1960's architecture in Edinburgh...is good for the city

[peterdouglas]

there seems to be this common opinion that all of the buildings built in the 1960's or around that period are simply blots on the skyline of the city and should be demolished. The St. James centre and Argyle house are two examples and have been widely criticised as nothing more than mistakes that should be erased.

I've been driving around the city nearly every day for the past eight years and have taken in all of the buildings, the period they were built and their presence in relation to the city as a whole.

The new and old town are obviously both historic and pleasing on the eye and it's the thing the tourists want to see...for good reasons.

The art deco buildings and houses in plush suburbs are hidden gems....1930's architecture at it's best. I've had people in my cab simply wanting to see some art deco buildings and they weren't dissapointed when I took them to the maybury casino, round parts of craiglockhart and then on to the pub in Niddrie.

We seem to love these periods of architecture and marvel at all these new buildings being built but seem to ignore the 1950's -70's as some sort of bad experience that has to be forgotten about...and the council seems to go along with this view with nearly every one of these "eyesores" earmarked for demolition...no doubt to make way for a sandstone and glass marvel.

Forty-odd years on...and I'm starting to "get" the St. James' centre and the old Scottish office buildings. look at it through St Andrews Square and it dares to tower above Harvey Nichols etc.. with its perfect angles and hard-hitting geometery. It was meant to be imposing and brutal...and that's exactly why I like it.

Same with Argyle house. How dare it even share the same view from Johnstone Terrace with the castle? To me they are the perfect contrast.

Even some 1960's council estates deserve preservation due to their architectural value. A lot of them, Greendykes for example, deserve to be pulled down due to the shoddy materials used but places like the calders should be preserved at all costs due to their simple layout, modernist structures and architectural significance for future generations.
Same with the flats at Moredun...they might not be the nicest places to live(not the buildings fault) but they are a landmark.

I think we should do all we can to preserve these 1960's buildings, especially the "brutalist" ones..i.e. the "offensive" ones. Like it or not they are part of the time-line and part of the history of the city. To cut this brave and bold period out of the time-line is cheating...the buildings are there because that's the way it was then.

When the Balmoral and the Scotsman were built there was outcry. Now they are part of the skyline.

I'd rather have history in a modernist/brutalist form than another sandstone and glass clone.

[Peevemor®]

I agree. While there were a lot of mistakes made in the 60s, in terms of both planning and construction methods, there was some fantastic stuff built.

Among my favourites are

Rowand Anderson's Scottish Provident building

http://www.edinburgharchitecture.co....ident_aw82.jpg
http://www.edinburgharchitecture.co....vident_St2.jpg

Basil Spence's Canongate development (brilliant photo)

http://www.basilspence.org.uk/assets...te/1031101.jpg

(who also did Mortonhall crematorium)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p4PkoeXYyO...mortonhall.jpg

The New Club

http://www.edinburgharchitecture.co....inburgh_05.jpg

[peterdouglas]

Originally Posted by Peevemor®

Basil Spence's Canongate development (brilliant photo)

http://www.basilspence.org.uk/assets...te/1031101.jpg

(who also did Mortonhall crematorium)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p4PkoeXYyO...mortonhall.jpg

They are stunning examples...and will hopefully live on and enhance the city in the future.


Masterpieces.

This is a Cat A listed building http://www.edinburgharchitecture.co...._stores_13.jpg

[BroxburnHibee]

Couldn't agree more Peter - we should never be ashamed of our history.

This building has always been one of my favourites..........

Good thread.

[Pitlochry hibee]

I used to work in architecture in edinburgh, and have recently started in the Planning dept at PKC, and where we used to work came up in conversation.

A technician said she worked for the same architects as I did in the mid 1970's. She worked on the renovations of the old GPO at the east end of Princes Street, and I worked on the St James Centre!!

As an aside I'm disappointed the new hotel at Haymarket was knocked back as I think it could have been an iconic landmark of the future.

[Filled Rolls]

I have always loved modenist architecture- maybe because in the 60s I was a little kid interested in space, the future, and all things Gerry Anderson. The only problem with it is that it wasn't designed or real human beings to use, rather the sort of automons that appear in Metropolis.

That said, there are some 60s buildings I like in Edinburgh and Leith. First is the design of Linksview House and the Kirkgate. The balance of the buildings and the (now mature) tree lined "concourse" are actually quite pretty on a sunny day.

I am not mad on the St James Centre, as I think it spoils the skyline, especialy from the North. At ground level, I'd say it is at its best from Picardy Place, certainly since John Lewis built their extension and the Omni Centre was finished.

