While they both have an open plan configuration in their public spaces, The Royal Festival Hall (RFH) is more straightforward, thus is more comprehensible than the National Theatre (NT) for the user. In RFH, the vast open foyer allows movement in every direction; there are entrances on all sides of the building on various levels, recalling Forty’s previously mentioned comment. One can almost say that the RFH has no main entrance. Although originally having one on the ground level of the north façade, after refurbishments, that entrance seems to have lost its dominance. The newly attributed main entrance on the south façade is not commonly used either. This results in a more even flow of pedestrians in the ground level, there are very few accumulations to be observed. The RFH has a more unobstructed flow of movement horizontally and vertically (Fig. 2). There are only so many circulation options vertically, each clearly labeled to direct the user towards their intended location. The ‘front’ stairs that have large landings overlooking the river, take the user to upper levels and stalls in the auditorium. On the ground level, the user can pass through from the south bank to the rear street with ease. The simplicity of getting around in the RFH is also related to the large ballroom in the middle of the open foyer. Once the user sees that area, they can locate themselves in the building using it as a reference; and the ballroom can be spotted almost immediately. The RFH is a space of relaxation due to its open foyers and ease of use.
In the NT, an acquainted user knows to find the protruding main entrance pavilion as they are greeted with the information desk right away (Fig. 3). Although large groups of people tend to enter through here (as it is on the riverside), the building has entrances on all levels, some through terraces, some on the bank. There is no entrance on the south side of NT due to the location of the theatres and backstage workshops, so horizontal circulation is not possible in this direction. The user can access the building using the outer circulation, reaching the deck straight from Waterloo Bridge, or choosing to get to the ground level to use the riverside entrances (Fig. 4). In the NT, a first time user may have trouble finding their way; it is somewhat disorienting. This also adds to user experience, allowing them to discover new corners in each visit or wander around the open decks with no final destination. The open decks have astonishing vistas that connect the user with the city, but also provide a sense of privacy and tranquility. Instead of walking straight ahead on the south bank, people can take the long way around and meander in the NT as a longer promenade.
“People and events will be the decoration”, Denys Lasdun declared, when asked about the lack of decoration in his National Theatre (1977, cited in Curtis, 1977, p. 13). A building is nothing without its users, and their experience was the foremost aim of the NT design, which is definitely pronounced in the RFH as well. Both the concert halls’ public spaces intertwine with the urban fabric beautifully, creating enjoyable promenades. People of all ages frequent these spaces. The RFH as a promenade is more orderly due to the organisation of space within the building. It is pretty hard to get lost and not know what to expect when you turn a corner, but this does not mean it is a lesser experience. On the contrary, it feels pleasant to wander around in the RFH, it allows the user to take a break from all the commotion of London. Due to the glass façades facing the river and surrounding the ground level, the RFH feels fresh and open. The user can navigate easily through the public foyers to find a location for their needs. Except for the uppermost floor’s river facing volume which is reserved for members and a few pavilions for special use, the entire building is full of large spaces for any type of public activity possible. There are rogue dance troupes practising on the ground level regularly, a workshop going on in the ballroom level, people going about their business in the main lobby, meetings and dates, even language lessons taking place in the upper levels, which have their main public spaces facing the main spectacle that is the riverside, and so on. This frequency and range of use is definitely astonishing for a building that was never meant to be fully open to the public.
The promenade quality is more prominent in the NT. It is a space to explore. It is a similar experience of going through a park, except this is a concrete one. Without a destination, the wander around the building can lead anywhere. The user is taken outside and inside, upstairs and downstairs continuously, and wherever they are standing they are offered multiple views of the building’s foyers or the city. But, if one needs a rapid exit, they are provided of that as well, with the main circulating stairs speckled inside and outside reaching all levels. In the ground level foyer, the ceiling suddenly opens up and allows views of the upper levels. From the outside, the configuration of the foyers seem regular, but on the inside it is amusingly surprising. The seatings against the glass openings on the upper levels are the most intriguing, offering a tableau of the city in a concrete frame. The user is allowed to observe the ongoings in the costume and decor preparation ateliers and workshops, viewing the work and interacting with the artists through windows. Although it has glass façades as well, the NT feels heavier due to the concrete and constantly changing ceiling heights in the foyers. This also results in the NT certainly seeming smaller, due to the gaze not finding the outer façades directly. The levels of the foyers interplay with each other skillfully to create observation points of the city and the people using the building; Lasdun’s main intention was definitely realised. This quality adds to the personality of the building, making it more alluring than the RFH. In an observed short time period (not long enough to be called a study), people were using the NT’s public spaces for holding meetings, grabbing coffee, lunch or dinner, waiting, resting, reading, working by themselves, photographing the building, admiring the architecture or meandering through it, and sunbathing or city-watching on the terraces. (Complementing original images of the observations are available here.)
