Autori:Ivan Hudec Radovan Pinka Škola:Spojená škola Tvrdošín
Laszlo E. Hudec and modern architecture in Shanghai.pdf
-
Upload
tamas-turcsan -
Category
Documents
-
view
129 -
download
1
Transcript of Laszlo E. Hudec and modern architecture in Shanghai.pdf
Title Laszlo E. Hudec and modern architecture in Shanghai
Author(s) Liu, Bingkun; 劉秉琨
Citation
Issue Date 2005
URL http://hdl.handle.net/10722/40274
Rights The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patentrights) and the right to use in future works.
Abstract of thesis entitled
“Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai,
1918-1937”
Submitted by
Liu Bingkun
for the degree of Master of Philosophy at The University of Hong Kong
in July 2005
Laszlo E. Hudec (1893-1958) was a Hungarian architect eminent for his design of
the significant buildings in pre-World War II Shanghai. In the study of Shanghai
architecture, most of his works were classified as masterpieces. His most significant
works are the Park Hotel, which was at the time “the largest skyscraper from Tokyo to
London”, and kept its record as the “tallest building in the Far East” for thirty years
until the mid-1960s, the Grand Theatre as once “the first cinema in the Far East”, and
the D. V. Wood Residence, which was reputed to be “one of the largest and richest
residences in the whole of the Far East”. In the history of Shanghai architecture, he
was recognized as “a master of Modernism”, “a pioneer of the new styles”, or “an
architect avant-garde”.
This thesis examines the character of Hudec’s practice and his work against a
broad context involving five aspects: social, political, architectural and technological,
economical, and cultural, and interprets the meaning of the recognitions he registered.
Primary sources were found in the architectural journals published in the 1930s.
Second hand materials were collected from the relevant publications and theses. The
study concludes that the modernity of his work lies not in the simulation of the
Western contemporary architecture, but in his keeping up with the change of the
Chinese society in modern times. For his practice and the works he produced in
Shanghai identified with the nature of the settings; his innovative design in form and
bold employment of advanced technology established a model for modernization that
stimulated his Chinese counterparts to ponder and to experiment a new way in
defining a new Chinese architecture.
The study of Hudec’s career and his work continues to testify today, when the city
of Shanghai is to rebuild a complex of economy and culture as it was in Hudec’s time,
to the mode of modernization of Chinese architecture. A better understanding of
Hudec’s success offered a key for appreciation the growth of Shanghai in the present
day, when large numbers of foreign architects again flock to the city, producing the
tallest buildings in the world. □
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in
Shanghai, 1918-1937
by
Liu Bingkun
(刘 秉 琨)
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy
at the University of Hong Kong
in July 2005
Laszlo E. Hudec (1893-1958) (Johnston 1993: 83)
ii
Acknowledgements
My acknowledgements to many people for debts incurred during my two-year
study in Hong Kong, and especially during the writing of this thesis, are heartfelt and
necessary. I must first thank Mr. Y. S. Lo, who generously offered me the
scholarship on which I lived a memorable time of two years on the campus of the
University of Hong Kong, learning, reading, and writing free from care.
My special gratitude is due to my supervisors, Professor David Lung and Doctor
Lynne DiStefano, for their stimulating and generous direction, their confidence in my
work, and their unfailing support. I would like to thank especially for their patience
with my work that gave me great encouragement and help. I would also like to
record here my gratitude to Dr. Monica Hill from the English Centre of the University
of Hong Kong, and Mr. and Mrs. Frewer, who have helped me in different ways in
correcting the errors in my writing and polishing the texts. My thanks are due to my
fellow students and friends whose warm friendship will always stay with me.
I am grateful to all above, but no one other than myself is responsible for the
weakness or waywardness in the paper. □
iii
Contents
Declaration ………………………………………………………………………… i
Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………… ii
Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………iii
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………v
List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………ix
List of Charts ………………………………………………………………………x
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………1
0.1. Prologue …………………………………………………………………………………1
0.2. Theoretical Basis…………………………………………………………………………5
0.3. Hypothesis ………………………………………………………………………………8
0.4. Literature Review ………………………………………………………………………11
0.5. Methodology……………………………………………………………………………15
0.6. Thesis Design ………………………………………………………………………… 17
0.7. Contribution and Limitation ……………………………………………………………17
Chapter I. Foreign Architects in Shanghai before World War II ……… 18
1.1. Shanghai before the Coming of Foreign Architects ……………………………………18
1.2. The Advent and Growth of Foreign Architects in Shanghai……………………………23
Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………36
Plates for Chapter I …………………………………………………………………………38
Chapter II. Laszlo Hudec and His Practice in Shanghai…………………42
2.1. From Harbin to Shanghai ……………………………………………………………… 42
2.2. Hudec’s Practice in Shanghai……………………………………………………………46
Summary …………………………………………………………………………………… 51
Plates for Chapter II …………………………………………………………………………53
Chapter III. Hudec and Architecture in Shanghai in the 1920s and 30s…55
3.1. The Evolution of Architecture in Shanghai in Modern Times ………………………… 55
iv
3.2. Hudec’s Work in Shanghai………………………………………………………………63
3.3. The Significance of Hudec as a Modern Architect …………………………………… 67
Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………79
Plates for Chapter III ……………………………………………………………………… 81
Chapter IV. Hudec’s Legacy…………………………………………………115
4.1. The Park Hotel as a Metaphor for the Chinese Identity of the Shanghai Foreign
Settlements ……………………………………………………………………………116
4.2. Hudec’s Work as an Emblem for Shanghai’s Cosmopolitan Nature ………………… 124
Summary……………………………………………………………………………………126
Plates for Chapter IV ………………………………………………………………………128
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………130
Bibliography …………………………………………………………………… 132
Appendix …………………………………………………………………………139
v
Figures
Chapter I
Fig. 1-1. Shanghai in the late Ming Period (seventeenth century. Balfour & Zheng 2002: 36).
Fig. 1-2. Xu Guangqi and Matteo Ricc (Balfour & Zheng 2002: 90).
Fig. 1-3. The Xujiahui Cathedral (Xiong ed. Vol. 2, 1999: 244).
Fig. 1-4. The Notre Dame, Xujiahui (Xiong ed. Vol. 2, 1999: 246).
Fig. 1-5. A church in the walled city (Xiong ed. Vol. 2, 1999: 249).
Fig. 1-6. Shanghai in the nineteenth century (Balfour & Zheng 2002: 40).
Fig. 1-7. The foreign settlements in Shanghai (Liu 1985).
Fig. 1-8. Map of the Central District of Shanghai (from http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/).
Chapter II
Fig. 2-1. Map of Slovakia (available from http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/).
Fig. 2-2. Map of China (available from http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/).
Fig. 2-3. Street view of Harbin, early twentieth century (Johnston 1996: 14).
Fig. 2-4. A church in Harbin (Johnston 1996: 13).
Chapter III
Fig. 3-1. Wuzhen, canal and embankment (available from http://www.jsdj.com/jnsx.htm).
Fig. 3-2. Wuzhen, street view (available from http://www.jsdj.com/jnsx.htm).
Fig. 3-3. The British Consulate in Shanghai, 1850s (from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-4. The Bund, Shanghai, 1850s (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-5. The Chinese Maritime Customs, Shanghai, 1857s
(available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-6. The Mixed Court, Nanjing Road, Shanghai, 1870s
(available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-7. The Chinese Maritime Customs, Tudor style, 1890s
(available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-8. The Chinese Maritime Customs, eclectic, 1930s
(available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
vi
Fig. 3-9. Hongde Tang Church (Balfour & Zheng 2002: 92).
Fig. 3-10. The YMCA Building, Shanghai, 1929 (from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-11. The Mayor’s Building (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-12. Daxin Company, 1936 (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-13. The American Club (by author).
Fig. 3-14. The International Saving’s Society Building (by author).
Fig. 3-15. The Catholic Country Church (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-16. The Country Hospital (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-17. The Estrella Apartments (by author).
Fig. 3-18. The Estrella Apartments, façade (by author).
Fig. 3-19. The Estrella Apartments, façade and cornice (by author).
Fig. 3-20. The Estrella Apartments, gate (by author).
Fig. 3-21. The Estrella Apartments, doorway (by author).
Fig. 3-22. The Joint Savings Society Building, #261, Sichuan Road, Middle (by author).
Fig. 3-23. The Zhabei Power Station (Zhabei Power Station archives).
Fig. 3-24. The Columbia Circle (by author).
Fig. 3-25. The Columbia Circle (by author).
Fig. 3-26. The Columbia Circle (by author).
Fig. 3-27. The Columbia Circle (by author).
Fig. 3-28. The Columbia Circle (by author).
Fig. 3-29. The Columbia Circle (by author).
Fig. 3-30. The Columbia Circle (by author).
Fig. 3-31. Hudec Residence of 1929 (the Sun Esq. Residence, Yang 1999: 252).
Fig. 3-32. The Moore Memorial Church, 1929 (from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-33. Zhejiang Cinema (by author).
Fig. 3-34. The Christian Literature Society Building (by author).
Fig. 3-35. China Baptist Publication Society Building (by author).
Fig. 3-36. China Baptist Publication Society Building, detail (by author).
Fig. 3-37. Peter Behrens: the Hoechst Dyeworks, 1924 (Tietz 1999: 23).
Fig. 3-38. The Avenue Apartments (by author).
vii
Fig. 3-39. Hudec Residence, #127, Panyu Road (by author).
Fig. 3-40. Hudec Residence, #127, Panyu Road (by author).
Fig. 3-41. The Engineering Building, Jiaotong University, 1931
(available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-42. The New German Evangelic Church, 1931 (Zheng 1999: 132).
Fig. 3-43. The New German Evangelic Church, interior, 1931 (Zheng 1999: 132).
Fig. 3-44. The Grand Theatre (by author).
Fig. 3-45. The Grand Theatre, vestibule (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-46. The Grand Theatre, auditorium (Luo ed. 1995: 193).
Fig. 3-47. The Park Hotel (by author).
Fig. 3-48. The Park Hotel, entrance (by author).
Fig. 3-49. The Park Hotel, treatment of façade (by author).
Fig. 3-50. The Park Hotel, upper storeys (by author).
Fig. 3-51. The Park Hotel, the ground floor plan (The Builder, Vol.1, No.5).
Fig. 3-52. The Park Hotel, floor plan 5 - 10 (The Builder, Vol.1, No.5).
Fig. 3-53. The Park Hotel, section (The Builder, Vol.1, No.5).
Fig. 3-54. Park Hotel under construction, 1933 (The Builder, Vol. 1, No.2).
Fig. 3-55. Park Hotel under construction, 1933 (The Builder Vol. 1, No.04).
Fig. 3-56. The American Radiator Building, New York, 1924 (Watkin 2000: 580).
Fig. 3-57. The Union Brewery Ltd., 1933 (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-58. Hubertus Court (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-59. D. V. Wood Residence (by author).
Fig. 3-60. D. V. Wood Residence, the grand curved staircase (by author).
Fig. 3-61. Sassoon House (Zheng 1999: 266).
Fig. 3-62. Sassoon House (Johnston 1996: 98).
Fig. 3-63. Sassoon House, lobby (Johnston 1996: 99).
Fig. 3-64. Sassoon House, English suite (Johnston 1996: 100).
Fig. 3-65. Sassoon House, Indian suite (Johnston 1996: 101).
Fig. 3-66. Student’s work from the Central University (Chinese Architecture, Vol.3, No.4).
Fig. 3-67. Student’s work from the Central University (Chinese Architecture, Vol.3, No.4).
viii
Chapter IV
Fig. 4-1. The project of the Bank of China on the Bund, Shanghai, 1934 (Zheng 1999: 248).
Fig. 4-2. The Bank of China and the Sassoon House
(available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 4-3. A bird’s eye view of the Park Hotel and its physical setting (Deng 1992).
ix
Tables
Chapter I
Table 1-1. Foreign population of Shanghai, 1843-1937 (drawn from Zou 1980: 141)
Table 1-2. Population of Shanghai, 1852-1937 (drawn from Zou 1980: 90)
Chapter III
Table 3-1. The style of Hudec’s Work in Shanghai (drawn from Hua 2000: 54-137).
x
Charts
Introduction
Chart 0-1. Theoretical Framework (drawn on Xin 1996: 19-35).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
1
Introduction
0.1. Prologue 0.2. Theoretical Basis 0.3. Hypothesis 0.4. Literature Review 0.5. Methodology 0.6. Thesis Design 0.7. Contribution and Limitation
0.1. PROLOGUE
The 1920s and 30s saw Shanghai striding into a golden era. In the two decades
before war broke out in 1937, the city boomed as the primary economic complex in
Asia, and attained a premier position as the locus of China’s most influential political
and intellectual activity (Luo 1996: 5 and MacPherson 1990). Demographically,
Shanghai by the 1920s ranked the “sixth largest city in the world”, only slightly
behind the world’s largest metropolises such as New York, London and Paris (All
about Shanghai: 33 and MacPherson 1990). Its trade and shipping reached to all
parts of the globe, and controlled “at a very conservative estimate 90 percent of the
imports and exports between China and foreign countries” (Feetham Vol.1, 1931: 306).
Subsequently, its status as a manufacturing complex put it among the leading urban
industrial centers of the world (Murphey 1953: 1). In the meantime, Shanghai also
ranked as one of the world’s leading financial centers. Its dominance in exchange
rate and gold transaction in the whole of the Far East far exceeded Hong Kong and
Bombay (Xiong ed. Vol.8, 1999: 136). Shanghai concentrated 81 percent of the
foreign and nationwide financial headquarters in China, serving the Chinese
government and the economic life of the city, as well as the city’s commercial
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
2
hinterland of half of China and all the other Chinese ports (Zhang ed. 1990: 311 and
Murphey 1953: 2).
In the face of a startling urban expansion and rise to prominence, the building
industry and architecture in Shanghai reached a booming era. Architects of different
nations flocked to the city and played substantial roles that brought out the distinct
monuments which later became the emblems for the city’s identity. Among the
Shanghai architects, Laszlo E. Hudec (1893-1958), a Hungarian-based architect,
became prominent for his design of the eminent buildings. In the 1930s, he ranked
one of the two most influential foreign architects in Shanghai.1
Hudec’s most important period in Shanghai largely paralleled the city’s golden
era. During the thirty years from 1918-1947, he enrolled in at least 62 projects (Hua
2000: 1). Most of them were designed before 19372. The style of his work varied
from European Historicism3 to Art Deco and International, which were collectively
known as Modern style in Shanghai at the time (Hou in Pan ed. 2001: 388). Tess
Johnston described Hudec as “innovative” (1993: 86), but in the study of Shanghai
architecture, more often, Hudec was recognized as “a master of Modernism” (Xin
1996: 403), “a pioneer of the new styles” (Wu 1997: 138), or “an architect
1 The two most influential architects in Shanghai as well as in China before 1949 were the Palmer & Turner and Laszlo E. Hudec. See Pan Guxi ed. Zhongguo Jianzhu Shi [A History of Chinese Architecture], 4th ed. Zhongguo Jianzhu Gongye Chubanshe (China Architecture and Building Press), 2001. 2 This is inferred from Hua Xiahong's survey and chronological study on Hudec's work in Shanghai, which was incorporated in the appendix of her Master's thesis, Wudake Zai Shanghai Zuopin de Fingxi [An Analysis and Commentary of Hudec's Works in Shanghai].
3 Historicism, a generic term for types of architecture that relate back to earlier styles, such as Classicism, the neo-Renaissance, neo-Baroque, neo-Romanesque, and neo-Classicism. The style was especially predominant in the West between 1860 and 1910. See Jueren Tietz, The Story of Architecture of the 20th Century, Koenemann Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 1999, p.114.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
3
avant-garde” (Hua 2000: 27). Such recognition Hudec was bestowed on attributed to
his three most significant works: the Park Hotel, which was once “the tallest building
in the Far East” as well as the “tallest skyscraper on four continents” (Hietkamp 1998:
1), the Grand Theatre as “the first cinema in the Far East” at the time (Luo 1996: 105),
and the D. V. Wood Residence, which was reputed to be “one of the largest and richest
residences in the whole of the Far East” (Johnston 1993: 87).4
The recognitions suggested Hudec was a Modern architect, who advocated and
demonstrated reform in architecture, while the works for which he was bestowed by
such recognition bore the character of Modernism and contributed to the
modernization of architecture in Shanghai. However, in the relevant studies these
recognitions were largely drawn on the similarity in forms between his three most
significant works and their contemporaries in the West, though sometimes advanced
technology Hudec introduced in engineering was mentioned. Merely by similarity in
forms and advanced technology, can it be inferred that Hudec was a modernist
architect as his Western contemporaries, like Louis H. Sullivan (1856-1924), or Adolf
Loos (1870-1933), or Le Corbusier (1887-1965), who put forward new principles and
slogans for reform in architecture and boldly practiced along those principles?
Further, merely by similarity in forms and advanced technology, can Hudec’s practice
in Shanghai in the 1920s and 30s be regarded as a ramification of the movement of
Modern architecture in the West? These questions were not yet answered in the
relevant studies of Shanghai architecture. 4 The significance of these three is commonly acknowledged in the monographic study by Hua Xiahong as well as in the relevant studies by Wu Jiang, Zheng Shiling, Hou Youbin, and so on.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
4
“Modern” as a general term normally denotes the quality of a contemporary era,
and “modernization” describes the process of rapid change in human affairs since the
scientific revolution. In Western history “modern” was first used to distinguish
between contemporary and ancient writers and themes. Shakespeare invariably used
this term for commonplace and trite in a derogatory sense. In the eighteenth
centuries, English writers disparagingly referred to French revolutionary leaders as
“modernizers”. In a more objective sense, in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, European historians began to refer to ancient, medieval, and modern
periods when they gradually abandoned the accepted periodization based on the
Christian era (Black 1967: 5). In architecture, “modern” was also employed variably.
The “Art Nouveau” in France, or “Jugendstil” in Germany, or “Stile Liberty” in Italy,
was named as “Modern style” in England, and “Modernismo” in Spain (Tietz 1999:
11). In the 1920s in Europe, “Functionism” and “Rationalism” were collectively
called “Modernism” (Waiguo Jinxiandai: 65). So what was “modern” in Hudec’s
works after all? If similarity in forms is “modern”, then simulation in any time and
place of a “modern” form can be denoted by such a term. If “modern” simply
indicates that Hudec was an architect of the 1920s and 30s, then all his
contemporaries, whether in the West or in Shanghai, will be “modern”, and their
practice will certainly be a movement of “modernization” in architecture. Without
an in-depth probe, the recognitions of Hudec will remain ambiguous by the generality
of the terms, and the significance of Hudec and his work will be degenerated to mere
literal sense. By such weakness, Hudec’s position in the history of Shanghai
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
5
architecture remains vague. In that light, an exploration for the meaning of
“modern”, “modernity”, or “modernization” for Hudec and his work becomes the
fundamental issue in the quest for a better understanding of this Hungarian architect
and his settings.
What was “modern” or “new” in contrast to “traditional” or “old” for Hudec and
his setting? Was Hudec as avant-garde as his European contemporaries who were
concerned more about architectural reform than immediate profit in practice, or was
he “modern” merely in Shanghai in that specific era? Not until such questions are
properly answered can Hudec’s work be better appreciated. This thesis addresses
such concerns.
0.2. THEORETICAL BASIS
Modern history in the West began with the fall of Constantinople in 1453, or the
discovery of the continent of America in 1492, and is now more commonly
recognized as to “about 1500” (Black 1967: 5 and Stavrianos 1975: 3). Since the
modern era began, “modernity” has come to be employed to describe the
characteristics common to countries that are most advanced in technological, political,
economic, and social development, and “modernization” to describe the process by
which those countries acquired these characteristics (Black 1967: 6). But for the
history of China, the beginning of the modern era is commonly regarded as from 1840,
the year when the troops of the Qing Dynasty were defeated by the British expedition
in the Opium War, and since when the country was forced to open to the world by a
series of treaties signed by the Qing government and Western powers. Since then, in
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
6
China, firstly in the five primary treaty ports as Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Xiamen5,
Ningbo, and Shanghai, Chinese agrarian civilization was challenged by the Western
Industrial civilization. Consequently, these ports were forced to change rapidly
along Western lines.
For such process, “Europeanization” (欧化) and “Westernization” (西化) are
employed particularly to describe the impact of the Western civilization on the
Chinese. Yet, Europeanization or Westernization is only a part of that process,
although it is a very important one. Either of these two terms would become
inadequate when the reaction of Chinese civilization, a factor that also impacted in
that process of change, has to be taken into account. Within Western civilization,
“industrialization” is also used in describing such process. But “industrialization”
stresses the economic aspect alone (Black 1967: 6) -- the immediate consequences of
the technological revolution -- hence it fails to convey the complexity and
all-pervading character of the process. Insofar as to describe the process of change
in China, “modernization” seems the most appropriate term.
Black in his The Dynamics of Modernization defined “modernization” as “the
process by which historically evolved institutions are adapted to the rapidly changing
functions that reflect the unprecedented increase in man’s knowledge, permitting
control over his environment that accompanied the scientific revolution” (1967: 7).
A holistic definition is better suited to the complexity and interrelatedness of all
5 Normally, Pinyin romanization will be used throughout this text for the names of places, people, and organizations, unless the name has become a commonly accepted proper noun in Western literature, such as Hong Kong, Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek, and Kuomintang, and so on.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
7
aspects of the process, as Black considered, however, it is less practicable to be
applied to the present topic, which is a specific subject relatively limited in a certain
context. For there is a lack of direct association between the abstract concepts in the
definition and the substantial matters in the present topic. Nevertheless, if Hudec
and his work were put in a broader context, such as the development of Chinese
architecture in the past few centuries, then Black’s definition could better serve as a
sound theoretical basis.
