• Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.

    We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team
  • HI folks the server that hosts the site completely died including the Hdd's and backups.
    Luckily i create an offsite backup once a week! this has now been restored so we have lost a few days posts.
    im still fixing things at the moment so bear with me and im still working on all images 90% are fine the others im working on now
    we are now using a backup solution

Birmingham Central Library 1974 - 2015

What do you two think about the Central Library?. Debate on Dooly's show this morning. The council want it demolished and the historical society or somebody or other wans it to become a listed building. Edd Doolan wants rid. Jean.
 
I think it should be donated to the Prince of Wales for Highgrove. Seriously it looks no better, indeed worse, now than when built. Some building grow on you but this is simply a blot.
 
Earlier this year, during the summer half term break, I was standing outside the Central Library (cigarette break ;) ) and for the first time I had a good look at the square. I was struck with the sheer ugliness of the library building in comparison to the surrounding buildings. It made me wonder at the chain of events that led to it being there in the first place, from the person who first conceived the idea, right through to the people who gave the project the final green light. Who in their right mind ever believed that this thing would work anywhere, let alone as an intergral part of a lovely area like the square? The only thing that makes any sense is that everyone thought they were going along with some huge office in-joke - until it was too late and they realised the flamin' thing actually was going up! No, the sooner that building is gone the better :wave: and if there's any room on the skip can we throw in that Selfridges embarassment too? :sick:
 
Its easy to see why it all came about if you go back to the 60s period that involved post war reconstruction. Simple concrete shapes were the order of the day, Victorian bulidings were seen in the same way as you now see Selfridges.

The next factor was the love affair with the motor car, Birmingham embraced the motor car probably more so than any other city. The A38M, the first motorway into a city for instance, loads of multi storey car parks and multi storey flats, people up in the air, cars get preference everywhere, pedestrians underground in subways.

Now look at it, the car is public enemy number one, the inner ring which destroyed the old reference library is a disaster, it moats the city in half. The underpasses have been taken out. Railways, Victorian antiquities, Prime Minister Harold McMillian called them are the key to the future of public transport--I mean just how wrong can you be.

The one thing that amazes me about the libray is the single passenger escaltors, have you ever seen any anywhere else? But the best bit is the one toilet--didnt archtects urinate in the 60s?
 
Save the Central Library -
Sign the e-Petition - https://epetition.birmingham.public-i.tv/epetition_core/view/LIBRARY

We call on the City Council to review its decision to demolish the Central Library building and urgently to commission a report that will
i) identify viable new uses for the building
ii) consider the financial, social, environmental and cultural advantages to the city and region of retaining the building for the public benefit.

Background information
When reaching its decision more than a decade ago to demolish the Central Library building the City Council failed to consider
a) its potential use for purposes other than that of a library
b) the impact of demolition and subsequent re-building on emissions of greenhouse gases
c) the effect of a collapse in the commercial property market
d) the growing public appreciation of twentieth century architecture, the ruling by English Heritage in 2003 and 2008 that the Library should be statutorily listed, and the call for its protection by the World Monuments Fund in 2011.

Sign the e-Petition - https://epetition.birmingham.public-i.tv/epetition_core/view/LIBRARY
 
I was one for saving the old new library but now I think it should be demolised. Broad street side of town would opened up with it gone.
 
Richie said:
Three in a row there, all according to the notes taken in the last year of the Old Library's life. The last one shows the old next to the (then) very new expected to last a lifetime. 40 years isn't that long in the life of a supposedly "timeless" building,surely?
Click to expand...

hi richie...oh i dont know so much....i think 40 to 50 years is a good estimation of life expectancy of the modern buildings.as you rightly say thats no life time at all..just as folk get used to them yet another brainwave is formed and down they come again causing constant disruption to the city centre..:mad: wish i had been old enough when the original library was up for demolision..could have staged a rooftop demo:courage:

lyn
 
I was all for replacing the Madin building - it's past its sell-by date - but now I see the new Mecanoo edifice I'm not sure this was a sensible choice. It now dominates the adjacent buildings, Baskerville House & The Rep as well as the open space of centenary square. In my opinion, the "inside-out spring interior mattress" styling will date much quicker than Madin's concrete slabs, but you never know - Selfridges has bought our city up to date with a vengeance that cannot be ignored. If I'm around in 40 years (and I doubt it) I expect I would be hearing the same debate over this new building's replacement! Ah well something for my grand children to have a mid-life crisis over!!
 
welcome to the forum outercirclebus...poor old baskerville house is dwarfed by the new library isnt it...i can never quite make my mind up if it reminds me of a pow camp or a brillo pad...ive posted this before but i wonder how it will be kept clean..ive been told that there is only about a foots gap between the windows and the spring interior mattress so i feel sorry for the window cleaner...but some like it and each to his own..

lyn
 
They replaced the old one with Fletchers Walk and a small garden that one one uses (much)



It only looks "nice" when the tulips come out!




A more recent shot of Paradise Circus Queensway - Fletchers Walk and the garden on the right



When this gets knocked down, I hope that they get archaeologists in to dig for the remains of the Victorian library (if anything remains underneath)
 
Fletchers Walk was not particularly nice even from when it was relatively new. They seem to have struggled to let the shops and it always appeared neglected to me. (But only knew it in the 80s when I worked at Alpha Tower). Seems to me this area has always been a bit of a challenge. About time they did something useful with it. Viv.
 
