Barbican: MODern CONServation by AA School

David Hills Architectural Association Postgraduate Diploma in Building Conservation Thesis BARBICAN: MODern CONServation? Part 1 – Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 2 The Barbican: A Brief Description..................................................................................................................... 4 Part 2 – Philosophy & Practice...................................................................................................................... 8 Listing of Post-War Buildings............................................................................................................................ 8 History ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Post-War Listing; The Issues ......................................................................................................................... 11 Listing of the Barbican .................................................................................................................................... 18 Conservation of Post War Buildings ............................................................................................................... 19 ‘The Management of Change’........................................................................................................................ 20 Minimum Intervention .................................................................................................................................... 21 Maximum Retention of Existing Fabric........................................................................................................... 22 Use of Like-For-Like Materials ....................................................................................................................... 23 Conserve As Found ....................................................................................................................................... 24 Honest Repairs .............................................................................................................................................. 25 Reversible Repairs ........................................................................................................................................ 27 Conservation Education................................................................................................................................. 27 Listed Building Management Guidelines and Agreements.............................................................................. 28 History ............................................................................................................................................................ 28 Part 3 – Listed Building Management Guidelines at the Barbican ........................................................... 33 Account of the process ................................................................................................................................... 33 Listed Building Management Guidelines: The 1st Draft; April 2004 ................................................................ 35 st Summary of the 1 Draft ................................................................................................................................ 35 nd The 2 Draft and Adoption of the Guidelines................................................................................................. 48 Critique of Adopted Guidelines ....................................................................................................................... 53 Adopted Guidelines; Volume II ...................................................................................................................... 53 Listed Building Consent Application, January 2006 ........................................................................................ 63 What Do the Guidelines Contribute to the Conservation of the Buildings? ..................................................... 66 Heritage & Value ............................................................................................................................................ 68 Part 4 – The Wider Context .......................................................................................................................... 73 Heritage Protection Review ............................................................................................................................ 73 The Future...................................................................................................................................................... 75 Part 5 – Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 76 Appendix A: Listing Description ...................................................................................................................... 80 Appendix B: Listing Building Consent Approval .............................................................................................. 87 Appendix C: Heritage Protection Review; English Heritage Pilot Projects ...................................................... 89 Bibliography.................................................................................................................................................... 92 Illustration Credits........................................................................................................................................... 94

Part 1 – Overview Introduction Speed House, the first block of flats to be completed in the Barbican, was officially opened in November 1968. Completed in March 1982, the Barbican Estate as a whole took almost twenty years to build. The vast scale of the undertaking becomes apparent when one considers that approximately 5000 people now live in its 2,014 flats and houses, and within the site’s forty acres there are gardens and lakes, two schools, an arts centre incorporating cinemas, theatres, art galleries, a library, restaurants and cafés, a church, a public house, several shops, a launderette, a YMCA hostel and a police station. The importance of the complex was recognised on 5th September 2001 when the estate was awarded Grade II status and became the largest listed structure in the British Isles1.

Fig 1: Barbican, Lauderdale Tower

Fig 2: Barbican, aerial view

I have been a resident of the Barbican since October 2002. As an architect with an enthusiasm for iconic postwar structures I was immediately struck by the innovative design, inventive organisation of space and ‘modern’ features such as sliding partitions and stainless steel worktops; many of which seemed to be undergoing a revival in the architectural and design world. In many ways it appeared to be ahead of its time, and I offered the vendor the asking price for my flat on the spot. The large number of surviving original features, such as the kitchen and bathroom contributed greatly to my decision to make the purchase. However, the question of listing always interested me. Though it undoubtedly gave the estate some architectural pedigree and a certain cachet, what did it actually mean? Which elements did it refer to? Did it mean that one was unable to make any alterations to the flats? Did it just cover the exterior? Should I declare any intentions of modernising that I had, or just keep quiet about them and hope that nobody noticed? What if the previous occupier had already made alterations to the flats – was I liable? Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, who policed the situation, and how could they possibly monitor 2014 flats to ensure that the regulations were not being flouted? From discussions with my fellow residents I learned that I was not alone in my confusion and uncertainty, indeed with my architectural background I was somewhat better off than most. Fortunately it soon appeared as if help was at hand. In April 2004 the freeholder, the Corporation of London, announced that it would be formulating what it called Listed Building Management Guidelines, the purpose of which was to clarify the situation once and for all and remove the grey areas that existed in the current system. However, the first draft of the guidelines appeared to cast even more doubt in residents’ minds and the response 1

There is some debate as to whether the Barbican holds this title or the Park Hill Estate in Sheffield. It is, however, generally accepted that whilst Park Hill may cover a larger area, the Barbican has more actual structure. It also has 2014 flats compared to Park Hill’s 994.

to them was particularly vociferous. This episode raised some interesting questions regarding the issue of listing large post-war structures, the nature of the listing system as a whole and proposed changes to the way it is administered. It also questioned the phenomenon that is loosely referred to as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;heritageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and the value that is placed on it. It is these issues that I intend to explore in this thesis.

Fig 3: Barbican, 1970. The authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s parents are third and fourth to the left of the man with outstretched arm.

The Barbican: A Brief Description Close to the walls which fair Augusta bind, (The fair Augusta much to fears inclin'd) An ancient fabric, rais'd t'inform the sight, There stood of yore, and Barbican it hight: A watch tower once; but now, so fate ordains, Of all the pile an empty name remains. John Dryden (1631 – 1700), Mac Flecknoe

The Barbican was originally a fort incorporated into the city walls in the northwest part of what was the Roman city of Londinium. The word ‘barbican’ comes from the low Latin barbecana, which means an overwork; a high tower on a mound from where a guard could keep watch over the city and surrounding countryside. Gradually it came to identity a fortified outpost or gateway. The original Barbican was situated close to the northern side of the church of St. Giles which is adjacent to the original Roman city wall, sections of which can still be seen in the Barbican Estate today (Fig. 4). The Roman administration began to disintegrate by the beginning of the fifth century and the fort fell into disrepair, although the great wall survived. There then followed a period of Saxon rule until the Norman Conquest of 1066.

Fig 4: Remains of old London Wall

Fig 5: St. Giles’ Church

The Norman church of St. Giles (Fig. 5) was founded in 1090 by Alfune, then Bishop of London. This stone church is thought to have been built on the site of a small Saxon chapel that was situated just outside the city walls close to Cripplegate, one of the original entrances to the city. The word Cripplegate is a corruption of the Saxon word crepel, which means a covered way; such a structure would have led from the city wall out to the Barbican. The time of the change from crepel to cripple and the reason for the association with cripples is unclear, although St Giles is the patron saint of cripples, blacksmiths and beggars, and such individuals may have taken up positions under the covered way. The area came alive in the twelfth century with the establishment of a horse fair every Friday in nearby Smithfield and the annual ‘Cloth’ fair, later to become Bartholomew Fair, the priory church and hospital of St. Bartholomew having been founded with the assistance of Alfune in 1123. The area was known as La Barbecane before being “…commonly called the Barbican”2 and embarking upon a rich and varied history: 1305 1348 1381 1478 1600 1604 2

William Wallace was executed in Smithfield Charterhouse Square was used as a graveyard during the Black Death Richard II met Watt Tyler and his followers at Smithfield during the Peasant’s Revolt Sir Thomas More was born in Milk Street in Cripplegate Parish The Fortune Theatre was built between Golden Lane and Whitecross Street. William Shakespeare lodged in Cripplegate Parish.

John Stow, A Survey of London, 1598

1620 1660 1666 1674 1697 1750 1752 1851 1891 1897 1918

Oliver Cromwell married Elizabeth Bourchier in St. Giles Church Daniel Defoe was born in Fore Street Most of the Barbican escaped the Great Fire Milton was buried in St. Giles Church, having lived in Bunhill Row for many years William Hogarth was born in Bartholomew Close Samuel Whitbreadâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Brewery was founded in Chiswell Street. By 1786 Whitbread produced 143,000 barrels a year, establishing it as the largest brewer in Britain. George Seddon founded his furniture emporium at 151 Aldersgate Street, which became the largest firm of furniture-makers in London in the 18th century. Cripplegate Ward had a population of 14,361, dwindling to 4737 in 1881. Many old buildings were demolished to make way for railway premises. The local population was a mere 2000, although as many as 21,000 people still visited the area for work. The Great Cripplegate Fire destroyed many warehouses and badly damaged St. Gilesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; church. Cripplegate Ward had a population of 633.

The history of the modern Barbican began on the evening of Sunday December 29th 1940, when for three hours incendiary bombs fell on the area, completely destroying it (Fig. 6). Following World War II the Barbican remained as a bomb site, with several plans for commercial redevelopment being rejected until 1955 when the Court of Common Council finally resolved to redevelop the area as a residential estate and appointed Chamberlin, Powell and Bon as architects (Fig. 7 & 11).

Fig 7: Barbican redevelopment model, 1959

Fig 6: The Blitz; Aldersgate Street Looking towards the Barbican, 1940

The architecture of the Barbican is unapologetically modern. It is built in the Brutalist style3, a movement associated with the honest use of materials, principally exposed concrete, and the expression of form, function and spaces. The material of choice for the architects was concrete, which was bush and pick hammered to expose the Cornish Pen Lee granite aggregate. This was used in conjunction with glazed engineering brick cladding. The estate comprises of flats contained in thirteen terrace blocks (Fig. 8), three tower blocks and four smaller terraces of houses. The terraces flats, of which I am a resident, are generally accessed directly from individual lift cores when arranged on an east-west orientation (Fig. 9), whilst those on a north-south alignment comprise flats or maisonettes set on a scissor plan around a spinal corridor (Fig. 10). There are generally seven storeys above podium level with three storeys under, with giant concrete columns supporting cross beams, the ends of which are exposed to form large bays, each divided into three room widths. The east-west flats are L-shaped and have a double aspect, each pair wrapped around a central glazed lightwell containing a staircase and lift. The podium is open, but with glazed entrances to the flats in the centre of each bay. Sliding windows with thick varnished teak frames are set behind paved balconies with painted steel handrails and glass balustrades with planting boxes sandwiched between. The exposed balcony soffits are painted white. The top storey penthouses with white painted barrel vaulted roofs and double height glazed ends give the blocks a distinctive appearance. Internally the average 2 bedroom flat measures 778 square feet / 72 square metres and have two-way cupboards adjacent 3

The Brutalist manifesto was issued in 1955. Its main protagonists in the UK were Alison and Peter Smithson. The term comes from the French for raw concrete, breton brut.

to the front door which contain letter and meter boxes and are used for refuse collection. Fixtures and fittings were standard throughout the estate, and some fitted kitchens and white ceramic tiled bathrooms still survive.

Fig 8: Barbican; terrace block, east-west orientation

Fig 9: Barbican flat types

Fig 10: Barbican; section through north-south orientation terrace block

Fig 11: Chamberlin, Powell & Bon

The tower blocks (Fig. 12-15) are triangular in plan with characteristic upswept concrete balconies to each corner, giving the blocks a jagged, saw-tooth like appearance. The remainder of the perimeter has glass and painted steel balustrades. The irregular stepped tops of each block are occupied by penthouses of up to three storeys with roof gardens. Below penthouse level there are three large flats per floor, arranged with the living rooms in the prows. Each floor is served by a central triangular shaped well with a centrally placed control panel that can be used to summon the lifts located to each of the three sides. Windows are timber as per those in the terrace blocks. Internally the flats are larger than in the terrace blocks (approximately 1250 square feet / 116 square metres), although the same kitchen and bathroom fittings were used, albeit to different layouts.

Fig 12: Typical tower block floor plate

Fig 14: Barbican; tower block promotional brochure, 1972

Fig 13: Barbican; Tower block elevation

Fig 15: Barbican; tower block promotional brochure, 1972

Part 2 – Philosophy & Practice Listing of Post-War Buildings History At the time of writing there are 364 post-war listed buildings or groups of buildings in the United Kingdom4. It became possible to consider buildings built after 1939 for inclusion on the list of historic buildings with the issuing of a Statutory Instrument by the Department of the Environment in April 1987. The first post-war building to be listed was Bracken House (Fig. 16), a newspaper office in the City of London in August 1987, designed by Sir Albert Richardson and built between 1955-59, which as a result has become; …a milestone in the history of listing, a history which has only gradually been allowed to develop to include the architecture of the late 20th century. Peter Smith, Context magazine no. 65, March 2000, p 14

Fig 16 Bracken House

Fig 17: Penguin Pool, London Zoo

With the listing of 20th century buildings commonplace nowadays, it is perhaps surprising to consider that up until this point the listing system did not automatically include buildings of the post war period; buildings did not necessarily become eligible for listing as they grew older. Listing was established during the Second World War when the Ministry of Works appointed three hundred local architects to produce ‘salvage’ lists to prevent structures damaged during the Blitz from being pulled down. This system was made more permanent by the Town and Country Planning Acts of 1944 and 1947, but was largely restricted by the Ministry of Local Government (later Housing and Local Government) to buildings built before 1840; only the finest examples of Victorian and Edwardian architecture were eligible for inclusion. From these beginnings, with a few exceptions, the listing of post 1914 buildings can be described as having occurred in several ‘waves’: x x

In 1970, when 50 inter-war buildings were listed. In 1987, when 18 post-war buildings were listed.

This figure was quoted by Elain Harwood at the IHBC conference Twentieth Century Buildings: Conservation Solutions, 15 November 2005. It is based on the number of sites and excludes some military structures.

Post-1993; a further 121 post-war buildings were listed between March 1993 and December 1995 (189 separate items on 111 sites)5 and further listing continues to this day.

In 1970 the 'cut-off' date for a building to be listed was formalised as 19396, and Sir Nikolaus Pevsner was asked to recommend the top fifty examples of the Modern Movement for listing. These buildings, commonly known as ‘The Pevsner Fifty’ were listed at grade II, and included such iconic structures as Lubetkin and Tecton’s Penguin Pool at London Zoo (Fig. 17). Although it represented a significant step forward, this new system was not without its problems; for example the cut off point of 1939 meant that individual architects’ pre 1939 work could be listed, but later examples could not.

Fig 18: Firestone Factory

It took the destruction of the Art Deco Firestone Factory (Fig. 18) over a bank holiday in 1980, just as it was on the verge of being listed, to focus public attention on the protection of modern buildings; People with little interest in medieval castles and Georgian country houses found they cared passionately for cinemas and lidos, because they were a part of their neighbourhood, their culture. Elain Harwood, England; A Guide to Post-War Listed Buildings, p 0.2

The resulting public outcry prompted the government to commission English Heritage to carry out a comprehensive study of inter-war buildings which typified more clearly the architecture of the period. Distinctive building types were identified, such as tube stations, airport buildings and lidos, and nearly 150 buildings were identified for listing as a result7. The 1987 Statutory Instrument that followed introduced a new system which allowed for the constant extension of the period for which buildings could be eligible for listing. This system, known as the 'Thirty Year Rule', allowed any building begun more than 30 years ago8 to be considered for listing. At the same time the 'Ten Year Rule' was introduced, which allows for any building begun more than 10 years ago to be considered for inclusion on the list if it satisfied two conditions: 1. That it is threatened with alteration or demolition 2. That it qualifies for inclusion on the list as an 'outstanding' example, later defined as meriting either grade II* or grade I. The best known example of a building given statutory protection under this rule was the Willis Faber Dumas (now Willis Coroon) Building in Ipswich, by Foster Associates 1972-75 (Fig. 19), listed grade I as a result of proposed alterations in 1991.

Elain Harwood, Something worth Keeping? Post War Architecture in England, English Heritage Publications, 1996, p5 The lists around this time include a few oddities such as the fountains in Trafalgar Square, statues of George VI and Gandhi and the 1950’s extension to Sherborne School, Dorset, listed because it was a prominent element in the Victorian quadrangle of buildings. 7 Elain Harwood, Something worth Keeping? Post War Architecture in England, English Heritage Publications, 1996, p4 8 The date that work began on the foundations is that which determines the age of a building for listing purposes. 6

Fig 19: Willis Coroon Building

Fig 20: Coventry Cathedral

Of the 350,000 list entries for buildings of all periods, 92% are listed grade II, 5.5% grade II* and 2.5% grade I9. The figures for the designation of grade I and II* post-war buildings are slightly higher due to the 10 year rule and also because there are many grade II post–war buildings waiting to be discovered. Criteria are tighter the more recent the building because of the increased number of those erected and the larger numbers that have survived. As a result, post-1945 buildings have to be exceptionally important to be listed10. Alongside the Ten and Thirty Year Rules in 1987 the Secretary of State decided to ask the general public to suggest other buildings for listing from the years 1940-57. This led to the second wave of listing. From the resulting plethora of suggestions, English Heritage recommended a total of 70 buildings for listing to the Minister in January 1987. The result was the listing of 18 buildings in April 1988, including such examples as Coventry Cathedral (Fig. 20), designed by Sir Basil Spence, who won a competition in 1951. The reason given for rejecting 52 was not that the buildings were unworthy, but that a convincing case had not been made to justify their inclusion. This together with the fact that the matter was ‘still subject to fierce controversy’11 appears to have elicited a cautious approach from the Minister. This apparent inability to appreciate the special qualities of such buildings led the government to ask English Heritage to carry out a three year research programme, providing an academic background for listing recommendations and to enhance the public’s understanding and enjoyment of post war architecture12. This new system for assessing buildings involved better visual images, a full thematic survey of the buildings on a type-bytype basis, and the establishment of a panel of experts, known as the Post-War Steering Group. The thematic survey involved correlating research from architectural journals, books, monographs on architects together with unpublished sources, as well as approaching architects of the period for their opinions and recommendations of their own and colleagues’ works. Research was undertaken into the new materials available at the time and their structural possibilities, as well as the social and political history of the period, especially in relation to areas such as education and housing where government policy had such a dramatic impact on commissioning buildings. This led to the third wave of post-war listings. The first recommendations arising from the research programme on schools and the older universities were accepted in their entirety in March 1993. By the end of 1995 189 post13 war buildings had been recommended on a total of 111 sites across the country . This new approach to post-war listing resulted in the listing of over 370 buildings by 2000, including 45 of those rejected in 198814.

Peter Smith, Context magazine no. 65, March 2000, p 14-16. A figure of 370,000 list entries is quoted by English Heritage’s Heritage Protection Director Peter Beacham in Heritage Today magazine, English Heritage, November 2005, p36. Often groups of buildings are qualified by one entry, with the result that there are thought to be around 470,000 listed buildings. 10 Peter Beacham, Heritage Today, English Heritage, November 2005, p36 11 Elain Harwood, Something worth Keeping? Post War Architecture in England, English Heritage Publications, 1996, p4 12 Elain Harwood, Something worth Keeping? Post War Architecture in England, English Heritage Publications, 1996, p5 13 Elain Harwood, Something worth Keeping? Post War Architecture in England, English Heritage Publications, 1996, p5 14 Peter Smith, Context magazine no. 65, March 2000, p 14-16

Since November 1994 the public as well as building owners have been invited to comment on all post-war listing proposals for buildings not under immediate threat. In 2001 the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) was added to the list of consultees over post-war listing. They produce a short summary of their conclusions, although English Heritage has already made its recommendation to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) before a case goes to them. The extent of agreement between the two organisations is interesting, and the value of another point of view is exemplified by an occasion when the DCMS asked English Heritage for more research on the basis of a CABE letter. There are no thematic studies at present, and the Post-War Steering Group was abandoned in 2003 as a result of English Heritage internal reorganisations to rationalise the number of committees15. This perhaps reflects a feeling amongst some that the bulk of the task of post-war listing has been completed. At present a very few post-war buildings are being ‘spot-listed’16 on the recommendation of English Heritage staff; four in 2005, 2 in 2006. English Heritage has been responsible for the entire administration for listing since 1st April 2005. The actual listing procedure involves studying the building and the available research (researchers are not permitted to be involved in the actual listing) followed by discussions on the merits of the individual case. If approved it then goes to the DCMS for the final decision. Because it is still regarded as a controversial subject, all post-war recommendations are seen personally by the Minister. The stock of listed post-war structures now represents a diverse selection of the different architectural preoccupations of the period, with schools, universities, colleges, public and private housing, churches, entertainment, communications, office and industrial buildings all included, and well over 400 structures protected.17

Post-War Listing; The Issues When one considers the number of post-war buildings that have been listed since 1987, one might be forgiven for believing that the battle to save our post-war buildings of note had been won. But is this the fait accompli that some might have us believe? The numerous opinion polls quoted by proponents of the system seem to indicate that the listing of post-war structures is regarded by the general public as a worthwhile enterprise, and that buildings of the period in general are now viewed favourably; Once considered highly contentious, listing post-war buildings now seldom raises an eyebrow. In 2000, MORI found that 75 per cent of people felt it was important to protect England’s best modern architecture, a figure that rose to an astonishing 95 per cent amongst those aged between 16 and 24. Martin Cherry, The post-war listing programme, Conservation Bulletin issue 49: Summer 2005, p 32

However, there does appear to be a good deal of evidence to the contrary. As Martin Cherry states; Popular public perceptions [of post-war listing] are more difficult [than professional] to gauge… more focussed research on public opinion is needed before we can be sure how informed, concerned or indifferent people really are… Martin Cherry, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1995, p9

The most recent expression of public opinion is probably the Channel 4 programme Demolition. Early in 2005, as a counterpoint to the process of public consultation on listing introduced in 1994, Channel 4 asked the public to nominate the buildings they wanted to see demolished. The top 12 nominations formed the basis of a four-part series, Demolition, aired in December 2005; …which investigates how Britain came to be littered with eyesores and considers what we can do about it. Channel Four, Demolition website, www.channel4.com/life/microsites/D/demolition/worst.html

It is thought by some that the Post war Steering Group was disbanded because it too closely mirrored the ‘maverick campaigners’ of the th 20 Century Society. A form of listing whereby a building is treated as listed but not added to the statutory list, pending further investigations. 17 Martin Cherry, Making a Difference; The post-war listing programme, Conservation Bulletin issue 49: Summer 2005, p 32 16

The findings of this survey are in stark contrast to those above. Most of the nominated buildings were constructed in the last 50 years, and all of the top twelve ‘Dirty Dozen’ are from the post-war period. Several are even high profile buildings;

Fig 21: Gateshead Multi-storey Car Park

Fig 22: Park Hill, Sheffield

x x

Gateshead Multi-storey Car Park (Fig. 21), Newcastle. The United Kingdom’s first major free-standing multi-storey car park to incorporate a shopping centre is an icon of mid-60s brutalism, loved by architects and academics but, it seems, hated by the general public. Park Hill in Sheffield, 1957-61 (Fig. 22), the first ‘streets in the sky’ housing estate in England, listed grade II* in 1998.

Despite Demolition being concerned with specific buildings18 rather than the idea of listing modern architecture that the MORI poll focussed on, the evidence still points towards a general public that is distinctly antipreservationist and possibly even hostile to the idea. This is, of course, not a new phenomenon. One of the reasons, if not the main reason that listing post-war buildings has taken such a long time to be implemented is that it has always aroused such controversy, and it would appear that the debate has never really gone away, with people still having the same concerns as ten or even twenty years ago. In 1996 Martin Cherry stated that; The listing of post war buildings… does not yet appear to enjoy universal favour. Martin Cherry, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1996, p5

The Demolition findings suggest that t it still does not. But why? What is it that the general public still find problematic about modern buildings? Cherry believes that opposition to listing is based on four premisses19 1. 2. 3. 4.

Demolition also had more of a local bias; few respondents came from London, and many responses were concentrated in the north, perhaps highlighting an emerging north / south divide on the issue of post-war listing. Many buildings have been demolished in the north, principally due to a lack of money amongst local authorities throughout the 80’s resulting in neglect and an assessment that it is cheaper to demolish than to repair. 19 Martin Cherry, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1995, p8

These categories can be applied to the practice of listing as a whole. I believe that the listing of post-war buildings presents its own specific set of problems that give us the opportunity to expand on the above and look at the ways that they can be or are being tackled. I have further identified the reasons for the public objection to post-war listing as follows: 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

(Lack of) education. The ‘problem of age’. Perception of unimportance. Inflexibility, both of the legislation and of the buildings themselves. Poor construction. Expense of repairs.

Lack of education must surely rank as one of the fundamental reasons for objection. It would appear that people are simply unable to appreciate modern buildings in the same way as older ones. This is hardly surprising when one considers that the reason for so many rejections in the proposed list of 1988 was that an unconvincing argument had been presented for the buildings’ preservation. If the experts are unable to convince ministers, who have the benefit of advisers, what chance does the layman have? Education was one of the themes of the postwar thematic survey, with several successful exhibitions, A Change of Heart and Something worth Keeping? that were designed to raise public awareness and appreciation of modern buildings. However, if the Demolition programme’s findings are to believed it would appear that we still have a long way to go. The momentum of this programme of education should be kept up, so that rather than dismissing Park Hill as having no architectural or historical value, its detractors on Demolition are clear as to the reasons why it is considered to be significant, even if they do not agree with them. One of the main thrusts of education should be to redefine the parameters within which people discuss the relative merits of a building: Public debate over post-war buildings in particular has tended to focus quite wrongly on facile attempts to judge contemporary buildings as facile or ugly… the 1983 Heritage Acts offer a more intelligent set of criteria based on identifying the best of our heritage on the basis of architectural interest and / or historical interest. These criteria are intended to reduce emotive debate on fashions in architectural beauty and to create a more analytical debate on the selection of the buildings that will be of the greatest value to future generations. Chris Green, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1995, p1

The problem as I see it is that post-war buildings and older buildings are compared using the same criterion; is the building beautiful? This is a precarious basis for decisions at the best of times; beauty is, of course, a subjective thing, what is beautiful to one is ugly to another. However, in the case of modern versus older buildings the comparison becomes even more problematic since, I believe, the two cannot be compared on the same basis. Modern architecture, on the whole, responded to a very particular brief and embodied an entirely different set of ideas and concerns from older buildings, such as the honest use of materials and the expression of form, function and spaces. These had a direct impact on the form of the resultant building, and must, in my opinion, be fully understood before one can even begin to debate the merits of one style versus another, let alone make a judgment on the subject of beauty. The critic might say that if beauty or significance were present it should be possible to appreciate it on a basic, immediate level rather than having to understand it in a more intellectual and reflective way, but to divorce one from the other when dealing with modern buildings is, I believe, impossible. In short the subjective needs to become objective. English Heritage practice is based on this approach, if we are to ever have a meaningful debate on the merits of modern architecture and its listing this needs to be passed on to the general public via a programme of education. Notwithstanding the above, the question of aesthetics is still imperative. A recent criticism of English Heritage is that it is becoming increasingly dominated by archaeologists who shift the emphasis away from the more aesthetic approach20. On a cautionary note, we may find ourselves in a bizarre situation where the only people looking at aesthetics are the general public. This needs to be realigned; academic study is important, but there also needs to be some aesthetic ‘glue’ to hold the whole process together.

