demolishing victorian heritage, 60s style

[naughtyaaron]

Why were beautiful Victorian houses and entire garden squares demolished in the 1960s to make way for disgusting, tasteless tower blocks? I know that in the 60s they wanted to make a new renaissance, but how did they ever think that the council blocks were actually fashionable or aesthetically pleasing? Did they not have any regard for preserving heritage for future generations?

[j2buttonsw]

Many of these Victorian terraced houses were appalling to live in (cold, no electricity, poorly plumbed, outside toilets etc) and the residents were only too happy to leave them to live in the ultra modern tower blocks of the 50s.

[naughtyaaron]

ok, but I don't mean Victorian tenements/slums, I mean actual upper middle class Victorian accomodation, garden squares and the like, the accomodation for the upper middle class! An example: Oakley Square, London, NW1 - pre 1963 it was a beautiful garden square with private, prestigious Victorian terraced homes on either side. It was rich in history - Virginia Woolf and Lenin stayed there at varying times. In 1960 St. Pancras Borough Council decided to demolish all of the well maintained Victorian houses and build Mayford, a housing complex made of brown brick. At the time, they said that it would look "much more attractive", and went on to describe various space age features which no longer remain. I don't understand how brown brick was ever "attractive". As far as I'm concerned, their attitude was extremely pretentious and they had no regard for these beautiful Victorian houses - these were no slum deal/industrial sh*te holes, they were proper nice houses. They had no regard for the heritage of future generations and thanks to them, Oakley square and many others are now blighted by the eyesores that are 60s council blocks. Well, St. Pancras Borough council, here is a personal F**K YOU!!

[andy hughes]

There are a number of factors to consider here, not least of which is the gift of 20 / 20 hindsight, whish we all have. At the time tower blcoks were built, they were seen as an ecconomical and space-saving way of rehousing large numbers of families and providing accomodation of the influx of workers taking on the increasing job vaccanciea as the ecconomy improved rapidly after the war. Of course, architects, who should know better, convinced councillors, who rarely oif ever know better, that this was the future of housing. Time has proved that the buildings were unsuitable in just about every aspect, and most are now gone, thankfully. Although we now know this, remember that at the time, this was the 'revolutionary' approach, and every councillor worth their salt wants to get their name onto something that will be remembered after they are gone. It failed, but that was the intention, so don't be too harsh. You can save your vitriol for the Labour government if it makes a cock-up of the proposed new housing scheme for outer London ... and it will!

[rennalp]

I think naughtyaaron needs to understand that what he has written about was simply the result of a response to the paricular housing issues of the day. There is no point in getting distressed about what has been lost - what must be done is for people to learn from experience and understand and replicate what has worked well historically, as well as producing new innovative solutions. However, the innovative housing solutions of contemporary UK will no doubt attract critcs like naughtyaaron in another 40 years from now! And to finish, I would like to add that I am a town planner who lives in a Council tower block and I think it is FANTASTIC! The accommodation is extremely well planned and proportioned compared to new housing developments, and the view is amazing!