CHAPTER VI
The Rebuilding of Piccadilly Circus and the Regent Street Quadrant
Piccadilly Circus was originally formed
in 1819 by the intersection of Piccadilly and
Nash's New Street. It was one of the two
links which joined together the three sections of
Regent Street, and was known as Regent Circus
South, Oxford Circus being called Regent Circus
North. Northwards from the Circus a short
length of street, terminated at the north end by the
County Fire Office, led to the Quadrant on the
west and to an opening into Tichborne Street on
the east (Plate 152a). The original buildings in the
Circus will be described and illustrated in a later
volume of the Survey of London which will be concerned with the whole of Regent Street. Since
the formation of Shaftesbury Avenue in the
1880's, however, Piccadilly Circus has ceased to
be a circus, (fn. a) and has become the most famous
place in the whole of London. It cannot be considered in isolation from either Shaftesbury
Avenue or the Regent Street Quadrant, and its
evolution away from Nash's original plan therefore comes within the scope of the present volume.
The construction of the south end of Shaftesbury Avenue involved the removal of the triangular block of buildings which formed the south-west
side of Tichborne Street. This triangle also
formed one of the segments of Nash's Piccadilly
Circus, and its removal reduced the Circus to an
undistinguished and ill-shaped vortex of converging streets (see figs. 8, 13).
Shaftesbury Avenue was opened in January
1886 and discussion of how to restore at least the
rudiments of architectural propriety to Piccadilly
Circus has been going on with little intermission
ever since. The greatest single difficulty has been
the divided ownership of the surrounding land.
The ground landlord on the north, west and south
sides is the Crown, while the north-east side belongs partly to the London County Council and
partly to private owners (fig. 13). The wide
interval of time between the date of expiry of the
leases granted by the Crown and of those granted
by the Council, and the very great cost of buying
out existing interests, has so far prevented the rebuilding of the Circus to a homogeneous architectural design.
Three months before the opening of Shaftesbury Avenue a correspondent of The Builder
complained of the ruination of Nash's Circus and
suggested that 'if the curve of the Quadrant could
be continued on to the new street by throwing
back the frontage of Tichborne-street, there would
be some chance of putting the architectural lines
into shape again'. (ref. 1) This is probably the first
public expression of the often repeated idea, now
part of official policy, for 'squaring the Circus' by
setting back the north-east side.
But the Metropolitan Board of Works had
other ideas. Their acquisition of the triangular
block of buildings on the south-west side of Tichborne Street and the construction of Shaftesbury
Avenue through the centre of it had left the Board
with two small triangular islands of ground in the
new Circus (fig. 8). In June 1886 the Board's
Works Committee favoured the erection on the
larger or western island of a single-storey stone
kiosk accommodating half-a-dozen shops and an
arcade. (ref. 2) This idea was taken up by the loquacious
correspondent of The Builder who suggested that
the centre of the new Circus should be used for
public lavatories and a bus station surmounted by
stalls for flower sellers. (ref. 3) With greater wisdom
Leonard Stokes, in a letter to the same paper,
commented that 'Most of us, no doubt, have
looked with wonder at the Piccadilly-end of
Shaftesbury-avenue. How any street could ever
have been set out on such lines is marvellous, not
to say pitiable.' He suggested that symmetry
could be restored by setting back the north-east
side and proposed the erection of a fountain or
statue in the centre of the Circus. (ref. 4)
These and other comments appear to have given
the Board second thoughts, for in May 1887 they
decided to try to restore the symmetry of Nash's
original Circus by 'reproducing in some form the
north-eastern portion' of it; the main feature of
this remarkable structure would have been 'an
archway or a pair of archways that would span the
route of Shaftesbury Avenue and accommodate the
traffic of that thoroughfare'. (ref. 5) But the St. James's
vestry, which ardently wished to erect public
lavatories upon the smaller of the two triangular
islands, (ref. 6) would have none of this proposal, and not
content with addressing three letters in a single
day to the Board upon the subject, it persuaded
half-a-dozen other metropolitan local authorities
to protest likewise. (ref. 7)
The Builder witheringly remarked that the Board seemed 'anxious to do all
they can to prove (what required very little proof)
their utter unfitness to meddle with London
architecturally'. Their proposal was 'simply
idiotic. Here is a fine open space obtained in a
crowded and central position, and the Board propose to block the traffic and shut out the possibility
of a fine architectural place by putting in the
centre a shapeless block of shops, presenting no
architectural form, meaning, or beauty of any
kind.' (ref. 8)
Perhaps because of such opposition the Board's
Works Committee decided on 17 October 1887
that as the use of the centre of the Circus for
building would require statutory authority, the
ground in question should be kept as an open
space. At the same meeting the Works Committee also decided to offer by public auction the
surplus land between the Circus and Denman
Street for building and by so doing they rejected
their last chance to set back the north-east side of
the Circus. (ref. 9)
Public outcry against the alleged corruption of
the Board was now at its height, and it was perhaps
for this reason that no decision was taken about
the layout of the proposed open space on the larger
of the two triangular islands, which was fenced off
with 'rough balks of timber supporting an unsightly wooden railing'. (ref. 10) In January 1888 the
Board finally refused to permit the St. James's
vestry to erect underground lavatories on the
smaller of the two island plots, only to find that
control of this site had passed (under the terms of
the Metropolitan Street Improvement Act of
1877) to the vestry, (ref. 11) which was therefore able to
defy the Board and go ahead with its long cherished
scheme (ref. 12) (Plate 152b). The Shaftesbury Memorial
Committee, which had asked the Board to be allowed to erect a monument in the Circus in
February 1886, had to wait until January 1890
before it was granted permission by the London
County Council (as successor to the Board) to
place a memorial fountain on the larger island
site. (ref. 13) The fountain was unveiled in July 1893
(see Chapter vii for the history of the memorial).
Figure 13:
Piccadilly Circus area, plan showing the ownership of land after the rebuilding of the Regent Street Quadrant. Based on the Ordnance Survey
The next occasion on which the replanning of
Piccadilly Circus became a matter of public concern was in connexion with the rebuilding of the
Regent Street Quadrant. In 1901 the St. James's
Hall Company, which as Crown tenant occupied
a large part of the block bounded by Piccadilly,
Piccadilly Place, Regent Street and Air Street,
with frontages to both Piccadilly and Regent
Street, agreed with the Crown to carry out extensive improvements in exchange for a fiftyyear lease. (ref. 14) Shortly afterwards the St. James's
Hall Company was bought by the P. and R.
