The disappearing Keirby Roundabout

[Pickles]

I think you misunderstand the situation, there is a new cinema being built in town that is why the current one is closing.

https://aewarchitects.com/projects/pion ... e-burnley/

You think right! Didn't know that. Good news.

[ClaretTony]

Pleased to hear about improvements to BMR station. It's a shame it's up that big hill, makes connections to and from the bus station a hassle but I don't see how that can be changed.

Less pleased to hear about the cinema going. It obviously must not be viable but it's disappointing Burnley won't have a cinema. Smaller towns have them but not Burnley?

More reason to go to out of town which is a shame.

Moving into town just past Next & Primark

[Rowls]

I do agree, I'm not a fan of identikit high streets whatsoever, there needs to be a mix of styles.

I don't necessarily agree that Victorian = good and modern = bad though. The key is building relatable, human scale buildings that are both fit for purpose and sympathetically designed. Take the Welcome Building at RHS Bridgewater; this a superb example of a new building that is architecturally stunning whilst not being imposing on the local area.

There are of course examples of good, bad, and indifferent in any architectural style, be it Georgian, Victorian, Brutalist etc. The main difference is that with older eras, all the rubbish has been pulled down already, so it appears that the particular style only has good examples.


Let's also not forget that even 'traditional' styles of building were modern at some point, and someone will have complained about them!

The real issue with any building however is maintenance, and unfortunately is where it tends to go to pot as either the whole life cycle costing hasn't been considered, or funding cuts mean that this goes by the way side.

Good post Chris. Looks like we broadly agree.

One thing I'd reiterate is there is one key feature that virtually all traditional styles have in common - they have facades and "faces". A lot of modern designs miss this key feature altogether.

The buildings that people like and enjoy all have beauty designed into them. Too many buildings leave this out of the design process and fail in spite of all the other considerations that were made in their design.

Whilst it's true that bad buildings are/were more likely to be pulled down whatever their style, I don't know of a single town in the UK that didn't have a perfectly good building desecrated and destroyed to make way for a brutalist carbuncle. In short, in the 60s and 70s we deliberately tore down beauty and replaced it with ugliness.

I'm grateful for what was preserved but what we lost should still shame this nation.

[Pickles]

Moving into town just past Next & Primark

Ah I know the spot. Hadn't heard that info though. Do we know which company? Odeon? Everyman?

[Rowls]

One of the worst examples from Nottingham

Before:


After:

[Rowls]

Ah I know the spot. Hadn't heard that info though. Do we know which company? Odeon? Everyman?

"Reel Cinema"?

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/business ... nt-3117708

[ChrisG]

Having looked up Booths at barrowford it is jaunty, asymmetric and it looks cheap and ugly.

Alright, Nairn.

It's asymmetrical because is based on the mill it replaced with the northern roof lights.

[ChrisG]

Good post Chris. Looks like we broadly agree.

One thing I'd reiterate is there is one key feature that virtually all traditional styles have in common - they have facades and "faces". A lot of modern designs miss this key feature altogether.

The buildings that people like and enjoy all have beauty designed into them. Too many buildings leave this out of the design process and fail in spite of all the other considerations that were made in their design.

Whilst it's true that bad buildings are/were more likely to be pulled down whatever their style, I don't know of a single town in the UK that didn't have a perfectly good building desecrated and destroyed to make way for a brutalist carbuncle. In short, in the 60s and 70s we deliberately tore down beauty and replaced it with ugliness.

I'm grateful for what was preserved but what we lost should still shame this nation.

The issue with a lot of 60s buildings was a mix of new technology that was untested, poor construction practices, and a need for quick buildings. The idea behind Brutalism has its value, but only if executed anf maintained.

There's an excellent documentary by Adam Curtis called the Great British Housing Disaster that is worth watching about this subject and the dodgy practices of the contractors and planning departments.

[ClaretTony]

My favourite comparison pics are the Manchester Road/Red Lion Street corner.

It used to house the Savoy Cinema (first pic) but was then replaced with a Martins Bank (became Barclays, then a cheap clothes shop and now boarded up).

