Design and Practice in British Architecture: Studies in Architectural History Presented to Howard Colvin || The Yorkshire Fine Art and Industrial Exhibition Building 1879: Designing

SAHGB Publications Limited

The Yorkshire Fine Art and Industrial Exhibition Building 1879: Designing for an HistoricSetting in YorkAuthor(s): Jeremy TaylorSource: Architectural History, Vol. 27, Design and Practice in British Architecture: Studies inArchitectural History Presented to Howard Colvin (1984), pp. 356-367Published by: SAHGB Publications LimitedStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568477 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 13:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

SAHGB Publications Limited is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArchitectural History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:13:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sahgb

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568477?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Yorkshire Fine Art and

Industrial Exhibition

Building 1879 Designing for an historic setting in York

by JEREMY TAYLOR

From 24 July to 31 October 1866 a first 'Yorkshire Fine Art and Industrial Exhibition' was held at a site in the grounds of the Bootham Asylum, York. The exhibition proved a considerable success with the attendance by 4oo00,000ooo people yielding a net profit to the sponsoring committee of ?1I,866. At a meeting on io April 1867 the committee was continued in office in order to 'apply this surplus in providing some permanent building to be devoted to the encouragement of Art and Industry'.' The result was to be the opening of a second exhibition on 7 May 1879, with a permanent building by the local architect Edward Taylor (1831-1908) that now forms the York City Art Gallery.

The appointment of Edward Taylor followed from his role as joint architect with J. B. & W. Atkinson for the temporary 'swiss chalet' style structure of the 1866 exhibition,2 and was reinforced by his position as one of the three secretaries appointed by the committee for the second exhibition. W. Atkinson was also appointed as 'Honorary Consulting Architect'.3

It was not until a meeting held on I July 1874 that this proposal for a second exhibition was to be seriously pursued.4 It was decided to aim for the exhibition in 1876, and an immediate priority was to find the most suitable site. From then until the laying of the foundation stone of the new permanent building on 22 April 1878, there was to be a complex history of design and redesign, of public dispute on grounds of cost and style, and the near breakdown of the whole venture at two public meetings held in July 1877. However, York finally achieved a satisfactory building for a key site in the historic centre, and prompted the then Chief Commissioner of Crown Property to claim the whole grouping of medieval and modern buildings within the walls of the St Mary's Abbey precinct and adjacent to the King's Manor as 'perfectly unique and unsurpassed by anything in the kingdom'.5

The sequence of designs that culminated in what was to be Taylor's major work, can be clarified with the aid of a remarkable survival of I89 drawings, watercolours, and sketches for the period 1874 to 1878. These all appear to come from Taylor's office, and many are in his own hand or are signed by him. At present only partly indexed, 186 of these survive in seven bundles in the Architects' Department of York City Council, which is responsible for the building's present care and maintenance.6 In addition three



YORKSHIRE FINE ART AND INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION BUILDING 1879 357

large pen and wash elevations (Pls 3a-4a) are held by the City Archivist.7 The drawings (many of them working details, and some forming part of a contract set for an aborted scheme) provide considerable information on five main design variants. They can be read in conjunction with the invaluable scrapbook Exhibition Buildings in York, Vol. 1 (1876-1887) compiled by the local designer of stained glass and church fittings J. W. Knowles, an active participant in the whole second exhibition debate.8 This provides not only a chronological selection of press cuttings and ephemera such as appeal letters and an illustrated prospectus, but also drafts for letters and arguments to be put at subscribers' meetings on the proposed design.

