How do you solve a problem like the Library?

By Stuart Pemble on Mar 19, 08 05:57 PM in Law

No, not the title of the next Andrew Lloyd-Webber and Graham Norton musical talent show for Saturday nights, but rather the question of the day in today's Post.

The problem of the future of the Central Library - shall we demolish the carbuncle or list the brutalist architectural marvel for future generations to enjoy? - takes up most of the front page and merits an editorial.

And the debate is pretty much along these extreme lines. There are two camps. One - which includes Mike Whitby, Clive Dutton, the Post and Prince Charles amongst others - thinks that the current building looks like a "place where books are incinerated, not kept". On the other, you have the original (and distinguished) architect, John Madin, the Twentieth Century Society and a campaign group, the Friends of the Central Library, who mount a spirited defence.

Those campaigning for the preservation of the current library make a number of points including arguing that the Council is proposing giving up an established public building to enable a commercial property developer to make money and that a shoddy maintenance record has contributed to the Library's current poor state of repair.

Please accept my apologies for ducking the political issues raised by these arguments - although I have both personal and professional views on them, I don't think this blog should act as a political platform. Instead, I want to concentrate on perhaps the most important argument raised on either side of the debate.

Those in the 'get rid of it' school consider it to be a hideous building of little (if any) architectural merit. The 'it's great' camp want the Culture Minister, Margaret Hodge, to list the building as being of special architectural merit. That could seriously delay any development.

And the building has lots of fans. The distinguished architectural bible, Pevsner, raves about this and other examples of Madin's work. Supporters genuinely think it's a great building that deserves preserving.

Speaking personally, I'm not a fan and am all for bulldozing the entirety of Paradise Circus and starting again. I find brutalist architecture unfriendly and unwelcoming. But that's just my view. We are talking about a massively important part of our city - and everyone's opinion should be taken into account. After all, it's our council tax that is footing the bill. Why not write to Margaret Hodge and let her know what you think? It's your library too.

Comments (3)

Older/Newer

« Why today's Daily Star is a PR text book classic | Life in the long tail »

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: How do you solve a problem like the Library?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.birminghampost.net/cgi-bin/mt421/mt-tb.cgi/663

3 Comments

claude said:

But what do you think of yet more MASSIVE disruption to take place right in the heart of Birmingham???

You may be interested in this article following the demolition of Edgbaston Shopping Centre.

"BIRMINGHAM'S RELENTLESS BULDOZING WORK
23 March 08

How many more clone-Shopping Malls before the city is declared "FULLY REGENERATED"?

As this website is called Hagley Road to Ladywood, it's about time we review the ongoing changes in one of the most significant areas of inner city Birmingham. The intersection called Five Ways, in particular, is already looking unrecognisable.

First off, it looks like the powers that be have declared war to any type of 1960's architecture, whether that may be 'concrete jungle' like Lee Bank's recently blown down tower blocks, or outstanding gems like John Madin's Birmingham Post & Mail or the award-winning Chamber of Commerce just off Five Ways. Yet, it's worth a scratch on the head or two when Stephenson Tower, or other buildings that wouldn't have gone amiss in Soviet-era Kazakhstan, is still standing right in the middle of town"...

You can read the rest here: http://mymarilyn.blogspot.com/2008/03/birminghams-relentless-bulldozing-work.html

March 26, 2008 11:59 AM

Stuart Pemble

said:

Thanks Claude. Please see my latest blog for my response.

March 31, 2008 3:48 PM

Ruth Slavid said:

The one curious issue that is never addressed in discussions regarding the library are whether the existing building is any good to use. In many years of using the current building I have always found it an incredibly enjoyable experience. The library is generally quiet, restful and with a conemplative quality which is accentuated by the inward looking design.

I have no doubt in my mind that although perhaps 'difficult' for some to understand and appreciate, it is a building of some significant architectural distinction.

April 25, 2008 3:54 PM