In bringing the holistic definition down to the context of China, two patterns for
modernization were put forward in The History of Chinese Modernization (Xu &
Chen ed. 1995): “primary internal” and “secondary external”. By “primary internal”
Xu and Chen refer to the pattern of development in England, the United States, and
France, the countries where the most advanced technological, political, economic, and
social transformation initially occurred as a continuation of their own history (Vol.1,
1995: 2). “Secondary external” as was used in Xu and Chen’s study refers to the
later-modernizing societies, to which Germany, Russia, Japan, and China belonged.
In the later-modernizing societies, the dynamic of change was largely the external
challenge and modeling effect from the early advanced societies (Ibid.). Black
considered in the later-modernizing societies the challenge was “more rapid and
abrupt” (1967: 8). Hou Youbin (侯幼彬) applied this theory in the analysis of
Chinese architecture in modern times (in Pan ed. 2001: 299), and Xin Ping (忻平)
considered the pattern of modernization in Shanghai fit well to this category (1996).
For a more practicable purpose, Xin Ping further proposed such categories in the
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
8
study of “Shanghai modern”: enhancement of full open and global interdependence,
great leap forward in forces of production, large-scale employment of non-vital
energy sources, sustained economical growth, specialization in technology and social
organizations, collapse of the hereditary system and ousting of hierarchy in social
relations by administration, popularization of high culture, popularization of
education in all social levels, decline in both birth rate and death rate, urbanization of
populace, free participation in political affairs, the dynamic of reform changes from
external to internal, secularization and unification in values, and replacement of the
traditional way of life by the new (Xin 1996: 22-23).
These categories in Xin Ping’s work were specifically applied to the analysis of
the development of Shanghai in the 1920s and 1930s, the time of Hudec and his
works. By treating architecture as a unit of his “historical holography”, in the same
work,6 Xin Ping extended his theory to Shanghai architecture. The present study
will follow this approach to interpret the meaning of modernity in Hudec’s work.
But his categories will be integrated into five aspects for the sake of convenience:
economic, technological, political, social, and cultural.
0.3. HYPOTHESIS
The meaning of modernity in Hudec’s work in Shanghai in the 1920s and 30s is
not adequately articulated in the study of Shanghai architecture in modern times.
Through a deeper biographic investigation of Laszlo Hudec and his work in Shanghai
6 Xin Ping. Cong Shanghai Faxian Lishi -- Xiandaihua Jincheng Zhong de Shanghairen Jiqi Shehui Shenghuo [History Discovered from Shanghai -- Shanghainese and Their Social Life in the Course of Modernization], 1927-1937. Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe (Shanghai People's Publishing House), 1996.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
9
by incorporating the broader socio-economic and socio-political circumstances of the
time, the present study will achieve a more integrated, consistent, and effective
understanding of Hudec and his work in Shanghai, and will enlighten fresh views on
the significant modern forms in his work.
How Hudec’s work responded, contributed to, or reflected the setting of Shanghai
in the 1920s and 30s, is charted below (Chart 0-1).
The thesis argues that the sustained economic growth in Shanghai offered
opportunities for Hudec to expose his talent in business and professional skill in
practice. By introducing the advanced technology from the West, he greatly
challenged and later stimulated the improvement of building technology in Shanghai.
His Park Hotel not only presented the latest advancement of Western material
civilization, but also symbolized the rise of Chinese bourgeoisie and their
self-consciousness in Nationalism. Although he was immune to the Chinese Revival,
an architectural movement advocating the incorporation of traditional Chinese form
and Western technology, that could have limited his business, he still surpassed his
rivals by virtue of his significant trend in Modernism. The variety of style in his
work accounted for the cosmopolitan nature of Shanghai. His recognition by the city
reflects the addiction to Western fashion in the city’s pop culture. Finally, Hudec’s
modernity lies not only in the similarity in his work to the Western contemporary
styles, but in the adaptation and response to the rapid and abrupt change in his settings.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
10
Chart 0-1. Theoretical Framework (drawn on Xin 1996: 19-35).
Hudec Shanghai, 1920s-30s
modernity
pattern of modernization: secondary-external
challenge / modeling
economy technology politics society culture
sustained growth non-vital energy
source …
administration open and
interdependence
popularization
specialization
living standard
population growth
secular values
unification
new way of life …
growth in
productivity …
participation in
politics
internal reform …
Shanghai, 1920s-30s
industry - foreign /
national, trade,
real estate …
mechanization,
new facilities …
municipality,
rise of nationalism
and Chinese
bourgeoisie …
cosmopolis,
settlements,
guilds …
pop culture,
Western
fashion …
foreign impact …
Shanghai architecture
architects different
nations, new types
of building
the Greater Plan,
Chinese Revival Western styles building material / technology / facility
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
11
0.4. LITERATURE REVIEW
In the study of Shanghai architecture in modern times, it is only recently that
Laszlo Hudec and his work were exclusively addressed. So far, there have been two
master’s theses paying special interest to Hudec and his work in Shanghai. One is
The Park Hotel, Shanghai (1931-1934) and Its Architect, Laszlo Hudec (1893-1958):
“Tallest Building in the Far East” as Metaphor for the Pre-Communist Shanghai by
Lenore Hietkamp from the University of Victoria in 1998, Canada. The other is
Wudake Zai Shanghai Zuopin de Fingxi [An Analysis and Commentary of Hudec’s
Works in Shanghai] by Hua Xiahong (华霞虹) from Tongji University in 2000. Both
are unpublished. These two works paved the way to a further in-depth study on the
subject, however, it must be said that their discussion was either confined in a limited
scope or still placed on the physical and technical aspects. What is critically lacking
is an insight into that particular context, involving trade, finance, culture, and
specifically the interaction between the Chinese and foreigners in that context.
Lenore Hietkamp claimed she incorporated insights into the historical, sociological,
and cultural implications of the co-existence of the Westerners and Chinese in her
Park Hotel (1998: 8), however, Chinese bourgeoisie’s political motive as was implied
in their intimacy with the Nationalist government was ignored.
In her four-chapter thesis, Lenore Hietkamp examined the whole process of how
the Park Hotel came to exist. The background of the hotel was introduced in
Chapter 1, where the author revealed the stories of the owner and the architect
respectively, which offered a valuable clue for reconstructing the setting of the
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
12
architect and his life. For the hotel proper, Hietkamp synthesized in one chapter (in
Chapter 2) all the relevant material she collected. The presentation of the general
considerations and major aspects in project design, such as the site, the technology,
the condition of geology and climate, as well as the bidding and competition for the
project, achieves a successful case study. The symbolism and significance of the
Park Hotel were discussed (in Chapter 4) after she extended the hotel to its
international sources (in Chapter 3), which comprises both American and European.
The author concluded that the hotel is a metaphor for the city’s pre-Communist period
that paralleled the city’s own growth. However, if the conclusion is to be further
examined with the study of the synchronic architectural phenomena, such as the
Shanghai lane houses, then the significance of the Park Hotel as paralleled the city’s
growth as the author concluded seems to have been generalized. For the lane houses
came through a long period from the 1860s to 1940s, whereas the Park Hotel was
merely an outcome of a specific time, the so-called golden era, from that period.
The primary source of Hietkamp’s work was the Hudec Collection in the
University of Victoria, which was originally the archive comprising photographs and
scrapbooks built by the architect himself. Hietkamp stated the limitation of her
thesis as lack of direct evidence on the Chinese owner’s perception towards the hotel.
The limitation suggested that the Chinese sources be incorporated with the Western
sources if a more comprehensive study is to be carried out. For the study on the
architectural phenomena in China, the Chinese language is in most cases the dominant
medium and the firsthand source that paralleled the Western ones.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
13
Ms. Hua Xiahong achieved a broader study on the subject in her master’s thesis
An Analysis and Commentary of Hudec’s Works in Shanghai in 2000. In this
Chinese thesis, Hua formulated a full list of Hudec’s work in Shanghai that amounts
to at least 62 pieces, comprising project designs and those that were built. She
outlined Hudec’s career in Shanghai into four distinct periods by “the dominant styles
in his work” as (1) Joining the R. A. Curry (1918-1925), Strict and Aesthetic Classic
Revival, (2) Early Days of Independence (1925-1930), the Classic Continues, (3)
Transition (1930-1933), Recurring between the New and the Old, and (4) Reaching
the Zenith (1933-1947), An Architect Avant-garde. For each of the periods, Hua
selected one or two works she considered representative, and gave each a detailed
depiction and commentary. The division of the periods remains logically vague, (for
the inconsistency of the criterion as by the styles stated), however the depiction and
commentary, with the figures attached, deliver a visualized impression of the diversity
and the professional skill of their designer.
The most significant contribution of Hua’s work might be Appendix II of the
thesis, where she presented her formatted investigation of 46 of Hudec’s works in
Shanghai, involving title (original and present), address, original owner, engineers,
constructor, date of design and construction, area of the site, storey and building area,
type of piling and structure, material on façade, the dominant style, amount of
investment, and present condition. Her primary source was largely from the
Shanghai Municipal Archives of Urban Construction (上海城市建设档案馆) and the
Chinese architectural journals of the 1930s, such as The Builder and The Chinese
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
14
Architecture, which is a Chinese complement to the source of Hietkamp’s work -- the
Hudec Collection in the University of Victoria. However, quite a few of Hua’s
investigations remained unfulfilled (or probably will remain unknown), and these
inspire a deeper excavation for the facts and stories that lie behind them.
Hudec’s key works have become the inevitable illustration in the study of modern
architecture in Shanghai as well as in China. Besides Hietkamp and Hua’s studies,
Hudec’s key works were presented in most of the recent publications of the relevant
field, such as A History of Chinese Architecture (Pan ed. 2001), The Evolution of
Shanghai Architecture in Modern Times (Zheng 1999), Shanghai, the Stories of
Classic Houses (Yang 1999), The History of Shanghai Architecture, 1840-1949 (Wu
1997), and A Last Look, Western Architecture in Old Shanghai (Johnston 1993). His
stories were also seen in the recent studies, such as German Architecture in Shanghai
(Warner 1993). But in these publications, Laszlo Hudec and his work were merely
penetrated from one or two perspectives, or treated as examples. So far, no one has
made a comprehensive study of this Hungarian “Shanghai architect” that involves all
the necessary aspects as his business and clients, his ideals in architectural design and
so on, in a broader context, and that incorporates all the sources available, either of
Chinese or of Western, either primary or secondhand.
On the topic of Hudec, there are still more events to be examined and evidence to
be searched. But only when the evidence is analytically put in a certain context, can
a proper and objective appraisal of Laszlo Hudec and his work in the modern history
of Shanghai architecture be achieved.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
15
0.5. METHODOLOGY
The research method for the present study falls in the qualitative approach, in
which deduction and comparative study will be the major methods to be applied.
Hippolyte Adolphe Taine (1828-1893) in his Philosophie de l’Art posed a rule for the
study art. He considered that for understanding a piece of work of art, an artist, a
group of artists, it must represent with exactitude the general state of the spirit and
manners of the time to which they have belonged (1948: 7).7 He elaborated his
methodology in three tiers. Firstly, a piece of work of art is not isolated. It belongs
to an ensemble, which is the total work of the artist who is the author of it (Ibid.: 2).8
Secondly, the artist himself, with the total of his work, is not isolated either. There is
also an ensemble in which he was comprised. It is an ensemble bigger than the artist,
which is the school or family of artists that belongs to his nation and time (Ibid.: 3).9
Thirdly, the family of artists itself is comprised in an ensemble even bigger, which is
the social setting whose taste conformed with that of the family of artists (Ibid.: 4).10
Taine did not touch the base of the social setting -- its economic life -- in his study,
however, the principles he proposed offered a basis for the research method for the
present study. The research method follows Taine’s approach but will extend it to a
7 "Nous arrivons donc a poser cette regle que, pour comprendre une oeuvre d'art, un artiste, un groupe d'artistes, il faut se representer avec exactitude l'etat generale de l'esprit et des moeurs du temps auquel ils appartenaient. La se trouve l'explication derniere; la reside la cause primitive qui determine le reste." 8 "Le premier pas n'est point difficile. D'abord et visiblement, une oeuvre d'art, un tableau, une tragedie, une statue, appartient a un ensemble, je veux dire a l'oeuvre totale de l'artiste qui en est l'auteur." 9 "Voici le second. Cet artiste lui-meme, considere avec l'oeuvre totale qu'il a produite, n'est pas isole. Il y a aussi un ensemble dans lequel il est compri, ensemble plus grand que lui-meme, et qui est l'ecole ou famille d'artistes du meme pays et du meme temps a laquelle il appartient." 10 "Il en reste un troisieme a faire. Cette famille d'artiste elle-meme est comprise dans un ensemble plus vaste, qui est le monde qui l'entoure et dont le gout est conforme au sien."
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
16
deeper level. Firstly, each of Hudec’s work, no matter prominent or less well-known,
will be observed in the full collection of his work. Hudec himself, with the total of
the work he produced, will be interpreted in the group of architects of the time and
place that he belongs to. Around Hudec, there were Western architects or
architectural firms like Palmer and Turner, Lester, Johnson and Morris, Elliott
Hazzard and Phlillp, C. H. Gonda, another Hungarian architect in Shanghai, A.
Leonard, P. Veysseyre and M. Guillet, Atkinson and Dallas, the Davis and Brooke,
Moorehead and Halse, and so on. These people and their work will be incorporated
in the comparison and analysis. Finally, why Hudec and his work were accepted by
the city and its people will be interpreted in the social and cultural context.
In general, the interpretation of Hudec and his work in Shanghai falls in three
tiers in the present study: (1) Hudec and the architects in the social and economical
context of Shanghai, (2) Hudec’s work in Shanghai architecture, and (3) Hudec and
his contemporaries in the political and cultural context of Shanghai.
First hand materials are collected from the old journals -- The Builder and The
Chinese Architecture, both published in the 1930s, where the material for the
architectural context and the debut of Hudec’s works can be found, and by field trip in
Shanghai -- for the investigation and record of the site, the façade, the interior, the
design of the details, and their present condition. The materials from the Hudec
Collection are quoted from the “Park Hotel”, and data and description of the buildings
inaccessible or no longer standing are from Hua’s work and other publications.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
17
0.6. THESIS DESIGN
This study is concerned with the appraisal of modernity in Hudec’s work in
Shanghai. The present chapter defines the characteristics of modernity and the
categories of modernization based on the theories in the social study of Chinese
modernization. Chapter I deals with the context from the economic aspect to present
the opportunities for architects. Chapter II presents Hudce’s practice in Shanghai
and analysis the character of his practice from the business aspect. Chapter III
focuses on architectural styles and building technology that Hudec used to challenge
his counterparts in Shanghai. The fourth chapter reveals the political symbolism in
the Park Hotel, and discusses how Hudec’s work reflected Shanghai’s cosmopolitan
nature. The conclusion, finally, interprets the modernity of Hudec and his work and
their significance in the modern history of Shanghai architecture.
0.7. CONTRIBUTION AND LIMITATION
The thesis will approach a more integrated profile of Hudec’s career in Shanghai,
characterize his role in Shanghai’s architectural development in modern times (1920s
and 30s), and give sound interpretations of the meaning of his “modern” style. The
effectiveness of the conclusion will partly be limited by the lack of direct evidence.
□
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
18
Chapter I. Foreign Architects in Shanghai before World War II
1.1. Shanghai before the Coming of Foreign Architects 1.2. The Advent and Growth of Foreign Architects in Shanghai
Summary Plates for Chapter I
In the architectural context of China as well as of Shanghai before mid-nineteenth
century, there was a lack of a profession of an architect as understood in the West.
The advent of foreign professional architects and their practice in Shanghai in the late
1840s therefore was no less significant than the city’s compulsory opening to foreign
trade that affected the direction of its growth. Although Shanghai had witnessed
foreign presence in its own context in the seventeenth century, it was with the growth
in economy since the 1860s, particularly with the boom of the realty market, that
foreign architects became involved in the growth of the city. The economic
circumstances offered opportunities for foreign architects to fulfill their dream of
making a fortune, and it is in this regard that Laszlo Hudec -- his life and work --
represented such self-made figures.
1.1. SHANGHAI BEFORE THE COMING OF FOREIGN ARCHITECTS
In the study of Shanghai architecture, it has been generally accepted that the
advent of foreign architects in Shanghai was after the city’s opening to foreign trade
in 1843. Less commonly known was the fact that before the coming of foreign
architects, Shanghai was already a thriving market place significant in the Chinese
context, and it had also seen the presence of Western culture, including the elements
of Western architecture in its own context for two centuries. A review of the early
history of Shanghai since it became prominent as a port of trade will help to reveal the
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
19
dynamic behind the coming of the foreign architects, and will further contribute to a
better understanding of Hudec’s practice in Shanghai among his contemporaries.
Shanghai emerged as a market place of some significance in the Northern Song
dynasty (960-1127 AD), as marked by the establishment of an office of diverse trades
and taxation11 in 1077. During the Southern Song dynasty (1127-1279 AD), the
market place developed into an important center of trade (Wei 1987: 8). In 1267, an
office for overseas trade and taxation12 was established on the western bank of the
Huangpu River, by which Shanghai received its official designation as a market
town13. When the market town further grew into a center of commerce in land as
well as coastal and maritime trade in the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368 AD), in 1292, it
was elevated to the status of county (Xiong ed. Vol.2, 1999: 78). In this period, the
introduction of cotton, with the concomitant emergence of a cottage industry of cotton
textiles in the region, propelled Shanghai from a marsh periphery into national
prominence as one of the most prosperous and progressive districts of the Empire
(Balfour & Zheng 2002: 30-31). However, the county was not yet significant
enough to attract Marco Polo on his seventeen-year travel through China from 1275 to
1292.
11 An office of Jiuwu (酒务) had been established in Shanghai by the tenth year of Xining (熙宁) reign (1077 AD). See Xiong Yuezhi ed. Shanghai Tongshi [A Panorama of Shanghai History], Vol. 2, Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe (Shanghai People's Publishing House), 1999, p.73. 12 An office for overseas trade and taxation -- Shibosi (市舶司) -- was established in the third year of the Xianchun (咸淳) reign (1267 AD). See Xiong Yuezhi ed. Shanghai Tongshi [A Panorama of Shanghai History], Vol. 2, Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe (Shanghai People's Publishing House), 1999, p.75. And Ye Yalian & Xia Lingen ed. Shanghai de Faduan [The Origin of Shanghai], Shanghai Fanyi Chuban Gongsi [Shanghai Translation and Publishing Corporation], 1992, p.1. 13 Zhen (镇) was the administration seat for an official market town at the time in the Chinese context. See Alan Balfour & Zheng Shiling, Shanghai, Wiley-Academy, 2002, p.29.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
20
During the Ming period (1368-1644 AD), of the total national annual grain tax,
10 percent came from the district of Suzhou and Shanghai alone, indicating the
productivity of the region and the volume of shipping passing through it. In the
fifteenth century, the dredging of a channel to join the Rivers of Wusong14 and
Huangpu to flow north to the Yangtze linked Shanghai permanently to all the
important internal and external shipping routes. With the concentration of business
activities, certain sections of the county became decidedly urban. 1554 AD saw the
construction of the city wall -- the most significant construction in the city’s history
before the arrival of the British in the nineteenth century. The city wall was a direct
result of the Wokou15 raids, however, since it was built to protect the urbanized area
of the city rather than to signify the administrative status, and since it was sponsored
by the local gentry, who as a class was composed in the tradition of officialdom, it
represented the maturity of Shanghai as a typical Chinese community (Balfour &
Zheng 2002: 32-36 and Wei 1987: 10. Fig. 1-1).
The same period saw foreign presence in the city’s own context. A high official
of the Ming court, Xu Guangqi (徐光启, 1562-1633), who was then the General
Secretary of the Board of Rites -- Libu Shangshu (礼部尚书) -- established a Catholic
mission in the characteristic Jesuit style outside the north gate of the city (Balfour &
Zheng 2002: 35). Xu was one of several officials of the Ming court who were 14 The Wusong River was later known as the Suzhou Creek. During the negotiation between the British consul Rutherford Alcock (1809-1897) and the Shanghai Intendant for the first expansion of the British Settlement, Alcock first named the River as the Suzhou Creek, as he considered the River led to the city of Suzhou. See Ye Yalian & Xia Lingen ed. Shanghai de Faduan [The Origin of Shanghai], Shanghai Fanyi Chuban Gongsi [Shanghai Translation and Publishing Corporation], 1992, p.76. 15 Pirates presumed to have been Chinese sailors from Fujian province in cooperation with the Japanese merchant adventurers who operated from islands fringing the Chinese coast at the end of the Yuan and throughout the Min dynasties. "Wo" literally means "short" or "dwarf", and "kou" -- "invader" or "bandit".
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
21
converted to Roman Catholicism by Jesuit missionaries. He was renamed Paul, and
is still known in the West as Paul Xu (Ibid. Fig. 1-2). He invited Jesuit
missionaries to start a Roman Catholic congregation in Shanghai, and built a church
within the city in 1608, while his granddaughter, Candida (1607-1680) was reputed as
the sponsor of the more than one hundred chapels in the Shanghai area (Wei 1987: 16).
The Nine-room Building -- Jiujianlou (九间楼), now still standing on Guangqi Road,
Huangpu District of Shanghai, was one of Xu’s residences in the city and later the
mission site of Lazare Cattaneo (1560-1640)16. Drawings of a later time illustrate
the characteristics of Western architecture in these churches and chapels (Figs. 1-3,
1-4, & 1-5), however, no record indicates any foreign architects were ever involved in
the construction of these mission sites.
The late Ming era in China paralleled the Age of Discovery in Europe. Sea
powers of the time, the Portuguese, the Spaniards, and the Dutch were then active in
Asia, as seen in the colonization of Macao of the Portuguese in 1553 and the
occupation of Taiwan by the Dutch in 1624.17 Following the explorers and traders,
Christian missionaries, especially the Jesuits, wanted to bring Roman Catholicism to
China (Wei 1987: 15). But no evidence indicates any European architects were then
attempting to expand the influence of European architecture into China.
