SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OF BRITISH BRUTALISM: INVESTIGATING THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE OF POSTWAR ARCHITECTURE IN BRITAIN
AR597 Dissertation Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi Kent School of Architecture University of Kent Submission date: 16/02/2017 Supervisor: Dr Gerry Adler Word Count: 8,744
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my supervisor Gerry Adler for all his guidance in my research throughout this project. I would also like to thank my parents, siblings and peers for their constant support and words of encouragement.
1
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
ABSTRACT
The Brutalist movement was born in the hands of Le Corbusier when he built his Marseille UnitÊ D’habitation in bÊton brut after the Second World War. Soon after, in Britain, young architects looking for new theories and ways to rebuild post-war Britain into a new age looked to modernists such as Le Corbusier and soon the New Brutalism movement was flourishing, with Alison and Peter Smithson at the forefront. Brutalism was seen in most building typologies over the years as it was developing throughout the Sixties; in new towns, housing estates, public cultural buildings, commercial developments, churches, rebuilt war damaged sites, and new university campuses. With increased technologies of mass production and widespread use of concrete, the material was pushed to limits and used in a large variety of forms during this time, playing with its texture, finishes, and various tones which weathered in the British climate over time. The buildings avoided decoration, and instead the functions were poetically displayed, sometimes interpreted as ornament. Not every example of this architectural movement was successful. The rush to rehouse the masses after the war led to poorly maintained and sometimes poorly built housing estates, many of which had to be demolished, for example the Ronan Point tower block (1968). Some of the buildings, many of which are seen as iconic examples in theorising the movement, such as the Robin Hood Gardens estate (1966-72 are still standing today but under the threat of being demolished and replaced with new developments. A number of buildings in this movement are thriving to this day and many are listed as historically significant, namely the Alexandra Road Estate. Much of this is owed to good maintenance, refurbishments, as well as gentrification of council housing. Despite growing criticisms in the 1980s towards the architecture built in this time period, and debates amongst members of the public and professionals, many more people are beginning to see beyond the grey facades and appreciating the existence of brutalist buildings as pieces of history within the skylines of cities and towns as buildings with important stories to tell, just as much as any other building from older ages.
2
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
CHAPTER 1
4
Introduction 1. The Beginning 2. The Spread 3. Responses and Criticisms
4 5 8 11
CHAPTER 2
14
The Dead 1. Destroyed post-war housing: Ronan Point, London, 1968 2. Destroyed post-war public building: Tricorn Centre, Portsmouth, 1966-2004
14 14 16
CHAPTER 3
20
In Limbo 20 1. Post-war housing on the verge of demolition: Robin Hood Gardens, London, 1966-72 20 2. Post-war public building in a state of uncertainty: Dunelm House, Durham University, 1965 25 CHAPTER 4
27
The Living 1. Surviving post-war housing: Alexandra Road Estate, London, 1972-78 2. Surviving post-war megastructure: Barbican Estate, London, 1963-82
27 27 29
CHAPTER 5
32
Conclusion 1. The future
32 32
BIBLIOGRAPHY Literature Web Audio-visual
34 34 35 36
ILUSTRATION CREDITS
38
3
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
CHAPTER 1 Introduction The end of World War II (1945) and the destruction of many buildings brought about a wave of changes in the design and concepts of new architecture throughout Europe and Britain. The early 1950s design of Le Corbusier’s Unité D’habitation became known for the extensive use of raw concrete, described by Le Corbusier as ‘Béton brut’. This was the origin of the term Brutalism, as popularised in Britain by historian Reyner Banham in his 1966 book The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?. This dissertation will explore the origins of the Brutalist movement, in particular the earliest examples, being Le Corbusier’s Unité D’habitation, and afterwards, the influence of this on the earliest British examples of the movement, and the key architects involved with importing the ideas into Britain, in particular Alison and Peter Smithson. After a brief exploration of the most popular criticisms and praises towards the movement over the years, with the most famous critic being Prince Charles, there will be a study into his reasoning as expressed through the 1989 book A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture. Afterwards there will be a study into examples of both housing and public buildings; those which are destroyed or demolished, buildings which are in a state of limbo and on the verge of being demolished, after failed attempts to achieve listed status, and finally, postwar buildings which have survived today and either reached listed status or simply secured their existence through social contexts like gentrification or regeneration. The dissertation aims to conclude with a summary of the case studies and the lessons learnt, whether through the physical existence of such buildings, or the survival of their original ideas and concepts as influencers of contemporary architecture.
4
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
1. The Beginning The Swiss-French modernist pioneer Le Corbusier built his first Unité D’habitation in the city of Marseilles between 1946 and 1952, approximately after a decade of no realised projects. He named the Marseilles building after his Cité Radieuse (The Radiant City) and loosely based this new, post-war housing project on some of his older theories from before the war, for example utilising the Modulor system of human scale, resting a building on pilotis so that the ground can be used for circulation, greenery and traffic, or using the roof as if it were a new ground level. Although, in this case, the pilotis were bulkier than usual, and attenuated in form, which was sculpturally echoed again in the body of the ventilation chimneys on the roof. It was built as ‘the first manifestation of an environment suited to modern life’, according to his address to M. Claudius Petit, Minister of Reconstruction and Town Planning in 1952, and it embodied elements of Le Corbusier’s idea that the house is a ‘machine for living in’, although this time it was aimed for a community of around 1,800 people.1 This number was believed by Le Corbusier to be an ideal population for a ‘mini-society’, which had been proposed earlier on by Charles Fourier in the nineteenth century, in his Phalanstry building idea of a self-contained, selfsustaining, Utopian community.2 The Marseilles Unité is comprised of 18 storeys containing 23 dwelling types and all amenities lined along interior streets and some placed on the roof; shopping centre, laundrette, pharmacy, barbershop, post office, hotel, restaurant, nursery with roof garden and swimming pool, gymnasium, sprinting track, solarium and snack bar. Le Corbusier intended for this design to contain all its own facilities and for all the units to be standardised and factory made despite the slight variances in apartment type. All these units were to fit into the main concrete frame of the building as a bottle would inside a rack. The section of each apartment has a double height space, a terrace, and is interlocked with the opposite apartment over three equal floors, separated by the central corridor from which the apartments can be accessed. The housing units of standard size were a prototype from which he designed several other Unités around France and later on in Berlin, Germany (Figure 1).
1
“Unité D’habitation.” Le Corbusier Foundation, accessed 7 December 2016, http://www.fondationlecorbusier.fr/corbuweb/morpheus.aspx?sysId=13&IrisObjectId=5234&sysLa nguage=en-en&itemPos=45&itemCount=79&sysParentName=&sysParentId=64 2 William J. R. Curtis, Modern Architecture since 1900. 3rd ed. (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1996) 441
5
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
Figure 1 Berlin's Unité D'habitation, 1957
According to Adrian Forty in his 2012 book Concrete and Culture, Le Corbusier and his engineer Vladimir Bodiansky ended up using more concrete than originally intended for the Unité, as there were post-war shortages of steel.3 The substitute material for the construction was reinforced concrete which eventually served to Le Corbusier’s advantage in theorising it as a material which was neither new nor outdated, and closer in range to more natural materials like stone or wood, as opposed to being synthetic and ‘modern’; which was the general view on the material before the 1950s4. Barnabas Calder, in his 2016 book Raw Concrete, talks of Le Corbusier’s rejection of his earlier styles after the war: Le Corbusier rebelled against his own Cubism of the 1940s and ‘50s, turning to a use of concrete so gloriously messy and primitive-looking that one sometimes worries the building may not be structurally stable. His post-war work, and particularly his block of flats at Marseille, which he called a Unité D’habitation, gave the biggest impetus to Brutalism internationally.
