Demolition dates?

[Falkor]

How can I find out when these buildings are due to be demolished?

[Blushingsnail]

Perhaps the Planning Department at Lewisham Council will know? The Finches site is being done by Berkeley Homes, so you could try contacting them. I imagine demolition of Finches will begin fairly soon, as planning permission was granted last year but the hoarding has only just gone up, so perhaps there was a hold-up that has now been resolved.

[Falkor]

I spoke to project manager of Berkeley Homes and he said that demolition of Perry Valle buildings will commence this week!*
But it will take 6 weeks to complete... I should have got him to clarify whether most of that time is spent clearing the site or whether it actually takes the bulldozers more than a day to destroy the buildings! *He was unable to tell me the exact day.

Lewisham Council said they can't help with any demolition dates--only the new landowners.

[leenewham]

I find it very sad that these two buildings are being demolished. The finches has some history (wasn't it once a pub and an armoury) and the other place looks like an interesting old pub. I hope it wont be replaced by some boring brick boxes. I always thought the Finches would make wonderful warehouse style apartments if it was converted. It looks as if yet again our heritage is being wiped away.

[gillyjp]

I really do not understand people's obsession with 'saving' buildings which are quite clearly past their sell by date. The two here are not even nice to look at. Granted the scaffolding, broken and boarded up windows do not help but really!

'An interesting old pub'?? Well obviously not interesting enough when it was a pub for people to visit on a regular basis and keep it ticking over to save it from being demolished. I am sure if it was a sound and viable business it would not have sold out to the developers.

Imagine if no buildings were allowed to be demolished on the grounds that they were of 'local interest'. There would have been no progress at all and we would all still be living in unheated, damp, ugly and cramped accommodation.

I appreciate some buildings have enough history and architecture, internal and external, to warrant being 'listed' and saved for our heritage but these two? The sooner these eyesores go the better.

[Thomas]

An earlier discussion about the Duke (including a link to the plans submitted to the Council for the new building) can be found here:
http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic. ... d1ae50b4e4

In one of the Coulter & Seaman books of old photos of Sydenham & Forest Hill there is a photo of the pub with the landlord taken from outside.

[leenewham]

I'm all for changing the use of old buildings and NOT building the boring brick boxes we see everywhere.

If it is a new building of some architectural interest then fine. But unfortunately a lot of modern developments leave a lot to be desired.

I don't really know the duke and can't tell much about it from the picture, but the Fletches site certainly has a lot of potential to adapt the original building with its large industrial windows etc. I'm suprised they are knocking it down rather than adapting it.

[Paddy Pantsdown]

I'm not one for conservation either. We are supposed to be improving life, not fossilising it.

I would allow, nay encourage, anyone to demolish any building in principle including Buckingham Palace (or maybe especially Buckingham Palace) with one proviso:

** The replacement building must be of greater architectural merit **

I know that is a subjective statement but it is certainly not what is happening in our environment today. When did you last see a building built around here that could even claim architectural merit?

We would not have hardly any of the great buildings of London if they had been fossilised in conservation areas. They were nearly all built on the sites of clapped out medieval buildings or even earlier mud huts albeit of great historical interest. They were not well fitted to later ages yet alone 21st century life.

PP

[leenewham]

Adapting old buildings is NOT fossilizing life. New buildings don't always improve life. Look at all the victorian slums cleared away be the new high rise blocks.

The tate modern is an old building, brought to life by vision. Would be feel the same if it had been knocked down and replaced a new building? What about Butlers Wharf? Is that better for having adapted the warehouses or would it have been better if they had knocked them all down? What about Hampton Court, a building which had evolved over hundreds of years, adapted and changed rather than being totally knocked down. Covent garden was going to be knocked down and built on, and thank god they didn't.

Even Buckingham Palace has been adapted (what we think of as the front, is actually the back, the front part face the lawn and is very beautiful). I certainly wouldn't tear it down.

Crystal Palace was torn down, moved and improved, not replaced with something completely different.

Rows of Victorian buildings are beautiful when treated with respect (Sash windows NOT PVC with leaded panes).

Most of the time buildings are torn down and replaced by buildings of very little artistic merit, such as the Somerfield store in the High Street.

The library in Lower Sydenham or the swimming baths in Upper Sydenham, most of the houses along by Crystal palace park, some of the buildings along Jews walk are fantastic examples of architecture. Sydenham highstreet is full of wonderful buildings if you look above the shopfronts.

