Delft University of Technology

From Cybernetics to an Architecture of Ecology

Cedric Price’s Inter-Action Centre
Herdt, T.

DOI
10.7480/footprint.15.1.4946
Publication date
2021
Document Version
Final published version
Published in
Footprint

Citation (APA)
Herdt, T. (2021). From Cybernetics to an Architecture of Ecology: Cedric Price’s Inter-Action Centre .
Footprint, 15(1 #28), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.7480/footprint.15.1.4946

Important note
To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable).
Please check the document version above.

Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent
of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Takedown policy
Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights.
We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.

For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to a maximum of 10.
 45

From Cybernetics to an Architecture of Ecology:

Cedric Price’s Inter-Action Centre
Tanja Herdt

Following the work of British architect Cedric Price human interactions, in which design addressed
(1934–2003), this article investigates the influence human needs by shaping processes such as use
of cybernetics and systems thinking on architec- and activity. This new view on functionalism in
tural design during the 1960s and 70s, which can architecture changed the understanding of archi-
be labelled ‘ecological’ in today’s terminology. tectural design from the production of an object
Price’s works from that period reflect a trans- to an instrument of system intervention. Price’s
formative step, in which the built environment was system-oriented approach to architecture mani-
increasingly understood as a system of human fests in the Inter-Action Centre (1970–1977). Often
interactions. This evolution will be illustrated using referred to as ‘the closest to the Fun Palace and
his Inter-Action Centre (1970–1977) as well as the artless version of the Centre Pompidou’, the
some earlier projects, such as the Fun Palace Inter-Action Centre is one of the very few projects
main project (1961–1964), the Potteries Thinkbelt where the architect put these ideas into practice.5
(1965–1967) and the New Aviary (1960–1965).1 In the first part the article discusses the project
Today’s understanding of ‘ecological design’ and Price’s specific approach to design. Price
focuses on the reduction of any negative impact of began to employ relatively uncommon instruments
human interventions in a natural system. However, 2
to organise the design process, including surveys
the concept of ecological design developed as and organisational diagrams, thus demonstrating
early as the beginning of the twentieth century, his understanding of architecture as part of a
when scientists, architects and planners began process that fosters social activities and urban
to understand the world as a complex system of regeneration. His distinct approach is investigated
flows and processes, evolution, and change as further in the second part of this article. Formative
fundamental concepts shaping the human living for his ideas and methods was his collaborative
environment.3 After World War II, these concepts work with the cybernetician Gordon Pask (for
gained new impetus, not least by technological the Fun Palace main project, 1961–1964) and
advances in automation, mass production and with the architect and systems theorist Richard
information technology. Later referred to as the Buckminster Fuller (on his proposal for the
spatial turn, space was no longer perceived as a Claverton Dome, 1961–1963, and the New Aviary,
container of social activities but as part of a socio- 1960–1965).6 The Potteries Thinkbelt project
environmental system, or ecology.4 (1963–1967) illustrates how Price drew on earlier
Cedric Price was among the first to have this concepts of ecology, for example by referring
new idea of space reflected in his architectural to urban pioneer and biologist Patrick Geddes’
projects. The analysis of his work shows that he ‘valley section’ and his methods of observational
understood the built environment as a system of studies.7
28

All is in Formation: Architecture, Cybernetics, Ecology | Spring / Summer 2021 | 45–62

 46

Finally, the last part elucidates that, in the 1970s, his idea of the project as a facilitator of interaction,
cybernetics gave way to ecology as a concept to with the centre being at the heart of the community.
describe the relationship between humans and the [Fig. 1]
natural environment. In projects concurrent with the The Inter-Action Centre was the result of more
Inter-Action Centre, Price moved away from the than seven years of planning by Cedric Price’s
traditional understanding of architecture as building architectural office and more than a decade of
design. Instead, projects such as Fun Palace community work and social activism of the local
Stratford Fair (1974) or McAppy (1973–1976) community groups Talacre Action Group Ltd.
were temporary and performative in character.8 and its successor, Inter-Action. Both groups had
Whereas architects like John McHale suggested started performing agit-prop theatre and touring the
the adaptation of natural principles in architecture streets of North London. Later they extended their
as an ecological design approach, Cedric Price programme and organised a variety of activities for
emphasised the role of design as an instrument of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood.
intervention in the human habitat, that is, the inter- Such movements emerged against a back-
related fields of the physical, urban, and social ground of widespread lack of development of the
environments. In doing so, his understanding of urban environment and public space in London’s
ecological design resembles the modernist idea of former working-class neighbourhoods, including
the good life as an improvement of the human living Kentish town where the Inter-Action Centre was
environment, simultaneously redefining the nature located. While London’s inner city was already rebuilt
of architectural design as process-oriented, tempo- and well on its way to becoming a major financial
rary system intervention. centre of the rising global economy, a large part of
the city’s working-class neighbourhoods was still in
The Inter-Action Centre a state of disarray and decay. After the slum clear-
Starting from the well-known Fun Palace project, ance programme in the 1960s had replaced many
the work of Cedric Price is frequently referred to of the nineteenth-century workers’ houses, waste-
as an architecture of technology, using the latest lands still needed to be redeveloped, with public
developments of industrial fabrication, media, and space, functioning high streets and other venues
information technology to produce high-tech build- missing. The Inter-Action Centre was thus closely
ings in the tradition of the functionalist machine.9 related to the idea of urban regeneration, in which
Lesser known are the numerous projects of his newly built space would facilitate the creation of a
later work, in which he used small-scale interven- new social space, both for the community and the
tions for making space accessible and enabling neighbourhood as a whole. [Fig. 2] Accordingly, the
exchange. centre was planned as part of a larger open space
This change in his understanding of architecture dedicated to the neighbourhood by the Borough of
becomes evident in the July picture of the Inter- Camden. It was to host the group’s various activities
Action group’s 1978 calendar, dedicated to the that were already taking place in multiple locations
group’s newly opened arts and community centre. around the district.10
The image showcases the diversity of a crowd of When the centre opened in April 1977, Inter-
people visiting an event in front of the building. Action had 1 500 members and sixty full-time
Whereas architectural images are often marked employees.11 These members were engaged in
by the absence of people, here the building seems multiple activities, including education, community
relegated to the background. Although Price did not welfare, and theatre; they hosted ateliers and media
choose the picture himself, it represents very well workshops and offered support in city farming at
 47

