Structure and the search for light; taking the factory into a new century.
Technological developments in factory design of the nineteenth century provided the foundation for the new century in factory building. On reflection, even though such significant technological advances as the introduction of iron framing and reinforced concrete became readily available, as yet, builders were reluctant, with the exception perhaps of Sheerness boathouse , to celebrate this material in an outward form.
The majority of mill buildings still displayed what we may now call traditional large multi fenestrated look with a brick or stone exterior sometimes of “fortress” proportions as in the “A” Bond warehouse (1905) Bristol (figure1) The windows may have got bigger, as buildings became deeper and longer with larger machinery, culminating in the “Mons” mill (1914) (figure 2) at Todmorden where only thin brick mullions divided the windows, but as yet there were no glass sheet walls.
Figure 1 "A bond" Warehouse
Figure 2 Mons Mill
In such warehouse buildings the iron structure was contained within and remained partially supported by an outer load bearing wall. At Sheerness (figure 3) the frame became a self supporting structure leaving the outer wall to be free of such load bearing constraints and allow the use of lightweight corrugated iron panels and large areas of glazing.
Figure 3 Sheerness boat house
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the modern factory was seen as the perfect functional building, with improved materials, building technology, and designed to work with the organisation of the industrial process. Their core may have been built of the latest reinforced concrete system, have up to date iron beam technology, enjoy open spans of up to 16feet (1900), even lit by the latest carbon arc electric light .
However, there was no rush to express the theory of rationalism and still outwardly, they could have the appearance of an Italianate Villa , a Baroque mansion, (figure 4), or sport a Byzantine tower as displayed in John A Campbell’s Northern Insurance building in Glasgow (figure 5) where the display of innovative construction methods are demoted to the rear of the building behind a traditional Scottish façade.
Figure 4 "Baroque style"
Figure 5 Northern
Insurance
The common factor here is the perceived recalcitrance to consider functionalist construction methods to be an important part of architectural design. Buildings that perhaps stand as good examples of forward looking design, such as the Uniroyal Tyre factory in Dumfries , (figure 6) with its pure rationalism in construction and obvious use of new building methods does not even have a recorded architect.
Figure 6 Uniroyal Tyre factory
This potential of a design approach to the new methods and materials was not as yet openly recognised in Britain. However, events and influences from elsewhere were about to change this with the forming of the “Modern” factory movement in Europe and the forming of the “Model” factory idea in the USA which we will consider next.
Over here, the “Model” Factory and influence from the USA.
The development of the multi-storey mill starting in the 18th century was on the whole a British affair which was adapted throughout the world. However, in the early part of the 20th century, across the Atlantic new production methods were being developed, based on the ideas of Frederick Taylor in his publication “Principles of scientific management” and spearheaded by Henry Ford and the needs of the automotive industry.
This tied in with the availability of a newly developed reinforced concrete system developed by the Kahn brothers in Detroit. The “Kahn system” as it was patented, was marketed by the newly formed “Kahncrete” company and its subsidiary “Trussed Concrete Steel Company”, or “Truscon” as it was often known. The company’s aim was to sell the system under licence in the USA and Britain where Moritz Kahn sought new markets and established an office in London (1907).
Albert Khan completed a factory for the Packard Motor Company, Detroit (1903), (figure 7) the first American reinforced concrete building and the first to have steel windows imported from England. These elements produced a lighter building than ever before. In 1906 with the Pierce Automobile plant in Buffalo , New York, (figure 8) he designed a factory in which self-contained work cycles were housed within a single storey, steel framed, top lit by “saw tooth” roof glazed buildings designed for uniform lighting and physical flexibility to aid production within.
Figure 7 Packard Motors
Figure 8 Pierce Automobile plant
Khan was then commissioned by Henry Ford to build a new four-storey plant in Highland Park Detroit (1910) (Figure 9) and three years later built the factory to house the world’s first moving assembly line. This was for the “Ford model T.” Ford demanded a building with the focus on open space, adaptability, uncluttered areas suitable for production flow lines where the planned integrated processes, from the arrival of raw materials to the finished product, could all take place on one level.
