ReynerBanham,StandardofLivingPackage,1965

ReynerBanham:InSearchofan
Imageable,InvisibleArchitecture

JaredLangevin
HistoryofArchitecturalTheory
ProfessorKaiGutschow
FinalTermPaper,Spring2008

Disillusionedwiththearchitecturalestablishmentinthe1960s,PeterReyner
Banhamwroteoneofthemoresubversivehistoriesofarchitectureunderthetitle
TheArchitectureoftheWellTemperedEnvironment(1969).Holdingtoatraditional
surveyformatfororganization,thebookdrewitsradicalnaturefroma
considerationthatthreatenedtodoawaywiththeusefulnessofbuildings
altogether:theemergenceofamanmadeclimatemadepossiblethroughdeveloping
technologieslikeelectricityanddomesticairconditioning,whichnegated
architecturestimehonoredroleasthesolecreatorofenvironmentsforliving
throughitsphysicality.AndyetevenasBanhamscriticalstandpointallowedhim
tocalltheoperationalloreofarchitectureintoquestion,hestillhadaclear
allegiancetoanevolvingModernaestheticwhichwouldleadhimfirsttopraisethe
consciousimageabilityoftheSmithsonsNewBrutalistbuildingsand
subsequentlythefantasticalpublicationsofArchigram.Bothofthesegroups
espousedtherevisionistidealsthatinspiredBanhamssearchforanarchitecture
autreinthe1950sand60s,butArchigramseffortsinparticulartopursueanew,
popculturallyrelevantimageforarchitectureresultedinworkthatwasonly
symbolicandrepresentationalofnewtechnology,havinglittletodowiththewayit
couldactuallyfunctiontocreateenvironments.1BanhamssupportofArchigrams

1BanhamfirstcoinedthetermarchitectureautreinhisarticleTheNew

Brutalism,publishedinDecemberof1955.Itwasanalogoustotheconceptofun
artautre,thesubjectandtitleofabookwrittenbytheFrenchartcriticMichel
TapieandpublishedinParisin1952.

imageablePoparchitecturethereforestandsincontradictiontohisstrongest
pointsinTheWellTemperedEnvironment,revealingthedominanceofan
attachmenttotheveryacademicaestheticismthathiswritingsonartificial
environmentsrespondedagainst.

Banhamsfirstmajorwork,TheoryandDesignintheFirstMachineAge,was

anefforttorevisethewidelypublishedandacceptedaccountsofmodern
architecturalhistory.WrittenashisPhD.dissertationundertheguidanceoffamed
historianNikolausPevsnerattheCourthaldInstituteinLondon,itcalledinto
questiontheselectiveandclassicizingtendenciesofmanyoftheseminalhistoy
textsonModernism,someofwhichwerewrittenbyPevsnerhimself.2Banhamwas
criticaloftextslikePevsnersbecausehebelievedtheirsubstancetobemisleading,a
presentationofclearcutandneatlycategorizedviewsofdevelopmentsinearly
twentiethcenturyarchitecturethatwereinfactfarmessier.Hewasparticularly
suspiciousofPevsnersestablishmentofWalterGropiusasanoriginatingfigurefor
Moderndesign.OfGropius,Banhamwrote,
Hisreestablishmentasoneofthe leadersofModerndesignafterabout1923was
astheheadofaschool devotedtoMachineAgearchitectureandthedesignof
machineproducts, employingaMachineAgeaestheticthathadbeenworkedoutby
other meninotherplaces.3

2Banham,Reyner.MachineAesthetic.ArchitecturalReview(February1959):89.
3Banham,Reyner.TheoryandDesignintheFirstMachineAge.Connecticut:

Praeger,1960,p.12

BanhamalsocriticizedGropiusforhavingcreatedamyththatBauhausdesigns
werefunctionalwheninfacttheintentclearlyhadmuchmoretodowith
aestheticsthanitdidwitheconomy:
itwasnomoreaninherentlyeconomicalstylethananyother.Thetrueaimofthe
stylehadbeen,toquoteGropiusswordsaboutBauhausanditsrelationtothe
worldoftheMachineAgetoinventandcreateformssymbolizingthatworld.4

ExistinginwhatwastoBanhamacompletelytransformativeMachineAge,most
earlymodernarchitects,likeGropiusandothersattheBauhaus,usedtechnology
andtheMachineasanexcuseforastylisticallymotivatedmachineaesthetic.
Banhambelievedthattheaestheticreflecteditsarchitectssuperficial
understandingofdevelopingtechnologiesandmaterials.Hewrote,forexample,of
howLeCorbusierssmoothwhiteconcretesurfacesdidnotaccuratelyreflectthe
machinetechnologyusedtomakethemandhadmoretodowithilldrawn
analogiesbetweenmachineryandabstractart.5BanhamalsomarveledatLe
Corbusiersstubbornpursuitofdesigndecisionsthatonlycouldhavemadesenseon
anaestheticlevel,suchasadifferencebetweenframeandwallwhichmustbe
mademanifestatallcosts,evenatthecostofcommonsenselogic.6

4Banham,Reyner.TheAgeoftheMasters:APersonalViewofModernArchitecture.

