City Thread

[Sheilbh]

For general urbanism.

And, as I intend to go on, I start at a pitch of utter fury:

No true 'city of culture' should dishonour the bold ideals of its postwar rebirth
Rowan Moore
Plans for the centre of Coventry claim to offer a sense of place, but ignore its pioneering mid-century reconstruction

Coventry's new cathedral – connected movingly to the bombed remains of its predecessor. Photograph: David Warren/Alamy
Sun 17 Jan 2021 08.45 GMT

Coventry is UK City of Culture 2021, a title that focuses attention on its contribution to the cultural life of the nation: 1980s two-tone music, the legend of Lady Godiva, and its role in the development of the bicycle and car industries. And, high on this list, the fact that it was the pre-eminent example of reconstruction after wartime bombing.

Among the most devastated cities, Coventry was also one of the most determined and thoughtful in its reconstruction. This was partly expressed by its new cathedral, which brought together leading art and architecture, and connected movingly with the ruins of its predecessor. It was also expressed by the city centre, rebuilt as a series of human-scaled, pedestrian-friendly precincts. Here, too, the idea was for art and architecture to work together.

The proposed redevelopment of much of the centre, by the London-based Shearer Property Group and Chapman Taylor architects, in a joint venture with Coventry city council, would obliterate much of this legacy. The designs show little sympathy for what would remain. Although it promises an "authentic sense of place", and a purported but extremely vague resemblance to the pre-war historic fabric of the city, it is generic, could-be-anywhere stuff, not fundamentally different from developments "global architects and masterplanners" Chapman Taylor might design anywhere in the world.

Coventry's "culture" and sense of place, the things that make it different from other cities, must surely include the brave ideals of its postwar renewal. As heritage campaigners rightly point out, it can take a long time for the value of architectural styles to be appreciated, by which time it is too late for the buildings that have been demolished. It happened with Victorian architecture, derided for decades, and it is happening now with mid-century modernism.

This is not to say everything about postwar Coventry should be sacrosanct. No one, looking at it now, could deny that it would benefit from some regeneration. It has to respond, like city centres everywhere, to the recession of retail and whatever challenges the post-pandemic world might bring. Some ideas behind the original plans, such as a determination to put car parks on as many roof-tops as possible, may have outlived whatever usefulness they once had.

But the starting point for any regeneration should be an appreciation of the work of the postwar rebuilders. This would mean a serious attempt to learn from their intentions and draw inspiration from the best of their work. It would mean celebrating William Mitchell's remarkable relief sculpture, rather than consigning it to a so-far unspecified "appropriate place". It might mean bringing the best out of the existing buildings of the Bull Yard, rather than replacing them, as is currently proposed, with a weak imitation of London's Covent Garden market.

Chapman Taylor's view, expressed in a video on its website, is that the postwar work is largely worthless and should be replaced with variegated buildings and street patterns that existed before the second world war. But it is delusional to think that this lost Coventry could come back, and there is little in the designs to suggest that it would. With their hostility to what is actually there, they create an unnecessary conflict between heritage and regeneration.

So the Twentieth Century Society is insisting that certain features be retained, while the council and developers chafe at what they see as pernickety obstructions to the march of progress. An avoidable zero-sum game is set up.

For Coventry can be renewed, at the same time as the past 80 years of its history – ever since its bombing in 1940 – can be respected. All it takes is a bit of intelligent and sensitive design.

There's no doubt there's bits of Coventry that could be regenerated but pieces like the William Mitchell mural mentioned are iconic:


But I thought maybe the plans on the pre-war streetplan could be interesting so I had a look. And it turns out the extent of their imagination is "build an out-of-town retail park, but in the city centre"



I mean say what you want about the post-war architects at least they were motivated by a genuine social and aesthetic conviction. This is just a void. It's shopping centre architecture that could be literally anywhere. This is a bit like the trees in Sheffield, if I lived there I would become a crazed single issue activist.

