Albane Duvillier, 4th Year, dip 7, essay submission for the Brave New World Revisited/Edward Bottoms

Brian Anson's Architectural Revolutionary Council & its relevance today

“So long as there is blatant injustice in the way land is developed and construction is created (and goodness knows such injustice is rife these days) there will be a need for revolutionary thinking in architecture. I mean revolutionary in the social sense. (...) I condemn the (architectural) profession, which, to my mind, has become the image-maker of Global Market Capitalism which is, literally, destroying our small planet and, specifically, the myriad of communities which inhabit it.” 1

Brian Anson was an architect and a planner but also a poet, a drawer, a story teller, a folk singer, a children book illustrator and more than anything a political activist. Born in Liverpool, from a middle-class background, he was particularly active in the 1970s, instrumental in the campaign to save Covent Garden. Shortly after loosing his job as a planner at the Greater London Council (GLC), he was invited by Alvin Boyarsky to teach at the Architectural Association School (AA). Anson taught at the AA from 1971 until 1978, a incredible period in its variety of groups such as ARCHIGRAM, SUPPORT...2 Anson launched the Architectural Revolutionary Council (ARC) at the AA in 1974. It was an action group active in different local campaigns implementing the idea of 'Community Architecture'.According to Anson, architecture could not be separated from its social and political context : he was trying to forge an ethic of social architecture which lead him to a violent critic of the establishment, in particular of the Royal Institute of British Architecture (RIBA). This violent attack was a direct reaction towards the consequences of the speculative planning taking place since the 1960's, lead by government and private investors. Then the situation was shifting: the architects building the housing of the Brave New World were now participating in a financial speculation system.

I am exploring Brian Anson's understanding of the architect's role. How he tried to bridge a gap between residents and architects through the implementation of “Community Architecture”. I am seeking to uncover his influence at the AA through his teaching and the creation of the ARC. What importance did he give to design and creativity when he was taking strong political positions? What can I learn from him ? What is relevant today in the context of London's housing crisis: his attempts, his successes, his failures ?

London is currently going through a major change. Since 2005, a process of privatization of public land has begun, highlighted with the very much broadcasted case of the Heygate estate. In December 2014, more than 70 social housing estates are going through “regeneration” which mainly imply demolition and population displacement. More than 160 000 inhabitants are affected, mostly evicted via Compulsory Purchase Order3. The land concerned is the equivalent of 15,5 km2. London is facing an historical change, comparable in its size and impact to the rehousing initiative undertaken in the 1950's Brave New World area... Except that today, the poor and middle-class Londoners are pushed outside Greater London (as far as Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool...).

I will sketch a panorama of the community actions taking place now in order to compare it with Anson's attempts in the 1970s. Is there any legacy from Anson to be found in today's community actions? Where are the architects today? What is my role as an architectural student ? How to start to implement the beginning of the end of the housing crisis ? What if today's planning system could be challenge through community action ? What if the planning process could embody something different ? What if design and creativity could play a role? What if...

1 Brian Anson, letter to Edward Bottoms NOT FOR PUBLICATION, 18 February 20082 Anson, op. cit.3 APPENDIX : London's Housing Struggles map

The Covent Garden Campaign and its relation with Brian Anson's teaching at the AA

In 1971, Brian Anson was invited to teach at the AA by Alvin Boyarsky (chairman of the AA from 1971 to 1990). It was in the heat of the Covent Garden Campaign. Brian Anson had just lost his job as Deputy Planner within the planning team of the Greater London Council (GLC)4.It is difficult to dissociate the involvement of Brian Anson into the Covent Garden Campaign from his teaching at the AA.The two seems to have informed each other constantly.

