There were a lot of flaws in the grand housing estates built in Britain in this era by brutalist and late modernists, whose utopian ideals were nice in theory but often dreadful in practice, especially coupled with the governmental neglect which they, in their optimism, did not account for. Many of the schemes were unmitigated disasters, particularly in examples like Hutchesontown C in Glasgow, Hulme crescents in Manchester, and Divis flats in Belfast, all of which have now been torn down. This was, by and large, a poor design and even those who admire the brutalist aesthetic should be very conscious of its drawbacks in this sort of budget housing
Nethertheless, this demolition is still upsetting for a couple reasons. First, this sort of wholesale destruction is wasteful, especially given that there are now successful examples of adaptive restoration of these sort of structures, such as at park Hill in Sheffield. Second, it’s a sad reminder that the UK has lost this sort of grand ambition in the housing of its people, especially when you know what it’s being replaced with. Rather than learning from its past mistakes and trying again, the UK is simply sidelining its social housing schemes.
Another interesting thing to note: the demolition of the structure is not quite a complete one: a small section of the building is being removed, restored, and displayed in the V&A museum
austinartosays
I join a comment above in both condemning the poor conditions that some of these schemes produced, whilst also lamenting the loss of vision in providing housing which empowered those at the bottom (and in some cases, the middle) of the socio-economic ladder.
Persistent damp, structural issues and lack of defensible space (a contributing factor in antisocial behaviour) must have made the most poorly designed schemes hell to live in.
Meanwhile, the best schemes from the same era rehoused people from much worse conditions (literal 1up 1down Victorian slums with some accounts talking of literal gunk oozing through walls). They enabled poor people to meet their basic housing needs – sanitary (indoor plumbing, for many the first they’d experienced), equipped (electricity, kitchens, bathrooms) and affordable (far better than private rents, albeit not as cheap as the slums in many cases).
To top it all off, a majority of these schemes paid for themselves. The notion that council housing is subsidised is, in most cases, a myth (granted, exceptions exist). The schemes had long term ROIs – the only thing subsidised was your council tax (because the councils made money on these!)
A push to end the further building of social housing projects led to residualisation – these schemes, rather than housing a vast array of people on the "bottom" half of the socio-economic ladder, became reserved for only those deemed most vulnerable. When you put only homeless/domestic abuse victims/asylum seekers etc under one roof – you ghettoise an entire neighborhood. I absolutely recognise the right of each aforementioned group to council housing. However, housing only said groups in one large building carries the baggage of housing massive amounts of trauma, mental health conditions and general instability under one roof. Kids growing up in this environment will likely not do well. Thus begins the sink estate, followed by attacks on social housing as being innately inhuman – despite the self-fulfilling prophecy and paradox created.
Fast forward to today and many of these projects continue to be either destroyed or, more annoyingly, entirely gentrified. See Trellick Tower and the decanting of social residents/right to buy enabling flats to be passed onto upper-middle class hipsters seeking grungey aesthetic.
We need more, good quality social housing. The cities are rapidly being emptied of their poor and their working class cultures in the name of capitalist "development". This is unsustainable.
I recommended reading Municipal Dreams: The Rise and Fall of Council Housing, for those interested in learning more about both the good and bad of social housing in the UK.
EarlyCuylersCousinsays
That’s an ugly building. That brutalist style is not my cup of tea.
mrtn17says
Sometimes I’m really confused in what sub I’m commenting, r/LostArchitecture or r/urbanhell
random_rascalsays
I think the subreddit you’re looking for is /r/UrbanHell
whitecollarpizzamansays
This looks similar to a project being built near me except it is sheer glass w/steel frame, rather than concrete. Two identical 11 story structures.
mclovin4552says
I visited it as part of Open House London shortly before it was demolished. Aside from the aesthetics (not my favourite) I can say that it had many admirable aims and made some significant innovations (for instance the Smithson’s take on the ‘streets in the sky’ concept). In terms of architectural history, it was an important scheme. The architects, the Smithsons, were pioneers of the style of architecture known as Brutalism. It got some things right, for instance the narrowness of the blocks meant that flats could be dual aspect (with some great views) and received plenty of natural light. Also there was some arguably good acoustic design to block noise from nearby motorways.
Unfortunately I think the scheme suffered from some fatal flaws (not all of which down to the architects). The vertical access to the ‘streets’ was so narrow as to be positively claustrophobic and there were several uncomfortable blind spots. There were problems with build quality, plumbing, weathering and weatherproofing and corners cut during construction. The private balconies are too tiny to be used, except for hanging washing. Also the site itself is isolated between three busy motorways. One could go on to criticise some the aesthetics, e.g. the monolithic and repetitive elevations, or some of the known pitfalls of high rise living.
That is not to dismiss the social problems through poor management which undoubtedly contributed to the ultimate failure of the estate.
I think a much more successful brutalitst estate in London is Alexandra Road.
The_Sceptic_Lemur says
What happend to it?
