Gone but not forgotten: The Rubble Club is an organisation to remember buildings demolished in their architect’s lifetime. The Club is open to all who have had buildings destroyed in their lifetime. The Club has three key ground rules: Firstly the building’s architect must be alive and not party to its destruction, secondly the building must be built with the intention of permanence (exhibitions, shops and interiors are not eligible) and thirdly it must be deliberately destroyed or radically altered, it can’t simply burn down.
Isi Metzstein
The Rubble Club is not a new idea. It is in fact the brainchild of one Isi Metzstein, who hatched it some 10 years ago at an Aberdeen School of Architects external examination dinner.
With more and more architects witnessing the demise of their creations, it was felt appropriate to set up an organisation for them; originally called The Macallan Club, after the founders favourite tipple.
However, in taking the idea forward Prospect felt using somebody else’s trademark could be a problem hence the new name. However, the tipple consumed at our events could provide a consistent link with the past.
Membership of this august institution is progressive and is based on Metzstein’s original ethos: “The club is open to all who have had buildings destroyed in their lifetimes, simple as that. There are very few rules, we never meet up, I don’t even know who they all are! Self knowledge makes you a member of the club, it’s all a fantasy but not an entirely empty fantasy”.
Certain ground rules have nonetheless been put forward as means of providing club coherence. Firstly the building’s architect must be alive and not party to its destruction, secondly the building must be built with the intention of permanence (exhibitions, shops and interiors are not eligible) and thirdly it must be deliberately destroyed or radically altered, it can’t simply burn down Metzstein growls: “The worst thing you can do is connive in the destruction of your own building and such involvement would lead to lifetime disbarment from the club.”
Wanton destruction of serviceable architecture is a pet peeve for Metzstein: “Architects are not trying to say a building is good or bad. Buildings should be reused as much as possible, careless knocking down of landmarks illustrates the fragility of their masterworks. I’m a great believer that buildings should be reused as much as possible, the public are entitled to live in a somewhat stable visual environment.”
Demolition is of course nothing new, the Victorians and those before them were extremely fond of laying waste to anything which stood in the way of progress. What marks out contemporary destruction for distinction however is rapidity of recurrence. Whereas before a building might last 100 years or more, today some buildings struggle to limp through a mere 25. Factor in the ever increasing lifespans of architects and the exponential rate of technological change in the future and a bumper crop of Rubble Club members is assured.
Non architects perhaps can’t relate to the emotions the loss of a building can arouse but Metzstein states: “It’s a bit like losing a baby, we don’t want to shame people. It’s a very touchy matter whether replacements are the superior or not, it’s subject to the vagaries of public opinion and the architect is never in charge, they are always at the behest of instructions from the client.”
First published in Prospect magazine, May 2009
News and reviews from Prospect are published online at ArchitectureScotland.co.uk
This is a really ugly building. One can even say that it is extremely ugly. Why do we talk of architecture in such rubbish properly? Let’s call it but simply by his real name. The is simply waste. For it is garbage, and this one put away.
I always thought the office building was quite nice and tastefully decorated in orange, or was it burnt sienna.
The purchasing manager was definitely a sly old fox, setting up a ghost company when he was appointed and using it as the main supplier for CPT. Unbranded crap was then bought from them at well over the market value for quality gear. Rumour has it he took well over twenty million but who knows.
My 1970’s Southgate scheme did not destroy beautiful Georgian buildings. The site was a mixture of rather poor uninteresting Victorian buildings. I argued at the time that the development should have included the car park as an integrated development but that was not accepted. I have no problem with it being replaced – cities are organic and grow and change as demand and use change. But is what has replaced it – pretend Georgian facades clipped onto a modern plastic shopping centre – worthy of Bath? I suspect not. The issue on replacing buildings should be – is it better?
BCO award winning office building, go to http://www.michaellaird.co.uk/architects-portfolio.php?p=28&pn=Gyle+Square%2C+Edinburgh&c=1&n=Offices
Yep, the buildings above are still there as of yesterday.
The car park is still there (at present)!
I’m pretty sure that while some of the buildings were Victorian, with even one or two from the early 20th century, the majority were Georgian. And I will never agree with the perspective that the demolished buildings were uninteresting. If nothing else the Sack of Bath made people appreciate that the city’s value is in its relative completeness, not in its having one or two tremendous set-pieces that are without context. All the various quirks of the less important buildings added to the city’s rich character.
I find the 2010 version of Southgate to be fairly tacky on the whole, but I think we’ll struggle nowadays to agree on whether one thing is “better” than another. Progress-towards-Enlightenment is an outdated concept. What are the criteria for “better”?