Brian Anson worked for the GLC from 1966 to 19715. The Covent Garden area was to be demolished and entirely modified: the existing market was to be moved to Battersea. The project's consequences is very similar to the series of speculative developments happening now in London (such as Heygate estate...). A consortium was created in 1965 with the GLC, Westminster City Council and Camden Council in order to control the redevelopment6. There were 1 700 dwellings in the area to be eventually demolished.The GLC was trying to avoid rehousing the existing tenants; a similar attitude to the one used by developers and Councils today7. The GLC was using the argument of the commercial viability to justify any inhabitants' displacement.8 The exact same process has just happened in Heygate estate, where Lend Lease is providing for only 79 affordable units for the whole new scheme via the viability assessment (when the estate was provided housing for 3 000 inhabitants previously). In both cases, the speculation on the value of the land is at the heart of the matter.A series of slightly absurd tabula rasa proposals were put forward, including a road plan, implying the demolition of part of the area and separating pedestrian and vehicles... This can be directly compared with the approach of the architect of the Heygate in the 70s, an AA Student, Tim Tinker, who was keen on this ”traffic architecture”, creating this flyover walkways that were to be so criticized in the 80s.

Road map proposal, 1967 Brian Anson, Cambridge Circus GLC redevelopment plan 1968

The public exhibition of the GLC plans in november 1968 received a wide support from the media. In 1971,Brian Anson was dismissed from the GLC and started to engage actively with the local residents, including the Reverend Austen Williams and Jim Monaghan. Together they staged in April 1971 a public meeting where the Covent Garden Community is created9. This was followed by a series of public meetings and a very efficient press campaign which resulted in a Public Inquiry.

4 Brian, Anson. I'll Fight You For It! Behind the Struggle for Covent Garden. London: Jonathan Cape, 1981, p 215 ibid6 Anson, op. cit., 207 Anson, op. cit., 47:“The GLC argued that it would be possible to rehouse all the existing residents in the area

'provided the new dwellings are acceptable to them and they are acceptable as tenants for these dwellings.” 8 Anson, op. cit., 529 Anson, op.cit., 68

Image retrieved from Covent Garden Memory website

This is when Brian Anson formulated the idea of an “alternative school of planning”10. He had just started the intermediate unit 1 and immediately linked it to Covent Garden Campaign: “In my alternative school, I wanted the local people to be the teachers; they were the ones who really knew how an area worked 24 hours a day, they who were the experts”. He was trying to bridge a gap between architecture school and local communities, by reversing the direction of the knowledge exchange, the expert was not the architect anymore but the resident of the built environment.He implemented the idea in the unit by inviting to teach at the AA, a local resident: John Toomey, a printer living in Covent Garden and active in the campaign t11. He encouraged his students to take an active role in supporting the campaign.In March 1972, a “community newspaper” was launched, called the Independent Covent Garden Workshop by four students from the unit: a sort of diary, a weekly update of the events according to Anson12. The strategy of “the community newspaper” was to be used often in later campaigns by the unit, with titles such as the Red House, The Wild Duck, The Colne Valley News...Pushing further this desire of bridging the knowledge gap, Anson was on one hand bringing a local resident to teach his expertise on a local area in an architecture school, while on the other hand he created a “Community University”13 in Covent Garden, bringing outside knowledge to Covent Garden's residents.

Students were invited to look at empty sites in Covent Garden in order to propose new ideas, but Brian Anson gave very little accounts of these endeavours in his book. He was focusing on the shift in the campaign in 1972 between the CGCA and himself, when lots of residents were already moving out because of the on-going speculation, sort of an early gentrification process.There seems to have been a real hands-on element to the unit, with the take-over in 1973 of the Lepard and Smith warehouse (belonging to Christina Smith) with the help of the AA and in collaboration with a local organization Street Aid. Units' students renovated the building14 and were working informally for the CGCA as a design team, developing ideas for the use of some the empty sites...

In 1973, the campaign took an incredible turn, when the Secretary of State gave comprehensive development power to the GLC but decided also to extend the conservation area in most of Covent Garden. By doing so, it completely froze any possibility for the GLC to implement the redevelopment plan.15 In 1973, Brian Anson resigned from the CGCA and remained active in the area through the involvement of his students, active as a design team.

