I'm not a huge fan of most concrete Brutalism: it is generally only successful when produced by absolutely top-notch architects working at the peak of their careers designing buildings which are more like machine systems (London's National Theatre is one example, although even that has its faults).
But British Brutalism is not just restricted to the capital city,
In the 1960s it was a mark of civic power and ambition, the style in which to rebuild civic monuments often destroyed by German Nazi bombing.
Birmingham Central Library was not built by a world-class architect at the peak of his powers, but it's a building condemned by "Prince" Charles whose absolutely woeful lack of taste when it comes to architecture means it deserves a second chance.
The Library is a machine for storing and studying books; contrary to the contrarian beliefs of the French who designed their National Library as a giant glass box, books don't much like sunlight, so a big concrete box is not inappropriate for this function.
And at Birmingham, the big concrete box is made interesting by being an inverted ziggurat, while the insides have been designed to bring sunlight to the places where it really is needed -- the study spaces rather than the book storage spaces.
The interiors have been well designed, too, with the lowest shelves of books raised above the floor and, on the stacks, made into drawers.
There's a reasonable amount of orientation vistas, too, and thought given to the placing of the most frequently referenced material (all this is in pre-computer days, of course).
Clear signage, clear articulation, natural light... all good things which help to make a good building.
From the outside, interesting geometric shapes are made from the concrete (although that material has its problems in the damp British climate where, without good maintenance, it can quickly degenerate).
Actually, just next door to the main Library is an even better example of simple concrete Brutalism with a rather delicate (if that's not a contradiction) car park:
Anyhow, Birmingham Central Library, following its condemnation by "Prince" Charles, is being demolished and, in its place, a shiny new library will be constructed.
One that will apparently look like this:
I find that utterly revolting, and a backward step from the simplicity of the 1960s concrete forms, but worse is to come with the interiors:
This is a Library where the books are, effectively, wallpaper to a "dramatic" customer (sic) "experience", the Library as Stage Set or Shopping Mall, the cult of the personality rammed home in the oversized faces staring down in dictator fashion from the vast skylight drum.
Apparently they intend to wheel a grand piano out into an open air space for impromptu performances, too (don't grand pianos need to be laboriously retuned every time they're moved?).
It's always difficult making judgements about architecture from artists' impressions. But, so far, the signs here are not looking good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The Birmingham Library kind of reminded me of a toned down version of our UCSD Library here in San Diego, CA, also built in the 60's.
Yes, please check out UCSD's Geisel Library designed by William Pereira for another great brutalist library. I'd say it perhaps has a bit more window work than you'd like for a library but it's rather more visually arresting for it.
Brutalism? I never knew that was what that type of design was called. I hate it. We have a couple of buildings like that here in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Very fitting name for it, Brutalism.
I'm not keen on the 1960's concrete box school of design, but I agree, the new one definitely look much worse, especially the exterior.
Think how dirty and messy it would look in 40 years time.
Not good.
I didn't like the Birmingham library, either to look at or (far worse) to use as a reader/researcher. But it's imcomparably better than the proposed replacement.
What is it with architects at present? Small winkies needing compensation?
Post a Comment