Institute of Historic Building Conservation No 101 September 2007 IHBC Annual School in Liverpool
Who are we? Heritage Gateway is a five-year web project, currently in its pilot phase, being run by English Heritage in collaboration with the Association of Local Government Archaeological Offices and the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. The website is being designed with the flexibility to provide integrated access to local and national heritage information resources as part of the programme of reforms proposed by the Government in ‘Heritage Protection for the 21st Century’. Who wants to know? Heritage Gateway will appeal to a wide audience interested in the heritage of their local area. • Professionals in the historic environment sector • Researchers and professionals within the educational sector • Local history and community groups What can we offer? By completion of the project, Heritage Gateway will allow you to remotely search databases of historic environment information across England. The website will enable you to find: • Historic images • Contemporary images of listed buildings • Index of archaeological investigations across England • Nationally held records of historic sites, buildings and monuments • Detailed historic environment records held by English local authorities • Topical news articles • Contact details for local Historic Environment Records throughout England • Local historic environment education and outreach initiatives • An area dedicated to historic environment professionals www.her itagegateway.org.uk Contact Us! Contact the Heritage Gateway team at: [email protected] or visit us online: www.heritagegateway.org.uk In partnership with: A single point of access to historic environment records across England www.heritagegateway.org.uk
C O N T E X T 1 0 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 1 Context Cover: The Steble Fountain and St George’s Hall, Liverpool on the first day of the IHBC Annual School (Photo: Jonathan Taylor) What the IHBC did in Liverpool Editorial As Seán O’Reilly says (p14), the IHBC’s Annual School is a magnificent opportunity for networking with fellow professionals across the UK, as well as a unique source of dedicated insights into regional styles, local character and current issues for practitioners working on the ground (even if that local character is a member of the organising committee, enjoying a well-earned rest in the corner of a pub). Context’s report of the event is no substitute for being there. But it might remind some of the participants of what they saw and heard, or give them a glimpse of any sessions they missed. It will give those who were not there a flavour of the school, and perhaps persuade them to attend next year, or give them ammunition to help in persuading their employer to send them. We are very grateful to the many people who made our report possible by contributing reports of the presentations and tours. There is no better place than Liverpool to reflect on how we treat our built heritage.The buildings of the great trading city of the 18th and 19th centuries evoke times when many of the modern forms of trading were pioneered. But the city has to find how to mark its participation in the slave trade; how to celebrate the popular culture of the Beatles era without living in the past; and how to reconcile the interests of a world heritage site with the demands of developers. At times in the recent past the city has had the luck of development booms petering out just as historic buildings were about to be bulldozed to make way for building types that in other places have turned out to be disastrous. Let’s hope that Liverpool’s new understanding of building conservation will mean that the current building boom will not be regretted. The Institute of historic building conservation www.ihbc.org.uk Registered as a Charity Number 1061593. Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England Number 3333780. Registered Office: 3 Stafford Road,TunbridgeWells, Kent TN2 4QZ. IHBC Officers President David Lovie email [email protected] Chairman Dave Chetwyn email [email protected] Vice Chair Sheila Stones email [email protected] Secretary Richard Morrice email [email protected] Treasurer Michael Knights email [email protected] Membership Secretary Jo Evans email [email protected] Education Secretary John Preston email [email protected] Publicity Secretary Doug Black email [email protected] Law & Practice Coordinator vacant email [email protected] Director Seán O’Reilly email [email protected] Projects Officer Fiona Newton email [email protected] Consultant Consultations Coordinator James Caird email [email protected] Membership Services Officer Devon DeCelles email [email protected] Administration Officer Lydia Porter email [email protected] IHBC Committee Chairs Policy Mick Downs email [email protected] Membership & Ethics Jo Evans email [email protected] Finance & Resources Richard Morrice email [email protected] Education John Preston email [email protected] Communications & Outreach Mike Brown email [email protected] Branch Officers North Geoff Underwood Tel 0191 433 3435 NorthWest Graham Arnold Tel 0151 606 2157 Yorkshire Keith Knight Tel 01904 658482 West Midlands Charles Shapcott Tel 020 7973 3660 East Midlands Roy Lewis tel 01332 591175 South Rob Parkinson Tel 01993 861680 SouthWest Ian Lund Tel 01380 724911 East Anglia Pippa Colchester Tel 01245 437337 South East David Kincaid Tel 01227 862185 London David McDonald Tel 020 8881 6724 Scotland Charles Strang Tel 01835 822560 Wales Nathan Blanchard Tel 01285 642428 Northern Ireland Sharon BrownTel 028 9754 3087 Republic of Ireland Cormac O’Sullivan Tel 00353 5677 62907 Business Office Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA England Tel 01747 873133 Fax 01747 871718 email [email protected] Briefing 2 Letters 4 TheWriter’s Voice 5 Periodically 6 Supporting columns Brian Morton 9 IHBC Annual School 2007 Bottom up in Liverpool JohnYates 12 CPD and the cool school Seán O’Reilly 14 Valuing our heritage Keith Parsons 17 Talks Thursday evening reception Keith Parsons 21 Opening address Mike Brown 21 Policies and partnerships Mike Brown 22 Three minutes in the lift with Gordon Brown Mike Brown 23 Cultural heritage in the regeneration of Liverpool Graham Arnold 24 Public perceptions of heritage Graham Arnold 25 Heritage tourism and the regional economy Keith Parsons 26 New directions for building preservation trusts Wendy Morgan 28 The restoration of Victoria Baths Wendy Morgan 29 Heritage: the economic reality check 30 Heritage: value and sustainability 31 Workshops Parks for the people 34 Taking archaeology to communities 34 Buildings at risk strategies 34 Evaluation for beginners 34 Whose heritage is it? 35 Tours Palaces of commerce 35 The RopeWalks district 35 Underground Liverpool 36 The walk of faith 37 Liverpool’s world heritage waterfront 38 St George’s Hall: conservation 39 St George’s Hall: interpretation 40 The wonders of Wirral 41 And in the end… 42 Liverpool stops the rot Chris Griffiths 45 Notes from the chair 49 Membership notes 50 Book reviews 50 Products and services 53 Institute ofHistoricBuildingConservation No 101 September 2007 IHBC Annual School in Liverpool