3 4
Adrian Forty, Concrete and Culture: A Material History (London: Reaktion, 2012) 37-38 Adrian Forty, Concrete and Culture: A Material History (London: Reaktion, 2012) 36
6
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
It is clear that attitudes of architecture were changing after the war and different priorities were being considered. Architects like Le Corbusier were looking at the most efficient solutions of building standardised housing for displaced residents after the war, and very quickly. Why not make them a large, tight-knit community who have all amenities up in the air, modelled after earlier inter-war residential design principles? Why not build the structures with the most cost-effective and readily available material, which has the flexibility to look polished, unpolished, sculptural, primitive or rectilinear?
7
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
2. The Spread The normalisation of modern architecture in Britain prevailed after the Second World War. Though modernist buildings had already been introduced to British soil as early as the 1930s, an example being the Y-shaped High and Over house in Amersham designed by Amyas Connell in 1929, it wasn’t until the 1950s when the modern style came to be less of a one-off statement and rather the standard approach of town planners and designers throughout the country.5 The quest to rebuild Britain sought not only to replace bombed sites but also to improve poorly maintained urban areas, provide new businesses and educational institutions efficiently through fast, mechanised methods of construction which prioritised functionality over being aesthetically pleasing. The 1951 Festival of Britain held in South Bank, London, provided an optimistic ‘milestone between the past and future’ while the country was recovering from the turmoil of the war and rations were still in place.6 The festival was a highlight of Britain’s advancement in the fields of art, industrial design, science, and architecture. The master planning of the festival was carried out by a number of architects directed by Hugh Casson (1910-1999) and aimed to exemplify potential modern town planning in Britain. ‘The Exhibition of Live Architecture’ at Poplar included a Town Planning Pavilion highlighting new town proposals, and a Building Research Pavilion, followed by a visit to the site of the Lansbury Estate (commissioned by the London City Council), displaying some unfinished houses completed in various stages. The architecture exhibition received very few visitors, approximately 10% of the number received by the South Bank exhibition.7 This lack of success, coupled with the new return of the Conservative Government, which saw the exhibition as a celebration of Labour achievements, prompted new paths to be taken for higher density, high-rise flats instead. As a result of new changes made by Winston Churchill and Harold Macmillan (Minster of Housing in 1951, Prime Minister in 1957) Most of the landmarks from the Festival were demolished although the Royal Festival Hall, designed by Robert Matthew, Leslie Martin and Peter Moro still stands today. The young architects’ ever-growing dubious attitude towards the tedious New Empiricism, recognised as ‘New Humanism’ in the welfare state of mid-century Britain was the prefiguring of the movement now known as New Brutalism. The phrase was first uttered in Britain in 1952, supposedly by Alison Smithson during a dinner party with her husband (and architectural partner) Peter Smithson and architect Theo Crosby, who also happened to be their landlord.8 However, Jonathan Meades’ documentary Bunkers, Brutalism and 5
Anthony Jackson, The Politics of Architecture : A History of Modern Architecture in Britain (London: The Architectural Press, 1970) 22 6 “Festival of Britain in colour 1951 (HQ).” YouTube clip, 9:28. Posted by "dante314159," 23 August 2008. 7 “The Festival of Britain 1951.” Historic UK, accessed 5 January 2017, http://www.historicuk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Festival-of-Britain-1951/ 8 Elain Harwood, England: A Guide to Post-War Listed Buildings. 2nd ed (London: BT Batsford, 2003) xxvi
8
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
Bloodymindedness: Concrete Poetry points out that it was first coined by Swedish architect Hans Asplund when describing Villa Göth (1949) in Sweden as nybrutalism.9 Later on in 1953 the phrase was used in public by Alison Smithson when describing a small Soho housing project. The term was a sly dig to the New Humanism and a derivation of Peter Smithson’s nickname ‘Brutus’. It was also a reverberation of the Smithsons’ interest in Le Corbusier’s Béton brut and the Art Brut of Jean Dubuffet, whose naïve imagery influenced some of their aesthetics.10 Alison and Peter Smithson, with their rebellious vision and exploratory approaches dabbling in various theories, led by architectural critic Reyner Banham, became a power couple of post-war British architecture. Reyner Banham explored this movement, its influences and relations to image in his essay titled The New Brutalism, published December 1955 in The Architectural Review.11 Irénée Scalbert summarises Banham’s description of the three main characteristics he attributed to the movement as ‘memorability of image, clear exhibition of structure, and valuation of materials ‘as found’’.12 However it is worth noting that a slightly different set of characteristics were outlined over a decade later in his 1966 book New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?13 One of the initial and widely recognised projects associated with Brutalism is the Smithsons’ winning scheme for Hunstanton School in Norfolk, built 1949-54; whilst Peter Smithson was just 26 years old and Alison Smithson 21 (figure 2). It was symmetrical in plan and took more influences from Mies Van Der Rohe (in particular his Illinois Institute of Technology building) than Le Corbusier. Its palette of exposed steel frames and glass, ornamented with visible services and plumbing served the Smithsons’ narrative of valuing materials ‘as found’ and exhibiting the structure. It was associated with Brutalism because it was the building which brought them to fame and recognition early on in their career even though some of their other projects including a number of unrealised ones were perhaps more representative of their idea of New Brutalism and its origins.14 One of the Smithsons’ designs more reflective of their inspiration from Le Corbusier’s Unité was their 1952 unbuilt workers’ housing competition entry for Golden Lane, East London, aiming to rebuild a site of post-war ruins. In the plan of this scheme they concentrated on promoting public circulation within a series of streets in the air, similar to the Unité’s interior streets, but this time reinterpreted and shifted forward to the façade of the blocks of flats. This incorporation of ‘streets in the sky’ was repeatedly seen in many later housing estates which were actually built (based on the idea of segregated planning in which pedestrian and vehicular routes are clearly separate), namely Robin Hood Gardens (see chapter 3) and 9
Jonathan Meades, “Bunkers, Brutalism and Bloody-mindedness: Concrete Poetry - Episode 1” BBC Four, 2014. Online clip, https://vimeo.com/93963469 10 William J. R. Curtis, Modern Architecture since 1900. 3rd ed. (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1996) 443 11 Reyner Banham, "New Brutalism," Architectural Review no. 118 (December, 1955): 355-361. 12 Irénée Scalbert, “Architecture as a Way of Life: The New Brutalism 1953-1956” (Paper presented at meeting held at the Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft, 5 November 2001) 59-60 13 Reyner Banham, The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic? (London: Architectural Press, 1966) 14 James Stevens Curl, A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 124-5
9
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
Park Hill in 1961 Sheffield designed by Jack Lynn and Ivor Smith (who were students of Peter Smithson at the AA) (figure 3).15 Within the next two decades after the introduction of the New Brutalism, the style spread throughout England and in particular London. By the 70s it was everywhere and seen in most typologies; social housing, public buildings, theatres, galleries, university campuses and libraries. The term Brutalist became vaguer in meaning and less specific to the exact theories outlined by the Smithsons and Banham, referring to a broad category of buildings featuring a mostly raw concrete finish with imprints of the timber used for the formwork in-situ pouring and various other textured finishes, taking influence from rustication techniques in the preceding centuries (though other materials were also featured) and an emphasis on oversized components which exaggerated and showcased mechanical features of the building such as ventilation towers etc.
Figure 2 Hunstanton School, Norfolk, (1949-54). Alison and Peter Smithson.
Figure 3 Park Hill, Sheffield (1961). Jack Lynn and Ivor Smith.
