Was reading this week's edition of PLANNING and noticed a story about work starting on a major new project in the centre of Bath. It looked interesting so I searched it out on the web and found a fair bit of info. Anyway, there's a surprising ammount of development going on in Bath dispite it being a world heritage site so I thought it worth starting a thread on it, obviously none of it's high-rise though (and nor should it be).


First up, a recently completed development - Bath Spa
Project Overview:
http://www.thecityofbath.co.uk/the_tw2.jpg

Images of completed development (various sources, found on Google):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/somerset/content/images/2006/07/28/02_440x388.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/somerset/content/images/2006/07/28/03_440x275.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/somerset/content/images/2006/07/28/04_330x440.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/somerset/content/images/2006/07/28/13_440x330.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/somerset/content/images/2006/07/28/15_440x284.jpg

http://www.hughpearman.com/illustrations4/grimshaw%20new%20bath%20spa%20detail.jpg

http://www.hughpearman.com/illustrations4/grimshaw%20new%20bath%20spa%20aerial%20view.jpg

http://www.hughpearman.com/illustrations4/grimshaw%20new%20bath%20spa%20corner.jpg

http://www.thermaebathspa.com/visitorcentre/images/thermae_bath_spa/facilities/NGP-BS-0026-a.jpg
www.thermaebathspa.com


The one that's just started is called SouthGate Bath:
http://www.bath.co.uk/southgate/southgate1.jpg

http://www.southgatebath.com/images/photos/retailQuarter3.jpg

http://www.southgatebath.com/images/photos/retailQuarter2.jpg http://www.southgatebath.com/images/photos/transportHub2.jpg

http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2837C5FA-2A15-460F-84FD-6A43E6FA15F3/0/majordevelopments.jpg http://www.southgatebath.co.uk/images/photos/openSpaces.jpg

Information, planning application documents and a video of the development available here:
http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/BathNES/environmentandplanning/majordevelopments/southgateproject/default.htm
Official Website:
www.southgatebath.com


Bath Western Riverside Project (not many pics that I can hotlink but loads of info and planning documents on the council's webpage for this development):
http://www.driversjonas.com/img.aspx?CID=747609&LangID=1
http://www.driversjonas.com/uk.aspx?doc=7451
http://www.bathwesternriverside.co.uk/index.php
http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/BathNES/environmentandplanning/majordevelopments/Bath+Western+Riverside+Project.htm


Bath Quays South (no pics I can hotlink):
http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/BathNES/environmentandplanning/majordevelopments/Bath+Quays+South.htm


I can't find any more but if anyone else knows of any, please post them.

top quality. I love the new spa and that finally the springs are being used. Also excellent to see that awful shopping shopping centre at the bottom of town is being replaced with this one. Very appropriate to Bath. This is one of the few places where I definitely agree with architecture being built in a traditional style. Anyone who calls that pastiche should be reminded that pastiche means 'a poor quality imitation of historic styles' - the new buildings here actually look like they are based on a sound understanding of classical proportions and scales.

A couple of screen shots from the videa

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/885/untitled1jo1.jpg

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/7264/untitled2jw7.jpg

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/8240/untitled3ha9.jpg

I agree with you 100%

Can you show us the shopping centre it is replacing.

I couldn't find any pics on google image search and I don't have any that I've taken.

is this the area south of mc donalds and where that awfull arcade thing is?

Yeah, it's replacing the awful 1960s shopping centre and multi-story car park

Here's an update on how the demolition is getting on at the SouthGate site. This is about one and a half weeks old:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/Erebus555/DSC_0009-2.jpg
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/Erebus555/DSC_0416.jpg

So glad to see it going, the southgate Shopping centre was a truly bizzare thing, one minute your in Georgian Bath and then the next moment... one of the largest anti-climaxes you'll experience in any UK town/city...

From what i heard (ages ago probably) though about the western riverside project had/is having alot of teething problems from the local media although i haven't heard anything since so i assume its nearly all clear?

Just for the love of god! i hope it looks as good as it does in the renders AND doesn't take nearly take as long as the nightmare that was The Bath Spa Project !

top quality. I love the new spa and that finally the springs are being used. Also excellent to see that awful shopping shopping centre at the bottom of town is being replaced with this one. Very appropriate to Bath. This is one of the few places where I definitely agree with architecture being built in a traditional style. Anyone who calls that pastiche should be reminded that pastiche means 'a poor quality imitation of historic styles' - the new buildings here actually look like they are based on a sound understanding of classical proportions and scales.

what a fantastic thread and too right this development really does have potential to rid bath of that horrid area and replace it with really good classical buildings that bath is so well known for. It would be good though to somehow integrate water features in the sqaure pehaps?

anyone got any streetscape pictures of bath? I hear its beautiful down there but ive never been

anyone got any pictures of how the southgate development is progressing?

anyone got any streetscape pictures of bath? I hear its beautiful down there but ive never been

Your wish is my command...

Pulteney bridge and weir (even after 3 yrs getting off the uni bus I always take a peek over the river balustrade)
http://www.terragalleria.com/images/uk/uken36061.jpeg

The obvious Royal Crescent (note the lack of US/JPN tourists who are normally everywhere around there)
http://www.bath.ac.uk/health/images/crescent.jpg

Roman Baths
http://www.bza.org/BZA2005/bath-roman-baths.jpg

Circus
http://www.simonho.org/images/England_South/Bath_Circus.jpg

http://www.lawhf.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5E31B4A9-8E2C-4992-BA8F-

Bath Abbey
http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-

Looks good, at least the whole thing looks as though it's going to fit in with the architecture of Bath.

I found a good Flickr album about Southgate Bath here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/23702100@N00/
Here's an image of the old Southgate centre before it was demolished taken from the same album:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2284/1756641080_d6614be2f2.jpg?v=0

The Bath Western Riverside development now has a decent website but no renders to hotlink at present: http://www.bathwesternriverside.co.uk/index.php

However, there is a pdf newsletter with some nice renders: http://www.bathwesternriverside.co.uk/bwr_summer07.pdf

The design is clearly modern and doesn't attempt to copy historic Bath but I don't think the style they've chosen will look out of place given the site's distance from the main historic centre of the city.

I've also found another drawing of what Southgate will look like:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2104/1591569090_86a47aebbe_o.png

It's hosted on Flickr and taken from here: http://www.multi-development.com:8080/web/P0449.nsf/wwwVwContent/l1home.htm which has more renders.

And a photo of the cleared site almost from the same angle:
http://www.cityofbath.co.uk/southgate/Southgate.jpg
Found on Google.

I have a burning, hateful, consuming disdain for Bath, but the Southgate development should be good. It truly was a depressing shitehole before.

Bath or the shopping centre-cum-bus station?

I have a burning, hateful, consuming disdain for Bath, but the Southgate development should be good. It truly was a depressing shitehole before.
Why??? Bath is a beautiful city, the old shopping centre on this site was an ugly wart but it wasn't enough to tarnish the city as a whole.

Granted it is architecturally beautiful city. I've grown up in between Bris and Bath, near Keynsham, worked in Bath gone out in Bath, gone to school with people from Bath and I just hate it. With a passion. It has grown on me marginally over the past six months, but there's still something intrinsic I hate about it.

^ You cant blame Bath just because you were unfortunate enough to live in Keynsham or Bristol!

oh that's a good enough reason :gossip: ;)

Although actually if you've lived in Keynsham or in BANES (excluding Bath) for the past 11 years its understandable methinks... what with the Bath spa fiasco and all the trouble its caused for the BANES unitary district :dunno:

Touchée Madman.

And exactly Helium, NES is relatively poor cf. Bath and Bath gets all this money loaded on it, shocking!

(Paid for by people from North East Som'set), may I add.

^ aww diddums

ah well you second class B&NES residents if you cant beat us then join us toffs and relocate to central Bath then :D

I was thinking more of a gulag situation for Bath residents ;-) How does Avonmouth sound?

Anyway... I think this scheme's great and should make Bath an even more desirable place to shop and visit. My only issue with the scheme is that the buildings could of been a been a bit more decadent and incorporated more sculpted facades.

^True, the chain stores will be a boon for much of the population particularly students like me studying in the city, however they wont i think make it really that much more appealing a shopping destination for non-Bath residents - they come for the high end shops of Milsom Street, Union Street, Broad Str, New Bond street (supposedly called 'the Knightsbridge of the west')..... that are already established.

As an architecture student i truly hate the cheap pastiche design of these buildings, they really dont do the city justice and i'm not keen on the argument well they are better than what they are replacing. Saying that, hearing of what they councillors were originally presented with (a two storey shopping centre with 2/3 car parking levels above!) this development seems like re-enacting the glories of Rome...

I agree with that madman. One of the least desirable qualities of the Marchants Passage/Mall part of Southgate was its sheer brutal size (evident if you were viewing it from Beechen Cliff). I'm not 100% convinced that the proportions of this development are much better in relation to the rest of Bath. Still, as you say anything has to be better than what was there before.

With regard to Churchill House: I do think that was a bit of a coup for the developers. Could they have not incorporated that into somekind of landmark building and build the new interchange to the east of that?

When i was referring to a two storey mall with 2/3 levels of car parking above i was referring to what the developers originally proposed for the site a couple of years ago! (apparently it would have stripped Bath of its UNESCO status that was how bad it was)

Churchill House is quite an interesting building. Though there were many campaigns and picketting to save it, apart from being an obscure early building of an architect who would make himself known in Canada, there was little to commend it really. Architecturally though it adressed the corners well it was stumpy and lacked the elgence and refinement of proportions Bath is known for in neo-palladian/neoclassical buildings. Structurally it was a disaster with a steel frame corroding within a inefficient full weight bathstone facade etc etc. For the Southgate development to reach a substantial amount of retail space and thus pay for underground car parkk etc etc they needed to relocate the bus station from its previous site off manvers street, thus to the developers profit margins it was essential it went on the Churchill site.

The sad thing is the council are always whinging how the vity does not address the river (which is absolutely true - i cant think of any other city which actively seeks to hide its main waterway). However building a bus stop with its back to the river which is also a south facing elevation somehow contradicts everything the council say they want in Bath...oh well...

^ goodness my grammar and spelling are awful there, must have just woken up :)

Anyway, Southgate is rising and if you don't like your pastiche close your eyes quick! Maybe I am totally out of touch with the public's taste in architecture as on Flickr and some local issue sites people are raving on about the architecture.... :(

(pics courtesy of analogueandy)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3278/2547781875_39028e68b3_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3275/2548605614_930e25a42a_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3094/2547780709_c4048832da_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3123/2547781539_5ffae9697d_o.jpg

Cheers for the updates Madman :okay: :banana:, i was meaning to get down that way, you should post it on the Retail in your city thread on the City Talk forum :yes: might get some more exposure there.

I think as far as Pastiche goes, it'll probably be alright.

I'm curious as to apart from Debenhams, what shops there'll be as last time i visted the site, there wasnt a list unlike cabot circus.

My goodness that's gone up quick! I didn't expect to see so much completed already. I don't really think this'll feel too pastiche when its done so long as the details are high quality, and from the pics above it looks like it'll be ok. Pastiche in my book is a building that is obviously new, but has silly 'period' features to try and make it blend in; basically a cheap copy. This on the other hand, if done right, should be basically indistinguishable from the historic buildings around it. You should only be able to tell that you're entering a new development because the stonework is clean and unweathered. I have no problem with this development so long as it is done to a very high quality. Small modern infill developments in the city centre are ok (I like the Thermae Bath development), but as far as I'm concerned the historic core of Bath is not a place for architects to draw attention to overtly modern buildings on a large scale. For me, the Bath Western Riverside development is just far enough away to work as a large scale development with modern designs.