After the city was brought within Manchu ruler under the Qing Dynasty
(1644-1912 AD), it retained its growth in modest confidence and prosperity. During
16 An Italian Jesuit, known as Guo Jujing (郭居静) or Guo Yangfeng (郭仰凤) in Chinese sources. 17 This was the origin of the name "Formosa" for Taiwan.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
22
the eighteenth century, the Shanghai district was among the richest regions of the
Empire, and by the beginning of the nineteenth century, port, trade, and
manufacturing had become dominant in the city’s economic life. Trade routes for
long-distance freight transportation were expanded; an astonishing variety of products
was exported to and imported from inland districts and other coastal ports as well as
from Japan and the countries of the Southern Seas. At the time, the volume of
Chinese shipping through the port of Shanghai was twice that of Guangzhou, although
an imperial decree prohibited all international trade in the former and confined it to
the latter. In 1835, one of the Christian missionaries described the port of Shanghai
as “a forest of innumerable masts” (Balfour & Zheng 2002: 36-40. Fig. 1-6). It
was at this time that foreigners, firstly the British, began to plan their development of
trade with China and to take a special interest in Shanghai. In the 1830s, there had
been several British vessels charting the water at the estuary of the Yangtze.18 When
the Sino-British Treaty of Nanjing was concluded in 1842, Shanghai was listed as one
of the five ports to be opened to foreign trade.
The provisions of the 1842 Treaty allowed foreign residence in the treaty ports19.
A later supplementary agreement, the Treaty of the Bogue, concluded between the 18 As early as 1756, the East India Company had proposed thin Shanghai be opened to British trade. In 1832, the ship Lord Amherst sailed from Macao to Shanghai under the charge of Hugh Hamilton Lindsay (1802-1881) of the East India company, with Charles Gutzlaff (1803-1851) as interpreter, to seek a new port for trade. Two years later, in 1843, Linsay and Gutzlaff made another attempt to trade in Shanghai. But both failed due to the foreign trade decree of the Qing government. See Betty Peh-T'i Wei, Shanghai, Crucible of Modern China, Oxford University Press, 1987, p.17-18. 19 Article II, The Treaty of Nanking [Nanjing], August 1842: "His Majesty the Emperor of China agrees that British Subjects, with their families and establishments, shall be allowed to reside, for the purpose of carrying on their commercial pursuits, without molestation or restraint at the Cities and Towns of Canton [Guangzhou]], Amoy [Xiamen], Foochow-fu [Fuzhou], Ningpo [Ningbo], and Shanghai, and Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, and so on, will appoint Superintendents or Consular Officers, to reside at each of the above-named Cities or Towns, to be the medium of communication between the Chinese Authorities and the said Merchants, and to see that the just Duties and other Dues of the Chinese Government as hereafter provided for, are duly discharged by Her Britannic Majesty's Subjects."
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
23
Qing court and Britain in December 1843, stipulated an area in each of the treaty ports
to be set aside for foreigners to build constructions on land to be purchased from
Chinese owners. On 17 November 1843, George Balfour (1809-1894), the first
British consul in Shanghai, announced the formal opening of Shanghai to foreign
trade (Xiong ed. Vol.3, 1999: 17). In one year, the city of Shanghai had seen the
commencement of foreign trade at its port.
1.2. THE ADVENT AND GROWTH OF FOREIGN ARCHITECTS IN SHANGHAI
When foreign merchants first set their foot on the shore, a matter of urgency was
to obtain a tract of land outside the walled city with its own facilities of all kinds for
foreign use. For Shanghai inside the city wall was already overcrowded, and
physical conditions had so badly deteriorated that few foreigners could have remained
there any longer. In addition, the Chinese officials wanted to keep the foreigners
outside the city to gain an upper hand in dealing with the “devils”. On the other
hand, the foreigners preferred a community separate from the Chinese because of the
traditional European attitude towards people who were not of the same hue and
religion. In 1842, the British finally selected a tract of land of about 830 mu20 to the
north of the walled city to be set aside for their use. This was the beginning of the
foreign settlements in Shanghai. Within this area, foreigners who intended to work
and live in Shanghai began to apply to the British consul for permission to acquire
land and to build houses and facilities (Wei 1987: 34-38).
Following the British, the Americans and the French also gained the right for 20 Ca. 138 acres (1 mu = 0.165 acre).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
24
their nationals to trade and reside in the treaty ports by signing treaties with the Qing
court.21 In 1849, between the walled city and the British Settlement, the French
established their first Shanghai concession. By 1850, an American community had
been taking shape in Hongkou area along the north bank of the Suzhou Creek and the
Huangpu River22 (Ye & Xia 1992: 30. Fig. 1-7).
However, the condition of the lands that the foreigners obtained in Shanghai was
even far worse that in the walled city. The 830-mu tract for the British Settlement
was then a sparsely populated marshy land; the ground was covered with mulberry
tress, cotton bushes, and ancestral graves (Wei 1987: 37). Physical facilities for
business, such as warehouses, offices, and piers therefore became an immediate
problem. To house and entertain the foreigners who rooted their business in
Shanghai, residences, hotels, and clubs were in demand. The foreigners also wanted
the facilities to be characterized by form and space in which they would feel
comfortable (Cody 1989: 68). However, in China as well as in Shanghai at the time,
there was no profession comparable to an architect in the West that would offer such a
service, but only builders, normally carpenters and bricklayers, who dealt with
constructions in the Chinese way. The foreigners had to draw up the plans by
themselves and let the Chinese builders have them modified to fit local materials and
techniques (Murphey 1953: 68). Such circumstances finally invited the presence of
Western architects in Shanghai. 21 In July 1844, the Treaty of Wangxia was concluded between the Chinese and the Americans, followed by the Sino-French agreement, the Treaty of Huangpu, in October of the same year. 22 The American Settlement in Shanghai was never defined or legally established till the end in 1863 when it amalgamated with the British Settlement. The merged area became known as the International Settlement of Shanghai.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
25
According to an official record of the Shanghai foreigners23, by 1850, there had
been a professional architect in practice, a Briton named George Strachan. His firm,
the Geo Strachan Company24 existed from 1849 until some time before 1866
(Delande 1998, Wu 1997: 44, and Cody 1989: 69). Strachan seems to be the only
architect in business during the early years after 1843, as there were no more foreign
architects on record until the mid-1860s. This was probably because at the time
foreign business was just beginning to expand, and the population of foreign residents
was small in size -- if compared to that in the later years. By the end of 1843, there
were only 11 foreign trading firms in business in Shanghai; most of them were
branches of the British and American hongs originally established in Guangzhou.
During 1844, a total of 44 foreign ships anchored and cleared in Shanghai port. By
1855, the figure of foreign ships surged to 437, indicating a significant increase in
trade (Murphey 1953: 64). But the number of foreign residents did not rise in a
comparable scale. At the end of 1843, there were only 26 foreigners, including
officials and missionaries, living in the walled city. After the establishment of the
settlements, in 1849, the number of foreign residents in both the British and the
American Settlements was 175, while in the French Concession it was only 10.
Table 1-1 shows that until 1860, the number of foreign residents in the International
Settlement25, although increasing steadily, never exceeded 569. Figures for the
23 The Diamond Jubilee of the International Settlement of Shanghai. See Natalie Delande, Gongchengshi Zhanzai Jianzhu Duiwu de Qianlie [Engineers in the Van of the Builders], published in Wang Tan & Zhang Fuhe ed., Di Wu Ci Zhongguo Jindai Jianzhushi Yanjiu Taolun Hui Lunwen Ji [A Collection of the Fifth Symposium of Modern History of Chinese Architecture], Zhongguo Jianzhu Gongye Chubanshe (China Architecture & Building Press), 1998. 24 Known as Tailong Yanghang (泰隆洋行) in Chinese sources. 25 The British and American settlements became incorporated into the International Settlement in 1863, while the
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
26
French Concession are scant, but the context of the column conveys an impression
that the foreign population in the French Concession at the time was even smaller than
that in the International Settlement. On the other hand, the Land Regulations
negotiated in the 1840s between the Shanghai intendant and the foreign consuls for
land acquisition and use forbade Chinese residence within the foreign settlements,
except domestic servants and those who worked directly for foreign residents. In the
spring of 1853, there were only 500 Chinese in the British Settlement. A developing
society may offer great opportunities for the building industry, but it could hardly
anticipate such opportunities from a community with a population of merely hundreds.
However, in the next decade, enormous disturbances affected the direction of the
city’s growth, which consequently brought on the increase of foreign architects in
Shanghai.
Year Chinese
districts
International
Settlement
French
Concession
Total
1843 26 - - 26
1844 - 50 - 50
1845 - 90 - 90
1850 - 210 10 220
1855 - 243 - -
1860 - 569 - -
1865 - 2,297 460 2,757
1870 - 1,666 - -
1876 - 1,673 - -
1880 - 2.197 307 2,504
1885 - 3,673 - -
1890 - 3,821 444 4,265
1895 - 4,684 430 5,114
1900 - 6,774 622 7,396
1905 - 11,497 831 12,328
1910 - 13,536 1,476 15,012
French Concession remained independent of the others throughout its history.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
27
1915 - 18,519 2,405 20,924
1920 - 23,307 3,562 26,869
1925 - 29,997 8,811 37,808
1930 9,795 36,471 12,341 58,607
1931 12,200 37,834 15,146 65,180
1932 9,347 44,240 15,462 69,049
1933 9,331 46,392 17,781 73,504
1934 11,084 48,325 18,899 78,308
1935 11,615 48,325 18,899 78,308
1936 10,400 39,142 23,398 72,940
1937 10,125 39,750 23,398 73,273
Table 1-1. Foreign population of Shanghai, 1843-1937 (drawn from Zou 1980: 141).
Since January 1851, the rebellion of the Taiping Tianguo (太平天国) had begun to
sweep across the southern part of China. In March 1853, the Taiping rebels captured
Nanjing and set the city as the capital for their kingdom. Inspired by the success of
the Taiping rebels, the Small Knife Society (小刀会) in Shanghai26 declared its
uprising against the government. On 5 September 1853, the rebels did away with the
Qing government in Shanghai and occupied the walled city. Almost overnight, some
20,000 refugees had entered the foreign settlements from the city. From 1860 to
1862, when the Taiping forces spread down the Yangtze and captured the cities of
Changzhou, Suzhou, and Jiaxing, more refugees escaped from the war zones into
Shanghai. By 1862, there were an estimated 50,000 Chinese in the British
Settlement. In 1864, while there were some 80,000 Chinese living in the French
Concession, the number of refugees in the International Settlement swelled to 90,587
(Wei 1987: 66). When all the disturbances were over in 1865, the population in the
26 There were two distinct Small Knife Societies in the history of China. (1) A faction of the Heaven and Earth Society. First organized in Xiamen in 1849, and spread to Shanghai in 1851. Like the Heaven and Earth Society, the Small Knife Society was also an anti-establishment secret brotherhood that held the tenet of against Qing and reviving Chinese rule under the former Ming dynasty. (2) A faction of the White Lotus, active in Shandong and Zhejiang provinces in the close of the nineteenth century. See Ci Hai: Lishi Fence: Zhongguo Jindaishi [Encyclopedia: History: Modern China], Shanghai Cishu Chubanshe [The Shanghai Publishing House of Dictionaries], 1982, p.17.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
28
whole of Shanghai had reached approximately to 700,000, a net increase of 150,000
from 544,413 in 1852 (Table 1-2).
Year Chinese
districts
International
Settlement
French
Concession
Total
1852 544,413 - - 544,413
1853 - 500 - -
1855 - 20,243 - -
1865 543,110 92,884 55,925 691,919
1870 - 76,731 - -
1876 - 97,335 - -
1879 - - 33,660 -
1880 - 110,009 - -
1885 - 129,338 - -
1890 - 171,950 41,616 -
1895 - 245,679 52,188 -
1900 - 352,050 92,268 -
1905 - 464,213 90,963 -
1910 671,866 501,541 115,946 1,289,353
1915 1,173,653 683,920 149,000 2,006,573
1920 - 783,146 170,229 -
1925 - 840,226 297,072 -
1927 1,503,922 840,226 297,072 2,641,220
1928 1,516,090 - 358,453 -
1929 1,620,187 - - -
1930 1,702,130 1,007,868 434,807 3,144,805
1931 1,836,189 1,025,131 456,012 3,317,432
1932 1,580,463 1,074,794 478,552 3,133,782
1933 1,795,593 1,111,946 496,536 3,404,435
1934 1,925,778 1,148,821 498,193 3,572,792
1935 2,044,014 1,159,775 498,193 3,701,982
1936 2,155,717 1,180,969 477,629 3,814,315
1937 2,155,717 1,218,630 477,629 3,851,976
Table 1-2. Population of Shanghai, 1852-1937 (drawn from Zou 1980: 90).
The sharp increase of population in the settlements resulted in an immediate
demand in mass housing, which unexpectedly offered a great opportunity to the
foreign traders. They rushed to build tenements and charge exorbitant rents from
those refugees who could afford to pay (Wei 1987: 66). From September 1853 to
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
29
July 1854, more than 800 timber houses emerged in the districts of Guandong Road
and Fuzhou Road in the British Settlement, purely to make a profit from renting to
Chinese refugees. This initial mass construction proved to be profitable. The
three-to five-month’s rent of a house would be sufficient to build a new one. By the
early 1860s, timber houses filled large areas of land from Guangdong Road and
Fuzhou Road to Hankou Road and Jiujiang Road, even to the north of Nanjing Road
(Fig. 1-8). The number of houses had reached 8,740, while the rental profit attained
30% to 40%. In the meantime, the cost of land in the settlements soared. The price
for each mu27 of land increased from 20 taels to over 500 taels28. In the area of the
Bund, it reached over 1,000 taels. By 1865, the average price for each mu of land in
the International Settlement was 1,318 taels, and by 1890, it had surged to 3,871.
The total value of land in the settlements increased from 5 million to 44 million in tael.
Speculation in house and land transactions thereby became a business more profitable,
reliable, and faster in return than overseas trading. Foreign companies who used to
embark on opium and piece goods now transferred their business to real estate (Zhu
1990: 11). It was at this time that the number of foreign architects in Shanghai
began to grow.
In a directory of 186629, there were three men listed as architects: N. Birkenstadt,
F. H. Knevitt, and J. H. Wignall, and two others as “builders”: N. Stibolt and the firm
27 1/15 of a hectare, or 1/6 of an acre. 28 The tael was a unit weight of pure silver which remained fairly constant from 1800 to 1860 at the equivalent of seven shillings. See Rhoads Murphey, Shanghai, Key to Modern China, Harvard University Press, 1953, p.64. 29 The Chronicle and Directory for China, Japan and the Phillipines for 1866. See Jeffrey W. Cody, Henry K. Murphy, An American Architect in China, 1914-1935, 1989, p.76.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
30
of Muller & Jacobs. But by 1875, none of them had remained in practice (Cody
1989: 76). In the same year there emerged another three: William Kidner, Henry
Lester, and Thomas Kingsmill. Kidner remained in business until around 1880.
Lester started his career as a surveyor in the Shanghai Municipal Council in 1867,
later became an architect and land agent until he retired in 1916. Kingsmill, who
was considered the second-longest tenure of all foreign architects in Shanghai,
worked as a civil engineer and architect for 36 years until 1910 (Cody 1989: 76-77
and Shen 1990: 132-133). In 1880, there were only four architectural practices,
while in 1885, when Gabriel J. Morrison and Fred M. Grantton formed their
partnership30, the number rose to six, and in 1893, it reached seven (Cody 1989: 77).
The fluctuation in the number of architectural practices during the 1860s and 80s
may probably be due to the fluctuation of the land and building market. After the
Taiping rebellion was subjugated in 1865, many Chinese left the foreign settlements
and returned to their homes. Statistics show that in 1870 the population in the
International Settlement was almost one fifth less than in 1865 (Table 1-2). The
departure of the Chinese left the speculators in the lurch. Buildings that had been
generating income for their owners became vacant. The anticipation of an increasing
demand in the construction of homes and facilities perished. Banks that had
financed real estate and construction projects suffered great losses, which caused near
financial panic (Wei 1987: 67). The fluctuation between 1865 and 1880 of the
foreign population that included the foreign architects also suggested an unfavourable
30 Known as Malixun Yanghang (马礼逊洋行) in Chinese sources.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
31
economic condition (Table 1-1).
As time passed, the wealthier Chinese, mainly compradors, elite officials,
landlords, and merchants from the walled city or the neighbouring provinces, were
able to obtain better housing in the foreign settlements. After the 1870s, the
settlement authorities adopted measures to encourage Chinese who had money to
move into the settlements. Consequently, within the next few decades, new
immigrants replaced the large number of refugees who left Shanghai after the end of
the Taiping rebellion. Chinese entrepreneurs and labourers flocked to Shanghai to
seek opportunities in investment and employment. As the last decade of the
nineteenth century progressed, the Chinese population in Shanghai’s foreign
settlements was approaching half a million (Table 1-2).
After the 1880s, foreigners also came in increasingly large numbers to take
advantage of various modernization programmes in Shanghai. All the elements of
modern urban infrastructure were passed on to Shanghai as soon as they were
established in the West. By 1881, a Danish telegraph company had begun to offer a
telephone service in the settlements. In the same year, the British founded the first
water works in Shanghai, which in 1883 began to supply running water in the
Settlement. 1882 saw the replacement of gas street lamps by electric lights. In
1905 and 1908, trams and trolley buses were introduced to the public transport system
in the two settlements (Zhang 1990: 483-488). In the meantime, more nationals
opened banks in Shanghai to finance their trade in China. In 1889, the Germans
established the Deutsch-Asiatische Bank; in 1892, the Japanese opened the Yokohama
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
32
Specie Bank on the Bund and in 1911 a branch of the Bank of Taiwan; in 1895 the
Russians founded the Russo-Chinese Bank, and in 1899, the French brought the
Banque de l’Indo-chine over to Shanghai (Wei 1987: 159).
The concentration of business both domestic and foreign produced an increasing
demand for living and working space in the settlements. As early as in 1848, the
settlement authorities had been seeking every excuse and by every means to expand
their territories. By the end of the nineteenth century, through negotiation and
constructing the “external roads”31, the foreign settlements had expanded to cover an
area four times bigger than the original walled Shanghai city (Balfour & Zheng 2002:
65. Fig. 1-7).
The concentration of diverse businesses and the expansion of territory of the
settlements brought at the turn of the century a marked increase in the number of
Shanghai building and real estate companies, many of which employed foreign
architects. 1888 saw the incorporation of the noted Shanghai Land Investment
Company32, followed by the China Realty Company in 1906. By 1910, there
emerged another three: the New Building and Construction Company, the Shanghai
Building Company, and the Shanghai Building and Investment Company. By the
First World War, there had been more than 30 foreign real estate companies operating
in Shanghai (Cody 1989: 78 and Xiong ed. Vol.8, 1999: 268). The proliferation of
real estate enterprise not only demonstrated the intensity and vitality of the Shanghai 31 Roads built by the settlement authorities into the Chinese territories that involved an extension of the services of public utilities such as pipelines for water and gas, cables for telecommunication, and so on, followed by an extension of policing of the protection for both the utilities and their customers. 32 Known as the Yeguang Dichan Gongsi (业广地产公司) in Chinese sources.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
33
building market as the new century began, but also suggested a concomitant increase
in the number of foreign architectural practices.
Between 1896 and 1910, seven more architectural practices came into operation:
Daves & Brooke, Becker & Baedeker, Atkinson & Dallas, Denham & Rose, Brandt &
Rogers, J. J. Chollot, and Albert E. Algar (Cody 1989: 81-82 and Xiong ed. Vol.8,
1999: 314). In 1901, when fifty-two professionals from the building community
organized the Shanghai Society of Engineers and Architects, at least nine of them
were architects: A. E. Algar, B. Atkinson, J. J. Chollot, A. Dallas, J. E. Denham, T. W.
Kingsmill, R. B. Moorhead, J. Smedley, and J. D. Smedley. By 1910, the number of
architects had reached fourteen (Cody 1989: 79-80).
The First World War in 1914 diverted part of the foreign interest from the city’s
affairs. During the years from 1912 to 1919, no newly established foreign real estate
companies survived (Xiong ed. Vol.8, 1999: 271). The retreat of the foreigners, most
of whom were British and French, offered an opportunity for the Chinese
entrepreneurs to expand their influence in the market. In the meantime, while the
British and French influence was declining, the Americans and Japanese enhanced
their activity in the city’s economic life. Consequently, when after the War, the
British and the French attempted to retrieve their dominance in the city by
intensifying investment, Shanghai, under the composition of the forces, began to
boom. In 1931, the direct British investment in Shanghai reached 74 million US
dollars, amounting to 326 percent of the British investment in the whole of China
including Hong Kong in that year, and accounting for 76.5 percent of the total direct
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
34
British investment in China. By the 1930s, foreign trade in Shanghai increased by
11 times compared with the 1870s. Its annual gross value reached a high of 65
percent and the lowest 44 percent of that of the whole nation. In 1933, the financial
capital of Chinese banks in Shanghai accounted for an 89 percent of that of the whole
country. By 1937, while there were 29 foreign banks operating in China, 27 of them
had established their braches in Shanghai. During the thirty-eight years before the
War, there were only 153 factories in Shanghai, whereas during the fifteen years from
1914 to 1928, there emerged another 1,229, covering a wide area from textiles,
chemicals, foodstuff, printing, to machine building, commodities, and so on. (Zhang
1990: 47-70). Meanwhile, the land price and realty business in Shanghai swelled.