15
“Alison Smithson (1928-1993) and Peter Smithson (1923-2003)� The Architectural Review, accessed 6 January 2017, https://www.architectural-review.com/rethink/reputations/alisonsmithson-1928-1993-and-peter-smithson-1923-2003/8625631.article
10
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
3. Responses and Criticisms Within the vicissitudes of brutalism, the 1980s highlighted the downfall of the movement. The growing collection of post-war buildings changing the skyline of many towns and cities throughout Britain was more visible than ever and welcomed debate and discussion from both the public and experts. One of the key voices in the unpopularity of brutalism was that of Prince Charles, born in 1948 and in the position of heir apparent since 1952. He made a famous speech in 1984 at the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) 150th anniversary award ceremony when presenting Indian architect Charles Correa with his Gold Medal award. It is commonly referred to as the ‘monstrous carbuncle speech’, in which he criticised a proposal for an extension to the National Gallery in an unexpected turn giving it the graphic metaphor of a carbuncle. In this speech he raised issues concerning the lack of regard towards public needs and opinions by architects and planners, as well as the ruination of London’s cityscape, referring to the unsuitability of redevelopment proposals in areas like Trafalgar square in relation to their existing context.16 He made a number of other speeches following this and in one of them he praises schemes by Quinlan Terry, namely his Richmond Riverside Development in London built 1984-8, which he felt was an appropriate urban development taking its cues from the historical heritage of the area expressed as a cluster of classical revival buildings. 4 years on in 1988 landscape designer Charles Jencks published a book in response to the dialogue opened up by the Prince, which features a review of the Prince’s speeches and a collection of opinions from other architects and experts on the matter. In this book he refers to the Prince’s praise of Quinlan Terry’s riverside scheme, arguing that it may be interpreted as ‘pastiche’ by many and that its success as a piece of architecture is one entirely dependent on individual taste. Other critiques of the Prince’s critique mentioned in the book includes one pointing to a contradiction in which the Prince calls for buildings to be designed in the classical Greek orders and under mathematical laws of harmony and proportion rather than individual taste, forgetting that many Modernists in Britain built tower blocks thoroughly influenced by Le Corbusier’s mathematical proportions and Golden Sections.17 Jencks sums up the argument by concluding that even universal proportions are a matter of taste, and like the standard measure of feet and metres, ought to be set by an Academy. The 10 part 1986 BBC documentary series, Architecture at the Crossroads examined in detail the alterations of cities worldwide in light of new technological advancements. The documentary narrated by Andrew Sachs was a comprehensive overview of architecture in 16
“A speech by HRH The Prince of Wales at the 150th anniversary of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), Royal Gala Evening at Hampton Court Palace” The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, accessed 7 January 2017, http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/media/speeches/speech-hrh-the-prince-of-wales-the-150thanniversary-of-the-royal-institute-of 17 Charles Jencks, The Prince, the Architects and New Wave Monarchy. (London: Academy Editions, 1988) 14-16
11
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
the west as well as the east after the mid-twentieth century, having touched upon the failure (and demolition) of some modern housing schemes, and stepped back to observe the changes taking place in the 1980s. It showcased an increase in variety amongst architectural ideas, the rise of postmodernism, preservation of history, the return of ornament, an increasing appreciation of irony and fun in new developments, and examples of housing solutions more in tune with human scale. There are a number of influential architects and critics offering their commentary throughout the themes discussed in the documentary. A notable example is commentary by Professor Heinrich Klotz, regarding modernism, in episode 1, Doubt and reassessment: We have forgotten the measure of man. We have only asked for the measure of the machine. We have functionalised the human being. Then suddenly we find -for instance- ornament which was discarded completely is something which we need for our soul.18 Here Klotz is reminding the viewer of the dangers of high rise developments and how they could be neglecting the inhabitants by overpowering them in their scale. He is challenging the dominant image of the building being a machine for containing people. When referring to the functionalising of human beings he may possibly be hinting to the ideas put forward in the Athens Charter a few decades before in 1933 by CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne), which pushed for the organisation of town planning to be split into four basic functions of living, working, recreation and transport.19 He is personifying buildings by mentioning their effect on the soul and how they are to represent humans, rather than containing them. A few years later, having garnered plentiful responses of agreement and disagreement after his famous speech (figure 4), Prince Charles explored the failures of post-war Britain in a 1989 BBC Documentary named HRH Prince Of Wales: A Vision of Britain, and subsequently in the medium of a book with a similar title; A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture. The book is an attempt at questioning the success of modern architecture in Britain from the viewpoint of a non-architect, which he humbly confesses to.20 He criticises projects which he feels are damaging to their context, either physically, or socially, in relation to the people who inhabit them, and following that, praises a number of proposals which he favours, and lists sensible redevelopment projects abroad which he feels could serve as precedents on British soil. The book reaches a climax where he sets out ten principles on which he believes Britain can be built to be considered humane and sustainable for the society: place, hierarchy, scale, harmony, enclosure, materials, decoration, art, signs and lights, and community. Throughout the book are 18
Peter Adam, “Architecture at the Crossroads: 1. Doubt and Reassessment,� BBC, 12 Jan 1986, online clip, 39:45, http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01rk00j/architecture-at-the-crossroads1-doubt-and-reassessment 19 William J. R. Curtis, Modern Architecture since 1900. 3rd ed. (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1996) 255 20 Charles Prince of Wales, A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture. (London: Doubleday, 1989) 7
12
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
constant reminders that these are strictly his opinions, although there are a number of persuasive writing devices used, such as hyperboles, rhetorical questions and personal pronouns. In addition the text is split into digestible, large font paragraphs and there are full colour images on most pages, including his own sketches, which imply that the Prince of Wales intended for the book to be intimate and relatable to the 90 percentile reader.