I absolutely love the Scottish Widows building in Dalkeith Road. The shape of it picks up on Holyrood Crags behing it, the glass not only reflects what is around,the panes are arranged to look like Samsons Ribs on the crags.

I agree that when new buildings go up, people are never ready for the shock of the new. In my time, a couple of projects that spring to mind are the National Library in Causewayside, and the Royal Museum in Chambers Street. Both were reviled when they first went up (Scots do like something to moan about). Both are now very popular buildings.

I personally detest Victorian Architecture. I find it Kitsch, and vulgar in that bigger seems to be better. Robert Louis Stevenson was all for burning Machmont to the ground when it was built, and I would agree. I also detest the North British, as a building aynyway. As a landmark it is an iconic part of the city.

More recent buildings I hate are Exchange Square - those stupid domes on top of the Cydesale Bank and Standard Life, are about asking people to respect and worship their wealth. This pattern is being repeated with other structures in the new financial district, the view of the Castle (and so Edinburgh itself) has been blocked to all but the privileged few who have bought it for itself.

Don't start me on the "regeneration" of the water front. All I'll say is that there would have been stricter planning guidelines if this project had been attempted elsewhere in the city. Greedy developers and ignorant councillors have conspired to take advantage of local people.

Finally, can I give a few more examples of Art Deco that are well worth looking at? As well as the pub and cinema in Craigmillar there is an amazing industrial estate, it looks like it is right off Flash Gordon. There is a beautiful block of flats off Craigleith Crescent (?) in Ravelston. I also love the former Caledonian Insurance building - now called Grape, in St Andrew's Square.

[Killiehibbie]

You wont see the County in Craigmillar. Nothing left standing between Niddrie Mains Road and the primary school. I heard the school was only saved from demolition because of a listed mural on one of the walls.

[Pitlochry hibee]

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

More recent buildings I hate are Exchange Square - those stupid domes on top of the Cydesale Bank and Standard Life, are about asking people to respect and worship their wealth. This pattern is being repeated with other structures in the new financial district, the view of the Castle (and so Edinburgh itself) has been blocked to all but the privileged few who have bought it for itself.
.

Blame Sir Terry Farrell, an English Architect with no connection to Edinburgh, for those stupid domes. He 'master planned' the whole financial district, and they are supposed to be unifying feature.

[ginger_rice]

The problem with 1960's and 70's buildings especially those made of concrete is that after a while they start to look really tired and tatty.

I'm also of the opinion that there is a place for everything, and I'm not certain that Princess St is really the place for steel glass and concrete, as i said my opinion I don't expect everyone to agree with it.

I also think that the Parliament building is a classic of design, however it's not built in a position to actually show itself off properly.

[CropleyWasGod]

Originally Posted by ginger_rice

The problem with 1960's and 70's buildings especially those made of concrete is that after a while they start to look really tired and tatty.

I'm also of the opinion that there is a place for everything, and I'm not certain that Princess St is really the place for steel glass and concrete, as i said my opinion I don't expect everyone to agree with it.

I also think that the Parliament building is a classic of design, however it's not built in a position to actually show itself off properly.

I agree on the first point, but not the second. If you look at it from the Crags, it has a completely different look to it. It just fits, and I get what Miralles was thinking.

The other point I would make is that architecture is always judged through the glass of history. Like FR said, what is "bad" now is not always seen as the same from the future. I reckon the Parliament, lambasted now, will probably be seen as classical in 100 or so years's time.

Just to underline my point, I want to be at the front of the queue of those wishing to push the plunger on the St. James' Centre when they dynamite it!

[CropleyWasGod]

Another point about the 60's buildings in Princes Street. If you look at BHS, Boots etc., you will see a similar balcony at first-floor level.

The plan was to rebuild all of Princes Street in the same manner, and that balcony was meant to be a walkway along the length of the street. Presumably, the street would then be given over to the great god Car.

[Filled Rolls]

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Another point about the 60's buildings in Princes Street. If you look at BHS, Boots etc., you will see a similar balcony at first-floor level.

The plan was to rebuild all of Princes Street in the same manner, and that balcony was meant to be a walkway along the length of the street. Presumably, the street would then be given over to the great god Car.

There were plans in the 50s to turn the gardens into a car park, and drive a tunnel through Calton Hill! We seem to have fared better than most cities when you think how things might have turned out.

[Tazio]

As a side note the old petrol station on Causewayside that is now a wine warehouse was on of Basil Spence's first commissions.