2 C O N T E X T 1 0 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 Context Briefing Copy deadlines Context is published five times a year, in March, May, July, September and November. The final copy deadline in 2007 is: Issue Deadline November, Issue 102 14 September Editor Rob Cowan Editorial Coordinator Fiona Newton 21 George Street, Louth, Lincolnshire LN11 9JU Tel 01507 602567 email [email protected] Editorial Board Fiona Newton (chair) Susan Brook (treasurer) Nigel Crowe (main features) Peter de Figueiredo (book reviews) Michael Taylor (main features) Cartoons by Rob Cowan Context is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2007 ISSN 0958-2746 Publisher Published for the Institute of Historic Building Conservation by Cathedral Communications Limited, High Street, Tisbury,Wiltshire, England SP3 6HA Tel 01747 871717 Fax 01747 871718 email [email protected] www.buildingconservation.com Non-member subscriptions to Context Context is available to non-members of the IHBC at an annual subscription rate, including postage, of: United Kingdom £50.00 Elsewhere £75.00 Subscription orders, together with remittances payable to Institute of Historic Building Conservation, should be sent to the IHBC Business Office at Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA. The views expressed in Context are not necessarily held by the IHBC or the publisher. Neither the publisher nor the IHBC shall be under any liability whatsoever in respect of contributed articles. We gratefully acknowledge the support of firms whose advertisements appear throughout this publication.While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this issue of Context is current and correct, neither the IHBC nor the publisher can be held responsible for any errors or omissions which may occur. Vaulting ambition The development of London by speculative entrepreneurs is not a new story. In the 18th century four Scottish brothers, all members of the Adam family, embarked on a stunning regeneration scheme for a huge site in the centre of London to be known as the Adelphi.The story of this architecturally ambitious scheme and of the men behind it is the focus of an exhibition at Sir John Soane’s Museum in London throughout the autumn. The exhibition features some of the most impressive paintings of the Adelphi and drawings from the Adam collection in the Soane Museum, along with documents, drawings, paintings and family portraits lent from other public and private collections. Vaulting Ambition also focuses on the story of the Adam brothers themselves and on the rupture in their relationships caused by the uncertain nature of their grand venture: the bank crashes of 1772 and their recourse to a lottery to escape financial disaster. Known primarily as Britain’s first celebrity architects, Robert and James Adam were also partners in the biggest building company in the 18th century, a company that encompassed supply, materials, contracting and speculative development. Bob and Jamie were the second and third sons of the most eminent Scottish architect,William Adam. He, with their eldest brother Johnny and withWilly, the youngest son, established their business under the name ofWilliam Adam and Company in 1764. It traded until 1801. At its height the firm employed as many as 3,000 men. Four years afterWilliam Adam and Co was established, the brothers began their great business adventure, building some 69 houses overlooking the Thames at DurhamYard on a run-down site that had belonged to the Duke of St Albans. The development was to be called the Adelphi – so nearly Adelphoi, the Greek word for brothers – a neat example of the Adams’ unabashed and surprisingly modern grasp of self-promotion.The Adams presented themselves, to a modern eye, as big developers and ambitious men unwilling to let anything stand in their way.The amount of organisation, energy and novelty that they brought to the Adelphi project was phenomenal. The Adelphi was a showcase for elegant new architecture, setting standards for urban developments throughout Britain. It established the ideal of civilised domestic design in the late Georgian age. Magnificent drawings, one almost nine feet long of Royal Terrace, a series of ceiling designs almost certainly used for promotional purposes, chimney pieces and proposals View of the Adelphi towards St Paul’s, drawn by Augustino Brunias and engraved by B Pastorini c1770 Design for the ceiling of the Grand Drawing Room of David Garrick’s house, 5 Royal Terrace, the Adelphi, London 1771 Perspective of the east side of Fitzroy Square, London, designed by Robert Adam 1790, drawn by Soane’s Office
C O N T E X T 1 0 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 3 ...extracts from the institute’s responses to government consultations need for the secretary of state’s approval at any stage. It is important that the local planning authority should be able to act quickly in cases where it believes harm is being done by the exercise of permitted development rights. Nevertheless, Article 4 designation should not be seen as a substitute for a specific permitted development regime for conservation areas. The institute believes that the proposed limits for extensions are too permissive. They will lead to larger numbers of unsightly extensions than previously. It will be harder to convince applicants for planning permission of the seriousness of the government’s commitment to improving design quality and the delivery of public places of quality. In terms of size, extensions proposed to be permitted are similar to existing limits for ordinary property. The impacts will be greater for larger property because of the greater width available. But for designated areas, the limits will be considerably increased. This is not acceptable. The proposal does not seem to deal adequately with extensions with monopitched roofs. It seems they could