Now the Tricorn has won the Rubble Club’s Ball and Chain – read all about the building’s design, construction, life and death; The Tricorn. The Life and Death of a Sixties Icon.
£19.99 from tricornbooks.co.uk, 8 Florence Road, Southsea, PO5 2NE….
Ideal Christmas present…..!!!
Mr Luder (if indeed that is you),
I live in the shadow of two of your contributions to British architecture here in Gateshead.
It is only my opinion, although it seems to be shared by the local council here, but I would argue that my mother’s dog leaves more meaningful contribtutions when she takes her for a walk.
You have campaigned vociferously for these to be retained. Well – help yourself. You can come here and remove them both and re-erect them near you.
Good luck with planning permission, by the way.
But there is a serious side to the club, too. It aims to draw attention to the growing popularity of demolishing buildings, rather than finding ways of breathing new life into them. It is a trend totally inconsistent with society’s new-found focus on sustainability.
The above is a quote from this: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/the-director-of-the-rubble-club-talks-about-the-serious-issues-behind-the-club/5209781.article
Is it too easy to say that this only seems to be an issue now that these architects’ works are the ones being demolished? The era in which the majority of these architects operated took as its ethos the gleeful demolition of perfectly sturdy buildings in the name of “progress”. Old buildings that could have done with a bit of a clean-up were ripped down and replaced with things that we now largely hate, not only because they are unpleasant to look at, casting deep shadows and making us feel miserable around them, but because of the philosophy they took while they were taking their place.
My 1970’s Southgate scheme did not destroy beautiful Georgian buildings.
To all who have read this far – just to let you know: Owen Luder is here either unaware of history, or is deliberately spreading misinformation! The beautiful bit is subjective but his Southgate scheme did destroy Georgian buildings. His Southgate scheme was revolting though, so I can imagine why his subconscious would attempt to find justification over these past 30 years or so!
Interesting question from Alex, but in fact it was the same architect!
Is The Rubble Club defunct? No postings for nearly three months!
We’ve hit a bit of a quiet patch in the aftermath of our first Rubble Club Awards but rest assured we are working on further submissions.
I am sorry that Owen Luder has chosen to put up such a silly comment about the date of the buildings in Southgate Street. Some certainly had Victorian frontages, and the New Inn was a late Victorian rebuild, but many were Georgian and even earlier, although, to be fair, much of the street had been destroyed by fire in 1726. I commend Owen Luder to read The Lost Pubs of Bath, of which I happen to be co-author with Dr Andrew Swift, if he doubts this.
I am particularly sorry because there were much better ways to defend it. One thing a lot of Bathonians appear to have forgotten that the drainage at that end of town left a lot to be desired – come a hot summer, and, as I can remember, walking down there meant putting your hand over your nose and mouth, the smell was so bad. (I have mentioned this to other people who usually say – Oh yes, I’d forgotten that! Yes it was terrible!) However, the most important question anyone should ask about a building is not “What does it look like?” but “Does it work?” Luder’s Tricorn in Portmouth never worked but Southgate was a pleasure to shop in, especially with small children in tow. Yes it had convenience stores, but that end of town always did. Milsom Street had the “posh shops”. Now we have a ghastly, bland, ignorant Mock-Georgian shopping centre, with menacing blocks towering over a maze of contrived streets which bear no relation to any town which grew organically. Alas poor Bath!
Hey, Just a quick comment to say your sites not showing correctly on my netbook, interesting read though.
“same architect………..” hmmmmm
Many things are the culprit in this demise, but the construction details published in the Architects Journal building study showed fundamentaly flawed detailing born of an architectural intent that appears more about graphic design on a piece of paper than something that can be practically built and endure without excessive defects and maintenance. Much of this inadequacy cannot be blamed on budget cutting and cost cutting. The architecture is suspect. It does all practical and competent modernists a diservice.
Its a cruel twist of fate that because of the procurement process the builder and architect could not be sued to get both recompence for the community and an inquiry into the architects competence.
Our son is actually nutty regarding lego together with star wars lego – thank you for the data!
I’m sure I read somewhere that this was intended to be taken down and reassembled elsewhere, once the site got ran over by the M74 mega-driveway?
puzzled, If all building regs were complied with,and I presume local council inspectors, were involved at each stage of build, why did builders / architect get paid if the final job was not signed off, and why cant legel action be taken against both builder /architect?. after so few years, to become unusable something was not done correctly
Real shame – lovely work.
interesting article !