Archiblog's Ordering

• Double page spread introducing 'Edukit: World Educational System' in AD by Norman Fellows Archiblog [1]

‘Designing Buildings’ features an article entitled ‘Anticipatory Design‘ by Norman Fellows under the pseudonym of “Archiblog”. The author’s website dovetails his office jobs with those Cedric Price (CP) was engaged with and includes a reference to what CP called ‘anticipatory design’:—

“To establish a valid equation between contemporary aspirations and architecture it is essential to add to the latter doubt, delight and change as design criteria. Architecture is slow and therefore anticipatory design is required.”

• Cedric Price (1996) ‘Anticipating the unexpected’, Architects’ Journal, 5 September

Thus this article by Norman Fellows takes the 1996 quote as a starting point in order to enable others to match their orderings against an anticipatory design, namely, ‘Archiblog’s Ordering’.

[edit] 2017 - Atom UK Design for new learning for a new town

Learn More

[edit] References

• Fellows, N. (2018) 'Edukit: World Educational System' [1]

--Archiblog 13:52, 8 Jan 2023 (BST)

[edit] Archiblog's articles on Designing Buildings

• AD: A great little mag!
• Anticipatory Design
• Archiblog's Ordering
• ATOM: A generating system designed by Cedric Price
• Beeching cuts: The railway network in Nottinghamshire
• Bucky's Ordering
• Cedric Price
• City Cluster, City of London
• City Cluster, Kit of Parts
• Co-operative Housing
• Disaster Planning
• Disaster Planning: North Staffs
• Disaster Planning: Notts
• Disaster Planning: School Buildings
• DOMESTIKIT: World-Wide Dwelling Service
• Dukeries Thinkbelt
• EDUKIT: World Educational System
• Generator
• Geographic Information Systems: QGIS
• Housing Research by Cedric Price
• Hudson Yards: Manhattan
• Miners' Strike
• Miners' Strike: The coal industry in Nottinghamshire
• Norman Fellows
• Potteries Thinkbelt
• Potteries Thinkbelt study
• Potteries Thinkbelt study: Further ongoing research
• QGIS "What about Learning More?"
• The Commons
• The Commons: City of London
• The Commons: Manhattan
• The Shed
• Varsity Line

BACK TO TOP

[edit] Related articles on Designing Buildings

• Anticipatory Design
• Bucky's Ordering

BELOW THE LINE - Holding text from the article entitled 'Shadow Factories'

[edit] INTRODUCTION

In 'Factories and Plant. History of the Second World War', William Hornby wrote:—

• "The antecedents of the shadow scheme in Britain can be traced to the establishment of agency factories in the First World War."
• (Hornby, p. 24)

However, Neil Forbes has claimed:—

• "...it is [Lord] Weir who is credited with being the progenitor of the shadow factory scheme."
• (Forbes, 'Democracy at a Disadvantage? British Rearmament, the Shadow Factory Scheme and the Coming of War, 1936-40', p.55)

According to Grace's Guide To British Industrial History:—

• The Shadow Factories were a government initiative for the production of aero engines in 1936. The factories were financed by H. M. Government and both shops and plant remained Government property but they were managed by the factories as agents.
• Within a year five factories were set up and run by five motor car companies:—

1. Rootes Securites (Humber)
2. Daimler
3. Standard
4. Rover
5. Austin

According to Wikipedia:—

• British shadow factories were the outcome of the Shadow Scheme, a plan devised in 1935 and developed by the British government in the build up to World War II to try to meet the urgent need for more aircraft using technology transfer from the motor industry to implement additional manufacturing capacity.
• The term 'shadow' was not intended to mean secrecy, but rather the protected environment they would receive by being staffed by all levels of skilled motor industry people alongside (in the shadow of) their own similar motor industry operations.
• A directorate of Aeronautical Production was formed in March 1936 with responsibility for the manufacture of airframes as well as engines, associated equipment and armaments. The project was headed by Herbert Austin and developed by the Air Ministry under the internal project name of the Shadow Scheme. Sir Kingsley Wood took responsibility for the scheme in May 1938, on his appointment as Secretary of State for Air in place of Lord Swinton.
• Many more factories were built as part of the dispersal scheme designed to reduce the risk of a total collapse of production if what would otherwise be a major facility were bombed though these were not shadow factories.