Institute of Historic Building Conservation, Context, no. 91, September 2005

However, through all of this it is important to remember that if it is to properly achieve its purpose - the protection 21 of structures of historical and architectural interest - listing has always to be one step ahead of fashion . The buildings that will be of value to future generations are not necessarily those that are popular now. Were it simply to follow what is popular at any one particular time many structures of note would have been lost. When taken though to its logical conclusion, this means that listing is always going to be unpopular to some degree, with the general public constantly playing catch up. Another reason for hostility towards post-war listing is what might be called the ‘problem of age’. Are the buildings too new to warrant this treatment? Interestingly, the survey quoted by Martin Cherry on page 11 stated that 95% of young people thought preservation of post-war buildings worthwhile. This is a significant point; Every generation has undervalued recent architecture while overpraising older work. The Victorians attacked the very Georgian buildings that are now listed grade I a century later. Chris Green, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1995, p1

These figures suggest that for those too young to remember when these structures were built, the idea of listing is entirely plausible; for them the buildings have become iconic, perhaps because they are free of any previous associations, which then allows them to be taken at face value. For them the buildings are not ‘recent architecture’ but ‘older work’; in some instances they may even be guilty of overpraising them22. This then suggests that it is the older generation that have problems taking the listing of modern buildings seriously, perhaps because they see them as symbolising the mistakes of the recent past. Again, educating people and drawing their attention to the good post war architecture and differentiating it from the bad is the key to overcoming this attitude, highlighting the fact that there is a lot of notable architecture from the recent past that is worth preserving. Whatever the outcome, the survey suggests that post –war listing may enjoy an easier ride in years to come as the younger generation grow older. This leads into another reason for objection to post-war listing; that people consider post-war buildings to be unimportant, or less so than older examples. As Gavin Stamp states; People think 20th century buildings matter less, even if they are listed. Jane Barry quoting Gavin Stamp, ‘Icons in Peril’, Evening Standard Homes & Property, 16 February 2005, p10.

Why is this? The most obvious reason is of course that of numbers. There are, quite simply, more modern buildings around than old buildings. Through sheer familiarity they are prone to be considered less important than older buildings, and the perception is that there are more of them to replace any that may be lost, so why bother to list them? I also believe that in many instances the ‘unimportant’ attitude is connected to the types of buildings that are identified for listing, those that are for all intents and purposes ‘ordinary’ – housing estates, bus stations, shopping centres, cinemas, car parks - the types of buildings that are commonplace and as a result scarcely noticed by the layman. When combined with the ‘mundane’ materials that these buildings tend to be constructed of - glass, steel and especially concrete – it is easy to see where problems lie. The process of listing is intended to protect buildings of architectural and historical interest, which to most means country houses, churches and cathedrals and important institutional buildings. To use it to protect ordinary buildings constructed of cheap materials seems to many to be misplaced. As Martin Cherry states in relation to a debate about the listing of a number of post-war buildings23, there exists; …a lack of consensus about the intrinsic quality of the [post-war] buildings: was it justifiable to value them as one would a Jacobean house or Georgian church? Martin Cherry, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1995, p11

This is not an attitude that is not restricted to the layman; it is shared by some high profile members of the architectural establishment. In a recent radio discussion Quinlan Terry announced that; …when the [Town and Country Planning] Act was made in 1944 it did not envisage modern buildings being the focus of preservation at all… they wanted to preserve great buildings going right back to gothic 21

Elain Harwood, England; A Guide to Post-War Listed Buildings, p 0.3 It would be interesting to know what the younger generation regard as poor architecture. 23 Liverpool Cathedral; Keeling House, Bethnal Green, London; Lower Precinct, Coventry; Alexandra Road, Camden, London. 22

times, and post-1914 was very low on their agenda… the act was drafted to protect great historic buildings. [Now] It’s being used to protect and enhance the vanity of a lot of modernists. Quinlan Terry, PM, Radio 4, 23 January 2006, 17:50 hrs

Terry goes on to say that in his opinion a period of 75 years, rather than 30, is more appropriate to determine whether a building has lasting architectural value. Such a system may find popular support, since extending the period would remove listed buildings from the contentious ‘recent’ period and place them in the more favourable ‘older’ category. This would, however, set back the listed building programme 20 years to pre-1987 days, and doubtless many buildings would be lost over the 75 years. One of the main advantages of listing is that it can buy time for unfashionable buildings until a suitable use can be found, such as the example of Keeling House in Bethnal Green, London, by Sir Denys Lasdun (Fig. 23), where the listed building was proposed for demolition (which looked very likely in 199624) and then later sold for £1.3 million to a private developer. The refurbished building has been very successful (and the extra prestige that this gave to the structure cannot be underestimated here), with apartments fetching high prices. However, were it not possible for the building to be listed due to a ‘75 year rule’ then it would probably have been lost.

Fig 23: Keeling House, Bethnal Green, London

Fig 24: Imperial College Halls of Residence (demolished)

The redevelopment of Keeling House leads well into the issue of flexibility, or rather the perceived lack of it both in terms of listing legislation and post-war buildings themselves. A common belief is that once listing has been applied to a building, the owner is severely restricted in terms of what he can and cannot do to it. The ultimate problem with this is identified in Martin Cherry’s point 3 on page 7, namely that it inhibits development and affects the commercial value of a property. This was cited by the Barbican residents as an objection to the first draft of the Listed Building Management Guidelines, as we shall see later. English Heritage, however, are at great pains to point out that this is not the case; Listing… is concerned about managing change rather than fossilising buildings. Martin Cherry, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1996, p7

The fact that a building has been listed as a result of special architectural or historic interest does not prevent it being altered or even demolished, it simply means that the proposals must be assessed against their impact on 24

Martin Cherry, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1996, p6. The author appears to be almost resigned to this outcome.

that special interest. Indeed, Imperial College Halls of Residence, Kensington, London, by Richard Sheppard, Robson and Partners 1957-65 (Fig. 24) has been demolished in spite of being listed grade II in 1993 (in the first wave of buildings identified by the English Heritage thematic study). In fact, 97 per cent of listed building applications are approved25, proving that it is not the restrictive process that it is perceived to be. The public misconceptions of listing must be changed if it is to enjoy increased public support. Steps are being taken through the Heritage Protection Review (see page 73), which proposes to simplify the system and address the issue of inflexibility through the introduction of statutory management agreements, which set out exactly what can and cannot be done to a particular building. The charge of inflexibility also seems peculiar when one considers that in some cases listed buildings are actively sought after for redevelopment; The average developer falls over themselves to buy a listed building to convert. Jane Barry quoting Matthew Saunders of the Ancient Monument Society, Icons in Peril, Evening Standard Homes & Property, 16 February 2005, p10.

If listing is so restrictive, surely there would not be so many people keen to purchase listed buildings, particularly developers for whom the maximum financial return is paramount. A survey, The Investment Performance of Listed Buildings carried out by English Heritage and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors showed that listing had little or no effect on the commercial performance of a building26. Indeed, there can be no doubt that in some cases listing can actually add to a building’s value by increasing its profile and perceived importance; Nowadays, it seems that having your house listed adds to its value; Peter Beacham, Heritage Today, English Heritage, November 2005, p36

But are post-war buildings treated any differently from their older counterparts? On a cautionary note there may be some mileage in claims that listing of post-war buildings is overly restrictive in terms of what owners may do to their properties, particularly with regard to internal fixtures and fittings; … listing criteria for twentieth century buildings are the most stringent, requiring almost all of the building’s fabric to be intact including the interior fixtures and fittings. The consequence of this is that these interiors are then subject to Listed Building Consent scrutiny. This is not necessarily so for older buildings where there is seldom an original kitchen to consider. th

Eva Branscome, Barbican management guidelines update, 20 Century Society website

This apparent inflexibility is also applied by some to the buildings themselves. Built to satisfy a very particular brief, the perception is that alteration and adaptation are difficult to achieve. Indeed, the cellular construction of Imperial College Halls of Residence, London, was cited as one of the reasons for demolition; it made it too difficult to modify. However, it is interesting to note that a Georgian terrace is entirely cellular yet people have no qualms about converting them for a myriad of functions. It depends on specific buildings, but is it not the case that in some instances modern buildings can offer greater flexibility than older ones, with wider spans and an increased proportion of glazing? Poor construction is often quoted as being a problem with modern buildings that makes them unsuitable for listing. Quinlan Terry believes that; Modern buildings are built to last for a few decades… I think it’s irresponsible to list buildings which aren’t built to last. Our forefathers built solid masonry construction and they lasted… Quinlan Terry, PM, Radio 4, 23 January 2006, 17:50 hrs

This may be true of some buildings, but certainly not all. Many modern buildings were built to extremely high standards indeed; the external building fabric and fittings and fixtures of the Barbican are testament to this, as we shall see later. Often modern buildings require no more maintenance than older buildings. I think that in some instances problems may lie with materials and methods employed. I shall go into this in greater detail in the next 25 26

Mark Palmer quoting Peter Beacham in Grade Expectations, Heritage Today, November 2005, p36. Martin Cherry, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1995, p12

section, but put simply this was a time of great innovation and experimentation in construction, where the limitations of materials were not known. With this in mind, it is hardly surprising that there have been some problems. However, the problem is not, I believe, as widespread as some might make out. Poor construction carries with it a perception of increased repair costs. Again, I shall explore this more fully in the next section, but in common with the above a few high profile cases should not be allowed to colour the perception of modern buildings as a whole. There is no doubt that in some instances complex constructions can add to the cost of repairs. However, not all modern buildings fit into this ‘difficult’ category; there are many that can be repaired easily and cheaply. It is also important to remember that not all old buildings are simple and cheap to repair27. So why do we still need to list post-war buildings? How effective is it, and what does it achieve? As Catherine Croft said at a recent Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) conference28, post-war buildings often face a different nature of threat than older buildings, one of imminent demolition rather than the gradual erosion caused by lack of care so often seen in the case of older buildings. This makes the job of listing even more crucial if we are to save important examples from the wrecking ball. Indeed, the job seems to be more important than ever. 2005 saw the start of what may turn out to be a dangerous trend – delisting. The grade II* listed Commonwealth Institute in Kensington, London (Fig. 25), 1960-62 by Robert Matthew, Johnson-Marshall and Partners, and Greenside (Fig. 26 & 27), a grade II listed 1930’s house by Connell, Ward & Lucas both had applications for delisting made against them29. Both were eventually turned down, but the incidence of such cases may begin to cast doubts within the public consciousness about the validity of listing such structures and the amount of protection that it actually affords to a building. If people are demolishing listed modern buildings, what are they doing to buildings not afforded the same protection?

Fig 26 (top) & 27 (right): Greenside

Fig 25: Commonwealth Institute

According to Martin Cherry there are three main ingredients to a successful conservation policy30; 1. The selection is based on rigorous research. 2. Public support must be secured through debate and education. 3. The planning environment must facilitate sound management and minimise delay and uncertainty. Post-war listing is a good example of how these objectives can be put into practice. As the story exemplifies, bringing about change is a long, slow process, and one that requires constant impetus if the objectives are to be achieved. Education is the central issue; the thematic study and Post-War Steering Group have ensured that only buildings of special interest are listed, but the reasons for identifying this in the first place have to be communicated back to the general public if the process is to find real support. The Heritage Protection Review has much to offer in this respect, having the potential not only to de-mystify and streamline the whole listing regime but also to inform people what is so special about post-war buildings and actively engage them in discussions about their future. 27

Martin Cherry, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1995, p9 IHBC conference Twentieth Century Buildings: Conservation Solutions, 15 November 2005 29 Greenside had been demolished in 2003, the ramifications of which are still ongoing. However, the minimal fine received by the owner can hardly be seen as a deterrent and also questions the amount of power that listing actually carries. 30 Martin Cherry, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1995, p12 28

Listing of the Barbican The Barbican was listed Grade II on 5th September 2001. This was prompted by insensitive repairs by the Corporation of London, particularly to the roofs (see page 25) that threatened the character of the complex. Unsurprisingly, the proposal to list met with opposition in the guise of some familiar arguments. As both freeholder and local authority, the Corporation of London’s main concerns focussed on the logistical problems that listing would generate, complicating the process of repairs and requiring additional resources to deal with the resulting listed building consent applications; …the opposition would be pursued on the basis that it [listing] is totally unnecessary and is an expensive and inefficient way of protecting the essential character of the estate; 31

Barbican Association ; Barbican Resident Magazine, May 2001, p34

Whilst supporting the proposal from the perspective of protecting the exterior of the building, the residents expressed disbelief that the complex, and particularly the flat interiors, were worthy of such recognition. However, their principal concern was that listing would have a negative impact on the value of properties; The internal aspects of the flats and houses are without any merit, being built cheaply and entirely of plain surfaces…a listing would cause serious problems and possible financial loss…the fact that potential buyers would find they faced difficulties in making minor alterations would quickly put them off buying. Barbican Association; Barbican Resident Magazine, May 2001, p42

There was also the opinion that the listing of the Barbican would be an abuse of the listing system; It would bring the whole process of listing, that is of great value, into considerable disrepute because the decision might well be ridiculed in the press. Barbican Association; Barbican Resident Magazine, May 2001, p42

Interestingly, even at this early stage the formulation of a management agreement was mooted as an important part of any listing proposal, allowing residents to have a say in respect of their properties. In the event, listing appears to have had little impact on either the public perception of listing or the values of flats. Local estate agents have informed me that flat prices remained constant even immediately after listing, mirroring the findings of the English Heritage and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors survey mentioned previously. Indeed, there is some speculation that it might have had the opposite effect, increasing the price of properties by raising the profile of the estate and its architectural credentials.

Fig 28: Barbican Gardens

Figs 29 & 30: Barbican; Frobisher Crescent

The recognised residents' association for the estate.

Conservation of Post War Buildings In the absence of any specific guidance on the philosophical and technical questions raised by the conservation of post-war buildings, it seems that a good starting point is the question that causes some disagreement within the conservation community; should post-war buildings be treated in the same manner as older, more traditional buildings, or do they demand an entirely different approach? There appears to be a general consensus that the approach to the conservation of ancient and modern buildings should be no different, namely that works should be based on a thorough understanding of the building’s significance, and that this is best achieved through the preparation of a conservation plan. Indeed, some believe that this process is even more important when dealing with modern buildings because they are often as much to do with the ideas that underpin the design as the fabric of the buildings itself32, and only the rigour and discipline of a well-researched conservation plan can bring these ideas to the fore. Beyond this, consensus begins to fragment. At a recent IHBC conference33, discussions focussed on the issue of ‘the management of change’ as the main difference between the conservation of old and modern buildings; the inherent nature of modern buildings made them far more susceptible to change and the process became a question of how to manage this effectively with a minimal impact on the building. Counter to this ran the argument that both modern and old buildings are subject to the same pressures for change, and that the same issues existed regardless of age. When we move onto the physical act of conservation there is a belief that much conservation thinking, based on the tried and tested Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) model, is unsuitable for use on modern buildings; …the pace and manner of change in twentieth century buildings have rendered much old style thinking irrelevant. Andrew Saint, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1996, p 17

This ‘old style thinking’ has been developed as a response to a particular type of building; masonry walls with timber floors and roof. When dealing with modern buildings it is not difficult to see the differences; If you compare a traditional classic with a modern classic the different sort of problems one is likely to confront become clear. One is deep, thick, heavy, rough, soft, permeable and approximate. The other is shallow, thin, light, smooth, hard, impervious and precise. It is evident that if and when these buildings fail they are going to fail in different ways, and accordingly they will require different types of rescue operation. John Allan, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1996, p 125

In order to examine this question I shall first look at the issue of ‘the management of change’ before examining some established conservation principles and their application to modern buildings, namely; x x x x x x

Minimum interventions. Maximum retention of existing fabric. Use of like-for-like materials. Conserve as found. Honest repairs. Reversible repairs

Finally I shall examine the issue of conservation education in modern buildings. Before we begin I think it is important to define the distinction. The terms ‘modern’ and ‘old’ are misleading; one need only to look at the stock of listed post-war buildings to see that many are built in the traditional way. To avoid confusion I shall, with a few exceptions, draw the distinction between the modern and traditional, where 32 33

Graham Morrison, IHBC conference Twentieth Century Buildings: Conservation Solutions, 15 November 2005 IHBC conference Twentieth Century Buildings: Conservation Solutions, 15 November 2005

modern refers to buildings constructed of ‘new’ materials such as concrete, traditional those of brick, stone and timber.

‘The Management of Change’ What exactly is meant by ‘the management of change’, and why is it quoted as a reason for the difference between traditional and modern building conservation?34 Change is something that all buildings are subject to; the accumulation of seemingly benign changes can end in disaster, obscuring a building’s significance and the architect’s original intention. A building is perhaps most vulnerable at the start of the custodianship of the second generation of occupants. At this stage the pressure for change is perhaps greatest; it is seen as embodying yesterday’s ideas and has not been around long enough to have developed any real heritage credentials. On the face of it change and conservation are uneasy bedfellows, but as we have seen from the previous section regulating authorities are at great pains to point out that listing does not preclude the possibility of change, it just ensures that it happens in a controlled fashion. Indeed, English Heritage defines conservation as “The process of managing change”35. In this respect it could be said that one of the principal objectives of listing is ’the management of change’, and that listed building consent is a means of achieving it. When one considers this, it seems absurd to use this as a basis to make any distinction between modern and traditional buildings. But are modern buildings subject to more pressure for change that their older counterparts, or does it just seem like it? At the IHBC conference mentioned above Graham Morrison proposed that the nature of modern buildings makes them much more susceptible to change, citing the issues of: x

The scale of construction (more was built in the 20th century than at any other time). The sheer number of post-war buildings means that there will be more incidences of change, and the ‘unimportant’ attitude towards them (as identified in the previous section) will increase the desire for it.

The scale of the buildings themselves & the use of repetition. This increases the number of inhabitants, each wishing to enact different changes to the building, resulting in the need to manage it.

Experimentation with new materials. Materials on modern buildings may have reached the end of their useful life and require replacement, resulting in change.

Other characteristics of modern buildings may also support ‘the management of change’ argument: Buildings fall out of date faster than they used to as a consequence of the so-called functionalist movement in modern architecture, whereby everything in buildings, structure, plan and equipment, was to be fitted to a specific, practical purpose…the problem is that when needs change the finely tuned building is metamorphosed from racehorse to dinosaur… Architecture reflects demands and expectations, in this case the forceful, definite and immediate ones of modern materialist culture. Then when the demands and expectations alter the architecture gets into difficulties and has to be changed. In this respect… the conservation of twentieth century buildings has indeed to be about ‘the management of change’. Andrew Saint, Philosophical Principles of Modern Conservation, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1996, p 22

A good example of this is the Barbican kitchen (Fig. 31-32), where rather than introducing flexibility the architects; …favoured finding ideal solutions to fixed problems. The Barbican kitchen is a prototypic solution to a problem formulated by a designer…what seemed, in 1959, to be the most advanced aspect of the…flats now seems the most dated…because the attitudes of users, consumers has changed. David Heathcote, Barbican Penthouse over the City, p145-6

Interestingly, ‘the management of change’ argument seems to be something that is cited by practitioners in the field rather than those from heritage organisations, perhaps because whilst actually implementing the work on a conservation contract they are far more exposed to and consequently more aware of the pressure for change that may exist from a variety of sources 35 English Heritage, Conservation Principles for the Management of the Historic Environment, First Stage Consultation paper, February 2006, Definitions section.

Fig 31: Barbican kitchen, 1969

Fig 32: Barbican kitchen today

Traditional buildings, in contrast, are considered more flexible because they have evolved gradually with contributions from many people and have adapted to accommodate numerous different requirements, rather than having been invented at a single time by a single architect. This increased flexibility means that they are better able to ‘absorb’ alterations, and change does not become so apparent. Conversely, modern buildings built to a specific and complex brief (which is likely to be superseded by another that is just as complex) mean that changes have to take place within very rigid parameters. In this way the perception is that a greater degree of change is taking place, bringing with it the increased need to manage it. As identified in the previous section, many post-war buildings are under imminent threat of demolition. In this way there can be a great deal of pressure to find new, viable uses for modern buildings. This can present further increased pressure for change by fostering the attitude that it is better to save the building and accept a greater degree of change than to have no building at all. Changes, or the possibility of them, can make the building more viable as an investment, and by doing so save it from demolition. In this way, changing a building becomes an act of conservation in itself: Conservation is about managing change and it may be necessary to accommodate new requirements if a building’s use is to continue in the future. Susan Macdonald, Preserving Post War Heritage, Donhead, 2001, p 36

At first glance the ‘management of change’ argument is an attractive one, presenting a plausible case for the different treatment of modern and traditional buildings. However, when one considers that all works of conservation involve the management of change the argument seems a little over-simplistic; the pressure for change may be just as great on a traditional building as a modern one. We must delve deeper to establish if there really are any fundamental differences between traditional and modern buildings with regard to conservation practice.

Minimum Intervention The functionalist nature of some modern buildings can make the enactment of minimum interventions problematic. As the building becomes less flexible and difficult to change, so it follows that the degree of intervention must be increased. Although dependent on individual buildings, principal conservation problems can be36: x

36 37

Difficulties associated with spatial planning where alteration results in altering the (often open plan) spatial qualities of the building, compounded by large expanses of glazing that makes further sub-division problematic. In contrast traditional buildings tend to have smaller cellular spaces, reducing the need for subdivision in the event of re-use37.

Susan Macdonald, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1996, p 94 Note the counterpoint to the cellular spaces reason for demolition of Imperial College Halls of Residence, Kensington, London, p11.

Upgrading to modern service requirements. The technological emphasis of functionalism means that original services (such as the Garchey waste disposal system (Fig. 33) at the Barbican), although regarded as outmoded, may well be important features in their own right. Re-use may require the removal of such features, or if they are to be retained the incorporation of new services via alternative distribution solutions which may have an impact on the existing building. The emphasis on streamlined 38 design also means that modern buildings do not tend to have the ‘ornamental pastry’ of many traditional buildings, which reduces the opportunity to hide elements such as cabling and smoke detectors. Environmental performance, where large expanses of glazing and thin concrete walls may require the inclusion of insulation to improve thermal resistance. Traditional buildings of brick or stone tend to have thicker walls, and the materials have inherently better thermal performance. Similarly, smaller windows with timber frames commonly found on traditional buildings (Fig. 34) also have improved thermal performance over the large metal framed windows commonly found on modern buildings (Fig. 35).

Fig 33: Barbican; diagram of Garchey refuse system

Fig 34: Timber window to 18 century building

Fig 35: Brunswick Centre, London, 1967-72, showing large areas of steel framed glazing

However, it is important to remember that these difficulties may not always be the case. Depending on the individual building and the intended application, the nature of some modern buildings can make minimum interventions easier to achieve. Open plan arrangements can assist in enacting minimal interventions by negating the need to remove walls, and existing service networks can make upgrading or the incorporation of new ones easier.

Maximum Retention of Existing Fabric When dealing with traditional buildings there is a general consensus that the retention of vintage material should be sacrosanct. This principle is seen by some as being equally important on modern buildings, but another school of thought maintains that because they are architect designed to a greater degree than traditional buildings design integrity is more important than the retention of original fabric. This raises the issue of authenticity, which can be defined as; …truth to the materials from which a building was constructed, truth to the architects design and its resulting aesthetic integrity and acknowledgement of the building’s past. Susan Macdonald, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1996, p 90

This works well for traditional projects, but its application to modern buildings produces conflict between; x 38

design authenticity and;

John Allan, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1996, p 133

aesthetic or material authenticity.

