|
Home > Archive > Architecture > January 2007 > High rise towers in the UK question
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
High rise towers in the UK question
|
|
|
| Hi
Does anyone have some good links to information on the "Modernists dream of
high rise cities" - type thing
I'm trying to show a social worker I know that Architects intentions were
good when the idea was first proposed and that places like Roehampton and to
a lesser extent maybe ( Success wise) Trellick Tower were seen as a way of
saving land which could be used as parkland etc. and not just as a way of
packing lots of poor families into vertical ghettoes.
The real problem ( I think) was with local authorities chucking up cheapo
system builds like Ronan Point to meet Government housing targets which did
most of the damage.
She isn't overly keen on our profession which is odd when you consider she
spends half her life in these places, I'd just like to try and show her what
the dream was and how it went wrong, haven't managed to dig up quite what I'm
looking for on Google so I thought I'd try you guys.
I'm looking for stuff in plain English preferably - too much "Dynamic
contextually organically synthesised visions" flim flam may well result in
my personal injury!
Cheers
Tim
--
http://www.timdenning.myby.co.uk/
| |
|
| "Tim"> wrote
> "Modernists dream
Oh dear.
> I'm trying to show a social worker
Lordy, lordy.
> Government housing targets which did most of the damage.
social worker + cheap gov't housing
Does everybody else see where this is going?
> She isn't overly keen on our profession
architects and everybody else are selfish.
social workers are selfless.
Nah, there's no conflict here.
which is odd when you consider she
> spends half her life in these places, I'd just like to try and show her
> what the dream was and how it went wrong, haven't managed to dig up quite
> what I'm looking for on Google so I thought I'd try you guys.
She's wearing blinders.
> I'm looking for stuff in plain English preferably - too much "Dynamic
> contextually organically synthesised visions" flim flam may well result in
> my personal injury!
Plain english won't do it.
A baseball bat to the back of her skall might, though.
| |
| tbasc@bellsouth.net 2007-01-06, 8:39 pm |
|
Tim wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>
> Does anyone have some good links to information on the "Modernists dream of
> high rise cities" - type thing
>
>
>
> I'm trying to show a social worker I know that Architects intentions were
> good when the idea was first proposed and that places like Roehampton and to
> a lesser extent maybe ( Success wise) Trellick Tower were seen as a way of
> saving land which could be used as parkland etc. and not just as a way of
> packing lots of poor families into vertical ghettoes.
>
>
>
> The real problem ( I think) was with local authorities chucking up cheapo
> system builds like Ronan Point to meet Government housing targets which did
> most of the damage.
>
>
>
> She isn't overly keen on our profession which is odd when you consider she
> spends half her life in these places, I'd just like to try and show her what
> the dream was and how it went wrong, haven't managed to dig up quite what I'm
> looking for on Google so I thought I'd try you guys.
>
>
>
> I'm looking for stuff in plain English preferably - too much "Dynamic
> contextually organically synthesised visions" flim flam may well result in
> my personal injury!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> --
> http://www.timdenning.myby.co.uk/
Here's some reading:
American Project . The Rise and Fall of Modern Ghetto
ISBN 0-674-00321-7
Preface begins, "The idea for this book began taking shape in 1990,
when I was conducting interviews for a research project...I came to the
University of Chicago to begin graduate studies in the department of
Sociology." Author is Indian, born in Madras.
I, myself, am not surprised your social worker doesn't like public
housing.
I've worked as an architect around housing projects by Davis Brody,
Charles Moore, Louis Sauer, and the nameless. The more successful
dense solutions were for upper income types. Scattered site housing
seemed to work best for lower income folk.
TB
| |
|
| This isn't quite on target, but at least it is long and boring :-)
http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/...0401_dreier.pdf
It is a good article on how the US got to where it is and how/why
Canada is different.
Tim wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>
> Does anyone have some good links to information on the "Modernists dream of
> high rise cities" - type thing
>
>
>
> I'm trying to show a social worker I know that Architects intentions were
> good when the idea was first proposed and that places like Roehampton and to
> a lesser extent maybe ( Success wise) Trellick Tower were seen as a way of
> saving land which could be used as parkland etc. and not just as a way of
> packing lots of poor families into vertical ghettoes.
