arsitek 2
Post on 02-Nov-2014
27 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [125.163.244.104]On: 31 October 2012, At: 22:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of ArchitecturePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjar20
Townscape: scope, scale and extentMathew Aitchison aa ATCH (Architecture | Theory | Criticism | History), School ofArchitecture, University of Queensland, AustraliaVersion of record first published: 12 Oct 2012.
To cite this article: Mathew Aitchison (2012): Townscape: scope, scale and extent, The Journal ofArchitecture, 17:5, 621-642
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2012.724847
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that thecontents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae,and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of thismaterial.
Townscape: scope, scale and extent
Mathew Aitchison ATCH (Architecture | Theory | Criticism | History),
School of Architecture, University of Queensland,
Australia
Background
Despite the looming catastrophe of war in the late
1930s, The Architectural Review’s (AR) war policy
was one of silence. This policy was more stubborn
hope than conviction, born of the chance the war
might still disappear and life could return to
normal. But any such hope was dashed in Decem-
ber, 1940, when a German bomb scored a direct
hit on the AR’s printers in London.1 The result: the
January, 1941, edition was the only number of the
AR not to appear during the entire war and soon
after the magazine’s policy was refocused to
include it.2
Under the persistent threat of the Blitz and with
Britain’s economy consumed by war, the AR’s
editors had more pressing concerns than developing
new campaigns in architecture and town planning.
The offices of the AR’s parent company, the influen-
tial publishing house The Architectural Press (AP),
had already been evacuated from the prestigious
Queen Anne’s Gate to a suburban address in
Cheam. After the evacuation, the AR’s long-
standing editor J.M. Richards had continued to run
the magazine in London out of a small suitcase.3
But in the spring of 1942, Richards withdrew from
the AR and applied for a war job. He left for Cairo
one year later and would not return until February,
1946.
Hubert de Cronin Hastings was the enigmatic pro-
prietor of the AP at the time; he was also the AR’s
chief editor: a position he had held since the late
1920s. With Hastings ensconced in the AP’s subur-
ban Villa, it was left to Richards to find a replace-
ment editor for the AR in London. He nominated
the emigre architectural historian Nikolaus Pevsner,
who had been in the country for less than ten
years but had already published a number of articles
in the AR and was about to publish a second major
book.4 Pevsner’s early years in England had not been
easy; with the onset of war, things had only become
worse.5 He had been briefly interned in 1940, but
was soon released, and narrowly avoided being
shipped to Australia with other ‘enemy aliens’.6
Pevsner had swept rubble from the streets
and fire-watched from the roofs of London’s
historic buildings: an editorial position at a
magazine of the British Establishment was a major
advancement.7
Hastings had proved himself an insightful editor
throughout his term, with a good eye for attracting
the best people for his paper, but it was mainly
Richards who ran the magazine. Pevsner’s editorial
experience, on the other hand, was limited: now
he was charged with managing an internationally
renowned magazine for an indefinite period under
the most extreme of conditions. Pevsner was a
good choice, not only for his scholarly credentials
and reliability, but as an enemy alien he was not
liable to be enlisted for war duty like many of the
AR’s contributors.
Besides Pevsner’s duties of bringing out the
monthly editions of the AR, Hastings soon put him
621
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 17
Number 5
# 2012 The Journal of Architecture 1360-2365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2012.724847
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
to work on other special projects and themes that
the AR had explored in the previous decade, which
included the promotion of Modernism in Britain.
Throughout the 1930s, under Hastings’s editorship,
the magazine had gained a reputation as a ‘modern’
architectural paper, but Hastings’s support for Mod-
ernism was conditional. Parallel to this interest—
largely pursued by Richards—Hastings employed
numerous contributors to investigate the deleter-
ious effects of Britain’s ongoing modernisation and
to develop themes that were aimed at its reform.
These were a diverse group, including the poet
John Betjeman, the painters Paul Nash and John
Piper, the planner Thomas Sharp, and scholars
such as John Summerson and Pevsner. By the mid-
1940s these interests had converged around the
theme of the picturesque, useful not only for its
familiar practical lessons in ‘improving’ landscapes
622
Townscape: scope,
scale and extent
Mathew Aitchison
Figure 1. View of the
destruction around
St Paul’s Cathedral, AR
(June, 1945).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
but also as an aesthetic and theoretical handle for
many of the issues raised by the clash of modern
and traditional settings: problems further exacer-
bated by the continuing effects of wartime destruc-
tion and the still-distant prospect of a reconstruction
effort.
Pevsner became the mainstay of the AR’s ‘pictur-
esque revival’. Sporadically assisted by H.F. Clark and
others, he went on to publish numerous articles on
the subject.8 As Richards would later recall in his
memoirs, ‘the adaptation of the English Picturesque
tradition to urban instead of garden landscapes,
[was] a principle The Architectural Review had
been advocating since Hastings and Pevsner had
campaigned about it during my war-time absence
between 1942 and 1946’.9 Pevsner drew a straight
line from eighteenth-century landscape gardeners
such as Uvedale Price and Humphry Repton to the
mid-twentieth century work of British architects
such as Hugh Casson, William Holford and Frederick
Gibberd. In doing so, Pevsner was following
Hastings’s lead and looking for ways to make
‘picturesque theory’ operative. Hastings commis-
sioned Pevsner to work on a book intended to be
the theoretical and historical backbone of this new
approach, which Pevsner referred to as ‘Visual
Planning’.