Which is more important? This poses some interesting questions. Taken to its extreme, the argument that the intention of the design is more important might demand that the most appropriate course of action is to record the building and then to demolish it – the artefact becomes secondary to the idea. The converse to this is the ‘sacrosanct’ idea that: Replacement with similar but not identical materials and details results in the gradual erosion of authentic fabric and eventually the original will be so diluted that its value will have changed completely. Attempts to retain original fabric are far more likely to ensure that the essence of the original is retained Susan Macdonald, Preserving Post War Heritage, Donhead, 2001, p 37

The answer, if there is one, no doubt lies in an amalgamation of the two dependent on the particular qualities of the building in question. In some instances it may be possible to consult the original architect who may advise that a particular element that it might have seemed important to preserve was in fact of little consequence to the original design, and may even have been introduced as a ‘second best’ alternative. In such situations it may be appropriate to replace it with an alternative that better satisfies the original intentions. In other cases it may be the case that, over time, the ‘unimportant’ element has gained a significance that now outweighs the original intention of the architect. The disparity between design and material authenticity was used by the Barbican Association as justification for the creation of an open plan flat in the response to the 1st draft of the Listed Building Management Guidelines. They claimed that for maximum flexibility in the tower block flats the architects had intended to provide movable and removable walls. Which is more important here, the artefact or the idea? In this case I believe it is the artefact. The concept was discounted very early on in the design process39, and convincing evidence would have to be presented to ensure that any attempt to introduce it now followed the original details. Any solution that did not demonstrate this would result in the apartment reflecting neither the architects’ original intentions nor the final built form. What is evident from this episode is how design concepts can be adopted and manipulated to suit ones needs over and above the existing fabric. The key is to back up any proposal with rigorous research and establish the best solution for the building in a specific situation. In this instance I believe this was the preservation of the existing partition layout. The nature of modern buildings may also present problems with the maximum retention of existing fabric. A common criticism (and one that is often cited as a reason against listing) is that they were built to last for a limited period only. This is certainly not true of all buildings, but some, such as prefabs, were. To compound the problem the temporary nature of such structures and emphasis on rapid construction often resulted in poor workmanship. There was also a misapprehension that modern buildings generally required less maintenance than traditional ones,40 producing a backlog of maintenance in the 1990s and instances where wholesale replacement was necessary. This presents problems for the conservator; it may be necessary to replace significant amounts of the original fabric where it has failed. The very nature of such buildings means that they were not intended to last for a long period of time, yet that is exactly what we are asking them to do by preserving them. This again raises problems of authenticity; in design terms we are going against the original intention of the building by preserving it beyond its intended lifetime, and in material terms how much original fabric needs to be replaced before we end up with something that is an approximation of the original, rather than the artefact itself, and how much value does this facsimile actually have?

Use of Like-For-Like Materials The innovative and experimental use of materials in modern buildings without a proper understanding of their long term performance means that in some instances the use of like for like materials is inappropriate; the originals have failed so badly a more durable form of replacement is required. Replacement of original materials can be difficult. Modern buildings were often innovative and experimental in their use of materials, and production of some has been discontinued. In some instances materials were removed from production due to their toxicity, presenting the problem that not only are replacements unavailable but also that the existing fabric is considered to be dangerous. The consequences of this for buildings can vary depending on the extent of the application of the 39 40

Apparently on cost grounds. Susan Macdonald, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1996, p 92

individual material; the replacement of cladding panels on a façade can obviously have a great impact on the appearance of a building, as well as compromising its authenticity. A solution to this problem may lie in several areas: x x

Globalisation of the construction market meant that the same materials were used in many different places. This expanded market may produce enough demand for particular materials to be put back into production. Salvage41, although the market for salvaged modern materials is still very small compared to traditional materials (this is perhaps an indication of the ‘unimportant’ status of post-war buildings; materials are not considered to be worth keeping). This may be as a result of the form of the buildings; decoration was generally kept to a minimum, reducing the elements available for salvage. Materials were also very different; in-situ concrete cannot be salvaged in the same way as bricks or stone blocks. An interim solution when faced with an inadequate amount of salvaged material may be to instigate temporary replacement schemes until enough original material can be sourced. The Barbican is actually leading the way in the use of like for like materials through the establishment of a salvage store. Here elements that have been removed from flats can be recycled and used to repair others. It will be interesting to see if the use of this concept becomes widespread.

It is important to remember that this is not a problem that is confined to modern buildings; exactly the same issues are encountered when dealing with traditional buildings, where varieties of stone or types of timber are unavailable. There are also many instances where materials are available, and details such as concrete mixes and types of aggregate can be specified exactly by reference to documentary evidence or consultation with the original architect, the latter a luxury not available to the conservator of an older building. Outmoded production also presents difficulties both in terms of obtaining replacement for the originals and remaining true to the original intentions of the architect. Replacement can necessitate the re-crafting of what was originally a mass produced item42, which can be expensive and likely to go against the original intention of the architect; mass production may have been incorporated for egalitarian reasons, in which case the insertion of bespoke replacements may not satisfy design authenticity issues. Perversely, in such situations it may even be closer to the authenticity of the design to install modern mass produced windows (UPVC?!) although this would, of course, severely compromise the aesthetic authenticity of the building. This illustrates the importance of considering the authenticity of the building in terms of both design and construction, and striking a balance wherever possible.

Conserve As Found The principle to conserve as found may be difficult to achieve if the original materials or their detailing have failed. There were relatively few ‘off the shelf’ items available to the architect, which resulted in innovative material and construction solutions combined with a general desire to ‘streamline’ the design. Unfortunately there was often a lack of knowledge about the best way to detail new materials to ensure the fabric’s long term survival. The abandonment of traditional weathering details to achieve the streamlined aesthetic is a frequent cause of problems… Susan Macdonald, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1996, p 88

One significant difference between traditional buildings and distinguished modern ones is that, whilst the former tend to use a well-known and understood language of use of materials and detailing, listed modern buildings tend towards a language either unique to the building or to the design practice concerned. Streamlining Listed Building Consent, English Heritage & the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, June 2003, p 27 paragraph 6.10

From a conservation point of view this can produce a tension between maintaining the original character of the building and the need to ensure longevity and serviceability. The key I believe is to strike a balance between the two. A good example of this is the replacement of the stair core rooflights at the Barbican. The original detail consisted of a sloping glazed roof over the entire area (Fig. 36). When, after thirty years, this failed and was 41

Salvage is questionable regarding the method of obtaining the materials in the first place; have they been procured legitimately, and should efforts not be made to keep them on the buildings that they were originally intended for? 42 Susan Macdonald, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1996, p 93

renewed it was decided initially to replace it with an in-situ concrete roof with a plastic barrel vaulted rooflight to the centre (Fig. 37), a major departure from the original detail and indeed the architects concept, since the level of daylight admitted is drastically reduced. This did anything but conserve as found and was actually one of the insensitive repairs made by the Corporation of London that prompted listing. The detail was subsequently reviewed and the remainder of the works carried out with a glazing system that closely matched the original arrangement. Both have been renewed, but the latter has been done in such a way as to respect the original whilst using todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s materials and technology. The result is, I believe, vastly superior and is probably more economical. This demonstrates the importance of conserve as found as an ideal, and how it can be employed simply, even on modern buildings.

Fig 36: Barbican; stair core rooflight, original arrangement

Fig 37: Barbican; modified stair core rooflight, note the concrete repair on the line of the original rooflight

In some exceptional cases there may be an argument to repair or replace as found in spite of the inadequacies of the original, provided this is made clear and is incorporated into a suitable maintenance regime. It should be stressed, however, that this should be reserved for very important buildings only where altering of the details would be detrimental to the whole. Possibilities may also lie in the use of modern technologies to lessen the impact of repairs and retain as much original fabric as possible in-situ, such as the use of resin injection techniques as an alternative to rebuilding. Such techniques are used extensively in traditional buildings, so in this respect it would follow that there are no differences between the two.

Honest Repairs The aesthetic of modern buildings calls the notion of honest repairs into question. A particular feature of the Society of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) approach is that repairs are recognised as part of history of the building. As such they are often extremely visible, such as the classic tile repair to a rubble wall (Fig. 38), or the replacement of stone that stands proud of the existing surfaces to the original pre-erosion line of the building (Fig. 39). This is, inevitably, at odds with the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;pristine objectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; quality common to many modern structures; can one imagine the Barbican with a tile repair? Indeed, Alexandra Road, London, 1972-78, was listed in 1993 as a result of insensitive patch repairs (Fig. 40), although the intention may have been acceptable to some under the guise of an honest repair. The fundamental character of modern buildings means that they are far less able to handle such treatment, and calls for a more sympathetic approach suited to the individual building.

Fig 38: Tile repair to stone rubble wall

Fig 39: ‘honest’ stone repair

Fig 40: Alexandra Road, London; concrete repair

This also raises the issue of the patina of age. In traditional and older buildings this is a quality to be preserved. Modern buildings, in contrast, seem to be far less able to cope with it. The emphasis on the ‘pristine object’ means that the staining and discolouration associated with ageing detracts from the character and original intention of the building. This in turn increases maintenance if it is to be avoided; the painted render façade will inevitably require more maintenance than traditional brick and lime mortar. There are of course exceptions, both in the execution of the original buildings and the approach to subsequent repairs, such as those enacted at the White House, Haslemere, Surrey, 1932 (Fig. 41): [The lack of levelling renders] …had the effect of leaving a more clearly discernable record of the irregular character of the original building. The appearance we sought was not that of a modernist house that had just been built, but that of a 60-year old building that had just been repaired. John Allan, Modern Matters, Donhead, 1996, p 133

Fig 41: White House, Haslemere

Fig 42: Barbican; balcony detail showing weathering to concrete adding to the sculptural qualities of the building

The Barbican is another good example. Here the staining of the concrete adds to the sculptural form of the buildings (Fig. 42). This weathering of the surface was part of the original intention of the architects, and considerable research was carried out into the different pick & bush hammered surfaces to find a suitable finish. We have therefore selected natural materials, the texture and colour of which stems from their nature so that some degree of weathering produces an acceptable patina rather than objectionable discolorization (sic). Chamberlin, Powell & Bon, Architects, Barbican Redevelopment April 1959, Technical Section p6

Reversible Repairs Whether a repair is easily reversible depends upon the individual’s particular philosophy with regard to the principles identified above. If one believes that as much existing fabric as possible should be retained, then enacting reversible repairs are an important consideration because they allow previous repairs to be removed precisely when a better alternative has been sourced. If one believes that modern buildings are more to do with design than the actual building fabric then reversible repairs are an unnecessary complication. However, when considering this issue it is important to consider the philosophy behind it, which is about avoiding unnecessary damage to the building fabric and to ensure that interventions are benign and do not exacerbate a given situation. This cannot be a bad thing, and for this reason I believe that reversibility should be practiced wherever possible.

Conservation Education An area where there does seem to be a disparity between modern and traditional buildings is in the education of professionals in techniques for dealing with modern buildings. As pointed out at a recent Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) conference43, most people present would be able to specify repairs to lime render, but what about those to concrete? There is a perception that there is a lack of education amongst practitioners on the best way to deal with modern buildings. The main reason for this is that modern buildings are still relatively young and are only now reaching the stage where repairs are necessary. Concrete repair techniques, for example, are relatively recent developments without proven track records, and are changing all the time as they become more refined. This presents obvious problems for education. Building in stone and brick has been perfected over centuries, whereas in the case of some modern buildings there was insufficient knowledge of the techniques necessary for its long-term survival. As a result we are left with a situation where we have concrete used in a number of different ways (rough shuttered, bush hammered, pre-cast), each with an appropriate repair technique. Conservation rarely has to deal with badly built eighteenth of nineteenth century buildings because they have largely disappeared. The issue is more complex for modern buildings. We still have many left because of their recent construction; the ‘survival of the fittest’ process has yet to occur, and as a result we may find ourselves trying to conserve buildings that should actually be demolished. In some cases this will no doubt happen.

To summarise, it can be recognised that there is a general lack of guidance on both the philosophical and practical conservation of modern buildings. In this respect management agreements are a welcome innovation, since they present the opportunity to formulate a strategy that is building-specific and can start the process of understanding and identification of significance and special interest. Also, their raison d’etre is the management of change, an important part of any works to a listed building, regardless of its age. Listing and conservation practice have been advanced considerably by the inclusion of modern buildings; some of the lessons learnt have informed procedure for buildings of all ages. Ideas developed as a result of looking at modern buildings can now be found in the Heritage Protection Review, such as management agreements. At first glance one may think that it is easier to conserve modern buildings because of their age, perceived unimportance, ‘ordinary’ materials and stripped down streamlined aesthetic. However, as can be recognised from the above, problems with the inherent nature of modern buildings, their spatial form, materials and their resulting repair techniques and the absence of an established network of trades such as that which exists for traditional architecture mean that it is at least as demanding an enterprise as that of restoring and ancient building, if not more so. 43

IHBC conference, Twentieth Century Buildings: Conservation Solutions, 15 November 2005

Listed Building Management Guidelines and Agreements History The Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines were not produced in a vacuum; they are an example of an approach that has been gaining popularity for 20th century listed buildings since the early 1990s. If we are to fully understand the Barbican model, how it works, why it was felt that they were needed and how they sit within the prevailing culture, it is first necessary to study the progress of management agreements from their genesis. For the purposes of the following section I shall refer to such documents as management agreements, although they exist under a variety of different names; Management Guidelines, Heritage Partnership Agreements, Listed Building Management Guidelines to name but a few. The latest term is Heritage Partnership Protection Agreements, which attempts to emphasise the agreement between stakeholders44. However, all have the same aims; to establish and reach consensus on a building’s significance, to identify which changes would require Listed Building Consent and to effectively manage change. They are defined as: … informal memoranda of understanding between the owners and managers of listed buildings, the local planning authority, and (usually) English Heritage. Streamlining Listed Building Consent, English Heritage & the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, June 2003, p 7

The earliest example of a management agreement is the Willis Faber Dumas building in Ipswich (now Willis Coroon), by Foster Associates 1972-75. The building was Listed Grade I in 1991, with the management agreement following in 1992. Behind the entrance hall was originally a swimming pool. Listing was prompted by a proposal to infill this for more office space, and instead a suspended floor has been laid, with the outline of the pool still visible below glass slabs. The building has subsequently pioneered the strategy of management guidelines, which identify those elements crucial to the building’s architectural integrity and those working areas where its inherent flexibility should prevail. Elain Harwood, England; A Guide to Post-War Listed Buildings, p3.100.

The concept of the management agreement as a means of managing change and encouraging effective stewardship was subsequently recognised by English Heritage, who produced the guidance note Developing Guidelines for the Management of Listed Buildings in June 1995 (Fig. 43). This identified agreements as being particularly suitable for large, often relatively modern, statutorily listed commercial or industrial buildings and housing developments. It was based on the premise that the management of change to a listed building should come from a thorough understanding of the building and an assessment of its significance, from which a series of policies for its protection could be developed. Management agreements should not be the same as a conservation management plan or statement, which are more in-depth studies, but offer an over-view of design philosophy and intent. This approach had little to do with listed building legislation, and was in fact based on models that English Heritage were developing for the management of conservation areas45, thereby associating management agreements with a set of documents identified as having an ‘active’ approach to conservation practice, a concept that will be explored further later.

Stakeholders is a term used often in connection with management agreements, referring to building owners, tenants and tenant groups, local authorities and heritage organisations and those generally with a vested interest in a building asset. 45 Streamlining Listed Building Consent, English Heritage / ODPM, June 2003, p 5

Fig 44: Power of Place

Fig 43: Developing guidelines for the management of listed buildings

The guidance note identified the absence of a statutory mechanism for determining the requirement for Listed Building Consent as an obstacle to the widespread use and adoption of management agreements. Under listed building legislation it is not legally possible for a local authority to say what requires listed building consent. By contrast, under planning legislation it is possible to create a solid legal basis for decisions. This is a fundamental problem for management agreements; how is it possible for a document to identify what changes do and do not require consent when such decisions have no legal basis? This situation still persists, and is one of the main problems that is to be addressed by the Heritage Protection Review, more of which will be discussed later. Power of Place: The Future of the Historic Environment, (Fig. 44)published by English Heritage in December 2000 also recognised this problem, and offered a means to overcome it in Recommendation 12 by giving statutory force to management agreements based on the logical process involved in conservation planning for individual listed buildings46.

Fig 45: The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future 46

Fig 46: Streamlining Listed Building Consent

Streamlining Listed Building Consent, English Heritage /ODPM, June 2003, p 6

The government policy statement The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future (Fig. 45), issued by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), December 2001 further recognised the potential value of management agreements in speeding up the determination of listed building consent applications47. In order to further assess this potential the statement made a commitment that; ‘The government will work closely with English Heritage in researching the current impact of management agreements and their future potential’. The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future, Department of Culture, Media and Sport, December 2001, p 35

This objective was realised by Streamlining Listed Building Consent (Fig. 46), published by English Heritage and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) in June 2003. This in-depth study looked at a number of case studies48 and the use of agreements to date to determine: x x x x x

The extent of use of management guidelines The experience of using management guidelines Comparable management arrangements The policy and legislative context Conclusions and recommendations

The study identified that only 18 sets of agreements had been progressed at that time, but that interest in their use was growing49. Guidelines, it was claimed, facilitated and promoted constructive dialogue between stakeholders and that this process was even more important than the formal document itself50. Management arrangements for listed buildings are compared with those for other areas of conservation, such as the natural heritage or scheduled monuments. An important distinction is made between the different approaches: …passive, in which designation imposes little more than a requirement to seek consent to undertake specified or any works… …active or positive, in which designation initiates, or is conditional upon, a strategy being agreed between the regulatory authorities and owners to maintain, and often to recover and enhance, the significance that warranted designation. Streamlining Listed Building Consent, English Heritage /ODPM, June 2003, p 19.

Natural Heritage is identified as being managed in an ‘active’ way, whilst listed building legislation is described as a ‘passive’ process. The study noted that there was a general shift in emphasis in the management of natural and cultural heritage away from passive/reactive and ‘often confrontational’ approaches towards a more co-operative, active approach, and that the listed building regime was falling behind in this process. For example, local authorities and other public institutions have a statutory duty to further conserve and enhance Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and Conservation Areas51. With listed building legislation, however, the onus is on the owner to apply for listed building consent for proposed changes; the local authority is not required to make any proposals. Management agreements are identified as having great potential to redress this balance and improve the listed building system, changing it from a passive to an active process, since they encourage dialogue between regulatory authorities and owners, define the significance of the building in question, and offer policies for the management of change.

The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future, Department of Culture, Media and Sport, December 2001, p 35 The Willis Building, Ipswich; Alexandra Road Estate, Camden, London; The Civic centre, Newcastle Upon Tyne; The University of Sussex, Brighton. 49 Streamlining Listed Building Consent, English Heritage & the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, June 2003, p 7 50 Streamlining Listed Building Consent, English Heritage & the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, June 2003, p 11 51 Developing Guidelines for the Management of Listed Buildings, English Heritage, June 1995, p2 48

…a move towards positive management of Heritage assets could address both property and conservation concerns; …management guidelines could provide a valuable means of achieving it [positive management] for listed buildings in dynamic use. Streamlining Listed Building Consent, English Heritage /ODPM, June 2003, p 5

The understanding and agreement of significance is seen as being key to the success of an active approach to conservation, something that is not always clear from listing descriptions; All conservation regimes based on active management of the historic asset involve a management plan based on a thorough understanding of significance, i.e. what features and qualities the management regime seeks to preserve or enhance. When that is in place, the need for specific consents for particular works is greatly reduced… Streamlining Listed Building Consent, English Heritage/ODPM, June 2003, p 17

The legal barrier to the effective use of management guidelines as recognised in previous publications is also identified: It is not legally possible for local planning authorities or the Secretary of State to make a binding determination as to whether listed building consent is needed…This situation stands in direct contrast to comparable regulatory regimes. Normally, the administering authority has formal power to determine whether or not consent is required… Streamlining Listed Building Consent, English Heritage/ODPM, June 2003, p 21-23

This lack of formal power is regarded as an obstacle to the positive management of listed buildings. Streamlining Listed Building Consent believes that until these legislative problems are resolved it is difficult to see how any change can be achieved; until then management agreements cannot offer the clarity or certainty that makes them potentially attractive to owners or acceptable to lawyers52. Streamlining Listed Building Consent draws a number of conclusions from the operation of management agreements53:

52 53

They can be valuable in promoting dialogue and trust, ‘diffusing’ situations by bringing all stakeholders together and creating an opportunity to for them to interact. In this way a mutual understanding can be formed on the significance of a listed building, and it can be decided and agreed what contributes to its special interest. Minor changes can then be planned with consideration for the character of the building.

Management agreements have the potential to contribute substantially to the streamlining the listed building regulatory regime by improving the efficiency and predictability of the consent process.

A barrier to the widespread use of agreements is the lack of a statutory power to determine the need for listed building consent for proposed works.

This lack of power also encourages a precautionary approach by building owners and local authorities to applying for and granting of listed building consent. The increase in caseload that this generates for local authorities could be avoided if management agreements were used to increase certainty.

Management agreements or guidelines should be short, simple and based on a thorough understanding of the significance of the building. This simplicity is easier to achieve with later 19th and 20th century buildings, making agreements most suitable for buildings of this period in dynamic use with constant pressure for change.

No specific training for local authorities is required, provided that they have experienced, qualified conservation staff. However, a lack of such individuals and resources is identified.

Streamlining Listed Building Consent, English Heritage & the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, June 2003, p 27 paragraph 6.3 Streamlining Listed Building Consent, English Heritage & the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, June 2003, p 27 & 28.

Updated guidance, including a model or template, on preparing management agreements, would be helpful, although the legislative restrictions identified above make this a problematic task.

From this, the study goes on to make a number of recommendations54: x

Government policy towards listed buildings needs overtly to encourage their positive management and move away from the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;dumbâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; legislation currently in operation.

Local authorities need to be adequately resourced to deal with listed buildings in terms of both the quantity and range of specialist skills required.

Local authorities and the Secretary of State should be given formal power to determine the requirement for listed building consent. A way of achieving this is by an order under the Regulatory reform Act 2001; inserting a provision in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Guidance should be given on the use of conditions attached to consents and also on the principles that determine the nature of work that listed building consent is required for.

English Heritage should produce a practice note and a model agreement based on the study.

As well as re-affirming established principles, Streamlining Listed Building Consent provoked much fresh thinking and formalised the concept of management agreements, as well as exposing them to a wider audience. Its publication was timely for the production of the Listed Building Management Guidelines at the Barbican and was to have a great deal of influence on the finished document, as we will see in the next section.

Streamlining Listed Building Consent, English Heritage & the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, June 2003, p 29

Part 3 – Listed Building Management Guidelines at the Barbican Account of the process The listing of the Barbican on 5th September 2001 posed the Corporation of London55 (CoL) with a difficult question; how to manage the largest protected structure in Europe? The problems are obvious; x x x x x x x x x

Maintaining controls on 2014 flats. Coping with the increased workload. Determining which parts of the complex and the flats are significant. Determining which alterations should require listed building consent, and which should not. Communicating the principles of listing to the tenants and conveying what can and cannot be done. Involve the residents in the process. Formulating a suitable strategy for repairs. Managing change within the complex. Securing popular support for the listing system and avoiding resentment amongst tenants.

As a response to these issues the possibility of a management agreement was initially discussed between English Heritage and the Corporation of London when the buildings were being considered for listing. As Roger Mascall, English Heritage caseworker for the Listed Building Management Guidelines says; “The listing of the Barbican came as something of a shock to the Corporation of London; suddenly they have 6 acres of listed buildings in their ownership – how are they to manage them? Credit is due to them for their response - they wanted to set up a management agreement.” The project began to be formally developed from autumn 2002. The Corporation of London had raised concerns about the impact of the additional workload for officers during the public consultation prior to the listing of the estate in 2001. English Heritage acknowledged this and subsequently offered a grant of £20,000 towards the cost of the guidelines56. Due to the scale of the estate it was decided to separate the guidelines into phases represented by four volumes; Volume I: Volume II: Volume III: Volume IV:

Introduction Residential buildings. Arts centre, schools and other buildings. Landscaping

Volumes I and II have been completed to date. It was felt that most requests for change would be generated by the residential buildings; consequently it was decided to address these first. The other volumes are expected to follow when funding is available, which is likely to be in the latter part of 200757. One of the CoL planning officers, Breda Daly, was appointed to co-ordinate the project in July 2002 and tenders were sent out to secure the appointment of consultants to prepare the guidelines in conjunction with the Corporation of London and English Heritage. The responses received to this first tender were particularly high because the brief anticipated that research would be extensive. It also assumed that Volume 1 would be undertaken by the consultants. The brief was carefully revised to be more specific about the research required, and some elements were brought in-house. Avanti Architects offered the best value for money and were appointed in October 2003; their credentials gained from working on a number of modern and post-war buildings made them eminently suitable for the job;

The Corporation of London has now been re-named the City of London. For clarity I shall use the former name for this thesis. The Corporation of London submitted a formal grant application in line with English Heritage procedures. 57 The Corporation of London are currently working on guidelines for the Golden Lane Estate, which are due to be completed in April 2007. The further volumes of the Barbican will be completed when funding is available, presumably post-completion of the Golden Lane guidelines. The work will be project managed by the Department of Planning and Transportation. 56

Led by John Allan, its team was crucial to the project and had a key role in brokering aspects of the document between all the members of the working party. Breda Daly, David March and Roger Mascall, Management Guidelines for the Barbican, Context No. 91, September 2005, p28.

