CHAPTER XXIV
Burlington Arcade: Stone Conduit Close
The arcade was constructed within the
westernmost margin of the Burlington
House site. It was designed by Samuel
Ware and built for Lord George Cavendish in the
years 1818–19. Lord George acquired the Burlington House site from his nephew, the sixth Duke
of Devonshire, in August 1815 but by the early
spring of that year he already had sufficient lien
on the property to be preparing alterations to
Burlington House, and the first estimate of the
cost of an arcade of shops (though differing somewhat from the arrangement executed) was being
made in May 1815. This was in a report made
by Ware to John Heaton, the Devonshires'
London agent. The project may thus not have
originated wholly with Lord George but was
perhaps associated with earlier schemes submitted
to Heaton by Ware and others for a more extensive
redevelopment of the whole Burlington House
site by the Devonshire family. It was less ambitious than any of these, but an admirable piece of
urban speculation. It did no violence to the
Burlingtonian layout, serving rather to give the
house and garden greater privacy; it added to the
sauntering delights of the West End; and it
brought a handsome return on Lord George's
capital outlay (fig. 76).
It was built very soon after the Royal Opera
Arcade of Nash and Repton, which was the earlier
to be planned. (ref. 1) That arcade, however, had shops
only on one side and the Burlington Arcade
appears to be the exemplar in England of the more
usual double-sided arcade.
Ware's report of May 1815 described the proposed development as 'a Piazza for all Hardware,
Wearing Apparel and Articles not Offensive in
appearance nor smell'. The project at this stage
was for a double-sided arcade divided into four
sections by three spaces called 'inter-shops' where
the promenade would be wider and shops would
be replaced (as at the entrances also) by 'stands' or
'stalls' which were to be 'after the principle of
those in Exeter Change'. There were to be 38
shops and 20 stalls. (ref. 2)
More than two years passed, during which the
attention of Lord George and his architect was
doubtless concentrated on their alterations to
Burlington House. In July 1817 Ware produced
another prospectus for the arcade, which still
retained its designation as a 'piazza'. The main
feature in which the 1815 scheme differed from
that which was shortly to be effected still survived
in the 'three Saloons or Intervals' where the shops
would be 'open' and only a single storey high.
Easy perambulation would have been interrupted
by steps in the middle saloon designed to adjust the
difference in height between the Burlington
Gardens and Piccadilly ends.
At this time it was proposed that Lord George
should undertake only the expense of constructing
the 'skeleton' of the arcade and the colonnaded
entrance façades, which was estimated at £20,000,
leaving to the lessees the expense, estimated at
£11,900, of finishing the individual shops in
external conformity to Lord George's specification. The scheme provided for 22 open shops and
54 shops with upper rooms. Separate staircases to
these were intended to facilitate separate letting of
the upper parts. The shops were to vary in frontage from 10 to 20 feet.
The prospective yearly rent was estimated at
£3690, from which was to be deducted £1200, the
estimated yearly value of the ground given up for
the site. The estimated yield would thus have
been some 12 per cent on the expected outlay of
£20,000. (ref. 3)
The decision to commence building, 'after
numerous deliberations', was announced in The
Gentleman's Magazine in September 1817. The
arcade was there said to be 'for the sale of jewellery
and other fancy articles' and to be intended 'for the
gratification of the publick, and to give employment to industrious females'. A more probable
motive was also suggested: 'What first gave birth
to the idea was the great annoyance to which the
garden [of Burlington House] is subject from the
inhabitants of a neighbouring street throwing
oyster-shells etc. over the walls'. (ref. 4) The adjacent
properties overlooking the garden had certainly
given trouble, and in 1870 a former pupil of
Ware's, Henry Baker, stated that the arcade
'was designed solely with the object of
shutting out the hundreds of windows in OldBond street'. (ref. 5)
In February 1818 the tender of Mr. Seabrook
of Hatton Garden was accepted. The whole
work of construction was now evidently to be
undertaken by Lord George although the amount
of the tender was stated in two parts, for the
skeleton at £19,319 and for the completion of the
building at £10,010, making £29,329 in all. By
March 1819 Ware could announce that all the
shops were let, (ref. 3) and all were occupied by the end
of that year. (ref. 6) As built, the arcade differed from
the projected designs in consisting of virtually unbroken ranges of enclosed shops. These consisted
of 72 units (an enumeration still maintained),
grouped at first into 21 double-width and 30
single-width shops. (ref. 6) By 1828 six double shops
had been separated (Plate 74, fig. 77).
