# Why does Britain refuse to reconstruct lost architecture?



## MusicMan1 (Aug 18, 2013)

Just before I begin, I myself am British/English, so I am not a foreigner criticising Britain's architecture 
However, the question I wish to ask is: Why, as a nation, do we refuse to reconstruct the buildings that were lost either to the second world war, or to 50s/60s/70s town-planners who seemed to be living on another planet. For crying out loud, if Poland can afford to rebuild Krakow and Russia St. Petersburg, why the hell can't we afford to reconstruct Exeter, Coventry, Gloucester, Southampton, Leicester and parts of Bristol (although the majority of Bristol is still intact/ attractive)? The first three cities were generally on a less ornate scale than the baroque style cities of central Europe anyway! 
Is it because we as a nation are so obsessed with doing things so cheaply, (and having to reconstruct it in 30 years anyway, hence wasting even more money) and being supposedly "progressive". Just so people know, I don't necessarily hate 20th/21st century architecture, with Art-Deco and Art-Nouveau architecture being two of my favourite architectural styles. (Less-so on Art-Nouveau mind, can get a bit nauseatingly frilly in large doses!) I also like a lot of contemporary architecture as well, although it can be a little sterile/unartistic at times. 
The architecture/ details that has blighted our cities the most, in my opinion, are either the undetailed 60s/70s "infill" buildings on many high streets (which aren't even really brutalist), as well as the hideously poorly-planned brutalist shopping centres/bus stations. However, there is also the terrible public-realm, i.e the clutter, double yellow lines etc, that really spoils the environment of many of our urban centres.


----------



## MusicMan1 (Aug 18, 2013)

Just to add: I am aware that some cities have/ are planning to build traditional style areas, examples including Bath's Southgate centre, Canterbury's Whitefriar centre, as well as Chester's planned Northgate centre, maybe Gloucester's Kings square and Bristol's possible Castle park/Dutch house/old city redevelopment? Mind you, these are mostly still pastiches,hno: though they are a definite improvement and do add to an areas attractiveness.


----------



## Birmingham (May 29, 2007)

Alot of buildings lost unfortunately as grand and beautiful as they were, weren't fit for purpose. 

Also, Britain's population was so high a quick answer was needed to re house those after the war. 

In the 50's, 60's housing was so imperative that it had to be constructed quickly and in high density. Over the years this dwindled and lower density housing estates were able to be developed. 

Since the late 90's up to now we have seen hundreds of tower blocks demolished as they are no longer needed.

It was effectively a stop gap. 

Britain itself has always been at the forefront of architecture and it's cities hold more types then they're compatriots elsewhere. 

We love to build and we love to innovate. 

We still crave our best structures and designs but we also know that we must evolve. 

Yes it's led to some nasty buildings but it's also kept Britain as the worlds highest regarded construction industry. 

British Contract docs, building regs and so on are adopted world wide. 

When you have a population as big as the UK in such a small area, sacrifices have to be made and after World War 2, we had no option.


----------



## LondonFox (Nov 4, 2010)

Not to mention the Labour Government of the time decided to waste the UK's Marshall aid to rebuild at home like France and Germany did... and instead blew it all on trying to maintain the Empire post 1945.


----------



## MusicMan1 (Aug 18, 2013)

Birmingham said:


> Alot of buildings lost unfortunately as grand and beautiful as they were, weren't fit for purpose.
> 
> Also, Britain's population was so high a quick answer was needed to re house those after the war.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your reply, but I'm not really talking about residential areas (although I understand why such projects were needed as opposed to rebuilding historic architecture). I'm not saying that we shouldn't innovate with architecture, but to me, it just seems that come 1950, nearly all sense of art in architecture was lost/ dropped in favour of "innovative" engineering based styles. Your own city Birmingham, was redeveloped as an absolute hotch-potch mess in the post-war years: I understand there wasn't always the money to rebuild on an ornate scale, but sure rebuilding well is better than rebuilding poorly, and having to rebuild it again!


----------



## Adiks (Jun 22, 2003)

MusicMan1 said:


> Just before I begin, I myself am British/English, so I am not a foreigner criticising Britain's architecture
> However, the question I wish to ask is: Why, as a nation, do we refuse to reconstruct the buildings that were lost either to the second world war, or to 50s/60s/70s town-planners who seemed to be living on another planet. For crying out loud, if Poland can afford to rebuild Krakow and Russia St. Petersburg, why the hell can't we afford to reconstruct Exeter, Coventry, Gloucester, Southampton, Leicester and parts of Bristol (although the majority of Bristol is still intact/ attractive)? The first three cities were generally on a less ornate scale than the baroque style cities of central Europe anyway!


You kind of messed up here. To make it clear, Kraków has *not been reconstructed*. It was not damaged during the war in the first place. The city is going through heavy *renovations/revitalizations* though. Yet it is not the same scale of work.
Warsaw and Gdansk were indeed *reconstructed*, but that happened hefty of years ago, just after the war. No comparision to nowadays times whatsoever. So to be honest, Poland is not *reconstructing* anything on a mass scale. Even current quite wealthy Warsaw has some serious issues with single *reconstructions*.