Syndicate, which proposed to acquire all the outstanding leasehold interests in the whole block and
erect a large hotel there. (ref. 15)
The Commissioners of Woods and Forests
favoured this scheme because by the amalgamation
of leasehold interests it would greatly facilitate the
widening of Piccadilly between the Circus and
Sackville Street, (ref. 15) negotiations for which had been
proceeding with the London County Council
since 1898. (ref. 16) Accordingly, in December 1903,
the Syndicate and the Commissioners agreed that
the former should surrender all its leases in the
whole block and after erecting a new hotel thereon
should receive a ninety-year lease. The elevation
to the Quadrant was to accord with the general
design—not yet even discussed—for the rest of
the Quadrant, and the existing façade was not to
be altered until such a general design had been
settled. On the Piccadilly frontage the building
line was to be set back to accord with the County
Council's widening scheme. The agreement also
provided that if the Syndicate should not succeed
in acquiring the lease of Nos. 19 and 20 Piccadilly
(see fig. 13), which had only recently been renewed and did not expire until 1982, it should
arrange for the local authorities to buy the tenant
out compulsorily and surrender the lease to the
Crown, which would then lease to the Syndicate
that part of the premises not required for the road
widening. (ref. 15)
Shortly after approving this agreement the
Treasury informed the Commissioners of Woods
and Forests that 'having regard to the great
architectural importance of the site, the Committee presided over by the President of the Royal
Institute of British Architects should be requested
to advise upon the sketches of the elevations proposed as soon as they have been prepared'. (ref. 15) The
Commissioners' architect, Arthur Green, then
prepared a design for the Quadrant and for the
north side of Piccadilly, but he died before it
could be submitted to the expert committee. The
members of this body were (Sir) Aston Webb,
President of the Royal Institute of British Architects 1902–4, John Belcher, who succeeded Webb
in that office, and Sir John Taylor, formerly
Surveyor of Royal Palaces and Public Buildings in
the Office of Works. After examining Green's
design they recommended that 'it would be adviseable to select some architect of eminence to revise
the drawings'. They recommended, in order of
preference, Richard Norman Shaw, J. Macvicar
Anderson and Henry T. Hare, and in September
1904 Shaw agreed to accept the commission. (ref. 17)
Norman Shaw was then seventy-three years old
and was living in virtual retirement at his house in
Hampstead. In an astonishing burst of creative
energy he produced in the course of a few months
a design of heroic conception for the Quadrant and
for the Piccadilly elevation of the proposed hotel,
as well as a number of schemes for the rearrangement of the Circus. But the clamour of
the shop-keepers, and the Treasury's determination
that not a penny of Crown revenue should be endangered for the sake of either architectural effect
or municipal improvement, combined to prevent
the full realization of Shaw's proposals. The two
façades of the Piccadilly Hotel are merely noble
fragments, and even though Sir Reginald Blomfield later completed the Quadrant with skill and
propriety, the defeat of Shaw's proposals is one of
the greatest of all the many lost opportunities in
the architectural history of London in the present
century.
Within five weeks of his appointment Shaw
submitted a preliminary design for the Quadrant
to the committee of three. This provided that 'the
ground floor and entresol should be a row of
arches' and that the roof should go 'back on one
slant with a row of dormer windows'. At the
next meeting of the committee, in November
1904, the elevation for the hotel submitted by the
P. and R. Syndicate's own architects, Messrs.
William Woodward and Walter Emden, were
summarily rejected, and the committee went on
to consider Shaw's proposals for the treatment of
the Circus. (ref. 17)
This first design (ref. 18) (Plate 148a) is in many ways
finer than any later scheme. Shaw proposed to
form a long oblong place, symmetrically arranged
about its main axis, continuing the south-to-north
centre of (Lower) Regent Street. On the west
side of this place, centred on the short east-west
axis, is the rebuilt five-bay front of Swan and
Edgar's store, flanked on the north by the Quadrant, and on the south by Piccadilly, now widened
to equal the Quadrant. Opposite Swan and
Edgar's, on the original site of the Shaftesbury
Memorial, is a corresponding building occupying
an island site of an irregular hexagonal form,
effectively masking the miscellany of buildings at
the junction of Shaftesbury Avenue and Coventry
Street, yet not interfering with the traffic circulation in the existing roadways. The south end of
the place is finished with re-entrant angles flanking
the entrance to (Lower) Regent Street. For the
north end Shaw reserves his most impressive
feature, the County Fire Office set back some 65
feet from its existing frontage line and rebuilt in a
monumental style, with a loggia approached by a
bold flight of steps. This building is flanked by
great archways, giving entrance to Glasshouse
and Sherwood Streets, and the new return frontages to the Quadrant and Sherwood Street, facing
east and west, are built above open loggias, recalling
the Covent Garden piazza. In front of the County
Fire Office, and projecting so as to be seen from
the Quadrant, Shaw places the Shaftesbury
Memorial.
A sketch (Plate 148b) for the elevation of the
north end of the place shows the County Fire
Office with its wide flight of steps rising against a
rusticated podium to the ground storey, an open
arcade of five bays built in horizontally channelled
courses. The two-storeyed upper face of plain
masonry is recessed behind a Corinthian colonnade
of five bays, terminated by rustic piers. Over the
main entablature is an attic with five square
windows, framed in eared and shouldered architraves broken by triple keystones, and the front is
finished with a pedestal parapet, possibly intended
to have balustrades between the projecting dies
except in the centre where a group with a seated
Britannia is placed. A one-pitched roof is faintly
shadowed on the sketch. The great rusticated
arches opening to the side streets are surmounted
by open screens conforming with the Corinthian
colonnade of the County Fire Office, the entablature of which is placed at a level just below that
of the tall pavilions terminating the Quadrant and
Sherwood Street.
The committee of three experts quickly approved this scheme. Unfortunately, however, it
demanded that the Crown should acquire the land
needed for both the County Fire Office and the
hexagonal centre block, and when in February
1905 the Treasury authorized the Commissioners
of Woods and Forests to employ Shaw to settle the
detailed designs for the Quadrant, the Circus and
the north side of Piccadilly as far as Piccadilly
Place, their Lordships stated that 'they wish to
reserve especially Their judgment with regard to
the suggested treatment of Piccadilly Circus.' (ref. 17)
A few days later Shaw produced another
sketch-plan in which Glasshouse Street was
diverted slightly eastward and made to enter the
north side of the Circus at right angles instead of
slanting; the island site for the County Fire
Office, and the hexagonal block in the centre of
the Circus were both abandoned. The only advantage of this scheme was that it required the
purchase of much less land by the Crown, but on
even these modest proposals the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, (Sir) Austen Chamberlain, commented discouragingly that 'I am not at all enthusiastic about the alterations at the point of junction
of Regent Street, Glasshouse Street and Sherwood
Street, and would make no move here without the
hearty co-operation of the Local Authorities.' (ref. 17)
Much more urgent in the spring of 1905 was
the settlement of the elevations for the hotel. In
February Woodward and Emden were instructed
by the Office of Woods to place themselves at
Shaw's disposal, and when they saw the designs
approved by the committee Shaw commented that
'they have much to say'. (ref. 19) They did in fact address
a ten-page letter of protest to the Office of Woods.
They complained that they had not been told that
Shaw was to design the Piccadilly as well as the
Quadrant elevation, that the designs had been
settled without consulting either them or their
clients, that the great arches and wide piers on the
ground floor and the round windows on the
second floor of the Quadrant elevation were quite
unsuitable, and finally (and with most justice) that
their clients should have been told before and not
after the conclusion of the building agreement
with the Crown that they would be required to
build elevations over whose design they had no
control. (ref. 19)
In April 1905 Shaw, although quite unmoved
by these complaints, produced an entirely new design for the Piccadilly front. This provided for
the main body of the building to be set back at
second-floor level, and for two great projecting
gabled wings joined by a huge columned screen.
By this arrangement the building could be
carried up to a much greater height than would
otherwise have been permitted, and there was in
consequence no loss of space. (ref. 19) In his biography
of Norman Shaw, Sir Reginald Blomfield later
wrote 'How Shaw got away with it, how he persuaded his clients to expend very large sums on the
screen, which serves no practical purpose whatever, remains a standing wonder, but Shaw was a
magician in dealing with clients and committees.