10 Anson, op. cit., 7711 Anson, op. cit., 11812 Anson, op. cit., 121 : Mark Julian, Dick Watson, Anne Warren and Kathleen Allanach, produced in the premises

owned by Christina Smith at 29 Neal Street (via Cristina on diploma floor)13 Anson, op. cit., 14114 Anson, op. cit., 154-15515 Anson, op. cit., 177

In his book written in 1981, Brian Anson is dismissive towards the role of design. Design is barely mentioned, the discourse is centered around community actions, community organizations. This is in complete opposition with other groups that were particularly important at the AA in the 1970s, such as Archigram. In his letter in 2008, Anson seems to be trying to put design and creativity back into the center of his practice16. The relation between design and community action were probably much more intricate than this simplification of community action first and design second. Nevertheless, in the pages of the AA Project Reviews presenting the unit work, design appears as secondary; the political discourse, the propaganda and the actions towards community support are the elements that are dominating.

When Brian Anson created his intermediate unit in 1971 at the AA, Peter and Alison Smithson were graduating as well as Mark Fischer. Anson's intermediate unit, n°1, lasted until 197417. Then in 1975-76, it became a diploma unit, n° 8. In 1977, it was back as the intermediate unit 5 and finally in 1977 until 1979, as a diploma unit 8 again18.The spirit of the unit was political, ideologically driven. Supposedly, there were no unit master but comrades working together, which is difficult to believe when Brian Anson was such a strong and polemical figure.

1971 was a turning point in the AA history. When Alvin Boyarsky stepped in as chairman (until 1990), the AA had just broke off negotiations with the Imperial College and decided to remain independent. Alvin Boyarsky model for the units system was based on tensions between units. And there were lots of contradictory trends then, with Archigram, SUPPORT19, Elia Zenghelis...

As a polemical figure, Brian Anson did engineer a visible clash with Archigram by organizing a debate between himself and Peter Cook, while he was having friendly exchanges and collaborations with the rest of the group. In this public debate held in May 1978 at the AA, he apparently criticized Peter Cook's last proposal : “Arcadia, an indiscrete architecture of the bourgeoisie”. I wonder to what extent he was himself really propositional, as he seems always to have been incredibly good at pointing issues but less drawn to create visions, to let design and creativity free enough to imagine what is next to come. The last event at the AA of the Archigram Opera was showing the incredible relevance of Archigram's attempt to invent the future, from computorized network, to mobility or the choice of putting the individual at the center of the design.

Archigram Opera, AA, December 2014

16 Brian Anson, letter to Edward Bottoms NOT FOR PUBLICATION, 18 February 2008. “To be honest it upsets me when people suggest that I was “fighting a class war”. The ARC was essentially a creative cell composed of very good designers and we left that sort of struggles to other groups who were more dogmatic in their political views.”

17 Unfortunately, there are no project reviews for that period but a compilation of projects, in which not any of the works produced by Brian Anson or his students are reproduced.

Gowan, James, ed. “Projects. Architectural Association 1946-71”. AA Cahiers Series n°1, London, 1972. 18 Brian Anson was also teaching Extension Studies from 1976-1979. (refer to AA project review in Appendix)19 Lead by Tom Wooley and Hugo Hinsley

For Brian Anson, architecture was not to be separated from political and social context. He was questioning the role of the architect within this context and therefore trying to create an ethic for the architectural profession. He definitely considered architecture as a weapon20 to create social change and empower those left behind by speculative planning. The ARC seems to be a radicalization in this process towards a more politically active unit.

The “Free Percy Street Open Atelier” was linked to this idea of bridging the perceived knowledge gap and class gap between the architectural profession and those living in the built environment and encouraging a form of political occupation (such as squatting). It seems to have been central to the operating system of the unit. Unfortunately, it only appears in the AA Project Review in 197721. Was it modeled on the “Atelier Populaire” that happened briefly at the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris during May 1968? The Atelier Populare was created by the students and staff from the Ecole des Beaux Arts: they took over the school and its means of production to join the revolution in the streets of Paris for a short period and produced the famous posters that ARC was so influenced by.