Figure 9 Ford Highland park plant
His next commission was the Ford Rouge plant (1916), (figure 10), a mammoth plant, its assembly line ran through a series of single storey units. Here Khan introduced the use of steel rather than reinforced concrete for its structural framework. Kahn was to develop this design in numerous subsequent factories, all single storey, all lit from above to enable the floor to be kept clear for machinery and processes. Services such as lavatories and offices were placed at a higher, often mezzanine level.
Figure 10 Ford Rouge plant
These buildings became known as “Model factories” and their design as the “Kahn Daylight system” being based on a regular grid of column, beam and slab. Concrete sections were fully exposed and external wall spaces were glass filled with slender glazing bars. Truscon opened their first example of this type of building in the U.K at Trafford Park, Manchester (1911) for the Ford motor company (figure 11). Soon after on a green field site in Dumfries, a three story E shaped factory was built for the Arrol–Johnson Motor Company (1912-13), (figure 12). A four story building for the engineers G.J Weir ltd, Glasgow (1912-13) and another for the Albion Motor company in Glasgow (1913-15) (figure 13) were also completed. The aforementioned Uniroyal factory in Dumfries may be another unconfirmed early example.
Figure 11 Ford Trafford Park plant
Figure 12 Arrol Johnson Plant
Figure 13 Albion Motor Company
The increasing availability of this new fast economic and adaptable reinforced concrete coincided with the shortage of materials created by the military build up for the First World War in Europe, and the relaxing of building regulations. Its versatility also made it more attractive. Truscon took advantage of this, designing innumerable civil factories before turning to establishments required for armaments and defence hardware. One example being the Birmingham Small Arms factory (B.S.A) (1914), in Small Heath , West Midlands, (Figure 14), whose design appeared as a chequer board of concrete piers and rectangular windows.
Figure 14 B.S.A Birmingham
The “Modern” factory and thoughts from Europe.
We cannot leave this period without mentioning relevant events in Europe. The factories and warehouses of the eighteenth and nineteenth century were on the whole the work of practical men and engineers. Architects as such had not availed themselves of such mundane work . Their work had often been limited to adorning an engineered building.
However, in the early part of the twentieth century, architects who were starting to react against the superficial historical revivals of this time were taking note of the potential of new materials, steel and concrete, and construction methods available in industrial building. The two came together with the partnership between the German firm of AEG and the industrial designer/architect Peter Behrens. Industrialisation in Germany was barely thirty years old and the electrical industry spearheaded by AEG was particularly new and full of enthusiastic ideas. Herr P Jordan asked Behrens to design products for AEG, the packaging, the advertising and the buildings, in short a “corporate image”. The result, building wise was The AEG turbine factory in Berlin (1909), (figure 15) often claimed as the “first modern building”.
Figure 15 A.E.G works
It is of immense size, almost monumental proportions constructed of steel and concrete, its sides of glass slope inwards as they rise which gives it a heavy solid stance on the ground.
A young assistant in Behrens office at the time was Walter Gropius . Other notable junior members at this time were Mies van der Rohe and Charles-Edouard Jeanneret later known as “Le Corbusier” . They held positions in the Deutsche Werkbund who promoted the AEG turbine hall to iconic status and published it in their yearbook of 1913 along with Kahn’s “daylight factories” built in reinforced concrete. The publication argues for a new architecture that reflected the spirit of the age, that of mass production.
Also involved with the Werkbund was Carl Benscheidt Sr., a client of Fagus, a shoe last company, in Alfeld an der Rhein. They had already had a reinforced “daylight” concrete factory built by the English agricultural engineer Ernest Ransome and had already started to design the main body of a new factory with the architect Eduard Werner . They asked Gropius in the spring of 1911 to add modern exterior elevations to promote a progressive image. The result was that Gropius imbued a strong delineation to the facade, marked by an emphatic two-storey brick entrance with its apparently floating staircase (figure 16). Possibly the first use of glass in this way, Gropius emphasised the glazing and apparently structural innovation of the pier free corners seemingly throwing away all means of support.
