The Rebuilding of the Square from 1926
The story of the rebuilding of the Square since the 1920's
has been outlined in volume XXXIX. Its defects are there
seen to spring from the lack of an overmastering ducal will
to carry through against the obstacles of time and chance a
coherent scheme more commendable than is now easily
apparent.
The practice of applying brick-and-stone fronts in the
early-Georgian domestic style to large blocks of flats which
were bulkier but often smaller scaled than the houses they
replaced was exemplified from the start. This was in
1926–8, with the flats and maisonettes built in the southeast corner at No. 48 and Nos. 49–50 (ref. 642) (Plate 31d and
folded drawing between pages 140–1). The architects
were H. W. Wills and W. Kaula, and Wimperis, Simpson
and Guthrie respectively. The similar elevations, however,
were no doubt provided by the latter, as Edmund
Wimperis was still nominally presiding over the estate as
its surveyor. This similarity (in buildings on either side of
Carlos Place) suggests an intention, already, to pursue
uniformity in rebuilding, and so, perhaps, do references in
1931–2 to these blocks as (approximate) guides for
intending lessees to the style preferred by the Estate. (ref. 643) By
then, however, the project was in different hands.
Wimperis resigned as estate surveyor in 1928, leaving the
field to his successor, Detmar Blow, and by the following
year Blow had evidently called in his former partner,
Fernand Billerey, to prepare designs for the Square.
The Duke of Westminster was not eager to see the end
of private houses there, especially towards the centre of the
four sides. For that reason he rejected in 1930 the idea of a
hotel to be built along most of the south side by the
Canadian Pacific Railway. (ref. 644) But in 1931 at least seven
houses were in the market, (ref. 644) and although the hope of
including new houses in a rebuilding scheme was kept alive
for a year or two (ref. 645) flats were, effectively, accepted as the
programme in 1931. The impending expiry of leases at
Nos. 19–21 on the important north side gave the question
urgency at that time. So did the importunity of the nonresident lessee of an empty house at No. 14, the airship
pioneer Sir Dennistoun Burney, who wanted to redevelop
that site and No. 15, near the centre of the same side. His
proposals included, together or separately, a motor car
showroom (he was designing a Burney Streamline car), a
shopping arcade, and small flats or bed-sitting-rooms, and
made the alternative of big flats seem attractive. (ref. 646)
With a large and forward view the Duke declared
himself in November 1931 in favour of a coherent scheme
of rebuilding. It was to retain 'the original design of the
Square', which he seems to have thought exemplified by
No. 1, (ref. 644) and the elevation chosen for the rebuilding was in
its quieter stretches a rather inflated version of that model.
As is shown in volume XXXIX this master-design for the
remodelling was developed by Billerey, with Blow's
support, and reached substantially its final form in
September 1932. It is fairly well represented by the
present north side, except for the heightening of the roof to
accommodate an extra storey of dormer windows, and
deformations of the skyline (Plate 32c, 32d: see also Plate 54b
in vol. XXXIX). That was the work of some thirty years, from
1933 to 1964. Had Billerey's design been carried in an
appropriate manner round the other sides during what it
was forseen would be a very protracted building programme the result would have been in its way a worthwhile
achievement. As it is, the deficiencies of the east and south
sides detract from the virtues of the north range. If, even in
the unspoiled design, a certain lack of force is nevertheless
perceptible it is perhaps because Billerey had had to make
the elevation without any certainty about the room plans
that would be needed behind it.
It is, no doubt fortuitously, appropriate to the slightly
artificial character of inter-war 'traditionalism' that the
personal genesis of this instance of it was not homespun
but French. Billerey was Beaux-Arts-trained; and, as it
happens, the first and most faithful executant of his design
among the lessee-entrepreneurs was Charles Peczenik, a
Cambridge-educated engineer-turned-estate-developer
who was himself a native of Paris and had studied under
the architect René Sergent. (Peczenik's involvement in
rebuilding in the Square had begun at No. 48 in the 1920's
and continued into the 1950's.) (ref. 647)
Blow approved Billerey's scheme for the north side in
December 1932, after arranging for Rex Whistler to draw a
perspective to recommend it to the Duke. (ref. 648) (fn. a) The Estate
agreed to pay half the cost of the extra stonework required
by Billerey's design at the centre and ends of the range, (ref. 650)
and the building of flats at Nos. 19–21 and at No. 18 under
leases to Peczenik, with first T. H. F. Burditt and then
R. W. Barton as his executant architects, proceeded in
1933–5. (ref. 651) Their separate construction as two units was at
Peczenik's wish. (ref. 652)
The subsequent completion of the scheme round the
Square—never in fact seriously envisaged as a rapid
process—was obstructed by various factors. On the north
side, where attainment of the end was easiest and most
desired, the convenience of the first Duke's widow at No.