[edit] SHADOW SCHEME

In 'Democracy at a Disadvantage? British Rearmament, the Shadow Factory Scheme and the Coming of War, 1936-40', published in 2014, Neil Forbes examined how a combination of economic, political and strategic factors structured the operation of the shadow factory scheme in Britain.

The proposed distribution of shadow factories is outlined below in the Table 1.

• Table 1: Timeline indicating the development of the shadow scheme.

Thus this article ...:—

• ... that Lord Weir was the progenitor of the shadow scheme.

In 2013 Dave Mitchell released a film entitled "The Shadow Scheme". It included a selection of digitized photographs of shadow factories from the archives of The Coventry Transport Museum, some of which are shown below in Table 2.

[edit] SHADOW FACTORIES

• Table 2:

[edit] RESULTING WAR DAMAGE

... the validity of the resulting shadow factories was thrown into question by:—

• the location of shadow factories
• the resulting damage.

[edit] TRANSCRIPT

The second group - the so-called No. 2 Group - that was built then in conjunction with the Coventry-based manufacturers.

Here the decision was taken to locate outside of the city centre so the classic example if you like is the Ryton plant built by Rootes about two to two to three miles outside of the city centre to the south of Coventry, actually outside of the city limits.

This then, of course, raises questions about the the local infrastructure. You have to, you can't simply create a big new factory without therefore laying in road systems, water systems, electricity systems , sanitation...

All of this info is involved. You then, in a sense ,create an entirely new set of problems...

...and what about the workers?

Where the work is going to live there are schemes initially when the number to the group is launched in 37 to 38 to build a whole new set of houses outside of Coventry to to house the the migrant workers the vastly vastly expanded put a worker worker population that is in village to build these to build to construct and to work in these factories it's quickly realized that there aren't actually the resources to do this and so what happens is you get hostels being established to house this influx this massive influx of workers

[edit] LESSONS

[edit] TOP

[edit] References

Forbes, N. (2014) 'Democracy at a Disadvantage? British Rearmament, the Shadow Factory Scheme and the Coming of War, 1936-40', Walter de Gruyter GmbH.

[edit] Further reading

Thoms D. (1989) 'War, Industry and Society: the Midlands, 1939-45', Routledge.

[edit] External links

[edit] Introduction

In 1949, HMSO published the first volume of the official history of the British contribution to the Second World War, namely:—

• 'History of the Second World War';

...and in 1958, HMSO published a book in the 'War Production' sub-series of the United Kingdom Civil Series in the official history, namely:—

• 'Factories and Plant'
• (William Hornby) [1]

It is therefore difficult if not impossible to substantiate statements made under the umbrella of the official history without access to official files.

A similar criticism may be made about the pages on Wikipedia, namely:—

• 'British shadow factories'
• (Wikipedians) [2]

... and about a peer-reviewd document published in the Economic History Yearbook, namely:—

• 'Democracy at a disadvantage? British rearmament, the shadow factory scheme and the coming of war, 1936-40'
• (Neli Forbes) [3]

Thus the purpose of this article is:—

• to construct a working hypothesis.

• The introduction of outside firms into armament production was immediately described as the formation of a shadow industry. This and the other proposals for expansion of armament capacity were accepted in principle by the Committee of Imperial Defence and in May 1934 the Supply Board was given authority to recruit additional staff and to undertake the investigation of selected firms. A good deal of progress had been made in this work when in February 1936 the Cabinet decided that part of the proposed shadow industry should be brought into operation immediately as it was clear that the rearmament requirements would exceed the resources of the state factories and the armament industry. Several firms were immediately brought into armament work and the shadow industry which had been intended in preparation for war expansion was brought into action for rearmament requirements.
• (Hornby, pp.23-24)

• Similar immediate action had to be taken in the expansion of aircraft capacity. Though the term was not used in official documents until 1935, a shadow industry scheme for the war-time expansion of the aircraft capacity had been drawn up in the Air Ministry as early as 1927 and approved by the Committee of Imperial Defence. This was a much less general application of the shadow principle; it was confined to selected firms from the motor vehicle industry. In 1936, it was decided that this scheme was needed immediately for the rearmament programme.
• (ib. p.24)

However, it was not until the 1930s ...

