| This text is written from a
'capitalist realist' point of view. This appears to be a bit of authorial fence sitting.
It allows 'common sense' to operate in the place of critical intelligence. Regardless of
that, this is a very interesting document, provoking much discussion at PfM meetings. Beware, thus is a long text (11,000 words approx.). Use the bookmarks in the table of contents to navigate to specific sections of the text. The copy used here lacks the bibliography and appendix, so the footnotes that relate to an interview with Rodney Gordon are not much use, however the other footnotes are good. |
||
|
The Tricorn Concrete Monstrosity or Design Masterpiece? Text of PhD by Reem Cappi, Portsmouth 1997 |
||
| Contents 1 introduction 3 Major Argument for and
against Tricorn 4 Summary
|
||
| Introduction Prince Charles has called the Tricorn "a mildewed lump of elephant droppings" (1), and yet it has been compared to the 'Beatles and their international career' (2), how can a building cause such strong and diverse opinions? My feelings towards the Tricorn have changed frequently throughout my research, looking at architectural theory has given me a wider understanding of the position the Tricorn holds, when compared to other forms of more contemporary architectural ethos. I initially felt that the Tricorn was unique and I admired the shape and form of the building. I was intrigued by the uniform style that flowed throughout the structure. This is fundamental to the Brutalist style, a branch of Late Modernism, so I felt this must mean that the Tricorn was at least partly successful to its movement but not at all successful commercially as a shopping centre. This partial success is due to the lack of commercial use which could be considered as the pragmatic function. I have had to look at contemporary architectural theory to place the Tricorn in its historical, social and economical position. I was overwhelmed with the immense variety of styles in contemporary architecture, so vast that it would be completely impossible to attempt to go through them all in under ten thousand words. To make things easier they could be grouped into simple yet generalised and familiar terms; Modernism, Late Modernism and Post Modernism. I ask the questions what was the thought behind the theory of Modernism? what where the reasons for rebelling against the ornament? what are the implications? and are they justified? Looking at the Tricorn from a consumer market prospective, was the lack of symbolic capital a contributing factor to the lack of consumer interest? And do certain designs in architecture make the property more vulnerable to crime? The Tricorn has been referred to as 'a design masterpiece' (3) and 'a concrete monstrosity' (4) Which if either is the more accurate description? Unfortunately this has been a debatable issue for he last 30+ years, the Tricorn has suffered a few short ups and a great many downs. I wish to present his project as an analysis on interpreting architecture. I hope to demonstrate that there is no right or wrong answer in architecture, whether the building is looked at as a means of progress, a learnt lesson in architecture or a fundamental advancement in design or in use of technology. I wish to examine Modernism, Late Modernism, Post Modernism and their relation to the Tricorn, pointing out the ways to look at certain aspects that concern the Tricorn positively and negatively. I feel it is important to go through contemporary theories on architecture to position the background and future of the Tricorn. I ask: is social engineering appropriate in the architectural profession? If so, what can we hope to realistically achieve? Is the Tricorn a complete failure? Summary of Tricorn's Historical Background: 1962 Tricorn site is cleared for market, then also shopping
development. Historical Background Detailed The Tricorn site was originally cleared for a wholesale market by Portsmouth Corporation after the second world war, as much of Portsmouth was bombed and had to be rebuilt. At the same time Alex Coleman Investments were looking for a site for a shopping development, so they were both offered the site, adjoining Charlotte Street, which at the time was considered an uneconomical small site It was suggested that both corporations combine the shopping development with the wholesale market and include a car park. Previously, Portsmouth had suffered for many years because of its street market which caused traffic congestion. This modern development by which cars and lorries could be taken off the main road was considered an excellent asset to the city. However there is evidence to suggest that closing off main roads cuts a building off from the surveillance they would have naturally had. Natural surveillance is the easiest, least imposing, and sometimes most efficient method of security. Jane Jacobs, in her Death and Life of Great American Cities, contends that the surveillance provided by the casual passer-by on foot or in car is important as a deterrent to criminal activity'. (5) I shaft be Looking at this more extensively in the major argument. It the late sixties the City Council wanted to put the City Library inside the Tricorn, before deciding to put it in the Guildhall Square, and the then Portsmouth Polytechnic had also asked to put a hall of residence in the Tricorn before also changing its plans. By 1979 only one of the eight available flats remained occupied, now they are all boarded up. To date only a few of the shopping outlets are occupied, however the car park holding around 500 cars is still in operation. I feel it is appropriate to look at the social and historical background that existed before, during and after construction to add context. Modernist Theory It could be suggested that modernism was a reaction to three situations, one was an emerging capitalist environment, two a dying Protestant ethic, and thirdly technical advancement. The combination of these factors caused influential elitists to try and shape and dominate society; as they feared the influx of inexpensive manufactured goods would lead to tackiness and wished to control urbanisation. This was initially acted upon through blatant judgements on ornaments, where morality became involved with taste in design. Architecture warmed to a theory of a Universal style that unfortunately turned every respectable city into a monotonous, grey, machine. I visited United Arab Emirates two years ago and as I looked over Abu Dhabi's sky scrapers, I thought, this could be New York. However the movement was not entirely successful, as it had tried to stamp out any opposing styles, regardless of religion and cultural differences. It is apparent that there are a wide variety of styles in architecture, at the same time Modernist buildings have done something for homogenising great cities Capitalism in the nineteenth century bought with it the mass production of manufactured goods, a new class had emerged through industrialisation, the middle class, who could afford such goods. Artists and other influential critics began to fear an intemperate society with no limitation in taste. 'Sophisticated artists and critics became disturbed by people's overindulgence and lack of what they considered discriminating taste'. (6) At the time it was felt appropriate to put moral values on aesthetic choice, which stemmed from the Protestant ethic which placed morals on non moral issues like hard work, it must have seemed a natural extension to the existing rules of conduct. 'From the Protestant ethic, which attributed moral values to non moral activities such as "hard work", came the tendency to attribute moral values to non moral, specific aesthetic choice'. (7) This ethic spread through to architecture, where it was considered 'bad' to use ornamentation in architecture as it was an untruth. Adolf Loos was considered as a pioneer of modern architecture, writing in the 1900s his essay Ornament and Crime, makes some fundamental statements on the rejection of ornamentation. He believed that ornamentation had lost its value in his society; which implied that that any time spent by craftsmen producing these designs was wasted and devalued, therefore had to be considered a wasted capital. 'They were sophisticated enough to feel pleasure at the sight of a smooth cigarette case while they passed over a decorated one at the same price'. (8) I can understand this comment, as transitional labour and economic periods can cause much insecurity when looking at the future. However, Loos goes onto say that the government intentionally encourage tie wasting of capital through the situation with the ornament, in a way suggesting that it is repressive state ideology, and acts to keep the masses occupied and controlled. 