16 had to be borne in mind. (ref. 653) More seriously, the buyingout of leasehold interests was not easy when at least some of
the lessees were themselves extremely rich. As it was, the
Estate spent over £60,000 buying up nine leases between
1925 and 1935. The difficulty presented by subsisting
leases was, of course, greater when they were of recent
date. At No. 7 and No. 38 long leases had been renewed so
recently as 1926 and 1928, and as late as 1931 a lease of No.
4 in the centre of the east side for two hundred years was
granted to an embassy a few weeks before the Duke's
pronouncement in favour of coherent rebuilding: (ref. 654) Nos. 4
and 38 still stand. Then, early in 1933, Blow suddenly left
the Duke's service, and any difficulties gained in force. At
Nos. 19–21 the damaging duplication of Billerey's row of
dormers, evidently permitted by March 1934, seems an
instance of a weakened power to stick to the scheme (ref. 655) —
indeed, the preservation of Billerey's symmetry here in the
first days after Blow's departure appears to have owed
more to Peczenik than to the Estate. (ref. 656)
At Nos. 14 and 15
At Nos. 14 and 15 on the north side Peczenik and
Barton designed flats built in 1936–8 behind Billerey's
centrepiece (Plate 32c), and here the Estate made it
possible for Billerey to exercise a corrective hand in partial
protection of his design. (ref. 657) (fn. b) In the same years Peczenik
rebuilt a large site on the southern part of the east side
(Plate 32b), as Nos. 1–3 Grosvenor Square and Nos.
38–41 Grosvenor Street (involving the demolition of the
exemplary No. 1). It is not known whether Billerey had
made a specific design for this side. Peczenik and Burditt's
first design in 1936 was only very generally similar to the
north side and exposed its double row of dormers more
frankly. The centre bays were to be wholly stone faced and
so was the ground storey. Probably this attempt at
something more imposing was in recognition of the fact
that only the upper floors, approached from an entrance at
No. 3, would be occupied by flats, and that the ground and
first floor of the west wing, as well as part of the basement
and second floor, were to be used as the embassy of the
United States of America. This rather surprising arrangement seems to show some unconcern with the strictest
security, although the doubling-up was not inconsistent
with the hitherto unpretentious diplomatic tradition of the
Republic. Even so, the Estate exercised its authority to
have the stone centrepiece diluted to the norm of brickand-stone. An American exponent of high classicism in
London and New York, J. Russell Pope, acted (with R.
Camdela) as associate architect. Their names, with
Burditt's, appear on an elevation of 1936 which very
slightly simplifies the design, and Pope's name was given
precedence as the building's architect when it was finished.
It is not, however, known what part he played in designing
the elevation to the Square as it was built in 1936–8. This
departs from the known drawings chiefly in transferring
emphasis from the centre to the bays marking the flatsentrance at one end and the ambassador's room at the
other. It also diverges further from Billerey's north side,
without, however, abandoning his general manner. (In
1960 the building was converted wholly to use by
departments of the Canadian government.) (ref. 658)
On the south side of the Square an obstacle in the way of
coherent redevelopment similar to No. 4 existed in No. 38,
augmented by No. 48, recently completed in a neo-Georgian style different from Billerey's. In 1933, with
Blow's patronage removed, Billerey was seemingly obliged
to try to effect his scheme in the role of 'outsider', by
sponsoring an offer from the builders Holloway Brothers
to redevelop the site of Nos. 35–37. (ref. 659) This was unsuccessful and the block of flats, extending over Nos. 43–48 South
Audley Street, was erected in 1935–6 to the design of the
architect Michael Rosenauer. (ref. 660) Blow's departure seems to
show in the exchange of contracts for a building lease
before the elevation was settled. (ref. 661) Blow's successor, G. A.
Codd, concerned himself with details of the front but the
reduction of the storey heights to squeeze another floor in
below the main cornice robbed the elevation of such
presence as the north side of the Square possessed. An
interesting scheme by Billerey in 1936 to camouflage the
deficiencies of the south side by dividing it into two ranges
and concentrating attention on a great central opening
between them did not materialize. When Billerey finally
succeeded in fathering a design on this side, in the flats
built at Nos. 45–47 in 1938–9, he complied with
Rosenauer's humdrum ordonnance, although in a rather
empty gesture towards overall effect he gave an emphasis
to the fenestration which would have been mirrored at No.
38 if that house had later been rebuilt. (ref. 662)
Nos. 45–47
Nos. 45–47 were still unfinished when war came in 1939.
