Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Meaning of New Brutalist Architecture
110 views
Skip to first unread message
Dingbat
Jun 12, 2016, 5:12:28 AM6/12/16
to
Meaning of New Brutalist Architecture
https://thelondoncolumn.com/tag/gentrification/
People think ‘the New Brutalism’ is called that just because it’s brutal, but in fact, it’s a play on the French term ‘béton brut’, for raw concrete.
Then, does brute force mean raw
https://thelondoncolumn.com/tag/gentrification/
People think ‘the New Brutalism’ is called that just because it’s brutal, but in fact, it’s a play on the French term ‘béton brut’, for raw concrete.
Then, does brute force mean raw
Cheryl
Jun 12, 2016, 6:12:56 AM6/12/16
to
On 2016-06-12 6:42 AM, Dingbat wrote:
> Meaning of New Brutalist Architecture
> https://thelondoncolumn.com/tag/gentrification/
> People think ‘the New Brutalism’ is called that just because it’s brutal, but in fact, it’s a play on the French term ‘béton brut’, for raw concrete.
For those who dislike the style, that's a very appropriate name in
> Meaning of New Brutalist Architecture
> https://thelondoncolumn.com/tag/gentrification/
> People think ‘the New Brutalism’ is called that just because it’s brutal, but in fact, it’s a play on the French term ‘béton brut’, for raw concrete.
English even if you don't know the French origin.
> Then, does brute force mean raw
>
to 'brutal' - implying violent, powerful, cruel and uncivilized.
--
Cheryl
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jun 12, 2016, 7:03:57 AM6/12/16
to
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 07:43:03 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-06-12 6:42 AM, Dingbat wrote:
>> Meaning of New Brutalist Architecture
>> https://thelondoncolumn.com/tag/gentrification/
>> People think ‘the New Brutalism’ is called that just because it’s brutal, but in fact, it’s a play on the French term ‘béton brut’, for raw concrete.
>
>For those who dislike the style, that's a very appropriate name in
>English even if you don't know the French origin.
>
>> Then, does brute force mean raw
>>
>I think it can have that implication, although I'd connect 'brute" more
>to 'brutal' - implying violent, powerful, cruel and uncivilized.
OED:
>On 2016-06-12 6:42 AM, Dingbat wrote:
>> Meaning of New Brutalist Architecture
>> https://thelondoncolumn.com/tag/gentrification/
>> People think ‘the New Brutalism’ is called that just because it’s brutal, but in fact, it’s a play on the French term ‘béton brut’, for raw concrete.
>
>For those who dislike the style, that's a very appropriate name in
>English even if you don't know the French origin.
>
>> Then, does brute force mean raw
>>
>I think it can have that implication, although I'd connect 'brute" more
>to 'brutal' - implying violent, powerful, cruel and uncivilized.
brute, adj. and n.1
Etymology: < French brut, feminine brute < Latin brutus heavy, dull,
irrational (Spanish bruto, Italian bruto, noun). Some of the senses
are probably directly from, or at least influenced by, the Latin.
A. adj. (Now often an attrib. use of the noun.)
1. Of animals: wanting in reason or understanding; chiefly in
phrases brute beasts, the brute creation, = the ‘lower animals’.
a1475 ...
2.
a. Of human beings, their actions, and attributes: brute-like,
brutish; dull, senseless, stupid; unintelligent, unreasoning,
uninstructed; sensual.
1535 ...
b. Rough, rude, wanting in sensibility.
1555...
3.
a. Of things: not possessing or connected with reason, intelligence,
or sensation; irrational, unconscious, senseless; merely material;
esp. in brute matter, brute force.
1540 ...
†b. Of inarticulate sound. Obs.
†c. Of thunder: = brutish adj. 4. Obs.
4.
a. Of surfaces: rugged; unpolished. rare.
B. n.1
1.
a. One of the lower animals as distinguished from humans: a brute
creature.In quot. 1870, an ox or cow.
1611 ...
1870 Trans. Illinois State Agric. Soc. 1867–8 7 223, I..did not
lose a brute until the past summer.
a1876 J. H. Newman Hist. Sketches I. i. iv. 164 Brutes..cannot
invent, cannot progress.
b. The animal nature in humans. (Cf. beast n. 1d.)
1787 ...
2. A person resembling a brute in want of intelligence, cruelty,
coarseness, sensuality, etc. Now (colloq.) often merely a strong
term of reprobation or aversion, and sometimes extended to things.
brutal, adj. and n.
A. adj.
1. Of or belonging to the brutes, as opposed to man; of the nature
of a brute; animal. Obs. or arch.
2. Resembling, pertaining to, or characteristic of the brutes:
a. in want of intelligence or reasoning power.
b. in their animal or sensual nature.
3. As rude or ill-mannered as a brute beast; coarse, unrefined.
4. Inhuman; coarsely cruel, savage, fierce.
brutalism, n.
Etymology: < brutal adj. + -ism suffix.
1. Brutal state, brutality.
2. A style of art or architecture characterized by deliberate
crudity of design (see quot. 1953).
1953 A. Smithson & P. Smithson in Archit. Design Dec. 342/2
House in Soho..bare concrete, brickwork and wood..would have been
the first exponent of the ‘new brutalism’ in England, as the
preamble to the specification shows: ‘It is our intention in this
building to have the structure exposed entirely, without internal
finishes.’
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Horace LaBadie
Jun 12, 2016, 8:41:09 AM6/12/16
to
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jun 12, 2016, 10:08:22 AM6/12/16
to
Charles Bishop
Jun 12, 2016, 10:11:49 AM6/12/16
to
necessarily having accuracy. You can use brute force to move a boulder
but are unlikely to be able to place it accurately.
Also, using a fulcrum and lever to move a boulder wouldn't be using
brute force.
--
charles
Don Phillipson
Jun 12, 2016, 10:50:35 AM6/12/16
to
"Dingbat" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1d3748b3-ff8c-4faa...@googlegroups.com...
> https://thelondoncolumn.com/tag/gentrification/
" People think 'the New Brutalism' is called that just because it's
> brutal, but in fact, it's a play on the French term 'béton brut', for
> raw concrete. It's easy to forget now that when this architecture
> went up, it was intended to make life better for people.
The author of this piece (Katy Evans Bush) demonstrates
how public housing went wrong in England.
1. Short memory: everyone knew about 'béton brut'in the
late 1950s when English architects promoted this French
idea. (Architecture schools were at that date besotted with
Le Corbusier.) Fifty years later, KEB truly believes she
discovered 'béton brut' for herself.
2. The author likes the look of a building in which she has
never lived. This was equally true of public housing architects
in 1955-80 (even if not uniformly so. But hardly any recognized
that Le Corbusier's famous Unité d'Habitation (1952) was
half empty because ordinary families did not enjoy living there,
despite the architect's theories . . . )
The architects of the period favoured tower blocks in
New Brutalist style because of Le Corbusier's well-documented
theories. Public housing officials chose to build tower blocks not
because of any theory (aesthetic or social) but because
they were estimated to be cheaper than terrace housing: but
not many people enjoyed living there (especially when the
elevators broke down) and they later proved positively harmful
to proletarian social life (as it had actually developed 1900-60.)