Red Lion Street 1.jpg (73.72 KiB) Viewed 1625 times

Red Lion Street 2.jpg (63.04 KiB) Viewed 1623 times

[Pickles]

"Reel Cinema"?

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/business ... nt-3117708

Thanks, Rowls. I could've googled that myself, I know. Reel is what is currently up opposite the station, so just a relocation to a new, fancier premises. I like a more boutique cinema like an Everyman, (or Hyde Park in Leeds, or the Stella in Dublin where I am at the mo) but a Reel or an Odeon is better suited if it's gunna be Burnley's only cinema.

[welsbyswife]

Good post Chris. Looks like we broadly agree.

One thing I'd reiterate is there is one key feature that virtually all traditional styles have in common - they have facades and "faces". A lot of modern designs miss this key feature altogether.

The buildings that people like and enjoy all have beauty designed into them. Too many buildings leave this out of the design process and fail in spite of all the other considerations that were made in their design.

Whilst it's true that bad buildings are/were more likely to be pulled down whatever their style, I don't know of a single town in the UK that didn't have a perfectly good building desecrated and destroyed to make way for a brutalist carbuncle. In short, in the 60s and 70s we deliberately tore down beauty and replaced it with ugliness.

I'm grateful for what was preserved but what we lost should still shame this nation.

Quite easy to say all that with hindsight isn't it. I don't think anyone would disagree that some lovely buildings were pulled down in the name of progress and replaced with modern structures that ultimately didn't pass the test of time. But attitudes and times were very different then. People were crying out for a fresh start. Ultimately planners and architects got it badly wrong in a lot of cases but I don't think you can sit here in 2023 and accuse them of deliberate butchery! They were just doing what was en vogue at the time.

[welsbyswife]

My favourite comparison pics are the Manchester Road/Red Lion Street corner.

It used to house the Savoy Cinema (first pic) but was then replaced with a Martins Bank (became Barclays, then a cheap clothes shop and now boarded up).


Red Lion Street 1.jpg

Red Lion Street 2.jpg

Martin's Bank is actually quite a nice building on that photo.

[Rowls]

Alright, Nairn.

It's asymmetrical because is based on the mill it replaced with the northern roof lights.

A good example of a design feature taking precedence over aesthetic consideration.

North light rooves are NOT designed to be seen. North light rooves are NOT designed to be aesthetically pleasing. They're designed to let in north light. They're very often not visible until you get inside. You see them when you climb a hill or look down on a town but not normally from street level. So why would you make a feature out of them?

North light rooves are purely practical. Making a "feature" out of them is like making a "feature" out of your airing cupboard.

Many mills had extravagent frontages and facades because these were what were visible on street level. This is what the new design should have sought to replicate.

They'd have been better off making a feature out of the doorway.

It needs a lot more windows on ground level. Not only for aesthetic consideration but also to improve visibilit and lines of vision.

Don't be surprised if it's daubed in ugly graffiti before long because of this oversight.

Look, it's not as dreadful as many buildings but it isn't beautiful and it below what we should be willing to accept in our town centres. It's ugly and whatever cleverness was employed in its design will be lost to time because the ugliness will remain until it gets pulled down. I suspect the Victorian houses adjacent will outlast this new Booths.

[Rowls]

Quite easy to say all that with hindsight isn't it. I don't think anyone would disagree that some lovely buildings were pulled down in the name of progress and replaced with modern structures that ultimately didn't pass the test of time. But attitudes and times were very different then. People were crying out for a fresh start. Ultimately planners and architects got it badly wrong in a lot of cases but I don't think you can sit here in 2023 and accuse them of deliberate butchery! They were just doing what was en vogue at the time.

I wasn't alive in the 60s but to the best of my knowledge, public opinion was against the tearing down of these buildings. Unfortunately town planning had become swift and powerful. Probably the result of the need to rebuild after the war.

My understanding is that the planners were architects and modernists who had a dislike of anything Victorian or old fashioned. They deliberately destroyed beauty because it was "old fashioned" and wanted to put their own mark on our towns.

Truthfully, I think what happened in the 60s to our architectural heritage is one of the worst things that this country has ever done. It has left us with crummy town centres that breed violence, disunity and crime.

Here's a contemporary commentary from John Betjamin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPVKqgZIstg

People knew it was wrong back then but they had to fight against the elites of their time.

