> “…the photographer knows he’s getting the last shots of those wharves, steamers and warehouses before they are replaced by imagined hotels and marinas, the proto-blueprint for the new world dominated by leisure, tourism and heritage replicas. These post-dockland utopias are soon to be upgraded into big business steel and glass, craven monuments of late capitalism. The future was in a distant haze, just around the corner.”
These photos should remind us that East London has always been changing, that progress is real but slow. Those "craven monuments of late capitalism" are every bit as utopian in their own way as the blocks being built in these photos, and in my experience much nicer places to live and work.
That’s not generally the gripe with gentrification; it’s that in the experience of most of the residents of an area, gentrification expells not enriches them. Their lives and communities are used as fuel for someone else’s private fire.
Biggest differences I noticed:
1. You won't see those cars obviously
2. Shop fronts have changed styles. More modern branding. More large chains
But if anything I was surprised by familiar they look. I grew up in London in the 70s and 80s and I remember scenes almost identical to those. And even still you can find large parts of London that resemble that.
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama don't take my Kodachrome away
At the time of the "regeneration" (2000s) it was a toss up between a number of estates and the heygate. However because of its size and location the heygate was chosen
My estate was turned around, and I was lucky enough to live in the estate, not on it. I got to know some of the original residents(and still do).
There are two important things to note, Council housing is almost exclusively of a very high standard (bigger than new builds by ~10+ sqm) Compared to the slums described so vividly in the road to wigan pier, a paradise. (running toilets, windows, heating plaster, enough bedrooms for each kid)
Until a rule change in the late 70s, you had to have a job to be eligible for council housing. There were (and still are, more or less) residents associations that look after the running of the estate. Caretakers lived on site, towers had 24 hour concierges, and ne'dowells were evicted.
However, that was all taken away in favour of dumping problem families, outsourcing cleaning and upkeep (In some cases, one cleaner 2 hours a day costs something line £80k annually.)
In short, there is nothing wrong with the estate fabric (of the surviving estates) but how they are looked after, and who lives there. Grenfell is a shining example, a solid block that was subdivided and halfarsedly put in new gas mains.
Asking as someone mostly ignorant of estate housing: what does this distinction imply/represent?
When it came to regeneration/improvements, we were the one consulted, not the private renters.
If I missunderstood your question, here is some waffle:
An estate is a logical collection of dwellings, normally flats (but can be houses) that were commissioned and built by local governement for the express purpose of housing the employed working classes.
for example my estate was made up of four blocks of about 180 flats. Each block encloses a shared garden, with childrens play equipment.
as to what they look like:
On one hand, I'm sure I would hate living in a city where everything looked like the Barbican. Yet, every time I'm there I'm awed by its strange beauty. It has such a strong identity.. it feels like walking inside a sculpture.
I think that different kind of "organic" is why I love Barbican. There aren't many places that make me feel like a child exploring a new area, but Barbican is the best at that.
Back in the day originals would be on Kodachrome, from which copies would be made on Ektachrome for projection in slide displays or an inter-negative on Kodacolor for enlarging.
In the same order:
Belhaven Street (no longer exists, got as close as I could)
Stifford Estate (demolished)
Mile End Road
Three Colt Street (difficult to get the exact location so got one with visible landmark)
Watney Market (massively changed but pointing in the right direction over the area)
Gardiner’s Corner (nothing left, the department store burnt down in the seventies)
Its the first picture on the Guardian's version of this: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2018/feb/13...
The brick building on the left in this view is in the original photo:
I may even go and hunt this one down on Thursday...
The processing itself is rather convoluted and interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process
There are massive discussions with film photographers about the different kinds of films and their colour profiles, characteristics and so on.
Citation: Langford, Michael (2000). Basic Photography (7th Ed.). Oxford: Focal Press. p. 99.
Film has vastly more resolution than even high-end DSLRs. This isn't shocking or surprising if you know anything about the space.