Figure 4 Cartoon illustrating common responses, featured in Architects’ Journal 27 June 1984, same year as the Prince’s Carbuncle speech
13
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
CHAPTER 2 The Dead 1. Destroyed post-war housing: Ronan Point, London, 1968 Ronan Point is perceived as an epitome of precast concrete going wrong. It was built by the Newham Council in Canning Town 1965-8, as one of nine towers, at a time in which a continuously expanding number of public houses were being built under a Labour Government led by Harold Wilson (Prime Minister 1964-70). In fact, the rates of new public housing being built during those years were some of the highest the welfare state had seen, and over 40% of housing contracts given the green light by councils included at least 250 dwellings.21 They were not all built on land; many were built in the sky, in the form of vertical high rise tower blocks. One of the most efficient systems to carry out the construction of these was found to be in standard components like precast concrete panels. Whilst the common belief is that precast concrete was used in the sixties as an inexpensive method of solving post-war housing shortages this was not always the case. Barnabas Calder argues that high-rise construction was a conscious design choice rather than a building method borne of necessity.22 It allowed faster construction, saving time and high skilled labour required in the assembly of these blocks rather than money on building materials. Ronan Point was built in the Larsen-Nielsen system, a large concrete panel system developed in Denmark, 1948, and first used in London 1963, by the Taylor WoodrowAnglian Limited construction company who were also responsible for Ronan Point as they were one of the first to hold the license for the use of the system in the United Kingdom. It was desirable as it had the ‘highest degree of prefabrication’, meaning it could be assembled with a low skill workforce under a short amount of time. In the case of Ronan Point, they built the block with 22 storeys, more storeys than had ever been built under the system, though this was predicted by the engineers to be structurally viable.23 On 6 May 1968, just two months after tenants had moved into the newly built Ronan Point, the whole south-east corner of the tower collapsed due to a gas explosion caused by a faulty cooker on the 18th floor (figure 5).24 The incident took the lives of five tenants and 21
Elain Harwood, Space, Hope and Brutalism: English Architecture 1945-1975. (London: Yale University Press, 2015) 87 22 Barnabas Calder, Raw Concrete: The Beauty of Brutalism. (London: William Heinemann, 2016) 59 23 Great Britain Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Report of the Inquiry into the Collapse of Flats at Ronan Point, Canning Town, edited by Griffiths, Hugh, Alfred Pugsley and Owen Saunders. (London: HMSO, 1968) 6-7 24 BBC On This Day. “1968: Three die as tower block collapses.” Accessed 10 January 2017. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16/newsid_2514000/2514277.stm
14
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
injured eleven. This fast failure instilled fear throughout; with people questioning the stability of high-rise living. Despite the collapse the damage was quickly repaired, gas replaced with electrical boilers, and the surrounding blocks structurally strengthened. The tower re-opened in 1973 and in very little time some of the previous and optimistic tenants were moving back in.25 Though the physical damage had been repaired, socially the damage was done. The glory of high-rise housing of the sixties was under scrutiny. The disaster led to new regulations for concrete construction to be enforced, and Ronan Point was soon demolished in 1986 due to its weakened structure from high winds. This was indeed the decade of ‘doubts and reassessments’, as the first episode of the BBC documentary Architecture at the Crossroads was titled, aired coincidentally in the same year as the tower’s demolition.26
Figure 5 View of the Ronan Point after collapse in 1968,
25
John Grindrod, Concretopia: A Journey Around the Rebuilding of Postwar Britain. (Brecon: Old Street Publishing Ltd, 2013) 342-3 26 Peter Adam, “Architecture at the Crossroads: 1. Doubt and Reassessment.” BBC, 12 Jan 1986. Online clip, 39:45. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01rk00j/architecture-at-the-crossroads1-doubt-and-reassessment
15
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
2. Destroyed post-war public building: Tricorn Centre, Portsmouth, 1966-2004 Another development of post-war brutalism which no longer exists today is the Tricorn Centre in Portsmouth. It was designed by Rodney Gordon under the Owen Luder partnership in 1961-2, who also designed two other controversial schemes with Luder around the same year; the Eros House in Catford and the Treaty Centre in Gateshead. The only surviving building from their three projects is the Eros House, re-cladded today to brutalist fan and architecture historian Barnabas Calder’s disapproval.27 The Tricorn Centre was designed as a sculptural complex of concrete stilts, rooftop pods and spiralling walkways accommodating shops, offices, nightclubs, restaurants, a car park and residential spaces. It was to be a vibrant and energetic commercial centre carrying Portsmouth into an era of modernity. When it was first opened it welcomed large groups of people from a variety of ages, responding to the demands of the population within the area. The car park housed 600 cars over multiple storeys, providing a convenient day out for families, and the gap in the market for a late night cabaret and catering facilities in town was fulfilled with the opening of restaurants, the Tricorn Club and a discotheque for the youth (figure 7). With a successful start the Tricorn Centre won design awards in its first year of opening. However these awards were not reflective of its rapid disapproval a year later, when it was voted as Britain’s fourth ugliest building. Many of the original visions within the design were not executed in reality (figure 6). The flats were mostly uninhabited by 1980, weathered, and dripping with rainwater. In the decade of the sixties, when people were still seeking out suburbs as ideal places to live, the busy, central context of the flats proved unpopular, though nowadays attitudes have changed and many people choose to live near busy town centres and commercialised areas. It is possible that the Tricorn was ahead of its time and it would have met with greater success had it been built in a later decade. Owen Luder also argued this notion as a defence against criticisms of the building in 1967, denouncing the public’s opinion when he commented ‘if you have done your job properly, you will be ten years ahead and the public will not have caught up’. 28 Some parts of the Tricorn Centre were meant to have hanging gardens, though these details were not realised.29 There is a possibility that it may have expressed a softer, less threatening presence if the building had its hanging gardens. Over the years with changing patterns in economy the shop units of the Tricorn seemed too small for some businesses and larger stores wouldn’t lease the larger units due to the location of the site, which had little connection to an existing successful and commercial street.30 The functions the building 27
Barnabas Calder, Raw Concrete: The Beauty of Brutalism. (London: William Heinemann, 2016) 230 Elain Harwood, Space, Hope and Brutalism: English Architecture 1945-1975. (London: Yale University Press, 2015) 383 29 Thomas, Chloe. “The Art Show: I love Carbuncles.” Channel 4, 2004. Online clip, 23:32. https://vimeo.com/84581761 30 Elain Harwood, Alan Powers, and Twentieth Century Society, The Sixties : Life, Style, Architecture. (London: Twentieth Century Society, 2002) 78 28
16
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
was once originally designed for were no longer able to be carried out to their full potential. By 2004 the building had reached a state of decay deemed unrecoverable by the government. The option of destroying the building and redeveloping the site was more favourable. As demolition of the building was under way in 2004, Mike Hancock, MP of Portsmouth South called the building a ‘monster which now has to be put down’.31 Many members of the public agreed on the displeasing presence of the buildings, mostly judged on its appearance, and so did Prince Charles, who quoted a member of the public as they compared it to ‘a mildewed lump of elephant droppings’.32 However by that point many others were beginning to appreciate the building as there were a number of graffiti on the demolition site hoardings praising the uniqueness of the Tricorn. In 2009 the building was awarded the title of ‘best demolished building’ by a society named the Rubble Club, created for architects who collectively mourn over projects of theirs which have been deliberately demolished during their lifetime.33 The creation of such a society highlights the problem of an increased number of demolitions over the turn of the century, with shorter lifespans than older buildings and less chances given to re-use neglected structures. Since Ronan Point and its surrounding residential towers were demolished they were replaced with two-storey houses which still exist today. The Tricorn Centre, on the other hand, has been a blank car park for the past 13 years. An experimental architecture project once described by Nikolaus Pevsner as ‘a romantic piece of concrete sculpture’ is now replaced by a non-functioning piece of land contrary to the developers’ initial visions of redevelopment which are too costly in present day.34
31
Thomas, Chloe. “The Art Show: I love Carbuncles.” Channel 4, 2004. Online clip, 23:32. https://vimeo.com/84581761 32 Charles Prince of Wales, A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture. (London: Doubleday, 1989) 8 33 The News, “Tricorn Centre wins award - five years after being demolished.” Accessed 20 January 2016. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/tricorn-centre-wins-award-five-years-after-beingdemolished-1-1241601 34 “Tricorn Centre, Portsmouth UK.” YouTube clip, 9:00. Posted by “Kevin Birch” 3 November 2006, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk850_-SrsQ
17
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
Figure 6 Artist’s impression of the Tricorn scheme from brochure.
Figure 7 View facing the Tricorn Club.