(The web site https://thelondoncolumn.com/about/ seems
to have much of interest to people who know the city.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news:1d3748b3-ff8c-4faa...@googlegroups.com...
> https://thelondoncolumn.com/tag/gentrification/
" People think 'the New Brutalism' is called that just because it's
> brutal, but in fact, it's a play on the French term 'béton brut', for
> went up, it was intended to make life better for people.
The author of this piece (Katy Evans Bush) demonstrates
how public housing went wrong in England.
1. Short memory: everyone knew about 'béton brut'in the
late 1950s when English architects promoted this French
idea. (Architecture schools were at that date besotted with
Le Corbusier.) Fifty years later, KEB truly believes she
discovered 'béton brut' for herself.
2. The author likes the look of a building in which she has
never lived. This was equally true of public housing architects
in 1955-80 (even if not uniformly so. But hardly any recognized
that Le Corbusier's famous Unité d'Habitation (1952) was
half empty because ordinary families did not enjoy living there,
despite the architect's theories . . . )
The architects of the period favoured tower blocks in
New Brutalist style because of Le Corbusier's well-documented
theories. Public housing officials chose to build tower blocks not
because of any theory (aesthetic or social) but because
they were estimated to be cheaper than terrace housing: but
not many people enjoyed living there (especially when the
elevators broke down) and they later proved positively harmful
to proletarian social life (as it had actually developed 1900-60.)
(The web site https://thelondoncolumn.com/about/ seems
to have much of interest to people who know the city.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Whiskers
Jun 12, 2016, 11:02:35 AM6/12/16
to
in French. A word in one language may look or sound very similar to a
word in another language, and may even share some etymology, but the
meanings and usage may be quite unrelated. Such words are sometimes
called 'false friends' because interpreting a word in one language as if
it had the meaning familiar in some other language, can cause
embarrassment or worse.
For a description of the architectural style in Britain, see "Brutalism"
<https://www.architecture.com/Explore/ArchitecturalStyles/Brutalism.aspx>.
A common human reaction to buildings designed in this style is that they
are brutal in their effect on the visual environment and on the human
spirit. It is possible for a 'brutalist' building to be comfortable
friendly and welcoming, but all too often they aren't. Those which are
tend not to be categorised as 'brutalist' by the general public even if
the architect was working in that style.
'Brute force' refers to the use of power to achieve a purpose without
regard to morality or legality or any higher human attributes or without
avoiding 'collateral damage'. OED online has this:
"brute, adj. and n.1." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2016.
Web. 12 June 2016.
3.
a. Of things: not possessing or connected with reason, intelligence,
or sensation; irrational, unconscious, senseless; merely material;
esp. in brute matter, brute force.
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Peter T. Daniels
Jun 12, 2016, 1:05:22 PM6/12/16
to
accommodations in many large cities. The architecture does not cause social
problems.
In 1955 or so, Robert Moses (Commissioner of Everything in New York City and
New York State) caused a "public housing project" ("council estates" in tall
buildings) and a private cooperative apartment complex to be built on opposite
sides of the street on the western edge of Harlem/northern Morningside Heights.
The buildings are indistinguishable from the outside (except that one set
parallels the diagonal of 125th St., the other aligns with the regular street
grid).
The occupants were distinguished by income (which de facto also meant by race,
but Thurgood Marshall lived at the co-op for some years after it opened).
The projects have the problems associated with poverty. The co-op doesn't.
David Kleinecke
Jun 12, 2016, 1:19:53 PM6/12/16
to
Don Phillipson
Jun 12, 2016, 1:50:17 PM6/12/16
to
> On 2016-06-12, Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> quoted:
>
>> . . . People think 'the New
news:slrnnlquc9.6...@ID-107770.user.individual.net...
> No. 'Brute force' is a phrase in English and 'béton brut' is a phrase
> in French. A word in one language may look or sound very similar to a
> word in another language, and may even share some etymology, but the
> meanings and usage may be quite unrelated.
Quite so: e.g. what the French call "Champagne Brut" has no
connotations of either cruelty or blank coarse concrete.
>
>> . . . People think 'the New
>> Brutalism' is called that just because it's brutal, but in fact, it's
>> a play on the French term 'béton brut', for raw concrete.
"Whiskers" <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>> a play on the French term 'béton brut', for raw concrete.
news:slrnnlquc9.6...@ID-107770.user.individual.net...
> No. 'Brute force' is a phrase in English and 'béton brut' is a phrase
> in French. A word in one language may look or sound very similar to a
> word in another language, and may even share some etymology, but the
> meanings and usage may be quite unrelated.
connotations of either cruelty or blank coarse concrete.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jun 12, 2016, 2:44:18 PM6/12/16
to
"Tower blocks" for public housing in post-WWII Britain were a serious
failure.
There is too much in this article to quote in full:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_block#Great_Britain
The post-war British tower block vision
Post-war Britain was the stage for a tower block "building boom";
from the 1950s to the late 1970s there was a dramatic increase in
tower block construction. During this time, local authorities
desired to impress their voters by building futuristic and imposing
tower blocks, which would signify post-war progress.
<snip>
The post-war British tower block reality
Coleman's 1985 work argues that in trying to emulate Le Corbusier's
ideas, the tower block planners only succeeded in encouraging social
problems. Although architects and local authorities intended the
opposite, tower blocks quickly became, as Hanley sharply stated,
'slums in the sky'.
<snip>
...as a direct consequence of their design and construction,
security problems were prevalent in many of the tower blocks.
Break-ins, vandalism and muggings were common, which were aided by
the buildings' concealed areas, the mazes of internal corridors, and
dark corners. Police were often required in the tower blocks, but
their infrequent presence did little to pacify towers rife with
delinquency.
<snip>
>In 1955 or so, Robert Moses (Commissioner of Everything in New York City and
>New York State) caused a "public housing project" ("council estates" in tall
>buildings) and a private cooperative apartment complex to be built on opposite
>sides of the street on the western edge of Harlem/northern Morningside Heights.
>The buildings are indistinguishable from the outside (except that one set
>parallels the diagonal of 125th St., the other aligns with the regular street
>grid).
>
>The occupants were distinguished by income (which de facto also meant by race,
>but Thurgood Marshall lived at the co-op for some years after it opened).
>
>The projects have the problems associated with poverty. The co-op doesn't.
pensive hamster
Jun 12, 2016, 3:27:48 PM6/12/16
to
On Sunday, 12 June 2016 19:44:18 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
But if you read a bit further on in that section, it goes on to say:
'Towards the present day
'In recent years, some council or ex-council high-rises in the United
Kingdom, including Trellick Tower, Keeling House, Sivill House and
The Barbican Estate, have become popular with young professionals
due to their excellent views, desirable locations and architectural
pedigrees, and now command high prices. There are plans to
redevelop the Little London and Lovell Park areas on the fringes of
Leeds city centre into luxury flats for 'Young Urban Professionals'.