The inaugural meeting of the Executive Committee in July 1874 must fairly rapidly have established that the site known as Bearpark's Garden was one of the most suitable. The first extant drawing (6748) is a ground-floor plan of a proposed new exhibition structure related to the Bearpark site, and to streets, walls and surrounding historic buildings (P1. i); it is signed 'Edward Taylor architect, 7 Stonegate, York, July 1874'. Not only was this the site and positioning ultimately used but the general layout of the major spaces had already been established: a permanent building at the front to house picture galleries, statuary, and lecture hall; a large detached temporary exhibition structure on axis behind it; and off to one side at the back a' machinery annexe'. Both the latter structures were essentially provided for the 1879 exhibition only.9 The arguments and delays, and the public debate on costs and design were not to be focused on the overall arrangement of the scheme, but rather concentrated on the style, embellishment, and suitability for a historic site of the main elevation to what is now Exhibition Square.

The site plan (6748) shows clearly an initial conception of a four-bay central portico with sturdy corner piers and two smaller intermediates. It is this same arrangement and ground floor subdivision which is used in the next datable drawing (6772), a cartridge sheet of small scale plans and sections of March 1876. These may well have been prepared as background material for the major public meeting held at the Guildhall on 16 March 1876. On this occasion the proposal for the second Yorkshire Fine Art and Industrial Exhibition was formally launched to the public, the cost of the building estimated at ?io,ooo and the acquisition of the site at ?5,000. In the report of the proceedings, which warranted a sixteen-page supplement to the York Herald, 'o one of the co-secretaries, W. Pumphrey, called attention to 'the plan which Mr Taylor has enlarged from the Ordnance Survey' and described the scheme by reference to it. Although no specific mention is made of any design drawings or elevation, Pumphrey indicated that the 'building should be in harmony as far as style was concerned with the old palace though perhaps a little more ornate'. What the committee was well aware of was the sensitivity of a site just within the medieval walls of the St Mary's Abbey precinct, facing Bootham Bar, and next to the King's Manor (then occupied as the Wilberforce School for the Blind).11 Not only was this a matter of nice aesthetic judgement for members of the city's professional and civic community, but also a reflection of the growing awareness of the important historic image that York possessed and its increasing draw for tourism and tourist revenues.'2

In the local correspondence following the meeting one writer immediately disagreed with Pumphrey's comments on design, suggested that the building should rather be



358 ARCHITECTURE AND ITS ORGANIZATION IN THE PROVINCES

after the style of the Abbey (i.e. the ruins of St Mary's Abbey behind the site), and criticized the 'square windowed style' being used to the detriment of York.13 A riposte from PRACTICAL OBSERVER noted, however, that the correspondent had obviously not seen 'the very beautiful sketch provided by Mr Taylor'. . . 'the drawing was I am told, merely to convey an idea to the public mind as to the position and surroundings'.14 This reference to a 'very beautiful sketch' is confirmed in draft letters by Knowles (24July, 3 August 1877) in which he refers to 'a very influential meeting held about a year and half ago. . . and at that meeting an elevation of this building was exhibited the style chosen being Elizabethan on account of its suitability . . .' and 'we had . . a public meeting at the Guildhall at which an Elizabethan design was submitted at a computed cost of ?io,ooo, everyone being on that occasion unanimous in the matter'. s1

This 'very beautiful sketch' by Taylor therefore appears to have been in an Elizabethan 'square windowed' style to respond to the sixteenth- and seventeenth- century facade of King's Manor next door, and could well have accorded with the small scale plans and sections, drawing 6772, of the same month. No drawing yet found corresponds to the 'Elizabethan' sketch apparently displayed at the Guildhall on 16 March, and hitherto it has been thought that no record of the Elizabethan scheme existed. However, there are three distinctive design drawings in the collection held in the Architects Department. These are pen and ink and wash on large (approx. 301/2 in X 21 3/4in) sheets of blue backed cartridge. All are dated May 1876, are to a scale 12 ft to I in, and give complete coverage of a clearly 'Elizabethan' scheme: 6767, front and side elevations, and cross sections of great hall, signed by Taylor; 6771, plans; and 6783, long section and cross sections. Companion pieces, they appear to provide a working up in more detail of the March sketch scheme. The main elevation (P1. 2a) shows the form of portico already evident in the site plan of 1874 and indicated more clearly as having a glazed side extension on the small scale plans (6772).