18
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
Figure 8 Tricorn Centre, Portsmouth (1966). Owen Luder Partnership (Rodney Gordon)
19
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
CHAPTER 3 In Limbo 1. Post-war housing on the verge of demolition: Robin Hood Gardens, London, 196672 In 1966, after almost a decade of no built projects, the Smithsons, as part of the LCC team of architects, were briefed by the Greater London Council to design public housing on the site of some newly demolished houses in Poplar, surrounded by a network of busy streets, the Blackwall Tunnel and the industrial buildings situated near the River Thames. Using housing ideas they had previously explored in their Golden Lane design, as well as their proposals for the Mehringplatz in Berlin, they produced a logical response to the harsh context of the site, such as separated pedestrian access above ground (streets in the sky, as previously seen in the Park Hill megastructure in Sheffield) and vehicular access situated on a mote lowered into the ground, from the outside.35 The noise and pollution of the busy surroundings were to be kept out with the help of trees and high acoustic walls concavely shaped, with angled gaps breaking apart the overwhelming feeling the walls may impose on a passer-by. A similar rhythmic presence of fins around windows on each façade supposedly also reduced the noise which gets into the housing units. Consideration was put into the placement of the decks and the living rooms as they were on the side facing the traffic and the quiet side facing the secluded garden was reserved for the bedrooms. There were 214 dwellings, spread over two meandering blocks with continuous façades, dictated by the shape of the exiting site, and split like ‘a kipper’, as Peter Smithson described it in the BBC program The Smithsons on Housing (1970). The two long blocks with their walkways were supposed to encourage a sense of community and the enclosed space with the garden and mound in the middle was designed with families and children in mind. It discouraged football activities in the centre, again, with the intention of controlling the noise on site. The decks had ‘eddy places’ where the doors to the units were set back from the main walkway and facing the next door unit. These eddies were supposed to provide a means of encountering and befriending the neighbours, as well as giving each tenant their own space on their front door where they could personalise and add a few pots of plants. The Smithsons introduced this scheme as ‘an exemplar of a new mode of urban organisation’, with an optimistic vision giving the working-class a new habitat in response to the recent failures of isolated modernist high rise blocks which were still being built, victims to an increasing amount of anti-social behaviour and vandalism on the housing estates. It was hoped that with their years of research and theoretical conclusions, the 35
Elain Harwood, Space, Hope and Brutalism: English Architecture 1945-1975 (London: Yale University Press, 2015) 84
20
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
attention to detail which they put into the house would improve quality of life and in turn produce a peaceful society. Alison Smithson acknowledged that perhaps their design solution was wrongly calculated and that the people were better off in their old industrial houses, but emphasised that they, as responsible architects, were willing to take risks and do what they can to help the social situation, or simply to speak about it, whether improvements occurred or not.36 After the building was completed in 1972, it turned out that the Smithsons’ scheme had failed to provide all that they had envisioned for the new housing estate, as Robin Hood Gardens became victim to poor treatment and acts of vandalism shortly after the residents moved in. Peter Smithson, in a 1990s interview suggested that the failure of the building was perhaps due to ‘social jealousy’, controversially mentioning how ‘people would come in and shit in the lifts’ within the first week the estate was opened.37 It is possible that this anti-social behaviour may not have occurred within the community of tenants but rather by intruders. The streets in the sky, once imagined to have provided a peaceful space for neighbourly friendship, became an alley for thieves and criminals. It can be argued that the society was the cause of the building’s failure, or vice versa. Perhaps the spatial configuration of the building allowed anti-social behaviour to flourish, whether through psychological influence or simply a lack of security. The unusually high rate at which the council received complaints from the tenants regarding water penetration and maintenance issues may point to another direction. There are claims that the building had some performance problems, and complaints from tenants that the council repeatedly overlooked the issues.38 Eventually with the damage imposed on the building over the years, the Tower Hamlet Council agreed on a demolition in 2008, in favour of redeveloping the site as part of upcoming Blackwall Reach regeneration plans. Many prominent architects including Richard Rogers, Simon Smithson (Alison and Peter Smithson’s son) as well as Zaha Hadid joined a campaign to save the building as they believed it was a historically significant embodiment of brutalist housing ideas.39 In 2009 the building was granted immunity from being listed for five years, meaning it was allowed to be demolished during this time. In 2014, the building still stood. This gave the Twentieth Century Society another chance to request that the building be listed. Convincing arguments were put forward and there was a mention of the changing attitudes towards brutalism and an increasing interest in the architecture of the Smithsons since the past 5 years, but this was not enough. The request
36
Johnson, B. S. “The Smithsons on Housing.” BBC Two, 1970. YouTube clip, 28:18. Posted by “AP S” 5 February 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH5thwHTYNk 37 Maxwell Hutchinson, "Rebuilding Britain for the Baby Boomers," BBC Radio 4 Extra, London, FM: 92.5–96.1, 31 January 2016 38 Tom Wilkinson, “Robin Hood Gardens: Requiem For A Dream,” YouTube clip, 9:15. Posted by “The Architectural Review” 10 November 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5xEzkQDtQ8 39 BBC News. “Row over 'street in sky' estate.” Accessed 25 January 2017. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7281156.stm
21
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
was denied once more by Historic England, and permission for a demolition granted.40 In 2017 the site is still yet to be demolished and the Robin Hood Gardens still stands today, with little signs of demolition other than a few timber boards and scaffolding (figure 9). The fate of the building is now certain and it is unlikely that there is any hope left to salvage the existing concrete structure which has been repeatedly neglected for so many years. But what is still quite uncertain is whether the replacement housing, currently being finalised by Haworth Tompkins, will be built any time soon, and if it will have a future more secure than its predecessor. Simon Smithson (son of Alison and Peter Smithson) once suggested the argument that perhaps they should have never built housing in such a busy, congested location to begin with.41 Could the demolished site become another blank car park like the Tricorn has been for the past 13 years? Will they be rehousing the old residents in the same place? Or will the developers, in the current climate of a housing crisis, rent out the new luxurious development with new luxurious prices, of which the old tenants may not be able to afford? In a few years the answers may become clearer.
Figure 9 View of Robin Hood Gardens as it stands today.
40
Tamlin Magee, “Politician calls for immediate demolition of Robin Hood Gardens after listing bid fails,” Dezeen, 17 March 2015, accessed 26 January 2017, https://www.dezeen.com/2015/08/05/politician-calls-immediate-demolition-robin-hood-gardenslisting-bid-fails-historic-england-brutalism/ 41 Building Design Online, “Interview: Simon Smithson,” Accessed 25 January 2017, http://www.bdonline.co.uk/interview-simon-smithson/3107017.article
22
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
Figure 10 Robin Hood Gardens, London (1966-72). Alison and Peter Smithson. Axonometric Drawing.
23
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
Figure 11 View of Robin Hood Gardens faรงade conditions in present day.