NewYork,Evanston,SanFransisco,London:Harper&RowPublishers,1975,p.29
5Banham,Reyner.MachineAesthetes,NewStatesman55(August1958)in

Banham,Reyner.ACriticWrites:EssaysbyReynerBanham.Berkeley,LosAngeles,
London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1996,p.27
6Banham,Reyner.TheoryandDesignintheFirstMachineAge.Cambridge:TheMIT

Press,1981,p.262

BanhamfurtherdistancedhimselffromhistorianslikePevsnerbysupporting

theFuturists,asmallgroupofItalianartistsandarchitectsrespondingtotherapid
industrializationofItalyfollowing1890byembracingmechanizationandallowing
ittoinformtheirtheoreticalstandpoints.BanhamfeltthattheFuturistswerethe
onlygroupthatactuallyunderstoodthevalueoftechnologytoartandarchitecture
inmorethanjustaestheticterms.InTheoryandDesign,hewrotethatchange
overtoatechnologicalsociety.animatedthewholeofFuturistthought,and.
enabledthemtoexploitmorequicklythantheotherEuropeanintellectualsthenew
experiences..7HeaddedinthearticlePrimitivesofaMechanizedArtthatThe
Futuristsdidnotmerelyacceptthefactthattheyhadtoliveinthetwentieth
century:theyvolunteeredtojoinit.8.ForBanham,thatmeantthattheywerefully
awareoftheculturalimplicationsthenewtechnologycarriedwithit.Machineslike
theautomobilewerenowavailabletobeactivelyusedbytheuppertierofsociety,
andartistscouldnowcreatetechnologicalexperienceforthemselvesratherthan
relatetoitpassively.9FuturistpainterBoccionireferredtoanewmechanized
individualandF.T.Marinetti,founderofthegroup,spokeoftheManMultipledby
theMotor10.TheworkoftheFuturistarchitectAntonioSantElia(seeFig.1),
whichwasperformedentirelyonpaper,calledtoahaltthestylisticchangesthat

7Banham,TheoryandDesign,(1981),101
8Banham,Reyner.PrimitivesofaMechanizedArt,TheListener62(December

1959)inBanham,ACriticWrites,41
9Banham,TheoryandDesign,(1981),102
10Banham,TheoryandDesign,(1960),11

hadmodifiedarchitecturetothatpointandadvocatedacompletelynewsetof
forms,lines,andreasonsforlivinginharmonywiththenewageofmachines.11

HistorianslikePevsnerbarelymentionedtheFuturistsintheirhistoriesof

modernarchitecture,andwhentheydid,itwasonlytodownplaytheirsignificance.
InPioneersofModernDesign,PevsnerspokeofSantEliasvisionsasappearing
fantasticalwhensetsidebysidewiththeSachlichkeitoftheworkofthoseGerman
architectswhoagreedwithMuthesius.12.BanhamsawthisdismissalofFuturist
workassymptomaticoftheaforementionedselectivecharacterplaguing
Pevsnerswriting,whichfailedtoaccommodateworkorindividualsthatconflicted
withtheestablishedchronologicandtheoreticalorderofhishistories.

BanhamssupportoftheFuturistsmayhaveputhimatoddswithmanyofhis

contemporaries,buthisattachmenttotheirprovocativevisionsandaesthetic
explorationsstillrevealedhimtobeevaluatingtheFuturistsworkinmuchofthe
samewaythatothercriticsdidthatofthemainstreammodernists.Indeed,though
theirsetsofformsandlinesweremoredirectaproductofthenewMachineAgein
respondingtonewtechnologies,theFuturistswereyetstillagroupofartists
reactingtosocietalchangesthroughprimarilyaestheticmeans.Banhamsattraction
totheirworkinspiteofthisfirstexposeshispreoccupationwiththenotionofa
zeitgeistofanarchitecturethatwasexpressiveoftheculturefromwhichitarose.
ThoughtheFuturistworkwasprimarilyimages,theimageswereappropriatelyof

11Banham,TheoryandDesign,(1981),128
12Banham,TheoryandDesign,(1981),128

thetwentiethcenturyandindicatedmuchaboutthemachineagethattheywere
createdfor.SimilarreasonssometimesledBanhamtoexpressenthusiasmsforthe
workofthemodernarchitectsthathewasmostcriticalof.Intheconclusionto
TheoryandDesign,forexample,BanhampraisedworksincludingtheVillaSavoye
justpagesafterlevelingtheaforementionedaccusationsagainstLeCorbusier,citing
theworkshighanthropologicalvalue:
Theirstatusasmasterpiecesrests,asitdoeswithmostothermasterpiecesofarchitecture,uponthe
authorityandfelicitywithwhichtheygiveexpressiontoaviewofmeninrelationtotheir

environment.13

Thezeitgeist,andBanhamsfascinationwithit,wouldcontinuetofigure
prominentlyinBanhamsworkofthe1960s,andespeciallyinhissupportofthe
imageableNewBrutalistandArchigramworksinthefaceofradical,rational
beliefsinanotherkindofarchitecture,onethatproposedtodoawaywithaesthetics
altogether.

ForBanham,the1960swereatonceacontinuationofanddeparturefromthe

workheddoneduringthepreviousdecadeonTheoryandDesign,whichwas
publishedin1960.Thebookhadexaminedthearchitecturethatwasbuiltduring
whatBanhamdeemedtobetheFirstMachineAge,whenmachineshadreacheda
humanscalebutwereonlyabletobeexperiencedbytheeliteofsociety.14Italso
claimedthatatthetimeitwasbeingwritten(1950s),aSecondMachineAgehad
alreadybeenusheredintoEnglandthroughuniversallyaccessibledomestic

13Banham,TheoryandDesign,(1960),325
14Banham,TheoryandDesign,(1960),10

electronics,butnobodyoftheoryhadrisentomeetthenewtechnological
developments.ThenewdecadesawBanhamsearchingforthisbodyoftheory,
drawinguponhispreviouscriticismsofmainstreammodernaestheticismwhilealso
nowbuildingtowardshisownalternativekindofresponsetothecontemporary
MachineAge.

