Before the Civic Centre......

Comment by Hugh on February 19, 2011 at 21:43

Here's an article about this building from the 1862 Illustrated News. It talks about the 27th anniversary just having been celebrated. That would make the year of construction 1835, not 1849 as my previous source said.

You can magnify the article by clicking on it, but it's still not very clear. Where there's a will!

This article tells us:

The institution was originated by a few working men or journey men in the fish and poultry trades; who sensible that their occupation, involving constant exposure to wet and cold, they, and indeed the majority of their employers, are liable in a peculiar degree to the most virulent forms of disease, and often premature death, conceived the idea of forming an association for the purpose of providing casual, and as their first modest address to their fellows expressed it, if possible, permenant relief and residence for their aged and destitute brethren.

Comment by StephenBln on February 19, 2011 at 22:03

Not necessarily.. the building pictured above may well have been built later. It does look rather extensive - so perhaps was built 14 years later to satisfy demand..? 

I also would have expected something built in 1835 to look more classical and not so gothic! 

Comment by John D on February 19, 2011 at 22:45

It's described as " in the Elizabethan style.. "

Pretty messy whatever. 

Comment by StephenBln on February 19, 2011 at 23:03

@John D Elizabethan it is then.. ! :o)

I certainly can understand why it was 'not in fashion' in the 1950's or was it 'bomb damage'?

Comment by GK/OD on February 19, 2011 at 23:47

I`m with you Hugh.

Whoops Poet and didn`t know it.

I agree. How do you get rid of buildings like that. It makes no sense.

I`ve been to the Civic Centre as have you . It doesn`t bare comparison to this 

Comment by StephenBln on February 20, 2011 at 0:10

Thanks for the link Anne -  

@GK/OD That's why I asked if it was bomb damaged?

But seriously, in the post-war Britain people were sick and tired of dark, cold rooms and especially 'red velvet table clothes' etc., and it was fashionable to want to live in well lit flats and have 'tables with thin legs without table clothes'  -lol  Brave New World etc, etc., 

The same had occurred in Germany after WW1 with the Bauhaus movement.. 

Comment by John D on February 20, 2011 at 5:45

It's old, it's quirky but does it really have any architectural merit ? Would it have been a suitable building for a Civic Centre ? Old does not necessarily mean good.

It's not even as if it were a genuine Elizabethan building - it was a fake.

I'm not suggesting that the present Civic Centre delights the eye but sometimes an old building is just an old building.

Comment by SarahC on February 20, 2011 at 8:47

Have to say I prefer the Civic Centre. The Victorian one's hideous, though admittedly solid. It would have been nice to keep the grass and trees, though.

Comment by Hugh on February 20, 2011 at 9:20

In comparing both buildings, I was cheekily wondering whether there's a theme that links both, whether the original purpose survives to this day - 'permenant relief and residence for aged and destitute brethren'.

As far as the present building goes, I do like it. I thought it was a shame when plans were announced (now dropped) to relocate civic operations and knock the building down. It does need some love and attention, but I hope in years to come we'll all be glad that a quirk of fate saved it from the wrecker's ball.

Comment by Hugh on February 20, 2011 at 9:52

PS What are the project management & IT terms? (I'm impressed that I know any!). Do I need to hang my head in shame.......

Add a Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page