Pevsner’s involvement in this picturesque revival
brought qualities to its analysis that took it beyond
Hastings’s gentlemanly connoisseurship. Hastings’s
writing, though fitfully brilliant, was loaded with
eccentricities and anecdotes; by contrast, Pevsner’s
approach was as sober as one might expect from
his rigorous art-historical training in Germany. For
the purposes of the picturesque revival, the pairing
of the somewhat erratic and eccentric Hastings
with Pevsner’s scholarship was perfectly comp-
lementary. In 1974, towards the end of his career,
Pevsner recalled the moment:
623
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 17
Number 5
Figure 2. Nikolaus
Pevsner (anonymously),
‘Frenchay Common or
Workaday Sharawaggi’,
AR (July, 1945).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
Some time after the beginning of the Second
World War the Architectural Review lost its princi-
pal editor J. M. Richards (now Sir James Richards)
to the Ministry of Information. He suggested me
as his—temporary—successor and moved to
Cairo. I did what I could, and this would have
been entirely in matters of contemporary build-
ing, if it had not been for the co-owner of the
Review, H. de Cronin Hastings. He is a brilliant
man who likes to stay in the background. He
had read Christopher Hussey’s The Picturesque,
the great classic of the movement. [. . .] I also
had of course read the book—even several years
before I settled down in England, but purely as a
piece of English art history. It was de Cronin Hast-
ings who dropped a remark in his studiedly casual
way indicating that surely Hussey’s Picturesque
and our day-to-day work for the Review were
really one and the same thing. This is what set
me off. With de Cronin’s blessing I started on a
book whose subject was just this aside of the
great pathfinder. [. . .] As my thought in these
years developed, I realized that the missing link
between the Picturesque and twentieth-century
architecture was the picturesque theory chiefly
of Uvedale Price, but also of Payne Knight and
Repton, and even Reynolds.10
The few accounts that describe Hastings’s work and
life are quick to point to his eccentric character and
abundance of ideas. In honouring his patron,
Pevsner explained ‘The brilliant ideas creating what
was called Architectural Review policy were mostly
H. de C.’s, [. . .] But the brilliant ideas had to be
developed, had to be made viable [. . .]’.11 The con-
tributors who took up the mantel of making Has-
tings’s ideas viable were many and varied: Richards
remained the stalwart executor of operations at
the AR; in the 1930s, Paul Nash wrote of ‘Seaside
Surrealism’ in the coastal town of Swanage;12 in a
lengthy pictorial article, John Piper documented
every visible object on the road from London to
Bath;13 Thomas Sharp carried out a solid four-part
historical study of ‘The English Tradition and the
Town’;14 John Betjeman wrote humorous accounts
of the clash of English patrimony with the effects
of modernisation in ‘The Passing of the Village’,
and promoted a sentimental and un-dogmatic
approach to architectural style in his ‘The Seeing
Eye, or How to Like Everything’.15
Read against the backdrop of war, the fanciful
themes from this period paled in significance. For
more than a decade, the AR had explored an alterna-
tive direction for architecture and planning, but had
not produced anything of duration or substance:
nothing that reached above individual efforts and a
handful of intriguing articles. By 1943, it was
unclear if the AR’s latest interest in picturesque
theory and technique was just another fancy from
Hastings’s imagination, or, for that matter, if
Pevsner was simply the last of a long chain of contri-
butors to bow at Hastings’s door before turning his
back and returning to university life.
By 1944, the situation had changed dramatically.
The bombs kept falling on London, but the AR
began a ‘baby Blitz’ of its own. In January, 1944,
Hastings launched an anonymous decree of AR
policy with his ‘Exterior Furnishing or Sharawaggi:
The Art of Making Urban Landscape’.16 The Febru-
ary edition saw Pevsner’s exegesis in print, entitled
‘Price on Picturesque Planning’.17 In the following
624
Townscape: scope,
scale and extent
Mathew Aitchison
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
625
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 17
Number 5
Figure 3. John Piper,
‘London to Bath. A
Topographical and
Critical Survey of the
Bath Road’, AR (May,
1939).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
626
Townscape: scope,
scale and extent
Mathew Aitchison
Figure 4. The Cover of
the AR (January, 1944).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
years, not a number of AR appeared without some
mention of this new editorial line. With the end of
the war within reach and the prospect of recon-
struction looming ever larger, the AR’s editors saw
the promise of a new beginning. Within the ranks
of the AR this promise filled the sails of the new
campaign, known variously as ‘Visual Planning’,
‘Exterior Furnishing’ and ‘Picturesque Planning’,
but eventually launched five years later under the
banner ‘Townscape’.
Townscape
Townscape eventually became one of the AR’s
longest publishing campaigns, remaining a fixture
until the mid-1970s. Retrospectively, the articles
from the 1930s and early 1940s represent Town-
scape’s ‘pre-history’, where its ideas and applications
were still in testing. Viewed as one campaign, Town-
scape spanned five decades, mirroring Hastings’s edi-
torship and the AR’s rise to international renown.
Over its duration, Townscape involved around 200
authors, who together contributed around 1,400
publications related to the campaign.18 These
ranged in scope and scale from some well-known
monographs (mostly published by the Architectural
Press), to special editions and features in the AR,
down to brief editorial statements, captions and
monthly columns. Throughout the 1950s and
1960s, Townscape became a commonplace in
Britain. From the 1960s onwards it began to assert
its influence on a wider international audience.
Despite its longevity and influence, Townscape’s
reception in historical accounts of twentieth-century
architecture and planning has, until recently, been
very limited.
By the twenty-first century, over three decades
past its decline, Townscape’s meaning is anything
but clear. Partly, this confusion can be traced to a
version of Townscape that has persisted to the
present day. In recent decades, the term and
concept ‘townscape’ is regularly cited in connection
with neo-traditional urban design, and architecture
concerned with preservationist and historicist
agendas. The so-called ‘New Urbanism’ or Prince
Charles’s faux traditional village of Poundbury are
examples of this continuing strain of Townscape,
but so too are the municipal schemes aimed at
urban beautification and ‘character control’ by the
exclusion of anything new.19 Townscape’s rec-
ommendations rarely extended to imitation, revival-
ism or the exclusion of novelty, and the widespread
perception that Townscape was anti-modern reveals
how much has been forgotten about the campaign
since its inception in the 1940s.