be allowed to have a ridge height of 4m on a boundary, which we do not think is intended. Draft Rural Development Programme for England, 2007–2013 The institute is concerned that the farming community may misinterpret the constant references to farm modernisation (on this and other tables) in the role of diversification and other areas of rural development, and that this means that there have to be clear measures to mitigate against the potential loss of the cultural environment. Farm modernisation since the 1970s has been something of a death knell for all aspects of the historic environment for aspects such as traditional farm buildings and hedgerows. Any danger that this could happen again needs to be mitigated. The institute takes comfort from the recognition that the growth of the market for energy crops needs to have minimum impact on the rural environment. for a fashionable church tell the story of the scheme and the family that planned and promoted it.The exhibition devoted to the Adelphi, and to the subsequent speculative projects of the Adams in Portland Place and Fitzroy Square, includes Robert’s visionary designs for Bath and his magnificent proposals for Edinburgh and Glasgow. Vaulting Ambition breaks new ground in its presentation of the Adam brothers as business men, working in the building trade as well as their profession. Besides the richness of their creativity, the exhibition explores how these Scottish entrepreneurs promoted their scheme, installed anchor tenants within the development to attract potential investors and purchasers, targeted clients of high net worth, faced down a potentially devastating financial crisis, and yet in the end were forced to pay an exceptional price for their ambition.The exhibition will tour to three regional venues in 2008–9. Subject to confirmation, the first venues of the tour will be the Talbot Rice Gallery in Edinburgh, Robert Adam’s great University Building, and Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museum. Prepare for take-off Airport operator BAA is being forced to remove unsuitable plastic double-glazed windows which it has installed illegally in one of the listed buildings the company owns near Stansted Airport in Essex. Action is being taken against BAA after the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) alerted the local authority to the unauthorised work. The building, a Grade II listed timber-framed and thatched cottage at Woodgates End in Broxted, dates from the 17th century or earlier. Uttlesford District Council is insisting that BAA submit a formal application to replace the windows with more suitable glazing. If it does not comply, BAA could face prosecution. The SPAB has been concerned about the plight of listed buildings owned by BAA near Stansted for some time and will continue to monitor their condition. Plastic double-glazed windows in a BAA-owned listed building Improving the appeal process in the planning system The institute is not convinced that either of the options for charging fees for appeals is well-founded. The amount expected to be generated by the flat fee is of little consequence given the cost of the appeal process as a whole. This might be more appropriate for householder and small-scale appeals. A fee of 20 per cent of the planning application fee is unlikely to have much effect on the numbers of larger appeals, but might deter some appellants with a good case altogether. The institute suggests that, if a fee system is introduced, it could be used to influence choice of appeal method (ie be cheaper for written appeals) and might be part returnable in the event of success to discourage appeals with low chances of success. As with applications for listed building consent, fees should not be charged for listed building appeals. Changes to permitted development The institute has serious reservations about the proposals as a whole because they do not adequately recognise the importance of protecting the setting of listed buildings which is a duty placed upon decision makers by the planning acts or the special qualities of conservation areas. It is also apparent that many of the proposals will work counter to the government’s aspirations for improved design quality and placemaking. Conservation areas are designated for their special character but, because of the lack of control over permitted development in them, many are constantly under threat of losing their character. The route to deal with this, article 4, is time-consuming, costly and repetitive to the extent that often it is not used when it should be. In the institute’s view, conservation areas would be best served with a specific permitted development regime of their own that reflects their general sensitivity. This is not to suggest that conservation areas should not accept new development, merely that it should be seen to be to a high standard through the scrutiny of the planning application process on a more widespread basis than at present. The institute agrees that local planning authorities should be able to make an Article 4 direction without the
4 C O N T E X T 1 0 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 IHBC’s tenth anniversary From DavidWarren, London I was amazed to note that the IHBC has been around for only 10 years. My recollections of the early attempts to set up a national organisation had placed its creation much earlier. Context 100 (July) brought back many memories of the early years of the Association of Conservation Officers and the people involved. The purpose of this letter is two-fold: partly to fill in a few of the gaps in John Fidler’s contribution to the July issue, but mainly to bring to the institute’s attention an archive of conservation material which has been sitting in my garage for more years than I would care to admit. I first met John when he worked for the City of London and was keen to join English Heritage (or was it still the Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings?). He states modestly that he was appointed to tackle buildings at risk because of a tiny citation in the Montague Report. In fact, he is the only person I know who succeeded in recommending an additional role for the organisation and being appointed to fill it. I watched his ascent through the hierarchy with increasing admiration, to the point where he had taken on so many responsibilities that he asked to be demoted to enable him to concentrate on those aspects of conservation to which he was most devoted. I am sorry that John says nothing in his article about his career