[Closed] the first "listed" high rise development in a c shape. up north. where is it?

Either Byker Estate, Newcastle or Park Hill, Sheffield?

park hill sheffield. about time that english heritage recognised working class heritage and not just another ****ing stately home.

yep sheff i think...

Park Hill, Sheffield. They're calling it Urban Splash. At the mo they've gutted the bulding and it's lurking like a bit ugly skeleton over the town.

Horrible thing. Should be knocked down.

http://www.urbansplash.co.uk/projects/park-hill

If ever I start to feel homesick for Sheffield, I think of Park Hill Flats. And now they're doing it up into 'Executive Housing'? I think the phrase is "you can't polish a turd".

park hill.thats it! looks like a money pit to me...

you can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.

naked concrete ages quickly (weathering causes cracks, cracks allow moisture in, the reinforcing steel rods rust).

every year that it stands as an empty shell makes the 'glitter-rolling' process more expensive.

would [i]you[/i] want to live there?

Urban Splash is the development company, they have done a good job on many previous jobs, I don't see why they can't do something with Park Hill...

I also don't see why any building more than 40 but less than 80 years old is considered to be bad.

EDIT: current progress below:

[img] [/img]

it's hideous pc. It really is.

I'm not decrying it because it's a 60s concrete build. I'm saying that, in my personal opinion, it's ugly as hell and should be torn down. Put a park on Park Hill.

my mistake, after a little digging it sounds like the urban splash thing is still going...

Unfortunately Pook, aesthetics is not a quantifiable value.

As an example of brutalist architecture, Park Hill is a classic, as a monument to working class culture it's hugely relevant.
My only concern is the gentrification of what should be affordable housing stock.

"My only concern is the gentrification of what should be affordable housing stock."

Yeah I agree poor people should be forced to live in **** buildings.

why is it a **** building ?

I've always liked Brutalist buildings. Like most things problems generally tend to be based in management and maintenance.

Here's a 'before' picture for those interested...

[img] [/img]

I like it!

love the lack of cars in the picture and everyone walking about.
utter bullsh1t the place will be wall to wall minis and BMW1s in a matter of days.

[img] [/img]

I'm saying that, in my personal opinion, it's ugly as hell and should be torn down.

Unfortunately that is the sort of attitude that gets important buildings knocked down. Just cos it's not Victorian or older doesn't mean it's not important. I actually like it and have enjoyed seeing it when I go to Sheffield. It's a great example of a social housing project that actually worked. It was only when the council reduced the maintenance and upkeep over the years that it fell into disrepair, the shops started to close and the amenities being reduced that it went downhill. There was an excellent program about it recently on TV.

If it was restored and kept how the planners originally designed it I would happily live there. It'll be a shame if it's only lived in by the rich city type executives.

Remember in the years after the war Victorian housing stock was demolished to make way for the high rise flats and that is now considered a big mistake. That's because most of those high rises that were built were shoddy copies of the ground breaking brutalist/modenist flat complexes like Park Hill. Hhopefully it will be restored to it's former glory.

seriously large project to take onn tho! i mean its just massive and as stated, if its main structure is starting to decay...

on the program i saw im sure there was an issue as because its listed it has to be repaired using the same materials and processes that were used in the first place back in the 50's/60's.lots of the internal walls were to be knocked out and rebuilt/reinsulated and this had to be done buy guys with 14lb sledge hammers as they didnt have electric kango concrete breakers and the like in the 50's/60's hence it costs loads more and takes lots longer
if my memory is correct...

LOL that 2nd pic looks like silent hill.

Here's a 'before' picture for those interested...

Now that would be an AWESOME COD:MW2 multiplayer map.

parkhill is awesome - designed so the milkman could drive his float to every level!

I've always liked Brutalist buildings. Like most things problems generally tend to be based in management and maintenance.

Yep agree

I don't think many of you really understand what listing a building means - which is that you need to agree what and how you're going to make changes before you do them. After all if they've stripped it back to the frame then they've not retained that much of the original fabric so it doesn't really matter how they rip out those materials.
I think it's good that finally 50s and 60s buildings are being reconsidered and reassessed after all theFestival of Britain produced one of the only country specific modernist architectures that wasn't directly related to Bauhaus and the Chicago School, and the New Brutalism was again a British offshoot of the mid period French/ le Corbusier buildings.
I'm rather hoping that the current financing problems with building redevelopment will promote a reassessment of the value of existing currently "unloved" buildings and that rather than demolition careful re-use may well be much more rewarding both in terms of financial and cultural.

Why do buildings over here have to be so dark - i mean using the grey in that really isn't going to help it look great when it's pishing down every other day.
One thing i seemed to notice about this sort of building project on the continent is that they make them out of lighter materials (and not just an external render that looks gash after 5years!), helps brighten it up a bit.

aP, I agree with much of what you have said, although for me the listing criteria of English Heritage still falls short as it is totally preoccupied in the placing of buildings within a canon of architecture based largely upon decisions made by [i]proffesionals[/i] regarding toatlly unquantifiable values such as aesthetics, importance etc. The true heritage value of somewhere like Park Hill, ie the relevance to the communities that lived there, is completely ignored. The fact that the external fabric of the building is to be revered but the internals, carrying the real heritage of the building, can be removed is testament to this.

Yes, I know what you mean - professionally I consider that what I design is a "container" to be occupied by others who then make it a home, an office, a place to catch a train, to see films/ plays etc.
I do a lot of work with listed 30s buildings and unusually spend a lot of time with EH rather than Conservation Officers which have specific legislative requirements regarding their function and spend a great deal of time explaining why we need to do things rather than just replicating what was there previously.
It was always such a shame that the Smithson's theoretical writings produced some fairly unpleasant spaces.
On another track to see a great 50s housing scheme look at The Barbican - an example of how good management and maintenance works.