A
A
Anonymous
Guest
Which one is Sir Neil then?
A
Anonymous
Guest
That is absobloodylutely unbloodybelievable. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Do you think SAVE stands any chance of overturning this?
Do you think SAVE stands any chance of overturning this?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well it's a major building in a Conservation Area - but we can only fight so much at a time!
And no help from EH of course would be forthcoming! (it rarely is...)
Marcus did a piece on it in the Times a while ago, but I can't now find it online.
And no help from EH of course would be forthcoming! (it rarely is...)
Marcus did a piece on it in the Times a while ago, but I can't now find it online.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I found the photograph of the building rather puzzling; it looked as though an imposing entrance had been stuck on to the front of a bog-standard post-war office block. Either that, or someone had demolished the main building and left only the entrance standing. Which bit are they proposing to demolish?
As Gareth will know, this sort of thing does happen (eg the demolition of the back half of what is now the St Giles House Hotel, leaving a very grand building that is only one room deep).
As Gareth will know, this sort of thing does happen (eg the demolition of the back half of what is now the St Giles House Hotel, leaving a very grand building that is only one room deep).
A
Anonymous
Guest
Two faced whatists------- wonder what EH will do with its 3 million asking price-------- demolish a few other buildings perhaps.
Jocelyn
Jocelyn
A
Anonymous
Guest
Money, money, money in a rich mans world. (I think that's a song isn't it?
A
Anonymous
Guest
"I found the photograph of the building rather puzzling; it looked as though an imposing entrance had been stuck on to the front of a bog-standard post-war office block. Either that, or someone had demolished the main building and left only the entrance standing. Which bit are they proposing to demolish?
As Gareth will know, ..."
Gareth does know (I'm an architect, we know *everything* ;o)). In fact, Gareth's tutor at uni was the grandson of the man who designed what was originally called Fortress House in the first place.
It is a late work by William Curtis Green, an interesting architect with a high reputation in his day, and both the entrance and the "bog-standard" bit are of the same date (late 1940s). Actually the B S bit has funny rococo curlicues on it, and the overall proportions are halfway between Neo-georgian and modern. It's historically interesting as a survival of "traditional" architecture after the Modern Movement was supposed to have triumphed (I can think of 100s of other examples), but to be brutal, it is a bit of a lump and not an aesthetic success. Borderline listable because not as good as the best examples of the type and date (work by the likes of Albert Richardson and Donald McMorran for example).
It is, however, in a conservation area and I bet the replacement will neither preserve nor enhance its character. The similar (but brick, and IMHO better,) buildings of the early 50s by Victor Heal, facing the east end of St Pauls Cathedral are also about to be replaced with something much less happy.
It's just not currently fashionable to like that sort of slightly dim, "I don't want to be modern but I'm not an old fart, honestly" architecture of the George VI period. Pity, becuase some of it's really quite good.
As Gareth will know, ..."
Gareth does know (I'm an architect, we know *everything* ;o)). In fact, Gareth's tutor at uni was the grandson of the man who designed what was originally called Fortress House in the first place.
It is a late work by William Curtis Green, an interesting architect with a high reputation in his day, and both the entrance and the "bog-standard" bit are of the same date (late 1940s). Actually the B S bit has funny rococo curlicues on it, and the overall proportions are halfway between Neo-georgian and modern. It's historically interesting as a survival of "traditional" architecture after the Modern Movement was supposed to have triumphed (I can think of 100s of other examples), but to be brutal, it is a bit of a lump and not an aesthetic success. Borderline listable because not as good as the best examples of the type and date (work by the likes of Albert Richardson and Donald McMorran for example).
It is, however, in a conservation area and I bet the replacement will neither preserve nor enhance its character. The similar (but brick, and IMHO better,) buildings of the early 50s by Victor Heal, facing the east end of St Pauls Cathedral are also about to be replaced with something much less happy.
It's just not currently fashionable to like that sort of slightly dim, "I don't want to be modern but I'm not an old fart, honestly" architecture of the George VI period. Pity, becuase some of it's really quite good.
A
Anonymous
Guest
It's the Conservation Area demolition which is a major problem - it's part of a wider group in which it fits. Surely there should be a presumption of retention!
I'll see when I get time if I can find Marcus's piece, I seem to recall him saying it was part of a wider Poirot landscape, and (unsurprisingly!) there was a Pilotti piece in the Eye about it a while ago.
