Highpoint I: Arup’s Innovative Concrete Design and the Challenge of Regulations

Highpoint I broke new ground in concrete wall construction, using innovative techniques that were possible only because the project was built outside of restrictive LCC regulations.

Highpoint I, designed by Ove Arup in partnership with architect Berthold Lubetkin, stands as a landmark in modernist architecture and structural design. The project, located in Highgate, north London, received attention in the Architects’ Journal for its innovative approach to reinforced concrete construction. Drawings produced by Tecton for Architectural Association students highlighted a supposed shift in design due to new regulations: one illustration depicted “old-fashioned regulations” resulting in a dense “forest of stanchions,” while another showed the “final project according to new reinforced concrete regulations.” In reality, however, no regulatory changes had yet occurred. As Arup later clarified, Highpoint I’s location outside the LCC area allowed the team to use the structural approach they envisioned.

The confusion in the Architects’ Journal arose because the RCSC recommendations had not been published during Highpoint I’s design, and the LCC’s regulations were also incomplete. By contrast, F. S. Snow’s contemporaneous paper on flats in Stepney and Hackney described designs constrained by LCC regulations, resulting in thicker walls - seven inches rather than the five-inch walls used by Arup. These thicker walls required minimal load reduction, while the thinner walls of Highpoint I would have necessitated significant adjustments under LCC rules. The eventual RCSC regulations would relax restrictions on slenderness and provide guidelines for flat slabs, confirming that Arup’s design was ahead of its time.

A central innovation in Highpoint I was the use of a spine beam. This structural arrangement allowed floor slabs to span continuously over three supports - the external walls and the spine beam - eliminating the need for interior beams and maximising open living space. Apartments were divided along the spine beam, with space below accommodating doorways and storage units. The arrangement of supporting walls and columns was independent, enabling flexible floor plans with stepped front and rear walls that created balconies and other architectural features. Such a layout would have been difficult, if not impossible, with a steel frame.

Arup himself later reflected on the mindset of the era, noting that engineers and authorities underestimated the behaviour of walls and favoured beams and columns. Securing approval for unconventional structures required “running battles” with regulatory authorities, many of which he did not win. Nevertheless, Highpoint I’s design helped demonstrate the possibilities of reinforced concrete construction, showcasing economies and structural efficiencies that would influence subsequent projects.

Highpoint I is unusually well-documented compared to other buildings of the time. While architects often delegated structural design to contractors and journals rarely credited engineers, Arup’s collaboration with Lubetkin is clearly traceable. His work, alongside contemporaries like Felix Samuely, illustrates how engineers contributed to the modernist movement. Both Arup and Samuely used the spine beam principle in multiple projects, allowing floor slabs to span open spaces while maintaining structural integrity, a technique that became a hallmark of forward-thinking concrete design.

Highpoint I stands as a testament to ingenuity, foresight, and the willingness to challenge prevailing norms. By exploiting the freedom afforded by its location outside the LCC jurisdiction, Arup employed thin concrete walls and spine beams to create open, functional, and flexible apartment layouts. The project highlights the tension between innovative design and regulatory constraints, demonstrating that progress often depends on pushing boundaries. Beyond its immediate technical achievements, Highpoint I’s careful documentation, public attention, and Lubetkin’s promotion helped solidify Arup’s reputation as a pioneering engineer and illustrated the transformative potential of concrete in modernist housing.

Reference: YEOMANS, D. (2020). Concrete Architecture: A Lost Opportunity? Architectural History, 63, 257–282. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27126631.