----------



## MusicMan1 (Aug 18, 2013)

Adiks said:


> You kind of messed up here. To make it clear, Kraków has *not been reconstructed*. It was not damaged during the war in the first place. The city is going through heavy *renovations/revitalizations* though. Yet it is not the same scale of work.
> Warsaw and Gdansk were indeed *reconstructed*, but that happened hefty of years ago, just after the war. No comparision to nowadays times whatsoever. So to be honest, Poland is not *reconstructing* anything on a mass scale. Even current quite wealthy Warsaw has some serious issues with single *reconstructions*.


Pardon my ignorance, I was confused as to which cities in Poland were/ weren't reconstructed. I am aware that Warsaw was reconstructed to an extent.
Anyway, to get back to the premise of the thread. Just so people know, I am not exactly advocating that we rip down the Gherkin/ Shard/ Lloyds building for example: these buildings are indeed very architecturally interesting, and to an extent artistically designed. Nor am I saying that we should get rid of all brutalist style architecture either: Some very good examples of the style in the country include Coventry Cathedral, Liverpool Catholic cathedral, as well as another brutalist style building in the Liverpool shopping street (can't remember the name/ street mind).
The places I believe that should be restored, are those that currently have architecture contributing nothing to the overall architectural quality- we would be more than capable of doing so. All we would need to do is study what was there previously, and rebuild, or at least similarly rebuild it, so it is not done as a "pastiche". 
I'm not for a moment saying that we shouldn't have new, contemporary style buildings in our city centres at all, many of the newer ones work very well, for example the Liverpool One, Bristol's Cabot Circus, as well as the Birmingham Bull Ring, to name a few. I think that we simply need, as a country, to find a balance between architectural restoration, and innovation.


----------



## Tiaren (Jan 29, 2006)

Just to make MusicMan jealous  :
Freshly reconstructed houses in Dresden's city centre :



Kampflamm said:


> Looks good to me. kay:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## steppenwolf (Oct 18, 2002)

'British' identity (whatever that is) is less defined by historic buildings and more by innovation, experiment, fashion and novelty in architecture.

Conservation philosophy - when you see something that looks old, you can be assured that it is actually old - generally speaking. In some countries old buildings and new ones sometimes look the same and I think the old ones lose their value in that situation.

We do occasionally reconstruct - Holborn Viaduct stair building is a recent example. St Ethelberga's church in the city was reconstructed after an IRA blast. We, like European cities often rebuild to heal emotional scars. After the war Germany and Poland healed their scars by reconstruction - possibly an element of trying to collectively forget the war happened. In the UK we wanted to imagine a better future and forget the dirty, dingy bleak past and imagine a clean, healthy and bright new world... !


----------



## jwojcie (Jun 4, 2009)

I imagine that if London hadn't in fact stayed in big part intact (as much as it was destroyed, still it was not a big deal relatively to some other European capitals) then British also would do some reconstruction. Symbolically, Big Ben were intact to it was not so imporant.



Tiaren said:


> Just to make MusicMan jealous  :
> Freshly reconstructed houses in Dresden's city centre :


As much as new/old Dresden is great I have a doubt about those houses exactly. Specifically about all those countless windows at the attic. Is it really exact reconstruction or to much of a copy past of an architect?


----------



## Birmingham (May 29, 2007)

MusicMan1 said:


> I appreciate your reply, but I'm not really talking about residential areas (although I understand why such projects were needed as opposed to rebuilding historic architecture). I'm not saying that we shouldn't innovate with architecture, but to me, it just seems that come 1950, nearly all sense of art in architecture was lost/ dropped in favour of "innovative" engineering based styles. Your own city Birmingham, was redeveloped as an absolute hotch-potch mess in the post-war years: I understand there wasn't always the money to rebuild on an ornate scale, but sure rebuilding well is better than rebuilding poorly, and having to rebuild it again!


Art in Architecture historically was on cills of windows, door's, roof's etc. 

When technology developed what we saw was more or less 100% of the outer skin of a major building be designed as a piece of art. 

Then construction developed more. You needed to be on time. You needed to be in budget. You have the health and safety act, insurances and mainly you have people with no clue about architecture or construction deciding on what's built and where. 

Many parish councils and town planning committees now refuse homes and other constructions because they don't look like what we are accustomed too. You try and put pargetting on a building, it'll get rejected. Neighbours have a masisve say also. 99% of neighbours in the UK have no knowledge on construction or architecture. 

This is a major problem within UK planning. To many can have a say and normally too many have no idea what they are talking about, which means now it is the norm to be safe and to build safe. (Unless you're in a major city). 

You might say Birmingham was developed in to a hotch-potch mess, which I agree with to an extent, however at the time it was modern, it was the fastest growing city in Europe. Its residents had the highest income in the UK. 

The Government then stopped its growth unmercifully. It forced companies out of the city. It stopped the construction of office buildings and offered incentives for people to move to other cities. 

London hated Birminghams success in the 60's and sorry to say it went into the duldrums until it began to fight back in the late 80's early 90's. 

Birmingham now had architectural wonders such as The Cube, Selfridges, New Library and New Street Station. 

If these were burnt down in 100 years time and never rebuilt I have no doubt someone in 200 years time will ask exactly the same question as you have today. 