Fig. 1

Fig. 1: ‘West Kentish Town Neighbourhood Festival’, Inter-Action Community Calendar, 1977, Cedric Price Archive,
CCA, Montréal, Document folio DR:1995:0252:632:015:001:007.
 48

London’s first urban farm, which the group had When Cedric Price was selected as the centre’s
established in 1971. All the group’s activities architect, he was already well known for his design
shared the idea of improving the neighbourhood’s of a similar adaptable performative space, the Fun
inhabitants’ living environment through activities Palace. Price had developed that project for agit-
that promoted communication, engagement and, prop theatre director Joan Littlewood and the Fun
thereby, learning. The group’s diversity of activities
12
Palace Trust seven years earlier. In this ultimately
and participants was lauded in the press confer- unrealised project, the architect designed an adapt-
ence on the occasion of the centre’s inauguration able mega-structure that would respond to its users’
and seen as an accomplishment worthy of the new, needs through cybernetics and technology. The
more individualised society which didn’t rely on same principles informed the design of the Inter-
governmental institutions but responded directly to Action Centre. All group activities were to take place
the public and local interests. 13
literally under one roof, which Price designed as an
Theatre director David Berman had established open, two-story steel frame, providing a division
Inter-Action as a charitable trust in 1968, dedicated between different inside and outside spaces.17 Apart
to community work with the goal of ‘breaking down from a roofed main hall, he attached prefabricated
ethical class and temperament barriers’ within the plug-in portacabins to the structural framework.
neighbourhood.14 Representing a novel approach Price had planned these rooms to be exchange-
to small group work, Inter-Action worked with inter- able over time, depending on specific functions
active theatre and games as new forms of citizen and demands expected to vary over the building’s
engagement with the intention ‘to make arts more lifetime. Modules included, for instance, a media
relevant in the community’.15 For example, in the workshop and rehearsal rooms. Simultaneously,
environment game, participants could learn to use the structure defined open spaces in which various
modern media and communication technology and enclosures could be added, such as a Fun Arts
produce videos about their everyday life. As Berman bus that toured the neighbourhood for theatre
writes in the organisational statement of Inter- performances or the local day nursery in the form
Action, this bottom-up approach to community work of a Finnish log cabin. All these rooms functioned
ought to have a scaling effect, facilitated by the new individually and were supposed to be replaced or
community building. In his vision, the Inter-Action added when necessary.
Centre was to become the starting point of a social While both the Fun Palace and the Inter-Action
movement that would lead to an expanding network Centre focused on creating performative spaces
of community centres. The Inter-Action Centre was dedicated to community work, their designs differed
to be ‘the first ripple … to set out’, then expanding significantly in size and formal expression. With a
to ‘the Borough of Camden, then the inner London steel structure that was to be ten stories high and
area in general and the next ripple would be obvi- measured approximately 250 by 125 metres, the
ously the various parts of England’.16 Accordingly, Fun Palace was designed as a giant machine. It
design goals for the centre evolved from focusing employed automated cranes and movable platforms
on fixed spaces to the provision of multiple adapt- that were to be controlled by computer technology.
able spaces that would support the interests of the Its capacity to host more than five thousand people
various groups and facilitate future networking. at a time, both in large and various small-scale
These two considerations gave room to the idea of events, made it a monument for the mass society
a flexible organisation of the programme and the of the newly emerging information age. In compar-
responsive organisation of space as preliminaries ison to such a headlines-making project with its
for the centre’s design. interactive building hardware, the design of the
 49

Fig. 2

Fig. 2: ‘Your playspace needs you Talacre Action Group NWS and Inter-Action’ poster, ca. 1971, designer unknown,
Cedric Price Archive, CCA, Montréal, Document folio DR:1995:0252:632:014:002.
 50