The plans entail demolishing all of the council housing and refurbishing
the highrise flats. This demand has led to many councils rethinking
plans regarding their demolition. ...'
which seems to echo what PTD wrote (quoted below) about problems
in a 'public housing project' in New York being related to poverty/lack of
employment, rather than to the architecture, because those problems didn't
occur in a nearby 'private cooperative apartment complex', even though
the two buildings were indistinguishable from the outside.
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 10:05:19 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 10:50:35 AM UTC-4, Don Phillipson wrote:
> >> "Dingbat" wrote
>
> >On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 10:50:35 AM UTC-4, Don Phillipson wrote:
'Towards the present day
'In recent years, some council or ex-council high-rises in the United
Kingdom, including Trellick Tower, Keeling House, Sivill House and
The Barbican Estate, have become popular with young professionals
due to their excellent views, desirable locations and architectural
pedigrees, and now command high prices. There are plans to
redevelop the Little London and Lovell Park areas on the fringes of
Leeds city centre into luxury flats for 'Young Urban Professionals'.
The plans entail demolishing all of the council housing and refurbishing
the highrise flats. This demand has led to many councils rethinking
plans regarding their demolition. ...'
which seems to echo what PTD wrote (quoted below) about problems
in a 'public housing project' in New York being related to poverty/lack of
employment, rather than to the architecture, because those problems didn't
occur in a nearby 'private cooperative apartment complex', even though
the two buildings were indistinguishable from the outside.
Peter T. Daniels
Jun 12, 2016, 6:17:45 PM6/12/16
to
abandoned a couple of decades later and demolished and replaced with low-rise
public housing.
Meanwhile, Marina City (apparently the first free-standing "upper-middle class"
towers), Lake Point Tower, and many others the length of Lake Shore Drive and
Sheridan Road are thriving.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jun 12, 2016, 7:16:28 PM6/12/16
to
A non-negligible proportion of such tower blocks in the UK were not well
built and had to be demolished sooner than might have been expected.
The blocks which have been retained are being used to house 'Young Urban
Professionals'. A common feature of such people is that they don't have
children. Families with low incomes found tower blocks "unsuitable" for
young children, to put it mildly. Professionals with kids, and with
adequate incomes might be able to afford a nanny or child-minder to take
their kids out into the open air safely rather than leaving them to run
wild or keeping them cooped up.
When I lived in Manchester in the 1960s the place where I worked was in
an area which had a lot of old terraced housing. After a few years a
large part of it was demolished and the inhabitants moved to tower
blocks some distance away. I started hearing stories about them from
their friends and acquaintances who hadn't moved. (That was in pub near
my workplace that locals and others like myself frequented.) Initially
those who had moved into the tower blocks were happy at living in
somewhere newly built and with a good view over the city. They became
increasingly less happy, particularly those with young children.
Robert Bannister
Jun 12, 2016, 8:53:42 PM6/12/16
to
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Dingbat
Jun 12, 2016, 10:43:11 PM6/12/16
to
The complex was designed by architect Minoru Yamasaki, who also designed the World Trade Center towers and the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport main terminal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt–Igoe
Yamasaki lamented in angst that people (meaning the residents of the tenements) could be so destructive (as to run down their housing stock so badly that it had to be demolished.)
Don Phillipson
Jun 13, 2016, 9:11:22 AM6/13/16
to
> > On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 10:50:35 AM UTC-4, Don Phillipson wrote:
> > > The author of this piece (Katy Evans Bush) demonstrates
> > > how public housing went wrong in England.
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > The author of this piece (Katy Evans Bush) demonstrates
> > > how public housing went wrong in England.
news:2c87398b-ff43-41f2...@googlegroups.com...
> > Mr. Phillipson seems unaware that "tower housing" is among the most
> > desirable
> > accommodations in many large cities. The architecture does not cause
> > social
> > problems.
> >
> > In 1955 or so, Robert Moses (Commissioner of Everything in New York City
> > and
> > New York State) caused a "public housing project"
> Two of Chicago's most notorious projects, Cabrini-Green and Robert Taylor
> . . .
> Meanwhile, Marina City (apparently the first free-standing "upper-middle
> class"
The quoted article dealt solely with public housing in England
> class"
(not in Scotland or France, let alone the USA.)
I suggest the assumption that all people are (more or less) the
same (so all public housing can be the same) is one of the common-
sense assumptions of the planning profession that was based
on politicical piety rather than factual evidence, and has done
incalculable harm in the last 50 years.
Whiskers
Jun 13, 2016, 10:11:02 AM6/13/16
to
public housing schemes.
> ...as a direct consequence of their design and construction,
> security problems were prevalent in many of the tower blocks.
> Break-ins, vandalism and muggings were common, which were aided by
> the buildings' concealed areas, the mazes of internal corridors,
> and dark corners. Police were often required in the tower blocks,
> but their infrequent presence did little to pacify towers rife
> with delinquency. <snip>
>
>>In 1955 or so, Robert Moses (Commissioner of Everything in New York
>>City and New York State) caused a "public housing project" ("council
>>estates" in tall buildings) and a private cooperative apartment
>>complex to be built on opposite sides of the street on the western
>>edge of Harlem/northern Morningside Heights. The buildings are
>>indistinguishable from the outside (except that one set parallels the
>>diagonal of 125th St., the other aligns with the regular street grid).
>>
>>The occupants were distinguished by income (which de facto also meant
>>by race, but Thurgood Marshall lived at the co-op for some years after
>>it opened).
>>
>>The projects have the problems associated with poverty. The co-op
>>doesn't.
housing were very keen to reduce costs. So the specifications used
cheap materials and methods - and the builders often skimped even on
those. Resulting in buildings which were leaky drafty and uncomfortable
within a very short time and often had unreliable services such as
heating power and plumbing. Some were structurally unsound; most
notoriously 'Ronan Point' which collapsed due to a combination of design
and construction errors
<http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/heritage/ronan-point>.
There's no fun going up and down 20 floors on the stairs because the
lifts are broken - and the lifts aren't much fun either if they double
as urinals or as places to be 'mugged' thanks to a lack of CCTV or
access control.
Among the ideas not copied from 'le Corbusier' were such things as shops
and other facilities up in the 'streets in the sky', resident
care-takers, door-keepers, comfortable well-lit shared 'social' public
spaces, etc. Open ground-floor areas imagined as places for children to
play in wet weather or for small traders to set up market stalls
materialised as dark dirty places with lots of big pillars to conceal
nefarious activities, or at best as de-facto car-parks and rubbish
dumps.
Subsequent inept or corrupt maintenance and 'improvement' of the towers
has sometimes made a bad situation even worse, leading to horrific deaths
<http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/lakanal-house-the-verdict/6526499.article>.
Janet
Jun 13, 2016, 10:49:49 AM6/13/16
to
In article <kqprlbtm1p97vdn8j...@4ax.com>,
ma...@peterduncanson.net says...