since leaving English Heritage except for the tantalising hints about his work as a consultant in Los Angeles and of his view ‘from the boardroom of ICCROM’s council in Rome’. Perhaps he could be persuaded to contribute a follow-up article about his subsequent and present activities. I remember him during my years with English Heritage as the most outstanding member of the most dedicated and talented group of people it was my honour to work with. I hope some young budding conservationist will produce a biography of his career while I am still around to read it. Now about that archive mouldering in my garage.When I joined the Letters… directorate in 1979 I had the good fortune to work under Brian Hennessey on a series of publications entitled Aspects of Conservation. Brian (who is sadly no longer with us) was a devoted academic. Between us we amassed a room full of publications relating to area conservation. This was perhaps the most enjoyable three years of my career. After that I was dragged kicking and screaming to work on grant aid and advice on major proposals in conservation areas for five years in theWest Country and a further ten in theWest Midlands. Brian also moved on to other work. The material we had amassed was shipped out to a warehouse in Acton. Sometime later, the chief executive, Ms Page, came to see me (she did not believe in summoning people to her office) and asked me about the material. I remember the conversation vividly. ‘Is it of any use?’ ‘Yes, it’s quite a valuable archive of conservation material from the 1960s and 70s.’ ‘Well, it’s got to go. It’s taking up valuable space.’ I asked her if I could take it off English Heritage’s hands, and finished up filling my car twice over with the stuff and dumping it in my garage. It remains there to this day. I have often wondered what to do with it (sell it, pass it on to an academic institute, throw it in a skip?). The IHBC seems to me the most suitable organisation to take charge of it, but I doubt if it has the facilities to store it so that it can be easily accessed by anybody wishing to research area conservation during that period. Do any IHBC members have any suggestions? Also of possible interest are some of the slides from the Department of the Environment’s collection. Brian and I needed some to illustrate our publications. I approached the DoE to see if we could borrow any, only to find that it had disposed of its collection.We eventually tracked it down to the Central Office of Information, but I found that we would be charged an exorbitant amount to borrow any.When I appealed to the section head, he told me that they were throwing 99 per cent (or maybe 98 per cent) of them away into a skip, and I could take whatever I wanted. I again loaded my car and brought them home. The slides turned out mainly to be of little general interest, such as 1960s tower blocks under construction. Having separated the more interesting ones (about five per cent), I passed the rest over to John Earle. He was rather ill at the time and probably became more so when I lumbered him with several dozen plastic bags of 35mm slides. I still have the few thousand I retained. Anyone interested? DavidWarren IFA disappointment From Peter Hinton, chief executive, Institute of Field Archaeologists In a typically thoughtful contribution to Context 99, JohnYates (Notes from the chair) reports on the recent work by the Professional Associations Research Network (PARN) on the potential for closer working between the IHBC and IFA (Institute of Field Archaeologists). He writes: ‘The conclusion of the PARN study is that a merger is not appropriate, but that there should be a liaison committee of the two institutes. IHBC council has welcomed this advice, but it must be admitted that the IFA at a senior level is rather disappointed.’ That statement could mislead. PARN concluded that a merger was not appropriate following a meeting of representatives of the two institutes’ councils at which IFA delegates indicated their wholehearted preference for exploring this option but the IHBC delegates said that they were not prepared to discuss this option with the IFA. Other factors might mean merger
C O N T E X T 1 0 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 5 is inappropriate, but we never got to analyse them together or to present a reasoned case to the members. Therein lies the IFA disappointment. Peter Hinton, CEO, IFA IHBC director Seán O’Reilly replies: PARN’s first recommendation is that the ‘IHBC and IFA should not consider a full merger at the present time’. The third and final recommendation was that we ‘should consult with [our] memberships before considering more structured joint working’. (See www. ihbc.org.uk) The research that underpins these recommendations followed a project design by the IFA, and agreed by the IHBC and by English Heritage, funders of the research. The project board, which included both IFA Chair Mike Dawson, and Peter, who also sits on PARN’s steering group, accepted the final report, presumably confirming that it satisfied the terms of Peter’s original project design. Throughout this process, the IHBC council or its director acceded to every key recommendation as a gesture of positive support for the exercise. If PARN’s recommendation against merger were only, or mainly, the result of a single meeting between representatives of both councils, and not the product of a serious engagement with the issues, it would represent very poor value from English Heritage’s investment and from all our time and effort. Nor would it have met the terms of the project design, and so would not have been accepted by the project board. The IHBC’s internal email consultation on PARN’s work, carried out in light of the concurrent development of our business plan, solidly rejected merger. As our institute is strongly led, and served, by our volunteers, progressing discussions of merger in the face of PARN’s conclusions clearly would have been inappropriate. This was pointed out at the meeting between councils referred to in Peter’s letter. Following the research, PARN did recommend the creation of a joint committee that would help both institutes and their members appreciate in more depth the work of their fellow professionals. This was welcomed by the IHBC and endorsed by our council. PARN also listed areas that we might explore together in more detail. These did not specify merger as that issue had been addressed as a key part of the report and its recommendations. Seán O’Reilly Professional advice From Peter Richards, IHBC