In line with the recommendation in Streamlining Listed Building Consent to promote dialogue between the parties involved, in addition to Avanti a working party was made up of stakeholders58 as identified during the preparation of the project brief; Barbican Association Founded in 1969, the Barbican Association (BA) is the recognised residents' association for the estate. About 60% of residents are members. Its work is carried out by volunteers, managed through the Association's General Council which consists of 9 elected members and representatives from affiliated House Groups for each of the Barbican residential blocks. It is consulted by the Corporation of London on issues affecting the management of the estate. The principle concern of the association was to protect residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; interests against what it considered to be over zealous controls which it believed would affect the value of properties on the estate. Originally the BA were to have only 1 representative on the working party; this was increased to 3 at their request, and eventually to 5. English Heritage English Heritage were represented by Roger Mascall. As the government's statutory adviser on the historic environment, English Heritage works in partnership with central government departments, local authorities, voluntary bodies and the private sector to: x x x

Conserve and enhance the historic environment Broaden public access to heritage Increase people's understanding of the past59

The principal concern of English Heritage in the compilation of the guidelines was to promote the use of and further develop management agreements as a tool to achieve their aims as an organisation, and to ensure that the guidelines followed the best practice as set out in the various documents explored in the previous section. The guidelines at the Barbican presented the possibility to further develop and test ideas as identified in Streamlining Listed Building Consent and a useful opportunity to investigate the history and significance of the Barbican to add to the thematic study of the post-war listing programme. It also gave a valuable opportunity to educate members of the public as to the importance and significance of the buildings, thereby furthering the aims of the post-war listing programme through education, vital if this is to gain popular support. The Twentieth Century Society The Twentieth Century Society aim to safeguard the heritage of architecture and design in Britain from 1914 onwards60. In this respect, they were concerned to see that the Barbican buildings were treated in a sympathetic manner, and to ensure that features that they felt were of significant architectural and historical interest were safeguarded. Accordingly, the society took a preservationist stance; The Twentieth Century Society will not object to the replacement of damaged fixtures and fittings in kitchens and bathrooms, but will not agree to the removal of perfectly intact original built-in features. This is a perfectly reasonable stance to assume in respect to a Grade II protected interior. th

Eva Branscombe, Barbican Management Guidelines Update, 20 Century Society website, 21 September 2005

Corporation of London

Parties with a legitimate interest in the guidelines (Context No. 91, p 28). The adopted guidelines list the stakeholders as residents, conservation agencies such as English Heritage and the Twentieth Century Society, the Corporation of London and interested members of the public (Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines Volume II, p5, paragraph 1.1.3.2). 59 English Heritage, Who Are We? Website 20 March 2006 60 The Twentieth Century Society, Aims, website 20 March 2006

Initially, the Corporation of London’s aim was to ease the workload of officers in terms of the level of work anticipated as a result of the listing of the estate. This developed into a desire to provide greater certainty for all parties regarding listing, assisting both applicants and their own officers by identifying what makes the buildings significant. Guidelines also offered a way of providing a ‘best practice’ guide for alterations on the estate61.

The working party was chaired by Alderman Bob Hall, a member of the Court of Common Council of the Corporation of London. The importance of this body becomes apparent when one considers that it met 16 times during the 18 months that it took to prepare the guidelines, providing a forum for each of the parties to express their opinions and concerns

Listed Building Management Guidelines: The 1st Draft; April 2004 Work began with Avanti carrying out surveys between November 2003 and February 2004 to enhance the understanding of the significance of the complex. This involved both internal and external work, with an appeal made to residents to allow access to individual flats for measured drawings and photographic work.62 This is significant since it was probably the first time that widespread access to the flat interiors had been gained. The survey findings were then presented in the first draft of the guidelines, put out to public consultation for a 10week period on 13 April 2004. Each property was notified via a posted leaflet stating where the guidelines were available for viewing63, and an open evening was also held on 20th May 2004 where members of the working party and officers from the corporation were available to discuss the draft guidelines. Alderman Hall stated that; “The Working Party (sic) hopes that as many people as possible will review the draft guidelines and let us have their views on what is proposed. The listing of the Barbican Estate resulted in a new range of issues with which residents and the Corporation must now deal. The proposed management guidelines are intended to enable everyone involved to follow a consistent and coherent approach to the consequence (sic) of listing.” Barbican Association, Newsletter, May 2004, p1

A cautious but favourable response from the Barbican Association to the guidelines appears in their newsletter in May 2004. This urges residents to take part in the consultation process, pointing out that the guidelines have the potential to; … provide a structured framework from which informed decisions can be made. Whilst they do not remove the need to obtain listed building consent for works of alteration which affect the special interest of the building, they can provide clear guidance about the appropriateness of change within the listed estate, how these changes will be assessed and the application procedures…In particular the guidelines provide examples of alterations, the architectural significance that is affected by the works, whether listed building consent is needed and the considerations that will be taken into account when deciding whether or not consent will be granted. Barbican Association, Newsletter, May 2004, p1-3

Removal and change of planters and window boxes and the replacement of kitchens and of skirting boards are given as examples of alterations that would require listed building consent, with new plumbing, light fittings and cupboard doors given as works that do not. The association do not at this stage express any opinion as to whether they think the guidelines are a good or bad thing to avoid influencing the outcome of the public consultation.

Summary of the 1st Draft

Breda Daly, Conservation of the Barbican Estate, London: A Pioneering Strategy for the Management of Change, DoCoMoMo website, 20 May 2005. Breda Daly, Barbican News, Residents Consultation Committee and Barbican Estate Office, November 2003. 63 The Corporation of London’s website, Barbican Library, Barbican Estate Office, Corporation of London Technical Services Department, Corporation of London Department of Planning & Transportation. 62

The 1st draft of the guidelines proved to be the most controversial stage of the process, generating much debate about the listing of the complex and its ramifications. It was the crucial stage during which most of the problems with the proposals were identified, allowing them to be addressed in the subsequent drafts. Consequently, even though it was not adopted I shall consider the document and the responses to it in some detail, since it gives a valuable insight into the issues encountered and explains why the adopted guidelines take the form that they do. It is also worth noting that whilst some elements of the first draft were changed or omitted from the adopted guidelines, many stayed the same, making their analysis relevant to an assessment of the final document. The first draft comprised Volume I â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Introduction and Volume II â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Residential Buildings. Volume I was prepared principally by the Corporation of London Department of Planning and Transportation, is 31 pages long and divided into 12 sections: At the beginning of the document the listing description is given (see Appendix A), together with a colour coded map identifying the extent of listing on the estate.

Fig 47: Map of Barbican Estate showing extent of listing

1. Listed Building Management Guidelines: Background and Policy This gives a brief summary of the history and the aims of management guidelines generally. 2. Barbican: Best Practice With reference to Streamlining Listed Building Consent this section identifies; x The adherence to relevant guidance in the preparation of the guidelines for the Barbican x The involvement of English Heritage and the objectives of the guidelines x Establishment of a working party x Consultation of stakeholders x Communication of ideas x Appointment of independent consultants x Recognition of different types of buildings across the estate

x x x

Adopting a holistic approach Exploring conservation solutions A review programme for the guidelines

3. Aims and objectives of the Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines This is a series of statements regarding; x The identification of special interest x Provision of information to stakeholders x Providing certainty for determination of proposals x Providing a framework for best practice x The enablement of the management of change 4. History of the Barbican Estate This explains the complex planning process that led to the construction of the estate, gives a description of the buildings, the sequence of construction and dates of completion. 5. ‘Special architectural and historic interest’ This is identified in general terms, rather glibly; “…because of the design concepts employed by the architects”64. Structures not covered by the guidelines are also identified (Milton Court, St. Giles Church, Museum of London and London Wall). 6. Legislation, ‘listing’ and listed building control The legislation, guidance and policy documents are identified, together with an explanation of the listing process, listed building consent and the consequences of a breach of controls. It is stated that guidelines cannot override the requirement for listed building consent, and that listing descriptions should never be interpreted as the extent of listing. It also seeks to overcome a common misapprehension of listing, stating that it is not intended to fossilise a building but to ensure that the architectural and historic interest is considered before alterations are undertaken. 7. The role of English Heritage 8. The role of the Corporation of London as Local Planning Authority. 9. The role of the Corporation as freeholder The need for landlords consent for proposed works is identified. 10. How to apply for Listed Building Consent 11. How to apply for planning permission 12. Procedure for review of the Management Guidelines Reviews of each volume are proposed every six months within the first two years of implementation and every five years thereafter, with an effort made to achieve continuity of personnel from the working party. The possibility of more immediate reviews can be considered in the event of legislation changes. Volume II was prepared by Avanti, serving as the ‘active’ part of the guidelines by dealing with the actual building fabric. 94 pages long, it is divided into six sections; 1.0 Introduction And Executive Summary This identifies the document’s provenance, gives an explanation of its use, a summary of its scope”…guidance for the management of change to the residential buildings”65, and makes conclusions and recommendations for: x The preservation of the external spaces and form of the buildings x Blending in of repairs and replacements with the original fabric x Adherence to prescribed procedures for alterations to internal spaces to flats 64 65

Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, 1 Draft, Volume I, p 16 st Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, 1 Draft, Volume II, p 6

x x x

Adherence to best practice for ongoing maintenance and repairs Development of conservation strategies (see 5.0 below) Distribution of details of conservation strategies amongst stakeholders

2.0 Special Interest of the Buildings This is a more in-depth exploration of the significance of the complex than that in Volume 1, focussing on the cohesiveness of the estate as a single composition, the architectural language of the towers and terrace blocks, materials and components, and domestic design such as the flat layouts, kitchen and bathroom design and general fittings throughout. 3.0 Management Guidance This section is the ‘working part’ of the document. The buildings are divided into external and internal areas and individual elements are identified together with a description of their significance, the possible nature of any change and whether it requires listed building consent. 4.0 Best Practice This section is intended to be used as guidance for repairs, restoration & maintenance, and as such is aimed more towards the corporation as freeholder rather than the residents. It is split into roofs & terraces, redecoration of external elements, services and wiring and the Garchey refuse system. 5.0 Conservation Strategy Proposals for a wider conservation strategy for the residential blocks are identified, such as the creation of heritage flats66, drawn and photographic surveys, salvage stores and a permanent exhibition. 6.0 Index Of Documents And Sources A bibliography of consulted material.

The consultation received over 300 responses, 15% of the total 2014 flats. This may not seem like a particularly good response but was in fact in excess of what had been expected, indicating the moderately high level of interest in the guidelines. Some of the responses were positive, but most expressed a deep mistrust of the process and its implications, particularly with regard to the flat interiors67. According to the Barbican Association, people wrote in; …with 95% objecting in vigorous terms to the level of control proposed for the interiors of the flats, but supporting strong controls on the common parts and exterior of the buildings and strongly supporting the conservation strategy…The Corporation was a little taken aback by the vociferousness of the response… Barbican Association Newsletter, November 2004, p1

It is at this point that divisions within the working party became apparent. The Barbican Association showed its hand by issuing a four page newsflash in June 2004 with the headline Draft Listed Building Guidelines May Threaten the Value of Our Homes’ together with a 17 page report prepared by the solicitors Farrer & Co. on behalf of the BA entitled Barbican Association Formal Comments on Draft Listed Building Management Guidelines. Dated 30 June 2004 these claim that following advice from architectural historians68, estate agents, listed building specialists and solicitors, the association has been advised that the guidelines are deeply flawed: The key problems are that the guidelines: x x x x x x

Will impose excessive bureaucracy Misjudge what is really architecturally significant about the interiors Impose further and unnecessary Listed Building Consent (LBC) restrictions Will reduce the marketability, value and attractiveness of homes in the Barbican Have been drafted by an author who appears to lack objectivity Do not have resident agreement

Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p1 66

A cross-section of flats from across the estate where original fixtures and fittings are preserved for posterity. Context No. 91, p 29 68 David Heathcote, author of Penthouse Over the City, Chichester, 2004 67

The furore surrounding the first draft of the management guidelines are a microcosm of the wider debate on the merits of post-war listing, with many of the same issues brought to bear on one group of buildings. To position the BA’s concerns within this, examine whether they are valid and determine how they were eventually settled, I shall examine each of them with reference to the reasons for objections to post-war listing identified earlier on page 12, namely; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Statutory protection erodes public property and commercial rights. Listing is undemocratic; the owner has no say in the process and has no right to appeal. Listing inhibits development Listing creates a museum culture. (Lack of) education. The ‘problem of age’. Perception of unimportance. Inflexibility, both of the legislation and of the buildings themselves. Poor construction69. Expense of repairs.

The guidelines will impose excessive bureaucracy through further and unnecessary Listed Building Consent restrictions I shall consider both of these points together since they act and react upon each other; the excessive bureaucracy results in increased numbers of listed building consent applications, and vice-versa. The principle issues that this relates to are; 1. Statutory protection erodes public property and commercial rights. 8. Inflexibility of listed building legislation. 10. Expense (of alterations in this instance). The BA’s objection to the need for consent is based on the premise that it is an infringement of the rights of the individual; They propose a significant increase in bureaucratic interference in the enjoyment of our homes. Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p1

There is a concern that the need for consent will severely restrict the possibilities of what one might be able to do to one’s flat. This is despite the assertion in section 6 of Volume I that listed building consent is intended to manage change, not fossilize the buildings, and the identification in Volume II Section 3 of the possibility of salvaging fittings ‘in good condition’70 in the case of the replacement of kitchen units and bathrooms (Fig. 48 & 49). Although listed building consent is required, this effectively gives tacit approval.

The Barbican is on the whole very well built and has lasted without the need for major repairs or renewal. The external fabric of the building is the responsibility of the Corporation of London, so the upkeep of it was of little concern to the BA, as long as it was done well. 70 Note the counterpoint to the 20th Century Society statement on page 34.

Fig 48: Barbican original bathroom

Fig 49: Barbican; original kitchen

The draft guidelines are, in the BA’s opinion, overly long, complicated and unclear, not based on agreement and actually increase the incidence of listed building consents. The BA identify what they see as a paradoxical situation; the Listed Building management guidelines have been introduced to make the listing of the Barbican more manageable and (presumably) cheaper through the reduction in time spent on the process. What they actually appear to do is increase the corporation’s duties and administration costs71 by introducing the need for consent where previously there had been none. The draft guidelines state that nearly all aspects of the flat interiors are architecturally significant… they have therefore introduced the requirement for us to apply for listed building consent for almost any alteration of or homes, something which is not happening at the moment despite the listing. Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p4

The BA base their argument on the misapprehension that listing applied to the exterior of the buildings only, stating that assurances had been given at the time of listing by English Heritage that the interiors of flats would be 72 unaffected . The listing description (see Appendix B), referred to as the “listing notice” is quoted by the BA as being principally concerned with the exteriors of the buildings, and making no mention of the interiors at all. This is untrue, the description states that; The interiors of the flats have cupboards by the front door containing letter boxes and metre (sic) boxes, and some retain kitchen cupboards, tiled bathrooms and a Garchey waste disposal system. Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), Barbican Listing Description, 2001

The association believe that the balance of weight on the exteriors in the description means that the interiors should be controlled less stringently. However, when one considers that there are 20 buildings to cover together with problems of access and the similarity of many interiors, it is unsurprising that the listing description deals mostly with the exteriors. Also, as is pointed out in section 6 of Volume 1 of the draft, listing descriptions should never be interpreted as the extent of listing, and the length of the inclusion for an item has no bearing on the importance that should be attached to it. The regime proposed by the guidelines is, we are told, a complete break with current practice; the requirement for consent for almost any alteration to flat interiors is not being enforced, despite statutory listing73 . However, the fact that the system is working in a particular way does not necessarily mean that it is correct. Many of the alterations that the BA do not think need consent probably do, but this is not widely appreciated. As a consequence works may have been taking place without permission, fostering the belief that consent was not required. In such a situation any formalisation of the need for consent is likely to be interpreted as an increase. Prior to the enhanced understanding of significance provided by the guidelines a cautious approach might have resulted in consent being required for any alterations. In this respect the first draft might actually decrease the number of consents by limiting it to those that really matter. 71

Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p1 Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p2 73 Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p4 72

The perceived inflexibility of listed building legislation by the BA is apparent. The incurrence of additional fees and a time period of 12 weeks or longer for determination of consent are quoted, “Even if Listed Building Consent (sic) is granted…”74 The use of language here is significant, giving the impression that approval is unlikely. The time and fee claims are exaggerated; a decision on my own listed building consent application (see page 63) took 7 weeks, and the tasks of filling in a form and producing a location plan would generate minor fees75. Nevertheless, this is the type of scaremongering that strikes a chord amongst many people, as it did at the Barbican. Breda Daly informs me that prior to the guidelines listed building consent was not required for the alteration and removal of kitchen and bathroom fixtures76. This then begs the question as to why there was an attempt to introduce it in the 1st draft? I believe that a number of factors contributed to this. Firstly, Avanti’s investigations revealed that the kitchens and bathrooms made more of a contribution to the significance and special interest of the complex than had hitherto been imagined, and that it was felt that they should be afforded increased protection. Also, due to the inadequate consultation process up to this point the strength of the BA’s reaction against this proposal had been misjudged. Furthermore, the CoL do not appear to have properly considered the increased workload that this would generate. All of these combined to produce what was probably the most controversial part of the 1st draft. The length of the document also gives cause for concern and charges of bureaucracy; At 100 pages the guidelines are far from simple or short and in no way give clarity about what we can or cannot do. Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p1 st

It is interesting to note that Volume 1 of the 1 draft is actually shorter than that of the adopted guidelines, 31 pages as opposed to 39. Volume II has a small reduction from 90 pages in the first draft to 79 in the adopted guidelines. This indicates that length was perhaps not a problem at all. Given the remit of the document it is difficult to see how it could have been reduced significantly. However, at 120 pages the volumes are perhaps too long. There is, or at least there is a perception of, a certain amount of doubling up between the two. Section 5 of Volume I, which deals with the special significance of the Barbican, is repeated to a certain extent in the more in-depth analysis in section 2 of Volume II. Similarly, whilst the sections in Volume I explaining listed building and planning legislation and the roles of the Corporation of London are helpful, their inclusion at that point disrupts the flow of the document and overloads the reader. These would. I believe, be better placed in some form of appendices, where they can be referred to on a ‘need-to–know’ basis rather than contained in the main body of the text. The main section regarding alterations within the flats is Volume II, Section 3. Whilst the changes are laid out quite clearly, the message that it is trying to convey becomes confused through the density of information that accompanies them. A description of the significance and special interest of the particular element is given, which effectively doubles up on section 2. The requirement for listed building consent is stated clearly in bold type, but the accompanying ‘informative considerations’ also appear overly long and detailed. As a result the clarity of the ‘working’ part of the document is impaired, and it comes across as a manual for the professional rather than the layman. Also, no attempt is made to prioritise the alterations with regard to the impact that they will have on the buildings; there is no indication of whether they will be acceptable or not, and no certainty offered on the outcome of a listed building consent other than implicit references regarding the salvage of fixtures and fittings. Indeed, the only certainty is that an application has to be made.

The guidelines misjudge what is really architecturally significant about the interiors The principle issues that this relates to are; 4. Listing creates a museum culture. 74

Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p1 Interestingly, any alterations within the Barbican require landlord’s consent, for which plans and forms have to be submitted; to my knowledge no issue has ever made about this by the BA. 76 Private letter to the author, 8 May 2006 75

5. (Lack of) education. 6. The ‘problem of age’. 7. Perception of unimportance. In the Barbican Association’s assessment virtually every alteration to the flat interiors would require consent. A selection is given; x x x x x x x x x x

Removal and addition of non-structural partitions / screens Removal of wardrobe and cupboard doors (Fig. 50) Insertion of mezzanines Insertion of suspended ceilings Replacement of kitchens Replacement of bathroom fittings Replacement of internal doors (Fig. 51) Alterations to skirting boards (Fig. 52) Removal of window boxes (Fig. 53) Redecorating internal windows (Fig. 54)

Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p4

Fig 50: Barbican; full height bi-fold wardrobe doors

Fig 51: Barbican; internal door

Fig 53: Barbican; balcony planter

Fig 52: Barbican; flush skirting detail

Fig 54: Barbican; teak window frame

The adherence to the ‘museum culture’ argument is further reinforced by the BA’s evocative use of language, th claiming that the 20 Century Society are; …in support of full mummification of the interiors…. Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p4

The BA believe that the guidelines misjudge what is architecturally significant about the interiors, but make no attempt to say what they believe is significant. In their opinion the establishment of heritage flats as proposed in the Conservation Strategy (Volume II section 5) will satisfy any requirements to preserve significant elements of the interiors, allowing controls to be relaxed on the remainder of the estate; There are certain design concepts that are special and unique, however they could be preserved in a number of heritage flats retained by the Corporation, and through an archiving and recording exercise. Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p4

No indication is given as to what these concepts are, but I think we can assume that they have been identified as having special significance by Avanti. Heritage flats were the key to reaching a compromise between the parties, and it is interesting to see the BA identify this at an early stage. One of the key roles of management guidelines is as a tool for education. At first glance it might appear as if they have failed in this instance. However, the BA do concede that some aspects of the flat interiors are of special interest. Their reluctance to identify what these are may be because to do so strengthens the case for listed building consent. This indicates that the educative role was actually quite successful and that the identification of significance was not actually a problem, particularly when one considers that the section regarding the special interest and significance of the buildings in the adopted guidelines is very similar to that in the first draft. Nevertheless, ‘the problem of age’ and the perception of unimportance are apparent: The kitchens were made from utilitarian, cheap mass produced materials. With the exception of the “Barbican Sink” none of the fittings chosen were special to the Barbican… That the kitchens and bathrooms have lasted so long is a credit to the build quality but they are now at the end of their useful life and are not fit for modern living. Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p4

Fig 55: Barbican sink

Fig 56: Barbican sink; original advertising

There is a reluctance or inability to attach importance to modern fabric, dismissing it as ‘cheap’ and ‘mass produced’, a description seldom applied to artefacts of previous eras, even though these could be similarly cheap and mass produced. Talk is of replacement rather than restoration, with justification for the replacement of elements based on the flimsiest of arguments, such as non-conformity to building regulations as a reason to remove staircases. One wonders if this would be cited as grounds for the removal of a staircase in a listed Georgian building? The ability of Avanti to identify which elements are significant is also called into question: Avanti… have not tried to justify the significance using objective historical, architectural and design criteria. This is a significant weakness in the guidelines and one that Avanti have been guilty of before. Their work on Alexandra Road was criticised in an ODPM report for not having a coherent attempt to discern and summarise the design philosophy and language. Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p4

In fact, Avanti have never undertaken any work at Alexandra Road. This, together with the personal attack on John Allan of Avanti (see below) illustrates the tone that proceedings have taken; the BA are prepared to go to great lengths to ensure that the guidelines are not adopted and write without full possession of the facts.

The guidelines will reduce the marketability, value and attractiveness of homes in the Barbican Whether attractiveness refers to aesthetic or commercial considerations is not qualified; however, I think it is safe to assume that it refers to the latter… As such, it relates to the following; 3. Listing inhibits development Onerous restrictions on the refurbishment of your property will directly affect its value. Few buyers will be willing to purchase outdated city centre apartments which they cannot easily remodel to their requirements.” Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p1

The BA believes that the guidelines will have a negative impact on the commercial value of the properties by increasing the need for listed building consent. Whether this is true is difficult to establish; the economic values of properties are, of course, subject to many pressures, and the BA present no evidence to support their claims. However, an RICS survey77 has indicated that listing has a negligible effect on the value of properties, and as we have already established listing can increase a building’s value by giving it more architectural pedigree. One wonders if the same concerns would be raised over ‘onerous restrictions’ in an older building, where the listed status would be a positive selling point. The counterpoint to the BA argument is that listing preserves the features that make the flats desirable, which then become more sought after and more valuable. The 20th Century Society… claim that flats with original features command a premium. We have checked this with local estate agents and this is simply not true. In fact flats done up well and in sympathy with the original architecture command a premium, not flats with original features. Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p4

I shall explore this area more thoroughly later, but my own investigations have indicated that the 20th Century Society may be correct. Nicola Lee from Hamilton Brooks estate agents, who deals exclusively with the Barbican, states that flats with original features are more sought after. She cites the removal of the large sliding door in a type 20 flat as an example where alteration makes the flat harder to sell because the flexibility of the space (the architect’s original design concept) is compromised. This indicates that the original arrangement and features are actually what more people want from the buildings, and that in this instance it would be a mistake to preserve it in heritage flats only.

The Investment Performance of Listed Buildings carried out by English Heritage and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

Fig 57, 58, 59: Sliding door to type 20 flat

A modernised flat must be almost a facsimile of the original if it is to be as sought after as one that retains original features. If it deviates from this it is prone to date very quickly (Fig. 60 & 61), whereas the original features have a timeless quality (Fig. 62 & 63). This strengthens the case for preservation and reveals an enthusiasm for the original elements. The BA tacitly acknowledge this by advocating sympathetic alterations, but do not accept that original features themselves are worthy of preservation.

