Historical architecture stolen by The Blitz 1940

[Yorkshire 53]

'Short-lived' Dannyno ? It's modern architecture that is short-lived, up today, gone tomorrow. " Oh look, they're knocking that down now; it's only been up 5 minutes !"

 

I didn't say it had begun in Soviet Russia, I said that Sheffield Council members made a visit/junket there to take a look. That's what I recall, and if I'm wrong, Brutalism was non-the-less embraced mainly by the communist countries, which most Labourites had a soft spot for.

 

Have a look at the nightmare examples of 'Brutalism' on Wikipedia which notes : ' Brutalism was associated with socialist Utopian ideology ( as were, and are, many Sheffield councillors !), and had a strong position in communist countries.'

 

These are the same people who had a policy to place 'problem families' on decent estates, hoping they would improve their behaviour, but all it did was drag those estates down as well. You get what you vote for. They go on about 'Diversity', it's time there was some on the council benches.

[Dannyno]

Let's be clear: I was talking about architectural fads, not whether or not the buildings themselves were made to last. Edwardian architectural styles didn't last very long, but the buildings would probably still be standing.

 

My point was also that what is thought of as "traditional" is no such thing.

 

Buildings with shortish expected life spans may be a feature of modern architecture, but it's not necessarily a feature of modernism, or of modern architectural styles per se.

 

To the extent that buildings are now built using cheaper, less long-lasting materials (not that wood and brick buildings would last forever), then my opinion is that it's not good for sustainability. However, it helps to understand why building is being done that way, which is clearly about budgets, projections as to future value, and expected changes of use etc.

 

There's a British/International Standard (BS ISO 15686 if you want to look it up), which defines expected service life span of buildings as 60 years. But many commercial buildings will need extensive renovation before even reaching half that.

 

So I agree that's arguably a problem, but it's not a problem of style.

 

You described Brutalism as "Soviet Brutalism", not just that Sheffield Council go the idea from there.

 

As I said, this is wrong on both counts: Brutalism was not a "Soviet" idea, and Sheffield Council visited Western European countries to look for ideas, not the USSR.

 

It's certainly true that Brutalism was adopted in much of Eastern Europe, and that it is associated with the USSR, but that wasn't what you said. And to the extent that it is "associated" (which is undeniable), that seems irrelevant to the supposed point you were making.

 

I haven't given an opinion yet on Park Hill etc. I merely corrected false assertions. As it happens, I am not opposed to Brutalism as a style, some of it looks great. As for Park Hill, a lot of people who lived there liked it. But it never had a real chance. The main problems with Park Hill were social, political and financial, as is well known. I'm not a particular fan of the Park Hill aesthetic, but it doesn't stand for all of Brutalism. There are better examples of that style.

 

You make a wider political point about Labourist affection for the USSR. Since your particular claims about the ideological origins of Brutalism and where the council visited are wrong, this seems largely irrelevant.

 

But again, while many in the Labour movement historically saw hope in the USSR (and as a libertarian socialist, who does not support the Labour Party, I did not), the idea that the type of Labourist politician typically found in the trade union based Labour Party in Sheffield were "Socialist utopian ideologues" is objectively ridiculous.

 

I've tried to be clear and avoid more confusions. I'm defending Brutalism from some of the criticisms, of it, but I am not defending Park Hill as an exemplar or tthe local Council for its part in contributing to its failure. Unfortunately experience has taught me that some are determined to misunderstand.

 

'Short-lived' Dannyno ? It's modern architecture that is short-lived, up today, gone tomorrow. " Oh look, they're knocking that down now; it's only been up 5 minutes !"

 

I didn't say it had begun in Soviet Russia, I said that Sheffield Council members made a visit/junket there to take a look. That's what I recall, and if I'm wrong, Brutalism was non-the-less embraced mainly by the communist countries, which most Labourites had a soft spot for.

 

Have a look at the nightmare examples of 'Brutalism' on Wikipedia which notes : ' Brutalism was associated with socialist Utopian ideology ( as were, and are, many Sheffield councillors !), and had a strong position in communist countries.'

 

These are the same people who had a policy to place 'problem families' on decent estates, hoping they would improve their behaviour, but all it did was drag those estates down as well. You get what you vote for. They go on about 'Diversity', it's time there was some on the council benches.

[TORONTONY]

I agree it's a good idea to look up.

 

Also, there are quite a few examples of building facades being retained and a new, more practical building created behind.

 

We have lost a lot of interesting buildings over the years, but we have retained many, also.

 

Also, although there are plenty of newer buildings that I don't like, I do like where designs are trying to be creative, even if I don't particularly like all of the results.

 

And what I find particularly depressing are buildings where no imagination has been used, a prime example being the Court Building at West Bar.

