Rebuilding the University of Edinburgh after 1945 FORUM. Vol.7. ▌

Rebuilding the University of Edinburgh after 1945 Hu-Lin Postgraduate Researcher University of Edinburgh, UK

Keywords: University, Education, Society, Edinburgh Abstract Backed up by post-war Welfare State policies, the University of Edinburgh wanted to stay where its root was, no matter how difficult that would be. The University believed its redevelopment would be a good contribution to the renewal of the City. However, the demolition of old houses and the construction of modernist architecture around George Square of the Old Town by the University raised public hostility and, as such, was a bitter experience in the urban history of Edinburgh. This paper explains the background and examines the ambitions and conflicts connected with the redevelopment of the University of Edinburgh after the Second World War. Based on this, it tries to explore why it was so difficult to reconcile between both sides, ‘Town and Gown’, in the Edinburgh context.

Introduction

Eight new universities (Sussex, Essex, East Anglia, Bath, York, Lancaster, Warwick and Stirling) were established around the country.

It is a shared view that the end of the Second World War brought the opportunity of building a new society in Britain, which would have social security and unified aspirations. This new society would attack “squalor”, “ignorance”, “want”, “idleness” and “disease”, which William Beveridge1 identified as the five “Giant Evils” caused by the previous Laissez-faire system. To overcome “ignorance”, the government invested in primary education and widened the opportunities for higher education. Investigations commissioned by the government showed university education provided a number of graduates, which was far from the requirement of society. The Barlow Report (1946), commissioned to study the development of scientific manpower, revealed that Britain was in a great need of scientists and that this need would continuously rise. The report urged that universities should consider their contribution to the increasing need for scientists. The Robbins Report (1962), commissioned to give suggestions to the future planning of higher education, found that the percentage of British school leavers who entered university lagged far behind other western countries, thus it recommended the immediate expansion of existing universities. Within the decades after 1945, under the aegis of the governmental department — University Grants Committee2 (U.G.C) – the number of students in universities rose quickly to 217,000 in 1974.

For educationalists and sociologists, “ignorance” was not only the problem of inadequate education opportunities, but also the result of the wrong way people were being educated. The previous technologically oriented education, which prevailed in the 19th century, due to heavy demands by industry, was criticized as too utilitarian. When commenting on the universities, Walter Moberly, chairman of the Education Board, expressed the common voice shared by other intellectuals. He believed that “the crisis in the university [before 1945] reflects the crisis in the world and its pervading sense of insecurity… The whole complex of traditional belief, habit and sentiment, on which convictions are founded, has collapsed” (Moberly, 1949:15-6). He continued, the “non-residential university has been less an Alma Mater than a bargain-counter… there is no profound mental effect on the average student… whatever the cause, the university today lives and moves and has its being in a moral and cultural fog” (Moberly, 1949:24). They believed that the university should not only be a place for teaching people practical knowledge, but should also “teach people how to think”, in other words, contribute to cultivate and transmit a sense of value in the minds of students through their contact with teachers, other students and people in society. Moreover, the university should play a leading role in the development of society.

1 Sir William Beveridge is the author of Beveridge Report (1942) on Social Insurance and Allied Services, which was attacking “want”, one of the five “Giant Evils” he recognized in the society. Beveridge Report was acclaimed as the watershed of the British post Second World War Welfare State policies. 2 The University Grants Committee (U.G.C) was set up in 1919 and was the central funding body of the universities’ development from the 1940s. Its function was to investigate the situation of the universities in Britain, analyse their needs and allocate necessary funds for their expansion. From the 1950s to 1960s, more than 65% of the funding of the universities came from the governmental agency.

