1960s Planning for Our Cities

JupiterKid · 12-08-2012 12:47am #1

Back in the more simple and naive 1960s, the prevailing urban planning ideology was to sweep away the dirty decrepit old cities and replace them with new development of huge slab high rise tower blocks of flats, multi-lane motorways cutting through the hearts of towns and cities and a future of modern technology and brutalist concrete and glass.

Since the late 1970s, these plans were seen as a mistake - a very, very, very big and very bad mistake. But is there some merit to the 1960s thinking?

Here's a film from 1971 of the way Glasgow was being rebuilt in the early 70s. High rise flats, shopping precincts and urban motorways were seen as the bright new future? Do you agree?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2oQzt_ZG2g

BTW this also marks my 2,000th post!:D:cool:

Wacker The Attacker · 12-08-2012 12:49am

Glasgow is the last city on earth we should be looking to for planning tips.

The dreariest kip on the face of the earth

Chucken · 12-08-2012 12:51am

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Glasgow is the last city on earth we should be looking to for planning tips.

The dreariest kip on the face of the earth

You watched a 14 minute video in 2 minutes? :eek:

Wacker The Attacker · 12-08-2012 12:52am

Chucken wrote: »

You watched a 14 minute video in 2 minutes? :eek:

I dont need a video clip to know Glasgow is a hole

Lapin · 12-08-2012 12:52am

Glasgow has the highest proportion of high rise tower blocks in Europe.

Its a kip.

galwayrush · 12-08-2012 12:53am

I like Glasgow city centre though,

Lapin · 12-08-2012 12:55am

galwayrush wrote: »

I like Glasgow city centre though,

The centre isn't too bad (when it isn't raining or snowing).

starbelgrade · 12-08-2012 12:55am

Planning law was only brought into effect in Ireland in 1965 and town / urban planning didn't come into effect in any great shape or form until the late 1980s for most of the country.

And the scenario of "multi-lane motorways cutting through the hearts of towns and cities and a future of modern technology and brutalist concrete and glass" didn't really happen until the 2000's.

So in that way, you could probably say that in terms of urban planning, Ireland's 1960s was about 40 years after the UK's.

Wacker The Attacker · 12-08-2012 12:56am

galwayrush wrote: »

I like Glasgow city centre though,

Its still rather drab

Lapin · 12-08-2012 1:04am

starbelgrade wrote: »

Planning law was only brought into effect in Ireland in 1965 and town / urban planning didn't come into effect in any great shape or form until the late 1980s for most of the country.

And the scenario of "multi-lane motorways cutting through the hearts of towns and cities and a future of modern technology and brutalist concrete and glass" didn't really happen until the 2000's.

So in that way, you could probably say that in terms of urban planning, Ireland's 1960s was about 40 years after the UK's.

Irish towns and cities weren't bombed to pieces during WWII and mass emigration meant there was little need to plan anything, apart from slum clearences in Dublin.

When the economy improved in the 1960's here, urban planners favoured housing and sprawling estates rather than the high rise option. Ballymun is a notable exception.

The problem is - Our planners were good at providing space for houses, houses and more houses.

It never seemed to occur to them that the people living in these houses would also require, schools, aminities, shops, fire stations, public transport etc...

Lessons that still hadn't been learned 40 years later during the so called tiger years.

Teyla Emmagan · 12-08-2012 1:04am

Neds! Eeeeeeeeee!

I quite like Glasgow actually, it has character. And parts of it, like the West End, is gorgeous. But all the 'newer' bits, which I presume are documented in the video above I haven't watched are pretty awful. Flat complexes so scary they leave the worst parts of Dublin in the shade. There is terrible social deprivation in parts of the city. So, I don't think the rebuilding described was a huge success, no.

JupiterKid · 12-08-2012 1:23am

But maybe some 1960s and 70s brutalist concrete and glass building have some merits?

And don't forget that the high rise blocks of the 1960s replaced slum housing where living conditions were often cramped, unsanitary asnd lacked privacy.

It seems that the zeitgesit of trendy arty types in London are redisccovering a love for places despised only a decade ago - like Trellick Tower, the Barbican Centre and the National Theatre on the South Bank.

Did we throw the 1960s baby out with the bathwater?

blacklilly · 12-08-2012 1:38am

JupiterKid wrote: »

But maybe some 1960s and 70s brutalist concrete and glass building have some merits?

And don't forget that the high rise blocks of the 1960s replaced slum housing where living conditions were often cramped, unsanitary asnd lacked privacy.

It seems that the zeitgesit of trendiy arty types in London are redisccovering a love for places despised only a decade ago - like Trellick Tower, the Barbican Centre and the National Theatre on the South Bank.

Did we throw the 1960s baby out with the bathwater?

