Supported by
We tend to think of larger design practices, particularly those where the identity of the firm eclipses that of any individual designer, as producing work that is less distinctive or adventurous. Structon Group, like all large firms, followed the big flows of architectural evolution. However, in a streak spanning the second half of last century, the firm was home to a succession of designers who seemed consistently bolder and better informed than were those of rival firms. Structon’s high modernism tended towards a voluptuous Latin mode rather than boxy, Californian cool. Its high-tech style sidestepped frilly space-frame fetishes for forms that were machinic and sculptural, and their PoMo was sharp and shapely rather than podgy and pastel.
Structon was one of a number of team-based practices that emerged in the post-war period. The country was undergoing a general building boom but such firms could meet the specific and complex new challenges posed by large tower blocks, hotels, university buildings and so on. These firms offered different mixes of skills. Kingston, Reynolds, Thom & Allardice emerged in the 1950s, offering a vast range of engineering disciplines, town planning and architecture. Ex-KRTA staff formed the core of JASMaD in the 1960s, offering a sweep of design disciplines, from architecture and interiors through to environmental impact reports, post-occupancy evaluation, and other types of design research and analysis. Structon’s particular offering was architectural design and the related engineering disciplines; they made buildings.
The firm emerged from an impeccable establishment design lineage,