Fig 60 (left) & 61 (right): Barbican; kitchen modifications carried out with little regard for the character of the original architecture; the result could be anywhere

Fig 62 (left) & 63 (right): Barbican; kitchen modifications in-keeping with the original. Note how they retain some original features. The result is unmistakably Barbican

The irony here is that listed building management guidelines are being promoted by the government as a means of removing barriers to competitiveness by preventing excessive regulation from destroying economic value. In this instance the BA believe that they are doing exactly the reverse. The guidelines have been drafted by an author who appears to lack objectivity This criticism brings a new concept to the debate, peculiar to management guidelines, although in many ways it typifies the apparent gulf between the professional and the public. John Allan is ‘exposed’ as being: …an active member of the 20th Century Society, who have [sic] particularly extreme views on building preservation. We believe this fundamentally undermines the objectivity of Avanti and the guidelines.78 Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p3

This allegation is unfortunate since Allan is (in my opinion) one of the main proponents of the ‘management of change’ approach to the conservation of modern buildings, and very pragmatic about what can be achieved within given parameters. The choice of personnel could have been a lot worse from the BA’s point of view. Furthermore, Allan is not an active member of the 20th Century Society, never having served on its committees79. This criticism raises an interesting question; surely the best people to undertake management guidelines are those that specialise in historic buildings, be it architects or other relevant professions. Such people are likely to be members of organisation like the 20th Century Society; were they not they might be criticised for not being sufficiently actively involved. Perversely, it would seem that when one becomes involved in the compilation of management guidelines this can be a disadvantage and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the whole undertaking. There is no easy answer to this; should management agreements only be carried out by architects with no knowledge of or interest in historic structures? This is an absurd suggestion; it is impossible for an individual to have completed their training and to not have been exposed to or influenced by buildings from a previous age. The care of historic buildings and the writing of management agreements require specialist skills in order to identify the significance and special interest of a building and which alterations are likely to compromise it. Another solution may have been to exclude the 20th Century Society on the basis that architect sufficiently versed in the society’s principles and objectives is sufficient representation. However, I believe that the roles of surveyor, author of the document and champion of historic building features would be too great for any individual (or organisation) to bear, exposing them to charges of impartiality from both sides. In writing guidelines it is essential to gain the whole gamut of views from all interested parties; this means consulting those that live and work in a building at one end of the spectrum to those that regard it as part of their cultural heritage at the other. If organisations such as the 20th Century Society were excluded then the guidelines would not be as comprehensive as they should be, and important elements of the building could be lost. The guidelines do not have resident agreement80 This responds to the following: 2. Listing is undemocratic; the owner has no say in the process and has no right to appeal. The BA believe that the emphasis on collective agreement identified in Streamlining Listed Building Consent is being ignored, and claim that the corporation have thus far refuted that residents agreement is required for the guidelines to be implemented81. 78

John Allan states in a response to a questionnaire from the author, 19 May 2006, that Avanti dealt with this matter by engaging their solicitors to require a retraction, and engaging in further direct dialogue with the BA. John Allan was, however, formerly the chair of DoCoMoMo. 80 On this note, it is worth pointing out that the BA cannot definitely say whether the guidelines have resident agreement or not. They can only presume to be speaking on behalf of 95% of the 300 responses received by the consultation out of a possible 2000. It is, of course, possible that a good proportion of the remaining minimum 1700 residents that did not respond to the consultation saw no problem with them (myself included). 81 The Corporation of London refute this and point out that from the outset it was recognised that resident consensus was vital to the success of the project, hence the establishment of the working party. The aim was to produce guidelines with the status of supplementary planning guidance, enabling the adoption of a consensus approach rather than each resident signing up individually. A number of points (this included) 79

The irony here is that one of the main functions of the guidelines is to turn listing into a more democratic process, in this instance they appear to have had the opposite effect, actually exacerbating the situation. Previously the BA had no say in the listing82 but were unaware of the extent of controls that this brought and as a result not too concerned. Now they have additional controls imposed on them (or so they think) and no say in the process. The ‘undemocratic’ nature of the guidelines is further identified by the BA through the way the consultation was handled. Apparently, the resident representatives were not given an opportunity to view the draft before it was issued, which questions the extent to which they were actually involved. Also, inadequate numbers of the draft guidelines were printed, so that the majority of requests for copies were not sent out until the week commencing June 5th 2004, reducing the response period to just 15 days. Reading between the lines the BA are perhaps hinting at the corporation attempting to influence the consultation by making it as difficult as possible for people to respond. I do not believe that this is true; the CoL have been unfortunate in the way that events have transpired, but this further adds to the suspicion with which the BA regards the process. The consultation of the 1st draft was far from a success. In my opinion this is not because of the document per se; despite some problems with length and clarity, it did what it was intended to do: x x x x

Identified what management guidelines are. Who was responsible for them. The historical and architectural significance of the estate. Identified which alterations required listed building consent.

The problems lie principally in the handling of the process. Similarities between the 1st draft and the adopted guidelines indicate that had the document been presented better to the BA and they had had greater involvement I believe that the draft would have gained more support. As it is they feel that they have not been consulted properly and that they have been dealt with in a high-handed manner, and as a result they feel alienated from the whole process. For a document that is supposed to be based on agreement between all parties this is a very bad situation. John Allan of Avanti states that the whole point of the consultation was to ascertain the extent of agreement or otherwise across a very wide number of issues, and that it would have been fairly remarkable if there had been total unanimity at the first attempt83. Although I am sure that this is true to some extent, it also sounds to me like some ‘positive spin’ designed to deflect attention away from the poor handling of the project up to this point. What is apparent is that the BA is very well informed, organised and highly motivated. The guidelines at the Barbican differ from those developed elsewhere in that they are the first to have been used where there are a significant number of individual stakeholders; Where they [management agreements] have been used in respect of residential accommodation that accommodation has been social housing, in respect of which one would expect a high degree of landlord and/or public authority control and a low level of rights in the residents. Farrer & Co. Solicitors, Barbican Association Formal Comments on Draft Listed Building Management Guidelines, 30 June 2004, p3, paragraph 2.3

There are approximately 100 flats on the estate rented by ‘short term tenants’ from the Corporation of London, 5 % of the total 2014, who would be in a similar position to those alluded to above. They are responsible for internal decorations, but are not permitted to make any other alterations to the flats. The CoL are responsible fir all other maintenance issues. For the BA, on the other hand, there is a lot at stake; they estimate the financial equity of the residents at £800 million84. The incidence of individual stakeholders makes the task of gaining resident agreement for the guidelines arguably more important than in other situations because the residents have greater legal rights to their raised in the June 2004 BA Newsflash were considered by the CoL to be factually incorrect and were addressed with the association separately. (Breda Daly, May 2005). 82 Other than the opportunity to participate in the public consultation prior to listing. 83 John Allan, Avanti Architects, response to questionnaire from author, 19 May 2006. 84 Farrer & Co. Solicitors, Barbican Association Formal Comments on Draft Listed Building Management Guidelines, 30 June 2004, p3, paragraph 2.7

homes. On sites in local authority or housing association ownership it may be possible to restrict what tenants can do to properties without their agreement because they do not own them. This cannot be done at the Barbican. It also, of course, makes gaining agreement more problematic; the greater the interest that the individual has in their property, the more opposed they are going to be about measures that might decrease its value..

The 2nd Draft and Adoption of the Guidelines The views expressed by the Barbican Association in the newsflash were reflected in the discussions of the working party following the 1st draft consultation, leading to a deadlock of opinion. In order to break this and bring a new perspective to the working party it was extended to include two more resident representatives and a further member of the corporation. The BA had requested three more representatives and the presence of advisers at the working party meetings; two were accepted but one was rejected on the grounds that they were neither a resident nor an owner of a property in the Barbican. It was felt that advisors would have changed the nature and purpose of the working party; if one element was allowed to bring advisors, then all representatives would need to be afforded the same opportunity and the meetings would have become unwieldy and unproductive85. The final composition of the working party was as follows: Alderman Bob Hall

Chairman of Barbican Residential Committee and Working Party

Martin Farr CC

Member of Corporation of London’s Planning and Transportation Committee (post 1st draft)

Nicola Baker

Barbican Residents Consultative Committee

Don Prichard

Barbican Residents Consultative Committee

Robert Barker

Barbican Residents Consultative Committee

Stephen Horrocks

Barbican Residents Consultative Committee (post 1st draft)

Raymond Cooper

Barbican Residents Consultative Committee (post 1st draft)

Roger Mascall

English Heritage

Eva Branscombe

Twentieth Century Society

Richard Thomas

Department of Community Services, Corporation of London

John Allan

Avanti Architects

Keyvan Lankarani

Avanti Architects

Elizabeth Devas

Avanti Architects

Kelley Christ

Avanti Architects

David March

Department of Planning and Transportation, Corporation of London

Breda Daly

Department of Planning and Transportation, Corporation of London

The timetable for implementation of the guidelines was extended to April 2005, and there began a process of reevaluating and re-assessing the situation, with ‘vigorous debate’86 concerning the interiors: “The most difficult obstacle was explaining to people that the aim was not to stop people from removing kitchens and bathrooms, just to manage the change in the buildings.” Roger Mascall, English Heritage, conversation with the author, 15 November 2005.

All consultation responses were reviewed. In response to the criticism that the document was over-complicated Avanti introduced a colour coded strategy87 (Fig. 64) to simplify the working part of the document was introduced that established a hierarchy of alterations and their impact on the building’s significance (see also page 56). 85

Breda Daly, Corporation of London, response to questionnaire from author, 8 May 2005. Barbican Association, Newsletter, November 2004, p4 87 This seems to have caught on in heritage circles; John Allan jokes that he should have patented it and taken early retirement. 86

Fig 64: Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines; colour coded guide to alterations

The next edition of the BA Newsletter in November 2004 had a far more conciliatory and positive tone which indicated that real progress had been made. The major breakthrough, we are told, came in the form of the conservation strategy; The key to the compromise was the concept of Heritage Flats, where it has been agreed that there would be a lower level of control on the interiors if a representative sample of heritage flats were preserved intact. Barbican Association, Newsletter, November 2004, p4

The BA still refused to accept the link between â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;light levels of controlâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and heritage flats, maintaining that controls within flats should be kept to a minimum anyway, but accept the concept as a compromise to move the situation forward. In persuading the BA to accept lower levels of control (but still some) it would appear that English Heritage and the Corporation of London have had some success in educating and convincing the BA of the value of listed building consent as a means of managing change rather than fossilizing the buildings; It seems that most of the changes that residents will want to do will be given consent. However, the Corporation and English Heritage feel that the changes [removal of partitioning in this instance] must go through the LBC [listed building consent] process so that they can record the changes to the building and ensure high quality standards. Barbican Association, Newsletter, November 2004, p4

The BA thank Avanti, English Heritage and the Corporation of London for their work in finding the compromise, although any reference to the 20th Century Society is absent. The next steps are to finalise the new draft at further meetings of the working party before passing onto the Resident Consultation Committee, Barbican Residential Committee and Planning Committee for comment in early January, followed by another consultation process in January and February 2005, including a public Q&A session.

From this point the passage of the guidelines ran relatively smoothly. The revised draft was presented to public consultation on 31 January 2005 (Fig. 65) and introduced at a public meeting on 7 February 2005, with the consultation period ending on 21 February. In contrast to the first draft, each flat was distributed with a summary and a copy of the interiors section, the most controversial section of the first draft (a full print run was deemed to be too expensive); full copies of the document were available at the Barbican Library, on the internet or on CD.

Fig 65: Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines; publicity poster

The main differences between the drafts can be summarised as follows: Proposed Alteration

Requirement for Listed Building Consent 1st Draft 2nd Draft

Removal and addition of non-structural partitions / screens

Required

Removal of wardrobe and cupboard doors

Required

Not required

Insertion of mezzanines

Required

Insertion of suspended ceilings

Required

Required (where ceiling line interferes with outward appearance of windows)

Replacement of kitchens

Required

Not required

Replacement of bathroom fittings

Required

Not required

Replacement of internal doors

Required

Not required

Alterations to skirting boards

Required

Not required (if reversible)

Removal / replacement of window boxes

Required

Redecorating internal surfaces of window frames

Required

Required (if proposed to be permanent and different from original varnished finish)

As can be seen, the main difference is the removal of the need to obtain consent for the replacement of kitchens and bathrooms. This may seem like a huge climb-down on the part of the preservationists, and it was certainly not a popular move with the 20th Century Society. However, the compromise is perhaps not as one-sided as it

may at first seem, and reflects the learning process that has taken place on both sides. For their part, the preservationists have come to realise that the amount of changes demanded by the first draft was impractical; The working party… recognised that it would not be feasible to require consent for the removal of original kitchen and bathroom fittings. Breda Daly, David March and Roger Mascall, Management Guidelines for the Barbican, Context No. 91, September 2005, p28.

The BA, on the other hand, have accepted that some controls within the flats are necessary, and that listed building consent is the best way to achieve it. Fifty per cent of alterations on the above list that had needed consent under the 1st draft still do. In a compromise situation this seems to be reasonable and fair, with each side giving an equal amount of ground. John Allan states that this was facilitated by the substantial support for Heritage Flats that emerged from the first consultation exercise, which enabled a slightly more relaxed view to be taken regarding general treatment of interiors since this gave confidence that the loss of all interiors with surviving original fabric could be prevented.88 To redress the balance from the 1st draft he BA issued a further news flash in February 2005 describing the revised draft as a “huge improvement”89. Members were urged to register their support for the Conservation Strategy and to lobby the corporation to approve funding for the remaining volumes of the guidelines. The news flash identified the main differences of the new draft as contained in the interiors section; kitchens and bathrooms can be changed without consent, alteration of partitions requires consent but is likely to be granted, and any changes that are visible from the exterior will require consent. Redecoration of internal window frames in a different finish to the original varnish is still restricted. The section on external elements is identified as being the most restrictive section of the draft, which the BA are in agreement with. Particular reference is made to the balcony planters, the design of which is identified as subject to consent. The news flash is also complimentary about John Allan and Avanti, stating that the BA’s fears about their objectivity had proved to be unfounded; …the expertise they brought to the table was invaluable in getting to where we are today. Barbican Association, News Flash, February 2005, p1

Over 60 responses were received to the public consultation, a dramatic reduction from the first. Slight differences between the interiors section distributed for the consultation and the version included in the adopted guidelines indicate that any comments were minor. The only changes are: x x x x

The inclusion of a general paragraph regarding users with special needs. In the ‘green’ section of the adopted guidelines the removal of Garchey waste systems is added together with a note excluding external redecoration of window frames from the no-consent category. The erection of new full height partitions is added to the ‘red’ section of the adopted guidelines. Removal of original skirting details is moved from the red section in the consultation document to the amber section in the adopted guidelines.

The final version was approved first by the Resident Consultation Committee, Barbican Residential Committee and finally by the Corporation of London’s Planning Committee on 24th May 2005. The guidelines were adopted as supplementary planning guidance, establishing them as one of the considerations for Planning Officers when determining applications for the residential buildings. The final document has not been distributed to all of the flats due to cost and the problems that would arise in the event of the document being revised. Instead the guidelines are available via the internet and printed copies are available to view at the Planning Department reception, Barbican Estate Office and CoL libraries. However, an information leaflet based on the guidelines was distributed to all flats explaining the guidelines and what they mean for residents (Fig. 67). In line with the intention from the outset the guidelines were reviewed during December 2005 to assess how they had been performing during their first six months of use. Although no specific details of the review were

88 89

John Allan, Avanti Architects, response to questionnaire from author, 19 May 2006. Barbican Association, News Flash, February 2005, p1

forthcoming, Breda Daly confirmed that the review meeting reflected the structure of the review process set out in 90 the guidelines , namely; x x x x x x

The number of enquiries received since the last review, and whether they fell into the green, amber, red or black categories. Situations that have arisen where there is a gap in the guidelines. Applications refused, and details of any subsequent appeals. Details of enforcement actions. Planning matters relating to maintenance and repairs. Updates on the Conservation Strategy and further volumes of the guidelines.

No details of any shortcomings of the guidelines have been identified thus far, and the guidelines appear to be working well. The number of enquiries and applications remains the same as before the guidelines, but those making them are much better informed as a result of them91. Another review meeting will be held in June 2006. An evaluation of the Conservation Strategy continued until December 2005, and a report of the findings together with recommendations for a business plan will be presented for approval by the Barbican Residential Committee on 12 June 2006 and the Resident Consultation Committee on 26 June 2006. The Corporation of Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Planning Committee are due to consider the proposals in July 2006, and if a resolution is passed the strategy will be implemented during summer 200692. Heritage flats have proved to be the most problematic issue to implement. It has been decided that these must be designated in some of the 130 flats that are owned by the Corporation of London because no way of covenanting designation as a heritage flat from one owner to another could be established for flats in private ownership. This requires a change in policy to ensure that the selling off of the remaining flats in corporation ownership does not take place, together with changes to tenancy agreements in order to avoid long-term tenants exercising their right to buy. The proposal to provide a Barbican exhibition space within the complex has been shelved. It was felt that this would not generate sufficient interest to justify the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;considerable costsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; that the project would require. This seems strange when one considers the success of the exhibition concerning the Barbican This was Tomorrow in the arts centre in 2002. Instead there are plans to develop links with the Museum of London to establish a small exhibition there. The oral history project is still a possibility, together with activities such as walks and information resources such as leaflets and internet downloads, depending on obtaining financial approval. Fig 66: Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines; publicity poster

Fig 67: Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines; guide 90

Breda Daly, private letter to author. 8 May 2006 Breda Daly, private letter to author. 8 May 2006 92 Petra Sprowson, Corporation of London, conversation with author 15 May 2006 91

Critique of Adopted Guidelines In common with the 1st draft, the adopted guidelines are split into 2 volumes; x x

Volume I â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Introduction Volume II â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Residential Buildings

Fig 68 & 69: Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines

Volume 1 is very similar to that of the first draft as outlined on page 36. Consequently I do not proposed to dwell on this, except to say that the document is pithier, the descriptions are generally tighter, and some distinctions have been made clearer, such as that between Conservation Plans, Management Agreements and Management Guidelines93 and the identification of the adopted guidelines as Supplementary Planning Guidance94. As such, the same comments as those on page 41 regarding the length of the document, repetition and the removal of sections to some form of appendices are still relevant. Volume II was always the most controversial part of the guidelines and the element to which most changes were made following the 1st draft, and it is this that I intend to study in greater detail to assess; x x x

Which features are identified as having significance and special interest? How it works; is it easy to use? Does it achieve what it sets out to do? What it contributes to the conservation of the buildings?

Adopted Guidelines; Volume II As with the 1st draft, the document is divided into 6 sections; 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Introduction and Executive Summary. Special Interest of the Buildings Management Guidance Best Practice Conservation Strategy

Section 1 has no significant differences from that contained in the 1st draft (see page 37). Section 2 outlines the special interest and significance of the complex, dividing it into seven sections; 93

Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume I p 13. Conservation plans are identified as assessing how he significance of a building will be retained in any future redevelopment; Management Agreements set out the degree of acceptable change within a building in single ownership, and Management Guidelines offer guidance on the significance of a building and the types of changes that may require listed building consent where there are a significant number of individual stakeholders. 94 Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume I p 15

2.1 Character and special interest 2.2 Significance of the residential buildings of Barbican 2.3 Strategic design â&#x20AC;&#x201C; building typology, urban space, podium 2.4 Architectural language, formal composition, structure 2.5 Material and components 2.6 Domestic design; towers, terrace blocks, sub-podium flats and mews units 2.7 Domestic design â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Management Guidelines strategy The residential buildings are identified as constituting the dominant component of the overall complex, defining the estate in the forms of the towers and slab blocks and the spaces that they contain95. The above categories are then used to identify historical and architectural significance and special interest on a number of scales, from the micro to the macro; Macro Scale This is defined in terms of the urban grain of the city, focussing on the stylistic consistency of the Barbican complex as a whole, the uniqueness of the tower blocks as a group statement within the city (Fig. 70) and the character of the estate as a self contained, coherent urban enclave that is defined via the residential buildings. This leads to the conclusion that; The limitation and effective control of any change in the external fabric of these buildings, and the spaces they contain and define, is therefore of the utmost importance in preserving the special character and architectural integrity of the Estate as a whole. Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, , Volume II p 10

Fig 70: Barbican; view of tower blocks

Fig 71: Barbican; view of tower blocks showing vertical structural elements

Fig 72: Barbican; view of slab blocks showing horizontal emphasis 95

Fig 73: Barbican; below podium flats

Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 9 paragraph 2.2.1

Medium Scale The complex is broken down into the three architectural forms of towers, slab blocks and plinths. The architectural language of each is then identified; vertical structural elements for the towers (Fig. 71), horizontal for the slab blocks (Fig. 72) and the ‘grounded’ use of brickwork for walling and paving in the plinth (Fig. 73) (below podium flats and houses). Architectural motifs are also identified, Roman arch openings, saw tooth profile to balcony edges, barrel vaulted roofs and the arch and counter arch to the sub podium; Together these constitute the architectural language of the Barbican and are all key features of special interest that could not be altered without impacting on the character of the listed buildings. Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 11

The limited materials palette of concrete, engineering brick, hardwood, white painted soffits and roof coverings and architectural metalwork in sober colours is identified with the stipulation that: …the essential gravitas of its [the Barbican’s] buildings should be preserved from makeovers, prettification or camouflage as otherwise the essential character of the Barbican will be compromised or lost. Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 12

Micro Scale The flat interiors are identified as part of a continuous design strategy that embraces urban planning at one level and domestic detailing at another96. Items of significance are identified as; …the essential plan and/or sectional organisation of the interior; the position, size and shape of kitchens and bathrooms; the incorporation of double height space; the use of internal staircases as an architectural statement; barrel-vaulted spaces; significant windows and doors; and sliding partitions and screens. Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 12

Fig 74: Barbican; variety of flat types

The incorporation of these elements in a variety of formulations within 140 different dwelling types contained in just 3 building typologies is cited as being of special interest in itself (Fig. 74). The presence and character of original detail is stated as being rare for the period, alongside the kitchen and bathroom layouts, finishes and fittings, which were progressive for their time. The design of domestic interiors at the Barbican is thus an integral part of the original architects’ lifestyle vision for the Estate as a whole and as such is part of the character and special interest that listing seeks to protect. Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 13

Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, 1 Draft, Volume II, p12

The identification of significance at this stage in the document is still quite vague, spoken about in general rather than specific terms. Section 3 provides greater detail, assessing how proposed works are likely to affect the character of the building in relation to its special architectural interest. â&#x20AC;Śthe detailed guidance included in section 3 aims to differentiate the key elements of special interest (those which will be the subject of Listed Building Consent (sic) procedures) from other items of repair or alteration work. Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 14

This deals with both the exterior and interior of the building. The most controversial part of the guidelines has been the flat interiors; the proposals for the external elements have always been more or less acceptable97. As a result I shall concentrate on the guidance for flat interiors and balconies to assess which elements are deemed to be significant. I shall then compare this with contemporary accounts and marketing material to determine whether these were considered important at the time of completion. This will present the opportunity to assess whether the importance attached to them has amplified or diminished, and whether the correct elements have been identified by the guidelines. The guidance is presented as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;traffic lightâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; system. This has been widely recognised as a particularly effective method of conveying the information, in which possible alterations are separated into different categories (four in this instance), each of which is colour coded; x x x x

Green = works that will not require a listed building consent application Amber = works where advice should be sought to determine if a listed building consent application is required Red = works that require a listed building consent application Black = proposals that require a listed building consent application but are likely to be refused

The result of this is to prioritise the alterations according to the effect that they will have on the special interest of the buildings. What this also does by is introduce a hierarchy amongst the items of significance, where items in the green category are of low significance and those in the red and black are high. From this we can draw the following conclusions; Internal decorations (except the inside of timber framed external windows and screens) Floor finishes Original electrical fittings (e.g. Light fittings, switch cover plates etc.) Items of low significance (green category)

Locks or security devices to front doors and fire escape doors Bathroom/ WC fittings and finishes Kitchen cabinetry, worktops and appliances Internal doors and frames and ironmongery to rooms, cupboards and wardrobes Removal of Garchey systems

Items of moderate significance (amber category)

Duct and service riser casings The configuration of built-in cupboards and wardrobes within the dwelling plan layout Internal glazed screen sets including fan lights Original skirting details

Principally because these concern the Corporation of London as freeholder, not the residents.

The internal layout of the flats, including;

Items of high significance (red category)

x x x x x x

The size, shape and location of kitchens and bathrooms Partitions and structural walls Location of internal glazed screens. Internal sliding doors and screens Internal staircases and guardings The addition of new full height partitions and mezzanine levels to double height spaces

Ironmongery and door furniture such as letter boxes, numbers, door bell and lights, on the outside of the front entrance door The structure and appearance of windows The external face of entrance and external fire escape doors. Railing design and guardings to private balconies Glass escape doors across the balconies Items of very high significance (black category)

Planter boxes on the outside edge of the balconies and terraces The legal demise lines and structure between adjacent residential units Structural and load bearing elements of the residential units The configuration and location of internal staircases The original line of the walls, windows, doors, roofs and screens (vertical or horizontal extensions are likely to be refused) The character and public appearance of the buildings

Fig 75 & 76: Barbican; promotional brochures

Around the time of the completion of each block promotional brochures were produced (Fig. 75 & 76), featuring artists impressions of the external appearance of the buildings and internal spaces, together with flat plans and a specification. This is invaluable in conveying what the architects saw as being the key significant features. An extract from the brochure for Andrewes House from 1969 is shown in Fig 77;

Fig 77: Barbican; extract from Andrewes House promotional brochure

Although the same features have been identified by the guidelines, their hierarchy appears to differ. Taking the architects intentions into consideration and based on the above evidence, were a similar exercise to have been carried out in 1969 I believe it would have looked something like this: Significance

Item Internal decorations

low significance

2005 Listed Building Management Guidelines low significance

Floor finishes

low significance

Locks to front doors and fire escape doors

low significance

Internal doors and frames and ironmongery to rooms, cupboards and wardrobes

moderate significance

low significance

Planter boxes to balconies and terraces

moderate significance

very high significance

Original skirting details

moderate significance

Original electrical fittings

moderate significance

low significance

The internal layout of the flats

high significance

Kitchen cabinetry, worktops and appliances

very high significance

low significance

Bathroom/ WC fittings and finishes

very high significance

low significance

The configuration and location of internal staircases

very high significance

The external character and appearance of the buildings generally, e.g. windows, doors, railings, glass balcony doors, the original line of the walls, windows, doors, roofs and screens

very high significance

1969 Brochure

Ironmongery and door furniture such as letter boxes, numbers, door bell and lights, on the outside of the front entrance door

As we can see, on the whole I believe that the identification of significance is fairly consistent, but there are some exceptions. To assess these differences and the reasons for them I shall examine each of the above. Low Significance The importance attached to individual elements here has, I believe, remained largely unchanged. Decorations, for example, feature as the final item on the original specification, because the architects (quite rightly) believed that people would want to customise the flats in this respect; It is unlikely that the Barbican tenants would be satisfied with standardized decorations provided by the landlord. Tenants likely to occupy the flats will expect to live in elegant surroundings decorated in an individual manner to personal taste. Chamberlin, Powell & Bon, Architects, Barbican Redevelopment April 1959, Technical Section p10

The same attitude has of course been taken in the adopted guidelines, with a caveat placed on the redecoration of the internal faces of the window frames (Fig. 78). This is, in my opinion, a sensible distinction to make; having gone to the trouble and expense to provide teak window frames, the architects must have viewed these items as highly significant. I do not believe they would have imagined that anyone would want to alter the finish of the windows, but would have been perturbed at the suggestion of it. Fig 78: Barbican; teak window frames

Fig 79: Barbican; internal door detail

Fig 80: Barbican; door furniture

Fig 81: Barbican; light switch

Moderate Significance This category sees some dissention between the two assessments. The detailing of the internal doors and frames is bespoke; doorsets and frame sections have been designed specifically for the flats, incorporating overpanels and glazing depending on their location. The emphasis is on simple detailing with shadow details where

they meet adjacent surfaces (Fig. 79). Ironmongery has also been carefully chosen to be functional yet elegant, with Swedish stainless steel fittings throughout (Fig. 80), and steel bi-folding wardrobe doors fit the floor to ceiling height exactly. Consequently, although not mentioned in the specification I have classified these items as having moderate significance; they are less important than the actual layout of the flats, but more important than the decorations. The low significance placed on these items in the adopted guidelines belies the care that the original architects invested in them and the importance that they have to the overall aesthetic. Curiously, the skirting details (which could be said to belong to the same joinery package as the doors) have maintained their significance. These are flush to the wall surface and were obviously conceived with the same amount of care as the doorsets as part of the streamlined modern aesthetic. The importance of this is recognised by the adopted guidelines, which states that; The permanent removal of the original [skirting] detail may however be subject to a LBC application. Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 13

Technological advances that improved the quality of everyday life were very important to the architects, as can be recognised from the relatively high position that the Ceilingmaster light fitting occupies in the specification (Fig. 82). This technological enthusiasm is also applied to the sockets and switches that can be found throughout the flats (Fig. 81). These are flush to the wall (a feature currently undergoing a revival) and fabricated from nickel plated brass, again unusual for mass housing. As a consequence I believe that these items would have been regarded as moderately significant, if not highly; certainly in excess of that afforded to them in the adopted guidelines.