The first tenants paid initial fines totalling
£9500 and were granted twenty-one-year leases
from Christmas 1818. It was provided, however,
that the term should cease after fourteen years
unless a fine equivalent to one year's improved
rent was paid at the end of the first seven years.
The first rents totalled £3214 per annum. If
no fines had been exacted the rents would have
totalled £4259 per annum. (ref. 7) What the final cost
of construction amounted to is not certainly
known. Henry Baker later said that it had been
about £30,000, (ref. 5) which would have approximated
to the tender. He also said that the first letting
yielded 14 per cent, which would be more or less
true if the fines were discounted and the total rent
taken to be £4259. If the previously postulated
site value of £1200 per annum is deducted from
the rent, the return on an expenditure of £30,000
would have been about 10 per cent.
The arcade seems to have prospered from the
beginning. A comparison of the 55 shops of
1828 with the 42 of 1960 shows a fairly similar
character at both dates, although at the earlier
time there were relatively fewer shops selling
objets d'art and articles in precious or semiprecious materials, and more selling articles of
attire. The arcade then seems to have provided at
least as much for women's as for men's fashions,
and was as notably the place to go for a bonnet as it
is now for a shirt or a tie. The 55 shops of 1828
consisted of eight milliners, eight hosiers or
glovers, five linen shops, four shoemakers, three
hairdressers, three jewellers or watchmakers, and
two shops apiece of lacemen, hatters, umbrella or
stick sellers, case-makers, tobacconists and florists.
The remainder consisted (with one unspecified
shop) of a shawl seller, ivory turner, goldsmith,
glass manufacturer, optician, wine merchant,
pastrycook, bookseller, stationer, music seller and
engraver. (ref. 8)
When the first seven-year term was approaching its end Ware made the rather surprising
suggestion, in July 1824, that Lord George should
take advantage of 'the low value of money' at
that time to sell the arcade, which he thought
would improve the value of Burlington House.
But the family retained the property for more than
a century. In 1825 fines totalling £5888 were
raised for the confirmation of the terms of leases
from 1832 to 1839. (ref. 3) In 1850 Peter Cunningham
reported that the Cavendishes were said to receive
about £4000 in rent and that 'the actual produce
(from numerous subleases) amounts, I am told, to
8640 l.' (ref. 9)
Writing in 1862 Henry Mayhew remarked on
the use of upper chambers over 'a friendly bonnet
shop' for purposes of prostitution: men of position
who wished to avoid 'publicity in their amours'
dreaded being seen in the vicinity of the arcade at
certain hours. (ref. 10) When the abortive project for an
arcade south of Conduit Street was being discussed in 1864 fears were expressed that a similar
situation would arise. A member of the Metropolitan Board of Works stated, however, that he
was often in Burlington Arcade 'and had never
seen anything dreadful there'. (ref. 11)
On 26 March 1836 a fire had destroyed the
Bond Street Bazaar or Western Exchange which
ran from No. 10 Old Bond Street to the back of
No. 14 in the arcade. The fire spread into the
arcade through an iron door accidentally left open
and destroyed Nos. 12–15 and 58–61. (ref. 12) In 1871
another fire caused extensive damage to a number
of shops, some being reported to be 'gutted and
destroyed'. (ref. 13)
These fires must have involved substantial rebuilding but the first alteration to the appearance
of the arcade from the street was in 1911, when
an upper storey containing offices was built over
the Piccadilly front (Plate 74c). This addition
was skilfully designed by Professor Beresford Pite
to harmonize with the discreetly enlivened
Palladianism of Ware's front. The coat of arms of
the freeholder, Lord Chesham, was executed in
terra-cotta by Messrs. James Stiff and Sons, of
Lambeth. (ref. 14)
In the summer of 1926 Lord Chesham, the
great-great-great-grandson of Lord George
Cavendish, sold the freehold of the arcade, and a
few months later it changed hands again for
£330,000. (ref. 15) The freeholder's rental at that time
amounted to £13,180 per annum. (ref. 16)
In 1931, when the arcade was owned by the
London Freehold and Leasehold Property Co.