[edit] References/notes

Hornby, W. (1958) 'Factories and Plant', HMSO. (also at https://archive.org/details/factories-plant but temporarily offline at the time of writing)

[edit]

[edit] References to Coventry

[edit] p.203

• ...the large number of vital factories for aircraft production around London and in Birmingham and Coventry proved to be very undesirable concentrations of aircraft capacity.

p.207

• The third [dispersal] scheme was the result of the urgent need after the Coventry raids to create reserve capacity for engine manufacture.

p.227

• Subcontracting would also help dispersal ; contractors were enjoined to avoid the heavily loaded areas, e.g. London, Coventry, Birmingham and Manchester.

p.234

• ...flight and assembly sheds were provided at several airfields so that all the erection work of Armstrong-Whitworth should not be concentrated in Coventry.

p.266

• The Riley Motor Co.---a member of the Nuffield group -undertook production of the carburettors in their own premises in Coventry.

p.289

• Up to 1938, with the solitary exception of the Bristol engine factory near Bristol-which in the event was one of the earlier targets of enemy attack -all the engine shadow factories were located in Coventry or Birmingham.

p.291

• ...the approval of a second set of aero-engine factories adjacent to the first group in Coventry and Birmingham was contrary to all rules of vulnerability.

p.293

• Three factories were approved in the central zone -the gun R.O.F. at Nottingham, an agency gun factory at Coventry and the I.C.I. explosives factory at Huddersfield—but all these new factories made use of existing buildings or installations.

to construct a working hypothesis

... that the shadow factories were a working hypothesis constructed by the British government as a basis for further ongoing research into the establishment of a valid national and regional distributions

In 1949, HMSO published the first volume of the official history of the British contribution to the Second World War, namely:—

• 'History of the Second World War'.

and in 1958, HMSO published a book in the 'War Production' sub-series of the United Kingdom Civil Series in the official history, namely:—

• 'Factories and Plant'
• (William Hornby)

This

However, although this book

working hypothesis about shadow schemes

Unfortunately, neither of these documents is suitable for the purpose of doing further ongoing research on the shadow factories as buildings:—

1. the 448 pages of Hornby's book contain no citations; [1]

In contrast, Wikipedia has published a page on the subject which can be edited, namely:—

• 'British shadow factories'
• (Wikipedia)

Thus this article takes the Wikipedia page as a suitable starting point

1958 can lead to CP/PTb

In 2018, The Journal of Aeronautical History published a paper by Professor Brian Brinkworth, namely:—

• 'On the planning of British aircraft production for the Second World War and reference to James Connolly'

It included a section

This article assumes:—

• ... that

To introduce this series the author has selected the No.1 scheme which established the ... distribution of

the outcome of the Shadow Scheme devised by the British government, namely:—

• shadow factories.

This series assumes:—

• ... that shadow factories described by Professor Brinkworth established a precedent for ... technology transfer from defence or commerce to learning.

It contains the following chapters:—

• Chapter VII : The Aircraft Factories
• Chapter VIII : Factories for Aircraft Components

However, as noted in Wikipedia:—

• "The works published before 1970 lack references to unpublished sources until government archives were opened, to an extent, by the Public Records Act 1958 and the Public Records Act 1967. The works were published with only references to published sources because British constitutional conventions on the anonymity of government officials and ministers were followed, leading to a somewhat detached narrative style in some cases."

