This article from the Guardian about two Brutalist housing estates in London is now more than five years old. But the story is perhaps just as interesting. The article is about two "New Brutalism" estates that were designed and built in the 1960s and 1970s.
The first is the Barbican Estate (which appeared recently on the blog over here) and the second is Robin Hood Gardens (pictured above, partially). Both were designed by notable architects and both have been equally divisive when it comes to their aesthetic appeal. We're talking about Brutalism. So it's likely that you either love them or hate them.
One of the big differences between these two housing complexes is that one is a private estate and the other is (or was) social housing. And perhaps because of this, the Barbican has remained desirable and Robin Hood Gardens was ultimately
This article from the Guardian about two Brutalist housing estates in London is now more than five years old. But the story is perhaps just as interesting. The article is about two "New Brutalism" estates that were designed and built in the 1960s and 1970s.
The first is the Barbican Estate (which appeared recently on the blog over here) and the second is Robin Hood Gardens (pictured above, partially). Both were designed by notable architects and both have been equally divisive when it comes to their aesthetic appeal. We're talking about Brutalism. So it's likely that you either love them or hate them.
One of the big differences between these two housing complexes is that one is a private estate and the other is (or was) social housing. And perhaps because of this, the Barbican has remained desirable and Robin Hood Gardens was ultimately
Support this publication to show you appreciate and believe in them. As their writing reaches more readers, your coins may grow in value.
Top supporters
1.
Brandon Donnelly
14M
2.
0xdb8f...bcfd
4.5M
3.
jcandqc
4.1M
4.
0x65de...c951
2.1M
5.
kualta.eth
869.1K
6.
Ev Tchebotarev
170.5K
7.
stefan333
81.7K
8.
voltron
81.5K
9.
William Mougayar's Blog
28.4K
10.
Empress Trash
19.8K
4.2K+Subscribers
Popularity
20Supporters
4.2K+Subscribers
Popularity
20Supporters
Heritage - Brandon Donnelly
The response was exactly as I expected. Modern planning, as you know, is obsessed with setbacks, stepbacks, angular planes, shadow studies, skyviews, and lots of other things that inform the overall massing of new buildings. But then you point out a building like 701 Côte de la Place-d'Armes — which is not set back from the street and does not have any stepbacks above — and lots of people seem to love it.
In fact, I specifically chose to share this building because it's exactly the kind of architecture and urban design that conveys the feeling of grandeur I get when I'm in Montréal. I also chose it because it's taller than six storeys, which is the height that Toronto is hoping to one day deliver along its major streets at scale.
But here's a question: If this stepback-less building is so great, why are stepbacks so in-demand?
Firstly, I should point out that when the building was completed in 1870, it only had five floors. The top floor was an attic storey and had a mansard roof reminiscent of Haussmannian Second Empire architecture.
Then in 1909, the attic floor was removed, and three new floors were added (a net increase of two floors). If you look closely above the fourth floor, you'll see a slightly different architectural expression, but one that remains harmonious with the original design of the building.
This approach breaks many of the rules for how modern planning thinks about heritage buildings. Today, it is likely that someone would have asked for a stepback above the existing building, with a completely new expression above it. Admittedly, this can produce desirable results. But it's not what was decided in 1909, and the result is a very handsome building.
This gets us back to our original question: Why do we insist on stepbacks, but still like architecture like this one so much? I think there are at least two answers at play here.
The first has to do with architecture and design. If you were to pluck random people off the street and ask them about their architectural tastes, I would bet you that more people would prefer something Neoclassical or Beaux-Arts over something modern. And if people actually like the architecture, then I think they become more comfortable with scale, or perceived scale.
The second answer has to do with the fact that one way to look at stepbacks is as a defensive architectural tool. They have become a tool we use when someone doesn't actually want a building to be built. We use them to try and soften the massing by hiding as much of it as possible.
The problem with this approach is that it also means we're not playing offence. And if you want urban grandeur, I think you need to play offence. You need to be confident and decisive about what you're trying to do. And I think this is part of the reason why so many people seem to like 701 Côte de la Place-d'Armes. It is all of these things, and it's not in their backyard.
Yesterday we visited the Arquipélago — Centro de Artes Contemporâneas in Ribeira Grande on the northern part of the island. Originally the Ribeira Grande Distillation Factory, the site dates back to the late 19th century. Construction on the original buildings began in 1893 and the first export of alcohol was reported in 1896. However, production was short lived.
In 1901, due to pressures from the Portuguese mainland, a protectionist measure was put in place capping alcohol production across the Azorean islands to 2 million liters per year — a drop from 10 million liters per year. The mainland simply couldn't compete with low-cost alcohol from the islands and so they complained. This crippled the local industry and the factory shut down shortly after.