During the first three decades of the twentieth century, the land price in the Central
district increased by 10 times, the cost of the most expensive tract even multiplied 993
times (Wu 1997: 107). While there were 30 real estate companies in 1914, by 1930,
there had been 200 registered in the real estate guild, 140 of which were foreign
entities (Xiong ed. Vol.8, 1999: 268). Again, there was a concomitant rise in the
number of foreign architects engaged in the building market. By 1928, there were
28 foreign architectural practices in Shanghai (Lou 1991: 108).
Through the review of the city’s economic growth and the rise of the resident
foreign architects, one might expect the motive that drew the foreign architects to
become involved in the city’s growth. A thriving traditional Chinese market town
seemed not interesting to foreign architects in terms of practice. They seemed to
lack a wish to spread the idea of Western architecture or to establish a new scene for
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
35
architecture in China, as was held by the Christian missionaries to preach the Gospels,
or as held by the Western merchant adventurers, who had been seeking chances to
expand trade and to establish colonies in Asia. Neither would most of them have any
interest in cultural affairs, nor would they want to help in the modernization
programmes in China. It is notable that only after the establishment of the foreign
settlements, did foreign architects become immerged in the city’s affairs. As foreign
merchants prospered and expanded their commercial areas, particularly as the
business of real estate proliferated, there was always a concomitant increase in the
number resident foreign architects, and when there was a depression in the economy
and the real estate business was at a loss, the number of foreign architects decreased.
The relationship between the economic condition and the activities of the foreign
architects suggested that it was the business interest that drew the foreign architectural
practice in the city’s construction. In a word, the coming of the foreign architects in
Shanghai was for the purpose of making a fortune. The character of their operation
supports the conclusion.
Jeffrey Cody considered that these foreign architects presumably worked hand in
glove with landowners, who often were their clients, to maximize investment returns,
and, in order to increase chances for success, many of the architects diversified their
business by combining their architectural work with an allied professional practice,
such as engineering, surveying, or real estate management, although there were some
architects continuing to seek their fortune by practicing independently (1989: 76-79).
The case of Henry Lester, one of the major land agents in Shanghai, illustrated these
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
36
characters. He came to Shanghai in 1867, and first served as a surveyor in the
Municipal Council for three years. During this period, he helped in the publication
of the first map of the French Concession in Shanghai. After his contract with the
Municipal Council expired, he joined the Shanghai Real Estate Agency, whose
business embraced architectural design and real estate speculation. When the firm’s
runner Smith died, Lester took over the management, and in 1913, he invited G. A.
Johnson and Gordon Morris to form a new company33 practicing in the same area.
Lester, Johnson and Morris were involved quite a few notable projects, such as the
North China Daily News Building (#17, the Bund), the Nishin Navigation Company
(#20, Guangdong Road), and the Sincere Company on Nanjing Road (#690). But
compared to his architectural achievements, Lester’s career was more successful in
the realty market. In 1881, he bought the land for the Sincere Company from Smith
at a price of 800 taels per mu. By 1933, the price of this tract of land had surged to
2,250,000 taels per mu, as estimated by the Municipal Council. From 1896 to 1899,
Lester’s property on Nanjing Road, Shanghai’s the most bustling street, ranked the
third largest, whereas from 1924 to 1933, his place moved up to the second largest,
and surpassed that of the Sassoon Family (Shen 1990: 133).
SUMMARY
The examination of the relationship between Shanghai’s economic growth and
the rise of the resident foreign architects reveals the motive behind the coming of the
foreign architects in Shanghai. There is a usual mode recognizable from the context:
33 Known as Dehe Yanghang (德和洋行) in Chinese sources.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
37
as foreign merchants prospered and expanded their commercial areas, particularly as
the business of real estate proliferated, there was always a concomitant increase in the
number of resident foreign architects, and when there was a depression in the
economy and the real estate business was at a loss, the number of foreign architects
decreased. This mode coincides with Jeffrey Cody’s conclusion of his study on the
foreign architects in China. It suggests that it was the business interest that drew the
foreign architects to become involved in the city’s growth. The coming of the
foreign architects in Shanghai was for the purpose of making a fortune. □
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
38
Plates for Chapter I
Fig. 1-1. Shanghai in the late Ming Period (17th century. Balfour & Zheng 2002: 36). The city
wall represented the maturity of Shanghai as a typical Chinese community.
Fig. 1-2. Xu Guangqi and Matteo Ricc (Balfour & Zheng 2002: 90). Xu was one of several officials of the Ming court who were converted to Roman Catholicism by Jesuit missionaries. He
invited Jesuit missionaries to start a Roman Catholic congregation in Shanghai.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
39
Fig. 1-3. The Xujiahui Cathedral (Xiong ed. Vol.2, 1999: 244). The churches and chapels established by the Xu family in Shanghai bore the characteristics of Western architecture.
Fig. 1-4. The Notre Dame of Xujiahui, Shanghai (Xiong ed. Vol.2, 1999: 246).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
40
Fig. 1-5. A church in the walled city (Xiong ed. Vol.2, 1999: 249).
Fig. 1-6. Shanghai in the nineteenth century (Balfour & Zheng 2002: 40). In 1835, one of the
Christian missionaries described the port of Shanghai as “a forest of innumerable masts”.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
41
Fig. 1-7. The foreign settlements in Shanghai (Liu 1985). (1) The initial British Settlement, (2) The first expansion of the British Settlement in 1848, (3) The initial French Concession, (4) The
first expansion of the French Concession in 1861, (5) The American Settlement defined in 1863, (6) The expansion of the American Settlement in 1893, (7) The second expansion of the International Settlement in 1899, (8) The second expansion of the French Concession in 1900, (9) The third and
the final expansion of the French Concession in 1914.
Fig. 1-8. Map of the Central District of Shanghai (available from http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/).
By the early 1860s, timber houses filled the area from Guangdong Road to Hankou Road.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
42
Chapter II. Laszlo Hudec and His Practice in Shanghai
2.1. From Harbin to Shanghai 2.2. Hudec’s Practice in Shanghai
Summary Plates for Chapter II
Lester’s career demonstrated that speculation in the realty market was one of the
reasons for the expansion of foreign architectural firms, who “were drawn to the
commissions like bees to honey” (Cody 1989: 84). Laszlo Hudec became involved
in Shanghai’s building market directly after the First World War, when Shanghai was
just entering it golden era. Was he just another bee that was drawn to the honey?
2.1. FROM HARBIN TO SHANGHAI
Compared with his predecessors and contemporaries in Shanghai, Hudec was
distinct from the outset. His nationality and his experience before his coming to
Shanghai distinguished him from his counterparts and rivals in the Shanghai building
circle. He was born in 1893 in Besztercebanya34, a town in northern Hungary, which
was, at the time, under the control of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Fig. 2-1). He
graduated from the Royal Technical University of Budapest in 1914, and was elected
to the Royal Institute of Hungarian Architects in 1916. In the same year, he joined
the Austro-Hungarian army then engaged in the First World War, fighting on
Hungary’s northern front. There he was captured and held in a prisoner of war camp
in Khabarovsk, Siberia, by the Russians. But in 1918, he escaped captivity by
jumping from a prison transport train and managed to find his way to Harbin in
34 Besztercebanya is now Banska Bystrica in the Slovak Republic. "Besztercebanya" is the Magyar (Hungarian) version of the Slovakian "Banska Bystrica". The place is also called Bratislava in Polish. Besztercebanya (Banska Bystrica, or Bratislava) is considered one of the most beautiful cities of the Highlands.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
43
Northern China. From Harbin he worked his way down a railway then under
construction, and finally arrived in Shanghai (Fig. 2-2). Since then, he lived and
worked in the city for thirty years until 1947, when he migrated to Switzerland with
his family (Hietkamp 1998: 22 and Johnston 1993: 86).35
Due to the lack of detailed documentation, how Hudec managed to reach Harbin
after escape, and what inspired him to move from Harbin to Shanghai remained
unclear. However, from the historical context, there is a suggestion that he followed
the escape route of the Russian refugees from Siberia to Harbin, and that the
uncomfortable atmosphere in Harbin propelled him to leave, whereas the fame of
Shanghai, which was known at the time as a place of foreign settlements, drew him to
move there.
Harbin was a city which had its origins in the construction of the Chinese Eastern
Railway36, as a consequence of the increasing Russo-Japanese rivalry for their interest
in China. The treaties of 1896 and 1898 concluded between the Qing government
and Russia ceded the railway to Russia, and designated the Russo-Chinese Bank37 as
35 Chronology of Hudec's early year remained vague due to the lack of evidence. Wu Jiang said Hudec graduated from school in 1914 and was elected member of the Royal Institute of Hungarian Architects in 1916 (1997: 138), whereas according to Hudec's resume published in Jianzhu Yuekan (The Builder), Vol. 1, No. 5 (March 1933), Hudec became member of the Institute in 1914, was captured during the War in 1915, and released in 1918. Lenore Hietkamp said Hudec joined the army "around 1914" (1998: 22), while Hua Xiahong (2000: 1) and Tess Johnston (1993: 86) said it was 1916. These three all asserted that Hudec escaped from a train rather than was released. The list of Hudec's known commissions compiled by Lenore Hietkamp from the Hudec Collection in the University of Victoria shows that around 1914 Hudec was still in practice (1998: Appendix A). Hence, it is more acceptable that Hudec joined the army in 1916. 36 Known as Zhong Dong Tielu (中东铁路) or Dong Sheng Tielu (东省铁路) in Chinese sources. As an extension of the Trans-Siberian line across Manchuria, the railway shortened the distance between Moscow and Vladivostok by several days. Ninety-nine percent of direct investment for the construction came from the Russian side. The primary Chinese investment to the line was land donations. See James H. Carter, Creating a Chinese Harbin: Nationalism in an International City, 1916-1932, Cornell University Press, 2002, p.14, and http://www.wsulibs.wsu.edu/Vladivostok/Text11.htm. 37 Soon renamed the Russo-Asiatic Bank. Sergei Witte, the Russian Minister of Finance, founded this bank in December 1895 with its headquarter at St. Petersburg. Five-eighths of the capital belonged to French citizens active in China, but the Russian government controlled the management of the bank. The Bank became a
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
44
the developer of the railway zone. The Russians chose Harbin as the base for the
railway construction as well as the biggest station along the line. Thereafter, Harbin
became the construction center for railways under Russian dominance (Carter 2002:
12 and Pan 2001: 308).
The Chinese Eastern Railway Company established by the Russo-Chinese Bank
was a colonial administration in addition to being a commercial enterprise. It
transferred Harbin from a Chinese fishing village to a virtual Russian colony, and
ruled Harbin until 1917, when the October Revolution began to sweep across Russia.
Russian authorities empowered the chief engineer of the railway to settle criminal and
civil cases arising both out of and at the construction site. They introduced Russian
troops, called “railway guards”, to police Harbin and the line. In addition, they also
installed civilian administration and developed a court system to handle cases
involving both Russians and Chinese in the railway zone (Carter 2002: 11-15). A
document from the U. S. consul reported, “Neither Chinese soldiers nor police were
permitted on the streets of any Russian settlement except unarmed. Chinese officials
were permitted no voice in any matter which arose within the zone unless … directly
affecting the interests of a Chinese citizen” (Ibid.: 30). Photographs displayed the
foreign character of Harbin, where churches and offices, homes and business were all
of European design. An American National Geographic correspondent acclaimed
Russo-Chinese joint venture when its branch in Shanghai became in operation in 1896. The establishment of the Shanghai branch was considered the beginning of foreign-Chinese joint banking service in the history of China. The Bank enjoyed the most influential Russian organization in China that paralleled the predominance of the British Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, the Japanese Yokohama Specie Bank, and the French Banque de l'Indo-chine. See Wang Zhicheng, Shanghai Eqiao Shi (A History of the Russian Émigré Community in Shanghai), Shanghai Sanlian Shudian (The Joint Publishing Shanghai), 1993, p.11, James H. Carter, Creating a Chinese Harbin: Nationalism in an International City, 1916-1932, Cornell University Press, 2002, p.14, and http://www.wsulibs.wsu.edu/Vladivostok/Text11.htm.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
45
the city as “Moscow of the Far East”. By the early twentieth century, Harbin had
become a virtual Russian colony in China (Figs. 2-3 & 2-4).38
During the 1917 October Revolution and the subsequent Russian Civil War, there
was a large number of White Russians flowing from Siberia into Harbin. The city
therefore became the biggest centre of Russian émigrés within China (Shi et al. 2003:
71). Whilst foreigners in the Shanghai settlements remained a minority surrounded
by the Chinese, the White Russians in Harbin, populated by people with roots in
European Russia were in the majority (Carter 2002: 11-15).39
Russian predominance as such must have brought about an uncomfortable
atmosphere for Hungarians, who were, at the time, citizens of an enemy state of
Russia; especially for Hudec, who was a Hungarian prisoner of war newly escaped
from a camp. In Harbin, Hudec lied about his origins (Hietkamp 1998: 23).
While Harbin was becoming the biggest sanctuary in China for the White
Russians, in Shanghai too, there was a rapid growth in the number of Russian
residents. Before the First World War, the Russians in Shanghai were truly a
minority among the foreigners. In 1890, although there were 3,821 foreign residents
in the International Settlement, there were among them only 7 Russians. Even by
1900, when Russia had opened its Shanghai consulate and established the Shanghai
38 Even in the 1960s, the Kharbintsy (Russian residents of Harbin) still saw Harbin as a Russian city. See James H. Carter, Creating a Chinese Harbin: Nationalism in an International City, 1916-1932, Cornell University Press, 2002, p.12. 39 In 1923, when the Russian Civil War was over, the number of Russian residents in Harbin mounted to 200,000, and surpassed the population of the Chinese. See Shi Fang, Liu Shuang, & Gao Ling, Haerbin Eqiao Shi [A History of the Russian Émigré Community in Harbin], Heilongjiang Renmin Chubanshe [Heilongjiang People's Publishing House], 2003, p.71.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
46
branch of the Russo-Chinese Bank in 1896, the Russian population in Shanghai was
merely 47, a small proportion of the 6,744 foreign residents in the International
Settlement (Wang 1993: 7 and Zou 1980: 145). However, in 1918, only from
January to April, there were 1,000 Russian refugees entering Shanghai; most of them
were from Vladivostok40 and Harbin. With a continual flow of the White Russians,
by 1920, Russian population in the Shanghai International Settlement had increased to
1,266, and by 1936, the number had swelled to 21,000 (Wang 1993: 15-34 and
Waiqiao Bian Zong 1998: 129). It was about at this time when Hudec came to
Shanghai from the same region. How he earned his living on his way to Shanghai
remained a mystery. But one may conjecture that he probably heard from the
Russians about the situation in Shanghai, which was known at the time as a
commercial utopia with minimal control or direction from the Chinese or from foreign
governments (Wei 1987: 64), and that he followed the stream of Russian refugees in
order to reach Shanghai. Hudec’s portfolio, which comprised a Russian school in
Shanghai, also suggested his connection with the Russians.
2.2. HUDEC’S PRACTICE IN SHANGHAI
However, in Shanghai, Hudec’s Hungarian nationality remained an issue. The
predominance of the British and the British allied foreigners in Shanghai also made
the circumstances uncomfortable for the nationals of the Central Powers. There was
strong feeling against German allies throughout the years from immediately after the
War to the late 1930s, when the Second World War was approaching. “Anyone with
40 Known as Haishenwei (海参葳) in Chinese sources.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
47
a good word for Germans was considered a traitor” (Hietkamp 1998: 24). In the
meantime, while most of the foreigners in Shanghai were enjoying the privilege of
extraterritoriality,41 Hudec’s Hungarian nationality failed to earn him and his family42
the status of “favoured nations”43. For the Chinese government had cancelled its
concessions to German, Austria, and Hungary since its declaration of war on the
Central Powers in 191744. The lack of legal protection through extraterritoriality, in
addition to the unfriendly atmosphere in the British-dominated foreign community
towards the citizens of the former Central Powers, made Hudec cautious. He
maintained the lie about his origins. In order to explain his unfamiliar language to
foreigners he encountered, he claimed that he was from Latvia. He even forbade his
wife to drive after she got her license for fear of an accident that would bring them to
some legal action in Chinese courts, in which no consulate could intervene (Hietkamp
1998: 23).
The status as an escaped prisoner of war and the situation of cautiousness, fear,
41 In the context of China, extraterritoriality dated from the Treaty of Nanking [Nanjing] in 1842, when British consular officials were authorized to arbitrate and settle the differences of their nationals with Chinese. In legalese the term means a treaty arrangement whereby a nation acquires exclusive jurisdiction, in both civil and criminal matters, over its recognized citizens residing in a foreign country. For example, if a Chinese sues an American in Shanghai, he must do so in the United States Court. If an American sues a British, he must apply to the British court. The two major courts were His Britannic Majesty's Supreme Court, and the United States Court for China. See All about Shanghai and Environs: A Standard Guidebook, Oxford University Press, Edition 1934-35, p.21-22. 42 Mrs. Hudec, whom Hudec married in 1921, was partly German. See Lenore Hietkamp, The Park Hotel, Shanghai (1931-1934) and Its Architect, Laszlo Hudec (1893-1958), 1989, p.23. 43 There were fourteen foreign nations who, by signing "favoured nations" treaties with China, got and exercised extraterritorial privileges and rights in Shanghai. They are Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. Surprisingly, Russia had no such rights. See All about Shanghai and Environs: A Standard Guidebook, Oxford University Press, Edition 1934-35, p.21-22. 44 On 14 March 1917, the Chinese Beiyang government declared its break-off of diplomatic relations with Germany, and withdrew all German privileges in China. On 14 August 1917, it declared war on Germany and Austria, and announced its abrogation of all treaties signed with the two nations. See Fei Chengkang, Zhongguo Zujie Shi [The History of Foreign Settlements in China], Shanghai Shehui Kexueyuan Chubanshe [Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press], 1991, p.398-399.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
48
and hated for the enemies contributed to the significance of Hudec’s practice in
Shanghai’s building circle. He practiced somewhat in isolation from the dominant
community of the British. Throughout his thirty-year career in Shanghai, he did not
practice his profession in British companies (Warner 1993). Upon first arriving in
Shanghai, he did not establish his own firm -- probably due to the lack of initial
source for establishing such an enterprise, nor did he try to combine with an allied
professional like many of his colleagues did, rather, he worked for someone who had
been in business. He did not participate in the practices of the British but joined an
American architectural firm, R. A. Curry, which was almost nameless in Shanghai’s
architectural context, except for its later commissions designed by Hudec. For this
firm, Hudec designed, among others, a couple of projects, such as the American Club,
the McTyeire School, the International Savings Society’s head office and so on. He
stayed with this firm for seven years until 1925, when he opened his own office
(Johnston 1993: 86).
The uncomfortable situation must have limited his social contact in the Shanghai
foreign community to some extent, and hence have limited his source of commissions.
When in the 1920s huge architecture was replacing the old mansions on the Bund,
Hudec did not participate in the work on any of the projects. But on the other hand,
that situation contributed to his appeal to a larger area not explored by many foreign
architects. Whilst most of the foreign architects exercised their practice in relation to
their national patrons, Hudec’s clients embraced both foreign -- except British -- and
Chinese. Besides, in contrast to his counterparts whose work by and large
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
49
concentrated upon certain types of buildings, Hudec’s portfolio covered a wide range
of ten categories including residences, cinemas, hospitals, banks, churches, office
buildings, hotels, schools, and clubs (Hua 2000: 1-2).
However, in terms of business, Hudec was similar to his counterparts, as he was
operating on the same turf. Chinese literature remarked that Hudec had talent for
social contact and business management (Lou 1991 and Pan ed. 2001: 365). In the
Shanghai foreign communities, Hudec clients embraced the Americans, the French,
the Spaniards, the Jews, the Norwegian, the Russian, and the German. Particularly,
through his national connections and his wife’s side, he established close associations
with the Germans in Shanghai.45 He was member of the German Club.46 While
there were only second-rate German architects available in Shanghai in the postwar
years, the Germans in Shanghai commissioned their projects from Hudec (Warner
1993). In the Chinese community, Hudec’s contacts included not only the
bourgeoisies, who were then active in the city’s economic life, but also the cultural
and political celebrities, such as Ma Xiangbo (马相伯),47 the founder of Fudan
University, and Sun Ke (孙科),48 Sun Yat-sen’s eldest son who was then a high
official of the Kuomintang government. In 1933, Hudec’s resume was introduced in
45 Hungary was Germany's ally during the First World War. 46 Also known as the Concordia Club. 47 For Ma, Hudec designed the Catholic Country Church (Zhabei Funerary Chapel), which was completed in 1925. See Hua Xiahong, Wudake Zai Shanghai Zuopin de Fingxi [An Analysis and Commentary of Hudec's Works in Shanghai], 2000, p.63. 48 In the late 1920s, Hudec constructed a house on Great Western Road (now #1262, Yan'an Road W.) for his own residence. But he never lived in this house. He made it over to Sun at a considerable low price as an expression of appreciation of Sun's help when he got some trouble during the construction of the Moore Memorial Church. See Yang Jiayou, Shanghai Lao Fangzi de Gushi (Shanghai, the Stories of Classic Houses), Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe (Shanghai People's Publishing House), 1999, p.253.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
50
The Builder, one of the two most influential Chinese architectural journals at the
time.49
How Hudec obtained his commissions remains unclear; however, a scrutiny of his
work in Shanghai gives some clue for the appreciation of his talent in business. It is
notable that there were a number of projects that were commissioned from the same
patron. These included building #261 on Sichuan Road, Middle (1926) and the Park
Hotel (#170, Nanjing Road, West, 1934) from the Joint Savings Society, and the
McTyeire School on Xizang Road, Middle (1922), together with the new campus of
the same school on Jiangsu Road (#155, 1935), and the Moore Memorial Church
(#361, Xizang Road, 1929), which three buildings were all commissioned by the
Methodist Missionary in Shanghai. The close association with the same patron not
only displayed Hudec’s talent in social contact, but also suggested the quality of
services he offered to his patron. Besides, the date of the projects revealed the fact
that Hudec brought the business connections attributed to Curry to his own practice.50
In addition to his association with clients, it is recognizable from his 62 works that
there is a trio of buildings locating in the neighbouring plots: the trio of the Carlton
Theatre (1932), the Grand Theatre (1933), and the Park Hotel (1934) around the cross
of Nanjing Road W. and Huanghe Road. One may conjecture that while Hudec was
49 The Builder (建筑月刊) was one of the two most influential Chinese architectural journal published by the Shanghai Builder's Association (上海市建筑学会) from November 1932 to January 1937. Hudec was one of the two foreign architects whose resumes were introduced in this journal. The other one was Henry K. Murphy, who was considered the initiator of the architectural movement of Chinese Renaissance. 50 Hudec contributed most of the work of the McTyeire School (1922), which was attributed to Curry. See Jeffrey W. Cody, Henry K. Murphy, An American Architect in China, 1914-1935, 1989, p.156. But the Moore Memorial Church (1929) and the new campus of the School (1935) were the commissions Hudec obtained after he established his own firm in 1925.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
51
working on a project, he had probably been watching and speculating in the projects
on the neighbouring tracts of land.