Even without the artistic offerings, the concrete still is a horror story. Maudlin and drab and dirty. Upkeep takes money though...which is in short supply. Maybe a new sort of conscription is required to sort it...2 years after schooling...in the jungle.
 
If money is the main issue - I'm sure volunteers would do it if they could be managed and encouraged and if they have the time and inclination. I wouldn't want to take any jobs off the current workforce but perhaps they could work hand in hand - anyway I'm just saying. We should have pride in our City of course. I'm sure its there somewhere.
 
Took this shot of Fletchers Walk this morning from Paradise Street



Never seems to be open on Sunday's (so if you want to get to Broad Street, you have to walk via Suffolk Street Queensway near the Mailbox).
 
A couple of new photos of Paradise Circus Queensway from Paradise Place

the link bridge from the library to BM & AG







 
OuterCircleBus said:
I was all for replacing the Madin building - it's past its sell-by date - but now I see the new Mecanoo edifice I'm not sure this was a sensible choice. It now dominates the adjacent buildings, Baskerville House & The Rep as well as the open space of centenary square. In my opinion, the "inside-out spring interior mattress" styling will date much quicker than Madin's concrete slabs, but you never know - Selfridges has bought our city up to date with a vengeance that cannot be ignored. If I'm around in 40 years (and I doubt it) I expect I would be hearing the same debate over this new building's replacement! Ah well something for my grand children to have a mid-life crisis over!!
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. Whatever is said about the old library it is still serviceable therefore, if money is tight why has tens of millions been spent on the new monstrosity? Maybe a purely but much smaller and much, much less costly electronic library would've been the answer.
 
I find those pics on post 38 most depressing concrete and glass every where. unlike brick, stone, terracotta etc concrete does not age very well. Compare the present central library to the beautiful old library demolished in the 60's , there is simply no comparision. Eric
 
I'm sure there were people in the 60s who thought the old library was old fashioned and modern was the way to go. And though I agree that it is a bit of an eyesore, I think if money had been spent on its upkeep and maintenance it would or could have looked a better. There are a number of blocks of flats that have had some money spent on them recently and where as they used to look pretty horrible they now look presentable (at least from the outside).

There was no way that Birmingham council were ever going to choose a conservative design for such a major project, and as long as people are talking about it I think they'll be satisfied.
 
Can you imagine Venice demolishing St Marks square and replacing it with some concrete and glass edifice or Paris replacing the Louvre with some so called modern replacement, why is Birmingham different ??? Birmingham Council are a load of Philistines with no respect for our past history. Sorry to rant, but I love the city of my birth (1930) and I hate to see its heritage destroyed which began in the 60's and, in my opinion as continued ever since. Eric
 
But the buildings that you love replaced buildings that somebody else might have loved.
 
Although I haven't lived in Birmingham since 1961, I have to agree with Eric. Concrete doesn't age well at all. If it did, it would probably crumble! So any beauty has to be put into its shape. At the time I left, the only concrete building even slightly resembling "acceptable" aesthetically was the Shell building halfway down New Street. I think it is still there, though whether still occupied by Shell I wouldn't know.

Maurice
 
That's the one - it used to be occupied by Shell-Mex/BP and my brother-in-law worked there. Although it's concrete and glass, at least some effort was made to ensure that it didn't look like yet another square box!

Maurice
 
Concrete is not a new phenomena and I suspect that the Romans knew more about it than we do. Still it is not a comforting media but I suppose that anything will age badly without maintenance. Maybe that is the rub...you can replace a brick or two or point the cement but I don't know what you do to concrete. I suspect that not a great deal of maintenance being done over time was part of the problem.
I find that reading on here that many remember the 'old Bull Ring' and I find very often now that, 'the old' is not the one that I remember but the later one that I hated, after becoming familiar with the indoors and escalators. No 'the old' that, I suppose ever fewer remember was, probably for most of us, a one third bombed site that never was rebuilt...only to fall victim to a monstrous scheme whilst awaiting a more tender do-over. In like manner, I suspect that this applies to much of the country after the war. Many languishing bombed sites and damaged buildings...for a long time and no money to do repairs. It all got rolled over so much I suspect that even viable and comforting older buildings also became fodder for the roller.
It's all a quandry. Modern, done well, can inspire and excite even but will never be comfortable for humans. What we are looking at are structures and not builings. No nooks and crannies and snickets and alley's. Or often not a doorway to shelter in from the rain. No, they are too busy making a statement. Even if none was intended to be made. It's maybe more a matter of enclosing the greatest volume with the minimum material perhaps now. With some degree of pannache.
We talk about WW2 and forget that, to kids now, WW2 is not even what WW1 was to us...not much from what I recall...Tommies in putties and wooden spoked wheels. Just think that WW2 to todays kid's is as far in the past as Custers last stand would have been to us. Which raises another point...I wonder how many older members on this forum even live in Brum now. I suspect that today's Brummy is a different entity to those of us who lived at the manufacturing centre of the country (the world at one time) and hopefully the city will ultimately reflect their input. Also, hopefully a focal point will never be a one third ruin of fond memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top