Coinciding with the emergence of postmodern-
ism, interest in Townscape has seen a steady
decline. This is a strange turn of events, considering
that Townscape’s message bears strong commonal-
ities with many issues that resurfaced in the
period.20 These include an interest in place, specificity
and ‘context’; the distain for large-scale master plan-
ning; the pursuit of historical continuity in architec-
ture and urbanism; a reform and ‘humanisation’ of
modern architecture and planning; an interest in tra-
dition and vernacular building; and the re-emergence
of a distinctly ‘visual’ or aesthetic approach to design.
The eclipse of Townscape in late-twentieth-
century discourses is a curious story involving
many well-known personalities of the period, from
Colin Rowe to Jane Jacobs, Robert Venturi to
627
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 17
Number 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
628
Townscape: scope,
scale and extent
Mathew Aitchison
Figure 5. Peter Reyner
Banham, H.F. Clark,
Robert Venturi,
‘Miscellany’, AR (May,
1953).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
Kevin Lynch, who passed over Townscape, often
without acknowledgement.21 Townscape was
intended to be highly popular; arguably the AR
was so successful in this objective that its discourse
eventually achieved saturation among architects
and other design professionals. But this proliferation
can also be seen as a dilution: caught between the
to and fro of the late-twentieth-century avant
garde, Townscape’s message of compromise, syn-
thesis, moderation and reform soon became passe.
Today, if anything is known of Townscape it
usually involves Gordon Cullen and his books: Town-
scape (1961), and its abridgement, The Concise
Townscape (1971).22 The latter remains in print,
but excluded the modernist schemes from the
1940s and 1950s contained in the first edition;
another likely cause for Townscape’s perception as
anti-modern. Cullen’s urban studies, designs and
highly seductive illustrations became the face of
Townscape, and gave the campaign a visual charac-
ter absent from Hastings’s polemic and Pevsner’s his-
torical treatments. However, the longer history and
wider view of Townscape’s campaign show that
many of its key ideas not only pre-dated Cullen’s
involvement, they also succeeded it.
If today’s neo-traditionalist successors do not do
justice to the campaign’s original message, and
Cullen’s work can no longer be taken as its touch-
stone, what, then, defines Townscape? My research
has focussed on the body of work that emerged in
the AR from the 1930s to the 1970s. In particular,
I have sought to draw attention to Townscape’s
developmental phase and the authors who were
active at this time.23 There is also an argument for
seeing Townscape as merely one of many parallel
and competing campaigns operating within the AR
throughout this period; the AR was, after all, an
international monthly magazine constantly search-
ing for novelty. Pevsner’s picturesque revival has
already been noted as one such sub-campaign.
Through the 1950s, Ian Nairn rose to fame with
his special editions of ‘Outrage’ and ‘Counter
Attack’; J.M. Richards wrote extensively about a
phenomenon he termed ‘The Functional Tradition’;
Eric de Mare campaigned for the reuse of canals;
and from the 1950s onwards, Kenneth Browne
and Silvia Crowe wrote about the uses and abuses
of ‘landscape’ and issues of dereliction, encroach-
ment and exploitation.
Viewed at its narrowest extent, Townscape’s
activity could be restricted to its ‘high’ period:
from 1947 to 1961, involving authors such as
Cullen, Nairn and Browne. But there is a stronger
argument for seeing Townscape as both an episodic
campaign and an umbrella term for a range of pro-
blems, interests and concepts that had been devel-
oping before and after this period. My research
argues that Townscape’s contributions should be
viewed within this wider context. This shows that
Townscape achieved and sustained a level of coher-
ence throughout its duration, which demonstrates
that it had a direction and self-reflection that took
it beyond its role as an episodic editorial device.
Part of the confusion surrounding Townscape’s
definition as a concept and campaign stems from
its name: there is still uncertainty surrounding who
first coined the term, with both Hastings and
Thomas Sharp laying claim to its invention.24 As
mentioned, the heading ‘Townscape’ arrived much
later than its message, and was underpinned by
629
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 17
Number 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
the series of related alternatives: ‘Visual Planning’
‘Urban Landscape’, ‘Sharawaggi’, ‘Exterior Furnish-
ing’, ‘The New Empiricism’, ‘The Functional
Tradition’ and ‘Picturesque Planning’. Additionally,
campaigns such as ‘Outrage’, ‘Counter-Attack’,
‘Man-Plan’ and ‘Civilia’ followed the advent of
Townscape. The ideas within these various cam-
paigns are strongly related and helpful in explaining
different facets of Townscape’s mission.
In this context it is important to note that as an
editorial campaign Townscape’s message evolved
over time. Beginning with the series of articles
from the 1930s and the critique of sprawling mod-
ernisation, the magazine pitched earlier versions of
Townscape as moderate alternatives to a still
unpopular international modernism and the wave
of stylistic revivalisms that had emerged between
the wars. The early years of post-war reconstruction
witnessed the rise of scepticism regarding planning,
a feeling that where the bombs had failed the
planners might yet succeed. To these sentiments,
the Townscape circle added the creeping effects
of modern infrastructure, signage, advertising and
other urban paraphernalia, which were having a
serious though undetected impact on urban
environments.25 Seeking to counteract these
effects, Pevsner and Hastings thought that a
reformed modernism could be married to informal
picturesque planning to provide what they termed
a more ‘humanized townscape’.26 This proposed
a more synthetic, compromised and scenographic
conception of architecture and urban design. At
its simplest level, Townscape was a collage of
moderate modernist architecture set within the
framework of an irregular picturesque planning.
By the early 1950s, the range of themes cham-
pioned by the AR and its editors had coalesced
into the central polemic of Townscape, creating a
comprehensive and highly visual approach to
urban design. This new approach was given a full
dress rehearsal at the Festival of Britain in 1951,
carried out with the help of many of the AR’s inner
circle.27 But where Townscape initially drew its
mandate from war-time destruction and post-war
reconstruction, as the campaign progressed it
began to address other related concerns, including
urban sprawl and visual blight. Townscape became
an early advocate of environmentalism, highlighting
issues of land exploitation, degradation and derelic-
tion, and developing working and artful solutions.
