How have the attitudes portrayed in both the architectural professional press and broadsheet/ tabloid newspapers changed towards Brutalist buildings in Britain, since their construction to the present day? Student: 160134063
Thank you to my tutor, Dr. Ben Bridgens, for his time and guidance with this dissertation.
Own photograph of the National Theatre’s textured formwork
Collage showing differing views towards Brutalism in the Press
CONTENTS Title and Research Question
3
Timeline showing research findings
8-9
Introdution
10
Chapter One: The Emergence of Brutalism
14
The Definition
15
Emergence in the Press
18
Chapter Two: The Golden Age of Brutalism
24
Chapter Three: The Fall of Brutalism
30
Chapter Four: Brutalism in the 21st Century
38
Chapter Five: Case Study - The National Theatre
44
Conclusion
56
List of Figures
60
Reference List
61
“one generation’s eyesore is another’s delight.” Glancey, J. (2000)
TIMELINE Extract from Introduction: To determine the attitudes of the architectural professional press during this time period, I have looked at the archives of architectural magazines, specifically The Architectural Review and The Architects’ Journal, dating back to the point at which Brutalism emerged in the 1950s. As a comparison, I have also looked at how broadsheet and tabloid newspapers, The Guardian and The Daily Mail, have characterised Brutalism during its lifespan. I have collated my findings across these different publications to formulate a timeline which shows the representation of this polarising style. I have created the DEMOLISH! to LISTED STATUS scale to determine where each attitude sits relevant to the year (from 1950 - 2020 and onwards). Key dates relevant to this dissertation have been highlighted in bold, while all quotes and article titles are discussed within the essay and included in the Reference List. My findings show a clear change in attitude over time shown by the two lines that link the differing points; one to represent the architectural press and architectural professionals, and the other the broadsheet and tabloid press and non-architectural-professionals.
8
DEMOLISH!
1950
“Does the ‘New Brutalism’ really mean anything other than the architecture of the Smithsons?” Anon. The AR
“opinions continue[d] to differ, showing how fundamental a contribution was made by this movement.” The AR
Lasdun appointed ‘The Sad as National Theatre End of New “passing architecarchitect Brutalism’ tural fad”, Lewis, P. by Boyd, R. The DM
The AR “the day on which the Smithsons achieved a worldly success … New Brutalism died.”, Boyd, R
“fed up with this kitchen-sink school of architecture that has been labelled New Brutalism” Conran, S. The DM
1960
Postmodern SIS building completed
“stylistically out of fashion by the time they are finished”, Girouard, M. The AR
“Brutalists do little to achieve what is the principal task of the architect: to create an environment conducive to a happy life.” Pevsner, N. The Guardian
1970
“Is the concrete exterior grey and monotonous in the sunshine; wet and depressing in the rain?” anon., The AR
“For far too long architects have designed for other architects.” Lewis, P. The DM
“Prince Charles had a point: Much modern British architecture is bleak, ugly and inhuman and weathers badly … and the public have precious little say in it either”, Kupfermann, J. The DM
“a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a muchloved and elegant friend.” Prince
1980
Charles
“my influence on architecture vanished with an aspirin”, Smithson, P.
“relics of the decade, the buildings, became synonymous with all that was worst about the period”, Sudjic, D. The Guardian The NT, “a truly hidesous mass”, Paterson, P. The DM The NT, “loathed by its users, has been
Barbican Estate: “I find
it very alienating, like a high-class version of a terrible post-war housing estate”, Rosenthal, N. The Guardian
ridiculed by the public, and lacks an appro- Tricorn Centre voted priate and legible identity, let alone a front ‘most hated building’ door”, Chatwin, J. ‘Letters’ in The AJ
1990
ry t Centu
he 21s
Banham, R.
‘Concrete facts: Why brutalism is back’, Glancey, J. The Guardian
of Brut
Age of B
Corbusier’s Unite, Berlin, “no longer a novelty”, The AR
The National Theatre, Lasdun, completed
“It may not appeal to everyone Anonymous. and may not yet have the weight of antiquity behind it, but that does not mean … that it deserves less respect than more ancient Haworth Tompkins styles.” Clement, A. refurbish the NT
that’s already there”, Grimley, cited by Mathew, T.
“These decades of recrimination are ending”, Calder, B.
“Brutalism never quite broke out of the aesthetic frame of reference”, Parnell, S.
sm in t
NOT KEEN
‘The New Brutalism’, essay by Banham. R. The AR
The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic? by
Stanton Williams refurbish the NT
The NT “looks better than “Today’s mon- ever”, Moore, R. The Guardian strosity might well be tomorrows “the greenest masterpiece.” structure is the one
2000
Brutali
Emerg
NEUTRAL
Tricorn Centre, Luder, completed
such a splendid building should be such an unfriendly one.” Beresford, P, The AR
Golden
ence o
Hunstanston School completed
“one generation’s eyesore is another’s delight”, Glancey, J. The Guardian
alism
rutalism
lism
The Smithson manifesto published in The AD “The only pity is that
f Bruta
SAVE!
‘Don’t knock Brutalism’, Rose, S. The Guardian
The NT recieves Listed status
Hunstanton Sch, “extraordinary”, Johnson, P. The AR
The Fa ll
LISTED STATUS
‘Why we really should demolish the National Theatre’, Field, A. The Guardian
2010
2020
The quote,“Today’s monstrosity might well be tomorrow’s masterpiece” (Anonymous, 2014, p. 2) summarises the idea whereby the temperamental nature of attitudes towards Brutalist buildings have fluctuated so drastically that buildings once publicly hated (Mitchell, 2016) have in recent years undergone a surge of positivity and respect. My research fits into the wider debate concerning demolition threats for certain styles, in this case Brutalism, with the worry that a period of unpopularity would cause their extinction. Hyde (2019) argues that attitudes towards architecture change naturally in time and one is able to reflect on a previous style, now considered unfashionable and old compared to what is current. With Brutalism, there is a sense that the initial novelty of the style wore off quickly as the context of Britain rapidly changed, and it is only in recent years once one is able to remove themselves from the context of the time that an appreciation has begun to surface. Equally, another debate this dissertation touches on is the disconnect between architectural professionals and the general public. There is a sense that, in previous decades, a lack of cohesion between the two groups has formed a distance, placing a lot of public architecture out of reach for many, leading to frustration and resistance. This dissertation acknowledges the idea that opinions and attitudes are subjective and personal but does not try to understand the reasons for differing opinions. Instead, my area of focus looks at the opinions displayed in both the architectural magazines and broadsheet/tabloid newspapers, showing how the style was represented to the public in these two types of journalism, focusing specifically on how the attitudes portrayed in the press and broadsheet newspapers have changed over time. Parnell (2017b) discusses the validation of these types of journalism, arguing 11
that magazines lie between every day, instant newspapers and more contemplated books, providing a powerful way of integrating architecture into everyday life. This makes architecture more accessible and allows us to consider that both magazines and newspapers could have an influence on the readers perception of architecture. The architectural press such as The Architectural Review (AR) and The Architects’ Jour-
nal (AJ) publish with the agenda of providing informative and educated criticisms, whereas the broadsheet/tabloid press come from a different angle, with the aim of representing the views of their readers, yet also influencing those who rely on the press as a trustworthy source of information. An issue lies here with the influencing effect of opinionated tabloid articles, although a study showed that this is more often assumed rather than proven (Hopkins et al., 2017); information in the media can inform public opinion (Gilens, cited by Hopkins et al., 2017) but an alternative thought is the reverse, that public opinion often informs the press coverage due to the need to retain readers, reporting the already existing opinions of the public to maintain an interest (Hopkins et al., 2017). For the purpose of this dissertation, the idea that broadsheet/tabloid press both represents and influences the opinions of their readers will be presumed. I am interested in how opinions towards Brutalism have varied from its emergence to the present day and come full circle, making it more fashionable after years of divided criticism. Hyde (2019) also discusses this theme of architectural judgement, alluding to the preconceived idea that the thoughts of architects and the public occur separately from one another, suggesting there may be conflicting opinions towards Brutalist buildings, an idea that will be discussed in this dissertation.