In the difficult post-war period the Estate's general policy
of bringing sites in the Square into hand for redevelopment seems to have been briefly in question but in 1955
flat-building on combined sites was resumed at Nos. 6–7.
These were completed in 1958 (architects A. C. Fairtlough
and D. R. Morris) in a style following that of the pre-war
American embassy building but not matching its columnar
centrepiece (Plate 32b). (ref. 663) In 1958–60 a block containing
flats over a bank (Nos. 32–34) was built on the site of Nos.
33–34 to designs by Gordon Jeeves (Plate 31c). (ref. 664) With
Saarinen's American embassy rising nearby, no attempt
was made to follow Billerey's brick-and-stone elevational
scheme. In 1959–61, however, flats were built at Nos.
16–17 (architects, Lewis Solomon, Kaye and Partners) in
furtherance of Billerey's design for the north side. (ref. 665) The
story of flat-building in the Square was completed by the
construction of No. 5 on the east side in 1961–4 (architects,
Russell Diplock Associates) in the style of Nos. 6–7 (Plate
32b). (ref. 666)
The flats and maisonettes built round the Square during
some thirty-five years seem generally to have been
successful in attracting occupants quickly, and something
may therefore be said of the kind of accommodation to be
found in them when they were newly built. This was a
matter of concern to the Estate itself, especially in so far as
it affected the type of resident attracted. It was recognized
in 1932 that a block of bed-sitters, for example, was
undesirable as bringing into the Square 'a large number of
persons of far less wealth and position than those who have
hitherto occupied premises there'. (ref. 667) Sometimes, at least,
the detailed planning of individual flats was criticized—one prospective developer being told in 1934 that his flats
had the fatal defect that 'gentlemen wishing to use the
lavatory after dinner must pass through the dining-room to
do so'. (ref. 668) On the other hand, the reduction in the size of
some flats proposed for Nos. 14–15 in 1937 (ref. 669) does not
seem to have occasioned recorded comment. No doubt the
degree of confidence felt in the developer's own judgment
was an important factor.
The first block, built at Nos. 49–50 in 1926–7 under
Wimperis's aegis, contained maisonettes at ground-andbasement levels, as well as flats above, and represented in
fact only a tentative step away from the house, the
maisonettes being individually entered at ground level. A
typical maisonette contained at that level a drawing-room,
dining-room, four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a water
closet and stairs down to the service quarters, which
included a servants' hall, butler's pantry and bathroom, a
plate-room, four bedrooms and two more bathrooms. The
flats offered similar accommodation, including a (small)
servants' hall and a thirty-foot dining-room. (ref. 670) The flats in
the smaller contemporary block at No. 48 were much
further removed from the traditional house, and came near
to being service-flats. No living-in accommodation was
provided for servants in individual flats but rooms for
them were included at basement and sixth-floor level. A
large dining-room for residents was provided on the
ground floor and although each flat had a dining-room it
had only a 'kitchenette' instead of a kitchen. The flats were
four- or five-roomed, all with two bathrooms. (ref. 671)
In 1933 Billerey told the Estate that builders were rather
reluctant to undertake flats of the larger size, although he
himself wanted to sponsor a one-flat-to-a-floor block on
the double site of Nos. 45 and 46, and thought
there would be a demand for them: certainly an
advertisement for some flats in the Square in 1937 stressed
that 'those removing from houses with large rooms will
find these flats fully suited to accommodate the existing
furnishings'. (ref. 672) The less traditional type of accommodation was provided by Peczenik at Nos. 19–21 (1933),
with a big basement restaurant, servants' accommodation
only in separate quarters, and flats mainly of moderate
dimensions with three or four rooms, (ref. 673) and at the United
States embassy block (1936), where there was a restaurant,
flats of very varying sizes and seemingly no accommodation for servants at all. (ref. 674) But the ampler plan was
favoured by Peczenik for other of his developments, while
in the last pre-war block at Nos. 45–47 Billerey succeeded
in planning rather in the manner of Nos. 49–50, mixing
maisonettes and very generously disposed flats, even
including a 'servants' hall' in some of them. (ref. 662) One
refinement in some of the inter-war flats (Nos. 35–37 in
1935 and Nos. 14–15 in 1936) was the careful provision for
separate access by the servants to their rooms. (ref. 675) The postwar flats have eschewed the maisonette-plan and also the
residents' restaurant. Some sort of living-in accommodation for servants has generally continued to be
provided, and so have flats of large size. Throughout the
years one constant has been the nearly equal ratio of
bathrooms to bedrooms.
The other sites that remained to be rebuilt after the war
were the whole of the west side, Nos. 10–13 on the north
side, and Nos. 39–44 on the south. Each of the latter two
sites contained at least one old house that the opinion of the
day might have thought worth keeping—Nos. 12 and 44.