'for ornament is not only produced by criminals' (9); it itself commits a crime, by damaging man's health, the national economy and cultural development. I understand this to mean that the state is responsible for encouraging the production of ornamentation and they are the villains, as they have the intellect to understand that changes in fashion will devalue the product of labour, in a short period of time. I can understand the disappointment felt acknowledging wasted time, skills and eventually products, but at the same time from a capitalist point of view it keeps people employed and regenerates more capital. He goes on to say that an object's aesthetic durability should be parallel to the time it lasts in physical terms, and adds that this will in turn make workers earn more money for less time. It is possible to see the logic behind his argument, and understand why elite minorities may have found this to their disadvantage , out of the fear of losing their positions and ultimately power. 'The pessimist heard this with displeasure and the state, whose task it is to retard the cultural progress of the people; rook up the fight for the development and revival of ornament'. (10) I believe that there are substantial flaws in Loos' argument. Loos believes 'cultural evolution is equivalent to the removal of ornament from articles of daily use'. (11) The issue that we have to consider is the historical and social circumstances that surround such a statement to help put it into context. Someone writing in Loos' era might imagine the future to be a modern society surrounded by space age metallic functionalism. But evolution culturally and historically does not run parallel to the decreasing of the ornament. If anything was achieved by the periods succeeding the modem movement it has been the revival of the ornament and decoration. I suppose in an attempt to personalise and individualise our lives, this does not necessarily mean we have stopped progressing or reversed our evolution. He suggests that a valuable fur is more desirable then a suit, as the suit will be subject to a change in fashion, thus making it a wasted purchase. 'The form of an object should last (i.e. should be bearable) as long as the object lasts physically. I shall try and clarify this: a suit will change in fashion more then a valuable fur'. (12) Times have changed and animal fur used for anything apart from warming the original owner, has had a dramatic change in favourability based on issues concerning animal cruelty, making it much more offensive then of a style and or a colour of a dated suit, but not only that, not everyone can afford a valuable fur; making his fight for the poor and underprivileged seem shallow. Loos has also made some remarkable statements that position a tattooed person living in a modern society as a degenerate, backing this up by saying a Papuan tattooing himself in their own environment is acceptable as they are amoral. Loos suggests that a modern man that tattoos himself and dies a free man, does so two years before he would have committed murder. This outrageous comment demonstrates how much times have changed and how much more we are accepting or tolerating different subcultures. I feel his hypothesis is far too simple and offensive, degeneracy means losing qualities and morals deemed desirable. I have many friends with tattoos and piercings and I do not believe that they have lost any such qualities, if anything they have made a conscious decision not to conform to a 9 to 5 job, and see it as a matter of pride that they make it visually known their opinion. A rejection of inflicted social expectations could mean an opposing feeling towards authority and forms of oppression and repression, which does not necessarily mean committing murder or burglary. Tattooing can also be seen as a form of self gratification, individualism and pesonalisation in a world that has suffered from anonymity This sort of ideology was further reinforced by a dramatic switch of inspiration from classic architecture to inspiration from the engineer and the machine. 'Le Corbusier felt that engineers, through their impartial calculations, had established the only proper starting point for architecture'. (13) Instead of admiring the approved aesthetic of styles of Michelangelo or the Gothic cathedrals, architects looked at aeroplanes, factories and industrial machines for revelation. In comparing the opposing styles I feel that one is colourful, luxurious and oozes out indulgence and the other is grey, hard, metallic and has connotations of a hard working environment. Control was one of the foundations of Modernism, it could be suggested that elitists attempted to dominate the consumer field and establish an approved style. Or, put another way, the hegemony and infrastructure were manipulated and used as a tool to define an intended society. 'Modernists acquired the intellectual and emotional bias for a practical functional approach to design'. (14) This could also be called a form of ideological control, where the emotive use of values such as 'honesty' and 'true' spirit were used. 'Although they theorised about visual art, they rationalised their visual choices in exclusively moral terms'. (15) Capitalism also played a role in fortifying the values. An emphasis was placed on efficiency and functionalism which were considered the way into the future, and these were made priorities too. Lengthy measures where taken to master such fields. Evidence of this can be seen on a daily basis through the battle of the soap powders, which aim to prove value for money. 'From capitalism - that system wherein all energies are aimed at increasing efficiency, at getting the most return for the least investment'. (16) Although the capitalist environment had first created the ornament problem and could be seen to cause urbanisation, people still justified the disadvantages with beliefs of higher living standards and a rising economy. The role of economising action in capitalism is obvious; economy means efficiency, which means more profit, which means more capital to reinvest'. (17) So influential critics used the theory of capitalism to the advantage of the movement and themselves, they might have felt and suggested that waste was more sinful than money and greed. Also capitalism requires an intellectual elite and reinforces class divisions, so there were obvious advantages to the people at the top. The machine metaphor was adapted to buildings, machine qualities were translated into architecture. The ideology or ethics were applied to all forms of design. 'Gradually these moral qualities were transferred to objects and buildings that looked like machines'. (18) Because of the assortment of machinery and the variety of styles in architecture, strict rules were issued in the hope of standardisation. The dream was obvious links in style between independent co-operation, cities, countries and eventually I suppose the world. 'Actively discouraging a diversity of architectural styles, modernists set about trying to standardise (or rationalise) the building industry'. (19) I feel that this is nothing more than arrogance. To assume that the world, with its variety of cultural diversity, would immediately follow suit and if it did not then it would get used to it. But I suppose the most worrying thing about the foundation of modernism is that it was considered that architects, or designers, had the social responsibility to influence society through the styles that incorporated social engineering. 'Far from feeling that they were bypassing their clients actual preference, they actually considered that they were fulfilling their social responsibility'. (20) In reflection I feel that it was far too ambitious to assume the rest of the world would, or must, follow suit; not just the given society would adapt, but the whole world. Hence the ambitious title 'universal style'. Also, I am a great believer in variety being the essence of life. I do not have a favourite ice cream out of fear of not being surprised by different flavours. It was in my opinion a form of ideological control. However, from an architectural point of view Modernist theory may have looked attractive - especially after two world wars, where anything that united cities world wide must have looked at least promising. Ignoring cultural differences and making choices based on their own experience, most Modern architects assumed that the user clients would become accustomed to living the way the influential elitists predicted. Or, put another way, the elitists tried to socially engineer the future of the masses. It is almost naivete to ignore cultural differences, treating them as if they are insignificant. It is a very colonial attitude, spurred on in Britain by pioneering the industrial revolution. In a way the machine became the new religion for modern society and it was hoped that the mechanical ideology would spread to the whole of the world. 