A lot of stuff that isn't historic or should be cleared gets classed as 'historic'
Meanwhile the genuine beauty gets razed (pen station, and that old american city hall that was a beaut, as compared to the brutalist trash that replaced it).
Totally disagree. A building is more than just what it looks like at first appearances, and something with 113 years of history almost always inherently has more "value" than the Brutalist trash you speak of...
So no, completely and utterly disagree with you here.
"Sweep it away, who cares" is exactly how we end up with shitty, generic "modern" societies with no roots, no valuing of history and no cohesion. It's how, and indeed a part of why it is so easy to convince "modern" people to reject the truth, and reject what they see with their own eyes, and supplant it with wokeness and ever-changing social mores...
So no, IMO, you're completely wrong, in this case.
You'll not find a many bigger fans of ye olde architecture and art than I.
But this is not it. Not every old turd is made of gold. Sometimes it's just an old turd. This is one of those cases. It's just a block, a utilitarian cube factory they built. It's not brutalist but it's as close as you can get without being concrete.
I am in favour of saving good old stuff. But this is only 'old'.
Sometimes things go up in flames and can't be saved. Sometimes they aren't worth saving. Sometimes 'heritage' listed things are just the gov being assholes, and sometimes there really is a safety issue with a mostly destroyed building from 100 years ago.
I'll shed no tears over this, while mourning the notre dame cathedral fire. Because there is a difference between the two. I'd not have been in favor of actively lighting this fire (some other monstrousities do need to be actively torn down), but it's no great loss. And I stand by that.
Well, see, I don't agree with that, and personally, I'm kind of glad that you're not in charge of the decisions made around these things. But hey. Values...
Couldn't disagree more. But that's fine.
But no, I don't think you're right, here. As someone who has actually walked past this building multiple times, and saw it in use before Covid, simply, no.
And again, this is why heritage protections exist, because otherwise people with your attitude, as shown here, would just tear most of it down. And then we'd end up with East Perth. The horrible glass wind tunnel that much of that is. So...
No. But at least we can still disagree on this stuff.
Fair enough yes, it's not like we're opposed on 90% of things. Nor are we opposed to saving the actually good stuff, it's just that that you have a more expansive view of what old architecture should be preserved than I. And you know what, I could live with that. It would still be a pretty good society, even if I roll my eyes at some of thing things that are protected.
That building (the one opposite the Mint) is so generic, lol, that I didn’t realise, but in fact, I don’t think that was there, yet, when the kebab incident happened… Or indeed I didn’t notice it, if so…
But if you think that’s bad, look up the “Icon” Lego building on St Kilda road in Melbourne…
It’s like that, but much, much worse…
No doubt the architects thought they were being “cool” and “trendy”, mimicking stacked shipping containers…
It is amazingly ugly, in person. Like, “iconic”, sure, but very much in a bad way…
look up the “Icon” Lego building on St Kilda road in Melbourne…
Of course it's melbourne. Gross.
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the building you deride lasted as long as it did, let’s put it that way… We just don’t build with that sort of longevity (as pointed out by the architect in the article) or “adaptability” anymore.
But this I do agree with, partially. The ones that were built to last were the ones that did, there is some survivorship bias here. But yeah the old stuff was built with real materials, and adaptable, you may just have shiftied my opinion of the old cube up a notch, just a smidge, because it also had those qualities. As far as ugly cubes go, it's got that going for it.
I once was so broke, walking past that building, that I ordered a kebab, realised I couldn’t afford it, and skipped the bill (well, I didn’t go back for my order, so not sure if it counts… Just meant that they made it, and didn’t get to serve it)…
It was a bad time. But also representative of how fucked my entire life has been, tbh, lol…
So yeah, I know the building you speak of.
Agree on the rest. But these (contemporary) buildings were never built to last, anyway. They’re all just built to last 20 years or so, then be abandoned by the company, sold off, and then torn down…
What you’re missing about Hendersons is that it was adaptable, and had been successfully “reused” multiple times.
These giant modern glass buildings are not like that. Even the hotels are very hard to adapt into residential (just ask the people in Caracas who live in a giant half-built tower, lol).
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the building you deride lasted as long as it did, let’s put it that way…
We just don’t build with that sort of longevity (as pointed out by the architect in the article) or “adaptability” anymore.
But again, agree to disagree.