He seems to have had a way with him that no one
could withstand, so clear, so pleasant, so convincing.' (ref. 20)
Shaw's success with the Piccadilly Hotel Company (which had replaced the P. and R. Syndicate
in January 1905) (ref. 21) was partly due to the fact that
the company was in no position to protest at
anything he might propose. It had constantly
pressed for a rapid settlement of the elevations (ref. 19)
and in April 1905 it had been allowed to start
demolishing its sector of the Quadrant. (ref. 17) Any
delay in the settlement of the designs would cost
the company a great deal of money, and Shaw was
therefore in a very strong position, particularly as
the hotel company were not in fact his clients.
Nevertheless it was a remarkable achievement to
obtain within six weeks of his production of the
revised designs for the Piccadilly front, the sanction
of the expert committee, of the Office of Woods
and of the Treasury, as well as the agreement of
the company and their architects, Woodward and
Emden. Of his dealings with the latter Shaw
amiably remarked 'It has taken some trouble and a
good deal of talk to bring them to this desirable
frame of mind, but they have arrived at it at
last'. (ref. 17)
In May 1905 the chances of complete success
for Shaw's designs stood at their height, the execution of his elevations for the hotel being about to
start. It is now necessary to describe how the fulfilment of his plans for the Circus, for the Piccadilly front of the hotel, and for the Quadrant was
largely stultified.
In July 1905 the Lords of the Treasury decided that as the Office of Woods could not
recommend Shaw's scheme for the Circus 'as an
investment only', they could not permit negotiations for the purchase of the land without the
support and financial co-operation of the local
authorities. (ref. 17) Undeterred, Shaw produced in
September 1905 another design (ref. 22) (Plate 149a),
which retains some features of his first design, but
envisages a great square balanced about an eastwest axis with the Shaftesbury Memorial as its
focal centre. The bull-nosed end of Shaftesbury
Avenue is squared off, and a monumental screen
extends across the east side, with a loggia in front
of the London Pavilion island, and wide openings
to the roadways flanked by pylons, perhaps something in the style of the sketch reproduced on page
70 of Sir Reginald Blomfield's biography of
Shaw. (ref. 23) Large trees, presumably planes, are
shown at regular intervals along the north and
south sides, to effect a relationship and disguise the
architectural disparity between Thomas Verity's
Criterion and Shaw's new north front. Subsequently Shaw modified this design so as to reduce
still further the amount of land which the Crown
would have to buy; he also proposed to give Swan
and Edgar's a bowed east end. (ref. 22)
His last plan (Plate 149b), dated March 1906,
was based upon the hope that if the Crown agreed
to set back the line of frontage of the east and
south sides of Swan and Edgar's, the London
County Council would in return demolish Piccadilly Mansions. The columned screen across the
east end of the Circus was replaced by a deep
portico which was to be added to the London
Pavilion to provide the centrepiece of the east
side of the Circus. Sagaciously The Builder commented that the plan was 'too good to be true; too
thorough a reforming to have the best chance of
being carried out'. (ref. 24)
In the autumn of 1905 the Commissioners of
Woods and Forests asked the Treasury to reconsider their decision of July, and in November the
latter grudgingly authorized the purchase of property provided that it was a good investment and
not merely wanted for Shaw's designs. The
premises needed were Nos. 2–8 (even) Glasshouse
Street and Nos. 1 and 2 Sherwood Street (fig. 13),
but in May 1906 John Murray, the Crown surveyor, reported that there was no chance of buying
them except compulsorily. In the same month the
Treasury specifically excepted Shaw's Circus plans
from the final approval which was accorded to his
other designs. So perished Shaw's last chance to
restore architectural harmony to the Circus. (ref. 22)
But with the rebuilding of part of the Quadrant
already under way, the settlement of the treatment
of the Circus could not be indefinitely postponed,
and in 1908 John Murray prepared two plans.
The aim of both of them was to form a rectangular
open space, which was to be achieved by the
Office of Woods and the London County Council
each agreeing to surrender part of their land. In
April 1909 one of these plans, which involved the
demolition of the Monico and Piccadilly Mansions, setting back the eastend of Swan and Edgar's
by 70 feet and advancing the London Pavilion by
a corresponding distance, was sent to the County
Council for consideration. Norman Shaw rightly
objected to this drastic reduction in the length of
the Quadrant, which he maintained would be
reduced to a mere segment, and subsequently the
Office of Woods appears to have had second
thoughts on the matter. (ref. 25) By April 1910, when a
conference between the Office of Woods, the
County Council, the Westminster City Council
and the Metropolitan Police was held, any idea of
demolishing Piccadilly Mansions, the Monico or
the Pavilion had been abandoned (if, indeed, it had
ever been seriously considered), and agreement
was only reached on the need for the arcade of
the County Fire Office to be continued round the
east side of the building so as to provide a foot-way
into Glasshouse Street. When Swan and Edgar's
building was rebuilt in the 1920's its east end was
set back 12 feet. (ref. 26)
Shortly after the death of King Edward VII in
May 1910, Murray suggested that the conversion
of the tawdry Circus into a large rectangular open
space, to be called King Edward VII Square,
might be an appropriate object for the national
memorial which was then under consideration.
With admirable enterprise he made a plan and
perspective view (Plate 153a), whose principal
features included the removal of Piccadilly Mansions, the Monico, the Pavilion and the Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain and the erection of a
Shakespeare Memorial Theatre and a National
Opera House on the north side and an equestrian
statue of the deceased monarch in the centre of the
square. In the autumn Murray forwarded these
proposals to the Lord Mayor, who was chairman
of the memorial committee. Nothing more seems
to have been heard of them, (ref. 26) and thereafter, until
the 1920's, discussion of the future of the Circus
seems to have been largely unofficial. In 1910
someone suggested that the whole area should be
roofed in to form a rotunda with a shopping arcade
at first-floor level, (ref. 27) and in 1912 another seer proposed that archways should bridge the streets
entering the circus, and that 'possibly by the
planning of moving stairways at several convenient
intervals, a colonnade of shops at a higher level
could be worked in with an increased rental
advantage.' (ref. 28)
The realization of Norman Shaw's design for
the Piccadilly front of the hotel was also frustrated.
In their building agreement of 1903 with the
Office of Woods the P. and R. Syndicate (as the
hotel company was then known) had undertaken
that if they should fail to acquire the lease of Nos.
19 and 20 Piccadilly, at the corner of Air Street
(see fig. 13), they would arrange for the local
authorities to buy out the tenant, Messrs. Denman, compulsorily, and to surrender the lease to
the Crown, which would then lease to the Syndicate that part of the premises not required for the
widening of Piccadilly. In 1905 the Westminster
City Council, acting under the powers of Michael
Angelo Taylor's Act of 1817, served notice on
Denman's to treat for the sale of their premises,
but in a legal action the latter successfully maintained that they were not bound to sell any more of
their ground than was needed for the actual street
widening. Consequently they retained possession
of the ground on which Shaw had intended one of
the great projecting gables of the hotel to stand,
and as their lease ran until 1982 and their building
had only been erected two or three years previously, to buy them out without compulsory
powers was virtually impossible. (ref. 29)
The completion of the widening of this part of
Piccadilly involved setting back Denman's new
building (Plate 150b), and prolonged negotiations
took place between Denman's, the Office of
Woods and the hotel company for the purpose of
securing that the new front should be erected in
accordance with Shaw's designs for the whole
block. By 1908 the hotel company was in a very
parlous financial position and was therefore unable
or unwilling to undertake the expense; it also refused to allow Denman's to erect a slightly modified version of Shaw's design. Ultimately, in
1911–12, Denman's set their building back to the
new line of frontage and re-erected the old façade,
which had been designed by their own architect,
Harold A. Woodington. There was a loud outburst of protest, but as there was no new building
and only the re-erection of an old façade, the
Office of Woods had no power to intervene. The
Builder described this melancholy occasion as 'a
hopeless blunder which will remain an eyesore for
years', (ref. 30) and it is unquestionable that the absence
of Shaw's great eastern gable has robbed his design
of much of its grandeur.