'The architect assumed that the world shared these values, or would soon accept them, but by and large they have been rejected.' (21) The novelty of the ability of advanced technology being reflected in buildings and consumer goods has almost worn off. Although, as I have mentioned previously, many of the world's cities do have machine metaphor buildings, so in a way it has become an international style. I don't believe that people want to be constantly reminded of function and economics, as they have connotations of an industrial, hard working, environment. I consider the movement to be too demanding, too focussed, to the extent of ignorance. It is my option that it is democratically incorrect to try and socially engineer our taste and eventually our individuality. And to think that it all started with the rejection of ornamentation and decoration, and led to universal laws and rules that were adapted to all levels of society, which ultimately snowballed into the rejection and suspicion of the modern movement. 'The profusion of ornament was a crucial factor in the estrangement of the architect from society, that culminated in the modern architecture revolution.' (22) However, the Modern movement is still kept alive today through architects like Rodney Gordon, who are persistent in thoughts and action to the truths of the movement. Modernism, to Modernists, is still not a style that can go in and out of fashion. They still believe it to be honest and truthful, but from a different point of view it is a predetermined, inflicted taste or an ethic. 'Because modern architecture has never been presented as a 'style'; it has been considered a movement of 'truths' for so long that we are unable to think of it as a set of arbitrary systemised aesthetic choices'. (23) Modernism was a reaction to the break up of modern society. Late Modernism and Post Modernism This section is grouped together and shorter because, firstly, both Late Modernism and Post Modernism are made significant through Modernism. Secondly, in general terms, Late Modernism tried to elaborate upon the theory, to be more aesthetically pleasing, or to be humorous. 'Late Modernists have, for the most part, taken the theories and style of their precursors to an extreme in so doing produced an elaborate or mannered modernism'. (24) Examples of such buildings are the Portland Building and Zurich House, both in Portsmouth. Whereas Post Modernism in general terms uses Modernist coding mixed with non modernist codes, hoping to be understood by the public and other architects; Post Modernism is also a contradiction and is more ostentatious as it completely rejects some aspects of the Modern movement. Which can be summarised as a move away from a uniform universal style, incorporating historical or local coding and instead of finding meaning internally more a move to meaning externally. 'By contrast Post Modernists have modified the previous style, while building upon it, but in addition almost rejected the theories entirely.' (25) To help with the definitions let us look at examples. The Tricorn is Late Modernist, whilst the Cascades is Post Modernist. The Tricorn has concrete as its external and internal material, the shape and form are unified, it has a machine if not industrial metaphor, it appears to be aggressive, chunky and rough. The Cascades on the other hand has only a large entrance as the only sign of the building on the exterior, it's constructional materials are hidden, its structure is not clear. I always feel completely disorientated whilst I am inside, the Cascades plays on surfaces and appears to be shiny and smooth and clean. The difference can be suggested as Modernist architecture tried to get past the role of symbolic capital which can be defined as luxury goods that declare the taste and status of the owner. Not only for practical, technical and economic reasons but also for ideological reasons. I feel in a way it was intended that class divisions were buffed over in the hope for a ideal yet safer and more united society. Unfortunately the results where far different, middle income and high income families rejected this repression and wanted more then ever to show with all the frills their symbolic capital, which differentiated them from lower classes. The social engineering adopted by Modernism, was too simplistic, idealistic and improvised in its hope of homogenising the world on the basis of function. If we are to look at the Tricorn in comparison to the Cascades, it is clear which is successful commercially. This could be said to be due to economic distinction and attention to market fetishes- a shopper is more inclined to go to comfortable and luxurious setting than to one that relies heavily on function. As in away the Tricorn takes the fun out of shopping, it's almost like the prestige of shopping in Giorgio Armani in Knightsbridge as opposed to being in a charity shop on Albert road. 'The modernist push, partly for practical, technical and economic, but also ideological reasons, did go out of its way to repress the significance of symbolic capital.' (26) In a way the intention and the affect oppose each other. What was originally offered as a truth has made the lie more desirable. We live in a class divided society - identity must be expressed either through the property we live in or the way we furnish and use symbolic ornamentation. Le Corbusier has substantially influenced modern architecture, firstly his philosophy on purism offered guidance to the Modern movement in the 1920s, and his use of concrete to create plastic sculptural forms influenced Brutalism in the 1950s. It could be suggested that Late Modernism expands on aspects of theory evident in Modernism. One of which was to show the material in its natural sate, and not try and hide the look of the material as it was to be considered as a quality. Another is that the building should have a unified form internally and externally. These motives were considered to be 'truths' and therefore translated into beauty. 'It was honest and beautiful to show the material in its natural state, …honest to express the structure of a building on the exterior'. (27) The circulation pattern and building materials are sometimes used as a substitute for decoration and ornamentation, but often have connotations of low income housing. Unfortunately this makes tie property more prone to vandalism and crime. 'The introduction of large groupings of buildings of distinctive height and texture into the existing urban fabric singles out these buildings for particular attention'. (28) This will be discussed further in the major argument. Habitation has had a considerable influence on the way concrete could be used. Brutalism adapts the same sculptural qualities, as is demonstrated in the Tricorn. 'In a word, Le Corbusier conceived architecture as sculpture in a new plastic language'. (29) If Late Modernism could be compared to the style of an artist it would be Cezanne, who's work focussed on geometric shapes and limited colour as the basis for any form. It could be suggested that Late Modernism tried to be more human through its emphasis on aesthetic qualities and less rational. Post Modernism could be said to use the conventional signs rejected by Modern theory in the hope of being clearer and more understood. This may incorporate traditional or local codes in its attempt to have clearer communication. This can be visualised through the new Portsmouth University architectural building on Winston Churchill Avenue/Guildhall Walk, which has a sea liner metaphor, local to the seaport at Portsmouth, and has used advanced technology with modern materials. 'Post-Modern architecture is an attempt to communicate, it's doubly coded, an eclectic mix of traditional or local codes and modern ones.' (30) The Post Modern movement in general has tried to look at the past and recognise the user reaction, which appears to have never been accounted for. So instead of just following rationalist or scientific motivation, or exaggerated abstraction, it has rejected these notions, and attempts to address the logic of the marketplace, in an attempt to be more comprehensible. 