CHAPTER V
Shaftesbury Avenue
In his London and Westminster Improved, published in 1766, John Gwynn suggested that a
new street should be formed from the top of
the Haymarket to Oxford Street and beyond. (ref. 1)
After the formation of Regent Street the need for
further improvement in north-south communication in this part of Westminster was recognized in
1838 by the Select Committee of the House of
Commons on Metropolis Improvements. The
committee was concerned at the volume of traffic
from Paddington and Euston Stations that might
be expected to converge upon the east end of
Oxford Street, and it recommended inter alia an
improved line of street from St. Giles's to Charing
Cross. (ref. 2) This need was later filled by the formation of Charing Cross Road, but the committee
made no recommendation on communication
between Piccadilly and Bloomsbury. Thomas
Marsh Nelson, an architect who gave evidence to
the committee, did, however, propose a road from
Piccadilly in the west to Stratford in the east, and
this began with 'a new street branching eastward
from the County Fire Office corresponding with
the Quadrant and similar in width to Regentstreet, to St. Giles's church'. (ref. 3)
In the 1860's and 70's the need for improved
communication between Piccadilly Circus and
Charing Cross, and between Charing Cross and
Tottenham Court Road was frequently discussed, (ref. 4) but little more was heard of the Piccadilly
to Bloomsbury route until 1876. By that time a
long line of improved east-west communication
from Shoreditch to Bloomsbury was almost complete, and the Metropolitan Board of Works
realized that the amount of additional traffic
which would be brought into Oxford Street and
which would make its way towards Charing Cross
would require the formation of direct communication from Oxford Street to Piccadilly and to
Charing Cross. The Board therefore applied to
Parliament for the necessary powers, which were
granted by the Metropolitan Street Improvements
Act, 1877. (ref. 5)
This Act authorized the Board to form the
streets now known as Charing Cross Road and
Shaftesbury Avenue, to widen Coventry Street,
and to carry out nine other improvements in
various parts of London. The line of these new
streets had been drawn up jointly by the Board's
superintending architect, George Vulliamy, and
the engineer, Sir Joseph Bazalgette, (ref. 6) and the plans
approved by the Act defined the limits of deviation
within which each street must run and within
which the Board was empowered to purchase all
the ground that it might require (fig. 8). About
half the length of the new street from Piccadilly
Circus to Bloomsbury was formed by widening
existing streets, thus keeping to a minimum the
amount of ground to be acquired. (ref. 7)
The history of Shaftesbury Avenue and
Charing Cross Road is a story of lost opportunity.
Nearly ten years elapsed between the passing of
the Act of 1877 and the opening of the two
streets, the general standard of design of the buildings finally erected was deplorable, and in 1888 a
Royal Commission was appointed to investigate
the dishonest conduct of certain of the Board's
officers in the disposal of surplus land in Shaftesbury Avenue. In face of this depressing record it
should also be remembered that the final achievement was not merely the formation of over a mile
of main thoroughfare sixty feet wide, but also the
abolition of some of the worst slums in London
and the rehousing of over three thousand of the
labouring classes. (ref. 8)
The delay in the formation of the two streets
was caused by the obligation which was placed by
Parliament upon the Board to provide housing for
all displaced members of the labouring classes.
The Metropolitan Street Improvements Act of
1872 had required the Board to give eight weeks
public notice of intention to demolish in any one
parish fifteen or more houses occupied by the
labouring classes, and had stipulated that certain
land bought for each improvement should be set
aside for the erection of working-class accommodation. (ref. 9) But in 1875 more stringent obligations
were placed upon local authorities by the Artisans'
and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act (ref. 10)
and section 33 of the Metropolitan Street Improvements Act of 1877 stipulated that the Board
should not take fifteen or more working-class
houses until it had satisfied the Home Secretary
that sufficient accommodation had been provided
elsewhere. The Act also specified that certain
land to be acquired by the Board for the new
streets should be used to provide labouring-class
accommodation, and that after acquiring this
ground the Board should sell or lease it for this
purpose, the Board itself having no power to
expend money on the erection of buildings.
Much of the proposed line of the two new
streets crossed squalid poverty-stricken areas and
within the limits of deviation laid down in the
Act lived 5497 of the labouring classes, all of
whom would have to be rehoused if the Board
acquired all the ground which Parliament had
authorized. But in the Newport Market area,
which the Board considered to be the only suitable site available for working-class accommodation, there was only space to rehouse about 1470
persons, and the others could only be accommodated in the immediate vicinity by building blocks
of artisans' dwellings along the frontages of the
new streets, a course which the Board pointed out
'would not only entail a heavy pecuniary loss, but
would be excessively detrimental to the character
of the street'. (ref. 11)
In July 1878 the Board pointed out these difficulties to the Home Secretary, and added that if
the restriction on taking fifteen labouring-class
houses or more were enforced the completion
of the two streets would take twenty years.
The Board submitted a scheme whereby other
land elsewhere in London might be used to
accommodate most of the persons to be displaced,
but in December 1879 the Home Secretary rejected it and refused to release the Board from the
restriction. He suggested that 'in these street improvements the first step should be to provide
houses for the working classes to which those who
are displaced belong; the next to carry out the
improvements'. (ref. 12)
In February 1880 the Board considered
whether to promote a Bill for the repeal of section
33 of the Act of 1877, and whether to try to obtain the appointment of a Select Committee to enquire into the whole matter, 'especially whether
powers should not be given to the Board to erect
suitable buildings on the various sites, instead of
only having power to lease them, which leads to
so much delay and difficulty'. In September the
Home Secretary urged the Board to acquire the
whole of the Newport Market area and to clear
part of it so that building leases might be granted,
but he refused to allow further clearance until the
new buildings had been completed; he could not
'forget that he is specially charged by the Act to
protect those who cannot protect themselves, and
to take care that no extensive displacement of
persons of the working classes should take place
until provision was made for their being housed
elsewhere'. (ref. 13)
Figure 8:
Shaftesbury Avenue, layout plan. Broken lines denote the limits of the land which the Act of 1877 authorized the Metropolitan Board of Works to acquire. In 1883 these limits were reduced. Continuous lines denote the boundaries of the lands which were acquired by the Board but which did not form part of the new street. Stippling denotes the area set aside for the rehousing of the displaced working classes
By this time the Board was being severely
criticized for its apparent dilatoriness in carrying
out the Act of 1877, (ref. 14) and in October 1880 it resolved to apply to Parliament for the amendment
of section 33. (ref. 15) In May 1881 a Select Committee
of the House of Commons was appointed to consider the workings of the Artisans' Dwellings
Acts and the Metropolitan Street Improvements
Acts of 1872 and 1877. (ref. 16)
The committee's report, published in June
1882, admitted the impracticability of the
stringent provisions of section 33 of the Act of
1877 and recommended the adoption of a plan
submitted in evidence by the Board. If the Board
had purchased all the land within the limits defined by the Act of 1877 (fig. 8), over five
thousand of the labouring classes would have been
displaced; it now proposed to surrender its right to
acquire part of this ground, thereby reducing the
number to be displaced to 4000. The Board
would rehouse half of these, 600 on a site in Old
Pye Street, Westminster, and 1470 in the Newport
Market area. As soon as this new accommodation
was ready, but not before, the Board proposed to
proceed with the construction of the two streets,
relieved of the obligation imposed by section 33 of
the Act of 1877. (ref. 17)
This plan was, after some modification, given
statutory authority by an Act passed in 1883, (ref. 18)
which raised the number to be rehoused in the
Newport Market area from 1470 to 2000. This
Act enabled the Board to proceed rapidly with the
formation of the two streets, but only at the price
of abandoning whatever feeble intention there
may previously have been to enforce any standard
of street design. Even the Act of 1877 had so
restricted the land which the Board could buy that
The Builder had complained of 'the formation of
irregular and awkward bits of ground, upon which
even Gothic ingenuity will be puzzled to contrive
satisfactory buildings'. (ref. 6) In 1881 the Board's
architect, George Vulliamy, stated that he had
'endeavoured to take only so much of the properties
as would be absolutely required to form the
street, and to give an available building frontage'. (ref. 19)
Yet the Act of 1883 pared off still more land, (fn. a)
making much of the ground which the Board did
later acquire so awkward in shape that it could not
yield its full value. Nearly half the ground fronting the northern side of Shaftesbury Avenue was
not acquired at all, despite the elementary objection
mentioned by The Builder that 'the creation of a
broad thoroughfare in front of a line of old
tumble-down tenements of comparatively small
value, is to virtually present a large sum of money
to the owner or owners of the land upon which the
tenements stand'. (ref. 6) By raising the number of
persons to be rehoused in the Newport Market
area from the 1470 proposed by the Board to 2000
the Act of 1883 compelled the Board to arrange
for the erection of multi-storey blocks of artisans'
dwellings along both sides of Charing Cross Road
south of Cambridge Circus.
