating%20for%20Enthusiasm.pdf>.

Melvin, Jeremy. "Cedric Price." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 15 Aug. 2003. Web. 10 May 2013.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/aug/15/urbandesign.artsobituaries>.

Obrist, Hans Ulrich. "Hans Ulrich Obrist: Fun Palace by Cedric Price." Speech. Critic's Choice: London's Most
Important Building. Geological Society, London. 9 May 2013. RSS. Web. 10 May 2013.
<http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/events/talks/hans-ulrich-obrist-fun-palace-by-cedric-price,1106,EV.html>.

Shubert, Howard. "Cedric Price’s Fun Palace as Public Space." Society of Architecture Historians., 30 Mar.
2005. Web. 9 May 2013.
<http://howardshubert.com/Architecture_Curator/Cedric_Price_files/Cedric%20Price%20Fun%20Palace%20as
%20Public%20Space.pdf>.

12
Illustrations

Cover page
“The Fun Palace, Cedric Price and Joan Littlewood”, The Drama Review: TDR, Vol. 12, No. 3,p,127
Architecture/Environment, Spring, 1968

Fig.1 “Cedric Price Archives”, Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal

Fig.2 <http://www.archaid.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/fun-palace-2.jpg>

Fig. 3 “The Fun Palace, Cedric Price and Joan Littlewood”, The Drama Review: TDR, Vol. 12, No. 3, p.128
Architecture/Environment, Spring, 1968

Fig. 4 “The Fun Palace, Cedric Price and Joan Littlewood”, The Drama Review: TDR, Vol. 12, No. 3, p.134,
Architecture/Environment, Spring, 1968

Fig.5 "Cedric Price Architect (1934-2003)." Web. 10 May 2013. <http://designmuseum.org/design/cedric-price>.

Fig. 6 “Cedric Price Archives”, Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal

Fig. 7 “Cedric Price Archives”, Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal

Fig. 8 “Cedric Price Archives”, Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal

Fig. 9 “The Fun Palace, Cedric Price and Joan Littlewood”, The Drama Review: TDR, Vol. 12, No. 3, p.132
Architecture/Environment, Spring, 1968

Fig. 10 http://www.aadip9.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=59&tag=Plug-in%20City&limit=20
Fig. Digital image. Artistsspace. Web. 13 May 2013. <http://artistsspace.org/exhibitions/superstudio-life-without-
objects/>.

Fig.11 Peter Cook (Archizoom) Maimum Pressure Area, Plug-In City, 1962-64, Section. Digital
image. Relationalthought. Web. 13 May 2013. <http://relationalthought.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/1100/>.

Fig.12 “Cedric Price Archives”, Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal

Fig.13 AD magazine 2006 vol. 76 is.1 p. 90

Fig.14 “Cedric Price Archives”, Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal

Fig.15 “Centre Pompidou drawing”,

<http://architecture.about.com/od/greatbuildings/ig/Richard-Rogers-Partnership-/Centre-Pompidou-Drawing.htm>

Fig.16 “Cedric Price Archives”, Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal

13
14