1960's urban planning in Ireland was nearly non existent.
If you take ballymun for instance, the planning designed cul de sacs, high density concrete buildings, little or no amenities and took the most deprived citizens of Dublin and placed them in this "forward" thinking development. This created vast social and economic issues for this area.

Planning in most Irish towns has been nothing short of dreadful. Some of the few quant towns this country has have been destroyed by bad planning, added to this is that due to population density being so concentrated in Dublin many commuter towns have lost out economical. Unfortunately due to country size, population concentration and current transport links, Ireland's planning is decades behind our European counterparts.

dttq · 12-08-2012 3:27am

JupiterKid wrote: »

Back in the more simple and naive 1960s, the prevailing urban planning ideology was to sweep away the dirty decrepit old cities and replace them with new development of huge slab high rise tower blocks of flats, multi-lane motorways cutting through the hearts of towns and cities and a future of modern technology and brutalist concrete and glass.

Since the late 1970s, these plans were seen as a mistake - a very, very, very big and very bad mistake. But is there some merit to the 1960s thinking?

Here's a film from 1971 of the way Glasgow was being rebuilt in the early 70s. High rise flats, shopping precincts and urban motorways were seen as the bright new future? Do you agree?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2oQzt_ZG2g

BTW this also marks my 2,000th post!:D:cool:

thank **** that we had such a change in ideology, because older buildings are often not only more beautiful and homely, but give our towns and cities a sense of history, beauty and character in a way that Corbuserian concrete blocks and modern starchitect projects and glass hovels such as the Grand Canal theatre ever could. Our cities and towns would be even more gloomy and depressing than they are now, had it not been for the intervention of preservationists who stopped the destructive process in its path before we lost even more than we already had.

Lapin · 12-08-2012 3:52am

JupiterKid wrote: »

It seems that the zeitgesit of trendy arty types in London are redisccovering a love for places despised only a decade ago - like Trellick Tower, the Barbican Centre and the National Theatre on the South Bank.

I'd actually love to live there. I've been in a couple of flats and they are far superior to many of the cramped shoeboxes that have been built in the last 20 years both here and in the UK. And the views from it are priceless.

I wouldn't say no to a flat in The Barbican either, although I've never been in one. But its some location.

Chucken · 12-08-2012 4:15am

JupiterKid wrote: »

Back in the more simple and naive 1960s, the prevailing urban planning ideology was to sweep away the dirty decrepit old cities and replace them with new development of huge slab high rise tower blocks of flats, multi-lane motorways cutting through the hearts of towns and cities and a future of modern technology and brutalist concrete and glass

BTW this also marks my 2,000th post!:D:cool:

You've picked Glasgow as an example.

If you came closer to home and talked about high rise here, it will make sense to people who post here?.......but

I post here and the 1st time I ever saw high rise flats was in Eastern Europe.

Oddly enough, Many moons ago, My first holiday was spent in Glasgow and I thought it was lovely.

Capt'n Midnight · 12-08-2012 1:07pm

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Glasgow is the last city on earth we should be looking to for planning tips.

The dreariest kip on the face of the earth

How is their public transport infrastructure compared to Dublin ?

Dublin is the first city people in Europe look to when they need an example of how to screw up public transport.

We used to have an extensive tram and train network. Our main train stations are linked by rail but we don't use the link.

This is what we used to have. One Luas line is built on a disused train line. The other takes a different route to Tallaght. Our two tram lines may be connected in the foreseeable future , if there are no more U-turns, the Northern line ws . And then we will still only have re-built at extortionate cost a small fraction of the infrastructure they had when Dublin had a population of 300,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dublin_1922-23_Map_Suburbs_MatureTrams_wFaresTimes_Trains_EarlyBus_Canals_pubv2.jpg

The M50 bridge will cost the tax payer about a €1bn and motorists still have to pay a toll and toll collection fee on top. The lane extensions on the M50 and Naas road were to a large extent a waste of money because Irish people don't drive in the left lane even though it's a legal requirement.

From 1995 (people born then could have a full driving license by now)
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1995/03/14/00158.asp

The basic light rail network recommended by the Dublin Transportation Initiative is for lines to Tallaght, Cabinteely via the Harcourt Street line and Ballymun.

Under the DTI it is envisaged that these lines will join together to form a single light rail network permitting cross-city operations and will serve both north and south sides of the city centre with a route along O'Connell Street. A fourth line to Finglas via the old Broadstone railway line and an extension of the Ballymun line to Dublin Airport and Swords also form part of the full DTI recommended light rail network.

woodoo · 12-08-2012 2:01pm

galwayrush wrote: »

I like Glasgow city centre though,

The west end is really nice too. Its the east where it is run down.

K3lso · 12-08-2012 2:06pm

Central planning doesn't work...ever.

Spontaneous chaos that moves with the times and provides solutions to desires seems to be key.