These two blocks were erected in 1884 by the
Improved Industrial Dwellings Company, to
whom the Board granted building leases. (ref. 21)
Most of the rest of the Newport Market area was
leased to Mr. G. Foskett, who had previously
taken similar leases in Clerkenwell, and in 1884,
when the artisans' dwellings which he had
covenanted to build were probably nearing
completion, he bought the freehold of the
site. (ref. 22)
In December 1884 the Home Secretary certified that the Board had now provided artisans'
dwellings for upwards of two thousand persons of
the labouring classes, and that it was therefore
relieved of its obligations under section 33. (ref. 23)
Shortly afterwards demolition work began at the
south end of the Piccadilly to Bloomsbury route. (ref. 24)
The contractors for the formation of the two
streets were Turner and Son, J. J. Griffiths, T.
Turner and J. Mowlem and Co. The gross cost
of the street from Piccadilly to Bloomsbury was
£1,136,456 and after deduction of the value of
the land acquired, the net cost was £758,887.
Taking both streets together accommodation in
new buildings for 3044 persons of the labouring
classes was provided. The street from Piccadilly to
Bloomsbury was opened in January 1886, (ref. 8) and in
in the following month the Board named it
Shaftesbury Avenue, (ref. 25)
(fn. b) in memory of the recently deceased seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, much
of whose work for the poor of London had been
done in the area traversed by the new street.
Charing Cross Road was opened in February
1887.
The segmental sweep of Shaftesbury Avenue,
for the first stage of its progress from Piccadilly
Circus to Cambridge Circus, offered the opportunities of another Regent Street Quadrant. By the
1880's, however, the discipline of architectural
uniformity had been relaxed in favour of liberty
of architectural expression, declaring the taste of
the architect or his client. Generally, the fronts
were of red brick, dressed with terra-cotta or red
sandstone or Portland stone, the heights varying
from three to five storeys with a skyline of gables
or turrets of French or Flemish Renaissance
derivation. No building in the portion of the
street under consideration here attained the
quality of Collcutt's design for the Palace Theatre
further north in the street.
The south side, at the Piccadilly end, begins
with the London Pavilion, its style, though
florid, and its chief material, Bath stone, relating
it more closely to Nash's buildings than to the rest
of Shaftesbury Avenue. Nos. 26–32 (even) east
of the Trocadero have a front of Portland stone
finished with Baroque gables derived from Norman Shaw. On the east corner of Rupert Street
is an example of Martin and Purchase's uninspired
work. Beyond is an interesting group that has
been attributed to Thomas Harris, (ref. 27) probably
built about the same time, in 1889, and all featuring the motif of elliptical-headed arches; Nos. 58–
60 are of brick, now painted, No. 62 is faced with
stone, and No. 45 Wardour Street, forming part
of the group, is of red brick dressed with stone.
On the north side, between Piccadilly Circus
and Denman Street, three buildings were erected
during 1888–9. From west to east these were
first, Piccadilly Mansions, an elaborate but totally
uninspired design by Martin and Purchase, with
'P.M.' figuring on the terra-cotta gables; then
came the Café Monico extension, by Christopher
and White, with more character than its neighbours, and then Piccadilly House, with a fussy
elevation, both these last now demolished.
Four theatres—the Lyric, Apollo, Globe and
Queen's—occupy almost all of the north side of
Shaftesbury Avenue between Denman and Wardour Streets.
The Royal Commission and the disposal of surplus lands in Shaftesbury Avenue
The Metropolitan Board of Works had no
power to hold lands in mortmain, except by
special licence from the Crown. To do so would
have been contrary not only to the general principles of law, but also to the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, which required that all
surplus lands acquired for public undertakings
should be sold within ten years of the completion
of the works. (ref. 28) The Metropolitan Street Improvements Act of 1877, under which Shaftesbury Avenue had been built, authorized the
Board either to let on building lease all surplus
lands, or to sell them, but within ten years from
the completion of the improvement all reserved
ground-rents and freehold interests had to be
sold. (ref. 29) In 1882 the Board considered whether
to try to obtain statutory power to retain groundrents, but was advised that the Government
would be unlikely to agree. (ref. 30) In 1884, however,
the Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) Act
extended the prescribed period for the disposal of
surplus lands to the year 1929, or, in the case of
land bought under any Improvement Act passed
in or after 1881, to the year 1941. (ref. 31)
The land which had been acquired by the Board
but which was not required for the street was
divided up into plots of suitable size and shape and
usually the land was then let on building lease by
public tender. The tenders were opened by the
chairman of the Board, and were then referred to
the Works and General Purposes Committee, (ref. 32)
which consisted of all the members of the Board,
but which sat in private. (ref. 33) Most of the leases of
land in Shaftesbury Avenue were for eighty
years but the agreement which the successful tenderer entered into with the Board often gave him
the option to purchase the freehold. When the
London County Council, which unlike the Board
had power to hold land in mortmain and was
therefore under no obligation to sell it, (ref. 34) came
into existence in March 1889, agreements had
already been made for the disposal of nearly all
the land in Shaftesbury Avenue, and in general
the Council could only accept and perform the
commitments previously entered into by the
Board. In the parish of St. James the freehold of
all the land on the south side of the street between Piccadilly Circus and Wardour Street was
sold, except for the site of the London Pavilion,
while on the north side of the street the freehold of virtually all the land bought by the Board
was retained.
