|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Mar 19, 2019 19:36:02 GMT
There are a number of Facebook groups that regularly post images of great old brutalist buildings, some demolished, some still with us. What's funny about these groups is that the members appear to spend more time arguing about what constitutes 'brutalism' than they do admiring the architecture! However - there's a serious point to be made about the preservation of these structures. It's interesting to me that we seem to be living in a time where what was once seen to be ugly (remember Prince Charles' "monstrous carbuncle" line?) is now believed to be worth preserving - by some, at least. And yet so many wonderful old buildings are being knocked down. I've just seen this thing for the first time (the picture, not the actual building!): isn't that wonderful? or not? It's the Tricorn Centre in Portsmouth, "the third ugliest building in the UK", and it was demolished in 2004. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricorn_CentreThese days, when I visit a city, I tend to seek out the brutalist architecture if I can. I wonder if any of you do the same, what you've seen, and if you, too, are met with bewilderment when you tell friends and family what you're up to...
|
|
|
Post by tory on Mar 19, 2019 19:47:10 GMT
Brutalist architecture is lovely to look at in FB groups and books. It is seriously awful to live in and amongst. I grew up in Croydon and experienced it regularly.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Mar 19, 2019 20:02:57 GMT
That reminds me a bit of Karl Pilkington talking about the best place is not the impressive building, but outside it, so you can look at it. Or Parisians saying the best view of Paris is from the top of Tour Montparnasse, because that's the only place you can't see Tour Montparnasse
|
|
|
Post by tory on Mar 19, 2019 20:09:40 GMT
I don't get the love. Appalling concrete, often just chucked in the middle of a land or townscape with absolutely no thought for what was around it.
Around 17 mins in is Scruton's discourse on modern architecture. It's damning and rightly so.
|
|
rayge
Administrator
Invisible
Posts: 8,786
Member is Online
|
Post by rayge on Mar 19, 2019 20:12:40 GMT
Have to say I agree with Toby here (with his first post). Some wonderful constructions of intersecting planes, a dream for a photographer whatever the weather, but as functional buildings, rather than sculpture, no. Bare concrete is an unforgiving material to live in and with.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Mar 19, 2019 20:18:19 GMT
Brutalist architecture is lovely to look at in FB groups and books. so what's it to be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 20:20:52 GMT
I'd agree with Rayge and Toby, well to a point anyway. I wouldn't deny the power and visual impact of some of Le Corbusier's buildings and I'd love to visit somewhere like Brasilia with its modernist design, but the way those ideas were interpreted in the 50s and 60s in some European countries (and certainly in Britain) resulted in a lot of soulless and depressing urban environments. I mean no one would want to live in Luton over Bath say would they, unless they had a very good reason for doing so.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Mar 19, 2019 20:22:41 GMT
I'm saying that there is a significant difference between poring over photos of weird buildings and actually experiencing them on a day to day basis.
There's that whole series of photos on Yugoslav brutalist monuments. People like them because "hey they're wacky and out there". They do not have to live with them.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Mar 19, 2019 20:24:40 GMT
I mean no one would want to live in Luton over Bath say would they, unless they had a very good reason for doing so. Nail on head.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Mar 19, 2019 20:29:47 GMT
I agree more or less, but I've lived in 'ugly' tower blocks and among functionalist/brutalist architecture and I kind of like the view. If you get enough space, and the places are well maintained, then it's fine. Look at what they did with Park Hill in Sheffield.
You can oversimplify BOTH sides of the argument.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Mar 19, 2019 20:35:12 GMT
John Grindrod's book on Brutalism is worth a read. He's relatively "pro" and he has convincing arguments about certain projects. He grew up near me in New Addington and produces evidence that many of the ugly tower blocks were a significant upgrade for many people on what they had previously. The issue in many respects was how they were managed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 23:04:27 GMT
It's one of the most depressing parts of going to England and Europe. It puts me in the same mood as whenever I've had to drive by government housing projects.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 23:43:15 GMT
I mean no one would want to live in Luton over Bath say would they, unless they had a very good reason for doing so. But that's because of the historic capital that's been invested in a place like Bath over Luton which enabled Bath to build civic architecture on a grand scale much earlier and much more sustainably than industrial towns. It's not wholly or even mostly the fault of the architectural style for its poor maintenance and reputation. From the towns and cities I grew up in there are so many examples of pre-war architecture that's become decrepit, unmanageable and left to rot just like the brutalism has. It's the latter however which has built up such a bad reputation that people want to throw the baby from the bathwater and knock down some really fine and beautiful buildings in that style.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 23:47:30 GMT
I'm not sure the legacy of identikit "affordable" housing will be judged all that more positively in 30 years either.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Mar 19, 2019 23:55:21 GMT
I'm saying that there is a significant difference between poring over photos of weird buildings and actually experiencing them on a day to day basis. There's that whole series of photos on Yugoslav brutalist monuments. People like them because "hey they're wacky and out there". They do not have to live with them. They do not have to live IN them either. They're monuments. They're ornaments that make up the landscape. There are books on Soviet-era bus stops - have you seen them? It all comes down to individual taste, in this case. I can understand that not everybody likes these things but this 'oh we really cannot understand the hardships these poor people have to face' bollocks is completely off the mark. Some of these things look fabulous and nobody has to eat their dinner off them.
|
|