Fig 82: Barbican; Ceilingmaster

I can find no specific mention of the planter boxes in contemporary writings, but again these were obviously designed specifically for the flats; they fit the depth of the concrete upstand and spacing of the steel balustrades perfectly (Fig. 82). Again, I believe the architects would have viewed these as moderately significant objects but did not anticipate that residents would change them, and as a result their impact on the external appearance of the buildings was not fully appreciated. Now, however, they have been identified by Avanti (quite correctly, I believe) as being integral to the overall character of the building; they have become highly significant (Fig. 84). Specifically the planter boxes along the balconies of the terrace blocks have a significant cumulative impact on the overall appearance of the Estateâ&#x20AC;Ś wherever they do occur they should be of the same type throughout, relate to the modular rhythm of the balustrading and be light grey in colour, matt finish, with no variations. Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 6

Fig 83: Barbican, 1970, showing full complement of window boxes

Fig 84: Barbican, 2006, showing fragmentation of elevations through use of random planter types

High Significance The assessment of significance here is I believe pretty consistent between the two time periods. The internal layout of flats was designed to be flexible, with sliding or folding screens in many rooms; â&#x20AC;Śthis provides the advantage of privacy when required with the maximum opportunity to open one room into another so that the maximum use of space may be enjoyedâ&#x20AC;ŚIn most of the flat plans we have sought a compromise by providing at least a living room which is reasonably large in its overall dimensions, while the other rooms are fairly modest in size. Chamberlin, Powell & Bon, Architects, Barbican Redevelopment April 1959, Section 2, p14

The decision was also made to place kitchens and bathrooms to the centre of the plan to allow maximum window space to living rooms and bedrooms. In this way the layout of the flats was integral to the way that the architects envisaged the spaces being inhabited, and was highly significant. The partitions themselves gain additional importance through the attention to detail expended on them; the skirting has been mentioned previously, but they also feature a shadow gap detail at the junction with the ceiling (Fig. 85), unusual for mass housing of the period and again part of the overall aesthetic of the flat. The significance of the flat layouts has been recognised by the adopted guidelines.

Fig 85: Barbican; shadow gap detail to internal partition

Fig 86: Barbican; ironmongery to front doors

The overall unity of the complex, particularly with regard to the common areas, was an important consideration; The finishes to the public parts…are of particular importance since they set a standard and play a large part in establishing the character of the residential buildings. Chamberlin, Powell & Bon, Architects, Barbican Redevelopment April 1959, Technical Section p10

As a result ironmongery and door furniture to entrance doors were carefully selected (Fig. 86), again something that has been recognised by the guidelines. Very High Significance Kitchens and bathrooms feature highly in the original specification; the architects obviously held them in high regard. The kitchens in particular embody their intentions of how the spaces were to be used; The kitchens in these flats should be equally suitable for a housewife who wishes to cook regular meals, professional women – or bachelors – who might use it as a workshop to provide occasional meals as quickly – and economically – as possible, or for the considerable number of business and professional people who consider occasional cooking for themselves or for guests to be an enjoyable activity. Chamberlin, Powell & Bon, Architects, Barbican Redevelopment April 1959, Technical Section p11

Inevitably, the streamlined aesthetic of the flats means that the kitchens and bathrooms become some of the main iconic elements; they are the areas where most original features are concentrated. Consequently they have become recognisable as belonging to the buildings, in much the same way as say the bathroom of Corbusier’s Villa Savoye (Fig. 87). The fact that the kitchens and bathrooms were designed specifically for the Barbican (Fig. 88)and are not to be found anywhere else further adds to their special interest.

Fig 87: Villa Savoye; bathroom

Fig 88: Barbican; bathroom

For these reasons I believe that the kitchens and bathrooms would have been considered of very high significance, and that this should continue today. In this respect it seems peculiar not to recognise their importance within the guidelines by affording them some degree of protection. Internal staircases were employed by the architects as architectural statements to punctuate the spaces (Fig. 89). As such their design is very sculptural and their locations are exploited for maximum dramatic effect. The result of this is that they become very significant elements within the spaces that they occupy, something that is recognised in the guidelines by their inclusion in the ‘black’ category.

Fig 89: Barbican; internal stair

Fig 90: Barbican; infilling of balcony to tower block

The importance placed on the exterior of the buildings is consistent between 1969 and 2005. The overall unity and consistency of the elements such as windows and balustrades across the different architectural forms of tower and slab blocks is cited by the guidelines as being a key feature of the Barbican that should be preserved. The intention is to avoid accretions that disrupt this unity, such as the infilling of balconies (Fig. 90). To this end the external appearance and character and the original building lines are classified as having very high significance, something that would undoubtedly have been the opinion of Chamberlin, Powell & Bon.

What becomes apparent when one studies the individual elements of the flats is how some features increase in significance over time, whilst others decrease. The kitchens and bathrooms, for the purposes of the guidelines, have clearly lost significance; whereas the planter boxes have increased in importance. Elements and concepts have the capacity to develop a life and significance of their own that the original architects might not have anticipated. The key to good conservation practice, and something that Avanti have done skilfully, is picking up where they left off, but also being sensitive to the characteristics that buildings develop over time.

Listed Building Consent Application, January 2006 Are the guidelines easy to use? Do they work as intended in terms of simplifying the process of identifying the need for consent, reducing the amount of time taken to obtain a decision, and offering a degree of certainty on the outcome? To establish this it seemed appropriate to submit a listed building application of my own. The birth of my daughter in 2004 has meant that the current layout of my flat98, although workable, would be better suited to my needs with the creation of another bedroom. To this end I devised a scheme whereby the flat layout is reversed (Fig. 91).

A type 20; one bedroom with an L-shaped living room separated by a sliding screen wall.

Fig 91: Barbican; proposed reversal of flat layout

I then turned to the Listed Building Management Guidelines to determine whether the proposals would be feasible, and what consents (if any) would be required. I endeavoured to approach the process with an open mind, discounting any a priori knowledge that I had of the guidelines. I found Volume I to be of limited use. The explanations of the purpose of the document were helpful, and the section outlining the history of the complex interesting, but the remainder dealing with issues such as planning and listed building consent overloaded me with too much information too early on in the process. At this point I did not know whether I required either of these, yet I was obliged to study them as part of a thorough chronological reading of the document. This is a problem; at no stage are there instructions that point the reader to the section that is relevant to their enquiry, such as “If you are a householder proposing to implement changes to your flat go to Section 3”. This means that the whole document has to be read to obtain the relevant information. At this stage I would imagine many people phone the local authority. This type of prosaic information should, I believe, be relocated to appendices, which can be added to as further information becomes available following the completion of further volumes. The effect of this would be to slim down the document considerably, encouraging people to read it and reducing the amount of enquiries to the planning department. Volume II fared better. Some initial explanatory information appeared to repeat that in Volume I, but was brief. Section 2 attempted to identify the special interest and significance of the complex, but I found this is too abstract and general to obtain any specific information with regard to my particular enquiry, apart from the fact that the flat layouts were considered to be of interest. Section 3 is where the document comes into its own. This is the part that most people will be interested in, something that was perhaps realised when the portion dealing with the interiors was distributed to all flats during the second consultation. Here the division into three sections, External Elements, Common Areas and Flat Interiors enables one navigate directly to the relevant part. The colour coding enabled me to determine the hierarchy of alterations, and it was a simple task to determine that my proposals fitted into the ‘red’ category; listed building consent would be required.

Fig 92: Listed Building Consent; covering letter

Fig 93: Listed Building Consent; approval letter

It was then necessary to return to Volume I to follow the guidance on applications. Unfortunately, the explanation here was in general terms; it did not contain some basic, step-by step guidance on how to complete an application specifically for the Barbican in the form of some graphic representation. Due to the status of the Corporation of London as freeholder I found the completion of the certificate of ownership somewhat confusing, and had to make several enquiries to the planning department to ensure that the forms were filled out correctly, something that could have been avoided with enhanced instructions in the guidelines. The listed building application was submitted on 17 January 2006. Following registration of the application, I was contacted by a planning officer, who viewed my flat to determine the impact of the proposals on the layout. Consent was then given on 9 March 2006 (see Fig. 93 and Appendix B), the officer having made the following comments; The proposal is for the installation of a new partition within the existing living room, alongside the existing sliding doors, in order to achieve fire separation and create a further bedroom. The existing sliding screen doors and associated track are retained. The partition would abut an existing pier and would not adversely affect the special architectural interest of the listed building. New cupboards are proposed which are considered acceptable in listed building terms. Whilst the guidelines undoubtedly simplify the process, there is still much room for improvement. The document could be made much leaner and more relevant in places, and the inclusion of more specific information and examples of completed forms, together with pointers to take the reader directly to the relevant section. Nevertheless, on the whole I can confirm that my own experience of using the guidelines has been positive, and that I consider them to be a useful tool to assist the protection regime at the Barbican.

What Do the Guidelines Contribute to the Conservation of the Buildings? The guidelines identify significance and simplify the issue of consent, but what contribution do they make to the actual conservation of the buildings? To determine this I shall examine the document in the light of the discussion of the conservation of post-war buildings on page 19, relating it back to; x x x x x x x x

The management of change Minimum interventions. Maximum retention of existing fabric. Use of like-for-like materials. Conserve as found. Honest repairs. Reversible repairs Conservation education

One might say that the whole raison dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;etre of the guidelines is the management of change. In this instance conservation of the complex is perhaps more of an issue of the management of change than on other buildings because the potential for change is so extensive, due to the overall size of the Barbican estate and the repetitive nature of the flats, each with private owners likely to implement any one of a multitude of potential changes. The document recognises this and takes a pragmatic view, ensuring that the appropriate level of change is implemented by providing a structure framework from which to make informed decisions. The guidelines recognise the opportunity for conservation education and exploit it to full advantage. They identify the disparity between modern and traditional building conservation and seek to redress the balance; Whereas those involved in the care and upkeep of an ancient or historic structure will be predisposed to approach the task with a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;conservation mindsetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, requiring specialist knowledge or working protocols, such an approach may not be so readily assumed in the case of modern buildings. The statutory listing of significant post-war architecture is still relatively recent and the widespread acceptance or appreciation of its special interest cannot yet be taken for granted. Such circumstances can result in either casual or incremental disfigurement of buildings through improvised or merely pragmatic repairs and alterations. The listing of the Barbican Estate creates the opportunity to cultivate a new tradition of care informed by these Management Guidelines.

Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 18, paragraph 3.0.5.1

This opportunity is expressed most clearly in Section 4 of Volume II, Best Practice. This is intended primarily to assist the Corporation of Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Barbican Estate Office to implement maintenance and repairs, but in doing so it educates the repair team in the principles of post-war building conservation as employed at the Barbican. In doing so, it can be seen that the repair regime fits in well with established conservation principles. For example, when dealing with proposed renewal, repair or upgrade of services it is stated as being vital that the works are carried out with care and through detailed examination to ensure that original service zones, containments (ducts/ trunking /conduits) and routes are used99. In this way the philosophy of enacting minimum interventions is introduced. The maximum retention of existing fabric is addressed by the need to Investigate the authenticity of details to receive work100, thereby establishing if details are original or later generation repairs, and asking the question as to whether the detail can or should be repaired. When carrying out repairs; Wherever possible, consideration should be given to renewing items on a like-for-like (my emphasis) basis. If that is not possible then new elements or appliances should be chosen to be compatible with the original intention of the building. Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 18, paragraph 3.0.4.4

The preference to conserve as found is expressed but difficulties with original materials and details are recognised; Where renewal is due to technical failure of an original product or detail and this involves upgrade, the work should still accord with the visual character of the original. Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 18, paragraph 3.0.4.5

The honest repair approach is not deemed to be acceptable; any repairs or replacement works should be closely matched to maintain visual consistency across adjacent areas101. Conspicuous concrete repairs are not acceptable. Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 69, paragraph 4.2 III

To overcome this the Best Practice section promotes a strategy to identify works boundaries to define areas of work to logical and natural joints and to avoid piecemeal repairs where new and existing works are contiguous. Reversible repairs are not specified, perhaps due to the practicalities of the situation. However, the need for listed building consent is identified for some repairs and upgrades, and this is a consideration that could perhaps be made at this stage. So we can see that in this instance the guidelines do not simply stop at the identification of significance and what does and does not need listed building consent; they take the opportunity to promote the conservation of post-war buildings and educate on crucial principles of repair that need to be observed if the buildings are to be maintained successfully.

Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 73, paragraph 4.3.1.3 Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 61, paragraph 4.1.4 101 Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 6, paragraph 1.2.2.4 100

Heritage & Value Why is there such a difference of opinion regarding the significance and special interest of the interiors of the Barbican flats? Why do some attach value to them, lauding them as part of their cultural heritage and worthy of protection, whilst others deride them as ‘cheap’, ‘mass produced’ and ‘not fit for modern living’102? To explore this disparity I will use the analogy of a fireplace surround typically found in a Georgian or Regency house. This was often a mass produced item (Fig. 94); the Georgian period witnessed the birth of the industrial revolution, and mass production techniques were used to satisfy a public with an increasing aesthetic awareness103. Even in rich and fashionable developments the fruits of mass production were found to be totally satisfactory, with patrons choosing their preferred design from pattern books.

Fig 94: Fireplace surround, c.1820

Fig 95: Barbican; original kitchen study, 1959

Fig 96: Barbican; original kitchen studies, 1959

102 103

Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p4 Dan Cruickshank and Peter Wyld, Georgian Town Houses and their Details, p82

The Barbican kitchen, on the other hand, is a bespoke item, albeit one that is repeated in a number of flats104. It is not entirely accurate to describe Barbican kitchens and bathrooms as mass produced (apart from the original production run of 2014). The materials may have been produced using mass production techniques, but the employment of them is specific to the complex; The proposed design is based on a simple plan with the equipment laid out on a standard pattern which is identical in all units… It was generally agreed…that best use of the space can only be made if the basic units and kitchen are designed as an inseparable whole, and it is proposed, therefore, that the basic kitchen units be provided with the flat… Chamberlin, Powell & Bon, Architects, Barbican Redevelopment document, April 1959

The fear was that if tenants were left to provide their own kitchens the area allocated to them would have to be much larger to allow for a plethora of different equipment105. This would have compromised the flat layouts and the way that the architects intended them to be inhabited. Consequently, the architects went to considerable trouble with the design of the kitchens in order to offer maximum efficiency in the minimum area (Fig. 95 & 96). Observing that space for a kitchen was always at a premium was on board a boat, they enlisted the expertise of yacht designers Brooke Marine, and together with the Gas Council built a full-size mock-up which was then tested by the preparation of several different kinds of meals. The resulting kitchen is highly aestheticised (Fig. 97-99), with an unbroken façade of white and glass fronted units with minimal handles and eye level sockets and controls106 indicative of the attention to aesthetic detail that characterises the Barbican.

Fig 97, 98, 99: Barbican; original kitchen details

As we have seen, the requirement for consent to remove kitchens and bathrooms was a very contentious issue that appeared to be intrinsically linked to the success of the guidelines; once consent for their removal was rescinded the guidelines were adopted. In the example of the fireplace, I doubt that many people would disagree with its recognition under the protection regime; it is part of the original building fabric and therefore integral to the overall aesthetic, even though it was not designed specifically for the space. Why then is the same protection not afforded to the Barbican kitchen, which is actually more integral to the overall flat, both in terms of aesthetics and the space that it occupies? The reasons as to why people regard original Barbican features such as kitchens and bathrooms as having little or no value have been explored in the previous sections on post war listing and conservation; they suffer from ‘the problem of age’, are made of ordinary materials, there are (or at least the perception is that there are) lots of them, and they embody the ideas of a previous generation and are no longer fit for modern living. Rubbish Theory furthers the debate by taking an overview of the culture that surrounds objects and the value that is placed on them. In his book Framing the Sign, Jonathan Culler identifies two general categories in which we place cultural objects, the transient and the durable. Transient objects are thought of as having finite lifespan and decreasing in value over time; durable objects have infinite life-spans and retain or even increase their value over time.107 When applied to the above examples, the fireplace is seen as being durable, the Barbican kitchen transient. 104

Different types of flats have different kitchen arrangements, but the components are taken from the same palette. Architect & Builder, July 1976, p 12 106 David Heathcote, Barbican Penthouse over the City, p146 107 Jonathan Culler, Framing the Sign; Criticism and its Institutions, p171 105

For the kitchen (or indeed any cultural artefact) to be regarded as worthy of preservation, it must undergo a transformation from transient to durable. The fact that original features in the Barbican flats are sought after by some people indicates that this is taking place, but how does it happen? As well as the transient and durable Culler identifies a third category – rubbish; it is whilst an object is within this category that the transformation occurs; A transient object, decreasing in value, becomes rubbish, where it exists in a timeless limbo, without value, but where it has a chance of being discovered and suddenly transformed into a durable. In such situations we encounter… the discontinuities…of fashion. The utterly unfashionable has a better chance of becoming fashionable than does something mildly out of fashion…It is not the transient that becomes durable but rubbish. One notes a certain kinship between durables and rubbish; both partake of a certain timelessness. Jonathan Culler, Framing the Sign; Criticism and its Institutions, p171

It would appear that exactly this process has happened to original Barbican kitchens108; they began life as a transient, constructed of relatively cheap, mass produced materials109. They then became deeply unfashionable during the custodianship of the second generation of occupants110, (during the 1980s) when they were seen as embodying yesterday’s ideas, and many were removed111. Finally they have been re-discovered and transformed into a durable, at least for some individuals.

Fig 102: Barbican; original bathroom reduced to rubble

Fig 100 (left) & 101 (top): Barbican; original kitchen removed, destroyed and disposed of

With the exception of those very rare buildings that have remained in fashion since they were built and have always been regarded as durables112, every listed building must go through these stages of development before it is recognised as having architectural and cultural value. This finds particular resonance in the ‘unfashionable’ view of listing identified on page 13. Culler suggests that rubbish has a creative energy that offers possibility for change; it is at this point in an objects’ existence that it may be discovered and become durable. In short, listing must identify rubbish to stay one step ahead of fashion… Culler believes that the treatment that objects receive depends on whether their owner view them as being transient or durable. He uses the example of house repairs as going some way to accounting for behaviour. For those who view their homes as transient, repairs would be carried out in such a way as to arrest its transience by making it newer, say with a flush front door with chrome fittings. The owner of the durable would fit a panelled door with old-fashioned fittings. 108

The Georgian fireplace would also have gone through this process during the Victorian era. Although, like the fireplace, not that cheap; they were both fitted into the homes of fairly well-to-do people, and would have been considered luxurious by average standards. 110 See page 15 111 Approximately 750 Garchey units have been removed from flats, an alteration that usually takes place as part of kitchen replacement works, indicating that at least this number have been removed, and many more insensitively altered. 112 These buildings are few and far between; I would propose Richard Rogers’ Lloyds Building as an example. 109

This finds a parallel in the Barbican. If features such as kitchens and bathrooms are regarded as transient by the owner then they are likely to be removed as part of an attempt to make the flat appear less dated. If viewed as durable they are likely to be repaired using authentic parts (probably obtained from the salvage store) or in such a way as to preserve its timeless quality: …as the transient moves toward rubbish, it can either be torn down to make way for something new…or else be salvaged as durable: rebuilt, reconstructed. Struggles are always being waged over rubbish – struggles whether the system of transience or durability should prevail…there is seldom any compromise that would satisfy either side, much less both. There is a radical opposition between two incompatible valuations, and the social and political system will decide one way or another, reinforcing the views and authority of the winners...if rubbish is torn down that will go to prove that it was indeed transient; if preserved, that will show it was durable… Jonathan Culler, Framing the Sign; Criticism and its Institutions, p177

In this instance the social and political situation is the Listed Building Management Guidelines. However, contrary to Cullers assertions they actually do provide a compromise and allow the transient and durable to co-exist. The transient advocates are able to remove their kitchen to ‘modernise’ their flats, and the durable enthusiasts to use the parts to preserve theirs. The outcome reinforces the views of both sides simultaneously. If we are to believe the Barbican Association, most people believe that the flat interiors are transient. However, as we have established, they can only presume to be speaking on behalf of 15% of the residents. The success of the salvage store and the fact that flats are more sought after indicates that does this not reflect the true picture and that there are many people that regard Barbican interiors as durable. Which attitude is more prevalent? A study of the economic value of the flats allows us to draw some tentative conclusions here. Taking Cullers premise that the durable has greater value than the transient, if more people regard Barbican original features as being durable it should follow that those flats which retain them command a premium. As mentioned earlier, estate agents confirm that flats with original features are more sought after. One needs only to look at the particulars of the flats for sale within their advertisements to recognise the extra kudos that they give a property; Featuring all the sought after original 1960’s Barbican Grade II listed features, including the original kitchen and bathroom. Hamilton Brooks Estate Agents, advertisement in Barbican Life magazine, spring 2006, p54

The situation appears to have gone full circle; replacement kitchens and bathrooms are now the ones that are seen as being transient. Furthermore, because replacements are made of truly mass produced materials (kitchen fittings, for example, are now entirely standardised) and are not bespoke in the same way as the original Barbican fittings they will probably never have the same amount of value attached to them, always being regarded either as transient or rubbish. The future for original features, on the other hand, is encouraging: The Barbican’s designs for kitchens and bathrooms were groundbreaking and are certainly worth keeping. Many of their features are now experiencing a comeback… Now is really not the time to pull out the original bathroom or kitchen. There are certainly issues surrounding the lifespan of items … Changes will have to be made to accommodate new appliances, but this can be done with care to the original fabric. th

Eva Branscombe, Barbican Management Guidelines Update, 20 Century Society website, 21 September 2005

The situation is, of course, dependant on their condition; those in poor condition are not so desirable but the resource of the salvage store will hopefully encourage people to retain and repair rather than to remove. The new-found durable status may also engender an increased willingness to adapt existing arrangements. In my own kitchen I have been able to accommodate modern appliances with a minimum amount of disruption to the original fabric, maintaining the same module sizes and cabinet lines. Claims that Barbican kitchens are …not fit for modern living113 seem to be wildly exaggerated. The kitchens are still useable; people nowadays cook in much the same way as they did in the 1970s, unlike a Victorian kitchen (which people would probably want to 113

Barbican Association, News Flash, June 2004, p1

save), where equipment and practices differ greatly. To my mind the case for retaining kitchens and bathrooms is clear. For the future of original Barbican features to be assured they need to make the leap from transient to durable within the consciousness of the individual. It would appear that for many this has happened, but as the Listed Building Management Guidelines process exemplified, there is still some way to go before this view is accepted as the norm rather than as the preserve of the enthusiast. The key to this is, of course, education, and the guidelines have a vital role to play in this. The best form of protection is not one that is imposed by a regulatory regime, but one that exists through the will and enthusiasm of the individual. Simply by putting the issue of retention on the agenda the guidelines may have prompted some to reconsider the value of original features, but the responsibility for custodianship through education is taken further within the document; The retention of original fixtures and fittings is encouraged where it is practical or a like-for-like replacement is possible. Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 73, paragraph 4.3.1.3

The retention of original features within the Barbican is a good example of how even the most seemingly commonplace of objects can, given time, attain increased value and add to the whole both in cultural and economic terms. In this instance it appears that the two go hand in hand; heritage value equates to monetary value, and there is, of course, no better incentive for retention than the possibility of increased financial return for oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s flat.