12
To determine the attitudes of architectural professional press during this time period, I have looked at the archives of architectural magazines, specifically The AR and AJ, dating back to the point at which Brutalism emerged in the 1950s. As a comparison, I have also looked at how broadsheet and tabloid newspapers, The Guardian and The Daily Mail
(The DM), have characterised Brutalism during its lifespan, showing the attitudes and opinions which both represent and also influence their readers. I have collated my findings across these different publications to formulate the timeline (p. 8 - 9) which shows the representation of this polarising style. Many online articles refer to the ‘rise’ and ‘fall’ of styles and Brutalism: websites such as Lawcris (n.d.) and Fourwalls (2019) title articles with these words. Additionally, writers including Clement (2009) have looked into the unclear emergence of Brutalism. With this and the findings from my research in mind, I have divided this timeline into four different time periods which summarise the different stages the movement has undergone, which I have titled as follows: The Emergence of Brutalism, The Golden Age of Brutalism, The Fall of Brutalism and Brutalism in the 21st Century. These four time periods will then form the background for this research, and build up a contextual picture of comments, criticisms and reviews of Brutalist architecture chronologically through the years.
13
The Emergence of Brutalism The Definition To fully understand how Brutalism emerged in the press, it is important to know the context in which it began as an architectural movement, and the story of the architects and critics that first discussed it publicly, whereby the definition has been worked and reworked, with parts forgotten leaving us with our own idea of what the movement means today. Brutalism is thought to have origins in Modernism (Mitchell, 2016), a prominent movement that existed prior to World War II, and both share similar characteristics, which suggests they are linked; Modernism’s characteristics according to RIBA (architecture.com) include a minimalistic approach to ornamentation, geometric, large volumes and a lack of symmetry. Qualities of Brutalism cross over, including characteristics of no embellishments, raw and exposed surfaces, large forms and obscure shapes, as shown in Figure 1 and 2 (p. 16). Though these styles seem similar, Brutalist qualities clearly differ in their harshness and in the impact of their bold, bare forms. Brutalist buildings can be categorised by their exposed structure and even heavier emphasis on expressive forms. This exaggeration separated Brutalism from any previous movement, with the desire to be different and remove itself of any preconceived ideas of how architecture should be, aligning with the post-war feeling of freedom and rebellion. Modernism became prominent in Europe in the 1920s in reaction to rapid industrialisation that led to new technologies and methods of buildings, creating the new Modernist aesthetic of clean, cubic forms. This new technology and speed helped to solve issues of housing and 15
Figure 1: Villa Savoye by Le Corbusier 1929, showing Modernist qualities of minimalism and geometric forms
Figure 2: Own photograph of The National Theatre by Denys Lasdun 1976, showing the comparable characteristics of Brutalism
poverty at the time, while housing projects were built efficiently, with pioneers such as Walter Gropius and Le Corbusier leading the way. With the need for an improvement in social housing evident, Corbusier developed an industrial, machine-like ideology for living, and high-rise social housing schemes grew in urban areas across Europe. There 16
was a sense of rigidity in the designs, where many of the home comforts were removed in order to retain to the purity of the aesthetic, and personal elements of the design dictated, for example with all the blinds and furniture (Rowe, 2011). However, Stott (2019) noted a clear shift in Corbusier’s aesthetics during the years following the war, whereby the once clean-cut forms became larger, rougher and exposed. It was these characteristics that became synonymous with the style of Brutalism, as exemplified the housing development Unité d’Habitation, Marseilles in France (figure 3). It can be strongly argued that Brutalism was a break-away from the rigid, mechanical ideas of Modernism, suggestive of why the aesthetic of the Brutalist style is aggressive and overpowering.
Figure 3: Unité d’Habitation, Marseilles, by Le Corbusier, 1952
17
Emergence in the Press Murmurs of Brutalism surfaced in the British architectural press in 1953 as the ‘New Brutalism’ as architectural professionals attempted to define the emerging movement influenced from Europe; today, definitions of the term remain ununified (Parnell, 2017b) as they changed over time, became lost and misused, which has led to the assumption today that Brutalism describes solely bulky, concrete masses of buildings built in the post-war years (Croft, 2004). The definition of ‘The New Brutalism’ as told by architects Alison and Peter Smithson, who described themselves as the “inventors” of the term (Smithson, cited by Parnell, 2017b, p.3) was published in the AD in 1955. Here, the Smithson’s acknowledge Corbusier’s use of exposed concrete in the Unité d’Habitation, which confirms the international influence, also stating that the pure aesthetic and material honesty of Japanese architecture were key ethical values for the ‘New Brutalism’ also. By celebrating natural and man-made materials, a ‘new’ spiritual nature was applied to this movement by the Smithsons, giving a meaning to this developing architecture style. According to Parnell (2017b) a cohort of youthful architects felt discontented in post-war Britain and had a desire to put forward modern plans to rejuvenate the nation, which for the Smithsons was in the form of Hunstanton School, completed in 1954 with its exposed steel frame, concrete surfaces and ethical stance, coming under their umbrella of ‘New Brutalism’. However, as pointed out by Parnell, one reader asked “Does the ‘New Brutalism’ really mean anything other than the
architecture of the Smithsons?” (anon. cited by Parnell, 2017b, p. 5), suggesting that the Smithsons were perhaps pushing this movement for personal recognition at the time. At this point, though the architectural press was beginning to discuss the movement, the broadsheet and tabloid press were yet to acknowl18
edge it at all. Reyner Banham published his essay ‘The New Brutalism’ in 1955, where he described the movement that had begun to emerge in the two years prior; this essay marked a significant time for New Brutalism, described by Parnell (2011) as a very important year in the architectural press, signifying its emergence in Britain. Banham gave contextual background to the movement stating its controversy was heightened by the politics of the time, describing the two groups as
“Communists versus the Rest” (1955, p. 20), showing that the divisive qualities evident in the years following existed at the root of the movement. Banham acknowledged that Alison Smithson first announced the term in 1953 in The AD to give a name to her design intent of a
“structure exposed entirely” (Smithson, cited by Banham 1955, p. 21), a distinguishable aesthetic feature of Brutalist architecture. Importantly, Banham made reference to The AR September 1954 issue which published images of Hunstanton School, provoking the first serious conversations about the style. He argued that the once comical correspondence on the topic had since taken a controversial turn, due to the impact the images had; the raw nature of the photos printed seemed to cause a demand for this new, unseen style to be labelled and though designed in 1950, before the term first surfaced, Hunstanton school was immediately accepted with this label. However, Parnell (2017b) claimed it was in Banham’s focus on the aesthetic in his essay (and later in his 1966 book The New Brutalism,) and lack of belief of the New Brutalism’s ethics, that may have led to the misunderstandings surrounding the true definition; “Brutalism never
quite broke out of the aesthetic frame of reference” (Parnell, 2017b, p. 5). It can be concluded, that despite the Smithson’s attempt to define this movement with a predominantly ethical status, the pure ‘brutality’ and power of this architecture as a spectacle overruled any other mean19
ing; over some time, my research showed the press, both architectural and not, to eventually drop the ‘New’, leaving the readers past and present with the unaccompanied term of Brutalism, with its aesthetically ‘unpleasing’ connotations and literal translation. An example of how Brutalism is defined in the present day includes, “a stylistic term for any
large concretey buildings from the 1960s or ‘70s” (Calder, 2016, p. 14). Perhaps this battle in the press to define the movement signifies a crucial moment, whereby Banham’s book reigned more influential than the architects’ articles in the press resulting in the loss of the ethical part from the definition (Parnell, 2017b). This perhaps meant attitudes became based more so on aesthetics; over time opinions and judgements slowly became superficial. The timeline (folded at the start of this book) shows The Fall of Brutalism, a time of unpopularity after its initial success, suggesting it was this lack of understanding for the reasons behind movement that led to a more transient view of it. Feeling a personal remorse for the Smithsons and their intentions, this dissertation focusses on these views towards Brutalism portrayed in the press, acknowledging the idea that as time passed, the aesthetic became more important at the peril of its meaning. Equally, the perception of the style as seen in the press may be informed by ethics, context and personalities of those critiquing it.
The Architectural Design (AD) played a significant part in promoting the emergence of the movement, more so than The AJ or AR, due to the close relationship between the Smithsons and Theo Crosby, who published their previously mentioned 1955 manifesto after becoming Technical Editor for The AD in 1953. This gave the Smithsons a helpful platform to showcase their early work via a well-regarded architectural magazine. A monthly discussion forum called Thoughts in Progress in
The AD had an issue devoted to the ‘New Brutalism’, which included 20
comments from the Smithsons (1957) who said the meaning of Brutalism fades when describing it in terms of style, as oppose to its ethics, still battling for their term to be understood.
