DOCOMOMO's application to Historical England Brixton Recreation Centre

DOCOMOMO's application to Historical England

Brixton Recreation Centre

Historical Context

The history of the social and physical change in Brixton during the post war welfare

state period is unique because of the scale of immigration, social stress and the

physical decay of existing buildings. Redevelopment was designed and built in response

to perceived needs, sometimes misplaced, sometimes under resourced.

Also unique was the level of ambition by both politicians and architects in striving for a

level of quality for solutions, with sometimes inadequate resources, against and within

a sometimes hostile and ignorant London and National context.

The combination has left a heritage that is flawed but rich in diversity and

achievement. The achievement is there, and it should be celebrated and nourished.

Listing of buildings has a part to play in ensuring that the quality of ambition and scale

is properly recognised despite or because of previous neglect and misunderstanding.

The idea that peoples needs, physical and mental health, education and cultural

pursuits, needed to be addressed by common agreement and action grew through the

19th and early 20th century so that by 1937 (in nearby Peckham) the first Health Centre

came into being. By the 1960s with increased population and the founding of the

Welfare State, the need for Recreation and Exercise in high density deprived urban

areas lacking open space was recognised. Attention was given to swimming and other

forms of exercise that could be done in a confined space and internal recreation with

easy access should receive public investment for the public good.

It was also recognised that the grouping of different facilities together also encourage

interaction, by sharing of facilities, flexibility for change and response to changing

needs. Transport links and the more casual benefits of a welcoming environment with

easy access were recognised. Given the racial nature of much immigration in Brixton, a

physical forum that recognised diversity was a high priority.

2. Location

The lack of available open space combined with the proximity of overhead railways in

central Brixton were problems which led to the ambitious idea for locating the

proposed Recreation Centre at high level next to the railway.

High level location with a ‘safe’ (from cars) pedestrian walkway linking buildings was a

fashionable idea in the sixties stemming from a misreading of Le Corbusier’s planning

ideas (in his schemes he invariably place the vehicles in the air, and left plenty of space

on the ground for the pedestrians) being misapplied to the problems of existing city

centre areas. Here the ambition to link to future high-rise housing that did not

materialise was unfortunate. Where sufficiently large areas are served by walkways (as

at the Barbican) were achieved and maintained they worked well, here in Brixton the

walkways being blocked off have become a contradictory cause of security risk with all

the problems that follow.

However, there are reasons to be optimistic at Brixton. There are multiple means of

both pedestrian and vehicle access/escape to and from the complex which for

understandable reasons have remained blocked and ‘protected’ wit security fences and

gates to maximise access. The proximity of the Police Station to the rear and the

history of the unfortunate social disorder and riots has left its mark and clearly

‘strangled’ the Recreation Centre for far too long and are a hangover from the past

that should now be re-addressed so that inherent potential for accessible flexible

diversity is released.

The expansion of the adjoining and thriving street market is a clear sign of

regeneration confirmed by recent interest for economic redevelopment. The similar

Borough market at London Bridge and Camden Lock Market have become expanding

areas of regeneration. The Social, Integrated, Diverse population has caught up with

Social,Integrated,Diverse nature of the original architecture of the Recreation Centre.

This is a reason for the opening up and positive reuse of the Recreation Centre along

the line of ambition originally intended, for a new and diverse increased use.

At long last it has the potential to realise its use and not be subjected to removal or

demolition. The modifications needed could be carried out for a fraction of the cost of

demolition and consequent unsustainable energy loss avoided by reopening and

modifying access at many locations on and beyond the perimeter.

External Layout

The high proportion of complex external surface (walkways and walls) some covered,

others uncovered, have inherent problems. However, technology has advanced since

the initial completion and what is now required is imaginative management combined

with imaginative detail design, using many of the surface materials, lighting and

equipment now available which were unavailable or not even invented when the

original scheme was built. Again, the cost of such modifications is a fraction of that

entailed in demolition and rebuilding. Removal of large unnecessary signage and the

introduction of small-scale helpful signs and user-friendly surface materials can

transform a building of the necessary complexity.

Internal Layout

Despite the external misfortunes that have afflicted the outside, many of the diverse

activities within have clearly prospered and are valued by many. The triangular, top-lit

atrium which provides internal circulation while common in building types such as

hotels and shopping malls where a lavish budget in order to impress has a beneficial

pay back, is here robustly softened with brickwork and planting which if maintained,

can eliminate differential humidity and acoustic problems, to achieve a relaxing

balance to active nature of the surrounding physical activities. While falling a bit short

of such a masterpiece as FLW Guggenheim in NYC, the spatial quality of the atrium here

is as good or on a par with that of the listed Crystal Palace Sports Pool atrium and is a

reason for listing BRC.

Materiality

The use of monolithic vibrant contrasting material combinations was again fashionable

when this building was designed, the question is how appropriate and what skill in

deployment was there her? The differing sizes of volume for the differing recreational

uses are deliberately assembled and clearly expressed in a ‘neo-constructivist’ manner

as in the celebrated and listed Leicester Engineering Building 1961 (architects Stirling

and Gowan)

What is significant here is the lack of rhetoric in ‘shape making’ and the simplicity of

the multiple orthogonal shapes which are gathered and mixed in a subtle arrangement

which yields multiple views integrated with the surrounding, while at the same time

clearly a separate ensemble with its own strong identity. It is this characteristic that

gives the total building including the office block part (which on its own has little

individual character) its specific character within the whole. In comparison with

celebrated Economist Buildings, St James’ Street 1961 (by the Smithsons) the

deployment of blocks is tight and vibrant. And this characteristic merits listing for this

achievement.