I think it looks great and have no problem with the architecture either as it seems to be done quiet well and does'nt look like a half baked idea. It will be interesting to see how the grander buildings in the scheme turn out too.

If this works It could be a good model for some older town centres in the uk that have been ruined by either bad planning or out of place buildings and pehaps move away from the 'mall' mentality which I think is happening already.

one of the largest anti-climaxes you'll experience in any UK town/city...


:lol: I enjoyed that

any progress on this development, I'm keen to see how it turns out.

There are updates on Flickr, i suppose i could go and trawl for them....

New Orchard elevations approaching completion...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3294/2679724842_1cfbcd78ac.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2723244544_4831bb7776_b.jpg

Facade panels starting to appear on southgate...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/2719979720_74267bb057_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/2719980522_daaa2a9243_o.jpg


The infamous Bus station by Wilkinson Eyre begins rising (apparently behind schedule now due to some contractor/technical difficulties)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3169/2719981162_b37d64047c_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3007/2701474279_f87bc146df_o.jpg

How thoroughly bland and disappointing. Looking at the models from above, it is clear this whole development is basically concrete boxes of bland corporate shops dressed in stone cladding. OK they may blend in to a degree, and yes, I do agree something sympathetic to the city, if needs be following the same Georgian style should be built, but if the council really cared about the city they would have launched an international desgin competition and demanded the best 'architecture'.

This is not architecture, it is a series of designs picked out of a design manual. This country has a number of respected traditional architects, from John Simpson, to Leon Krier who could have ably put together a scheme that would have knitted this part of the city back together, with public squares, streets and alley ways, a mix of heights and occupancy from shops, to offices and homes. Instead we've gone for the cheap, mass produced option to accomodate large corpororate floor plates. Such a shame.

I think it looks good but I do think they could of been a bit more inventive with the facades, more detail would of been good. I think however it will be good to see when its finished as a whole not in its construction stage where its difficult to judge. Also stone needs to age , at the moment it looks far too clean.

I'm getting nervous about this, but we're committed to it now. It looks like good quality stone has been used at least. The architecture I pray, has been designed by someone who really understands neo classical architecture, and is very good at applying that. Finishing detail will be very important. Hoping the windows won't be single panes of green/black glass.. fingers crossed, Windows are so so important in all neo classical architecture, and if we dont get the usual 6 panes of single glazed glass I reckon its going to look 'horror show'.

I think we're quite instictive in the country about what's right and whats not. People will either walk around this new area and go eeeek... its a bit fake innit... it doesnt seem very well integrated, or they'll go 'ooh, its been done very well hasn't it.'

fingers crossed very firmly

Who are the architect's for South Gate?

This company is very good at new classical buildings - http://www.porphyrios.co.uk/Main.swf

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/2738513809_5f8bb5d346.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3174/2738719825_83414d163b_b.jpg

There's some very good discussion at Flickr - All a bit late but hey
I quote someone
"I agree with both your notes. I would have thought getting the book-ends to match would have been integral to the concept of framing the new street like that. Repeating the approach to the other end (where there are little square blind windows on the second floor instead of the arch) would have made more sense, given the width. And a blind window or two would have improved the part of block A that you have highlighted. I am now confused by the "gaps" in the cornices and facades though, which it appears are not always designed to accommodate drainpipes as I expected. It's nice to see the windows in place however. "

http://flickr.com/photos/14399792@N04/

Another Flickr update

A view looking north up Southgate from Dorchester Street with the entire elevation of the development onto southgate.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3155/2794263078_de7bb31a78_b.jpg

...and a view the other way looking down southgate...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3105/2792426278_a6b86f8a38_b.jpg

while I like the way this building is fitting into Bath, I'm concerned that the buildings are not gutsy enough with tiny details that look a bit tame compared to the rest of the city.

Not so good an explosion occured on site

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3123291&c=1

That looks pretty serious, no mention of injuries in the article. Hopefully there weren't any. Hopefully the damage isn't too great as well, though it doesn't look good.

Some photos of the fire - a bit of excitement for the old gits of Bath

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3183/2883010541_05e0fe9c12_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/2883010563_119a870333_b.jpg

Oh dear... that doesn't look good. Though there are news reports on the net that claim that damage was minimal and the schedule won't be affected.

Looks worse than it actually was apparently, but sure gave the Chronicle something to write about!

(Some more raiding of flickr!)

Looking from the middle of development at the perimeter blocks shaping up (first phase opens next year so they better get their arse in gear)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2910750274_a4473bac0e_b.jpg

Entrance portal to Car park (only in Bath ;)) Chipped block highlighted has since been replaced for all those worried!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3207/2910750270_b663dd836c_o.jpg

Wilkinson Eyre bus station slowly taking shape

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3032/2910750306_7a6789fddd_o.jpg

I do like this development.

I'm a bit divided over it, the one thing i know for sure is that its very unlike any other mall we have seen recently in the UK.

Any news on this?

^ Did more raiding of Flickr, just for you...


A view between Block B and C - The bridge connecting them is temporary, but that's where the final one will be located.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/3043662557_e96dc2ecc3_b.jpg


A view looking down Dorchester Street from the South West corner of the scheme. on the left is the corner of block c with the triumphal arch style entrance portals for the car parks (as mentioned earlier - only in bath!) with an pedestrian arcade on the street. To the right the new bus station is emerging behind the scaffolding, and in the distance refurbishment and enlargement works are happening on the station and its forecourt area.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3238/3044504250_e0818c2d5f_b.jpg



The new Wiliinson eyre designed bus station is taking shape, kindly being called the 'Busometer' by the local press.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3207/3043656605_650b1a0e86_b.jpg

I'm a bit concerned about the detailing on the facades, it just doesn't look convincing enough and what era are they actually trying to do here? Classical? Georgian? it's just a little unclear.

I know what you mean. I have witnessed similar developments here in Harrogate, where like Bath, developments must fit in with the old for the sake of tourists and aesthetic values. I have come to the conclusions that in these gentile spa town type places, architects do not have freedom as they do in the cities, but are forced to take bits of other buildings to make their building in order for it to fit in. For example Marks and Spencer in Harrogate takes the sandstone from Victoria Gardens opposite, but takes the architectural style itself from buildings on Cambridge Street and Oxford Street.

So perhaps in Bath, the architects aren't trying to follow one style, but simply just build a shopping centre that 'fits in' and nothing much more.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3238/3044504250_e0818c2d5f_b.jpg


I think its this picture that makes me wonder what's happening here. The cornerstone detail is tacked on? and doesnt look like its combining with the other facade very well. It will probably change later..i hope.

^ You are absolutely right, many of the details do looked tacked on, and though not finished, the addition of the window fitting and gutters will not detract from the superficiality of some of the detailing.

The biggest problem i have with the scheme though is the awkward massing of the scheme in order to satisfy the requirements of major retail chains which is totally inconsistent with the massing language of Bath and its terraces. This is compunded by a lack of accuracy in Georgian detailing that though at first glance may be half convincing to the lay observer, soon falls into a category of pastiche more akin to the work of Speer and stripped down fascist classicism-pompousness.

HEAR, HEAR !


^ You are absolutely right, many of the details do looked tacked on, and though not finished, the addition of the window fitting and gutters will not detract from the superficiality of some of the detailing.

The biggest problem i have with the scheme though is the awkward massing of the scheme in order to satisfy the requirements of major retail chains which is totally inconsistent with the massing language of Bath and its terraces. This is compunded by a lack of accuracy in Georgian detailing that though at first glance may be half convincing to the lay observer, soon falls into a category of pastiche more akin to the work of Speer and stripped down fascist classicism-pompousness.

Another Filckr update, this pano courtesy of velodenz showing the first phase (western 1/3 of scheme) coming on...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3218/3139604498_fc17b0baa3_o.jpg

http://www.bathheritagewatchdog.org/churchill.htm looks like green mold is already blighting this development. I had such high hope's but it's turning into a right turkey.

It's called character! :D ;)

Well i do thing there is a tad over sensalisation of every minute detail on that forum...tbc after all these years Bath should be grateful for what its getting, the council really dithered over this and almost helped Bath lose its UNESCO status at one point apparently (with a conventional mall with parking decks above!) and the retail core has been in decline comparatively since Cribbs Causeway arrived on the scene (accelerated now by CC).

But should not we expect atleast some quality in the architecture. The details mentioned make or break buildings.

if you walk round bath and look at the existing stone facades, you'll find many more examples of 'botched' details in the old buildings. Those guys weren't perfect either, you know!

http://www.bathheritagewatchdog.org/churchill.htm looks like green mold is already blighting this development. I had such high hope's but it's turning into a right turkey.

That website is hilarious. Love it! Have they really nothing better to do with their time but sigh and tut and purse there lips.

'This country is going to hell in a hand cart! It wasn't like this in my day! In my day we chiselled our on houses out of single blocks of stone using only are ration books. Developers today have got no respect. Bring back national service. BRING BACK HANGING. I blame the foreigners'.... now where's my Daily Mail?

The reality is that the sorts of problems showing up are due precisely to the fact that they are getting what they asked for - i.e. don't care as long as looks 'in keeping' the result? A cheap facsimile stage set mocked up to be 'in keeping' with Bath. A georgian shopping centre with 'authentic' stonework from the mold (or should that be mould he he?)

I hope they fix the details as per that website because some of it is well wonky. It's a waste of good stone if they don't do it properly. University standard attitude accross the board is that it is banal to copy the past, and that pastiche is somehow a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with choosing an existing style and designing with formal patterns and features. That is how and why so many popular towns and cities are considered attractive, because they have a cohesive overall style, not just a bunch of individual buildings all jostling for attention. The problem with a lot of modern architectural mindset is that architects are trying to make a name for themselves as an artist, and make up a new set of rules for every building. No one is allowed to copy anyone else and everything has to be original. Sooner or later you would all run out of ideas. This applies not just to architecture, but to all forms of art.

I worked in Bath just round the corner from the Southgate centre 2006-2007, the old brute's last days. I walked through it from the station on my way to work each day. A truly soul-destroying, desolate, hopeless building - made all the more astonishing by the beauty that surrounded it. Unbelievable something that monstrously misconceived would ever have been built in the first place.

I'm just glad they knocked it down! Delores I agree with a lot of your concerns, but... I can't really get that worked up about a bit of green mould and some tacky detailing...

^ Indeed studying at the University of Bath from 2004-8 I spent many an early morning waiting in a massive queue for a much delayed uni bus at the windswept station (in addition to the remanants of clubbers post drinks kebabs and stomach inerds and the smell of the dingiest takeaway in town) . To make matters worse as everyone knew the staion was eventually going to be redeveloped, no proper maintenance seemed to have taken place since the mid 90s. :ohno:

I think that we should judge developments on their own merits but compared with what Bath had before ...well .....

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2022/2139951618_815c0024ef_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2098/2139213981_26f6554b5d_b.jpg

When i lived there i remeber it as the place you avoided. All ways struck me how poor the shopping experiance the further towards the station you go.