**********************
Another example.

This is the main shopping centre in Montpellier, known as "The Polygone":



It isn't as pretty from the other side but it isn't ugly. It's modern and has a glass frontage on the front but that helps link up with the main town square. It was built in 1975. At that point, Montpellier was the 20th biggest city in France. It is now the 8th biggest. People want to live in nice places.

This is the main shopping centre in my nearest "hometown" of Tamworth, called The Ankerside Centre:



There's not a lot of commentary necessary here. The building speaks for itself. What I should say is that the Ankerside isn't quite as ugly from it's other side and that, as UK shopping centres go, it used to be OK. But not so much now.

There's actually an even uglier 60s or 70s development in Tamworth called "Middle Entry". Both these developments knocked down viable Georgian buildings that gave the town centre its character.

Only a small part of the town centre survived this "progress" but guess which part is now the more thriving end of town?

[welsbyswife]

I bet you love Poundbury don't you Rowls? Charlie Boy's chocolate box stuff.

[Rowls]

I bet you love Poundbury don't you Rowls? Charlie Boy's chocolate box stuff.

It's a pretty little town as far as I know and a popular place to live.

What do you feel about Poundbury and are you willing to share your opinions and the thoughts behind them?

[Rowls]

It's all well making disparaging remarks like "chocolate box stuff" but who would prefer to live somewhere ugly rather than somewhere beautiful?

[welsbyswife]

I can see why people like it but it's not for me. Too sentimental and twee. Trying to turn the clock back. I think the problem is that as you've highlighted planners and architects made big mistakes in the post-war years so we have lost confidence in modern architecture. I'd much rather we designed estates without trying just a pastiche of styles from previous eras. But we don't seem able to do it. Or not consistently well. Accordia in Cambridge is a good example. I'd much rather have that than Poundbury. Plus, housebuilders are very conservative by nature and will build what sells. And most people do like a house that looks quite traditional, there's no getting away from it. At Upton in Northampton there is a real mix of styles and I was told that the traditional ones sold much better than the modern styles. So that's what we get. I think it's a shame but it is what it is.

[Elizabeth]

I will be amazed if traffic flow is improved once the roundabout is replaced

I live in Burnley as well and hope it does because it isn't working at the moment. People are simply waiting for motorists to stop before crossing near the roundabout and as it's a two lane roadway this is very dangerous. I don't know how it is going to fit in with the pedestrian crossing at St Peter's centre but have confidence that the road planners will make a success of it.
It used to be a real slog getting from town towards the motorway towards Padiham but now you can get through in 2-3 mins. I know because I do the trip almost on a daily basis
Of course the time it takes to get it right is frustrating but then again that's what happens

[Rowls]

I can see why people like it but it's not for me. Too sentimental and twee. Trying to turn the clock back. I think the problem is that as you've highlighted planners and architects made big mistakes in the post-war years so we have lost confidence in modern architecture. I'd much rather we designed estates without trying just a pastiche of styles from previous eras. But we don't seem able to do it. Or not consistently well. Accordia in Cambridge is a good example. I'd much rather have that than Poundbury. Plus, housebuilders are very conservative by nature and will build what sells. And most people do like a house that looks quite traditional, there's no getting away from it. At Upton in Northampton there is a real mix of styles and I was told that the traditional ones sold much better than the modern styles. So that's what we get. I think it's a shame but it is what it is.

As your post states, people prefer traditional styles. This isn't out of nostalgia or sentimentality, They prefer them because of the aesthetic decisions inherent in the different styles.

Chiefly, beacuse these buildings have faces and facades which make them relatable. They also often have symmetry or elements of symmetry. They often have decorative flourishes.

It's difficult to write a set of "rules" as to what is aesthetically pleasing and what isn't but if you got a small, representative sample of the population, there would be a consistent consensus on what was and wasn't aesthetically pleasing. This should be of a very large consideration in terms of town planning.

You'd probably find yourself with architects for neighbours if you moved to this Accordia place. IMO it's ugly, but at least it isn't a town centre that has been blighted here. If people want to live in houses like that, that's different to imposing unpopular styles on a town centre. I'm sure those houses look nicest from the inside.