It was, however, for the Quadrant that Shaw
produced his greatest work, and it was there that
he suffered the heaviest defeat. His design for the
complete and uniform rebuilding of this part of
Regent Street is well shown in the painstakingly
rendered perspective drawing by C. W. English,
which was exhibited at the Royal Academy in
May 1906 (Plate 150a). It was a monumental
conception, simple in its general lines, bold in its
modelling, and elaborate in its details, for lining
the Quadrant with unbroken ranges of uniformly fronted buildings, with skilfully placed
intervals and accents to break any monotony
that might arise out of uniformity. The great
rusticated arcade, framing the shop-fronts and
mezzanine-storey windows, forms a substantial
base for a giant order of Ionic columns,
rising through three storeys and arranged in pairs
to form sequences of five bays between single-bay
features in which the windows are arranged to
form vestigial arches. Above the great entablature
is a row of pedimented dormers, breaking the
parapet, and out of the high single-pitch roof rise
great chimney-stacks of cruciform plan, a range of
oval lucarnes extending between them.
The masonry of the arcade rises from a boldly
moulded plinth, in channel-jointed courses alternately of smooth-faced and projecting roughfaced stones, the piers being finished with a
cornice-impost (omitted in the wider and lower
centred arches of the entering streets), and the
arches having triple keys. The Ionic columns
have plain shafts, broken up to the level of the
second tier of windows by square blocks which
continue the lines of the accented courses in the
single-bay features. Within the colonnades are
three tiers of three-light windows, one to each
bay, the middle light in the second tier being
circular and dressed with a swagged garland. Each
single-bay feature also has three superimposed
three-light windows, the top being set within the
tympanum of an arch. (In the Piccadilly Hotel
these bays were built with a rusticated arch
framing the second- and third-floor windows.)
The main entablature of moulded architrave,
plain pulvino-frieze, and modillioned cornice,
breaks slightly forward over each accented bay,
and the dormers breaking the parapet line have,
alternately, triangular and segmental pediments.
In the executed part of the design, comprising the
190-foot frontage of the Piccadilly Hotel, which
was erected in 1905–8, (ref. 31) a second tier of dormers
with splayed sides has replaced the intended
lucarnes (Plate 151a).
Shaw's design was received, except by the shopkeepers, with general acclamation. The Builder,
for instance, stated that 'The front is a grand piece
of masonry design, for which on the whole we
can express nothing but admiration, and a satisfaction that the Quadrant should be rebuilt in so
monumental a manner.' It singled out the ground
storey 'with its massive rusticated arches' for
particular admiration and concluded that 'the design as a whole is one which we think can only
arouse a general feeling, not only of satisfaction,
but of enthusiasm; its complete carrying out,
which must be a matter of time, will be a great and
important addition to London street architecture'. (ref. 32)
The shop-keepers, however, immediately raised
a tremendous clamour against what they called 'the
division of the frontage into small spaces'. They
protested particularly at the width of the stone
piers, the depth to which the windows were set
back and the awkwardness of the semi-circular
mezzanine windows. In July 1906 they presented
a petition to the Office of Woods and Forests
requesting that the design might be modified, but
they were told that there was no possibility of any
material change being made. (ref. 22)
At first these complaints were derided. The
Builder said that 'The idea that a great architectural scheme by one of the first architects of the day
is to be stopped because a knot of tradesmen fancy
there is not plate-glass enough for them, is something too ridiculous; and if the authorities lend any
ear to it they make themselves ridiculous also.' (ref. 33)
The Daily Express thought that the arches were
'an artistic triumph, and Mr. Norman Shaw may
well feel proud of the success of his design'. (ref. 34) Sir
Aston Webb commented that 'It seems to be considered essential by some to face the whole of the
ground and first-floor fronts of a long series of
houses with an appalling mixture of plate-glass,
looking-glass, and tawdry wood and brass work;
to commence any architectural treatment on the
second floor, and to cover the whole building over
in due course with advertising announcements.' (ref. 22)
The shops in the Quadrant within the hotel
block were ready for occupation in December
1906, but by April 1907 not one had been taken;
the manager of Swan and Edgar's, who was prominent in the agitation against Shaw's design, said
that they were 'very suitable for Newgate, but
utterly absurd for commercial purposes'. Questions were asked in the House of Commons
whether the rest of the Quadrant was to be built
to the same design, there was much debate in the
press, and a Regent Street Rebuilding Committee
was formed for the purpose of obtaining modifications in the elevations. (ref. 35)
By January 1908 only one of the shops had
been let, and the hotel company was worried at
the consequent loss of income—much of which
was, apparently, due to the prohibitive rents at
first demanded. (ref. 34) The hotel itself was opened on
6 May 1908, (ref. 36) but a receiver in bankruptcy was
appointed on 10 August of the same year. The
contract price for the erection of the building by
Herbert Henry Bartlett, was £359,176, but the
actual cost was £552,401, exclusive of furnishings
and equipment (£161,111). The difference between the estimated and the actual cost was, of
course, attributed 'to a large extent to alterations
in the plans made by the Crown authorities', and
the unsuitable design of the shops was also said to
have reduced the company's estimated annual
rental by over £21,000 per annum. There was a
total deficiency of over one and a half million
pounds, and in 1909 the company was wound
up. (ref. 37)
(fn. b)
The failure of the Piccadilly Hotel Company
greatly strengthened the agitation against the
completion of the rebuilding of the Quadrant to
Shaw's designs. The passage of time was also
progressively weakening the position of the Commissioners of Woods, who never forgot that all the
existing leases in the Quadrant would expire by
1919, and that the continued refusal of the existing tenant shop-keepers to rebuild in accordance
with the approved designs could, if continued long
enough, cause a disastrous loss of revenue to the
Crown. (fn. c) By 1908 the relative strength of landlord and tenant had shifted sufficiently for the
Office of Woods at least to consider a proposal
from Swan and Edgar to rebuild at once the whole
block from the Circus to Air Street provided that
some modification of Shaw's shop-windows would
be permitted. The advisory committee of architects, (fn. d) to whom the matter was referred, quickly
reported that 'the proposal is to have a continuous
sheet of plate glass for practically the length of the
building, obliterating the piers of the Arcade.
This cannot be entertained.' (ref. 34) Two years later,
however, the modification of the design of the
second- and third-floor windows, about whose
shape and size there had been complaints, was
being seriously considered. (ref. 40)
The year 1912 proved to be the crucial period
in the rebuilding of the Quadrant. Four years had
passed since the completion of the hotel, but no
more building had been started and within seven
years all the existing leases would expire. In
January 1912 Mr. Henry Tanner (son of Sir
Henry Tanner), acting on behalf of Hope
Brothers, the tenants of Nos. 84–88 (even)
Regent Street, submitted designs for the rebuilding
of the whole of the north side of the Quadrant
between Glasshouse Street and Air Street. The
principal innovations were the omission of the
ground-storey arcade, the curtailment of the width
of the stone piers and the alteration of the windows
of the upper storeys. As surveyor to the Office of
Woods John Murray recommended acceptance of
the designs and in February they were submitted
to Norman Shaw for his comments. (ref. 26)
Shaw was now in his eighty-first year, and was, in
his own words, 'well nigh played out and have very
little vitality left'. To the Office of Woods he
replied 'It is with the deepest regret that I hear of
the proposed mutilation of my design for rebuilding the Quadrant. I am, I am afraid, getting
somewhat indifferent to architectural matters, but
I have not yet arrived at the stage of absolute indifference, and to see a design with which I took
so much pains thus vulgarized, troubles me. I am
sure that your department has done everything
that can be done, but circumstances (and the shopkeepers!) are too strong for us, at present.
