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.
.JPG)
