Jump to content

What the town hall could have looked like


Guest Jeremy

Recommended Posts

Not sure if this has been discussed before. I found a couple of unsuccessful designs for the Town Hall on Picture Sheffield. I like the Flockton and Gibbs design

H.T. Hare:

http://www.picturesheffield.com/cgi-bin/pi...ff.refno=s22686

Flockton & Gibbs:

http://www.picturesheffield.com/cgi-bin/pi...ff.refno=s22687

http://www.picturesheffield.com/cgi-bin/pi...ff.refno=s22688

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does the finished article compare to other Town Halls ? in terms of Year, design, cost, height/dimensions, finished year and backhandered-influenceness please ?

e.g. Leeds. Manchester.

Answered on the back of a used fiver to the usual address ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has been discussed before. I found a couple of unsuccessful designs for the Town Hall on Picture Sheffield. I like the Flockton and Gibbs design

H.T. Hare:

http://www.picturesheffield.com/cgi-bin/pi...ff.refno=s22686

Flockton & Gibbs:

http://www.picturesheffield.com/cgi-bin/pi...ff.refno=s22687

http://www.picturesheffield.com/cgi-bin/pi...ff.refno=s22688

The alternative designs are not unattractive and had they been built they would have been OK but instead of looking "Victorian" like the current building (which of course IS Victorian) the alternatives look decidedly more "Gothic".

They wouldn't look out of place in the centre of a Belgian or German town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alternative designs are not unattractive and had they been built they would have been OK but instead of looking "Victorian" like the current building (which of course IS Victorian) the alternatives look decidedly more "Gothic".

They wouldn't look out of place in the centre of a Belgian or German town.

You're right, the winning design was probably perceived as being more modern. I found this passage in Victorian and Edwardian town halls By Colin Cunningham:

This brings us back to the problem of a symbolic language and its need to be both easily recognisable and yet varied enough to express the specific character of a town. Directly derivative buildings were equally unappealing, and another of the unsuccessful designs for Sheffield town hall offered an English version of the campanile at Venice. Mountford's winning design was successful because, of all its free composition and looseness, it was decked out with easily recognisable ornaments of grandeur—friezes, columns, pedimented windows and arched openings with carved spandrels. There was plenty to recognise here, yet the scheme offered enough variety to allow for free planning inside; and when Mountford was asked to extend the building in 1902 he had no difficulty in adding a further block that continued the me decorative pattern. The final section was built later still (1908–25) under another architect, though still to Mountford's plans, and manages to be a different piece that is still clearly part of the whole. Sheffield town hall is probably the showpiece of eclecticism, but it had many successors and many smaller buildings are in the same mode. The importance of the Sheffield building is that it repeated the message of Leicester in an even broader vocabulary, that eclecticism really could be a proper vehicle for grandeur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, the winning design was probably perceived as being more modern. I found this passage in Victorian and Edwardian town halls By Colin Cunningham:

Or the losing designs were seen as being too foreign / Continental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...