Their claims were considered by the London County
Council in 1960–1 but the Council was sympathetic to the
counter-argument for coherent redevelopment on the
north side and No. 12 was not judged of such excellence as
to justify disrupting the overall design there. This decision
made it difficult to take a contrary line at No. 44 and the
Council again opposed preservation, in the cause of a more
coherent redevelopment. Here the Minister of Housing
and Local Government himself made a temporary
preservation order but in 1961, after a public enquiry,
conformed to the Council's view. Nor was it through any
preservative act of a public authority that No. 38 was not,
as was originally intended, included in the rebuilding
scheme for Nos. 39–44. (ref. 184)
At both Nos. 10–13 and Nos. 39–44 hotels were built for
the Grand Metropolitan Hotels company. In 1961–4 the
Europa Hotel, entered from Duke Street, was built at the
former site to designs by the architects Lewis Solomon,
Kaye and Partners, with the interiors of public areas
designed by Dennis Lennon. This completed Billerey's
scheme for the north side, save for the omission of some of
his doorcases and the disruption of his skyline. At Nos.
39–44 the Britannia Hotel was built in 1967–9 to designs
by R. Seifert and Partners, and on the front to the Square
similarly followed the pattern established at Nos. 35–37
and Nos. 45–47. The main entrance is in Adams Row
where a quite different and modern arcuated style is used,
although the eastern yard incorporates some architectural
features from the former garden of No. 44. Both hotels
seem designed partly to cater for the 'international
businessman', with areas suitable for conference purposes
and a rather higher proportion of single rooms than in
older hotels. The Britannia Hotel conspicuously exemplified the modern practice of admitting shops to the
public areas by incorporating a shopping-arcade (in the
'Adam' style) and recent building practice by extending
downward through four levels of basement. (ref. 676)
On the west side of the Square subsisting leases seem to
have deterred the Duke of Westminster from pursuing the
rebuilding scheme between the wars: furthermore, and
rather characteristically, some leases had actually been
renewed in the 1930's. In 1957, however, the whole side
became the site of the new United States Embassy,
under a 999-year lease from the Estate. The architect was
Eero Saarinen, whose success in the limited competition
held by the United States government was announced in
1956. (fn. c) (ref. 677) The British architects associated with him were
Yorke, Rosenberg and Mardall, who prepared the working
drawings. The principal contractors were Pauling and
Company. The structural material is pre-cast reinforced
concrete, and the exterior is of Portland stone, which at
certain points is faced with gold anodised aluminium (Plate
55b in vol. XXXIX). (ref. 678) An eagle of gilded aluminium by
Theodore Roszak surmounts the centre of the façade,
where it was originally intended to place a stylized
representation of the Great Seal of the United States. (ref. 679)
Work began in August 1957 and the building was
opened on 24 September 1960. (ref. 678)
The statement of the general conditions affecting the
design of embassies to which competitors had had to
conform asked that goodwill should be sought by
excellence of design 'rather than adherence to any given
style of architecture'. With regard to the particular site it
was said: 'Careful consideration should be given to the
relation of the building to Grosvenor Square and
surrounding London as far as scale and materials are
concerned. This does not imply copying anything. The
building should represent the United States at this
time … '. (ref. 677)
Saarinen's winning design (Plate 32a), published in this
country in March 1956, had by June been revised to its
advantage, chiefly by heightening and recessing the
ground floor and recessing the 'attic' storey. (ref. 680)
The internal planning was left largely unspecified in the
conditions for the competition. (ref. 677) Saarinen's design was
therefore initially and necessarily to a large extent a piece
of façade-making. The upper elevation, much in the
manner of Saarinen's contemporary embassy building in
Oslo, is uniformly patterned with a grid of not-quitelinked window-frames which dominates the actual wall-and-window surface, and the teasing ambiguity of this
'skin' tells effectively on the simple block-forms of the
building. Within, the diagonal alignment employed in the
construction is emphasized, particularly in the high,
beamed ceilings of the ground floor. Another expression of
this inside is in the ubiquity of motifs cruciform in plan or
section, and these two forms express themselves on the
exterior in protruding details of a quasi-saw-tooth or cog
wheel form. These, with the touches of gilding, give
another sharp accent, almost of machined artifice, to
upward views of the building's basically compact mass.
The interior, where the office furniture was designed by
Edward J. Wormley, is noticeably cool, not only in its
colouring but in its restraint. (ref. 681)
Raised and protected on a fence-topped glacis and
slightly set back from the notional boundaries of the west
side of the Square, the new Embassy represents in its
islanded integrity a startling contrast to the accommodation taken in 1938. And for all its unaggressive form it
has tended to give the Square a westward rather than a
northward orientation.