Constructive conservation?

[rogerh]

The Local Authority's own scheme for enhancing a Grade II property:

(The grey bit, bottom-left, is the listed building.)

http://idox.bathnes.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appNumber=14/01896/FUL

.

 

[88v8]

Local Authority doesn't give a FF does it?

EH are unimpressed, and I should jolly well hope so. Haven't read the other responses.

Dare say most LAs would be happy to see the back of the entire listing scheme, and not that bothered if all listed buildings were removed, other than perhaps a few like, say, the Tower of London.
But deprived of their accompanying period streetscape, listed buildings no matter how fine, just look out of place.
The building in question here while in itself devoid of much apparent merit to the casual observer is part of the background that gives context. No pre-war building should be demolished or treated like this.

Ivor

 

[Gareth Hughes]

it's in one of the grottier bits of Bath, listed only in 2002, and on account of its odd history more than its architectural interest
Former Labour Exchange, Milk Street. c1936, architect unknown. Bath stone facades, roof not seen. Now single storey. Five bay front to James Street West: central double doors within framed surround, six/six pane sash windows within aedicular surrounds. Rounded corners to sides, that at north-west badly damaged revealing inner structure. East return to Milk Street of eight bays, with framed doors at either end, inner four bays with arched windows, outer windows are six/six pane sashes. Right return is much damaged: three windows with metal mullions and transoms within aedicular surrounds, the central one showing extensive signs of fire damage above; later inserted window opening to first floor addition. HISTORY: This building was badly damaged during one of the two 'Baedeker Raids' on Bath in March 1942, in which 417 persons were killed and thousands of buildings badly damaged or lost. It is remarkable for bearing the clear evidence of shrapnel damage from high explosive bombs which were dropped just south of Kingsmead Square. The building is listed on account of the façade: the structure behind is of much lesser significance.

 

[plasticpigeon]

Looks worthy of Birmingham.

 

[LadyArowana]

It's a shame they haven't taken better care of it, it looks very sad, maybe not a coincidence. Not that I like the look of the development proposals all that much

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Conc...d-Bath-Blitz/story-20697818-detail/story.html

 

[a twig]

I used to live on Avon street, literally 20m away from there! Shame that's going, to add yet another glass and metal behemoth with a bit of stone cladding for "sympathy".

The bus station was bad enough, looking like a guard tower from the Troubles in Belfast.

Now the LA can slap up something like that, yet I got threatened with a fine for my Sky dish being "too visible". The majority of BANES LA need shooting IMO.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

In what way is this the local council's own application? the development is for student accommodation (the growth market), and the applicant is something called IJSW Ltd of Bristol. I can't see that this is "the council's" scheme at all.
It's exceptionally ugly, but "glass and steel behemoth" isn't right either, everything apart from the windows and eaves on that elevation is proposed to be Bath stone.
I wouldn't have such a problem with people objecting to things if they'd familiarise themselves with the facts. But I've had to deal with objectors to housing developments whose principal concern was the lack of places at the local primary school, who clearly hadn't got as far as the words "and new primary school" in the description of the proposed development.

 

[rogerh]

In what way is this the local council's own application...

The Local Authority (B&NES) own the building and were previously renting it out to Genesis, a local charity. They gave the Genesis Trust notice and appointed the developer, Iesis, to act on its behalf. The proposal to convert it for student accommodation is the idea of the LibDem cabinet.

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Bath...-looking-new/story-21232778-detail/story.html

Incidentally it's yet to submit the required LBC application. Also I imagine that English Heritage and the council's own urban design and conservation officers (all of whom have objected) have familiarised themselves with the facts.

 

[a twig]

I wouldn't have such a problem with people objecting to things if they'd familiarise themselves with the facts. But I've had to deal with objectors to housing developments whose principal concern was the lack of places at the local primary school, who clearly hadn't got as far as the words "and new primary school" in the description of the proposed development.

So because of a bad experience once, now you believe that all objectors haven't bothered to understand the issues?

Quite a lot of glass and metal I think...

As a local resident, who has had a fair amount of cause to butt heads with various of BANES' schemes over the years, I do make sure that I "familiarise myself with the facts". Where development has been appropriate I have fully supported it (Southgate shopping centre, the "plaza" by the train station etc) and it has added greatly to the character and appeal of the city.

As a former student at the University, I have also had plenty of experience of BANES inability to maintain a coherent position on the town vs gown debate, on one side decrying the "ghettoisation" (BANES' own words) of areas of Bath by student accomodation, yet on the other hand happy to profit from them by providing student accommodation. Incidentally there is a large halls of residence (~400 students) on the opposite side of this road. BANES' proposed development would ensure another mini "ghetto" only occupied for half the year by students.

None of the above is mentioned in any of their documents funnily enough - maybe one should be familiarised with that as well...

Edit to add: the LibDem portion of the council puts forward these student accommodation schemes as it is entirely dependant on getting re-elected by it's targeting of the student vote. One of the councillors elected while I was at University was indeed a student, who "carried out his duties" despite living in Holland for half the year. It is a source of frustration for a lot of residents that the student voice gets such a disproportionate hearing in Council matters, and having been both sides of the fence I can certainly sympathise.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Of course, the materials aren't going to be bright red or bright green, but it doesn't help the case to be realistic about that... :evil:

and, though it doesn't excuse some earlier, obviously dreadful, planning decisions, it helps in assessing just how bothered it's worth being to see the site in context...

 

[rogerh]

Depends where you're standing, though.

This is the other side of the road:

While to the back is 3-4 storey residential, including the remains of a listed Georgian terrace.

Regardless of the context, though, it's whether a Local Authority shouldn't be leading by example with its re-development of a listed building in its ownership.

 

[LadyArowana]

Of course, the materials aren't going to be bright red or bright green,

Which is almost a shame really, :lol: if there has to be a big blob of something new then I would rather really really hate it than have something that's "averagely horrid, but not very remarkable" At least if something is totally wacky there will be some people that love it and it has a chance of becoming iconic, dull never gets better.

 

[plasticpigeon]

I've had a look at architecture course descriptions on various university websites. It seems that only Cambridge teaches about the history of architecture as a primer for further studies. Many establishments seem not to be able to describe the course content in lucid terms at all. Why is this?

 

[rogerh]

Of course, the materials aren't going to be bright red or bright green,

Which is almost a shame really, :lol: if there has to be a big blob of something new then I would rather really really hate it than have something that's "averagely horrid, but not very remarkable" At least if something is totally wacky there will be some people that love it and it has a chance of becoming iconic, dull never gets better.

Some of Bath's ugliest buildings are the so-called contemporary ones clad with panels of Bath stone. Two examples just up the road from there:

 

[a twig]

The majority of the "ugly" buildings were also built before the much trumpeted awarding of the Unesco World Heritage status.

So my main objections are three-fold:

1) It will (in my opinion) look pretty hideous and overshadow one of the few remaining historical bits of evidence of the Baedeker raids.

2) In a city with already comical property prices, the combination of that with the existing halls of residence will turn a chunk of the town centre into accommodation that is only occupied for half the year. However, the size of it will not be enough to relive pressures on housing in other student landlord areas such as Oldfield Park - especially with both Universities expanding in size over the next few years.

3) BANES hypocrisy in causing residents with fairly minor plans for house repair/modification/extension grief under the auspices of maintaining the World Heritage status, which then conveniently doesn't apply to BANES when the opportunity exists for them to make money.