This article was downloaded by: [125.163.244.104]On: 31 October 2012, At: 22:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of ArchitecturePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjar20

Townscape: scope, scale and extentMathew Aitchison aa ATCH (Architecture | Theory | Criticism | History), School ofArchitecture, University of Queensland, AustraliaVersion of record first published: 12 Oct 2012.

To cite this article: Mathew Aitchison (2012): Townscape: scope, scale and extent, The Journal ofArchitecture, 17:5, 621-642

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2012.724847

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that thecontents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae,and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of thismaterial.

Townscape: scope, scale and extent

Mathew Aitchison ATCH (Architecture | Theory | Criticism | History),

School of Architecture, University of Queensland,

Australia

Background

Despite the looming catastrophe of war in the late

1930s, The Architectural Review’s (AR) war policy

was one of silence. This policy was more stubborn

hope than conviction, born of the chance the war

might still disappear and life could return to

normal. But any such hope was dashed in Decem-

ber, 1940, when a German bomb scored a direct

hit on the AR’s printers in London.1 The result: the

January, 1941, edition was the only number of the

AR not to appear during the entire war and soon

after the magazine’s policy was refocused to

include it.2

Under the persistent threat of the Blitz and with

Britain’s economy consumed by war, the AR’s

editors had more pressing concerns than developing

new campaigns in architecture and town planning.

The offices of the AR’s parent company, the influen-

tial publishing house The Architectural Press (AP),

had already been evacuated from the prestigious

Queen Anne’s Gate to a suburban address in

Cheam. After the evacuation, the AR’s long-

standing editor J.M. Richards had continued to run

the magazine in London out of a small suitcase.3

But in the spring of 1942, Richards withdrew from

the AR and applied for a war job. He left for Cairo

one year later and would not return until February,

1946.

Hubert de Cronin Hastings was the enigmatic pro-

prietor of the AP at the time; he was also the AR’s

chief editor: a position he had held since the late

1920s. With Hastings ensconced in the AP’s subur-

ban Villa, it was left to Richards to find a replace-

ment editor for the AR in London. He nominated

the emigre architectural historian Nikolaus Pevsner,

who had been in the country for less than ten

years but had already published a number of articles

in the AR and was about to publish a second major

book.4 Pevsner’s early years in England had not been

easy; with the onset of war, things had only become

worse.5 He had been briefly interned in 1940, but

was soon released, and narrowly avoided being

shipped to Australia with other ‘enemy aliens’.6

Pevsner had swept rubble from the streets

and fire-watched from the roofs of London’s

historic buildings: an editorial position at a

magazine of the British Establishment was a major

advancement.7

Hastings had proved himself an insightful editor

throughout his term, with a good eye for attracting

the best people for his paper, but it was mainly

Richards who ran the magazine. Pevsner’s editorial

experience, on the other hand, was limited: now

he was charged with managing an internationally

renowned magazine for an indefinite period under

the most extreme of conditions. Pevsner was a

good choice, not only for his scholarly credentials

and reliability, but as an enemy alien he was not

liable to be enlisted for war duty like many of the

AR’s contributors.

Besides Pevsner’s duties of bringing out the

monthly editions of the AR, Hastings soon put him

621

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 5

# 2012 The Journal of Architecture 1360-2365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2012.724847

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

to work on other special projects and themes that

the AR had explored in the previous decade, which

included the promotion of Modernism in Britain.

Throughout the 1930s, under Hastings’s editorship,

the magazine had gained a reputation as a ‘modern’

architectural paper, but Hastings’s support for Mod-

ernism was conditional. Parallel to this interest—

largely pursued by Richards—Hastings employed

numerous contributors to investigate the deleter-

ious effects of Britain’s ongoing modernisation and

to develop themes that were aimed at its reform.

These were a diverse group, including the poet

John Betjeman, the painters Paul Nash and John

Piper, the planner Thomas Sharp, and scholars

such as John Summerson and Pevsner. By the mid-

1940s these interests had converged around the

theme of the picturesque, useful not only for its

familiar practical lessons in ‘improving’ landscapes

622

Townscape: scope,

scale and extent

Mathew Aitchison

Figure 1. View of the

destruction around

St Paul’s Cathedral, AR

(June, 1945).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

but also as an aesthetic and theoretical handle for

many of the issues raised by the clash of modern

and traditional settings: problems further exacer-

bated by the continuing effects of wartime destruc-

tion and the still-distant prospect of a reconstruction

effort.

Pevsner became the mainstay of the AR’s ‘pictur-

esque revival’. Sporadically assisted by H.F. Clark and

others, he went on to publish numerous articles on

the subject.8 As Richards would later recall in his

memoirs, ‘the adaptation of the English Picturesque

tradition to urban instead of garden landscapes,

[was] a principle The Architectural Review had

been advocating since Hastings and Pevsner had

campaigned about it during my war-time absence

between 1942 and 1946’.9 Pevsner drew a straight

line from eighteenth-century landscape gardeners

such as Uvedale Price and Humphry Repton to the

mid-twentieth century work of British architects

such as Hugh Casson, William Holford and Frederick

Gibberd. In doing so, Pevsner was following

Hastings’s lead and looking for ways to make

‘picturesque theory’ operative. Hastings commis-

sioned Pevsner to work on a book intended to be

the theoretical and historical backbone of this new

approach, which Pevsner referred to as ‘Visual

Planning’.