That website is hilarious. Love it! Have they really nothing better to do with their time but sigh and tut and purse there lips.

This isn't what they're doing, though. They are an active organisation of volunteers who, in the case of this project, are working to push through corrections that they think are necessary to the buildings as they go up, because of perceived deviations from formerly agreed architectural plans. So when a window that isn't classically proportioned suddenly appears on an elevation that was passable before, they're on it, with the help of the flickr group that you guys keep linking too. When mould is appearing on the facades because the stone is too thin, they respond because they want improvements to be made in whatever manner is appropriate - they are not just standing on the sidelines complaining to no avail.


'This country is going to hell in a hand cart! It wasn't like this in my day! In my day we chiselled our on houses out of single blocks of stone using only are ration books. Developers today have got no respect. Bring back national service. BRING BACK HANGING. I blame the foreigners'.... now where's my Daily Mail?

To be honest, the stereotype you embody is just as annoying. You come across as a sneering lad who's never known the architectural mistakes of the 60s and 70s, yelling about people stuck in their own back yards and their own heads, because you can't tell that objectors are reacting to cheap modern architecture and cheap classical pastiche alike.

Bath Heritage Watchdog are not fighting just for stuff that is "in keeping" as you put it in your next paragraph; they are after high quality architecture that understands the very fabric of the city. There is a character and architectural language to the city, formed from a very particular history, and if there was any architect on the scene with enough imagination to create modern buildings that understood this vernacular, nobody would be complaining. It's only people without the will to think this through who insist this amounts to wanting stuff that "fits in" by imitation. It doesn't.

Finally, I don't touch the Daily Mail even when an abandoned copy is sitting in a cafe or a bus, so you might want to reconsider what you think must be the social, political and cultural alignment of people like me. It's not conservative in the slightest to be keen to balance the efforts of a large corporation that, in its attempts to cut the costs of an agreed project, will leave the people of Bath as the only losers.

Great development!

This isn't what they're doing, though. They are an active organisation of volunteers who, in the case of this project, are working to push through corrections that they think are necessary to the buildings as they go up, because of perceived deviations from formerly agreed architectural plans.

Ok. Well first of all, I appear to have touched a nerve. I don't know if you're from said group, but as you seem to have signed up to make your first post coming back at me infers that you are. Either way, everyone likes to think that they're not just a NIMBY when it applies to their own backyard. I'm sure that everyone involved on that site genuinely has Bath's best interests at heart, and whether they have or not my stereotyping / sneering wasn't called for. So if I have offended I apologise.

So when a window that isn't classically proportioned suddenly appears on an elevation that was passable before, they're on it, with the help of the flickr group that you guys keep linking too. When mould is appearing on the facades because the stone is too thin, they respond because they want improvements to be made in whatever manner is appropriate - they are not just standing on the sidelines complaining to no avail.

Ah the arbitors of good taste and common decency. Thank god you're there. I mean, a non-classically proportioned pastiche window in a fake stone facade on a modern shopping centre would just look silly wouldn't it!

Sorry - I'm doing it again aren't I...

To be honest, the stereotype you embody is just as annoying. You come across as a sneering lad who's never known the architectural mistakes of the 60s and 70s, yelling about people stuck in their own back yards and their own heads, because you can't tell that objectors are reacting to cheap modern architecture and cheap classical pastiche alike.

If that is what the group is doing then more power to them, because I agree with them. But I've looked through the site, and that isn't how it scans. As for 60s and 70s buildings, do you think they're invisible to me? Bath was my back yard for 6 years and I'm well aware of the architectural crimes that have been inflicted on the city. The Southgate Centre was apalling, along with the Hilton, the DHSS building opposite Green Park Brasserie and that nasty, nasty shopping centre just north of Pulteney Bridge (The Podium?). Some real architectural crimes have been done to Bath.

So if this group is what you claim it is, I'm sure it is busy campaigning for the best of contemporary architecture that responds to its context, in urban terms, materially, socially, qualitatively and even technologically. I'm suspicious that the name "Bath Heritage Watchdog" infers a backward looking mentality only, but I'm probably only sneering again. So, direct me towards where on the site those sorts of arguments have been made by your(?) group, and I will gratefully read it, because Bath needs people arguing in that vein. It would be a welcome, and novel, addition.

The thing is, the shallow sort of protests that I know full well occur in Bath by those who seek to stop pretty much any modern project, whatever its merits, result in this sort of development. Big developers look at the BHW webpage, or perhaps those less forward thinking and erudite, and think, 'ah feck it, just stick some fake columns on the outside and they'll go way'. Projects like the new Southgate Centre are created by groups like the Bath Heritage Watchdog. I hope you like it.

Bath Heritage Watchdog are not fighting just for stuff that is "in keeping" as you put it in your next paragraph; they are after high quality architecture that understands the very fabric of the city. There is a character and architectural language to the city, formed from a very particular history, and if there was any architect on the scene with enough imagination to create modern buildings that understood this vernacular, nobody would be complaining. It's only people without the will to think this through who insist this amounts to wanting stuff that "fits in" by imitation. It doesn't.

Well, part of that architectural history was the wholesale destruction of the Bath that was previously there... but we'll leave that eh. I agree with everything you wrote above. Thing is there are plenty of architects such as you describe. Feilden Clegg Bradley for example to pick some local boys, have been known to turn own the odd bit of top class sensitive contextural design. "To encourage and co-ordinate protest action against such unwelcome developments." is your group's stated constitution. I'm curious, are there any large-scale developments in Bath that your group hasn't protested against since its inception?

Finally, I don't touch the Daily Mail even when an abandoned copy is sitting in a cafe or a bus, so you might want to reconsider what you think must be the social, political and cultural alignment of people like me. It's not conservative in the slightest to be keen to balance the efforts of a large corporation that, in its attempts to cut the costs of an agreed project, will leave the people of Bath as the only losers.

Well I agree with all of that... and probably the Daily Mail comment was uncalled for. Peace! Enjoy your new fake Georgian shopping centre. :)

Interesting discussion there, tallys very much to what was happening in Cardiff where a group of forumers formed a group that was ro development, but good development. Too often we get people complaning about all developments but very few who praise good ones.

Will Bath lose its World Heritage status?

For 22 years, the glorious spa town has been a World Heritage site. But now, thanks to a giant mall and 2,200 flats, it could be stripped of its status. By Jonathan Glancey

Jonathan Glancey
The Guardian, Monday 6 April 2009


The Royal Crescent, Bath

The Royal Crescent, Bath. Photograph: John Heseltine/Corbis

Only two cities on the planet are World Heritage sites. While it's true that parts of other cities have the cherished status, in just two cases does the designation apply to the whole place. One of them is Venice. The other is Bath.

The ancient spa town, a source not just of hot, healing waters but of undiluted architectural wonders, picked up the Unesco honour 22 years ago. Although Bath is famed for the magnificent Royal Crescent and its glorious adjoining Circus, the city's Georgian squares and crescents are all exquisitely proportioned and lined with handsomely crafted buildings, rising gently up a beautiful basin in the green Somerset landscape. The fact that so many people continue to live in the city centre is a credit to 18th-century speculators and architects, who transformed a quiet medieval town into one of the most fashionable and best-looking cities of its age.

Now, though, Bath risks being stripped of its status, a fate that has so far only befallen the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in Oman, which was scrubbed off the list two years ago for dramatically reducing the size of its protected area. So what has made Bath a concern for Unesco? Why did its inspectors visit the city last autumn?

When you step out of the railway station, designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, pretty much the first thing you see is a vulgar new shopping mall, dolled up in a style you might call Las Vegas Georgian for its soulless imitation. This is SouthGate, designed by Chapman Taylor, an architecture firm specialising in city-centre malls. SouthGate's new shops, which will give Bath a glut of the kind of chain stores and cafes you can find in any British city, are basically bulky concrete boxes pasted over with little more than a veneer of Bath stone. While these faux-Georgian frocks might look convincing in computer drawings, in reality the effect is crude and deeply disappointing. Georgian architecture, even when rushed up, was always beautifully proportioned and lovingly detailed by craftsmen.

How SouthGate's clunking buildings got planning permission would be a good question if we didn't already know the answer - it looked, in pre-recession days, like a strong commercial proposition, and would be faced with local, honey-coloured limestone, however mean the cut. But SouthGate's biggest crime, perhaps, is that it gets wrong what the rest of Bath gets so beautifully right: proportion. It's just too big. It can't fit in.

In 1942, German air raids on Bath killed 400 people, destroyed 900 Georgian buildings, and damaged a further 12,500. Yet thoughtless postwar development harmed the fabric of the city far more. Swaths of what survived of Georgian Bath were destroyed by local authorities, big business and architects, until Unesco finally stepped in to protect it in 1987.

Were its inspectors, who had been alerted to the poor quality of the latest building projects, as shocked as I was by Bath in the present day? We'll know in June, when their report is presented to the World Heritage committee. But as I strolled around the city, which earns much of its living off the back of its heritage status, I couldn't help wondering if the council leaders really cared about losing it.

How else could you explain planning permission being granted for Western Riverside, a thumping great residential proposal the size of 19 football pitches that will boast 2,200 flats? At the heart of the scheme, set on the site of a derelict gasworks, is a grid of new streets lined with blocks of nine-storey flats, of a kind you might find anywhere from Berlin to Beijing. The regimented layout and the stiff, drab design of the buildings are in stark contrast to the lilting ebb and flow of the rest of the city. As a sweetener, the developers, Crest Nicholson, have offered Bath an "ecology park" - a public place with grass, trees, flowers, insects and birds. Not much different, in fact, from what we used to know as a "park".

Western Riverside's architects are Feilden Clegg and Bradley, part of the team responsible for the award-winning Accordia housing scheme in Cambridge. In Bath, though, the architects have been unable to come up with such a convincing modern scheme. Like SouthGate, which is expected to be completed next year, Western Riverside lacks a sense of both scale and place. Georgian Bath is an elegant jumble of shops, houses, pubs and public buildings. Western Riverside is just blocks of flats and shops.

From the outset, it faced opposition. The International Council on Monuments and Sites is a body that advises Unesco. Susan Denyer, ICOMOS's UK representative, wrote to Bath and North East Somerset Council last year, warning that approving the scheme could jeopardise Bath's status. "We urge the council to reject this application," she said.

But the council did the opposite. "There is no statutory protection for World Heritage sites in UK law," explains Caroline Kay, chief executive of Bath Preservation Trust, which contested the proposals. "Bath is at the mercy of developers driven by commercial interests."

The Trust, which can only advise the council, went along with the SouthGate proposals, hoping they would turn out more Georgian than Georgian theme park. It now regrets this decision, and has come out heavily against Western Riverside - unlike central government. Before Unesco met to discuss sending in inspectors, Peter Marsden, of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, wrote to the organisation, pointing out that the development was "outside the parts of the World Heritage site containing the Roman archaeology, Georgian town-planning and Georgian architecture"; nor would it intrude upon "any important views from the historic parts of the city".

But cities are organisms. It is wrong to see one bit as "historic" and another as "new" without understanding that the two are joined. The experience of Bath as a whole has been damaged. SouthGate is just a few minutes' walk from Bath Abbey, while Western Riverside's site on the city's fringes could be as beautiful, in its own contemporary way, as the Georgian sections.