The AJ and The AR published informative reviews of the building, including pictures to highlight the different architectural qualities. In The
AR, Johnson (1954) made a comment on the building describing it as “extraordinary” (p. 148), also claiming “it should now be clear that this is not merely a surface aesthetic … but a radical philosophy reaching back to the first conception of the building.” (p. 153) showing that the Smithsons’ definition was understood here. It is this type of view that differs from the view of a non-architect, who may make an instant aesthetic judgement, for example in a response to the building, a reader’s personal opinion of the photos was published in the Marginalia, “The only
pity is that such a splendid building should be such an unfriendly one.” (Beresford, 1954).
21
Figure 4: Hunstanton School as it appeared in The AR, 1954
22
Figure 5: Marginalia, ‘School at Hunstanton’, Beresford, P. (1954), showing the view it is “unfriendly”.
23
The Golden Age of Brutalism Due to the polarising nature of this architectural style, which showed contrasting opinions in the architectural press and broadsheet newspaper, it feels difficult to pinpoint the years in which it positively flourished in the press. Banham’s 1966 book, The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic was advertised in The AR, AJ and The Guardian, making a range of readers aware, however each publication delivered this information in a slightly different way; The AR showcased the book in the Architectural
Press Books section, stating, “opinions continue[d] to differ, showing how fundamental a contribution was made by this movement.” (Architectural Review, 1966, p.86) By not going into the specifics of these opinions, it allows readers to form their own. In contrast, both The AJ and The Guardian introduced this publication with an article from an architectural correspondent or professional; The
AJ’s article was titled “Review: Banham’s bumper book on brutalism, discussed by Alison and Peter Smithson” (Smithson, A & P, 1966, p.1590), providing the first-hand opinion of the two architects championing the movement in Britain, who keenly stated what was right and wrong about Banham’s book; a sub-heading was titled ‘Errors of fact,
and interpretations at which A. and P. S. feel obliged to demur ‘ (Smithson, 1966, p. 1590). In the text they acknowledge Banham was around to witness the movement as it emerged and grew, stating it was his first-hand view which made him able to pinpoint the correct feelings of the time (1966). Very significantly, here they reveal the truth behind the term ‘New Brutalism’, stating it was in fact a play on words of the mild, humanist movement of the 1940s, ‘New Empiricism’, alluding to the comical tone Banham picked up on previously, however the emphasis on the ethics remained apparent. Also in December 1966, The Guardian released news of The New Bru25
talism with an article by prominent architectural writer Nikolaus Pevsner, who has more recently been described as “the most laconic, incisive
judge of British architecture” (Kennedy, 2003). He lays down his own definition of Brutalist architecture, as “concrete exposed in large chunky
masses and left rough so as to avoid all conventional beauty of surface” (Pevsner, 1966, p. 7), largely corresponding with Banham’s aesthetical take on the movement. However, Pevsner concludes his article stating that this book is a pleasing read, also adding his own opinion of the movement, showing that he does not believe the architectural style was successful, “Brutalists do little to achieve what is the principal task of the
architect: to create an environment conducive to a happy life” (1966, p. 7). This view of an architectural professional in broadsheet press may have been particularly influential on the reader. December 1966, therefore, is a significant month during the timeline of the movement, in terms of what it meant for defining the movement, its publicity, and in turn how the readers of these articles may have been influenced. If we can consider that the publication of Banham’s essay in 1955 marked the beginning of the golden years at a time of post-war excitement and hope, perhaps this specific time in December 1966 could be thought of as marking the end, published “once the move-
ment had expired” (Parnell, 2011, p. 51); around the time the essay was released in the 1950s, a sense of optimism hung over Britain, where the future was being celebrated and memories of the war eager to be forgotten (Walker, 2018). An example of this took form in the Festival of Britain, where new and improved technology was showcased, and a hopefulness for a better future was promoted. The austerity of post-war life was quickly becoming a thing of the past, and the architecture that followed proved this. Again, Hunstanton School was the first example of Brutalism in Britain, exhibiting the practical mindset of many through 26
functional design with little embellishment. More examples of Brutalism include the Tricorn Centre, as shown in figure 6.
Figure 6: The Tricorn Centre, Owen Luder, 1966
27
However, in the decade of Banham’s 1966 book the context of Britain had drastically changed; “If the Fifties were in black and white, then the
Sixties were in Technicolor.” (Watson, 2017). Though this quote summarises the vast change in nature and atmosphere of the two decades, it appropriately suggests how attitudes towards Brutalism may have been turned away from it, due to the connection it had to the previous, and immensely different period. In a way, perhaps the book marked a time for more change once the positivity in Britain was thriving. A year later in July 1967, The AR published an article controversially titled The Sad End of New Brutalism by Robin Boyd, who maintained that the success of the movement “was in its timing and in the catchy
name”; perhaps it can be argued that it was the rebellious nature and timing of the style that caused an initial appeal to enthusiasts in postwar Britain, however once Brutalism became liked and ‘mainstream’, the original following was lost. Following this, Boyd went on to say it was this initial success that caused the almost immediate fall of the movement, “the day on which the Smithsons achieved a worldly success …
New Brutalism died.” (1967, p. 11). This could be due to the role that New Brutalism played in the context of an unsettled post-war Britain, which had to be powerful in both an ethical and aesthetical sense to provoke action.
Fig Br Br
28
Figure 7: A collage showing extracts from The AR; the title from Banham’s essay, 1955, The New Brutalism (book) advertised in March 1967, followed by Boyd’s essay signalling the ‘death’ of Brutalism in July, 1967
29
The Fall of Brutalism There is a lack of clarity around the specific timing of Brutalism’s expiry date because of the contrast in agendas and attitudes between the architectural press and broadsheet newspapers; the fall of Brutalism in the architectural press was considered to be around the time of Banham’s book publication in 1966, however the broadsheet and tabloid newspapers, who perhaps represent/influence of the general public more closely, discussed the public’s dislike of the architectural style in the years before The New Brutalism was published. In a Daily Mail article published in October 1963 titled ‘Frankly, do you think this is worth a prize?’ (18 October 1963, p. 12), referring to the winner of a recent housing competition, the journalist expressed her own opinions of the movement, stating she was “fed up with this kitchen-sink school of architecture that
has been labelled New Brutalism” (Conran, 1963, p. 12). The use of the humorous expression alludes to a sense of frustration amongst those non-architectural professionals, who now demanded an architectural style to match the flourishing decade of the ‘60s. To confirm her frustrations, Conran includes comments from various professionals, including an architect David Green, of modern housing practice Tayler & Green, who told Conran “New Brutalism isn’t really in these days. It doesn’t
reflect the public taste. I believe that the public now wants something pretty and cosy.” (1963, p. 12) This comment infers what the public want, suggestive of Hopkins (2017) idea that this tabloid would report the already existing opinions of the public to maintain an interest. Additionally, Conran further backs up her opinion with a quote from the editor of The AR, a fairly significant source who she titled the “ebullient
moustached editor of The Architectural Review”, who added the comment “‘New Brutalism’ is about to be old hat. In fact it’s probably dead
now having reached the normal point of obsolescence.” (unnamed, 31
1963). Nikolaus Pevsner and Reyner Banham were both editors for the AR at this point, along with others, such as Hugh Casson, so we can speculate as to who Conran may be quoting. For the readers of The
DM, the reference to The AR may validate the article, influencing opinions against Brutalism.