[Admiral Yi]

Is that butt crack CGI?

[HVC]

Think belt loop

[Richard Hakluyt]

Even putting aesthetics aside a generic traditional shopping centre would appear to be a bad choice in 2021.

[Josquius]

I'm currently doing a fair bit of reading on T Dan Smith. Plan to make a mini documentary about his works.
It is annoying how much he gets the blame for all that is bad in newcastle.
Oddly however amidst the moans of concrete blocks the true worst excesses of the mid 20th century in trying to build motorways everywhere rarely attract a complaint.

As to Coventry and its plans... Yes. Awful idea. Too often these days new retail ends up poorly occupied.

[Maladict]

Too often these days new retail ends up poorly occupied.

Yes, but often because of ludicrously high rent to cover for the inevitable construction cost overruns.

[Duque de Bragança]

Did not know the need for renewing Coventry city centre was so urgent. The "twin cathedrals" was quite a moving sight, when I was there for an internship, in the late '90s.
Does the lady Godiva parade really need a massive urban project anyways?

[Monoriu]

The only way to do cities right -

[Maladict]

[Tonitrus]

Not enough brutalism.

[Sheilbh]

Not enough brutalism.

Speaking of which, this icon is being demolished now


If we destroy these buildings we'll have nowhere to film near future dystopias



A cross-section


Edit: Some pictures from the interior - phwoar
https://wearethemutants.com/2019/07/25/building-with-meaning-burroughs-wellcome-corporate-headquarters-1972/

[Razgovory]

The only way to do cities right -

Occasionally you can see Geryon ferrying people between the 7th and 8th circles.

[Gups]

I mean say what you want about the post-war architects at least they were motivated by a genuine social and aesthetic conviction. This is just a void. It's shopping centre architecture that could be literally anywhere. This is a bit like the trees in Sheffield, if I lived there I would become a crazed single issue activist.

I don't agree. Many were motivated solely by aesthetics and couldn't care less about the people who would live in or use their buildings. Nor did they care about what anyone else thought about their designs. They were the experts and everyone else was an idiot with no stake at all in how buildings and cities should look. The Hunstand school designed by Alison and Peter Smithson is a typical example. Much admired by Brutalist devotees, it was freezing in winter and boiling in summer. There are thousands of examples of appalling design of social housing apparently designed to faciliatate muggings and rape, minimise social interaction and required huge maintenance costs which led to decay and deriliction. A typical example I worked on years ago (Myatts Field) was designed so that neighbours would never know each other because their front doors were on opposite sides of the towers.

To the extent that they were interested in anything other than aesthetics, they took a macro view, working hand in glove with planners (and most masterplanners were of course architects).

Coventry is good example as the first example of a post-war planned reconstruction. The City centre isn't  bad, although it's very dated and the Cathedral is a gem. But the whole centre is encircled by a ring road impassable to pedestrians except via a couple of dingy, piss stinking underpasses. The couple of tiny parcels of green spaces are right next to the ring road. Coventry was planned for cars, not people.

Thankfully by the time the architects and planners (and Abercrombie was both) got to London with their appalling plan to demolish its history (including the whole of Covent Garden) and construct three concentic motorways with links throughout in its place, residents had woken up to the fact that architects didn't care that cities are meant to be lived in and fought a furious regard action to save the capital from the fate of cities like Plymouth.  Next time you drive along the Westway (the largest part often Abercrombie plan that was realised) think of the whole city divided into impermeable segments and dominated by cars and lorries like that part of West London is. It's a testament of how little the architects and planners thought about the people that live in cities.

[Duque de Bragança]

Makes Le Corbusier and the like look like geniuses, despite their blundering. There was even a word for that, sarcellite, from a now infamous suburb of Paris full of high rises.

[Grey Fox]

The only way to do cities right -

Occasionally you can see Geryon ferrying people between the 7th and 8th circles.

I don't think I've ever been in a building that high.