As such, Townscape pre-empted much of the inter-
est in these problems within postmodernist urban
design and the architectural urbanism of the
1960s and 1970s. Despite these commonalities, it
appears that Townscape’s criticism of an unchecked
modernist planning and rampant modernisation in
urban and rural areas also provided the basis for
Townscape’s perceived conservatism and histori-
cism: a ginger-bread-style urban design, beginning
with pedestrianisation and ending with lamppost
design.
The Townscape campaign expanded the scope of
design concerns to include many aspects of the built
environment previously outside the remit of building
and planning, including mundane artefacts such as
street furniture. Townscape promoted a unified
approach to designing the urban scene, which Hast-
ings and others thought had been abstractly divided
by the historical development of the professions. For
Hastings, the problem of ‘town planning’ was a
630
Townscape: scope,
scale and extent
Mathew Aitchison
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
631
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 17
Number 5
Figure 6. Ian Nairn, ed.,
‘Outrage’, AR (June,
1955).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
632
Townscape: scope,
scale and extent
Mathew Aitchison
Figure 7. Colin Rowe,
Fred Koetter, ‘Collage
City’, AR (August,
1975).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
schema where architects designed buildings, plan-
ners laid out streets, engineers designed infrastruc-
ture, and so forth. What was left out of such a
division of competencies, the AR termed ‘the sub-
merged third’—meaning the third of the built
environment that had escaped attention by design
professionals.28 In contrast to the ‘ginger bread’
version of Townscape, this SLOAP (Space Left Over
After Planning, as it was humorously dubbed in
1973)29 was not intended to be polite or respect-
able, but rather to invoke the messy vitality of the
urban condition. By paying close attention to
aspects such as electricity pylons, telephone wires,
roadways, advertising, paving and floor surfaces
(later termed floorscape), Townscape’s advocates
attempted to harness the potential of the miscellany
thrown up by modernisation by including it in their
designs. For Hastings and Pevsner, this method
had its historical corollary in the practice of land-
scape improvers who appropriated the various raw
materials of eighteenth century rural existence into
their designs for country estates and pleasure
grounds.30
A persistent feature of the AR’s Townscape cam-
paign was its mixture of critical and creative endea-
vours. Some of the most spectacular outcomes of
this policy are Nairn’s ‘Outrage’ and ‘Counter
Attack’ campaigns from the 1950s. In 1971, when
support for Townscape at the AR was in steep
decline, Hastings and his daughter Priscilla together
with Browne, launched another attempt to reclaim
the high ground with a special edition entitled:
‘Civilia. The End of Sub Urban Man’.31 Civilia was
intended to be both a critique and an improvement
to the idea of the New Towns, where late modernist
and brutalist architecture were collaged onto the
side of a disused quarry and proposed as a
high-density solution to the ailing dormitory New
Town model. The results were striking in appearance
and remarkable for their persistence in realising
ideas that Hastings and his collaborators had
begun as far back as the 1940s. Civilia and other
earlier schemes are often seen as ironic commen-
taries on the architectural and planning discourses
of the day: Bob Maxwell termed Civilia ‘a kind of
Welfare State Monte Carlo’.32 They were also
intended as serious alternatives. This oscillation
between the real and unreal, and the disregard
for disciplinary boundaries, provided further
grounds for the campaign’s limited reception:
Townscape, it could be argued, was too urban for
architectural history and too architectural for
planning history.33
Fictitious projects like Civilia and other studies set
in London and elsewhere from the 1940s to the
1970s, show that Townscape not only proposed
an expanded scope for design, but a rethinking of
architecture. This new architecture highlighted the
combination of old and new, the clash of the
modern and traditional, and emphasised working
with the existing conditions recommended by the
genius loci rather than some imagined ideal. It pro-
moted the idea of the moving spectator, the design
of buildings and quarters from actual terrestrial
vantage points rather than abstracted aerial views.
Townscape’s urban and architectural designs privi-
leged bold asymmetry over symmetry and the incon-
gruous over the pleasant. Developing from the study
of the picturesque, the Townscape circle advocated
a version of modernism which disparaged uniform-
633
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 17
Number 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
634
Townscape: scope,
scale and extent
Mathew Aitchison
Figure 8. The Editor,
‘The Submerged Third’,
AR (August, 1948).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
ity and pleaded instead for informality, irregularity
and clash of texture, age and colour when possible.
Throughout these various sub-campaigns, Town-
scape’s editorial line and its objects of study oscil-
lated between the trivial and profound. Townscape
approached fundamental issues, such as the
relationships between buildings as objects, and the
relationship more generally between society and
the built environment. But the campaign also
spent much time extolling the virtues of bollards,
cobblestones and cast-iron drain covers.34 As such,
Townscape should be remembered as a campaign
that promoted designs for park benches as well as
entire city quarters.
The Architectural Review
Townscape was also remarkable for its humour. The
campaign’s eccentricities and contrariness are fre-
quently understood as pure whimsy (which they
often were), but Hastings and others at the AR
actively fostered an amateurishness and dilettantism
among its contributors, which framed the magazine
as a running (and often humorous) commentary on
the significant developments of the day. Townscape
was an important campaign for the AR, not only
because it promised a frontal approach to the
major issues of the time, but also as a light-hearted
and fun campaign: the AR’s contributors could
express their views openly in Townscape articles.35
Projects such as ‘Outrage’, ‘Man-Plan’ or ‘Civilia’
show that Townscape often became an aside to the
AR’s role as a magazine of record, or, to the expec-
tation to attend to the day-to-day of publishing. In
Townscape, reporting and publicising merged with
activism and advocacy, creativity with criticism.
