Farringdon St & Smithfield developments

[mulattokid]

Originally Posted by london lad

“What leads people without any education at all to enjoying streetscapes.”

The vast majority of people don’t give a shit about the streetscape other than where the nearest Primark or Starbucks is, you only have to look at the state of most people’s houses once you get past the front door .People gladly ignore waste, rubbish, clutter lying outside their front door and so long as the tesco express is open they don’t give a monkeys that the rest of the shopping parade has been ruined by shopkeepers who think garish plastic an neon and heavy shuttered shops is what brings people to town.

This argument about modernism = bad never mentions this. Modern life is as much to blame for the poor streetscapes than any architect or planner. Take an average street in Britain. What was once a uniform terrace of say Victorian homes with a garden , same doors and windows, gate, front walls etc has been ruined by occupants ( yes you and me not those nasty modernists and greedy developers.) who have added differing styles of doors & windows, acres of Upvc glazing, ill-suited roof extensions of varying quality, house painted garish colours or peebledashed, most front gardens ripped out and paved ( again to varying degrees of quality, usually very bad) for the car, rubbish and weeds rather than plants fill most driveways as apathetic modern life means people don’t care what happens past the front door.

By and large the only time people get involved in buildings is when they want an extension or want to stop the neighbours having one.

Spot on!

We on this site of all views, be it modern or traditional, are the exception (along with architects, EH, historians & other professionals) A vast majority of people couldnt give a damn.....they wouldnt even notice.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by london lad

The vast majority of people don’t give a shit about the streetscape other than where the nearest Primark or Starbucks is

I don't think that's true at all. You just have to look at where the money goes. I don't think slagging off a large part of the population is really very constructive. Is this just a guess of yours or do you have evidence it's true?

you only have to look at the state of most people’s houses once you get past the front door

! Wow.. Such hatred for other people. Have you been on most people's houses? I doubt it. Perhaps you are talking about the people you know.

This argument about modernism = bad never mentions this.

Not sure what argument you're talking about, but why should any argument claim what you have without evidence?

Modern life is as much to blame for the poor streetscapes than any architect or planner. Take an average street in Britain. What was once a uniform terrace of say Victorian homes with a garden , same doors and windows, gate, front walls etc has been ruined by occupants ( yes you and me not those nasty modernists and greedy developers.) who have added differing styles of doors & windows, acres of Upvc glazing, ill-suited roof extensions of varying quality, house painted garish colours or peebledashed, most front gardens ripped out and paved ( again to varying degrees of quality, usually very bad) for the car, rubbish and weeds rather than plants fill most driveways as apathetic modern life means people don’t care what happens past the front door.

This is an *entirely* different point from the question of whether the things we build today have a quality and style which is even worth preserving in the future.

I agree that it is terrible when a building of quality or a streetscape of quality is allowed to be degraded, but that hardly excuses the efforts of today's architects and planners to produce an environment which is worth keeping.

By and large the only time people get involved in buildings is when they want an extension or want to stop the neighbours having one.

You don't have to contact the council to be 'involved in buildings'. You could just spend a day somewhere nice. What makes somewhere 'nice' in the first place is often the buildings. I don't think you're taking into account all the ways in which a person enjoys the built environment, and I don't think it fair that because there are some people who don't care, that it's the mainstream view.

Still. Find me surveys which back up your claims and I'll start taking your argument seriously.

[mulattokid]

I would strongly disagree with your first two statements. If most people had an interesest in the 'streetscape' there would be next to no littering, dog fouling, etc etc. Its not even slagging off large parts of the population if its the norm is it? Its what people do...or don't. WE are the exception. Where I live, an affluent area, people take care of their houses 'inside' Once anything is past their front door (yes their gardens included too often) they have nothing to do with it. They wont even pick their own rubbish bags up if they get spilled or opened. They feel nothing for litter outlside their own houses. It is not their concern.

When a council post mailshots through locals doors and post notices on lamposts for opinions on just what is proposed for a local site, just now many responders are there, either for or against? There is your evidence of how many people could give a flying f*** about planning.

[TheLimboKing]

I think it is arrogance and just plain wrong to think that the vast majority of people just don't "give a shit" about their environment and streetscapes. No wonder people thinks architects and planners (me being one) are such arrogant pricks, who have this higher sense of learning and are so far up their own asses that don't appreciate what regular people actually think and what happens in the real world.