> Message-ID: <kqprlbtm1p97vdn8j...@4ax.com>
> Subject: Re: Meaning of New Brutalist Architecture
> From: Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net>
> > [quoted text muted]
more people live alone.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e4fcc408-bf03-11e2-87ff-
00144feab7de.html#axzz4BTFOtiQs
"One person homes represent 30 per cent of all households in England and
Wales
Single-person households are becoming an increasingly dominant feature
of British society in a demographic shift that is forcing businesses to
review their marketing messages.
The latest census data show there are now almost twice as many one-
person households as traditional family homes containing two parents and
children."
Janet.
ma...@peterduncanson.net says...
> Message-ID: <kqprlbtm1p97vdn8j...@4ax.com>
> Subject: Re: Meaning of New Brutalist Architecture
> From: Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net>
> > [quoted text muted]
> >in a 'public housing project' in New York being related to poverty/lack of
> >employment, rather than to the architecture, because those problems didn't
> >occur in a nearby 'private cooperative apartment complex', even though
> >the two buildings were indistinguishable from the outside.
> >
> There seem to have been two broad aspects of this.
>
> A non-negligible proportion of such tower blocks in the UK were not well
> built and had to be demolished sooner than might have been expected.
>
> The blocks which have been retained are being used to house 'Young Urban
> Professionals'. A common feature of such people is that they don't have
> children. Families with low incomes found tower blocks "unsuitable" for
> young children, to put it mildly.
OTOH, there's been a big demographic shift since the 1970's. Many
> >employment, rather than to the architecture, because those problems didn't
> >occur in a nearby 'private cooperative apartment complex', even though
> >the two buildings were indistinguishable from the outside.
> >
> There seem to have been two broad aspects of this.
>
> A non-negligible proportion of such tower blocks in the UK were not well
> built and had to be demolished sooner than might have been expected.
>
> The blocks which have been retained are being used to house 'Young Urban
> Professionals'. A common feature of such people is that they don't have
> children. Families with low incomes found tower blocks "unsuitable" for
> young children, to put it mildly.
more people live alone.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e4fcc408-bf03-11e2-87ff-
00144feab7de.html#axzz4BTFOtiQs
"One person homes represent 30 per cent of all households in England and
Wales
Single-person households are becoming an increasingly dominant feature
of British society in a demographic shift that is forcing businesses to
review their marketing messages.
The latest census data show there are now almost twice as many one-
person households as traditional family homes containing two parents and
children."
Janet.
Janet
Jun 13, 2016, 12:34:36 PM6/13/16
to
In article <njmbdn$8pq$4...@news.albasani.net>, e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca
says...
Public housing in UK is not and never has been "all the same". Tower
blocks are just one type, there were many designs. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house#Post-war_housing
Many of the inner city and rural designs were in prime locations (and
well built). When Margaret Thatcher allowed tenants to buy their home
they were snapped up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/4810026/Is-this-Britains-
most-expensive-council-house.html
"Here we have a little two-storey house on the end of a row of council
properties, built not long after the Second World War. They've got that
hutch-like bare-bricks-and-utility-windows look, topped off with a
straight-to-the-point pitched roof and ringed by some deadbeat creosoted
wooden fencing.
In the neighbouring houses lies your standard baby detritus of buggies
and wrecked plastic rattles, while the windows sport net curtains and
the block round the corner does a line in thug-proof steel mesh on the
balconies. And there's a van from the council come to mend the lifts.
The whole row could come from anywhere that's nowhere special - Hendon,
North Finchley, Merton. When you walk past, you don't even know that
you're walking past. So, an asking price of £750,000?
Madness, of course, except for the fact that 28 Ixworth Place, this
deracinated ex-council two-up-two-down, has, at the end of its street,
Bibendum, Joseph, Paul Smith and Kenzo. It also has Pelham Crescent
scarcely a stone's throw away, Onslow Gardens at its back and kerbs
stacked with Bentleys, Lotus Elises and BMWs. You are, in fact, in the
navel of the world, Brompton Cross, and here the normal laws of
economics disintegrate. Here, you can seriously ask three-quarters of a
million for a hutch and expect to get it."
Janet.
says...
blocks are just one type, there were many designs. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house#Post-war_housing
Many of the inner city and rural designs were in prime locations (and
well built). When Margaret Thatcher allowed tenants to buy their home
they were snapped up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/4810026/Is-this-Britains-
most-expensive-council-house.html
"Here we have a little two-storey house on the end of a row of council
properties, built not long after the Second World War. They've got that
hutch-like bare-bricks-and-utility-windows look, topped off with a
straight-to-the-point pitched roof and ringed by some deadbeat creosoted
wooden fencing.
In the neighbouring houses lies your standard baby detritus of buggies
and wrecked plastic rattles, while the windows sport net curtains and
the block round the corner does a line in thug-proof steel mesh on the
balconies. And there's a van from the council come to mend the lifts.
The whole row could come from anywhere that's nowhere special - Hendon,
North Finchley, Merton. When you walk past, you don't even know that
you're walking past. So, an asking price of £750,000?
Madness, of course, except for the fact that 28 Ixworth Place, this
deracinated ex-council two-up-two-down, has, at the end of its street,
Bibendum, Joseph, Paul Smith and Kenzo. It also has Pelham Crescent
scarcely a stone's throw away, Onslow Gardens at its back and kerbs
stacked with Bentleys, Lotus Elises and BMWs. You are, in fact, in the
navel of the world, Brompton Cross, and here the normal laws of
economics disintegrate. Here, you can seriously ask three-quarters of a
million for a hutch and expect to get it."
Janet.
Don Phillipson
Jun 13, 2016, 2:42:14 PM6/13/16
to
"Whiskers" <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnnltfnk.8...@ID-107770.user.individual.net...
> Among the ideas not copied from 'le Corbusier' were such things as shops
> and other facilities up in the 'streets in the sky', resident
> care-takers, door-keepers, comfortable well-lit shared 'social' public
> spaces, etc.
at Marseilles (1952) planned with a middle floor (fourth of nine)
for locally-owned stores, and the whole standing on pylons, leaving
space for a ground-level market. I visited the building in 1958 and
recall at that date only one or two stores on the middle floor (and
a dozen spaces vacant) and nothing at all among the ground-level
pylons. I.e. the socio-economic plan did not work as projected.
(Ironically Le Corbusier designed this block for conventional
steel frame construction, not prestressed concrete. Use of concrete
was dictated by the postwar shortage of steel.)
> Open ground-floor areas imagined as places for children to
> play in wet weather or for small traders to set up market stalls
> materialised as dark dirty places with lots of big pillars to conceal
> nefarious activities, or at best as de-facto car-parks and rubbish
> dumps.
He married at about age 40 but had no children. Unfamiliarity
with family life (and ordinary working people) probably blinded
him to the practical needs of families; his dictatorial professional
style meant he sought no advice from people who might know.
Jerry Friedman
Jun 13, 2016, 2:49:08 PM6/13/16
to
On 6/12/16 9:02 AM, Whiskers wrote:
...
> For a description of the architectural style in Britain, see "Brutalism"
> <https://www.architecture.com/Explore/ArchitecturalStyles/Brutalism.aspx>.