'Post-Modernism is an attempt to say more and say it coherently stressing the conventional aspects.' (31) In a capitalist environment it is inevitable that people are impressed and rely heavily on signs of status, signs which Modernists dismissed. History, commerce, comfort and ethnic domain contribute to the status signs and are links far too strong to be ignored and not addressed. It is clear that a unified form is inappropriate to cover a highly differentiated market. 'The heterogeneity of urban villagers and taste cultures, however takes architecture away from the ideal of some unified meta-language and breaks it down into a highly differentiated discourse.' (32) I believe the main difference between Post Modernism and the previous two movements are an attempt to include the user of the building into the equation. 'Post Modern architecture is doubly coded in its attempt to communicate both with the public and concerned minority, usually architects.' (33) I feel in general terms Modernism tried to control the user. Late Modernists began to be concerned with psychological and social issues, but did not really do any research to confirm their ideas of the user, and almost designed buildings in the hope of getting gratification from other architects, who were the only people capable of decoding the complex signs. 'These claims that architecture can radically change social behaviour are modernist, although attention to the user reaction and actual social research are post modern.' (34) Now let us look at the Tricorn and define which constructional methods are significant to contemporary architectural theory. Key facts about the Tricorn The Tricorn is a vast multi-storey complex on a triangular site, comprising a ground level shopping precinct, laid out in the form of narrow streets leading into a large central square, (a similar style to an Arab Casbah or old county town) and a first floor wholesale market. This part of the design is party Modernist and partly Late Modernist. It's function is both social and psychological, it is based on the notion that the street for the working Classes in Britain represents a public medium for communication. 'The traditional playground for children, and the only public space available for mass meetings and large scale sociability.' (35) This is also Late Modernist because it was around the 1950s that architects began to take an interest in social and ecological issues. Unfortunately some aspects of Modern and Late Modern architectural design, which were produced with the intention of social interaction, in effect have been used for criminal and antisocial behaviour. The problem can be defined as a lack of common ground between the architect and the user. Control in our environment is an essential ingredient in maintaining the feeling of security and safety. The once favourable answer of retreating into the suburbs, or more extensive security is no longer working psychologically or physically. An alternative method has been offered by which communities come together in protecting themselves, as opposed to being an anonymous mass society. It has been suggested that this is the only way to control our environment. The anonymous cities we have built, for maximum freedom, multiple choice, may have inadvertently succeeded in severely curtailing many of our previous options. (36) The Tricorn also incorporated multi-storey department store, offices, flats, two pubs and a restaurant. The proposal of combining the market with the shopping development was simple, but at the time was an advanced concept. The building is massively chunky in form, and the irregular skyline is punctuated by round-topped turrets, all part of the overall function, yet the design is exaggerated to make it more aesthetically pleasing. All the structure is externally and internally made of concrete but the ways in which surfaces vary in finishes - some-times smooth, sometimes aggressively rough, sometimes incised, sometimes moulded, some-times shutter patterned - are for three main reasons. Firstly this is the predominant feature of Brutalism, a style in architecture that exploits the materials, either concrete or steel, to the extreme, exposing its natural properties. Secondly it was thought to protect the concrete from weathering. Thirdly for decoration and variation. During the building 3000 cubic yards of concrete were consumed, multiplying four acres on the ground level into nearly twelve acres at a cost of about £2 million. Hence the Tricorn was referred to as Portsmouth's market in the sky. The Tricorn has won two national architecture awards. By 1979 only one out of eight flats was still occupied due to leaking and bad maintenance. Today they are all empty and are left decaying. Although the ground level shopping centre enjoyed brief spurts of bustle, especially around 1969/1970 when new owners the Freshwater Group made some effort to bring retailers and shoppers in, but there have always been units that have never been used. Since 1970 the number of occupied shops in the Tricorn has been declining and to date only a small minority are still operating. The Portsmouth Society put in a request to the English Heritage to make the Tricorn a Grade II listed building. English Heritage decided against making the Tricorn a Grade II listed building, but recommended that it be refurbished rather than be demolished. Mr Owen Luder, a partner in the firm that designed the Tricorn commented, 'I do not know how Ashcroft Estates' design reflects Portsmouth, but the Tricorn reflects the rigorous environment the way it was.' (37) Portsmouth city council voted 10-0 against Ashcroft Estates proposal, and refused planning permission. To date the Tricorn remains in a run down state and is almost empty apart from the car park. The Major Argument For and Against the Tricorn There are negative arid positive aspects that can be put forward in relation to the Tricorn, his will be discussed further below. However there are positions that can be offered that have a wider scope, that include the Tricorn and further examples of architectural design. Firstly, let us begin with looking again at Adolf Loos' argument for the lack of ornamentation and his preferred use of function and form as decoration. This is understandable when we consider the environment in which Loos was writing, where vast changes in perceptions on style where being pioneered. It is possible to understand the frustration felt by crafts and special skills employees must have been faced with through the devaluation of product Labour and mechanical intervention. 'As ornament is no longer a natural product of our civilisation, it accordingly represents backwardness or degeneration and the labour man makes is nor adequately remunerated.' (38) This may have been true at the time Laos was writing, but I believe the ornament has been revived through new arts and crafts movements and other mass producers. Shops like the Habitat, Staks and the Reject Shop are very popular with all generations, also through the revival of the heritage industry. This is all linked to symbolic capital and market fetishes. It may be a fashion that peaks and declines but it exists. Craft shops with hand finished designs can charge amounts not only equal to the value but above. 'Changes in decoration account for the quick devaluation of the product of labour.' (39) This statement maybe true, but the highly differentiated discourse that exists in our society creates an environment where an object which is severely unfashionable to one subculture may be highly desirable in another. Furthermore there has been a great emphasis put on recycling in recent years, which although not solving the problem of wasted labour and effort, does some thing to counterbalance the affects. I feel at this point it is appropriate to compare again the Tricorn and the Cascades, and ask why has the Tricorn has been left derelict, with no or minimum commercial use, whilst the Cascades is thriving with all its outlets are occupied? Well in very simple terms the Tricorn is built through a mannered Modernist theory, Brutalism, which is a branch of Late Modernism. The Cascades is a Post Modern deign. Can it really be that simple? I hope to demonstrate that it is. Let us look deeper into the theories that define one from the other. One way we can asses the situation is by looking at what were the intentions of Modernism? It is possible to say that some Modernist beliefs in architecture tried to control urbanisation and class divisions by creating a universal style that was founded on function in opposition to ornament. This was the social engineering aspect of the movement. In a way it was almost like saying, if we paint the whole world grey and exclude all forms of decoration and frills from buildings, then no one will feel superior or inferior to their neighbours. As the previous statement has been presented the Modernist theory on architecture were far to idealistic and improvised. However, just as Modernists rejected the past historical and classical conventional styles, people have rejected the watered down versions of Modernist buildings. Today individualism and personalisation are reflected through our material possessions. This reaction can be said to be in part due to the added insecurity of economical forces. 