It was widely perceived that universities in Britain, except for Oxford and Cambridge, were inadequate to create a suitable environment for teaching and research. During the rapid expansion of universities, the opportunity to design new university buildings was the enthusiasm of educationalists, architects and planners. They strongly

29

Rebuilding the University of Edinburgh after 1945 ▌FORUM. Vol.7 England, the College of Edinburgh was experiencing academic prosperity and evolved into a broader-domain university.

believed that university architecture, based on inspiration and the highest quality, would be the medium and catalyst which could create a suitable physical environment within which to educate ‘socially adjusted citizens’ (Muthesius, 2001). The University of Edinburgh was deeply committed to these ideals when considering its future after the Second World War. It believed that the well re-planned campus could lead to cultural regeneration and achieve a harmonious integration between itself and the City. A comprehensive development centred on George Square – an 18th century Georgian garden in Old Town – was proposed. However, this provoked a dramatic contradiction between the enthusiasms of the university principal of Edinburgh and his architects on the one hand, and the concerns of “cultural murder” from outside the University, on the other hand. How did this happen? What kind of problems lay beneath this conflict? This paper will explore these questions by focusing on the George Square debates.

A university in the city Until 1945, the University of Edinburgh had experienced almost 400 years of development within the City. There were three periods: the foundation of Tounis College; prosperity in the Scottish Enlightenment and the expansion in the 19th century. During the 16th century, Edinburgh was faced with serious problems of illiteracy. In the Articles for the common policy of the Burgh, the Town Council stated that “the rents, annuals, and other emolument, which before were paid out to lands and tenements within this Burgh … for maintaining of idolatry and vain superstition [should be] applied to more profitable and godly uses such as … colleges for learning and upbringing of the youth, and other such godly works” (Grant, 1884:100). In 1582, with the Royal Charter, a college under the administration of the Town Council was founded. The new institution was called “the Tounis College” – a college for the city. It was not a residential college as the Town Council could not gather enough money to build adequate chambers. It did, however, provide common rooms and lecture halls for students (figure 1). They lived either at home or in rented flats and tenements. The resulting university turned out to have a more “citizen-like than academic appearance.”

Figure 1. Location and first phase development of Old College, and University of Edinburgh before the construction of Old College. (Source: Fraser, 1989)

The new development of both City and University paralleled the cultural pride of the Scottish Enlightenment. With growing economic prosperity, Edinburgh experienced considerable urbanization during the late 18th century. The New Town – conceived due to overspill of population from the Old Town – was rigidly rectilinear in form and low in density, which is in contrast to the irregularity and crowding of the Old Town. The neoclassical planning and civic architecture symbolized the glory of logic and reason, which rose from chaos and won the City, the accolade of “Athens of the North”. It was inevitable that the university should be given a worthy building which suited the growing international reputation of the University and the City. The monumental neo-classical design adopted for the building, by Robert Adam, later called Old College represented the dedication to education and civic glory. He transformed the triumphal arch motif into the awe-

The relatively weak foundation of the collegiate system, and administration by the Town Council, created a cultural environment under which “auditing university classes became a favourite hobby, [while] some professors gave community outreach to the students outside of the University” (Herman, 2002:21). With the advent of the 18th century, the dynamic cultural interactions between the College and the City reflected the glamour of the Scottish Enlightenment. Adam Ferguson, Dugald Stewart and William Robertson, leading figures in the Enlightenment, were professors in the College. While the 18th century was a very difficult time for Oxford and Cambridge in

30

Rebuilding the University of Edinburgh after 1945 FORUM. Vol.7. ▌ inspiring monolithic Doric colonnade gateway. The dome with its statue, a youth with a torch, became the landmark and symbol of the City and it indicated the importance of knowledge to its urban environment (figure 2). For the plan, the Oxbridge like quadrangle was applied. Surrounded by lecture rooms of different faculties, university chapel, library and professor’s houses, the inner courtyard provided an ideal meeting place where people communicated and exchanged knowledge. It accommodated the faculties of Law, Medicine, Sciences, Philosophy, Divinity and Arts, but was not intended to be a copy of a collegiate college and students still lived outside, enjoying the freedom of a non-residential University.