'The design you send me is as good as you are
likely to get. So subject to minor alterations I
should advise its being accepted.' He was willing
to help with these minor alterations, but 'would
much rather not'. (ref. 26)
Two weeks later, on 1 March, when he had
studied Tanner's designs more thoroughly, he
finally resigned all connexion with what was to
have been his final masterpiece. To the Office of
Woods he wrote 'I have pored over the design for
the Quadrant till I am worn out, and now I am
compelled most reluctantly to ask you to allow me
to retire. The question really lies in very small
compass. At one time the design might be said to
be mine, and of course I was prepared to stand or
fall by its merits or demerits. But now all is
changed. To fully understand this it is necessary
to go into some details.
'From the first I was anxious to give the street
more or less of a monumental character. As an
architect I dwelt much on the piers and arches on
pavement level to carry the upper part, but they
have gone bodily. The arrangement of windows
between the columns on 1st. 2nd. and 3d. floors
I had hoped would have given some distinctive
character, but they have gone, and very commonplace windows inserted giving the whole finish the
aspect of a block of flats—even the pillars themselves have been mutilated, by the omission of the
blocks on the lower part. I hope I do not exaggerate, but with all these alterations it can be no
longer said to be my design at all, and practically
a new design would be required of which all the
odium would attach to me. I cannot say I should
like that, nor do I think, should I be exposed to
it. … The original design had the approval of the
Committee appointed by the Treasury. . . . Every
detail had their careful examination and approval
and for me to set all this aside and to make a fresh
scheme to fall in with the views of some shopkeepers might I fear be misunderstood and subject
me to merited censure.' (ref. 41) Shaw died eight months
later, on 17 November 1912.
Norman Shaw's resignation was followed by a
general hue and cry in the press against the Office
of Woods and against the neglect of the shopkeepers' needs. (ref. 42) In April The Builder announced
that it would hold a competition for the best design
for the completion of the Quadrant in harmony
with both the Piccadilly Hotel's sector and with
the wishes of the shop-keepers. (ref. 43) On 25 June the
future of the street was discussed in the House of
Commons and in September the Government
appointed a committee to consider the design to be
adopted for the completion of the Quadrant, bearing in mind aesthetic considerations, commercial
requirements and the interests of the land revenues of the Crown. The members of the committee were the Earl of Plymouth (chairman),
President of the London Society and a former
First Commissioner of Works, Sir Henry Tanner,
John Murray and (Sir) Reginald Blomfield,
President of the Royal Institute of British Architects 1912–14. (ref. 42)
The committee inspected a large number of
designs (many of them having been made for The
Builder's competition, which was won by A. E.
Richardson and C. L. Gill) (ref. 44) and heard evidence
from several tradesmen, notably from representatives of the Cafe Royal, Hope Brothers and Swan
and Edgar; the latter demanded 'windows from
twenty to sixty feet [in width] between visible
points of support'. All the architects who gave
their views said that this was impossible. W. E.
Riley, architect to the London County Council,
drew attention to the width of the shop-windows
and supporting piers of the new buildings erected
by Selfridge, Waring and Gillow, Gorringe, and
Burberry, and pointed out that by comparison
with these the width of the shop-windows at the
Piccadilly Hotel could not be regarded as exceptionally small. The report of the committee,
which was published in 1913, recommended that
Norman Shaw's hotel façade should be treated as
the centre of a symmetrical composition, and that
the roof-line of the hotel should be continued for
the whole length of the Quadrant, the treatment
of the dormers and chimneys being modified. On
the ground and mezzanine floors the great round
arches were to be replaced by rectangular openings,
but the span between the piers was not to exceed
25 feet. Between the mezzanine and entablature
the recessed columnar treatment of the hotel
façade was to be omitted. Subject to these provisos,
the general character of the design should follow
that of the hotel. (ref. 45)
Surprisingly, the Commissioners of Woods did
not order the preparation of a design which would
comply with these recommendations, but contented themselves with considering such designs
as any of the tenants might submit. (ref. 46) In the
second half of 1913 John Belcher and Mr. Henry
Tanner, acting on behalf of Hope Brothers, discussed designs with the Office of Woods and with
the committee. In these deliberations (Sir)
Reginald Blomfield took a prominent part (ref. 47) and
ultimately, in May 1914, a design was agreed
and submitted to the Treasury for final approval. (ref. 48)
Lloyd George, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, proved unable or unwilling to reach
a decision, and in February 1915 the matter was
referred to the Cabinet. There it was decided
that the design approved by the Office of
Woods should be rejected and that a new plan
should be prepared which whilst meeting modern
requirements would 'retain as far as possible the
general character of the present buildings'. (ref. 48)
This fiat merely created a fresh and quite insoluble problem, for clearly the general character
of Nash's buildings would not be retained if the
roof-line were raised to the level of that of the
Piccadilly Hotel. John Murray quickly prepared
two designs, in both of which the roof-line was
much lower than that of the hotel. In July 1915
these were submitted to the Cabinet, when the
Prime Minister (H. H. Asquith) remitted the
whole matter to Lord Selborne (who as President
of the Board of Agriculture was the minister
responsible for the affairs of the Office of Woods)
with authority to act on behalf of the Cabinet. (ref. 48)
A few weeks later a conference was held at
which the following were present: the Earl of
Plymouth, Sir Henry Tanner, (Sir) Reginald
Blomfield and John Murray, all members of the
Quadrant enquiry committee, plus Sir Aston Webb
and Ernest Newton (President of the Royal
Institute of British Architects 1914–17) as additional members, and Lewis Harcourt (First Commissioner of Works, later Lord Harcourt) and
Lord Selborne. They all agreed that to lower the
level of the roof on either side of the existing hotel,
as required by the Cabinet, was impossible, and
Murray was instructed to prepare further designs.
In the course of the discussions which followed
it was ultimately agreed that Blomfield, Webb and
Newton should jointly prepare a fresh design, and
in January 1916 the Treasury authorized this
procedure. (ref. 48)
During 1916 agreement was reached between
the Westminster City Council, the London
County Council and the Office of Woods for the
widening of Vigo Street on the north side as far as
Sackville Street and of Glasshouse Street on the
south side between Regent Street and Warwick
Street; the closing of Warwick Street south of
Glasshouse Street; and the arching over of Air
Street on both sides of the Quadrant and of
Swallow Street and Vine Street (now Man in
Moon Passage) on the south side. (ref. 49) The oneeighth inch scale drawings for the new design
were signed by Webb, Newton and Blomfield
but the latter stated that the first two 'had in
fact nothing to do with the design', which
they had specifically requested Blomfield to
undertake alone. (ref. 50) On 24 June 1917 these drawings were finally approved and signed by Lords
Selborne, Harcourt and Plymouth, whose decision
was taken as final. (ref. 51) The half-inch scale detail
drawings for the elevations were signed at the
bottom by Blomfield and dated 1917 or 1918, and
at the top by Blomfield, Webb and Newton, and
dated 1918. (ref. 52)
The rebuilding of the Quadrant to Blomfield's
design began in April 1923, (ref. 53) and was completed
in 1928. (ref. 54) The construction of the new tube
station in Piccadilly Circus began in 1925 and the
new circular concourse and escalators were
opened on 10 December 1928. The engineer was
Harley H. Dalrymple-Hay, the architects were
Adams, Holden, and Pearson, and the principal
contractors were John Mowlemand Co. Ltd. (ref. 55)
Architectural description: the Piccadilly Hotel
The main part of the Piccadilly Hotel is
planned roughly in the form of a letter V, opening
towards the west, with one arm fronting directly
to the Quadrant and the other facing south,
parallel with, but set well back from Piccadilly,
and having at each end a tall wing flanking the
low range fronting that thoroughfare.