Inter-Action Centre was low-tech and small-scale. recalled, due to the dynamic of the different needs
Instead of cybernetic control and advanced building and interests of the groups involved at the begin-
technology, the core of the design was the idea of ning of the project, ‘the brief changed every two
slow adaptation and change of use over time. weeks’.24 These diagrams presented the temporal
Price placed particular emphasis on the process order of supported functions, for example the build-
of changing activities and programmes. The building ing’s weekly use cycles or the relationship between
was erected in three stages, with the roof and struc- different applications and the required spaces both
tural framework built on-site already in 1974, three in and outside the building. Price then categorised
years before the building’s opening.18 In parallel, each activity-space into a modular size, which
the outdoor facilities were constructed, including could be incorporated into the structural matrix in
a playground, a stage, a square walkway, and a any number of ways. [Fig.4] This approach gave
football pitch. 19
In that first stage, the building was him an idea of the size of rooms and the design of
designed as part of an outdoor space that provided the overall structure needed to accommodate any
basic infrastructure for community work and created specific programme.25
a sense of place and community. [Fig. 3] With the Price had started to focus on space usability as
fundraising completed in 1976, the main hall and a design criterium early in his career. Such design-
plug-in rooms were added to the structure, whereas driven survey methods played a central role in the
additional spaces, such as the Finnish log cabin, Fun Palace design and, later, in the Generator
joined the centre just before the opening in 1977.20 (1977–1984), a design for a rehearsal retreat and
The RIBA journal commented on the time-phased performing arts centre in Florida.26 Similarly, in his
construction of the building as the true expression regional plan for a decentralised university campus
of a user-oriented design approach: ‘[Inter-Action] in the industrial region of Stoke-on-Trent, Potteries
is concerned with the rarest and most valuable Thinkbelt, he used statistical information and
resource of all, one of which we cannot afford to aerial photography to conduct a regional ‘survey
waste, people, their spirit to do things … and to of occupation’ to map potential sites and uses for
change their minds.’ Being part of the neighbour-
21
redevelopment. In doing so, he referred to Patrick
hood system of social interaction, the design of Geddes and his method of civic survey, exemplified
Inter-Action, therefore, seemed to be ‘the true defi- in his 1918 study of the working class in Edinburgh.
nition of the ageing of a building. It has something Geddes’s ideas on city planning had surfaced again
to do with growth as well as with final destruction.’ 22
after World War II through the republication of his
works at universities, including the Architectural
Re-programming the city Association (AA) School of Architecture in London,
The need for rooms and spaces that respond to where Cedric Price got to know Geddes’s work. In
the temporary nature of peoples’ activities required his concept of co-evolution, Geddes had described
new tools to gather information about the users’ the city as a dynamic system of interaction between
intentions. For this purpose, Price began to use humans and their environments, where he distin-
questionnaires. He thus surveyed the different guished human-made, natural and technical
groups within Inter-Action about their preferred use settings. From this perspective, an intervention in
27

and social activities. This information formed the any of these realms could facilitate change in the
basis for a series of diagrams, such as an activity city as a whole.28 For Geddes, careful observation
frequency sheet that displayed the groups’ activities, and analysis were, therefore, the first steps before
their need for space, and possible adaptation over suggesting any particular spatial intervention within
time.23 However, as office member Will Alsop later the broader framework of the city.29
 51

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 3: Cedric Price Architects, ‘Photomontage Inter-Action Centre’, Camden Town, London, ca. 1976, Cedric Price
Archive, CCA, Montréal, Document folio DR:1995:0252:632:014:001.
Fig. 4: Inter-Action Centre, axonometric diagram, Cedric Price Archive, CCA, Montréal, Document folio
DR:1995:0252:621.
 52

During the 1970s, Cedric Price extended his set need to communicate the design’s flexibility to
of survey methods to include qualitative methods and laypeople, in particular, can be seen as a result of
fieldwork. In the McAppy project that he conducted his activity-centred design approach.
in parallel to the design of the Inter-Action Centre, Focusing on the users and the configuration of
his team used participatory observation together their activities in space, Price regarded his work on
with interviews and spatial mapping to investigate the Inter-Action Centre as a laboratory to create,
the work environment on the construction sites of parallel to the built space, a new social space.
the McAlpine company. The project used both civic Price perceived architecture as part of an interac-
surveys and observation of workers’ behaviour tive system, comprising not only buildings but also
to propose measures to improve on-site working people and their actions. Accordingly, he became
conditions. Consequently, the final product was not an attentive observer of the surroundings and an
a building but a manual with suggestions for spatial investigator of user groups’ different needs. This
and organisational change within the company.30 strategy of ‘an architecture of appropriation’ was
The emergence of this new way of collecting tested again when the brewery company Whitbread
data, as well as the drawings in Price’s architec- eventually bought parts of the Inter-Action Centre
tural design process, suggest that Price did not to insert a mock-Tudor pub inside the structure.
see architecture primarily as the design of an Price was very pleased with the final intervention.32
object, but rather as the organisation of activities Taking a holistic approach, he viewed his architec-
and change within a cultural system. Furthermore, ture as a cultural product of people’s activities and
it shows that the architect became an observer interactions, which consequently required a new
of the built environment and the activities taking design approach. As he stated in a 1976 lecture
place in it. A rational analysis should then allow on the design of the Inter-Action Centre, ‘the time
for reliable conclusions and serve as a guide for element of when a building is useful for its users or
specific ideas on how to use spatial design or its operators was blurred. This can only happen if
enable improvements within an already existing there’s a conscious effort for looseness in the struc-
system of relationships. Thus, the architect’s role turing of the original design.’33
turned into that of an observer, analysing the city His work on the Fun Palace and the Inter-
and its social activities and employing scientific Action Centre represents a departure in his design
methods to gather information on the use of space approach from the one followed in his earlier
or the preferences of the people who use it. The projects. In his designs for small houses, exten-
architect was furthermore charged with providing sions and refurbishments, for example the redesign
the imagery of construction and use, as well as of the Moyston Hotel bar (1960–1964), the Robert
illustrating the project’s promise to the commu- Frazer Gallery (1961–1962) and the construc-
nity. For this task, his studio produced specific tion of a cottage in High Legh (1961–1965), Price
drawings with simple axonometric representations followed the popular modernist aesthetic of that
of the building, illustrating the various activi- time. Designs from the beginning of his career were
ties and their relationship to other functions and informed by the common goal of optimising the
the surrounding neighbourhood. [Fig. 5]. He was transition from preliminary design to construction.
also asked to create images that could be used However, he began to question the idea of housing
for fundraising and public relations, as well as design in the High Legh Cottage and suggested that
for the different members of the group itself who the client should consider the building’s lifespan and
were in search of ‘a more graphic way of bringing possible changes of use over time.34
the building to life for us who are laymen’.31 The
 53

