How living on past glories can build a better future for us all
THE conservation of architecture has always depended on a distinction being made between buildings that have a special character, and buildings that are just ordinary.
The first may be deemed worthy of retention, the second deemed dispensable. The radical 1947 Planning Act introduced the concept of the legally-protected listed building, and this has since been the cornerstone of architectural conservation.
The distinction has led to many fine buildings surviving redevelopment, only to have their urban context removed. So in Birmingham we have, for example, The Bartons Arms, the wonderful pub in Aston, standing marooned in a wasteland of highways and leftover space, without the surrounding housing, industry and shops which previously gave it its purpose and meaning. There are many other similar examples.
In recent decades there has been some awareness (though not enough) of a second justification for conservation. I have referred to it in this column more than once. This is the economic fact that old buildings, irrespective of their architectural quality, are necessary to house new and small businesses because they are affordable, whereas new buildings are not.
This important fact is frequently overlooked in area regeneration, leading to a loss of economic activity and employment, instead of the advertised increase. Big shiny new buildings look impressive in the brochures displayed at MIPIM. They may house hundreds of bankers or accountants, but they often displace lots of unglamorous but diverse and useful small businesses.
More recently there has been growing awareness of a third justification for conservation, which is related to the climate emergency. Constructing new buildings generates a lot of carbon; the construction industry is responsible for 35-40 per cent of the UK’s total carbon emissions.
Part of this is caused by the wasteful economic model of demolishing old buildings, which have high levels of embodied energy locked into them, and replacing them in an energy-intensive construction process.
The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors has found that 51 per cent of the whole-life carbon emissions of a new house have been made during its construction; 35 per cent for a typical office development.
So the construction of new buildings is a major factor contributing to the current climate crisis. If Britain is to achieve its legal commitment to a net-zero-carbon economy by 2050, something needs to radically change.
Part of the answer is to build for a longer life. We happily inhabit many buildings which are hundreds of years old, modified for contemporary use. Yet new buildings built today are often deliberately built for an economic life of only 50 or 60 years. This is because they will have paid off their development costs by then, and earned their developers a good sum of money. Replacing the building 60 years from now will be the next generation’s problem.
But another part of the answer is simply to build less and conserve more; to regard our existing building stock as a valuable resource of both space and carbon, and to demolish and replace it only as a last resort.
The Architects’ Journal, recognising the truth of this, has just launched a campaign which it calls RetroFirst; a policy making the conversion and reuse of an existing building the default position of any development, not its demolition and replacement by a new building.
It critically includes a reform of the current VAT regime; this perversely encourages newbuild with zero to five per cent VAT, while the conversion of an old building is punished by 20 per cent VAT.
It would be of great benefit to Birmingham as well as to the planet if this sensible policy were to be adopted by the city’s planning department.
Of course, there are many situations in which new buildings are necessary and essential. But before reaching that decision, we should always examine whether needs can be met by retaining and modifying what is already there, thereby reducing carbon emissions caused by demolition and new construction.
Fort Dunlop and the Mailbox are major examples of this being done.
A more modest but exemplary case is at 76-94 Bristol Street in Birmingham. It is the conversion of a row of Victorian offices and shops (incidentally designed by the same architects as The Bartons Arms, James and Lister Lea) into student accommodation, by the Gooch Estate. The architects for the conversion were St Paul’s Associates in Birmingham. They are attractive red brick and terracotta buildings, but not special enough to be protected by statutory listing. As unlisted buildings not in a conservation area, I expect the developer could have gained consent to demolish them had they wished, and replace them with a new building; probably several more storeys could have been added.
The Gooch Estate deserves considerable credit for deciding to retain the buildings rather than to demolish and replace them.
There are 81 student rooms, apparently much in demand. The ground-floor shopfronts, previously an untidy mess of modernised windows and fascias, have been redesigned into a coherent frontage that is well related to the upper floors, and there is an interesting range of small businesses there.
Because of its function as a major dual-carriageway, and the absence of building enclosure on the opposite side from CRM Students, Bristol Street is not a very attractive street. But all such streets possess the capacity to be improved and to again become a proper urban place, if appropriate planning and development policies are employed.
Someone more expert than I could calculate how many tonnes of carbon have been saved by the retention and conversion of these 1897 buildings, which would have otherwise been emitted by their demolition and the construction of a new building.
But I do know that Bristol Street is a significantly better place because these buildings are still there, carefully improved, and dedicated to new uses. This development is a model which deserves to be copied elsewhere.
The construction of new buildings is a major factor contributing to the current climate crisis