>
>
>
> The real problem ( I think) was with local authorities chucking up cheapo
> system builds like Ronan Point to meet Government housing targets which did
> most of the damage.
>
>
>
> She isn't overly keen on our profession which is odd when you consider she
> spends half her life in these places, I'd just like to try and show her what
> the dream was and how it went wrong, haven't managed to dig up quite what I'm
> looking for on Google so I thought I'd try you guys.
>
>
>
> I'm looking for stuff in plain English preferably - too much "Dynamic
> contextually organically synthesised visions" flim flam may well result in
> my personal injury!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> --
> http://www.timdenning.myby.co.uk/
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-01-06, 8:39 pm |
|
<tbasc@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1167952364.970775.13970@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tim wrote:
> Here's some reading:
> American Project . The Rise and Fall of Modern Ghetto
> ISBN 0-674-00321-7
>
> Preface begins, "The idea for this book began taking shape in 1990,
> when I was conducting interviews for a research project...I came to the
> university of Chicago to begin graduate studies in the department of
> Sociology." Author is Indian, born in Madras.
>
> I, myself, am not surprised your social worker doesn't like public
> housing.
> I've worked as an architect around housing projects by Davis Brody,
> Charles Moore, Louis Sauer, and the nameless. The more successful
> dense solutions were for upper income types. Scattered site housing
> seemed to work best for lower income folk.
Amen. I can't believe we're still having this discussion. The motives of the
architects, and anybody else involved, are ultimately unknowable, and
probably not very important, unless it's part of a plea agreement.
Almost all the slums we have in TO are institutionalized slums run by the
government. That they thought they were doing a good thing back in the 50's
or 60's doesn't change the fact that they were disasters. The architecture
was only a part of the problem. The planning was the bigger part, IMHO.
Once public, there was no way for the market to change the pattern of
poverty and crime, and it looked like we were stuck with them forever. In a
confession of the failure, local government has now approved the systematic
demolition and re-development of our biggest and oldest, publicly owned slum
to mixed use (private-public, residential-commercial) *on* the city grid :
http://tinyurl.com/yklceg
http://tinyurl.com/yan4yd
http://tinyurl.com/v8qzy
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-01-06, 8:39 pm |
|
"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:enlj1s07q5@news3.newsguy.com...
> Once public, there was no way for the market to change the pattern of
> poverty and crime, and it looked like we were stuck with them forever. In
> a confession of the failure, local government has now approved the
> systematic demolition and re-development of our biggest and oldest,
> publicly owned slum to mixed use (private-public, residential-commercial)
> *on* the city grid :
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yklceg
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yan4yd
>
> http://tinyurl.com/v8qzy
Sorry Tim. I focused on the public housing angle of a reply, not your
original post on hi-rise cities. See my other post.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-01-06, 8:39 pm |
|
"Tim" <no spam@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:8tenh.25720$k74.17394@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hi
>
>
>
> Does anyone have some good links to information on the "Modernists dream
> of high rise cities" - type thing
It practically started here:
http://store.doverpublications.com/0486253325.html
> I'm trying to show a social worker I know that Architects intentions were
> good when the idea was first proposed and that places like Roehampton and
> to a lesser extent maybe ( Success wise) Trellick Tower were seen as a way
> of saving land which could be used as parkland etc. and not just as a way
> of packing lots of poor families into vertical ghettoes.
That was rhetoric.
> The real problem ( I think) was with local authorities chucking up cheapo
> system builds like Ronan Point to meet Government housing targets which
> did most of the damage.
I disagree. The problem is underestimating humanity based on some ideology.
> She isn't overly keen on our profession which is odd when you consider she
> spends half her life in these places, I'd just like to try and show her
> what the dream was and how it went wrong, haven't managed to dig up quite
> what I'm looking for on Google so I thought I'd try you guys.
I'm not that keen on the recent track record of my profession either, but,
to be fair, there is much blame to go around. Don't forget politicians and
voters, planners and social workers.