Getting something new, worthwhile and special built in Bath is tricky. James Dyson, the inventor and vacuum cleaner magnate, recently wasted £3.5m in a long, drawn-out bid to get a college of design innovation built within the Victorian walls of an old craneworks on the banks of the Avon. Here, students would have learned how to create and engineer rather than merely shop. The plans, by Wilkinson Eyre, married a futuristic superstructure to the old factory, while retaining its Grade II-listed facade. Late last year, however, the project was abandoned after it failed to get government funding, the Environment Agency having voiced fears of flooding (this does make you wonder how Western Riverside, which is nearby, was ever approved).

Dyson vowed "to find another way to nurture young engineers - this time on our own terms". He is now funding a building for the Royal College of Art in London, where design and engineering will be taught. Bath's loss is the capital's gain.

Meanwhile, after much heated debate, Eric Parry's controversial, ceramic-clad extension to Bath's Holburne Museum has been given the go-ahead, and the reserved blessing of local conservationists keen to see something fresh in the city, especially now Dyson has gone. Not that Parry had things all his own way. The cladding of the building was to have been blue, a colour too far for conservationists. The agreed choice? You guessed it. A shade resembling Bath stone.

The most strikingly modern building in the city, the new Thermae Bath Spa complex, which opened three years late and went way over budget, is a fine creation only the churlish could fault. Its rooftop pool allows you to swim in glorious, naturally hot water. This really is special. I splashed there happily, looking out over spires and rooftops to the green belt beyond. Luckily, the steam obscured SouthGate, although that green belt is currently threatened by proposals for thousands of bland new homes, making a tough Unesco report all the more urgent.

The recession may yet kill off Western Riverside. But we will have to wait till June to see if Unesco has the sense, and courage, to condemn Bath for trying to destroy itself. The tragedy is that it could do so much better for its citizens - and all those tourists who come to marvel at a spa town that, for now anyway, is ranked alongside Venice.

^ All a bit of a storm in a teacup...for years people have been trying to cause a fuss about the developments in the City but we have to remember Bath was awarded heritage status with what preceded these new developments;
- In Southgate's case a concrete multistorey car park, concrete rusting bus station and a semi submerged 70s mall.
- With Western Riverside tens of acres of derelict industrial land including abandoned gasometers along the avon riverfront.

As such I believe it would take the building of skyscrapers to really cause any more damage to the city than what has existed...


Anyway another Flickr update....an overview from Beecham Cliff (a hillside across the river, south of the development)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3323/3509270559_6a886dde4b_o.jpg

I have to say it doesn't look too bad from a distance, to me the bus station is one of the worse buildings here. It just looks so crude and clunky.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/23702100@N00/ some new pictures of southgate on flickr, I think its looking ' ok' but some of the detailing, especially the access doors and the lighting look really out of place and tacky. The bus depot is a real dissapointment though, I find the random cladding in a strange blue and grey configuration just looks terrible, thankfully the screen saves it.

http://i28.************/sqjsjs.jpg

Dismay at Unesco glee over Dyson Academy
3 July, 2009

By Anna Winston

Unesco has come under fire for celebrating the scrapping of Wilkinson Eyre’s design for the Dyson Academy in Bath during the 33rd World Heritage Committee meeting in Seville

The meeting, which finished on Tuesday nodded through draft documents expressing “satisfaction that the Dyson Academy project has officially been withdrawn” in Bath as part of a largely positive assessment of the city.

Dyson refused to comment but Keith Bradley, director at Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios, whose own controversial Western Riversidedevelopment in Bath won conditional support from Unesco, condemned the comment, calling it “extraordinary” and “very harsh”.

Bradley said: “There’s no way that [that scheme] affected the world heritage setting. Maybe they’re expressing a view on design, which I don’t think is something they are supposed to do.

“It’s a very serious thing if heritage and design issues are being confused. There needs to be more analysis and objectivity. Unesco needs to stick to its remit.”

Bradley did welcome the organisation’s comments on Western Riverside which he said focused on “scale and impact and the longer term plans rather than getting into comments on design.”

Unesco has called for a revised plan for the second and third phases of the project to be submitted to the World Heritage Centre and the International Council on Monuments & Sites before the project is allowed to proceed further.

It also advised that further protection be given to the surrounding landscape of the city to “prevent any future developments which could have adverse and cumulative impact” on the setting of the city.

The Bath Preservation Trust, which has expressed concern over Western Riverside, welcomed the comments.

Trust chief executive Carole Kay said: “Unesco has rightly targeted the green setting as a part of Bath which is vulnerable to inappropriate development.”

The meeting also saw recommendations on all the UK heritage sites nodded through without further discussion, including the creation of a buffer zone to restrict the height of development in Edinburgh, as well as expressions of concern over the protection of the Tower of London and Stonehenge.

http://i28.************/sqjsjs.jpg

In my opinion this would have been an excellent piece of architecture had it been built! Quality architecture like this, dispite being overtly contemporary would not have damaged the setting of the world heritage site in my opinion.

I think it would have been out of scale with the rest of the city.

^ Its the attitude like this that is to blame for much of the dross being built all over the country.

Are you really saying that in order to have a succesful scheme it must be large? Bath is a historic city consisting of predominantly one style. The old shopping center was a failure because it was not scaled well, poorly laid out and not only designed but constructed with no refereance to the rest of the city. The dross being built around the country is due to economics, not well designed building built to fit in with their surroundings. Look at most post war architecture in the Uk and comare it to similar schemes in European city centers, they are more often the same scale of the buildings around them and therefore look much beter in continental europe. Large indistrial cities could get away with it more but small cities like bath would look quite overwhelmed by it.

No in order to have a succesful scheme it must be exciting brave & bold it mustnt be boring.
This was an exciting scheme that got thrown out the window just because stuffy heritage dinosaurs refuse to accept we are living in 21stC.Damage the setting my arse.It would have improved it.

Dont you see how many exciting designs get watered down (or worse killed off) just because they in some sad peoples minds will 'detract' from some cute but unremarkable Georgian house?We have awesome technology we are capable of building amazing stuff (Gherkin for example) but the stuffy dinosaurs (UNESCO EH Jenkins Charles etc) wont let us do that.So instead we are filling our cities with boring trash that people wont notice.British Museum Extention designed by Rogers will now not be built because.....thats righ its not in keeping with the rest of the area.So I suspect well get something very very boring.

Arguments like 'will destroy views' 'overshadow' 'not in keeping' are lame and shouldnt be used in the debate about modern architecture - they should be ignored.Cities should be able to evolve freely and without interferences from the change-averse people but at the same time we should not be wrecking-ball-happy.I think the past and the present can co-exist peacefully.Im a big fan of conversions extensions and anything that gives a new lease of life to old buildings.
As long as old building is standing Im happy even if theres a skyscraper on top of it (ie BNU Tower in Macau or this sadly killed off scheme).

I think it would have been out of scale with the rest of the city.

Hows it out of scale? Its only a couple of extra floors built on top of an older building so it was hardly going to overwhelm Bath . An excellent piece of old & new that would have given the UK a world class engineering facility. Just because its not a couple of storeys smaller and not clad in Bath Stone it gets kicked into touch. Ridiculous.

I'm with El Greco on this one.

The render to me say's something like the bbc building in manchester by Peel, which is pretty awful, i'm glad it's not being built, they need to get an architect that really understands bath, that doesn't mean pastiche but something truly worthy of such a lovely city.

Exactly delores, we arnt talking about any old city here, we are talking about Bath. Its a very unique city with a unique character that was spoilt by the old shopping center and shemes like the one above would only add to this. My gripe with the building wasnt its modernity, its was its scale. I have lived in Bath and can well see how this was out of scale with the rest fo the city/town, if you cant see that a few extra floors COULD really overwhelm the area of the city its in then you cant see that further developments to the same scale as it would ruin the very fabric of what makes Bath so unique and pleasing to the eye.
It could be just as inovative and modern but on the same scale as the rest of the city, failure to see this prooves that you arnt looking at the bigger picture. size isnt everything, modern architecture has to take into acount its surroundings, if it doesnt then we are repeating the same mistakes of the post war era! Buildings like the gurkin are succesful because they are not isolate in scale (ie nat west tower), are you really saying that Bath should try to emulate the capital because we both know that if cities like Manchester and Leeds find it hard to build large skyscrapers then Bath has no chance except destroying its fabric with monolithic buildings out of scale with everything around them.

You can hardly equate skyscrapers in London with a building that is 4 storeys tall.
How can this building be out of scale when the extra 2 floors raise it to the same height of the building next door.

http://i32.************/35mfm6g.jpg

Arent these out of scale?You can just about make out the site of the scheme in the extreme right side.The surrounding buildings are twice the height of the sadly killed off scheme!Out of scale my arse!

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3678/bath1ke9.jpg

Or how about this?

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2991/bath9iy6.jpg

Seriously how do you conservationists propose city moves forward?What do you want it to become?A pretty disney land town stuck in time?Sorry but thats just retarded.
Never in the long history of cities and architecture have arguments like 'out of scale' 'ruin views' been used.Indeed the Flavian Amphitheatre when completed dwarfed everything around it ditto The Houses of Parliament and these are the some of the most famous buildings in The World.
Preserving views is completely new phenomenon which only shows our lack of confidence and imagination.This at the time when humans have awesome technology and are capable of pretty much anything.Time to embrace the future or at least the present?

You arnt talking about a large building built to the same style as Georgian bath, or gothic London as was another of your examples. You are talking about a completely jarring and unsympathetic design. Im not equating skyscrapers in london with an extra two floors, im equating out of scale buildings ruining Baths fabric as a predominantly lowrise city of georgian architecture and similar out of scale developments ruining other cities centers.
You arent arguing for just this scheme to go ahead, you are arguing for wholesale development to take place that is out of character with the rest of the city. A what point do you say 'actually no, any more evelopment will destroy what makes Bath unique'.
Bath will never be a disney town stuck in a time, the people who live there are just too wealthy to not keep up to date with the rest of the world, but then Bath is a city representative of a particular era, do you want to destroy that for future generations? Create a new Coventry? As for preserving views, would you like to hide St pauls behind a tower block so it could not be seen from the river? Anyway how is views relevant to this, i have not mentioned them as i dont believe any views would be spoilt by this 1 development, just buildings of its scale around the city center as you are advocating would spoil views of Bath. Just because you can doesnt mean you should, we have the technology to built the Burj Dubai in bath, does it mean we should? We have had the technology to build the Eiffel tower in blackpool, does it mean they did, no because there are other factors affecting development which is really stupid of you not to have seen!

You are talking about a completely jarring and unsympathetic design.

Why is it unsympathetic?Because its not clad in stone?

What do you think about The Wales Millennium Centre and The Senedd?Arent they a bit out of scale with the rest of the city?Dont they overshadow The Pierhead?

Im not equating skyscrapers in london with an extra two floors, im equating out of scale buildings ruining Baths fabric as a predominantly lowrise city of georgian architecture and similar out of scale developments ruining other cities centers.

But this proposal isnt out of scale I mean the nearby buildings are two times taller!

You arent arguing for just this scheme to go ahead, you are arguing for wholesale development to take place that is out of character with the rest of the city.

Out of character.....as I said before - its the attitude like this that is to blame for much of the dross being built all over the country.If you cant build bold exciting modern architecture for fear it will 'ruin' character of a city what can you build?Thats right a boring trash and thats exactly what is happening in the UK!