[ChrisG]

Now this is the kind of discussion I'm here for.

There's a couple of books by the excellent John Grindrod that I can highly recommend on these subjects, firstly Concreteopia which looks at the how's and why's of the post war concrete boom, and also Iconicon which looks at architecture from 1980 to present.

[welsbyswife]

I'm not quite sure why you jumped on the chocolate box comment Rowls because that seems to be what you're describing. Nothing wrong with that if that's what you are into but surely we can be aiming for something a bit more exciting?

[welsbyswife]

The other consideration that's already been raised above is that if you try to impose your pastiche style on a town centre it will only ever look like a poor relation of a truly old building. We just simply can't afford the materials and craftsmanship to replicate those buildings properly, certainly not in Burnley. Much better to have a sensitive modern addition that doesn't just try to copy.

[welsbyswife]

Now this is the kind of discussion I'm here for.

There's a couple of books by the excellent John Grindrod that I can highly recommend on these subjects, firstly Concreteopia which looks at the how's and why's of the post war concrete boom, and also Iconicon which looks at architecture from 1980 to present.

Have you read "Outskirts" by John Grindrod ChrisG? Also very good.

[ClaretTony]

Martin's Bank is actually quite a nice building on that photo.

It's an eyesore

[ChrisG]

Have you read "Outskirts" by John Grindrod ChrisG? Also very good.

I have yes. I've also met John a couple of times at book launches via The Modernist. He's a superb chap.

[welsbyswife]

It's an eyesore

It's not in the best condition now but on that photo you posted it certainly wasn't an eyesore!!

[ClaretTony]

It's not in the best condition now but on that photo you posted it certainly wasn't an eyesore!!

But look what they knocked down to build it. It’s criminal.

[Clovius Boofus]

Martins Bank had an ATM fitted in 1969. It must have been fairly pioneering at the time.

[ClaretTony]

Martins Bank had an ATM fitted in 1969. It must have been fairly pioneering at the time.

It did but you had to get some cheque type things from the bank and you could then put one into the machine to get out a tenner. I think they’d probably been taken over by Barclays then.

[Clovius Boofus]

It did but you had to get some cheque type things from the bank and you could then put one into the machine to get out a tenner. I think they’d probably been taken over by Barclays then.

Cheers for that. I thought that cheques might have come into it.

[ClaretTony]

Cheers for that. I thought that cheques might have come into it.

It was like a cheque with what appeared to be Braille on it. But it was the forerunner to what we have now. The only other way to get cash then was to make a cheque payable to yourself and take it to the counter.

[Rowls]

I'm not quite sure why you jumped on the chocolate box comment Rowls because that seems to be what you're describing. Nothing wrong with that if that's what you are into but surely we can be aiming for something a bit more exciting?

Victorian architecture is anything but "chocolate box". It is grand and imposing.

Georgian architecture isn't "chocolate box". It is neat, regimental and ordered.

Tudor architecture isn't "chocolate box". It is cutting edge (circa 1500) and builds us out of the medeival period.

Art Deco isn't "chocolate box". It is sleek and futuristic.

Countryside cottages are "chocolate box". They're twee and rustic with honeysuckle trained up the walls.

Only you'll know how you intended it, but the labelling of aesthetically pleasing architecture as "chocolate box" is one I'd always like to challenge. I like all of the styles listed above but I don't think any of them are twee or chocolate box.

The UK would be a much nicer place to live if the architecture of the 60s and 70s simply had not happened and the Victorian buildings they replaced had been renovated.

[Clovius Boofus]

Out with the old, in with the new. This was the mantra for those two decades (60s/70s). The town centres that didn't modernise were judged as backward looking. When we finally awoke from this nightmare, the 'backward' towns were able to reinvent themselves as places people wanted to visit.

Can you believe that the Piece Hall in Halifax very nearly ended up on the wrecking ball list? Thankfully, it was saved for the nation by one single vote when the demolition plans went before the council in 1972.

[welsbyswife]

Victorian architecture is anything but "chocolate box". It is grand and imposing.

Georgian architecture isn't "chocolate box". It is neat, regimental and ordered.