Brian Anson was also very keen on mixing people from different background and very attached to the system of grants that allowed poor students to come to the AA22. The “free” “open” atelier was probably an attempt to create a new school within the AA. It remains difficult to know how it was articulated with the ARC. The Atelier was a gathering place where lots of different groups were doing things in parallel or in collaboration, such as Dick Hobin's diploma unit, Barbara Goldstein co-operative unit, Tom Wolley from the SUPPORT group23.

One brief is particularly interesting : Libertaria, it appeared in 1977 and can be considered as a metaphor of the Irish “Troubles”24. Libertaria was an imaginary island, occupied by foreign forces. It had a traditional resistance movement. The capital : Powersville was a sort of collage city with the architectural buildings and the planning reflecting the occupation (Champs Elysées, Milan Cathedral...). Anson offered an utopia to his students, while also stating that the contemporary world was simillar to Libertaria. The brief to the students was a commission to replan Powersville.25

20 Stated in his letter and in the unit brief 1974-7521 Refer to Appendix. It would be necessary to interview some of his students like Peter Moloney to really understand

how the Atelier was operating.22 Suppressed by Margaret Thatcher in the 80s.23 Paul Bower, Revolution begins in the basement, April 2013 <https://contestedterritories.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/revolution-begins-in-the-basement/>24 Brian Anson was married to Mary O'Shea, whose family had been involved in Irish Republican activity.25 Brian Anson, Fighting it out in Libertaria, Architect's Journal, December 1987Paul Bower, Brian Anson, the Northern Irish Conflict & Wallace and Gromit, March 2013

AA Project Review 1974-75, London (1975)The Architects' Revolutionary Council (ARC) was launched at the AA in 1974. Lead by Brian

Anson, it involved the following students: George Mills, Peter Moloney, Andy Burrell, Dave Taylor, Adam Purser, Dag Fasting, Hubert Puig, Brian Fileman.The ARC was violently attacking the RIBA. The posters were particularly telling, portraying the RIBA as a fascist architect (repressive, insensitive, brutal, arrogant...). The debate at the time within the RIBA was to decide if it was necessary or not to have a code of conduct26. In his call for an architectural ethic, Anson was defending a code of conduct involving moral principles. Today's RIBA's code of professional conduct states three principles: integrity, competence and relationship.

“1.Principle 1: IntegrityMembers should act with honesty and integrity at all time (…)

1.2 Members should not allow themselves to be improperly influenced either by their own, or others', self-interest.”27

Aware of the existing class divide, the ARC was asking architects to take a moral responsibility and to take a political position, on the side of those left behind28. The ARC was calling for the abolition of the RIBA to be replaced by a new system.

ARC posters

The architect was understood as an active agent of the revolution: a revolutionary. There was no irony in the use of revolutionary to define the role of the architect, it was based on the belief in social change through revolution.29 The vocabulary was referring to war, with the call for the

26 Fairweather, Leslie, ed. “Do We Need a Code of Conduct?”London: Architect's Journal, (162), (15 October 1975) p 773.27 RIBA, Code of Professional Conduct, London:RIBA, January 2005.28 ARC Manifesto, AA Prospectus (1974-75) p3 : “ARC calls on all those architects and others involved in the built environment who believe that we should cease working only for the rich and powerful minority or the bureaucratic dictatorship of Central and Local Governments and offer our skills and services to the local communities who have little chance to work directly with architects and architecture.”29 Brian Anson. “Backwards into the Future” London: Architects' Journal (30 March 1988). “There has been little to

compare with the ideas of the Taut brothers, Gropius and all those other 'revolutionaries' who in the spirit of their age, faithfully tried to echo the plea of William Morris : 'We must not produce architecture only for the swinish luxury of the rich.'”

constituency of an army, or brigade, very similar to some radical left organization of the time or to unions. The ARC was conceived by Anson as an “active service unit”», a group of”activists”30. This attitude was similar to the Brave New worlds architects' position, relying on the belief that architect should change the world.