Fig. 5

Fig. 5: ‘Volumetric Zoning: Fun Palace Project Easter Fair’, sketch by Cedric Price, dated 16 February 1974, Cedric
Price Archive, CCA, Montréal, Document folio DR:1995:0188:525:001:018.1.
 54

The Fun Palace as a cybernetic system of and atmospheric changes. Based on the idea of a
interaction theatre stage and stage technology, large cranes
Price’s encounter with the cybernetician Gordon were to reposition the rooms in the Fun Palace,
Pask (1928–1996) turned out to be decisive for his and light, acoustics, and climate could change
understanding of ecological design. Within their autonomously. Its control system, which translated
collaboration on the Fun Palace control system, the various user groups’ input into different spatial
Pask introduced Price to systems thinking, self- configurations, allowed the Fun Palace to change
regulating systems, and other concepts relevant to continuously.37
machine-human interaction. Pask arguably brought The cybernetic system specified roles and
cybernetics into the mainstream. As a trained scien- hierarchies of the actions that were to take place
tist with a doctorate in psychology, he dedicated depending on the input. By defining the levels of
his work to educational technology and a scientific communication and feedback, it turned the building
theory of learning. These interests included the into a performative machine. It created a dialogue
application of cybernetics through the construction and communication system that processed infor-
of interactive learning environments. He recognised mation about the functions and organised them
in architectural design the potential for a holistic spatially in the building. By establishing a form of
approach to designing environments of interaction. continuous two-way interaction with its users, the
His involvement in the Fun Palace project proved Fun Palace became a genuinely interactive system,
to be a formative influence on his dedication to creating not only a new architecture of performance
architecture and architectural education. As a critic but an environment with its own dynamic processes
and teacher at the AA School of Architecture, for of adaptation, change, and renewal.38 With the help
example, he promoted the application of systems of cybernetics, the Fun Palace was to become
thinking to architectural design and educational an environment ‘suited to what you are going to
technology. 35
do next’ and ‘indeterminate participatory open-
In the Fun Palace project, both Pask and ended situation’.39 In this sense, the architect and
Price were members of the so-called Cybernetics the cybernetician designed a self-contained envi-
Committee, which developed ideas for the build- ronment that could potentially continue to evolve
ing’s use and programme in relation to its spatial without further supervision. In the minds of its inven-
design. The aim was to create the Fun Palace tors, architecture went from imposing a particular
as an open environment with an indeterminate spatial structure on its users to a self-organising
program, made possible by the support of high- space that could react naturally to their input. Like
tech machinery, including air conditioning, a flexible its inhabitants’ relationship to their surroundings,
façade of movable plastic panels, closed-circuit architecture gained a fundamental characteristic of
television, and so on. It comprised the hardware to the concept of ecology as an environmental system
the cybernetic control system that was to ensure avant la lettre.
openness of use. 36
Common to all the system’s different compo-
Gordon Pask developed the Fun Palace as nents and at the centre of Pask’s work as a
a self-regulating machine that could adapt to its cybernetician was the idea of interaction between
visitors’ needs. The basis of this adaptable archi- people and machines in a dynamic system of
tecture was the combination of a cybernetic control communication. Pask had based the Fun Palace’s
system, which regulated the interaction between cybernetic system on the concept of processual
high-tech machinery and humans, and an architec- development, which he had defined in 1961.40
ture that implemented the mechanics of movements Instead of being pre-defined by the system’s initial
 55