Figure 8: DM extract showing a negative view of Brutalism. ‘Frankly, do you think this is worth a prize?’ Conran, S. (1963), The Daily Mail, Iss. 20988, p. 12
32
This architectural movement seems comparable to that of a brief fashion trend, as it emerged, peaked, and went out of fashion briefly, being pushed out by a newer, more popular style. Postmodernism was a reaction to the rapid change seen in the 1960s, with technological advances, a baby boom, and increased employment which led to the increase in available spending money all contributing to an upbeat atmosphere. This architectural movement exhibited the reintroduction of ornamentation and colour, making the grey masses of Brutalism appear much less fashionable. First brought to life in America by Robert Venturi, Britain saw its first postmodern buildings, with a very different aesthetic to Brutalism, in the form of Terry Farrell & Partners’ Clifton Nurseries in the early 1980s, who later designed the more iconic SIS Building, completed in 1994. According to Franklin, (2017) the fall of postmodernism in Britain occurred towards the end of the 1980s, further showing the rapid nature of change in architectural trends. Figure 9: (left) Clifton Nursuries, London, by Farrell & Partners, 1988
Figure 10: The SIS Building, Farrell & Partners, 1994
33
Equally, The Guardian portrayed similar attitudes as The Daily Mail in an article about local council’s preservation of old buildings, which alluded to the worry that the new buildings will not be better than those they replace, highlighting a general lack of trust in architects. In the article, the secretary of the Ancient Monuments Society was quoted, stating “no
such assumption [of the new architecture that replaces the old] could be made today”, and that “‘The New Brutalism’ dominates the scene” (Bulmer-Thomas, 1965, p. 5), further highlighting the public’s concern for the future of their architecture. While The AR published monthly issues dedicated to newly completed Brutalism developments, August 1973 for the Barbican Estate and January 1977 for Lasdun’s National Theatre, this theme of mistrust between the public and the architect continued in the broadsheet press. Peter Lewis commented on Maxwell’s recently published book New British
Architecture, stating “Modern British architecture has now reached the point of no-confidence where there is a public outcry to save almost any old building from the developers” (1973, p. 7), later dismissing the Brutalist architecture on the South Bank. This suggests that the architectural press was slow to keep-up with the fast, changing nature of the public’s opinion; the time at which it takes to write and publish essays is slow compared to the instantaneous forming of a new opinion. Brutalism became popular briefly, but then quickly went out of fashion as attitudes changed and turned to the next new style, Postmodernism, then to a reformed Modernism in the 1990s. Contextually in Europe, a key article to note in The AR’s World section of May 1960, is the news of Corbusier’s Berlin-unité-type, his third of the Unité series, which despite the great influence of his first in Marseille being completed just eight years prior, was described as “no longer
a novelty” (p. 294). It did not attract much press, further highlighting 34
the brief lifespan of this style of architecture. In the 1980s, modernism began to dominate the headlines in the AR as Brutalism fell quickly out of fashion: examples include, Master of a Misunderstood Modernism (The AR, Buchanan, 1987) and The Crisis of Contemporary Culture:
Modernism and Postmodernism (The Guardian, Gott, 1986), highlighting the contrast in both types of press and the view that the public sometimes misunderstand an architectural style. Instead, there appeared to be an increased interest in the aesthetics of architecture, making Brutalism much less popular. Architectural criticism was coming from non-architectural professionals and making its way into the mainstream press, providing the alternative opinion to that of the architectural press. Prince Charles made his opinion of modern architecture clear during his speech at the 150th anniversary of RIBA in 1984, famously comparing the proposal for the National Gallery extension to “a monstrous carbun-
cle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend.” (1984). In addition to this he also stated his opinion that the demands of the public are not being prioritised when it comes to these proposals: “some planners
and architects have consistently ignored the feelings and wishes of the mass of ordinary people in this country.” It appears there is a grey area between what architects want, what the public want and what people say the public want, something that has been picked up on in the mainstream press, “For far too long architects have designed for other
architects.” (Lewis 1973, p. 7). The Prince’s speech stirred a reaction amongst architects and the public, as it “tapped into the public’s mis-
trust of architects and gave the uneducated masses licence to say what they thought.” (Parnell, 2017a, p. 9). The “uneducated masses” would be a reference to the lack of architectural education found in the general public as a whole, compared to the group of architectural professionals who write about this topic in the press. Therefore, opinions and attitudes will greatly differ between the two groups, with differing intentions. 35
Following this new voice of the public, a 1987 review by English writer Jeannette Kupfermann sub-titled her review in The Daily Mail “Prince
Charles had a point: Much modern British architecture is bleak, ugly and inhuman and weathers badly … and the public have precious little say in it either”, emphasising the distance between the two groups. Architectural criticisms were a feature of both architectural press and broadsheet newspapers, however there is a clear difference in tone between the two. In 1993, an article for The Guardian looked back on the 1960s and claimed that the worse thing to come out of this decade was the architecture, “relics of the decade, the buildings, became synonymous
with all that was worst about the period” (Sudjic, 1993, p. A7), claiming it made the architectural profession anxious, perhaps due to the criticism their aesthetically disputed architecture invited. The article made reference to the broadsheet press, highlighting that though it used to support architecture, there had since been a change in attitude that turned the press against it with this ability to criticise and give an honest opinion, “Newspapers which once praised architecture to the rooftops
started raffling chances to blow up troublesome teenaged high-rises” (Sudjic, 1993, p. A7). This focus on the aesthetic and liberation of the public voice made it a difficult period for the associated architects, due to the increased criticism they were receiving. Perhaps it was these factors among others that allowed for the movement to pass by so quickly; in a conversation, Peter Smithson argued that his “influence on architecture vanished with
an aspirin” (Smithson, cited by Vidotto, 1997, p. 19), highlighting the brief and fleeting nature of the movement in Britain. This statement from Smithson was also quoted when Vidotto’s book (originally in Spanish, published 1991) was advertised in The AR, and was described as “one 36
of Peter Smithton’s denigratory asides” (Hoffer, 1991, p. 12), suggesting that it was perhaps an unfair criticism of his own work. Hoffer disagreed with Smithson’s remark that his influence had vanished, arguing “It
of course hasn’t, at least not outside these shores” referring to within Britain, and also claimed that “[the architectural] profession is subject
to intolerable pressures spawned by personal preferences of influential persons”. There seemed to be a pressure for architects to please all individuals, who demand different things. Attitudes and opinions that we see written in the press can be considered personal, as opposed to representative of the masses, and these criticisms can be influential on those who read them.
37
Brutalism in the 21st Century Similarly to the main title quote, attitudes towards Brutalism in the 21st century could be described by the following quote from The Guardian,
“one generation’s eyesore is another’s delight” (Glancey, 2000b, p.8), realising that the trend comes full circle, coming back into fashion with increased attention in the architectural and broadsheet press. The idea Brutalist buildings are “eyesores” ties in with their novel qualities; in simply being different, or a novelty, the first period of a building’s existence may be more successful than after an extensive period, due to the novelty effect. Mallgrave (2013) researched the psychological connotations of this and argued humans would primarily favour novelty in subjects like buildings, due to the learning and stimulating effects on more parts of the brain, however routine or everyday viewing would lessen the novelty effect, resulting in a change in emotion towards the building. In the case of Brutalism, initial fascination with the structures would vary due to how frequently they were built, or how commonly they existed in the close proximity. Therefore, with the replacement of modern ‘glass-curtain’ architecture of the 21st century making Brutalist architecture a rarity, perhaps the style can be considered novel once again, thus increasing its’ popularity. The Brutalist architecture that survived demolition became the “delight” of a new generation, who stood up for the movement and decided to protect it. The introduction of the internet and social media platforms made it easier to share an opinion, and databases such as #SOSBRU-
TALISM were formed to campaign against demolition threats. A campaign for Dunelm House, the home for the University’s Students’ Union, began when the university announced plans to demolish the building, which they considered no longer appropriate for purpose due to technical problems with the wearing concrete and a leaking roof (Gair 39
et. al. n. d). As well as the structural faults in the concrete, weathering has further diminished the aesthetic appeal. The #SAVEDUNELMHOUSE website fought to save it with petitions and events, recognising the importance of this Brutalist building within the context where fewer remain locally, making it a novelty in the North East of England; the website also argued the concrete could be cleaned and a refurbishment would be cheaper than a rebuild (savedunelmhouse. com). Despite being widely acclaimed at the time of completion (Powers, 2017), the status of the building was still threatened years later. The campaign has been successful as of yet, however risk still remains, especially as the difficulty of refurbishing such a dense concrete building persists.
Figure 11: #SOSBRUTALISM webpage screenshot. Original photograph: Tisue. S
40
Figure 12: #SAVEDUNELMHOUSE webpage screenshot.