Meanwhile, the University acquired properties in the nearby George Square for the halls of residences. George Square was a residential area founded at the end of the 18th century for the wealthy people who moved out of the cramped Old Town. With its tranquillity and easy access to the Meadows on the south, it soon became famous for public activities and Enlightenment scholars, such as Walter Scott and David Hume who used to live there. Lord Cockburn (1779-1854) commented that “under those trees walked and talked and mediated all our literacy and scientific and many of our legal worthies” (Boog-Watson, 1966:241). Since the 19th century, “George Square began to be looked on as a suitable place for study and the acquisition of knowledge and… eight private day or boarding schools occupied houses there for longer or shorter periods” (Boog-Watson, 1966:243). The University’s halls of residences and students’ activity were integrated into the urban community where the city bars and restaurant were the main meeting places for students and staff. The late 19th century saw an increasing concern in the University of Edinburgh with teaching and research related to applied science. When Medicine was considering the new Medical School, the faculty of Science was also looking for a new home. In 1865, the University claimed the site west of Old College for a new Natural History Museum. However, rooms in Old College continued to be used as laboratories until the 1920s, when the University obtained land two miles south of the City now called King’s Buildings. It stretched the University from a tightly woven core to a much larger fabric. The other five faculties: Arts, Divinity, Law, Medicine and Music were spread around the city centre. Law occupied Old College, divinity incorporated the Free Church College, music was based on the Reid Concert Hall, and Arts occupied the adhoc old buildings around the city centre.

Figure 2. Old College designed by Robert Adam, 1789. During the 19th century, the expansion of Medicine and Science had a great effect on the University. Medicine was the largest faculty in the University, but Old College was unable to meet the requirement of specifically designed laboratories. Vacant land was obtained in Teviot Place which is close to the Royal Infirmary, the teaching hospital of the University of Edinburgh. In 1876, Rowand Anderson was commissioned to design the new Medical School building. His design responded to professionally oriented medical study, by its amalgamation of various styles and stonemasonry, similar to the Victorian Red Brick colleges. The Venetian renaissance style was combined with Gothic splendour while the solidity of the building contrasted with polychromic details and a picturesque skyline. This parallels the design of the Royal Museum of Scotland on the west of Old College. He also proposed a San Marco like campanile between the Medical building and the Graduation Hall. Although the campanile was not constructed, Anderson’s vision was clear, with the idea of a new complex representing the academic power and activity of the University in the urban environment.

In a welcome address to the Arts students in 1949, Professor John Orr addressed in his speech the problem of the buildings, saying that “those of you who have come from well-appointed modern schools, lavishly, luxuriously equipped, will find a strange lack of comfort. You must not imagine any ulterior motive in this discomfort, in this simultaneous racking of body and brain” (Orr, 1949:90). He was comforting the uneasy feelings of the students on the one hand, while on the other hand revealing the difficulty faced by the University with the student number escalating from 3,826 in 1939 to 6,900 in 1949. It was strongly felt by the university authorities that the separation of faculties should be changed “if it is to regain the sense of unity which is essential to a healthy corporate life, there must be a reversal of the policy of dispersing its activities over a wide area of the city”.3 The question of where should the university be, in the city centre of the suburb, was brought up. In 1943, the Clyde Report 3 Post-World War II Development (Volume I), Box 141 VE, miscellaneous papers, 1939-1945, University of Edinburgh Library Special Collections, University of Edinburgh.

31

Rebuilding the University of Edinburgh after 1945 ▌FORUM. Vol.7 its beautiful natural environment and rich history would enhance the identity of the institution. Thomas Holland, the Principal of the University from 1944 to 1947, remarked that “one cannot develop a general scheme in this part of the City without some drawbacks, but in this respect fewer drawbacks seem to follow the alternative plan of developing academic buildings around George Square, where the architect would be freer to make a substantial and visible addition to the City’s beauty”5.

commissioned by the Town Council investigated the urban situation of Edinburgh and criticized the extensive decentralisation around British cities. To overcome urban decay, it called for regeneration. Therefore, the question was to find where in the city centre the university should be located.

The George Square debate In 1931, Frank Mears submitted his proposal “Collegiate Mile” to the Town Planning Committee for the future development of the University. He named it after the Royal Mile of the City and wanted the University and other institutions to form a similar grander avenue. He planned an axis which would extend the University of Edinburgh eastward to High School Yard and Pleasance and connected it with the other institutions; Heriot Watt College and the Art College on the west (figure 3).