Sea Filly · 12-08-2012 2:10pm

JupiterKid wrote: »

Back in the more simple and naive 1960s, the prevailing urban planning ideology was to sweep away the dirty decrepit old cities and replace them with new development of huge slab high rise tower blocks of flats, multi-lane motorways cutting through the hearts of towns and cities and a future of modern technology and brutalist concrete and glass.

Since the late 1970s, these plans were seen as a mistake - a very, very, very big and very bad mistake. But is there some merit to the 1960s thinking?

Here's a film from 1971 of the way Glasgow was being rebuilt in the early 70s. High rise flats, shopping precincts and urban motorways were seen as the bright new future? Do you agree?

Some brutalist buildings are amazing. Sadly, most are not. :-/

4zn76tysfajdxp · 12-08-2012 2:16pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We used to have an extensive tram and train network.

What happened? I heard somewhere that all the lines were torn up because they were British built, is that true?

Sea Filly · 12-08-2012 2:24pm

Lapin wrote: »

I'd actually love to live there. I've been in a couple of flats and they are far superior to many of the cramped shoeboxes that have been built in the last 20 years both here and in the UK.

Kinda like the high rise flats in Eastern Europe, which are way roomier and better built than any boomtime flat here. No wonder so many people live in them in those countries.

bijapos · 12-08-2012 2:30pm

Any good planning in this country is usually defeated by vested interests in business and government. People who would rather see 300 houses built with no amenities than 270 with amenities.

The amount of housing built with no intention of providing funding for schools, playgrounds, community centres, sports facilities or new transport links is no coincidence. brown envelopes to FF and FG sorted out any hope of basic facilities being put in anywhere. The social cost of this is obvious everyday and will only get worse in the future.

HavingCrack · 12-08-2012 3:24pm

Leon Ashy Vault wrote: »

What happened? I heard somewhere that all the lines were torn up because they were British built, is that true?

Nah, basically what happened was that by the 1940's buses were more cost effective to transport companies than trams, simple as-no need for track maintenance etc.. There was also an element of thinking that equated trams and trains with backwardness, everyone would soon be driving in their cars so why bother with public transport. A mixture of both led to the demise of trams. As far as I know the trams weren't actually British built, the Dublin Tramway Co. was owned by William Martin Murphy, a Dublin Catholic with Nationalist leanings best known for his role in the 1913 lockout.

pappyodaniel · 12-08-2012 8:25pm

My God, some of those building developments look like Shannon Town.

Architecturally speaking, Glasgow is an ugly looking dive.

questionmark? · 12-08-2012 8:46pm

pappyodaniel wrote: »

My God, some of those building developments look like Shannon Town.

Architecturally speaking, Glasgow is an ugly looking dive.

Shannon Town is a reason for Ireland to never design a new town from scratch.

I wonder what the Americans think when first of all they see the brutal tower blocks of Shannon Town, travel up the dual carriageway to Limerick, the dual carriage way with house entrances on it as if it was a normal country road and then land in Limerick City. Jebus we haven't done good planning in this country since the rock of Cashel.

mikemac1 · 12-08-2012 8:56pm

Parts of East End Glasgow are poorer and more run down then anything we have in Ireland

If you even go to google street view and virtually walk the mile and a bit from Gallowgate to Parkhead you'd see it.
Must be one of the biggest kips in Europe

Not a city to copy OP!

Jellicoe · 12-08-2012 8:59pm

Ever heard of Priory Hall ?

Mr Benevolent · 12-08-2012 9:46pm

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Its still rather drab

Dublin city centre is very drab too.

HavingCrack · 12-08-2012 10:07pm

Confab wrote: »

Dublin city centre is very drab too.

I don't think it's too bad at all to be honest. Alright, the north inner city area around O'Connell Street/Parnell Street/Abbey Street isn't great due to crappy planning and the drug problem and Grafton Street is a bit bland but the rest of the city is relatively ok.

All the Georgian architecture around Stephens Green/Merrion Square/Fitzwilliam Square, Trinity College and the Bank of Ireland building, the Iveagh Gardens, Dame Street (minus the Central Bank), Temple Bar is still nice to look at even if it is very touristy. the South William Street/Exchequer Street/Geroges Street area with all the bars/restuarants/shops, Kildare Street has Leinster House and the Museum. Then we have Stoneybatter/the Liberties/Baggot Street/Ranelagh/Drumcondra areas lying just outside the core with a lot of Victorian/Edwardian influences etc.

Compared to central Glasgow it really isn't that drab at all.

jam_mac_jam · 12-08-2012 10:32pm

K3lso wrote: »

Central planning doesn't work...ever.

Spontaneous chaos that moves with the times and provides solutions to desires seems to be key.

Paris?

1960s Planning for Our Cities

Comments