M055 Competition design for Glasgow Art Galleries (dome)

Background to the competition

In early 1891 Glasgow's 1888 International Exhibition Association established an Association for the Promotion of Art and Music in the City of Glasgow. The aim of this new organisation was to build 'Art Galleries, a Museum, a Concert Hall and, if practicable, a School of Painting and Design' for the city. Surplus funds from the 1888 Exhibition totalling £46,000 would contribute to the construction of the new building, while the new Association's executive committee, which included representatives of Glasgow Corporation, was to raise additional funds amounting to £92,000. The new building would be constructed in Kelvingrove Park, site of the 1888 Exhibition, to replace and greatly expand the existing gallery in Kelvingrove House. 1

During the summer, the new Association's buildings sub-committee undertook a fact-finding mission to art galleries and museums in London, and its findings were reported to the executive committee in early August. The following month the format and conditions of the competition were arranged and Alfred Waterhouse was appointed assessor. It was described as a 'double competition', comprising preliminary and final rounds, with separate conditions to be issued for each round. The competition was announced in early September in the British Architect and other journals. 2

In the preliminary round, entrants were to submit sketch plans only. From these, no fewer than five entries would be short-listed for the final round, in which plans, elevations and sections would be submitted. An honorarium of £100 would be paid to each of the short-listed architects. 3 The draft conditions for the preliminary round stipulated that the new building should consist of a concert hall, picture galleries, a museum and a school of design; that it should have two floors plus basement, with the possibility of being easily extended or built in separate blocks; and that the concert hall should give access to the museum on the ground floor and the galleries above. The extent of wall and floor space for the galleries was specified, and the budget was not to exceed £120,000. The conditions also recommended the inclusion of two quadrangles to increase space for the museum and admit more light. Unknown, but apparently minor, revisions were made to the conditions before publication. 4

Competition results

The results of the preliminary round were announced in the British Architect on 18 December 1891. Waterhouse selected six designs to advance to the final round. Two of these were by John Honeyman & Keppie, an outcome which gave rise to some controversy (see 'Reception' below). The other successful architects were Malcolm Stark & Rowntree of Glasgow; Thomas Manly Deane of Sir Thomas N. Deane & Son, Dublin; Treadwell & Martin of London; and John W. Simpson & E. J. Milner Allen of London. 5

Although the contest was described at the outset as a double competition, and fresh conditions were issued, it seems that the second round simply gave the six short-listed architects the opportunity to revise their original designs in light of the newly issued conditions. In reviews published following the announcement of the final result, the six designs were sometimes referred to using the numbers given to them in the preliminary round, strongly suggesting that no new designs were submitted. 6 Simpson & Milner Allen were awarded first prize, and following some revision their design was built between 1892 and 1901. 7 The executive committee's acceptance of Waterhouse's choice for first place was not unanimous, however: minutes show that one committee member, city councillor Shearer, dissented, favouring one of John Honeyman & Keppie's designs instead. 8

Design

John Honeyman & Keppie submitted a total of three designs. Two of these were short-listed: one in a severe Ionic classical style; the second a French Renaissance-inspired design, with four towers and a busy roofline. A third was also French Renaissance design, with a large dome and was described in a review of the post-competition exhibition of sketch designs submitted in the preliminary round. 9

John Honeyman & Keppie's third design followed the other two in its planning: it was arranged around a central hall, with galleries and museum spaces at the E. of the ground floor and on the entire first floor, and the administration and art school on the ground floor on the W. side. The art school was ultimately omitted from the built design and a separate, new building constructed for the existing municipal School of Art. Like the second scheme, it showed some French Renaissance influences. Its dominant feature was a tall dome over the central hall, which perhaps derived from Robert Rowand Anderson's 1887 dome for Edinburgh University, and pairs of square domed pavilions flanked the N. and S. entrances. 10

The design may have been a combined effort by Keppie and Mackintosh. Some features, such as the double-transomed windows recall Mackintosh's student design for a Museum of Science and Art. Others, such as the entrances with their echoes of James Sellars, might be due to Keppie. The sculpted frieze was copied directly from John Burnet Senior's 1878 design for the Glasgow Institute of Fine Arts galleries. 11

Reception

There was extensive coverage of the competition in the architectual press. All six selected designs from the first round were published in the months immediately following the competition and, interestingly, John Honeyman & Keppie's third design was also reproduced, in December 1892, apparently the only non-short-listed design to be illustrated. 12

The practice's third design was reviewed in the Builder, which concluded that 'in plan [it is] not essentially differing from the two designs included in the six selected. The elevations are classical, broad and restrained. The central feature is a dome which is not very obvious in plan, but is very good in outline and design. It distinctly recalls the dome recently added by Dr Rowand Anderson to Edinburgh University.' 13

In 1893, the practice exhibited their competition designs. Included at the Glasgow Institute of the Fine Arts was their 'domed design' which the Glasgow Herald critic deemed 'perhaps the best exterior of the three they submitted'. A perspective and a detail drawing, probably of the second short-listed design, were exhibited at the Royal Scottish Academy but the Glasgow Herald review only mentioned it in passing. 14

Like many 19th-century architectural contests, the competition itself came in for heavy criticism in the professional press. Following the announcement of the results of the preliminary round, the British Architect called into question the inclusion of two designs by one practice. 'It seems almost a pity that when it was found that two of the designs were sent in by one firm, the best of the rejected designs was not brought in, and its author included amongst the chosen six competitors for the final. This would not have been at all an out of the way proceeding, seeing there were over fifty designs still left to choose from, and such a course could not have failed also to have given satisfaction to the competitors. We make this suggestion on the assumption that Messrs. Honeyman & Keppie will only send one design in the final. This point will probably be determined in the conditions of the competition, but it seems to complicate matters when competitors are allowed to submit more than one design.' 15 The following week after receiving further information, the journal modified its stand by adding, 'If both designs are positively going to the poll, ... we do not for a moment argue that Messrs. Honeyman & Keppie ought to lose the advantage they are honourably entitled to of having two strings to their bow. . So far it has not led to any very great difficulties, but unless it is specifically stated to the contrary, we presume it would be open to the competitors in the Glasgow final, other than Messrs. Honeyman & Keppie, to send in alternative designs.' 16

The Builder attacked the competition conditions. 'It is abundantly evident that the committee's unfortunate instructions, or, rather, lack of explicit definition, as to the central hall, have completely misled the majority of the competitors, who have most naturally interpreted it as a concert-hall. That this, the crucial feature of the whole design, should have been left so vague and ill-defined in the original instructions is the most unsatisfactory point about the competition .... The first and foremost duty of a committee is to issue precise and definite instructions, in common fairness to competitors. In the present instance nearly all have misinterpreted the principal requirement, and many of the designs have been thrown out in consequence. Either the committee did or did not know their own minds; if they did, they should have given unmistakable expression to their wishes; if they did not, they should have said so plainly, and left the competitors a free hand.' 17

The article also questioned the appropriateness to Glasgow of the winning design, suggesting perhaps a local correspondent as author of the article: '...the award has been given to a design that embodies, skilfully enough, the latest "London fashion". The commercial capital of the North, grey, grimy, and damp, yet palatial Glasgow, has an architectural character of its own that is well worth studying. It is a pity that the new Art Galleries will hardly be in keeping with this character.' 18

top