Various architects were approached for developing this residential area into a teaching installation. In 1947, the University invited Charles Holden who was famous for his design of the University of London in Bloomsbury in 1937. In his tentative proposal, George Square was assigned to Science departments, and the area between the Medical School and Old College was assigned for the functions of a student union and administration. Architecturally, the use of Portland stone and a grand scale gave the whole plan a monumental classical expression. He conceived the main entrance of the new campus to be on the east side of George Square, with a strong axis through west to east. This plan would lead to a substantial loss of the existing houses around the square, and, as a result, voices of opposition soon rose from the public. They argued that “it would be a poor compensation for the neglect of the past to destroy the one remaining feature [George Square] with many memories and associations” (Grierson, 1947:4). Nevertheless, the University insisted that the suitable design could complement the natural environment of the Square. After the University submitted its planning application, the City Council came up with a compromise. They gave conditional approval for the university extension on the north side of the square but the University had to keep the other three sides of houses. However, in 1951, Basil Spence was invited to give better solutions to the problem and Robert Matthew was assigned the post of internal advisor to the University. These two architects were deeply enthused with the modernist ethos6. Spence suggested that the three sides of the square could not be retained if the University wanted to meet the requirements of modern teaching. For him, the adaptation of existing houses into modern use was undesirable.

Figure 3. The “Collegiate Mile” as proposed by Frank Mears, 1931 (Source: courtesy of City of Edinburgh TPI) The University showed no interest in this proposal. It did not favour the rundown condition of the houses and the critical topography in the High School Yard. For the University, the location of the new development “must be near Old College, must be central… must have a suitable environment. This is most important in order to give secluded, peaceful and pleasant surroundings, a green belt around outside and gardens inside, the minimum possible amount of traffic noise, so as to reduce distractions”4. This kind of place represented a dream-like campus for the university. In practice it was difficult to find an appropriate location in the City, which was undergoing substantial decay.

Spence’s 1955 proposal was the grouping of horizontal blocks and vertical slabs to form a series of interconnected courtyards. Water and sculpture, together with trees, presented a cloistered collegiate image which was modern in appearance but traditional in feeling. High slabs allowed the open space for people to move around and overhead bridges connected different departments. He chose the south west corner of George Square as the site for the

George Square was chosen for the site of its new development, for it met the above requirements and was envisaged as an important location for the University’s student halls and departments. The University thought that 4

5

Ibid (Volume I). Basil Spence was a famous Scottish architect during the post-war period. He was protagonist of modernist architecture and was famous for his design of Coventry Cathedral (1951) and Sussex University (1958). They were chosen by the Principal, Edward Appleton, a Nobel Prize winning scientist, because they were in line with his forward looking spirit. 6

Ibid (Volume III).

32

Rebuilding the University of Edinburgh after 1945 FORUM. Vol.7. ▌ “choice between a fine square and the hopes of many young people”. They argued that a lot of qualified young people had to be turned away due to shortage of space for teaching and other places, like High School Yard and King’s Buildings, proved unpractical. In the tripartite meeting, Basil Spence and Robert Matthew also commented that the architecture of George Square was not of the first class quality, so it was not worthy of conservation. Edward Appleton further argued that the University tried to keep the best of the old and replace the rest with the finest modern buildings. Therefore, what criteria for urban conservation existed at that time and how were building judged as worthy of conservation? The University, architects and conservation lobby did not seem to give the answer, and the City Council wavered between both sides while struggling to make a decision. Backed by the government’s determination to expand the universities, the strong persuasive power of Appleton’s speech and Spence’s sketches secured the University’s victory in the battle of George Square. In 1956, the City Planning Department gave approval for replacing the existing houses on three sides with modern buildings, while retaining the western side including Walter Scott’s childhood home.

Main Library. For him, the library was the academic focus of the new campus and should be given the best site. Facing the Meadows, readers would enjoy the broad view of the beautiful natural and urban landscape. At the same time, Spence sketched out the development of the High School Yard development which is east of Old College. His new slabs would be clad with glass, transparent and rich in colours while the surroundings were depicted by the contrast of darkness and dirt concealed from the view (figure 4). In a modernist architect’s eyes, rigid classical architecture and planning was “bad” and should give way to the “good” modernist design. Lionel Brett elaborated on this issue, saying that “the post-war university buildings [the Red Brick universities] are the monumental record of the failure of nerve in academic patronage, [an] envelope of red brick and stone, wrapping an entirely vacuous concept of who, what and where a university is… unless radical action is taken soon, and the more humane and adaptable approaches that promise an integrated concept of a university and its buildings” (Brett, 1957:243).