Pevsner’s involvement in this picturesque revival

brought qualities to its analysis that took it beyond

Hastings’s gentlemanly connoisseurship. Hastings’s

writing, though fitfully brilliant, was loaded with

eccentricities and anecdotes; by contrast, Pevsner’s

approach was as sober as one might expect from

his rigorous art-historical training in Germany. For

the purposes of the picturesque revival, the pairing

of the somewhat erratic and eccentric Hastings

with Pevsner’s scholarship was perfectly comp-

lementary. In 1974, towards the end of his career,

Pevsner recalled the moment:

623

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 5

Figure 2. Nikolaus

Pevsner (anonymously),

‘Frenchay Common or

Workaday Sharawaggi’,

AR (July, 1945).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

Some time after the beginning of the Second

World War the Architectural Review lost its princi-

pal editor J. M. Richards (now Sir James Richards)

to the Ministry of Information. He suggested me

as his—temporary—successor and moved to

Cairo. I did what I could, and this would have

been entirely in matters of contemporary build-

ing, if it had not been for the co-owner of the

Review, H. de Cronin Hastings. He is a brilliant

man who likes to stay in the background. He

had read Christopher Hussey’s The Picturesque,

the great classic of the movement. [. . .] I also

had of course read the book—even several years

before I settled down in England, but purely as a

piece of English art history. It was de Cronin Hast-

ings who dropped a remark in his studiedly casual

way indicating that surely Hussey’s Picturesque

and our day-to-day work for the Review were

really one and the same thing. This is what set

me off. With de Cronin’s blessing I started on a

book whose subject was just this aside of the

great pathfinder. [. . .] As my thought in these

years developed, I realized that the missing link

between the Picturesque and twentieth-century

architecture was the picturesque theory chiefly

of Uvedale Price, but also of Payne Knight and

Repton, and even Reynolds.10

The few accounts that describe Hastings’s work and

life are quick to point to his eccentric character and

abundance of ideas. In honouring his patron,

Pevsner explained ‘The brilliant ideas creating what

was called Architectural Review policy were mostly

H. de C.’s, [. . .] But the brilliant ideas had to be

developed, had to be made viable [. . .]’.11 The con-

tributors who took up the mantel of making Has-

tings’s ideas viable were many and varied: Richards

remained the stalwart executor of operations at

the AR; in the 1930s, Paul Nash wrote of ‘Seaside

Surrealism’ in the coastal town of Swanage;12 in a

lengthy pictorial article, John Piper documented

every visible object on the road from London to

Bath;13 Thomas Sharp carried out a solid four-part

historical study of ‘The English Tradition and the

Town’;14 John Betjeman wrote humorous accounts

of the clash of English patrimony with the effects

of modernisation in ‘The Passing of the Village’,

and promoted a sentimental and un-dogmatic

approach to architectural style in his ‘The Seeing

Eye, or How to Like Everything’.15

Read against the backdrop of war, the fanciful

themes from this period paled in significance. For

more than a decade, the AR had explored an alterna-

tive direction for architecture and planning, but had

not produced anything of duration or substance:

nothing that reached above individual efforts and a

handful of intriguing articles. By 1943, it was

unclear if the AR’s latest interest in picturesque

theory and technique was just another fancy from

Hastings’s imagination, or, for that matter, if

Pevsner was simply the last of a long chain of contri-

butors to bow at Hastings’s door before turning his

back and returning to university life.

By 1944, the situation had changed dramatically.

The bombs kept falling on London, but the AR

began a ‘baby Blitz’ of its own. In January, 1944,

Hastings launched an anonymous decree of AR

policy with his ‘Exterior Furnishing or Sharawaggi:

The Art of Making Urban Landscape’.16 The Febru-

ary edition saw Pevsner’s exegesis in print, entitled

‘Price on Picturesque Planning’.17 In the following

624

Townscape: scope,

scale and extent

Mathew Aitchison

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

625

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 5

Figure 3. John Piper,

‘London to Bath. A

Topographical and

Critical Survey of the

Bath Road’, AR (May,

1939).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

626

Townscape: scope,

scale and extent

Mathew Aitchison

Figure 4. The Cover of

the AR (January, 1944).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

years, not a number of AR appeared without some

mention of this new editorial line. With the end of

the war within reach and the prospect of recon-

struction looming ever larger, the AR’s editors saw

the promise of a new beginning. Within the ranks

of the AR this promise filled the sails of the new

campaign, known variously as ‘Visual Planning’,

‘Exterior Furnishing’ and ‘Picturesque Planning’,

but eventually launched five years later under the

banner ‘Townscape’.

Townscape

Townscape eventually became one of the AR’s

longest publishing campaigns, remaining a fixture

until the mid-1970s. Retrospectively, the articles

from the 1930s and early 1940s represent Town-

scape’s ‘pre-history’, where its ideas and applications

were still in testing. Viewed as one campaign, Town-

scape spanned five decades, mirroring Hastings’s edi-

torship and the AR’s rise to international renown.

Over its duration, Townscape involved around 200

authors, who together contributed around 1,400

publications related to the campaign.18 These

ranged in scope and scale from some well-known

monographs (mostly published by the Architectural

Press), to special editions and features in the AR,

down to brief editorial statements, captions and

monthly columns. Throughout the 1950s and

1960s, Townscape became a commonplace in

Britain. From the 1960s onwards it began to assert

its influence on a wider international audience.

Despite its longevity and influence, Townscape’s

reception in historical accounts of twentieth-century

architecture and planning has, until recently, been

very limited.

By the twenty-first century, over three decades

past its decline, Townscape’s meaning is anything

but clear. Partly, this confusion can be traced to a

version of Townscape that has persisted to the

present day. In recent decades, the term and

concept ‘townscape’ is regularly cited in connection

with neo-traditional urban design, and architecture

concerned with preservationist and historicist

agendas. The so-called ‘New Urbanism’ or Prince

Charles’s faux traditional village of Poundbury are

examples of this continuing strain of Townscape,

but so too are the municipal schemes aimed at

urban beautification and ‘character control’ by the

exclusion of anything new.19 Townscape’s rec-

ommendations rarely extended to imitation, revival-

ism or the exclusion of novelty, and the widespread

perception that Townscape was anti-modern reveals

how much has been forgotten about the campaign

since its inception in the 1940s.