As a revolutionary organization, the ARC did direct actions, such as the disruption of the RIBA annual conference at Hull in July 197631. It also produced some propaganda items, such as the posters highly influenced by the Ecole des Beaux Arts's May 1968 or the 'community newspapers'. The stack of television's screen on the side of the highly staged launch of the ARC at the AA is very telling of the desire to use and manipulate the media. And Anson kept on having a polemical column for many years in the Architect's Journal. Polemical tone, provocation and frontal confrontation were the strategies of the ARC. It was influenced by previous or contemporary struggles such as the “Irish Troubles”, particularly in the continuous transformation of existing 'rebel songs'32. The ARC was supported by the Joseph Rowntree Social Service Trust and had a legal adviser, the civil rights lawyer John Hendy33.

AA project review 1976-77: posters, manifesto and rebel song

30 Brian Anson, letter to Edward Bottoms NOT FOR PUBLICATION, 18 February 200831 The Times, July 16 1976, p732 Brian Anson, “Let's sing the land song” Lecture. London: Architectural Association, 20 November 1974.33 Brian Anson, letter to Edward Bottoms NOT FOR PUBLICATION, 18 February 2008

The ARC's positions were widely debated at the time, because of their provocative actions , their involvement in local campaigns and their successful use of the medias:“ARC is the enfant terrible of the radical architecture groups – variously feared, indulged, despised and every now and then mocked.”34

The ARC was directly involved in various local campaigns, such Covent Garden, Ealing Alliance, Pope Street Association... It was calling for an “an international movement towards community architecture”35. This “Community architecture” was based on the new role of the architect , supposed to engage fully and to support the user of the built environment.The ARC was not alone in this belief that the architect needed to get out of his pedestal and confront his design to its users as Tom Woolley teacher at the AA and part of the Support Group was stressing it:”Professionals, not just architects but doctors and others too, think they know what people need, and this becomes institutionalized. People hand over responsibility to the professionals, and we want to get people to take it back into their own hands. We are not saying there is no expertise involved in building, but we see ourselves as “enablers” to help people to think about their environment and make the decisions about it themselves.”36

This is still a relevant debate with practices such as AOC or muf architecture-art. It has even become part of the politically correct discourse, that architects, developers and councils should consult the local community. Today this consultation process which is part of the planning process is more or less a biased process,barely constructive37.

But how was a 'Community architecture' really implemented by the ARC in the various campaigns?The notion of Community Architecture appears sporadically in Anson's writings and in the AA Project Reviews. It always seems to be about strategies: how to link and exchanges knowledge with local residents in order to disrupt a direct threat to communities. There is barely any articulation of the idea of participatory design. 'Community Architecture' seems to be only about disrupting the bureaucratic and oppressive process of planning. Was the ARC not interrogating what design could bring into a social struggle?Anson did not considered the possibility that architectural gestures could modify the built conditions and therefore create social changes. He seemed to have focus on the activist aspect and not the design aspect. The drawings produced by the students are uninteresting compared to the other units of the period (unit 4 with David Greene, Elias Zenghelis...). They were producing analytical drawings, very little of the energy was focused on the invention or imagination, apart from the Libertaria brief... It would be interesting to investigate this aspect further.

The relation between design, activism and the involvement of the residents is still highly relevant today. Other architects such as Lina Bo Bardi managed to realize significant architectural gestures involving the users in the core of the design process. This is asking many questions, such as the degrees of design : is it always necessary to do something...

34 Karpf, Anne. “The Pressure Groups” London:Architects' Journal, (166), (19 October 1977): 728 - 734.35 AA Project Review, 1977-78, refer to Appendix36 Anne Karpf, 'Professional Revolutionaries: The Challenge to the Architectural Profession from Two Radical Groups of Architects--the New Architecture Movement and the Architects' Revolutionary Council', Architectural Design, (9)(1976), 558.37 Aditya Chakraborthy and Sophie Robinson-Tillett, The Truth about Gentrification: Regeneration or Con Trick?”

