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…
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.
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…
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.