Exceptionally, the triangular site later occupied
by the new London Pavilion Music Hall was not
disposed of by public tender. In 1878 the Board
had learnt that Emil Loibl, the proprietor of the
old Pavilion, intended to rebuild his theatre, and
they therefore 'deemed it prudent' to acquire the
freehold, although they had no immediate need of
the ground. In August 1879 R. E. Villiers, the
proprietor of the Canterbury Music Hall, became
the Board's lessee; he paid a rent of £7000 per
year and gave substantial guarantees for the proper
conduct of the music hall. (ref. 35) Shortly afterwards
F. W. Goddard, the Board's chief valuer, one of
whose duties was to see that the lessee of the
Pavilion complied with the terms of his lease, informed Villiers through an intermediary that he
expected 'something for himself'. Throughout
the remainder of his tenancy of the old Pavilion
Villiers paid Goddard £50 a quarter. (ref. 36)
In about 1883 Villiers became acquainted with
T. J. Robertson, an assistant in the architect's
department of the Board, who agreed to help
Villiers to obtain the building lease of the site on
which the new London Pavilion was later
erected; in return Robertson's brother W. W.
Grey, the lessee of the Black Horse in Tichborne
Street, was to have the west corner of the site for
the re-erection of his public house. At a later
meeting between Villiers, Goddard and Robertson
this arrangement was confirmed, and it was also
agreed that the profit of selling the public house,
estimated at £10,000, should be divided between
Goddard and Robertson. (ref. 37)
In November 1884 Robertson informed
Villiers that he should at once apply to the Board
for permission to make an offer for the new site.
He accordingly did so, and George Vulliamy, the
superintending architect to whom the matter was
referred, reported that a ground-rent of £3000
should be placed on the site, and that the value
of the licences was £15,000. Although signed by
Vulliamy this report was 'much more the work of
his subordinates, Goddard and Robertson, than
his own independent production'. The Board
then agreed to permit Villiers to make a proposal
and by a letter of 29 November, the terms of
which were dictated to him by Goddard and
Robertson, he offered to take the land at a groundrent of £2700 and to give £15,000 for the licences.
On 1 December the Works and General Purposes Committee decided to offer the land to
Villiers at a ground-rent of £3000 per annum,
with an option to purchase the freehold, and a
payment of £15,000 upon confirmation of the
licences. Villiers immediately agreed and despite
the receipt of an offer from a Mr. Pyke of a
ground-rent of £4000 the seal of the Board was
on 9 January 1885 affixed to the agreement with
Villiers. (ref. 38)
Since October 1884 Villiers had been discussing plans for the rebuilding of the London
Pavilion with Messrs. Isaacs and Florence, architects. In December or January he ceased communicating with them, and when Isaacs asked for
the reason Villiers replied that he 'had been compelled to engage the services of [Alderman James
Ebenezer] Saunders', an architect with much experience of theatres and a member of the Board for
the previous twenty-five years. But the elevation
produced by Saunders was 'not approved of' by
Villiers, whereupon Robertson (who had had a
hand in persuading Villiers to employ Saunders)
produced an elevation by R. J. Worley. Villiers
paid the latter £150 for the design, and told
Saunders that he must accept it. (ref. 39)
The last performance in the old London
Pavilion took place on 26 March 1885; the present
three-sided building was built in slightly over six
months, Saunders being the architect in all
respects save for the elevation and for the interior
of the restaurant, which were exclusively the
work of R. J. Worley. (ref. 40) In October 1885 it was
arranged that the Board should grant Villiers two
leases, one of that part of the site upon which the
Pavilion was built at a rental of £2650 and the
other of the west corner on which the Piccadilly
Restaurant was built at a rental of £350. Subsequently Villiers obtained the Board's permission
to assign the lease of the restaurant to Robertson's
brother, W. W. Grey. Although the secret
arrangements previously described were thus
strictly carried out, Robertson lost a considerable
sum of money in unsuccessfully attempting to
float a company to buy the restaurant. But
Goddard continued to receive payments from
Villiers at the rate of £200 per year after the
opening of the new building. In December 1886
Villiers sold the Pavilion to a company, £5000 of
whose debentures plus £1000 in cash he made
over to Goddard 'for his assistance in obtaining the
site, and for his previous services and supervision,
as he was the custodian or censor of the place'. (ref. 41)
In January 1885, less than two weeks after the
Board had sealed its agreement with Villiers, the
Paddington vestry enquired why the Board had
done so 'without first putting the land up to public
competition'. (ref. 42)
(fn. c) In October the Board of Works
for the Wandsworth District and the Tooting and
District Ratepayers' Association both protested to
much the same effect. (ref. 44) Otherwise few suspicions
seem to have been aroused, although Robertson,
whose salary was £425 per annum, was to be seen
riding round London in his own carriage with a
liveried servant—a fact which Goddard (of all
people) drew to George Vulliamy's attention. (ref. 45)
Vulliamy had been the Board's superintending
architect since 1861, (ref. 46) and for some years he had
been 'unequal to the duties of the position'. (ref. 47) In
March 1886 illness prevented his attending to his
duties, most of which devolved upon Goddard. (ref. 48)
In May he resigned, but in October, when suspicion of dishonesty in his department was rapidly
growing, he asked to withdraw his resignation.
He died a few weeks later, before any decision
could be taken about his request. (ref. 49) Subsequently
the Royal Commission found that although he had
had no part in or knowledge of the malpractices of
his subordinates, he had nevertheless been 'unequal to the duties of the position which he
filled'. (ref. 47)
In October and November 1886 The Financial
News published two articles criticizing the Board's
method of disposing of surplus land, and correctly
implying an improper connexion between Robertson and the Piccadilly Restaurant Company. In
December the Board ordered a statement of the
facts connected with the disposal of land at Piccadilly Circus, but the subsequent private enquiry
elicited nothing more than Robertson's fraternal
relations with the Piccadilly Restaurant Company. The Works and General Purposes Committee therefore concluded, rather naïvely, that
Robertson had been injudicious but did not consider 'that there has been anything worthy of more
severe censure'. The Board showed more wisdom
and on 15 July 1887 passed a resolution of censure
on Robertson. (ref. 50)
The result of this first enquiry satisfied nobody,
and fresh charges of dishonesty against both
officers and members of the Board appeared in the
press. On 29 July the Board therefore appointed
a special committee of enquiry, which was to sit in
public. The accusers refused to give evidence and
as the Board had no power to compel them to do
so this second enquiry proved even less satisfactory
than the first. (ref. 51) In the autumn of 1887 there was
a general clamour from the London vestries and
district boards for a government investigation into
the disposal of surplus lands, and in December the
Board did resolve that in future they should in
the first instance be submitted to public auction. (ref. 52)
But the accusations continued. The Daily
Chronicle asserted rather wildly that the ratepayers had been defrauded of £57,000 in a single
transaction in Shaftesbury Avenue and in February 1888 Lord Randolph Churchill successfully
proposed a motion in the House of Commons for
the appointment of a Royal Commission to enquire into the workings of the Board. (ref. 53)
The Royal Commission began its investigation
in May and presented its report in November
1888. (ref. 54) In August the Local Government Act,
one of whose objects was to transfer to a new
London County Council the functions hitherto
discharged by the Board, became law. (ref. 55) The
Commissioners therefore confined themselves to
enquiring into the alleged irregularities, and did
not investigate the general workings of the Board. (ref. 56)
The report of the Commission revealed Goddard's and Robertson's malpractices (fn. d) (which included illicit dealings in other parts of London as
well as in Shaftesbury Avenue) and censured the
conduct of two architects, J. E. Saunders and F. H.