:cheers:


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

One thing to note is that very few of England's cities had the kind of architectural unity seen in many European cities. 

To an extent, they were a hotch-potch of styles long before any bombs dropped.

Look at some of the pre-war pictures of Coventry, here, for example
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/coventry/hi/front_page/newsid_9159000/9159406.stm

Of course it's easy to say they were a more appealing selection of random buildings compared to now, but even if looking at what's there now might make people want to weep, almost all would understand not trying to rebuild them as they were before. Had they done so straight after the war, it might have been ok, but with such a gap it would just seem unusual.


----------



## surveyingsteve (Sep 18, 2012)

The problem in Exeter's case is that many buildings damaged during the bltiz were just cleared away. Some fine Georgian terraces and crescents were burnt out but were still standing structurally but it was just all bulldozed before any thought was given to the reconstruction of the city. Luckily enough a substantial amount of Georgian Exeter remains and is one of the plus points of the city. The second problem was the post war planner demolishing most of what was left after the war. Many fine Tudor and Victorian buildings were demolished in order to build indoor shopping centres and ring roads but i'm sure we all know about town planners in the 50's, 60's and 70's. The main difficulty of today reconstructing the city as before the war is, as someone else has said on here, that the pre war city was the result of a centuries of sporadic piecemeal developments on small burrage plots resulting in a variety of architectural styles. Thats what made Exeter such a facinating city. The council now seem all hell on intent on ensuring that Exeter is the main shopping centre South West of Bristol and ahead of Plymouth. I can see why because its brings investment and employment to the city and admittably they are succeding at this, but this philosophy has resulted in buildings such as the Princesshay development with large footprints requiring car parks and service yards totally against the character of the old quarter of the city where the buildings are on small burrage plots. This will be very difficult to overturn. The roles of city centres have also changed since pre war. City centres are now expected to provide leisure facilities, buildings that encourage night time activity, etc. I actually also don't think restoring a city with fake architecture is the way forward anyhow. Exeter for example is a very old city with a proud history. Like it or not the blitz and the post war rebuild is part of the history. Yeah some mistakes were made by planners but theres no point in masking this history with pastiche developments to please a few tourists. The people living in the city will always know that such developments are fake. Actually in the architecture modules in my surveying course at university we were told English Heritage's policy is to encourage modern development that is sympathetic to old buildings but not to replicate traditional styles and i actually agree with this approach. I agree with restoring buildings which is are still standing, but not reconstructing former buildings from scratch basically. For example in the local newspaper recently the Bishop of the Exeter Cathedral has spoke of his intent for the Roman Bath houses buried beneath the Cathedral Green to be exposed and utilised as a tourist attraction. Again this i agree with as its not a fake rebuild. Whats needed in Exeter's case is to remove the cheap post war buildings and replace with innovative contemporary buildings and try and demonstrate perhaps how modern and old buildings can blend together. There is still enough fine pre war buildings remaining but what lets the city down is the post war buildings. The modern buildings of the last 20/30 years are actually quite acceptable in quality in achieving a blend between the old and new. Its just the post war stuff inbetween. This is slowly but surely being addressed but with Exeter's location in the South West the investment is not as great as those in the South East or Manchester, Birmingham for example so will be a work in progress for at least another 20 years in my opinion.


----------



## MusicMan1 (Aug 18, 2013)

surveyingsteve said:


> The problem in Exeter's case is that many buildings damaged during the bltiz were just cleared away. Some fine Georgian terraces and crescents were burnt out but were still standing structurally but it was just all bulldozed before any thought was given to the reconstruction of the city. Luckily enough a substantial amount of Georgian Exeter remains and is one of the plus points of the city. The second problem was the post war planner demolishing most of what was left after the war. Many fine Tudor and Victorian buildings were demolished in order to build indoor shopping centres and ring roads but i'm sure we all know about town planners in the 50's, 60's and 70's. The main difficulty of today reconstructing the city as before the war is, as someone else has said on here, that the pre war city was the result of a centuries of sporadic piecemeal developments on small burrage plots resulting in a variety of architectural styles. Thats what made Exeter such a facinating city. The council now seem all hell on intent on ensuring that Exeter is the main shopping centre South West of Bristol and ahead of Plymouth. I can see why because its brings investment and employment to the city and admittably they are succeding at this, but this philosophy has resulted in buildings such as the Princesshay development with large footprints requiring car parks and service yards totally against the character of the old quarter of the city where the buildings are on small burrage plots. This will be very difficult to overturn. The roles of city centres have also changed since pre war. City centres are now expected to provide leisure facilities, buildings that encourage night time activity, etc. I actually also don't think restoring a city with fake architecture is the way forward anyhow. Exeter for example is a very old city with a proud history. Like it or not the blitz and the post war rebuild is part of the history. Yeah some mistakes were made by planners but theres no point in masking this history with pastiche developments to please a few tourists. The people living in the city will always know that such developments are fake. Actually in the architecture modules in my surveying course at university we were told English Heritage's policy is to encourage modern development that is sympathetic to old buildings but not to replicate traditional styles and i actually agree with this approach. I agree with restoring buildings which is are still standing, but not reconstructing former buildings from scratch basically. For example in the local newspaper recently the Bishop of the Exeter Cathedral has spoke of his intent for the Roman Bath houses buried beneath the Cathedral Green to be exposed and utilised as a tourist attraction. Again this i agree with as its not a fake rebuild. Whats needed in Exeter's case is to remove the cheap post war buildings and replace with innovative contemporary buildings and try and demonstrate perhaps how modern and old buildings can blend together. There is still enough fine pre war buildings remaining but what lets the city down is the post war buildings. The modern buildings of the last 20/30 years are actually quite acceptable in quality in achieving a blend between the old and new. Its just the post war stuff inbetween. This is slowly but surely being addressed but with Exeter's location in the South West the investment is not as great as those in the South East or Manchester, Birmingham for example so will be a work in progress for at least another 20 years in my opinion.