Coinciding with the emergence of postmodern-

ism, interest in Townscape has seen a steady

decline. This is a strange turn of events, considering

that Townscape’s message bears strong commonal-

ities with many issues that resurfaced in the

period.20 These include an interest in place, specificity

and ‘context’; the distain for large-scale master plan-

ning; the pursuit of historical continuity in architec-

ture and urbanism; a reform and ‘humanisation’ of

modern architecture and planning; an interest in tra-

dition and vernacular building; and the re-emergence

of a distinctly ‘visual’ or aesthetic approach to design.

The eclipse of Townscape in late-twentieth-

century discourses is a curious story involving

many well-known personalities of the period, from

Colin Rowe to Jane Jacobs, Robert Venturi to

627

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

628

Townscape: scope,

scale and extent

Mathew Aitchison

Figure 5. Peter Reyner

Banham, H.F. Clark,

Robert Venturi,

‘Miscellany’, AR (May,

1953).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

Kevin Lynch, who passed over Townscape, often

without acknowledgement.21 Townscape was

intended to be highly popular; arguably the AR

was so successful in this objective that its discourse

eventually achieved saturation among architects

and other design professionals. But this proliferation

can also be seen as a dilution: caught between the

to and fro of the late-twentieth-century avant

garde, Townscape’s message of compromise, syn-

thesis, moderation and reform soon became passe.

Today, if anything is known of Townscape it

usually involves Gordon Cullen and his books: Town-

scape (1961), and its abridgement, The Concise

Townscape (1971).22 The latter remains in print,

but excluded the modernist schemes from the

1940s and 1950s contained in the first edition;

another likely cause for Townscape’s perception as

anti-modern. Cullen’s urban studies, designs and

highly seductive illustrations became the face of

Townscape, and gave the campaign a visual charac-

ter absent from Hastings’s polemic and Pevsner’s his-

torical treatments. However, the longer history and

wider view of Townscape’s campaign show that

many of its key ideas not only pre-dated Cullen’s

involvement, they also succeeded it.

If today’s neo-traditionalist successors do not do

justice to the campaign’s original message, and

Cullen’s work can no longer be taken as its touch-

stone, what, then, defines Townscape? My research

has focussed on the body of work that emerged in

the AR from the 1930s to the 1970s. In particular,

I have sought to draw attention to Townscape’s

developmental phase and the authors who were

active at this time.23 There is also an argument for

seeing Townscape as merely one of many parallel

and competing campaigns operating within the AR

throughout this period; the AR was, after all, an

international monthly magazine constantly search-

ing for novelty. Pevsner’s picturesque revival has

already been noted as one such sub-campaign.

Through the 1950s, Ian Nairn rose to fame with

his special editions of ‘Outrage’ and ‘Counter

Attack’; J.M. Richards wrote extensively about a

phenomenon he termed ‘The Functional Tradition’;

Eric de Mare campaigned for the reuse of canals;

and from the 1950s onwards, Kenneth Browne

and Silvia Crowe wrote about the uses and abuses

of ‘landscape’ and issues of dereliction, encroach-

ment and exploitation.

Viewed at its narrowest extent, Townscape’s

activity could be restricted to its ‘high’ period:

from 1947 to 1961, involving authors such as

Cullen, Nairn and Browne. But there is a stronger

argument for seeing Townscape as both an episodic

campaign and an umbrella term for a range of pro-

blems, interests and concepts that had been devel-

oping before and after this period. My research

argues that Townscape’s contributions should be

viewed within this wider context. This shows that

Townscape achieved and sustained a level of coher-

ence throughout its duration, which demonstrates

that it had a direction and self-reflection that took

it beyond its role as an episodic editorial device.

Part of the confusion surrounding Townscape’s

definition as a concept and campaign stems from

its name: there is still uncertainty surrounding who

first coined the term, with both Hastings and

Thomas Sharp laying claim to its invention.24 As

mentioned, the heading ‘Townscape’ arrived much

later than its message, and was underpinned by

629

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

the series of related alternatives: ‘Visual Planning’

‘Urban Landscape’, ‘Sharawaggi’, ‘Exterior Furnish-

ing’, ‘The New Empiricism’, ‘The Functional

Tradition’ and ‘Picturesque Planning’. Additionally,

campaigns such as ‘Outrage’, ‘Counter-Attack’,

‘Man-Plan’ and ‘Civilia’ followed the advent of

Townscape. The ideas within these various cam-

paigns are strongly related and helpful in explaining

different facets of Townscape’s mission.

In this context it is important to note that as an

editorial campaign Townscape’s message evolved

over time. Beginning with the series of articles

from the 1930s and the critique of sprawling mod-

ernisation, the magazine pitched earlier versions of

Townscape as moderate alternatives to a still

unpopular international modernism and the wave

of stylistic revivalisms that had emerged between

the wars. The early years of post-war reconstruction

witnessed the rise of scepticism regarding planning,

a feeling that where the bombs had failed the

planners might yet succeed. To these sentiments,

the Townscape circle added the creeping effects

of modern infrastructure, signage, advertising and

other urban paraphernalia, which were having a

serious though undetected impact on urban

environments.25 Seeking to counteract these

effects, Pevsner and Hastings thought that a

reformed modernism could be married to informal

picturesque planning to provide what they termed

a more ‘humanized townscape’.26 This proposed

a more synthetic, compromised and scenographic

conception of architecture and urban design. At

its simplest level, Townscape was a collage of

moderate modernist architecture set within the

framework of an irregular picturesque planning.

By the early 1950s, the range of themes cham-

pioned by the AR and its editors had coalesced

into the central polemic of Townscape, creating a

comprehensive and highly visual approach to

urban design. This new approach was given a full

dress rehearsal at the Festival of Britain in 1951,

carried out with the help of many of the AR’s inner

circle.27 But where Townscape initially drew its

mandate from war-time destruction and post-war

reconstruction, as the campaign progressed it

began to address other related concerns, including

urban sprawl and visual blight. Townscape became

an early advocate of environmentalism, highlighting

issues of land exploitation, degradation and derelic-

tion, and developing working and artful solutions.