Banhamsdesireforanalternativeorotherarchitectureshowedhimto

beheavilyinfluencedbyinvolvementwithtwogroups.ThefirstwastheFuturists,
whoseappealtoBanhamhasalreadybeendescribed.Banhamtookparticular
interestintheFuturistpainterBoccioni,who,inpursuinganartisticresponse
particulartothenewconditionsofthetwentiethcentury,Banhamsaidhadbecome
thefatherofantiart.InhisbookPitturaSculturaFuturista,Boccioniwrote:
Wewillputintotheresultingvacuumallthegermsofthepowerthataretobe
foundintheexampleofprimitivesandbarbariansofeveryrace,andinthe
rudimentsofthatnewsensibilityemerginginalltheantiartisticmanifestationof
ourepochcafchantant,gramophone,cinema,electricadvertising,mechanistic
architecture,skyscrapers,nightlife,speed,automobiles,aeroplanesandsoforth.15

Thepursuitofantiartalsopartiallyinspiredtheconveningofthesecondgroupto
influenceBanham,theIndependentGroupofLondon,whichhewasamemberof.
TheIndependentGroupmetatLondonsInstituteofContemporaryArtintwoseries
ofsessions,onein1952andanotherin1955.Thegroupconsistedofartists,
architects,designers,andcriticswithadiversityofsometimesconflictinginterests
rangingfrompopculturetoantiarttoculturaltheory,allofwhichreflecteda
generaldesiretorevisetheestablishedvaluesofhighmodernculture.Banham

15Banham,PrimitivesofaMechanizedArtinBanham,ACriticWrites,4445

operatedsomewhereinbetweenthesevariedinterestswhilebringingaparticular
focusontechnologyastheheadchairofthemeetings,startinginfallof1952.
BanhamalsohelpedtostagetheParallelofLifeandArtexhibitinfallof1953atthe
ICA,whichwasprimarilybasedonthecommoninterestofgroupmembersAlison
andPeterSmithson,EduardoPaolozzi,andNigelHendersoninanartautrethat
rejectedformalismandstrictconventionsofbeauty.16Theexhibitfeaturedaseries
offuzzyimagestakenportrayingsubjectsthatdidnotconformtothetypicalhigh
artstandards,includingXRays,primitivearchitecture,andslowmotionstudies.
ThefocusoftheexhibitandthegroupwithintheIGthatauthoreditclearlyhada
majorinfluenceinBanhamsowninterestinarchitectureautreduringthefollowing
decade.

BanhamhadfirstcoinedthetermarchitectureautreinanarticletitledThe

NewBrutalism,publishedinDecember1955intheArchitecturalReview,towhich
wewilllaterreturn.Hisownunderstandingofwhatthisotherarchitecturecould
bebegantocoalescewithhissuddendiscoveryofAmericanBuckminsterFullerat
theendofthe1950s.NigelWhiteleynotesinReynerBanham:Historianofthe
ImmediateFuture,thatindeed,Banhamseemstohaverealizedthesignificanceof
Fulleronlylateinthe1950s;hedoesnotfeatureinhisPh.D.dissertation,noting
thatBanhamdidbrieflymentionFullerinonechapterasanengineerandwould
eventuallyaddresshimatlengthinitsconclusion,addedlateratthetimeof

16Literallyanotherartfororiginofterm,refertofootnote#1

publicationin1960.17WhiteleyalsoobservesthatBanhamfirstwroteatlengthon
Fullerin1959,inanarticletitledThoughtisComprehensive,publishedinthe
NewStatesman.18Inthe1960articleStocktaking,Banhamagaindirectly
addressedFullerasonewhowasacceptedasaformgiver,whilehiselaborate
bodyoftheoryandfundamentalresearchintotheshelterneedsofmankindis
mostlydismissedunread.19TheStocktakingarticlewasalsoBanhamsfirst
attempttodefineelementsofhisarchitectureautre,andpositedtechnology
againsttraditionastheprimarycombatantsinthestruggletodetermine
architecturesdevelopingtrajectory.Tradition,Banhamwrote,reliedonwhat
CharlesEamesoriginallytermedtheloreoftheoperationasthecoreofits
argumentagainstotherorantiarchitecturalsources.Operationallorewas
definedherebyBanhamastheintegrationofexperienceratherthanapparent
intelligence(i.e.availableinformation),baseduponthenotionthatfutureprogress
stillmustfallintothecategoryconventionallyunderstoodasarchitecturalevenif
thatmeantoverlookingthepotentialofutilizingnewtechnologies.20Banham
claimedtheloretohavespawnedbackwardslookingmovementslikeNeoLiberty
inItalyandtheFestivalofBritainin1951,bothofwhichsacrificedsensistivityfor
stabilityandthelatterofwhichdrewonfalse,nostalgicVictorianformsasameans

17Whiteley,Nigel.ReynerBanham:HistorianoftheImmediateFuture.Cambridge,

MA,London,England:TheMITPress,2002,p.156
18Whiteley,Nigel.ReynerBanham:Historian,156.
19Banham,Reyner,19601:StocktakingTraditionandTechnology,Architectural

Review(February1960)inBanham,ACriticWrites,51,53
20Banham,19601:Stocktakingin"Banham,ACriticWrites,50

ofmakingBritainsafefortheModernMovementandexploitingongoing
nationalisticsentiments.21