In 1925, when the city was progressing in the golden era, Hudec opened his own
office, and his career began to flourish. In 1931, he designed and built his third
residence in Shanghai (#57, Panyu Road).51 By this time, he may have begun to
extend his business from architectural practice to real estate. After the Park Hotel
was complete in 1934, merely by the money he earned from the project and the
surplus materials from the construction, he built the Hubertus Court Apartments (#914,
Yan’an Road W., 1935, Gu in Dongfang “Bali” 1991: 94).52 This ten-storey building
which is still standing on the site marked the business success of Hudec as a
commercial architect.
SUMMARY
Hudec came to Shanghai in 1918, when the city was going through its golden
economic era. From the outset, Hudec’s early experience and Hungarian nationality
distinguished him from his counterparts and rivals in the Shanghai building circle.
The predominance of the British and the British allied foreigners in Shanghai made
the circumstances uncomfortable for the nationals of the Central Powers. Hudec’s
Hungarian nationality failed to earn him and his family the status of “favoured
nations”. The uncomfortable atmosphere in the Shanghai foreign community on the
51 According to Hua Xiahong's formulation of Hudec's work in Shanghai, as early as in 1922, Hudec had built his own residence on Lucerne Road (#17). The house on Great Western Road which Hudec sold to Sun Ke was considered the second residence he built for himself. See Hua Xiahong, Wudake Zai Shanghai Zuopin de Fingxi [An Analysis and Commentary of Hudec's Works in Shanghai], 2000, Appendix B. 52 Now the Dahua Hotel, #914 Yan'an Road W.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
52
one hand limited his sources of commissions, but on the other hand contributed to his
appeal to a wider clientele for practice of his profession. He established broader
contacts in the building circle; he undertook all types of commissions conceivable to
do as much business as possible; and he also invested in real estate. But he left in
1947, when social and economical unrest approached. Hudec’s career in Shanghai
reflected the commercially-oriented fashion of the city at the time. □
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
53
Plates for Chapter II
Fig. 2-1. Map of Slovakia (available from http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/). Hudec’s hometown.
Fig. 2-2. Map of China (available from http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/, edited by the author). From Khabarovsk to Shanghai.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
54
Fig. 2-3. Street view of Harbin, early twentieth century (Johnston 1996: 14). Churches, offices, homes, and business in Harbin of the early twentieth century were all of European design.
Fig. 2-4. A church in Harbin (Johnston 1996: 13). Harbin, known as “Moscow of the Far East”, by the early twentieth century had become a virtual Russian colony in China.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
55
Chapter III. Hudec and Architecture in Shanghai in the 1920s
and 30s
3.1. The Evolution of Architecture in Shanghai in Modern Times 3.2. Hudec’s Work in Shanghai 3.3. The Significance of Hudec as a Modern Architect
Summary Plates for Chapter III
Hudec’s talent for social contact and business management brought him success
in business. However, it was his work, particularly the recognized Modern trio of
buildings: the Grand Theatre, the Park Hotel, and the D. V. Wood Residence, that
contributed to his recognition as “a pioneer of the new styles” in Shanghai’s building
circle and later in history. In 1933, Hudec’s resume was introduced in The Builder,
accompanied by a series of drawings, models, and photos of the Park Hotel then under
construction.53 He was considered one of the two most influential foreign architects
in Shanghai throughout the 1920s and 30s.54 However, how Hudec influenced the
direction of the evolution of architecture in Shanghai remains vague. What was his
contribution to the modernization of urban architecture in Shanghai? What is the
position of his work in Shanghai architecture in modern times? An examination of
the character of his work in the architectural context of Shanghai will contribute to a
better understanding of the recognition bestowed on him.
3.1. THE EVOLUTION OF ARCHITECTURE IN SHANGHAI IN MODERN TIMES
Although Western culture had come to Shanghai as early as the late Ming period
53 See Jianzhu Yuekan (The Builder), Vol. 1, No. 5 (March 1933). 54 The two most influential foreign architects in Shanghai as well as in China in the 1920s and 30s were Palmer & Turner and Laszlo E. Hudec. See Pan Guxi ed., Zhongguo Jianzhu Shi [A History of Chinese Architecture], Zhongguo Jianzhu Gongye Chubanshe (China Architecture and Building Press), 2001, p. 365.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
56
(seventh century) as the result of Christian dissemination, before Shanghai was
opened as one of the five treaty ports in November 1843, the urban texture of the city
was mostly a continuation of traditional Chinese architecture in Jiangnan (江南, lower
Yangtze). Like all trading towns in the region, there were canals flowing through the
city, intersecting with curving streets teeming with street traders, peddlers, and
fortunetellers running towards the urban centre. Winding lanes and paths laced
through the dense residences behind the streets, leading the secluded houses to the
streets and bridges across the canals. Streets were narrow, remaining a familiar
width of two to four metres. Pavements of flag or crushed stone, and edging of
broken brick and roof tiles featured in the street surface. Stores, snack bars,
teahouses, and workshops in two-storey structures lined the streets and embankments,
punctuated occasionally by commemorative arches, merchant houses, or a grand
courtyard house. Handsome gates named after the dominant families marked the
entrance to many of the lanes. Set amongst the dense urban fabric, temples, official
buildings, and market plaza were the most significant places, where meeting with
family, speeches and sermons, sacred festivals, theatrical and operatic performances
both secular and sacred, all took place. Housing varied as widely as the distance
between poor and rich. The norm for the poor was the shop house, in which the
business was accommodated in a single room at street level, while the family lived
right above in the upper storey. Residences for the rich were the big family
compounds comprising a string of courtyards that separately enclosed by detached
structures or roofed corridors with high walls behind them (Balfour & Zheng 2002:
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
57
32-36). Sometimes, there was a garden laid out by the side.
Town life produced the familiar, almost universal building patterns that formed
the architectural scene of the nineteenth century Shanghai, involving only a small
number of building forms and a limited palette of materials. Most structures were
built of wood frames filled with brick walls; the wall surface was plastered and
painted white, with dressed wood frames for windows, balconies, and doors, normally
painted dark brown or black. Dull red paint and a continuous line of windows on the
upper storey marked the streets of shop houses. The roof tiles were mostly grey but
occasionally, on major public constructions such as temples, commemorative arches,
and official buildings, they were brightly glazed in reds and greens. Such simplicity
and elegance of architecture conveyed an impression of satisfying balance and equity,
the quality of life of the Ming and Qing periods that is still possible to experience
even today in small waterfront towns, such as Zhujiajiao (朱家角), Luzhi (甪直),
Xitang (西塘), and Wuzhen (乌镇) to the west of the metropolis Shanghai (Balfour &
Zheng 2002: 36-41. Figs. 3-1 & 3-2).
This architectural scene of Shanghai as a typical Jiangnan market town remained
unchanged into the late nineteenth century. But from the mid-1840s, with the
coming of foreign merchants, elements of foreign architecture began to take root in
the city’s urban architecture; first in the buildings and facilities of the foreigners, and
finally in all types of structures built both for foreign and Chinese use.
The first foreign merchants trading in Shanghai came from their colonies in India
and Southeast Asia. They adapted their knowledge of European architecture to the
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
58
tropical climate, and thus developed the so-called British colonial style. This
architectural style features a full-length porch or galerie (what the English called the
verandah), encircling the main body of a two-storey structure ventilated by tall French
windows. There is a hipped roof, which extends over and beyond the walls to shield
the building and its occupants from the sun and to provide a cool and dry outdoor
space (Wu 1997: 19). When these foreigners came to Shanghai, they brought with
them both the building form and the methods that created the form. They preferred
the constructions and facilities characterized by familiar forms and spaces in which
they would feel comfortable. This had become a tradition since Christian
missionaries first settled in China during the late sixteenth century, as illustrated by
the early churches established by the Xu family in Shanghai, and it continue to be the
case throughout most of the nineteenth century, when either missionaries, contractors,
surveyors, civil engineers, or architects had a hand in creating plans and buildings that
“unequivocally felt and looked European” (Cody 1989: 68).
The first foreign buildings were mainly godowns and consulates, often combined
with residences in one large compound, as seen in #33, the Bund (Fig. 3-3).55 As
there were no foreign architects available, the foreign merchants, who were to be the
users of these buildings, had to take on the architectural work. They drew up the
plans, and had the native builders adapt the plans to local materials and techniques.
The structures were therefore in the simplest form: one to two storeys in height and 55 #33, the Bund, was the compound belonged originally to the British Consulate in Shanghai. The first consulate building was built on the site in 1852, and destroyed by fire in 1870. A new construction, which now still stands on the original site, was completed two years later. See Luo Xiaowei ed., Shanghai Jianzhu Zhinan (A Guide to Shanghai Architecture), Shanghai Renmin Meishu Chubanshe (The People's Fine-Arts Publishing House of Shanghai), 1996, p.38.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
59
square in plan, containing bedrooms, mess halls, and offices. “In order to shut out
the summer sun and keep the inside as cool as possible, the stamped earth or native
sun-dried brick walls were at least three feet thick and plastered or stuccoed in while
on the outside, while an open verandah with wide arches ran around the outside of the
first two stories. Overhanging roofs shielded the two or three upper stories. At the
rear of the compound were usually four or five godowns, dwellings for the Chinese
assistants, the residence and office of the compradore, and the stable” (Murphey 1953:
68). In Shanghai, and in all the nineteenth-century treaty ports China, this
architectural form was labelled the “Compradoric” for its blend of Chinese with
foreign methods (Ibid.: 69). By the 1850s, a foreign complexion composed of the
Compradoric style characterized the foreign settlements in Shanghai (Fig. 3-4).
With the coming of foreign professional architects after the late 1840s, European
classical elements began to appear in the foreign buildings. Foreigners in Asian
colonies or semi-colonies like the settlements in Shanghai employed these elements to
denote foreign occupation. In 1875, William Kidner 56 , at a meeting of the
Ratepayers’ Association, proposed that construction of Chinese buildings be
prohibited to the east of Barrier Road57, where the settlement was confined (Shen
1990: 130). In the second half of the nineteenth century, European columns,
pilasters, porticos, and pediments stylistically derived from Greek and Roman
traditions became emblems for foreign traders. Strachan58 introduced the so-called
56 One of the 1875 trio. See Chapter I. 57 It is now Henan Road, Middle. 58 George Stachan, who practiced in Shanghai from 1849 until some time before 1866. See Chapter I.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
60
Greek style, which was then fashionable in England. Under his instruction, the art of
building made considerable progress. None of Strachan’s work is known to have
survived however (Cody 1989: 68). During the same period, Chinese architecture in
Shanghai remained in isolation from the constructions in the foreign settlements, and
thus kept its traditional form among the foreign buildings or in the settlements (Figs.
3-5 & 3-6).
From the late nineteenth century onwards, while Shanghai was growing into the
biggest city in the Far East, it became a stage for international architects. In the
foreign settlements, while the British Shanghai Municipal Council and the French
Conseil Municipal were controlling the urban construction, foreign architectural firms
monopolized the design market. They tried to shape their settlements into a classical
city according to the Western pattern, so that they would enjoy all modern facilities
that had been established in their home countries, and replace Chinese values with
European and American ones (Balfour & Zheng 2002: 92).
Since the mid-1850s, the settlement authorities as well as the foreign merchants
in Shanghai had systematically introduced in the settlements most of the facilities of
modern urban life newly established in the West: Western-style roads (1856), gaslight
(1865), electricity (1882), telephones (1881), running water (1884), automobiles
(1901), and trams for public transport (1905). To house these facilities, relevant
building types also came to Shanghai. As a result, Shanghai’s modern buildings
embraced nearly every conceivable building type, including apartments, villa
(Western style), department stores, office buildings, banks, schools, hospitals,
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
61
recreation grounds, cinemas, railway stations, post offices, hotels, libraries, museums,
clubs, stadiums, churches, factories, public utilities, and urban parks. Thus, by the
beginning of the 20th century, the foreign settlements in Shanghai already boasted the
infrastructure of a modern city by Western standards (Balfour & Zheng 2002: 90).
Meanwhile, Western architectural idea and methodology became dominant in the
city’s construction.
In 1891, a Tudor style building designed by a British architect replaced the timber
Chinese structure of the Chinese Maritime Customs on the Bund (Fig. 3-7). But in
1927, a new building in the Eclectic style, designed by Palmer and Turner, again
replaced the Tudor style one (Fig. 3-8). During the last decade of the nineteenth
century, Atkinson and Dallas, Ltd., Civil Engineers and Architects designed many
masonry structures in the Queen Anne style, but in the 1910s, they shifted to
Neoclassicism. By 1920s, the Shanghai foreign settlements had almost become a
replica of a European classical city. There was the Neoclassical style, represented by
Sheng Xuanhuai Residence (1900), the Residence of the Director of la Compagnie
Francaise des Tramways et d’Eclairage Electrique de Shanghai (1905), the Banque de
l’Indo-chine (1910), China Mutual Life Insurance Company (1910), the Municipal
Council Building (1913), China and South Sea Bank (1917), the Shanghai Post Office
Building (1924), Kincheng Bank (1925), and Nanking Theatre (1929); the Gothic
Revival, as exemplified by the Commercial Bank of China (1893) and St. Ignatius
Cathedral (1910); and Eclecticism, demonstrated by the Mercantile Bank of India,
London and China (1913), Wang Boqun Residence (1934), and Moller House (1936).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
62
After the 1920s, Chinese architects educated in the West became involved in the
construction of the city, cooperating or competing with their foreign counterparts. In
1927, they founded the Shanghai Builder’s Association (上海市建筑学会), which
became the Architects Institute of China (中国建筑师学会) in the following year.
Since then, with the rise of the Chinese Nationalism, leading architects in Shanghai
made great efforts to promote the revival of traditional Chinese architecture. They
initiated the Chinese Revival (Hou in Pan ed. 2001: 373), aiming to recreate
traditional Chinese form and space by utilizing Western architectural methodology
and building technology. The result was a number of grand buildings constructed in
modern structural, often with concrete framing, but clad with traditional Chinese form
or decorated by Chinese motifs. The noted buildings such as the Hongde Tang
Church (鸿德堂, 1928. Fig. 3-9), the Y. M. C. A. Building (1929. Fig.3-10), the
Mayor’s Building of the Shanghai Special Municipality (1931. Fig. 3-11), and some
commercial buildings are the representatives of their achievements.
When entering the 1930s, with the increase of foreign trade and the subsequent
introduction of Western fashion, Art Deco and European Modern styles became
popular in the city, and soon replaced the influence of the various fashions of the
European Classic Revival. In the 1930s, Shanghai was one of major centres of Art
Deco architecture.59 The representative works of Art Deco, to name just a few,
include Sassoon House (1929), Cathay Mansions (1929), Shanghai Power Company
59 Tess Johnston noted that: "Shanghai has the largest array of Art Deco edifices of any city in the world." See Tess Johnston & Deke Erh, A Last Look, Western Architecture in Old Shanghai, Old China Hand Press, 1993, p.70.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
63
(1931), Astrid Apartments (1933), Cosmopolitan Apartments (1934), Grosvenor
House (1934), and Park Hotel (1934. Figs. 3-47). Following Art Deco, within half
a decade, European Modern style rose to become a fashion. The Grand Theatre
(1933. Figs. 3-44, 3-45, & 3-46), Broadway Mansions (1934), Picardie Apartments
(1934), the D. V. Wood Residence (1935. Figs. 3-59), and Ecole Remi (1936) are all
typical buildings in this style. When the first half of the twentieth century was
complete, buildings constructed in Shanghai in the centuries gone by, coexisted with a
wide range of twentieth century styles.
By the end of the nineteenth century, Shanghai had also become the centre of
construction technology in the Far East (Balfour & Zheng 2002: 95). New materials,
new building technology, and fashionable equipment began to be widely employed in
new constructions. The application of composite and reinforced concrete, steel
structure, concrete frame, and elevator, led to the appearance of high-rise buildings in
the 1930s. By the end of the 1930s, there were 38 buildings of more than ten floors
in Shanghai, more than there were in any other cities in Asia (Zheng & Xue 1990:
206). The 1930s high-rises, demonstrating an advanced construction technology, the
appearance of new building types, and the application of new building materials and
technology, represented the highest achievements of modern architecture in Shanghai.
It was during this period, that Hudec became prominent in Shanghai’s building circle.
3.2. HUDEC’S WORK IN SHANGHAI
The progression of Hudec’s work indicates four distinct phases in his Shanghai
career (Hietkamp 1998 and Hua 2000). The first phase was the period when Hudec
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
64
worked for the American architect R. A. Curry. Beaux-Art influence is evident in his
work from this period, as seen in the American Club (1925. Fig. 3-13) in the
American Georgian style, and the International Saving’s Society Building60 (1924.
Fig. 3-14) in the Parisian Renaissance mode (Luo ed. 1996: 155).
The opening of his own practice in 1925 marked the beginning of the second
phase. In this period from 1925 to 1930, European Classicism continued in his key
works, although some fragments of his works suggest that he had started to explore
the freedom of his new practice, and to find his own style by incorporating some
elements that evoked memories of his homeland (Hietkamp 1998: 26). Meanwhile,
the elements of Modern style began to emerge in the minor works. The Country
Hospital designed in 1925 was in Italian Renaissance style (Fig. 3-16). The Catholic
Country Church (1925) was composed of a Byzantine roof and Gothic pointed arches
on the body of the building (Fig. 3-15). The Moore Memorial Church of 1929
combined “the tradition of the richer cathedrals of the old world with a definite
attachment to the scientific architectural principles of the West” (Fig. 3-32).61 The
Joint Savings Society Building (1928. Fig. 3-22) was Eclectic. The brown facing
tiles on the exterior of the building and white marble on the bottom and top sections,
were associated closely with his treatment of the Georgian style American Club,
whereas its tower was said to have emerged from memories of the rural renaissance of
Upper Hungary (Ibid.). The Zhabei Power Station of 1928 carried some
characteristics of a kind of Modern style (Fig. 3-23). This phase was considered a 60 Also known as Normandie Apartments. 61 Hudec Collection #771, quoted in Hietkamp 1998: 26.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
65
transition from a young, inexperienced architect to a well-known, creative
professional (Ibid. and Hua 2000).
Hudec’s third phase is recognizable for the emergence of American Art Deco and
European Modern in his work with an occasional regression to the Classic (Hua 2000:
20). The buildings of the Christian Literature Society and the China Baptist
Publication Society, both of 1930 (Figs. 3-34, 3-35, & 3-36), the Engineering Building
for the Jiangtong University (1931. Fig. 3-41), the New German Evangelic Church
(1931. Fig. 3-42 & 3-43), the Grand Theatre (1933. Figs. 3-44, 3-45, & 3-46), and
the Park Hotel (1934. Figs. 3-47) are examples from this period displaying his
interest in vertical motifs, which were prevalent in Art Deco. But Zhejiang Cinema
of 1929 was almost European Modern (Fig. 3-33).
In the fourth and final phase, Hudec continued to show interest in expressive
shapes and surface by utilizing simplified, geometric, functional forms, as in the
Union Brewery Ltd. (1933. Fig. 3-57), D. V. Wood Residence (1935. Fig. 3-59 &
3-60) and the Hubertus Court Apartments (1935. Fig. 3-58). From this progression
of phases, Hudec should be seen as occupying a position among modern architects of
the time (Hietkamp 1998: 27).
Style Name (original) Year of Design /
Completion Classicism /
European
regional style
Art Deco /
Modern
1 McTyeire School (Hankou Road)
1922 ○
2 Hudec Residence 1922 / 1926 ○
3 American Club 1923 / 1925 ○
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
66
4 International Savings Society Apartments
1924 ○
5 Foncim Building 1924 / 1926 ○
6 Catholic Country Church (Chaipei Funerary Chapel)
1925 ○
7 Country Hospital 1925 / 1926 ○
8 Paulun Hospital 1925 / 1926 ○
9 Estrella Apartments 1926 / 1927 ○
10 Joint Savings Society Building (Sichuan Road)
1926 / 1928 ○
11 Margaret Williamson Hospital
1926 / 1928 ○
12 Zhabei Power Station 1927 / 1928 ●
13 Columbia Circle 1928 / 1932 ○
14 Sun Esq. Residence 1929 / 1931 ○
15 Moore Memorial Church 1929 / 1931 ○
16 Zhejiang Cinema 1929 / 1930 ●
17 Christian Literature Society Building
1930 / 1932 ●
18 China Baptist Publication Building
1930 / 1932 ●
19 Avenue Apartments 1931 / 1932 ●
20 P. C. Woo Residence 1931 / 1932 ○
21 Hudec Residence (Panyu Road)
1931 ○
22 Luxury Ambassador Apartments
1931 ●
23 Engineering Building at Jiaotong University
1931 ●
24 New German Evangelic Church
1931 / 1932 ●
25 Grand Theatre 1931 / 1933 ●
26 Park Hotel 1931 / 1934 ●
27 Carlton Theatre 1932 ●
28 Lafayette Cinema 1932 / 1933 ●
29 Union Brewery Ltd. 1933 / 1934 ●
30 McGregon Hall in McTyeire School for Girls (Jiangsu Road)
1935 ○
31 Hubertus Court 1935 / 1937 ●
32 D. V. Wood Residence 1935 / 1938 ●
33 Sacred Heart Vocational College for Girls
1936 ●
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
67
34 Columbia Country Club 1936 ○
35 Chinese School of the Convent of the Sacred Heart
1938 ●
35 Russian Catholic School Hostel for Boys
1941 ●
Table 3-1. The style of Hudec’s Work in Shanghai (drawn from Hua 2000: 54-137).