>
> A common human reaction to buildings designed in this style is that they
> are brutal in their effect on the visual environment and on the human
> spirit. It is possible for a 'brutalist' building to be comfortable
> friendly and welcoming, but all too often they aren't. Those which are
> tend not to be categorised as 'brutalist' by the general public even if
> the architect was working in that style.
Around here I don't think the general public uses the term much.
> 'Brute force' refers to the use of power to achieve a purpose without
> regard to morality or legality or any higher human attributes or without
> avoiding 'collateral damage'. OED online has this:
>
> "brute, adj. and n.1." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2016.
> Web. 12 June 2016.
>
> 3.
> a. Of things: not possessing or connected with reason, intelligence,
> or sensation; irrational, unconscious, senseless; merely material;
> esp. in brute matter, brute force.
"Brute force" can also just mean methods lacking in ingenuity or
subtlety. In mathematics and the mathematical sciences, as I'll bet you
know, a brute-force calculation is one that's done in a simple and
lengthy way, without anything clever to reduce the amount of work.
--
Jerry Friedman
"No Trump" bridge-themed political shirts: cafepress.com/jerrysdesigns
Bumper stickers ditto: cafepress/jerrysstickers
...
> For a description of the architectural style in Britain, see "Brutalism"
> <https://www.architecture.com/Explore/ArchitecturalStyles/Brutalism.aspx>.
>
> A common human reaction to buildings designed in this style is that they
> are brutal in their effect on the visual environment and on the human
> spirit. It is possible for a 'brutalist' building to be comfortable
> friendly and welcoming, but all too often they aren't. Those which are
> tend not to be categorised as 'brutalist' by the general public even if
> the architect was working in that style.
> 'Brute force' refers to the use of power to achieve a purpose without
> regard to morality or legality or any higher human attributes or without
> avoiding 'collateral damage'. OED online has this:
>
> "brute, adj. and n.1." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2016.
> Web. 12 June 2016.
>
> 3.
> a. Of things: not possessing or connected with reason, intelligence,
> or sensation; irrational, unconscious, senseless; merely material;
> esp. in brute matter, brute force.
subtlety. In mathematics and the mathematical sciences, as I'll bet you
know, a brute-force calculation is one that's done in a simple and
lengthy way, without anything clever to reduce the amount of work.
--
Jerry Friedman
"No Trump" bridge-themed political shirts: cafepress.com/jerrysdesigns
Bumper stickers ditto: cafepress/jerrysstickers
Peter T. Daniels
Jun 13, 2016, 4:47:34 PM6/13/16
to
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 2:42:14 PM UTC-4, Don Phillipson wrote:
> Le Corbusier left his home and homeland at age 20 to travel.
> He married at about age 40 but had no children. Unfamiliarity
> with family life (and ordinary working people) probably blinded
> him to the practical needs of families; his dictatorial professional
> style meant he sought no advice from people who might know.
That argument won't work for Frank Lloyd Wright. His clients usually
> Le Corbusier left his home and homeland at age 20 to travel.
> He married at about age 40 but had no children. Unfamiliarity
> with family life (and ordinary working people) probably blinded
> him to the practical needs of families; his dictatorial professional
> style meant he sought no advice from people who might know.
loved how their houses looked -- but soon found fault with the
practicalities. And he had several domestic establishments and
quite a few children.
David Kleinecke
Jun 13, 2016, 5:16:32 PM6/13/16
to
houses. Now that I think about it - if there is no book about
FLW's clients' reactions to their houses - why not?
Peter T. Daniels
Jun 13, 2016, 11:08:55 PM6/13/16
to
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 2:49:08 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 6/12/16 9:02 AM, Whiskers wrote:
> > For a description of the architectural style in Britain, see "Brutalism"
> > <https://www.architecture.com/Explore/ArchitecturalStyles/Brutalism.aspx>.
> >
> > A common human reaction to buildings designed in this style is that they
> > are brutal in their effect on the visual environment and on the human
> > spirit. It is possible for a 'brutalist' building to be comfortable
> > friendly and welcoming, but all too often they aren't. Those which are
> > tend not to be categorised as 'brutalist' by the general public even if
> > the architect was working in that style.
>
> Around here I don't think the general public uses the term much.
Around there they simply call home "adobe."
> On 6/12/16 9:02 AM, Whiskers wrote:
> > For a description of the architectural style in Britain, see "Brutalism"
> > <https://www.architecture.com/Explore/ArchitecturalStyles/Brutalism.aspx>.
> >
> > A common human reaction to buildings designed in this style is that they
> > are brutal in their effect on the visual environment and on the human
> > spirit. It is possible for a 'brutalist' building to be comfortable
> > friendly and welcoming, but all too often they aren't. Those which are
> > tend not to be categorised as 'brutalist' by the general public even if
> > the architect was working in that style.
>
> Around here I don't think the general public uses the term much.
Peter T. Daniels
Jun 13, 2016, 11:09:36 PM6/13/16
to
Peter Moylan
Jun 13, 2016, 11:25:34 PM6/13/16
to
On 2016-Jun-14 00:11, Whiskers wrote:
> On 2016-06-12, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> "Tower blocks" for public housing in post-WWII Britain were a serious
>> failure.
>>
>> There is too much in this article to quote in full:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_block#Great_Britain
>>
>> The post-war British tower block vision
>>
>> Post-war Britain was the stage for a tower block "building boom";
>> from the 1950s to the late 1970s there was a dramatic increase in
>> tower block construction. During this time, local authorities
>> desired to impress their voters by building futuristic and
>> imposing tower blocks, which would signify post-war progress.
>> <snip>
>>
>> The post-war British tower block reality
>>
>> Coleman's 1985 work argues that in trying to emulate Le
>> Corbusier's ideas, the tower block planners only succeeded in
>> encouraging social problems. Although architects and local
>> authorities intended the opposite, tower blocks quickly became, as
>> Hanley sharply stated, 'slums in the sky'. <snip>
>
> In their defence, architects often had little or nothing to do with the
> public housing schemes.
In my opinion the problem with those schemes had little to do with the
> On 2016-06-12, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> "Tower blocks" for public housing in post-WWII Britain were a serious
>> failure.
>>
>> There is too much in this article to quote in full:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_block#Great_Britain
>>
>> The post-war British tower block vision
>>
>> Post-war Britain was the stage for a tower block "building boom";
>> from the 1950s to the late 1970s there was a dramatic increase in
>> tower block construction. During this time, local authorities
>> desired to impress their voters by building futuristic and
>> imposing tower blocks, which would signify post-war progress.
>> <snip>
>>
>> The post-war British tower block reality
>>
>> Coleman's 1985 work argues that in trying to emulate Le
>> Corbusier's ideas, the tower block planners only succeeded in
>> encouraging social problems. Although architects and local
>> authorities intended the opposite, tower blocks quickly became, as
>> Hanley sharply stated, 'slums in the sky'. <snip>
>
> In their defence, architects often had little or nothing to do with the
> public housing schemes.
architecture, and much to do with the decision to concentrate large
numbers of poor people into a very small area.