I do mostly agree with you- we do need to be innovative with architecture, and we can't deny what has happened in the past, i.e the Exeter blitz and shoddy redevelopment programs. As you say, the city does mainly need to move on and showcase good quality contemporary architecture next to the surviving historic buildings, as it would be pastiche, and "fake" as you say.
However, I do believe that a few buildings of particular landmark significance that were lost to the war should be rebuilt, as it would simply bring some pride back to the city, and showcase what Exeter had to offer. I do like a lot of Exeter's more contemporary buildings as well, such as the Princesshay centre for example. I even think a couple of the red-brick postwar buildings at the top of the high street are actually quite nice! (Not all of them mind!) I can agree that Sidwell street, Paris street and South Street are absolutely horrible though!
It is a shame that Exeter, as a "secondary city" in the South West won't be a attracting a great deal of development funding, but at least the problems are slowly being recognised and dealt with. I like the idea of digging the Roman Bathhouses too, could make for a very interesting attraction!


----------



## Reality7 (Jul 13, 2013)

MusicMan1 said:


> Why does Britain refuse to reconstruct lost architecture?


For the same reason it knocked down a lot of perfect sound victorian terraces in the 1950's and 1960's. Money. The UK has always been money over anything and if someone can make enough money by leveling something, they will, still goes on and there are plenty of modern examples in London. Once they can stop knocking down victorian, only then can they starting thinking about reconstructing what was lost.

These were demolished in the late 50's:

Notting Hill Gate then:










Notting Hill Gate now: 










North Paddington










Now:


----------



## CovAD (Oct 8, 2008)

I think a lot of the reasoning is practical and economic, along with a desire to be innovative and seen as a player on the world stage. I also think we don't like to be seen as 'fake' and for something to pretend to be something that it isn't. Today you can use modern materials for the structure and clad it in a skin that looks from a bygone era, but by and large we don't do that as it feels like a lie.

In my home city, which I'm sure you've guessed is Coventry, the inner city needed redeveloping even pre-war, as the roads and alleyways needed widening for a changing world. Of course the buildings could have been recreated alongside the new roads, just further apart, but a lot of the older buildings just wouldn't have been suitable in terms of size etc for the needs of the modern world either and the materials for construction either scarce or more expensive, and when you need to rebuild an entire country when its pretty much bankrupt this is a major issue. Some of the post war recreation is still ongoing in Europe nearly 70 years later.

For example, in one of the historic areas remaining in the city a fire destroyed a old watchmakers cottage and top shop. A developer put in a plan to build a few sympathetically styled houses on the site, which was blocked and a more expensive plan to recreate the top shop passed. There are a few large scale housing developments occurring at the moment, filling in some of the old factory sites, and these are selling as quickly as they are built. The recreated top shop is empty. For balance there is also some current work underway on a place called Far Gosford Street, which is recreating the old look of the street. However, many of these structures are still standing so are in fact just being refurbished in a way and it is quite expensive and taking a long time, but it does seem to be making the area busier.

I'm a big detractor of much of the post war redevelopment, with things like the ring road and the precinct/Broadgate just laid over the street plan and ignoring how it would interact with it. I guess they just thought if they could get a few things built they could then say it didn't fit in with the old stuff and so that would need replacing too, thus incrementally getting more and more of their own plan put in to make it coherent. The destruction from the war just gave them a massive opportunity to do more than they could have otherwise hoped. For example, major cities like Paris which practically rebuilt the entire city due to the massive influence of single individuals seem to work, yet had only part of those plans been done it'd be an incoherent mess. Gibson/Lyng would have actually destroyed a great deal more of the old architecture had they been allowed, including the old Cathedral.

In terms of building design its also unfortunate that those planners who had an opportunity to do such large scale redevelopment which nowadays could only be dreamed off had been brought up as children during WWI/II, during times of austerity, rationing and low supplies. Ornate decoration and intricate design were seen as wasteful and unnecessary, and despite the desire of many of them to be seen as railing against the establishment in fact their designs are prime examples of how the opinion and education of the state about efficiency and wastefulness influenced them heavily.

