Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Not sure that's always the case.
Elephant and Castle for example had large amount of Council housing and a shopping centre.
The hollamby plan included the ring road. But the rest of plan looks to me like walkways in the sky with local facilities built near the proposed blocks
The Beehive place side of Rec included space for , what is thought, would be retail unit.
The original Rec plan was for Leisure centre in broadest sense. With pub and cafe
Yes there was assumption of car use but in central London urban environment the unbuilt Hollamby plan would have included all the things residents need within walking distance.
Another thing about some of these developments is that they were built to last. What I heard was that the Council were unable to find structural defects in the Barrier block to justify demolition.
Likewise the surveyor reports on Rec conclude the concrete structure was done well and , if the building is maintained properly will have a long life.
Architect told me that new buildings are often built to 30 year life standard. Which isn't that good.
Balfron Tower is example of modernist building that is now popular. But it's been refurbished as private housing.
A major problem with these buildings is lack of maintenance. As in planned maintenance.
The Rec has suffered from life of patchy maintenance. Which does not save money in long term. And means more difficult to get right later on. As with leaks in the Rec.
The problem of car use is applicable to out of London developments. In the book I posted about The People: the rise and fall of the working class examples are given of low rise housing built in fields. With the new Council tenants having to walk through fields . As the roads came later. These ( not modernist) post war developments didn't think about transport enough. Or people needing to be near facilities.
