For those unfamiliar with the British habit of sucking up to neophobes and nimbys, we currently have a reasonably rational system of historic building protection, at least in theory.

Grade I buildings/landscapes/interiors are extremely difficult to demolish, and pretty difficult to alter in any significant way. Grade II* is similar, this grade often given to relatively contemporary buildings where the perspective of time is needed to decide if they should get the ultimate accolade. Denys Lasdun’s Royal National Theatre is one example.

Then there is Grade II. In theory it should be possible to demolish such a building, the grading suggesting that there will be plenty of example of this sort of thing; the best will get a higher rating. In practice, the heritage brigade treats any form of listing as the planning equivalent of aspic.

Grade III buildings would therefore be those of no particular historic or architectural importance, but on the other hand they be really nice, or somebody remembers buying their trousers there when they were kids. It is sentimentality run riot, under the umbrella of an alleged concern about climate change and the carbon implications of demolishing anything at all.

Never backward in jumping onto a new bandwagon, TV personality and architect Kevin McCloud has lent his weight to this exciting ‘campaign’, which has been triggered by planned replacement of a rather poor Marks & Spencer store in London’s Oxford Street. Kevin declares in a Times article that it is ‘lazy’ not to think about retrofit. Well yes, but who says the architects for M&S didn’t think about it? More homework required, one fears.

The main entrance to the M&S store on the corner of Oxford Street and Orchard Street
Source: SAVE/Fraser White

It is also the case that Kev has been on a listing bandwagon before – this time one of his own invention. He proposed something called ‘X-listing’ and made a TV series about buildings which should be demolished in the public interest. No reference to that in his comments to the Times. If he is suffering from amnesia, he should go into politics, where that condition is not merely desirably, but essential.

On the other hand...

There is a case for avoiding demolition, which has little to do with carbon, but a lot to do with getting things moving. A few years ago, I had a dinner conversation with the late great Will Alsop. I reminded him about the famous proposition co-authored by Will’s old boss, Cedric Price. This was called ‘Non-Plan’, and following a cutting review of the consequences of the Town & Country Planning Act in buggering up towns and cities across the UK, it suggested that it might be a good idea to drop planning altogether and see if the results were any worse.

I suggested to Will that given the success of London’s Miserabilist Tendency in stopping anything interesting happening, frequently by citing heritage considerations, that the Price Proposition should be updated and called Add-Plan. It would posit that no building at all could be demolished in future. On the other hand, it could be extended without dimensional limit subject to building and fire regulations. This might thus satisfy the sentimentalists while giving full rein to creatives.

Will liked the idea and soon presented his own version of it, accompanied by the snappy slogan ‘Knock Nothing Down’. His first attempt to put the theory into practice came a cropper in Vauxhall, where his plan for a high-rise atop a dull existing building hit the buffers of Lambeth’s planning department, always at least one step behind the cutting edge of worst practice at the time, though much better these days.

You can combine old and new in an effective way (look at parts of the Sony Centre in Berlin). But you need to be supportive of the creative new. I fear too many of the Grade III gang are anything but.

Sony Centre Berlin

Ghastly little twerp

Talking about the Times, there seems to be an animus against architects in what used to be the paper of record. I refer to an extraordinarily intemperate rant against the entire profession shortly before Christmas, by columnist Giles Coren. When he is not stuffing his face with his favourite Chinese buns (he is also a restaurant reviewer), Coren is offering his unmediated views on this and that. For better or worse, he knows his own mind.

His view of architects as being akin to ‘back-street abortionists’ and ‘illegal plastic surgeons’ says more about him that it does about the profession. Unfortunately, most of the wit and charm of the late Alan Coren passed to TV star Victoria Coren, sister of Giles. It must be galling for her brother to realise he is a second-rater who only makes a mark by being obnoxious, and muddling the distinction between criticism and abuse.

Incidentally, the Times declined to public a letter from the RIBA about the column. Shame on them.

Looking forward

Let’s hope this year is better than the last. Unfortunately I can’t help pondering that old definition of a pessimist: someone who lives with an optimist!