One of the most infamous areas in Newcastle is a single not-very-long
street:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Fowler+St,+Hamilton+South+NSW+2303/@-32.9355687,151.7418593,3a,66.8y,97.06h,90.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sMszYvQLb9Tkl8WzsHZE__A!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x6b7315c961490393:0x99c03538e66033bb
http://tinyurl.com/gpwgmxk
There are no high-rise buildings, and architecturally it appears quite
pleasant. The catch is that it has a high concentration of violent
people, mentally ill people, drug dealers, career criminals, etc.
<quote>
According to police the Hamilton South community housing estate
represents just one percent of the city's population, but up to 20
percent of the crime committed in Newcastle can be directly or
indirectly traced back to the estate.
</quote>
Why? Because too many troublesome people have been dumped into the same
place.
> The local authorities in the UK who commissioned tower blocks for social
> housing were very keen to reduce costs. So the specifications used
> cheap materials and methods - and the builders often skimped even on
> those.
Wealthy people do a better job of looking after their homes.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
David Kleinecke
Jun 13, 2016, 11:42:04 PM6/13/16
to
experiences with all sorts of FLW houses. A Studs Terkel sort of thing.
I did find a couple of memoirs but all the recent stuff recounts the
experiences of people too aware of living in an art treasure to spend
much time on the niceties of life. As might be expected there is a lot
of complaining about deferred maintenance. I think what I would welcome
is accounts of what it felt like when the houses were new. I suspect it
is too late - the people I want interviewed are all dead now.
Books on FLW's architecture abound and there is plenty of information
about reactions.
Peter T. Daniels
Jun 14, 2016, 12:01:51 AM6/14/16
to
would drop in on them unannounced and move the furniture back to where he had
indicated on the plans that it was to go.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Jun 14, 2016, 6:56:14 AM6/14/16
to
On 2016-06-12 14:49:43 +0000, Don Phillipson said:
> "Dingbat" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1d3748b3-ff8c-4faa...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> https://thelondoncolumn.com/tag/gentrification/
> " People think 'the New Brutalism' is called that just because it's
>> brutal, but in fact, it's a play on the French term 'béton brut', for
>> raw concrete. It's easy to forget now that when this architecture
>> went up, it was intended to make life better for people.
>
> The author of this piece (Katy Evans Bush) demonstrates
> how public housing went wrong in England.
> 1. Short memory: everyone knew about 'béton brut'in the
> late 1950s when English architects promoted this French
> idea. (Architecture schools were at that date besotted with
> Le Corbusier.)
Architects and city planners used to flock to Marseilles in the 1950s
> "Dingbat" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1d3748b3-ff8c-4faa...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> https://thelondoncolumn.com/tag/gentrification/
> " People think 'the New Brutalism' is called that just because it's
>> brutal, but in fact, it's a play on the French term 'béton brut', for
>> raw concrete. It's easy to forget now that when this architecture
>> went up, it was intended to make life better for people.
>
> The author of this piece (Katy Evans Bush) demonstrates
> how public housing went wrong in England.
> 1. Short memory: everyone knew about 'béton brut'in the
> late 1950s when English architects promoted this French
> idea. (Architecture schools were at that date besotted with
> Le Corbusier.)
and 1960s to gaze in wonder at La Cité Radieuse, amazed that anything
so marvellous could exist.
> Fifty years later, KEB truly believes she
> discovered 'béton brut' for herself.
> 2. The author likes the look of a building in which she has
> never lived. This was equally true of public housing architects
> in 1955-80 (even if not uniformly so. But hardly any recognized
> that Le Corbusier's famous Unité d'Habitation (1952) was
> half empty because ordinary families did not enjoy living there,
> despite the architect's theories . . . )
(nowadays called by one and all Le Corbusier) started, people couldn't
be too choosy about where they lived, in a time when the housing
shortage was so fierce that ordinary families took what they could get.
There were sufficient people wanting to live there that it was
restricted to certain types of people (mainly teachers, I think).
Although it was called La Maison du Fada ("Fada" being a Marseillais
word for a crazy person), I think the people who actually lived there
(as opposed to criticisms of its appearance by people who did not live
there) did enjoy it. They certainly do today -- I've known quite a few
people who live there (it's a five-minute walk away from where I'm
typing this).
> The architects of the period favoured tower blocks in
> New Brutalist style because of Le Corbusier's well-documented
> theories. Public housing officials chose to build tower blocks not
> because of any theory (aesthetic or social) but because
> they were estimated to be cheaper than terrace housing: but
> not many people enjoyed living there (especially when the
> elevators broke down) and they later proved positively harmful
> to proletarian social life (as it had actually developed 1900-60.)
anything but: a bit like Mrs Thatcher's ideas of how to improve
tertiary education in the UK, take all the harshest aspects of the
system in the USA, but forget about the good aspects.
>
> (The web site https://thelondoncolumn.com/about/ seems
> to have much of interest to people who know the city.)
--
athel
> (The web site https://thelondoncolumn.com/about/ seems
> to have much of interest to people who know the city.)
--
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Jun 14, 2016, 7:04:23 AM6/14/16
to
good restaurant, kindergarten and cinema. It may have a swimming pool
as well -- I don't remember.
I forgot to mention in my other post that some city planners are still
very keen on Le Corbusier. My wife has a cousin in Chile who came to
stay with one once: she was delighted to be able to visit the building.
> materialised as dark dirty places with lots of big pillars to conceal
> nefarious activities, or at best as de-facto car-parks and rubbish
> dumps.
>
> Subsequent inept or corrupt maintenance and 'improvement' of the towers
> has sometimes made a bad situation even worse, leading to horrific deaths
> <http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/lakanal-house-the-verdict/6526499.article>.
--
Peter T. Daniels
Jun 14, 2016, 8:08:59 AM6/14/16
to
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 7:04:23 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> I forgot to mention in my other post that some city planners are still
> very keen on Le Corbusier. My wife has a cousin in Chile who came to
> stay with one once: she was delighted to be able to visit the building.
Brasilia (conceived 1956) may have been considerably influenced by Chandigarh
> I forgot to mention in my other post that some city planners are still
> very keen on Le Corbusier. My wife has a cousin in Chile who came to
> stay with one once: she was delighted to be able to visit the building.
(conceived 1947). Both are generally reported to be unlivable (the
wikiparticles read like tourist propaganda), but in their endless extents
and long treks to get anywhere inside them they are not unlike quite a
few other planned cities, such as Washington, DC, and Canberra -- and,
for that matter, Chicago. Was it really not until Jane Jacobs that planners
began to understand human scale -- as in London, Paris, New York? Corbu has
those famous drawings of human-scale shapes but forgot about that when
working in the large.
Janet
Jun 14, 2016, 11:31:24 AM6/14/16
to
In article <njntfb$9kc$1...@dont-email.me>, pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid
says...
> Message-ID: <njntfb$9kc$1...@dont-email.me>
built to accommodate poor people who previously occupied overcrowded
slums.
Janet
>
says...