Although there were many authors involved in
Townscape, it remained Hastings’s chief polemic
throughout his long term at the AR. In this regard,
Townscape is a mirror, or perhaps a kaleidoscope,
of Hastings’s philosophy and his complex, mercurial
temperament. To understand Townscape is to
understand this philosophy and its three-fold mani-
festation within the magazine and its output: first
at the level of Townscape’s authors and the AR’s
editorial constellation; then in the AR’s graphic
format, illustrative style and peculiar mixture of
content; and, finally, in the synthetic approach to
architecture and urban design that the campaign
sought to effect.
Hastings was convinced that architectural pub-
lishing needed to develop a new voice if it wished
to keep up with developments in society, not least
the monumental challenges faced by architects
and planners in post-war reconstruction, modernis-
ation and expansion. In 1947, in a rare account of
editorial policy, Hastings described the future role
he saw for the AR:
One of the aspects of the English cultural tradition
most worth preserving is the practice of dilettante
journalism by experts who are also amateurs [. . .]
But the urbane habit of literary dilettantism, of
scholar’s table talk conducted in public, is not
one that can be indulged without a medium.36
Many of the publications that resulted from this
period of ‘dilettante journalism’ were intended for
Townscape. Hastings’s team continued to expand
from the 1940s onwards, where academics and
journalists worked beside photographers and illus-
trators; poets and cartoonists, beside architects
and town planners.
635
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 17
Number 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
The second manifestation of Hastings’s philos-
ophy came in the visual style of the magazine. As
far back as the 1930s, Hastings and his team had
sought to renovate the AR’s graphic and visual pres-
entation. It was an eclectic framework: Betjeman’s
witty texts were juxtaposed with the neo-romantic
illustrations by Piper and Pevsner’s historical explora-
tions were illustrated by starkly modernist designs by
Casson and Cullen. The AR became famous for its
graphic design and layout, where floral Victorian
typefaces were juxtaposed with sans-serif scripts;
lime-green highlights contrasted with a smooth
cream of thick paper; and richly textured prints
from original paintings were contrasted with
superb professional architectural photography. If
Townscape’s final iteration proposed a humanised
modernist architecture set within an outspokenly
picturesque mode of planning, AR’s visual style pro-
vided a clear example of how this might appear in
graphic terms.
As noted above, the question of Townscape’s
authorship has provided a continuing barrier to
scholarship. Until 2004, there was little literature
available on the AR’s editors and the magazine’s edi-
torial structure.37 Erdem Erten’s doctoral study was
the first to highlight the centrality of the AR’s edi-
torial structure.38 Subsequently, my research on
this editorial structure has illustrated a consistent
pattern running parallel to Townscape’s develop-
ment. This is best visualised as a relatively tight
core of advising editors surrounding Hastings in
varying formations: Hastings and Richards from
1935 to early 1942; Hastings and Pevsner from
early 1942 to early 1946. Beginning with his
announcement of a new editorial board in 1947
and continuing with minor variations until the
early 1970s, Hastings was joined by Richards,
Pevsner, Osbert Lancaster and Casson, with Ian
McCallum as executive editor until 1959. By 1971,
Richards, Pevsner and Casson had left the editorial
board, and Hastings finally retired in 1973.39
My doctoral dissertation from 2009 also
attempted to provide a systematic catalogue of
Townscape’s contributing authors and an expla-
nation of their respective roles within the cam-
paign.40 Perhaps the most significant problem in
understanding the multi-layered authorship of
Townscape was the AR’s practice of publishing
articles pseudonymously and anonymously. Hast-
ings, Pevsner, Richards and Summerson all used
pseudonyms: Ivor de Wolfe, Peter F.R. Donner,
James MacQuedy and John Coolmore respect-
ively.41 With his earlier pen-name Hermann
George Scheffauer, Hastings had made his inten-
tions for anonymity clear.42 Around one third of
the total number of Townscape-related publications
from the 1930s to the 1980s are anonymously pub-
lished.43 Richards stated that he used his pseudo-
nym when he ‘wanted to appear in an individual,
rather than an editorial, role’.44 Nevertheless, this
practice resulted in a particularly playful mode of
writing and one that was certainly less guarded in
its opinions than would have been normally the
case for most journalism, and instilled the Town-
scape campaign with a more informal tone and out-
spoken critical voice.
Townscape’s position as an editorial campaign
provides another barrier to understanding the cam-
paign’s authorship. Relying, as Townscape did, on a
broad base of contributing authors meant that
636
Townscape: scope,
scale and extent
Mathew Aitchison
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
637
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 17
Number 5
Figure 9. Michael
Rothenstein, ‘Colour
and Modern
Architecture, or the
Photographic Eye’, AR
(June, 1946).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
many of Townscape’s important articles were com-
missioned. Therefore, establishing authorship and
origins for particular publications or ideas is difficult,
particularly when combined with the AR’s practice
of anonymity. This raises other problems recurrent
in Townscape’s history: namely, the role of individ-
uals within the broader editorial campaign, and
the hierarchy within the vast circle of Townscape’s
contributing authors.
Townscape’s inner circle clearly includes the AR’s
editors—foremost Hastings, Richards, Casson and
Pevsner—joined both by the various authors who
pre-empted Townscape from as far back as the
1930s, and by those who went on to develop and
refine the campaign’s ideas and application into
the late 1950s.45 But there is also an outer circle
of Townscape’s contributors, constituting around
two-thirds of the campaign’s authors. This group
(approximately 136) consists of the hired hands
and passersby, who were only obliquely involved in
the campaign or had arrived after its direction was
set.46 Some authors contributed articles to the AR
in the 1930s and never again. Themes from the
1930s disappear in the 1940s and re-emerge in
the 1950s. Several architects and critics who pub-
lished early articles on Townscape went on to
achieve great notoriety in the 1960s and 1970s.
Within this context of discontinuity, Townscape’s
message was easily lost. By the time it disappeared
from the pages of the AR, its message had been
exhaustively promoted and it went on to have an
afterlife quite distinct from that of its host.