Inherently, it doesn’t matter what I think anyway. It doesn’t change anything. But it is worthy of discussion, I guess.
You should live on the Gold Coast. You really should. Or maybe Perth (in fact, you may have mentioned already that you live in WA, I can't remember).
They both represent two clear examples of the endpoint of the attitude you just espoused, and it is awful... Especially the Gold Coast.
Nothing old gets to survive. It all gets "swept away" in the name of "Heritage? Who gives a fuck?", and yeah, really makes for "cohesive, liveable cities". Not.
Seriously, I don't think I could possibly disagree more.
Saving the smoke-stained, cracked husk of a warehouse is no better for the local environs than any act of architectural misconduct that could replace it. You're not saving a work of art, it's a utilitarian brick of commercial realty that no longer has any utility.
Despite the level degradation across all of the West, the 'colonies' of America, Canada and Australia are extremely susceptible to the destruction of historic structures and statues compared to Europe.
Maybe it's after a certain length of time, it becomes so ingrained into cultural identity that you can't displace it. It's just startling that after a fire they 'gave up' attempting to save and restore when you have situations like Dresden being flattened and after decades they DID get rebuilt.
These were everywhere, at one point (the coffee palaces), but they largely didn't survive the architectural purge that was the 50s through the 80s...
Although, walking through city streets and seeing some of the examples of façadism that is all the rage now (which is what would have happened to the building in the OP, if it hadn't burned down), perhaps... Perhaps it is "better" that these buildings didn't live to see that happen to them.
In a sense, anyway.
I'm all for "adaptive reuse", like with many stations in the US, for example, but yeah, façadism and ripping the whole thing down... Are sort of two sides of the same bad coin, really...
A lot of stuff that isn't historic or should be cleared gets classed as 'historic'
Meanwhile the genuine beauty gets razed (pen station, and that old american city hall that was a beaut, as compared to the brutalist trash that replaced it).
I looked on google. The old RC Henderson hat factory is just a block. A soulless cube. https://previews.me.com.au/ingestion/917/image/large/000/000/000/000/000000000000083/252576xl.jpg
Sweep it away, who cares. Looks like one of the 'heritage' listings to me.
Totally disagree. A building is more than just what it looks like at first appearances, and something with 113 years of history almost always inherently has more "value" than the Brutalist trash you speak of...
So no, completely and utterly disagree with you here.
"Sweep it away, who cares" is exactly how we end up with shitty, generic "modern" societies with no roots, no valuing of history and no cohesion. It's how, and indeed a part of why it is so easy to convince "modern" people to reject the truth, and reject what they see with their own eyes, and supplant it with wokeness and ever-changing social mores...
So no, IMO, you're completely wrong, in this case.
It's Perth, yes.
You'll not find a many bigger fans of ye olde architecture and art than I.
But this is not it. Not every old turd is made of gold. Sometimes it's just an old turd. This is one of those cases. It's just a block, a utilitarian cube factory they built. It's not brutalist but it's as close as you can get without being concrete.
I am in favour of saving good old stuff. But this is only 'old'.
Sometimes things go up in flames and can't be saved. Sometimes they aren't worth saving. Sometimes 'heritage' listed things are just the gov being assholes, and sometimes there really is a safety issue with a mostly destroyed building from 100 years ago.
I'll shed no tears over this, while mourning the notre dame cathedral fire. Because there is a difference between the two. I'd not have been in favor of actively lighting this fire (some other monstrousities do need to be actively torn down), but it's no great loss. And I stand by that.
Well, see, I don't agree with that, and personally, I'm kind of glad that you're not in charge of the decisions made around these things. But hey. Values...
Couldn't disagree more. But that's fine.
But no, I don't think you're right, here. As someone who has actually walked past this building multiple times, and saw it in use before Covid, simply, no.
And again, this is why heritage protections exist, because otherwise people with your attitude, as shown here, would just tear most of it down. And then we'd end up with East Perth. The horrible glass wind tunnel that much of that is. So...
No. But at least we can still disagree on this stuff.
I wish to tear down some of that too. Look at this trash across from the Perth Mint.
