Honestly, why? It looks like any other modern building, bland. The current one is loved by architects and the new one is just a nice modern structure that barely stands out. Improve the old one. I like it.
Honestly, why? It looks like any other modern building, bland. The current one is loved by architects and the new one is just a nice modern structure that barely stands out. Improve the old one. I like it.
I disagree. The current one looks like what it is, a relic of a former era. One where it was thought that building things in concrete looked good. The trouble is, concrete gets tired and weathered very quickly, and soon looks dull. The inside of the current library seems to me to be disorganised, dirty, and again, tired. It is certainly time for a renovation, especially in a city which is trying to rejuvenate itself (Bull ring, mailbox, brindley place etc etc).
The new design, from the rather optimistic picture looks inviting and interesting, and will fit in well with the Birmingham project as a larger whole.
I am though slightly concerned it has been designed, apparently, by the German version of Meccano
Nah. it looks a lot like the Cube, or any other modern building. The concrete thing may be concrete, but its of an era, and its a bloody good example of buildings of that era. Spruce up the old one. If we’re not careful we’ll have nothing of that era left…
Am I alone in thinking that if we must have a new library building; knock one up that’s structurally sound, and as cheap and functional as possible. Spend the remainder of the funds on new stock to improve what already exists. None of this fancy design nonsense.
Interesting that the Mail article should carry absolutely no mention of updating or improving stock
“there will be much more of a sense of an evolving journey as you move through the building” ?? – if someone could translate this into plain english I’d much appreciate it.
That’s why they are improving the archives by expanding on what is available now
It still needs to be updated to fit in with the rest of the city, and there is no way sprucing up the concrete can achieve this. Also, the inside will still be really rubbish, no matter how much it is spruced up!
It’s always amazed me how many people complain about the sixties approach of tearing down buildings to build new ones that looked good for a few years but then became ghastly. Those same people then advocate destroying the sixties architecture to replace it with another layer of trash. They actually lead us to repeat the mistakes of the sixties when we should learn from them.
That building looks as vile as the cube. It’s been built that way (or rather will be) because ‘we can’. There has been a long tradition of architects using materials simply because they are new. It was concrete in the sixities and now it’s glass. Glass needs constant cleaning and can often turn in a building into a giant greenhouse in the summer. I wonder how many people say they like the proposed look of the new library because they find it quirky/modern/odd. Why can’t they build one that just looks nice. (Maybe they could even use bricks!!!!!)
And why is there so much focus these days on how it looks? I can’t help but get the impression that how the building was going to look came long before more important considerations.
I was watching this video on it and I’ve never heard so much crap in all my life (I’ve succumbed Brigid.). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7977355.stm All they seem to talk about is ‘giving the city identity’ and ‘an abstract feel’. How about a place where people can use books and ICT equipment?
Yes, a building should be aesthetically pleasing but there should be a focus on practicallity and then a focus on aesthetics; not the other way round.
I suppose you are opposed to this: http://www.newstreetnewstart.co.uk/
As far as I am concerned you are right there are some buildings we should protect and preserve. The library is no such building. It is a grey dismal building which has a poor reflection on the city. It has no distinct design it looks like a oversized layer of concrete paving slabs. A glitzy new glass building will give a bight and airy feeling to the city and indeed to the library. It will make people more inclined to work there without being made to feel like they want to hang themselves!
Somtimes things need updating. What happened to BULS the great modernisers?! It seems the Tories are leading the way once again
Ahhh you think that’s crap Jack? I was subjected to the full length 6 min version… its at the bottom of this link http://www.thestirrer.co.uk/new-chapter-opens-for-library-0204091.html
The worst thing about that one is it goes on and on about how great libraries are as if it’s a brand new concept…
I am actually very much in favour of the New Street Station development Dan, that building is of no architectural merit, a nightmare to use and an utter embarrasment to the city, and I imagine it would do far more for the economy to redevelop that instead. The current library building may not be fit for purpose on the inside, I don’t work there so I don’t know; but it’s not grey and dismal, its a big brash statement of a building right there in the heart of the city, and if you actually stand back and look at it properly (I had to walk through it ever day this summer to get to work and spent a lot of time contemplating its merits) you’ll realise that it actually fits in so much better than most of the dismal office blocks around it. Spruce it up, extend it if you need to, sort out the inside; why knock it down? It’s one of the best 60s buildings we’ve got, I don’t want everything in my city to look the same.
“Glitz”… what is it about Tories and “glitz”…
The station looks a bit better but it still seems a bit cold. And why does it say ‘on time’ for all the trains when 60% of them will be late? You see it’s the same problem again. I’m all for building a new station but why does the focus in Britian have to be on giving people a nice place to wait for their delayed trains? Again the aesthetics have come before the practicality. We need better transport.