Subsequent to this, the site was repurposed for tobacco drying and storage, and even served as military barracks for a period of time. Then in 2006, the property was purchased by the Azorean government and, using money from the EU's Regional Development Fund, it was remade into what is now fittingly referred to as a "factory of culture."
The architects for the project were João Mendes Ribeiro and Menos é Mais Arquitectos, and if you ever find yourself on São Miguel, I would highly recommend you visit the center. The architects did a wonderful job creating a cohesive dialogue between the old (constructed out of black volcanic basalt) and the new. It was recommended to me and now I'm recommending it to all of you.
demolished starting in 2017
. This is despite numerous outcries from the architecture and design community that it should be both preserved and listed.
We could get into questions of funding and maintenance, as well as the design differences between the two complexes (I don't have any of these details), but even without all of this, I find these two divergent outcomes pretty interesting. Architecture, it would seem, isn't everything.
The response was exactly as I expected. Modern planning, as you know, is obsessed with setbacks, stepbacks, angular planes, shadow studies, skyviews, and lots of other things that inform the overall massing of new buildings. But then you point out a building like 701 Côte de la Place-d'Armes — which is not set back from the street and does not have any stepbacks above — and lots of people seem to love it.
In fact, I specifically chose to share this building because it's exactly the kind of architecture and urban design that conveys the feeling of grandeur I get when I'm in Montréal. I also chose it because it's taller than six storeys, which is the height that Toronto is hoping to one day deliver along its major streets at scale.
But here's a question: If this stepback-less building is so great, why are stepbacks so in-demand?
Firstly, I should point out that when the building was completed in 1870, it only had five floors. The top floor was an attic storey and had a mansard roof reminiscent of Haussmannian Second Empire architecture.
Then in 1909, the attic floor was removed, and three new floors were added (a net increase of two floors). If you look closely above the fourth floor, you'll see a slightly different architectural expression, but one that remains harmonious with the original design of the building.
This approach breaks many of the rules for how modern planning thinks about heritage buildings. Today, it is likely that someone would have asked for a stepback above the existing building, with a completely new expression above it. Admittedly, this can produce desirable results. But it's not what was decided in 1909, and the result is a very handsome building.
This gets us back to our original question: Why do we insist on stepbacks, but still like architecture like this one so much? I think there are at least two answers at play here.
The first has to do with architecture and design. If you were to pluck random people off the street and ask them about their architectural tastes, I would bet you that more people would prefer something Neoclassical or Beaux-Arts over something modern. And if people actually like the architecture, then I think they become more comfortable with scale, or perceived scale.
The second answer has to do with the fact that one way to look at stepbacks is as a defensive architectural tool. They have become a tool we use when someone doesn't actually want a building to be built. We use them to try and soften the massing by hiding as much of it as possible.
The problem with this approach is that it also means we're not playing offence. And if you want urban grandeur, I think you need to play offence. You need to be confident and decisive about what you're trying to do. And I think this is part of the reason why so many people seem to like 701 Côte de la Place-d'Armes. It is all of these things, and it's not in their backyard.
Yesterday we visited the Arquipélago — Centro de Artes Contemporâneas in Ribeira Grande on the northern part of the island. Originally the Ribeira Grande Distillation Factory, the site dates back to the late 19th century. Construction on the original buildings began in 1893 and the first export of alcohol was reported in 1896. However, production was short lived.
In 1901, due to pressures from the Portuguese mainland, a protectionist measure was put in place capping alcohol production across the Azorean islands to 2 million liters per year — a drop from 10 million liters per year. The mainland simply couldn't compete with low-cost alcohol from the islands and so they complained. This crippled the local industry and the factory shut down shortly after.
Subsequent to this, the site was repurposed for tobacco drying and storage, and even served as military barracks for a period of time. Then in 2006, the property was purchased by the Azorean government and, using money from the EU's Regional Development Fund, it was remade into what is now fittingly referred to as a "factory of culture."
The architects for the project were João Mendes Ribeiro and Menos é Mais Arquitectos, and if you ever find yourself on São Miguel, I would highly recommend you visit the center. The architects did a wonderful job creating a cohesive dialogue between the old (constructed out of black volcanic basalt) and the new. It was recommended to me and now I'm recommending it to all of you.
demolished starting in 2017
. This is despite numerous outcries from the architecture and design community that it should be both preserved and listed.
We could get into questions of funding and maintenance, as well as the design differences between the two complexes (I don't have any of these details), but even without all of this, I find these two divergent outcomes pretty interesting. Architecture, it would seem, isn't everything.