But lets face it, most modern developments are awful. For every grand design there are thousands of ill considered pastiches of the past or brick boxes with tiny windows.

Old buildings should be treated with respect. New buidlings should respect their situation and surroundings. This is often best done by contrasting with them.

[Paddy Pantsdown]

Adapting old buildings is NOT fossilizing life.

Who said it was? Who has a problem with improving old buildings? Making things better is what I was arguing for. Are you against that?

You mentioned the Tate. A power station designed by a brilliant architect. Brought back to life in quite a different genre for another purpose by an outstanding architect. That is not conservation. Quite the opposite.

Buildings that are not well designed or are no longer fit for purpose need not be conserved. Indeed I would argue *should not be conserved*. Either get them improved or replaced to meet today's needs. If the replacement is better than the original - why do you have a problem? Fossilisation is when we keep something because of the past, not because of the future. There is plenty of that about.

Conservation policy in this country inhibits improvement, it inhibits experimentation and the creation of mixed styles. The justification is that we fear change will be worse. If you keep good architects away from buildings that is probably true. The UK is over represented in the number of great architects today. It is under represented when it comes to where their stuff is built.

Could that be related to our love of conservation over sponsoring new ideas, taking risks with new design?

Take the Greyhound. Do we really want to keep it? Don't we want something better? We would probably get something worse because greater architectual merit is not the deciding factor in planning decisions. That is my complaint.

PP

[simon]

Got to say the Hexagon office at the corner of Knighton and Sydenham Road is a great improvement on the petrol station that was there before and one of my favourite Sydenham buildings.

[Pat Trembath]

Paddy Pantsdown asks michieviously (I think), "Take the Greyhound. Do we really want to keep it? Don't we want something better? We would probably get something worse because greater architectual merit is not the deciding factor in planning decisions. That is my complaint"

I would point to the example of the Three Tuns in Beckenham which shows how a large failing pub has been turned round by imaginative architects. It is now a restaurant with accommodation above and the car park has been converted to a gated courtyard with housing. The main, well designed building has been retained and still provides its architectural presence on the high street.

The proposal to flatten the Greyhound site, pack it with 70 flats and a token bar was over development on a town centre site and was also likely to be detrimental to our townscape. The proposals never got as far as a planning application.

Without the Conservation Area protection in place it is likely that whatever replaced it would be worse. The main part of current building has been recognised as having both architectural and historic merit and has been added to its local list of such buildings by Lewisham Council.

There are superfluous outbuildings on the site and how these are dealt with must be part of discussions with Lewisham Planning and Conservation officers. Planning consent for demolition of any of these should mean that any building demolished will be replaced with buildings of good architectural design with landscaping to enhance the gateway to Sydenham town.

[leenewham]

Sorry Paddy, everyone was talking about demolishing buldings, which is exactly the opposite of keeping a building but changing the usage, which I did say in my orginal post.

When you talked about 'knocking down Buckingham Palace' it seemed to me you were suggesting that any old bulding was game for complete replacement by a modern building.

I don't think conservation policy inhibits improvement (it certainly didnt on the OXO tower, Tate, British Museum, Kings Cross, Waterloo etc etc), it does stops complete destruction.

I am against knocking an building down because it is cheaper to rebuild it than the adapt it. I don't think a new building is always better than an old building. Realistically architecture is restricted by cost, local planning and perception of what the public wants more than english heritage and conservation orders. Most conservation orders are there to stop people making awful decisions on replacement windows and ill concidered 'home improvements' like bradstone wall cladding. I'm convinced that Sydenham high street would look far better if it had a conservation order on it years ago and more original shop frontages had been retained and less plastic illuminated signs had been used.

Conservation orders at best are used to retain character, but they do not mean that you cannot alter or adapt a building in sympathy to the surroundings. English heritage encourage the use of modern matierials to contrast with the old original parts of the building so that you can tell which bit was added when in the same way that buildings such as Hampton Court have clearly evolved over time.

I guess we generally agree, I just think that a lot of thought should be given to knocking old buildings down when they could be adapted first and incorporated into a scheme. I am not for preserving buildings exactly as they were when first built for the sake of it.

I think we have made far too many mistakes in the past. The Somerfield building in the high street being case and point! We don't want a mistake like that on the Greyhound site. Developers want to make money, they really aren't too fussed about what locals think as long as they don't oppose their plans (from what a few have told me!).

