Wednesday, July 15, 2009

The Architecture of Degeneration


Image: Karen Russo, via

The Mole Man of Hackney has become something of a North London celebrity in recent years, making an appearance as a typically Sinclairian anti-hero in Hackney, That Rose-Red Empire, as well as on TV and in numerous national newspapers. For anyone who hasn't heard of him, the Mole Man is William Lyttle, who for 40 years lived at 121 Mortimer Road, in Dalston (or De Beauvoir Town if you prefer). During that time he created an extensive network of tunnels below the house to the point where it and the surrounding pavements became structurally unstable.

Last year Lyttle was evicted from the house by Hackney Council and fined £300,000 to pay for work required to stabilise it. He is now, apparently, missing and the house has been preserved in a limbo state somewhere between dangerous and simply unlivable. I pass it every day on the bus and there appear to be large parts of it missing behind the scaffolding.


Image of 121 Mortimer Road, via

Whilst looking into the story I came across a number of photographs - the only ones that exist it seems - of the tunnels taken by artist Karen Russo. Last month she had an exhibition (here) which was partly about Lyttle's strange and obsessive creation. In an interview on Don't Panic Russo stated that her interest in Lyttle was his method, which she likened to of an artist: instinctive, sculptural, seemingly without functional or pragmatic justification. "I was amazed to discover the similarities between the thinking of Lyttle and that of the average artist", she said. "The creation of things that don’t work, without functional value, and the obsession involved in the act of making......"


Image: Karen Russo, via

Speaking as an architect there seems to me to be another way to look at it too. Lyttle's work is a form of anti-architecture, a dark mirror image of both architectural technique and its ambitions. Instead of creating gleaming towers Lyttle buried down, expanding his house outwards from below. Instead of careful, law abiding, Building Regulation compliant design he created a dangerous death-trap of a building, tunneling so close to the water tunnel that the house is in danger of flooding and propping up walls and ceilings with household appliances and makeshift supports.

Most intriguingly Lyttle's own description of the work act as a bizarre parody of architectural presentations. In an article in the The Times from 2006 Lyttle took the reporter on a tour of the tunnel layout: "This is going to be the leisure centre,” he said, sweeping his hand round a large cavern. “And this in here will be the sauna."


Image: Karen Russo, via

Apparently no drawings or sketches exist of Lyttle's designs because he never made any. Instead, his tunnels are like an architectural stream of consciousness, a seemingly unplanned, undrawn (and therefore undesigned, in conventional terms) building, where one bit links to the next instinctively and without any obvious overall order.

As he tunneled, extending the house downwards, Lyttle filled the rooms above ground with the excavated clay, rendering them literally uninhabitable. Not for him the glass walled, light filled extensions attached to any number of houses in the same area. Dark, dank and dangerous, his extensive modifications are the opposite of home improvement. The whole house in fact is like an inversion of the gentrification of Hackney and East London, a piece of de - rather than re - generation.*



* Despite this - and illustrating the immense power of land value over everything else - the house is valued at £1m.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Farrow and Ballification


Farrow and Ball Paint Swatch

Ordinary things contain the greatest mysteries, someone once wrote. Yes, and the strongest ideologies. One of the things that makes English Heritage’s urban gentrification guide (see previous post) so odious is the way it assumes a position of complete normality, as if no one could possibly argue with its premise. And yet it represents a very specific cultural position behind which lurks an intersection of taste, class and politics.

The obsessive desire for preserving particular aspects of our built heritage (or rather certain versions of it) is, paradoxically, a recent thing. English Heritage itself was set up in 1983 with wider powers than previous national conservation bodies. Membership of the National Trust has trebled since 1981, growing to 3.5million by 2007. Both these institutions represent a marked shift in our attitudes to heritage since the early 1980's, a situation that parallels Thatcherism's rejection of the post war welfare state and the technological optimism of the 1960's.


Using paint to brighten an exterior, taken from the Reader's Digest DIY Manual.

If you look at interior design and DIY books from the late 1960's and '70’s one of the things that strikes you is the lack of interest in preserving the original features and historic detail in Victorian/Edwardian houses. The 1974 edition of the Reader’s Digest DIY Manual (a fine thing and about the same size as a Victorian terrace) for instance happily suggests ways to place MDF panels over old mouldings, rip out Victorian fire places and paint garishly over exterior brickwork (usually in dark brown and/or orange). Apart from a certain invigorating lack of taste the manual is significant in illustrating the way that attitudes to historic architecture have changed over the years.


Transforming A Victorian Home to Suit the '70's, taken from the Reader's Digest DIY Manual.

The manual suggests in its own how-could-you-possibly-argue-with-this way for a different concept of living in traditional housing than English Heritage's interactive gentrifier. Completely un-hungup on notions of authenticity, nothing could have been further from the mind of the mid-‘70’s home improver than unearthing and fetishising period features. Lowered ceilings, conversation pits, T&G cladding and hammocks (for some reason) predominate.


How To Improve a Victorian Hallway, taken from the Reader's Digest DIY Manual

The section on refurbishing a Victorian hallway is particularly salutary. With an admirable lack of deference the manual suggests removing every feature that might be found desirable today: timber mouldings, high ceilings, original paneling. Elsewhere, pebble dashing, oversized dormer windows and other crimes against English Heritage's taste dictats are described in a series of lovely 'how to' diagrams.

Ultimately though English Heritage's sanitised version of the urban streetscape with its heritage paint shades and expensive bread shops is as historically suspect as any other era's. For all its assumed sensitivity it is ultimately more about a certain kind of pervasive middle class aspiration than it is about conserving the past. It's just that right now the two things have converged.

Thursday, July 2, 2009