May I remind you Rogers' exciting British Museum extension was rejected precisely because its 'not in keeping' with the rest of the area.

What would you rather have?A cheap pastiche/boring trash or exciting bold modern building?

A what point do you say 'actually no, any more evelopment will destroy what makes Bath unique'.

You know what does more damage to our cities' uniqueness?The poor public spaces clutter and traffic.Not modern architecture.

do you want to destroy that for future generations?

Where did I say anything about wanting to destroy Bath?Why not spruce up existing buildings but at the same time add some sexy new modern ones?Loads of cities are doing this - Warsaw restored its Old Town but at the same time they are building massive malls and skyscrapers.Same in Singapore - the colonial quarter is protected (i think) but just behind it they have sexy skyscrapers.

As for preserving views, would you like to hide St pauls behind a tower block

A tower block.Sounds like something you read on Evening Standard but to answer your question I dont see why views of St Pauls should be protected.So yes I wouldnt have problems with skyscraper appearing infront or right behind the cathedral.

Anyway how is views relevant to this

Views character scale its all the same.

Just because you can doesnt mean you should, we have the technology to built the Burj Dubai in bath, does it mean we should?

Thats a bit extreme.Why not go for a sexy modern low rise building by Libeskind or Gehry instead?

other factors affecting development which is really stupid of you not to have seen

Like change averse-people you mean?

Why is it unsympathetic?Because its not clad in stone?

No, because its trying to attention seeking in a city where it is not needed

What do you think about The Wales Millennium Centre and The Senedd?Arent they a bit out of scale with the rest of the city?Dont they overshadow The Pierhead?

Totaly different city and situation, there was no streetscape in this area and it is all a modern creation, Cardiff is a big enough city to get away with such large buildings and this area of the city has no predominant style unlike Bath which is small and of one style and built of one type of material. A silly comparison, show me a modern develoment in cities like York, Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, Salisbury etc that are modern and of larege scale than the buldings around them!


But this proposal isnt out of scale I mean the nearby buildings are two times taller!

The nearby buildings are warehouses and are out of scale with the rest of the city, lying on the perifery of the center, but depite this they are built of Bath stone and are of a style that is neither showy or demanding attention.

Out of character.....as I said before - its the attitude like this that is to blame for much of the dross being built all over the country.If you cant build bold exciting modern architecture for fear it will 'ruin' character of a city what can you build?Thats right a boring trash and thats exactly what is happening in the UK!

You dont get it, its not attitudes that affect development, its economics! London could get away with modern extensions due to the urban fabric and size of the city, and i believe in that case it should be a modern creation but again it should be in scale with the rest of the building instead of trying to overshadow it. Look at the existing urban form and design towards that, rather than an architects whim.

May I remind you Rogers' exciting British Museum extension was rejected precisely because its 'not in keeping' with the rest of the area.

I have seen the design and cant really remember it, so cant comment on this case but its unrelated to Bath

What would you rather have?A cheap pastiche/boring trash or exciting bold modern building?

I'd rather a building that was neither modern or old, just well designed and relating to the urban environment around it. Dont forget that Neo Gothic was pastiche in its day!

You know what does more damage to our cities' uniqueness?The poor public spaces clutter and traffic.Not modern architecture.

Bath has good public places and little clutter, its not perfect but its far from being spoiled by those. What would you call modern architecture 00's, 90's 80's etc? What makes you think that modern is better in all cases?

Where did I say anything about wanting to destroy Bath?Why not spruce up existing buildings but at the same time add some sexy new modern ones?Loads of cities are doing this - Warsaw restored its Old Town but at the same time they are building massive malls and skyscrapers.Same in Singapore - the colonial quarter is protected (i think) but just behind it they have sexy skyscrapers.

Warsaw didnt restore its old town, it rebuilt it, to you the whole area should be pastiche! Have you been to Warsaw, in areas it is quite inhuman and the streetscape is not that good. I have been to singapore, again its a large city that has had many styles of architecture and has a very pleasing streetscape because the is gradual transition between these styles. Bath is of one style only..... Keep on the subject Bath is not the same size or style as Singapore, London or Warsaw!

A tower block.Sounds like something you read on Evening Standard but to answer your question I dont see why views of St Pauls should be protected.So yes I wouldnt have problems with skyscraper appearing infront or right behind the cathedral.

So you would be happy in hiding views of Parliament, not being able to gain views of Canary wharf from the royal observatory because of... lets say a big wall?

Views character scale its all the same.

No it isnt, development must be good on all these points to be a truely worthwhile piecve of architecture.

Thats a bit extreme.Why not go for a sexy modern low rise building by Libeskind or Gehry instead?

Why not, as long as its realated to the urban fabric of Bath or other cities

Like change averse-people you mean?

No like economics, THE URBAN FABRIC OF A CITY.

No, because its trying to attention seeking in a city where it is not needed

No its not.Its just a simple extension and besides its seperated from the city centre by the river and busy road.

Totaly different city and situation

Not really.In all British cities the predominant style is Victorian so going by your logic there shouldnt be The Senedds Gherkins or any other celebrated modern buildings.

The nearby buildings are warehouses and are out of scale with the rest of the city, lying on the perifery of the center, but depite this they are built of Bath stone and are of a style that is neither showy or demanding attention.

Er the two other warehouses are of red brick!And the building in question is.....derelict.

You dont get it, its not attitudes that affect development, its economics! London could get away with modern extensions due to the urban fabric and size of the city, and i believe in that case it should be a modern creation but again it should be in scale with the rest of the building instead of trying to overshadow it. Look at the existing urban form and design towards that, rather than an architects whim.

Yes its attitudes and you just prove this - just because proposed building isnt clad in stone it shouldnt be built because according to you it would ruin the character of the place.In your opinion something safe and boring should be built instead.
Dross.In.Other.Words.

Just look at the protected sightlines we have in London.They will only lead to more crap.Nobody is even talking about economics.
So its attitudes after all that are to blame for the boring trash.

I'd rather a building that was neither modern or old, just well designed and relating to the urban environment around it.Dont forget that Neo Gothic was pastiche in its day!

In other words something safe and boring.

Bath has good public places and little clutter, its not perfect but its far from being spoiled by those. What would you call modern architecture 00's, 90's 80's etc? What makes you think that modern is better in all cases?

I didnt see it like that.I experienced it as a city with beautiful buildings but poor public spaces and horrific traffic.

So you would be happy in hiding views of Parliament, not being able to gain views of Canary wharf from the royal observatory because of... lets say a big wall?

No it isnt, development must be good on all these points to be a truely worthwhile piecve of architecture.

Why not, as long as its realated to the urban fabric of Bath or other cities

Why nobody in the past worried about ruining views?Why all the famous iconic buildings are larger than life and dwarf everything around them?St Pauls Houses Of Parliament etc?
If people in the past had attitudes like yours then today there wouldnt be Bath or Cambridge!Seriously just think about it!

All cities are ever evolving and I dont see why this process should be stopped just to please some people living in the past.
If Bath was full of similar extentions restored Georgian terraces and sexy modern buildings it would still be beautiful.Modern and beautiful.Whats wrong with that?Yeah perhaps it would no longer be UNESCO World Heritage Site but who cares?People would still flock in their thousands just to see it just like they did all these centuries ago.

No its not.Its just a simple extension and besides its seperated from the city centre by the river and busy road..

Its a structure within Bath, what makes Bath special? Ask yourself that! Then ask yourself how this scheme fits in with what is nice about Bath.


Not really.In all British cities the predominant style is Victorian so going by your logic there shouldnt be The Senedds Gherkins or any other celebrated modern buildings..

Most British cities owe a large amount of thier development to the victorian period, but i would hardly say they looked victorian, just take Cardiff.... Georgian arcades, gothic castles, imperial civic center, victorian shopping streets, modern apartment blocks.... Bath has none of these styles its all Gerorgian. Modern would stick out more than it would in Cardiff or London.

Just look at the protected sightlines we have in London.They will only lead to more crap.Nobody is even talking about economics.
So its attitudes after all that are to blame for the boring trash..

Sightlines in London have preserved historic views, if crap has been built its not because of them, its because the architect could express a good design that wasnt large in scale, the senedd which i think is a good design would disapear if placed in the city of London. The wales millennium center would also disapear if placed there also. Again size isnt everything but good design is.

In other words something safe and boring..

No something well designed to fit the urban environment be it Bath, London or Cardiff.

Why nobody in the past worried about ruining views?Why all the famous iconic buildings are larger than life and dwarf everything around them?St Pauls Houses Of Parliament etc?
If people in the past had attitudes like yours then today there wouldnt be Bath or Cambridge!Seriously just think about it!.

They did care about views, the difference was they were creating the views we are protecting today! Why did they build the houses of parliamnet next to the river, why not further in land, surely it would have been an advantage (ie big stink!). The people of the past used to believe in slavery, should we not try to better ourselves part of which is our urban environment with good architecture that relates to the city around it? Oxford and Cambridge are examples of cities built in very similar styles and materials. If you can give me an example of a modern city built of the same materials and similar style then go ahead because there arnt any in the UK, they are either old like Bath because they have been preserved or are a mixture of styles.

All cities are ever evolving and I dont see why this process should be stopped just to please some people living in the past.
If Bath was full of similar extentions restored Georgian terraces and sexy modern buildings it would still be beautiful.Modern and beautiful.Whats wrong with that?Yeah perhaps it would no longer be UNESCO World Heritage Site but who cares?People would still flock in their thousands just to see it just like they did all these centuries ago.

Because if you fill the city with modern buildings that pay no attention to the scale of Bath then you loose why people go there to visit. Can you not really see that breaking up the georgian fabric of Bath would result in it being indistinguishable from any other Uk industrial city? We both know that modren development are not based on how wonderful the developer thinks it will look in the end, its how much money they can make from it!

Its a structure within Bath, what makes Bath special? Ask yourself that! Then ask yourself how this scheme fits in with what is nice about Bath.

Its outside the city centre and I believe conservation area too.As for what makes Bath special dont know to me it was the hills.

but i would hardly say they looked victorian, just take Cardiff.... Georgian arcades, gothic castles, imperial civic center, victorian shopping streets, modern apartment blocks.... Bath has none of these styles its all Gerorgian. Modern would stick out more than it would in Cardiff or London.

Oh please everywhere you look in your average British city you see Victorian buildings - suburban terraces civic buildings factories warehouses inner city apartments shopping arcades etc.The predominant style everywhere is Victorian.Even Cardiffs castle is Victorian.

Modern wouldnt stick out in Bath if done well and this proposal is done well.It even would have given a new lease of life to a derelict building.Indeed you conservationists are a strange breed.You say you want to protect old buildings but its just a lie isnt it?You are just change-averse otherwise youd give thumbs up to schemes like this but no you dont you are perfectly happy to see an old building rotting away.

Hey thats exactly whats happening with Battersea Power Station - EH keep rejecting the proposals - oh no not in keeping overshadowing blahblah.

Sightlines in London have preserved historic views

Er.....can you show me those historic views?All I see when I walk along the Thames is the sea of flat roofs - the result of sightlines.

if crap has been built its not because of them

Yes it is.

but good design is.

Indeed this proposal is good design.

They did care about views, the difference was they were creating the views we are protecting today!