Fowler, who had been members of the Board for
many years. (ref. 59) The Board itself was criticized for
retaining Vulliamy as architect when he became
unfit for his duties, and for referring the disposal
of surplus land to the Works and General Purposes
Committee, a body so numerous in composition
as to be incapable of exercising proper supervision
over the work of its officers. (ref. 60)
Nos. 1–17 (odd) Shaftesbury Avenue: Piccadilly Mansions
This block of shops and chambers (Plate 154b)
occupies one of the most valuable sites in the whole
of London. The building was erected in 1888–9
for Joseph Collins to the design of Messrs. Martin
and Purchase. It is interesting to note that the
Metropolitan Board of Works rejected the first
two designs which were submitted for the site as
lacking in architectural distinction. Collins
maintained that as his agreement with the Board
provided for an eighty-year lease at the very high
ground-rent of £1520, and for the expenditure by
him of not less than £6000 on the erection of the
building, he was under no obligation to spend a
penny more than £6000. His architects maintained that with this limitation in expenditure it
was impossible to provide the high quality of design required, and both client and architects
maintained that the terms originally fixed by the
Board were the cause of all the trouble. (ref. 61)
The conversion of this building into an advertising hoarding for the support of illuminated
signs is described on page 97.
The Monico Restaurant
Demolished
The Monico Restaurant was established at No.
15 Tichborne Street in 1877 by Giacomo and
Battista Monico. (ref. 62)
(fn. e) An advertisement for the
Café Monico on the back of a programme of 1878
for the Argyll Rooms mentions the 'Grand Café
Saloon. Grill Room. Best Ventilated Billiard
Saloons in London. Supper after the Theatres.
Restaurant Open till Half-past 12'. (ref. 64) The
fortune of the establishment was made by the
Metropolitan Board of Works when, by the
demolition of Nos. 1–11 (consec.) Tichborne
Street and the houses opposite No. 15 in 1885–6
for the formation of Shaftesbury Avenue, it
promoted the Monico from a narrow side street to
a prominent position overlooking the muchenlarged Piccadilly Circus. Making the most of
their good fortune Giacomo and Battista Monico
obtained from the Board a building lease of a plot
in Shaftesbury Avenue which abutted at the back
upon their premises in Tichborne Street (now
renumbered as No. 46 Regent Street). (ref. 65) The
building which they erected there in 1888–9 was
designed by Messrs. Christopher and White, and
more than doubled their business accommodation. (ref. 66)
The Shaftesbury Avenue front of the Café
Monico, except for the plinth of polished grey
granite, was faced with Burmantofts buffcoloured terra-cotta. The most prominent feature
of the design was a large central gable, dressed
with volutes, urns and a pediment, placed between
the smaller gables of dormers. At the first-floor
level was a strapwork-fronted balcony, resting on
console brackets rising from the plain-shafted
pilasters of the ground storey. Marble was
lavishly used inside, for the staircase, and for the
columns and arches framing the walnut screens
that separated the vestibule from the grill-room
and bar. Passenger lifts served the dining-room on
the first floor, and the Masonic suite on the second
floor. The ground floor communicated with the
older premises in Piccadilly Circus, which were
enlarged and redecorated with marble wall-linings
when the extension was built. (ref. 67)
Battista Monico died in 1893 and Giacomo in
1910, and the restaurant was then carried on by
the two sons of the latter. (ref. 66) In the late 1950's the
business was acquired by Forte's and Co. Ltd., but
the buildings were demolished soon afterwards for
the impending rebuilding of this part of Piccadilly
Circus. (ref. 62)
The Lyric Theatre
The Lyric Theatre stands upon ground which
had been acquired by the Metropolitan Board of
Works for the formation of Shaftesbury Avenue.
The site was leased by the Board to H. J. Leslie
for eighty years from Michaelmas 1886. In
October 1887 Leslie acquired from the Board the
freehold of the adjoining Hôtel (or Café) de
L'Etoile (formerly Dr. William Hunter's house,
see page 48) in Great Windmill Street (ref. 68) and the
building of the new theatre began on 9 February
1888. The architect was C. J. Phipps and the
contractors were Messrs. Stephens and Bastow.
The theatre opened on 17 December 1888, when
Leslie transferred his successful comic opera
Dorothy (by B. C. Stephenson and Alfred Cellier)
from the Prince of Wales's Theatre. (ref. 64)
Figure 9:
Lyric Theatre, Shaftesbury Avenue, plan of dress-circle level in 1888. Redrawn from a plan in the possession of the London County Council
In view of the irregularity of the site, and the
stipulation of the client that, in addition to the
usual access staircases, rentable offices and
chambers (now shops and offices) must be provided
along Shaftesbury Avenue, Phipps made this side
of the building a long canted screen to the auditorium, which lies on a more nearly east-west axis
behind it. The stage lies at the west end of the
axis, on part of the former site of Dr. Hunter's
house and museum, the western portion of which
was retained and altered to form a stack of dressingrooms at the back of the stage (ref. 69) (fig. 9).
The Shaftesbury Avenue elevation, faced with
red brick dressed with Portland stone, consists of
three gabled pavilions divided by three-window
bays crowned with pedimented dormers (Plate
34a). What appears to be the principal doorway,
centred under the central and loftiest gable, is an
exit; the entrance to main vestibule, dress circle
and stalls is at the eastern end, that to the separate
offices at the western end. The ornamental details
are of undistinguished Renaissance character.
Phipps was a seasoned theatre architect, and did
not mind repeating himself. The auditorium of
his last and best theatre, Her Majesty's in the Haymarket erected in 1896–7, had much in common
with that of the Lyric. In both, the elliptical proscenium arch rests on pairs of giant Corinthian
columns, each pair of columns flanking three
superimposed boxes; the circular centre-piece of
the ceiling is divided into wedge-shaped sections;
the partly cantilevered tiers (three at the Lyric,
two at Her Majesty's) rest partly on slender
columns. In both theatres the layout of the stalls
is similar, but one feature is peculiar to the Lyric,
three boxes on either side of the dress circle (Plate
34b).