As such, Townscape pre-empted much of the inter-

est in these problems within postmodernist urban

design and the architectural urbanism of the

1960s and 1970s. Despite these commonalities, it

appears that Townscape’s criticism of an unchecked

modernist planning and rampant modernisation in

urban and rural areas also provided the basis for

Townscape’s perceived conservatism and histori-

cism: a ginger-bread-style urban design, beginning

with pedestrianisation and ending with lamppost

design.

The Townscape campaign expanded the scope of

design concerns to include many aspects of the built

environment previously outside the remit of building

and planning, including mundane artefacts such as

street furniture. Townscape promoted a unified

approach to designing the urban scene, which Hast-

ings and others thought had been abstractly divided

by the historical development of the professions. For

Hastings, the problem of ‘town planning’ was a

630

Townscape: scope,

scale and extent

Mathew Aitchison

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

631

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 5

Figure 6. Ian Nairn, ed.,

‘Outrage’, AR (June,

1955).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

632

Townscape: scope,

scale and extent

Mathew Aitchison

Figure 7. Colin Rowe,

Fred Koetter, ‘Collage

City’, AR (August,

1975).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

schema where architects designed buildings, plan-

ners laid out streets, engineers designed infrastruc-

ture, and so forth. What was left out of such a

division of competencies, the AR termed ‘the sub-

merged third’—meaning the third of the built

environment that had escaped attention by design

professionals.28 In contrast to the ‘ginger bread’

version of Townscape, this SLOAP (Space Left Over

After Planning, as it was humorously dubbed in

1973)29 was not intended to be polite or respect-

able, but rather to invoke the messy vitality of the

urban condition. By paying close attention to

aspects such as electricity pylons, telephone wires,

roadways, advertising, paving and floor surfaces

(later termed floorscape), Townscape’s advocates

attempted to harness the potential of the miscellany

thrown up by modernisation by including it in their

designs. For Hastings and Pevsner, this method

had its historical corollary in the practice of land-

scape improvers who appropriated the various raw

materials of eighteenth century rural existence into

their designs for country estates and pleasure

grounds.30

A persistent feature of the AR’s Townscape cam-

paign was its mixture of critical and creative endea-

vours. Some of the most spectacular outcomes of

this policy are Nairn’s ‘Outrage’ and ‘Counter

Attack’ campaigns from the 1950s. In 1971, when

support for Townscape at the AR was in steep

decline, Hastings and his daughter Priscilla together

with Browne, launched another attempt to reclaim

the high ground with a special edition entitled:

‘Civilia. The End of Sub Urban Man’.31 Civilia was

intended to be both a critique and an improvement

to the idea of the New Towns, where late modernist

and brutalist architecture were collaged onto the

side of a disused quarry and proposed as a

high-density solution to the ailing dormitory New

Town model. The results were striking in appearance

and remarkable for their persistence in realising

ideas that Hastings and his collaborators had

begun as far back as the 1940s. Civilia and other

earlier schemes are often seen as ironic commen-

taries on the architectural and planning discourses

of the day: Bob Maxwell termed Civilia ‘a kind of

Welfare State Monte Carlo’.32 They were also

intended as serious alternatives. This oscillation

between the real and unreal, and the disregard

for disciplinary boundaries, provided further

grounds for the campaign’s limited reception:

Townscape, it could be argued, was too urban for

architectural history and too architectural for

planning history.33

Fictitious projects like Civilia and other studies set

in London and elsewhere from the 1940s to the

1970s, show that Townscape not only proposed

an expanded scope for design, but a rethinking of

architecture. This new architecture highlighted the

combination of old and new, the clash of the

modern and traditional, and emphasised working

with the existing conditions recommended by the

genius loci rather than some imagined ideal. It pro-

moted the idea of the moving spectator, the design

of buildings and quarters from actual terrestrial

vantage points rather than abstracted aerial views.

Townscape’s urban and architectural designs privi-

leged bold asymmetry over symmetry and the incon-

gruous over the pleasant. Developing from the study

of the picturesque, the Townscape circle advocated

a version of modernism which disparaged uniform-

633

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

634

Townscape: scope,

scale and extent

Mathew Aitchison

Figure 8. The Editor,

‘The Submerged Third’,

AR (August, 1948).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

ity and pleaded instead for informality, irregularity

and clash of texture, age and colour when possible.

Throughout these various sub-campaigns, Town-

scape’s editorial line and its objects of study oscil-

lated between the trivial and profound. Townscape

approached fundamental issues, such as the

relationships between buildings as objects, and the

relationship more generally between society and

the built environment. But the campaign also

spent much time extolling the virtues of bollards,

cobblestones and cast-iron drain covers.34 As such,

Townscape should be remembered as a campaign

that promoted designs for park benches as well as

entire city quarters.

The Architectural Review

Townscape was also remarkable for its humour. The

campaign’s eccentricities and contrariness are fre-

quently understood as pure whimsy (which they

often were), but Hastings and others at the AR

actively fostered an amateurishness and dilettantism

among its contributors, which framed the magazine

as a running (and often humorous) commentary on

the significant developments of the day. Townscape

was an important campaign for the AR, not only

because it promised a frontal approach to the

major issues of the time, but also as a light-hearted

and fun campaign: the AR’s contributors could

express their views openly in Townscape articles.35

Projects such as ‘Outrage’, ‘Man-Plan’ or ‘Civilia’

show that Townscape often became an aside to the

AR’s role as a magazine of record, or, to the expec-

tation to attend to the day-to-day of publishing. In

Townscape, reporting and publicising merged with

activism and advocacy, creativity with criticism.