ThepromiseoftechnologythatBanhamofferedasaformofoppositionto

architecturestraditionwasmuchinspiredbyhisunderstandingofFuller,whoin
1927haddevelopedhisDymaxionHouse(seefig.2)asahumanlifeprotectingand
nurturingscientificdwellingserviceindustry22.Furtherdevelopingthisidea,
Fullerhadturnedtothegeodesicdomeinthelate1940sasastructurecapableof
simplyandefficientlycreatinganartificialenvironmentinwhichhumanscould
live.Banhamusedtheideaofartificialenvironmentsasaprimaryevidenceof
technologyspotentialinStocktakingandseemedtobereferringtoFullerinhis
assessmentofthepotentialforthosepursuingenvironmentstodisruptthepractice
ofarchitectureasitexisted:
Itappearsalwayspossiblethatatanyunpredictablemomenttheunorganized
hordesofuncoordinatedspecialistscouldfloodoverintothearchitectspreserves
and,ignorantoftheloreoftheoperation,createanOtherArchitecturebychance,as
itwere,outofapparentintelligenceandthetaskofcreatingfitenvironmentsfor
humanactivities.23

ElaboratingonFullersstructuralinvestigations,Banhamestablishedhisown
writtenparametersfordefiningafitenvironmentandindoingsointroduceda
radicaltheoreticaloutlookthatwouldcontinuetopervadeinhisworkduringthe
remainderofthe1960s:

21Whiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,13
22McLuhan,Marshall,BuckminsterFullerChronofile(1967)inMeller,James,ed.,

TheBuckminsterFullerReader.London:Pelican,1972,30.
23Banham,19601:StocktakinginBanham,ACriticWrites,61

10

Thewordfitmaybedefinedinthemostgeneroustermsimaginable,butitstilldoes
notnecessarilyimplytheerectionofbuildings.Environmentsmaybemadefitfor
humanbeingsbyanynumberofmeans.24

HereBanhamwassuggestingacompletelynewkindofhabitablespace,onethat
shedtheprerequisitesofmassandphysicalityandwasenabledbytechnologies
capableofconditioningfitenvironmentswithouttheaidofarchitectureasithad
traditionallybeenunderstood.Banhamcontinuedtodevelopthisargumentinhis
writingduringtheearly1960s,andin1965,hisalignmentwithFullerontheissue
becameevenmoreapparent.AnexcerptfromaFullerlecturewasthenpublishedin
anissueofMegascope3inwhichFullersaid
Withtheeverincreasingscientificdevelopment,theenvironmentwillbe
completelycontrolledandtheconceptofthehousewillbeeliminatedweare
workingtowardstheinvisiblehousewhatwillyoudowitharchitecturethen?25

Thatsameyear,BanhampublishedhisarticleAHomeIsNotaHousewhich
similarlysuggestedthepossibilityofanunhouse(seefig.3)andquestioned
whetherstructureswerestillnecessarybasedontheprogressbeingmadein
environmentaltechnology:
Whenyourhousecontainssuchacomplexofpiping,flues,ducts,wires,lights,inlets,outlets,
ovens,sinks,refuse,disposers,hifireverberators,antennae,conduits,freezers,heaters
whenitcontainssomanyservicesthatthehardwarecouldstandupbyitselfwithoutany
assistancefromthehouse,whyhaveahousetoholditup?26

24Banham,19601:StocktakinginBanham,ACriticWrites,49
25BuckminsterFuller,extractfromlecture,Megascope3(November1965):

unpaginatedinWhiteley,Nigel,ReynerBanham,Historian,185.
26Banham,Reyner.AHomeisNotaHouse,ArtinAmerica(April1965):70.

11

BahamsinvolvementwithFullerandenvironmentsduringthe1960sparalleleda
generalinterestinAmerica,whereboomingpostWWIIconsumerismhadledto
revolutionaryproductslikethedomesticairconditioningunit.Histripsthere
beginningin1961allowedBanhamtoconducttheresearchthatwouldeventually
informTheArchitectureoftheWellTemperedEnvironment.

BanhamsloveforAmericabeganlongbeforehisfirsttriptherein1961,when

PhilipJohnsoninvitedhimtoNewYorkCityforapublicdebate.Whiteleytraces
BanhamsinterestinAmericaallthewaybacktohisyouth,writingthathisearly
lifewasamidneitherhighnoraspirationalculture,butAmericanpulps,things
likeMechanixIllustratedandthecomicbooks27Banhamwouldcarrythisaffinity
forAmericanpopcultureintohisyearsasamemberoftheIndependentGroup,who
sharedacommonbeliefinthevalueofAmericanpopcultureandtheviewof
AmericanPopArtasamaximumdevelopmentofaformofcommunicationthatis
commontoallurbanpeople,asIGmemberLawrenceAllowayoncedefinedit.By
thetimeofhisfirstvisittoAmericain1961,Banhamwasalsocarryingwithhiman
interestinAmericastechnologicalprogress,whichhadbeenunparalleled
worldwideinitsdevelopmentfollowingtheSecondWorldWar.Followinghistrip
toNewYork,hewasinvitedtoattendtheAspenDesignConference,begunin1951
byChicagobusinessmanWalterPaepckeasachancetobringtogetherdesigners,
artists,engineers,andbusinessmenforpresentationsonthetheoryandpracticeof

27Whiteley,Nigel.ReynerBanham:Historian,5

12

design.28Banhamstartedtoattendtheconferenceannually,andin1964and1965,
wasabletoincreasehistimeinAmericaandfocusspecificallyontechnological
researchastherecipientofaGrahamFoundationAward,whichwasgivento
individualsandorganizationstofosterthedevelopmentandexchangeofdiverse
andchallengingideasaboutarchitectureanditsroleinthearts,culture,and
society.29Hereportedhisfindingsinnumerousarticles,suchasTheGreatGizmo,
publishedinIndustrialDesignMagazinein1965.InTheGreatGizmo,Banham
praisedthedominantroleoftechnologyinAmerica,proclaimingthatThemanwho
changedthefaceofAmericahadagizmo,agadget,agimmick.30Healsomarveled
atthecliponculturethathebelievedhadcolouredAmericanthoughtandaction
farmoredeeplythaniscommonlyunderstood.31InAmerica,Banhamwas
discoveringevidenceoftherevolutionary,accessibletechnologyonamassscale
neededtoimplementhisarchitectureautreanditstaskofcreatingfitenvironments
forhumanactivities.

