A strange place to be...George's page: Architecture

Beauty + commercialism and the De La Warr Pavilion

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:11:41 GMT

I am an architecture junkie at most times and surely an important building like the De La Warr Pavilion is a visit to treasure.While visiting the shop it was clear to me that the merchandise was aimed at the wrong people. They had commissioned quite a few trendy designers to come up with products that are inspired by the architecture and reflect back on it.

The main products was a plate and a canvas bag. Unfortunately while I was browsing books in their shop for 15 mins at least 5 people gasped at the prices of those two items. The plate is being sold for £25 and the bag for £14.50 (http://www.delawarrpavilion.com/shop/peoplewillalwaysneed.htm)
It then dawned on me that the merchandising was aspirational (with a prominent Alvar Aalto and Iittala display) but it was not acknowledging the local area and its people.
A large proportion of the population of Bexhill is pensioners that aspire to retirement by the sea. I do not think that they would have a large amount of disposable income to spend on merchandise and surely the prospect of a £25 plate must seem extortionate. To my eyes the selection in the shop was geared towards a very design conscious urbane audience.

This instance raises the question to who runs artistic and cultural centres around the UK and how well they know their local area. I wonder how many members of the administrative team of the Pavilion have grown up in the area or have resided for long enough to know what the locals would want. The Pavilion is a wonderful building that is clearly very popular with the local community but it seems its administration is out of touch when it comes to the commercial activities.

'The Tower'

Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:42:51 GMT

Was watching the night before on BBC One 'The Tower'

And I was really interested in the premise of the programme, development and regeneration of squalid parts of London.

Surely Deptford is one of the armpits of London but not so the residents of Aragon Tower that Lewisham Council was ousting.

The residents, even though in a Daily Mail kind of way I have expected to be abhorrent. But the only people that were shown to be truly awful were the developers, Council officials and estate agents that were in charge of the redevelopment. They seemed to be arrivistic non entities that had a very simplistic view of what constitutes redevelopment and regeneration. It seemed to them that as long as you get some so called ‘professionals’ to live in the tower block that would change the very constitution of the area. As a naive an attitude as the original policy that made possible for those horrible blocks to be built in the 70's.

Back then the attitude was that if you make clean affordable housing that people on the Council's housing list would love and cherish them and would feel for ever grateful that you took them out of the slums. As we know the reality was very different most council built tower blocks were filled with people that never chose to be there. Instead of a new community spirit all the residents experience was excrement in the elevators and overcrowding.

I suppose, this obvious housing disaster is acknowledged by the ease that Lewisham Council offloaded Aragon Tower to the developers. Thinking that if you get willing owners in the block all the problems of the area would go away. That very idea is what pushed the gentrification of huge enclaves of the capital...get the professionals and Starbucks in and push out all the unwanted trouble makers!

The main problem of mass development is the lack of accountability and safety. What designers and developers forgot when they created those dreaded London tower blocks was that the basic principle for pedestrian (resident) safety is the road/walkways being overlooked by the residents. Jane Jacobs articulated the argument in 1961 in her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities especially in the chapter entitled: The Uses of Sidewalks: Safety she explains that very basic principle: if a road is overlooked by the residents anti-social activity is more than halved as the offending party gets deterred at the prospect of any eye witnesses present.

Unfortunately that principle was not taken into account and most 1970’s blocks tend to have lots of internal or external corridors without any direct connection to the flats (or windows overlooking them). Nowadays councils are dotting CCTV cameras right left and centre trying to cover the inadequacies of the original design. Unfortunately the cameras do little to increase the sense of safety in the tower blocks.

High rise living can be very successful indeed as long as it takes into account the wishes of the residents and is encouraging interaction. Tower blocks, when designed with vision, can create diverse housing that offers a rich emotional and sensory experience. Such towers were some of the early examples in London like the Trellick Tower which is a sought after address and has lots of proud residents. I do not think things will change soon enough though, as the developer is king and the need for profit is the main motivation.

Links

A brief description of the programme on the BBC One website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/listings/programme.shtml?day=yesterday&service_id=4223&filename=20070702/20070702_2245_4223_12855_50

The review of the programme on The Guardian’s website:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2117049,00.html

The developers page about the Aragon Tower development:

http://www.berkeleyhomes.co.uk/index.cfm?articleID=1050

Milton Court a monstrocity or a lost jewel on Barbican's crown?

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:24:27 GMT

I was browsing today and was made aware that Milton Court, at the edge of The Barbican in London is about to be redeveloped.

Modernist architecture has had a very rough ride in the UK from most of last century. Especially in the aftermath of the dreadful social housing that used Modernist language without the philosophical and ideological background.

Milton Court was built in 1965 as a support building to the main Barbican Centre. It was not listed unlike the Centre and a few years ago all leftover residents were bought out of their flats and it has been lying empty read to be redeveloped, here's the proposed plan on the Corporation of London's website: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/media_centre/files2006/City+selects+preferred+Milton+Court+developer.htm

Here are some more links that relate to the campaign to save Milton Court on the debate about its architectural merit:

The BBC's website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6222792.stm

CABE's website with an elevation plan: http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=1925&refid=0&sl=

Advocates of Milton Court have put together a website to try and save it: http://www.miltoncourt.org/

and also the 20th Centrury Society is advocating the building: http://www.c20society.org.uk/docs/press/060929_milton_court.html

CABE seems not to be too impressed by the quality of the proposed development

"We do not think that the architecture in this case is of sufficient quality to make a positive contribution to its immediate and wider setting."

The objections of CABE are higlighting a major problem when developers are brought in to built mixed use development for public bodies. On one hand they have to keep their clients happy by fullfilling the brief even in the expense of the design. And also trying to deliver it to a predetermined price point and make enough money for the architectural practise and the contractor. Unfortunately this kind of development very rarely produces good architecture. And in this instance the Corporation of London should be thinking more about how to make a interesting contribution to the London skyline than how to self-finance the new theatre for the Guildhall School of Music by selling the flats in the new development.

Let's hope that reason will prevail and maybe a sensitive redevelopment will incorporate the original building.

George