10 Years of Milton Court: Sir Barry Ife CBE

As we continue our celebrations for the 10th Anniversary of Milton Court, we sat down with some of those who were involved in the initial project to hear a little more about Milton Court's contribution to the cultural life of the School, the Barbican and London as a whole. 

Sir Barry Ife, CBE joined the School as Principal in 2004, inheriting the idea of Milton Court and becoming a driving force in making the new building a reality. Barry tells us how he got the project off the ground, some of the complications they faced and his reflections on the project as a whole. 

How did the idea for Milton Court initially come about?

Well, it’s important for me to start by saying that Milton Court wasn't my idea! I inherited the concept when I arrived as Principal in September 2004. In the months leading up to that, I'd spent a lot of time getting to know people connected with the School and the question of a new building kept surfacing. So, when I was finally in post, I asked the obvious question: “If it's so important, why haven't you done it?”. And the answer was a slightly sheepish: “Well, we don't really know how to…”.

So how did you get things moving?

Fortunately I'd done a lot of capital developments as Vice-Principal at King’s College London, my previous job. So I knew how to go about this sort of project. If you’re going to build a new building, you need five things: a site, an architect, planning permission, a builder and a large amount of money – none of which we had! We needed to develop the concept, sharpen the arguments and do a lot of persuading. We had to persuade the City of London Corporation (our parent organisation), central government and the GLA (Greater London Authority), as well as independent funders and supporters. And we had to convince people of the strength of the idea, not just in terms of benefits to Guildhall School, but what the benefits would be for them too, since they were going to be the ones paying for it!

The original Milton Court building, despite lying empty for a long time, was seen by many as an iconic Brutalist landmark, with an interesting history. Did you face opposition to the demolition?

While the School may not have had funds, the one thing that we did have was the potential for a site. I associate that with Sue Thornton, our Head of Technical Theatre at the time. I recall Sue saying how it frustrated her to have to walk the corner from Moor Lane into Silk Street every day, past this enormous building which was more or less empty and derelict – here she was having to go and work in a well-equipped and well-designed but very congested space in what we now call the Silk Street building. Why not make better use of that vacant space, she said? I agreed. But it wasn’t straightforward. While the building itself wasn't listed, it was within the curtilage of a listed building (the Barbican Estate) and was of great interest to the Twentieth Century Society.

It was built prior to the Barbican, in 1959, and had been used for a range of public service purposes, including as a fire station, Coroner’s Court, mortuary and a civil defence school – in the word of designers Chamberlin Powell & Bon, “a receptacle for odd and pressing needs”. It was designed very much in the spirit of Le Corbusier and would have looked fantastic on a hillside outside Nice – but it was just the wrong building for this location, and sadly it had been left to fall into disrepair and neglect. In the end, it wasn't difficult to make the argument that we could make better use of the space.

Who were the key team responsible for the build?

David Walker came on as architect, Heron International as developer and Sir Robert McAlpine as builder, so we had a top team on our side. We put together what’s known in the trade as a Section 106 planning agreement, which also had to be approved by the GLA and Mayor Ken Livingstone. The idea with Section 106 is that the developer is allowed to build the development provided it’s in the public interest. The reality is that many developers are able to sidle out of a Section 106 agreement but in our case, Heron couldn’t gain access to the sky above the site until they built our bit at the bottom! Luckily for us, they were honourable people in any case and the partnership worked very well.

Tell us more about the process of convincing all the necessary parties – it can’t have been easy?

It was a long process – of the nine years the project took, around six were focused on politics and securing the project. The demolition and creation of the new venue was quite short in comparison.

Fortunately we had some great people on our side to help me to hone the argument, including two real allies in the City. Most critical to the process was the then Chamberlain, Peter Derrick, without whom Milton Court simply wouldn't have happened. He was hugely supportive, partly because, during an interim period when the School didn't have a Principal, he’d taken on the role of Acting Principal – so he truly understood the constraints and needs of the School. The other ally was Alderman David Graves who was also a Barbican resident. It was David who introduced me to groups of influential residents which was absolutely vital – you can imagine the prospect of having a 20-odd storey building built here was not attractive to the majority of residents. Countless of them told me that the values of their flats would plummet (in fact, the exact opposite happened). There was a lot of listening and patient explaining that needed to happen. It helped too that I myself was a resident, since I was occupying what was then the Principal’s flat, in Speed House. I understood the sensitivities.

I also had on my side the fact that, early on in my tenure, I had visited the City Town Clerk and Chairman of Policy, and asked them directly: “What do you want me to do with the Guildhall School?” Their response is etched into my memory. They said: “We want a world-class conservatoire and drama school of which the City can be truly proud.” I played those words back to the City many times over the course of the project, reminding them that to achieve this, we had to invest – not least because being part of the City meant that we had missed out on central government higher education funding during the 1990s.

Did you have to make any compromises?

With projects of this scale, you always have to make compromises to stay within budget – or as they’re euphemistically called ‘value engineering’! We had originally wanted the spot on the corner of Silk Street and Moor Lane – what’s now occupied by the restaurant Pham Sushi – to be part of the building, but had to let it go. When we lost that corner, I felt we lost the chance to be even more visible in this part of London. Who knows though? One day we might get it back…

Any final reflections?

I’m very proud that we created a win-win situation for all parties – the City got the world-class facilities they wanted, the developer got access to the sky above and most importantly, our students got new facilities in which they can train and prepare themselves for their professional lives. And the higher education sector as a whole got a very substantial capital investment, effectively for free. These days, sadly my hearing has gone so I can’t enjoy concerts and plays at Milton Court as I’d like to – but knowing that I helped bring this building into existence, and that it continues to benefit many different parties, gives me a deep sense of satisfaction.