[peterdouglas]

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I agree on the first point, but not the second. If you look at it from the Crags, it has a completely different look to it. It just fits, and I get what Miralles was thinking.

The other point I would make is that architecture is always judged through the glass of history. Like FR said, what is "bad" now is not always seen as the same from the future. I reckon the Parliament, lambasted now, will probably be seen as classical in 100 or so years's time.

Just to underline my point, I want to be at the front of the queue of those wishing to push the plunger on the St. James' Centre when they dynamite it!

I've never seen it from the crags but from Regent Road it looks like a Naval disaster one minute then a work of art the next.

From the high streets there are elements of 1960's architecture about it....imposing, bold and it doesn't care if it fits in with it's surroundings.

I'm intrigued by it and it's got me looking and thinking...which probably means the architects have achieved their main objective.

[peterdouglas]

Originally Posted by Tazio

As a side note the old petrol station on Causewayside that is now a wine warehouse was on of Basil Spence's first commissions.

I noticed that garage as it sticks out like a sore thumb (in a good way).

I don't know what it looked like originally but I like the way they have kept the original lettering and painted it brilliant white to make it stand out.

I've no idea how the listing system works but buildings like that should be preserved as close to their original state as is humanly possible.

[Peevemor®]

Originally Posted by peterdouglas

I noticed that garage as it sticks out like a sore thumb (in a good way).

I don't know what it looked like originally but I like the way they have kept the original lettering and painted it brilliant white to make it stand out.

I've no idea how the listing system works but buildings like that should be preserved as close to their original state as is humanly possible.

I've seen worse.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3023380...7622166202739/

[Filled Rolls]

Originally Posted by peterdouglas

I noticed that garage as it sticks out like a sore thumb (in a good way).

I don't know what it looked like originally but I like the way they have kept the original lettering and painted it brilliant white to make it stand out.

I've no idea how the listing system works but buildings like that should be preserved as close to their original state as is humanly possible.

IIRC the garage was only saved from demolition after lobbying from architects. If it hadn't been one of Spence's first commissions it would probably have come down.

Spence, of course was the man who redesigned Newhaven village in the 50s. I wonder what he would think of the disgusting way the reclaimed land to the North of the village has been developed.

There are other famous examples of buildings which found themselves out of use at just the wrong point in history. The one I would nominate is Portobello power station. It came down just before people started to realise the value of industrial buildings.

What a great space it would have been for art, and would have brought people into Portobello. Think of Battersea power station in London, or the OXO tower or the Tate Modern, and it gives you an idea of a chance that was missed.

I love the Parliament by the way. You have to visit the site regularly and walk around the public spaces to get a real feel for what it's about. I agree that from the Canongate you kind of wonder what is going on, but the views from the Crags show that it really is a world class building.

[NYHibby]

Originally Posted by Tazio

As a side note the old petrol station on Causewayside that is now a wine warehouse was on of Basil Spence's first commissions.

I used to live right by there. Great building.

From the same guy's pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/3023380...7622166202739/
Does anyone know whats going on there? Its been empty for a couple years now.

[Jack]

I cant see all the buildings mentioned, I’m at work and most of the photo sites are off limits.

To me the most tawdry aspect of many of these new buildings, offices and homes, is the colour of the finish, set off with these tatty metal finishings and most of all balconies.

Cream, and generally light coloured buildings, are just no good unless they are kept very clean. I haven’t seen a clean one more than maybe a couple of years old. They become gray, rain marks begin to stain, the wooden stick on panels peel and look grubby and worst of all the rust stains that run down from these balconies that you couldn’t fit a plant pot on never mind sit.

... and dont get me started on these glass boxes everywhere or I'll get really cross

[SiMar]

While I agree with some comments on here I truely fail to see how anything positive can be said about St James.

It replaced a truely historic and beautiful square of the New Town, was hated the day it was put up and will be hated until the day it comes down....a day that can't come soon enough.

As for the Scot Prov buidling....I really don't get this as being a 'gem' and having had the misfortune to work in it can assure you it is far from a pleasant building to be in. The 'Grape' Building howwever is much more acomplished and should rightly be cherished.

As for the Kirkgate being good design...oh spare me!!

Agree the Waterfront develpopment so far is total over build with little or no thought to leavign a legacy for the city or for all of it's residents to enjoy and the 'financial quarter' is about as bland and 'any cityish' as you can get.

