HIGHPOINT II

Overview

Heritage Category:
Listed Building
Grade:
I
List Entry Number:
1079183
Date first listed:
10-May-1974
Date of most recent amendment:
19-Nov-1975
Statutory Address:
HIGHPOINT II, 51-62, NORTH HILL N6

Map

Ordnance survey map of HIGHPOINT II
© Crown Copyright and database right 2020. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100024900.
© British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited 2020. All rights reserved. Licence number 102006.006.
Use of this data is subject to Terms and Conditions.

The above map is for quick reference purposes only and may not be to scale. For a copy of the full scale map, please see the attached PDF - 1079183.pdf

The PDF will be generated from our live systems and may take a few minutes to download depending on how busy our servers are. We apologise for this delay.

This copy shows the entry on 26-May-2020 at 14:46:22.

Location

Statutory Address:
HIGHPOINT II, 51-62, NORTH HILL N6

The building or site itself may lie within the boundary of more than one authority.

County:
Greater London Authority
District:
Haringey (London Borough)
National Grid Reference:
TQ 28269 87801

Details

TQ 2887 NORTH HILL N6 (West side) 800/40/180 Nos 51-62 (consecutive)

HIGHPOINT II 10.5.74

GV I

Block of twelve flats and penthouse. 1936-8 by Tecton. Reinforced concrete, the central bays a prototype of the egg-crate or box-frame construction that revolutionised the design of flats after the Second World War, with monolithic construction to either side - reflecting the different plan forms of the maisonettes within. Cladding of faience with inset brick panels to centre reflects the structure, marble cladding to entrance; flat roof with curved roof to penthouse. Six storeys. Large cantilevered canopy to front, partly resting on two casts of Erectheion caryatids obtained from the British Museum and intended by Lubetkin `to be read not as part of the building but as a garden ornament'. Square paned windows to entrance foyer, and bronzed doors; metal windows with mullions forming regular rectangular openings to all flats, glazed bricks to service stairs. Rear aviary. INTERIOR. Central six four-bedroomed maisonettes, with double height living rooms and an oval stair giving on to open landing. Double-height living rooms were a feature of luxury modern flats at this time, for instance the particularly complex planning of No.10 Palace Gate by Wells Coates. Maisonettes at either end with four bedrooms intended for larger families. Separate lifts and stairs for tradesmen and servants. Suites of maids' rooms on the ground floor. The main entrance leads under canopy to boomerang-shaped foyer, with curved travertine ramps on either side leading to lifts, which open directly into the flats. Conoid metal wall-lights a distinctive feature. On top, penthouse flat was originally Lubetkin's own London home. Two bedrooms, two bathrooms and large living room under curved roof which suggests a symmetrical plan below that is in fact disturbed by axial lines placed off-centre below, with concealed light sources within and to inglenook fireplace. Large fully-opening windows on to terrace, with built in marble seat within. Tiled floors throughout, while the entrance lobby and living room are lined in thick sand-blasted Norwegian pine panelling, likened to an early form of brise soleil or to a Russia dacha. John Allan has written that more even than the cayatids, this interior cameo of a world both modern and filled with history seems to support Colin Rowe's thesis of another tradition of Modernity, in contraddistinction to the supposed minline of Gropius, Meyer, Marinetti; a counter-formulation represented by such as Stravinsky, Joydce, Picasso, Eliot and Proust that embraces metaphor, irony and multiple meaning (p.303). Le Corbusier's own penthouse at the Porte Molitor in Paris may also have been an inspiration. Highpoint Two is remarkable in that it advances the imagery of modernism beyond that of the classic white concrete box found next door at Highpoint One. It is at once luxurious and rich in its materials, while anticipating the use of box framing with brick and tile infil that Lubetkin, Tecton and others were to employ in low-cost housing after the war. The caryatids also anticipate the ironical historical statements of recent post-modernists. When it was completed critical reaction to the building was hostile, as young architectural students seeing Lubetkin as the master of modernism in England could not understand how he had progressed beyond the confines of the international style. Now it can be appreciated as perhaps the more revolutionary of the two Highpoint blocks. Sources Peter Coe and Malcolm Reading, Lubetkin and Tecton, Architecture and Social Commitment, Bristol, Arts Council, 1981, pp.120-4, 152-8 John Allan, Berthold Lubetkin, Architecture and the Tradition of Progress, London, RIBA, 1992, pp.252-312

Listing NGR: TQ2826987801

Legacy

The contents of this record have been generated from a legacy data system.

Legacy System number:
201443
Legacy System:
LBS

Sources

Books and journals
Allan, J, Berthold Lubetkin Architecture and the Tradition of Progress, (2012), 252-312
Coe, P, Reading, M, Lubetkin and Tecton Architecture and Social Commitment, (1981), 120-124

Legal

This building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest.

End of official listing

Images of England

Images of England was a photographic record of every listed building in England, created as a snap shot of listed buildings at the turn of the millennium. These photographs of the exterior of listed buildings were taken by volunteers between 1999 and 2008. The project was supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund.

Date: 30 Nov 2007
Reference: IOE01/17077/19
Rights: Copyright IoE Mr Anthony Rau. Source Historic England Archive
Archive image, may not represent current condition of site.
To view this image please use Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or Edge.

Your Contributions

Do you know more about this entry?

The following information has been contributed by users volunteering for our Enriching The List project. For small corrections to the List Entry please see our Minor Amendments procedure.

The information and images below are the opinion of the contributor, are not part of the official entry and do not represent the official position of Historic England. We have not checked that the contributions below are factually accurate. Please see our terms and conditions. If you wish to report an issue with a contribution or have a question please email [email protected].

Back
to top