> Message-ID: <njntfb$9kc$1...@dont-email.me>
> Subject: Re: Meaning of New Brutalist Architecture
> From: Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid>
>
> On 2016-Jun-14 00:11, Whiskers wrote:
> > On 2016-06-12, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> > [quoted text muted]
> On 2016-Jun-14 00:11, Whiskers wrote:
> > On 2016-06-12, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> >> authorities intended the opposite, tower blocks quickly became, as
> >> Hanley sharply stated, 'slums in the sky'. <snip>
> >
> > In their defence, architects often had little or nothing to do with the
> > public housing schemes.
>
> In my opinion the problem with those schemes had little to do with the
> architecture, and much to do with the decision to concentrate large
> numbers of poor people into a very small area.
That was nothing new in older inner cities. Many high rises were
> >> Hanley sharply stated, 'slums in the sky'. <snip>
> >
> > In their defence, architects often had little or nothing to do with the
> > public housing schemes.
>
> In my opinion the problem with those schemes had little to do with the
> architecture, and much to do with the decision to concentrate large
> numbers of poor people into a very small area.
built to accommodate poor people who previously occupied overcrowded
slums.
Janet
>
Cheryl
Jun 14, 2016, 11:44:07 AM6/14/16
to
though, which can make matters worse, especially if all the buildings in
a development become a kind of dumping ground for the worst cases.
Anyone who can manage it will then move away, and things get worse and
worse.
One of the approaches to deal with the problem is to scatter the
subsidized housing among non-subsidized housing, but there can be
difficulties in implementing that. The co-op housing movement in Canada
(I say 'in Canada' because I don't want to re-start the argument over
whether or not 'co-op' only applies to luxury housing) often took that
approach, combining in the same building people who paid market rate
(ok, not rent technically, but housing costs similar to rent) and some
who didn't.
What little secondhand experience I have indicates that a lot depends on
who chooses the members. If, as originally intended, it's the co-op
board, things seem to work better than if it's some faceless bureaucrat
at City Hall who doesn't know the place at all.
--
Cheryl
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jun 14, 2016, 12:04:36 PM6/14/16
to
Peter T. Daniels
Jun 14, 2016, 1:54:53 PM6/14/16
to
and pay "maintenance" rather than rent, then it's a co-op. Since it requires
a payment akin to a mortgage, it may be beyond the means of the poor. (If
they own the physical quarters they occupy, then it's a condominium. In the
US, co-ops are virtually unknown outside NYC.)
"Section 8" housing in Chicago was as you describe: apartments were randomly(?)
acquired in middle-class areas and heavily subsidized to make them available
to poor people. When the plan was announced, there was of course overwhelming
public outcry against it, but since no one knew which apartments in a neighborhood
might be Section 8, it turned out there was nothing to object to.
> What little secondhand experience I have indicates that a lot depends on
> who chooses the members. If, as originally intended, it's the co-op
> board, things seem to work better than if it's some faceless bureaucrat
> at City Hall who doesn't know the place at all.
co-op on the Upper East Side, because they did not accept Jews.
Robert Bannister
Jun 14, 2016, 10:55:15 PM6/14/16
to
there for a long time - sometimes several generations - and they all
knew each other and had close friendships among each other. People
helped each other out, whether against the law or not. When they were
transferred to new housing developments, high-rise or not, they were
separated from their old neighbours. It takes a long time for a
community spirit to develop, so nobody was keeping an eye on the
delinquent kids or helping the old people.
Snidely
Jun 15, 2016, 2:37:21 AM6/15/16
to
Janet submitted this gripping article, maybe on Tuesday:
And Glasgow had already been doing multistory housing for the
unprivileged for, what, 75 years?
(From my O Henry reading, and smatterings of other stuff, the US had
multistory junk growing out of the boarding houses after the US Civil
War (post-1865). I'm not sure how much there was before then, but we
weren't complete agrarian even in 1835.)
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
unprivileged for, what, 75 years?
(From my O Henry reading, and smatterings of other stuff, the US had
multistory junk growing out of the boarding houses after the US Civil
War (post-1865). I'm not sure how much there was before then, but we
weren't complete agrarian even in 1835.)
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
Snidely
Jun 15, 2016, 2:45:23 AM6/15/16
to
After serious thinking Robert Bannister wrote :
loom and the Battle of Britain, but most of the factory towns had risen
up almost as quickly as the high-rises, no? But I suppose with the
kids pulling the thread in the factory, they didn't have time to hang
out in the shadows of the housing block.
> other and had close friendships among each other. People helped each other
> out, whether against the law or not. When they were transferred to new
> housing developments, high-rise or not, they were separated from their old
> neighbours. It takes a long time for a community spirit to develop, so nobody
> was keeping an eye on the delinquent kids or helping the old people.
I live in an apartment building (only 3 stories, and only about 16
apartments per floor, but about 10 such buildings in the complex). The
turnover is fairly rapid as people change jobs, or move back with their
parents, or go into assisted care living (all 3 seem to apply here).
Yet the kids show that there is a fairly well-developed sense of
community that regenerates rather quickly.
The local vibe is definitely suburban, as we're a bedroom community for
Los Angeles, with mostly service jobs and high tech work for local
employment.
/dps
--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl
> On 14/06/2016 11:31 PM, Janet wrote:
>> In article <njntfb$9kc$1...@dont-email.me>, pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid
>> says...
>>> Message-ID: <njntfb$9kc$1...@dont-email.me>
>>> Subject: Re: Meaning of New Brutalist Architecture
>>> From: Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid>
>>>
>>> On 2016-Jun-14 00:11, Whiskers wrote:
>>>> On 2016-06-12, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [quoted text muted]
>>>>> authorities intended the opposite, tower blocks quickly became, as
>>>>> Hanley sharply stated, 'slums in the sky'. <snip>
>>>>
>>>> In their defence, architects often had little or nothing to do with the
>>>> public housing schemes.
>>>
>>> In my opinion the problem with those schemes had little to do with the
>>> architecture, and much to do with the decision to concentrate large
>>> numbers of poor people into a very small area.
>>
>> That was nothing new in older inner cities. Many high rises were
>> built to accommodate poor people who previously occupied overcrowded
>> slums.
>
> But what changed was that in the old communities, most people had lived there
> for a long time - sometimes several generations - and they all knew each
I suppose you could get several generations in between the Jacquard
>> In article <njntfb$9kc$1...@dont-email.me>, pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid
>> says...
>>> Message-ID: <njntfb$9kc$1...@dont-email.me>
>>> Subject: Re: Meaning of New Brutalist Architecture
>>> From: Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid>
>>>
>>> On 2016-Jun-14 00:11, Whiskers wrote:
>>>> On 2016-06-12, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [quoted text muted]
>>>>> authorities intended the opposite, tower blocks quickly became, as
>>>>> Hanley sharply stated, 'slums in the sky'. <snip>
>>>>
>>>> In their defence, architects often had little or nothing to do with the
>>>> public housing schemes.
>>>
>>> In my opinion the problem with those schemes had little to do with the
>>> architecture, and much to do with the decision to concentrate large
>>> numbers of poor people into a very small area.
>>
>> That was nothing new in older inner cities. Many high rises were
>> built to accommodate poor people who previously occupied overcrowded
>> slums.