Ltd., a second drastic alteration was made to the
Piccadilly frontage, opening the arcade more
obviously to the street. The late nineteenthcentury iron railings and Ware's Ionic screen
were removed and replaced by the present wide
arch, designed by Professor Beresford Pite and
Partners, (ref. 17) with sculpture by Benjamin Clemens (ref. 18)
(Plate 74d). An earlier design by Beresford Pite
dated September 1930, had proposed shop-fronts
protruding into Piccadilly, under a simpler arch. (ref. 19)
The addition of 1911 still continues to form the
upper part of the façade. The Times reported: 'It
has been feared by the tenants in the Burlingtonarcade that the recent developments of shop design
might tell against the importance of the Arcade',
and that the alterations would enable the shops on
either side of the entrance to have Piccadilly
frontages. (ref. 17) The Architectural Review regretted
this alteration in 'a Michelangelesque provincial
manner that gives full scope to the mahogany
shopfitting "expert"'. (ref. 20) The architects' plan,
elevation and section as executed are reproduced
in The Builder for 24 July 1931, p. 152.
Ware's façade at the Burlington Gardens end
was replaced in 1937 by a new front, also giving
open access (Plate 74b). This was designed for the
owners, the House Property and Investment Co.
Ltd., by Messrs. Ernest Bates and William G.
Sinning. (ref. 21)
In 1940 the four northernmost bays of the
arcade were destroyed by enemy action. (ref. 22) The
arcade southward of this was restored in 1950. (ref. 23)
The restoration of the northern section was completed by W. G. Sinning, the contractor being Sir
Robert McAlpine. This part was re-opened on
16 September 1954. New finely-jointed bricks of
the unusually small size of those originally used
were employed at first-floor level and the interior
staircases were modelled on the original stairs at
Nos. 66–70. The lanterns, which date from the
1930's, are those salvaged after the bombing of
1940. The cast lead originally used in the stallboard grilles was replaced by wrought iron. (ref. 24)
In 1954 the leasehold and freehold were again
united, in the possession of the Prudential Assurance Company. The Times estimated that the
total rental in 1954 was about £50,000 per
annum. (ref. 22)
Architectural Description
In this, the longest of London's shopping
arcades, tunnel-like monotony is avoided by recurrent variations in height and width, and by
division of the length into bays by a series of
arches. A tent-like ceiling, set with glazed rooflights and varying in height, is broken by the
recedingarches along a characteristically 'Regency'
vista, while rhythmic interruption of the building
line by projecting display windows, and recession
from it by smaller display windows, sets up an
undulation conducive to the leisurely and agreeable spending of money.
One could describe Ware's basic pattern of plan
and elevation, along one side of the passage (disregarding subsequent addition and subtraction of
partitions), as follows, one letter equalling one bay
as defined by the arches (sixteen in all) and hyphens
representing enriched arches:
d-aba-c-aba-c-aba-c-aba-d
Here 'a' represents a 'double' shop, with small
display window flanked by doors and by larger
display windows, and one storey visible above
where one plain window is flanked by two bay
windows; 'b' represents two smaller, separate
shops, or 'single' shops, with one visible storey
above them, where two plain windows are between
two bay windows; 'c' is a heightened version of
'a' and takes the place of the 'inter-shop' spaces or
'saloons' earlier proposed, the three-storey fronts
being set back from the building line; and 'd',
between street entrance and first arch, represents
one 'single' shop plus one double shop splayed
back from the street entrance. The width of the
passage at each arch is constant, some 12 feet.
In section, the two-storey ranges were built as
proposed in 1815 with basements, ground-floor
shops, first-floor living quarters (or first-floor
shops), and attics in the mansard roof above the
level of the arcade skylights. Ware's first floor is a
full storey, not a mezzanine as in the Royal Opera
Arcade. At first he suggested alternative treatments of the downward slope of the ground from
north to south (a difference of nine feet), one
following the declivity as now, the other with
three sets of steps: at Piccadilly, before the first
range of shops, and halfway along the arcade. (ref. 2) In
1817 he even proposed placing all the steps
halfway along the passage, in the 'Middle Saloon', (ref. 3)
but steps clearly would have impeded profitable
sauntering.
Figure 77:
Burlington Arcade, elevation, section (shown without basements) and ground-floor plan
From 1819 until 1911 (and partially up to
1931) the two street entrances were of the same
triple-arch design (ref. 25) (Plate 74a). The proposals of
1815, however, had been as follows: the south
entrance to have a straight entablature on two
Ionic columns between two piers; the north
entrance to have one central arch on two small
Doric columns, between two pairs of Ionic
columns the full height of the arch. (ref. 2)
As built, three arches, enriched with mouldings
similar to those on the ornamented arches inside,
and with the same scrolled keystones, were carried
on four piers with attached three-quarter columns
of the same Renaissance Ionic order with plain
shafts as the pilasters along the passage. (ref. 26) Above
the modillioned cornice was a parapet, pierced by
balustraded openings over the side arches and
having a plain lettered panel in the centre.