Until recently, historians have tended to struggle
with the questions arising from Townscape’s author-
ship, origins and chronology, or the campaign’s
scope, scale and extent; a measure of this difficulty
can be found in the scarcity of historical accounts
which are not plagued by misinformation or ana-
chronism. It is hoped that the work collected in
this edition provides a solid foundation for the
ongoing study of Townscape in the post-war
period, despite the continued absence of a mono-
graph dedicated to Townscape or a comprehensive
history of the campaign.
That a major history of Townscape has yet to be
written reveals more about existing twentieth-
century histories than it does about Townscape.
Townscape’s legacy as a broad, popular, enduring
and interdisciplinary ‘movement’ challenges the
outcomes of histories that privilege the grand narra-
tive and outstanding authorial figures. Although the
AR clearly possessed the means, it never published a
tightly elucidated manifesto, nor did it promote a
leading authority. Pevsner’s book, commissioned
by Hastings in the 1940s, was never finished and
has only recently been published.47 Cullen’s work
is often invoked in this connection, but his role as
Townscape’s figurehead is problematic. Townscape,
it could be argued, was a poor attempt at a ‘move-
ment’, especially when viewed in the context of
post-war avant gardism where the cult of personal-
ity and the manifesto had become the trade secrets
of architecture and urban design, or at least its his-
toriography.
Many scholars are returning to the architecture
and planning of the post-war period in an attempt
to recover and revise its histories as part of a larger
examination of post-modernism in twentieth-
century architectural and urban culture.48 Within
this wider project, Townscape is of great interest,
638
Townscape: scope,
scale and extent
Mathew Aitchison
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
essentially standing at the junction of two major
streams of post-war development: the transition
from modernism to post-modernism, and the rise
of ‘urbanism’ and its perception as the supreme
question of architecture in the period.
Notes and references1. This incident and many others from the period are
relayed in J.M. Richards, Memoirs of an Unjust Fella
(London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980), p. 144.
2. The Editor, ‘The Architectural Review and the War’,
AR, 89 (June, 1941), p. 117.
3. J. M. Richards, op. cit., p. 141.
4. The first was Pioneers of the Modern Movement: From
William Morris to Walter Gropius (London, Faber &
Faber, 1936); the second, An Outline of European
Architecture (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1942).
5. For more on Pevsner’s early years in Britain, see Susie
Harries, Nikolaus Pevsner: The Life (London, Chatto
and Windus, 2011) and Stephen Games, Pevsner:
The Early Life: Germany and Art (London, Continuum,
2010).
6. J. M. Richards, op. cit., pp. 141–42.
7. Using pseudonyms, Pevsner wrote several humorous
accounts of his work in this period: see, Ramaduri,
‘Meine Kollegen, Die Schuttschipper’, Die Zeitung,
1 (September, 1941).
8. These articles are too numerous to mention here: see
the bibliography contained in: Nikolaus Pevsner,
Mathew Aitchison (ed.), Visual Planning and the Pictur-
esque (Santa Monica, CA., Getty Publications, 2010),
pp. 211–13.
9. J. M. Richards, op. cit., p. 241.
10. Nikolaus Pevsner, ed., The Picturesque Garden and Its
Influence Outside the British Isles (Washington D.C.,
Dumbarton Oaks, 1974), pp. 119–20.
11. Nikolaus Pevsner, ‘Elusive JMR’, RIBA Journal, 78 (May,
1971), p. 181.
12. Paul Nash, ‘Swanage or Seaside Surrealism’, AR, 79
(January-June, 1936), pp. 150–54.
13. John Piper, ‘London to Bath. A Topographical and Criti-
cal Survey of the Bath Road’, AR, 85 (January-June,
1939), pp. 229–46. For an analysis and comparison
of Piper’s and Pevsner’s roles at the AR, see: John
Macarthur and Mathew Aitchison, ‘Oxford Versus
the Bath Road: Empiricism and Romanticism in the
Architectural Review’s Picturesque Revival’, The
Journal of Architecture, 17, no. 1 (February, 2012),
pp. 51–68.
14. This series began with Thomas Sharp, ‘The English
Tradition and the Town. I. The Street and the Town’,
AR, 78 (July-December, 1935), pp. 179–87.
15. John Betjeman, ‘The Passing of the Village’, AR,
72 (September, 1932), pp. 89–93; and, ‘The
Seeing Eye or How to Like Everything’ [Illustrations
by John Piper], AR, 86 (July-December, 1939),
pp. 201–4.
16. The Editor [Hastings], ‘Exterior Furnishing or Shara-
waggi: The Art of Making Urban Landscape’, AR, 95,
no. 565 (January, 1944), pp. 3–8.
17. Nikolaus Pevsner, ‘Price on Picturesque Planning’, AR,
95, no. 566 (February, 1944), pp. 47–50.
18. For the most comprehensive discussion of this material
see my doctoral dissertation: Mathew Aitchison,
‘Visual Planning and Exterior Furnishing: A Critical
History of the Early Townscape Movement, 1930 to
1949’, (PhD Dissertation, University of Queensland,
2009).
19. Ibid.: see pp. 247–51, for a discussion of the inter-
relationships between Townscape and its neo-tradi-
tionalist successors.
20. For a broader discussion of Townscape’s influence on
twentieth-century discourse and practice the reader
is referred to the contributions in the fourth part of
639
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 17
Number 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
this collection, in particular: the articles by Nick Beech,
Steve Parnell, Jasper Cepl and Erik Ghenoiu.
21. See Gillian Darely and Erik Ghenoiu’s articles in this col-
lection. See also, Mathew Aitchison, ‘Who’s Afraid of
Ivor De Wolfe’, AA Files, 62 (2011), pp. 34–39.
22. Gordon Cullen, Townscape (London, The Architectural
Press, 1961) and The Concise Townscape (London, The
Architectural Press, 1971).
