The Rise, Fall and Revival of the Brunswick Centre

Adriana Rodriguez-villa
Feb 5, 2024
10 min read

The Brunswick Centre represents the concept behind multi-functional buildings, how well does it succeed?

Introduction –

Brunswick Centre is a mixed-use concrete superblock amongst Georgian façades. The project stemmed from the conventional separation between the public and the private and presents itself as an attempt to achieve a space with dual service – a residential area as well as a commercial ground. The project reassesses the need to separate communal and retail areas from private housing areas. The brief of the project entails the creation of an ideograph of city-centreness.(1)

The project can be divided into three distinct eras: the promising proposal (1959 to 1965) and its initial popularity (1965 to 1970); the decline as a result of greed and impatience (1972 to 2000) and the revival of its reputation and its present use (2000 to current use). Moreover, the scheme is a vital example of how run-down brutalist spaces can readapt for the 21st century audience.

This essay will discuss the Brunswick Centre and the success of the development of the early regeneration of Brutalist Heritage. It will also briefly explore the early period of “gentrification” of the inner residential districts of London and the distinctive culture of the Brunswick Centre as part of Brutalist Humanism.(2)

The historiographical references from which this essay is carefully carved out are

‘Brunswick Centre - Bloomsbury - Gran Bretaña". Informes De La Construcción’ by

Hodgkinson and McAlpine Design Engineering Group, which explores the development of the construction process of the building and ‘Brunswick Centre’ by AJ Buildings Library which summarises the key intentions of the architects’ vision.

Introduction to the Brunswick Centre –

The post-war economic boom of the 1950s resulted in mass immigration, also known as gentrification. Gentrification emerged as a subject of political controversy as many of its members were left-wing. The aim of gentrification was to explore a secondary opportunity for rundown urban neighbourhoods into rising property values. Nevertheless, it generally displaced low-income families and small retail during the process.

The area of Bloomsbury in which the Brunswick Centre is found was minimally affected by the Blitz, an intense bombing campaign targeting cities in the United Kingdom in the Second World War. Rather than being a project of post-war reconstruction, the construction of the Brunswick Centre started in 1967 at a site that previously had rows of Georgian townhouses. (3) This is in stark contrast to other brutalist developments in London, such as the Barbican or the Southbank, which were born from extensive redevelopment as a result of post-war bomb

damage.

Additionally, the Brunswick Centre was the first development in London since World War Two to combine buildings with different functions in a single block, combining a welfare housing system with a commercial area in the same space. It increased the number of residents from the existing overcrowded, slum conditions. It was a challenge to revitalise and maximise the charm of a central urban area without resorting to tall buildings.

The scheme was originally intended to be a private development by Marchmont Properties but Camden Council took responsibility for the housing after an unfruitful attraction of private buyers.

Primitively part of the Foundling Estate and later renamed as the Brunswick Centre, it shows an intention of mixing different functionalities, adapting the urban street and creating new routes of interaction. The Brunswick development project was originally planned as a way of the revitalization of the Bloomsbury area by Patrick Hodgkingson. The building, which cost 7.5 million pounds, would become his acclaimed piece.

The site was sold in the mid-1950s to private developers which planned to build a 25-story tower block of luxurious flats and retail. In 1958, prior to the erection of Brunswick, the existing housing was deemed as substandard. The low-income households were mixed with light industrial activities which typically bloomed in yards that were central to the block.

Three and a half city blocks had to be cleared for the construction of Brunswick. Nonetheless, there was a major setback on the initial extension of the plan to Tavistock Place. The Ministry of Defence would not dispense the lease given to the Territorial Army, which to this day is parallel to Brunswick Centre in Handel Street.(4) As of today, it has become virtually unthinkable to demolish in such scale the historic center of London. It is important to preserve the standing architecture as it affects the cultural development of the city.

The Brunswick Centre was a bold urban experiment - it challenged the constraints of established zoning regulations. It was spatially compact, it had the highest residential density over high commercial input. All-encompassing, the structure does not surpass the height limit imposed in the Borough of Camden (24.384 meters) Additionally, it gave 75% of the initial site’s area as public and private open spaces.

