https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/feb/12/durham-university-dunelm-house-threat-of-demolition-brutalism
As a student, I was not enthusiastic about the building and mostly had little interest in any buildings constructed after 1914. After 40 years looking at and working with buildings my views have changed and I decided that I would write, belatedly, to the Secretary of State to say why I think that Dunelm House should be listed and that it should not be granted a certificate of immunity from listing. The eagle-eyed will notice that I incorrectly state that the bridge is Grade II listed.
Wednesday 15.02.17
Karen Bradley MP
Secretary of State
Department of Culture, Media & Sport
100 Parliament Street
London
SW1A 2BQ
Dear Madam,
Dunelm House, New
Elvet, Durham City DH1 3AN
Refusal of an application
for a Grade II listing
I am gravely concerned at your refusal of Historic England’s
proposal to list this building. I understand that your department is
considering the grant of a temporary certificate of immunity from listing. I believe that this is inappropriate and could
result in the loss of an important mid-20th Century building.
I should first set out my background and connections to this
building. I was a Durham undergraduate from 1974-77, when the building was
barely ten years old. It was already rather scruffy and maintenance appeared
scant. This is not unusual for public sector buildings in the UK, where capital
grants dominate and budgets for building maintenance are an easy victim of
budget cuts. At the time there was a popular myth that concrete is a
maintenance-free product.
After graduating I became a Chartered Surveyor and my
professional life has involved the repair, maintenance and adaptation of
buildings, some of them concrete and built in the 1960s. Until my retirement in
October last year, I spent eight years as a consultant at Arup but I should
make it clear that I have not seen the report prepared on behalf of the
University. It was dealt with by another Arup region and it is no doubt
confidential. However, the key issues have been discussed online and are not
unusual.
As a student, I thought the building brutal and
unsympathetic. I now have a different view, after a professional career studying
and leading the maintenance, refurbishment and construction of a wide range of buildings
from medieval to new developments. I believe that Dunelm House should be listed
for the following reasons.
1. It is a major public sector building designed by
a serious architectural practice, some of whose other modernist buildings have
already been listed.
2.
It is a unique building that responds to a very
difficult site in an innovative way, clinging to the vertiginous bank of the
River Wear and forming a dramatic architectural set piece in conjunction with
Sir Ove Arup’s Grade II listed Kingsgate Bridge. Dunelm House is linked to the
bridge approach and both are concrete structures designed by Arup that work
together.
3.
There are fashions in building design, reflecting
cultural changes from generation to generation. For this reason, a long
perspective context is needed to assess the relative significance of individual
buildings, whose importance may not be widely appreciated until some
generations afterwards.
4.
Significant numbers of medieval, Georgian and Victorian
buildings were demolished after World War II, often because they were
unfashionable and neglected. A backlash resulted in legislation to protect
buildings of cultural, architectural and archaeological significance. The great
majority have proved adaptable to changing requirements and are popular places to
visit, to live, to work or to be entertained. There is every reason to suppose
that Dunelm House could be adapted for a range of uses to provide a long-term
economic future as part of the University. Listing would be no bar to this.
5.
The fashion for brutal modern buildings was
relatively short-lived in the UK and only a limited number were built. Many
have already been demolished. They are a relatively minor, but important, part
of the architectural and cultural history of the UK in the 20th
Century. The controversy that they generate is perhaps a sign of how
importantly different they are from the mainstream of cautious, even unadventurous
buildings. It is very important to retain buildings from all design eras because, once
lost, they are lost forever. This is why listing matters, protecting buildings
so that they can provide future generations with unique visual histories of the
varied way that development has occurred over time.
6.
Inherent construction defects have apparently been
cited as reasons not to list Dunelm House. Regular roof leaks have arisen from the
flawed original design and there is some spalling of concrete to external walls.
These are not valid reasons not to list. Other important buildings are imperfect and
have design defects. The roof at Castle Drogo in Devon (Lutyens 1910, listed
Grade I) leaked from the outset. It was difficult to arrive at an acceptable
solution but remedial works by the National Trust have been in progress for
some time. The cement mortar harling (external render) used at The Hill House near
Helensburgh (Rennie Mackintosh 1904, listed Category A) was an ill-chosen
innovation substituted for traditional moisture-permeable lime render. Moisture
has been trapped in the rubble stone walls, damaging the interior of the
building. The National Trust for Scotland is developing a solution. Remedying
the leaking roof of Dunelm House will be relatively costly but it is essential
to preserve an important building.
Montagu Evans has advised the University on the commercial
and practical issues relating to the building, making a case for exemption from
listing. Quite properly the firm has acted as advocate on behalf of its client.
I have not seen the firm’s report but I would expect that it relates to the
cost and impracticability of retaining the existing building. I raise the
following practical and commercial points.
7.
It is apparent that in some areas thin patches
of surface concrete have broken away from the external walls (spalling), pushed
off by rusted reinforcement. This not unusual in buildings of this age and
construction. There are well-established concrete repair solutions.
8.
The tiered design of Dunelm House is unlikely to
permit universal disabled access to all areas but it can be significantly improved
by a range of measures. The legal framework for disabled access in existing buildings
recognises these limitations, which are not a consideration in respect of decisions
about listing. Thoughtful design is required but many listed buildings have
been successfully adapted.
9.
The University has expanded greatly since 1966
and Dunelm House may no longer be large enough for use as a Students’ Union. On
the other hand, I read recently that Students’ Unions are less intensively used
because of competition from external bars and coffee houses. Nevertheless it
seems likely that a much larger venue is needed for major events and this is
part of the University’s strategy. There is a lack of event space generally in
Durham; Dunelm House could provide a range of venues of varying size in a good location
midway between the peninsular and the more outlying colleges. The enormous growth
of the University has also generated other demands for space; it would be
surprising if the remaining space in the building could not find other uses.
10.
Dunelm House is in need of imaginative
refurbishment. Like so many tired and shabby buildings, its neglected appearance
encourages demands for demolition, when it remains fundamentally sound but with
issues to be overcome. The building could be very greatly improved by
relatively simple measures such as concrete cleaning and painting. More
significant interventions could also be very effective in the clear, well-lit
spaces created by the open aspect and tiered design.
11.
There is considerable embodied energy in any
building but the walls, floors and roof of Dunelm House are of concrete,
greatly increasing the amount of locked-in carbon dioxide equivalent. It would
be contrary to the principles of sustainable development to demolish a 50-year
old building of this design in order to use yet more resources to replace it.
12.
This a very challenging site to develop, on a
very steep bank above a river that floods regularly. It is almost certain to be included within the
widened boundary of the World Heritage Site. If the University decided to
redevelop the site for other purposes, these factors would result in a replacement
building would be considerably more costly than average, with greatly increased
development risk.
Retaining and adapting Dunelm House through a thoughtful
refurbishment would seem to be less costly, lower risk and more sustainable than
redevelopment. It would also preserve an important example of mid-20th
Century architecture, which is worth listing. We need to protect cherished
buildings that have gained wide acceptance but we also need more controversial
buildings or we risk forgetting our history.
I hope that the points raised in this letter will be given due
consideration. Dunelm House is never likely to rival Durham Cathedral as a
popular attraction but it is worth recalling that the Cathedral too was once
shockingly new.
Yours faithfully,
Brian Gowthorpe BA
Hons. (Dunelm) FRICS
Accredited Building Conservation Professional
Email: brian.gowthorpe@gmail.com
cc. Catherine Croft, 20th Century Society
No comments:
Post a Comment