member As a founder member of the ACO, the 100th issue of Context (July 2007) was of particular, if nostalgic, interest.While I am not engaged in building conservation on a day-to-day basis, I keep in touch and keep my eyes and ears open. Over 24 years one thing I notice has not changed. A major issue from the very earliest days was the lack of conservation advice in many district councils which were the guardians of important parts of our built heritage. I am reminded of this in my travels throughout the kingdom. It is clear that professional advice is not available in many areas. Can the IHBC not make stronger efforts to ensure that no local planning authority can decide listed building and conservation area applications unless qualified advice is available? Finally, I am constantly impressed by the quality of Context in both content and presentation: keep it up. Peter Richards IHBC director Seán O’Reilly replies: The IHBC absolutely endorses the need for appropriate skills in local planning authorities. Members, volunteers and staff have worked hard to promote and encourage them. Integrating the historic environment management systems more effectively into the corporate structures of the authorities should raise standards. The IHBC considers that placing a statutory duty of care for the historic environment on local planning authorities would promote such integration, but current political trends do not support this. At present we are working in the context of heritage protection (in England andWales) to see what additional tools might be used to encourage the application of suitable skills, and to map out what skills are actually available locally. Seán O’Reilly From ‘Arrival and departure’ by Lionel Brett, Architectural Review, July 1955 ARCHITECTS, eternal middlebrows, quite artistic, quite scientific, looking wistfully in both directions from their position of pure neutrality, must not be deluded on this issue. Ultimately, though they speak knowingly of passengers being processed, they are on the side of the puddles and the two-mile walk from the Rochester Arms. They are on the side of life, and they must never do anything which makes life duller, more uniform or more undramatic. For the essence of travel, symbol of our journey through life, is drama, and the role of the architect is to heighten the drama by the way he sets and shifts the scene. Take, for instance, the silence as the stage-coach rattled off round the bend, taking her travelling-companions of the endless night away for ever. Jane Eyre stands absolutely alone in the golden morning sun, begins to hear larks singing, or an early ploughman calling to his horses. New life and love lie ahead cross the dew‑drenched fields, and this pause is their essence, their saviour. It can be the same, if we are allowed the moment, as the plane door bangs open at Cairo or Nice, and we stand regally on the top step in the astonishing heat and glare, overdressed, blinded, our ears buzzing. If the architect as airport planner does not speak up for this moment, no one else will, and we shall find ourselves emplaning everywhere as one now has to embark at Southampton, via a totally enclosed gangway, just another corridor, this time from the hideous lounge of the Ocean Terminal to the hideous lounge of the Queen Mary – missing altogether the wind, the incredible height of the ship’s side and the dangerous slit of filthy water miles below.
6 C O N T E X T 1 0 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 Periodically… It seems that Marianne Sühr has become the poster-girl of the conservation movement. Having been dubbed Miss Restoration, it seems that no conservation publication can resist eventually putting her on its cover. She recently featured on the cover of the Cornerstone, the SPAB newsletter. Now Marianne appears, club-hammer in hand, on the front of the RICS Building Conservation Journal (Issue 46, June 2007). It is to be hoped that all this encourages more women into the profession, to address a clear and longstanding gender imbalance. The latest issue describes Ms Sühr’s repairs to a neglected timber-framed house for her own occupation in Oxfordshire, including removal of the cement render, replacement of the rotten sole plate and refurbishment of the sash windows with linseed oil paint. Further instalments on the restoration are promised. Also in the issue, David Atkin warns of the dangers of inappropriate sandstone repair in Scotland. This comes in the light of a preventable death from falling masonry, a consequence of poor building workmanship. DavidWatt describes the 80 per cent Defra-funded consolidation of the standing remains of Caister St Edmund’s Roman walls, just south of Norwich. This was undertaken as a special project under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. While the protection of bats in historic buildings is generally well understood, this issue also makes a plea for consideration of swifts, house martins and swallows, which are also protected under theWildlife and Countryside Act. These birds are declining towards extinction and are vulnerable to many types of building renovation operations. An article by Edward Myer suggests sensible measures to help avoid disturbance and recommends seeking professional advice when planning to install artificial nesting places. As has been the case in each of the last two years, the summer issue of the Journal of Architectural Conservation (Vol 13, No 2) has been a special issue. This year it is devoted to the particular technical, political and legislative challenges of conserving modern architecture. Although over the past two decades interest has increased considerably in professional circles, this has not been matched by wider public support. Indeed, in some countries, indifference at best and almost open hostility at worst can be detected towards many post-war buildings of merit. Conserving these buildings has often required a high degree of technical specialism and the development of innovative solutions. Recourse to the tried-and-tested methods of earlier, traditionally-constructed buildings would usually be inappropriate or impractical. Increasingly too, there are concerns about the sustainability of 20th century construction. More stringent energy conservation is needed in buildings built in an era of cheap energy supply, often without an awareness or serious regard to the resources consumed. Legislation and policy are influenced by the socio-political conditions in which they are established. The prevailing conditions raise questions