3.3. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HUDEC AS A MODERN ARCHITECT
It is evident that Hudec’s progression of phases coincides with the change of
architectural fashion in Shanghai in the 1920s and 30s. When European Classic
Revival was prevalent, his work embraced a vast area of Western traditional styles
including American Georgian (the American Club, the J. S. S. Building), Renaissance
Revival (the I. S. S. Apartments, the Country Hospital), Gothic Revival (the Catholic
Country Church, the Moore Memorial Church, and so on), and the European regional
styles, as seen in the Estrella Apartments (1927), which was considered a Hungarian
rendition of Baroque (Hua 2000: 69. Figs. 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, & 3-21), his own
house of 1929 (later the Sun Esq. Residence) in Spanish Revival (Fig. 3-31), his 1931
residence in English country style (Figs. 3-39 & 3-40), and particularly the Columbia
Circle (1928), a housing estate of ten two-storey houses associated with thirteen
European and American country styles (Ibid.: 75. Figs. 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28,
3-29, & 3-30). While Western Modern styles became the fashion in the 1930s, he
shifted to them and designed the Grand Theatre (1933. Figs. 3-44, 3-45, & 3-46 ),
the Park Hotel (1934. Figs. 3-47), the Hubertus Court (1937. Fig. 3-58), and the D.
V. Wood Residence (1938, Figs. 3-59 & 3-60), and so on, in the Art Deco and
International styles.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
68
In that context, it seems that Hudec was drifting with the tide rather than in the
lead. He was not the one who first introduced Modern to Shanghai. The work that
marked the advent of Art Deco style in Shanghai was Palmer and Turner’s Sassoon
House,62 which was completed in 1929 (Wu 1997: 183). The one for which Hudec
became known as an architect of the fashion was the Grand Theatre (Ibid.: 138).
Completed in 1933, the Theatre indicates that “Modern” came to Hudec nearly half a
decade later than Palmer and Turner. Then, why he was recognized as a pioneer?
A scrutiny of the characteristics of his “Modern” in comparison with that of his
contemporaries may contribute to the answer.
Since the completion of Palmer and Turner’s Sassoon House in 1929, Art Deco
had actually become keynote of the fashion for new constructions in Shanghai (Ibid.:
183-184). Palmer and Turner’s rendition of Art Deco featured rich material and
motifs, such as heavy wooden beams, dark paneling, mirrors and stained glass, and
coffered ceilings (Figs. 3-62 & 3-63). In the case of the Sassoon House, although it
employed geometric mould and iron work rather than Classic motifs in decoration,
and on top of the building, a lofty pyramid had replaced pediment or dome (Fig. 3-63),
the elements of a typical Classic façade, its fame as a luxurious hotel still owed to its
having suites furnished in “periodic” styles, such as Chinese, French, Spanish, Indian,
and Arabian styles (Figs. 3-64 & 3-65). The manner that Palmer and Turner
employed to entertain the public was a “new interpretation of traditional associations
with luxury” (Hietkamp 1998: 34). Such manner proved to be a success, as it later 62 Also known as Cathay Hotel, now the north wing of the Peace Hotel. The Hotel was part of this nine-storey
mansion. The top floors were private residential apartment for the Sassoon family.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
69
became the most fashionable in Shanghai (Luo ed. 1996: 44).
Hudec did not replicate this effect of old-fashioned extravagance. His Modern
seems drawn more directly on Western manner and idea of Modern architecture.
The façades of the Christian Literature Society and China Baptist Publication
buildings was almost a replica of Peter Behrens’ Hoechst Dyeworks (Figs. 3-34, 3-35,
3-36, & 3-37). His design of the Grand Theatre focused on comfortability of the
interior settings, fine acoustics and clear sight, while on the façade, he articulated
Cubist effect of vertical and horizontal linear composition. In the D. V. Wood
Residence, the grand curved staircase and the curved and straight horizontal lines
laced on the façades associated the design with the Streamline style (Figs. 3-59 &
3-60). The Hubertus Court, stressed horizontal lines and big open verandas, had
almost become International (Fig. 3-58). His Park Hotel, which boasted the latest
efficient service, such as the fastest elevators, American dishwashers, floor coverings
of inlaid rubber, and especially a novel height, was actually a simulation of a
contemporary American skyscraper (Hietkamp 1998: 10). More significantly, the
planning in form and space of this novel hotel conformed to the formula of high-rise
buildings proposed by Louis Henry Sullivan (1856-1924), the chief representative of
the Chicago School.
Sullivan suggested five principles for the design of a high-rise: the basement
should be allocated for power and heat supplies; the ground floor ought to be
designated to shops, banking service, and other facilities alike, and for such contents,
the entrance hall should accordingly be special and accessible for pedestrian; the first
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
70
two floors should be connected directly by stairs so that the upper floor could function
as an extension of the lower one; the floors above that should form a uniform shaft;
while the attic accommodate equipments such as water tanks and elevator machines
(Waiguo Jinxiandai: 46). Based on these principals, Sullivan further suggested a
prototypical façade for a modern tall building: it should be composed of three sections,
the first two floors form the base for the upper sections; above the base, the middle
section should be a uniform shaft with a strict grid-like articulation of windows and
piers; the attic should be smaller in scale but may free in form (ibid.: 47). Hudec
may not be a disciple of Sullivan’s theory “form follows function”, but evidently, the
treatment of the Park Hotel fit well with that model: the basement was retained for the
vaults of the Joint Savings Society, the owner of the hotel; the lower floors were set
aside for banking service and the owner’s offices (Fig. 3-51); the hotel occupied the
upper floors, which formed a uniform shaft (Fig. 3-52); while the top floors, from the
twentieth to the twenty-second, accommodated water tanks, air-conditioning, elevator
equipment, and served as an observatory (Fig. 3-53); on the façade, a horizontal
repetition of windows and piers formed in vertical a grid-like shaft, and atop, the attic
recessed floor by floor (Gu 1991: 98-102 and Hietkamp 1998: 31-32. Figs. 3-47,
3-48, 3-49, & 3-50). Compared to the Sassoon House, Hudec’s treatment of the Park
Hotel was apparently much closer to the idea of a Modern high-rise. Architectural
historian Wu Jiang noted that “if Palmer and Turner’s new style were labeled ‘Classic’
Art Deco, then Hudec’s Art Deco would be ‘Modern’” (1997: 184).
When Classic was still popular to the Shanghai public, Hudec’s articulation of
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
71
Western Modern suggests that besides business interest, a search for new architectural
form was also his concern. His educational background and experience support this
conjecture. By the time Hudec underwent his training in Budapest, the influence of
Art Nouveau from Belgium and Jugendstil from Germany had brought on the
emergence of the Vienna School in Austria. In 1897, Otto Wagner’s (1841-1918)
vision on new architectural form resulted in the forming of the Vienna Secession,
which claimed itself breaking with familiar tradition. At the turn of the century, it
became dominant in art and design in the Austro-Hungarian capital. Meanwhile,
Adolf Loos had been searching for pure architecture and campaigned for a rejection of
decorative elements. In the first decade of the new century, Wagner designed the
Austrian Post Office Savings Bank (1906), and Loos erected his Steiner House (1910).
They became emblems for the battle against decorative architecture (Waiguo
Jinxiandai: 38-42 and Tietz 1999: 13-15). Hudec, who graduated from school in the
same era (1914), could not be isolated from these influences.
During his golden age in the late 1920s and 30s, Hudec travelled widely. He
made a tour in Spain and the United States in 1927 and 28, and in 1928 he went to
Munich to study brewery design. In 1930, he sojourned in Germany for half a year
to study the latest developments in engineering and architecture (Hietkamp 1998: 49).
These experiences must have contributed to his knowledge about the state of the art in
the West, and helped to shape his idea about modern architecture, as his works in the
1930s clearly reflected the influence of Western Modern idea.
It is worth noticing that none of Hudec’s buildings are in Chinese appearance.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
72
His portfolio covered a large area of architectural styles however; Chinese elements
seemed not an option on his menu of styles. His work carried neither the tincture of
the lower Yangtze Chinese architecture characterized by the composition of white
wash walls with dark framing and grey roof tiles, nor the Chinese palatial mode
stylized by red columns and boards under a heavy up-tilted roof which often glazed
brightly in yellows and greens. While Henry K. Murphy and the leading Chinese
architects were trying to define a new Chinese architecture by incorporating Chinese
form and Western modern technology, Hudec made no such effort. He seemed
immune to this vigorous movement favoured by the Kuomintang government. This
is rather significant seeing that Chinese clientele and contractors were important
amongst his social contacts. The only Chinese character that he had to incorporate
into his design of the Chinese residences was a remarkable number of bedrooms
decorated with some Chinese motifs for the owner’s wife and concubines.63 His
immune of Chinese influence may probably due to his view on Chinese culture. For,
at the time Westerners were apt to see Chinese things in an “orientalist” way: Chinese
culture was “less advanced, interesting, worthy of attention but not of true
understanding”; Chinese religious practices were “mongrel revelries”; and the habits
of the Chinese “childish, exotic, or just strange” (Hietkamp 1998: 2). Hudec by his
European background was presumably one of such “orientalists”. But on the other
hand, his disregard for the “Chinese Revival” (Hou in Pan ed. 2001: 373) also
63 This is inferred from Hua Xiahong's formulation of Hudec's portfolio in the Appendix II of her thesis Wudake Zai Shanghai Zuopin de Fingxi [An Analysis and Commentary of Hudec's Works in Shanghai], 2000, from p.54 to p.137, and from Lenore Hietkamp's personal interview with Martin, Hudec's son, she noted in her The Park Hotel, Shanghai (1931-1934) and Its Architect, Laszlo Hudec (1893-1958), 1989, p.22.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
73
suggests that his idea about modern architecture might not agree with such efforts,
which was essentially a Chinese version of the European Eclecticism.
In designing modern constructions, Hudec was as significant in introducing the
world advancement of building technology as his use of Modern forms. Through
cooperating with his Chinese patrons and contractors, and by employing the most
recent technology from around the world, he greatly challenged the capability of the
Chinese builders, and established a model for the ideal of modernization to the
Shanghai public. The Park Hotel illustrated such achievements.
22 storeys above ground, 83.8 metres in height, the Park Hotel reputed at the time
“the largest skyscraper from Tokyo to London”, and kept its record as the “tallest
building in the Far East” for thirty years until the mid-1960s (Hietkamp 1998: 1 and
Luo 1996: 104). Prior to the construction of the Park Hotel, the height of the main
structure of tall buildings in Shanghai ranged only from 11 to 14 storeys, as seen in
the Sassoon House (1929, 13 storeys), the Cathay Mansions (1929, 14 storeys), the
Beara Apartment (1930, 10 storeys), the Hamilton House (1933, 14 storeys), and the
Embankment Building (1933, 10 storeys), and so on, Wu Jiang, an architectural
historian in Shanghai reported (Wu 1997: 116). By the time, no building had been
attempted of the height of the Park. The technological factor that impeded the
growth of tall buildings in height was Shanghai’s soil condition.
Shanghai rests on an unconsolidated alluvium. An average vertical section of
the geologic structure shows that the depth of silt is about 6 metres from the surface,
sand to 91 metres, and gravel mixed with sand and silt to about 305 metres, where the
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
74
stratum of consolidated conglomerate is reached (Murphey 1953: 30). The
load-bearing capacity of the subsoil was from 8,000 to 14,000 kilograms per square
metre (Shen ed. 1993: 3). A British study on deep-water harbours undertaken at the
beginning of the twentieth century concluded that the subsoil of Shanghai could only
stand “six floors, London sixty, New York and Hong Kong any number” (Wei 1987:
83). In 1875, when foreigners started to build a bridge across the mouth of the
Suzhou Creek, they were discouraged to find that just one blow from the small pile
driver, the pile was buried out of sight in the silt (Muphey 1953: 30). By 1920,
during the design of the Yangtze Insurance Company Building, Palmer and Turner
developed a piling system specifically for Shanghai’s soil conditions, but in 1930, one
of its architects reported that pile foundation could not prevent settlement. From
1920 to 1923, during the renovation of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation on the Bund, Palmer and Turner introduced raft foundation for the new
structure. The concrete raft overcame the problem of unequal settling however, by
1930, a settlement of about 6 inches still occurred to new constructions in Shanghai.
By the time, there were no reliable engineering handbooks addressing Shanghai’s soil
conditions, the problem of settlement therefore continued to plague architects and
civil engineers who were practicing in Shanghai (Hietkamp 1998: 42). However, the
Park Hotel resolved some of the key problems about constructing high-rise buildings
on Shanghai’s jelly-like soil.
In order to achieve a satisfactory vertical stability, the foundation work of the
Park Hotel combined pile and raft systems, and extended the embedment to a depth
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
75
much greater than any of its predecessors (Ibid.: 43). The piling work drove 400
piles of Douglas fir of an average diameter of 0.35 metres and an average length of 61
metres into the soil, and topped the piles by a concrete raft of 1.5 metres deep. The
longest pile reached a depth of 39.8 metres, almost half of the height of the tower
above ground (Ibid. and Gu 1991: 95). The earthwork removed 20,000,000
kilograms of mud and water, so that the bearing capacity of the soil beneath the
building would reach 10,000,000 kilograms. In order to reduce the total weight of
the building as far as possible, Hudec employed steel frame for its super structure
(Figs. 3-54 & 3-55). While doing so, again through his German contacts, Hudec
commissioned Siemens to design the framework, for which he ordered from Siemens
special steel, which was light but of high strength -- as three times high as ordinary
steel in strength (Gu 1991: 95).64 In addition, the partition walls applied aerated
concrete block, which was then an exclusive product of a resident foreign company,
and whose unit weight was 1,000 kilograms per cubic metre (Ibid.: 98). Due to such
efforts, the Park Hotel achieved the tallest building with minimum installment in
Shanghai (Ibid.: 96). Seeing that the whole building distributed more weight over a
smaller area (279 square metres) than the broad expanse (circa 5,580 square metres)
of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Cooperation on the Bund (Hietkamp 1998:
43), such an achievement was more significant.
The contractor of the foundation work of the Park Hotel was A. Corrit, a resident
64 Lenore Hietkamp said the material for the frame was the lightest chromium-copper alloy known as "Union Steel", which was developed by a German company called the Vereinigte Stahlwerke Aktiengeselleschaft. See The Park Hotel, Shanghai (1931-1934) and Its Architect, Laszlo Hudec (1893-1958), 1989, p.45.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
76
Danish company specialized in this area.65 While the construction was progressing,
A. Corrit, through his special connection with Hudec, recommended to the client
foreign builders to contract to the construction of the superstructure, and abased the
technical skill of the Chinese builders who were then bidding for the same work.
The foreign builders, believing Chinese builders were lacking the technological
capability for such an immense structure, boasted and priced themselves out of the
market (Gu 1991: 96). However, the project manager from the client’s side, who
reputed “a very shrewd business man”, reasoned that since the Chinese builders had
experienced in building a thirteen-storey structure, they must be capable in
constructing a structure of ten more floors (Ibid.). Consequently, the Chinese Vow
Kee (馥记) Company won the overall contract for the construction, and the Chinese
Shihuiji (史惠记) Company gained the subcontract for the hoisting of the steel frame
(Wu 1997: 112).
Hudec was rather unpleasant to the fact that the Chinese grabbed the contract.
He insisted that the hoisting work be carried out under the supervision of German
experts from Siemens. But somehow the arrival of the Germans lagged behind the
progress. Under the endorsement of the client, the Chinese builders started the
construction of the steel frame by themselves. When the Siemens experts later
arrived at the site, they were astonished to find that the steel frame had reached the
eleventh floor, far ahead of the schedule, and the quality was perfectly satisfactory
(Gu 1991: 97).
65 A. Corrit was the predecessor of the present Shanghai Foundation Work Company.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
77
Besides the Chinese builders, the Park Hotel also challenged the Chinese material
suppliers who were involved in the project. Prior to the Park Hotel, facing materials
employed in the tall buildings in Shanghai were all imported from abroad. The Park
was the sole that adopted domestic granite and marble for both its exterior and interior
wall face. The black granite for the façade of the lower storeys was from Qingdao,
and the light yellow and green marbles for the floor and pillars of the entrance hall
were from Shandong. Both the quality and processing of the material proved to be
as satisfactory as the imported ones yet economical in expense (Ibid.: 98).
While the Park’s client was making a best use of Chinese resources, Hudec
continued to summon the most recent technology and facilities from around the world
for his idea about the building. Five elevators were Otis, the same used in the
Empire State Building in New York, and the fastest in Shanghai (Hietkamp 1998: 41).
They provided easy access to the higher floors. Sanitary equipments were Kohler
from the United States. In the installation of telephone, heating, ventilation and air
conditioning, plumbing, and fire systems, there were American and German
companies involved. Diebold State and Lock Company from America provided the
doors for the vaults in the basement, for which the Park’s basement reputed the most
secure and luxurious strong room in East Asia (Gu 1991: 99-103).
A more significant event of the Park Hotel could be its fire system. For the sake
of fire fighting, the International Settlement’s by-law restricted building heights to
one-and-a-half times the width of the street the building fronted. For the Park Hotel,
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
78
the two streets -- Bubbling Well Road66 and Huanghe Road -- that it was to front
were at the time not more than 30 metres wide, whereas the building’s height was to
reach 84 metres, a scale far exceeding the permission. The construction of the
building therefore was a great concern of the British Shanghai Municipal Council.
However, by introducing automatic sprinklers and fire alarm system, Hudec
challenged the British authority. The 1,100 sprinklers associated with the automatic
alarm system distributed on each floor, in addition to normal hose reels, convinced the
Council that the hotel would be fire-safe, and thus earned its height of 83.8 metres
(Hietkamp 1998: 49 and Gu 1991: 101).
Through the novel height and the state of the art equipments, Hudec brought his
Park Hotel to a modeling effect of modernization on the Chinese. In 1935, Chinese
Architect (Vol.3, No.4) introduced two students’ work from the Department of
Architecture of the Central University in Nanjing. The assignment was to design a
big mansion in a certain metropolis. It required an office building of 18,580 square
metres in total area attached with a department store on the second floor specifically
for Chinese goods. Such an assignment suggested that the mansion was to be built
in a Chinese city and for Chinese use although it did not designate any specific style
for the building. Interestingly, neither of the students’ work published in this
Chinese journal bore any Chinese character, but in the mode of a Modern skyscraper
with some Art Deco feature (Figs. 3-65 & 3-66). The 1930s was the time when
Chinese Nationalism was running high, and the architectural movement of the
66 Now Nanjing Road West.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
79
Chinese Revival, cheered by the Kuomintang government, was rising. In Shanghai,
as well as in Nangjing at the time, quite a few of remarkable new constructions,
whether official or commercial, were designed in a traditional Chinese appearance or
at least decorated with some Chinese motifs, as seen in the major buildings of the
Greater Shanghai Plan (1930-1935), the Shanghai Y. M. C. A. Building (1928. Fig.
3-10), and the Daxin Company on Nanjing Road (1936. Fig. 3-12). The students’
work were from 1934, the same year when the Park Hotel was completed. Chinese
Architect, which was then one of the two most influential architectural journals in
China, published these non-Chinese works in the next year.67 It reflected that the
idea of Western Modern architecture seemed more favourable than the Chinese
Revival to both the young students and the publisher. In this context, the impact of
Hude’s Park Hotel as an emblem for modernization on the circle of Chinese architects
is perceivable.
SUMMARY
Hudec’s architectural style covered a vast area including Neoclassicism, Western
country and Modern styles. The shift of the styles from Classic Revival to Modern
in his work coincides with the change of the architectural fashion in Shanghai. In
this respect, he was no different from his counterparts. He was not the one who first
introduced Modern styles from the West however; his articulation of Modern ideal in
form and space, and his determination in introducing the most recent technology from
67 The other architectural journal of the same significance was Jianzhu Yuekan (The Builder 建筑月刊), published by the Shanghaishi Jianzhu Xiehui (The Shanghai Builder's Association 上海市建筑学会) from 1932 to 1937.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
80
around the world indicate that he was in the lead of the trend of Modernism in
Shanghai. His Hungarian background and his national connections contribute to his
sensitiveness to the world trend of architectural reform and his knowledge about the
state of the art in the West. He may not have a mind to help the modernization of
Chinese architecture, but in effect, his innovative design in form and employment of
advanced technology stimulated his Chinese counterparts to experiment a new way in
defining a new Chinese architecture. □
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
81
Plates for Chapter III
Fig. 3-1. Wuzhen, canal and embankment (available from http://www.jsdj.com/jnsx.htm). The
simplicity and elegance of architecture conveyed an impression of satisfying balance and equity. Such quality of life of the Ming and Qing periods is still possible to experience even today in the
small waterfront towns in lower Yangtze.
Fig. 3-2. Wuzhen, street view (available from http://www.jsdj.com/jnsx.htm).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
82
Fig. 3-3. The British Consulate in Shanghai, 1850s (available from
http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm). The first foreign buildings were mainly godowns and consulates, often combined with residences in one large compound.