The original colour scheme was quiet in
character, the proscenium arch being of brown
and white alabaster, while the walls of stalls and pit
were lined with panelled walnut and sycamore,
and the walls of circles and boxes were covered
with gold-stamped leather paper. The 'grand hall'
in the second circle was 'early French Renaissance',
the vestibule, crush-room, and corridors were in
'Pompeian style', while the Royal box followed
the style of Robert Adam, and the stall foyer and
smoking-room imitated an early Dutch interior. (ref. 70)
The Lyric is said to have been built with the
profits which Dorothy had previously earned for
H. J. Leslie at the Prince of Wales's Theatre (ref. 71)
and it was certainly Leslie's aim, in conjunction
with Stephenson and Cellier, 'to meet a demand
which they believed to exist in all parts of the
country for English Comedy-Opera.' (ref. 64) The new
theatre originally had a capacity of nearly 1600 (ref. 70)
and for some years musical comedy and comic
opera formed the main attraction there. Leslie
himself appears to have made no profit by his new
theatre (he died in poverty), and by 1890 Horace
Sedger had become the licensee, manager and sole
lessee at the then enormous rent of £6500 per
year. (ref. 72)
One of the most notable productions was Oscar
Straus's comic opera, The Chocolate Soldier, an
unauthorized parody on Bernard Shaw's Arms and
the Man, which, much to Shaw's annoyance, ran
for over a year in 1910–11. The musical tradition
was continued after the war of 1914–18, with
Lilac Time (1923–4), but thereafter plays occupied the theatre with increasing frequency.
In 1932 complete redecoration was carried out
under the supervision of Michael Rosenauer, who
was responsible for the reconstruction of the entrance vestibule, crush-room and stalls bar, and for
their decoration in a plain style then fashionable,
with extensive use of walnut panelling and
mirrors. (ref. 73)
Five years later the first public presentation of
Laurence Housman's Victoria Regina took place
at the Lyric. (ref. 74) More recent productions have included T. S. Eliot's The Confidential Clerk (1953–
4), and Irma la Douce (1958–62). (ref. 64)
The Apollo Theatre
The site now occupied by the Apollo Theatre
and No. 33 Shaftesbury Avenue was the only
ground fronting that part of the new street
between Piccadilly Circus and Rupert Street
which was not acquired by the Metropolitan
Board of Works. Apart from two very minor
adjustments required to fit in with the line of the
new street the site remained in private hands and
provides a striking example of the extraordinary
parsimony of the Board in the acquisition of land.
In 1900 the site was acquired by Henry Lowenfeld, who selected Lewen Sharp as architect of the
new theatre. (ref. 75) The builder was Walter Wallis,
and the sculptural work was by T. Simpson. (ref. 76)
This is the only complete theatre designed by
Lewen Sharp, whose only other work connected
with the stage was the extensive alteration of the
Camberwell Palace of Varieties in 1908. (ref. 77)
The axis of the Apollo is approximately northsouth, with the stage at the north end and the
entrance fronting Shaftesbury Avenue at the
south end (fig. 10). The north side faces Archer
Street and the east flank fronts Rupert Street.
The Shaftesbury Avenue front (Plate 34a) is
of stone, an astylar composition designed in a free
Renaissance style, four storeys high with shallow
canted end features crowned with little cupolas
flanking the centre which contains the main
entrance and three windows on each of the upper
floors. The main entablature above second-floor
level extends the whole width of the elevation and
the top or third floor is in the form of an
attic storey. All the third-floor windows are
vertical elliptical openings, those in each end
feature being flanked by pairs of flamboyantly
draped winged figures carved in high relief by
T. Simpson. The symmetry of the front is
broken by the pattern of fenestration in the end
features, the west having three pairs of windows
stepped to follow the line of the gallery staircase,
and the east having two pairs of windows. The
first-floor windows are linked by a solid-fronted
balcony, originally intended to be of open strapwork (ref. 78) and there is an iron and glass canopy
below. In comparison with most theatre façades
of the day, there is a good deal of plain wall surface
here, a tendency more noticeable in the office
buildings of 1900. The fronts to Rupert Street
and Archer Street are utilitarian in character, and
faced in red brick.
The original interior decoration, executed by
Messrs. Hooydonk, was in the style of Louis XIV,
to a colour scheme of white and gold with crimson
fabric panels. The plan is simple, long corridors
and passages being avoided so that the entire
theatre can be quickly cleared. Staircases serve
each of the four corners of the stalls and dress
circle, the upper circle and gallery each having
two separate staircases (ref. 79) (Plate 35).
Henry Lowenfeld was both proprietor and
manager, and the theatre opened on 21 February
1901 with an American musical farce, The Belle
of Bohemia, by Harry B. Smith and music by
Ludwig Englander. (ref. 64)
In 1932 the interior of the theatre was redecorated, E. Schaufelberg being the architect. (ref. 80)
For some twenty years the theatre was used
mainly for musical comedy. Notable productions
in more recent years have included Sean
O'Casey's The Silver Tassie (1929), Emlyn
Williams's The Light of Heart (1940) and Terence
Rattigan's Flare Path (1942). (ref. 81)
No. 33 Shaftesbury Avenue
No. 33 Shaftesbury Avenue (formerly No. 39
Rupert Street) occupies the corner site between
the front and side elevations of the Apollo
Theatre (Plate 138b). It was built as the Prince
Rupert Tavern at about the same time as the
theatre, but neither architect nor client is known.
It is possible, however, that Lewen Sharp may
have designed it for Henry Lowenfeld, who is
listed as occupant in 1902. (ref. 62) While not uniform
with the Apollo, the former tavern has a similar
distinction, being an attractive and accomplished
essay in the vernacular Baroque style of central
Europe. The ground storey, originally divided
into bays by spirally-fluted columns, has been
modernized and only the modillioned cornice
remains. The upper face, of red brick elaborately
dressed with stone, contains two storeys, both
divided by pilasters into bays, one window wide,
two facing Shaftesbury Avenue and four towards
Rupert Street. The lower order is Doric with
blocked shafts, and the upper order is Ionic. All
the windows are, or were, casements set in
rectangular openings, elaborately dressed with
Baroque surrounds. Those of the first floor have
lugged architraves with segmental heads framing
tympana composed of voussoirs and keystones
carved with double eagles. The second-floor
windows have similar architraves, headed with
scrolls linked by festoons, below segmental or
angular pediments. Above the main cornice rises
the tall hipped roof, broken by large dormers. The
graceful wrought-iron sign bracket projecting
from the angle of the building is, presumably,
part of the original tavern sign.