The design was based on preliminary studies by Leslie Martin. Drafted in the mid-sixties, the construction started in 1967. However, some alterations in the planning department led to the production of only half of the complex in 1972.

The 1970’s proposal was partially incomplete, mainly the shopping area was to have had glazed windows. The concrete was supposed to be painted cream to match the neighbouring Georgian Stucco.

The initial tenants highlighted some issues of the Brunswick to the Council about the source of noise, insufferable heat from the winter gardens and flooding caused by drainage problems. Their continuous complaining led to rent reductions.

The building soon degenerated into a slum, continuing to degrade, raising concerns about the future of the building. Brunswick’s commercial area was virtually vacant in the 1990s due to the decline in popularity. This diverged from its early glory in 1975 when the centre featured in a film called ‘The Passenger’ by Jack Nicholson. The reputation of Brunswick Centre by 1977 was appalling. The underground area was used for prostitution and was a meeting point

for vagrants.

In 2000, its Grade II listing was met with unsympathetic conjectures of the public who believed the structure was an abstract attempt to suffice the community needs. Hodgkinson eventually worked with Levitt Bernstein Architects on a £20 million reconfiguration of the Grade II-listed block. The retail area was spruced up and, after a cleanse and some paint, he finally achieved the cream coloured façade which was once in his original plan. This regeneration was quite successful as it attracted around 8 million visitors per annum. In a way, Brunswick shows a clear balance between the adaptation to contemporary high-streets and the preservation of architectural heritage. With the renovations, Brunswick reclaimed its

communal identity. An example of this success is the song written about it in 2013.

Description of the Brunswick Centre –

The Georgian façades of Marchmont Street, which are unequivocally admired for their symmetrical designs, decorative elements, and classical proportions, are in great contrast to the monolithic mega-structure that is the Brunswick Centre, commonly known as Bloomsbury High Street. The decision to use concrete in a consistent brick environment breaks the traditional approach of adaptation.

The concept behind the construction of the Brunswick Centre is that of a single framework that encapsulates both a commercial and residential purpose. Its division of space is unique in that it was chosen over previous dogmas promoting the construction of separate tower blocks for buildings with different functionalities. The space is dominated by two distinct areas: the courtyard and a cascade of glass terraces. The ratio is 2:1 for the commercial sections and run-down terraced housing.

The residential area can be described structurally as two truncated pyramids. It offers 560 flats, houses 1644 people, and can be accessed both through an interior court and the surrounding streets.(5) The flats are single-level floors and include a hallway, one to two bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen, and the main living space which has a glazed wall leading to a balcony. The balconies, also known as winter gardens, express a passive response to a Nash terrace. (6)

The estate has an east-west orientation, which maximizes solar southern exposure. The sloping glass of the winter gardens ensures all terraces have a view of the sky as well as natural light. The enclosed extensions of the balcony area are used by residents for growing plants. The residents can interact with bystanders out of the comfort of their balconies, providing a form of interaction with the outside community.

The Spine of the complex is a central loggia that includes a commercial area. The space ensures pedestrian priority and is enclosed on only one side by a supermarket (Waitrose). Within the gallery, the flow of people is regulated by a basin (which rarely acts as a fountain) in its central axis. The retail area is covered by a porch and can be accessed by two small corridors and an opening opposite the supermarket. On the weekends, a small pop-up food court appears on a clear space next to the supermarket, encouraging the community to interact. Moreover, there is a park, called Brunswick Square, to the north of the building which provides an outdoor green area to residents.

Additionally, Brunswick has a two-story parking space below it, with a total capacity of 910 spaces. The upper level is available for customers and the lower level is exclusively for the residents as it has elevators that provide direct access to the building complex.

Commentary on the Brunswick Centre –

Perhaps the most obvious design intention identified was the creation of social structure and identity, rather than aesthetics. There was a clear aim of creating a complex “urban village” where the structure serves as a nucleus of the entire neighbourhood. Brunswick advocates for a strict order with flowing functionality. This approach led the building to become known as a Brutalist icon, even compared to the Barbican at times.