28Authornotgiven.History.AspenDesignSummit.Onlineavailableat

<http://aspendesignsummit.org/content.cfm?Alias=ads_history>,accessed
08/11/08.
29Authornotgiven.Mission.GrantFoundationAward.Onlineavailableat

<http://www.grahamfoundation.org/>,accessed08/11/08.
30Banham,Reyner.TheGreatGizmo,IndustrialDesign12(September1965)in

Banham,ACriticWrites,109
31Banham,TheGreatGizmoinBanham,ACriticWrites,113

13

Banhamsresearchandwritingonenvironmentsandtechnologyinthe

1960shadanotableinfluenceoncontemporaryarchitecturalthoughtinhis
hometownofLondon.BanhamworkedtherefortheArchitecturalReviewuntil
1964,amagazinewithenormouslocalandinternationalinfluenceamongst
architecturecircles.Thefirstsignificantprojectthatshowedastrongrelationship
toBanhamsworkwasCedricPricesFunPalaceof1961(seefig.4).Thedesign
calledforanewpublicspacewithoutfloors,walls,orceilings,butinsteadagiant
steelframeworkfromwhichspacescouldbesuspendedorcreatedinanyfashion
thattheusersdesired,usingtechnologyasameansofinstantlycreatingand
modifyingspaceasBanhamhadsuggestedintheStocktakingarticleof1960.It
wasastrategythatwouldbelateradoptedbythegroupArchigram,whohadbegun
publishingtheavantgardeArchigrampamphletsin1961fromtheArchitectural
AssociationinLondon,andlikePrice,wereinterestedinhypotheticalinvestigations
intothepotentialfortechnologytodrivearchitecturesfuture.AsintheFunPalace,
ArchigramsprojectforaPlugInCityin1964(seefig.5)calledforasupporting
megastructureintowhichfullycontrollableunitscouldbeplugged,eachbeing
plannedforobsolescence.32Theprojectimpliedaseriesofenvironmentsbut
focusedmoredirectlyonarchitecturesrelevancetothrowawayconsumerculture
andpowerfulPopimagery,twothingsBanhamwasinitiallyambivalenttowards.
BanhamsinfluenceismoreclearlyseeninArchigramsInstantCityprojectof1969,

32Whiteley,Nigel.ReynerBanham:Historian,170

14

whichproposedthataseriesoftouringinstantenclosuresandsoundanddisplay
equipmentcouldquicklyinjectahighintensityboostintomajortownswhich
wouldbefurtheredbythedevelopmentofcommunicationnetworks.33Theproject
markedashiftinArchigramsworkfromwhatWhitelycallshardwareto
software.34FoundingmemberPeterCookexplainedtheirshiftingattitude,
especiallytowardsthenecessityoflargephysicalstructures,in1968:
Thedeterminationofyourenvironmentneednolongerbeleftinthehandsofthe
designeritcanbeturnedovertoyouyourself.Youturntheswitchesandchoose
theconditionstosustainyouatthatpointintime.Thebuildingisreducedtothe
roleofcarcassorless.35

ThedesiretonearlyeliminatethebuildingshellrecallsBanhamsAHomeisNota
Houseof1965,andtheliberatingpotentialattributedtotheenvironmental
controlsfollowedBanhamsownfascinationwithappliancesliketheair
conditioningunitthatcouldcreateormodifyanenvironmentalmostinstantly.

ThoughArchigramstheoryandprojectssignificantlyaddressedthe

notionofenvironments,Banhamwassupportiveoftheirworkforadifferent
reason:whathedeemedtobetheirworksimageability.Thiswasatermhedfirst
usedtopraisetheworkoftheSmithsonsinTheNewBrutalism,apreviously
referencedarticletowhichwenowreturn.WiththeirParallelofLifeandArt
Exhibitionof1953,theSmithsonshadintroducedtheirinterestinantiartandina

33Cook,Peter,Herron,Ron.InstantCity,ArchitecturalDesign(November1970)in

Whiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,221

34Whiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,215
35Cook,Peter.ControlandChoice,reprintedinCook,Peter.Archigram,London:

StudioVista,1972inWhiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,216

15

cultofugliness,shownintheirrough,grainyphotographs.Sympathizingwithart
brut,astyleofpaintingthatinvolvedrawaestheticsandphysicality,theybegan
usingthesequalitiesintheirarchitectureasareactiontothewhite,idealizedboxes
ofprewarModernism.Banhamfollowedthismovementclosely,whichhasalso
beencreditedtoLeCorbusier,whoBanhamquotedinTheNewBrutalism.Inthe
article,BanhamtriedtooutlinethemaintenetsofNewBrutalism,whichhestated
asbeing1.)MemorabilityasanImage2.)ClearExhibitionofStructure3.)Valuation
ofMaterials.36ThefirstitemintroducedBanhamsconceptofimageability,which
hefurtherdescribedtomeansomethingthatisvisuallyvaluable,butnot
necessarilybythestandardsofclassicalaesthetics.37TheNewBrutalists,hewrote,
understoodtheobligationforgreatarchitecturetopossessthisimageability,and
honestlyconstructedform,anactiontheFunctionalistshadtriedtohidebehind
excusesofstructureandutility.ToBanham,therefore,theNewBrutalistsbuildings
wereatonceimageableandethical,twocharacteristicsthatbecame
synonymousinhiseyesbythelate1950s,whentheSmithsonsworkbeganto
degradeinhiseyesdowntoacontrivedaestheticdevoidofitsonceethical
underpinnings.WhiteleyspecificallynotesBanhamsdistasteforthe1956Patioand
PavilionprojecttheSmithsonsdesignedfortheThisisTomorrowexhibition(see
fig.6),writingthatby1956thesuspicionwasgrowingthattheSmithsonswere