The north front (Plate 151a) is the only section
of Shaw's Quadrant to be erected, and comprises
one complete sequence of six colonnaded bays
between two accented single bays, and one colonnaded bay to the west. The Piccadilly front (Plate
150b), however, was designed as an entity and is
incomplete only because of the deplorable muddle
over the Denman House rebuilding. Shaw repeated the rusticated arcade of the Quadrant with
a regular sequence of eleven arches (the easternmost two not executed). Above the arcade is a
channel-jointed face of one storey containing a
range of plain windows, five grouped above
the western pair of arches and the rest arranged
in nine evenly spaced pairs over the seven
arches of the centre. This change of rhythm
from seven to nine bays was made to suit the
intercolumniation of the Ionic screen that links
the east and west wings. Each end bay of
this screen is filled with three superimposed
windows and flanked by rusticated pilasters,
but the seven bays between the plain-shafted
columns are left open, with balustrades between the pedestals, to allow sunlight to flood
the roof garden and light the windows in the
recessed south front. The west wing face,
above the first floor, is bounded by rustic pilasters
and contains two tall segmental-headed windows,
furnished with iron balconies and having architraves that are broken at the head by blocks supporting segmental pediment-hoods. Between
these tall windows are two smaller lights, the
upper one being circular and set in a carved surround. In the upper part of the wing front are
three tiers of three windows and then a three-light
window, set in a plain face between plain pilasters,
within one of Shaw's most exuberantly Baroque
gables. This feature begins with giant inverted
consoles flanking the plain pilasters, which support a high segmental pediment, cleft to receive a
scroll-pedimented niche.
Sir Reginald Blomfield's Completion of the Quadrant
Sir Reginald Blomfield's completion of the
Quadrant was successful enough, in a negative
way. While he was careful to maintain the horizontal lines of Shaw's building, and introduce
elements from both fronts of the Piccadilly Hotel,
his work seems effeminate, softly elegant, and
rather French, whereas Shaw's is aggressively
masculine and Anglo-Italian. In the Quadrant,
Blomfield reduced Shaw's massive arcade to a
series of shop-window bays, each with a mezzanine tier of three stone-framed windows, set
between rustic piers formed of channel-jointed
pulvinated courses. The windows in the upper
face are nicely proportioned to the three storeys,
and set in vertical bands of plain masonry, slightly
projecting from the plain piers. The entablature,
except for its flat frieze, the dormers and the roof,
conform with Shaw's. On the west side Blomfield's plain repetitious front is divided into three
lengths by two features, each having a rustic arch
below an upper face containing a tall segmentalheaded window, recessed and flanked by Tuscan
columns. The windows are similar to those in the
west wing of the Piccadilly Hotel, and Tuscan
columns were used because their shorter shafts
permitted the introduction of a pedestal-course
above the ground-storey arch. At either end of
the Quadrant is a pavilion of similar design, but
having Ionic columns and, over the main entablature, an attic stage containing one of Shaw's
festooned circular windows. The roof rises in a
concave-sided pyramid finished with a square
dome and a gilded pineapple finial. The south side
was completed in the same style as the north,
with Shaw's Piccadilly Hotel as its focal
centre.
The east part of the south side forms Swan and
Edgar's store, which has a front towards Piccadilly
Circus of three wide bays, arcaded in the ground
storey and mezzanine, and with three of Shaw's
tall segmental-pedimented windows in the face
above, placed between rusticated piers of slight
projection (Plate 151b). The Piccadilly front has
a lower stage of shop-fronts and mezzanine
windows in six bays between piers formed of pulvinated courses, and in the face above are six
large round-arched windows in bays divided by
rusticated piers. At each end is a pavilion similar
to those terminating the Quadrant, having the
same concave-sided and domed roofs, but without
columns. Between the attics of these pavilions,
set back behind a balustrade dressed with urns and
putti, is a face containing two low storeys, and in
the roof is a range of lucarnes similar to those
designed by Shaw.
The south and north sides of Piccadilly Circus
have also been rebuilt to Blomfield's designs, the
County Fire Office being a repetition of Swan
and Edgar's east front, to which has been added
an oval dome, raised on a windowed drum and
flanked by two massive chimney-stacks.
Later history
Early in 1928 the completion of the reconstruction of Crown property in the Piccadilly area
prompted comment about the need for corresponding improvements on the north-east side of the
Circus. In April The Times remarked that the
effect of the Crown improvements was largely
ruined by the contrast with 'the mean and disorderly chaos of the buildings to the north and
east', and urged the ground landlord of most of
them, the London County Council, to 'square
the circus', by cutting off the bulge between
Glasshouse Street and Shaftesbury Avenue and
demolishing the London Pavilion. Blomfield
should be employed to design the new buildings
that would be required. The Times continued,
truthfully, but with more optimism than foresight,
that 'As a preliminary step it would be a decided
gain, from the aesthetic point of view, to get rid of
the illuminated signs on the façades of these buildings. By day as well as by night they are a hideous
eyesore which no civilized community ought to
tolerate, especially in so prominent and important
a position. . . . Sooner or later the replanning of
the ignoble features of the Circus on lines in
harmony with the Quadrant will undoubtedly be
demanded by public opinion.' With greater prevision it concluded that 'the longer the operation is
delayed the more costly it will become, and the
smaller will be the chance of its being undertaken
and carried out by the architect who, by his dignified treatment of the western half of the Circus, is
marked out for the completion of the task'. (ref. 56)
Blomfield had already sketched out his ideas (ref. 57)
for getting rid of what he called 'the disorderly
rabble of buildings which at present disgraces the
most important "place" in London', (ref. 58) and he
twice wrote to the London County Council asking to be commissioned to prepare designs for the
completion of the rebuilding of the Circus. (ref. 59) In
November 1928 the Council decided that it could
not accede to these requests, 'as the matter is not
one calling for present determination having
regard to the unexpired terms of existing leases'. (ref. 60)
But 'in order to leave his ideas on record' Blomfield
nevertheless completed his sketch designs, which
were exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1936 (ref. 61)
(Plate 153b). These provided for cutting back the
salient between Glasshouse Street and Shaftesbury
Avenue to conform with the line of frontage of
the County Fire Office, and for squaring off the
projecting west end of the London Pavilion
block. This would have provided a large rectangular space, and the new buildings to be erected
on the north and east sides would, in Blomfield's
proposals, have matched the dignity and restraint
of the Crown estate. Piccadilly Circus might, indeed, have at last provided an admirable illustration
to Sir Edwin Lutyens's dictum that 'Architecture . . . like true charity, should not be puffed out
by any intention of advertisement'. (ref. 62)
After the completion of the rebuilding of the
Crown property on the north and west sides of the
Circus, there was a lull of some years in public
discussion of future plans. But on the north-east
side the leasehold interests created by the Metropolitan Board of Works were now not far from
expiry, and the municipal authorities had the
chance to restore the architectural equilibrium
which they had destroyed at the time of the formation of Shaftesbury Avenue. The County of
London Plan prepared for the London County
Council in 1943 proposed the removal of the
buildings on the north-east side, 'with their clutter
of advertisements', and reconstruction 'on an improved layout with a dignity that this important
"place" deserves'. (ref. 63) After the war the often
suggested idea of cutting back the Monico block
between Shaftesbury Avenue and Glasshouse
Street so as to align the frontage with that of the
County Fire Office, and the removal of the London Pavilion block, became part of official policy. (ref. 64)
In 1958 the London County Council resolved
'That the Council desires that the policy of the
Town Planning Committee of retaining Piccadilly
Circus as a cheerful centre of London's entertainment world should be continued and fostered by
approving satisfactory architectural schemes which
can incorporate illuminated signs in the design, so
producing pleasing buildings by day and animation
by night.' (ref. 65)
In 1959 the Council gave favourable consideration to a proposal to erect on the north side of the
Circus a building which would include shops, a
bank, restaurants, exhibition rooms and offices.