Certs of Immunity - they should be done away with.
EH is moving to Waterhouses Pru building. They have relinquished the lease early on fortress House.
I'll see when I get time if I can find Marcus's piece, I seem to recall him saying it was part of a wider Poirot landscape, and (unsurprisingly!) there was a Pilotti piece in the Eye about it a while ago.
Certs of Immunity - they should be done away with.
EH is moving to Waterhouses Pru building. They have relinquished the lease early on fortress House.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Thanks so much, Gareth. As usual, a lucid and informative explanation.
A
Anonymous
Guest
The Edwardian Radission Hotel in Manchester is now only a facade and a short side return.
It was formerly the Free Trade Hall.
What is in place of most of the building is a modern thing which pokes up above the old in a most disturbing manner.
The hall was bombed during the war and the auditorium rebuilt; however, it was thought that the 'new' part was a very senitive intervention, and it should have been retained.
So what we now have is a II* listed front facde.
Conservation Area ststus should have meant the retention of at least the facade of Fortress House.
The listing system and Conservation Area status in this country is a bit of a farce at times. If Joe Public tried to do to their own private dwellings what commercial developers get away with they would be firmly slapped down by their local authority in most cases.
Money talks.
Ask Mr Prescott about the Minerva Tower.
It was formerly the Free Trade Hall.
What is in place of most of the building is a modern thing which pokes up above the old in a most disturbing manner.
The hall was bombed during the war and the auditorium rebuilt; however, it was thought that the 'new' part was a very senitive intervention, and it should have been retained.
So what we now have is a II* listed front facde.
Conservation Area ststus should have meant the retention of at least the facade of Fortress House.
The listing system and Conservation Area status in this country is a bit of a farce at times. If Joe Public tried to do to their own private dwellings what commercial developers get away with they would be firmly slapped down by their local authority in most cases.
Money talks.
Ask Mr Prescott about the Minerva Tower.
A
Anonymous
Guest
"English Heritage recommended to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the building did not have sufficient architectural or historic interest to make it worthy of listing," she says."It was not of national significance. This enabled the certificate of immunity to be granted."
How convenient that the EH can use their clout here to gain an immunity certificate, in order to make it worthy of a few million quid instead. Due to EH's title alone, the immunity office would believe them even if they wished to knock down Buckingham palace! Wonder where the brown envelopes are here boys!
If they indeed believe this building to be unworthy of keeping, then surely under their own rules they should be obliged at the very least to have public plans of what they or anyone else intend to replace it with BEFORE it happens. Then at least people could see if their intentions were indeed worth considering.
If they had had any sense they would have realised what a fracas this would cause and sell up quietly, and let Legal and General take the rap. Daft twits at best.
Whether we like the building or not, the whole thing surely makes a mockery of what they all stand for.
How convenient that the EH can use their clout here to gain an immunity certificate, in order to make it worthy of a few million quid instead. Due to EH's title alone, the immunity office would believe them even if they wished to knock down Buckingham palace! Wonder where the brown envelopes are here boys!
If they indeed believe this building to be unworthy of keeping, then surely under their own rules they should be obliged at the very least to have public plans of what they or anyone else intend to replace it with BEFORE it happens. Then at least people could see if their intentions were indeed worth considering.
If they had had any sense they would have realised what a fracas this would cause and sell up quietly, and let Legal and General take the rap. Daft twits at best.
Whether we like the building or not, the whole thing surely makes a mockery of what they all stand for.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I thought Lutyens had something to do with this building, but perhaps my memory is playing tricks. If so he clearly wasnt on form at the time. It is a bit of a brute and doesnt really fit in with the streetscape, but its replacement is unlikely to be any better.
A
Anonymous
Guest
The plans have been available for a considerable time. EH is the body which recommends that a Cert of Immunity is granted... if a building isn't listed then there is of course no reason why a Cert should not be issued, under current legislation.
It's possibly marginal for listing as Gareth says, but it is a Conservation Area building which a number of eminent people think worthy of retention. That's the major issue here.
I don't think that the replacement is a considered to be an enhancement either.
EH hasn't long to go on the lease, and they are getting cash for early release. Given the deperate nature of their funding I can see why they felt they hadn't a great deal of option.