The sequence of events following the Guildhall meeting in March was subsequently summarized:

As soon as the question of (the) site had been fully settled, the committee directed its attention to the best plans for utilising it, and Mr Taylor was directed to prepare and submit such plans. In the preparation of these he was greatly assisted by the advice and counsel of Mr Win. Atkinson, so that all the experience of the former exhibition was made available, and, in addition, Mr Taylor and one of the Secretaries were requested to go to London to inspect some of the large Exhibition Halls of the Metropolis including those at South Kensington. In accordance with these instructions plans were prepared based on the idea that the permanent building was not to exceed ?io,ooo. The plan proposed an Elizabethan structure, simple in design and economical in construction, but when the plans were submitted, it was thought that the design was not sufficiently ornate, and that a purer style of architecture should be employed, and the Italian style was selected as best adapted to the object in view. 16

This decision by the Committee resulted in the production of the pencil elevation 6778 (also dated May 1876) which is shown in P1.2b. It marked the end of the scheme which had aimed to harmonize with The King's Manor, and introduced instead a sequence of decorated and embellished designs, using a classical idiom. All of these projected a quite different image from the 'Elizabethan' scheme, and at the same time




increased the previously publicized building cost of ?io,ooo. As a member of the Executive Committee wrote later,17

When the subject of style was under consideration, a gentleman of the committee . . . gave it as his opinion, and supported it by good reasons, that considering the object for which the building was to be erected, the style of architecture should be more expressive of its

purpose... The architect was directed to prepare a design in accordance with these views..

This rapid turn around in design by Taylor was then published in a lithographed 'Prospectus' datedJuly 1876.18 This was a folded sheet providing plans to accompany an elevation virtually identical to the pencil sketch no. 6778 of May. The 'Prospectus' now announced, as part of its appeal to subscribers, that the buildings were to be for the reception and Exhibition of Paintings and Works of Art, and also the accommodation of a Technical Museum and of the York School of Art, the whole forming the nucleus of a Yorkshire Art Institution'. By August 1876 this 'Prospectus' design had been turned into a full set of working drawings prepared at 1/4 in scale on pink bound linen sheets (PH 347 drawings 6664-6670 inclusive, plus 6671, 6779). These were then approved on 13 November 1876 by the Council of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, who as former lessees of the site, had maintained a measure of control over any proposed development.19 What, however, could not yet be known to readers of the 'Prospectus', and was only to become public a year later, was that the tenders submitted on this more ornate and costly scheme would amount to ?1i9,o000oo. This, not suprisingly, caused 'some alarm to the Committee. . . and the architect was asked to reconsider his plans'.20

The next datable study for the elevation follows in January 1877. This is no. 768 1, a fine watercolour (P1. 3a). Together with a related ink drawing (6672) of the side elevation, it shows a design as surprisingly different in its treatment of the elevation as the 'Prospectus' had been from the 'Elizabethan' scheme. A pink wash on the elevation indicates the use of brick with stone trim, a minimal use of statuary, and the reduction of the restless skyline of the 'Prospectus' scheme to an austere garlanded frieze with a balustraded top. No pediments, aedicules or projecting side bays remain. Was this a first attempt to cut costs dramatically, combined with the fruits of Taylor's visit to South Kensington? Certainly the recently completed Albert Hall or the 1872 quad- rangle elevation of the South Kensington Museum cannot have escaped Taylor's notice on his visit in 1876. The general reduction in the number of elements and the suppression of the side bays were to prove important decisions that were absorbed into the later stages of the designing.