24
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
2. Post-war public building in a state of uncertainty: Dunelm House, Durham University, 1965 After leaving LCC in 1956 the designer of the Royal Festival Hall, Leslie Martin, went on to teach at Cambridge. Subsequently he worked with his fellow colleague Patrick Hodgkinson and Colin St. John Wilson to form a studio together, later named the Architects CoPartnership. Early on they collaborated with acclaimed structural engineer Ove Arup in the design of the now demolished Brynmawr rubber factory, but were mostly working on schools and university buildings later.42 Michael Powers, an architect of the ACP, was chosen to design an expansion in St. John’s College in Oxford (1958-60). The outcome was a building of hexagonal envelopes, suitably shaped for its angular site and cladded in astute Portland stone, which had an overall positive response. As a result, in 1961, Powers was invited to design the Dunelm House, which was to be the students’ union building of Durham University.43 The Dunelm House was completed in 1965, with the assistance of Richard Raines and engineering by Ove Arup & Partners, who also built the coordinating pedestrian bridge (named Kingsgate Bridge) which connects the city to the building in 1962-3.44 The Dunelm House is an award winning solid example of a brutalist university building which is sensible to its surrounding context. The massing of the building was not designed in one piece as the site was not uniform. The building responded to the steep slope, the river nearby, and the historic context of the Durham City as it faced the Cathedral (figure 12). There are tiered roofs echoing the slope, textured with composite curved concrete panels which are reminiscent of the old pantile roofs of the city, as well as terraces facing the river. Alan Powers, son of Michael Powers describes the building as ‘an excursion into concrete ‘crumble’, to use the preferred phrase for a building with multiple form rather that a single volume’.45 This is a fair description of the building, as each part of the plan was required to be distinct to its purpose in the original brief.46 Very recently in late 2016, the Twentieth Century Society expressed their concerns that, despite previous recommendation by Historic England to list the building as Grade II, the university had applied for a certificate of immunity against listing the building, so that in the future the option of a demolition would be viable.47 The arguments put forward for the case of a COI included the continuously problematic roofs which had leakages, and the inflexibility of the plan for proposed re-uses of the building, in response to accommodating 42
Engineering Timelines, “Ove Arup,” Accessed 28 January 2017, http://www.engineeringtimelines.com/who/arup_O/arupOve7.asp 43 Elain Harwood, Space, Hope and Brutalism: English Architecture 1945-1975 (London: Yale University Press, 2015) 220 44 Elain Harwood, Space, Hope and Brutalism: English Architecture 1945-1975 (London: Yale University Press, 2015) 318 45 Alan Powers, Britain: Modern Architecture in History (London: Reaktion, 2007) 97 46 Historic England, “Case Name: Dunelm House, Durham,” (Advice report, December 2016) 3 47 Ellen Gates, “Listing reports,” C20 Magazine 2 (2016): 40-1
25
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
a growing population of students enrolled to the university. The building, mostly unaltered throughout the past 51 years of its life, is now under threat. A petition was made to argue against common points that a member of the public may have in support of discarding the building.48 Currently signed by over 2000 people, the petition mentions the cost of refurbishing and repairing the building in comparison to the cost of other recently finished buildings on the campus, concluding that it will be much cheaper to refurbish the existing, than to destroy and replace it with a new one. The building is in limbo and its fate undecided. Whilst the Kingsgate Bridge is currently Grade I listed, there is a possibility that one day it may stand alone without its harmonious counterpart. When something is broken or in need of repair, the most logical solution is to fix, not to destroy it. The fact that in present day, certain stakeholders are quick to propose or imply the action of demolition upon post-war buildings instead of repairing them reveals that they may have other motives. There is not much evidence of significant repairs or replacements being made to the damaged roof of the Dunelm House in the years since it were opened. Could this be a case of intentional neglect? In the age of electronics and everyday gadgets being produced with built-in obsolescence, it is possible that planners may be trying to apply the same ideas to certain outdated buildings in need of refurbishment and conservation. Ignoring maintenance of the building during its life allows it to reach its death faster, for larger and more profitable developments to replace them.
Figure 12 Dunelm House (1965) and Kingsgate Bridge (1963), Durham University. ACP and Ove Arup & Partners.
48
Save Dunelm House, “To: Durham University, Save Dunelm House,� Accessed 10 February 2017, https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-dunelm-house
26
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
CHAPTER 4 The Living 1. Surviving post-war housing: Alexandra Road Estate, London, 1972-78 Alexandra Road Estate, also known as Rowley Way, was designed by Neave Brown under the Camden Architects Department in 1969, and constructed 1972-8.49 The layout of the estate is seen by many as an early response to high-rise tower blocks in which mass housing is laid horizontally instead of vertically stacked. When the estate was built, it was the longest terrace in London.50 It replaced an old street of large Victorian villas, offering approximately double the amount of accommodation on the same site. The blocks were composed of three terraces, one directly next to a railway echoing its linear curve, and the other two smaller ones nearest to the accompanying school, park and community centre included in the scheme. The terraces were built in a ziggurat, stepped form, with front gardens, balconies, a combination of maisonettes on top and flats below. The largest block of terraces on site and the opposite block facing it are shaped to create an enclosed, long and curved pedestrian walkway in between the two rows which is quiet and peaceful in contrast to the noise of the railway behind (figure 13). This estate, similar to the Robin Hood Gardens, serves an example of concrete being used as a noise barrier device, though the form in this scheme is entirely different and there is a lack of streets in the sky. On the other hand, one scheme which is often compared to the Alexandra Road Estate is the Brunswick Centre, also in Camden. This housing estate was designed by Patrick Hodgkinson, who was also a friend of Brown, and built around the same time as the Alexandra Road Estate (1966-71).51 Obvious similarities are seen in the ziggurat form of the blocks and the use of concrete. The difference is in the type of concrete used. Brown’s estate utilised a very pure and white concrete which, due to the repetition of the units and a climate of inflation in the 1970s, was very difficult and expensive to construct, making it one of the most expensive council housing projects in Britain.52 Perhaps it is the expensive construction of the estate which has kept it in the liveable conditions it possesses in the present. Today, the estate is grade II listed, and the dwellings are advertised under luxurious agencies promoting exclusively modernist properties which
49
Alan Powers, Britain: Modern Architecture in History (London: Reaktion, 2007) 139 Peter Adam, “Architecture at the Crossroads: 8. Houses Fit for People,” BBC, 2 March 1986, online clip, 39:45, http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01rk3x0/architecture-at-the-crossroads8-houses-fit-for-people 51 “Neave Brown - In Conversation with Mark Swenarton” YouTube Clip, 1:47:08, posted by “AA School of Architecture” 9 October 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ_6UuAFJdQ 52 Alan Powers, Britain: Modern Architecture in History (London: Reaktion, 2007) 138 50
27
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
are refurbished to the most recent living standards (figure 14).53 The role of the estate as an icon of modernism in Britain is now more appreciated than ever. 2 bedroom apartments from the Alexandra Road Estate are being sold for over £400,000, which is likely to increase year by year as the current patterns of economy suggest. The reputation of council housing is changing as more residential estates are becoming gentrified.
Figure 13 Alexandra Road Estate, Camden (1972-8). Camden Architects Department (Neave Brown).
Figure 14 Interior View of a 2 bedroom duplex in the estate. 53
The Modern House, “Rowley Way London NW8,” Accessed 8 February 2017, http://www.themodernhouse.com/past-sales/rowley-way-london-nw8/architect/
28
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
2. Surviving post-war megastructure: Barbican Estate, London, 1963-82 The Barbican Estate includes a large number of residential units, a school, outdoor spaces, shops, an arts centre, and a greenhouse, in a very financial district. But what appears on the site today is very different to its conditions before the project was complete. The area of Barbican, named after the Latin word ‘barbecana’, meaning gateway, is the site around Cripplegate, which was the place where the Roman Walls of Londinium once stood. After WWII, the City was mostly destroyed and by 1951 an extremely low population of only 48 people were living in the site of the Barbican.54 In 1952, the same year as the winner of the nearby Golden Lane estate competition (to the north of Cripplegate) was announced, ideas were being put forward for the redevelopment and repopulation of the site. In 1953 the New Barbican Committee was established to prevent office schemes being built on the site as an extension of Golden Lane. Various schemes were proposed in the 1950s, some concentrating on traffic control, others brave enough to propose 32 storey towers. In the end the scheme chosen by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, Duncan Sandys was that of Chamberlin Powell and Bon (CPB), in favour of the ‘genuine residential neighbourhood, incorporating schools, shops, open spaces and other amenities.’ Chamberlin Powell and Bon also happened to be the designers of the winning Golden Lane Estate competition entry (built 1953-7). Peter Chamberlin (also known as Joe), Geoffry Powell, and Christoph Bon met in the Kingston School of Art as lecturers and all submitted designs for the Golden Lane competition, eventually forming a partnership to collaborate on the winner’s design, which belonged to Geoffry Powell.55 John Grindrod summarises the long birth and growth process of the huge development into three decades as ‘plans drawn up in the fifties, building commenced in the sixties, and residential communities flowering in the seventies.’56 The finished product houses over 4,000 residents in a mixture of terrace blocks on columns and three triangular towers reaching 42 storeys high. The outdoor spaces feature ornamental fountains and a lake, various gardens, an amphitheatre and running tracks (figure 16). The tower balconies are of bold dramatic form, softly curving upwards to a sharp point (figure 15). The concrete of the buildings have been bush-hammered, a time consuming technique in which the concrete surface is hammered to achieve a textured finished reminiscent of natural rocks. This attention to detail is what earned the estate’s Grade II listed status in 2001. Barnabas Calder praises the building as ‘the closest thing that the UK has ever come to a perfect
54
City of London, “Barbican Estate history,” accessed 10 February 2017, https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/barbican-estate/Pages/barbican-historyarchitecture.aspx 55 Elain Harwood, Space, Hope and Brutalism: English Architecture 1945-1975 (London: Yale University Press, 2015) 73 56 John Grindrod, Concretopia: A Journey Around the Rebuilding of Postwar Britain (Brecon: Old Street Publishing Ltd, 2013) 403
29
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
Brutalist housing estate – well built, well maintained, richly supplied with social facilities and conspicuously free of social problems’.57 The success of the estate could be due to the society who inhabited the place and their social status or class. It could be the integration of the development in utilising a mixture of public and private buildings which may have psychologically given the community a feeling of productiveness and involvement within the city, rather than a feeling of imprisonment and social exclusion, which may have been the main cause of the demise of many other estates. And perhaps it is the large scale and monumentality of the place which imposes power over the people and makes them less inclined to vandalise or damage the buildings. Having been one of the later completed brutalist projects, it may have been built just in the right time, over the right construction time frame, for the society to fully appreciate it.