Buttresses as high as the parapet, and capped with
a plain moulding, stood on either side. Ware's
ornamental detail along the passage, corresponding
to that of the original entrances, reveals the intentionally 'Palladian' style of his design, in
keeping with Burlington House itself, for all the
'Regency' character of the arcade as a whole.
Beresford Pite's addition of 1911 at the Piccadilly end was sympathetic to both these aspects
(Plate 74c). The parapet was removed and a
similar one, re-using the old balusters, (ref. 19) was
placed above the new storey and invested with the
Chesham arms, three stags' heads cabossed,
supported by a buck and a greyhound. Pite's
repetition of the triple-arch theme, diminuendo,
with paired Ionic columns, preserved both the
spirit and the scale of the original, and the lowered
buttresses framing the latter now supported simple
volutes binding the new composition with the old.
This upper storey of 1911 (with tile decoration
added in 1931) still stands, although its basis in
both scale and spirit was removed twenty years
after when Pite was asked to provide the present,
more open entrance (Plate 74d).
This is a curious design. In 1931 Edwardian
Baroque was even more out of fashion than
Ware's delicate screen. The simpler handling of
the preliminary design dated September 1930, (ref. 19) in
its delicacy and verve of line, and in the elegant
boldness of its two large allegorical figures, may
show Pite's own preference. In the event, below
the mannerly addition of 1911 there now yawns a
proscenium arch emphasized by vigorous mouldings and scrolled half-pediments sheltering little
genre figures of uncertain significance, and flanked
by theatrical scrolled consoles bearing helmeted
busts. The soffit of the arch bears panels with
sheaves of leaves in low relief, slightly art nouveau
in feeling. In effect, the present Piccadilly
entrance suggests, more than Pite's first (1930)
design did, a monumental fair-ground entrance.
The north entrance was rebuilt in 1937 (Plate
74b). W. G. Sinning designed a plain parapet
faced with a simplified form of the Chesham arms
in relief, above a segmental-arched opening half
hidden by a semicircular canopy of reinforced
concrete faced with cast lead, between low pylons
bearing covered fluted vases. The total effect is
quiet and bland in contrast to the turbulent arch
on Piccadilly. During rebuilding after bomb
damage, the same architect reconstructed the low
conical sectors of Ware's roof just inside the
north entrance. (ref. 27)
While Portland stone was used for all versions
of the street entrances, brick was used inside the
arcade, visibly at first-floor level and stuccoed for
arches and pilasters. Ware's prospectus of July
1817 (ref. 3) stipulated that 'the Skylights are intended
to rest on open Ironwork', a modest gesture toward the new world of iron and glass.
The ground-floor elevations within the arcade
consist entirely of shop-fronts, which are not today
entirely consistent. But the maximum projection
of display windows has not been changed although the individual glass panes are no longer
small. Messrs. Lord of Nos. 66–70 (who continue the name of the first occupant of Nos.
69–70, John Lord, glover and hosier) possess a
plate-glass insurance policy taken out in 1875,
which might indicate that it was not until this
year that they changed from the old small panes.
Early engravings suggest that the original fascias
and stallboards had a light-toned finish, possibly
wood-grained or marbled. The style of fascia
lettering on the older shops, sanserif letters with
strokes of equal thickness, in gilt on black, may
date from the installation of new glass in the latter
part of the century, but could be earlier. Lord's
still have, at No. 70, one of the original staircases,
a small spiral in plan with simple iron supports and
a plain curving mahogany handrail which dies into
the wall panelling at the bottom.
An important but little-noted vestige of the
original arcade is the oblique angle still retained by
some shop doorways. It is clear from Ware's
proposals of 1815, (ref. 2) both from the term 'angle
shops' in his estimates and from the accompanying
plans, that entrances to 'double' shops were from
the first intended to be canted back from the site
line, in mirrored pairs, as now at Nos. 68–69 and
several others; and certain 'single' shops (e.g.
Nos. 30 and 31; also Nos. 66–67, later combined)
show this feature, which probably prevailed
throughout. The small recesses thus created not
only added visual variety to the larger intervals
in the prospect, they further accentuated the
modest projection of the display windows. The
trend from proposed to executed design was, in
fact, toward compression of doors and stairs, for
emphasis on display space; the same economic
motive, that is, which opened up the street
entrances more than a century later.