Despite this comparatively chaste essay ofJanuary 1877, work on the 'Prospectus' scheme must have been completed to a considerable level of constructional detail (as is indicated by a variety of drawings e.g. 6773 of January 1877 showing the form of timber roof arches and radial windows to the hall). This allowed the committee to call a second major public meeting, held in the Council Chamber of the York Guildhall on Friday 6 July 1877. Knowles's scrapbook contains a printed statement of this meeting of subscribers - a statement presumably necessary for clarification because argument, discussion, and confusion caused the meeting to be adjourned for two weeks until Friday 2oJuly 1877.21




The Chairman referred to 'the little apparent progress' since the previous meeting of 16 March 1876 when a building for ?io,ooo had been proposed. He then noted that tenders for the whole scheme (i.e. the 'Prospectus' scheme) had come in at ?19,o000oo and explained how the decision had been made to change from an 'Elizabethan' to an 'Italian style'. He asked for permission and support to go ahead and sign the contracts as 'the land is bought [?4,oo000 had been paid to HM Commissioners on I2July 1876] plans are matured, estimates are obtained. . . the contracts may be signed in a few days and the work begun'. In view of the committee's concern over the tenders, this statement must have been made to the subscribers with a considerable element of bluff and some trepidation. The ensuing storm centred on cost; however those such as Knowles who supported the original Elizabethan design as more suitable for such a sensitive site must have seen this cost argument as an excellent lever to get rid of what he referred to as 'a dish of hashed Italian'.22

In the two-week interval before the reconvened meeting Knowles looked for evidence to support his case, and prompted a letter dated I7July 1877 from Doulton & Co., Lambeth Pottery, London, who pointed out that they were then erecting large buildings on the banks of the Thames entirely of brick and terracotta which would show the very satisfactory effect obtained by the combination. They generally reckoned a saving of 20 to 25% on the use of terracotta instead of stone.23 A resolution was even drawn up to be put to the meeting on 20July: That this meeting is of the opinion that a building of brick and terra cotta of a design in accordance with the structures adjoining it will be more appropriate and be much less expensive than a stone building of classical design.24

Whatever resolutions were placed at that meeting, the opposition temporarily barred any further progress, and an editorial from the York Herald of 30July 1877 gloomily recorded that 'the Committee has agreed to meet again on 8th August. . . upon that date, if things remain in their present position the Exhibition will be relinquished. .

At this stage the question of cutting costs must have been a high priority for Edward Taylor both in his role as architect and as co-secretary to the committee. There is a large (1/4 in to I ft scale) undated design drawing (in two halves, nos 7669 and 7670) which may well be attributable to this period (P1. 3b). It simplifies the 'prospectus' design by setting the side bays back to be no more than a modulation of the main facade, so leaving the five-bay portico as the main projection forward of the building line. The four corner spires and aedicules at roof level are omitted, as is all indication of figure sculpture - although plinths and brackets are clearly shown to keep this option open. The architect has also used the drawing to display variants between left and right hand sides which would provide alternatives for costing, brick with stone trim, or entirely stone with vertical decorated panels and circular features added below the cornice. Essentially this study represents the beginning of the convergence of the 'Prospectus' scheme and the more restrained brick design of January 1877, and indicates how the omission of all sculpture (while not preventing its addition in the future) was to be one obvious way out for reducing cost.

On 9 August the York Herald was able to announce, 'After the decisive manifesta- tions of confidence in the Committee of the Fine Art and Industrial Exhibition for this




City which they received last evening, there was really no other course for them but to continue their efforts'. On 16 August the paper reported the architect had been ordered to investigate 'modifying the external elevation and other parts of the building' in order to bring costs down. At the next meeting of the committee on 7 September Edward Taylor's brick scheme (P1. 3a), in a slightly revised (and hurried) pencil version (6677) dated 7 September 1877 was - as is noted on the drawing - 'rejected by Committee'.25