conditions, the Fun Palace’s cybernetic system Ecology

was based on continuous dialogue, which allowed Like for Price, the work on the Fun Palace was also
user interaction to evolve by means of communica- a decisive experience for Pask who later explained
tion. Pask used the term ‘conversation’ to describe that architecture offered ideal conditions for the
this process. This would lead the Fun Palace to be inclusion of systems thinking.43 His work created the
self-organising and to learn from previous inputs to conceptual basis for a new understanding of archi-
create different and ultimately unpredictable new tecture as an instrument of change within a broader
spatial configurations. environmental and social context. Dedicated to the
Although on a much smaller scale, Pask had design of the built environment, architecture had the
already developed a similar dialogue system potential to unite competing concepts from different
before. His plans for Joan Littlewood for a cyber- disciplines, including sociology, economics, engi-
netic theatre would have allowed the audience neering and biology. Particularly relevant was its
to influence the play’s progression by an elec- interdisciplinarity and holistic approach to knowl-
tronic feedback system. The audience was thus edge production in order ‘to yield a broad view
enabled to participate actively and influence the of such entities as “civilisation”, “city” or “educa-
stage performance allowing for a more situational tional system”.’44 In that sense, Pask provided the
play. Pask used cybernetics here to understand conceptual blueprint to Price’s work: through the
and construct an open system that focused on the construction of new environments, architecture
dynamic process of social interaction. Through dealt not only with the built space but also had the
formatted content and the possibility of adapta- potential to affect the social space.45
tion, the system was expected to evolve and learn. For Cedric Price, the introduction to cybernetic
In his theory of learning, learning is derived from ideas led to a new approach to architectural design.
conversation and channelled according to different In the concept of radical constructivism, architecture
styles, strategies, or configurations of learning envi- became an instrument that determined its users’
ronments.41 He applied these ideas to technological possibilities of action. According to this view, the
devices by constructing systems and settings that architect became a programmer of opportunities.
would promote discussion and understanding. In Architecture was not only part of a system of human
this sense, he viewed the Fun Palace’s cybernetic interaction but became part of a more extensive
system as a learning system and the building itself system of the built environment, which was continu-
as a learning environment that would evolve. ally evolving and creating new situations and ideas.
In their approach, Pask and Price followed a This led Price to the realisation that the architec-
general trend in cybernetics, moving away from its tural discipline had to adapt. Consequently, in 1966
primary focus on applications in weapons systems he advocated a greater recognition of time and
during World War II to a post-war science that process as design criteria: the architectural profes-
adapted systems thinking to improve civil society. sion was too fixated on form and representation ‘as
Terms such as command, control, and information a provider of visually recognisable symbols of iden-
became part of the general vocabulary, regardless tity, place and activity’.46 And he suggested that the
of whether they addressed biological organisms, architect should instead ‘aim for the improvement
automatons or societies. Related theories promised of quality of life as a direct result of architectural
not only approaches to a new unity of knowledge endeavour’. Contrary to the tendency that defines
but also new regulatory mechanisms for a wide architecture’s function as mainly representative,
variety of social problems. 42
Price saw his profession’s role in the design of
spatial interventions that would stimulate a region’s
 56

socio-economic system and foster social stability technology, and material on the other. Everything
and cohesion. And he warned that ‘the possibility
47
was seen as part of one organic system, an ecology
should not be ignored of Great Britain’s becoming in which the functions and processes of the natural
an increasingly imbalanced community primarily environment, such as climate, sound, and light, as
involved in servicing other countries and providing well as the human need for conviviality could be
facilities for hardy historiphile holidaymakers.’ 48
integrated and reproduced in an artificially created,
With their ambition to promote and support human-made system.51
social values such as equality, self-help, and self- Seeing architecture as an instrument for inter-
expression, Price’s designs fit well into the tradition vention in a broader social and built environment
of the modern avant-garde, whose architecture was such as an urban neighbourhood, reflected an
dedicated to improving the living conditions of the openness to the idea of systems thinking that did not
working class. While he worked on transforming stem from Pask’s cybernetic vision of social control,
concepts such as user, function, and flexibility, but rather from Price’s interactions with Buckminster
which were rooted in the ideas of modernism, he Fuller. The American engineer provided Price with
also broadened modernism’s perspective through an approach to using design as an instrument of
his process-oriented understanding of space as change within a system. For him, architecture and
an interrelated system of spatial environment and engineering provided infrastructure to the built envi-
social community. 49
ronment, which would establish a new balance
Price first applied the idea of ecological design between the natural world and human needs.
in 1974 when he designed the Stratford Fair. Around The architect’s role was, therefore, to transfer the
this time, Joan Littlewood had redirected the Fun knowledge of science to engineering. In his vision
Palace Trust’s activities to the neighbourhood of of ‘planetary planning’, Fuller went so far as to
Theatre Royal, where she started an effort to revi- see the earth as one interlinked organic system of
talise the neighbourhood with a playground called flows that humanity could redirect and optimise by
Stratford 48. For the annual funfair, Price divided using science and engineering. As Fuller’s work
the area into several three-dimensional zones, each suggested, ecological design aimed to preserve
with different heights and technical equipment such natural systems and develop new tools that repro-
as stage scaffolding, sound systems and lighting, duced the principles of nature in design. In his
each providing a different impact on the connectivity understanding, the architect was an engineer and
and accessibility of the space and its surroundings. inventor who contributed to improving human life
In this way, he designed a performative environment by redirecting socio-economic processes through
intended to create particular situations of interaction system intervention.
and promote the site’s close interrelation with the Price had already been introduced to Fuller in
neighbourhood. The idea was that on the site, the 1958 who mentored Price after opening his office in
people, their activities, and the various spatial quali- 1960. Fuller allowed Price to use his dome patent
ties should be in constant flow. As Price explained in in his Claverton Dome project (1961–1963) and
his sketch of the setup, it was ‘no clever monument supervised his design for the New Aviary (1960–
of which only one use can be found at any time’. 50
1965), in which Price employed Fuller’s structural
This was to be the opposite of what current repre- concept of tensegrity.52 In both projects, Price
sentational architecture could achieve. [Fig. 6] applied Fuller’s idea of architecture as systems
By applying a cybernetic viewpoint, the Stratford engineering. In his design of the aviary, he used
Fair’s architectural design made no distinction methods to improve the structure by testing mate-
between people on the one hand and objects, rials, examining construction details, and studying
 57

