Introduction

This dissertation explores the emotional experience of the architecture of Covent Garden during its redevelopment between 1971 and 1980, analysing how emotion and sentiment drove protests held against the Greater London Council’s plans.

The study began with a psychogeographical analysis of Covent Garden’s present-day state, using the dérive as a research tool to gain a deeper experiential understanding of the area.[1] Afterwards, a literature review, oral history and drawing techniques were combined to investigate the interplay between design and human emotions. A first important source includes life writing articles written by King’s College students in 2013, based on interviews they conducted with figures of the Covent Garden protests.[2] A second key source is the The Battle for Covent Garden film, also from 2013 and the full recordings of interviews conducted for this film.[3] These personal accounts provided insight on the community’s emotional responses to the redevelopment. These testimonies underscore the importance of Covent Garden’s architectural space in shaping social behaviour and public sentiment. The Covent Garden protests illustrate how architecture can influence a community, which in turn actively worked to preserve and shape its architectural environment.

Ultimately, this dissertation explores the importance of considering emotional and psychological factors in urban planning and architectural design. By unveiling how Covent Garden’s architecture affected its inhabitants in the past,the study provides valuable insights for future urban developments, emphasising the need for a more human-centred approach. 

Psychogeographic alanalysis of present-day situation

The dérive, or drift, from psychogeography was used to gain a deeper understanding about the emotional and psychological effects of the urban environment on its users. By wandering around aimlessly, the attractive or repulsive aspects of the neighbourhood could be identified. Moreover, this approach also served as a critical lens to compare current issues of the area with the community’s original aspirations in the 1970s.[4]

The dérive revealed there is a lively atmosphere around Covent Garden, especially in the pedestrianised streets. This atmosphere depends heavily on its image as a tourist attraction. The appeal to both international and domestic tourists has to do with the range of different types of culture on offer, from high arts such as ballet and opera to street performers and popular culture.[5] Additionally, global brands such as Apple and Shake Shack bring in a lot of different people. However, the presence of these major brands has also created a homogenised experience of any high street, which threatens the unique local experience.[6] Their presence thus also causes some dissatisfaction with the local residents.[7] Although the local community agrees that development is good and has even helped certain businesses such as chips shops and pubs, the general consensus among the neighbours is the fact that a lot of the area’s previous character has been lost.[8]

Covent Garden 1971-1980

The second part of the dissertation focused on the redevelopment period between 1971 and 1980. Primary research involved collecting and analysing personal testimonies from individuals who lived and worked in Covent Garden during the 1970s. Sources included literature, such as I’ll fight you for it: behind the struggle for Covent Garden by Brian Anson, [9] archival material, such as life writings found in the City of Westminster Archives [10] and interview recordings provided by Digital Works, who were partners on the The battle for Covent Garden film from 2013. [11]

In the 1960s, the Covent Garden fruit- and vegetable market was bursting out of it seams, causing major traffic jams in the centre of London. Consequently, in 1966, it was decided that the market would move to a new building in Nine Elms. As a result, a team was formed between the Greater London Council, the Westminster City Council and Camden to design a redevelopment for the whole area, stretching 96 acres.[12] A first plan was published in 1968; it suggested monumental developments rising from the sites of demolished terraced buildings. The ground level would be given over to the car, including a four-lane highway parallel to the Strand. Public transport would be elevated above the ground level and the whole structure itself would become a tourist attraction.[13]

People were appalled by the idea that the GLC could just swipe in and demolish their neighbourhood. They were scared to lose their homes[14] and that the ‘whole area would have been decimated’.[15] However, Covent Garden benefited from the fact that the area had curated such a strong community already. Generations of families had lived in the area and all knew each other; ‘walking around the neighbourhood unnoticed was an impossibility.’[16]  The amount of council housing and the presence of the market resulted in a kind of ‘village atmosphere’[17] where doors were kept unlocked and neighbours would just walk in for a chat.

Under the leadership of a young architect, Jim Monahan, and a former GLC architect who had worked on the redevelopment plans, Brian Anson, the Covent Garden Community Association was formed. Together, people found the strength to stand up for the little guy, determined to fight for the area’s and the community’s preservation.[18] They organised marches and demonstrations, printed posters, squatted in buildings, and so on. Eventually, a Public Inquiry was held on the 7th of July, 1971. It took almost two years to reach a decision but eventually, 250 buildings in the area were added to the list of historical and architectural merit. This put a stop to the most radical GLC plans.[19] The move of the market however, could not be stopped and in 1974 the area was left ‘dreadful, awful, like a ghost town’.[20]

After this initial battle had been won, the CGCA set up the Covent Garden Forum, a team that would work together with the GLC to redesign the redevelopment plans. They reached an agreement where the market building would be transformed into a galleria, where retail spaces were provided for small, independent shops in order to keep the unique character of the area.[21] However, in the early 2000s, Covent Garden changed ownership.[22] Since then, big brands have slowly taken over from the quirky shops, turning the area into a typical high street, much to the dissatisfaction of some members of the Covent Garden community.[23]

Conclusion

This dissertation wished to demonstrate the importance of considering emotional and psychological factors in urban planning and architectural design. As proven by the Covent Garden case, architecture always influences emotions, behaviour and social interaction.[24] The built environment of Covent Garden, with its history and identity, curated a strong sense of community for local residents, workers in the theatre trade and the market vendors. Thanks to this communal experience of the architecture and atmosphere it created, they also felt a sense of communal rage when the GLC published their plans to demolish this precious area. Together, they were strong enough to stand up to the bureaucracy; they were led by ‘youthful ignorance’,[25] even when they weren’t always confident that their campaign would be successful.[26] Their battle illustrates the importance of resisting economic and aesthetic pursuits with no consideration for the experiential consequences. This case has implications for the wider field of urban design and proves the need for inclusive, community-centred approaches.