Take a look at Victorian photographs of St Pauls - it was hidden behind tall riverside warehouses.Or how about Tower Bridge?A bit showy and demanding attention no?

Why did they build the houses of parliamnet next to the river

Perhaps because the old Parliament was next to the river no?

The people of the past used to believe in slavery

Thats generalisation.Ever heard of John Wesley?

Oxford and Cambridge are examples of cities built in very similar styles and materials.

Cambridge before university was a thriving fishing village it was destroyed.Atsmosphere character all gone.

If you can give me an example of a modern city built of the same materials and similar style then go ahead because there arnt any in the UK

Poundbury?People hate it though.

Because if you fill the city with modern buildings that pay no attention to the scale of Bath then you loose why people go there to visit.Can you not really see that breaking up the georgian fabric of Bath would result in it being indistinguishable from any other Uk industrial city? We both know that modren development are not based on how wonderful the developer thinks it will look in the end, its how much money they can make from it!

How would it be indistinguishable from any other UK industrial city?First Bath is not industrial city second The Circus The Royal Crescent and The Georgian terraces would still be there.It would be the same city just with more funky conversions and sexy modern buildings.Infact Im sure it would become even more popular.Seriously just look at the amount of tourists near Lloyds or Gherkin.People love bold architecture.

http://i28.************/sqjsjs.jpg


Looks great, and think it would quite match Bath's surroundings. QUITE LOVELY.

Its outside the city centre and I believe conservation area too.As for what makes Bath special dont know to me it was the hills.

Bath isnt about the city center alone, Bath its about georgian terraces and uniformity of design and materials.

Oh please everywhere you look in your average British city you see Victorian buildings - suburban terraces civic buildings factories warehouses inner city apartments shopping arcades etc.The predominant style everywhere is Victorian.Even Cardiffs castle is Victorian.

Victorian buildings doesnt mean victorian style, the victorians used all sorts of styles from greek classicism to gothic fantasy. Cardiffs castle is not victorian, its roman, norman.... hell its every period of history just look at its website i cant be bothered to explain it all.

Modern wouldnt stick out in Bath if done well and this proposal is done well.It even would have given a new lease of life to a derelict building.Indeed you conservationists are a strange breed.You say you want to protect old buildings but its just a lie isnt it?You are just change-averse otherwise youd give thumbs up to schemes like this but no you dont you are perfectly happy to see an old building rotting away.

1 modern building wouldnt stick out too much, but you are advocating building modern buildings wherever there is an opertunity. Dont lump me in with conservationists, i believe in development but in the right places and Bath is not the kind of place where modern development would sit comfortably. If i was change averse i wouldnt want schemes like the glass needle and Bay pointe go ahead in Cardiff, bay pointe prooving my point in that 3 different schemes have been proposed, the most recent (and least ambitious) is the one i hate! But then bay pointe is on scrap land, next to a modern development on a prominant site, it wouldnt destroy the urban form of anything around it just increase the urban form. Would you be happy with a massive ground scraper canary wharf taking up alot of space? No i dont think you would because we both know that canary wharf is special because it has skyscrapers and therefore new buildings should echo this.

Hey thats exactly whats happening with Battersea Power Station - EH keep rejecting the proposals - oh no not in keeping overshadowing blahblah.

Battersea power station is a completely different subject, the most recent plan for it look rediculous to me.

Er.....can you show me those historic views?All I see when I walk along the Thames is the sea of flat roofs - the result of sightlines.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/3721041735_fb5cacde08_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2483/3648706706_a151fbcfc4_o.jpg

just a quick look for some there

Indeed this proposal is good design.

Its ok, not great.

Take a look at Victorian photographs of St Pauls - it was hidden behind tall riverside warehouses.Or how about Tower Bridge?A bit showy and demanding attention no?

I have taken a look its not hidden behind them, in fact its more hidden now! What tower bridge got to do with anything? It was emulating the style of the building next to it (tower of london) and has become an icon because of that..... it works against your argument.....???????

Perhaps because the old Parliament was next to the river no?

I think it would have been easier to build it elsewhere, there wasnt much left of the old parliamnet!

Cambridge before university was a thriving fishing village it was destroyed.Atsmosphere character all gone.

So are you saying that we should destroy bath to build modern architecture? like was done in Cambridge? Afterall cities are in your words evolving and simply museums!

Poundbury?People hate it though.

Poundbury isnt an example of a town/city designed modernly, its desgined in an old style.

How would it be indistinguishable from any other UK industrial city?First Bath is not industrial city second The Circus The Royal Crescent and The Georgian terraces would still be there.It would be the same city just with more funky conversions and sexy modern buildings.Infact Im sure it would become even more popular.Seriously just look at the amount of tourists near Lloyds or Gherkin.People love bold architecture.

people dont go to Bath to see a set piece, they go becasue the WHOLE city is the attraction. Walk any of the georgian terraces and tell me you think it would look much better with a large modern building sticking out. baths beauty is in its uniformity not its diversity. Its the same reason why Paris is described as the most beautiful city in the world, because its arguably the largest city with an area of uniformity of design and materials, the difference is that Paris is a large enough city, and has classical buildings of significant size to be able to get away with large maodern buildings in its center, Bath is tiny!

Bath isnt about the city center alone, Bath its about georgian terraces and uniformity of design and materials.



A little bit about the context of the site, which you seem to be entirely ignorant of.

This is on the south side of the River Avon outside of the historic centre of Bath. It's immediate context to the south is the busy Lower Bristol Road, with a petrol station opposite. As El Greco has pointed out, the buildings immediately besides it to the east are large 4-storey high, brick built industrial warehouses. Immediately oppsite the site to the north, on the opposite side of the river is a large carpark, a knackered multi-storey with a 'temporary' steel and concrete structure built in the 1960s and a coach park for visting hoards of French school children. No Georgian terraces, no Bath stone. I presume therefore that would have liked to see this building designed to fit in with surroundings, with the exception of all the buildings that immediately surround it? A brick and concrete 4-storey high lump reminiscent of a petrol station then?

Fortunately the architects are aware that designing in context in Bath is about more than slapping Bath stone on it. Not that I think this is the greatest design in the world, but going by those obviously early concept renders, I'd say this building would not have harmed the 'setting' of Bath one iota! Unlike in my view, the Southgate Centre, which chepens the genuine charms of Bath's historic core through theme-park style mimicry. If that was the genuine planning approach city wide, you'd lose Bath in place of a Disney style Georgian-Land (children welcome - includes free entry to Jane Austen World). Depressing!

Secondly, when Dyson approached the council about building an engineering school, this was the site that they suggested. The scheme was at a later date entirely redesigned to retain the unlisted facade on the Bristol Road to appease the heritage lobby, before the scheme was later being kicked out by the same council that chose the site, because the site was on a floodplain.

Have a read of this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2007/sep/16/architecture)

"Heritage fanatics stridently resist any bold contemporary initiative, but tolerate stultifying mediocrity".


This sentence from the article is spot on although rather depressing. For every Shard & Heron tower that gets opposed by the heritage nimbys several dire premier inn's & Holiday Inn express breeze through planning & deface city centres for years to come.

Bath isnt about the city center alone, Bath its about georgian terraces and uniformity of design and materials.

You dont know Bath at all.This site is surrounded by busy roads a river petrol station car park and out of scale warehouses.In the city itself (conservation area) you find tower blocks and other relics from the 60s.All clad in Bath Stone yes but they dont add anything of any worth to the city.Funky glass buildings would add excitement.

Victorian buildings doesnt mean victorian style, the victorians used all sorts of styles from greek classicism to gothic fantasy. Cardiffs castle is not victorian, its roman, norman.... hell its every period of history just look at its website i cant be bothered to explain it all.

The term Victorian architecture/style can refer to one of a number of architectural styles predominantly employed during the Victorian era.

Nothing remains of the Roman Castra and of Norman Keep only the shell remains.Cardiff Castle is Victorian.

1 modern building wouldnt stick out too much, but you are advocating building modern buildings wherever there is an opertunity.

Yes but Im advocating building not just any modern buildings but good ones - exciting bold sexy but of the same massing as Georgian buildings.I want to create a brave and beautiful modern city that embraces both its heritage and future.You on the other hand desperately want Bath to remain the same.

Dont lump me in with conservationists, i believe in development but in the right places

I believe EH said exactly the same thing.

Would you be happy with a massive ground scraper canary wharf taking up alot of space? No i dont think you would because we both know that canary wharf is special because it has skyscrapers and therefore new buildings should echo this.

Theres loads of groundscrapers in CW and I dont have any problems with them as long as they are well designed.Indeed I dont care much about skyscrapers my main interest is small buildings.

Battersea power station is a completely different subject, the most recent plan for it look rediculous to me.

You say youre not conservationist but you sound like one.Youd rather leave it to rot than save it.So typical.....

just a quick look for some there

Yawn.Those are carefuly selected.

it works against your argument.....???????

Not really but it does work against your argument because in your mind new buildings should respect their surroundings and not be showy and attention seeking.Tower Bridge doesnt respect The Tower it competes with it and overshadows it.
Indeed Tower Bridge today wouldnt get planning permision.So do you see what sightlines and protecting views does?It prevents us from building icons for the future.

I think it would have been easier to build it elsewhere, there wasnt much left of the old parliamnet!

What kind of logic is that?!Why demolish half of Westminster when theres massive plot available next to The Thames?Moreover the plot that housed The Seat of Power since the ancient times!

So are you saying that we should destroy bath to build modern architecture? like was done in Cambridge? Afterall cities are in your words evolving and simply museums!

Ive never said we should destroy Bath.I said that it should be modern and confident city that protects its heritage but at the same time builds new sexy buildings.

Poundbury isnt an example of a town/city designed modernly, its desgined in an old style.

You said - Oxford and Cambridge are examples of cities built in very similar styles and materials. If you can give me an example of a modern city built of the same materials and similar style then go ahead because there arnt any in the UK.

Poundbury is built in the same style and materials.

people dont go to Bath to see a set piece, they go becasue the WHOLE city is the attraction. Walk any of the georgian terraces and tell me you think it would look much better with a large modern building sticking out. baths beauty is in its uniformity not its diversity.

Yes I think it would look better with sexy modern buildings designed by world class architects (Libeskind Gehry etc).Ive never said large.

Its the same reason why Paris is described as the most beautiful city in the world, because its arguably the largest city with an area of uniformity of design and materials, the difference is that Paris is a large enough city, and has classical buildings of significant size to be able to get away with large maodern buildings in its center, Bath is tiny!

Paris is not uniform.Its very diverse.Paris doesnt fear bold new architecture - take The Louvre for example it has massive glass pyramid in in the Cour Napoleon!Just imagine the furor if somebody proposed to build something like this in the courtyard of Somerset House!

"Heritage fanatics stridently resist any bold contemporary initiative, but tolerate stultifying mediocrity".


This sentence from the article is spot on although rather depressing. For every Shard & Heron tower that gets opposed by the heritage nimbys several dire premier inn's & Holiday Inn express breeze through planning & deface city centres for years to come.

Depressing is right. Now, this is no Shard we're talking about here, but the arguments being used are just pathetic. Why are such vast amounts of dross tolerated (petrol stations, car showrooms, Carphone warehouses, Holiday Inns, road signs, piss poor street furniture and street lights, advertising hoardings etc etc etc), but as soon as you stick your design head above the parapet you get shot down for not being 'in keeping'. It's the worst kind of selective blindness. Can you imagine any other field of human endeavour where the only criteria for creating something new is that it should be like what came before?