'It is indeed the case that the preoccupation with identity, with personal and collective roots, has become far more pervasive since the early l970s, because of widespread insecurity in labour markets, in technological mixes, credit systems, etc..' (40) So how does this effect multi-storey shopping complexes like the Tricorn and the Cascades? Well it could be said that some architectural forms that were built with Modernist theory in mind like the Tricorn are seen with negative connotations, especially in a capitalist environment. Where it is a major contradiction to expect equal rights for all, in an environment that exists through competition. Anyway, people generally do not want equal rights - they aspire to be above the average. After all that is what capitalism is supposed to achieve - a raise in living standards. So what was intended to be democratic in architecture has ended up being a repression. Just because the supply of certain styles may have been affected, that does not mean that the demand followed. 'The inconsistency of such forced democratisation and egalitarianism of taste with social distinctions typical of what, after all, remained a class-bound capitalist society undoubtedly created a climate of repressed demand if not repressed desire.' (41) Some aspects of modern architecture not only encouraged anonymity but unintentionally created alienation. As in some cases the design was completely new, new forms of inspiration, new materials etc, made the buildings completely different and even radical in comparison to historical and classical design. This is where Post Modernism comes in - trying to fill the gap created by Modernism. The alienation of people combined with unpredictable market forces have made the masses want to be reminded of past values and environments. In a way it could be seen as a confusion and lack of confidence in market forces that has made a need for conventional established symbols to be regenerated in the hope of individuals no longer feeling alienated and feeling a part of a community, as opposed to the undifferentiated masses. Post Modernism abandons the Modernist search for inner meaning in the midst of present turmoil, and asserts a broader base for external in a constructed vision of historical continuity and collective memory.' (42) I offer the example of Charles Moore's Piazza d Italia in New Orleans. The building does not pretend to be an exact reproduction of the classical period. What it does do is fragment, update and popularise so that the interpretation is more apparent and less ambiguous. It uses a combination of conventional symbols that are both humorous and aesthetically pleasing, homing in on local codes of the Italian settlers living in the area. 'It conceives of history as a continuum of portable accessories reflecting the way the Italians themselves have been transplanted to the new world.' (43) The Cascades is obviously not as remarkable as Piazza d Italia, but what is similar is the way the Cascades takes into account what the consumer wants. An environment that relies heavily on market fetishes; even though they maybe superficial they are still more desirable to the consumer field. It plays on smooth surfaces combined with shine and natural looking light. It is a place with generous corridors, planting, mirrors, glass, and is all enclosed. Furthermore it is a direct extension of Commercial Road. It does not ooze invested money, it is more subtle, having just enough symbolic capital to make the consumer feel welcome, safe, and enjoy a well maintained clean environment. It does not intimidate and hides its structure and the materials used in the construction: it '…produces its proper affect in as much, and only as much, as it conceals the fact that it originates in material forms of capital.' (44) Finally, we could look at the Tricorn and see what design symbolises consciously and unconsciously to the user public. Can design in buildings be linked to antisocial behaviour? There is evidence to support such a theory. As I have previously mentioned, some Modernist and Late Modernist design favours extreme circulation. This usually means numerous entrances and exists. When they are used in multi-storey complexes, it is normal for the surrounding streets to be closed off. There are numerous entrances and exists on all levels in the Tricorn, positioned at the top middle and end of Charlotte Street - this is consistent in all levels and is repeated on the dual carriage way on the other side. This was considered to be a feature, combined with alleyways leading to a central square. Unfortunately there is evidence to suggest this approach in design will encourage criminals to abuse the building and other users, who can operate without fear of being seen or caught. Try to imagine how difficult it would be for the police to try and find - let alone catch - anyone in buildings that incorporate these features. The disastrous reality is that many of these design features - like the circulation and closing off of vehicle access - were originally considered as positive contributions to the user or as an aesthetic contribution to the overall design. 'Ironically, many of these physical features may have been intentionally provided by the architect as what they felt were positive contributors to the living environment and intended residents.' (45) When the original urban circulation pattern is broken up, by closing off existing streets, in a similar way as has been done with the Tricorn complex, the results are that it acts both to isolate and differentiate the building from the existing environment. This also results in a lack of natural and unimposing surveillance from vehicular and pedestrian traffic, that would have otherwise constantly flowed by. 'One ingredient that contributes to the stigma and isolation of the project is the practice of closing off streets for the purpose of gaining open space for the interior project grounds.' (46) However, this extra ground in residential areas has proven useless, especially in poorly designed housing. If the project is prone to crime and vandalism, the space is turned into a 'no mans land', park land is not used because parents are aware of the potential danger. Another factor that contributes to crime and general misuse, is the size of the project and building materials. In the case of the Tricorn it is clear how easy it is to differentiate the building from surrounding ones. The Tricorn can be located from a great distance because of its size and material. Unfortunately the building and furnishings - i.e. the corridor lighting - have connotations of institutions or prisons. There is evidence to suggest that these types of buildings are favoured by criminals. 'Instead of being provided with an environment in which they can take pride and might desire to keep up, they are provided with one that begs them to test their ability in tearing it down.' (47) The uniform style and repeated design predominant in Modernist and Late Modernist architecture, which were initially intended to substitute the conventional forms of ornamentation and act as a decorative feature, have in some cases had the affect of encouraging undesirable behaviour, because of their association with institutions, poverty and crime. These features previously thought of as aesthetic contributions, have acted in placing the poor and the underprivileged in a recognisable and stigmatised environment. 'The attitude toward interior finishes and form creates an institutional atmosphere, not unlike that achieved in our worst hospitals and prisons.' (48) It is obvious now that people do not want to be housed or go shopping in buildings that have such psychological associations. If we were to assume that housing built with public funding tends to lean heavily on such negative connotations, and it is justified by keeping building costs limited - after all it is public money - you may be surprised to find out that this is not necessarily the case. There is evidence to suggest that the treatment of interiors in some Modernist and Late Modernist buildings has favoured aesthetic reasoning as opposed to economic forces. 