The design for the new library is taking into account it’s function too though, it is expanding the entire space to house more stuff, hence why it will dominate Centenary Square. It is a mistake to think that function will be sacrificed for the aesthetics. The two can and do go hand in hand.
I agree with Dan, currently it is nothing special to look at and it does need a huge rethink internally. It is not as simple as adding a bit onto the side to create more space. The new design has created space under the surface because there isn’t the room up top.
Around the mailbox and along the canal now looks good because they effectively started again, got rid of the old and brought in the new. No-one is complaining about that. The bullring was a host of markets not so long ago, but they redid that and again it is great, both from a functional point of view and an aesthetic one. Selfridges is one of the most easily identified buildings in Britain.
The point is, it is naive and foolish to say that it will look just like any other ‘modern’ building. Change can, and has, made things better in Birmingham city centre. There is a good track record of redesigning areas and making it work already in the city, so why suggest that this won’t be the same?
“Forward” is the motto of Birmigham. If you look at the town’s history, every 50 years or so everything gets torn down and replaced. Hence, we are missing out on huge parts of our history and identity.
I think the current library really is something special to look at. Go on, I challenge you; get a train to New Street, get out at Victoia Square, walk up the hill and past the council house. Take a long look at the front of the library. Then look at the other 60s tower blocks that dominate the skyline. Go in through the pyramid bit, past Wetherspoons and look up and around. Then go out the other side, far enough back so you can see all of it, and have a good look. Look around at the other sixties buildings again… and tell me the library still looks bad.
I gotta agree with Jack on the station/trains though
I will do, at some point. I’m absolutely sure my answer will still be the same. In fact, I remember visiting Birmingham on an art trip with school. We went to the gas hall nearby and I remember walking through the library (blissfully unaware of what it was at that point) and seeing the a tower block reflected in the glass of the ICC. It looked amazing. I then turned and looked at where I had come from and felt disappointed that there was this concrete thing in my way blocking the origin of the view. Anyway.
On the Wiki page about Centenary square there is a photo of the square looking towards the library. The glass buildings which frame the library look good. The concrete doesn’t.
Agree to disagree?
no, because such an agreement will result in a building getting torn down.
It will get torn down anyway, regardless of handbags on this site
Jone’s you’ve lost your head…the current library is awful…shall we keep the muirhead tower in its old condition?
bring the old jones back, the power’s gone to her head…she’s standing in the way of educational progress…sell out!
Guisey you know there’s always been a special place in my heart for the Muirhead Tower.
“why does it say on time’ for all the trains when 60% of them will be late”
Goodness me Jack youve become a psychic! Quickly tell me what the Conservative Majority will be next year…
Although back on topic I must say I am suprised that my view is not being completely torn apart as is the usual… perhaps I need to rethink my position lol
P.S I love Luke’s use of the word ‘handbags’ lol… theres a secret Thatcherite in there…
Dan, it is almost scary when Guise agrees with you isn’t it!
When he agreed with me the other day over the G20 protests I was sure it was an April fools… today Im actually scared… Im sure Tom is petrified lol.
Luke you say that the mailbox and the canal area look good because they got rid of the old and brought in the new. You couldn’t be more wrong. The whole complex is built around a canal that is at least 150 years old. Some of the best places there such as The Tap and Spile are a similar age. The old and the new can go hand in hand. In any case, the most despised building in that area is the cube, not the simple but pleasent architecture of the mailbox itself. The old and the new can go hand in hand. A perfect example of this would be the business school next to the guild.
People don’t seem to appreciate that what can look interesting now, can look dire in ten years time. Many sixties buildings were popular when they were opened but have now fallen out of favour. There is a reason why the Aston webb building is the best the uni has; and somehow I don’t think people will be in awe of the garish colours of the new library in 2109.
Sorry Jack but I disagree. Yes, the canal itself is older, of course it is, but the renovation and rethink in the surrounding areas has completely reinvogorated the whole city, and made the area look so much better than it once did. The same applies to the Bullring.
Of course old and new can go hand in hand, I don’t deny that. But the old has to work well with the new too. In the case of the current library, I just don’t think it does. You’ve said it yourself, the current library has fallen out of favour with lots of people, because both functionally and aesthetically it has become worn out.
Thatcher had a point…
I’m not the greatest fan of the old library, it was built in an era of ‘lets build stuff quickly and cheaply’ as we began to recover after the war. The new library I’m sure will be a great investment into a city that has been victimised by 1960s planning – not just in terms of its buildings, but also its infrastructure.
New Street Station is all that many people see of Birmingham as the pass through on the train. The fact that it is dark, made entirely of conrete and lacking in any sort of character means that many people’s perceptions of Birmingham are altered considerably by their experience of that train station. A new station would show Birmingham in a more positive light and therefore make it seem like more of an attractive investment opportunity.
hahaha love it tom