Tudor architecture isn't "chocolate box". It is cutting edge (circa 1500) and builds us out of the medeival period.

Art Deco isn't "chocolate box". It is sleek and futuristic.

Countryside cottages are "chocolate box". They're twee and rustic with honeysuckle trained up the walls.

Only you'll know how you intended it, but the labelling of aesthetically pleasing architecture as "chocolate box" is one I'd always like to challenge. I like all of the styles listed above but I don't think any of them are twee or chocolate box.

The UK would be a much nicer place to live if the architecture of the 60s and 70s simply had not happened and the Victorian buildings they replaced had been renovated.

Maybe that wasn't the right term. Living in the sepia coloured past might have been better. Obviously all of those styles have their merits. But they are all of another era. Are you saying we should pull up the drawbridge and just copy the past? No room for innovation or new styles? Surely we should look to create our own architecture that is relevant to our era.

[Rowls]

Now this is the kind of discussion I'm here for.

There's a couple of books by the excellent John Grindrod that I can highly recommend on these subjects, firstly Concreteopia which looks at the how's and why's of the post war concrete boom, and also Iconicon which looks at architecture from 1980 to present.

Always great to have a good discussion!

We might disagree on what we prefer and to what extent modern architecture should feature in our towns.

I'd contest, though, that one of the major problems in the thinking in the 60s was that those who opposed knocking down Victorian buildings were -incorrectly- labelled as people who were simply nostalgic or sentimental. This was completely wrong.

What modern architecture has to start doing is considering how people relate to buildings. If this is your first consideration you wouldn't dare build an ugly building.

Edit - add this quote:

Maybe that wasn't the right term. Living in the sepia coloured past might have been better. Obviously all of those styles have their merits. But they are all of another era. Are you saying we should pull up the drawbridge and just copy the past? No room for innovation or new styles? Surely we should look to create our own architecture that is relevant to our era.

Already responded to really. I'm not against new styles. I'm against bad architecture that is ugly and doesn't consider how people relate and react to buildings.

[Burnleyareback2]

Always felt it was a huge mistake not to move the town centre up to the canal/ weavers triangle area before all the redevelopment years ago.

[welsbyswife]

Always great to have a good discussion!

We might disagree on what we prefer and to what extent modern architecture should feature in our towns.

I'd contest, though, that one of the major problems in the thinking in the 60s was that those who opposed knocking down Victorian buildings were -incorrectly- labelled as people who were simply nostalgic or sentimental. This was completely wrong.

What modern architecture has to start doing is considering how people relate to buildings. If this is your first consideration you wouldn't dare build an ugly building.

Edit - add this quote:


Already responded to really. I'm not against new styles. I'm against bad architecture that is ugly and doesn't consider how people relate and react to buildings.

Fair dos. Give us a modern building that you like then.

[Rowls]

Fair dos. Give us a modern building that you like then.

The Midland Hotel in Morecambe is one of my all time favourites. I love art deco.

[welsbyswife]

Beautiful building. No doubt about it. But it's 90 years old! I was thinking of modern as in built this century! Not as in modernist! Try again!

[Rowls]

Beautiful building. No doubt about it. But it's 90 years old! I was thinking of modern as in built this century! Not as in modernist! Try again!

It's a modern building.

I really don't have to prove that I like anything in order to have opinions on bad architecture like brutalism so I'm loathe to answer your question. As if by picking a very recent building, my prior criticism is suddenly justified. It doesn't work like that. I've given my justifications at the time of posting and my words stand on their own merits.

FWIW modern skyscrapers (post 200) are preferable to me than their 60s/70s/80s/90s counterparts. How about that for you? Eg. the Gherkin and the Shard are better than the Twin Towers were or Canary Wharf is. Obviously, the art deco designs of the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building trump the modern ones but that's because more care and expense was taken in their design.

Having thought longer about modern styles within city centres, there simply aren't any that compete with traditionalist designs within these settings. Towns and cities are old, architectural styles come and go by the decade these days. It's all to do with the setting:

The glass facades of Milton Keynes work OK - in Milton Keynes. They wouldn't work in Oxford.

The skyscrapers of New York (even my beloved art deco masterpieces) wouldn't work in downtown San Fransisco.