Fig. 6

Fig. 6: ‘X26: Fun Palace Project’, Easter Fair, sketch by Cedric Price, 16 February 1974, Cedric Price Archive, CCA,
Montréal, Document folio DR: 1995:0188:525:001:018.2.
 58

the environmental conditions inside the building. reduced his designs increasingly towards minimal
Price tested soil samples and studied vegetation interventions that focused on improving the human
growth to improve the walk-in aviary’s usability as habitat. In his Ducklands proposal, his view of archi-
a ‘place of public interest and enjoyment’. 53
In the tecture as a system intervention went so far that he
New Aviary project, Price attempted to replicate a proposed parts of the harbour area to become a
natural system through design. In the Fun Palace, nature reserve, accessible both to migratory birds
he applied the same design approach of systems and the citizens of Hamburg.
engineering while focusing on replicating a social Whereas the biologist Ernst Haeckel had
system by creating an artificial environment aimed at coined the term ecology to refer to the relations of
stimulating learning and cultural activities. Between organisms to both one another and their physical
1960 and 1966, he worked on both projects almost surroundings, at the beginning of the twentieth
in parallel. Both designs focused on an ecological century the term was increasingly used to refer
system in which architecture was to establish a new to the city as a living organism. As the Greek
relationship between the social and built space. word oikos means ‘household’, ‘home’ or ‘place
With the rising awareness of the scarcity of to live’, the concept of ecology also applied to the
resources, increasing consumerism, and popula- human habitat as a place of social interaction, be
tion growth in the late 1960s, Fuller’s ideas became it a house, a neighbourhood, or an urban region.
more common within a circle of young architects, In 1915, Patrick Geddes, for instance, claimed a
including Fuller’s long-time collaborator and friend homology between nature and the city.57 He thought
of Price, John McHale. McHale extended Fuller’s of both cities and natural settings as ecosystems
concept of ecological design to the development of encompassing the flow of energy, matter, and both
design principles and tools. As much as the design
54
human and non-human organisms.58 In his work as
of an object, building, or territory, from a planetary- an urban planner, he favoured small-scale interven-
planning perspective, McHale understood ecological tions that would serve ‘primary human needs’ over
design to be the design of organic systems through large-scale urban designs. This approach was later
technological mediation or engineering. 55
described as ‘conservative surgery’ and the idea of
Price continuously adapted this radical way architecture as systems intervention finds an echo
of thinking about architecture as an instrument of in the later works of Cedric Price.59
system intervention throughout his work. While Thanks to cybernetics, the idea of ecology
projects like the Potteries Thinkbelt focused on changed after World War II to a more integrated
designing a large-scale regional network and vision in which the natural world was no longer seen
educational system as a starting point for revitali- in opposition to the human-made world. However,
sation, smaller projects like the Inter-Action Centre with the first United Nations resolution on envi-
focused on a single component within a larger ronmental policy, published in 1972, the idea of
network of spatial interventions. Projects such as ecology and the corresponding systemic view on
South Bank (1983–88), Ducklands (1989–1991), or the world had gained new political relevance.60 It
Magnet (1995) show that Price continued to develop recognised that modern scientific and technological
this topic throughout his career. With his proposal
56
developments had altered the relationship between
for the giant Ferris wheel on London’s South Bank humans and their environment profoundly. The
and his small-scale infrastructural intervention in resolution was intended to acknowledge both tech-
his Magnet proposal, he presented architecture as nology’s unprecedented opportunities for human
an urban catalyst that would stimulate social and development while also recognising the acceler-
economic change within a broader environment. He ating destruction of the human living environment.
 59

Science and technology were understood both as Consequently, the ideal of ecological design in the
instruments for the exploitation of resources and Inter-Action Centre also contained a robust ethical
compensation for their negative impact. Moreover, imperative. The public perceived it as a showcase
social activism showed itself to be a counter-reac- project that would foster a better life through crea-
tion to modernist planning, as it saw the limits of tivity and social interaction.
architecture in its inability to meet its inhabitants’ For Cedric Price, the Inter-Action Centre repre-
needs. sented a culmination of the various ideas and
In this new way of thinking about architecture, approaches to systems thinking that he had encoun-
contextualisation and the faculty for dialogue should tered during his work in the 1960s. In the project, his
help to reconcile the social space with the built relational approach to architecture, which empha-
space. Furthermore, a new bottom-up approach sised the link between material resources and the
was to facilitate the residents’ identification with the possibility of individual action, that is, between
living environment. While an intellectual elite gave information, space and social order, became fully
voice to these demands in the 1960s, among them apparent. This new attitude towards architecture as
Jane Jacobs, Kevin Lynch, Denise Scott Brown, a system or ecology explains many of his subse-
and Robert Venturi, similar ideals also began to quent projects’ polymorphism. He applied design
emerge at the beginning of the 1970s in grassroots as an active agent to intervene in already existing
movements and community initiatives in London. environmental systems. A log cabin, like the one in
Like many others, both the Inter-Action group and the Inter-Action Centre, the new hard hat invented
Joan Littlewood’s Theatre-Workshop started their for the McAppy project, or a bird sanctuary could
engagement in community work where the idea of each represent a suitable artistic instrument to stim-
ecology came to the fore through advocacy for the ulate improvement of the built environment. In this
common good. sense, the design of the Inter-Action Centre marks
If the Inter-Action Centre may not appear at first the passage from the observation of a system of
glance as a genuine example of such an ecological social interaction to ‘the intentional instrumentation
approach, this may reflect a rather narrow under- of new systems as active agents’.61 Following the
standing of ecology, that is, in the context of the tradition of Patrick Geddes’s co-evolution, Cedric
natural environment only. Yet without the neigh- Price used design to foster a new form of dialogue
bourhood’s social fabric, its use of architecture as and open up an altered spectrum of action for the
an active agent to improve citizens’ lives by offering individual users.
space, programmes and activities would have been More telling, however, is how Price’s architec-
unthinkable. Such a reorientation of architecture ture shows the consequences of the paradigm shift
also met, of course, with criticism. The main points from architecture seen as a representational artifact
of critique were the approach’s adherence to and to architecture as part of an ecology. Consistently,
reliance on observation, description, and applica- when his Inter-Action Centre was proposed for
tion of scientific methodologies. At the same time, inclusion in the list of British cultural heritage
however, its emphasis on education and learning sites, Cedric Price took the unprecedented step of
undeniably promoted values such as sociability, lobbying against such preservation.62 Instead, he
equality, and the improvement of life. This topical argued that his building should be demolished to
alignment led it to join systems thinking with make room for a new one, one that was better suited
learning and self-improvement. The design and to the demands of today’s users.63 Shortly before his
use of the built environment should reflect these death in 2003, Price was asked if he would not feel
values and actively contribute to their realisation. nostalgic seeing the great architecture of the 1960s
 60

