Brixton Recreation Centre

PHILIP BOYLE writes on efforts to list George Finch’s 1970s sports centre

First published Summer 2015

George Finch’s original sketches of the Rec

Recently there have been moves to replace International Tower, the office block element of the Brixton Recreational Centre complex. There have also been local demonstrations against the 'gentrification' of Brixton's nearby street market. Both events impact on the future of the centre, known as Brixton Rec, which was designed by George Finch and others under Lambeth Borough Architect Ted Hollamby in the 70s and early 80s era of optimism. The following is an attempt to understand the ambition and fraught life and times of a valuable group of buildings and to present arguments for it to become a candidate for listing.

The history of social and physical change in Brixton during the post-war welfare state period is unique because of the scale of immigration, social stress and the physical decay of existing buildings. Developments were designed and built in response to perceived needs, sometimes misplaced, sometimes under- estimated. The level of ambition of politicians and architects was high in striving for a level of quality

for solutions but set against and within a sometimes hostile and ignorant London and National context. This combination has left a heritage that is flawed but rich in diversity. The achievement is there and it should be celebrated and nourished. Listing of buildings has

a part to play in ensuring that the quality of ambition and scale is properly recognized, despite previous neglect and misunderstanding.

The idea that peoples' needs, physical and mental health, education, and cultural pursuits, needed to be addressed by common agreement and action grew through the 19th and early 20th centuries, so that by 1937 (in nearby Peckham) the first Health Centre came into being. By the 1960s with increased population and the founding of the Welfare State, the need for recreation and exercise in high density deprived urban areas lacking open space was seen as important.

The notion that internal recreation with easy access should receive public investment for the public good was acknowledged and attention was paid to swimming and other forms of exercise that could be done in a confined space. It was also recognized that the grouping of different facilities together encouraged interaction and that shared spaces would allow flexibility to accommodate changing needs over time. The benefits of a welcoming environment with easy access and good transport links were also understood. Specifically in the context of Brixton, given the racial mix brought about by immigration, the need for a physical forum that recognized diversity was a high priority. A lack of available open space

and the proximity of overhead railway lines in central Brixton stimulated the ambitious idea for locating the proposed Recreation Centre at high level next to the railway.

The idea that high level locations with linking pedestrian walkways are 'safe' (from cars) was fashionable in the 60s. It stemmed from a misreading of Le Corbusier's planning ideas (in his schemes he invariably placed the vehicles in the air, and left plenty of space on the ground for pedestrians). The ambition to link the Brixton Rec to future high-rise housing that did not materialize was unfortunate. Where sufficiently large areas are served by well-maintained walkways, as at the Barbican, they work well but in Brixton many of the walkways are blocked off as they have become a security risk with all the problems that follow. The local history of social disorder and riots has also left its mark and 'strangled' the Recreation Centre for far too long.

Now the local climate is changing. There are signs that a better socially integrated diverse population has caught up with the intention of the original architecture of the Recreation Centre. The expansion of the adjoining and thriving street market is a clear marker of regeneration, despite gentrification, and is confirmed by recent interest in local redevelopment not dissimilar to the regeneration at Borough Market in London Bridge or Camden Lock Market.

This is a reason for now opening up and positively fulfilling the potential of the Recreation Centre along the line of ambition originally intended. The multiple means of both pedestrian and vehicle access to and from the complex, covered and uncovered, have inherent problems. However technology has advanced since the initial completion and with imaginative detailed design and management using surface materials, lighting, and equipment now available these could be modified and re-opened. Removal of large unnecessary signage and the introduction of small-scale helpful signs and user-friendly surface materials could transform a building of this necessary complexity. The cost of such modifications would be a fraction of that required to demolish and rebuild and the consequent unsustainable energy loss avoided.

Despite the misfortunes that have afflicted the outside of Brixton Rec, many of the diverse activities within have clearly prospered, supported by good spatial design, and are valued by many. The triangular top lit brick atrium, while falling a bit short of such a masterpiece as Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim in New York, is spatially as good as that of the listed Crystal Palace Sports Pool, and is a good reason for listing. This connecting central space could become a relaxing balance to the active nature of the surrounding physical activities. Differential humidity and acoustic problems could be checked, for instance by the proper maintenance of the planting.

The use of monolithic vibrant contrasting material combinations was fashionable when this building was designed, the question is how appropriate and what skill was there here in deployment? The differing sizes of volume for the various recreational uses are deliberately assembled and clearly expressed in a neo-constructivist manner as in the celebrated and listed Leicester Engineering Building (1961, Stirling and Gowan). What is significant here is the lack of rhetoric in 'shape making'. The simplicity of the multiple orthogonal shapes that are gathered and mixed in a subtle arrangement yields multiple views integrating the building with the surroundings, while at the same time clearly creating a separate ensemble with its own strong identity. It is this characteristic that gives the total building, including the office block part (which on its own has little individual character), its specific character. In comparison with the celebrated Economist Buildings, St James Street (1961, Alison and Peter Smithson) the deployment of blocks is tight and vibrant and this merits listing.

As a yardstick of achievement for buildings of this period the Säynätsalo Town Hall, Finland, (1950, Alvar Aalto) in Finland and the Carpenter Centre in Boston (1961, Le Corbusier) are clearly influences. Both these buildings set a new benchmark for civic and social engagement by means of creating, routes, level changes, use of materials, and most importantly a sense of place. Clearly Brixton Recreation Centre had the ambition to emulate these two masterpieces.

Now that social conditions have caught up with such architectural ambitions it is time to invest in realising the potential and the listing of the many important characteristics of the whole Brixton Recreation Centre, including the office tower.

Postscript: The Rec was listed Grade II in November 2016