Figure 15 Curved Balconies in the Tower blocks of the Barbican Estate.
57
Barnabas Calder, Raw Concrete: The Beauty of Brutalism. (London: William Heinemann, 2016) 118
30
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
Figure 16 View of water fountain below residential block in the Barbican Estate.
31
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
CHAPTER 5 Conclusion 1. The future Where did it all go wrong? Looking back at the ten principles of ideal architecture by Prince Charles in his 1989 book, many of the principles can be seen in the most hated examples of post-war brutalism. For instance, the element of enclosure is very pronounced in the Robin Hood Gardens estate with its central, quiet garden which actually took its cues from the older Gray’s Inn Square. The principle of hierarchy is seen in the clear language of the separation of pedestrian and vehicle routes, as well as the distinction of the vertical circulation spaces broken down in the form of the blocks in the estate. The sense of community was another principle which was one of the main visions that the Smithsons had for their scheme. The principle of material, advocating for the use of more local and vernacular building materials, ignores that concrete in every country is quite different and unique to the local soil. It can be argued that concrete is as natural and as local as a material gets. So perhaps the failure of these buildings were not just from their lack of architecture principles promoted by Prince Charles, but rather deeper issues pointing to a repeated intentional neglect towards maintenance of the buildings as well as societal issues for example gang violence and the culture of the people who inhabit some of the fallen housing estates. Over the years brutalist architecture has experienced various points of high and low. After the critiques in the 1980s, with increased theoretical architectural education, prioritisation of sustainability in light of climate change, and accordingly, an increased respect towards the practice of conservation, the turn of the millennium and the early 2000s saw a change in attitudes towards the brutalist style of architecture. Suddenly, many young architects and historians developed an appreciation for this particular architecture which they had seen around them growing up after the post-war years. Many have spent years researching these landmarks of heroic failure and written a number of books describing their journeys. A most recent example is a very personal and heartfelt account, Raw Concrete: the Beauty of Brutalism, by Barnabas Calder, published in 2016. In this book he describes a well-researched journey towards his favourite brutalist buildings, resonating with an increasing audience of concrete fans, even those who may almost fetishize it as seen in the ever increasing social media fan pages involving the word Brutalism. Other notable writers who have put forward their defence of the movement include Owen Hatherley, John Grindrod, and Jonathan Meades. The Twentieth Century Society has played a big role in raising awareness of many brutalist buildings, and saving them from being destroyed and forgotten. Previously called the Thirties Society, it was founded in 1979 to campaign for the conservation and security of
32
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
architectural heritage of the early 1900s, however with increased growth the group expanded their reach towards post-war architecture as well and is now one of the main key players in saving or attempting to educate people on buildings under threat. The patterns of attitudes seen towards post-war architecture are evidence that history does indeed repeat itself. Before the Twentieth Century Society was the Victorian Society, which may have not had many fans in the days when the buildings were despised and a number of them unnecessarily torn down in favour of modernist ideals. Nonetheless, with their continuous campaigns there are now a wide variety of iconic Victorian pieces of architecture which are embraced and an important contribution to the historic character of many British towns and cities. The brutalist movement is in an awkward position in present day; arguably too new to be considered historically significant, and too outdated to keep or maintain. Whilst it may not be to everyone’s taste, it definitely marked an important and ground-breaking moment in architectural history when people were desperately looking for change and the architects were trying their best attempts in shaping post-war Britain.
33
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
BIBLIOGRAPHY Literature Banham, Reyner. "New Brutalism." Architectural Review no. 118 (December, 1955): 355361. ———. The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?. London: Architectural Press, 1966. Blake, Peter. Form Follows Fiasco: Why Modern Architecture Hasn't Worked. Canada: Little, Brown &Company, 1977. Breward, Christopher, Fiona Fisher and Ghislaine Wood. British Design: Tradition and Modernity After 1948. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Bullock, Nicholas. Building the Post-War World: Modern Architecture and Reconstruction in Britain. London: Routledge, 2002. Calder, Barnabas. Raw Concrete: The Beauty of Brutalism. London: William Heinemann, 2016. Curl, James Stevens. A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Curtis, William J. R. Modern Architecture since 1900. 3rd ed. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1996. Forty, Adrian. Concrete and Culture: A Material History. London: Reaktion, 2012. Gates, Ellen. “Listing reports.” C20 Magazine 2 (2016): 40-1 Great Britain Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Report of the Inquiry into the Collapse of Flats at Ronan Point, Canning Town, edited by Griffiths, Hugh, Alfred Pugsley and Owen Saunders. London: HMSO, 1968. Grindrod, John. Concretopia: A Journey Around the Rebuilding of Postwar Britain. Brecon: Old Street Publishing Ltd, 2013. Harwood, Elain. England: A Guide to Post-War Listed Buildings. 2nd ed. London: BT Batsford, 2003. ———. Space, Hope and Brutalism: English Architecture 1945-1975. London: Yale University Press, 2015. Harwood, Elain, Alan Powers, and Twentieth Century Society. The Sixties : Life, Style, Architecture. London: Twentieth Century Society, 2002. Hatherley, Owen. A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain. London: Verso, 2010. ———. Militant Modernism. Hants: O Books, 2008.
34
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
Historic England. “Case Name: Dunelm House, Durham.” Advice report, December 2016. Jackson, Anthony. The Politics of Architecture: A History of Modern Architecture in Britain. London: The Architectural Press, 1970. Jencks, Charles. The Prince, the Architects and New Wave Monarchy. London: Academy Editions, 1988. Nairn, Ian. Nairn's London. 2nd ed. London: Penguin Books, 2014. Nuttgens, Patrick. The Story of Architecture. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1983. Powers, Alan. Britain: Modern Architecture in History. London: Reaktion, 2007. Prince of Wales, Charles. A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture. London: Doubleday, 1989. Scalbert, Irénée. “Architecture as a Way of Life: The New Brutalism 1953-1956.” Paper presented at meeting held at the Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft, 5 November 2001. Watkin, David. English Architecture: A Concise History. 2nd ed. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd., 2001. ———. A History of Western Architecture. London: Barry & Jenkins, 1986.