Fig 103 (left top), 104 (top right), 105 (right): Barbican; promotional photographs, 1969

Part 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The Wider Context Heritage Protection Review The future of management agreements is to be decided in the government initiative to overhaul the listing system, the Heritage Protection Review, which seeks to restructure the regulatory regime of listed buildings. Apparently this stems from dissatisfaction amongst Ministers, administrators and people within the historic environment 114 sector with a system that is perceived by some to be incoherent, inflexible and overprotective . The most recent document on the subject, Review of Heritage Protection: The Way Forward (Fig. 106)published by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in June 2004 states that one of its aims is; â&#x20AC;Śbringing greater clarity for people owning, living in, using and managing historic properties about the significance of those assets. It is also time to develop new ways of managing complex sites, and in developing real partnerships with those who own and manage them. Review of Heritage Protection: The Way Forward, June 2004, p 2.

Fig 106: Review of Heritage Protection: The Way Forward

Fig 107: Protecting our historic environment: Making the system work better

Responses from organisations and individuals across the Heritage sector to the DCMS consultation paper Protecting our Historic Environment: Making the System Work Better (Fig. 107) published in July 2003 showed that there was widespread support for both the existing system and for improving it further. The latest document sets out how this is to be achieved, with an emphasis on protecting the historic environment in a more intelligent fashion, away from its generally passive, reactive and often adversarial form towards an approach that is positive, collaborative and strategic115. The current protection regime is particularly identified as being difficult to apply to large, complex sites such as post-war public housing and therefore at odds with the desire to manage such sites in a more holistic rather than piecemeal way. The development of management regimes that identify the significance of the asset and positively manage its future (presumably through the use of management agreements) is, it is felt, also hindered by the current protection system.116 One of the aims of the Heritage Protection Review is to provide; 114

Review of Heritage Protection: The Way Forward, June 2004, p 5 Review of Heritage Protection: The Way Forward, June 2004, p 34 116 Review of Heritage Protection: The Way Forward, June 2004, p 5 115

…an historic environment legislative framework that provided for the management and enabling of change rather than its prevention. Review of Heritage Protection: The Way Forward, June 2004, p 6

A familiar sentiment. Decisions for change are divided into two packages; short term and longer-term. Short term measures require no primary legislation and include: x

English Heritage taking over the administration of listed buildings from the Secretary of State from April 2005.

DCMS and English Heritage reviewing the criteria for listing buildings.

English Heritage setting out the criteria for listing in a ‘summary of importance’.

English Heritage producing an information package for owners and a map or plan of each building showing the extent of listing.

Consultation between English Heritage and local planning authorities on applications to list buildings.

Longer-term measures are so called because of the need to introduce primary legislation for their introduction: x

The creation of a single unified Register of Historic Sites and Buildings of England combining the current systems of listing, scheduling and registration and World Heritage Sites.

A revised system of grading and the combining of GI and GII* levels, to be renamed G1; GII level is to be renamed G2.

A period of public consultation from the point of notification of an application to list and an interim protection put on each asset.

A statutory right of appeal for owners to appeal against a decision to designate of not to designate.

The introduction of statutory management agreements to be employed as an alternative management regime for some sites.

An integrated consent regime unifying listed building consent and scheduled monument consent and incorporating statutory management agreements.

Management agreements are included within the longer-term measures since they need to have a legal basis; primary legislation is required to achieve this. This is a significant development for the use of management agreements; the lack of statutory recognition has long been identified as a barrier to their widespread implementation. Here we have a positive commitment for change; Work has begun on the way management agreements might work within the overall context of management and control for items on the Register… statutory management agreements could be employed wherever that approach would work better than the system of individual specific consents. Review of Heritage Protection: The Way Forward, June 2004, p 22

On 7 April 2004 English Heritage launched 15 pilot projects across the country to test the most innovative aspects of the proposed new system, namely; x x x

The Register of Historic Sites and Buildings of England. The single designation regime that allows separate archaeological, architectural and landscape elements all found on one site to be treated as one entity. The establishment of statutory management agreements.

A full list of the pilot projects can be found in Appendix C. Interestingly, those relating to management th agreements include buildings of a wide variety of types and ages, not just the large 20 century buildings in intensive use identified in Streamlining Listed Building Consent. Perhaps so as not to stifle the pilot projects by over-regimentation, it is not proposed to produce a model agreement or template for them. This is perhaps something that will be reviewed on completion, when common features or the most successful methodologies can be identified. However, is a model really required? The variety of terms used to describe management agreements emphasises the disparity between each of the different examples; they all appear to have the same aims117 but go about achieving it in different ways. This diversity, in my opinion, reflects the different types of situations that management agreements are used in, something that is reinforced by the choice of buildings for the pilot projects. Is it a good idea to standardise them into a ‘model’, or should each case be taken on its own merits? I believe that solutions should be tailored to the individual building needs, be they physical repairs, interventions, or the establishment of a philosophical framework within which such works can be enacted. Too much standardisation has the danger of turning them into a ‘box ticking’ exercise, oversimplifying the situation, dumbing down the protection regime and placing historic buildings at risk. In my opinion, the formulation of a model would do better to focus on working practices, such as including consultation with interested parties at draft stage, and reviewing them after no more than five years118. This would be more useful than the production of a single standard format that would ultimately be unable to account for the diversity of listed buildings.

The Future The progress of management agreements since their inception fourteen years ago has been slow. Although they were recognised as having potential quite early on, their implementation has mostly been through the isolated actions of a few enlightened individuals rather than the result of a big push on the part of heritage organisations. Listed buildings have been particularly sluggish in implementing this kind of positive approach, although admittedly, the legal barrier to their effective implementation for listed building protection has not helped the situation. Now, however, things appear at last to be moving. The results of the English Heritage pilot projects will be incorporated into a Government White Paper on Heritage protection, scheduled for release in spring 2006119. This will precede new primary legislation that, we are told, the DCMS will seek to achieve at the earliest opportunity, although no timescale for this is given at this stage. It would seem that all of the components are in place; we must await the outcome.

117

Consensus on the significance of a building, management of change, defining works that do and do not require consent Streamlining Listed Building Consent, English Heritage & the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, June 2003, p 27 paragraph 6.7 119 At the time of writing English Heritage confirmed that they were still waiting to hear from the DCMS as to what the timetable will be, or indeed what the White Paper will contain. Emma Brown of the DCMS Architecture and Historic Environment Division informed the author via th e-mail on 24 May 2006 that within the White Paper management agreements are planned as being proposed to have a statutory basis. The date of legislation to achieve this is unclear; the DCMS hope to secure hearing for the bill in the 2007/08 parliamentary year but this is not certain. The earliest a bill can realistically be expected to be enacted if it is heard during 07/08 year is 2010. STOP PRESS: A further e-mail th on 29 September 2006 stated that the DCMS still intend on publishing the White Paper before the end of the year. However, it is still subject to clearance by Ministers; as a result they were unable to release any information on its contents. 118

Part 5 – Conclusions The listing of the Barbican and the formulation of Listed Building Management Guidelines tells us much about the following; x x x

The listing of post-war buildings The conservation of post-war buildings Management agreements

To conclude I shall examine each of the above in the light of the earlier discussions.

Listing of Post War Buildings As can be seen from the experience at the Barbican, there is still a great deal of prejudice and ignorance about the modern tradition, and a feeling that modern buildings matter less than traditional ones. The fact that Barbican flats with original features are sought after indicates that attitudes are slowly changing and that for some artefacts belonging to the modern movement have made the leap from transient to durable. The theory that listing can add value to a property is also validated at the Barbican; estate agents report that the price of flats increased after 120 listing by 10% . Such developments are likely to make the public more enlightened as to the concept of post-war listing; after all there is no better incentive for protection than financial gain. The listing of post-war buildings has achieved much to date, but with the disbanding of the Post-war Steering Group and the cessation of the thematic studies the impetus must be kept up if important structures that have no protection (and some that do) are to be given a fair chance of survival. Education is the key, and management agreements have a vital role to play in this by promoting dialogue and raising levels of awareness on the importance of post-war buildings. The Barbican represents a microcosm of the wider debate on post-war buildings. There is more than one ‘culture’ within the resident community. Whilst some residents (often the older ones) are not predisposed to regard their property as ‘heritage’ and regard listing as an imposition that reduces value by discouraging potential purchasers, there are others (often the younger ones) who are more aware of the buildings’ historical interest and importance and who regard protection as an enhancement of value and an added attraction121. Surveys indicate that 95% of people aged between 16 and 24 felt it was important to protect England’s best modern architecture; despite some setbacks, the future looks bight for modern buildings122. The Listed Building Management Guidelines at the Barbican illustrate how, far from being a questionable practice, the listing of post war buildings is a very worthwhile enterprise. The investigations carried as part of the process can go some way to filling the void left by the thematic studies, clearly demonstrating the significance and special interest that modern buildings contribute to our historical and architectural heritage.

The Conservation of Post-War Buildings All conservation involves change; the nature of the Barbican illustrates how the conservation of modern buildings can involve more instances of change through their size, use of repetitive elements and multiple occupancy. Listed Building Management Guidelines are a useful tool for the management of change in this respect. The Barbican exemplifies how the same conservation principles that are applied to traditional buildings are still relevant to modern structures, and can be modified to suit the individual building, regardless of age. The application of these principles to specific tasks within the document again illustrates the important role that management agreements have to make towards education, not only for the benefit of occupants but also for those involved in the maintenance regimes. Above all it identifies the opportunity to cultivate a new tradition of care to prevent seemingly benign incremental changes disfiguring the character and coherence of the estate as a whole. 120

Eva Branscome, 20 Century Society Caseworker, private letter to author 23 May 2006. John Allan, Avanti Architects, private letter to author 19 May 2006. 122 Martin Cherry, The post-war listing programme, Conservation Bulletin issue 49: Summer 2005, p 32 121

The guidelines identify some harsh realities regarding conservation works to modern buildings; that they may not be approached with a ‘conservation mindset’123 so readily as traditional buildings, reinforcing how the conservation of modern buildings is in its infancy, with some way to go to match the industry that supports the upkeep of their traditional counterparts.

Management Agreements The Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines make some valuable contributions towards the current thinking on some general issues regarding the use of management agreements and their intended purpose. Firstly, is there a need for management agreements? I think the Barbican demonstrates that there certainly is; the process tackled head-on the misapprehension surrounding the listing of the estate; without the clarity that the guidelines brought to the situation this would undoubtedly still exist. Do management agreements permit greater freedom, or control more precisely? In the case of the Barbican I think they permit greater freedom by controlling more precisely; they identify what is significant and of special interest and give certainty as to what alterations require listed building consent, and whether or not this is likely to be granted. By tightening up the consent regime to this extent people have greater certainty about what they can and cannot do, allowing them to operate with greater freedom within this system. Defining boundaries suggests possibilities. The Barbican is testament to the premise that management agreements are best suited to large, relatively modern buildings in multiple ownership with a high degree of repetition. It is difficult to draw any conclusions from the Barbican experience as to whether management agreements would be of any use for smaller, older buildings in individual ownership, since the process for their formulation would be radically different with a reduced number of stakeholders and instances of change. Certain elements could, however, be applied universally, such as the formulation of conservation strategies, the use of ‘traffic light’ systems to identify the need for consent, and the identification of best practice regimes for maintenance and repairs according to established conservation principles. An important lesson learnt from the Barbican was the need to be specific about alterations if the document is to make a valuable contribution to the protection regime. This may discount the possibility of guidelines that deal with generic building types. An important aspect of the Barbican guidelines was their role in promoting the dialogue, consciousness-raising and sense of shared responsibility that will ultimately help to sustain the asset. Without the document as a focus it would be difficult to maintain a structure, a programme or an ‘objective’ platform from which to re-think if necessary and build further understanding. The production a document also helps to ensure that what has been achieved is not forgotten over time and with changes in personnel. This platform creates the possibility for education in the significance of the building beyond that contained in the listing description. Simply by discussing the issue of conservation one puts the issue on the agenda, which may prompt people to look at the building afresh and reconsider its importance. However, one has to be careful about the kind of message that is conveyed; such discussions may also sanction the removal of existing features, particularly if they are not protected, such as is the case with Barbican kitchens and bathrooms. The guidelines present the opportunity to engage in active conservation, assessing the significance and special interest to a far greater extent than that previously undertaken and establish a hierarchy of the possible pressures for change on the building. Beyond this, the Conservation Strategy illustrates how management agreements can do more that just give guidance on listed building controls; salvage stores actively contribute to the conservation of the building, and Heritage Flats are an ideal tool for education, allowing public access (albeit limited) at designated times of the year. In this respect the Barbican guidelines (and management agreements generally) 124 are “…a valuable addition to the conservation toolbox.”

Listed Building Management Guidelines for the Barbican appear to support claims that management agreements can help to reduce bureaucracy and simplify the administration of listed building controls. I am aware of instances 123 124

Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines, Volume II p 18, paragraph 3.0.5.1 John Allan, Avanti Architects, response to questionnaire from author, 19 May 2006.

where residents had made listed building applications125 prior to the introduction of the guidelines and had encountered problems. However, with the introduction of the guidelines the applications had been granted quickly and efficiently; the perception being that this was as a result of the guidelines. My own listed building consent application also supports this. People are generally better informed of the situation, a two-way process that assists both the local authority and the applicant. The resource implications of management agreements also become clearer when one studies the Barbican process. This required more resources than had been anticipated and took much longer to complete, generating additional fees from consultants. Overall the Barbican process cost ÂŁ80,000 plus printing costs126. No savings have been made as yet, and although this was not one of the aims of the project, it is certainly one of the ambitions that the government has for management agreements. Based on the evidence of the Barbican, short term savings may be difficult to achieve. The question of resourcing is even more critical for organisations like the 20th Century Society, who have only 1.5 caseworkers to cover the whole of England, Scotland and Wales. While they have approached English Heritage for additional funding, this has so far not been forthcoming.127 Without this, the involvement of such organizations cannot be assured, which will be to the detriment of the process. There are also financial implications for local authorities, who are already starved of funds and barely able to cope with their existing workloads. They are accordingly skeptical that any additional resources will be proportionate to the task expected of them. This requirement for a high level of resources appears unavoidable when one considers how the Barbican demonstrates the importance of consultation, a time consuming and costly process. More than one stage of consultation appears to be necessary, 128 the first to ascertain the extent of agreement or otherwise, the second to gauge the opinion on any subsequent alterations that may have been made. The Barbican experience exemplifies how important it is to appoint the right consultants. The process could easily have stalled when it became difficult after the 1st draft were it not for the efforts of Avanti and the innovations that they introduced. That said, the outcome is still very dependant on the people that take part. The 20th Century Society believes that not enough enthusiasts of original Barbican features came forward during the consultations. It is the nature of the process that those who object to the proposals will be more likely to respond than those that find nothing objectionable. In this respect it is the responsibility of the team assembled to ensure that there is a fair and even balance between preservation and change. On a cautionary note, some of the proposals of the guidelines may be difficult to achieve, and keeping the impetus up beyond the everyday use of the document for the determination of listed building consents may be difficult. A salvage store is operating at the Barbican largely because it was simple to set up and is run by a dedicated team of enthusiasts. However, one year on from the adoption of the guidelines the on-site exhibition space has been abandoned, and heritage flats are still a long way off from becoming a reality, a concern to the 20th Century Society129. I doubt whether Heritage flats will actually materialise due to the complications associated with tenancy agreements and the loss of the tenantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s right to buy. This is a potential problem for the guidelines; the enthusiasm for heritage flats was such that lesser controls were placed on the rest of the complex, since it meant that 100% of the interiors would not be removed. If heritage flats are not a workable solution, some other strategy will have to be found to guarantee this. Perhaps the prevailing culture will have changed by this time, but the vociferousness of opinion encountered previously means that, in my opinion, some features will have no protection. Hopefully the efforts of some enthusiasts will ensure that total loss of original features across the Barbican estate does not happen, but this is very much left to chance. The 20th Century Society diverged from the main consensus in their opinion that kitchens and bathrooms should be covered by listed building consent. I also feel that it is a mistake to leave them without any protection whatsoever. If listed building consent was a step too far, perhaps a less onerous system could have been introduced whereby some record could be made for posterity. Such a system would also help the salvage store and avoid unnecessary loss of existing fabric; despite appeals there are still many instances where elements in good condition are irreparably damaged during insensitive removal disposal. Recording would present the opportunity to obtain such items before this happens.

125

For the creation of a mezzanine within a barrel vaulted double height space Breda Daly, Corporation of London, response to questionnaire from author, 8 May 2005. 127 th Eva Branscome, 20 Century Society Caseworker, response to questionnaire from author, 23 May 2006. 128 Breda Daly, Corporation of London, response to questionnaire from author, 8 May 2005. 129 th Eva Branscome, 20 Century Society Caseworker, private letter to author 23 May 2006. 126

The Barbican guidelines have, quite rightly, been judged to be a success. The same team has been reassembled to formulate the guidelines for the Golden lane Estate, London, 1953-63, also by Chamberlin, Powell & Bon. Interestingly, here there has been a greater understanding of the role of the interiors130 and greater enthusiasm for the retention of original fittings. Sadly, the age of the complex together with the reduced specification has meant that some elements of the original fabric have reached the end of their useful life and cannot be retained. This makes the loss of original fittings in good condition at the Barbican even more poignant. Given the experience of the Barbican, could management agreements actually replace listing altogether in some instances if, as recommended in the Heritage Protection review, they are given statutory recognition? I believe that this in some instances this could be a possibility; it is not difficult to imagine the Barbican model being updated so that rather than deferring to another system for the decision making process (listed building consent) becomes inbuilt. This makes the production of some form of model agreement by English Heritage more important than ever; so that in 2010 when legislation is introduced management agreements can be adapted easily with a minimum of resources. It is said that in order to prevent the important structures of tomorrow from being lost, listing must stay one step ahead of fashion, meaning that it will always be unpopular to some degree. Does the emphasis on popular agreement mean that ultimately management agreements represent a dumbing down of the listing system, replacing it with a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;protect by numbersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (or traffic light coloured) approach? Ultimately I doubt it. If a protection regime is to be truly successful it must be based on consensus; a regime that is unpopular will be abused, resulting in the loss of important structures. Ultimately consensus means that compromises will have to be made on all sides, as is exemplified by the Barbican experience. The extent to which extent to which any management agreement supports the listing objectives will always depend on the quality of the guidelines that are produced; this is dependant on many factors, not least education, the communication of ideas and significance and special interest, and getting people behind the process so that consensus can be reached, even on the most controversial issues. As I have identified, attitudes towards post-war listing are changing; this may not be as difficult a task as it first appears. After all, who could resist the original vision of the architects? The podium, rising gradually in terraces from the landscaped gardens, the strongly horizontal blocks of flats poised above and the lofty traceried towers, are composed in a way calculated to bring delight to those who will live there, to the students of the schools and to the many nearby office workers who will move about the new neighbourhood during daytime and evening. The whole will, we believe, transcend its many parts and thus will parallel the intention of the Corporation which is not merely to bring about the construction of a number of buildings serving several functions but, beyond this, to bring back Londoners to the City so that they may again make their homes near to where they work â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as they have done for centuries. Chamberlin, Powell & Bon, Architects, Barbican Redevelopment April 1959, Conclusion

Fig 108: Barbican; Shakespeare Tower, sunset 130

Eva Branscome, 20 Century Society Caseworker, conversation with the author 27 April 2006.

Appendix A: Listing Description TQ 321 NW

BARBICAN

627/3/10212 GV

Estate of flats, maisonettes and terraced houses, hostel, girls' school, school of music and drama, and arts centre (with concert hall, theatre, studio theatre, cinemas, library, art gallery, conservatory, restaurants and offices), with underground car parking, pedestrian walks and canal. Designed 1955-59, arts centre element redesigned 1964-8; built with modifications in 1962-82 to the designs of Chamberlin, Powell and Bon (subsequently Chamberlin, Powell and Bon (Barbican)) for the Corporation of the City of London; engineers, Ove Arup and Partners. Poured in situ reinforced concrete with exposed surfaces largely pick hammered and with smaller areas bush hammered, exposing Pen Lee granite aggregate, with glazed engineering brick cladding to City of London School for Girls, the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, Wallside, the Postern and plinths to lakeside blocks and water features. Flat asphalted roofs, paved with concrete tiles in keeping with the wall finishes. The main blocks are supported by concrete columns forming an extension to the bored piles sunk up to 60ft deep. The tower blocks' main structure is formed by a central lift shaft and stairwells with a peripheral framework of beams and split piers rising from exposed columns; the structure of the terrace blocks is based in concrete cross-walls supported on columns with floor slabs spanning between the cross-walls and the balcony edge beams. Podium and the tower blocks have thick upswept concrete balustrades developed by Ove Arup and Partners in consultation with the architects in 1961. Housing built 1964-75. 35-acre rectangular site developed with seven-storey blocks set on raised pedestrian podium with mews housing, basement storage and car parking below, for 2,500 cars, and with three triangular towers of 44, 44 and 43 storeys rising above. Most flats are served directly from lifts, but some blocks comprise flats or maisonettes set on a scissor plan around spinal corridor. Generally, there are similarities between the long east-west running terraces, and between the shorter north-south terraces, and this is true to a lesser extent also in North Barbican (Blocks XIV-XVIH). Blocks IX and XIII and the mews blocks are distinctive, and there are many variations to the layouts of the individual units. Blocks are described in terms of their number of storeys above podium level, which for North Barbican (blocks XIV and upwards) is a half-storey higher than that for the rest of the development. The different levels meet in the arts centre. The terraces of flats are mainly set in pairs off top-lit stairwells and lift towers. All have a balcony, reached via sliding aluminium windows in thick varnished timber surrounds. These have concrete paviours, and some retain planting boxes. The interiors of the flats have cupboards by the front door containing letter boxes and metre boxes, and some retain kitchen cupboards, tiled bathrooms and a Garchey waste disposal system. The seventh-floor flats have high ceilings into distinctive roundarched roof spaces. Flats in the towers are larger, and with penthouse units that are larger still. The mews houses are designed to a simple yet high standard; these have not been inspected internally. Blocks I, II and 111: Triangular plan with upswept balconies running round, jagged stepped tops containing penthouses, of up to three storeys with roof gardens. Below penthouse level there are three large flats per floor, the living rooms in the prows, served by a central triangular well with a lift on each side, which can be ordered

from a common central control panel. Sliding timber windows, metal and glass balustrades, the steel uprights painted. Double-height glazed entrances, Lauderdale House also incorporating two ground-floor shops. Block IV: Nos. 1-178 Defoe House. Seven storeys above podium with two storeys under. Twelve broad bays between giant concrete columns supporting cross beams, the ends of the beams on other floors exposed to form large bays. Each of these are subdivided into three room spans, forming a pattern for the flats along the facades of two and one units width between glazed firescreens. The podium is open, but with glazed entrances to the flats in each of the twelve bays. Sliding varnished timber windows set behind paved balconies, with metal and glass balustrades and many with concrete window boxes, painted undersides of roof. 24 rooftop penthouses, with double height fully-glazed ends under rounded tops, given a distinctive white finish. The one-two pattern of the flats is explained by their being 'L '-shaped and having a double aspect, each pair wrapped around a central fully glazed lightwell containing staircase and lift. Block IVB: Nos. 1-8 Lambert Jones Mews. Two storey houses of glazed engineering brick set forward of and below the level of the podium, reached via their own roadway, with granite setts continued as low walls to the fronts of the houses. Each house has a garage to the right of the front door. Doors and windows of timber under concrete lintels. First floor with corner windows and glazed doors under deep concrete lintels giving on to central stairs leading to roof. Paved near-flat roof, brick parapets with 1990s metal tops, behind which are slabbed roof gardens and projecting ventilated service or stores turrets. Interiors not inspected. Block V: 101-114, 201-214, 301-314, 401-414, 501-514, 601-614, 701-704 Gilbert House, with attached public house. Seven wide bays, each three windows wide, with narrower bays at end, supported on twelve giant double pairs of concrete columns which descend into the lake. There is no podium, but a bridge (Gilbert Bridge) over the lake. Sliding varnished timber windows set behind paved balconies, with metal and glass balustrades and some with concrete window boxes (more removed here than elsewhere), painted undersides of roof. Rooftop penthouses, with double height fully-glazed ends under rounded tops, given a distinctive white finish. Each flat is a structural bay wide, reached via lifts and stairs at each end. Under the bridge at the southern end is a public house, Crowders Well. A plaques commemorates the foundation of the Lady Eleanor Holles School on this site in 1711 (installed 1984) and at the northern end is the foundation stone of the Arts Centre, unveiled by HRH Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh on 20 November 1972, on the occasion of their Silver Wedding Anniversary. Block VI: 1-114 Speed House. Seven storeys above podium with two storeys under. Seven broad bays between concrete columns supporting cross beams, the ends of the beams on other floors exposed to form large bays. Each of these are subdivided into three room spans, forming a pattern for the flats along the facades of two and one units width between glazed firescreens. A narrower eighth bay set at right angles. The podium is open, but with glazed entrances to the flats in each of the eight bays. Sliding varnished timber windows set behind paved balconies, with metal and glass balustrades and many with concrete window boxes, painted undersides of roof. 24 rooftop penthouses, with double height fully-glazed ends under rounded tops, given a distinctive white finish. The one-two pattern of the flats is explained by their being 'L'-shaped and having a double aspect, each pair wrapped around a central fully glazed lightwell containing staircase and lift. Two-storey maisonettes set around similar staircases and lifts on the levels below the podium, with car ports and bedrooms on the lower level. Block VII: 101-124,201-204,301-344,401-404,501-544,601-604, 701-724 Willoughby House. Flats and two-storey maisonettes. Seven storeys. Seventeen main bays, with eight wide bays and shorter end units set symmetrically either side of a central lift and