Conversely, campaigning can also go against Brutalism with the example of the Tricorn Centre, built in 1967, which was once compared to the likes of Hitler’s bunker in The Guardian (Glancey, 1997). Completed the same year as Dunelm House, and a year after Banham’s The New
Brutalism, the Tricorn Centre is an interesting example of British Brutalism, where poor maintenance was a significant contributor to the negative attitudes it received, in addition to the obvious uneasy aesthetic, which left it in a decaying state; The AJ published the news in 2001 that the building topped the survey for ‘most hated building’ in the UK, stating that architect Owen Luder blamed a lack of care for this title. This must have come as a shock for the architect whose building, according to The AJ “won a Civic Trust award for its ‘exciting visual composition’” (The AJ, 2001), again showing a drastic change in attitude over time. Either a fault with design, aesthetic or maintenance, the Tricorn Centre didn’t survive the backlash from press, public and authorities, and was demolished in 2004. Though the internet allowed for Brutalism to bounce back, Parnell (2017a) argued it caused the prioritisation of aesthetic approval over architectural theory, coming from the point of view of an architectural press writer who may have experienced the internet’s impact, whereby non-professionals can give their reviews. Attitudes may be confused when the architectural press, broadsheet newspapers and online social media platforms contradict and argue with each other, blurring the simplified opinions once seen in the press. When reviewing Brutalism in the 21st century, words such as ‘resur-
gence’ (fenner-elser.com, 2016) ‘revival’ (Heathcote, 2016) and ‘redux’ (Mould, 2016) are used to introduce the topic, which deem appropriate word choices as the movement underwent a fairly quiet period in the 41
press in the first part of this era; conveniently the coinciding dates of these three articles suggest the new wave of popularity for Brutalism occurred around the latter part of the 21st century. Starting in 2001, The Guardian released a column titled ‘Wonders and
Blunders’, where each week different people associated with the arts would publish their opinion on the best and worst architecture, only commenting on pure aesthetics. Again, these criticisms only really express the view of one individual, made clear through the use of the first person these articles are written in, for example British curator Norman Rosenthal who labelled the Barbican Estate a ‘Blunder’ saying, “I find it
very alienating, like a high-class version of a terrible post-war housing estate” (2002). Interestingly, another Brutalist building was put forward in 2005; The National Theatre was declared a ‘Wonder’ by Italian artist Franko B in 2005, a commonly disputed building which had previously divided opinions. The Guardian portrays the differing opinions towards The National Theatre by publishing articles for and against it, perhaps representing the divided attitude of the public. This building has experienced a high amount of press, criticism and opinions during its lifespan, which will also be examined in the next part of this dissertation, to show how the attitudes towards it in the press have changed. Tastes, trends, fashions, attitudes and opinions are never stagnant, constantly moving with the time and changing context, and a style can undergo a range of popularity; leading up to this ‘come-back’, a
Guardian article titled ‘Don’t knock brutalism’ (Rose, 2008), alluded to the increase in press associated with the movement and spoke of the changing nature of attitudes, stating bluntly “Tastes change”; furthermore, ‘knock’ is a reference to the threats of demolition for these buildings deemed ugly, which later are considered ‘on-trend’ once some time has passed and they are liked again. Additionally in The AR, Powers 42
refers to these alternating attitudes that bring new attention to a previously forgotten style like Brutalism, describing them as “changing tides
of taste” (2011, p. 78), which highlights the fluctuation and predictability of people’s opinions which ultimately come full circle. Therefore, it can be determined that the start of 21st century to date signified a time for Brutalism to be forgotten, which then allowed for its upheaval in the latter part of the era, when it sprung back into popularity again. In speculating the future of Brutalism, it is easy to forget how young the movement is, which makes it almost easier to wipe out due to a lack of deep-rooted history. Clement (2009) discussed this, claiming that it was born in a time of political and social turbulence which captured the atmosphere of the age and so should not be forgotten;
“It may not appeal to everyone and may not yet have the weight of antiquity behind it, but that does not mean … that it deserves less respect than more ancient styles” (Clement, 2009, p.273)
43
Chapter Five:
Figure 13: Own photograph of the National Theatre
Case Study - The National Theatre This section will introduce the chosen case study, the National Theatre, as it was introduced and addressed in The AR, AJ, Daily Mail and The
Guardian, to show how the attitudes towards it changed over time in these sources, and to observe how it sits within the timeline previously set out in this dissertation. This building has been chosen due to the high attention it has received in the press from construction through to present day, which became clear to me as I looked through the archives. The story of the building’s origins were not particularly clear in the press, described as “long and messy” (Calder, 2016, p. 328), with the interruption of the war postponing any plans; the Festival of Britain arrived in 1951 as a means to bring hope to the recovering nation, and in turn sparked a desire for new architecture amongst the government, architects and the public. Calder (2016) laid out the history of the planning, which was affected by the turbulence of politics, the passing of the 1949 National Theatre Bill (which argued for the construction of housing as a priority over a theatre in the rebuild of Britain) and insufficient funding. A March 1961 DM article announced, “National theatre plan out,
but aid for other”, (DM Parliamentary Correspondent, p.11) which said funding was being focused on already standing theatres, for example the Old Vic, Waterloo, London.
The AJ and The DM announced in 1963 that the architect for the National Theatre was to be chosen through competition-style, by a committee of stage directors and members of the NT board. Later that year Denys Lasdun was appointed as the architect, to the shock of himself and the architectural profession (Greville, 1963), however The AR pre-
45
sented the news with a sense of reassurance, claiming Lasdun was a worthy selection due to his ability to be straightforward and unique with his designs (AR, Marginalia, 1964). The following years included the slow release of preliminary models, conversation and criticisms on site location (and ultimately a change in original site driven by Lasdun) and complaints at the cost. Meanwhile, the Hayward Gallery of the Southbank Centre, a neighbouring Brutalist building, had been receiving negative press in the same year it was completed, 1968. A DM article harshly critiqued the aesthetic, giving the reason that the style was a “passing architectural
fad” (Lewis, 1968, p.6). Lewis later pleads for more delicate architecture made of glass and steel and placed his aspirations in Lasdun’s National Theatre. The delays endured by the National Theatre were significant as they contributed to the expiration (as a trend) of the building before construction had begun; equally, the speed at which the movement passed was another factor, admittedly not giving Lasdun much hope of a positively received building on completion.
The AJ and AR, excitedly anticipating the completion of such a debated building, were fast to review the National Theatre when completed in 1976. The AR released a whole issue dedicated to Lasdun’s masterpiece (the only time this had happened previously was for the Royal Festival Hall in 1952) and though it largely focused on realising its impressive architectural qualities, one article admitted that it was common of public buildings to be “stylistically out of fashion by the time they are
finished” (Girouard, 1977, p.7), due to the time taken to complete. Girouard concluded by giving examples of once disliked now well-regarded buildings such as St.Paul’s Cathedral, arguing it often takes considerable time for these buildings to be appreciated. 46
Figure 14: The AR front cover, Jan, 1977
47
Furthermore, Calder (2016) agreed with this idea that the NT was introduced too late to be popular, describing the long build-up of its planning and construction as “an epic gestation” (p. 319), again highlighting the excessive and unfortunate length it took to come into realisation, which ultimately out-dated it. The architectural press (The AJ, AR) presented themselves in favour of the theatre, encouraging readers, or specifically
“anyone interested in the architecture of today” (AJ, 1977, p. 72) to visit. To read these criticisms from the architectural press, one might presume the National Theatre is a good example of current architecture, a view that strongly conflicts with the opinions seen in the broadsheet press. Parnell argues that criticism in the architectural press provide informed reports of architecture to the public so they can make educated opinions of them and realise the difference between architecture of good or poor quality (2017a). The purpose of The AR issue was to promote the buildings’ positives, as well as addressing the negatives laid out by critics of the building, which largely focused on its materiality, external form and aesthetics. In addition to publishing their own criticisms, The AJ promoted The AR’s special issue in 1977 with a short column, in which included words from an unnamed critic who asked “Is the concrete
exterior grey and monotonous in the sunshine; wet and depressing in the rain?”(1977, p. 72); it is interesting the architectural press include such negative comments as they stand as the advocates for the National Theatre, however perhaps the strategy was to publicly address the obvious, most common critiques, with the intentions of educating people of the architectural intent, as Parnell argued (above). Unfortunately for Lasdun, the opinion of the masses was not favourable towards his National Theatre, “one of the most prominent hate-objects in Britain” (Calder, 2016, p. 319). As initial hubbub around the theatre died down, throwaway criticisms 48
Figure 15: Own photograph of the National Theatre