According to Spence’s plan, the southeast sides of George Square were designed to accommodate the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. As the Science Faculty could not move to the city centre, the separation between the Science and Arts Faculties remained a problem. In his book The Two Cultures and The Scientific Revolution (1959), C. P. Snow criticised the lost communication between science and humanities and argued that the dichotomy between these ‘Two Cultures’ hindered the advancement of science and national development. His thought shed extensive influence on British education, and the University intended to bridge the gap. To do so, it set up the science building, the Appleton Tower, on the north east corner of George Square (figure 5), whilst another tower, the David Hume, was designed on the south east corner for the Arts faculty (figure 6).

Figure 4. Sketch of the High School Yard by Spence (Source: courtesy of Estates and Buildings, University of Edinburgh) Spence’s proposal stirred up more fierce opposition from the public, where they strongly called for the conservation of George Square and criticised the University’s intention, adding that “depriving future generations of one of the few genuine remains of the older city, makes one shrug one’s shoulders at the idea of the University pretending to be interested in the cultural side of life” (Brownlee, 1955:6).

For Appleton and the architects, towers were a solution to the stringent demands of the urban site, but more importantly, they were symbols of the new scientific age. The University argued that “towers are one of the oldest symbols of human aspirations, and the Hume Tower, in function as in symbol, is there- in Marlowe’s words- to ‘teach us all to have aspiring minds’” (University of Edinburgh Gazette, 1964:26). It is true that the tower is an important architectural type which has the representation of power. However, there are different kinds, for while some are built for religious uses and manifest the expression of people’s desire to go higher, others are designed for celebration of human achievements or dedicated to the remembrance of human history. The question, therefore, is what were the connections of these two towers around George Square with David Hume and Edward Appleton and their contributions to human knowledge? Is it the details, the structure, or the materials?

A tripartite committee, formed from the University, City Council and Conservation organisations, examined this case. The Conservation lobby gave an alternative plan and suggested that the houses should be conserved and would be ideal for the halls of residences and that the University could secure another site for the teaching installation. However, this was refused by the University as being impractical. For them, the site around George Square must be used for teaching and they argued that “the UGC with other universities pressing their claims could not be expected to preserve George Square at a cost of several millions” (Drever, 1959:8). For them, the problem was a

33

Rebuilding the University of Edinburgh after 1945 ▌FORUM. Vol.7 box surface are unable to verify connections with the scientific achievement. The David Hume Tower is richer in application of materials and details, but the dark blue panels gave it a gloomy feeling. Moreover the controversial layout of the towers did little to raise people’s inspiration. In the public mind, the impact of the two towers exerted too much dominance and intervention on the skyline of the City. Around the two towers sat the long linear blocks and lecture halls. They are separate but connected in the lower level by a podium (figure 7). The floors below the podium are the communal facilities, including a student cafe, shops and unions. Exalted as “a new type of flexible buildings”, the linear blocks have the ground floor for public functions, lecture rooms and entrance halls shared by departments. On the upper floors, the departments are organised around the staircase cores so that they can expand and shrink horizontally according to the future needs.