disappear. As a true proponent of the process- no. 64/18 ‘sidings, tracks & station using’ dated 23
based architectural approach, he just briefly stated: March 1965. Cedric Price Archive, CCA, Montréal,
‘Nostalgia for the 1960s, it is laughable.’64 Document folio: DR:1995:0216.076. Patrick Geddes,
‘The valley section from hills to sea’, New York City,
Notes 1923. Lecture given at the New School of Social
1. Cedric Price left behind only two buildings: the Inter- Research, published in: Patrick Geddes, Cities in
Action Centre, demolished in 2003, and the London Evolution, new, revised edition (London: Barnes and
Zoo Aviary. Most other projects were abandoned Nobles, 1959).
in an unfinished state. His lasting influence stems 8. The performative nature of Price’s work is understood
rather from his teaching activities, contributions to in the context of Doreen Massey’s relational approach
conferences, editorials and similar small-scale publi- to place, in which she links space and place to their
cations. See among others: J. Stanley Mathews, ‘An social organisation. In this conceptual framework,
Architecture for the New Britain: The Social Vision of organisations are seen as being enacted through
Cedric Price’s Fun Palace and Potteries Thinkbelt’, meaningful interactions, which include human and
Ph.D. Thesis, Columbia University, 2003; Samantha non-human actants. Doreen B. Massey, For Space
Hardingham, Cedric Price Works 1953–2003 (London: (London: Sage Publications, 2005).
AA Publications, 2016); Tanja Herdt, The City and 9. Mary Louise Lobsinger, ‘Cybernetic Theory and the
the Architecture of Change: The Works and Radical Architecture of Performance: Cedric Price’s Fun
Visions of Cedric Price (Zurich: Park Books, 2017). Palace’, in: Anxious Modernism: Experimentation in
2. Lydia Kallipoliti, ‘History of Ecological Design’, Oxford Postwar Architectural Culture, ed. Sarah Williams
English Encyclopedia of Environmental Science Goldhagen and Rejean Legault (Cambridge, MA: MIT
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). Press, 2000), 98.
3. György Kepes, Art and Ecological Consciousness 10. The Borough of Camden gave Inter-Action a twenty-
(New York: G. Braziller, 1972). seven-year land-lease on the site. Hardingham,
4. Barney Warf, ‘Spatial Turn’ in Encyclopedia of Cedric Price Works, 315.
Geography, ed. Barney Warf (Thousand Oaks: SAGE 11. ‘Londoner’s Diary’, The Evening Standard, 19 April
Publications, 2010), 2669. 1977.
5. Sutherland Lyall, The State of British Architecture 12. Win Caldwell, Report on Remedial Education 02/1972,
(London: Architectural Press, 1980). no. 1 vol. 1, 28, Cedric Price Archive, CCA, Montréal,
6. The date for the Claverton Dome refers to the end Document folio: DR:1995:0252:632:16/17.
of the project design. It diverges form the date given 13. Sutherland Lyall, ‘Funpalace Mark II’, Building Design,
by Samantha Hardingham, who suggests 1961– 22 April 1977.
1964, taking into account all documents written on 14. Caldwell, Report on Remedial Education, 28.
the project. Hardingham, Cedric Price Works. The 15. Inter-Action trust director David Berman used this
date for the New Aviary refers to the public opening approach for purposes ranging from therapy to enter-
of the building in 1965. It diverges form Samantha tainment. ‘Project Inter-Action, General description’,
Hardingham, who suggests 1961–1964, taking into Report III, Council for Cultural Co-operation Council
account all documents written on the project. Ibid. of Europe, Symposium Rotterdam, 5.–9.10.1970,
7. Whereas Samantha Hardingham dates the Potteries Cedric Price Archive, CCA, Montréal, Document folio:
Thinkbelt to 1966–1967, the CCA lists the project DR:1995:0252:632:16/17.
1963–1966. 1963 was the year when Cedric Price 16. Ibid.
started his writings on the educational reform plans of 17. Nathan Silver, ‘Hypercandid’, New Statesman, 6 May
the British government. Ibid., and Archival document 1977.
 61