Another work that has had fairly awful (but shorter) progeny in America is:
http://tinyurl.com/yxxups
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
|
| The problem isn't the architecture or the planning. You have to
remember "The Golden Rule" which says "He who has the gold, makes the
rules".
In public housing -- or almost all housing -- EVERYTHING is driven by
the money. Want highrises, set your funding/scoring to make that
advantageous. Don't want them, do the opposite. A funding agency
could get purple buildings that are round have yellow ooze coming out
of them if they set the fund priorities right. And a developer could
find an architect to design it if he paid them. Good projects don't
get funded, highly scoring ones do. That is why the all are the same
and have the same problems. That is what scored high at the time. Now
they are ripping them down -- guess why. Now there's a program for
that (called HOPE VI). It isn't "show me the money". It is "follow
the money".
Okay Don, you can now rant about your tax dollars being hard at work.
But that's life.
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> <tbasc@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:1167952364.970775.13970@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Amen. I can't believe we're still having this discussion. The motives of the
> architects, and anybody else involved, are ultimately unknowable, and
> probably not very important, unless it's part of a plea agreement.
>
> Almost all the slums we have in TO are institutionalized slums run by the
> government. That they thought they were doing a good thing back in the 50's
> or 60's doesn't change the fact that they were disasters. The architecture
> was only a part of the problem. The planning was the bigger part, IMHO.
>
> Once public, there was no way for the market to change the pattern of
> poverty and crime, and it looked like we were stuck with them forever. In a
> confession of the failure, local government has now approved the systematic
> demolition and re-development of our biggest and oldest, publicly owned slum
> to mixed use (private-public, residential-commercial) *on* the city grid :
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yklceg
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yan4yd
>
> http://tinyurl.com/v8qzy
| |
|
| "Pat"> wrote
> The problem isn't the architecture or the planning. You have to
> remember "The Golden Rule" which says "He who has the gold, makes the
> rules".
Not even close.
The gov't has no money, remember?
It has a carrot, and a stick.
> In public housing -- or almost all housing -- EVERYTHING is driven by
> the money. Want highrises, set your funding/scoring to make that
> advantageous. Don't want them, do the opposite. A funding agency
> could get purple buildings that are round have yellow ooze coming out
> of them if they set the fund priorities right. And a developer could
> find an architect to design it if he paid them. Good projects don't
> get funded, highly scoring ones do. That is why the all are the same
> and have the same problems. That is what scored high at the time. Now
> they are ripping them down -- guess why. Now there's a program for
> that (called HOPE VI). It isn't "show me the money". It is "follow
> the money".
Funding this, funding that.
Just call it what it is and be done with it.
If you did what they do, to secure this so called funding, you'd be in jail
or worse.
> Okay Don, you can now rant about your tax dollars being hard at work.
> But that's life.
There ya have it.
People like me will never win, or break even, cause there are certain people
walking the face of this earth that have been convinced that theft *is life*
and there is no way around it.
All of my life I have resisted this thing with every fiber of my being and
always will cause you know what?
Some things are just plain wrong and it can be felt in your bones, and for
the life of me I will never ever understand how people can give in like
that.
Some people are born i the wrong century but I was born on the wrong
continent.......heh....
Is it beer:30 yet?
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
| |
|
|
Don wrote:
> "Pat"> wrote
>
> Not even close.
> The gov't has no money, remember?
The gov't has no money????? Then who gets my tax payments?
> It has a carrot, and a stick.
And guns. Don't forget guns.
>
>
> Funding this, funding that.
> Just call it what it is and be done with it.
> If you did what they do, to secure this so called funding, you'd be in jail
> or worse.
>
>
> There ya have it.
> People like me will never win, or break even, cause there are certain people
> walking the face of this earth that have been convinced that theft *is life*
> and there is no way around it.
>
> All of my life I have resisted this thing with every fiber of my being and
> always will cause you know what?
> Some things are just plain wrong and it can be felt in your bones, and for
> the life of me I will never ever understand how people can give in like
> that.
>
> Some people are born i the wrong century but I was born on the wrong
> continent.......heh....
What, like Macovelli needed an assistant? That's something to aspire
to.