I also think we don't like the idea of 'fakery'. We have Spon St, which is full of old buildings which many locals love, but few realise its 'fake', with the (authentic) buildings taken from other areas of the city centre to prevent them being knocked down. It's essentially a dumping ground for old architecture. One of the chuches which make up the famous Three Spires is pretty much a 18/19th century rebuild. There are plenty of other places in Coventry which still has a surprising amount of old stuff, but it's quite spread out and so doesn't manage to create the feeling of a place like York. Personally I'd rather see those authentic buildings moved into a central area around the cathedral and old churches, allowing redevelopment unhindered by their presence in their current locations, than to recreate buildings that look historic but aren't. It feels like you're ripping people off. It also allows them to be more of an asset, as they create a critical mass that can be used for tourism which currently in situ they're too disparate to achieve.


----------



## Reality7 (Jul 13, 2013)

CovAD said:


> In my home city, which I'm sure you've guessed is Coventry, the inner city needed redeveloping even pre-war, as the roads and alleyways *needed *widening for a changing world.


Do you think they actually needed widening and if they were not widened, the city would have suffered economically? For example, do you think Barcelona's Bari Gotic is poorer or less commercial because it kept its alleyways and narrow streets? Do you think Soho in London which can barely fit one car down any given road should have been demolished?


----------



## CovAD (Oct 8, 2008)

Reality7 said:


> Do you think they actually needed widening and if they were not widened, the city would have suffered economically? For example, do you think Barcelona's Bari Gotic is poorer or less commercial because it kept its alleyways and narrow streets? Do you think Soho in London which can barely fit one car down any given road should have been demolished?


Almost without a doubt it would. Pre-war Coventry was quite small (even now for a city of its size its quite compact) and heavily industrial. A lot of the factories, which made up much of its economic output, were actually very centrally located and transporting the goods other than those next to the railway would have been nigh on impossible.

The areas you talk of are tourist areas, or filled with entertainment. Coventry at the time was a working, industrial centre and had much different needs. Tourism and entertainment services weren't massively in demand in the Midlands at the time, nor were they expected to grow to the extent they have, so to abandon that economy and the skills the people in the area had in favour of a, at the time, niche area would have been economic suicide.

Since that time there has been a massive decline in manufacturing and an increase in tourism and services, plus an expansion outwards to decentralise offices and shopping in retail, business and science parks. With that hindsight maybe in the current climate keeping the older, narrower streets would have helped access this income stream, but its unlikely to have survived to be in a position to take advantage of it if it had.


----------



## surveyingsteve (Sep 18, 2012)

Reality7 said:


> For the same reason it knocked down a lot of perfect sound victorian terraces in the 1950's and 1960's. Money. The UK has always been money over anything and if someone can make enough money by leveling something, they will, still goes on and there are plenty of modern examples in London. Once they can stop knocking down victorian, only then can they starting thinking about reconstructing what was lost.
> 
> These were demolished in the late 50's:
> 
> ...


Shocking needless demolitions :bash:


----------



## surveyingsteve (Sep 18, 2012)

MusicMan1 said:


> However, I do believe that a few buildings of particular landmark significance that were lost to the war should be rebuilt, as it would simply bring some pride back to the city, and showcase what Exeter had to offer. I do like a lot of Exeter's more contemporary buildings as well, such as the Princesshay centre for example. I even think a couple of the red-brick postwar buildings at the top of the high street are actually quite nice! (Not all of them mind!) I can agree that Sidwell street, Paris street and South Street are absolutely horrible though!
> QUOTE]
> 
> I don't see how reconstructing a building from a previous generation could bring pride back to the city. The existing generation would have no connection to these buildings and they would know they were fake. It would only benefit the tourists.
> ...


----------



## surveyingsteve (Sep 18, 2012)

As i mentioned in my earlier post, my philosophy is restoring buildings which is are still standing, but not reconstructing former buildings from scratch basically. For example in Exeter High Street this row of Medieval building stand in the narrow section of the High Street that was largely unaffected by bombing or post war planning. 










They may not look much but they are actually some of the last remaining Tudor buildings on the High Street. Some of them have unfortunately suffered numerous alterations over the years. Here I would say restore the building to their former incarnations. The two properties to the right hand side used to be twin Tudor houses but only one of them is true to the original build. Here I would restore the end building to match it's neighbour and reinstate the gables on both buildings. Something like this:










The three next buildings along the row I would suggest restoring these building simply by removing the parapet roofs and restoring the gables and reinstating the original windows. This I feel would enhance this part of the High Street immensley from an architecture point of view. Its not faking it but its just bringing them back to their true selfs.

A little bit along the High Street these two buildings are probably some of the most photographed by tourists but they are pretty much fake. The interiors were stripped out but the original facades were retained. Unfortunately the shopfronts were removed and an underpass was created. I would suggest restoring the original shopfronts and removing the underpass. Obviously the interiors can't be brought back but seeing as the facades are remaining then an effort should be made to present them to their full potential. 










A little bit further is another building which should be restored. This building annoys me so much. The roof burned down during the blitz but no effort was made to restore the double gabled roof and was simply replaced with a flat roof. It was such a lazy effort. Also the oriel windows on the top floor were not rebuilt and again the shopfront was removed and a underpass created.


----------



## CovAD (Oct 8, 2008)

surveyingsteve said:


> Totally agree with every word of this. Thats interesting that Coventry plucked historic buildings and re-built them elsewhere. Is there anywhere around the cathedral these buildings could perhaps be 're-built' again?


Sadly not really, in terms of currently empty, undeveloped sites. There is a ground level car park in Greyfriars Lane that would be suitable for two or three buildings next to Fords Hospital, another medieval building, but other than that...

That's not to say there isn't plenty that IMO couldn't be removed to do such a plan. Lots of empty units that don't really add anything architecturally, although that is subjective of course.

Personally I favour a north-south route from the train station up towards the cathedral and motor museum and possibly even the canal basin (an idea I got the inspiration for from Birmingham's Brindley Place), as it would be more likely to attract the immediate interest of visitors as they enter the city and then lead them through the heart of the city towards its main visitor attractions and hopefully spread the potential for further redevelopment. 

Others would prefer the old main east-west route recreated in place of the precinct, reconnecting Far Gosford St and Spon St with their older buildings. A fine idea but one that would probably have to be pointed out to visitors as I don't think it would be obviously apparent, and also once you reached the end they'd be nothing to do but turn back round and retrace your steps, which I always find a bit disappointing. It'd be quite a distance to walk too (although a taxi rank at the ends would probably do decent business)


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

While conservation efforts on existing buildings might have merits, it is hypocrite, fake and kitsch the idea of rebuilding from scratch old buildings that had been completely knocked down for decades as if they were old.

This is why Dresden is becoming the open-air Disney of the Elbe, complete with stucco buildings and fake old ornaments.

London doesn't need to go down that path.


----------



## NewTroll (Sep 18, 2008)

I also live in Coventry, but I find the problem with the post war city is the terrible layout and the way the ring road has created dead end streets that struggle to find a use (Due to the lack of people on them) and the awful way everything seems to be inside out, with service areas facing roads and people expected to go into a series of fairly grim 'precincts' that remain empty past 5:30. The buildings are very much of the period (And haven't aged well in many cases, and do create a somewhat dreary townscape) but some of the later additions in recent years are an absolute disgrace. There are too many weird empty squares that have nothing round them. An expensive and prestigious development (Phoenix Initiative) just created more of the same mistakes and after a decade looks run down.

The blitz was pretty destructive, but the destruction that followed was even worse, with whole streets that survived being torn down and in many cases being left empty because they didn't know what to do with the sites. They never really planned much apart from the ring road and precinct, and never really knew what to do with the rest.

It's a total mess.


----------



## Reality7 (Jul 13, 2013)

I think the reason is somewhat political. Many of the buildings lost were neo classical.

Some very sensitive council members over the last 59 years may associate the style with decadence, imperialism and elitism. Especially some of the more beautiful and spectacular buildings that were pulled down and replaced with brutalist structures.


----------



## computeruser (Apr 24, 2013)

http://marvmelb.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/melbournes-wonderful-demolished.html?m=1

In Melbourne where I live it is similar. Many historic buildings have been demolished and replaced with poorly designed architecture. I believe what you posted about the political aspect is correct. While it is difficult to definitely prove this is the reason.


----------



## NewTroll (Sep 18, 2008)

computeruser said:


> http://marvmelb.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/melbournes-wonderful-demolished.html?m=1
> 
> In Melbourne where I live it is similar. Many historic buildings have been demolished and replaced with poorly designed architecture. I believe what you posted about the political aspect is correct. While it is difficult to definitely prove this is the reason.


Heartbreaking! Looks like it was a fantastic Victorian style city.

I always suspected that Coventry's council would never advocate any sort of 'reconstruction' (Although I think it would be difficult to reconstruct some of the ramshackle medieval aspects) as it would mean an admission that Labour's grand 'City of tomorrow' utopia failed and has left us with a 'fourth rate provincial city build on modernist lines.'


----------



## computeruser (Apr 24, 2013)

Melbourne still has a lot of good examples of historic architecture. But it is sad.


----------



## Reality7 (Jul 13, 2013)

Super examples compteruser.
Should post some of those on the most moronic demolitions thread just below this one.


----------



## Brucey7 (Sep 21, 2014)

Birmingham said:


> Alot of buildings lost unfortunately as grand and beautiful as they were, weren't fit for purpose.
> 
> Also, Britain's population was so high a quick answer was needed to re house those after the war.
> 
> ...


I personally don't buy the whole 'not fit for purpose' argument. It was just an easy way to dismiss criticism and plow ahead with the failed 60's development that now plague town and cities across Britain. Sure they may have needed work doing but so do most buildings after a certain number of years have passed. I remember reading recently, I think on the BBC, how it is now the traditional Victorian market halls that are thriving whilst those replaced with crappy modernist structures are now those that are virtually empty, yet it was the Victorian ones that we were told were not fit for purpose that now thrive - whilst the purpose built modernist ones rot. Mistakes are made, but the sad thing is that in this country we don't seem to ever learn from them.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

We're in the middle of a renovation boom in Europe unlike anything else since WWII.
That's good enough news for me.


----------



## RegentHouse (Sep 2, 2012)

The same reasons why most destroyed cities in France and Japan didn't rebuild as before. As world powers spared from the Iron Curtain, the destruction led to opportunities for introducing new (many of which failed) or never-implemented ideas to stay dominant. While London was being bombed, there was actually some consideration to implement Christopher Wren's plan at the end of the war. I guess that's a good thing it never happened because many more structures would have been destroyed than during the air raids, like the post-war Marzoni plan for Birmingham.