Figure 5. The Appleton Tower designed by Alan Reiach, 1966

In a letter to the Dean of Faculty of Arts, Richard M. Sillitto said: “I feel we have given professor Matthew a very detailed ‘schedule of accommodation’… but nothing at all about the kind of environment which should characterize an Arts Faculty, as distinct from… efficiently organised space.”7 Therefore, what exactly should the character of an Arts faculty have? Should it be an artistic environment or a specifically designed space for the needs of the Arts? When we look at the diagram in the Planning Report of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (Matthew, 1964), the correlations in the process of design do not tell us the answer. It seems that the University and architects were concerned more with how to make a flexible plan which could fit with the future changes. Flexibility was the sensation of creating a modernist fluid community in the university, but it would also cause quite contrasting effects. In 1962, the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences were divided into two individual faculties. This academic change caused uneasy negotiations for the locations and spatial relations of the two faculties. In the homogenous linear blocks, it is difficult to define a certain department or faculty. So as a result, it was hard to create specifically designed environments for certain departments or faculties. When one steps into William Robertson Building or Adam Ferguson Building (figure 8), one would be confused because they look the same and the identity of individual departments was lost in the plan of flexibility. Alan Colquhoun commented on the flexibility proposed by the modernist architects, and stated that it was “an open question whether a ‘flexible space’ is any more flexible in reality than spaces of a more conventional type… We therefore arrive at the apparently paradoxical situation where as a result of making a building more ‘democratic’… we impose on it an even greater inflexibility” (Colquhoun, 1995:3).

Figure 6. The David Hume Tower designed by Robert Matthew, 1964

Figure 7. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences of the University, 1964 (Source: Matthew, 1964). The Appleton Tower followed a Miesian fashion, but lacked the subtlety of Mies’ treatment of new structures and materials. The shining white panels and rain washed

7 Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Major Projects, Box 2 DRT 971023, miscellaneous papers, 1961, University of Edinburgh Library Special Collections, University of Edinburgh

34

Rebuilding the University of Edinburgh after 1945 FORUM. Vol.7. ▌ of the existing houses around George Square were thereby preserved. The ambition of the University and architects was not only limited to George Square. The dilapidated urban situation around it was undesirable for the University, and so they thought the decayed tenements around and piecemeal commerce should be reversed and comprehensively developed. In 1964, the University handed a report to the City Council, urging that the area around the South Side of the Old Town, which covers 125 acres, should be conceived as a Comprehensive Development Area (CDA). It was stated that through the comprehensive development of the whole area, including housing, schools, shops, doctors and entertainment, the university and the city could come together to form a unique university town. In the CDA, “the best of old”, like Old College, the Medical School and McEwan Hall were retained and other buildings would be torn down to give place for the new. The podium, extended from the George Square campus, would create the pedestrian area free from traffic. The buildings would be a mix use of offices, shops and residences (figure 9). The University organised another tripartite committee which consisted of the University, the City Corporation and a private company, the Murrayfield Real Estate. The committee set up a Technical Working Party in order to prepare the documents of submission to the Secretary State for Scotland. Strong opposition was expressed in articles and from all the media, newspapers and letters. In one, the question was “where does this university development end? … with the Robbins Report, I don’t think it possibly can be… the council should make up their minds how much of our city we can afford in the centre to give over to education… in view of the Robbins Report … I don’t think these areas can be found unless you want to move all your people out of the centre” (Scotsman, 1964:7). Moreover, the City had difficulty in finding solutions to the general policy for traffic and commercial requirements, as well as the compulsory acquisition power from the Secretary of Scotland, which was necessary to clear sites for new buildings. The Universities and Planning and Building Control in Scotland Memorandum (UGC, 1968) indicated the problems of planning and building control on projects for development by universities. It revealed the reason for the dilemma was the lack of close co-operation between the university and the Planning Department. “It [is] particularly important that the university should know as much as possible about the probable evolution of the development plan of the area in which they are situated. The more universities can keep planning authorities in touch with their long-term plans therefore, and vice versa, the better” (UGC, 1968). The committee argued that early consultation was important for this interaction and ensured the time to solve difficulties. However, overdependence on government funding made the universities vulnerable to changes in government policies. When the money from the government diminished, at the end of 1960s, together with the public hostility, the development of George Square was halted and left unfinished. As a result, half of the east side

Figure 8. Façade and interior of William Robertson Building

Figure 9. The Comprehensive Development Plan proposed by the University of Edinburgh, 1962 (Source: Johnson-Marshall, 1964)

35

Rebuilding the University of Edinburgh after 1945 ▌FORUM. Vol.7 Reflection and conclusion