[leenewham]

Good post Pat, 100% agree.

[Paddy Pantsdown]

When you talked about 'knocking down Buckingham Palace' it seemed to me you were suggesting that any old bulding was game for complete replacement by a modern building.

Yep. By a better modern building. I mention Buck House deliberately as it is generally considered to be poorly designed building occupying an important position. Obviously I can't speak for the present tenants.

I don't think conservation policy inhibits improvement (it certainly didnt on the OXO tower, Tate, British Museum, Kings Cross, Waterloo etc etc), it does stops complete destruction.

I am against knocking an building down because it is cheaper to rebuild it than the adapt it..

Are you against replacing an old building with a better modern building? That would surely be crazy?

The important word is 'better'. The better the old building is - then the higher the bar to replacing it. I can't see anybody topping Wren's St Paul's dome & interior so that is safe.

On the other hand the same principle would have preserved some good old buildings that have been replaced by poorer buildings. We have suffered a lot of that around here.

Better means many things. However there is a surprising amount of consensus on what a good building is independent of our particular likes and dislikes. Watching the Stirling prize programme last Sunday shows the diversity and sensitivity good design can bring to fresh and even old loved buildings.

Take the Tate. We have an exciting take because the turbine hall was an existing massive space that could be remodelled to something new and impressive. It bears no relationship to its original purpose and atmosphere. Great if you got it, use it.

What if it had not been suitable? Suppose it had been demolished and Frank Geary had given us a Bilbao Guggenheim? Would we have been poorer or richer? Well putting personal tastes aside more people travel greater distances purely for the purpose of enjoing that building. It is not for the collection which is not in the same class as the Tate. Indeed the Tate's famous spider looked just as much at home on its Bilbao visit.

Should global warming turn out to be as real as people imagine you are going to have a difficult choice. You can only lag and coccoon an old building so much. Zero carbon buildings are most likely to require specialist design. That means new build.

Hmmm ... which do your prefer. Sydenham Well's estate or BedZed?

Bring on the bulldozers

PP

[Steve Grindlay]

I agree with you, Simon, the Hexagon Housing building is rather striking, and it did replace a drab petrol station, but it is not quite as simple as that. The petrol station replaced this group of the cottages:

These cottages were perhaps three hundred years old and may not be "well designed or ... fit for purpose", but they are charming and historic nontheless. They were demolished in the 1960s (the film poster shows that Stranglers of Bombay (1960) and Kill Her Gently (1957) were being shown at the ABC).

While the cottages were there, and to a lesser degree when the petrol station was on the site, there was a partial view of the side of All Saints Church (a listed Grade II building). The Hexagon building has almost completely obscured that view. This is unfortunate, as the only visible side of the church is the uncompleted, and not very attractive, west end.

Furthermore, the buildings along Sydenham Road, between Hexagon Housing and the old chapel on the corner of Trewsbury Road, are all 18th century, although some may not look it, and nos. 122-124 are also listed Grade II. The bulk of the Hexagon building, in my view, rather overwhelms these buildings.

I would allow, nay encourage, anyone to demolish any building in principle including Buckingham Palace (or maybe especially Buckingham Palace) with one proviso:

** The replacement building must be of greater architectural merit **

This oft repeated phrase was perhaps first, certainly most famously, used by Sir Nikolaus Pevsner. In The Buildings of England: London he devoted 8 pages to Buckingham Palace, describing it as "supremely English" and pointing out its strengths as well as its weaknesses.

We would not have hardly any of the great buildings of London if they had been fossilised in conservation areas.

Vast swathes of Westminster, Camden and Islington are designated conservation areas and even the square mile of the City of London has eighteen separate conservation areas. That has not prevented these boroughs from having some of the most exciting modern buildings in London.

A conservation area, as defined by the OED, is "an area deemed to be of special architectural, natural, or other interest, whose character and appearance are protected (usu. by law) from undesirable changes". This does not prohibit desirable changes.

Is it, perhaps, restoration that you feel so strongly about? The OED defines that as "the process of carrying out alterations and repairs with the idea of restoring a building to something like its original form; a general renovation."

It is worth remembering that very many of the best modern buildings, both here and abroad, were commissioned by public bodies of one sort or another. Anyway, all this talk of Bilbao, Buckingham Palace and Tate Modern is irrelevant to Sydenham, and I'm surprised that Admin hasn't stepped in to call us to order.