These observations are not unsupported. Many architectural theories can be applied to the public spaces of both concert halls, and their relations with urban space. Grant has studied Jane Jacobs’ theories on urban space in comparison with new urbanism, and states that Jacobs’ propositions of adequate community design, with emphasis on compactness, diversity, connectedness and visibility, find their places in new urbanism, which favours walkable, varied and appealing urban spaces (2011, p. 91). What is perceived in this site is an integration of open and closed public spaces, with diverse things to do assorted for users. There are food trucks placed on the riverside, many places to eat, drink and shop, banks laid out on the walkway; while the same program is presented to the user in the interior public spaces of these concert halls as well. Both the RFH and the NT have cafes, bookshops, and multiple seating elements. Jacobs’ argument suggests that configurations of space such as combining open infrastructures with public architecture, squares and parks will aid in highlighting the character of a region and create a more powerful identification by the user (Grant, 2011, p. 96). The RFH and the NT succeed in implementing this, making them preferable by the public. Not only do they have horizontal continuity of exterior public space; they elevate the user vertically within the architecture, presenting them a selection of areas available for any action. In doing so, they let the user experience the building, the public space, the south bank and London in alternative and sometimes unfamiliar ways. This is accentuated more in the NT than the RFH; the latter has a rather conventional floor plan and vertical circulation that can be figured out in the first visit. The former, however, with its many levels and circulation that direct the user in and out of terraces, offers a more varied selection of vistas of the city. Further, this quality of the NT results from circulating the user on a more diverse promenade.
The promenade as a theory can be attributed to Le Corbusier; he has experimented with it in his designs multiple times. He was concerned with the gaze of the user, he wished for his designs to be admired while moving, rather than a specific perspective: “it’s while walking, moving from one place to another, that one sees how the arrangements of the architecture develop” (Le Corbusier, 1935, cited in Samuel, 2010, p. 41). Samuel dissects Le Corbusier’s methods meticulously, mentioning axes, perspective, time and progress, and what concerns the two examples at hand, movement flow and resistance. According to Samuel, the promenade is a metaphor for living and its potential, and in architectural spaces, modifying the progress of movement is a significant approach to draw attention to the encounters of space and time in Le Corbusier’s designs (2010, p. 58). The NT undeniably creates modified movement, changing the users level, vision, and the volume’s dimensions around them constantly, making its ‘promenade’ qualities more noticeable. Minimum resistance in horizontal movement within space is essential to Le Corbusier, at times affected by the material selection (Samuel, 2010, p. 51). Again, in the NT, this effect can be observed in its material, the concrete makes the experience more substantial, influences the user’s perception of the foyers and space organisation, while glass façades offer varied glimpses of the Thames and the city. In the RFH, the marble main foyer and large glass façades accentuate the open plan organisation, with the gaze reaching almost every side of the building. The ground level foyer has minimal obstructions for the user, the flow of movement is almost never interrupted, making it very accessible.
Bibliography:
Amery, C. (1977). Conclusions. In: Amery, C., ed. (1977). The National Theatre:‘The Architectural Review’ Guide. London: The Architectural Press Ltd. pp. 69-70.
Arruda Campos, M. (2000). Urban Public Space: A Study of the Relation Between Spatial Configuration and Use Patterns. Thesis. The Bartlett, University College London. Available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1318055/. [Accessed: 16 April 2016]
Bafna, S. (2003). Space Syntax: A Brief Introduction to Its Logic and Analytical Techniques. Environment and Behavior, 35, pp. 17-29. Available at: http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/35/1/17 [Accessed: 16 April 2016]
Calder, B. (2016). Raw Concrete: The Beauty of Brutalism. London: Penguin Random House UK.
Curtis, W. (1977). Past and Prejudice. In: Amery, C., ed. (1977). The National Theatre:‘The Architectural Review’ Guide. London: The Architectural Press Ltd. pp. 8-25.
Doxa, M. (2001). Morphologies of Co-presence in Interior Public Space in Places of Performance, the Royal Festival Hall and the Royal National Theatre of London. In: Peponis, J., Wineman, J., Bafna, S. Proceedings - 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta, 7-11 May 2001. Michigan: A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. Available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/3sss/papers_pdf/16_doxa.pdf [Accessed: 16 April 2016]
Forty, A. (2001). The Royal Festival Hall - A Democratic Space. In: Borden, I., Kerr, J., Rendell, J., Pivaro, A., (eds. 2001). The Unknown City, ch. 11. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. pp. 200-212.
Girouard, M. (1977). A Night at the National - A Visitor’s Impression of the Architecture. In: Amery, C., ed. (1977). The National Theatre:‘The Architectural Review’ Guide. London: The Architectural Press Ltd. pp. 5-7.
Grant., J. (2011). Time, Scale and Control: How New Urbanism (Mis)Uses Jane Jacobs. In: Page, M. and Mennel, T., (ed. 2011). Reconsidering Jane Jacobs. Chicago: American Planning Association Planners Press. pp. 91-103.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House Inc.
London County Council, (1951). Royal Festival Hall. London: Max Parrish and Co. Ltd.
Mullins, C. (2007). A Festival on the River: The Story of Southbank Centre. London: Penguin Books.
National Theatre / Haworth Tompkins (2015). [images online]. Archdaily. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/633112/national-theatre-haworth-tompkins. [Accessed: 20 April 2016]
Samuel, F. (2010). Le Corbusier and the Architectural Promenade. Basel: Birkhäuser GmbH.
Southbank Centre Site Plan (2014) [image online]. Available at: http://calockhart.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2_Site-Plan.jpg. [Accessed: 20 April 2016]
This paper was originally titled “Social Inclusion and Permeability in South Bank: Public Spaces of The Royal Festival Hall and The National Theatre” written for the module Architecture in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Britain.
Comentarios