Although there were many authors involved in

Townscape, it remained Hastings’s chief polemic

throughout his long term at the AR. In this regard,

Townscape is a mirror, or perhaps a kaleidoscope,

of Hastings’s philosophy and his complex, mercurial

temperament. To understand Townscape is to

understand this philosophy and its three-fold mani-

festation within the magazine and its output: first

at the level of Townscape’s authors and the AR’s

editorial constellation; then in the AR’s graphic

format, illustrative style and peculiar mixture of

content; and, finally, in the synthetic approach to

architecture and urban design that the campaign

sought to effect.

Hastings was convinced that architectural pub-

lishing needed to develop a new voice if it wished

to keep up with developments in society, not least

the monumental challenges faced by architects

and planners in post-war reconstruction, modernis-

ation and expansion. In 1947, in a rare account of

editorial policy, Hastings described the future role

he saw for the AR:

One of the aspects of the English cultural tradition

most worth preserving is the practice of dilettante

journalism by experts who are also amateurs [. . .]

But the urbane habit of literary dilettantism, of

scholar’s table talk conducted in public, is not

one that can be indulged without a medium.36

Many of the publications that resulted from this

period of ‘dilettante journalism’ were intended for

Townscape. Hastings’s team continued to expand

from the 1940s onwards, where academics and

journalists worked beside photographers and illus-

trators; poets and cartoonists, beside architects

and town planners.

635

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

The second manifestation of Hastings’s philos-

ophy came in the visual style of the magazine. As

far back as the 1930s, Hastings and his team had

sought to renovate the AR’s graphic and visual pres-

entation. It was an eclectic framework: Betjeman’s

witty texts were juxtaposed with the neo-romantic

illustrations by Piper and Pevsner’s historical explora-

tions were illustrated by starkly modernist designs by

Casson and Cullen. The AR became famous for its

graphic design and layout, where floral Victorian

typefaces were juxtaposed with sans-serif scripts;

lime-green highlights contrasted with a smooth

cream of thick paper; and richly textured prints

from original paintings were contrasted with

superb professional architectural photography. If

Townscape’s final iteration proposed a humanised

modernist architecture set within an outspokenly

picturesque mode of planning, AR’s visual style pro-

vided a clear example of how this might appear in

graphic terms.

As noted above, the question of Townscape’s

authorship has provided a continuing barrier to

scholarship. Until 2004, there was little literature

available on the AR’s editors and the magazine’s edi-

torial structure.37 Erdem Erten’s doctoral study was

the first to highlight the centrality of the AR’s edi-

torial structure.38 Subsequently, my research on

this editorial structure has illustrated a consistent

pattern running parallel to Townscape’s develop-

ment. This is best visualised as a relatively tight

core of advising editors surrounding Hastings in

varying formations: Hastings and Richards from

1935 to early 1942; Hastings and Pevsner from

early 1942 to early 1946. Beginning with his

announcement of a new editorial board in 1947

and continuing with minor variations until the

early 1970s, Hastings was joined by Richards,

Pevsner, Osbert Lancaster and Casson, with Ian

McCallum as executive editor until 1959. By 1971,

Richards, Pevsner and Casson had left the editorial

board, and Hastings finally retired in 1973.39

My doctoral dissertation from 2009 also

attempted to provide a systematic catalogue of

Townscape’s contributing authors and an expla-

nation of their respective roles within the cam-

paign.40 Perhaps the most significant problem in

understanding the multi-layered authorship of

Townscape was the AR’s practice of publishing

articles pseudonymously and anonymously. Hast-

ings, Pevsner, Richards and Summerson all used

pseudonyms: Ivor de Wolfe, Peter F.R. Donner,

James MacQuedy and John Coolmore respect-

ively.41 With his earlier pen-name Hermann

George Scheffauer, Hastings had made his inten-

tions for anonymity clear.42 Around one third of

the total number of Townscape-related publications

from the 1930s to the 1980s are anonymously pub-

lished.43 Richards stated that he used his pseudo-

nym when he ‘wanted to appear in an individual,

rather than an editorial, role’.44 Nevertheless, this

practice resulted in a particularly playful mode of

writing and one that was certainly less guarded in

its opinions than would have been normally the

case for most journalism, and instilled the Town-

scape campaign with a more informal tone and out-

spoken critical voice.

Townscape’s position as an editorial campaign

provides another barrier to understanding the cam-

paign’s authorship. Relying, as Townscape did, on a

broad base of contributing authors meant that

636

Townscape: scope,

scale and extent

Mathew Aitchison

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

637

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 5

Figure 9. Michael

Rothenstein, ‘Colour

and Modern

Architecture, or the

Photographic Eye’, AR

(June, 1946).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

many of Townscape’s important articles were com-

missioned. Therefore, establishing authorship and

origins for particular publications or ideas is difficult,

particularly when combined with the AR’s practice

of anonymity. This raises other problems recurrent

in Townscape’s history: namely, the role of individ-

uals within the broader editorial campaign, and

the hierarchy within the vast circle of Townscape’s

contributing authors.

Townscape’s inner circle clearly includes the AR’s

editors—foremost Hastings, Richards, Casson and

Pevsner—joined both by the various authors who

pre-empted Townscape from as far back as the

1930s, and by those who went on to develop and

refine the campaign’s ideas and application into

the late 1950s.45 But there is also an outer circle

of Townscape’s contributors, constituting around

two-thirds of the campaign’s authors. This group

(approximately 136) consists of the hired hands

and passersby, who were only obliquely involved in

the campaign or had arrived after its direction was

set.46 Some authors contributed articles to the AR

in the 1930s and never again. Themes from the

1930s disappear in the 1940s and re-emerge in

the 1950s. Several architects and critics who pub-

lished early articles on Townscape went on to

achieve great notoriety in the 1960s and 1970s.

Within this context of discontinuity, Townscape’s

message was easily lost. By the time it disappeared

from the pages of the AR, its message had been

exhaustively promoted and it went on to have an

afterlife quite distinct from that of its host.