Nevertheless, this article assumes:—

• ... that the shadow factories resulted from various shadow schemes;
• ... that

the purpose of this series on Designing Buildings is:—

to establish whether or not British shadow factories are a useful precedent for the situation in Britain today.

... that British shadow factories have set a ... precedent for ... future actions in ... Britain.

... that the shadow factories resulting from the shadow scheme

... that the shadow scheme is an example of anticipatory design

• [4]

The latter includes X number of quotations in need of citations from Hornby in spite of having been peer-reviewed ... Coventry University.

By 1927, according to the official history published by HMSO:—

• "...a shadow industry scheme for the war-time expansion of the aircraft capacity had been drawn up in the Air Ministry..."
• (Hornby, p.24). [1]

However, it was 1935 when William Weir, the 'architect of air power', asked the key question, namely:—

• “Are we doing all we ought to anticipate by proper planning and arrangement the grave delays which were the feature of our almost fatal unpreparedness in 1914?”
• (quoted in Forbes, citation needed). [2]

According to the official historian:—

• "The scheme was organised on an agency basis and was an outstanding venture into a group organisation for shadow industry development."
• (Hornby, p.255)

[edit] The Original Shadow Scheme

In 2014, the Economic History Yearbook published an essay by Neil Forbes, namely:—

• 'Democracy at a disadvantage? British rearmament, the shadow factory scheme and the coming of war, 1936-40'. [1]

Forbes claimed:—

• ... that "Within the Air Ministry, plans to establish a shadow industry for the wartime expansion of aircraft capacity had been drawn up in 1927."
• (p.55)

...and

• ... that "...it is [Lord] Weir who is credited with being the progenitor of the shadow factory scheme."
• (ib.)

In 'Factories and Plant' published in 1958 by HMSO, William Hornby claimed:—

• "...although the term had not been used, a shadow industry had been planned for aircraft production as early as 1929 and it was a revision of these plans that was adopted in 1936. The shadow industry was to consist of factories managed by firms from outside the aircraft industry and initially the term shadow factory was only applied to the factories planned as part of the shadow industry. But when in 1938 and subsequently it was decided to provide new factories at government expense to be managed by aircraft firms for an agency fee—the term shadow factory was also applied to these factories."
• (p.218)

This article assumes:—

• ... that the proposed transfer areas in Cedric Price's Potteries Thinkbelt were shadow factories;
• ... that the proposed transfer areas were the outcome of a shadow scheme devised by Cedric Price in the 1960s to meet the urgent need for scientists etc.

Thus this article argues:—

• ... that connections may be made between the former shadow scheme and the latter.

The purpose of this article is:—

• to construct a working hypothesis as a basis for further study.

Design of Shadow Factories can be traced back to 1927 according to the official history ... and ... 1935 according to Wikipedia:—

1. 'Factories and Plant' by William Hornby, 1958;
2. 'British shadow factories' by Wikipedians.

However, this article assumes:—

• ... that there is a connection between the Rootes shadow factory at Blythe Bridge and the proposed teaching factory at Meir Aerodrome designed by Cedric Price in the Potteries Thinkbelt study.

[edit] References

• ... and the Potteries Thinkbelt

https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EAW004223/download

https://www.theredhairedstokie.co.uk/meir-aerodrome-the-lost-airport-of-stoke-on-trent/

• 'Factories and Plant'
• (William Hornby) [1]

It is therefore difficult if not impossible to substantiate statements made under the umbrella of the official history without access to official files.

A similar criticism may be made about the pages on Wikipedia, namely:—

• 'British shadow factories'
• (Wikipedians) [2]

... and about a peer-reviewd document published in the Economic History Yearbook, namely:—

• 'Democracy at a disadvantage? British rearmament, the shadow factory scheme and the coming of war, 1936-40'
• (Neli Forbes) [3]

Thus the purpose of this article is:—

• to construct a working hypothesis.

• "...a shadow industry scheme for the war-time expansion of the aircraft capacity had been drawn up in the Air Ministry as early as 1927..."
• (p.24)