18. Ibid.; Hardingham, Cedric Price Works, 329. 902–20.

19. In this sense, the roof of the Inter-Action Centre had 36. Herdt, The City and the Architecture of Change.
the character not of a building but of an outdoor 37. Ibid.
pavilion in a park. The outdoor facilities were not 38. Lobsinger, ‘Cybernetic Theory and the Architecture of
designed by Cedric Price. Cedric Price Archive, CCA, Performance’.
Montréal, Document folio: DR:1995:0252:632:1/31 39. Reyner Banham, ‘Softer Hardware’, Ark (Summer
20. Silver, ‘Hypercandid’. 1969): 11.
21. Author unknown, ‘Inter-Action Centre’, RIBA Journal 40. Gordon Pask, An Approach to Cybernetics (New York:
(November 1977): 458–59, cited in: Hardingham, Harper & Bros, 1961).
Cedric Price Works, 317. 41. Gordon Pask, ‘Styles and Strategies of Learning’, British
22. Ibid. Journal of Educational Psychology 46 (1976): 128–48.
23. Cedric Price, ‘Activity Frequency Sheet Sketch 42. Michael Hagener and Erich Hörl, eds., Überlegungen
102/156, Inter-Action Centre’, undated, CCA, zur kybernetischen Transformation des Humanen
Montréal, Document folio DR:1995:0252:621:16/17. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2008).
24. Samantha Hardingham, interview with Will Alsop, 14 43. Gordon Pask, ‘The Architectural Relevance of
December 2014, in: Hardingham, Cedric Price Works, Cybernetics’, Architectural Design (September 1969):
316. 494–96.
25. Mathews, ‘An Architecture for the New Britain’, 302. 44. Ibid.
26. Herdt, The City and the Architecture of Change. 45. Ibid.
27. Volker M. Welter, Biopolis: Patrick Geddes and the 46. Cedric Price, ‘PTb Life conditioning’, Architectural
City of Life (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002). Design (October 1966): 483–84.
28. Kallipoliti, ‘History of Ecological Design’. 47. Another prime example of this view is his design of the
29. Price reflected this observational approach and Potteries Thinkbelt. Ibid.
Geddes’s understanding of the city as an organic 48. Ibid.
whole in his 1962 project Circlorama, in which the 49. Addressing modernist concepts, see: Adrian Forty,
inhabitants of Glasgow could get information on the Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern
impact of urban redevelopment schemes through Architecture (London: Thames and Hudson, 2000).
observation of the city. Herdt, The City and the 50. Cedric Price, ‘X26: Fun Palace Project Easter
Architecture of Change, 64. Fair’, sketch dated 16 February 1974, Cedric
30. Ibid. Price Archive, CCA, Montréal, Document folio
31. Letter from E.J.B. Rose to Cedric Price dated DR:1995:0188:525:001:018.2.
30 March 1976, CCA, Montréal, Document folio 51. Kallipoliti, ‘History of Ecological Design’.
DR:1995:0252:632:16/17. 52. Herdt, The City and the Architecture of Change.
32. Will Hodgkinson, ‘If it works, scrap it’, The Guardian, 53. Author unknown, letter to Cedric Price, nominee
3 May 1999. for the Reynolds Memorial Award, the American
33. Cedric Price, ‘Technology is the Answer, But What Institute of Architects 1965, Cedric Price Archive,
Was the Question’, recorded lecture. Monica Pidgeon Canadian Centre for Architecture, Document folio:
Audio, 1979. As cited in: Hardingham, Cedric Price DR:1995:0185:275:003.
Works, 316. 54. Price knew John McHale from his engagement in the
34. Hardingham, Cedric Price Works, 119. Independent Group (1952–1956) exhibition This is
35. Peter Silver et. al., ‘Prototypical Applications of Tomorrow.
Cybernetic Systems in Architectural Contexts: A 55. Kallipoliti, ‘History of Ecological Design’.
Tribute to Gordon Pask’, Kybernetes 30 (2001): 56. Herdt, The City and the Architecture of Change.
 62

57. Geddes, Cities in Evolution. Biography

58. Kallipoliti, ‘History of Ecological Design’. Tanja Herdt is an Associate Professor of Theory and
59. Lewis Mumford, ‘Introduction’, in Jaqueline Tyrwhitt, Methods of Urban Design in the Department of Urbanism
Patrick Geddes in India (London: Lund Humphries, at TU Delft. She is both an academic and a practicing
1947), 10. urban designer with an emphasis on urban transforma-
60. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the tion, methods of urban analysis, and history and theory of
Human Environment, UNO 1972, https://www.ifrc.org/ the city. Tanja received her doctorate from the Department
docs/idrl/I242EN.pdf. of Architecture at ETH Zurich, where she also worked as
61. Kallipoliti, ‘History of Ecological Design’. head of research for sustainable settlement design at the
62. Mathews, ‘An Architecture for the New Britain’, 306. research centre ETH-CASE. In her work she focuses on
63. Ibid. theories and methods that uncover the dependencies
64. Cedric Price, interview with Christian Kühn, Vienna of social practices and urban form, the future design of
2002, UmBAu 20 (2003), cited in: Hardingham, Cedric housing and public space, and the influence of digi-
Price Works, Volume II, 504. talisation on city design. Her work on Cedric Price was
published under the title The City and the Architecture of
Change (Park Books, 2017).