Figure 10:
Apollo Theatre, Shaftesbury Avenue, plan of balcony level in 1900. Redrawn from a plan in the possession of the London County Council
The Globe Theatre, Nos. 39-45 (odd) Shaftesbury Avenue, and the Queen's Theatre
The Globe Theatre was formerly the Hicks Theatre
Between Rupert and Greek Streets Shaftesbury
Avenue follows the line of Richmond and King
Streets, which were widened by the demolition of
all the buildings on their south sides. On the
north side, where no alteration was made in the
existing line of street, no land was acquired by the
Metropolitan Board of Works.
In 1904 Jack Jacobus, the owner of a boot and
shoe maker's establishment in Shaftesbury Avenue,
in association with Sydney Marler, an estate agent,
bought an eighty-year building lease of the block
bounded by Rupert Street, Upper Rupert Street
(now Winnett Street), Wardour Street and
Shaftesbury Avenue. They intended to enlarge
Jacobus's premises and to build two theatres on
the site. (ref. 82) The architect for the whole scheme
was W. G. R. Sprague. He placed one theatre—
now the Globe—at the south-east corner of
Rupert Street and the other—the Queen's—at
the south-west corner of Wardour Street (fig. 11);
he gave the two theatres similar elevations and the
centre of the frontage to Shaftesbury Avenue (now
Nos. 39–45 odd) was occupied by Jacobus's boot
and shoe business. The builder of both theatres
was Walter Wallis of Balham. The Globe (then
known as the Hicks Theatre) was opened on
27 December 1906 and the Queen's on 8 October
1907. (ref. 83)
The Globe Theatre
This theatre opened under the name of the
Hicks Theatre. Charles Frohman was licensee
and manager, but Seymour Hicks had a share in
the venture, and he played the lead in the first
production, The Beauty of Bath (a transfer from
the Aldwych). Within a short time Hicks disposed of his interest in it and in July 1909 the
name was changed to the Globe Theatre. Charles
Frohman continued as lessee and manager until
1913, but in January 1915 the licensee was Alfred
Butt, whose first production at the Globe was
J. Hartley Manners's Peg o' my Heart (transferred from the Comedy). In 1918 Anthony
Prinsep and his wife Marie Löhr became the
lessees, (ref. 64) and Prinsep's productions included Love
in a Cottage, Our Betters (both by Somerset
Maugham) and Noël Coward's Fallen Angels. (ref. 84)
Prinsep's management ended in 1928, and in
1930 the lease of both the Globe and the Queen's
was sold for over £250,000 to a firm connected
with Maurice Browne, the actor and manager.
Notable productions in more recent years have
included Robert Ardrey's Thunder Rock (1940),
Terence Rattigan's While the Sun Shines (1943–
6), Christopher Fry's The Lady's Not for Burning
(1949–50) and Ring Round the Moon (1950–1). (ref. 64)
In 1959 the leases of the Globe and the Queen's
were bought by Prince Littler's Associated
Theatre Properties (London) Ltd. (ref. 85)
The Queen's Theatre
The first lessee and manager here was J. E.
Vedrenne, who originally proposed to call the
theatre The Central—'as if it were a criminal
court or a railway terminus', commented Bernard
Shaw. Later, when the present name had been
decided upon Shaw remarked that Vedrenne was
'after a knighthood … it is not for nothing he
has called his theatre the Queen's—though why
not the Alexandra?' (ref. 86) The theatre opened on
8 October 1907 with The Sugar Bowl, a comedy
by Madeleine Lucette Ryley. (ref. 64)
Success eluded the Queen's for some years, and
despite H. B. Irving's series of productions in
1909–11 there was no long run until 1914, when
Montague Glass's comedy Potash and Perlmutter
achieved fame. On 17 September 1929 Bernard
Shaw's The Apple Cart had its first performance
in London at the Queen's, as also, on 23 September 1930, did Rudolph Besier's The Barretts of
Wimpole Street. During the 1930's the theatre
was the scene of a series of successful productions,
culminating in (Sir) John Gielgud's distinguished
season of classic plays in 1937–8. (ref. 64) On 24 September 1940 the theatre was struck by a bomb
which severely damaged the vestibule and front of
house. (ref. 87) Complete rebuilding was not necessary,
for the bomb had fallen at the south end of the
building, and the auditorium had escaped with
relatively little damage. Reconstruction began in
1957, the architect being Bryan Westwood, of
Westwood, Sons and Partners, in co-operation
with Sir Hugh Casson, who was the consultant on
the décor.
The theatre was re-opened on 8 July 1959. (ref. 64)
Architectural description
The Globe and the Queen's Theatres were
designed as part of one composition, with basically
similar plans and elevations, although with different schemes of interior decoration. Originally the
front to Shaftesbury Avenue, between Rupert and
Wardour Streets, consisted of the theatres, twin
corner buildings of Portland stone, each four
storeys high and crowned with buttressed and
domed angle turrets, flanking a shop and office
building of similar architectural treatment, five
bays wide and one storey higher than the theatres.
The corner buildings contain the entrances,
foyers and bars of the theatres and behind these
and the office building are the 'working' parts of
the theatres, the auditoria being placed side by side
on a north-south axis with the stages to the north
and ranges of dressing-rooms fronting Winnett
Street. The 'entrance pile' of the Queen's has
been rebuilt in a completely new form since its
destruction in the last war but the rest of the joint
street front remains, together with the auditoria
and stages behind (Plate 36).
Figure 11:
Globe Theatre, Shaftesbury Avenue, plan of dress-circle level in 1924 (left): Queen's Theatre, Shaftesbury Avenue, plan of entrance level in 1935 (right). Redrawn from plans in the possession of the London County Council
The original façade, where unaltered, is in a
ripe Edwardian Renaissance style, the bays of the
central office building being defined by a giant
order of Ionic pilasters rising through the second
and third storeys to support the main entablature,
which is continued across the front and return
face of the Globe Theatre, the pedestal-course
below the order being similarly continued. The
corner of the Globe is treated as a circular tower
inset between the main and return frontages. The
base of this tower rises as a triple arcade above the
entrance canopy, with projecting keyblocks engaging the soffit of the lower member to the
second-floor pedestal. Above the pedestal rise
engaged columns of a giant Ionic order, corresponding to the pilasters of the office building, and supporting the continued entablature
which, girdling the 'tower', breaks forward over
each column. Above the cornice of the theatre
front is a stone balustrade, over which rises the
heavily buttressed and domed turret. Other
motifs from the Edwardian Renaissance repertoire
include circular windows with keyblocks, scrolls
and other enrichments in the third storey of the
theatre and the fourth storey of the offices, heavy
segmental pediments emphasizing end bays in the
fourth storey of the office block, and stone vases
and groups on the skyline.