Until recently, historians have tended to struggle

with the questions arising from Townscape’s author-

ship, origins and chronology, or the campaign’s

scope, scale and extent; a measure of this difficulty

can be found in the scarcity of historical accounts

which are not plagued by misinformation or ana-

chronism. It is hoped that the work collected in

this edition provides a solid foundation for the

ongoing study of Townscape in the post-war

period, despite the continued absence of a mono-

graph dedicated to Townscape or a comprehensive

history of the campaign.

That a major history of Townscape has yet to be

written reveals more about existing twentieth-

century histories than it does about Townscape.

Townscape’s legacy as a broad, popular, enduring

and interdisciplinary ‘movement’ challenges the

outcomes of histories that privilege the grand narra-

tive and outstanding authorial figures. Although the

AR clearly possessed the means, it never published a

tightly elucidated manifesto, nor did it promote a

leading authority. Pevsner’s book, commissioned

by Hastings in the 1940s, was never finished and

has only recently been published.47 Cullen’s work

is often invoked in this connection, but his role as

Townscape’s figurehead is problematic. Townscape,

it could be argued, was a poor attempt at a ‘move-

ment’, especially when viewed in the context of

post-war avant gardism where the cult of personal-

ity and the manifesto had become the trade secrets

of architecture and urban design, or at least its his-

toriography.

Many scholars are returning to the architecture

and planning of the post-war period in an attempt

to recover and revise its histories as part of a larger

examination of post-modernism in twentieth-

century architectural and urban culture.48 Within

this wider project, Townscape is of great interest,

638

Townscape: scope,

scale and extent

Mathew Aitchison

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

essentially standing at the junction of two major

streams of post-war development: the transition

from modernism to post-modernism, and the rise

of ‘urbanism’ and its perception as the supreme

question of architecture in the period.

Notes and references1. This incident and many others from the period are

relayed in J.M. Richards, Memoirs of an Unjust Fella

(London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980), p. 144.

2. The Editor, ‘The Architectural Review and the War’,

AR, 89 (June, 1941), p. 117.

3. J. M. Richards, op. cit., p. 141.

4. The first was Pioneers of the Modern Movement: From

William Morris to Walter Gropius (London, Faber &

Faber, 1936); the second, An Outline of European

Architecture (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1942).

5. For more on Pevsner’s early years in Britain, see Susie

Harries, Nikolaus Pevsner: The Life (London, Chatto

and Windus, 2011) and Stephen Games, Pevsner:

The Early Life: Germany and Art (London, Continuum,

2010).

6. J. M. Richards, op. cit., pp. 141–42.

7. Using pseudonyms, Pevsner wrote several humorous

accounts of his work in this period: see, Ramaduri,

‘Meine Kollegen, Die Schuttschipper’, Die Zeitung,

1 (September, 1941).

8. These articles are too numerous to mention here: see

the bibliography contained in: Nikolaus Pevsner,

Mathew Aitchison (ed.), Visual Planning and the Pictur-

esque (Santa Monica, CA., Getty Publications, 2010),

pp. 211–13.

9. J. M. Richards, op. cit., p. 241.

10. Nikolaus Pevsner, ed., The Picturesque Garden and Its

Influence Outside the British Isles (Washington D.C.,

Dumbarton Oaks, 1974), pp. 119–20.

11. Nikolaus Pevsner, ‘Elusive JMR’, RIBA Journal, 78 (May,

1971), p. 181.

12. Paul Nash, ‘Swanage or Seaside Surrealism’, AR, 79

(January-June, 1936), pp. 150–54.

13. John Piper, ‘London to Bath. A Topographical and Criti-

cal Survey of the Bath Road’, AR, 85 (January-June,

1939), pp. 229–46. For an analysis and comparison

of Piper’s and Pevsner’s roles at the AR, see: John

Macarthur and Mathew Aitchison, ‘Oxford Versus

the Bath Road: Empiricism and Romanticism in the

Architectural Review’s Picturesque Revival’, The

Journal of Architecture, 17, no. 1 (February, 2012),

pp. 51–68.

14. This series began with Thomas Sharp, ‘The English

Tradition and the Town. I. The Street and the Town’,

AR, 78 (July-December, 1935), pp. 179–87.

15. John Betjeman, ‘The Passing of the Village’, AR,

72 (September, 1932), pp. 89–93; and, ‘The

Seeing Eye or How to Like Everything’ [Illustrations

by John Piper], AR, 86 (July-December, 1939),

pp. 201–4.

16. The Editor [Hastings], ‘Exterior Furnishing or Shara-

waggi: The Art of Making Urban Landscape’, AR, 95,

no. 565 (January, 1944), pp. 3–8.

17. Nikolaus Pevsner, ‘Price on Picturesque Planning’, AR,

95, no. 566 (February, 1944), pp. 47–50.

18. For the most comprehensive discussion of this material

see my doctoral dissertation: Mathew Aitchison,

‘Visual Planning and Exterior Furnishing: A Critical

History of the Early Townscape Movement, 1930 to

1949’, (PhD Dissertation, University of Queensland,

2009).

19. Ibid.: see pp. 247–51, for a discussion of the inter-

relationships between Townscape and its neo-tradi-

tionalist successors.

20. For a broader discussion of Townscape’s influence on

twentieth-century discourse and practice the reader

is referred to the contributions in the fourth part of

639

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

this collection, in particular: the articles by Nick Beech,

Steve Parnell, Jasper Cepl and Erik Ghenoiu.

21. See Gillian Darely and Erik Ghenoiu’s articles in this col-

lection. See also, Mathew Aitchison, ‘Who’s Afraid of

Ivor De Wolfe’, AA Files, 62 (2011), pp. 34–39.

22. Gordon Cullen, Townscape (London, The Architectural

Press, 1961) and The Concise Townscape (London, The

Architectural Press, 1971).

23. Appendix One of my dissertation lists the 200 authors

involved in the Townscape campaign at the AR.

