C O N T E X T 1 0 5 : J U LY 2 0 0 8 47 Notes from the chair Coming to terms with the 20th century blues The heritage of the 20th century is a subject of considerable debate at the moment. Margaret Hodge clearly isn’t keen. It is unclear to what extent the minister’s views are based on practical concerns such as scale and technical performance, and to what extent they reflect personal stylistic preferences and perceptions of what comprises heritage. Quite a lot happened in the 20th century.We had two world wars, went nuclear, tripped to the moon (in all senses of the word), went through a phase of wearing brightly coloured nylon underwear and safety pins, and invented modernism. The last century saw unprecedented advances in technology and vast improvements in many people’s standard of living. It also saw human conflict on a scale previously unimagined. At this early stage of the 21st century, much of the built legacy of the previous century survives, especially from the latter half. Thus, while scarcity is a factor in assessing the value of heritage from previous times, it is not especially so for the buildings of the 20th century. There are exceptions to this, such as the surviving fabric of second world war defences. However, for much recent heritage, judgements of value are more qualitative in nature. The high level of survival means that quite a lot of very poor quality development remains from the last century.We are still adding to this in the present. This clearly colours public perceptions of the period. Past ages also produced high quantities of poor quality buildings. Social commentary from the 19th century describes the unthinkable horrors of worker’s housing. There is little today to compare with this. But the poorest development from previous ages has long since been demolished. In addition, expectations change and 20th century large-scale housing in particular appears to be contentious. Robin Hood Gardens in the East End of London well illustrates the point. Designed by Alison and Peter Smithson, the estate clearly has architectural significance and a strong urban presence. But there have been questions over its continuing fitness for purpose. The proposal to list the building received coverage in the national printed press and television. Park Hill in Sheffield has similarly divided opinion, including political opinion, even after Urban Splash became involved. This is perhaps surprising as attracting Urban Splash to such a large-scale project is akin to hitting the regeneration jackpot. There are some architecturally significant post-war buildings that have already been destroyed due to perceived social and/or technical problems, such as Basil Spence’s Hutchesontown C flats in Glasgow. Buildings of the post-war decades have reached a point in their lives where substantial refurbishment is likely to be necessary. But there are numerous successful examples where refurbishment has given a building a new lease of life. Ernö Goldfinger’s Trellick Tower inWest London has become an icon of trendy living. The refurbished Brunswick Centre in Bloomsbury (designed by Patrick Hodgkinson in the 1960s) has been transformed into an attractive mixeduse development with a strong sense of place – and a great place for breakfast. Denys Lasdun’s Keeling House, transformed a few years ago into luxury flats, was marketed as the original 1960s tower block. All of these examples are really big. Some are really, really, big. Those who argue against protecting housing megastructures highlight the disproportionate resources needed to preserve them. However, it should be borne in mind that such resources do not just preserve the buildings; they also deliver substantial outcomes in terms of improved housing and conditions for the communities that occupy them or live in the surrounding areas. This is achieved in a more sustainable manner than demolition and comprehensive redevelopment. However, it should also be remembered that much 20th century heritage does not comprise megastructures. Many buildings are modest in size and constructed using fairly well-established technologies. Their management is therefore not radically different from their older counterparts. It is unlikely that many ministers, regeneration agencies and other decision makers will become enthused by 20th century buildings for their intrinsic merits, especially in the short term. However, as with heritage of all periods, they may well be interested in the benefits that investing in such buildings can deliver. To promote the cause of protecting modern heritage, it is therefore be necessary to focus on its utility value, in addition to its aesthetic and historic value. It is clear that heritage-specific funding will not be adequate to preserve larger structures. For that, mainstream regeneration funding, private sector investment and strong partnerships will be necessary. As with buildings and places of any age, the truly outstanding accounts for a relatively small proportion of all building stock from the 20th century. At the present time we have a unique opportunity to identify and protect the best that survives. The debate should not be over whether we should preserve the best of modern (or modernist) heritage, but how we can practically achieve it. To quote Ruskin: ‘It is... no question of expediency or feeling whether we shall preserve the buildings of past times or not.We have no right whatever to touch them. They are not ours. They belong partly to those who built them, and partly to all the generations of mankind who are to follow us.’ This is a timeless philosophy. But the skills and techniques to follow it are in constant transition. For the more monumental modern buildings, this means an increased emphasis on partnership-building and constructive engagement with developers, regional development agencies and other funding bodies. This is the challenge for the amenity societies, local authorities, professional groups and other organisations that recognise the value of their recent heritage. Dave Chetwyn, [email protected]
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=