 

Wasn't such a good idea to look up in Fitzalan Square, a few years ago lol

[Yorkshire 53]

(To Dannyno )

 

Most Edwardian buildings ARE still standing. Earlier styles were evolved gradually from the foregoing styles, not totally unconnected with a shock effect.

 

Edwardian buildings were 'traditional' in as much as they were gradual trends which were popular and aesthetically acceptable. *Who wouldn't want to live in Victorian / Edwardian Fullwood or Hallam still today, check the prices ?*

 

Why should modern buildings with , as you say, a shortish expected life-span be sensible, given the cost and disruption caused when they are built then soon demolished, the 'Egg Box' for just one example of many ? Wood and brick buildings seem to have 'lasted longer' when we look around.

 

Your accepting that modern buildings have the 'shortest expected life-span', and that they are 'un-sustainable' sounds to be the economics of frivolousness, do you work for a developer ? You are entitled to think that 'some Brutalism looks great', but I think the majority opinion is the opposite.*

 

*I take it that the BS ISO Standard is for current and future buildings, for which, as most will be of that 'not sustainable' standard', a 60 year projected life-span is understandable. However, due to popular demand, old facades are now, more and more, being retained and the necessary interior up-grading being done behind them ; by contrast,modern facades are not sturdy enough to have their facades retained one day. As you say, it's a 'problem of style', modern buildings being in a style that doesn't last or please !

 

Going back to the Wiki article on Brutalism, it says, " With Brutalism, there is a 'lack of concern to look comfortable', *lack of concern !! *On the Soviet embrace of it ( if they didn't actually originate it, I did say I stand to be corrected ), the Wiki article states 'Brutalism was an uncompromising anti-bourgeois style', so right up the street of the far left anyway.

 

You say that 'building being done in that ( Brutalist ) style is clearly about budgets', that again contradicts the Wiki article which states that 'many architects chose the Brutalist style even when they had large budgets.'.

 

*Regarding my 'wider point about Labourist affection for the USSR being irrelevant' according to you. You mention the 'Trades Unions based Labour Party' and say it is ridiculous for me to associate Labourist politicians with socialist Utopian ideologues. I said 'many' were, and are, meaning not all. Let's put it this way, in a city which has been traditionally Left, it is to be expected that many will lean a little further Left, including some councillors, the reverse being the case for Tory strongholds of course. Likewise in the Trades Unions.

*

You may be too young to remember but, as an example, one steel works in Sheffield, Shardlow's, was notorious for its communist domination, a point of jubilant conversation in 'Charlie's' communist bookshop in the Wicker*at the time. Far from ridiculous, it's all perfectly natural and to be expected in a majority Left City. Did you never hear the Right Wing Press once call the city 'The Soviet Republic of Sheffield' then ? I'll agree to differ, unless you wish to continue.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2017 at 14:32 ----------

 

BTW, I don't know where those asterisks have come from.

[Falls]

Hi,

 

As a young child (WWII and later) I would often go into town with my father on Saturday mornings. We would walk up Castle Green to Castle Street and facing across the street was the burnt-out structural remains of a restaurant that I believe was called Stephenson's. It must have been all wrought iron work with some kind of glass atrium (and most likely potted palms). According to my father, the food was excellent but it was the kind of place families like ours only went to on very special occasions.

 

It was never rebuilt, in fact the black granite-faced B & C Co-op building was eventually built on roughly the same site.

 

Regards

[hillsbro]

Hi Falls - this was "Stephenson's Exchange Restaurant" at 20 Castle Street - here is a 1930s advertisement from The Star.

Edited April 18, 2017 by hillsbro

[stpetre]

Hi Falls - this was "Stephenson's Exchange Restaurant" at 20 Castle Street - here is a 1930s advertisement from The Star.

 

You have 'The Star' delivered to your Lincolnshire abode Mr.H. ?

[Falls]

Hi Falls - this was "Stephenson's Exchange Restaurant" at 20 Castle Street - here is a 1930s advertisement from The Star.

 

Hello hillsbro,

 

Thanks for the notice. That must have been the place. All a long time ago.

 

Another old shop/restaurant that Town Hall crowd let be demolished would be Tuckwood's This was on Fargate, close to where M & S are now. If my memory is not playing tricks, I seem to recall you entered this place form Fargate by a wide passageway section with counters on each side and this eventually opened-up in to a larger/higher section with a glass roof.

 

An old aunt of my father's religiously bought Tuckwood's cakes and pastries. If you were invited to tea, you were sure to be offered some kind pastry: "Do have piece of this cake", She would say "its from Tuckwood's"

 

Her husband used to comment:

 

"She would offer you bloody paving slabs instead of cake if Tuckwood's sold e'm."

 

Regards

[hillsbro]

You have 'The Star' delivered to your Lincolnshire abode Mr.H. ?

I wish it could be delivered, but I have to be content with viewing it online.