[color=darkred]
>
> Is it beer:30 yet?
>
>
>
>
| |
|
|
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> "Tim" <no spam@thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:8tenh.25720$k74.17394@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> It practically started here:
> http://store.doverpublications.com/0486253325.html
>
>
> That was rhetoric.
>
>
> I disagree. The problem is underestimating humanity based on some ideology.
>
>
>
> I'm not that keen on the recent track record of my profession either, but,
> to be fair, there is much blame to go around. Don't forget politicians and
> voters, planners and social workers.
>
> Another work that has had fairly awful (but shorter) progeny in America is:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yxxups
> --
>
>
> MichaelB
> www.michaelbulatovich.ca
Blame it on Bush. I mean, why not?
Blame Bush.
Blame Bush.
Blame Bush.
| |
|
| "Pat"> wrote
> Blame it on Bush. I mean, why not?
> Blame Bush.
> Blame Bush.
> Blame Bush.
Bush has been blamed for everything including global warming.
Placing blame does nothing.
Imagine being blamed for a murder but never being convicted.
Exactly, whats the point?
Its real simple, yet so complex, seemingly.
It starts with you, and the axiom that words have precise meaning.
| |
| Herbert 2007-01-07, 5:25 pm |
|
"Tim" <no spam@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:8tenh.25720$k74.17394@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hi
> Does anyone have some good links to information on the "Modernists dream
> of high rise cities" - type thing
>
I doubt if you will find such a thing relating to the UK. And if there
were, it would all be negated by one very well known British Townplanner who
advised a UK city with plenty of building land, in an extensive report, that
the city was too flat and needed high rise buildings, so the city fathers
build a whole slew of them along the city boundary. Where is the modernists
dream in that?
>
> I'm trying to show a social worker I know that Architects intentions were
> good when the idea was first proposed and that places like Roehampton and
> to a lesser extent maybe ( Success wise) Trellick Tower were seen as a way
> of saving land which could be used as parkland etc. and not just as a way
> of packing lots of poor families into vertical ghettoes.
>
I wouldn't call any of the High rise tower blocks in the UK successful. None
of them are being used to provide housing for the social groups they were
intended.
>
> The real problem ( I think) was with local authorities chucking up cheapo
> system builds like Ronan Point to meet Government housing targets which
> did most of the damage.
The problem started a long time before Ronan Point. Try reading about
Quarry Hill in Leeds or the Garths in Sunderland
> She isn't overly keen on our profession which is odd when you consider
> she spends half her life in these places, I'd just like to try and show
> her what the dream was and how it went wrong, haven't managed to dig up
> quite what I'm looking for on Google so I thought I'd try you guys.
Perhaps you would have more success in arguing that the Modernists Dream -
if there really was one - was really a Sociologists dream and not an
Architects one. Many of these developments were more social engineering
than Architecture and weren't a great deal better that what they replaced
>
>
> I'm looking for stuff in plain English preferably - too much "Dynamic
> contextually organically synthesised visions" flim flam may well result in
> my personal injury!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> --
> http://www.timdenning.myby.co.uk/
>
| |
| Kris Krieger 2007-01-14, 5:25 pm |
| "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in
news:1168025469.309478.192230@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> The problem isn't the architecture or the planning. You have to
> remember "The Golden Rule" which says "He who has the gold, makes the
> rules".
That might be "The Gold Rule", but "The Golden Rule" is "Do unto others
as you would have others do unto you".
>
> In public housing -- or almost all housing -- EVERYTHING is driven by
> the money. Want highrises, set your funding/scoring to make that
> advantageous. Don't want them, do the opposite. A funding agency
> could get purple buildings that are round have yellow ooze coming out
> of them if they set the fund priorities right. And a developer could
> find an architect to design it if he paid them. Good projects don't
> get funded, highly scoring ones do. That is why the all are the same
> and have the same problems. That is what scored high at the time.
> Now they are ripping them down -- guess why. Now there's a program
> for that (called HOPE VI). It isn't "show me the money". It is
> "follow the money".
>
> Okay Don, you can now rant about your tax dollars being hard at work.
> But that's life.
>
>
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>
|
|
|
|
|