I've just got back from Montpellier. They don't build "pastiches" of the old town in the new suburbs, they build modern appartements. These work well in those settings. However, they've had the sense to protect the old city centre with its stone buildings. All the new builds within the centre are either concealed (carparks are underground with subtle entrances) or replicate the style of the buildings around them. It makes for cohesion. This is one of the features that British towns and cities have lacked - cohesive policy as well as respect for the past.

[Taffy on the wing]

Not all Brutalist Design is Carbuncle-like though..
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gal ... ings-world

[timshorts]

It's an eyesore

Maybe, but that other monstrosity was worse. A big black turd on the landscape. Makes Anfield look nice.

And yes, I quite like poundbury. I have a cousin that lives close to the centre of town there.

[aggi]

A good example of a design feature taking precedence over aesthetic consideration.

North light rooves are NOT designed to be seen. North light rooves are NOT designed to be aesthetically pleasing. They're designed to let in north light. They're very often not visible until you get inside. You see them when you climb a hill or look down on a town but not normally from street level. So why would you make a feature out of them?

North light rooves are purely practical. Making a "feature" out of them is like making a "feature" out of your airing cupboard.

Many mills had extravagent frontages and facades because these were what were visible on street level. This is what the new design should have sought to replicate.

They'd have been better off making a feature out of the doorway.

It needs a lot more windows on ground level. Not only for aesthetic consideration but also to improve visibilit and lines of vision.

Don't be surprised if it's daubed in ugly graffiti before long because of this oversight.

Look, it's not as dreadful as many buildings but it isn't beautiful and it below what we should be willing to accept in our town centres. It's ugly and whatever cleverness was employed in its design will be lost to time because the ugliness will remain until it gets pulled down. I suspect the Victorian houses adjacent will outlast this new Booths.

Personally I quite like that Booths, which shows the difficulty in reaching a consensus. And as nice as Victorian stuff is, not having any straight walls can make them hard work at times.

Obviously the elephant in the room when talking about that period in the 60s is that lots of stuff was being torn down to make way for roads and car access whilst ignoring how liveable places actually were out of a car.

Hopefully that is starting to change with things like removing this roundabout and more focus on how pedestrians get around but it's still a huge issue.

[welsbyswife]

It's a modern building.

I really don't have to prove that I like anything in order to have opinions on bad architecture like brutalism so I'm loathe to answer your question. As if by picking a very recent building, my prior criticism is suddenly justified. It doesn't work like that. I've given my justifications at the time of posting and my words stand on their own merits.

FWIW modern skyscrapers (post 200) are preferable to me than their 60s/70s/80s/90s counterparts. How about that for you? Eg. the Gherkin and the Shard are better than the Twin Towers were or Canary Wharf is. Obviously, the art deco designs of the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building trump the modern ones but that's because more care and expense was taken in their design.

Having thought longer about modern styles within city centres, there simply aren't any that compete with traditionalist designs within these settings. Towns and cities are old, architectural styles come and go by the decade these days. It's all to do with the setting:

The glass facades of Milton Keynes work OK - in Milton Keynes. They wouldn't work in Oxford.

The skyscrapers of New York (even my beloved art deco masterpieces) wouldn't work in downtown San Fransisco.

I've just got back from Montpellier. They don't build "pastiches" of the old town in the new suburbs, they build modern appartements. These work well in those settings. However, they've had the sense to protect the old city centre with its stone buildings. All the new builds within the centre are either concealed (carparks are underground with subtle entrances) or replicate the style of the buildings around them. It makes for cohesion. This is one of the features that British towns and cities have lacked - cohesive policy as well as respect for the past.

So you're struggling to cite a building much more recent than art deco. Just copying really isn't the way. I find the lack of aspiration that we could actually enhance a place with new architecture quite a shame for someone who isn't an old guy. Look at Lords. The media centre contrasts against the old buildings and enhances the appreciation of them. If they just tried to replicate the old pavilion you'd end up with a poor reflection and it would all be very, very dull. Why bother training architects at all? Just get the old pattern books out.

[welsbyswife]

I've noticed that you are up to your normal trick as well Rowls. When someone doesn't agree with you your messages get progressively longer and more school teachery!!