As for today, not much is being rebuilt because it's a developer-driven world. Specifically in London, developers would rather hire some head-up-his-own-ass starchitect instead of consulting English Heritage and the historical plans for a building of comparable size. As a result, London gets self-proclaimed "edgy" while in reality, quirky and playful blobs of shit with bizarre cladding, strange colors, and irregular window placement (basically most stuff in the London compilation thread), which are vastly inferior to the post-war buildings they replace. I pray it's a short-term trend that will die-out in the near future, with everything destroyed and replaced by innovative or lost architecture.

I suppose looking on the bright side, there's talk to rebuild the Crystal Palace. Also, post-war development in France is being replaced with Haussman-esque buildings, and Tokyo's central station was restored a few years ago to its pre-war appearance. World cities will never be like Dresden or Rotterdam concerning historic reconstruction, but rebuilding the greatest former assets can even be better than a supertall.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

It's quite simple really. Because British society has always been commercially driven, i.e. money over aesthetics. This is a running theme in the history of British architecture at least since the industrial revolution, and continues today. That is why Britain is the home of value-engineered glass boxes and lego architecture developments. 

I generally don't support the reconstruction of old architecture as it comes across as fake. Sure, some lost gems could be brought back, but when entire cities become mere reconstructions (such as in Germany and Poland) it gets really problematic. In this sense I'm glad that Britain is staying out of the reconstruction boom. What British cities should adopt is the 'continental' way of organizing and maintaining cities. Cities in Britain are generally more cluttered and the public realm poorer compared to cities in other parts of Europe. 

The real tragedy of British urbanity is the insane destruction and suburbanization that occurred after WWII.


----------



## MusicMan1 (Aug 18, 2013)

Seriously. If I had my way, I would personally remove legal obligations and force developers to demolish the ugly shopping centres and brutalist buildings, and rebuild what was there before/ something fitting to the city. I would also like to see city centre shopping centres demolished/ barred from development, and replaced with a historic/ natural street pattern, filled with appropriate, local-style architecture/ building materials. All city centre shopping centres are, are lazy excuses for city councils to not have to fund the development of a plot of land, so that a private company can do a cheap architectural bodge-job. The locally owned Businesses would help a local economy flourish, and attractive buildings they would be housed in would help to attract Business, and/or tourism.

The argument that Britain has "always been commercially driven" architecturally is just bullshit in my opinion. It's just the lazy excuse for architects who care nothing about history and heritage to spend less money on a city centre project. The Georgians/ Victorians/ Early 20th century managed it just fine. And those buildings, even 30s Art Deco, have stood the test of time. Why can't we manage it now? 

And don't give me the usual excuse that "Brutalism is just another artistic/ architectural phase, worthy of preservation". Ok, if it was so good, why are those buildings in such bad repair/ so ugly?


----------



## ELH (Jul 5, 2013)

Suburbanist said:


> While conservation efforts on existing buildings might have merits, it is hypocrite, fake and kitsch the idea of rebuilding from scratch old buildings that had been completely knocked down for decades as if they were old.
> 
> This is why Dresden is becoming the open-air Disney of the Elbe, complete with stucco buildings and fake old ornaments.
> 
> London doesn't need to go down that path.


I find your position (which is shared by many) too purely intellectually founded, as if one has lost touch with the *feeling* of the matter. When it comes to architecture, as with other aesthetics, it is mostly good enough reason that someting is "nice". Ask yourself, would the world in any manner profit from it was Dresden not rebuild? In my view, positions like that you hold seem a little "elitist".

It is not the same to rebuild as to have an old city that was never destroyed. But rebuild in the original spot, with faithful reconstruction of exteriors as to the quality of craftmanship and materials, the Disney-world metaphore fails completely.


----------



## MusicMan1 (Aug 18, 2013)

ELH said:


> I find your position (which is shared by many) to purely intellectually founded. One may lose touch with the *feeling* of the matter. When it comes to architecture, as with other aesthetics, it is mostly good enough reason that someting is "nice". Ask yourself, would the world in any manner profit from it was Dresden not rebuild? In my view, thus, positions like that you hold seem a little "elitist".
> 
> It is not the same to rebuild as to have an old city that was never destroyed. But rebuild in the original spot, with faithful reconstruction of exteriors as to the quality of craftmanship and materials, the Disney-world metaphore fails completely.


Exactly. Rebuilding what was there before is not creating any sort of pastichey- "Disneyland". It is merely celebrating the city's history, and simply replacing what was lost. Perhaps it isn't wholly authentic, but would building an ugly tower block for the sake of it in the same place be?


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

MusicMan1 said:


> Exactly. Rebuilding what was there before is not creating any sort of pastichey- "Disneyland". It is merely celebrating the city's history, and simply replacing what was lost.


You don't seem to be too fond of the history that occured after WWII. That era is as equal and valid as the history before the war. It's hypocritical to say you support the history of the city and then say they should demolish the brutalist buildings. 

In Britain they are tearing down or completely altering countless post war buildings without a second thought. Even the good ones like the St. Helens Tower will be demolished. In my opinion that is no better than how _they_ demolished or altered the buildings before them.