During the design of the proposed building, which
was to include a tower about 172 feet high, special
attention had been paid 'to the difficult problem of
the accepted desire to have illuminated signs in the
new Circus', and the architects had attempted 'to
provide adequate daylight for the various uses and
at the same time ample wall-space for illuminated
signs'. The Council decided that the proposed
building could 'take its place as a satisfactory element in the redevelopment of the Circus', (ref. 66) but
after widespread public disquiet had been aroused
the Minister of Housing and Local Government
directed in November 1959 that the application
for town planning permission should be referred to
him for decision. A public enquiry was held
shortly afterwards. (ref. 67)
In May 1960 the Minister announced that he
considered that the proposed design fell below the
standard required for so important a site, and that
the advertising panels should be 'subservient to the
design of the building as a whole, instead of, as
now, appearing to dominate all other design considerations'. For these and other reasons he refused to allow the proposed development, and
recommended that there should be a comprehensive plan for the Circus to which developers could
be asked to conform. (ref. 67) Shortly afterwards the
County Council appointed Sir William Holford
to advise 'on the question of preparing a comprehensive plan and report on the redevelopment of
Piccadilly Circus'. (ref. 68)
Illuminated Advertising in Piccadilly Circus
The use as an advertising medium of illuminated lettering attached to the façades of
prominent buildings appears to have begun in the
1890's. Piccadilly Circus (or rather, its north-east
side) has since become the citadel of illuminated
advertising in London, and it is worth examining
how and when this came about, and how the
architectural virginity of the buildings on the
north, west and south sides, has been successfully
defended from the persistent and determined
attacks of the advertisers.
The London Building Act of 1894, (ref. 69) which
recodified the whole range of the London County
Council's powers for the regulation of buildings,
provided that no 'building or structure' should be
erected beyond the general line of buildings in any
street without the Council's consent. (ref. 70) It also
provided (ref. 71) that no projection from any building
should extend beyond the general line of buildings
except with the permission of the Council after
consulting the local authority (i.e. in Piccadilly,
the Westminster City Council after 1900), and
empowered the Council to make byelaws, not
repugnant to the provisions of the Act, for the
regulation of lamps, signs and other structures
overhanging the public way. (ref. 72) The byelaws were
to be administered by the local authority, but
they could be dispensed with in individual cases
whenever the London County Council thought
fit. The application of these powers to the regulation of illuminated advertising (which was then
in its infancy and was not specifically mentioned
in the Act) proved extremely difficult, and this,
probably, was why the Council postponed making
lamp and sign byelaws until 1915.
In 1899 a number of architects practising in
London drew the Council's attention to the need
for the control of illuminated advertisements, (ref. 73)
and in 1900 the Council (using powers contained
in the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882 and
the Local Government Act of 1888) made byelaws prohibiting the exhibition of flash lights 'so
as to be visible from any street and to cause danger
to the traffic therein'. (ref. 74) The Council had wanted
to impose a complete prohibition which would
have put a stop once and for all to intermittently
illuminated advertising in London, but the Home
Secretary in confirming the Council's draft had
added the proviso 'to cause danger to the traffic'. (ref. 75)
In 1901 and 1902 the police brought two successful actions against the proprietors of intermittently
illuminated advertisements, (ref. 76) but the need to
prove danger to traffic rendered these byelaws
quite ineffective as a means of general control.
Between 1901 and 1905 the Council's powers
of control under the London Building Act of
1894 were whittled away by three adverse decisions in the High Court. In 1901 it was held
that a large illuminated sign attached to a building
in Seven Sisters Road, Islington, was not a projection within the meaning of section 73, (ref. 77) in
1904 that an advertisement sign in Cranbourn
Street was not a structure within the meaning of
section 22, (ref. 78) and in 1905 that the framework of
an illuminated advertisement in Brick Lane,
Stepney, was neither a projection nor a structure
within the meaning of the Act. (ref. 79)
To exercise general control the London County
Council had therefore to rely on its power to make
lamp and sign byelaws. But there were two difficulties—the Council had to obtain the general
support of the Westminster City Council and the
metropolitan borough councils, who were to administer the regulations, and secondly, the byelaws, when finally made, only applied to signs
which overhung the public way. From 1901 onwards intermittent discussion of draft byelaws
proceeded, (ref. 80) and in 1908 a conference between
representatives of the London County Council
and the metropolitan borough councils took place
to consider draft byelaws under both the Advertisements Regulation Act of 1907 and the London Building Act of 1894. Proposals for limiting
the number of signs on any one building, and for
prohibiting flashing signs were emphatically
rejected by the borough councils, one of whose
representatives declared that 'the owners of these
signs are consumers of electric light which a great
many Borough Councils supply.' (ref. 81) The lamp and
sign byelaws which finally came into force in
1915, (ref. 82) twenty-one years after the passing of the
Act, were less stringent than those originally
proposed by the Council; they only applied to
signs overhanging the public way, and they were
therefore frequently circumvented.
The advertisers' attack upon the north-east side
of Piccadilly Circus began in about 1890 and
ended in complete success in the early 1920's. The
formation of Shaftesbury Avenue had presented to
the occupants of some half-a-dozen inferior buildings on the north side of Tichborne Street immensely valuable frontages to the enlarged Circus.
By 1893 they had celebrated their good fortune
by attaching 'sky signs' to the roofs of their
premises (ref. 83) (Plate 154a), thus obtaining conspicuous
advertisement without the loss of light which
erection of lettering in front of windows necessarily
involved. By 1899, however, the London County
Council had been able to secure the removal of all
sky signs, (ref. 84) and the occupants, in order to advertise, therefore had to attach lettering to the front of
their buildings.
The first illuminated sign above shop-fascia
level was probably erected at Mellin's Pharmacy
at No. 48 Regent Street on the north-east side of
the Circus, where a photograph of 1904 shows
illuminated lettering announcing 'Mellin's Food'
and about three feet in height in front of the secondfloor windows. The same photograph also shows
lettering of a similar size attached to the next-door
premises, No. 2 Glasshouse Street, then occupied
by S. Van Raalte and Sons, cigar merchants. (ref. 85)
Both these signs (which may also be seen in a
photograph of 1910 reproduced on Plate 154b),
were almost certainly unauthorized, for there appears to be no record of any application to the
London County Council in connexion with either
of them. In February 1906 the Council's Building Act Committee considered fifteen unauthorized signs in various parts of London, and decided
that in view of the recent High Court decisions,
no action could be taken. (ref. 86) In 1908 an electrical
firm defied the objections of both the Westminster
City and London County Councils over a sign
'Drink Perrier Water' mounted on the parapet of
the entrance to the Café Monico, at No. 46
Regent Street, for the sign was still there in
1910 (ref. 87) (Plate 154b).