The real world the fact that people are inherently selfish, in their own little world and sometimes inconsiderate to others...WE ALL ARE SOMETIMES. When you dump that Metro on the chairs in the Underground Station...you shouldn't because apparently TfL says it causes delays and mess, but I bet you most of us have. Does that mean we don't care about the look and feel of our Underground...NO!

What a stupid statement, sorry.

[mulattokid]

^ I wish I could agree but its just wishful thinking from educated people who can 'see' the bigger picture. Its just rubbish and as I say - only wishful thinking. I am the Chair of our local residents association and out of 150+ households agroup of just 8 find ourlselves wiping the arses fo most of the rest. Cleaning up their rubbish, watching them sneek out at dusk so they can dump the rubbish that the dustment wont take away or so they dont have to clean up after their dogs. Not only do they not care - they are deceipful in that ignorance. it is planned - not just opportunist.

Edit: As I say, these very same people are often wonderful and important parts of society. charitable and kind, and all the great things we need in society. I note specifically that there seems to be a gap between these qualities and that which we are discussing. I don't understand why it is the case, but it is. Even a lovely old pensioner I see regularly was chucking her rubbish out of a car window the other day. She checked first to see if anyone was looking. She was embarrassed to have missed me cycling by. Its endemic.

[cnapan]

I'm sorry mulattokid, but I want nothing to do with a debate which seems to be steering towards a view of "why should the architects and planners give a shit if people don't?"

The premise isn't even slightly proven despite the anecdotes presented here, and the conclusion is just plain horrible. Who in their right mind sets the standards of how we should be by the actions of the people who don't give a damn? No thanks.

[pmun]

cnapan, you berate menganito for 'being entirely wrong' (Post 259) and yet claim that buildings can have 'humanity'. If you think about it, this is quite absurd. What is human about a building? You have actually proved menganito's point. The humanity is within the human experiencing the building.

[mulattokid]

Originally Posted by cnapan

I'm sorry mulattokid, but I want nothing to do with a debate which seems to be steering towards a view of "why should the architects and planners give a shit if people don't?"

The premise isn't even slightly proven despite the anecdotes presented here, and the conclusion is just plain horrible. Who in their right mind sets the standards of how we should be by the actions of the people who don't give a damn? No thanks.

What an extraordinary extrapolation of line of thought from sombeody elses comments.

With respect, I think the key phrase here is 'seems too'. to complete the phrase: 'seems to, to you' I have not suggested anything of the sort nor would I. Neither would I suggest they be mutually exclusive. I am making an observation. To clarify for your benefit: it would be niave of, say, an architect to think that the 'average' person stops and takes note of his work. Only those I have inexhaustively listed above would have a care or even notice. IMO (unless something is so attrocious as the become newsworthy)

You could equally have chosen to interpret my thoughts to another, more amenable conclusion? If the proletariat are not interested in the built environement, then it puts an even greater emphasis on the output of architects and planners, as they become custodians of the common good. I would not expect anything less from them.

In fairness, the term 'right minded' would be appropriate if I were to storm off out of an debate with lightly veiled insults because I didnt agree or misunderstood.

[london lad]

You a funny one Canpan- you bang about about this notion of how modern buildings are only designed for 30-40 and no thought is given to how they look or last and then come up with your ill-defined ‘notion’ of beauty yet this is all your opinion yet now your demanding evidence from everyone else.

I’m not arrogantly saying the ‘common’ person is a pleb to be ignored but no one can deny the majority of people don’t care about the wider streetscape and architecture.

You only have to open your eyes look around, see that pile of rubbish that has been building up on that verge or side of the street or someones front garden, the cracked pavement , paved front drive with weeds sprouting, that piece of crap people walk past every day, the random bit of bent street clutter with that years old piece of advertising stuck on it, the estate agents boards stuck permanently outside blocks of flats because the occupant who have made the biggest invest in their lives can’t be bothered to take it down, the shopping parade that has had its heart ripped out by nasty shuttering and garish signs with empty units because no one wants to shop there, etc etc. Now if people genuinely cared about the area or how a building looks this wouldn’t be so depressingly familiar all over London and the UK.