...Another old shop/restaurant that Town Hall crowd let be demolished would be Tuckwood's This was on Fargate, close to where M & S are now...

Yes, Tuckwood's at 29 Fargate closed in the late 1940s, though their "Montgomery Restaurant" continued for many years just around the corner on Surrey Street.

[Dannyno]

(To Dannyno )

 

Most Edwardian buildings ARE still standing. Earlier styles were evolved gradually from the foregoing styles, not totally unconnected with a shock effect.

 

Unfortunately it seems you haven't understood my point. I think I was as clear as I could be, but let's have another go.

 

My key point is that style and building quality are not necessarily connected. There was rubbish Edwardian building, and there is modernist building which will last a reasonable time.

 

I distinguished between modernism and modern.

 

Why are Edwardian buildings still standing, in the cases where they are? Because they used materials and methods which lasted.

 

There is no reason whatsoever why buildings built in modernist styles could not also last 100 years.

 

Edwardian buildings were 'traditional' in as much as they were gradual trends which were popular and aesthetically acceptable. *Who wouldn't want to live in Victorian / Edwardian Fullwood or Hallam still today, check the prices ?*]

 

I live in an Edwardian terraced house. The walls are filled with dust.

 

You object to shocking stylistic innovations. I don't. We're not going to agree on that.

 

Why should modern buildings with , as you say, a shortish expected life-span be sensible, given the cost and disruption caused when they are built then soon demolished, the 'Egg Box' for just one example of many ? Wood and brick buildings seem to have 'lasted longer' when we look around.

 

Now you've shifted from modernism to modern. There is no reason why the "Egg Box" could not have been built to last. Concrete - which is often used in modernist as well as modern buildings - can be used in way which will last 100+ years, but often isn't. I thought the Egg Box was ugly, by the way.

 

In saying we should understand the reasons why buildings are not being built to last, I specifically made it clear that I did not approve. My point was to distinguish between style and method.

 

Your accepting that modern buildings have the 'shortest expected life-span', and that they are 'un-sustainable' sounds to be the economics of frivolousness, do you work for a developer ? You are entitled to think that 'some Brutalism looks great', but I think the majority opinion is the opposite.*

 

I think it is clear from my post that I did not "accept" it. I said "my opinion is that it's not good for sustainability". I think it's a bad thing, and I said it was a bad thing.

 

Why, then, are you trying to paint me as an apologist for cheap but unsustainable building methods?

 

You then move on to the different point that most people probably don't like Brutalism. I don't know whether this is true or not, but if it is, then i don't know what that's got to do with my particular aesthetic preferences.

 

I'm not sure you understand the difference between modern and modernism.

Let me say again: modernism and brutalism are styles of architecture. There is no reason why they have to be built cheaply and with unsustainable materials/methods.

 

Build an Edwardian-style building today, and it will probably last 30 years, unless good quality materials and methods are used.

 

This isn't too difficult a point to understand, surely?

 

 

As you say, it's a 'problem of style', modern buildings being in a style that doesn't last or please !

 

So now I know that you aren't really taking the time to read and understand what I said.

 

What I said was that "it's not a problem of style." that's "not".

 

You've attributed the opposite position to me.

 

I'll say it *again*: not all modern buildings are built in the same style. Not all of them are brutalist or modernist.

 

There is no stylistic reason why a brutalist or modernist building cannot be built to last (let's leave aside whether you like them or not).

 

Where there is a problem, it's because of the building materials and methods, and they would be a problem regardless of style, for the reasons explained.

 

In other words, "brutalist style" does not say "build cheaply out of materials that won't last 30 years".

 

You say that 'building being done in that ( Brutalist ) style is clearly about budgets', that again contradicts the Wiki article which states that 'many architects chose the Brutalist style even when they had large budgets.'.

 

Once again you have not understood my very simple point.

 

What I said was "it helps to understand why building is being done that way, which is clearly about budgets".

 

"That way", referred, as I said, to the cheap methods being used in much modern building. I had already distinguished between style and method/materials, so there is no excuse for this lack of basic comprehension.

 

I've repeated this simple point already in this post, so hopefully I don't have to do so again.

 

Suffice it to say, that I precisely was not confusing Brutalist style with the problems caused by the desire to build cheap buildings out of inferior materials.

 

Which is why your attempt to refute what I said by referring to the wikipedia article fails.

 

You may be too young to remember but, as an example, one steel works in Sheffield, Shardlow's, was notorious for its communist domination

 

Obviously I wasn't saying that there were no communists. There were communists. The idea that the City Council was dominated by them is not true.

 

Did you never hear the Right Wing Press once call the city 'The Soviet Republic of Sheffield' then ?

 

"Socialist Republic", not "Soviet".

 

Your memory is as bad as your comprehension of simple distinctions.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Dannyno