If it makes it to 100, 200 even, I'll still be in favour of tearing it down.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/East+Perth+WA+6004/@-31.9574169,115.8692202,3a,75y,189.11h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNE64SXyVHITh_wcMuYlv9_rCLrHFuYivEKcwbt!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNE64SXyVHITh_wcMuYlv9_rCLrHFuYivEKcwbt%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya24.095488-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352!4m9!3m8!1s0x2a32ba4c864c8a1d:0x504f0b535df4380!8m2!3d-31.957186!4d115.8761576!10e5!14m1!1BCgIgARICCAI!16zL20vMDdwbWw0?hl=en&entry=ttu
Fair enough yes, it's not like we're opposed on 90% of things. Nor are we opposed to saving the actually good stuff, it's just that that you have a more expansive view of what old architecture should be preserved than I. And you know what, I could live with that. It would still be a pretty good society, even if I roll my eyes at some of thing things that are protected.
That building (the one opposite the Mint) is so generic, lol, that I didn’t realise, but in fact, I don’t think that was there, yet, when the kebab incident happened… Or indeed I didn’t notice it, if so…
But if you think that’s bad, look up the “Icon” Lego building on St Kilda road in Melbourne…
It’s like that, but much, much worse…
No doubt the architects thought they were being “cool” and “trendy”, mimicking stacked shipping containers…
It is amazingly ugly, in person. Like, “iconic”, sure, but very much in a bad way…
Of course it's melbourne. Gross.
But this I do agree with, partially. The ones that were built to last were the ones that did, there is some survivorship bias here. But yeah the old stuff was built with real materials, and adaptable, you may just have shiftied my opinion of the old cube up a notch, just a smidge, because it also had those qualities. As far as ugly cubes go, it's got that going for it.
I once was so broke, walking past that building, that I ordered a kebab, realised I couldn’t afford it, and skipped the bill (well, I didn’t go back for my order, so not sure if it counts… Just meant that they made it, and didn’t get to serve it)…
It was a bad time. But also representative of how fucked my entire life has been, tbh, lol…
So yeah, I know the building you speak of.
Agree on the rest. But these (contemporary) buildings were never built to last, anyway. They’re all just built to last 20 years or so, then be abandoned by the company, sold off, and then torn down…
What you’re missing about Hendersons is that it was adaptable, and had been successfully “reused” multiple times.
These giant modern glass buildings are not like that. Even the hotels are very hard to adapt into residential (just ask the people in Caracas who live in a giant half-built tower, lol).
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the building you deride lasted as long as it did, let’s put it that way… We just don’t build with that sort of longevity (as pointed out by the architect in the article) or “adaptability” anymore.
But again, agree to disagree.
Inherently, it doesn’t matter what I think anyway. It doesn’t change anything. But it is worthy of discussion, I guess.
You should live on the Gold Coast. You really should. Or maybe Perth (in fact, you may have mentioned already that you live in WA, I can't remember).
They both represent two clear examples of the endpoint of the attitude you just espoused, and it is awful... Especially the Gold Coast.
Nothing old gets to survive. It all gets "swept away" in the name of "Heritage? Who gives a fuck?", and yeah, really makes for "cohesive, liveable cities". Not.
Seriously, I don't think I could possibly disagree more.
Saving the smoke-stained, cracked husk of a warehouse is no better for the local environs than any act of architectural misconduct that could replace it. You're not saving a work of art, it's a utilitarian brick of commercial realty that no longer has any utility.
Why would you want to save every old building?
Do any tourists pay to go and see this building?
Despite the level degradation across all of the West, the 'colonies' of America, Canada and Australia are extremely susceptible to the destruction of historic structures and statues compared to Europe.
Maybe it's after a certain length of time, it becomes so ingrained into cultural identity that you can't displace it. It's just startling that after a fire they 'gave up' attempting to save and restore when you have situations like Dresden being flattened and after decades they DID get rebuilt.
I was reading about this one today (in Philly): http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/06/broad-street-station-what-should-have.html
Or, for another Antipodean example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Coffee_Palace
Read it and weep... :-(
These were everywhere, at one point (the coffee palaces), but they largely didn't survive the architectural purge that was the 50s through the 80s...
Although, walking through city streets and seeing some of the examples of façadism that is all the rage now (which is what would have happened to the building in the OP, if it hadn't burned down), perhaps... Perhaps it is "better" that these buildings didn't live to see that happen to them.
In a sense, anyway.
I'm all for "adaptive reuse", like with many stations in the US, for example, but yeah, façadism and ripping the whole thing down... Are sort of two sides of the same bad coin, really...
These old buildings need to be knocked down. they are shit