36Banham,Reyner.TheNewBrutalism,TheArchitecturalReview118(December

1955)inBanham,ACriticWrites,15
37Banham,TheNewBrutalisminBanham,ACriticWrites,12

16

becomingseducedbyaestheticsratherthanethics38Whatparticularlytroubled
Banhamherewastheevidentaestheticgoaloftimelessness,whichBanham
believedtobesubmissivetotraditionalvaluesandclosedminded.39Ethical
validitytoBanhamthereforewasanoffshootofgoodimageability,whichincluded
anopenaesthetic,expressiveofandonpacewiththebreakneckdevelopmentofthe
newMachineAges.Bytheendofthe1950sBanhambelievedtheSmithsonsNew
Brutalistbuildingimagestohavelostthisquality.

TheworkofArchigramwasentirelyimagebased,remainingwithinthe

confinesofpaperarchitecture,andinthiswayfulfilledBanhamsstandardof
imageabilitymoreovertlythandidtheNewBrutalistsbuiltwork.InArchigrams
drawings,Banhamsawtheconsciousattempttousewildarchitecturalaestheticsas
aneffective,popculturallydrivenexpressionoftheneweraoftechnology.He
wrotethatArchigram
Makenobonesaboutbeingintheimagebusinessliketherestofustheyurgently
needtoknowwhatthecityofthefutureisgoingtolooklike,becauseoneofthe
mostfrustratingthingstotheartyoldAdaminmostofusisthatthewondersof
technologyhaveahabitofgoinginvisibleonus.40

Theseweresymbolicrepresentationsofatechnologicallydrivenarchitecture,oras
Banhamputit,thefirsteffectiveimageofthearchitectureoftechnology41In
theirabstract,eyecatching,andcolorfulcharacter,theywereadvertisements

38Whiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,132
39Whiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,131
40Whiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,175
41Whiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,176

17

specificallydirectedattheaverageconsumer,thefocusofanincreasinglyproduct
drivenculture.LiketheFuturists,Archigramkeptthedetailsofhowtheprojects
technologyactuallyfunctionedintheabstractrealm,andBanham,asinthecaseof
theFuturists,foundArchigramsimagestobeprovocativeenoughtosetasidethe
quibbleswithactualfunctionalitythathehadleveledontheworkofGropuis,Le
Corbusier,andotherModernMasters.Infact,Banhamwentsofarastoworrythat
questionsaboutfunctionalitywouldcompromisetheimpactofArchigramsvisions:
AlotofpofacedtechniciansaregoingtopoohpoohPluginCitystechnological
improbabilitiesandbrushitoffasaKookieteenagePopartfrivol,andinthe
processtheformallessonsofthePluginCitymightbemissed.42

Archigramhadntfoundaworkablearchitectureofenvironments,buttheyhad
comeupwithanattractivevisionofwhatthisarchitecturemightlooklike,andin
doingsohadmostsuccessfullyachievedthepowerfulimagebilityBanhamhadso
desiredforanarchitectureparticulartotheSecondMachineAge.

BanhamspreoccupationwithArchigramsimageableworkpresented

anobviousincongruitywithhissimultaneouspursuitofantiaestheticfit
environmentsduringthe1960s,whichhadculminatedwithhispublicationofThe
ArchitectureoftheWellTemperedEnvironmentin1969.Bringingtogethermuchof
thewritingandresearchBanhamhaddonethroughoutthedecade,TheWell
TemperedEnvironmentrejectedthecategorizationofarchitecturalstylesandepochs
baseduponaestheticconsiderations.Instead,itofferedacohesivesurveyof
architecturalhistoryinrelationtotheachievementoffitenvironmentsand

42Whiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,176

18

examinedthedevicesusedtodoso.Intheintroductiontothebook,Banham
criticizedthedominanceofthevisualandstylisticaspectofarchitecturetheform:
thefactremainsthatthehistoryofarchitecturefoundinthebookscurrently
availablestilldealsalmostexclusivelywiththeexternalformsofhabitablevolumes
asrevealedbythestructuresthatenclosethem.43Hecitedtwoexamplesof
buildingswithprogressiveapproachestomechanicalservicesKahnsRichards
MemorialLaboratoriesinPhiladelphia,andWrightsLarkinAdministration
Building,inBuffalo.Both,heexplained,werewellknownwithinmodernhistories
solelybecausethemechanicalsystemaffectedtheoverallaestheticofthebuilding,
reflectinghistoriansshallowinterestintheprogressionofformalstylesanda
primarilyvisualunderstandingofarchitecture.Hecontinuedbyreiteratinghis
previousdisdainfortheloreoftheoperation,lamentingthatarchitectsstilltried
toregulatetheenvironmentthroughthephysicalityandmassivenessoftheir
structures,atraditionthatheclaimedbecameirrelevantwithnewenvironmental
technologythatmadeheavyenclosuresunnecessary.Hewrote,
Societiesprescribethecreationoffitenvironmentsforhumanactivities;the
architecturalprofessionresponds,reflexively,byproposingenclosedspacesframed
bymassivestructures,becausethatiswhatarchitectshavebeentaughttodo44