London: The Guardian (18 May 2014)

Brian Anson kept on implementing this “Community architecture” when he was working for Planning Aid in the 1980s. He toured around Ireland and the UK in a Mobile Planning Unit, a converted van in order to help residents in their campaign. This initiative was funded by the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA).

Cartoon published along Paul Finch's article in Building Design38

The ARC organized a conference in Harrogate in 1975, it lead to the creation of another body the NAM in which students from the unit where involved. According to Anson39, the end of the ARC is linked to the creation of the NAM, but it seems clear that the decline of both the ARC and the NAM happened when Anson stopped teaching at the AA in 1980.The NAM adopted a similar position to the ARC in its attempt to criticize the RIBA in order to create a new system: a union of architects. The NAM also published a newsletter the SLATE from 1976 to 1980. The legacy of the NAM manifested itself in the 80s with groups such as Matrix, which emerged from one of the NAM's working group (women in construction) and with the creation of the Community Technical Aid Centre.

Material from AJ 197640

There are many reasons to the decline of the ARC and the NAM. They were both linked to the personality of Anson and his teaching at the AA. The 1980s were another period where the values of Thatcher were criticizing and dismantling the realization of the previous decade, with instrumental figure such as Alice Coleman41. It was a much more liberal and right wing figure: Rod Hackney, who was embodying what community architecture meant in the 1980s42. Nevertheless Anson remained very active in the UK, involved in many campaigns, from Bridgtown to the famous Divis struggle in Belfast. He finally moved to France at the end of the 80s.

38 Paul Finch, 'Architects Revolutionary Council De Triomphe. An Investigation into the Aims of the Architects Revolutionary Council [Arc]', Building Design, (274)(1975) p 12.39 Brian Anson, letter to Edward Bottoms NOT FOR PUBLICATION, 18 February 200840 Karpf, Anne. “The Pressure Groups” London:Architects' Journal, (166), (19 October 1977): 728 - 734.41 Of course, Brian Anson did criticize violently her position and her book Utopia on trial.Anson, Brian. “Bending the facts to fit?” London:Architect's Journal, (13 December 1989).42 Brian Anson, letter to Edward Bottoms NOT FOR PUBLICATION, 18 February 2008

The relevance of the ARC today ?How to implement the beginning of the end of the housing

crisis?

“Booming economies meant that astronomical profits were to be made from drastic redevelopment in our city centres. Suddenly (...) there was an “unholy alliance of politicians, profiteers and planners” who, in effect, declared a war in which the bulldozer was substituted for the bomb.”43

Anson's statement is more valid than ever. Particularly in London, where the residential land has become a value in itself and the subject of an unprecedented speculation44.

Today's community resistance network is unprecedented as well. It has been building up particularly since the Heygate estate stated an example. With its failure to rehouse its inhabitants within Southwark or even in London, it provided Londoners with a cruel example of the consequences of speculation.

The resistance started from the residents facing evictions a few years ago, without or very little support at the time from students, activists, architects, planners or politicians. It is now gaining momentum: activists and spectacular figure such as Russell Brand are supporting the movement.I have been involved in supporting FOCUS E15 campaign since this Summer. Focus E15 is a group of 29 single mothers who organized when they were facing eviction (as far as Bristol or Birmingham) from their hostel FOCUS E15 managed by East Thames housing group for Newham Council. They managed to fight back and gain access to rented accommodation in their area paid by Newham Council. FOCUS E15 group has since succeeded in gathering all the different isolated struggles in London with the help of the South London Revolutionary group and the umbrella network Radical Housing Network. There is now a pretty efficient self organized network of campaigns. This system is non hierarchical and very flexible, it can pop up anywhere anytime very quickly due to the use of social media such as twitter, facebook...

diagram of the network of housing struggles in London in December 2014

43 Brian, Anson. I'll Fight You For It! Behind the Struggle for Covent Garden. London: Jonathan Cape, 1981, p XIV.44 “How much does a square meter costs in the UK ?” Prime Resi /Journal of Prime Property (30 June 2014).