23. Appendix One of my dissertation lists the 200 authors
involved in the Townscape campaign at the AR.
Appendix Two lists all the relevant publications from
the AR, related books published by the AP, along
with other Townscape-related materials. See,
M. Aitchison, ‘Visual Planning’, op. cit., pp. 305–91.
24. See Thomas Sharp, Oxford Replanned (London, The
Architectural Press, 1948), p. 36. See also Ivor de
Wolfe [Hastings], ‘Townscape. A Plea for an English
Visual Philosophy Founded on the True Rock of Sir
Uvedale Price’, AR, 106, no. 636 (December, 1949),
p. 362.
25. Such concerns were not new: Thomas Sharp’s work in
the 1930s shows that these were already major issues
in planning; Clough Williams-Ellis’s books, England
and the Octopus (London, Geoffrey Bles, 1928) and
the edited volume, Britain and the Beast (London,
John Dent, 1937) are notable examples of such inter-
ests before Townscape.
26. For references to this ‘humanized’ townscape see: The
Editor, ‘The First Half Century’, AR, 101, no. 601
(January, 1947), p. 36 and The Editor and Gordon
Cullen, ‘Hazards, or the Art of Introducing Obstacles
into the Urban Landscape without Inhibiting the
Eye’, AR, 103, no. 615 (March, 1948), p. 99.
27. See Nick Beech’s contribution to this Issue. Hugh
Casson, as the chief coordinator of the Festival of
Britain, underscores the view of the Festival being an
early outcome of Townscape’s campaign: Hugh
Casson, ‘The Elusive H De C’, RIBA Journal, 78 (Febru-
ary, 1971), p. 59.
28. The Editor, ‘The Submerged Third’, AR, 104, no. 620
(August, 1948), p. 50.
29. The acronym appeared in a special edition, edited by
Ivor de Wofle [Hastings], ‘Sociable Housing’, AR,
154, no. 920 (October, 1973).
30. John Macarthur discusses such techniques in eight-
eenth-century landscape gardening under the
heading ‘appropriation’: John Macarthur, The Pictur-
esque: Architecture, Disgust and Other Irregularities
(London, Routledge, 2007), pp. 176–232.
31. Ivor de Wolfe [Hastings], ‘Civilia. The End of Sub Urban
Man’, AR, 149, no. 892 (June, 1971), pp. 326–408.
32. Robert Maxwell, ‘An Eye for an I: The Failure of the
Townscape Tradition’, Architectural Design, 46, no. 9
(September, 1976), p. 535.
33. For an extensive discussion of Townscape’s reception,
see M. Aitchison, ‘Visual Planning’, op. cit.,
pp. 52–71.
34. Reyner Banham once reported that the Architects’
Journal, the AR’s sister journal where Townscape was
also promoted, had received the satirical gift of a
cobble stone and drain cover: Reyner Banham,
‘Revenge of the Picturesque: English Architectural
Polemics, 1945–1965’, in Concerning Architecture:
Essays on Architectural Writers and Writing Presented
to Nikolaus Pevsner, John Summerson, ed. (London,
Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1968), p. 266.
35. For a longer discussion of Townscape’s journalistic
context and its contributions to architectural writing
more widely, see Mathew Aitchison, ‘Dilettantes,
Amateurs and Eccentrics: The Architectural Review’s
Townscape Campaign’, in Semi-Detached: Writing,
Representation and Criticism in Architecture,
Naomi Stead, ed. (Melbourne, Uro Media, 2012),
pp. 105–15.
640
Townscape: scope,
scale and extent
Mathew Aitchison
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
36. The Editor, ‘The Second Half Century’, AR, 101,
no. 601 (January, 1947), p. 22.
37. The AR’s editorial makeup is listed on its contents
page. For other accounts of the history of the AR,
see Peter Davey, ‘The First 100 Years’, AR, 199, no.
1191 (May, 1996), pp. 3–106 and Michael Spens,
ed., AR 100. The Recovery of the Modern. Architec-
tural Review 1980–1995: Key Texts and Critique
(Oxford, Butterworth Architecture, 1996).
38. Erdem Erten, ‘Shaping “The Second Half Century”:
The Architectural Review 1947–1971’, (Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology, Doctoral Dissertation,
2004).
39. Appendix Three of my dissertation gives a comprehen-
sive account of the AR’s editorial makeup from its
inception to the mid-1970s: M. Aitchison, ‘Visual Plan-
ning’, pp. 393–98.
40. See Note 23 above.
41. For de Wolfe’s identity, see R. Banham, ‘Revenge of the
Picturesque’, op. cit., p. 267. For F.R. Donner, see John
Barr ‘Select Bibliography of the Publications of Niko-
laus Pevsner’, Concerning Architecture: Essays on
Architectural Writers and Writing Presented to Niko-
laus Pevsner, John Summerson, ed. (London, Allen
Lane The Penguin Press, 1968), p. 278. For James Mac-
Quedy, see J. M. Richards, Memoirs, op. cit., p. 138.
For John Coolmore, see John Betjeman, ‘A Preserva-
tionist’s Progress’, in The Future in the Past: Attitudes
to Conservation, 1174–1974, Jane Fawcett, ed.
(London, Thames & Hudson, 1976), p. 57. Another
name appears to be a conjunction of both Richards’s
and Hastings’s pseudonyms, in ‘Ivor J. Richards’ of
the 1960s. There were undoubtedly several more in
use in the period, although these have not been posi-
tively identified. Outside the AR, Pevsner used two
other known pseudonyms, ‘Ramaduri’, and ‘Peter
Naumberg’, under these names publishing a total of
22 articles. The scrapbook containing these articles is
held within ‘The Nikolaus Pevsner Collection’, GRI,
box 137.
42. A series of research notes now held at the RIBA library
(referred to here as the ‘AR Papers’) lists a series of
articles in the AR from Hermann George Scheffauer
[aka Hastings], from December, 1922 to January,
1928. See ‘AR Papers’, cards 41–56.
43. This number includes all articles published anon-
ymously, or ambiguously under the label of ‘The
Editor’ or ‘The Editors’. For present purposes, all such
articles have been uniformly attributed to ‘The Editor’.