'Halls and lobbies with uniform fixtures are at times more the result of an aesthetic ideal of uniformity than a commitment to lowering costs. (49) This shocking evidence can be extended to the overall design of some buildings, where an architect is more likely to concentrate on impressing their peers in the hope of recognition from the architectural world, instead of designs that prioritise the user clients needs. 'In the process of trying to produce a successfully designed residential building, the architect will be endeavouring to satisfy the aesthetic tastes of his peers - rather than those of his client.' (50) The Tricorn can be compared to other shopping precincts like the Cascades and be judged on its success in relation to consumer profits, or it can be looked at from its aesthetic quality in relation to its Brutalist style, and its historical background. The people in direct contact with he Tricorn can only agree on one thing - that action must be taken, but they cannot agree on what should be done, some want it to stay and to be cleaned up, and others want it to be demolished and be forgotten. There are different opinions about the Tricorn that may be pertinent to most architecture. I will try to illustrate my point. The point of view that can be brought forward about the Tricorn is that it is too different and separate from the rest of Commercial Road, the recognised shopping area, and neither does it fit in or blend in with the rest of Portsmouth. However it could also be said that the Tricorn gives the city of Portsmouth an identity and that too much architecture is bland and unnoticed. Also it could be said that the Tricorn reflects the rigorous environment at the time it was built and that it is an example of sixties architecture. In a similar argument, it could be said that the dark streets in the Tricorn could be faulted for being unsafe and are where crime could be easily committed, but there is a another view, that these covered streets shelter shoppers from bad weather whilst they all lead to open areas. Someone might question the project as a whole for placing forty five shops and accommodation all under one roof, as it makes the commercial world anonymous and impersonal. However, on the other hand, a system like this of grouping commercial facilities in a selected area stops suburban sprawl and is convenient and allows for a certain amount of social intercourse which could be compared to a leisure atmosphere. One thing that did surprise me in my research, was the discovery that the Tricorn had never been maintained. It is possible to say that the Tricorn experienced a set of unfortunate circumstances. The first was the lack of consumer investment. The owners had invested millions in making the Tricorn, when faced with no money returning, this must have put them in an uncomfortable position. If we were to examine it from the owners point of view, would it have been worth it to pump more money into the shopping centre if none of the credible shopping outlets would come near it? The answer is obviously no. I have been told that no maintenance was ever done on the Tricorn. 'Well I do not think that the Tricorn would have deteriorated to the extent that it has, if it had been maintained.' (51) The disaster was that the shops did not let. Suddenly the client who has spent millions of pounds, who is expecting to get his money back, is getting further and further into debt and there is no point maintaining its o it goes further into decay. The problem was emphasised further by the daunting possibility of recession. Multiples felt the crunch, but small business and less established shops could have gone into extinction. Unfortunately these where the shops that did let in the Tricorn. I had always assumed that some minimal work would have been done. The reason why I was so surprised is because I feel the building is in remarkable shape, considering it has been around for thirty years. So the building really started to decay the day we completed the work, no maintenance. However, it could also be suggested that in general Modernist and Late Modernist building proved simply too expensive to maintain. This may be due to the vandalism on the interior finishes that are part of the universal aesthetic. Even when used in commercial establishments still have connotations of the poor and the under privileged. 'This universal denominator eliminates the environment highs and lows that characterise the private housing market where individuals are responsible for property upkeep.' (52) Some of the designs where placed in favour of anonymity, but anonymity sometimes brings with it alienation and a sense of lack of connection, resulting in feelings of rejection of any responsibility in deterring crime. There were problems in the building work as well, because it was constructed of concrete. When using exposed concrete maximum care in construction is needed as the quality of the construction is the quality of the finish, and in this case the quality of the concrete was below the standards expected by the architect. Unfortunately corners where cut, even though it had been specified in the plans that the concrete had to be of good quality. 'It's very difficult to get a British builder to understand, that this is going to be your finish, they always think of concrete as, you know, they build shuttering out of rubbish.' (53) It is possible that the difficulties experienced by the Owen Luder Partnership were common to working in a new way from an old material. It has been suggested that the way it was used was revolutionary. 'We had this trouble right through the sixties and seventies, to try and convince the builder, because we had to specify to make the shutters out of good material, but he always thought he could cut corners, because to him it was only shuttered concrete.' (54) Le Corbusier deviated on the question of finish in concrete by explaining that the effect was intended. He believed that all natural, and even aggressive aspects of concrete, are a human Metaphor. 'In men and women do you not see the wrinkles and the birth marks, the crooked noses, the innumerable peculiarities?' (55) Contrasting Beauty against Ideals I found an article in the Observer about sixties architecture by journalist Janet Watts who had visited a house in Turn End, Buckinghamshire. The article is titled Concrete Jungle and the line beneath it reads; 'Sixties houses are often derided as sterile boxes with mean gardens.' (56) Janet Watts finds one with charm. The reason why this house stands out to Ms Watts is the combination of the concrete building and the garden, which individually have caused much interest in architecture and gardening equally. The motive behind mentioning this article is because it demonstrates how concrete can be aesthetically pleasing with the right ingredients. One of which is planting, which was admittedly very luxurious, but nevertheless contributes in making a fine example of good sixties architecture. Rodney Gordon mentioned a few times in his interview that he had hoped there would be some planting in the Tricorn. But on completion of the structure, nothing was done to further the required effect. 'There were some plans for planting, which we would have liked to have done later on, which would have offset the concrete, of course nothing happened.' (57) Even if the planting had been done, would it have made a vast difference to the success of the Tricorn?. Well if it was not going to be maintained, then I do not think so. Le Corbusier furthered his defence on the use of concrete by attributing a further metaphor, contrasting beauty against the beast. 'I have decided to make beauty by contrast. I will find its complement and establish a play between crudity and finesse, between the dull and the intense, between precision and accident.' (58) I believe it was the combination of unfortunate circumstances that are all separate, yet dependent on each other, which failed the Tricorn. If you do not look after something, how is it supposed to grow and flourish? This applies to both the building and - now speaking from my own experience - the plants. 