In 1974, Centre Point
(right and below) was
occupied by squatters
showing ironic support for
developer Harry Hyams.
At 33 storeys, it was one
of the tallest buildings in
the UK at the time of its
completion in 1966
(J) LLJ
C!l <t
:::!!: -
1-~
LLJ C!l
--LLJ >- :I: (.)
a: <t
z 0
~ :::>
:I:
--LLJ z
1-^0
(J)
~ ::.:::
--~
....I (J)
LLJ
~ a:
"sold" the practice'. Of course by the early 1970s, the
practice was so frequently mentioned in the press due
to the Centre Point scandal, that it was arguably being
advertised for free. I t is striking to note that Seifert's
busiest period, when the practice supported 300
architects spread across seven London and regional
offices, coincides with the lowest ebb of its reputation
amongst the architectural profession. It is said t hat
there is no such thing as bad publicity, and while the
Centre Point scandal led to disparaging comment in t he
architectural press, it likely also raised Seifert's profile
among potential clients, as an architect able to secure
them the largest possible development envelope.
Perhaps, then, Seifert succeeded not despite of his poor
reputation among t he architectural establishment, but,
at least in part, because of it.
At risk of advancing a slightly circular argument, it
may also be true that Seifert's poor reputation among
his fellovv architects was in fact due to his success. J udy
Hillman noted in 1965, 'While the architectural knights
and lords become more or less known for t he occasional
prestige project, men like Mr Seifert quietly and
efficient ly impress their ideas on vast acres of the urban
scene ... Some of t he criticism may stem from envy for
Park Tower Hotel in
Knightsbridge (centre)
was a Seifert signature
'corncob' building. Seifert
was a regular target for
sometimes quite
venomous caricature - in a
Sunday Times article
(above right) he is shown
in a Centre Point suit,
rampaging over London.
The London International
Press Centre was
proposed in 1967 (above)(J) z(^0) -
t; LLJ
....I ....I
(^0) (.)
<t ID
- a:
--LLJ ~
:I: (.)
~
~ LLJ
a: Q.
....I <t
a: :::>
t; LLJ
1--:I:
(.) a:
<t
(J)
a: a:(^0) :::!!:
z !;!;
a: ID
'An AR editorial
from 1975 dismissed
Cent re Point as a
S}rrnbol of hatefulness,
a sort of topographic cyst'
his business-like methods. Art and commerce are not
always the happiest of stable mates.' A former employee
told me that when Seifert heard he had been mentioned
in Private Eye, his laughter could be heard echoing
through the office.
A major factor in Seifert's success wit h his client base
was certainly his rigorous knowledge and nuanced
understanding of planning legalisation. A contemporary
planner remembered 'The trouble with Seifert was that
he knew some of the regulations far better than the
[planners]. Every now and then we had to bring in
clauses to stop up the loopholes exposed by Seifert. We
called them "Seif'ert clauses"'. A less well-known
element of his success was the manner in which he
communicated. His description of the pilotis at Centre
Point as having 'an added modern pleasantness', for
example, was mocked by Reyner Banham as 'not the
kind of language t hat architects use'. It must, however,
have been the kind of language that a money-man-client
was comfortable with.
Similarly, the way in which he presented himself and
his practice seems designed to appeal to his developer
client-base: interviewers were often struck by the quiet
sobriety of t he practice offices, 'there are no mini-