Maybe I’m being pinicky but when even contentious applications can barely muster comments into double figures it doesn’t really point to most people being overly concerned with their local environment and maybe I have bad friends, work colleagues and live in an uncaring area as no one really comments or is overly concerned with the built environment and have a multitude of other things to converse about. The only people who seem to have an interest in the built environment are the ones some people on here accuse of ruining the built environment when all the point I am making is it’s not quite as simple as that and many people in modern life are equally as culpable for the state of the wider environment.

[Loathing]

Originally Posted by pmun

cnapan, you berate menganito for 'being entirely wrong' (Post 259) and yet claim that buildings can have 'humanity'. If you think about it, this is quite absurd. What is human about a building? You have actually proved menganito's point. The humanity is within the human experiencing the building.

This is nonsense. Firstly, your (and menganito's) claims presuppose that there's no God or any higher spiritual force, which is frankly pretty arrogant. But even if you're a pure Humanist or worship science or whatever: humans inherently like certain things because of a biological imperative. Almost all humans enjoy, for example; clear patterns; certain colour combinations; natural materials; natural light; etc.

[pmun]

Originally Posted by Loathing

This is nonsense. Firstly, your (and menganito's) claims presuppose that there's no God or any higher spiritual force, which is frankly pretty arrogant. But even if you're a pure Humanist or worship science or whatever: humans inherently like certain things because of a biological imperative. Almost all humans enjoy, for example; clear patterns; certain colour combinations; natural materials; natural light; etc.

Firstly, my comments have nothing to do with believe or otherwise of a god. Secondly, humans indeed have a biological imperative to sense and appreciate a wide range of stimuli including all of which you mentioned. To what extent they appreciate any of these in any given combination is learnt behaviour, certainly in terms of aesthetics, which is what we are talking about here. There is nothing inherently good or bad about the appearance of a Brutalist or Edwardian building.

[potto]

Originally Posted by Loathing

Almost all humans enjoy, for example; clear patterns; certain colour combinations etc.

There goes the age old appreciation of the natural world then

[Loathing]

Originally Posted by potto

There goes the age old appreciation of the natural world then

What the fuck?

[Loathing]

Originally Posted by pmun

Firstly, my comments have nothing to do with believe or otherwise of a god. Secondly, humans indeed have a biological imperative to sense and appreciate a wide range of stimuli including all of which you mentioned. To what extent they appreciate any of these in any given combination is learnt behaviour, certainly in terms of aesthetics, which is what we are talking about here. There is nothing inherently good or bad about the appearance of a Brutalist or Edwardian building.

If you believed in God you might believe that certain rules of aesthetics are God-given. That's certainly what heavyweight aesthetes like Ruskin believed. My point was that the Relativism menganito subscribes to is not compatible with God. This incompatibility is a widely known fact. I'm not even a practicing Christian, I was just stating the normal philosophical retort of the argument that menganito posited.

Second point: if a biological imperative does influence our response to visual or sensory stimuli, why then clearly there is something inherently human about certain buildings (since buildings provide a range of visual/sensory stimuli). That's what cnapan was saying: certain buildings lack humanity. I would argue, perfectly legitimately, that many Brutalist buildings objectively lack humanity, because by biological imperative humans respond negatively to them.

Cliff's Notes: Learnt behaviour and habit can certainly trump biological imperative on some occasions, but that doesn't disqualify anything I've written. Menganito was claming that all taste is learnt. I think that's bullshit, because it completely ignores (1) God or metaphysical arguments, and (2) biological imperative. Is that so controversial?

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Loathing

because by biological imperative humans respond negatively to them.

All humans?

[DarJoLe]

Anyway, EH I suspect are supportive of the scheme because they know it's the only one that will actually get built in the near future and at least have parts of the Market maintained to a decent standard. The SAVE proposal I expect doesn't add up in terms of profitability and will take longer to become a reality whilst the Market continues to rot away.

[Loathing]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

All humans?

A significant majority. That's all that matters when it comes to biology. Besides, I did say that people can be taught to love things ... just clearly not all taste is taught.

Anyway, I think most people who like Brutalist buildings like them because of their counter-cultural or esoteric appeal, rather than for aesthetic reasons.