of which and how many buildings and structures should be preserved; the levels of protection to afford; how to resource future repair and maintenance; and who should best undertake it. These factors also vary from culture to culture and according to differing political systems. The survival of important buildings from formerly totalitarian regimes in newly-democratised nations, or structures related to cold-war military operations, poses particular problems of whether they command sufficient political sympathy or public support for their retention. All these cultural, philosophical, technical, environmental and political aspects of modern ‘historic’ buildings are closely intertwined. The papers in this JAC special issue focus on these diverse aspects singly and collectively. John Allen reflects on his involvement over the past 20 years with the repair of many of the iconic modernist buildings of the inter-war and post-war eras. He emphasises that for these buildings to continue to function in an appropriate way, yet to be true to the ideals of their original designers, a balance must be struck between preservation and change. There must also be ‘a sustainable consensus of the stakeholders’, with the statutory authorities on one side and the owners, occupiers and their professional advisors on the other. This should operate for a sustained period. Some projects, Allen argues, require ‘a balancing of seemingly irreconcilable extremes’. It is a testimony to his remarkable successes that, by identifying a working pattern of five types of projects, he can now demonstrate how the differing challenges of each can achieve this equilibrium. He tellingly observes that his practice, embarking on such work 20 years ago, started out ‘like novice skaters who shuffle round the edge of the ice rink clinging on to the barrier for support’. He adds that, when taken with the constraints imposed by formal designation, this may not always serve the ends of conservation. The ability of buildings to evolve to meet new regulatory requirements and new environmental concerns is developed by John Hudson. He explains the adaptation of one of Britain’s tallest post-war commercial buildings, the listed Cooperative Insurance Society Tower in Manchester, to meet the challenges of climate change and
C O N T E X T 1 0 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 7 sustainability. The building has been re-clad in what is believed to be the largest vertical array of photovoltaic cells in Europe. This is a response, at least in part, to the failure of the original mosaic cladding. The project has been very contentious. An appropriate philosophy was required, as well as a balance between arguments in favour of greater environmental sustainability. The principle of the reversibility of the over-cladding was a result of this. The issues raised can be seen as an early example of the potential battleground between the preservation of architectural conservation values and the need to address the climate change agenda. Concerns about poor environmental performance are not new. For modern cultural buildings, particularly art galleries and museums, this may impact adversely not just on the building and its occupants, but potentially on its collections and exhibitions. Problems like these occurred at the Yale University Art Gallery’s Kahn Building, designed by visionary architect Louis I Kahn and completed in 1953. Lloyd DesBrisay was the architect responsible for overseeing the 2006 restoration. He describes the tensions involved in seeking modern material authenticity in the replacement of the original steel frame windows, a striking part of the original design. They were replaced with a thermally broken aluminium window wall system which respected Kahn’s original design intentions. Some inappropriate later changes were removed. The importance of documentation in support of authentic restoration is emphasised in the case of the 1927 Billiet House in Bruges. Ann Verdonck researched both the philosophical and practical perspectives behind the reinstatement of the original decorative scheme by Huib Hoste, one of Belgium’s leading early 20th century architects. A Hoste drawing was discovered showing a total design for the walls and ceiling of the living room, consisting of an impressive ensemble of abstract paintings. This prompted historical and colour research which proved that the paintings had been carried out, and were intact but covered by layers of more recent paint. The documentation of the designs of architects and engineers can be vital for others to form an understanding of their work, and to inform repair and restoration. The testimonies of the original designers can also be important, especially when they review their past work in a way which permits it to be placed within the perspective of the recent past. One such architect was Harry Seidler, recognised as Australia’s most important 20th century architect. He was acknowledged internationally by a number of awards and accolades received over his 50-year career, including Australia’s highest honour, the Companion of the Order of Australia, and the RIBA Royal Gold Medal in 1996. Seidler did not consider himself in any way to be a conservation architect, and was not considered so by others. However, his work has great historic and cultural significance. He was vocal about the ‘heritage industry’. He died in 2006 at the age of 82. In an insightful interview, his widow and former business partner Penelope Seidler discusses how we manage our heritage, and the interface between contemporary architecture and its conservation. Other articles of interest include Dennis Sharp’s views on the welldocumented demolition in 2004 of Greenside, a listed 1936 modernist house in Surrey. Sharp gave evidence about the significance of the output of the original designers Connell,Ward and Lucas. He now brings the story up to date, and highlights what he sees as the tenuous nature of both the listing process and subsequent protection. The financial rewards for destruction can often be greater than those for preservation, a theme also picked up in other articles. The role of legislation and its interpretation in the courts does not always lead to such positive outcomes. This is demonstrated by a recent example explained by Scott Robinson from Australia. A wide range of bodies and individuals were involved in the campaign to protect a significant 1964 demonstration house. The local community was supported by conservationists, architects, lawyers and wide media coverage. There