Appendix Two lists all the relevant publications from

the AR, related books published by the AP, along

with other Townscape-related materials. See,

M. Aitchison, ‘Visual Planning’, op. cit., pp. 305–91.

24. See Thomas Sharp, Oxford Replanned (London, The

Architectural Press, 1948), p. 36. See also Ivor de

Wolfe [Hastings], ‘Townscape. A Plea for an English

Visual Philosophy Founded on the True Rock of Sir

Uvedale Price’, AR, 106, no. 636 (December, 1949),

p. 362.

25. Such concerns were not new: Thomas Sharp’s work in

the 1930s shows that these were already major issues

in planning; Clough Williams-Ellis’s books, England

and the Octopus (London, Geoffrey Bles, 1928) and

the edited volume, Britain and the Beast (London,

John Dent, 1937) are notable examples of such inter-

ests before Townscape.

26. For references to this ‘humanized’ townscape see: The

Editor, ‘The First Half Century’, AR, 101, no. 601

(January, 1947), p. 36 and The Editor and Gordon

Cullen, ‘Hazards, or the Art of Introducing Obstacles

into the Urban Landscape without Inhibiting the

Eye’, AR, 103, no. 615 (March, 1948), p. 99.

27. See Nick Beech’s contribution to this Issue. Hugh

Casson, as the chief coordinator of the Festival of

Britain, underscores the view of the Festival being an

early outcome of Townscape’s campaign: Hugh

Casson, ‘The Elusive H De C’, RIBA Journal, 78 (Febru-

ary, 1971), p. 59.

28. The Editor, ‘The Submerged Third’, AR, 104, no. 620

(August, 1948), p. 50.

29. The acronym appeared in a special edition, edited by

Ivor de Wofle [Hastings], ‘Sociable Housing’, AR,

154, no. 920 (October, 1973).

30. John Macarthur discusses such techniques in eight-

eenth-century landscape gardening under the

heading ‘appropriation’: John Macarthur, The Pictur-

esque: Architecture, Disgust and Other Irregularities

(London, Routledge, 2007), pp. 176–232.

31. Ivor de Wolfe [Hastings], ‘Civilia. The End of Sub Urban

Man’, AR, 149, no. 892 (June, 1971), pp. 326–408.

32. Robert Maxwell, ‘An Eye for an I: The Failure of the

Townscape Tradition’, Architectural Design, 46, no. 9

(September, 1976), p. 535.

33. For an extensive discussion of Townscape’s reception,

see M. Aitchison, ‘Visual Planning’, op. cit.,

pp. 52–71.

34. Reyner Banham once reported that the Architects’

Journal, the AR’s sister journal where Townscape was

also promoted, had received the satirical gift of a

cobble stone and drain cover: Reyner Banham,

‘Revenge of the Picturesque: English Architectural

Polemics, 1945–1965’, in Concerning Architecture:

Essays on Architectural Writers and Writing Presented

to Nikolaus Pevsner, John Summerson, ed. (London,

Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1968), p. 266.

35. For a longer discussion of Townscape’s journalistic

context and its contributions to architectural writing

more widely, see Mathew Aitchison, ‘Dilettantes,

Amateurs and Eccentrics: The Architectural Review’s

Townscape Campaign’, in Semi-Detached: Writing,

Representation and Criticism in Architecture,

Naomi Stead, ed. (Melbourne, Uro Media, 2012),

pp. 105–15.

640

Townscape: scope,

scale and extent

Mathew Aitchison

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

36. The Editor, ‘The Second Half Century’, AR, 101,

no. 601 (January, 1947), p. 22.

37. The AR’s editorial makeup is listed on its contents

page. For other accounts of the history of the AR,

see Peter Davey, ‘The First 100 Years’, AR, 199, no.

1191 (May, 1996), pp. 3–106 and Michael Spens,

ed., AR 100. The Recovery of the Modern. Architec-

tural Review 1980–1995: Key Texts and Critique

(Oxford, Butterworth Architecture, 1996).

38. Erdem Erten, ‘Shaping “The Second Half Century”:

The Architectural Review 1947–1971’, (Massachu-

setts Institute of Technology, Doctoral Dissertation,

2004).

39. Appendix Three of my dissertation gives a comprehen-

sive account of the AR’s editorial makeup from its

inception to the mid-1970s: M. Aitchison, ‘Visual Plan-

ning’, pp. 393–98.

40. See Note 23 above.

41. For de Wolfe’s identity, see R. Banham, ‘Revenge of the

Picturesque’, op. cit., p. 267. For F.R. Donner, see John

Barr ‘Select Bibliography of the Publications of Niko-

laus Pevsner’, Concerning Architecture: Essays on

Architectural Writers and Writing Presented to Niko-

laus Pevsner, John Summerson, ed. (London, Allen

Lane The Penguin Press, 1968), p. 278. For James Mac-

Quedy, see J. M. Richards, Memoirs, op. cit., p. 138.

For John Coolmore, see John Betjeman, ‘A Preserva-

tionist’s Progress’, in The Future in the Past: Attitudes

to Conservation, 1174–1974, Jane Fawcett, ed.

(London, Thames & Hudson, 1976), p. 57. Another

name appears to be a conjunction of both Richards’s

and Hastings’s pseudonyms, in ‘Ivor J. Richards’ of

the 1960s. There were undoubtedly several more in

use in the period, although these have not been posi-

tively identified. Outside the AR, Pevsner used two

other known pseudonyms, ‘Ramaduri’, and ‘Peter

Naumberg’, under these names publishing a total of

22 articles. The scrapbook containing these articles is

held within ‘The Nikolaus Pevsner Collection’, GRI,

box 137.

42. A series of research notes now held at the RIBA library

(referred to here as the ‘AR Papers’) lists a series of

articles in the AR from Hermann George Scheffauer

[aka Hastings], from December, 1922 to January,

1928. See ‘AR Papers’, cards 41–56.

43. This number includes all articles published anon-

ymously, or ambiguously under the label of ‘The

Editor’ or ‘The Editors’. For present purposes, all such

articles have been uniformly attributed to ‘The Editor’.