>
> But what changed was that in the old communities, most people had lived there
> for a long time - sometimes several generations - and they all knew each
loom and the Battle of Britain, but most of the factory towns had risen
up almost as quickly as the high-rises, no? But I suppose with the
kids pulling the thread in the factory, they didn't have time to hang
out in the shadows of the housing block.
> other and had close friendships among each other. People helped each other
> out, whether against the law or not. When they were transferred to new
> housing developments, high-rise or not, they were separated from their old
> neighbours. It takes a long time for a community spirit to develop, so nobody
> was keeping an eye on the delinquent kids or helping the old people.
apartments per floor, but about 10 such buildings in the complex). The
turnover is fairly rapid as people change jobs, or move back with their
parents, or go into assisted care living (all 3 seem to apply here).
Yet the kids show that there is a fairly well-developed sense of
community that regenerates rather quickly.
The local vibe is definitely suburban, as we're a bedroom community for
Los Angeles, with mostly service jobs and high tech work for local
employment.
/dps
--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jun 15, 2016, 7:16:26 AM6/15/16
to
rationale was said to be to split up criminal groups.
Janet
Jun 15, 2016, 11:02:23 AM6/15/16
to
In article <mn.75897e06e72d27df.127094@snitoo>, snide...@gmail.com
says...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenement#Edinburgh_and_Glasgow
"Tenements make up a large percentage of the housing stock of
Edinburgh and Glasgow, Scotland. Glasgow tenements were built to provide
high-density housing for the large number of people immigrating to the
city in the 19th and early 20th century as a result of the Industrial
Revolution, when the city's population boomed to more than 1 million
people. Edinburgh's tenements are much older, dating from the 17th
century onwards, and some were up to 15 stories high when first built,
which made them among the tallest houses in the world at that time.[21]
Glasgow tenements were generally built no taller than the width of the
street on which they were located; therefore, most are about 3?5 stories
high. Virtually all Glasgow tenements were constructed using red or
blonde sandstone, which has become distinctive.
A large number of the tenements in Edinburgh and Glasgow were demolished
in the 1960s and 1970s because of slum conditions, overcrowding and poor
maintenance of the buildings. Perhaps the most striking case of this is
seen in the Gorbals district of Glasgow, where virtually all the
tenements were demolished to make way for tower blocks, which in turn
have been demolished and replaced with newer structures. The Gorbals is
a relatively small area and at one time had an estimated 90,000 people
living in its tenements, leading to very poor living conditions; now the
population is roughly 10,000."
Gorbals used to be called the most dangerous place in
Britain,infamous for violent crime and razor gangs well into the 1960's.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3271583/A-bleak-portrait-
Dickensian-poverty-Glasgow-s-slums-1970s-Photos-families-living-one-
room-without-running-water-electricity-rats-rubble-50-years-ago.html
You bet people were glad to escape that to a clean warm highrise
tower.
http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/in-pictures-the-gorbals-
then-and-now-1-3896090
Janet.
says...
>
> Janet submitted this gripping article, maybe on Tuesday:
> > In article <njntfb$9kc$1...@dont-email.me>, pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid
> > says...
> >> Message-ID: <njntfb$9kc$1...@dont-email.me>
> >> Subject: Re: Meaning of New Brutalist Architecture
> >> From: Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid>
> >>
> >> On 2016-Jun-14 00:11, Whiskers wrote:
> >>> On 2016-06-12, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >>> [quoted text muted]
> >>>> authorities intended the opposite, tower blocks quickly became, as
> >>>> Hanley sharply stated, 'slums in the sky'. <snip>
> >>>
> >>> In their defence, architects often had little or nothing to do with the
> >>> public housing schemes.
> >>
> >> In my opinion the problem with those schemes had little to do with the
> >> architecture, and much to do with the decision to concentrate large
> >> numbers of poor people into a very small area.
> >
> > That was nothing new in older inner cities. Many high rises were
> > built to accommodate poor people who previously occupied overcrowded
> > slums.
>
> And Glasgow had already been doing multistory housing for the
> unprivileged for, what, 75 years?
or longer; and much longer, in Edinburgh.
> Janet submitted this gripping article, maybe on Tuesday:
> > In article <njntfb$9kc$1...@dont-email.me>, pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid
> > says...
> >> Message-ID: <njntfb$9kc$1...@dont-email.me>
> >> Subject: Re: Meaning of New Brutalist Architecture
> >> From: Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid>
> >>
> >> On 2016-Jun-14 00:11, Whiskers wrote:
> >>> On 2016-06-12, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >>> [quoted text muted]
> >>>> authorities intended the opposite, tower blocks quickly became, as
> >>>> Hanley sharply stated, 'slums in the sky'. <snip>
> >>>
> >>> In their defence, architects often had little or nothing to do with the
> >>> public housing schemes.
> >>
> >> In my opinion the problem with those schemes had little to do with the
> >> architecture, and much to do with the decision to concentrate large
> >> numbers of poor people into a very small area.
> >
> > That was nothing new in older inner cities. Many high rises were
> > built to accommodate poor people who previously occupied overcrowded
> > slums.
>
> And Glasgow had already been doing multistory housing for the
> unprivileged for, what, 75 years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenement#Edinburgh_and_Glasgow
"Tenements make up a large percentage of the housing stock of
Edinburgh and Glasgow, Scotland. Glasgow tenements were built to provide
high-density housing for the large number of people immigrating to the
city in the 19th and early 20th century as a result of the Industrial
Revolution, when the city's population boomed to more than 1 million
people. Edinburgh's tenements are much older, dating from the 17th
century onwards, and some were up to 15 stories high when first built,
which made them among the tallest houses in the world at that time.[21]
Glasgow tenements were generally built no taller than the width of the
street on which they were located; therefore, most are about 3?5 stories
high. Virtually all Glasgow tenements were constructed using red or
blonde sandstone, which has become distinctive.
A large number of the tenements in Edinburgh and Glasgow were demolished
in the 1960s and 1970s because of slum conditions, overcrowding and poor
maintenance of the buildings. Perhaps the most striking case of this is
seen in the Gorbals district of Glasgow, where virtually all the
tenements were demolished to make way for tower blocks, which in turn
have been demolished and replaced with newer structures. The Gorbals is
a relatively small area and at one time had an estimated 90,000 people
living in its tenements, leading to very poor living conditions; now the
population is roughly 10,000."
Gorbals used to be called the most dangerous place in
Britain,infamous for violent crime and razor gangs well into the 1960's.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3271583/A-bleak-portrait-
Dickensian-poverty-Glasgow-s-slums-1970s-Photos-families-living-one-
room-without-running-water-electricity-rats-rubble-50-years-ago.html
You bet people were glad to escape that to a clean warm highrise
tower.
http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/in-pictures-the-gorbals-
then-and-now-1-3896090
Janet.
Robert Bannister
Jun 15, 2016, 10:21:15 PM6/15/16
to
All I remember are grandiose "improvement" schemes like those that
created the Champs Elysées in Paris or Regent Street in London.
0 new messages