Fig. 3-4. The Bund, Shanghai, 1850s (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm). By the 1850s, a foreign complexion composed of the Compradoric style had characterized the Bund.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
83
Fig. 3-5. The Chinese Maritime Customs, Shanghai, 1857s (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm). By the 1850s, Chinese construction in Shanghai remained
traditional among the foreign buildings.
Fig. 3-6. The Mixed Court, Nanjing Road, Shanghai, 1870s (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
84
Fig. 3-7. The Chinese Maritime Customs, Tudor style, 1890s (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-8. The Chinese Maritime Customs, eclectic, 1930s (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
85
Fig. 3-9. Hongde Tang Church (Balfour & Zheng 2002: 92), the Chinese Revival.
Fig. 3-10. The YMCA Building, Shanghai, 1929 (available from
http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
86
Fig. 3-11. The Mayor’s Building (from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm), the Chinese Revival.
Fig. 3-12. Daxin Company, 1936 (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
87
Fig. 3-13. The American Club, which shows Beaux-Arts influence in Hudec’s work (by author).
Fig. 3-14. The International Saving’s Society Building (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
88
Fig. 3-15. The Catholic Country Church (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-16. The Country Hospital (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm) was in Italian Renaissance.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
89
Fig. 3-17. The Estrella Apartments was considered a Hungarian rendition of Baroque (by author).
Fig. 3-18. The Estrella Apartments, façade (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
90
Fig. 3-19. The Estrella Apartments, façade and cornice (by author).
Fig. 3-20. The Estrella Apartments, gate (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
91
Fig. 3-21. The Estrella Apartments, doorway (by author).
Fig. 3-22. The Joint Savings Society Building, #261, Sichuan Road, Middle (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
92
Fig. 3-23. The Zhabei Power Station, completed in 1928, had carried some characteristics of a kind of Modern style (Zhabei Power Station archives).
Fig. 3-24. The Columbia Circle, a housing estate of ten two-storey houses associated with thirteen
European and American country styles (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
93
Fig. 3-25. The Columbia Circle (by author).
Fig. 3-26. The Columbia Circle (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
94
Fig. 3-27. The Columbia Circle (by author).
Fig. 3-28. The Columbia Circle (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
95
Fig. 3-29. The Columbia Circle (by author).
Fig. 3-30. The Columbia Circle (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
96
Fig. 3-31. Hudec Residence of 1929, later the Sun Esq. Residence, was in Spanish Revival (Yang 1999: 252).
Fig. 3-32. The Moore Memorial Church, 1929 (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
97
Fig. 3-33. Zhejiang Cinema (by author).
Fig. 3-34. The Christian Literature Society Building (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
98
Fig. 3-35. China Baptist Publication Society Building (by author).
Fig. 3-36. China Baptist Publication Society Building, detail (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
99
Fig. 3-37. Peter Behrens: the Hoechst Dyeworks, 1924 (Tietz 1999: 23).
Fig. 3-38. The Avenue Apartments (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
100
Fig. 3-39. Hudec Residence, #127, Panyu Road (by author).
Fig. 3-40. Hudec Residence, #127, Panyu Road (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
101
Fig. 3-41. The Engineering Building, Jiaotong University, 1931 (available from
http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-42. The New German Evangelic Church, 1931 (Zheng 1999: 132).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
102
Fig. 3-43. The New German Evangelic Church, interior, 1931 (Zheng 1999: 132).
Fig. 3-44. The Grand Theatre (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
103
Fig. 3-45. The Grand Theatre, vestibule (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-46. The Grand Theatre, auditorium (Luo ed. 1995: 193).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
104
Fig. 3-47. The Park Hotel (by author).
Fig. 3-48. The Park Hotel, entrance (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
105
Fig. 3-49. The Park Hotel, treatment of façade (by author).
Fig. 3-50. The Park Hotel, the upper storeys (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
106
Fig. 3-51. The Park Hotel -- the ground floor plan was set aside for banking services and the
owner’s offices (The Builder, Vol.1, No.5).
Fig. 3-52. The Park Hotel, floor plan 5 - 10 (The Builder, Vol.1, No.5). The hotel occupied the
upper floors, which formed a uniform shaft.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
107
Fig. 3-53. The Park Hotel, section (The Builder, Vol.1, No.5). The hotel occupied the upper
floors, which formed a uniform shaft. The top floors accommodated water tanks, air-conditioning, elevator equipment, and housed an observatory.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
108
Fig. 3-54. Park Hotel under construction, 1933 (The Builder, Vol.1, No.2). In order to reduce the total weight of the building as far as possible, Hudec employed steel frame for the structure.
Fig. 3-55. Park Hotel under construction, 1933 (The Builder Vol.1, No.4).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
109
Fig. 3-56. The American Radiator Building, New York, 1924 (Watkin 2000: 580).
Fig. 3-57. The Union Brewery Ltd., 1933 (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
110
Fig. 3-58. Hubertus Court (available from http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm).
Fig. 3-59. D. V. Wood Residence. The grand curved staircase and the curved and straight
horizontal lines laced on the façades associated the design with the Streamline style (by author).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
111
Fig. 3-60. D. V. Wood Residence, the grand curved staircase (by author).
Fig. 3-61. Sassoon House (Zheng 1999: 266). A lofty pyramid replaced pediment or dome, the elements of a typical Classic façade.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
112
Fig. 3-62. Sassoon House (Johnston 1996: 98). Palmer and Turner’s rendition of Art Deco featured rich material and motifs, such as heavy wooden beams, dark paneling, mirrors and
stained glass, and coffered ceilings.
Fig. 3-63. Sassoon House, lobby (Johnston 1996: 99).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
113
Fig. 3-64. Sassoon House, English suite (Johnston 1996: 100).
Fig. 3-65. Sassoon House, Indian suite (Johnston 1996: 101).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
114
Fig. 3-66. Student’s work from the Department of Architecture of the Central University in Nanjing (The Chinese Architecture, Vol.3, No.4).
Fig. 3-67. Student’s work from the Department of Architecture of the Central University in Nanjing (The Chinese Architecture, Vol.3, No.4).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
115
Chapter IV. Hudec’s Legacy
4.1. The Park Hotel as a Metaphor for the Chinese Identity of the Shanghai foreign settlements
4.2. Hudec’s Work as an Emblem for Shanghai’s Cosmopolitan Nature Summary Plates for Chapter IV
Hudec’s golden age in the 1920s and 30s paralleled Shanghai’s booming era.
Since the first decade of the twentieth century, the city had grown to the primary
economical complex in Asia, and attained a premier position as the locus of China’s
most influential political and intellectual activity (MacPherson 1990). The First
World War diverted foreign competition from the market, resulting in the Chinese
bourgeoisie springing up into action. When Chinese nationalism surged after the
Republican Revolution of 1911, they participated in the Kuomintang’s modernization
programme, bringing on an intensified strife between the Chinese and the foreign
settlement authorities for the dominance of the city. Building activity in Shanghai
from this period more or less reflected such urban strife. In the mean time, the
decade-long coexistence of Chinese with various natives and the foreigners from all
parts of the world cultivated a unique cosmopolitan nature of Shanghai. This nature,
characterized in its ability to compromise and blend all cultures, was also epitomized
in the contemporary architecture. In such a setting that mingled with political strife
and cultural fusion, Hudec’s practice, which rooted in the foreign settlements but
embraces both foreign and Chinese clients, held its significance beyond architecture.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
116
4.1. THE PARK HOTEL AS A METAPHOR FOR THE CHINESE IDENTITY OF THE
SHANGHAI FOREIGN SETTLEMENTS
A scrutiny of Hudec’s portfolio reveals the character of his practice from the
socio-economic aspect. His work covered nearly all kinds of perceivable types of
buildings, yet his commissions were largely obtained from a small social fringe:
churches, merchants and compradors, industrialists, and bankers. For example, the
schools and hospitals were church commissions; the residences were all for the urban
notables including D. V. Wood, a successful pigment merchant, and himself, who had
ranked among the urban celebrities; the apartments were from the foreign real estate
developers; the clubs were for the local American wealthy; the Grand Theatre was a
Cantonese-American joint venture; and from the Joint Savings Society, which ranked
one of the most influential Chinese financial institutes at the time, he obtained two
commissions of their significant buildings, its headquarters on the corner of Sichuan
Road and Hankou Road and the Park Hotel on Nanjing Road West. His clientele
embraces both foreign and Chinese, but they were all recruited from one class -- the
urban notables. However, out of this cluster of urban notables, it was the Chinese
bourgeoisie who commissioned him their grand projects that made him becoming well
known as a leading architect of the fashion. Hence, from a reverse angle, Hudec’s
work on these commissions reflected the taste, motive, and power of the Chinese
bourgeoisie as well as their influence in the settings of Shanghai.
At the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, the
Chinese bourgeoisie rose to a major force in the economic and political life of China.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
117
The intervention of the Chinese bourgeoisie in the anti-American boycott in 1905
indicated their significance was similar to that of the traditional urban elite in social
affairs (Bergere 1983: 727). During the Republican Revolution in 1911, the decline
of the central power and the decay of the regional and local governments led the urban
gentry and merchants to undertake the running of their cities. In a short period after
the fall of the Manchu regime, in many cities, the organizations of the merchants, such
as the chambers of commerce and the guilds, played an actual role as the municipal
authority (Ibid.:735).
These Chinese merchants rooted their enterprises in the foreign settlements.
While the Chinese world was undergoing economic upheavals and social unrests, the
foreign settlements were islands of relative security and order, hence becoming
sanctuaries for both foreign and native business. The exceptional capacity of the
Chinese bourgeoisie in seizing and exploiting every opportunity for enrichment
encouraged their collaboration with the foreigners. Through professional contacts,
they acquired the modern techniques of management and production. In the foreign
settlements, they were liable to taxation, yet were treated as second-class citizens, and
were long denied all municipal responsibilities until 1921. At this time, as an
aftereffect of the May Fourth Movement, a Chinese consultative committee appeared
in the British Municipal Council, and, in 1928, as an aftermath of the May Thirtieth
Incident, a Chinese supervision committee became involved in the work of the annual
budget of the British Settlement (Ibid.: 728 and Lu in Shanghai Shi Yanjiu 1988:
79-81). What was significant for the Chinese bourgeoisie in comparison with the
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
118
number of religious conversions was that they retained their national and social
identity under such political circumstances, and through forming their own
organizations like the regional guilds, the professional associations, and the chambers
of commerce, they even strengthened this identity (Ibid.: 725).
After the Revolution of 1911, the Chinese bourgeoisie of Shanghai adopted Sun
Yat-sen’s nationalist ideology, and joined his striving for constructing a new China.
While enjoying the relative security and order in the foreign settlements, they seized
the opportunity offered by the revolution to carry out their political ambitions both
locally and nationally, many of them deeply involved in the bureaucracy of the new
government. The Chinese bourgeoisie wanted to take control of a vast hinterland of
the country, and transform it in the image of the coastal cities, where the foreign
settlements had established a model for a modern society. The Shanghai merchants
financed Sun Yat-sen seven million taels for the establishment of the Chinese
Republic, which was proclaimed by Sun in Nanjing on 1 January 1912 (Ibid.: 738).
After the defeat of the imperial garrison in 1911, the leading Chinese merchants from
the International Settlement and the Chinese city did not hesitate to take part in
General Chen Qimei’s (陈其美) military government. The directors of the General
Chamber of Commerce Yu Qiaqing (虞洽卿) and Zhou Shunqing (周舜卿) became the
advisers of General Chen, whereas the bankers such as Zhu Baosan (朱葆三) and Shen
Manyun (沈缦云), assisted by a comprador, Yu Pinghan (郁屏翰), conducted the
financial affairs for the new government. Wang Yiting (王一亭) who was a ship
owner handled business management, and the building contractor Li Zhongjue (李钟
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
119
珏 ) and a grain merchant named Gu Xinyi (顾馨一 ) charged the municipal
administration and public works of the Chinese Shanghai (Ibid.: 737).
The First World War diverted the foreign competition from the city’s affairs, and
restored to the Chinese part of the domestic market that was deprived by the “unequal
treaties” of the nineteenth century, and opened to them new markets outside the
country. The decline of the European powers favoured the development of the
Chinese national industries. It was also from this period, modern banks emerged in
the Chinese society. From 1918 and 1919 alone, there were 96 new banks founded
(Ibid.: 816). Most of these banks, such as the Bank of China and the Bank of
Communications (交通银行), maintained close ties with the Kuomintang government
(Ibid.). Besides, there were numerous banks founders who were from the
government circles or held close relationships with higher officials (Ibid.: 749), some
of them even joined the government. Wu Dingchang (吴鼎昌, 1884-1950) was one
of such bankers. Wu began his career in the Bank of China in 1912. He introduced
a reform to reorganized the private banks on the American model. It was due to his
efforts that the four modern Chinese private banks, Jincheng, Yanye, Continent, and
China and South Sea, amalgamated to the Joint Savings Society, the owner of the Park
Hotel, and Wu himself was on the board of this banking society. But in 1935, Wu
broke all links with private enterprise and became minister of industry of the
Kuomintang government, and in 1937 took over the office of governor of Guizhou
Privince (Ibid. and Hietkamp 1998: 11).
Such cases illustrate the special relationship between the Chinese bourgeois class
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
120
and the Chinese nationalist government, and reveal the fact that they were on the
common front of striving for a modern and united China. Hence, the activities of the
Chinese bourgeoisie, although pragmatic in terms of business, responded to and
reflected the will of the National People’s Party -- Kuomintang, when they were
viewed from a political perspective.
During the period of Northern Expedition (北伐)68, especially in 1927 when this
military campaign lead by Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang had largely reached its goal
of unifying the whole of China, Chinese nationalism waved to the upsurge. Earlier,
Sun Yat-sen when asserting his vigorous nationalism had insisted that the foreign
settlements be destroyed (MacPherson 1990). Many of Sun’s followers, some of
them principal members of the Kuomintang, adhered to this position through the
1920s and 1930s. Chinese ideologues, journalists, and scholars reproached the
aggressiveness and arrogance of the Westerners and their imperialist nature; Chinese
reformists advocated campaigns of self-strengthening. At the end of 1927, the surge
of the Chinese nationalism had finally become a substantial threat to the foreign
settlements. In the spring of 1927, Britain gave up its concessions in Hankou and
Jiujiang when the allied forced of nationalist and communist occupied them.
Following Britain, other Western powers opted for a policy of compromise: 20
concessions out of 33 were handed back to the Nanjing government. In Shanghai,
the foreign concession continued to exist, but the foreigners had had to return the 68 Also known as the First Civil War of Revolution (第一次国内革命战争) or the Great Revolution (大革命) in Chinese literature. It was a military campaign launched by the Kuomintang party in 1924 aiming to overthrow the warlord-backed Beijing government and to establish a new government at Nanjing. The campaign was allied with the Communist party and was receiving aid from the Soviet Union. Kuomintang took the city of Beijing in June, 1928, and moved the national government to Nanjing.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
121
Mixed Court to the Chinese. The Chinese residents of the International Settlement
won the fight to have three representatives in the Municipal Council; in May 1930,
the number of Chinese representatives rose to five (Bergere 1983: 813). In 1927,
when Kuomintang established China’s first special municipality and the first Chinese
municipal government in Shanghai, it immediately promulgated a project for urban
development in the Shanghai Chinese territories.
The project, known as the Greater Shanghai Plan, called for in its pragmatic
objective the development of the port areas along the Huangpu River, as well as the
creation of a new urban center. But from the political perspective, its aim was to
unite all the Chinese areas comprising Shanghai into one unified administrative whole,
encompassing and eventually absorbing the foreign settlements. Founded on
decades of intense efforts to create a Chinese municipality that would parallel the
achievements of the foreign settlements, this plan was an irrefutable statement of the
determination of the Chinese to challenge in practice the legitimacy of the foreign
concessions created by the “unequal treaties”, and to exceed their urban standards and
prosperity (MacPherson 1990).
Vigorous and ambitious were the Chinese however, in many aspects, foreigners
were still the dominant power in the city’s affairs. Their gunboats anchored on the
Huangpu River or cruising up and down the Yangtze, which were enough to preserve
the peaces of their “states within the state” (Bergere 1983: 728). The grandiose
Western architecture on the Bund, which made the city at the time the third high-rise
market in the world behind Chicago and New York (Tang 2004), well proclaimed to
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
122
the general public the foreign predominance. One the other hand, Chiang Kai-shek’s
Kuomintang as well as many of its followers, by their own experience in civil wars,
understood to the hilt how sorely they needed the foreigners and their Chinese
partners that represented a source of official and unofficial revenues for them. In
politics, they also realized that the foreign settlements could well serve both as a
sounding board for their programmes and propaganda, and as a buffer between them
and foreign governments, to which they could appeal for mediation while they were
distracted and weakened in the quarrels with other political factions (MacPherson
1990). Other Chinese, though also sensitive to Western inflicted humiliations and
hostile to the extraterritoriality, discovered that the foreign settlements, by their
material as well as institutional advancement, was actually an embodiment of their
imagination of modernization (Ibid.). Therefore, the strife for dominance of the city
finally reduced from open conflict to metaphorical expressions. And that metaphor
for dominance of Shanghai was well expressed in the pursuit of stirring effect in the
city’s new constructions.
After the First World War, the Chinese government withdrew the site of the
German Club Concordia, which was next to the Sassoon House on the Bund. The
Bank of China bought the land, and in 1934, planned for it a 34-storey building for the
Bank’s headquarters (Fig. 4-1). Song Ziwen (宋子文, 1894-1971)69, educated in the
West, and an advocate of economic modernization, proposed this novel height. Song
as well as the rising Chinese financial group commissioned the project to Lu
69 Better known as T. V. Soogn in Western literature.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
123
Qianshou (陆谦受), who was trained in England, and hoped that the building would
replace the position of the British Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation,
which boasted the finest edifice from Suez Canal to Bering Strait (Luo ed. 1996: 50),
and stood only about a hundred metres away on the Bund. However, the foreigners
crushed the vision of the Chinese. Victor Sassoon, the owner of the neighbouring
mansion and the most important ratepayer of the International Settlement, insisted that
the height of the bank building be lower than the peak of his pyramid roof.
Consequently, the British dominated Municipal Council, without any sound reason,
refused the license for a 34-storey building. Song, despite the director of the Central
Bank and commercial commissar in the Kuomintang government, had no alternative
in the face of such obstruction but to accept the final compromise: a 13-storey
building, which was only 30 centimetres lower than the 77-metre-high Sassoon House
(Yang 1999: 64 and Tang 2004).
In the political context of Shanghai in the 1920s and 30s, especially in contrast to
the failure of the Bank of China in its political aim, the Park Hotel, which owned by
the Chinese bankers but stood right at the center of the International Settlement with
its unequaled height, expressed more than the professional achievement of its designer.
But as a metaphor, it represented the decade-long endeavour of the Chinese elite to
construct a modern Chinese society that would parallel and finally exceed Western
advancement. Its application of world-advanced technology, clad with Western
Modern apparel was actually a modern rendition of the self-strengthening guideline
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
124
“Learn the superior techniques of the barbarians to control the barbarians”.70 In this
respect, Hudec was the unconscious tool of history in helping the Chinese to carry out
their vision of modernization.
4.2. HUDEC’S WORK AS AN EMBLEM FOR SHANGHAI’S COSMOPOLITAN NATURE
Shanghai in its golden era in the 1920s and 30s was China’s most urbane
conurbation that exhibited all different hues of humanity. At the time, no other
Asian city, not even Tokyo, Hong Kong, or Calcutta, could match its cosmopolitan
sophistication (Balfour & Zheng 2002: 89 and Murphey 1953: 1). In addition to a
vortex of China’s economic activity, the city also established itself as the center for
new Chinese culture that has never been displaced by any other Chinese city. Xin
Ping concluded three characteristics for the Shanghai urban culture of the 1920s and
30s: commercialization, diversification, and popularization (1996: 431). Hudec’s
work embodied these characteristics.
Hudec was considered an “innovative” architect (Johnston 1993: 83), yet while
his Western predecessors and contemporaries more or less experimented or explored a
kind of new architecture in practice, he never did so. His Modern work was a direct
simulation of the Western models. Hudec was devoted in introducing and employing
the latest fashion and technology. But when the clients wanted, he would not
hesitate to give up Modern and pick up Classic Revival (Hua 2000: 38). The
incentive behind Hudec’s use of Modern form and new technology was primarily to
establish a demonstration effect of “modern” for the urban notables, who addicted to 70 Proposed by Wei Yuan (魏源, 1794-1857).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
125
all fashions in the West, so that he would maintain a stable group of clients and garner
more commissions them (Ibid.: 43). The alternation of the “old” and “new” in his
portfolio displayed the commercial character of his practice. Tess Johnston noted,
“There is no city in the world today with such a variety of architectural offerings,
buildings which sand out in welcome contrast to their modern counterparts” (1993: 9).
Hudec’s portfolio, which embraces a vast area of various architectural forms and
building types, epitomized such diversity. Palmer and Turner focused on the large
public buildings. They clustered on the Bund and its vicinity, featured classic, grand,
monumental, and luxurious, hence were more or less isolated from daily life. Each
street in Shanghai had its own colour and flavour. Nanjing Road was the chief
shopping district, Jiujiang Road was known as the “Wall Street of Shanghai”, Hankou
Road was noted for its many publishers and bookshops selling all sorts of books and
magazines catering to a variety interest and values, Bubbling Well Road was built to
accommodate commercial establishments on the peripheral of the race court (Wei
1987: 85-90). Hudec’s work, scattered nearly in all these popular districts, in
addition to their disparate styles and forms, were more accessible to the populace
(Hua 2000: 44).
From the self-strengthening movement of the nineteenth century, the founding of
the Interpreters’ College by the Qing high officials and the subsequent translation of
Western publications established Shanghai a centre of spreading Western civilizations.