How can the attempts of Anson inform today's situation?If I were to assess the Covent Garden Campaign, I am not sure that I would consider it successful. Even Anson himself admited that the campaign managed to save the building, the architecture but did not prevent the displacement of the previous local residents. This is a major issue today, with everyday's evictions happening in London. Anson considered that the failure of the campaign to achieve the defense of the inhabitants was due to its lack of revolutionary intent45.I do not believe in the “revolution tomorrow”. I am more interested in infiltrating, disturbing and transforming the existing planning and political systems and the way architects think their profession but through education and not a frontal opposition to the RIBA. The critical eye that the ARC was casting on the system is what can be taken from it today. But the targets have changed. The process of hyper-capitalization of residential land is probably the target today as much as the absurd labyrinthine planning system giving power to the one that can afford a good lawyer.

In the 1970s, the RIBA was still considered as a powerful institution. The power balance was maybe already shifting. The ARC's obsession to target the RIBA was part of a wider critic of a corrupted system. But today, does really the RIBA hold any power any more in front of multinational developer firm, such as Lend Lease? Architectural firms are begging for work from developers and would not dare contradicting or questioning a damaging development for a specific community.

On the one hand, Anson's desire for a collaborative approach and a permanent exchange of knowledge is compelling. The ARC was really engaging with local realities. This commitment to empowerment is relevant as there is still a lack of link between the users of the built environment and architects. To a certain extent, the Heygate campaign46 started to build up new links between academics, like Loretta Lees, residents and activists. It produced a booklet47, which is widely used by today's resistance network.

On the other end, I found very disturbing Anson's apparent lack of interest for design and creativity. His children books are amazing so it is probably because he chose to focus his discourse on the activist aspect. The difficulty remains on how to articulate now the process of design and imagination with the harsh realities of evictions, oppressive planning and powerful developers48.

two children book written and illustrated by Brian Anson in 1972 and 1973

45 Brian, Anson. I'll Fight You For It! Behind the Struggle for Covent Garden. London: Jonathan Cape, 1981, p XV.46 which I followed closely in 1st year as I knew very well Adrian Glasspool, one of the resident very active against the Council.47 London Tenants Federation, Loretta Lees, Just Space and SNAG. Staying Put, An Anti-Gentrification Handbook for

Council Estates in London. London : Calverts Co-operative, June 2014.48 I am currently discussing with Jacob from Radical Housing Network, the architect Sibyl Trigg and the group Just Space (academics involved in Heygate campaign), we are about to go and meet John Murray who was part of the New Architecture Movement. There is a potential there, but I have no clue where it will go.

Discovering Brian Anson's attempts and discussing it within David Greene and Samantha Hardingham's studio has been a very compelling experience for me. I was touched in his letter by his desire to meet the AA students and to question his legacy. I found interesting that the French Pavilion for the Venice Biennial in 2000 did invite him among many others activists to engage in the debate of the role of architecture.

The situation of the 1970s and the situation today bear many similar aspects, in particular a financial speculation on the land which does not take residents into account. Anson's critical attitude towards the profession is relevant to a certain extent and I found his sincere desire to engage with the architecture's users challenging.

I am now wondering to what extent it is possible to link imagination and design to an active engagement with local communities, to mix up Archigram and ARC ?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brian Anson's contributions to the Architect's JournalAnson, Brian. “The banner and the Question Mark.” London:Architects' Journal (November-December 1980).Anson, Brian. “The life and Death of an Idea” London:Architects' Journal (November December 1980).Anson, Brian. “Architecture as Colonialism” London:Architects' Journal (June 1982 ).Anson, Brian. ”Academic Debate” London:Architects' Journal, (November 1983).Anson, Brian. “Bridging the Chasm” London:Architects' Journal (November 1982).Anson, Brian. “Don't Shoot the Graffiti Man” London: Architects' Journal (July 1986).Anson, Brian. “Fighting it out in Libertaria” London:Architects' Journal, (December 1987).Anson, Brian. “St Clair is an Architect !” London:Architects' Journal, (10 June 1987).Anson, Brian. “Covent Garden, an Urban Tragedy” London:Architects' Journal, (July 1987).Anson, Brian. “The Struggles waged in Divis” London:Architects' Journal (2 September 1987).Anson, Brian. “Backwards into the future” London:Architects' Journal, (30 March 1988).Anson, Brian. “Frankies goes to Liverpool” London:Architects' Journal (20 July 1988).Anson, Brian. “Royal Command Performance” London:Architects' Journal, (16 November 1988).Anson, Brian. “The Rich Man in his Castle” London: Architects' Journal, (5 July 1989).Anson, Brian. “Revolutionary Renovation” London:Architects' Journal, (6 September 1989).Anson, Brian. “Bending the Facts to Fit?” London:Architects' Journal, (13 December 1989).

