SkyscraperCity banner

501 - 520 of 588 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Agreed, heritage alone is not warrant to give a building value. A city is not a museum and buildings must serve the present.

However, I would argue that this building provides us with a very good summary of mid-20th century modernism and will only be replaced with another 21st century example of post modernism or modernism. It's better to keep it.
It's not so bad.
In the context of North Sydney Tall Buildings, no, it's not too bad.

I don't personally have a strong view either way, just wanted to counter the suggestion that a building can't be both a heritage building and an eyesore!
(In fact, it's often the same characteristics that make something 'an eyesore' that make it good for heritage status - check out Alexandra Road Estate in London, which is a Grade II listed building)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,313 Posts
There was no such suggestion. That was your interpretation, not my intention. I do not, however, from an aesthetic point of view, consider it an eyesore. It's not an architectural icon, but it is historically significant, and it is still functionally viable.

I was trying to encourage a bit of balance to the dismissal of this building to understand why it is still there. Using the term 'eyesore' is hardly a non-emotive one and in this case is unfair. SydneyG is usually more sensitive in his comments, so I was taken aback at the comment about MLC. A little Googling can be very informative.

As Morrnb noted, this building gives a very good visual summary of the style of the time and whether you like it or not is largely immaterial. Recognising its significance in the progress of architecture, especially in Australia, is important and overrides any personal tastes, which is why I recommended a more informed opinion.

You need to be careful. In the 1960s we almost lost the Queen Victoria Building, a classic example of Neo-Byzantine C.19th. Revivalism as people at the time dismissed it as an eyesore and wanted to replace it with a carpark. Also around that time, some even claimed Sydney Town Hall should be replaced with something more 'modern' even calling it a vulgar, overly decorative, 'wedding cake' style. Fortunately for us both were saved.

We need to select with care what we preserve as not all old buildings are heritage value. For instance, the listing of the LL&G Building on Pitt St/Spring St is, in my opinion, a bit over the top. The rapturous description by the CoS assessor showed a distinct lack of balance and an excess of enthusiasm for preservation. MLC is a far better example of of Mid C.20th. Modernism as is the small Liner House on Bridge Street.

Knowledge is power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
(In fact, it's often the same characteristics that make something 'an eyesore' that make it good for heritage status - check out Alexandra Road Estate in London, which is a Grade II listed building)
What are you talking about, that's a great example of brutalism and is attractive in it's own way...
A style which is also quite rare and which we have recently destroyed a great example of.... the Sydney University Law School building. (see the King & Phillip Residences thread).
We need to heritage list buildings like "The Sirius" before it's too late.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,313 Posts
Alexandra Road Estate is not just a major example of the Brutalist style of the late 1960s, but is also a key example in the development of C.20th. town planning and concepts of mass housing. It has been criminally neglected and needs proper maintenance as weathering has not been kind to the concrete: see Sydney Police Centre, Surry Hills, and Housing blocks (similar to Alexandra Road Estate, and also much abused) off McEvoy Street, Waterloo.

Even though I think the King & Phillip Building is a bit of a dazzler, I was not at all happy to see the Law School go as it was one of McConnel Smith & Johnson's best buildings, and, as mornnb noted, one of our best Brutalist buildings, superior, in my opinion to the Sirius Building.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Quality design doesn't only come from elaborate intentions. It can come from anything. It is how much care and thought is put into the building. Which can be done at any budget or any purpose.
I think the fact it was a quick knock up to solve a public housing issue is why it works so well as an example of Brutalist architecture.

A futuristic style of the 70s, the idea of the time was that ever growing population was going to require bold responses, including in the architecture, (as seen in soylent green (1973), Logan’s run (1976) and a clockwork orange (1971), although post 70s also robocop (1987) and total recall (1990). Brutalist style megablocks were seen as the only way this population could be dealt with.

The Sirius building (designed in 78/79) fits in as many apartments as the designers could cram in the space, representing this Brutalist need of spacial efficiency brought about by population growth. A concrete bunker future tower to house displaced terrace dwellers is as 70s brutalist as it gets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
360 Posts
Brutalism was primarily concerned with "honesty" in regard to a buildings construction and materiality. Unfinished board formed compositional elements were intended to convey the story of the structures engineering and process of creation. Elements were typically over scaled as a way of expressing the inherent density and massiveness associated with concrete and its use as a construction material.

Contrary to popular belief, while intended as a witty slur by some in the profession at the time, who resolutely were not on board with the fashion, the term brutalism has nothing to do with harshness, lack of sympathy or aggression. Rather the term refers to the inevitable use of often coarse, unfinished concrete. In France the material is called beton brut.
 

·
Meh...
Joined
·
641 Posts
Know your history: classified heritage item, classic 1950s Modernist building.

NOT an eyesore but heritage and deservedly so despite some interference.

We've been through this before with this building. Pls. learn the history of our buildings; your opinion needs to have substance to avoid misjudgements. Learning is easy with Google.

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=2180854
Just to play umpire...you guys are talking about different buildings. The MLC sign is not the same as the MLC building in the link above. Brizer is referring to an architectural gem, in my opinion, on Miller St. The photos from Neutral Bay looking west show the MLC sign on a scraper on Walker St.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,313 Posts
Brutalism was primarily concerned with "honesty" in regard to a buildings construction and materiality. Unfinished board formed compositional elements were intended to convey the story of the structures engineering and process of creation. Elements were typically over scaled as a way of expressing the inherent density and massiveness associated with concrete and its use as a construction material.

Contrary to popular belief, while intended as a witty slur by some in the profession at the time, who resolutely were not on board with the fashion, the term brutalism has nothing to do with harshness, lack of sympathy or aggression. Rather the term refers to the inevitable use of often coarse, unfinished concrete. In France the material is called beton brut.
Yes, exactly. The term comes from the French 'brut' meaning coarse, crude, gross, raw, rough. Thus the concrete isn't prettied up to look nice and smooth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Brutalism was primarily concerned with "honesty" in regard to a buildings construction and materiality. Unfinished board formed compositional elements were intended to convey the story of the structures engineering and process of creation. Elements were typically over scaled as a way of expressing the inherent density and massiveness associated with concrete and its use as a construction material.

Contrary to popular belief, while intended as a witty slur by some in the profession at the time, who resolutely were not on board with the fashion, the term brutalism has nothing to do with harshness, lack of sympathy or aggression. Rather the term refers to the inevitable use of often coarse, unfinished concrete. In France the material is called beton brut.
Yeah the name wasn’t meant to imply brutal as in our English word but rather the state of the finished concrete, although in pop culture (and university and law buildings) the two quickly became synonymous. Sadly the concrete wasn’t able to remain as clean as it looked when built.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,349 Posts
^^ Dayam! What a beauty!
Oh, what a beauty! I've never seen one as big as that before!
Oh, what a beauty! It must be 155m or even more.
Such a lovely colour, so nice and round and fat;
I never thought a building could grow as big as that.
Oh, what a beauty - I've never seen one as big as that before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74,587 Posts
 
501 - 520 of 588 Posts
Top