Figure 16 Fagus factory
Therefore, in some cases, a tradition of expressionist architecture had been able to develop in Germany before the war by virtue of patronage by industrialists. It was able to grow in the interwar years through the work of the Bauhaus and le Corbusier and later was to influence a generation of architects in Germany, USA and eventually Britain.
Britain in the interwar years; reluctance to roadside showmanship.
The First World War had provided a hiatus for some in the field of architecture; others had seized the opportunity to express the use of new materials and economic design. Industrial buildings were designed through necessity and economy, the availability of reinforced concrete had provided a means for this.
The Kahn designed “daylight “factory may have proved an efficient, opportune and economic means of building in this period. Some may have appreciated the new “Concrete Aesthetic” brought in by these massive unadorned and concrete frames, but in Britain it was felt perhaps to be too austere for our tastes and would benefit from a little adornment. This may be the reason that Truscon sought out Wallis Gilbert and Partners to collaborate with in this country. Thomas Wallis had spotted the need for efficient factory design during the war and beyond. Collaboration with Truscon would provide the leads needed. By the end of 1916, Wallis had designed three factories with Truscon, only one being built but all were used for advertising purposes.
In the post war years, manufacturers and builders realised the benefits and economies of these standard systems such as the daylight factory could be reconciled with the freedom of choice that volume production of a standard unit that could be customised to suit individual customers needs gave them. Wallis realised this too and devised a system of compositional features and decorative elements to soften the Truscon system for the British customer. An example of this includes the General Electric Company , (G.E.C), Witton works near Birmingham (1918-22), (figure 17). This building had a basic Truscon superstructure with muted Wallis style added “Egyptian style” adornment to the facade.
Figure 17 G.E.C Whitton Birmingham
Although expressionism had its foothold in mainland Europe, it was not necessarily enjoyed here by the British, who at this time had a reserved opinion of the “new ideas from Europe . There was a debate between the traditionalist and the modernist camps. The former felt that the new era was best represented in Britain by an updating of traditional forms, perhaps of classical origin, without being imitative or revivalist. It was strongly supported by the continuation of “British Values “and could be described as nationalistic . The modernists advanced an argument for uniformity, a style of architecture that could be adapted to any building type, be socially unifying, and be more representative of the new age , the technological age. It seemed likely that British architects would take a middle line using elements of both movements.
While concrete, glass and steel were arguably celebrated in Europe and the USA for example with Eugene Freysinnets’ Orly airport hangar (1921), (figure 18) where he demonstrated with the catenary arch the impressive dimensions that reinforced concrete could achieve in the hands of war-experienced engineers and with the concrete shell work of the Mexican based architect Felix Candela.
Figure 18 Orly airport Airship hangar
With the new construction techniques that followed on from Gropius in Europe which allowed glass to be used to full effect in the example of the Van Nelle Factory in Rotterdam (1928-30) (figure 19) and with the expression of exposed steel frame that was celebrated in the Fromm Rubber factory, Berlin (1930) (Figure 20).
Figure 19 Van Nelle factory Rotterdam
Figure 20 Fromm Rubber factory Berlin
Although , perhaps , through the necessity of war requirements the British had embraced to some degree the concrete idea, its buildings could still effect a heavy overly substantial appearance. This was partly due to the delay in changing building regulations post 1918, and partly to the assumed contemporary notions that industrial buildings had to be solid and large areas of glass or slender concrete members could appear flimsy.
It took another early employee of Truscon, Sir E Owen Williams to bring forward the ideas of expressionism and extended possibilities of the use of concrete to Britain. After Truscon, he set up his own company “Williams Concrete Structures ltd” to market his own patent “Fabricrete” . He used his wartime experience to success when he was appointed chief engineer of the British Empire Exhibition of 1924 , (figure 21) and gaining a knighthood for his efforts in building large-scale quickly constructed buildings. The now demolished Wembley football stadium being a notable example.