Some might assume the project stems from a Brutalist typology. However, it was never Hodgkingson’s intention and was the result of various iterations. Peter Smithson believed Brutalism was directly linked with the raw use of materials in construction to maximise the feasible limitations of a buildings’ space structure.(7) He defined what New Brutalism meant in the United Kingdom. However, Hodgkingson personally disagreed with Smithson’s view of Brutalism and maintained it was a fashionable gimmick and inhumane. In my opinion, the

building presents itself as a monolithic tangible concrete structure that challenges the purposes of aesthetics and addresses various issues in a contrasting, yet Brutalist reminiscent way. From a functional point of view, I believe the building is a wonderful curation of inhabitance and retail purposefulness that exploits the site to its maximum potential. From an aesthetical point of view, the way in which this building challenges and reminisces on its surroundings conceives a juxtaposition worthy of exploring with a bare eye.

Walking through the corridor that leads to the interior yard, the visitor encounters retail stores, restaurants and supermarkets with living spaces soaring above. The immersive experience in this hectic yet abundant atmosphere almost feels like a utopian ‘15-minute city’ concept that is compromised in a yard. The approach to have all needs sufficed within an “enclosed” area has been a concept recently refined by the parisian professor, Carlos Moreno.(8) In a way, Brunswick can be seen as one of the few successful precedents for this concept which has proven its viability.

Furthermore, the decision to make pedestrians the main passengers of this building ensured the focus on social interaction, making the place more lively in contrast to how it was perceived in the 1990s. This is one of the direct results of the renovations, alongside the Waitrose supermarket, which helped attract other retail stores raising the reputation of the area.

The pressure of the booming concept of gentrification in the 1950s forced the outcome of the building to be quick in nature. The Brunswick Centre catered to two audiences, the council which wanted to minimise the cost whilst ensuring decent council housing and the private investors, who wanted the project to be as profitable as possible. However, underfunding played a clear role in its rapid decay.

Visually, the cinder block building strikes far from original brick inspiration by Aaldo. Upon further observations, the harsh and cold concrete contrasts with the glass balconies which range in colour as some of them are tinted in hues of blue, yellow, or purple. Upon encountering the structure, it seems as if the distinct tints give personality to each block, breaking the frame of the building, making it less crude.

One failed design intention, to this day, is Brunswick’s green potential. In a way, Brunswick’s balconies were to have a vernacular appeal to the Babylon Hanging Gardens. Largely due to management and maintenance issues, the impact of the winter terrace has been a missed opportunity.

Conclusion –

In conclusion, Brunswick Centre showcases three important aspects. Firstly, it proves the possibility of low-rise high density multifunctional buildings in the urban environment.(9) Thus, a varied language for future complexes where spaces are maximised is encouraged. On a secondary note, Brunswick deems the minimal renaissance of a building as to adapt it to the modern needs whilst maintaining the essence of the original building. This revamp culture encourages the preservation of heritage whilst catering to a newer audience. In a way, this stimulates the limitlessness of a structure so long as it withstands the erosion by use. Additionally, it demonstrates the possibility of a framework where there is a marriage between private investment and social housing ventures.

Furthermore, Brunswick poses an arbitrary subject on what success might entail. From being an ever-popular housing estate to becoming a deficient place of harlotry, to finally regaining its status as a social area. It took over 40 years to achieve the original intimate space which Hodgkinson envisioned. Was it the hunger for this project to succeed the reason why it failed? Was it the constant change in proposals that led to the shape which we now recognise as the centre itself? Finally, was Brunswick the best proposal for Camden, the previous occupants and the neighbourhood as a whole? Whilst the Brunswick might change, the scheme will always be seen as an achievement of adaptive reuse in the urban environment.

Bibliography :

Image accreditation:

Close-up of a montaged cross-section of a residential flat, Foundling housing scheme

(Brunswick Centre), Brunswick Square, Bloomsbury, London, England, 1960; image from

RIBApix (number RIBA35955)

Sources: (in order of appearance):

"Brunswick Centre | AJ Buildings Library". n.d. Ajbuildingslibrary.Co.Uk.

https://www.ajbuildingslibrary.co.uk/projects/display/id/2173.

"Early Cultures Of Gentrification In London, 1955–1980 - Joe Moran, 2007". 2021. SAGE

Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0096144207306611.

"The Brunswick Centre – Post-War Ideals In Private Developments And The Early

Regeneration Of Brutalist Heritage". n.d. Built Perspective.