A true preservationist must also be empathetic towards future generations which will see the currently dated buildings as historic. The buildings of the recent past should be renovated in a way that is true to the architect's intentions. Otherwise there is no way to prevent repeating the demolition mistakes of the past.


----------



## ELH (Jul 5, 2013)

ThatOneGuy said:


> You don't seem to be too fond of the history that occured after WWII. That era is as equal and valid as the history before the war. It's hypocritical to say you support the history of the city and then say they should demolish the brutalist buildings.
> 
> In Britain they are tearing down or completely altering countless post war buildings without a second thought. Even the good ones like the St. Helens Tower will be demolished. In my opinion that is no better than how _they_ demolished or altered the buildings before them.
> 
> A true preservationist must also be empathetic towards future generations which will see the currently dated buildings as historic. The buildings of the recent past should be renovated in a way that is true to the architect's intentions. Otherwise there is no way to prevent repeating the demolition mistakes of the past.


I see it a little differently:

(a) many post war buildings are cheap, forced into existence on short notice within two decades of poverty by the need of housing after the war destructions.

(b) sometimes not only single buildings are worth preserving but urban habitats. If an old-town, as example, is punctuated with disharmonious modern elements, that is not the same as having those modern buildings in another area of the city.

(c) I´m an aestheticist, not a preservationist in the sense of "documenting history". High quality buildings from all eras may be worth preserving, but not automatically. I would also not adsvocate preserving entire cities in a pre-war fashion, only the iconic or high quality parts of the city centers. Contemporary developments around historic cores are necessary and desirable.

(d) although subjective, one might argue that the handcraft base and building philosophy of many pre-modern styles have something exquisitely aesthetic about them. In fact, there were ages where aesthetics were prioritized alongside functionality in a different manner than presently the case. The people back then didn´t relativize aesthetics, even is some will insist that was _their_ loss.


----------



## ELH (Jul 5, 2013)

steppenwolf said:


> 'British' identity (whatever that is) is less defined by historic buildings and more by innovation, experiment, fashion and novelty in architecture.
> 
> Conservation philosophy - when you see something that looks old, you can be assured that it is actually old - generally speaking. In some countries old buildings and new ones sometimes look the same and I think the old ones lose their value in that situation.
> 
> We do occasionally reconstruct - Holborn Viaduct stair building is a recent example. St Ethelberga's church in the city was reconstructed after an IRA blast. We, like European cities often rebuild to heal emotional scars. After the war Germany and Poland healed their scars by reconstruction - possibly an element of trying to collectively forget the war happened. In the UK we wanted to imagine a better future and forget the dirty, dingy bleak past and imagine a clean, healthy and bright new world... !


I don´t know what makes up british identity from an inside perspective, from the outside, Britain is not the same without an intact link to the past.

Architecturally, that has alot in common with northwestern europe generally, half-timbered and brick architecture. My own, more specific associations goes in the direction of monumental neu-gothic architecture and stone houses, both in cities and in in the countryside.

As a side-note: I don´t think germany reconstructs to forget the past, but to remember its whole past, not just 15-20 years of the 20th century.


----------



## CovAD (Oct 8, 2008)

ThatOneGuy said:


> You don't seem to be too fond of the history that occured after WWII. That era is as equal and valid as the history before the war. It's hypocritical to say you support the history of the city and then say they should demolish the brutalist buildings.
> 
> In Britain they are tearing down or completely altering countless post war buildings without a second thought. Even the good ones like the St. Helens Tower will be demolished. In my opinion that is no better than how _they_ demolished or altered the buildings before them.
> 
> A true preservationist must also be empathetic towards future generations which will see the currently dated buildings as historic. The buildings of the recent past should be renovated in a way that is true to the architect's intentions. Otherwise there is no way to prevent repeating the demolition mistakes of the past.


I agree entirely. These brutalist monstrosities of which I'm no fan are now just as valid a part of an area's history as any time before it. The homogenised look is PART of what has occurred both architecturally and culturally with a more accessible, globalised world and reflects both the financial necessity post WWII and desire to be able to offer more services to those in need at the cost of aesthetic desirablity for those with more. It is a reminder of the past, and arguably keeping a few (including the odd tower block) is a better way of ensuring we don't make the same mistake again than tearing them all down

It is impossible to say what should and shouldn't be preserved on an aesthetic basis because that is entirely subjective. Is the call from one of the other posters above to force the tearing down of these shopping centres for what they consider to be architecturally desirable no different from the people who demanded they be allowed to tear down the old structures to build them?

Aren't a lot of the buildings from previous ages, Georgian especially, often heavily inspired by stuff from the continent anyway. And before that when international travel was nigh on impossible cues were taken from other towns/cities in this country and recreated in local materials? And if they are all rebuilt to reflect that history why would this help tourism? Everywhere would have that 'old' look. The average person probably wouldn't care about the old look, and those that did wouldn't be overly bothered because it wouldn't actually be old, and there would be so many places to choose from.

I agree with them that there is far too much in terms of what can be preserved and creates massive problems.

As time goes on a LOT of those buildings will be torn down because they haven't stood the test of time, and will be replaced


----------