were continuously being made by broadsheet press, further labelling the architecture negatively for the eyes of the general public to see; even away from the architectural columns the National Theatre was
bad-mouthed, for example in a television review where it was branded a
“truly hideous mass” (Paterson, 1992, p. 32). The strong, public dislike encouraged a need for a re-model, and architects Stanton Williams put forward plans in 1994, which were quickly shot down by the architect; Lasdun, and director of the NT Richard Eyre were very protective of the building, and the pair had been compared to “dragons” (Jenkins, cited in Pearman, 2015). Frustrated, members of the public demanded for change to the building, as evident in a letter published in The AJ 1994, which made the dislike for the building clear, stating the NT is “loathed
by its users, has been ridiculed by the public, and lacks an appropriate and legible identity, let alone a front door” (Chatwin, 1994, p. 17). It therefore appears that the dislike was not only aesthetic but functional too, and perhaps a speedy compromise from Lasdun and the public 49
would have helped turn attitudes in favour of the NT. There appeared to be a great disconnect between architect and public, increasing the conflict in opinions. Calder documented an exchange during the design process between Lasdun and Laurence Olivier, client and first director of the NT, whereby the question of acoustics was raised, and Lasdun deferred the query claiming any additional materials would detract from his architectural intent and decided to leave the client (and public) out of further architectural discussion. Calder empathised with Lasdon’s decisions, arguing his design intentions were not purely his own preference, but his considerate interpretation of his clients. In doing this, Calder argues the building perhaps became difficult to understand by the majority, especially with the changing fashions of the decade, and the exclusivity felt by the public caused them to refer to the building with their own language, observing the aesthetics as “ugly, oppressive” (Calder, 2016, pp. 324, 325). Stanton Williams made the first major alterations in 1997, which was followed closely by The AJ who updated readers frequently in the
News and Letters telling of Lasdun’s upset, supportive funding plans by the Arts Council, and multiple criticisms of the refurbishment (for and against) once completed. One mutually discussed idea across the publications was of English Heritage’s (EH) decision to give Grade II listed status to the theatre. The AJ’s Grainger (1994) headlined the article stating the decision “wont stop changes” swiftly informing readers this step won’t interfere with current plans, quoting Lasdun who compared to the listing to the suspension of a death sentence. Meanwhile, the Guardian discussed the EH decision in more depth; Sudjic (1994) commented on the change in attitude from ten years ago when this decision would have been viewed as comical, but how now the building is worthy of appreciation due to the architectural qualities it displays. Here, The AJ focuses 50
on providing information on the architectural impact of the remodelling, whereas The Guardian addresses previous and current social views associated with the building; readers of The Guardian may also acknowledge a change in attitude and be able to relate to these views, past and present, altering their own opinion of the NT. Moving into the 21st century, a shift in attitudes towards the NT in broadsheet newspapers was noticeable, possibly with personal opinion of journalists outweighing any accurate representation of the public, however this aligns with patterns seen in the main timeline that the style was starting to come back into fashion around this time. A headline in
The Guardian read ‘Concrete facts: Why brutalism is back’ (Glancey, 2000a, p. 4) where Glancey argued weathering was a reason for the comeback, as it softened the harsh concrete and minimised the original impact, perhaps also aligning with the novelty effect. Equally, in a DM Saturday Essay titled ‘What’s your view?’ Strong (2002) claimed one of the best things about the NT was that it was hidden out of view but followed that with his own opinion that the view from the NT was one of the best in London. While opinions remained divided, there was an increase in positive attitudes evident in the broadsheet press, more so than in previous years. The style appeared to polarise attitudes, some were in favour, yet some wanted it gone, as seen in The Guardian with the headline ‘Why we really should demolish the National Theatre’ (Field, 2010). In 2015, Haworth Tompkins completed their £80 million refurbishment, commented on by The Guardian’s Moore who argued it looked “better
than ever” (2015); perhaps this view to demolish the National Theatre subsided once the refurbishment had taken place. The architects acknowledged the building had a new audience in a new context, but 51
retained the original concept of openness, successfully adapting the building to fit in with 21st century life (Frearson, 2015). Calder stated, “These decades of recrimination are ending” (2016, p. 18), going on to determine that the 21st Century showed a comeback for the style, in both its increased attention and acceptance. Described as a “smoulderer rather than a fizzer” (Girouard, cited in Calder, 2016, p. 329), the National Theatre received a range of criticisms and opinions in the architectural press and broadsheet/tabloid newspapers; when placing it within the timeline of attitudes towards Brutalism, the theatre completed during the fall of Brutalism, and therefore the response from the broadsheet press was not particularly favourable, writing on behalf of the public who had become less interested in the style since it first emerged twenty years prior. Girouard comparing its popularity to a slow burn is accurate, as it took until the 21st century to gain significant appreciation from the broadsheet and tabloid press. The architectural press, coming from an educational standpoint, appreciated the architectural qualities, and constructively critiqued the building, whereas the newspaper articles could slate its aesthetics. The high volume of debate attached to the NT makes it a truly significant building in British architecture and shows how veneration is often achieved once a style has come back into fashion again. Calder (2016) addressed this notion that the once hated NT will continue to increase in popularity, just like others have done previously, giving the example of the Houses of Parliament; buildings that can withstand the strong force of both public and architectural criticisms, even potential demolition threats, often stand today as gems in our British cityscapes.
52
Figure 16: Own photograph of the National Theatre - refurbished interiors
Figure 17: Own photograph of the National Theatre - refurbished interiors
Figure 18: Own photograph of the National Theatre - refurbished interiors
Speculation on the future of Brutalism My research has shown that a key reason for Brutalism’s fall was due to a delay in the architecture reacting to the attitudes of its users. Since the 1950s to the present day, the rate of change in our society has increased drastically, leading to equally fast-paced changes in our opinions, demands and needs. In an interview, architect, theorist and professor Rem Koolhaas argued, “Architecture is a profession that takes
an enormous amount of time…and that speed is really too slow for the revolutions that are taking place” (cited by Budds, 2016), an idea that can be applied to the example of the National Theatre, which due to the fast changing context of Britain during concept to completion left the building out-dated as soon as the doors first opened. Undoubtedly, construction methods have improved in recent years (Staton, 2019), but as Koolhaas suggested, the future of architecture needs to be almost as immediate as the instant world around it to avoid another case of Brutalism. The eventual English Heritage listing of key post-war buildings (Walker, 2013) including the National Theatre, came at an important time in the timeline in 1994, considerably before its resurgence seen in the latter part of the 21st century, which without could have resulted in demolition. Koolhaas (2016) also highlights the importance of preservation in a profession that has roots back to the start of civilisation; without this protection of our history, strong opinions of one decade may cause the wiping out of their own existence before any reflection has occurred. Additionally, the adaptability of such structures is a key part of their survival, fitting the changing demands and needs of the public as seen in the NT refurbishments. However, issues such as the architectural tectonics of a concrete structure exposed externally and internally pose problems with structural reconfiguration and insulating difficulties, ultimately making Brutalist buildings difficult to adapt. However, in the
57
more recent years, global issues concerning the climate have made a crucial argument for the preservation of this movement; Brutalist advocate and architect Chris Grimley argued demolition is extremely wasteful due to the embodied energy involved in the process and in the existing building, stating, “the greenest structure is the one that’s already there” (Grimley, cited by Mathew, 2018). With the nature of changing trends, or “changing tides of taste” (Powers, 2011, p. 78), leads to the speculation that the current architecture of the 21st Century, for example The Shard, Leadenhall Building and 20 Fenchurch Street, one wonders how attitudes towards this type of architecture may vary in the future, and what that will mean for its existence in our timeline of British architecture. For Brutalism, I predict the popularity in the architectural and broadsheet press will only increase, as it becomes more rare, unique and novel in the context of the surroundings. Word count: 8,717
58
Figure 19: Own photograph of the National Theatre showing cityscape
59
List of Figures
Fig. 1: Villa Savoye by Le Corbusier, showing Modernist qualities of minimalism and geometric forms. Lenmak, 2017, ‘THE EVOLUTION OF MODERNISM IN ARCHITECTURE AND ITS IMPACT ON THE 21ST CENTURY’. Available at: https://www.lenmak.com/evolution-modernism-architecture/ [Accessed: 13 Jan 2020] Fig. 2: Own photograph of The National Theatre, showing the comparable characteristics of Brutalism Fig. 3: Unité d’Habitation, Marseilles. Flickr User: Vincent Desjardins. Available at: https:// www.archdaily.com/85971/ad-classics-unite-d-habitation-le-corbusier/5037e7ed28ba0d599b0003b6-ad-classics-unite-d-habitation-le-corbusier-photo Figure 4: Hunstanton School as it appeared in The AR, 1954, ‘SCHOOL AT HUNSTANTON NORFOLK’, The Architectural Review; London Vol. 116, Iss. 693, (Sep 1, 1954): pp.149-151.