In spirit, the university was acclaimed as the intellectual hub of the society, and as such, the university thought it was superior to the society. In Donald Schon’s8 view, the university was standing on “a high, hard ground, looking down to the swamp” of the day-to-day urban life (Schon, 1987). This spirit resulted in a situation in which the university thought itself as “we” and the society as “they”. So it is questionable whether the University of Edinburgh considered the issue of redevelopment in the larger context than the University’s urgent needs or desires. In the light of the national competition from others, the University was eager to build something new and recognisable to enhance its institutional identity. The comment that the University’s plan was less of the urban identity of Edinburgh than an administrative notion was not a feedback which was cynical towards the ambition of the University. There had been no genuine communication between the public and the University regarding the Old Town redevelopment. For example, some residents in South Side commented that nobody knew what would happen in the area where they lived.

When Lewis Mumford visited Edinburgh in 1962, he commented on the George Square project, saying that “this is one of those compromise solutions that decently satisfy neither party. Conservatives touch me not. Knife-happy surgeons, the ‘white-jackets’, are so eager to practice their art that they do not distinguish between healthy tissue and diseased, but remove both and let the patient die” (Taylor, 1962:6). He revealed the important issue that is the loss of shared conviction between the University and the City. For the public, the university development should not be based on the sacrifice of George Square while for the University the public view was conservative and hindered the cultural regeneration of the City. When the University of Edinburgh was a small college, ‘Town and Gown’ formed an integrated residential pattern. Moreover, the administration by the City ensured that the development of the institution would have close cooperation with the urbanisation process. The interaction between the building of Old College and the prevailing neo-classical movement in the City during the Scottish Enlightenment is a prime example. They benefited from each other as the City was famous for having the University and the University gained its reputation from the enlightened urban life. However, when the University gained autonomy – as a result of the Scottish University Act in the 1880s – and experienced quick expansion, the distinct partition was formed between the University and the City in terms of the built environment and the very spirit of the University.

Under the general atmosphere of optimism of the Welfare State, the post-war educationalists and architects in Edinburgh took the “harmony of Town and Gown” for granted rather than questioning those fundamental tensions between the two entities. The mediator of ‘Town and Gown’, the City Council, was facing this dilemma. Unsystematic conservation policies made it difficult to decide what should be kept and what should be redeveloped. The 1947 Planning Act, which guided the urbanization in Britain during the 1950s and 1960s, was designed for the war-damage reconstruction, not for urban renewal. Its cumbersome procedures were a hindrance to the rapid urban renewal of cities like Edinburgh, and as a result, the City Council was ineffective in mediating the tension between the University and society, resulting in a planning blight after the 1960s. In Civilising the City: quality or chaos in historic towns, Harrison (1990) argued that the George Square project drove residents out of the old centre, whereby “the population [in South Side of Old Town] has diminished considerably… Now the tradition of in-centre living is leaving with them” (Peacock, 1974:5). From 1951 to 1966, the population of South Side dropped by 62%. As the vast teaching installation would be empty during the evening; without the neighbourhood watching, it led to “the creation of dead space … leading to a situation where it becomes dangerous to walk these areas after dark” (Peacock, 1974:4).

The urban neighbourhoods near the university territories usually experienced substantial deterioration. In Urban Decay: an analysis and a policy (1969), Medhurst and Lewis studied the reasons of the urban degeneration in British cities and argued that rented tenements had a high probability of deteriorating due to lack of maintenance and ownership. According to the authors, the high mixture of tenants – in the areas near the University, a substantial percentage of tenants were students — and residences was one of the important elements which caused the urban decay in Edinburgh during the 20th century (Medhurst and Lewis, 1969). Moreover, the expansion of the University brought major traffic and exacerbated the parking problems. As the University was expanding, more houses would have to be razed for new buildings. Moreover, there was the resulting problem of traffic due to the increasing number of vehicles. For example, almost half of the roads around George Square are used as parking, where vehicles are a substantial intervention to the pedestrian area. The assumption of “minimum possible amount of traffic noise” for George Square did not end with a satisfying result. In addition, in order to solve the traffic problem, the City Council was planning to build fast roads to connect different parts of the City. The Potterow Road, planned and built in the 1970s, was the result of this idea. But its damage to the cityscape was substantial because it cut the University territory from the City and caused serious urban decay along the road.