Legal and General is the baddie here really - they are the ones who are wishing to demolish not re-use.
http:///www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/2003/dec_03_03.jsp#fortress_0312
It's possibly marginal for listing as Gareth says, but it is a Conservation Area building which a number of eminent people think worthy of retention. That's the major issue here.
I don't think that the replacement is a considered to be an enhancement either.
EH hasn't long to go on the lease, and they are getting cash for early release. Given the deperate nature of their funding I can see why they felt they hadn't a great deal of option.
Legal and General is the baddie here really - they are the ones who are wishing to demolish not re-use.
http:///www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/2003/dec_03_03.jsp#fortress_0312
A
Anonymous
Guest
"I thought Lutyens had something to do with this building, but perhaps my memory is playing tricks. If so he clearly wasnt on form at the time."
Well, yes, Lutyens having been dead for five years when it was built probably wouldn't have helped. Curtis Green was one of Lut's pupils. Besides, Lutyens demolitions simply NEVER happen (with one exception in the 1950s)
Evelyn, you don't seriously believe that a retained facade is always better than a good new building? (in the present case we may not get that, but all the same it's a bit of a defeatist's way out)
Well, yes, Lutyens having been dead for five years when it was built probably wouldn't have helped. Curtis Green was one of Lut's pupils. Besides, Lutyens demolitions simply NEVER happen (with one exception in the 1950s)
Evelyn, you don't seriously believe that a retained facade is always better than a good new building? (in the present case we may not get that, but all the same it's a bit of a defeatist's way out)
A
Anonymous
Guest
I do think at times a retained facade is better - but that's very murky territory as you well know.
Especially in Conservation Areas, which is about all the protection current legislation provides really.
And Fortress House is in a CA.
'Good' new buildings - they so rarely are.
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/2004/apr1404.jsp#3
Especially in Conservation Areas, which is about all the protection current legislation provides really.
And Fortress House is in a CA.
'Good' new buildings - they so rarely are.
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/2004/apr1404.jsp#3
A
Anonymous
Guest
I work just down the road and walk past it a lot. This end of Savile Row is pretty poor - its sits well with the police station which is almost opposite but not much else? Though its very distinctive, it is quite unattractive and out of keeping with the palladian styles of Savile Row/Burlington St, etc. which this little patch used to be famous for. Still, I am sure it could have been reworked without demolition.
The Crown has just built their new HQ next door down an "alley" (New Burlington Place I think) and I suspect its this Regent Street renaissance which has driven the deal. Interestingly, just at the back of this building is a real fur dealer. Very un-PC...
Talking of Facadism, within a few years, most of Regent Street will be nothing but retained facades (the Crown Estates preferred modus operandi - pleas see "The Curve")- not that the street is anything but a load of 1920's knock-ups of course...
The Crown has just built their new HQ next door down an "alley" (New Burlington Place I think) and I suspect its this Regent Street renaissance which has driven the deal. Interestingly, just at the back of this building is a real fur dealer. Very un-PC...
Talking of Facadism, within a few years, most of Regent Street will be nothing but retained facades (the Crown Estates preferred modus operandi - pleas see "The Curve")- not that the street is anything but a load of 1920's knock-ups of course...
A
Anonymous
Guest
Crown Estates wished to demolish the Regent Place Hotel - a joint effort of the 20th c Soc and SAVE had it listed, mainly because of the Deco interiors, but also it has a faience facade which sits well with other buildings around.
So they seem now to be lashing together plans to still demolish most of it but keep parts of the interior.
I have no doubt they will get permission. In years to come further permission will be given to demolish the whole thing - as it's only part of the building which is of interest etc.
And so it goes on!
There will be little left of London soon. Listing and Conservation Areas mean little.
The Kings Cross development will mean moving the gasometers to a different location, and demolition of a listed buildings and another which maybe should have been! Not required with a little more thought.
I think it's the subject of this month's Grand Designs In Peril slot.
So they seem now to be lashing together plans to still demolish most of it but keep parts of the interior.
I have no doubt they will get permission. In years to come further permission will be given to demolish the whole thing - as it's only part of the building which is of interest etc.
And so it goes on!
There will be little left of London soon. Listing and Conservation Areas mean little.
The Kings Cross development will mean moving the gasometers to a different location, and demolition of a listed buildings and another which maybe should have been! Not required with a little more thought.
I think it's the subject of this month's Grand Designs In Peril slot.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Update:
http://property.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14029-2416876.html
http://property.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14029-2416876.html