'The last three decades have also created a new attraction in the place, as the garden has grown into a showpiece in its own right.' (59) I feel it is the combination of the garden and the building in the Observer article that makes this place so remarkable. I do not know if the Tricorn could have been equally remarkable as it seems to me that it is the beautiful natural surrounding of Buckinghamshire which has made the greatest difference between the two buildings. Also it is the continual work and use of the property in Turn End that oozes from every corner, against the obvious neglect and lack of interest on behalf of the owners of the Tricorn. And there are tasteful additions like pictures and ornaments, once considered a design sin, have now filtered through into the architects home. The owners in reflection admit that the place was originally abstemious. Even the Aldingtons now look at early photographs and admit they look a bit Spartan... Now there are ornaments and pictures on walls but it is still all in keeping.' (60) The other issue worth noting is that Le Corbusier was considered a great philosopher as well as architect. He had established a status where he could make statements defending faults and present them as intentional, and still be considered a genius. The Essence of Brutalism Concrete, steel and glass Concrete, steel and glass are the main materials used in the Brutalist style. Creating poetry out of brute material is the foundation and accepted style of Brutalism. 'To construct moving relationships out of brute material was to be the central ambition of Brutalism.' (61) Rodney Gordon was hesitant to define himself as a Brutalist. I feel this is because of the bad stigma attached to Brutalism, especially when considering work with concrete. But at the same time it was quite obvious that Mr Gordon was very passionate on the ability and use of concrete. 'It was supposed to be an earthly character, to be contrasted against the smooth and light.' (62) I could almost feel his energy level rise when be described the shapes and forms that could be achieved from concrete, I felt he had visions of how the whole country could have looked. 'The whole essence of Brutalism was to express the natural materials, obviously I like to express the natural materials.' (63) Before I started reading architectural theory, I used to look at buildings and take them for granted, or only see them for their function. Now I realise that architecture is a form of expression, just like visual art. The difference is that architecture has a twist, it is not art for art's sake, it has to have a function. Which in a way is similar to traditional art, when it was produced to tell religious stories. "To me architecture from the word go was using the structure and the services to give the character of the building, they would produce the architecture, by expressing the structure by expressing the services.' (64) This could reinforce the theory of working from the internally to externally, using the layout and routes to express the form, and be part of the aesthetic 'extreme logic, extreme circulation and mechanical emphasis, a mannered and decorative use of techno1ogy.' (65) Which unfortunately in some cases leave it more vulnerable to crime. Form & Function Form following function is a popular theory in architecture, however it has an opposing theory. Architecture is so obviously physical, it takes up space horizontally and vertically in the man-made environment. Because it is so real, it is very easy to take for granted. Peter Esienman has suggested that to understand the intended meaning behind a building, we need to separate the function and the structure from symbolism and meaning. He believes that we automatically prioritise the function over the meaning. For example, we would not normally say 'the building in the neo Gothic style on the right', even if we knew the correct terminology. It sounds odd, we are more likely to say the TSB on the right hand side. Mr Esienman believes that a building has to turn the values around, to be looked at as a building and not be ignored. To him a building that makes the people around it and in it think about the calculations and the physics that went into it, are the ones that are truly successful. If for example the building was otherwise known as a gallery, then it has to challenge the art that it houses, not just act as a backdrop. 'And when it does not look like it stands up, or it does not look like it functions, then it functions and stands differently.' (66) However, I can understand how a challenging style may not be appropriate to all forms of architecture. I am aware that abstraction may be more suitable to art and cultural buildings, as opposed to government buildings like the Guildhall and other civic offices. It is unfortunate that the Tricorn is criticised for the look of the concrete, some people are immediately put off by the discolouring of the material. But the most interesting thing to me about the Tricorn is the way the material is used to express form and shape. This stems back to the Modernist ethos of revealing constructional methods, and exposing the material. 'It was honest and beautiful to show the materials in their natural state - dishonest and ugly to disguise them.' (67) When you combine the took of the material with the form and see how they are used to create an expression, these are the ethics of Brutalism and the Tricorn. 'The whole essence of the Tricorn centre was not a material reason, because that was cheap and nasty, it was the way it was used. It is the form that came out of it, the sculpture of it.' (68) It is easy to assume the Tricorn is not attractive, but after doing my research I began to understand that it is a form of Romanticism, which in my opinion it is creative and aesthetically pleasing through its shape and sculpture. I can understand why someone may find it difficult to talk about the Tricorn as a romantic piece of architecture, however it was intended to be a form of poetry, not through conventional metaphors, but through its sculptural qualities. 'The business of architecture is to establish emotional relationships by means of brute material.' (69) Unfortunately concrete has connotations of low income housing or institutions and prisons, which not only act to make it more prone to crime, but also do not have desirable symbols of status. The Tricorn is built in the form of expression. To me this expression is an ironic symbol of artistic freedom. Rodney Gordon intentionally made the designs of the Tricorn sculptural and believes his work is fully pragmatic. It could be suggested that the style of the Tricorn is almost a representation of the masses, i.e. it is not pretentious, it does not pretend to be anything else other than what it is, its inside and outside follow in context, in other words it does not try to con people. But the argument remains the same, we do not want to be associated with the masses. We strive for individuality and to be above average. 'You see Modernism is not something which in fact is a style, it is a truth, if you are given concrete, steel, glass, you should use it as concrete, steel, glass need to be used, not pretending that it is something else.' (70) Le Corbusier wanted normal people to understand and be able to appreciate his architecture, so he intentionally tried to simplify his work, through sculptural forms to emphasis his meaning A straightforward simplicity exaggerated in its plastic affect, what is not often seen in metaphorical terms - the power of proportion.' (71) This is reinforced by the Modernist ideology that privileges the simple too. Honesty in materials, honesty in structures, honesty in the function of the building is reflected in its form; an apparent evolutionary bias favouring simplicity.' (72) To summarise, I wish to go back to the questions asked in my introduction. They are as follows: 1) What was the thought behind Modernist theory? Modernism was a reaction to capitalism and technological advancement. It was considered to be a new form of creativity, a new revolution. In a way it was an improvised and controlled style that rejected the reproduction of conventional symbolic styles as it was felt that they were both inappropriate for this new era and a symbol of lack of creativity. In theory it was a hope for fulfilment through design, ornamentation and decoration were thought of as stunting the evolution of mankind, because it was felt that they were wasted labour and economy. This was in relation to an object no longer having an equivalent value to the time and labour used to produce it. Modernism is a theory that relies heavily on function and economics, this is most evident in aspects of Modernist and Late Modernist architecture. Wasted or unappreciated labour were the foundation to the rejection of the ornament. This combined with the implications of elite minorities staggering the progress of a mass underprivileged society through the slavery of decoration. By promoting a universal style in architecture it