Figure 5: Marginalia, ‘School at Hunstanton’, Beresford, P. (1954), showing the view it is “unfriendly”, ‘School at Hunstanton’, The Architectural Review; London Vol. 116, Iss. 695, (Nov 1, 1954): p. 282. Figure 6: The Tricorn Centre, Owen Luder, 1966. Available at: https://www.retrowow.co.uk/architecture/60s/tricorn/reflections.html [Accessed: 13 Jan 2020] Figure 7: A collage showing extracts from The AR; the title from Banham’s essay, 1955, The New Brutalism (book) advertised in March 1967, followed by Boyd’s essay signalling the ‘death’ of Brutalism in July, 1967. The Architectural Review; Vol. 118, Iss. 708, (Dec 1, 1955): pp. 354-361. Vol. 141, Iss. 841, (Mar 1, 1967): p. a8. Vol. 142, Iss. 845, (Jul 1, 1967): p. 69 Figure 8: DM extract showing negative view of Brutalism. ‘Frankly, do you think this is worth a prize?’ Conran, S. (1963), The Daily Mail, Iss. 20988, p. 12 Figure 9: (left) Clifton Nursuries, London, by Farrell & Partners, 1988. Available at: https://www. dezeen.com/2015/08/05/charles-holland-lost-relics-postmodernism-architecture-design/ [Accessed: 13 Jan 2020] Figure 10: The SIS Building, Farrell & Partners, 1994. Available at: https://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/england/london/articles/take-a-tour-of-londons-most-iconic-postmodernbuildings/ [Accessed: 13 Jan 2020] Figure 11: #SOSBRUTALISM webpage screenshot. Original photograph: Tisue. S. Available at: http://www.sosbrutalism.org/cms/15802395#_ [Accessed: 13 Jan 2020] Figure 12: #SAVEDUNELMHOUSE webpage screenshot. Available at: https://savedunelmhouse. com/ [Accessed: 14 Jan 2020] Figure 13: Own photograph of The National Theatre Figure 14: The Architectural Review. (1977) Front Cover. January, 1977, Vol. 161, Iss. 959. Photo found at: https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Architectural-Review-Magazine-January-1977-959/13080165991/bd [Accessed: 14 Jan 2020] Figure 15 - 19: Own photographs from visit to NT
60
Reference List
Anonymous. (2014) ‘Brutality Bites’, The Weekly Standard, Washington, Vol. 19, Iss. 25, p. 2. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1506141680?accountid=12753 [Accessed: 10 Jan. 2020] Banham, R. (1955) The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic? [Essay], p. 20 Banham, R. (1966) The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic? 1st edn. London: Architectural Press, p. 21 Beresford, P. (1954) ‘Marginalia’, The Architectural Review, London Vol. 116, Iss. 695 (Nov 1, 1954), p. 282. Boyd, R. (1967) ‘The Sad End of New Brutalism’, The Architectural Review, London Vol. 142, Iss. 845, (Jul 1, 1967). Pp. a8, a9, a10, a11. Buchanan, P. (1987) ‘Master of a misunderstood Modernism’, The Architectural Review, Vol. 181, Iss. 1079, (Jan 1, 1987), pp. 18-20 Budds, D. (2016) Rem Koolhaas: “Architecture Has A Serious Problem Today”, Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/3060135/rem-koolhaas-architecture-has-a-serious-problem-today [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Bulmer-Thomas, I. (1965) ‘Local council work ‘as way to save buildings’’. The Guardian, 14 Jun. 1965, p. 5. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/hnpguardianobserver/docview/185075649/ A5646DD0F2B445DBPQ/8?accountid=12753 Calder, B. (2016) Raw Concrete: The Beauty of Brutalism. 1st edn. London: William Heinemann. pp. 14, 17, 18, 257 - 329. Chatwin, J. (1994) ‘Letters: National Theatre should be changed’, The Architects’ Journal, 21 Dec. 1994, p. 17 Clement, A. (2009) Brutalism: Post-War British Architecture. 1st edn. Malborough: The Crowood Press. pp. 8, 271 - 273 Conran, S. (1963) ‘Frankly, do you think this is worth a Prize?’ The Daily Mail, London, Iss. 20988, 18 Oct. 1963: p. 12. Croft, C. (2004). Concrete Architecture. 1st ed. London: Laurence Kind Publishing. pp. 20 DM Parliamentary Correspondent, p.11 (1961) ‘National Theatre plan out, but aid for other.’ The Daily Mail, Issue 20189, p.11 Fenner-esler.com. (2016). Architecture: The Resurgence of Brutalism in the 21st Century, Fenner-Esler. [online] Available at: https://www.fenner-esler.com/blog/architecture-the-resurgence-of-brutalism-in-the-21st-century/ [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019]. Field, A. (2010) ‘Why we really should demolish the National Theatre’, The Guardian , 3 Feb. 2010. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2010/feb/03/national-theatre-building-demolish Fourwalls. (2019) ‘The Rise of British Brutalism’. Fourwalls. Available at: https://www.four-
61
walls-group.com/the-rise-of-british-brutalism/ [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Franklin, G. (2017) ‘Post-Modern Architecture: Introduction to Heritage Assets’. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/iha-post-modern-architecture/ heag186-post-modern-architecture-iha/ [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Frearson, A. (2014) Brutalist buildings: Unité d’Habitation, Marseille by Le Corbusier. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2014/09/15/le-corbusier-unite-d-habitation-cite-radieuse-marseille-brutalist-architecture/ [Accessed: 29 Oct. 2019] Frearson, A. (2015) Haworth Tompkins completes renovation of Denys Lasdun’s National Theatre. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2015/05/15/haworth-tompkins-denys-lasdun-national-theatre-london-renovation-production-centre-cafe-bar-education-centre-auditorium/ [Accessed: 14 Jan 2020] Gair, et. al. (n. d) The Charrette. Save Dunelm House. Available at: https://savedunelmhouse. com/charrette [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Gaspar, C. (2018) ‘Campaign to save Dunelm House from demolition exceeds fundraising target’. Palatinate. Available at: https://www.palatinate.org.uk/campaign-save-dunelm-house-demolition-exceeds-fundraising-target/ [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Girouard, M. (1977) ‘Cosmic Connections’, The Architectual Review, Vol. 161, Iss. 959, (1 Jan. 1977), pp. 1- 7 Glancey, J. (1997) ‘Mein Kampf in concrete’. The Guardian, 08 Nov. 1997, p. B65. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/hnpguardianobserver/docview/187980131/2D6142C22C274044PQ/8?accountid=12753 [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Glancey, J. (2000a) ‘Concrete facts: Why Brutalism is back.’ The Guardian, 18 Feb 2000, p. 4. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/hnpguardianobserver/docview/188496000/DFDE095973074302PQ/1?accountid=12753 [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Glancey, J. (2000b) ‘Doubtful delights.’ The Guardian, 27 November 2000, p. 8. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/hnpguardianobserver/docview/188598003/F543CAA7F89D402DPQ/1?accountid=12753 [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Gott, R. (1986) ‘The Crisis of Contemporary Culture: Modernism and Post Modernism’, The Guardian, 01 Dec 1986, p. 10. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/hnpguardianobserver/ docview/186719220/1E753BD1FDBC49FFPQ/1?accountid=12753 [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Grainger, C. (1994) ‘Digest: National Theatre listing “wont stop changes’, The Architects’ Journal, 29 Jun. 1994, p. 6 Greville, C. (1963) ‘And an Architect who Will Design the National Theatre.” The Daily Mail, Issue 21019, p. 4 Heathcote, E. (2016) ‘The revival of Brutalism’, The Financial Times. 6 May 2016. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/9df4d364-110f-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173 [Accessed: 12 Nov. 2019] Hoffer, P. (1991) ‘Books: Heroic Smithsons’, The Architectural Review, Vol. 189, Iss. 1134, August 1991, p12 Hopkins, D. et al., (2017) ‘Does newspaper coverage influence or reflect public perceptions of the economy?’, Sage Journals, October-December 2017. pp. 1,2. doi: 10.1177/2053168017737900
62