lecturesAnson, Brian. “Let's sing the land song” Lecture. London: Architectural Association, 20 November 1974. text from : <https://contestedterritories.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/we-should-sing-the-land-song-again-brian-anson-aa-lecture-from-1974/>.

AA project review Gowan, James, ed. “Projects. Architectural Association 1946-71”. AA Cahiers Series n°1, London, 1972. AA Project Review 1974-75, London (1975)AA Project Review 1975-76, London (1976)AA Project Review 1976-77, London (1977)AA Project Review 1977-78, London (1978)

ARC manifesto, AA prospectus, London, 1974-75.

articles The Times, July 16 1976, p7Aditya Chakraborthy and Sophie Robinson-Tillett, The Truth about Gentrification: Regeneration orCon Trick?” London: The Guardian (18 May 2014)Bower, Paul. “Brian Anson, the Northern Irish Conflict & Wallace and Gromit” (March 2013). <https://contestedterritories.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/brian-anson-northern-ireland-wallace-and-gromit/>.Bower, Paul. “Revolution Begins in the Basement” (April 2013).<https://contestedterritories.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/revolution-begins-in-the-basement/>.Bower,Paul. “We should sing the land song again, Brian Anson AA lecture (story) from 1974” (October 2013).<https://contestedterritories.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/we-should-sing-the-land-song-again-brian-anson-aa-lecture-from-1974/>.Rogers, Richard. “Brian Anson (1935-2009)” London: Architects Journal, (December 18, 2009)“How Much Does a Square Meter Costs in the UK?” Prime Resi Journal of Prime Property (30 June 2014)<http://www.primeresi.com/how-much-does-a-square-metre-of-property-cost-across-the-uk/38908/#axzz3K0JuEwTi>

Covent Garden CampaignAnson, Brian. I'll Fight You For It! Behind the Struggle for Covent Garden. London: Jonathan Cape, 1981.<coventgardenmemories.org.uk>Covent Garden's moving : Covent Garden area draft plan, Consortium of Greater London Council, City of Westminster, London borough of Camden, London:GLC, 1968.

ARCKarpf, Anne. “Professional Revolutionaries: The Challenge to the Architectural Profession from Two Radical Groups of Architects--the New Architecture Movement and the Architects' Revolutionary Council'” London:Architectural Design, (9)(1976), pp 556-58.Bottoms, Edward. "If Crime Doesn't Pay: The Architects' Revolutionary Council" London: Aarchitecture, (issue 5), (Winter 2007/ 2008).

NAMKarpf, Anne. “The Pressure Groups” London:Architects' Journal, (166), (19 October 1977) pp 728 - 734.

RIBAFairweather, Leslie, ed. “Do We Need a Code of Conduct?” London: Architects' Journal, (162), (15 October 1975) p 773.RIBA, Code of Professional Conduct, London:RIBA, January 2005.<http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/ProfessionalConduct/DisputeResolution/ProfessionalConduct/RIBACodeOfProfessionalConduct.pdf>

London Tenants Federation, Loretta Lees, Just Space and SNAG. Staying Put, An Anti-Gentrification Handbook for Council Estates in London. London : Calverts Co-operative, June 2014.