44. J. M. Richards, Memoirs, op. cit., p. 138.

45. Included in this ‘inner-circle’ are authors such as

Kenneth Browne, Hugh Casson, Sylvia Crowe,

(Thomas) Gordon Cullen, Frederick Gibberd, Eric

Samuel de Mare, Ian Douglas Nairn and Raymond

Spurrier. Alongside this group, a further 54 authors

have been identified who were active before Town-

scape was launched: these include: John Betjeman,

Lionel Brett, N.G. Brett-James, Stefan Buzas, H.F.

Clark, Peter Dickinson, W.A. Eden, L.D. Ettlinger,

Stephen Gardiner, Erno Goldfinger, Maurice Gorham,

Geoffrey Grigson, W.G. Hiscock, Sir William Holford,

R.G. Holloway, Marjorie Honeybourne, Carl Hubacher,

Christopher Hussey, Julian Huxley, G.A. Jellicoe,

Barbara Jones, G.M. Kallmann, Sir Osbert Lancaster,

Susan Lang, Leonard Manasseh, Ian McCallum,

Harding McGregor Dunnett, Ruari McLean, Raymond

Mortimer, Lewis Mumford, Paul Nash, Ozenfant,

Roland Penrose, Frank Pick, John Egerton Christmas

Piper, Peter Quennell, Sir James Maude Richards, R.P.

Ross Williamson, Michael Rothenstein, Kenneth Rown-

tree, Thomas Wilfred Sharp, Osvald Siren, Marian

Speyer, John Steegman, Dorothy Stroud, John Sum-

merson, Aileen Tatton Brown, William Tatton Brown,

William Townsend, Julian Trevelyan, Christopher

Tunnard, Rex Wailes, J.D.U. Ward and Clough Wil-

liams-Ellis.

641

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2

46. My research has identified 136 authors in this ‘outer-

circle’: these include: Alexandra Artley, Matthew

Baigell, (Peter) Reyner Banham, C.H.R. Bailey, Gerald

Barry, Derek Barton, Geoffrey W. Beard, Elisabeth

Beazley, Manfredo Bellati, Terence Bendixson, Peter

Beresford, Michael Blee, Lewis Braithwaite, Peter

Bush, W.S. Butler, Sherban Cantacuzino, William Carr,

Rodney Carran, Brian Carter, Miles Coslany, David

Crawford, Elizabeth Denby, Donald Dewar Mills,

Michael Dower, A. du Gard Palsey, D.R. Dudley, Melville

Dunbar, Alexei Ferster Marmot, John Fleming, Charles

Forehoe, R. Furneaux Jordan, Keith Garbet, K.B.

Gardner, Roy Gazzard, Usam Ghaidan, Leslie Ginsburg,

John Gloag, Andor Gomme, David Gosling, Christo-

pher Gotch, L.F. Gregory, Richard Guyatt, Thos Halcro,

Edward T. Hall, Andrew Hammer, Eileen Harris, Jon

Harris, E.M. Hatt, F.H.K. Henrion, Henry-Russell Hitch-

cock, John Hope, R.G. Hopkinson, Richard Hughes,

M. Hugo-Brunt, James Hunter, M. Iljin, J. Jahr, Peter

Jay, Charles Jencks, Roger Johnson, Percy Johnson-Mar-

shall, Edwin Johnston, Geoffrey S. Kelly, John Kelsey,

Edgar Knobloch, Art Kutcher, Laurie Lee, Maurice Lee,

Kenneth Lindley, David W. Lloyd, James Macaulay,

Saadja Mandl, Walter Manthorpe, Charles Marriott,

Georgina Masson, Anthony Matthews, Collin McWil-

liam, Michael Middleton, G. Moncur, Robert Moore,

Lucien Myers, G.J. Nason, Geoffrey Newman, J.R.

Nichols, Max Nicholson, Christian Norberg-Schulz,

Bev Nutt, G.G. Pace, R. Pearson, Simon Pepper, Alan

Plater, Hugh Popham, G. Popplestone, Jonathan

Raban, Roger Radford, Herbert Read, Richard Reid,

Paul Ritter, Helen Rosenau, Diana Rowntree, Gordon

Russell, Michel Santiago, Sylvia Sayer, Edwin Schoon,

Vincent Scully, Hida Selem, Derek Senior, Graeme

Shankland, Peter Shepheard, Gerald Smart, I. Smith-

Raeburn, Alison Smithson, Peter Smithson, W.J.

Sparrow, George Speaight, Betty Spence, Freya Stark,

Betty Swanwick, Margaret Tallet, Nicholas Taylor,

Nigel Temple, Margaret Tims, Rex Touchstone, Noel

Tweddell, Jaqueline Tyrwhitt, Peter Varnon, Robert

Venturi, Claude Vincent, Harland Walshaw, David

Watkin, Julian Wells, Bryan Westwood, Marcus

Whiffen, Graham Winteringham, H. Myles Wright

and Lance Wright.

47. See Note 8 above.

48. See, for example: Anthony Vidler, Histories of the

Immediate Present: Inventing Architectural Modern-

ism (Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 2008); Jorge

Otero-Pailos, Architecture’s Historical Turn: Phenom-

enology and the Rise of the Postmodern (Minneapolis,

University of Minnesota Press, 2010); Reinhold Martin,

Utopia’s Ghost: Architecture and Postmodernism,

Again (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press,

2010); K. Michael Hays, Architecture’s Desire:

Reading the Late Avant-Garde (Cambridge, Mass.,

The MIT Press, 2010).

642

Townscape: scope,

scale and extent

Mathew Aitchison

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

125.

163.

244.

104]

at 2

2:05

31

Oct

ober

201

2