The rebuilt front of the Queen's, completed in
1959, retains only the rounded frontage line of its
predecessor and its eaves follow the old cornice
level. The intention of the new glass curtain-wall
is said to have been partly to make playbills and
posters inside the foyer visible from the pavement,
and partly 'to make the bright lights and gaiety of
Shaftesbury-avenue the backcloth to the dresscircle and upper-circle bars and to provide in the
upper part a background for the necessary lettered
theatre announcements'. (ref. 88) Infilling panels between the windows are finished in 'purplishblack' ceramic mosaic and the flank to Wardour
Street is of grey semi-glazed bricks.
The Globe has a seating capacity of about 907,
in an auditorium with two cantilevered tiers, the
upper continued by a gallery rising behind. The
rectangular proscenium, flanked by boxes (two
superimposed on each side), is set between giant
square-shafted Corinthian columns supporting
the returns of the entablature above the proscenium (Plate 37a). The circular centrepiece of
the ceiling (later furnished with a light-fitting of
the 1930's) contains garlands and wedge-shaped
panels filled with trophies in accordance with the
general Louis XVI décor. The concave side
walls to the front of the dress and upper circles are
decorated with pairs of engaged Ionic columns
supporting entablatures, and this theme is repeated
on the walls of the 'Grand Saloon' behind the dress
circle where they occur within an arcade and
support a coved oval ceiling. The saloon has a
corresponding oval well in its floor, overlooking
the entrance foyer below, which thus becomes a
two-storeyed compartment from which one looks
up to the coved ceiling of the saloon—perhaps a
small-scale allusion to the treatment of the rotunda
saloon at Drury Lane Theatre. The account in
The Times, following the opening performance,
describes the new house as follows: 'It is all in
white and gold, with hangings and carpets of a
soft and beautiful shade of red; and the promenade
at the back of the dress circle, the wide gangways,
and the gallery over the hall help towards the
feeling of space … which too many theatres
lack.' (ref. 89) The promenade at the back of the dress
circle was filled in with a range of boxes in 1914
by J. Emblin Walker. (ref. 80) These boxes have since
been removed.
The Queen's also has two cantilevered tiers and
a capacity of about 1000. The architectural
character of the auditorium was described in The
Stage as the 'Old Italian Renaissance style' and
the original colour scheme was white and gold
with green carpets, hangings and upholstery, besides which there was a 'very charming velvet
tableau curtain'. (ref. 90) Much of this original auditorium remains, united with the new foyers (Plate
37b). The proscenium is rectangular and is
flanked by three superimposed boxes on either side.
The box fronts and their surrounding architecture
have been remodelled, but in the cornice and cove
over the proscenium, the oval saucer dome, and
much of the treament of the balcony fronts and side
wall, Sprague's work is still recognizable. The
dome, surrounded with heavy Renaissance mouldings and divided into lunettes with over-life-size
seated figures of muses or nymphs in plaster relief
has lost its extremely elaborate chandelier and is
now illuminated from a large ring suspended
below it like a floating moulding. In the original
work garlands, amorini and other motifs typical of
Edwardian decoration filled panels over the proscenium and covered the fronts of the tiers and
boxes, and here again much survives. The front
of the building, however, containing foyers, stairs
and bars has been completely rebuilt, as the new
glass front clearly demonstrates. The original
entrance foyer, or grand crush-room, formerly
corresponding to the Globe's open-ceilinged foyer
described above but quite different in style, was a
square lofty hall with attached half-columns on
pedestals around three sides of it supporting
fragmentary entablatures and a groined cove
below a circular ceiling. From the fourth side
rose a white marble staircase branching symmetrically to a balcony overlooking the foyer. This
square compartment, placed on a diagonal from
the corner, was entered from an outer semi-circular vestibule while pit and gallery staircases
filled the intervening triangular space next to
Shaftesbury Avenue. These three areas are now
one, the new main foyer furnished with plain
surfaces of white terrazzo, dark woods and thick
carpet, from which a wide staircase rises on one
side.
The London Pavilion
The present London Pavilion stands upon the
site of Loibl and Sonnhammer's music hall, described on page 55, which was demolished for the
formation of Shaftesbury Avenue. The first stone
of the new building was laid on 18 May 1885 (ref. 91)
and the first performance there took place on
30 November of the same year. (ref. 92) The elevation
of the building, and the interior of the Piccadilly
Restaurant which occupied the western end of the
block, were designed by Robert J. Worley. The
architect in all other matters was James Ebenezer
Saunders. The contractors were Messrs. Peto. (ref. 91)
The building is now scarcely distinguishable as a
coherent design behind a screen of illuminated
advertisements.
The theatre auditorium was in the eastern part
of the building, with its long axis parallel to Great
Windmill Street and the stage in the north angle.
The extreme northern tip of the site and the
south-east angle pointing towards Coventry
Street were both occupied by small shops which
were incorporated into the overall design.
Worley planned the restaurant with a buffet on
the ground floor, a public dining-room on the first
floor some 22 feet high with a gallery on two sides
and private rooms above this, with kitchens at the
top of the building. (ref. 91) Saunders's auditorium as
built was described and illustrated in a booklet
issued by the proprietors in 1900, (ref. 93) and this
showed that the lyre-shaped plan published in
The Builder
(ref. 91) was modified in execution to give
the balconies the form of a long U (fig. 12). The
flat floor of the auditorium was occupied by
marble-topped tables placed end-on to the stage
between banquettes or, towards the back, rows of
chairs (Plate 33a). The balconies were carried on
twelve iron columns which supported, above the
second balcony tier, an arcade in turn surmounted
by a barrel vault and a sliding roof. The long
arms of the U were flanked by bars.
The London Pavilion was now 'the first music
hall de luxe at the West End'. (ref. 94) Shortly after its
re-opening Villiers disposed of it to a limited
company (ref. 95) whose 'immense profits … appealed
to the imagination, especially of the ultra respectable investor. Clergymen and district visitors
abounded among its shareholders.' (ref. 94) The dominant personality in the new company was a
chartered accountant, Henry Newson-Smith, who
established the first combine of music halls,
Syndicate Halls Ltd. (ref. 96)
In 1900 the London Pavilion was closed for
five months for redecoration and structural alteration. The marble-topped tables which had
originally occupied the area of the pit and stalls had
been removed soon after the opening of the building in 1885, but the view from the seats which had
replaced the tables had proved very poor, so now
the ground floor was raked and provided with
tip-up seats, and the refreshment bars were removed to a subterranean saloon beneath the stalls.
The proscenium was widened and the stage itself
lowered. The architects were Messrs. Wylson
and Long. (ref. 97)
Figure 12:
London Pavilion, Piccadilly Circus, plans: (upper) ground-floor level before 1900, (lower) dress-circle level in 1929. Redrawn from plans in the Crown Estate Office and in the possession of the London County Council
The new interior was decorated by J. M.
