To demolish or not?
One of two blocks demolished in east London's Nightingale estate. A third was renovated.
Clifford Singer
Enlarge
image
Britain is littered with buildings that are decrepit, do not do the job they were designed for – if they were designed at all – and demoralise the communities where they are situated.
Many were built as part of the 1960s vision of a new, less class-bound society. Others are much older. But does the age of a building automatically make it valuable? Should we pull out all the stops to preserve historic buildings so they can be restored to their former glory or be adapted to meet today's needs? Or should we sweep them away to make room for new, functional and popular structures?
This section of the Demolition website looks at the arguments from all angles.
- Janet Street-Porter says we should clear out the dross to make way for the new: demolish and be damned.
- Kevin McCloud argues that, rather than issuing a death sentence, there are many buildings we could restore and remodel.
- Ken Hollings asks what went wrong with architecture in the 1960s?
- Liane Jones defends the misunderstood beauty of brutalist architecture, which others have disparaged as 'carbuncles'.
- Ken Hollings explores the history of architecture and civic pride.