[leenewham]

[I mention Buck House deliberately as it is generally considered to be poorly designed building occupying an important position.

Only the back (which you can see from the road and is a new addition), the original building (the front) is around the back and is wonderful.
I hope Falkor has a picture of it.

Take the Tate. We have an exciting take because the turbine hall was an existing massive space that could be remodelled to something new and impressive. It bears no relationship to its original purpose and atmosphere. Great if you got it, use it.

What if it had not been suitable? Suppose it had been demolished and Frank Geary had given us a Bilbao Guggenheim?

What if we had got a elephant and castle instead? (which is far more likely).

If only all new buildings were masterpieces, in the real world they are not. In the real world older buildings get knocked down becasue it is cheaper to do so. In the real world you don't get Billbao/gerkins. Look at hte plans they had for replceing the badly damaged tower bridge after ww2...horrible. Or Euston Station, a stunning old station ripped down and replaced with an eyesaw. Now look at what they are doing with St Pancreas which is wonderful.

As for global warming, old buildings can be just as well insulated as new ones if insulted properly.

I hope this debate can continue and it doesn't get shut down by the admin and I hope Falkor can add 'fuel to the fire' with some more wonderful pictures.

We wont get a Billbao in Sydenham, but we had something better once. Crystal Palace, one of the greatest buildings ever conceived (in my opinion) and in its day wonderfully modern. Modern buildings can be beautiful...whenever they were built.

[simon]

Thanks for the info Steve. I was under impression that what existed before the petrol station was bombed in WW2 as I know that number 2 & 4 Knighton Park Road were, but obviously I was wrong. I take your point about obscuring the view of the Church and the whole of the Church seems somewhat hemmed in by its surrounding builidngs. What I like about the Hexagon building is the way it manages to blend in and stand out the same time, a good example of building something striking and new without it looking out of place in older surroundings.

[Paddy Pantsdown]

Take the Tate ... What if it had not been suitable? Suppose it had been demolished and Frank Geary had given us a Bilbao Guggenheim?

What if we had got a elephant and castle instead? (which is far more likely).

Unlikely. The E&C would never have been regarded as of significantly greater architectual merit than than the Gilbert Scott building. Whereas one could argue that the finest today (like Frank Geary) could create a better museum building. Remember Gilbert Scott was building a utilitarian power station.

The debate on that would be very interesting. As would looking back to how the decision was made to build the E&C which I agree is a disaster.

You can say I am taking greater risks. Mistakes will be made. I agree. But playing safe is what is leading to the blandest architecture in europe. OK if you like bland.

As for global warming, old buildings can be just as well insulated as new ones if insulted properly.

No. What about non-cavity wall buildings? (more or less anything pre 1930). You cannot fully insulate many old brick buildings to zero emissions levels. To do so would lower the brick skin temperature which would go significantly below zero in winter. The original non flexible mortar would crack and the building destabilise. I recommend the Green Building Bible for an excellent discussion on this.

That's why buildings with outer skins that go below zero usually use a flexible wood exterior. Or would you go for cladding our existing buildings with a wood insulating skin? Certainly a challenge and would significantly change their appearance. Which is why starting afresh may be a better idea.

Let's hope the global warming thing is overstated or people are prepared to get their minds more fully around the issues of generating power from non-fossil sources. Interesting choices ahead.

PP

[leenewham]

Hi Paddy,

my point about the elephant and castle is that we MOSTLY replace older buildings with ones that are not of great artistic merit. The police station in Lewisham is a great example of this, Somerfield in Sydenham high street and look at the buildings behind the first picture in this thread.

I agree we should be making brave decisions about our future architecture, but not at the expense of Character, somthing Sydenham has loads of. Sounds like you are a Corbousier fan, he wanted to demolish the centre of Paris to make way for rows of tower blocks.

With older buildings is it possible to add a brick skin to the outside of the building which matches the original brick and is highly insulating, or to add insulation to the inside of your property, something I plan to do in the house i'm purchasing in Sydenham (a Victorian terraced house).

Building new homes uses a hugh amount of energy. We can all use energy efficient light bulbs, AAA rated appliances and effiecient heater systems and insulate our lofts where we lose up to 35% of our heat. Hopefully we can buy these locally so we don't use cars to buy them!

Do we ever have real meet ups form these forums, I'm enjoying this 'debate' and it would be interesting to do it in real time over a pint in some Sydenham local.