was hoped that class divisions would not be so obvious; through relying heavily on function, material wealth would be buffed over in the hope for a more united and undifferentiated society. Unfortunately these calculations were insufficient in repressing the desire to show commodities. The results are the reverse of the initial intention - Modernist architecture has a stigma of low and underprivileged housing, making the poor more obviously poor. Social engineering through Modernist Standards is inappropriate to architecture. People must be allowed to make a choice, cultural diversity must be supplied with building diversity. Decoration and ornamentation are no longer simply wasted capital, because of the revival of the arts, crafts and heritage industries. The once desired anonymity, has now got implications of alienation which have resulted in the rejection of styles that promote such values. What can be considered by architects is design against crime. We cannot afford more policing or private security firms. Buildings for housing, work and leisure must have natural and unimposing surveillance measures built into the structure. Extreme circulation, although intended to be part of the function and aesthetic, replacing the ornament, has now been evaluated as not helping in the security of a building. Through the mechanism of urbanisation, which groups the masses together and results in anonymity, emphasised by being surrounded by unfamiliar environments, has created the desire for the feeling of connection and belonging. This feeling in most basic terms is an emotion that needs to be addressed, either through past styles or familiar symbolism. In a way this need for reviving the past is in fact a need to identify and distinguish the self. All of this was not addressed by Modernism, as it was thought to be common and clichéd. This is a major miscalculation and can be said to be the tragedy of Modernism. People still have the desire to show material wealth, or put another way, to keep up with the Jones's. After all, capitalism revolves around competition. The Tricorn does not have any of these desired qualities, it has no connection to the past, so there is no feeling of familiarity which is linked to understanding and meaning. Neither does it have any of the surface glitter and gleam that the consumer market aspires to. When comparing the Tricorn to the Cascades, the Tricorn prioritises function and a universal treatment of interior and exterior finishes which does not satisfy the consumer wants and needs. The Cascades through its interior finishes which imply symbolic capital has produced an environment that stimulates the consumers taste and economic distinction. There is factual evidence that concludes that the new form of physical design, which can be associated with Modernist and Late Modernist architecture has unintentionally produced an ideal environment for crime and vandalism. The research places an emphasis on natural and unimposing surveillance. Properties that have unified interior and exterior finishes, have connotations of unfavourable institutions and prisons, and encourage inhabitants and users to abuse their direct environment through crime and vandalism. The most unfortunate aspect concerning such designs is that the universal use of fixtures and materials were more or less an aesthetic ideal of uniformity then a commitment to better standards and lower costs. The Tricorn is neither a design masterpiece nor a concrete monstrosity, as it has a wide range of interlined qualities and flaws throughout the spectrum of masterpiece and monstrosity: it does not address the consumer market, and ignores market fetishes. The Tricorn does not give the consumer the feeling of safety, because of the way it is designed with dark corridors, and the way it is isolated. All of which are mistakes of Modernism that will not permit the Tricorn to be a design masterpiece. On the other hand the Tricorn is not a concrete monstrosity because something can be said for its sculptural qualities, so in other words it does incorporate some favourable aesthetic qualities into the design. At the end of the day it is a truly unique piece of architecture, which is a lot more then can be said for most shopping precincts I do not feel it is appropriate for a minority to try and control tastes for a majority, which in the most basic terms is the foundation of Modernism. I question applying principles of morality to architecture, as this can lead to a totalitarian approach which is inappropriate in anything that needs artistic freedom and creativity. It is unrealistic to assume, as Modernism did, that architecture on its own can interpret the needs of society as a whole and issue rigid guidelines for living. It is far to idealistic to assume that everyone needs this, or all of us prefer that. Architecture cannot be the central agent in the renewal of society, it has to be a combination of all sorts of ingredients that make up the infrastructure; social, political and economic. I believe the machine is not something that man should idolise, at the end of the day it is a material possession that is used to help or save time. The machine has, to a certain extent, diffused into daily life, but it is not the industrial machine, it is more the computer. The power of computers have taken over the most basic forms of human characteristics, from computer generated art, to computer generated movies and even actors. Does this mean that, world-wide, cities need to redesign their buildings to look like a keyboard? There is a great amount of knowledge and beauty associated in the classics - in all forms art, music, architecture. which are far to precious to be disregarded in the hope of establishing in new artistic revolution. We can only progress in the future through the knowledge of the past. If Modernism and Late Modernism in architecture where entirely successful, then maybe our world would not have any cultural barriers, but that would also mean no cultural diversity, no real depth, it would be mundane. It is not surprising that there are so many bad connotations associated with Modernism, as it tried to control how we lived and in a certain environment, this is very dangerous and unacceptable. I feel the ideas that the Tricorn used to represent are no longer valid, society has changed and its time for architectural ethics to change too. We are a constantly changing society, with numerous backgrounds and races, that is why it is essential to have variety in all parts of the environment, to satisfy the huge differences in needs. I feel failure is too an emotive word, the Tricorn obviously was not commercially successful, but it has received an immense amount of attention. How many other shopping centres have achieved such an interest? I feel the Tricorn has provoked the people of Portsmouth and surrounding areas to think, talk and moan about something. I feel the Tricorn was successful in provoking an interest, regardless of whether it was a positive or negative interest. However because of the area of land that it sits on is so precious, and has the potential of being used commercially, and combined with my personal realisation that I am a capitalist realist,I feel it has to go. I would have liked to say at the end of my research that there is still a fighting chance that the Tricorn could be revamped and should stay, but decisions from the city council have already decided it is going. It is not so much that I have lost faith in the Tricorn, but more I have a wider understanding of the context. I agree that the Tricorn is fine example of sixties architecture, but there are numerous buildings that represent the Brutalist style, in the South Bank, that function well and have continual maintenance. Times have changed, the society and environment which the Tricorn was founded have changed, so must the Tricorn. Final Note The most ironic aspect about market fetishes and expectations is that this unwittingly has lead to a universal style in shopping centres. Although we are all distinct individuals, there must be a common ground that is based on collective taste and aspirations. This is demonstrated through shopping centres in major cities all falling under a similar criteria. So, unintentionally, the desire for symbolic capital and its translation into shopping centres has created a uniformed form that exists world wide. In other words we have created a uniform universal Post Modernist style which shares the purism of Modernism. And ironically denies the cultural plurality that it intended to address.
|
||
| References 1 Rodney Gordon interview, appendix, page 3 answer 5 |
||