Architecture
-
Green Fingers
I was walking back from Columbia Road flower market at the weekend (in itself a charming place – full of character), when I couldn’t help be drawn to a number of lovingly nurtured little oases scattered about the streets between the market and Bethnal Green Road.
The buildings themselves are pretty unassuming pieces of architecture, but the gardens are so striking people were literally stopping in the street to appreciate them. Unfortunately, I only photographed one (I wish I’d snapped some of the others).
That also reminded me of a ‘green wall’ I’d seen in a shop in Regent Street (below). I’m no horticulturalist by any means – my tomato plant is wilting severely – but felt these were worth a post.
-
Le Corbusier’s Radiant City
On my rather wonderful honeymoon in the south of France, my wife(!) and I spent a day living the Le Corbusier vision at his seminal Unité d’Habitation development, Marseille. Dubbed “the city in the sky”, this was a revolutionary experiment in urban living when it was built between 1947 and 1952.
Set amongst the many residents of this imposing block (337 apartments), 2 floors function as a hotel and restaurant (part of Le Corbusier’s original plans) with each guest studio preserved exactly as it was in the 1950s, bar a flat screen tv and a new shower!
The experience is unlike any other hotel I’ve stayed in, sharing the corridors (referred to by residents as “streets” due to their immense width) and lifts with its residents enforces the experience of living in a building such as this.
It was fantastic to be a part of a vision that has remained truly intact over half a century later. Every light fixing, every wooden panel, every inch of space had been considered and designed and it’s not often one can witness such a complete piece of work from a designer.
Much information can be found on the web but here are two starters for you, one on Le Corbusier and the other “Cité Radieuse”
-
Rebuilding Gordonbrock School
We’ve not really established any one theme for the AW blog, besides writing about things that are of interest to us; broadly speaking areas that include visual aesthetics & sound, motion, interaction and communication. So I may be straying a little off-piste with this post, but I’ve just returned from a local meeting and I’m hopping mad about it.
Our local school, Gordonbrock Primary (which my two daughters attend), was due to be rebuilt this year. The Edwardian buildings date to 1905 but have become completely unfit for purpose (a fact identified some 21 years ago apparently – these things take time). The parents, local community, even the kids themselves, have been involved in years of planning and consultation with the school and Lewisham Council about the new building and the decant, and everything was set to go in Easter this year. However, just ten days before the build was due to begin, we received a letter saying a last minute legal objection from The Brockley Society had put a stop to it all (the Council had failed to conduct an environmental impact assessment, which unfortunately left the door open).
The Brockley Society aim to preserve the character and architectural integrity of the conservation areas in the local community. This evening they made their arguments and we listened. Lewisham Council’s approved scheme retained two of the four original buildings. The Brockley Society wanted to keep at least three. They pulled together two feasibility studies for alternatives at the last minute, the first retaining all four buildings, the second retaining three. Neither met the needs of the school, neither were properly costed or planned and neither were actually any better.
An uprising of local anger then ensued against the BS (as I’d now like to refer to them) from local parents, governors, councillors and residents. The main root of their anger was the fact that at the end of this calendar year, it is very likely that if the build hasn’t commenced the funding will be lost and the rebuild will be cancelled. Not only that, viable solutions were put forward to their two main objections (completely understandable objections I might add) – first that a new entrance would obscure one of the original buildings, and second that the quality and durability of the buildings’ exterior render was insufficient. Neither solution on offer was even mentioned in the BS presentation, let alone considered.
I’m all for preservation in the right context, and I’m usually the first to grumble if an old building is coming down, but sometimes its necessary; often the only solution to preserving an old building is to sacrifice some parts in order to breath new life into others. If its not fit for purpose its simply not fit to preserve.
What irked me most though, was that for a society who’s activities revolve around architectural integrity, The Brockley Society’s alternative scheme (above) – albeit retaining more of the original fabric – is actually less sympathetic. Just plonk some new buildings in between the old ones, and attempt to blend different eras by using like for like materials (century old red brick meet spanking new red brick). Like them or not, the approved plans at least attempt to create an honest building to reflect the era from which it comes, and most importantly they are the only plans likely to see the light of day. Unfortunately, The Brockley Society have now jeopardised the future education of hundreds of local children for goodness knows how long.
Rant over, thank you.