Web BBC On This Day. “1968: Three die as tower block collapses.” Accessed 10 January 2017. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16/newsid_2514000/2514277.stm BBC News. “Row over 'street in sky' estate.” Accessed 25 January 2017. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7281156.stm British History Online. “The Lansbury Estate: Introduction and the Festival of Britain exhibition.” Accessed 20 January 2017. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/surveylondon/vols43-4/pp212-223#fnn52 Building Design Online. “Interview: Simon Smithson.” Accessed 25 January 2017. http://www.bdonline.co.uk/interview-simon-smithson/3107017.article City of London. “Barbican Estate history.” Accessed 10 February 2017. https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/barbican-estate/Pages/barbican-historyarchitecture.aspx Dirty Modern Scoundrel: The Concretopia blog by John Grindrod. Accessed 25 January 2017. http://dirtymodernscoundrel.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/alison-and-peter-smithsonlecture-1976.html Engineering Timelines. “Ove Arup.” Accessed 28 January 2017. http://www.engineeringtimelines.com/who/arup_O/arupOve7.asp
35
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
Historic UK. “The Festival of Britain 1951.” accessed 5 January 2017. http://www.historicuk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Festival-of-Britain-1951/ Le Corbusier Foundation. “Unité D’habitation.” accessed 7 December 2016. http://www.fondationlecorbusier.fr/corbuweb/morpheus.aspx?sysId=13&IrisObjectId=523 4&sysLanguage=en-en&itemPos=45&itemCount=79&sysParentName=&sysParentId=64 Magee, Tamlin. “Politician calls for immediate demolition of Robin Hood Gardens after listing bid fails.” Dezeen, 17 March 2015. Accessed 26 January 2017. https://www.dezeen.com/2015/08/05/politician-calls-immediate-demolition-robin-hoodgardens-listing-bid-fails-historic-england-brutalism/ Michael Cooper. “The Tricorn Club.” http://michaelcooper.org.uk/C/tricorn.htm
Accessed
23
January
2017.
The Architectural Review. “Alison Smithson (1928-1993) and Peter Smithson (1923-2003)” accessed 6 January 2017. https://www.architecturalreview.com/rethink/reputations/alison-smithson-1928-1993-and-peter-smithson-19232003/8625631.article Save Dunelm House. “To: Durham University, Save Dunelm House.” Accessed 10 February 2017. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-dunelm-house The Modern House. “Rowley Way London NW8.” Accessed 8 February 2017. http://www.themodernhouse.com/past-sales/rowley-way-london-nw8/architect/ The News. “Tricorn Centre wins award - five years after being demolished.” Accessed 20 January 2017. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/tricorn-centre-wins-award-five-yearsafter-being-demolished-1-1241601 The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall. “A speech by HRH The Prince of Wales at the 150th anniversary of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), Royal Gala Evening at Hampton Court Palace” accessed 7 January 2017. http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/media/speeches/speech-hrh-the-prince-of-wales-the150th-anniversary-of-the-royal-institute-of University of West England. “The History of Council Housing.” Accessed 28 November 2016 http://fet.uwe.ac.uk/conweb/house_ages/council_housing/print.htm
Audio-visual Adam, Peter. “Architecture at the Crossroads: 1. Doubt and Reassessment.” BBC, 12 Jan 1986. Online clip, 39:45. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01rk00j/architecture-atthe-crossroads-1-doubt-and-reassessment Adam, Peter. “Architecture at the Crossroads: 7. Stop the Bulldozer.” BBC, 23 Feb 1986. Online clip, 39:45. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01rk26h/architecture-at-thecrossroads-7-stop-the-bulldozer
36
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
Adam, Peter. “Architecture at the Crossroads: 8. Houses Fit for People.” BBC, 2 March 1986. Online clip, 39:45. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01rk3x0/architecture-atthe-crossroads-8-houses-fit-for-people “Barbican, 1969.” YouTube clip, 22:26. Posted by “LdnMetArchives,” 30 April 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLPlJsoVq8k “Festival of Britain in colour 1951 (HQ).” YouTube clip, 9:28. Posted by " dante314159," 23 August 2008. Hutchinson, Maxwell. "Rebuilding Britain for the Baby Boomers." BBC Radio 4 Extra, London, FM: 92.5–96.1, 31 January 2016. Johnson, B. S. “The Smithsons on Housing.” BBC Two, 1970. YouTube clip, 28:18. Posted by “AP S” 5 February 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH5thwHTYNk Meades, Jonathan. “Bunkers, Brutalism and Bloody-mindedness: Concrete Poetry - Episode 1” BBC Four, 2014. Online clip, https://vimeo.com/93963469 Meades, Jonathan. “Bunkers, Brutalism and Bloody-mindedness: Concrete Poetry - Episode 2” BBC Four, 2014. Online clip, https://vimeo.com/93116236 “Neave Brown - In Conversation with Mark Swenarton.” YouTube Clip, 1:47:08. Posted by “AA School of Architecture” 9 October 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ_6UuAFJdQ Thomas, Chloe. “The Art Show: I love Carbuncles.” Channel 4, 2004. Online clip, 23:32. https://vimeo.com/84581761 “Tricorn Centre, Portsmouth UK.” YouTube clip, 9:00. Posted by “Kevin Birch” 3 November 2006. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk850_-SrsQ Wilkinson, Tom. “Robin Hood Gardens: Requiem For A Dream.” YouTube clip, 9:15. Posted by “The Architectural Review” 10 November 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5xEzkQDtQ8
37
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
ILUSTRATION CREDITS Front Cover: Author’s own image Figure 1. Author’s own image Figure 2. Alison & Peter Smithson. Photograph. Curtis, William J. R. Modern Architecture since 1900. 3rd ed. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1996. p.531 Figure 3. Architectural Press Archive/RIBA Library Photographs Collection. Photograph. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2014/09/10/brutalist-buildings-park-hill-jack-lynnivor-smith/ Accessed 14 February 2017. Figure 4. Louis Hellman. Cartoon. Powers, Alan. Britain: Modern Architecture in History. London: Reaktion, 2007. p.213 Figure 5. Building Design Online. Photograph. Available at: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/precast-disaster/3087206.article Accessed 14 February 2017. Figure 6. Unknown. Illustration. Available at: http://www.derelictplaces.co.uk/main/miscsites/8233-tricorn-center-portsmouth.html#.WKVEWG-LTIU Accessed 14 February 2017. Figure 7. Unknown. Photograph. Available at: http://michaelcooper.org.uk/C/tricorn.htm Accessed 14 February 2017. Figure 8. Powers. Photograph. Powers, Alan. Britain: Modern Architecture in History. London: Reaktion, 2007. p.145 Figure 9. Author’s own image Figure 10. Alison and Peter Smithson. Drawing. Curtis, William J. R. Modern Architecture since 1900. 3rd ed. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1996. p.533 Figure 11. Author’s own image Figure 12. Twentieth Century Society. Photograph. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/feb/12/durham-university-dunelmhouse-threat-of-demolition-brutalism#img-1 Accessed 14 February 2017. Figure 13. Martin Charles. Photograph. Powers, Alan. Britain: Modern Architecture in History. London: Reaktion, 2007. p.139 Figure 14. Churchill Residential. Photograph. Available http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-45490160.html Accessed February 2017.
at: 14
Figure 15. Luke Hayes. Photograph. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2014/09/13/brutalist-buildings-barbican-estate-chamberlinpowell-bon/ Accessed 14 February 2017.
38
Mohadeseh Sadat Moein Shirazi
AR597
February 2017
Figure 16. Barnabas Calder. Photograph. Available https://www.flickr.com/photos/barnabas_calder/9288973764/in/album72157663793862560/ Accessed 14 February 2017.
at:
39