The final transformation of the 'Prospectus' design and the ratification of an 'approved' elevation (7668, P1. 4a), is recorded in a printed statement 'Report of Sub Committee to the Executive Committee Dec ist 1877':26 An entirely new set of drawings has been prepared. . . The front of the building will be entirely of stone, and the sides of white brick with slight dressings of stone. The architectural carving will be done at once, but the statuary and historic carvings and mosaics shown on the front elevation will be provided as the funds will allow, they are not included in the present contracts... The 'approved' elevation drawing 7668 (P1. 4a) is an important survival amongst the extant drawings. It is dated 7 October 1877, as from Taylor's office address at 7 Stonegate. It is signed (top left corner) as approved I2 November 1877 at a council meeting of the York Philosophical Society. Names of contractors witnessed (top right hand side) on 4 February 1878 are those of John Lee (bricklaying), George Mansfield (builder, York), James Hebden (mason work), Michael Croft (plastering), John Hawley (smith's work), John Thomas (painting), and on 20 March 1878, George W. Milburn of York for the important stonecarving and sculpture.27 This drawing effectively shows the facade as it was built and as it stands today. The urns at roof level are missing, as are the four 'grotesque terminals' on the portico parapet. In the lunettes at first-floor level the stone panels stand forward rough hewn still waiting to be carved, and the brackets in the niches have not received their expected figure sculpture. On the portico, the budget did however allow Milburn to execute four portrait heads of York worthies to fill the circular medallions. These are of Camidge (representing Music), Flaxman (sculpture), Etty (painting) and Carr (architecture).28 In addition the capitals of columns and pilasters were all suitably carved in a floriated style to accord with large-scale drawings such as those preserved in roll PH350. It was apparently intended to fill the seven sets of panels at first-floor level with scenes illustrating 'some of the many striking events in the history of the city'. The upper semicircular panels were to be carved in stone, and the lower oblong or square panels to be finished with mosaic. However, when the building was opened on 7 May 1879 a further sum of ?1,200 was still required to carry out Taylor's full decorative scheme for the elevation. The only attempt to complete this came in 1887 when two tile pictures were presented to fill the larger left and right hand square panels.29

Apart from the contract elevation 7668, no watercolour or presentation drawings of the final elevation with all its decorative elements in place has yet been found. Three illustrations however were published in 1879 which do show the east front to the newly formed Exhibition Square:30 two prints and a bronze medal, 76 mm diameter, by Thomas Ottley of Birmingham. x All three show a full complement of statuary and mosaic panels and give an impression of Taylor's facade as it was meant to be




completed. The medal (P1. 4b), provides the most dramatic impression of the modell-

ing and movement envisaged by the architect. It also represents an excellent example of the type of medal which was to record- often with considerable accuracy and detail- many of the nineteenth century's new buildings.32 In this case the medal was struck as an award to exhibitors at the inaugural 1879 exhibition, and followed the precedent set

by the bronze medal produced for the committee in 1866.33 The drawings, watercolours, and sketches held by the City of York offer the

opportunity to clarify the development of the Yorkshire Fine Art and Industrial Exhibition Building. Read in conjunction with J. W. Knowles's invaluable review of the events of 1876 and 1877, they provide a sequence demonstrating the architect's

ability (and preparedness) to change, simplify, and amalgamate his proposals in the face of both aesthetic and financial arguments. They also show how the 'Elizabethan' scheme, initially supported as being in the spirit of a setting next to King's Manor and the St Mary's Abbey precinct, was discarded in favour of an Italianate scheme at first

highly decorated to express the building's function as a repository of the fine arts, but later subdued and unfinished in order to be realized at all.

The two opposing views of architectural style appropriate to such a historic setting are neatly polarized in two other buildings within the same precinct: in 1899 the accomplished York architect Walter Brierley designed a Headmaster's house for the Wilberforce School for the Blind (then still occupying King's Manor) and inserted it between the new Art Gallery and the medieval buildings. For this Brierley used a brick and stone idiom that Knowles would have applauded as 'Elizabethan'; he would also have appreciated that nowadays, for the majority of onlookers, the skill of the essay is that it is thought to be primarily medieval work and a part of the older buildings. As an exercise in 'fitting-in' to a historic setting it is of a high order.

