The tide is turning on Brutalism
Comment
BRUTIFUL Birmingham started life campaigning to save the Central Library, taking up the torch from Alan Clawley and the Friends of the Central Library.
The politics of development in Birmingham has resulted in the loss of much of the very best of late 20th century Birmingham.
We have seen the fate of the Central Library continuing to repeat itself. So it is time to share what we have learnt over the last four years of campaigning.
The most startling lesson is that planning decisions are influenced less by objective assessment than by the views of individual members of the planning committee.
We had believed that there is no place for personal opinion when it comes to our heritage.
We were wrong – we have heard the words “I hate concrete” too many times.
The reason for retaining buildings of all architectural periods has nothing to do with likes and dislikes.
We must retain the best of every period because they tell the story of our heritage.
The best of our 1960s and 1970s buildings bear witness to a bold and enterprising view of the world and Birmingham’s place in it.
Too many times we have heard the argument for getting rid of the buildings of this period is that they are no longer “fit for purpose”.
To a large extent this is “fake news” intended to undermine opposition. The truth is that all these buildings are readily adapted to new commercial needs.
The Central Library is a case in point. It could have been offices, workshops, galleries, even “Tate Birmingham”, an iconic centre to the city’s cultural heart.
One of the toughest lessons we have learned has been that neglect creates vulnerability.
If a building is neglected for long enough, there comes a time when it is easy to sway public opinion in favour of demolition, as the plans for ‘“The Square” off Corporation Street clearly demonstrate with the claim that they will improve a “run-down area”.
It is not a run-down area for those who enjoy shopping in the small, independent shops which flourish there.
Despite inappropriate 1990s additions, the quality of the building fabric shines through.
There is a lack of imagination on the part of planners, architects and developers when it comes to seeing the quality and potential of this building by one of the 20th century’s
best-known architects, Frederick Gibberd.
There has been imagination in some good examples of re-purposing: the offices of the Rotunda and Number 1 Hagley Road have become sought-after apartments.
But we have learnt that we cannot breathe a sigh of relief when refurbishment and re-purposing are proposed, because this can mean the destruction of the integrity of the original building.
Twenty-first century cladding, as in Auchinlech House, Five Ways, superficial additions like porches (Edmund House, Newhall Street), and covered walkways (Corporation Square), additional storeys (plans for the Ringway Centre and House of Fraser) and two-storey glass retail frontages (the Big Top, High Street) disrupt the original proportions of a building and destroy the simplicity of original designs.
We have recently experienced the tortuous process of seeking statutory listing and learned that 20th century buildings face a greater challenge than buildings of earlier periods.
Is it reasonable to require that these buildings remain completely intact when part of the design was often to provide a flexible environment, responding to commercial needs and technological change? We would not ask the same of a medieval castle or a Victorian building.
It was a rude awakening when we learned that developers were ahead of us in applying for Certificates of Immunity from listing, leaving us with our hands tied behind our back.
For five years no further listing application could be made and buildings were exposed to the threat of demolition or makeover.
The dice are loaded against the Ringway Centre, in Suffolk Street, Queensway, and the Chambers of Commerce, in Edgabaston, because of these Certificates of Immunity, leaving us with little option but to raise awareness of the significance of these buildings.
We have learnt it was vain to hope we could fall back on local listing to protect 20th century architecture.
Effective and consistent local listing criteria need to be used to protect the best of all buildings of whatever era and style.
In this city assessments of buildings for local listing are scrappy or non-existent.
It appears that a building may find its way on to the local list, or not, at the whim of councillors, and once listed is still vulnerable to neglect and the threat of development.
You might wonder why, with all this, we are still banging our heads against a concrete wall!
But we believe we are having an impact. We have a huge following on social media and we are being invited to consultations when proposals for significant 20th century buildings are on the table, giving us the opportunity to promote their interests.
Bit by bit we are changing hearts and minds.
There is a greater enthusiasm for these buildings and, critically, those who value them are not the same age or background as most of our councillors.
Join us for Brutiful walks and events during Birmingham’s Heritage Week, September 12-22 (birminghamheritageweek.co.uk).
Next time we will share some of our favourite and most surprising discoveries.
Brutiful Birmingham is a campaign group established to raise awareness of and fight for the retention of the best of late 20th century buildings in Birmingham.
We welcome your views: www. facebook.com/Brutiful-Birmingham, follow us on twitter: twitter.com/ brutifulbrum, or email us at : brutiful2015@gmail.com.
Mary Keating represents Brutiful
Birmingham
It was a rude awakening when we learned that developers were ahead of us in applying for Certificates of Immunity from listing, leaving us with our hands tied