Hyde, T. (2019) ‘Ugliness and Judgment: On Architecture in the Public Eye’. Princeton University Press. pp. 1 – 13. Available at: https://doi-org.libproxy.ncl.ac.uk/10.1515/9780691192642 Johnson, P. (1954) ‘SCHOOL AT HUNSTANTON: comment by Philip Johnson as an American follower of Mies van der Rohe’, The Architectural Review, London Vol. 116, Iss. 693, (Sep 1, 1954): pp. 148, 152-162. Kennedy, P. (2003) ‘Constructed 1902. Unique.’ The Guardian (online). Available at: https://www. theguardian.com/artanddesign/2003/dec/06/architecture.art Koolhaas, R. (2016) Interview: ‘Closing keynote for the 2016 AIA convention’. Interviewed by Mohsen Mostafavi. AIA Convention, May 2016. Available at: https://www.fastcompany. com/3060135/rem-koolhaas-architecture-has-a-serious-problem-today [Accessed: 9 Jan 2020] Lawcris. (n. d.) ‘Brutalism: The Rise & Fall’. Lawcris. Available at: https://www.lawcris.co.uk/brutalism-the-rise-fall [Accessed: 8 Jan 2020] Lewis, P. (1968) ‘What a Bloomer!’, The Daily Mail (London England), 22 Jul. 1968, Iss. 22463, p. 6 Lewis, P. (1973) ‘BOOKS: Peter Lewis on what’s known as ‘Brutalism’”, The Daily Mail (London, England), Thursday, 15 Feb. 1973, Iss. 23866, p. 7 Lundberg, G. (1926) ‘Social Forces: The Newspaper and Public Opinion’, JSTOR. Vol. 4, No. 4 (June), pp. 709-715. Doi: 10.2307/3004449 Mallgrave, H. (2013) Architecture and Embodiment: The Implications of the New Sciences and Humanities for Design. 1st edn. London: Routledge. Mathew, T. (2018) Dead Brutalist Buildings. Available at: https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/04/dead-brutalist-buildings/558284/ [Accessed: 10 Jan 2020] Mitchell, N. (2016) A Brief History of Brutalism. Available at: https://www.apartmenttherapy. com/a-brief-history-of-brutalism-237571 [Accessed: 10 Jan 2020] Moore, R. (2015) ‘National Theatre makeover: big round of applause for Haworth Tompkins’, The Guardian, 5 Apr. 2015. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/apr/05/national-theatre-makeover-haworth-tompkins-review-decluttered-beautiful Mould, O. (2016) ‘Brutalism Redux: Relational Monumentality and the Urban Politics of Brutalist Architecture’, ANTIPODE, Volume 49, Issue 3, 2017, pg. 701- 720 Murray, J. (2003) ’n. novelty’. The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK. 3rd edn. The Architects’ Journal. (1996) ‘News: Lottery money for National Theatre’, The Architects’ Journal, Vol. 203, (25 Apr, 1996), p.15. The Architects’ Journal. (1997) ‘The National Theatre in the AR’, The Architect’s Journal, Vol. 165, Iss. 2, (12 Jan, 1977), p. 72. The Architects’ Journal. (2001) ‘Luder’s Tricorn Centre tops ‘most hated building’ survey’, The Architect’s Journal, Vol. 214, (20 Aug. 2001), p. 5 The Architectural Review. (1960) ‘Berlin Unité’. The Architectural Review, Vol. 127, Iss. 759, (1 May. 1960), p. 294
63
The Architectural Review. (1964) ‘Views and Reviews: Marginalia: National Theatre Architect”, The Architectural Review, Vol. 135, Iss. 803, (1 Jan. 1964), p. 5. The Architectural Review. (1966) ‘Architectural Press Books’, The Architectural Review, December, p. 86 The Architectural Review. (1977) January, 1977, Vol. 161, Iss. 959. Parnell, S. (2017a) ‘Post-truth architecture.’ The Architectural Review, Volume 1437, January 2017, pp. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Parnell, S. (2017b) ‘The Brutal Myth’. ResearchGate, August 2017, pp. 1 – 6. doi:10.1162/ THLD_a_00014 Parnell, S. (2011) ‘Ethics and Aesthetics in Architectural Design’. FIELD 2011, (3), pp. 49-54. Paterson, P. (1992) ‘Poor demolition job on Wren’, The Daily Mail, Issue 29727. p. 32 Pearman, H. (2015) The Riba Journal. Available at: https://www.ribaj.com/buildings/and-now-theencore [Accessed: 23 Nov. 2019] Pevsner, N. (1966) ‘Brutalism’, The Guardian, 09 Dec 1966, p. 7 Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/185167102?accountid=12753 [Accessed: 10 Jan. 2020] Powers, A. (2011) ‘IN A RIPOSTE TO NEW BRUTALISM’S REVOLT AGAINST THE FESTIVAL, ALAN POWERS PUTS THE CASE FOR ITS CONTEMPORARY VALUES’, The Architectural Review, Vol. 1373, July 2011, p. 78 Powers, A. (2017) Dunelm House, Durham. Available at: https://c20society.org.uk/botm/dunelm-house-durham/ [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Prince of Wales (HRH). (1984) ‘Royal Gala Evening: 150th Anniversity of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) at Hampton Court (Speech). Available at: https://www.princeofwales. gov.uk/speech/speech-hrh-prince-wales-150th-anniversary-royal-institute-british-architects-riba-royal-gala [Accessed: 11 Jan. 2020] RIBA. Modernism. Available at: https://www.architecture.com/explore-architecture/modernism [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] RIBA. Brutalism. Available at: https://www.architecture.com/explore-architecture/brutalism [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Rose, S (2008) ‘Don’t knock brutalism’, The Guardian (online), 26 Jun. 2008. Available at: https:// www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/artblog/2008/jun/26/dontknockbrutalism [Accessed: 9 Jan 2020] Rosenthal, N. (2002) ‘Wonders and blunders’, The Guardian (online). 18 Feb 2002. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2002/feb/18/architecture.artsfeatures [Accessed: 15 Jan 2020] Rowe, H. (2011) ‘The Rise and Fall of Modernist Architecture’. Inquiries Journal. Vol. 3 No.04, pg. 1/1. Available at: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1687/the-rise-and-fall-of-modernist-architecture [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Smithson, A & P. (1966) ‘Review: Banham’s bumper book on brutalism, discussed by Alison and
64
Peter Smithson’, The Architect’s Journal, Volume. 144 Issue 26, December, p. 1590 Smithson, A & P. (1955) ‘The New Brutalism.’ The Architectural Design, Jan. 1955 Staton, B. (2019) What is the future of architecture as a profession? Available at: https://www. bdcnetwork.com/blog/what-future-architecture-profession [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Stott, R. (2019) ‘Spotlight: Le Corbusier’. ArchDaily. Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/434972/happy-birthday-le-corbusier-2/> ISSN 0719-8884 [Accessed: 7 Jan. 2020] Strong, R. (2002) ‘What’s your view?’, The Daily Mail, 27 Jul. 2002, Iss. 33010, pp. 12 - 13 Sudjic, D. (1993) ‘Build a better bunker: architecture’ The Guardian, 18 March 1993, p. A7 Sudjic, D. (1994) ‘Arrested development: Should the National Theatre, brutalism’s Venus de Milo, be allowed to age gracefully or does it need re-modelling?’ The Guardian, 28 June 1994, p. A4. Vidotto, M. (1997) ‘Alison + Peter Smithson. Works and Projects.’ 1st edn., (4th print run, 2009). Barcelona, Editorial Gustavo Gili, SL Voices of East Anglia. (n. d.) ‘The Rise and Fall of Brutalist Architecture’. Voices of East Anglia. Available at: http://www.voicesofeastanglia.com/2011/08/the-rise-and-fall-of-brutalist-architecture.html [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Walker, P. (2013) UK’s brutalist architecture celebrated as four postwar buildings get listed status. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/sep/20/brutalist-architecture-postwar-buildings-listed [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Walker, I. (2018) From Brutalism to Blair: How Britain rebuilt after war. Available at: https://www. theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/brutalism-to-blair-rebuild-after-world-war-1-5674128 [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] Watson, K. (2017) The 1960s: The Decade that Shook Britain. Available at: https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/The-1960s-The-Decade-that-Shook-Britain/ [Accessed 8 Jan. 2020] 20 Bedford Way. (n.d.) ‘Brutalism: Everything You Wanted to Know But Were Afraid to Ask’. 20 Bedford Way. Available at: https://20bedfordway.com/news/guide-to-brutalist-architecture-london/ [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020] #Save Dunelm House. Available at: https://savedunelmhouse.com [Accessed: 9 Jan. 2020]
65