By contrast, in 1827, the newly formed Yorkshire Philosophical Society had consulted William Wilkins about a suitable design for the Yorkshire Museum. (This was to be built next to the ruins of St Mary's Abbey, directly behind the King's Manor, and on part of the site alongside that later sold by the YPS for the 1879 Exhibition.) Wilkins's response was: You have such Gothic at York, that any design in the same style must appear trifling. . . The style of architecture to be adopted. . . must be Grecian; I cannot reconcile the notion of any other style either to the locality or the purpose of the building.34

Perhaps the memory of this still remained with the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, whose members served on influential committees in York during the nineteenth century, and whose own council was ultimately to approve the exhibition building designs of 1876 and 1877.35

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am most grateful to Mrs Rita Freedman, City Archivist, and Mr David Green. City Architects' Department, York, for all their help in my search for drawings of the exhibition building. I would also like to thank the staff of York Reference Library and York Art Gallery.




NOTES

I Yorkshire Fine Art and Industrial Exhibition Reports etc. 1867-189o, York Reference Library Y 708.2, Pam. 773, p. 3. 2 Illustrations and details of the 1866 exhibition are given inJ. W. Knowles, Exhibition Buildings in York, I, 1876- 87, a scrapbook of original letters, cuttings, photographs, etc. held in York Reference Library at Y 708.2. Hereafter referred to as 'Knowles'. 3 See Official Catalogue ofthe Yorkshire Fine Art and Industrial Exhibition (York, I1879). An Open University student essay 'The Evolution of York City Art Gallery and its Social Context 1879-1978' by M. I. Jackson (unpublished, 1978) is shelved at the Art Gallery. 4 Reports etc., p. 3. 5 York Herald, 23 April 1878. 6 The bundles in the Architects' Department are numbered PH 347 to PH353. They cover drawing filing numbers 6664 to 6790 inclusive. The drawings have not been stamped with their numbers in any particular order, although certain groupings (e.g. 6664-6670 contract drawings of August 1876) are maintained. 7 PH398 no. 7681I; PH397 no. 7668; PH397 no. 7669 and 7670 (two halves of a single elevation). 8 John Ward Knowles includes in his scrapbook (p. 95) his own application for display space in the 1879 Exhibition. His address was the Studio, 23 Stonegate, York, and he gives his occupation as 'Glass stainer and ecclesiastical decorator'. 9 The exhibition structure (200 ft X 90 ft) lasted until the 1940s; the machinery annexe (190 ft X 130 ft) had apparently been dismantled by 188o. SeeJ. Ingamells, 'The Elevation of the Masses' Preview (York), xxx (January 1977), o1021. io York Herald, supplement 18 March 1876. II For King's Manor and surrounding buildings see RCHM City of York (iv 'Outside the City Walls East of the Ouse') (HMSO 1975), particularly pp. 30-46, pls 24 and 54, fig. 12. 12 See G. Curr, 'The Making of Historic York: motivations behind local building preservation 18oo-1982'. D.Phil Dissertation, University of York, 1983. 13 York Herald, 20 March 1876. 14 Ibid. 15 Knowles, pp. 31 and 35. 16 From a Statement ofa meeting of the Subscribers held in the Council Chamber, Guildhall, York on Friday 6thJuly 1877 (Printed York I2July 1877). In Knowles, p. 15. 17 York Herald, 27July 1877. 18 A copy of the four-sided foolscap handout is included in Knowles p. 9. The introduction notes that already upwards of ?I4,000 was promised by subscribers. 19 The date of approval is countersigned on drawings in this set e.g. no. 6666. 20 Letter fromJ. Bellerby in York Herald, 3 August 1877. 21 Statement ofa meeting ofthe Subscribers, Knowles, p. 15. 22 Knowles, pp. 35 and 36. 23 Knowles, p. 24. 24 Knowles, p. 27. 25 Drawing 6677 only varies from the watercolour 7681 (January 1877) in minor details of the statuary and in the slight emphasis of end bays by a stepping forward of the brick facade. 26 In Knowles, p. 54. 27 Contractors listed in Builder, Io May 1879, p. 511. 28 Builder, ibid. 29 The tile pictures represented (on the left) Painting: 'The death of Leonardo da Vinci in the arms of Francis the Ist', and (on the right) Sculpture: 'Michaelangelo showing his statue of Moses'. 30 The City had agreed to the removal of the 'Bird in Hand' public house shown in P1. I. 3 I Builder, Io May 1879; lithograph by H. Brown published byJ. Stead, York. A copy of the medal is in York City Art Gallery. 32 SeeJeremy Taylor, The Architectural Medal: England in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1978). 33 Also by Thomas Ottley. 34 Letters from Wilkins to the Revd W. B. Vernon, President of the YPS. Quoted in YPS Annual Report, 1827, p. 32 and see also R. W. Liscombe, William Wilkins 1778-1839 (Cambridge, 1980). 35 The exhibition ran from 7 May to 8 November 1879. The buildings were ultimately purchased by York Corporation in 1892.