AlthoughBanhamwaspublishingthesecriticismsafewyearsafter

ArchigramsprojectforaPlugInCity,muchofhiswritingthatwas

43Banham,Reyner.TheArchitectureoftheWellTemperedEnvironment.Chicago:

TheUniversityofChicagoPress,1969,p.12
44Banham,TheArchitectureoftheWellTempered,21

19

contemporaneouswithandevenbeforethetimeofthePlugInCitylikeAHome
isnotaHouseandStocktakingechoedthesesamebeliefsagainstarchitectures
physicalandvisualpriorities,anditseemsshockingthatBanhamcouldhavehad
suchaninterestinnegatingstructureandrejectingaestheticevaluationandwhile
simultaneouslypraisingtheimageabilityofthemonumentalArchigram
megastructures.Indeed,thedominantaspectofArchigramsmegastructureswas
therestrikingphysicalandvisualpresence,eveniftheirmaterialswereindicatedto
bemorelightweightandexpendable.Inaddition,themegastructureswere
emblematicofanothermajorproblemBanhamexposedinTheWellTempered
Environment;theunmitigatedglorificationofarchitectureandthearchitectand
downplayingoftheengineer,whoBanhambelieveddeservedmorecreditforhaving
tocomeupwiththerevolutionarysystemthatmadesuchboldarchitecture
habitable.45InanintroductiontohisbookAgeoftheMasters(1962)writtenafter
thefactin1975,Banhamadmittedthatindeedthemegastructuresstillclungtothe
Modernidealofthemasteryofthearchitect,reconcilingthisneedwiththeneedof
individualfreedoms(thepluginpods),anattemptbythemodernmovementto
saveitselfbyitsowneffortsandoutofitsownresourcesandtraditions.46Asfaras
habitability,themegastructurescertainlycouldnthaveachieveditasdrawn,and
Banhamsdesireheretobringattentiontothosethatmakearchitectureworkwent
againsthispreviouslymentioneddownplayingoffunctionalityinbothArchigram
andtheFuturistswork.

45Banham,TheArchitectureoftheWellTempered,16
46Banham,TheAgeoftheMasters,6

20

Onemustwonder,therefore,bothhowandwhyBanhamwasabletohold

simultaneouslytothesetwoseeminglyopposingbeliefsystemsinhiswritingduring
the1960s,especiallyevidencedthroughhisappraisalofArchigramsprojects
imageabilitywhilestillinpursuitoftheantiarchitecturalenvironmentshe
wroteatgreatestlengthaboutinTheArchitectureoftheWellTempered
Environment.Oneexplanationhasalreadybeentouchedupon:thatunderneathhis
desirestoreviseandrejectconventionalhistoriesofarchitecture,Banhamwasstill
verymuchahistorianhimself,trainedundertheguidanceofoneofthemostnotable
figuresofarchitecturalhistory,NikolasPevsner,andlikePevsner,Banhamwas
fascinatedbythenotionofazeitgeist.ThezeitgeistinBanhamsviewwas
architecturesanthropologicalvalue:howwellitrepresentedthespecificconditions
ofacertaintime,placeandcultureandcouldconveythemtolatercivilizations,as
hebelievedprojectssuchastheVillaSavoyewerecapableofdoing,andbackwards
lookingworkslikePatioandPavilionwerenot.InTheHistoriographyofModern
Architecture,PanayotisTournikiotisexplainsBanhamsbeliefthatArchitecture
shouldbeperceivedasastream(intowhichonecannotsteptwice)ofreflectionsof
thetransformationstakingplaceinotherfields.47Hecontinues:Suchaconcept
allowstheauthortoseethemodernmovementasaneventbelongingdefinitelyto
thepastandtostudyitinordertolearnfromitsexperienceawaytoactinthe
immediatefuture.48Banhamevidentlyclungtothenotionthatthemosteffective

47Tournikiotis,Panayotis.TheHistoriographyofModernArchitecture.Cambridge,

MA,London,England:TheMITPress,1999,p.158
48Tournikiotis,TheHistoriographyofModernArchitecture,158

21

wayforthesereflectionstobeperceivedwasasaseriesofpotentanddistinct
imagesdirectarchitecturalrepresentationsofaculturesdefiningtraits.And,
thoughhewasclearlyattractedtotheradicalnatureofaninvisiblearchitectureof
environments,Banhamcouldnevercomeupwithvisionstoaccompanythe
writtentheorythatwereassatisfyinglyimageableandexpressiveoftheSecond
MachineAgezeitgeistastheoutwardlyimageconsciousandpopculturally
relevantpublicationsofArchigram.

Whiteleyexpandsonthisexplanation,claimingBanhamsconflicting

viewstonotonlyreflecthisgeneralpositionasahistorian,butalsoamorepersonal
attachmenttothemodoarchitectorum,orarchitecturesculturalassociations,
whichpreventedhimfromfullycommittingtohispolemicalattractiontothe
radical,antiarchitectureofenvironments:
Itseemsthathowevermuchthepolemicisthatweshouldditch
architectureanditstraditions,itisarchitectureanditstraditionsthe
modoarchitectorumtowhichBanhamremainscommittedand
emotionallyattached.Anarchitectureautreneverexistsforlong
withoutversunearchitecture.49
ForBanham,themodoarchitectorumthatWhiteleyreferstoherecanbemore
specificallystatedtobeModernism,whichhadmaturedasastyleduringhisyouth,
andwhichhegenerallyadmiredforitsattempttorespondtoitsculturalcontext,
howeverabstractly.Thepersonalnatureofthisattachmentiseasilyseenin
BanhamsvehementrejectionoftheFestivalofBritain,whichhesaidcompromised
thepurityoftheModernaesthetic,andofPostModernism,whichhedeemedtobe

49Whiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,386

22

buildingindragdespiteitsconsiderationofissueslikesymbolismand
imageabilitythatBanhamclearlythoughttobeimportant.50

Banhamsdevelopmentoftwoconflictingviewpointsthereforereveals

importantinfluencesfromhispast,whetheritbePevsnerandtheideaofazeitgeist,
asTournikiotissuggests,ortheModernmovementandmodoarchitectorum,as
Whiteleyargues,tohavepreventedhimfromfullycommittingtohisradical
architectureofenvironments.Onalargerscale,however,italsoreflectsBanhams
belongingtotheuniquepresentandemergingfutureofLondonduringthe1960s.
There,athrivingpostwareconomyhadusheredinadecadeoffinancialsuccesses
thatfavoredtheflourishingofyouthcultureand,asWhiteleyobserves,the
dominanceofayoung,hip,flaneurtypeofindividual,supportedthroughthe
financialstabilityoftheirparents.A1966Timearticleproclaimed,Inadecade
dominatedbyyouth,Londonhasburstintobloom.Itswings:itisthescene.51The
overallatmospheresupportedandevenencouragedtheantiestablishment,
revisioniststancesofstrongpersonaslikeBanhams,andofmultipleunderground
publications,ofwhichArchigramwasoneofthemostprominent.Theserevisionist
stanceswereverysuspiciousoftherigid,valueladensystemoftheacademy,and,
asBanhamexpressedinhiscriticismoftheNewBrutalistscontrivedaesthetics,
insteadfavoredanopennesstomultipleandunexpectedviewpoints,ideas,and
influences.Banhamssupportofcontradictingviewpointsreflectshisowndegreeof

50Banham,Reyner.ABlackBox:TheSecretProfessionofArchitecture,New

StatesmenandSociety(October1990)inBanham,ACriticWrites,293
51Whiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,180

23

opennessasaprominentpartofthisrevisionistcultureofintelligentsia.Insteadof
allowinghisworkonenvironmentstorestricthimtoanarrowlydefined,dogmatic
approachtothemultivariedpromisesoftechnology,Banhamwasabletorunwith
multipleapproachesthatheconsideredbeingequallyviable,usingthem,as
Whiteleywrites,asseparateresponsestoadiversityofdevelopingissuesfacing
architecture:
Itislessacaseofachangedmindthanofbeingoftwominds,and
apparentlyofhavingtwoconflictingviewssimultaneously,witheach
seemingtobeheldpassionatelyandexclusivelyall(options)were
validresponsestoparticularsituationsandcouldbeutilized
accordingly.52
And,thoughBanhamsresultantoeuvreneverquitepresentedaconsistentenough
caseforthereconcilingoffields(architectureandscience)whichhehimself
consideredtobeirreconcilable,itdidmanagetoestablishanopen,theoretical
relationshipbetweenthetwothatdistinctlyrelatedtothespiritofhistimewhile
allowingitsauthortoplayhispartasaprominentmemberoftheheterogenous,
youthdominatedculturesurroundinghiminthe1960s.

52Whiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,386,188

24

SourcesUsed

Banham,Reyner,(BanhamMary,Barker,Paul,Lyall,Sutherland,Price,Cedric,eds.).
ACriticWrites:SelectedEssaysbyReynerBanham.Berkeley:Universityof
CaliforniaPress,1999.

Banham,Reyner.GuidetoModernArchitecture.Princeton:D.VanNostrand
Company,Inc.,1962.

Banham,Reyner.TheAgeoftheMasters:APersonalViewofModernArchitecture.
NewYork:Harper&Row,1975.

Banham,Reyner.TheArchitectureoftheWellTemperedEnvironment.Chicago:
UniversityofChicagoPress,1969.

Banham,Reyner.TheoryandDesignintheFirstMachineAge.Connecticut:
Praeger,1960.

Banham,Reyner.TheoryandDesignintheFirstMachineAge.London:TheMIT
Press,1980.
Cook,Peter.ExperimentalArchitecture.NewYork:UniverseBooks,1970.
Meller,James,ed.,TheBuckminsterFullerReader.London:Pelican,1972
Pevsner,Nikolaus.AnOutlineofEuropeanArchitecture.NewYork:Charles
ScribnersSons,1948.
Pevsner,Nikolaus.PioneersofModernDesign.NewYork:TheMuseumofModern
Art,1949.

25

Tournikiotis,Panayotis.TheHistoriographyofModernArchitecture.Cambridge,
London:TheMITPress,1999.
Whiteley,Nigel.ReynerBanham:HistorianoftheImmediateFuture.Michigan:The
MITPress,2002.
(Authornotgiven)History.AspenDesignSummit.Onlineavailableat
<http://aspendesignsummit.org/content.cfm?Alias=ads_history>,accessed
08/11/08.
(Authornotgiven)Mission.GrantFoundationAward.Onlineavailableat
<http://www.grahamfoundation.org/>,accessed08/11/08.

26

Figure 1
Buckminster Fuller
Dymaxion House, 1927
Elevation

Figure 2
Antonio SantElia
La Citta Nuova, 1914
Perspective

Figure 3
At left:
Reyner Banham
Unhouse, 1965
Elevation
At right:
Reyner Banham
Standard of Living Package,
1965
Elevation

Figure 4
Cedric Price
Fun Palace, 1961
Aerial Perspective

Figure 5
Peter Cook
Plug-In City, 1964
Elevation

Figure 6
Peter + Alison Smithson
Patio and Pavilion, 1956
Plan