Pixldust says
Ugly as Hell…
archineering says
Taken from a comment in an old thread:
There were a lot of flaws in the grand housing estates built in Britain in this era by brutalist and late modernists, whose utopian ideals were nice in theory but often dreadful in practice, especially coupled with the governmental neglect which they, in their optimism, did not account for. Many of the schemes were unmitigated disasters, particularly in examples like Hutchesontown C in Glasgow, Hulme crescents in Manchester, and Divis flats in Belfast, all of which have now been torn down. This was, by and large, a poor design and even those who admire the brutalist aesthetic should be very conscious of its drawbacks in this sort of budget housing
Nethertheless, this demolition is still upsetting for a couple reasons. First, this sort of wholesale destruction is wasteful, especially given that there are now successful examples of adaptive restoration of these sort of structures, such as at park Hill in Sheffield. Second, it’s a sad reminder that the UK has lost this sort of grand ambition in the housing of its people, especially when you know what it’s being replaced with. Rather than learning from its past mistakes and trying again, the UK is simply sidelining its social housing schemes.
Another interesting thing to note: the demolition of the structure is not quite a complete one: a small section of the building is being removed, restored, and displayed in the V&A museum
austinarto says
I join a comment above in both condemning the poor conditions that some of these schemes produced, whilst also lamenting the loss of vision in providing housing which empowered those at the bottom (and in some cases, the middle) of the socio-economic ladder.
Persistent damp, structural issues and lack of defensible space (a contributing factor in antisocial behaviour) must have made the most poorly designed schemes hell to live in.
Meanwhile, the best schemes from the same era rehoused people from much worse conditions (literal 1up 1down Victorian slums with some accounts talking of literal gunk oozing through walls). They enabled poor people to meet their basic housing needs – sanitary (indoor plumbing, for many the first they’d experienced), equipped (electricity, kitchens, bathrooms) and affordable (far better than private rents, albeit not as cheap as the slums in many cases).
To top it all off, a majority of these schemes paid for themselves. The notion that council housing is subsidised is, in most cases, a myth (granted, exceptions exist). The schemes had long term ROIs – the only thing subsidised was your council tax (because the councils made money on these!)
A push to end the further building of social housing projects led to residualisation – these schemes, rather than housing a vast array of people on the "bottom" half of the socio-economic ladder, became reserved for only those deemed most vulnerable. When you put only homeless/domestic abuse victims/asylum seekers etc under one roof – you ghettoise an entire neighborhood. I absolutely recognise the right of each aforementioned group to council housing. However, housing only said groups in one large building carries the baggage of housing massive amounts of trauma, mental health conditions and general instability under one roof. Kids growing up in this environment will likely not do well. Thus begins the sink estate, followed by attacks on social housing as being innately inhuman – despite the self-fulfilling prophecy and paradox created.
Fast forward to today and many of these projects continue to be either destroyed or, more annoyingly, entirely gentrified. See Trellick Tower and the decanting of social residents/right to buy enabling flats to be passed onto upper-middle class hipsters seeking grungey aesthetic.
We need more, good quality social housing. The cities are rapidly being emptied of their poor and their working class cultures in the name of capitalist "development". This is unsustainable.
I recommended reading Municipal Dreams: The Rise and Fall of Council Housing, for those interested in learning more about both the good and bad of social housing in the UK.
EarlyCuylersCousin says
That’s an ugly building. That brutalist style is not my cup of tea.
mrtn17 says
Sometimes I’m really confused in what sub I’m commenting, r/LostArchitecture or r/urbanhell
random_rascal says
I think the subreddit you’re looking for is /r/UrbanHell
whitecollarpizzaman says
This looks similar to a project being built near me except it is sheer glass w/steel frame, rather than concrete. Two identical 11 story structures.
mclovin4552 says
I visited it as part of Open House London shortly before it was demolished. Aside from the aesthetics (not my favourite) I can say that it had many admirable aims and made some significant innovations (for instance the Smithson’s take on the ‘streets in the sky’ concept). In terms of architectural history, it was an important scheme. The architects, the Smithsons, were pioneers of the style of architecture known as Brutalism. It got some things right, for instance the narrowness of the blocks meant that flats could be dual aspect (with some great views) and received plenty of natural light. Also there was some arguably good acoustic design to block noise from nearby motorways.
Unfortunately I think the scheme suffered from some fatal flaws (not all of which down to the architects). The vertical access to the ‘streets’ was so narrow as to be positively claustrophobic and there were several uncomfortable blind spots. There were problems with build quality, plumbing, weathering and weatherproofing and corners cut during construction. The private balconies are too tiny to be used, except for hanging washing. Also the site itself is isolated between three busy motorways. One could go on to criticise some the aesthetics, e.g. the monolithic and repetitive elevations, or some of the known pitfalls of high rise living.
That is not to dismiss the social problems through poor management which undoubtedly contributed to the ultimate failure of the estate.
I think a much more successful brutalitst estate in London is Alexandra Road.