1ff 4 - .. - fff..

. . .. ...... .........

wik

list Vo

or doilk.Ty

P1. I Site plan with proposed Yorkshire Fine Art and Industrial Exhibitionbuildings,July 1874. (Dwg 6748, detail)



P1. 2a 'Elizabethan' scheme: Front Elevation, dated May 1876. (Dwg 6767, detail)

•. .. ....... ......

;m:.. ?... ......."...?.. ?....."% .... ....... . . .

. . . .. . .....

. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . ...

t

- ::?:

r

_i'H RIMii'l-i') li i

. .... .. ...

5i,?? i??:?! ........ PONE

--::1:1;::r

. . ... ? " " "? "."..;•.,;:•... .:: ..

? :'.....;.".... .

...It." ii::!.,!.i!!,:i, !.,::•: ... . . ...... . .• ' " "

P1. 2b Pencil sketch for front elevation, May 1876. (Dwg 6778)

- ii i : : :.... . . .....~. i: i -N: . .i ..........

? .:...., . .................

..-,. ..

... .. . . .. ..

...... ..... ....." ..:.:. . . .

.................... .....•ii.iii?.....: ...... ..-..... ........ ? : ::-. :•: •i~ii:•'::.•"i!

:•!• ::!:::: ::•:.. :•,::.:...:.... ' ...............

-... ......•

...............,"-l:"."it A.04g

? :-...........

....... ........

. . .. ......... . . .::; ••:• .•? i.•';,i!i:!i~~i:'.i;i.;:.":.'.:.. " • .••`••..;•••i.•i ii••~i !i?!•

..iiii.!! i.OF

f N.... ... .. ... .... .

l. ... ......



P1. 3a Elevation, pen and pink wash, dated January 1877 (Dwg 7681)

... .

.............

.,,::, i;•iii:NOR~ .NA

.... ... .. ...............

P1. 3b Elevation, showing slight variants on lefi and right hand sides, undated but (?) August/ September 1877. (Duigs 7669 + 7670 oftwo halves)



P1. 4a 'Approved' elevation, dated October 1877. (Dwg 7668 scale W14" to 1')

. ...... ..........,•i!i!!,ii•i~'iii~•i.i? ..i. ..::.

.... NM....4,.6.. ....

.•

...

. . .... . . . . .

N m ?

'...•....•.~~~~

...

:"..." ......•:

N

.

.......

. .

. . .... ... ..... :. . . . . . . . + • i -

,-•....n A-.

• :i . . . ....

.

.....

mm .":::,ii: ii~'.•':•

. ••ii .....of i i~ .,:••:i

i . .•.:. .::i: -,,

P1. 4b Bronze medal. Engraved 1879 by Thomas Ottley, Birmingham. This shows the main elevation of the Exhibition building as it was to be completed with sculpture and mosaic

IT.W . ..

.... ..

4;,

,-l ____-- -- I..... ......

•-:~~ ~~~~

rX.....Fi ,.• ..



Documents

Design and Practice in British Architecture: Studies in Architectural History Presented to Howard Colvin || The Yorkshire Fine Art and Industrial Exhibition Building 1879: Designing