This building by Wilkinson Eyre is NOT a masterpiece. It would of been clad in Blue green glass with the standard random pattern they like to employ on their substandard designs, very Bath. I don't know why even people are defending it as a good modern building. Just look at their recent effort in the bus station, It's shit.

WOW! My initial comment prompted quite a debate!
I've read that Guardian article and I agree with it 100%, it really is depressing to see excellent modern architecture being turned down like that. Grimshaw's excellent development proves that something clearly modern doesn't have to damage the character of the city, in fact it can be a real asset. I just think it's a shame that new buildings of this quality are such an exception in Bath.
http://www.investwest.org/images/BathSpa.jpg

But for those who argue against such developments, lets look at an example of an alternative development that was designed to 'fit in' - the awful 'Podium Shopping Centre':
http://www.prospectvilla.co.uk/assets/images/42_01_9---The-Podium-Shopping-Centre_web_1_.jpg

I personally think this is horrible and neither fits in with the old architecture nor stands out as modern - it's simply pastiche dross.

On the other hand, I'm not 100% in agreement with El_Greco either. I do believe that in certain places views do matter, and on some occasions new buildings should seek to replicate what's already there rather than stand out as modern. If you look back through this thread you'll find that I have praised the Southgate development in Bath. No doubt El_Greco would argue for a modern design for that site. While I would not have discounted the possibility of a modern building here, I personally think it was the right decision to go with something that 'fits in' here. But before you go accusing me of being inconsistent and contradicting myself (especially after having labelled the Podium as awful), let me qualify my point of view. I am not arguing for pastiche post modernist dross; when I say a building should be designed to 'fit in', in this case I mean it should be of exceptional quality and should (except for the fact that the stone is clean and new) be indistinguishable from the historic buildings surrounding it. In this respect, my earlier praise for the new Southgate development is very much conditional. I haven't seen the development in the flesh yet so I'll reserve final judgement. In my opinion, if in 10-20 years once the stone has weathered and faded a bit, the average person can walk into the Southgate Centre without being aware of the fact that you're no longer surrounded by old buildings, then the development will have been a success. If it's still obvious by then then it will have been a failure.

As for the Dyson academy, it's not right in the historic core of the city, it's surrounded by dross, and the proposed development was to be of a smaller scale than the warehouses around it. In this case, the Dyson academy would have been a positive addition to the city and would not have damaged the setting of the world heritage site one iota!

Southgate is awful.

Southgate is awful.

I thought you'd say that. Maybe I was premature in praising it earlier in the thread, maybe I wasn't. I'll reserve further judgement until I see the finished product in person.

I thought you'd say that. Maybe I was premature in praising it earlier in the thread, maybe I wasn't. I'll reserve further judgement until I see the finished product in person.

But it is awful. The problem in the Uk,is that in places like bath,we try to replicate the past but are shite at it.I wouldn't mind if it was built to the standards of say,in dresden where they rebuilt the historic city centre after bombing.

But really,in 20 years time,Southgate is going to look shite,probaby just like the Podium shopping centre.

I'm sorry but i 100% agree with El_Greco on this one.Look at the other historic European cities in Germany and Spain for example.I mean,there building a 178 m skyscraper in seville!

Its not about style.Its about quality.Thats the problem with the UK.We see a modern style building and think it will ruin the area or "destroy the historic aesthetic of the city" or some other bullshit.No,a bad quality building might,but high quality buildings modern or old always relate to there surrondings or add to an area.Sadly there are so many bad quality developments going up or built in the UK.Maybe thats why the people of britain seem to hate modern architecture so much?

As for the Dyson academy, it's not right in the historic core of the city, it's surrounded by dross, and the proposed development was to be of a smaller scale than the warehouses around it. In this case, the Dyson academy would have been a positive addition to the city and would not have damaged the setting of the world heritage site one iota!

Agree with your whole post, but this bit is particularly true. The site is the ugliest part of the city center (some industrial bits further west are uglier, and some outskirting residential areas are pretty grim too)

I've been working on a London project that replicates neighbouring buildings incredibly faithfully. Hand-carved stone details (though all set in pre-cast panels for speedy erection). The intent is to be completely authentic in appearence and we're going to achieve it, no worries. Costs a fortune though.

Quote:
You dont know Bath at all.This site is surrounded by busy roads a river petrol station car park and out of scale warehouses.In the city itself (conservation area) you find tower blocks and other relics from the 60s.All clad in Bath Stone yes but they dont add anything of any worth to the city.Funky glass buildings would add excitement.

I know Bath well enough to know it doesnt consist of the main shoping street, baths and abbey! This is where you are getting bath fundamentally wrong, its not about its parts its its whole, destroy part of that and destroy its whole.

Quote:
The term Victorian architecture/style can refer to one of a number of architectural styles predominantly employed during the Victorian era.

Name them! Im sure they are named after other styles, classical, gothic etc. all from different eras. Either way most british cities are not exclusively from this erea and Bath in question is a Georgian city!

Nothing remains of the Roman Castra and of Norman Keep only the shell remains.Cardiff Castle is Victorian.

The remains of the Roman fortress are vissable for the entire length of the walls, seperated from the victorian walls (which only constitues half the castle walls) by a red stone. The main gate is 13th century, the apartments are built into the origional towers that guarded a city gate (thats still there!) so Cardiff castle is not victorian at all. And the Norman keep being a shell is more than most castles from this period and you can still go to the top!

Quote:
Yes but Im advocating building not just any modern buildings but good ones - exciting bold sexy but of the same massing as Georgian buildings.I want to create a brave and beautiful modern city that embraces both its heritage and future.You on the other hand desperately want Bath to remain the same.

No i want what you have said, the difference is that this building was neither sexy or of the same massing as Georgian buildings.

Quote:
I believe EH said exactly the same thing.

What are you arguing about then, you seem to want to portray me as some kind of conservationist, when all my concern is the preservation of Baths UNIQUE architectural heritage.


Quote:
You say youre not conservationist but you sound like one.Youd rather leave it to rot than save it.So typical.....

Not typical at all, id rather see it in use, other plans i saw looked good, shame none of them were pulled off.

Quote:
Yawn.Those are carefuly selected.

Not really, they were from the first two threads about London in the international forums. Maybe you just dont kow beauty when you see it!

Quote:
Not really but it does work against your argument because in your mind new buildings should respect their surroundings and not be showy and attention seeking.Tower Bridge doesnt respect The Tower it competes with it and overshadows it.
Indeed Tower Bridge today wouldnt get planning permision.So do you see what sightlines and protecting views does?It prevents us from building icons for the future.

It doesnt really work against my argument as London is not built of one architectural style and tower bridge has just extended architectural aspects of the tower, I think tower bridge would find it easier to go through planning than a modern version of it (as was origionally planned for it. London isnt Bath, Bath is completely Georgian in style!

Quote:
Moreover the plot that housed The Seat of Power since the ancient times!

The seat of power was where the king/queen was

Quote:
Ive never said we should destroy Bath.I said that it should be modern and confident city that protects its heritage but at the same time builds new sexy buildings.

Bath is a modern and confident city, it doesnt need faddy buildings just to satisfy your ambitions.

Quote:
Poundbury is built in the same style and materials.

Yes, but it isnt build of modern desgin is it

Quote:
Yes I think it would look better with sexy modern buildings designed by world class architects (Libeskind Gehry etc).Ive never said large.

You just cant see how breaking up the georgian streetscape would destroy Baths uniquness.

Quote:
Paris is not uniform.Its very diverse.Paris doesnt fear bold new architecture - take The Louvre for example it has massive glass pyramid in in the Cour Napoleon!Just imagine the furor if somebody proposed to build something like this in the courtyard of Somerset House!

paris city center is very uniform! The lovre has a tiny pyramid thats hardly sexy, bold or particulalry large in comparison to the palace around it. Paris does have some modern buildings but like is said, its large enough and has the massing to get away with the odd one, bath isnt!

Capslock, Delores, El Greco and Andrew have said it best but just adding my two pence to this game of double dutch.

I don't really see the big deal. There's plenty of architectual crud in the city but it's not affected it's character or urban fabric one bit.

Although I'm not saying it's a masterpiece (it's very 'safe')
The dyson academy's hardly out of scale, is making good use of a derelict building, and I don't see how it would really be cause for aesthetic concern as there's way more dross on the other side of the river where tourists would actually roam (hell apart from by Pulteney bridge most of Bath's riverscape leaves something to be desired) and being only a couple of stories tall would be unoticeable (from what the renders have shown at least). So I find some of EH and UNESCO's remarks a tad bizzare (maybe this is payback from when James Dyson made 800 people redunant :|).

Bath has none of these styles its all Georgian...

The city as a whole isn't that Georgian (about a third) Even in the city centre there's quite a noticeable number that aren't. And as you mentioned it I have to point out that Cardiff doesn't have any Georgian arcades.

Well its safe to say that Cardiff lost the argument. :)

You can say what you want El_Greco. I wonder how many of you have lived in Bath? I have and i know they types of people who visit it, they arnt looking for bold modern architecture they are looking for Georgian bath and the romanesque baths. I guess i have won because this average building isnt getting built, but then we havent won because nothing great is actually getting built. Most of the dross thats been built in bath is disguised by the Bath stone, it doesnt stick out as much as a concrete tower block in another city. its protection like this that has kept baths charm over the centuries. If you want to compare cities like Seville (population 1,450,000) and bath (population 83,000) then go ahead but its quite a stupid thing to do! Naturally development is seen as a good thing on this website but i will leave it here and just say development needs to be right for the location, modern architecture doesnt need to be bold to be good and that architectural dross is a result most often because of economics (just look at your average chain hotel). There is too much of a tendancy to build fady buildings (which is luckilly going out of fashion now) that pay no homage to where they are. As for the podium it doesnt look like it was meant to fit in, it looks like it was post modern. And as for georgian Cardif arcades, the oldest one is only a few years out being from this period but as unimportant (and uncorrect) as that statement was, i think you still cant argue that british cities are not all one style, just predominantly built from one period. bath is predominantly Georgian, what other style would you say it was without being pedantic? You aplaud places like Dresden and Warsaw for rebuilding the past but deride a british city for do something similar, sound hypoicritical to me!

You aplaud places like Dresden and Warsaw for rebuilding the past but deride a british city for do something similar, sound hypoicritical to me!

Yeah they rebuilt their historic centres and I applaud them for that.Britain never did that.Its more interested in erecting pastiche crap rather than rebuilding lost buildings or exciting new ones.

Warsaw isnt stuck in the glory days of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - its a modern forward looking city that isnt afraid of new architecture - Golden Terraces TVP Building etc.Same goes for Dresden - its not stuck in the pre-war era - it continues its tradition of being an important site for the development of contemporary architecture.Dresden has one of the largest Deconstructivism buildings in Germany ffs - UFA-Palast.Then theres The New Synagogue Transparent Factory etc.

Its only in Britain that a simple extension can cause such controversy.Ridiculous.

Now that we have been saved from this out of scale modern monstrosity and can look in wonder and awe at a run- down warehouse, carpark and delightful petrol station from a periphery road outside the city centre safe in the knowledge that Bath will forever remain in this glorious state thanks to people like Cardiff.