was even an unprecedented court decision to disallow the demolition. However, the government at state level would not step in to prevent the demolition. In debates about relative significance, expert opinion is invaluable (and must surely start with ‘experts talking to experts’). However, this will only take protection so far without the political will to legislate and generate public support. The issue therefore examines the role of both ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) and DOCOMOMO (International Working Party for Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighbourhoods of the Modern Movement) in identifying and promoting the cause of modern movement buildings in particular. James Dunnett is a key figure in DOCOMOMO UK. He explores the sometimes difficult relationship between his adopted organisation and English Heritage on where the appropriate balance should be struck when undertaking adaptations or changes in functions to major listed modern movement buildings. Examples of such buildings include Eric Mendelsohn’s Cohen House in Chelsea and Trellick Tower by Ernö Goldfinger. The final paper, by Stuart Tappin, gives a candid user’s perspective of the 1960s Brunswick Centre in central London. Tappin makes an important point about the need to understand not only aspects of the original design, but also the implications for users of fundamental changes that occurred during the extended construction period. Such alterations affected and continue significantly to influence the lives of the residents. In a recent column, reference was made to SAVE’s high-profile campaign to rescue a fine Grade II listed school and local landmark in Easington, County Durham, which is facing demolition. This is a significant case where economic viability in a deprived area with a depressed property market has fundamental implications for retaining heritage outside the booming south-east. Spot-listing at the point of closure of the building saved it but, the Victorian Society argues, brought the heritage protection system into disrepute.
8 C O N T E X T 1 0 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 The latest issue of TheVictorian (No 25, July 2007) explains the arguments put forward by the amenity societies and English Heritage at the public inquiry into the demolition. At the time of writing, the outcome has not been determined. Another past campaign relating to the retention of swimming pools and lidos is also brought up to date. In the May Periodically… column, readers’ attention was drawn to an initial article in Natural Stone Specialist by architectural conservator Chris Daniels about whether colour mattered for lime mortar repairs in stone conservation. This has now been followed by another thought-provoking item (June 2007) on stone cleaning. The article suggests that in many cases it might be better not to clean stones. As before, Daniels’ advice is clear and succinct. Needless to say, examples are cited of advice given by non-conservation specialists with potentially disastrous and destructive results. Daniels concludes that buildings will always get dirty, and where this is detrimental to the wellbeing of the building or detracts from the aesthetic statement it makes (or should make), it may be appropriate to clean the building. However, this should only be carried out when everything is known regarding the fabric, the material that needs to RESTORATION BUI LD ING · CONS ERVATION I NSTITUTE · OF · HI STORIC · Institute of Historic Building Conservation – South East Branch 10th Anniversary Event 20th October 2007 – Cobham Hall Park, Cobham, Kent – 9.30 to 4.30 Restoration of the Repton Park and Darnley Mausoleum (BBC’s Restoration programme 2004) £50 IHBC members – £55 Non members To book please email Ollie Chapman [email protected], or send cheque payable to IHBC South East to IHBC at the Conservation Section, Canterbury City Council, Military Road, Canterbury CT1 1YW. be cleaned (he illustrates one example of a misdiagnosed sandstone cross in a predominantly limestone area), the techniques to be used, and the effects all these variables will produce. Bob Kindred MBE
C O N T E X T 1 0 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 9 SUPPORTING COLUMNS Repairing timber-frame buildings Elements of a poor timber structure can be left in place as long as there are adjacent timbers to redistribute the loads, writes engineer Brian Morton. Over the past six months I have been working on two timber-frame buildings, both proceeding in parallel. The emphasis has been on retaining as much of the individual elements of these listed buildings as possible. The obvious solution when working on buildings that are in a very poor condition, with sole plates and eaves wall plates in a poor state, is simply to take out those elements, replacing them exactly as existing. However, in my case, the two buildings are both listed and of some significance. The conservation officers concerned emphasised that saving the existing structure should be the first consideration. When looking at this situation, an understanding of the way structure works and how loads are distributed is vital, particularly in terms of load distribution from one structural member to another when one fails. The principal posts of a timber-framed building generally support principal beams at floor level, and trusses at eaves level. Alternatively, the principal posts can simply carry up to the underside of the eaves wall plate, supporting rafter couples without there being any principal trusses. If a post has failed, with not enough timber left in it to support the dead and imposed load, there is a tendency simply to take it out and repair it, or splice in a new section of post. In fact, in many instances when a vertical supporting member in a timber frame building deteriorates, the load distributes itself on to the timber stud posts. If it is due to a failure at high level, the load carries down through the building so that by the time it reaches ground level the load is probably more or less where it would have been if the existing post had still been strong. It is important not to change the current distribution of load at ground level, to avoid possible future foundation settlement. I remember some years ago being involved in a discussion about a timber-framed building in a conservation area, which the owner wanted to demolish. My advice was that there was little chance of that happening because, as seen from the inside, it was a substantial timber-framed structure and certainly worthy