Finally I would like to say that I'm a bit of a fan of the Scottish Parly and especially the way it integrates itself into the parkland around it...this is particularly impressive I think and reflective of good architecture understanding and interacting with it's surroundings. Something that St Andrews house clearly does not.

[s.a.m]

Originally Posted by SiMar

While I agree with some comments on here I truely fail to see how anything positive can be said about St James.

It replaced a truely historic and beautiful square of the New Town, was hated the day it was put up and will be hated until the day it comes down....a day that can't come soon enough.

As for the Scot Prov buidling....I really don't get this as being a 'gem' and having had the misfortune to work in it can assure you it is far from a pleasant building to be in. The 'Grape' Building howwever is much more acomplished and should rightly be cherished.

As for the Kirkgate being good design...oh spare me!!

Agree the Waterfront develpopment so far is total over build with little or no thought to leavign a legacy for the city or for all of it's residents to enjoy and the 'financial quarter' is about as bland and 'any cityish' as you can get.

Finally I would like to say that I'm a bit of a fan of the Scottish Parly and especially the way it integrates itself into the parkland around it...this is particularly impressive I think and reflective of good architecture understanding and interacting with it's surroundings. Something that St Andrews house clearly does not.

I agree with much of this. I don't have a problem with modern architecture, and recognise that different styles have their place in the city's heritage. However, I think that some (maybe even a lot, but certainly not all) of what was built in the sixties was almost anti-aesthetic. A lot of it certainly wasn't built to last, as we're finding out now. The materials used and the workmanship have not stood the test of time.

[Peevemor®]

Originally Posted by s.a.m

I agree with much of this. I don't have a problem with modern architecture, and recognise that different styles have their place in the city's heritage. However, I think that some (maybe even a lot, but certainly not all) of what was built in the sixties was almost anti-aesthetic. A lot of it certainly wasn't built to last, as we're finding out now. The materials used and the workmanship have not stood the test of time.

Concrete is a lot tougher than most sandstones. The difference is that if a concrete building becomes grubby, it either gets knocked down or clad with something else. An aging 'traditional' building can be equally as ugly.

[peterdouglas]

Originally Posted by Peevemor®

Concrete is a lot tougher than most sandstones. The difference is that if a concrete building becomes grubby, it either gets knocked down or clad with something else. An aging 'traditional' building can be equally as ugly.

I agree, and I wonder how these new buildings will stand the test of time.

The buildings built in the 60's are structurally sound and would probably last for decades to come if they were looked after properly. It's just sad seeing so many of them unoccupied when they could be hives of activity. I blame it on vanity.

A lot of what people describe as "deterioration" is simply cosmetic. I was at the holiday inn in corstorphine today and I noticed the costruction methods used. Large concrete ridged panels common in many brutalist buildings have been used in both the exterior of the building and the car park area to the rear. The panels at the front have been painted and looked after...and they looked as good as the day the building was constructed.
However, similar panels in the car park showed signs of wear and tear...and didn't look to good because they weren't looked after. Why should they when the world doesn't see that side of the building? However, I don't forsee the car park collapsing in the near future.

I go back to St. James house. A lot of people have negative opinions of this building and I reckon they have been reinforced over the years by this black mesh that has surrounded it. It doesn't look good but there are un-covered sections that remind you of the original colour of the building...and it doesn't look half as bad.

People complain that this building replaced some historic buildings and I agree that should never have happened...but forty years ago it did and nobody can change that now.
People also complain about this building completely ruining the skyline from some parts of the city. However, for every angle you can give me where this is ruined I can give you thirty examples of where you can see a stunning skyline. We're spoilt rotten as far as the skyline is concerned in this city and I think we can sometimes be a little bit precious about it. I also think some people can simply never accept change in a bold way.
What about the Baillie gifford building and the similar new building opposite? It's as if they are trying to match the St. James pound for pound!


If we're not careful we're going to end up with a lot of buildings looking far too similar. Every bit of grey space is being turned into a sandstone and glass building. The soloution to the "problem" of "ugly" 1960's buildings is demolish them and replace them with...guess what. I think we're digging a grave for ourselves.

We should accept these buildings as a living monument to one of the boldest periods of architecture in our recent history. We should stop the demolotion and try and get rid of the negative vibes about these buildings. We should spend millions restoring them and not billions on demolition and re-building.

The majority might not "get" these structures just now but who's to say what opinions might be in 50 years time? I've a feeling it will be seen as a genuine landmark period due to its boldness and uniqeness....yet we're the idiots who who can't see past our noses, knocking them down and replacing them with something more "pleasing on the eye".