When in the 1920s, the city drew talents from all parts of the country; it became the
birthplace of contemporary literature, movies, music, and fine arts. The proliferation
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
126
of intellectual activities, in addition to the exhibition of the physical advancement of
the foreign settlements, developed the city’s addiction to Western fashions. Hudec’s
pursuit for Western fashions, and his foreign apparel for the Chinese buildings well
served this addiction.
The addiction to Western fashions resulted in Shanghai becoming a quasi replica
of Western civilization. The “quasi replica” contributed to a Shanghai culture that is
simultaneously harmonious and dissonant (Balfour & Zheng 2002: 92). Hudec, a
Hungarian and a war refugee, maintained his independence throughout his career,
whether in the face of the uncomfortable atmosphere or in collaboration with his
Chinese patrons. Yet, he received his acceptance and recognition from the city. His
success well presented city’s cosmopolitan nature.
SUMMARY
The time of Hudec’s most important works paralleled the rise of the Chinese
bourgeoisie and the surge of Chinese nationalism. The Chinese bourgeoisie accepted
Kuomintang’s nationalism and participated in its modernization programme.
Building activities in Shanghai from this period reflected the strife between the
Chinese and the foreign settlement authorities for the dominance of Shanghai. In the
political context, Hudec, who designed the Park Hotel, Shanghai’s tallest building,
which was invested in and owned by the Chinese, became an unconscious tool of
history in helping the Chinese to carry out their vision of modernization. Culturally,
Hudec’s style -- his use of European architectural forms and employment of the latest
Western technology -- well served the addiction to Western fashions of the city.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
127
Thereby, on the one hand, his work reflected and embodied the essence of Shanghai
culture; on the other hand, he received his recognition from his Chinese clients and
registered his due position as a “Shanghai architect” in the modern history of
Shanghai architecture. □
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
128
Plates for Chapter IV
Fig. 4-1. The project of the Bank of China on the Bund, Shanghai, 1934 (Zheng 1999: 248).
Fig. 4-2. The Bank of China and the Sassoon House (available from
http://dl.eastday.com/index_1.htm). The Bank of China finally became a 13-storey building, only 0.30 metres lower than the 77-metre-high Sassoon House.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
129
Fig. 4-3. A bird’s eye view of the Park Hotel and its physical setting (Deng 1992). The Park Hotel, which owned by Chinese bankers but stood right at the center of the International
Settlement with its unequaled height, expressed more than the professional achievement of its designer. As a metaphor, it represented the decade-long endeavour of the Chinese elite to
construct a modern Chinese society that would parallel and finally exceed Western advancement.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
130
Conclusion
Through the examination of Hudec’s practice and the character of his work
against a social, economical, architectural (technological), political, and cultural
setting, this thesis clarifies the modernity of Hudec and his work in Shanghai in the
1920s and 30s.
Shanghai’s economic growth from a market town to a world cosmopolis and the
advent and rise of foreign architects in the city reveals that it was business interest that
drew foreign architects to become involved in the city’s construction. Hudec, with
regard to his practice, was no different to his predecessors and counterparts in
Shanghai. He was not as avant-garde as his European contemporaries who were
concerned about reform in architectural design. Yet, by articulating the Modern style
in form and space, and by utilizing world-advanced technology, he distinguished
himself, and received his recognition as a leading architect of the fashion.
Due to the lack of technological capacity and technological culture as found in
the West, and the consequent lack of an essential and sound material basis for the
development of a modern building industry, so-called Modern architecture in
Shanghai in the 1920s and 30s remained a superficial replica of Western forms and
technology. It was more a simulation in forms than a pursuit for the essence of
Modern architecture (Hua 2000: 47 and Hou in Pan ed. 2001: 391). Hudec’s practice
and the works of Modern style he produced in the setting of Shanghai reflect such
character. The similarity in forms of his work and the Western contemporaries, and
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
131
his application of advanced technology are not sufficient to establish him as a
Modernist architect like the Western Modernists who boldly practiced along the
principles and slogans they put forward for architectural reform. Hence, his practice
in Shanghai can hardly be seen as a reflection of the movement of Modern
architecture in the West. He did not intentionally help the modernization of Chinese
architecture, but his innovative design in form and bold application of advanced
technology established a model for modernization that stimulated his Chinese
counterparts, such as Tong Jun (童寯) and his Allied Architects (华盖建筑师事务所), to
ponder and to experiment in order to find a way to define a new Chinese architecture
(Hou in Pan ed. 2001: 388). The modernity of Hudec’s work lies not in simulation
of the Western contemporary architecture, but in his response to the changes in
Chinese society that originated in the modernization programme of the Chinese.
Hudec rooted his practice in Shanghai. His work reflected the city’s growth and
embodied the city’s cultural character. In that sense, Laszlo Hudec well deserves the
recognition as a “Shanghai architect”.
Today, when Shanghai is to rebuild a complex of economy and culture as it used
to be in the past, a better understanding of Hudec’s work offers a key for
understanding the growth of Shanghai in the present day, when large numbers of
foreign architects once again flock to the banks of the Huangpu River, producing the
tallest buildings in the world. □
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
132
Bibliography
1. All about Shanghai and Environs: A Standard Guidebook. Oxford University Press, Edition
1934-35.
2. Balfour, Alan & Zheng Shiling. Shanghai. Wiley-Academy, 2002.
3. Bergere, Marie-Claire. “The Chginese Bourgeoisie, 1911-37”. In The Cambridge History
of China, Vol.12, Republican China, 1912-1949, ed. John K. Fairbank. Cambridge
University Press, 1983.
4. Black, Cyril Edwin. The Dynamics of Modernization: a Study in Comparative History.
New York: Harper & Row, 1967.
5. Carter, James Hugh. Creating a Chinese Harbin: Nationalism in an International City,
1916-1932. Cornell University Press, 2002.
6. Chen, Congzhou & Zhang Ming 陈从周, 章明 ed. Shanghai Jindai Jianzhu Shigao 上海近
代建筑史稿 [A History of Shanghai Architecture in Modern Times]. Shanghai Sanlian
Shudian 上海三联书店 (The Joint Publishing, Shanghai), 1988.
7. Ci Hai: Lishi Fen Ce: Zhongguo Jindaishi 辞海: 历史分册: 中国近代史 [Encyclopedia:
History: Modern China]. Shanghai Cishu Chubanshe 上海辞书出版社 [The Shanghai
Publishing House of Dictionaries], 1982.
8. Ci Hai: Lishi Fen Ce: Zhongguo Xiandaishi 辞海: 历史分册: 中国现代史 [Encyclopedia:
History: Contemporary China]. Shanghai Cishu Chubanshe 上海辞书出版社 [The
Shanghai Publishing House of Dictionaries], 1984.
9. Cody, Jeffrey William. Henry K. Murphy, An American Architect in China, 1914-1935. Ph.
D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1989.
10. Delande, Natalie. “Gongchengshi Zhanzai Jianzhu Duiwu de Qianlie -- Shanghai Jindai
Jianzhu Lishishang Jishu Wenhua de Zhongyao Diwei” 工程师站在建筑队伍的前列——上
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
133
海近代建筑历史上技术文化的重要地位 [Engineers in the Van of the Builders -- the
Important Position of the Culture of Technology in the Modern History of Shanghai
Architecture]. In Diwuci Zhongguo Jindai Jianzhushi Yanjiu Taolunhui Lunwenji 第五次中
国近代建筑史研究讨论会论文集 [A Collection of the Fifth Symposium of Modern History
of Chinese Architecture] ed. Wang Tan 汪坦 & Zhang Fuhe 张复合. Zhongguo Jianzhu
Gongye Chubanshe 中国建筑工业出版社 (China Architecture & Building Press), 1998.
11. Feetham, Richard. Report of the Hon to the Shanghai Municipal Council. Shanghai:
North-China Daily News and Herald, 1931.
12. Fei, Chengkang 费成康 . Zhongguo Zujie Shi 中国租界史 [The History of Foreign
Settlements in China]. Shanghai Shehui Kexueyuan Chubanshe 上海社会科学院出版社
[Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press], 1991.
13. Gu, Zhengyong 顾政勇. Yuandong Di Yi Gaolou 远东第一高楼 [The Tallest Building in
the Far East], in Dongfang “Bali” -- Jindai Shanghai Jianzhu Shihua 东方“巴黎”——近代上
海建筑史话 [“Paris” of the East, the stories of Shanghai Architecture in Modern Times] ed.
Shanghai Jianzhu Shigongzhi Bianweihui 上海建筑施工志编委会 [Editorial Committee of
the Annals of Shanghai Building Construction]. Shanghai Wenhua Chubanshe 上海文化出
版社 (Shanghai Culture Publishing House), 1991.
14. Hietkamp, Lenore. The Park Hotel, Shanghai (1931-1934) and Its Architect, Laszlo Hudec
(1893-1958): “Tallest Building in the Far East” as Metaphor for Pre-Communist Shanghai.
M. A. thesis, the University of Victoria, 1998.
15. Hua, Xiahong 华霞虹. Wudake Zai Shanghai Zuopin de Fingxi 邬达克在上海作品的分
析 [An Analysis and Commentary of Hudec’s Works in Shanghai]. M. Arch. thesis, Tongji
University, 2000.
16. Jianzhu Yuekan 建筑月刊 (The Builder). Shanghaishi Jianzhu Xiehui 上海市建筑学会
(The Shanghai Builder’s Association), Vol.1, No.1 (1932.11) - Vol.4, No.10 (1937.1).
17. Johnston, Tess & Deke Erh. A Last Look, Western Architecture in Old Shanghai. Old
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
134
China Hand Press, 1993.
18. Johnston, Tess & Deke Erh. Far from Home, Western Architecture in China’s Northern
Treaty Ports. Old China Hand Press, 1996.
19. Lee, Leo Ou-fan. Shanghai Modern, the Flowering of a New Urban Culture in China,
1930-1945. Harvard University Press, 1999.
20. Leedy, Paul D. Practical Research, Planning and Design, 7th ed. Merrill Prentice Hall, 2001.
21. Lou, Chenghao 娄承浩. Jindai Shanghai de Jianzhushi 近代上海的建筑师 (Architects in
Modern Shanghai). In Dongfang “Bali” -- Jindai Shanghai Jianzhu Shihua 东方“巴黎”——
近代上海建筑史话 [“Paris” of the East, the stories of Shanghai Architecture in Modern
Times] ed. Shanghai Jianzhu Shigongzhi Bianweihui 上海建筑施工志编委会 [Editorial
Committee of the Annals of Shanghai Building Construction]. Shanghai Wenhua Chubanshe
上海文化出版社 (Shanghai Culture Publishing House), 1991.
22. Lu, Hanchao 卢汉超. Shanghai Zujie Huaren Canzheng Yundong Shulun 上海租界华人参
政运动述论 (A Review of the Chinese Participation in Political Affairs of the Foreign
Settlements in Shanghai). In Shanghai Shi Yanjiu (Vol.2) 上海史研究 (二). Xuelin
Publishing House 学林出版社, 1988.
23. Luo, Xiaowei 罗小未 ed. Shanghai Jianzhu Zhinan 上海建筑指南 (A Guide to Shanghai
Architecture). Shanghai Renmin Meishu Chubanshe 上海人民美术出版社 (The People’s
Fine-Arts Publishing House of Shanghai), 1996.
24. Luo, Yungui 罗云贵 ed. Shanghai Jianzhu Zhuangshi 上海建筑装饰 (Shanghai
Architectural Decoration). Shanghai Jiaoyu Chubanshe 上海教育出版社 (Shanghai
Education Publishing House), 1995.
25. MacPherson, Kerrie L. “Designing China’s Urban Future: the Greater Shanghai Plan,
1927-1937”. In Planning Perspectives, 5 (1990) 39-62.
26. Murphey, Rhoads. Shanghai, Key to Modern China. Harvard University Press, 1953.
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
135
27. Pan, Guxi 潘谷熙 ed. Zhongguo Jianzhu Shi 中国建筑史 [A History of Chinese
Architecture], 4th ed. Zhongguo Jianzhu Gongye Chubanshe 中国建筑工业出版社 (China
Architecture and Building Press), 2001.
28. Pang, Zhuoheng 庞卓恒 ed. Shixue Gailun 史学概论 [An Introduction to Historiography].
Gaodeng Jiaoyu Chubanshe 高等教育出版社 (Higher Education Press), 1995.
29. Shanghai Tushuguan 上海图书馆 [Shanghai Municipal Library] ed. Lao Shanghai Fengqing
Lu (Wu): Waiqiao Bian Zong Juan 老上海风情录 (五) 外侨辨踪卷 [The Customs and
Practices of Old Shanghai (5): Tracing the Foreigners]. Shanghai Wenhua Chubanshe 上海
文化出版社 (Shanghai Culture Publishing House), 1998.
30. Shen, Chenxian 沈辰宪. Shanghai Zaoqi de Ji Ge Waiguo Fangdichanshang 上海早期的
几个外国房地产商 (Foreign Land Agents in the Early Days of Shanghai). In Jiu Shanghai
de Fangdichan Jingying 旧上海的房地产经营 [Management of the Real Estate Business in
Old Shanghai] ed. Zhongguo Renmin Zhengzhixieshanghuiyi Shanghaishi Weiyuanhui
Wenshi Ziliao Weiyuanhui 中国人民政治协商会议上海史委员会文史资料委员会 (The
Literature and History Committee of the Shanghai Committee of the C.P.P.C.C.). Shanghai
Renmin Chubanshe 上海人民出版社 (Shanghai People’s Publishing House), 1990.
31. Shen, Hua 沈华 ed. Shanghai Lilong Minju 上海里弄民居 [Shanghai Lane House].
Zhongguo Jianzhu Gongye Chubanshe 中国建筑工业出版社 (China Architecture &
Building Press), 1993.
32. Shi, Fang 石方, Liu Shuang 刘爽, & Gao Ling 高凌. Haerbin Eqiao Shi 哈尔滨俄侨史
[A History of the Russian Émigré Community in Harbin]. Heilongjiang Renmin Chubanshe
黑龙江人民出版社 [Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House], 2003.
33. Stavrianos, Leften Stavros. The World to 1500 : a Global History. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1970.
34. Tang, Weikang. Bund of Shanghai. In Eatern Air Connections, No.135 (2004-1).
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
136
35. Tietz, Juergen. The Story of Architecture of the 20th Century. Koenemann
Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 1999.
36. The Universities of Tongji, Tsinhua, Tianjin, and The Engineering College of Nanjing ed.
Waiguo Jinxiandai Jianzhu Shi 外国近现代建筑史 [The Modern History of World
Architecture]. Zhongguo Jianzhu Gongye Chubanshe 中国建筑工业出版社 (China
Architecture & Building Press), 1982.
37. Wang, Shaozhou 王绍周 . Shanghai Jindai Chengshi Jianzhu 上海近代城市建筑
[Shanghai Urban Architecture in Modern Times]. Jiangsu Kexuejishu Chubanshe 江苏科学
技术出版社 (Jiangsu Science and Technology Publishing House), 1989.
38. Wang, Zhicheng 汪之成. Shanghai Eqiao Shi 上海俄侨史 (A History of the Russian
Émigré Community in Shanghai). Shanghai Sanlian Shudian 上海三联书店 (The Joint
Publishing, Shanghai), 1993.
39. Warner, Torsten. “Shanghai de Deguo Jianzhu” 上海的德国建筑 [German Architecture in
Shanghai]. In Disici Zhongguo Jindai Jianzhushi Yanjiu Taolunhui Lunwenji 第四次中国
近代建筑史研究讨论会论文集 [A Collection of the Fourth Symposium of Modern History
of Chinese Architecture] ed. Wang Tan 汪坦 & Zhang Fuhe 张复合. Zhongguo Jianzhu
Gongye Chubanshe 中国建筑工业出版社 (China Architecture & Building Press), 1993.
40. Wei, Betty Peh-T’i. Shanghai, Crucible of Modern China. Oxford University Press, 1987.
41. Wu, Jiang 伍江 . Shanghai Bai Nian Jianzhu Shi 上海百年建筑史 (The History of
Shanghai Architecture), 1840-1949. Tongji Daxue Chubanshe 同济大学出版社 (Tongji
University Press), 1997.
42. Wu, Jiang 伍江. Shanghai Jindai Jianzhu Fengge 上海近代建筑风格 [The Style Shanghai
Architecture in Modern Times]. In Dongfang “Bali” -- Jindai Shanghai Jianzhu Shihua 东
方“巴黎”——近代上海建筑史话 [“Paris” of the East, the stories of Shanghai Architecture
in Modern Times] ed. Shanghai Jianzhu Shigongzhi Bianweihui 上海建筑施工志编委会
[Editorial Committee of the Annals of Shanghai Building Construction]. Shanghai Wenhua
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
137
Chubanshe 上海文化出版社 (Shanghai Culture Publishing House), 1991.
43. Xin, Ping 忻平. Cong Shanghai Faxian Lishi -- Xiandaihua Jincheng Zhong de Shanghairen
Jiqi Shehui Shenghuo 从上海发现历史——现代化进程中的上海人及其社会生活
[History Discovered from Shanghai -- Shanghainese and Their Social Life in the Course of
Modernization], 1927-1937. Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe 上海人民出版社 (Shanghai
People’s Publishing House), 1996.
44. Xiong, Yuezhi 熊月之 ed. Shanghai Tongshi 上海通史 [A Panorama of Shanghai History],
Vols.1, 7, 8, 9, 10, & 15. Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe 上海人民出版社 (Shanghai
People’s Publishing House), 1999.
45. Xu, Jinlin 许纪霖 & Chen Dakai 陈凯达 ed. Zhongguo Xiandaihua Shi 中国现代化史
[The History of the Modernization of China]. Shanghai Sanlian Shudian 上海三联书店
(The Joint Publishing Shanghai), 1995.
46. Yang, Jiayou 杨嘉佑. Shanghai Lao Fangzi de Gushi 上海老房子的故事 (Shanghai, the
Stories of Classic Houses), Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe 上海人民出版社 (Shanghai
People’s Publishing House), 1999.
47. Ye, Yalian 叶亚廉 & Xia Lingen 夏林根 ed. Shanghai de Faduan 上海的发端 [The
Origin of Shanghai], Shanghai Fanyi Chuban Gongsi 上海翻译出版公司 [Shanghai
Translation and Publishing Corporation], 1992.
48. Zhang, Zhongli 张仲礼 ed. Jindai Shanghai Chengshi Yanjiu 近代上海城市研究 (The
Urban Study of Shanghai in Modern Times). Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe 上海人民出版
社 (Shanghai People’s Publishing House), 1990.
49. Zheng, Longqing 郑龙清 & Xue Yongli 薛永理 . Jiefangqian Shanghai de Gaoceng
Jianzhu 解放前上海的高层建筑 (The High-rise Buildings in Pre-liberation Shanghai). In
Jiu Shanghai de Fangdichan Jingying 旧上海的房地产经营 [Management of the Real Estate
Business in Old Shanghai] ed. Zhongguo Renmin Zhengzhixieshanghuiyi Shanghaishi
Weiyuanhui Wenshi Ziliao Weiyuanhui 中国人民政治协商会议上海史委员会文史资料委
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
138
员会 (The Literature and History Committee of the Shanghai Committee of the C.P.P.C.C.).
Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe 上海人民出版社 (Shanghai People’s Publishing House), 1990.
50. Zheng, Shiling 郑时龄 . Shanghai Jindai Jianzhu Fengge 上海近代建筑风格 (The
Evolution of Shanghai Architecture in Modern Times). Shanghai Jiaoyu Chubanshe 上海教
育出版社 (Shanghai Education Publishing House), 1999.
51. Zhongguo Jianzhu 中国建筑 (The Chinese Architecture), Zhongguo Jianzhushi Xuehui 中
国建筑师学会 (the Architects Institute of China), Vol.2, No.8 (1934.8) - Vol.3, No.5
(1935.11), No.24 (1936.2) - 29 (1937.4).
52. Zhu, Jiancheng 朱剑城. Jiu Shanghai Fangdichanye de Xingqi 旧上海房地产业的兴起
(The Rise of the Real Estate Industry in Old Shanghai). In Jiu Shanghai de Fangdichan
Jingying 旧上海的房地产经营 [Management of the Real Estate Industry in Old Shanghai]
ed. Zhongguo Renmin Zhengzhixieshanghuiyi Shanghaishi Weiyuanhui Wenshi Ziliao
Weiyuanhui 中国人民政治协商会议上海史委员会文史资料委员会 (The Literature and
History Committee of the Shanghai Committee of the C.P.P.C.C.). Shanghai Renmin
Chubanshe 上海人民出版社 (Shanghai People’s Publishing House), 1990.
53. Zou, Yiren 邹依仁. Jiu Shanghai Renkou Bianqian de Yanjiu 旧上海人口变迁的研究 [A
Demographic Study on the Flux of Population in Old Shanghai]. Shanghai Renmin
Chubanshe 上海人民出版社 (Shanghai People’s Publishing House), 1980. □
Laszlo E. Hudec and Modern Architecture in Shanghai, 1918-1937
139
Appendix
HUDEC CHRONOLOGY
Laszlo E. Hudec (1893-1958)
(Hietkamp 1998)
1. 1893, born in Besztercebanya, Austria-Hungary;
2. 1914, year 21, graduated from The Royal Joseph University;
3. 1916, year 23, elected to The Royal Institute of Hungarian Architects, joined
the army, taken P.O.W. and sent to Khabarovsk in Siberia;
4. 1918, year 25, escaped to Harbin then arrived in Shanghai, and joined the R.
A. Curry;
5. 1925, year 32, opened his own office;
6. 1927-28, year 34-35, a tour of Spain and the United States;
7. 1928, year 35, studying brewery design in Munich, Germany;
8. 1930, year 37, studying the latest developments in engineering and
architecture in Germany;
9. 1933, year 40, became famous for the Grand Theatre and the Park Hotel;
10. 1947, year 54, left Shanghai migrated to Switzerland;
11. 1958, year 65, died. ■