of retention. I was telephoned some months later by the owner. He had opened up the render facing the structure, which had been my rather tentative suggestion, to establish the condition of the timber frame. I went back to look at it. I found that the principal posts (I believe there were ten in all) had simply lost their bottoms.The loads had redistributed themselves around the studwork on to the existing sole plate and girding beam at first-floor level. There were no signs of imminent structural failure of the building, indeed very little cracking. In this case the hard render on the outside face of the building was simply a diaphragm holding it up. Loads do distribute themselves quite adequately around the frame. One can afford to leave in place elements of a poor structure as long as there are adjacent timbers to redistribute the loads. On one of the projects I saw a problem that often occurs. The eaves wall plate was in a very poor state, and the tenons from the rafters into the eaves wall plate had been lost, so the rafters did not transmit the horizontal load from the rafters into the wall plate any more. In addition to this, the room had a coved ceiling which we did not want to destroy. To add to the difficulties, the wall had bowed out in its length, perhaps by 150mm. Fortunately, the sliding of the roof meant that we had some spare space to get a new facing to the existing wall plate. Once the additional timber had been connected, we had a problem dealing with the fixings of the rafters down to that plate.We decided to place a piece of oak running along the length of the new piece of timber, flush with the outside face, making this timber 60mm2. We then cut away a section of the rafter at its foot, to accommodate this new section of timber which would satisfactorily transmit the horizontal The junction of the wall plate with the adjoining roof
10 C O N T E X T 1 0 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 load. This was screwed down with stainless steel screws at 200mm centres. The photograph on the previous page shows the junction of the wall plate described above, with the adjoining roof. The photograph above is a close-up of that situation. Below the rafter are the minimal remains of the end of the eaves wall plate which abuts a tie end coming in from the main roof. The contractor was keen to take out this section of eaves wall plate and replace it with a full-size section. In fact, as can be seen in the photographs, there are very substantial timber studs at close centres beneath the wall plate. Further inspection showed that although the timber post on which the rotten end of the wall plate had rested had partially disintegrated internally, there was enough of that timber section of post to be left in place. To the amazement of the contractor, I instructed him to leave it alone, and not to repair the eaves wall plate at all. This retained the existing elements of construction in this corner. The photograph on the right shows a junction of floor beams where water had been running down through the roof for some time, causing deterioration of the junction of two principal beams. My recommendation here was to cut out the timber that had deteriorated, which can be seen on the photograph. We agreed to infill the lost section of timber in one direction with a continuous length, and in the other direction by setting in two short lengths of timber to make up the cruciform. To reinstate the structural integrity of the joint, I specified a steel plate to the underside which was bolted through from the top with four bolts to each of the legs of the cruciform. My particular requirement was that the infilling timber should be cut tight to the cut-out form in its length, so that any compressive movement due to loading of the floor would be carried through directly, without any movement occurring. It was felt by all concerned that it was appropriate to use the steel plate, rather than taking out a much more substantial section of both beams and forming very long scarf joints, which would have required many more bolts. Brian Morton MBE is a consultant to the Morton Partnership, the practice he formed in 1966. Close-up of the junction of the wall plate and roof Deterioration of the junction between the two principal floor beams
C O N T E X T 1 0 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 11 How to preserve and enhance the conservation environment Figure 2 – the Conservation Rooflight® Figure 1 - Traditional cast-iron rooflight Characteristics of a Victorian cast-iron rooflight • Very low in profile - nominally flush to the roof tiles • Single-glazed panels divided into narrow strips by real glazing bars • Fine lines and relatively deep modeling of the putty to the glazing bars and edges • No overtly modern materials used - traditional flashings/soakers • Poor insulation and weather-tightness performance combined with condensation and maintenance problems Characteristics of • Very low in profile - nominally flush to the roof tiles • Double-glazed panels divided into narrow strips by real glazing bars, but with appearance of single-glazing at the cill • Fine lines and relatively deep modeling of silicone replicating the putty to the glazing bars and edges • No overtly modern materials used - traditional flashings/soakers • No condensation problems due to patented Thermoliner® - thermal lining incorporating drainage channels • Proven performance – exceeds BS6375: Part 1:1989 (weathertightness), U Value of 1.7W/m2 K, BS Kite marked glazing • Wide range of ironmongery and glazing options including ActivTM self-cleaning glass Figure 1 is an original Victorian cast-iron rooflight. In order to preserve and enhance a traditional or historic property the visual characteristics of new or replacement rooflights should closely match the original cast-iron ones. In addition modern standards of insulation and weather tightness must be provided. Often modern conservation-style rooflights meet performance criteria, but most fail to match the details of the original cast-iron models due to their broad sections, aluminium fronting and mock glazing bars. The Conservation Rooflight® from the Rooflight Company offers the largest size range in the UK as well as a bespoke design service, which means that any size or shape can be accommodated. For detailed case studies, visit www.therooflightcompany.co.uk or contact 01993 833108 or email [email protected] for a brochure. the spec i f i e r ’ s cho i ce . . .
www.ihbc.org.ukRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=