As a teenager
in the early fifties a couple of my school mates went to the local School of
Architecture so it happened that there was a group of students moving in the
same sports and social circles of that time. It wasn't the kind of fifties
thing that the London media claim was the norm, life had a rather greater
variety then and with real choices.
They were
bright, able and ambitious and when qualified moved on to a variety of jobs in
the field of architecture. They were among the young architects who found
themselves supposed to be regenerating Britain's urban areas and putting up all
those buildings and developments that the government were throwing money at.
So what might
they have learned at their School and what did their tutors etc. bring to their
attention as examples of what might be done besides the basics of their trade?
There was certainly a choice among the academics at the time.
One school of
thought was that housing etc. and other provisions should somehow be a network
of urban villages, but with modern styles, low level and some sort of
"community". This may account for those estates of the period where
you never knew where you were or where or when the buses were going and are now
clogged with parked cars.
There had been
the concept of Garden Cities and there are a handful of them still dotted about
to remind us. This was a retrospective idea, somehow a clean pretty etc. urban
area with drains that worked and running water. But these were more expensive
and took a long time to mature which was against the times of the mid 20th
Century.
And then there
was modern architecture, notably Bauhaus and Le Corbusier and others. If I go
into these it would be a long post and you do not have time for that. For
choice try the images of Creteil close to Paris in France, above, and other
images. I have stayed in Creteil. It was very interesting but daunting. It was
not a place to live.
This is the
kind of work that so many architects tried their hands at and the kind of
living that for many social reformers was the dream of the future. A heaven on
earth made of concrete and running to timetables. Only in the UK it had to be
done in a hurry, on the cheap, cutting out all the fancy arts and religion and
open spaces were a maintenance cost to be avoided. There were never enough
lifts and they were never big enough, especially in the brand new hospitals.
In the 60's
and 70's the designs often referred to futuristic notions from the 30's etc.
One underestimated issue was just how many people might have cars and how much
of the movement and delivery of goods might be by motor vehicles. Then there
were the contractors.
At my
grandfather's knee I was taught when looking for house to go for small local
builders who knew their trade and build solidly and well. I managed this with
one exception. In a hurry and faced with limited choice we had a Wimpey House.
At parties
with our neighbours we did enjoy capping each other's tales of what was wrong
and did not work. Whose drains gurgled most, whose doors did not fit, whose
windows did not fit, who had the biggest bulges and whose roof space had the
most surprises. The fun item
was that every outside door lock could be opened with one of three keys.
The unlucky
ones were those whose property was so bad that no surveyor would pass it for
resale. Worse was when their building society flatly refused to lend extra
mortgage money for any needed repairs or rebuilding.
But we could
console ourselves. From all reports Wimpey was not the worst, some of the other
major contractors were dire. These are the men who put up the social housing of
their time as well as the private housing.
It is a very long while since I last saw one of those friends of the fifties. Quite
why so many went to live in the country in very old houses or emigrated did
make me wonder.
"One underestimated issue was just how many people might have cars"
ReplyDeleteOn our newly built council estate in the fifties, many houses did not even have a roadside frontage.