The signs mentioned so far all advertised the
trade of the occupant of the building to which they
were attached, while the freehold of the buildings
themselves was privately owned. A very important stage in the Rake's Progress in Piccadilly
Circus was therefore reached in 1908–10, when
signs advertising goods not connected with the
trade of the occupant were attached to Piccadilly
Mansions (at the northern corner of Piccadilly
Circus and Shaftesbury Avenue), whose freehold
was owned by the London County Council. In
1908 the Council twice refused applications from
J. Joseph, the lessee of Piccadilly Mansions, for
permission to erect an illuminated sign in front of
the top storey of the building, (ref. 88) but a photograph
of 1910 (Plate 154b) shows that signs with letters
eight feet high advertising Bovril and Schweppes
had nevertheless been erected there. (ref. 89) This
defiance—a landmark in the subversion from
their proper purpose of the buildings in this part
of the Circus—produced no reaction from the
Council until 1913, when it was decided to take
legal action under the terms of the lease granted
in 1889. (ref. 90)
The Shaftesbury Avenue leases granted by the
Metropolitan Board of Works and the London
County Council had been drawn up before the
appearance of illuminated advertising, and therefore contained no specific provisions against it. (fn. e)
But they did contain two clauses under which the
tenant covenanted not to 'cut or maim' the walls,
or to alter the elevation of the building or its
architectural decoration without the landlord's
consent. (ref. 92) The sign at Piccadilly Mansions had
been fixed so as not to 'cut or maim' the wall, (ref. 89)
and in 1914 the High Court decided that it did not
constitute an alteration in the elevation of the
building. (ref. 91)
There was now little to prevent the use of the
buildings on the north-east side of the Circus as
advertising stations. In 1913 this lucrative idea
had received inadvertent official encouragement
when the Board of Trade obtained the London
County Council's consent to the erection on the
London Pavilion of two temporary illuminated
signs 21 feet high advertising the International
Exhibition at Ghent. (ref. 93) The outbreak of war in
1914 merely postponed the inevitable dénouement. (fn. f)
In May 1920 the secretary of the London
Pavilion applied for permission to erect an intermittently illuminated sign 21 feet high in front of
the portico of the Piccadilly front. The upper
storeys of the London Pavilion are set back
slightly, and only a small part of the sign overhung
the public way. The infringement of the lamp
and sign byelaws was therefore merely technical,
and as the fabric of the building had not been cut
or maimed the Council could not object as
ground landlord. Permission was therefore
granted, (ref. 93) and shortly afterwards the tenant of
the Piccadilly Restaurant, who occupied the top
storey of the south-west corner of the London
Pavilion, erected a sign in front of his part of the
building. In December 1921 he was told by the
Council to remove it, (ref. 94) which he did, but by
the autumn of 1923 a large illuminated sign advertising Gordon's gin had been fixed in front of
the restaurant's second-storey windows at the
south-west corner. (ref. 95) The lessee of both parts of
the building—theatre and restaurant—was now
Mr. Hutter, (ref. 96) who in the autumn of 1923 erected
six signs on the Piccadilly and Shaftesbury
Avenue fronts; two of them were 45 feet long and
25 feet high, and another was 87 feet long and
4 feet 6 inches high. With one small exception
none of the signs overhung the public way, and
the byelaws therefore did not apply; (ref. 93) nor, in the
absence of any cutting and maiming, was there any
infringement of the lease. (ref. 96)
The attachment of the gin sign at the southwest corner did, however, involve cutting and
maiming the wall, and in May 1925 the Council
obtained a Court order for the removal of the
supporting irons and brackets. (ref. 97) This order was
obeyed, but in October the sign was still there,
suspended from steel frames resting on the parapet
of the building (Plate 155a). As lessee of the London Pavilion Hutter had also erected other signs
advertising a newspaper and certain brands of
tobacco; here again the fabric of the building had
been cut and maimed, (ref. 98) but the futile practical outcome of the previous action dissuaded the Council
from starting fresh proceedings. (ref. 99)
Where the Council was not the freeholder and
no question of the terms of the lease arose, the
lamp and sign byelaws were also frequently circumvented. Signs at Nos. 2–6 Glasshouse Street,
for instance, were exempt because they had been
erected before the byelaws had been promulgated
in 1915. (ref. 100) In 1921 a large sign was erected at
No. 48 Regent Street, also on the north-east side
of Piccadilly Circus; it overhung the public way,
and its great size made it a flagrant breach of the
byelaws. The sign company then set it back
flush with the walls of the building, but it still
projected slightly over the public way. The
Westminster City Council considered that the
projection was nominal and the revenue in rates
considerable, and that the London County
Council should therefore dispense with observance of the byelaws. The latter thought that
because signs not overhanging the public way
could not be controlled, there was no reason why
control should not be exercised where the byelaws
did apply (ref. 101) (Plate 155b).
The trouble was that the real purpose of the
lamp and sign byelaws made under the London
Building Act of 1894 was the protection of the
safety of the public. When the byelaws were used
for quite another object, the control of a new form
of advertising, they could often be circumvented,
for a sign set back so as not to project over the
public way could be just as visually objectionable
as one to which the regulations did apply. By
1923 the byelaws were being widely disregarded (ref. 102) and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing
Joint Committee asked the London County
Council to promote legislation to enable byelaws
to be made specifically for the control of illuminated advertising. But the Council felt that
such a proposal would be likely to meet with considerable opposition, and the matter was dropped. (ref. 103) It was considered again in 1926, after the
Royal Institute of British Architects had enquired whether it would not be in the interests of
the general appearance of London to obtain
powers for the control of street advertising
generally, including the use of flashing and illuminated signs upon the exterior of buildings, but
the moment was considered to be inopportune. (ref. 104)
By the mid 1920's the north-east side of Piccadilly Circus had assumed very much its present
aspect as an advertising station (Plate 155a, 155b), and
it is therefore worth examining how the buildings
on the other three sides of the Circus have not
been similarly debased. The answer is simple—
here the Crown was the ground landlord. Whereas the leases granted in the 1880's by the Metropolitan Board of Works and the London County
Council failed to prevent illuminated advertising,
those granted in the 1820's by the Commissioners
of Woods and Forests were successful. A standard
clause in the leases granted at the formation of
Regent Street bound the lessee not to 'erect or put
up in front of such messuage or dwelling house and
premises any water trunk or other thing what so
ever nor make any additions thereto either in
height or projection' without the landlord's consent. (ref. 105) Correspondingly strict covenants were
inserted in the lease of the newly built Criterion
Restaurant, on the south side of Piccadilly Circus,
in 1874, and when in 1919 the inevitable application for permission to erect signs was received, the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests were able to
give an absolute refusal, and to insist upon the
immediate removal of a large board which had
already been erected. (ref. 106) Throughout the 1920's
and 30's the Commissioners steadfastly refused
to make any concessions, other than allowing
one or two signs announcing the name of the
theatre and restaurant. Attempts have been made
in recent years to persuade the Crown to change
its attitude, but the Crown Estate Commissioners have reiterated the policy of their predecessors and take the view that illuminated
advertisement signs, even though they have
become such a well-recognized feature at
Piccadilly Circus (and certain other vantage
points in the West End) undeniably spoil the
appearance of buildings which were not designed
to accommodate them. The buildings owned by
the Crown in Piccadilly Circus have not therefore
been disfigured or degraded by the exigencies of
advertising (Plate 151b).