Boekbinder (or Bockbinder) in the 'Louis
Quinze' style in white or cream and gold relieved
with touches of colour. (ref. 98) The stage boxes were
flanked by a giant Corinthian order supporting the
principal cornice over the proscenium. Above this
cornice and elsewhere in the auditorium were
painted panels of allegorical subjects. The proscenium opening was further decorated with
sculptural groups and the balconies were elaborated
with Rococo scroll-work. Terra-cotta silk, matching the colour of the upholstery and hangings, was
used in wall panels. The sliding roof of the old
auditorium was retained though entirely redecorated in blue, cream and gold with further
painted panels of allegorical subjects in the cove. (ref. 99)
In 1915 the programme at the Pavilion included revue for the first time, and 1918 saw As
You Were, C. B. Cochran's first production there.
The interior of the building was remodelled again
in that year for Cochran, and other alterations
followed with succeeding changes in fashion.
The year 1924 saw a season of films, but in
the spring of 1925 came Noël Coward's On With
The Dance, presented by Cochran, who continued
at the Pavilion with several other productions until
1931. There were short seasons of films in 1929,
1930 and 1931, and after Cochran's last production, there was non-stop variety in 1932–4. After
the last variety performance on 7 April 1934 the
building was converted into a cinema, at a cost of
£70,000; the architect was F. G. M. Chancellor,
of Frank Matcham and Co., in association with
C. Masey, and the contractors were F. G. Minter
Ltd. The boxes were removed, the proscenium
was again enlarged and all the moulded decorative
plaster-work was discarded. (ref. 64)
The use of the exterior of the building as an advertising station for the exhibition of illuminated
signs is described on page 97. The greater part
of the elevation designed by Worley still survives
behind the signs (Plates 32c, 33b, 155c). The
fronts to Shaftesbury Avenue and Piccadilly
Circus are given almost equal value architecturally.
On these two main façades the ground floor is
treated as a tall arcaded base for the upper storeys,
of which the central feature on each face is a
tetrastyle Corinthian portico with its pediment
rising above the roof-line. Portland stone was
used for the plinth and for the giant columns, and
Bath stone for the remainder, (ref. 91) but all is now
painted. The Shaftesbury Avenue front is subordinated to the shorter Piccadilly front in having
an engaged order to the portico, whereas, in the
case of the latter, the projecting pediment is
carried on a free-standing order with pilaster
responds on the main wall. On either side of each
portico the windows of the principal storey and the
wreathed circular windows above them are set
within a blind arcade carried on a subsidiary
Corinthian order engaged in the wall. Above the
arcading is a moulded string surmounted by a
further row of square architraved windows immediately under the main entablature. Each
façade is terminated by giant Corinthian pilasters
and each angle of the building is segmental on plan
and forms a link between the façades, being
similar to a single bay of the main elevations.
The Trocadero Restaurant
To the east of Great Windmill Street lay a
narrow tapering piece of building ground bounded
on its south side by the Trocadero Music Hall (see
page 47). In 1888–9 a block of shops and 'residential mansions' was erected upon this most
awkwardly shaped plot (Plate 29a). The architects were Messrs. Wylson and Long (ref. 100) and the
builder, to whom the building lease from the
Metropolitan Board of Works had been assigned,
was Harry Smith of Bolton House, Chiswick.
The latter had exercised his option to purchase the
freehold from the Board, and in July 1890 he sold
the property, known as Avenue Mansions (Nos.
8–24 (even) Shaftesbury Avenue), to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who were looking for good investments at that time. The Commissioners leased it back to Smith, but he had
great difficulty in finding sub-tenants, and in 1895
he became bankrupt. (ref. 101)
In that year J. Lyons and Co. Ltd. were
granted a ninety-nine-year lease of the adjoining
Trocadero Music Hall, and in the following year
they rebuilt it to a completely new design as a
restaurant. The principal entrance was moved
from Great Windmill Street to Shaftesbury
Avenue by the acquisition of No. 8, the most
westerly of the shops in Avenue Mansions, and
the formation of openings in the party wall
between it and the restaurant. (ref. 102) The architect
for these works was J. Hatchard Smith, assisted by
W. J. Ancell, (ref. 103) but in May 1896 Ancell took
over control. Lyons and Co. acted as their own
general contractors. (ref. 104)
In 1899 Lyons and Co. acquired the Crown
lease of Avenue Mansions, and between 1900 and
1902 the building was extensively altered to suit
it for use as a restaurant (Plate 29b). Openings in
the party wall with the Great Windmill Street
building were made on several of the upper floors,
small rooms were thrown together to form larger
ones, and two staircases and an additional basement were constructed. A new entrance was
formed at the east end of the building, and the
existing one in the centre was altered to match the
doorway which had been formed at the west end
in 1896; all have segmental pediments and canopies with flambeaux. A fourth entrance has since
been made via the adjoining office building on the
east side. The shop-windows were also changed
to suit the needs of a restaurant, and even the fenestration of the upper storeys was modified. The
architect for all this work was W. J. Ancell. (ref. 105)
In more recent years J. Lyons and Co. have
purchased the freehold of both Avenue Mansions
and the original Trocadero in Great Windmill
Street. Extensive internal alterations have been
made at various dates, the architect for most of
them being F. J. Wills. (ref. 106)
The principal elevation of the former Avenue
Mansions, in a 'Flemish' style, is faced in cut and
rubbed red bricks together with Newbiggin
stone. (ref. 107) The almost symmetrical composition
comprises a central gabled pavilion connected to a
north-eastern subsidiary pavilion, while the southwesterly end of the elevation is terminated on the
upper floors by a small turret with a conical roof.
Originally a single-storey shop was carried out
into the angle of the site, adjoining the Trocadero
in Great Windmill Street.
The Great Windmill Street building is of red
Dumfries stone and Aberdeen granite in a form
described as '"modern" French Renaissance'. (ref. 104)
The elevation is a complex design, mainly of four
storeys with a steep slated roof broken by dormer
windows and large chimney-stacks, and a small
gabled tower at the northern end containing two
extra storeys. The two-storey entrance hall at the
northerly end of the elevation was given big
mullioned and transomed windows recessed between heavy piers, and above the entablature the
wall face is broken by projecting balconies and an
oriel.
In the entrance hall, in spite of alterations, there
still remains an important decorative feature of
the Trocadero in its early years. This is the great
frieze some 6 feet deep and 90 feet long executed
in 1896 in coloured plaster bas-relief by Gerald
Moira and F. Lynn-Jenkins, on themes taken
from Arthurian romance. (ref. 108)
The famous 'Long Bar' was designed in a rich
free-classical style by Messrs. Davis and Emanuel, (ref. 109) and opened in 1901. Around the walls were
niches flanked by engaged colonnettes of carved
dark wood supporting a continuous entablature,
alternating with large mirrors under semicircular arches. Behind these arches, and in panels
over the niches between them, were tiles decorated
with floral designs. There was a panelled ceiling
with arabesque decoration, a mosaic floor with art
nouveau floral borders, and the 'Long Bar' itself
was of variegated marbles. Patterned leather
chairs and potted palms completed a setting
characteristic of this period. In 1937 the 'Long
Bar' was redecorated as a cocktail lounge and
called the Salted Almond. (ref. 110)