| Edinburgh World Heritage Site, Buildings / News, Development, Architecture Edinburgh World Heritage - EWH, Scotland, UK |
| UNESCO World Heritage Site Edinburgh |
|
|
|
Spaces? |
|
Editorial:
December 2001 Another month starts after a 'big bash', this time a day of debate at the Hub. There was little entrenchment at this debate, some barbed words and offers of friendship. I went away with Ian Wall's words ringing in my head warning of the cosiness of the affair, the Friday afternoon architects' 'lovefest'. Terry Levinthal's point that it's the medocrity we should be campaigning about is a valid and important one: although we should spend more time on key planning submissions in the city centre than those outside (Edinburgh World Heritage site and so on), it should not be to such a degree: I would suggest a redistribution of focus. Edinburgh is slowly becoming a stageset surrounded by built detritus. If the contrast were to sharpen (and it really looks like it will) it would seriously devalue the merits of what has been achieved in the centre. Get involved in your local community, if not already: write, cajole and complain, and, as the Cockburn is starting to do more and more, be positive and try and suggest, promote and encourage good contemporary architecture. For reference [from October Editorial]: Addendum Pre-Big Debate statement 28.11.01 As stated in the previous Editorial I would like to think the various strands of architecture could agree to differ and to push forward exciting, innovative architecture in our city. Entrenchment helps no-one. The continual blocking of schemes by heritage bodies irks architects trying to effect positive change in this city; at the same time developers need to do a lot more than at present. The Evening News may knock the Cockburn for complaining about the GPO (mid-Oct), but rich out-of-town developers need to be firmly encouraged to add something back to Edinburgh (such as an interconnection with Waverley, an obvious but costly step in this case). The problems that I perceive some people to have with new development (see my Prospect 'Comment') are little to do with style or contextuality, but about integrating schemes into our transport network, investing to get long-term reward and talking to the community (and sometimes about nimbeism). If local people know the [big] developer has come to explain their loss of view, the materials, the effect on noise levels at night, car parking numbers, pedestrian routes, etc., then they might be more cooperative. Too often the consultation comes after the planning submission is approved. I'm not a big fan of community design, but community consultation is a must and should not dull schemes. Developers must be pressured to accept some minute dip in profits to facilitate integrated and accepted development: the City Council has a role here too. The Evening News Leader (27.11.01) claims we need the heritage bodies: this is correct, but I can think of a few schemes the AHSS has lodged complaints with that just don't merit it. It could be argued that that is just my point of view, but there is no subjectivity about the effect it has on our city. I have to explain to the Client why his innocuous little sign, say, has provoked a complaint, and struggle to find a logical underpinning. Some Clients (especially small-scale local ones) might just shrug, but others will surely be thinking of developing in other less hostile cities. I just hope that the Big Debate can effect some lasting good. A slanging match will not be a result. |
| Apart
from the Big Debate, what else has been happening? The other big debate
that has raged on and on - the new Scottish
Parliament - has reached another peak in the Press over reported plans
to further limit, in a formal and public way, the role of Spanish practice
EMBT.
Another government document (Designing Places), has been issued to complement
the Architecture Policy for Scotland. Princes Street has also become a hot issue again after the rekindling of the Galleries scheme, an underground 'mall' the length of Princes Street. The Edinburgh City Cenre Managment Group (ECCMG) have proposed large-scale demolitions in the street, and at the Big Debate Malcolm Fraser reiterated his call for selective demolition. Most people 'experience' (ie observe) Princes Street from the adjacent pavement, not from afar, and thus the worst aspect for many are empty shops. A current case in point is the future H&M Edinburgh, C&A building with adjacent 39-41 Princes Street destined for imminent redevelopment (3d Architects): appalling blankness that is an embarrassment up and down the country. Surely national legislation to prevent this is required. Stepping back to look at Princes Street, the potential ways forward are numerous, but what's for certain is that the street corners are often weak. The worst case is at South St. Andrew's Street where the block above the Carphone Warehouse (along to the Royal British Hotel) is shockingly provincial and substandard for this capital throughfare. Further along we have Hanover Street (Duet in B Minor?) and Frederick Street (gable ends with dull chamfered blocks at street level); worst of all is the soon-to-be-developed (hopefully) Burger King end block at Castle Street with its incongruous brown cladding and silly windows. Blank facades as at C&A are perpetuated across the city and surely - for many people - form a nail in 'modern' architecture's coffin: British Home Stores on Rose Street, the block just north of the Edinburgh Filmhouse on Lothian Road, the Thistle Hotel on Leith Street. Talking of which, given the break down in talks last year to redevelop New St.Andrew's House, maybe we could disband the St James Centre bit-by-bit (yes, the best way is demolish all but that seems unlikely): first the old bridge - what a prominent piece of ugliness - then the entrance canopies (south and west)? Bridges should, of course, be elegant and in the lea of Calton Hill, there must be an opportunity to shortlist some great bridge designers? I imagine the developers of Calton Square would appreciate its replacement. Continuing with bridges, just like Dublin's and London's requirement for (and achievement of) more bridges to cross a central city division, so Edinburgh requires pedestrian routes across the railway chasm. The bridge proposed as part of the Calton Gate scheme (adj. old St Andrew's House) seems to have been quietly forgotten by many (it's still in the planning submission, subject to funding). As a city why are we so blase about letting opportunities like this slip? Developers should make huge profits here, especially in the wake of the new Parliament, so why not ask them to put that bit extra in? One for the Council. Scottish Architecture Edinburgh Walking Tours Edinburgh News : back to index Edinburgh World Heritage Status : opinion piece News Excerpt re the EWHT: Trust Budget Problems Edinburgh World Heritage Trust "Bob Cairns, a director of the trust and the council’s planning convener, said: "I’m concerned at the financial situation of the trust and I very much hope that the review going ahead will result in the organisation becoming more efficient and effective". "It has resources far in excess of any other conservation organisation in Scotland. The city very much values the work it does but we have to look at how effectively it’s being carried out" http://news.scotsman.com 26.04.02 Comments / photos for the Edinburgh World Heritage Site Architecture pages welcome: info@edinburgharchitecture.co.uk Edinburgh World Heritage Site Building : page - adrian welch / isabelle lomholt Website : www.heritage.edinburgh.gov.uk |