stairwell, with escape doors on to the west-facing balcony, and with further lifts and stairs at either end. Each bay is made up of two units, each three varnished timber windows wide, with the right-hand window sliding opening on to balcony. Metal and glass balustrades, many with concrete planting boxes, painted undersides of balcony roof. Rooftop penthouses, with double height fully-glazed ends under rounded tops, given a white finish. Block VIIB: 1-26 Brandon Mews, including water chute into the lake. Low mews block clad in glazed engineering brick set forward of Willoughby House by the east end of the lake. Two- storey mews houses, with internal bathrooms and staircases served by angled rooflights, covered over in the 1980s by round-arched brown perspex glazing. Houses accessed in groups of four or five via walkways off the public podium; a further walkway extends out into the lake, via staircase to a podium in the lake containing planting and a water chute which recycles and aerates the water in the lake. Block VIII: 1-192 Andrewes House. Seven storeys above podium with two storeys under. Eleven broad bays between giant concrete columns supporting cross beams, the ends of the beams on other floors exposed to form a rhythm of large bays. Each of these are subdivided into three room spans, forming a pattern for the flats along the facades of two and one units width between glazed firescreens. The podium is open, but with glazed entrances to the flats in each of the eleven bays. Sliding varnished timber windows set behind paved balconies (renewed 1999-2000), with metal and glass balustrades and many with concrete window boxes; painted undersides of roof. 22 rooftop penthouses, with double height fully-glazed ends under rounded tops, given a distinctive white finish. The one-two pattern of the flats is explained by their being 'L'-shaped and having a double aspect, each pair wrapped around a central glazed lightwell (glazing renewed with thicker sections and roof partly infilled in 1999- 2000) containing staircase and lift. Two-storey mews houses clad in glazed engineering brick set under podium, with south-facing patios incorporating ventilation holes to car park below. Block IX: 1-10 The Postern. Four-storey houses over basement, all clad in glazed engineering brick, and with flat two-step roofs with higher service duct. The houses can be entered at third storey and from street level two storeys below, where there are garages also. Lowest openings with inverted round-arched form. Long, narrow plans to living and bedrooms on lower floors, kitchen and dining rooms at podium level, with bedroom and roof garden over, all linked via internal dog-leg stairs with open treads. The podium is finished with round-arcaded pattern to mullions supporting balustrade on the open east side. Block XIII: 1-16 Wallside. Houses, including two units for doctor, dentist, or similar professional chambers. Glazed engineering brick cladding, with two-step flat roofs incorporating roof garden, and higher ventilation flue. Four storeys, set on, above and below the podium. Houses set in pairs save at either end, and entered at podium level, with square brick clad piers supporting floor above the podium. Bedrooms mainly on lower floors, reached via open tread dog-leg stair, but with some variations in the internal planning that makes it distinctive from the more regular adjoining Postern. Block X: 101-114,201-214,301-314,401-414,501-514, 601-614, 701-704 Mountjoy House. Seven storeys. Five wide bays, each three windows wide, with narrower bays at end, supported on giant double pairs of concrete columns which descend to the level of the lake. There is a series of narrow walkways. The block is entered via lifts and stairs at either end, with flats set either east or west of these internal stairwell lobbies. Each flat is a structural bay wide, save for the penthouse flats. Sliding varnished timber windows set behind paved balconies, with metal and glass balustrades and some with concrete window boxes, painted undersides of roof. Rooftop penthouses, with double height rooms lit by fully-glazed ends under rounded tops, given a white

finish. Block XI: 1-155 Thomas More House. Seven storeys above podium with two storeys under. Eleven and a half bays between concrete columns supporting cross beams, the ends of the beams on other floors exposed to form a rhythm of large bays. Each of these are subdivided into three room spans, forming a pattern for the flats along the facades of two and one units width between glazed firescreens. The podium is open, but with glazed entrances to the flats in nine bays. Sliding varnished timber windows set behind paved balconies, with metal and glass balustrades and many with concrete window boxes. Painted undersides of roof. 24 rooftop penthouses, with double height fully-glazed ends under rounded tops, given a white finish. The one-two pattern of the flats is explained by their being 'L'-shaped and having a double aspect, each pair wrapped around a central fully glazed lightwell containing staircase and lift. At the eastern end Thomas More House abuts Mountjoy House, and has underneath it the sports hall range of the City of London School for Girls. Block XII: 101-112, 201-212, 301-312,401-412, 501-512,601-612, 701-703 Seddon House. Seven storeys. Six wide bays, each three windows wide, with narrower bays at end, supported on giant double pairs of concrete columns which descend to the level of the lake below the podium. The block is entered via lifts and stairs at either end, with flats set either east or west of these internal stairwell lobbies save for the penthouse. Each flat is a structural bay wide, save for the penthouse flats which are two. Sliding varnished timber windows set behind paved balconies, with metal and glass balustrades and most with concrete window boxes. Painted undersides of roof. Rooftop penthouses, with double height rooms lit by fully-glazed ends under rounded tops, given a white finish. Block XIII: See The Postern above. Block XIV: 1-133 John Trundle House: Twelve bays, with four entrances, stairs and lifts, and central corridor serving single-aspect flats. Seven storeys plus mezzanine entrance, set above podium level of North Barbican above Beech Street (Beech Gardens). The block is supported on paired columns which support the cross walls, with cross beams expressed externally and with white-painted soffits. Rooftop flats have higher, full-glazed round-arched form, eight to the block, set in pairs save at the ends, set behind balconies, forming a distinctive white roof- line. The lower floors have three windows per bay, each with central varnished wood door opening on to balcony, all with planting boxes behind metal and glass balustrades. The steps up the mezzanine entrances are tiled, and each has a glass door. Deep curved balustrade to podium on both sides, under which is White Lyon Court, giving on to a ramp which leads from Goswell Road to Beech Gardens. This elevation is entirely glazed, with steel windows and doors. Block XV: 201-223, 301-323, 501-523 Bunyan House: seventeen-bay block, mainly of maisonettes arranged in scissor plan around central corridors. Six storeys set over open ground floor, supported on two rows each of ten paired giant columns, which extend down to frame brick paved ramp leading from Goswell Road to Beech Gardens. Entrance, lift and stair tower at north-east end. Underneath the podium is a fitness centre, entirely glazed with metal framed windows. Maisonettes have varnished timber windows set behind balconies, with metal and glass balustrades and planting boxes. Complex north elevation with paired balconies on levels 2, 3 and 5, with continuous glazing to levels 1 and 4. On the south elevation levels 1 and 4 are set behind the others. White-painted soffits. Roof level with high round-arched motif to principal rooms, entirely glazed between exposed concrete frames. These higher rooms are set in pairs with balconies between. Bunyan House is set behind a landscaped forecourt on the podium, with planting boxes formed of red paviours, and a circular fountain pool.

Block XVI: 101-108,201-208,301-308,401-408,501-508, 601-608,701-708 Bryer Court.

Eight bay block of seven storeys set over open podium floor with large pool on podium, supported on paired giant columns. Rear access gallery reached from entrance lobby, stairs and lifts at southern end of block. The single aspect design is dictated by the presence of Murray House (1956) behind, which intrudes into the Barbican site. The lower floors with varnished wooden windows, those in the centre opening on to balconies with metal and glass balustrades and planting boxes; whitepainted soffits; the top floor with higher, round-arched rooms entirely glazed between concrete frame and with white tops. Block XVII: 201-268, 301-368, 501-568 Ben Jonson House. 52-bay block set over open podium floor and supported on two rows each of giant paired columns. Seven storeys. Complex north elevation with paired balconies on levels 2, 3 and 5, with continuous glazing to levels 1 and 4. On the south elevation levels 1 and 4 are set behind the others. White painted soffits. Roof level with high round-arched motif to principal rooms, entirely glazed between exposed concrete frames and forming roof-line. These higher rooms are set in pairs, save around lifts at either end and in centre, with balconies between. Podium with planting boxes and fountain in paved surrounds, the same red tiles facing round capsules set under the block and serving as exits, mainly for the conference centre underneath. To side of podium balustrade are large concrete raised planting boxes. Links to Breton House. Block XVIII: 1-111 Breton House. Seven storeys and rooftop, entered from three entrances at mezzanine level above podium, with spinal corridor and rooms at podium level on north-east elevation. The block is supported on paired columns which support the cross walls, with cross beams expressed externally. White painted soffits. Rooftop flats have higher, full-glazed round-arched form, eight to the block, set in pairs save at the ends, set behind balconies, forming a white roof-line. The lower floors have three windows per bay, each with central varnished wood door opening on to balcony, with planting boxes behind metal and glass balustrades. The steps up the mezzanine entrances are tiled, and each has a glass door. YMCA (1965-71): 16-storey tower set off ramp at northern entrance to site from Goswell Road. The lower three floors fully glazed communal areas, with external escape stairs, the upper floors with smaller rooms set off staircases to north and south and with set-back bathrooms in the centre of the long ranges. Floor of staff flats and penthouse flat for warden. South side with projecting concrete fire escape, with glass screens flanking the exit from each floor. All windows of black painted steel, those to the rooms slightly inset with central pivots. Continuous set-back vertical glazing band to north stair. The height and position of the YMCA was designed to unite Barbican with Chamberlin, Powell and Bon's earlier Golden Lane Estate, which features a tower of the same height. The Podium has upswept concrete balustrades and brick/tile paviours. There are some large concrete planters at the northern and southern edges. To the south west of the site, Seddon Highwalk and John Wesley Highwalk are covered ways under white roundarched roofs. John Wesley Highwalk terminates in a glazed brick service tower containing stairs to Aldersgate Street and up to roof, with rounded walls and pyramidal roof. Lake with brick paved surrounds, follows the remodelled line of the Underground railway between Barbican and Moorgate stations, and serves the filtration system for the Barbican Arts Centre. Geometrically placed fountains. Raised circular brick beds with fountains and planting front the broad terrace serving the Arts Centre, reached via steps down from the podium and from within the Arts Centre itself. Eight similar round brick gardens set at the level of the lake, and slightly sunken within it, accessed via spur in front of Andrewes House. The lake steps down a level, with fountain and waterfall, under Gilbert House. City of London School for Girls. 1963-9, with infilling of 1990-1 by Dannatt, Johnson and Partners. Red semi-engineering brick on reinforced concrete frame, with exposed

concrete in piers and beams. Main block of four storeys and semi-basement, with twostorey wing to side, which incorporates gymnasium and swimming pool. Flat roof on top serves as entrance and playground, and is paved in red brick paviours. A strong grid of timber and aluminium windows recessed behind projecting brick piers with concrete tops. Dannatt's infill, in grey brick, is treated as a simple pavilion. Timber and glass entrance doors give on to entrance hall overlooking main assembly hall, whose main floor is at basement level. Stairs rise through the centre of the school, with classrooms on either side and second-floor dining hall. Hard finishes of tiled floors and timber screens (overlooking hall and light wells) a particular feature of the interior, unusually finely detailed. Art and crafts rooms concentrated on the third floor. Lower wing retains brick arcade within Dannatt's extension, and built-in seating and concrete table in open section retained at southern end. Beyond this is the gymnasium, with swimming pool below; this extends to top-lit double-height section at deep end beyond. The school is of special interest for the quality of its materials, the strongly architectural quality of its double-height spaces, staircase hall and infilled arcade, and for the way its complex plan fits logically into an awkward site. It has been extended by Dannatt. It was the first part of the Barbican complex to be completed. The Guildhall School of Music and Drama ( designed 1959, revised 1968, built 1971- 7; partners in charge Peter Chamberlin and Christoph Bon, John Honer executive architect) is like the School for Girls clad in brick on a concrete frame, with bush hammering to exposed frame, which is expressed as a series of paired columns forming a ground-floor loggia overlooking the lake to the south. Exposed concrete lift tower at eastern corner of School. The Music School consists of practice studios on three levels spaced around two sides of the Music Hall, which is about 75ft by 45ft, with recording studios underneath. The practice studios are seen externally as a line of octagonal boxes, stacked two and three storeys high, with lines of six facing the lake and of four to the east. Windows in thick timber surrounds, which with the spandrel panels below them are painted red. In the larger windows abstract stained glass frieze by Celia Frank. Roof-top garden above the music hall. An expansion joint separates the Music School at the front from the Drama School facing north, which has a theatre and movement studio, with library in between extending into barrel-vaulted roofs and bar below. The conservatory which surrounds the Arts Centre Theatre is extended eastwards to link with the small conservatory over the GSMD flytower. Hard red tiled floors to the small internal spaces, with wood block floors to larger rooms and halls, and carpet to music practice studios. The Arts Centre was largely designed in its present form in 1968, and was built 197182. Peter Chamberlin and Christoph Bon were architects in charge, with John Honer and Gordon Ruwald as project architects. Reinforced concrete, with innovative diaphragm walling, largely set below podium level. The principal spaces comprise a theatre designed for the Royal Shakespeare Company; a studio theatre -The Pit -added as the plans were evolved; a concert hall designed in conjunction with the London Symphony Orchestra; a public lending library; an art gallery for temporary exhibitions; three cinemas; a conservatory; offices; restaurants; shops and foyers. Principal entrance from Whitecross Street under canopy added to the designs of Diane Radford and Lindsey Bell in 1993-5, with glazed doors and security entrance to side; driveway over timber setts to left, with stage door for theatre beyond that. Above is the podium, and glazed conservatory wrapped around the theatre flytower (and that of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama) with aluminium glazing and doors. Beyond, on the higher podium of North Barbican, entrance to Barbican Exhibition Halls via glazed singlestorey building, highly glazed under deep frieze. The halls are set below the podium. To the lake, bank of cafes and restaurants to right, clad in vertical white tiles. Stepped profile, with first-floor balcony over projecting ground-floor 'waterside' cafe, and landscaped roof terrace to upper level. Four storeys (three with restaurants), four main bays wide. To left, rounded staircase tower, and main arts

centre of six and seven bays stepped behind Defoe House. Four bays facing lake expressed in square areas of vertical white towers over roof-garden, with fascia and metal glazed foyer areas below. Foyers on three main levels including balcony, with theatre foyers on mezzanine level, now with wheelchair access bridge across. Woodblock floor at stalls (service road) level. Regularly spaced stairs either side of central lifts, and forming open wells through the three levels. Suspended iridescent perspex sculpture by Michel Santry, and busts of Shakespeare by Roubiliac (1760) and of Vaughan Williams by Jacob Epstein. Alterations and additional sculpture by Pentagram 1993-5. To west of foyer, separated from it by internal glazed partitions, the library is set on two main levels, including areas for children's library and music library. There are internal staircases (one of which is now blocked) and natural timber fittings. Broad external staircase from North Barbican has entrance to side. Art Gallery on two floors over library and foyer. The main, upper level has small galleries opening off a central core around central staircase, which overlooks the foyers below. Separate lower gallery curved round the Barbican Hall, marks the form of Frobisher Crescent above. There is a sculpture Court over the Barbican Hall, with doors (not used) into art gallery, and which is backed by Frobisher Crescent. Frobisher Crescent houses offices for the Barbican Arts Centre's administration. Theatre: first designed 1959 as an adjunct to the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, with theatre consultant Richard Southern. The scheme was expanded in 1964 with the involvement of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, and the final designs date from April 1968. Built 1970-82, Peter Chamberlin architect in charge succeeded by Christoph Bon. Fan-shaped continental seating, with steeply raked stalls and balconies, and steep side slips. Seating devised by Robin Day. The theatre is lined in Peruvian walnut, lightly stained, which contrasts with the bush- hammered balcony fronts. Louvred ceiling unites the auditorium and fixed forestage areas. The front rows of seats can be lowered to make an orchestra pit if required, although there is more room for musicians above the wings to either side. Stage with 100ft fly tower to grid, with storage area for flats, and stairs to traps below. The theatre is entered from stairs on two side, which have doors opening on to the separate rows, and controlled by magnets. The dog-leg stairs on either side form high spaces, and give on to foyers set between the theatre and the main Barbican space. Concert hall, designed in consultation with Hugh Creighton, acoustic consultant. Spans are bridged by post-tensioned reinforced concrete double cruciform beams, with timber canopy, reflective decoration in aspen pine to side walls and (a remodelling of 1994) balcony fronts. Stepped timber section over stage and along rear stage wall profiled to reflect the sound forward into the auditorium, and conceals film screens, .house curtains, lighting an loudspeakers, as well as a maintenance gantry. The rear of the stage can be raised. and the front brought forward by removing seats and raising a 5' section of the auditorium. Stalls with two balconies, designed with a fan-shaped plan so as to minimise the distance between the stage and the rear seats. Seating by Robin Day incorporated into the stepping of the levels, with timber floors (the steps form the back of each row). Cinema and studio theatre (the Pit) set in basement, simply finished, The Pit designed for maximum flexibility, with tiered seats around a central space that can be adapted for end - stage, three-sided or in-the-round productions. Two further cinemas at conservatory level.

Appendix B: Listing Building Consent Approval Department of Planning and Transportation Registered Plan Number: 06/00022/LBC Property 21 Andrewes House Andrewes Highwalk Barbican London EC2Y 8AX : Proposa l:

Internal alterations comprising erection of plasterboard partition walls, new cupboards and removal of existing cupboards

Application Valid: 18 January 2006

Application Type: LBC

Ward: Cripplegate

Listed Building: Grade II

Conservation Area: No

The works hereby permitted must be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent. REASON: To ensure compliance with the terms of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

All new internal works and finishes and works of making good to the retained fabric, shall match the existing adjacent work with regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile, unless shown otherwise on the drawings or other documentation hereby approved or required by any condition(s) attached to this consent. REASON: To ensure the protection of the special architectural or historic interest of the building in accordance with the following policy of the Unitary Development Plan 2002: ENV 16.

INFORMATIVES

This listed building consent is granted having regard to listed building considerations only and is without prejudice to the position of the Corporation as ground landlords; and the work must not be instituted until the consent of the Corporation as freeholders has been obtained by the Head Lessee.

The Director of Environmental Services must be consulted on the following matters: The control of noise and other potential nuisances arising from the demolition and construction works on this site and compliance with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994; the Environmental Services Department should be

informed of the name and address of the project manager and/or main contractor as soon as they are appointed. [Director of Environmental Health (City)]. Limitations which may be imposed on hours of work, noise and other environmental disturbance.

The Department of Technical Services must be consulted on the following matters which require specific approval: Means of escape and constructional details under the Building Regulations and London Building Acts (District Surveyor).

The Plans and Particulars accompanying this application are: AH/01, AH/02, AH/03.

Notes The proposal is for the installation of a new partition within the existing living room, along side the existing sliding doors, in order to achieve fire separation and create a further bedroom. The existing sliding screen doors and associated track are retained. The partition would abut an existing pier and would not adversely affect the special architectural interest of the listed building. New cupboards are proposed which are considered acceptable in listed building terms. Background Papers Jilly Smith 30th January 2006 email Relevant UDP Policies ENV16 - Listed buildings: Alterations

Appendix C: Heritage Protection Review; English Heritage Pilot Projects On 7 April 2004 English Heritage launched 15 pilot projects across the country to test the most innovative aspects of the proposed new system, namely the "Register of Historic Sites and Buildings of England", the single designation regime that allows separate archaeological, architectural and landscape elements all found on one site to be treated as one entity, and the establishment of statutory management agreements. Those relating to the issue of management agreements are:

Centre Point, London This tower block dating from 1963-7 is an iconic structure in central London, listed at Grade II. A management agreement is currently being drawn up, which takes into account the need for repetitive and identical changes to be made to the interior features of this post-war office building. The management agreement will work on two levels, allowing for the routine changes necessary in an adaptable building like this but still requiring special consent for major changes.

Cornish Bridges A survey has been undertaken of historic bridges in Cornwall, taking into account their condition and management issues. A long term management regime is required that allows repairs and maintenance to be carried out without the need for listed building consent or scheduled monument consent for each bridge. Some bridges are both scheduled and listed, so we can remove the confusion and bureaucracy this causes by only having a single designation for each bridge.

Darnall Works, Sheffield th

This is a vast 19 century steel works, the last in Sheffield to retain evidence of large-scale crucible manufacture and unique in Britain. This industrial site has both listed and scheduled components. English Heritage will reassess the site as a whole in order to draw up a management agreement with the owners and Sheffield City Council, taking into account plans for the sensitive and sympathetic regeneration of the site.

Foulness Island, Mod Shoeburyness, Essex Foulness Island forms part of MOD Shoeburyness on the coast of Essex, to the east of Southend on Sea. The military have had a presence since the 1830s and the site has been in continuous defence occupation since the 1850s. It was used for the development of nuclear weapons technology from the late 1940â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s by the Atomic Weapons Establishment and continues in use as a military testing and evaluation establishment under the Ministry of Defence with its commercial partner QinetiQ. The pilot project will develop approaches to integrate the protection of the scheduled elements such as a Romano-British burial site and 17 listed buildings with a model of the "Atlantic Wall" built in preparation for D-Day and surviving structures from the Cold War which currently have no statutory protection. Any resulting management agreement should include provisions to look after all elements of the historic environment. The plan will have to take many factors into account. Foulness is an outstanding wildlife habitat, much of it designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and there is farming on the island which has a population of about 150 people. There is also pressure for development, both for operational purposes and to maintain a sustainable community.

The Godolphin Estate, Cornwall th

The estate comprises 15 century Grade I listed Godolphin House, recently granted ÂŁ879,000 by English Heritage th for essential repairs, set in exceptionally important registered gardens dating from the Medieval period to the 17 century. The house and gardens are owned by the Schofield family. The surrounding 555 acre estate contains th 400 archaeological features from pre-historic times to the relics of 19 century tin mining and is owned by the National Trust. The estate is included within an area bidding for World Heritage Site status for Cornish mining. The pilot project will test how such a wide range of archaeology, buildings and landscape can be designated as a single entity and a management strategy drawn up that is responsive and flexible to the estateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s many different functions.

Holkham Estate, Norfolk This is a major country house and rural estate. Currently all the different elements of the estate â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the Hall, gardens and monuments are protected under different systems. The estate will now be reassessed in a way which recognises the importance of the whole, including elements such as the model village. The management agreement that will then be drawn up will take into account that this is a working estate in single ownership.

Kenilworth Castle, Abbey And Mere, Warwickshire This area is in mixed ownership including the Town Council and Warwick District Council. The castle itself is under the guardianship of English Heritage. There are several issues to address, including the overlapping of different designations, the castle, for example, is both listed and scheduled. Having reconsidered the designation issues, English Heritage will feed these into the conservation appraisal of the whole area that is currently underway.

Langdale Neolithic Landscapes, Cumbria This is an area of the Lake District with scattered flint and cave deposits, the evidence of Neolithic axe factories, none of which are currently designated. The area is also in a National Park, an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) and is largely managed by the National Trust. Difficult management issues include the threat of erosion from fell walkers. 600 sites were identified by a 1980â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s survey. An assessment of how these might be designated, building on the considerable natural environment issues and the management schemes already in place, should secure their future while making them accessible to the public.

Piccadilly Line, London Underground Several Piccadilly Line stations are listed, but there are problems caused by the need for continuing upgrading, safety and development plus a new complicated structure of utilities companies and maintenance responsibilites. English Heritage already has regular liaison meetings to address these issues but will now formalise these and establish an understanding with London Underground of which buildings and features are important and which can be changed without special consent. Starting with a single Underground line, such a management agreement could later be transferred to the rest of the network in stages as appropriate.

RAF Scampton, Lincolnshire This is a large military airfield site with one of the longest runways in Britain, extended to cope with the V-bomber force during the Cold War. There are numerous ancillary buildings dating from post WW1 and WW2, service housing, and more recent Cold War elements. There are archaeological interests on the site. English Heritage will be carrying out a "characterisation" of the site to inform how it should be managed in a way which protects what is important and yet is flexible enough to deal with significant operational and development pressures.

University Of East Anglia, Norwich This is a large university campus, with outstanding post-war buildings and a need for future expansion. There have been informal agreements to produce a management strategy between the University, English Heritage and Norwich City Council, which we can now progress more formally through the pilot project. Several buildings were recently listed at Grade II and II* and a new partnership approach should make it easier for the University to understand and manage any changes they may want to make to them.

Water Meadows, Hampshire The water meadows are in Eastleigh, Hampshire, on the banks of the River Itchen. A water meadow is an area of grassland next to a river which is artificially flooded at certain times of the year using a manmade network of ridges, channels and sluices, in order to produce early, good quality pasture. The use of water meadows dates back to the Middle Ages, they were part of a local farming regime which can have associated historically related monuments such as field systems, farmsteads, manors, religious houses, watermills, bridges and roads. 40% of the water meadows originally recorded in Hampshire have been destroyed and only 4% of those remaining are considered to be well preserved. This pilot will examine the application of landscape designation and help develop a management regime for this unique type of environment.

The Weld Estate, Dorset This 17th century estate includes Lulworth Castle, Lulworth Cove, Durdle Door, Durdle Door Holiday Park, Lulworth Cove Heritage Centre, five miles of the Dorset & East Devon World Heritage Site, extensive country and coast walks and bridleways. It encompasses issues to do with the designation of archaeology, buildings and landscapes. English Heritage will examine how groups or types of assets might be designated as one where appropriate. It will also work with the Weld Estate and Purbeck District Council to construct a management agreement that allows works and maintenance to be done without the need for special consent.

York City Walls, York The walls combine a number of scheduled monuments and listed buildings, including St Maryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Abbey, York Minster Precinct, and St Olaveâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Church which is still in use. The walls also involve a registered park and area of archaeological importance and a conservation area. Now that it is a pilot, English Heritage will work with York City Council to carry out a holistic assessment of all these components and devise a management plan that addresses the challenges of caring for these historic features in an urban environment.

Bibliography Books

Government Publications

Journals

Illustration Credits