44. J. M. Richards, Memoirs, op. cit., p. 138.
45. Included in this ‘inner-circle’ are authors such as
Kenneth Browne, Hugh Casson, Sylvia Crowe,
(Thomas) Gordon Cullen, Frederick Gibberd, Eric
Samuel de Mare, Ian Douglas Nairn and Raymond
Spurrier. Alongside this group, a further 54 authors
have been identified who were active before Town-
scape was launched: these include: John Betjeman,
Lionel Brett, N.G. Brett-James, Stefan Buzas, H.F.
Clark, Peter Dickinson, W.A. Eden, L.D. Ettlinger,
Stephen Gardiner, Erno Goldfinger, Maurice Gorham,
Geoffrey Grigson, W.G. Hiscock, Sir William Holford,
R.G. Holloway, Marjorie Honeybourne, Carl Hubacher,
Christopher Hussey, Julian Huxley, G.A. Jellicoe,
Barbara Jones, G.M. Kallmann, Sir Osbert Lancaster,
Susan Lang, Leonard Manasseh, Ian McCallum,
Harding McGregor Dunnett, Ruari McLean, Raymond
Mortimer, Lewis Mumford, Paul Nash, Ozenfant,
Roland Penrose, Frank Pick, John Egerton Christmas
Piper, Peter Quennell, Sir James Maude Richards, R.P.
Ross Williamson, Michael Rothenstein, Kenneth Rown-
tree, Thomas Wilfred Sharp, Osvald Siren, Marian
Speyer, John Steegman, Dorothy Stroud, John Sum-
merson, Aileen Tatton Brown, William Tatton Brown,
William Townsend, Julian Trevelyan, Christopher
Tunnard, Rex Wailes, J.D.U. Ward and Clough Wil-
liams-Ellis.
641
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 17
Number 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
46. My research has identified 136 authors in this ‘outer-
circle’: these include: Alexandra Artley, Matthew
Baigell, (Peter) Reyner Banham, C.H.R. Bailey, Gerald
Barry, Derek Barton, Geoffrey W. Beard, Elisabeth
Beazley, Manfredo Bellati, Terence Bendixson, Peter
Beresford, Michael Blee, Lewis Braithwaite, Peter
Bush, W.S. Butler, Sherban Cantacuzino, William Carr,
Rodney Carran, Brian Carter, Miles Coslany, David
Crawford, Elizabeth Denby, Donald Dewar Mills,
Michael Dower, A. du Gard Palsey, D.R. Dudley, Melville
Dunbar, Alexei Ferster Marmot, John Fleming, Charles
Forehoe, R. Furneaux Jordan, Keith Garbet, K.B.
Gardner, Roy Gazzard, Usam Ghaidan, Leslie Ginsburg,
John Gloag, Andor Gomme, David Gosling, Christo-
pher Gotch, L.F. Gregory, Richard Guyatt, Thos Halcro,
Edward T. Hall, Andrew Hammer, Eileen Harris, Jon
Harris, E.M. Hatt, F.H.K. Henrion, Henry-Russell Hitch-
cock, John Hope, R.G. Hopkinson, Richard Hughes,
M. Hugo-Brunt, James Hunter, M. Iljin, J. Jahr, Peter
Jay, Charles Jencks, Roger Johnson, Percy Johnson-Mar-
shall, Edwin Johnston, Geoffrey S. Kelly, John Kelsey,
Edgar Knobloch, Art Kutcher, Laurie Lee, Maurice Lee,
Kenneth Lindley, David W. Lloyd, James Macaulay,
Saadja Mandl, Walter Manthorpe, Charles Marriott,
Georgina Masson, Anthony Matthews, Collin McWil-
liam, Michael Middleton, G. Moncur, Robert Moore,
Lucien Myers, G.J. Nason, Geoffrey Newman, J.R.
Nichols, Max Nicholson, Christian Norberg-Schulz,
Bev Nutt, G.G. Pace, R. Pearson, Simon Pepper, Alan
Plater, Hugh Popham, G. Popplestone, Jonathan
Raban, Roger Radford, Herbert Read, Richard Reid,
Paul Ritter, Helen Rosenau, Diana Rowntree, Gordon
Russell, Michel Santiago, Sylvia Sayer, Edwin Schoon,
Vincent Scully, Hida Selem, Derek Senior, Graeme
Shankland, Peter Shepheard, Gerald Smart, I. Smith-
Raeburn, Alison Smithson, Peter Smithson, W.J.
Sparrow, George Speaight, Betty Spence, Freya Stark,
Betty Swanwick, Margaret Tallet, Nicholas Taylor,
Nigel Temple, Margaret Tims, Rex Touchstone, Noel
Tweddell, Jaqueline Tyrwhitt, Peter Varnon, Robert
Venturi, Claude Vincent, Harland Walshaw, David
Watkin, Julian Wells, Bryan Westwood, Marcus
Whiffen, Graham Winteringham, H. Myles Wright
and Lance Wright.
47. See Note 8 above.
48. See, for example: Anthony Vidler, Histories of the
Immediate Present: Inventing Architectural Modern-
ism (Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 2008); Jorge
Otero-Pailos, Architecture’s Historical Turn: Phenom-
enology and the Rise of the Postmodern (Minneapolis,
University of Minnesota Press, 2010); Reinhold Martin,
Utopia’s Ghost: Architecture and Postmodernism,
Again (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press,
2010); K. Michael Hays, Architecture’s Desire:
Reading the Late Avant-Garde (Cambridge, Mass.,
The MIT Press, 2010).
642
Townscape: scope,
scale and extent
Mathew Aitchison
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
125.
163.
244.
104]
at 2
2:05
31
Oct
ober
201
2
top related