Simply wonderful.

You can say what you want El_Greco. I wonder how many of you have lived in Bath? I have and i know they types of people who visit it, they arnt looking for bold modern architecture they are looking for Georgian bath and the romanesque baths. I guess i have won because this average building isnt getting built, but then we havent won because nothing great is actually getting built. Most of the dross thats been built in bath is disguised by the Bath stone, it doesnt stick out as much as a concrete tower block in another city. its protection like this that has kept baths charm over the centuries. If you want to compare cities like Seville (population 1,450,000) and bath (population 83,000) then go ahead but its quite a stupid thing to do! Naturally development is seen as a good thing on this website but i will leave it here and just say development needs to be right for the location, modern architecture doesnt need to be bold to be good and that architectural dross is a result most often because of economics (just look at your average chain hotel). There is too much of a tendancy to build fady buildings (which is luckilly going out of fashion now) that pay no homage to where they are. As for the podium it doesnt look like it was meant to fit in, it looks like it was post modern. And as for georgian Cardif arcades, the oldest one is only a few years out being from this period but as unimportant (and uncorrect) as that statement was, i think you still cant argue that british cities are not all one style, just predominantly built from one period. bath is predominantly Georgian, what other style would you say it was without being pedantic? You aplaud places like Dresden and Warsaw for rebuilding the past but deride a british city for do something similar, sound hypoicritical to me!

Personally I lived in Bath for 6 years, which is how I know the context of where this building would have sat.

I'm not saying the Dyson building is a masterpiece at all, I'm arguing against the completely absurd assertion that construction of this would have in any way harmed the beautiful Georgian city of Bath. You can't see any of the Georgian centre from the site and conversely, from no part of the Georgian centre of the city can you see the site. To claim otherwise is just wrong!

As a general point, you claim that most of the 'dross' in the city centre is at least disguised by Bath stone... and monumentally miss the point. The sad fact is that planners, and the poor state of architectural debate and understanding in Bath as a whole, have repeatedly alowed dross to be built because it's 'at least' wrapped in Bath stone! It sometimes seems that it's the only facet of design that matters in Bath. My own, perhaps naive, point of view is that there's is more to good design than the type of stone. Someone posted the godawful Podium shopping centre already as a way of making that point. I happen to think the new 'Georgian land' theme park of Southgate devalues the original Georgian core. I also happen to think that you could build exciting, contemporary buildings in Bath, but still be contextual and innovative, and not in any way destroy what makes Bath special.

Mix of styles make for more exciting street experience.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/3077185823_5f67703c62_b.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/35499598_22190b1094_b.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/KunsthausGraz.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/008.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/19.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/3.jpg

http://architourist.pbworks.com/f/1132598995/coop-rooftop1.jpg

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/8007/hundertwasserhausfrontal2iz.jpg

http://www.netropolitan.org/gehry/bilbao_town.gif

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF2001/Klein/Klein18.jpg

Mix of styles make for more exciting street experience.

I agree, and you paste some good examples there.

Not sure if anyones interested but these guys do some amazing stuff -

http://www.architecture-page.com/go/frame?exturl=http://www.coop-himmelblau.at

I agree good examples and far better than the building being proposed in Bath by a long shot.

I'm sorry guys, but most of the examples posted above are just glossy shapes by starchitects (imho)...they would be completely inappropriate for Bath and date very quickly. This isn't London, we're talking about a completely different scale and urban grain.

What you need is contemporary architecture which takes the sound proportions and solidity of the existing architecture, which is scaled and arranged to create streets, squares and spaces that are human and a delight to inhabit...not alien blobs which shout LOOK AT ME! I'm all for architecture of its time rather than a pastiche, but one which is sensitive, uses quality materials, and enhances its context.

Probably the only one I like out of the below is the black steel frame/glass block infill number because its at least got a clear concept and clean lines.

Rant over

Yeah they rebuilt their historic centres and I applaud them for that.Britain never did that.Its more interested in erecting pastiche crap rather than rebuilding lost buildings or exciting new ones.

Warsaw isnt stuck in the glory days of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - its a modern forward looking city that isnt afraid of new architecture - Golden Terraces TVP Building etc.Same goes for Dresden - its not stuck in the pre-war era - it continues its tradition of being an important site for the development of contemporary architecture.Dresden has one of the largest Deconstructivism buildings in Germany ffs - UFA-Palast.Then theres The New Synagogue Transparent Factory etc.

Its only in Britain that a simple extension can cause such controversy.Ridiculous.

I agree with your introduction. When Warsaw was flattened it rebuilt its buildings in almost the exact style, whereas we got Modern Coventry. If you are trying to argue that Britain is backwards I will agree with you. If you are trying to argue that Britain is backwards because it looks too much at its heritage I will heartily disagree with you, our problem is the polar opposite, we did not take care of our heritage at all. Modern buildings were both innovative and in keeping, our modern buildings weren't. Warsaw and Dresden rebuilt themselves, we concreted over our destroyed cities and anyone who wants some kind of uniformity in one of the very few cities that isn't blighted with ugly brutalism is somehow as anarchonistic as the flat earth society. There is an ugly mix of Stalinism and Fascism in your thinking. Until modernity can achieve 1) respect for its surrounds, 2) innovative architecture and 3) be aesthetically pleasing, we won't accept it in the same way it is accepted on the continent.

I agree, and you paste some good examples there.

Not really, it includes some fabulous buildings, but take for instance the Hundertwasserhaus one of my favourite post-war buildings anywhere, it is not exactly in the centre of Vienna (as I found out, it can be a bit of a walk but the beer served there is superb)but a little way out, as beautiful as it is. The centre of Vienna is little changed since the Austro-Hungarian Empire and is utterly beautiful.

The quality of Central European modern architecture is far in advance of the crappy generic and glass building we have here, but they do preserve the centres of their cities and are far more beautiful for it. Our shame is so quick are we in our Ceaucescuesque rush for modernity, that we soon become outdated, whilst only the very best is available architecturally on the continent.

Leave Bath as it is. It is a small city of 80,000 with the second highest property prices in England, World Heritage Status, a fine university and one of the biggest tourist draws in the country. Not bad for a city of its size. It is also the site where Lostboy proposed to his girlfriend and she accepted (Royal Victoria Parks), it does not need to take lessons from anyone in how to be sexy. It is doing fine.

If you are trying to argue that Britain is backwards because it looks too much at its heritage I will heartily disagree with you

No it doesnt look too much at its heritage as partial demolition of Regent Palace Hotel in Piccadilly shows (though I must say Im not a fan of the building).Its that stuffy old dinosaurs use heritage to stop buildings that are bold & exciting from getting built because in their little sad minds anything thats not clad in stone and doesnt have over the top detailing is trash.

Until modernity can achieve 1) respect for its surrounds, 2) innovative architecture and 3) be aesthetically pleasing, we won't accept it in the same way it is accepted on the continent.

Respect in what way?Pretend to be a Georgian Townhouse or Victorian Civic Building?Sorry I disagree.New buildings should be modern reflect our age and not pretend to be something they aint but at the same time architects where possible should make sure their buildings fit in with their surroundings - ie same massing as the nearby buildings.

As for your last two points - our modern architecture is trash (generalisation I agree but anyway) because of the people I have described earlier - people who use heritage to stop or compromise new brave architecture.Thanks to them what could be exciting ends up ugly and then they use this as evidence to further their case that all modern architecture is shit even though its shit because of them.I say to fuck with such people they and their ideas belong in history books.

Interesting documentary on Bath the other night

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mfhyh/Saving_Britains_Past_The_City/

Oh dear.... some more things done on the cheap at southgate, now their making mdf shop fronts http://www.bathheritagewatchdog.org/churchill.htm

Oh dear.... some more things done on the cheap at southgate, now their making mdf shop fronts http://www.bathheritagewatchdog.org/churchill.htm

Oh dear...

Some of what has been highlighted in that report is utterly shocking. I briefly walked past the development in August and from first glance it looked good. Shame....I should have spend longer analysing it. The MDF shop fronts are absolutely absurd.

It's a bit silly really, the daft and very cheap looking street lights the boring off the shelf street furniture, the mdf shop fronts. This is really the councils fault for allowing such amendments to the planning application to go ahead. If you do things on the cheap it will come back to you in the future and will make a mockery of this kind of 'inkeeping' kind of development. It's a pity because some of the cladding is quiet good and details interesting.

fosters new hospital in bath.http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3156263&channel=783&c=2

It's a bit silly really, the daft and very cheap looking street lights the boring off the shelf street furniture, the mdf shop fronts. This is really the councils fault for allowing such amendments to the planning application to go ahead. If you do things on the cheap it will come back to you in the future and will make a mockery of this kind of 'inkeeping' kind of development. It's a pity because some of the cladding is quiet good and details interesting.

Can you make a mockery of a mockery?

mockery (n) Of conterfeit appearance

Im all for faithful reconstruction of something that has been lost providing there is a clear date of construction embedded in the facade.

Pastiche just confuses people: people see it and often don't know if it's old or new, but they know its bad, which reflects badly on genuine heritage. Pastiche draws attention away from the authentically old buildings and leaves a lot of people confused as to whether they're looking at heritage or not.

Sadly not all modern alternatives are as good at Bath's new Spa. Authenticity is important, but modern buildings can look modern while being sensitive to their historic locations. The European examples above may be bold and unashamedly novel, but I think they respect their historic settings.

Im all for faithful reconstruction of something that has been lost providing there is a clear date of construction embedded in the facade.

Pastiche just confuses people: people see it and often don't know if it's old or new, but they know its bad, which reflects badly on genuine heritage. Pastiche draws attention away from the authentically old buildings and leaves a lot of people confused as to whether they're looking at heritage or not.

Sadly not all modern alternatives are as good at Bath's new Spa. Authenticity is important, but modern buildings can look modern while being sensitive to their historic locations. The European examples above may be bold and unashamedly novel, but I think they respect their historic settings.

I can only agree with all of this post.

Chapman Taylor and John Simpson pick up Georgian awards
8 November 2010 | By Elizabeth Hopkirk

Practice honoured for its replacement for Owen Luder’s Bath shopping centre

Chapman Taylor, John Simpson & Parters, Richard Griffiths and Feilden & Mawson were among the winners at this year’s Georgian Group Architectural Awards.

Chapman Taylor won the Giles Worsley Award for a New Building in a Georgian Context for its SouthGate Centre in Bath which replaced a 1971 building by Owen Luder.

The judges said: “This is no longer a grim area dominated by a monolithic shopping centre, to be hurried through en route from the railway station to Bath proper. Instead it offers pleasing prospects and tantalising glimpses, drawing you in rather than repelling… Yes, it is a product of artifice, what the confused illiterati might call pastiche. But artifice was not always a term of abuse: to the Elizabethans, on the contrary, it was a compliment.”

Just wondering, I haven't visited dear old Bath since I graduated from the uni there in 2008. At the time there was much commotion about a 5* Hotel & Spa in a massive redevelopment of the Gainsborough Building on Lower Borough Walls. Searching on the net I can't find anything recent on it, did it collapse in the credit crunch crisis?


The last I could find on it was this website, is anyone local able to shed more light on the current state of the project?

http://www.thegainsboroughhotelandspa.com/section.php?xSec=8

Amazing city!

Amazing city!

You got that right. My cousin lives there just a treat to visit.