Figure 21 British Empire Exhibition
However, it was an American company, namely Jesse Boots , who commissioned him to build possibly his most noted factory, the Boots “Wets” building (1932) (figure 22) in Beeston, near Nottingham. It was a green field site and he was working to a precise brief with production flow lines and required accommodation for precise operations and the links between these operations. The result was a highly glazed building set around two immense atria within which the production processes revolved. It was an immense four-storey slab structure building , set upon mushroom columns set back to allow the outer glass and steel curtain walling to sit uninterrupted, the production floor being lit from an vast span of bulls eye glazing panels (figure 23).
Figure 22 Boots "Wets" factory Nottingham
Figure 23 Boots "Wets" Interior
As yet, nothing had been seen like it in Britain and it could only be compared with the Van Nelle Factory in Rotterdam (1928-30). Both buildings, it should be noted, display no form of outward decoration. Possibly the only other U.K building of this genre was the factory built for the Viyella company (1932) , coincidentally also in Nottingham (figure 24). The use of flat slab and mushroom column construction allowed here the use of a curtain of glass on all four sides, therefore allowing maximum penetration of natural light. This building does display a small amount of decoration with a stylised artificial stone entrance surround.
Figure 24 Viyella works Nottingham
Running concurrently with the developments above, there was a move to use the factory as a commercial asset. Manufacturers in the 1920s and 1930s were operating in a fiercely competitive market trying to attract an increasing domestic demand. Many factories were located near and were visible to potential customers, either near the railways or adjacent to the increasing trunk road network. A new industry, advertising was coming of age and it was now time to put this and the factory together by using the building itself as a potentially promotional device.
Before this period, styling had been largely for fun or as a dressing. Advertising was limited to putting the company’s name on the chimney or tower, usually in white brick, as there was a limited audience for the advertising. The period between the wars saw a change in attitude as companies, at first mainly subsidiaries of American ones, with nationally known brands, sought prominent sites on the new roads around London. Good examples are Firestone tyres (1928) ( figure 25) on the Great West road, Hoover in Perivale (1931-35) (figure 26) both by Wallis Gilbert and partners, Smiths potato Crisps in Cricklewood , and Currys (then a cycle and radio manufacturer) also on the Great West road.
Figure 25 Firestone Tyre Factory
Figure 26 Hoover Factory
Here again, although these buildings displayed highly decorated frontages to attract public attention, stuccoed in white “Snowcrete ” cement and with brightly coloured faience, the plant behind usually consisting of a stark simple “Kahn” type building. In Fact the most striking part of these buildings was their use of colour, green window framing and red faience with Hoover, and coloured tiles on the “Pseudo-Egyptian” style tiles at Firestone, all emphasised by spotlighting at night.
Wallis’s buildings, now often described as “Art Deco” , or at the time often described as “Fancy”, took a lot of professional criticism by his professional peers but were liked by the public who admired their colourful facades designed to look more like a contemporary cinema rather than a dull factory. Later buildings in the same London area such as the Gillette building, Isleworth (1936) (figure 27), and the Guinness Brewery (1933-36) , (figure 28) took on a more muted form with plain English brick and pared down classical ornamental elements.
Figure 27 Gillette works
Figure 28 Guinness Brewery
To conclude this section it is worth noting that although British factory architecture in the interwar period did not immediately embrace expressionism, there became a widespread use of reinforced concrete and steel construction, if only encouraged by firms and ideas from abroad. The blend of newer technologies and dressing up by British architects to adapt designs for their market produced a muted effect, although such examples as the Boots and Viyella factories pointed the way forward. Greater thought was given to the arrangement of plant to aid production, to increase the social welfare and well-being of the workforce.
The emergence of newer industries surrounding the automobile , electrical and chemical industries meant a shift from the now declining textile base of the north to the newly created estates in the midlands and south, especially around London. This gave firms such as Wallis and Gilbert the chance to create their innovative designs. We can also witness the move from the pure use of engineers as factory designers to the emergence of the architect engineer and the architect alone.