Under the post-war conditions, the University of Edinburgh secured the necessary accommodation around George Square for its modern teaching and research, but did not successfully integrate the University with society. Almost forty years since the controversial period, the urban regeneration gradually brought the tradition of incentre living back to the City. Nowadays, in the 8 Donald Schon was an American educationalist, famous in education for his ‘the learning society’, ‘double-loop learning’ and ‘reflection-inaction’.

36

Rebuilding the University of Edinburgh after 1945 FORUM. Vol.7. ▌ Medhurst, F. and Lewis, J. P. (1969) Urban Decay: an analysis and policy. London, Macmillan. Moberly, W. H. (1949) The Crisis in the University. London, SCM Press. Muthesius, S. (2001) The Postwar University: Utopianist Campus and College, London, Yale University Press. Orr, J. (1949) ‘A Welcome to Arts students’, University of Edinburgh Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 90. Peacock, H. (1974) ‘Forgotten Southside, the problems of planning blight in city centre living – a plea for action’, Edinburgh University Rector’s Working Party on Planning, Edinburgh University Student Publications Board, Edinburgh. Post-World War II Development Records, vol. I (19391945). University of Edinburgh Library Special Collections. Box 141 VE, Special Collections, University of Edinburgh Schon, D. A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco, Jossey Bass. Snow, C.P. (1959) The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Taylor, W. (1962) ‘A Scotsman’s Log’, Scotsman, 3rd February, p. 6. UGC (University Grants Committee) (1968) The Universities and Planning and Building Control in Scotland Memorandum, London, UGC. University of Edinburgh Gazette (1964) ‘The Hume Tower’, University of Edinburgh Gazette, June, p. 26.

contemporary information Age, the technology of elearning will prosper. There is a strong sense, echoed by many, that the physical environment will gradually lose its importance for the function of education. So there are views that the tension between ‘Town and Gown’ will be relieved by the homogenous world-wide web. It is true that the introduction of distant learning, for example, the Open University, gradually blurred the boundary between ‘Town and Gown’. However, since humans are social beings, the physical environment will have a crucial role in communication and education, which the world-wide web cannot replace. Today, the Faculty of Medicine is moving along with the Royal Infirmary to the new building in the suburb, and the University of Edinburgh is proposing another ambitious regeneration plan for the urban areas around George Square. It is hoped that the lessons from the 1960s could be learned and both ‘Town and Gown’ can carefully value the existing and potential tensions and work together for the revitalization of the City.

References Boog-Watson. W.N. (1966) ‘George Square, Edinburgh, 1766-1966’, in University of Edinburgh Journal, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 241. BRETT, L. (1957) ‘Universities: today’, The Architectural Review, vol. 22, no. 122, p. 243. Brownlee, S. (1955) ‘University Development Plan’, Scotsman, 26th July, p. 6. COLQUHON, A. (1995) Essays in Architectural Criticism: Modern Architecture and Historical Change, New York, MIT Press. Drever, J. (1959) ‘University Admittances: choice between fine square and hopes of many young people’, Scotsman, 5th September, p. 8. ‘Edinburgh University to get more land: eight acres in central area’ (1964) Scotsman, 24th January, p. 7. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Major projects (1961) University of Edinburgh Library Special Collections, Box 2 DRT 971023, miscellaneous papers, University of Edinburgh Library, University of Edinburgh Fraser, A.G. (1989) The Building of Old College: Adam, Playfair and the University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Grant, A. (1884) The Story of the University of Edinburgh during its First Three Hundred Years, London, Longman. Grierson, H. (1947) ‘Edinburgh University and George Square: developing corporate life’, Scotsman, 23rd January, p. 4. Harrison, P. ed. (1990) Civilising the City: Quality or Chaos in Historic Towns. Edinburgh, Nic Allen Publishing. Johnson-Marshall, P. (1964) ‘The University of Edinburgh: A case-study of evolution and planned redevelopment’, The Architectural Review, vol. 36, no. 809. Matthew, R. (1964) Planning Report of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Part II, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.

37

38