Lost Britain

[NothingBetterToDo]

Wow, amazing pics

But both look like equally depressing places to live. What's it like now?

[Mr Bricks]

What the fuck happened to Manchester?? Surely the war couldn´t have wiped out all of that?

[Zenith]

Thats what I want to know...god I hate these threads, weve really fucked things up havent we..

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Of course it would still be standing.Its such a great building!
I hope that one day it will be rebuilt.

We dont have the guts to stand outside greed and build things for humanitys sake.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by SuomiPoika

What the fuck happened to Manchester?? Surely the war couldn´t have wiped out all of that?

Slum cleansing I guess.

Originally Posted by zenith

weve really fucked things up havent we..

Yes.But we dont want to admit that.

Originally Posted by zenith

We dont have the guts to stand outside greed and build things for humanitys sake.

We never built things for humanitys sake.
Then we built stuff to show that we are rich now we build stuff to show that we are greedy.
We dont know what beauty is anymore.

[Mr Bricks]

But why did they use to build beatiful victorian buildings etc in the last century? I mean, why did they put so much time and money on design when there must have been cheaper ways to build?

[Zenith]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Slum cleansing I guess.



Yes.But we dont want to admit that.



We never built things for humanitys sake.
Then we built stuff to show that we are rich now we build stuff to show that we are greedy.
We dont know what beauty is anymore.

I know we didnt...but i'm a hopeless romantic and I wish we did. At least we knew what beauty was.

Slum cleansing...shame

[Zenith]

Originally Posted by SuomiPoika

But why did they use to build beatiful victorian buildings etc in the last century? I mean, why did they put so much time and money on design when there must have been cheaper ways to build?

The world was not as fast, not as greedy..but still rich..and we had real pride in our building. Buildings were an extension of our ideology and patriotism, as they are now....or lack of it. History and old architectural forms were much more respected..sometimes I feel like history has died in our postmodern world.

Slum clearance was a crime in my eyes, but then they had a deep hatred of what they saw as the old pompous pre war regime, and a need to rid the land of poverty, at least visible signs of it.

[wjfox]

I'm all in favour of preserving old historic buildings and maintaining the character and traditions of an area - but why would you want to preserve slums?


Definition of a slum:

noun
1. a thickly populated, run-down, squalid part of a city, inhabited by poor people.
2. any squalid, run-down place to live.

[Zenith]

Its not as black and white as that.....yesterdays slums can be todays gentrified areas.

Slums may have been dirty and terribly run down, but people were proud of their lot, and worked hard for it. Rather than pulling down these areas, effort could have been made to improve them.

What would you rather have? Gentrified victorian streets or brutal social housing with windswept streets?

[Mr Bricks]

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

but why would you want to preserve slums?

Take a look at the East End 100 years ago. Sure it was an area full of beggars, diseases, crime, murders and filth, but the buildings were amazing. Surely you must have been to Whitechapel and I bet you like the old alleyways and lanes that still exist today.

If the East End would have survived the war, it would be as it is today, only all old buildings would be intact. Personally I can´t say I find the area (from what I´ve seen and heard) very appealing today.

One thing that I can´t understand is why the area wasn´t rebuilt? In Warsaw they rebuilt the whole old town after WW2.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by SuomiPoika

But why did they use to build beatiful victorian buildings etc in the last century? I mean, why did they put so much time and money on design when there must have been cheaper ways to build?

They built those buildings to show the world that British Empire is rich great etc.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by SuomiPoika

One thing that I can´t understand is why the area wasn´t rebuilt? In Warsaw they rebuilt the whole old town after WW2.

Read this story (its quite long but interesting) :

http://www.open2.net/modernity/2_1.htm

[potto]

Originally Posted by high_flyer

If it hadn't burnt down, do you think it would still be standing today, and still be used?

I didn't know this;
"The building featured the largest roof ever made, and stood out in London architecture. To complement the mass of glass, the building was decorated in red, green, and blue, and the iron columns were variegated with yellow stripes"

Of course! It would be a World Heritage site!!! It was such a defining moment in architecture, the mass produced sections, the all iron and glass materials, a definitive symbol of the modern world.

Fuck knows why it hasnt been recreated, even if left empty it is a monument unlike any other!

[Mr Bricks]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

http://www.open2.net/modernity/2_1.htm

Depressing

[Mr Bricks]

Also many of those streets and buildings that are left are very badly maintained. Just take a look at the following pics, the same street, but man it looed better then.

Then



Now

[potto]

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

I'm all in favour of preserving old historic buildings and maintaining the character and traditions of an area - but why would you want to preserve slums?


Definition of a slum:

noun
1. a thickly populated, run-down, squalid part of a city, inhabited by poor people.
2. any squalid, run-down place to live.

They blamed the architecture a lot of which was georgian or victorian terracing. It was cheaper to rebuild than retro fit proper plumbing, fixing leaking roofs, new kitchens, laundry rooms, overcrowding was a problem as people had loads of children back then.

As ever long term costs are never calculated or remain unseen, in hindsight the retro fit option would have been the better option, communties would not have been displaced, organic and human scale growth kept intact and the communities would have become more mixed over time as the investment would have generated some gentrification.

What we ended up with was the people who couldnt afford to choose where to live ended up ever more isolated socially and economically in architecture whose lower quality leading inevitably to quick decay (how does a person maintain and customise the outer appearance of their 20th floor flat?! A question that architecture still hasnt found a solution to). The quick decay and lack of social fluidity meant that these new areas of hope just became symbols of despair and stigmatised everyone.... the new slums!

[potto]

Originally Posted by SuomiPoika

Also many of those streets and buildings that are left are very badly maintained. Just take a look at the following pics, the same street, but man it looed better then.

Then



Now

err yeah

[Zenith]

In seventy years, the landscape of Britain has changed beyond recognition, and much of the change can be attributed to Le Corbusier and other pioneers. Mistakes have been made on the way, and the vision of a utopia sketched out by Le Corbusier many years ago has never been realised. That has been the fate of all of the twentieth century's utopias.

I wouldnt say some mistakes...I would say many..

[potto]

well to be fair he was mis-interpreted. On one level Modernist architecture and the industrial age meant cheap n quick new build, something that governments and developers leapt on. Modernism ideals went far far deeper. Compare Corbusiers visions to what were built!!! He saw vertical villages placed in park land with efficient and environmentally friendly mass transport to and from centres of employment and leisure. Councils and developers were happy about the vertical bit cause it meant more profits or less cost per unit over the land costs. The green land building tall was meant to release to residential use ended up being loosly owned bits of greens space fitted between carparks and roads, weve all seen it, those haphazard triangles of grass that can only be used for dog shitting.

then there are the ideals of health and social glue in modernist architecture which pioneered maximising natural light, humane living space, efficient heating and social areas for all. Most developments even today seem to not even grasp those basic concepts. Only the top end bespoke residential architecture carries modernism on for the benefit of the inhabitants, the irony being that by stripping architecture of the ornate and overtly plush rich fittings modernist architecture was meant to be available to all, ho hum.

[johnnypd]

though on the other hand Le Corbusier also wanted to do this to central Paris: