Southgate construction
I have mentioned the Southgate development in Bath a few times (1, 2, 3) and now it is well out of the ground it is really taking shape, with the long space between buildings defining streets with vistas to the train station.
I was struck by the steelwork for the Mansard roof: it reeks of inappropriateness! Save the new Bus depot thing the development comprises of imitation Georgian buildings, which would be fine if the construction methods were similar to those originally used. However, using concrete and steel and modern building techniques requires the buildings to be ‘dressed’ at the end to look like it were built differently. This is not unlike film sets or Disney Land. The Southgate development is turning a big chunk of Bath into a theme park! Mock Georgian architecture? More like a plain bloody mockery! This development muddies the genuine Georgian architecture of Bath, admittedly along with numerous other developments over the years. Neither the contractors or architects are to blame, no, those responsible (who are to blame) are the Bath planners. What a waste of £350,000,000 (if it stays on budget).
The image below (from Pevsner Architectural Guides, Bath) is a model of a typical Georgian house, with a double Mansard roof.
The photograph below is the Southgate development on its way to becoming a deceptive monstrosity.
The materials the Georgians’ had and construction techniques they used naturally resulted in Georgian buildings. We too ought to use the materials and construction techniques of our time and build forms that are suitable for those materials and techniques, not build buildings that are deceptive. Bath needs architecture sensitive to its heritage not mock Georgian architecture, and that “sensitive architecture” ought to be of our time (modern). Modern architecture is not synonymous with brash futuristic loud stuff that some people think it is.
The mock Georgian architecture of the Southgate development is sensitive to the architecture of Bath city is it? Well it is not sensitive to the enviroment from what I hear. Instead of building (load bearing) stone walls a cladding of Bath stone will be applied at the end. The stone is mined in Bath (obviously), shipped to Italy to be cut into very thin slices (the UK does not have the specialist equipment), the shipped to Wales to be stuck onto concrete and finally trucked home.
The question now is: will it be realised in the fullness of time that this development is a white elephant?
Incidentally, today was my last day of lectures at University, which does not feel in the slightest monumental as University has come to a slow end for me over the past 18 months or so.
Hear hear.
THANKYOU!
This scheme is an insult to the history of Bath. It has pilasters and Bath stone, but it doesn’t have any of the grace and proportional elegance of a proper Georgian building.
Hopefully, in 20 years it will be razed to the ground like the Owen Luder scheme that preceded it.
Nice work Rob
I too am glad to be free from lectures, forever!
On the Southgate front must say I suspect that I will agree whole heartedly with Robin who says it will lack, grace, proportion and elegance, although I reserve my judgement untill it is complete.
However, I disagree with your implication that Georgian architecture was anything other than deceptive. It is completely. Your picture of the model clearly shows how fraudulent georgian architecture is with it’s stone cladding to hide all the load bearing rubble. And the to say the georgian obsession with hiding every bit of functionallity of a building, the gutters, the servants stairs, the window mechanisms. Georgain houses too come with their fare share of problems: damp, rot, coldness, condensation.
I feel that the Southgate centre has the potential to offer the same amount of fraudlance, with out the damp and the cold.
Just a thought?!
I agree with you rob, it will be a horrible building, badly made and have a lifespan of 20 yrs compared to georgian houses that were built with all they had to hand and as much of it as possible to get then to stay up- regardless of damp or subsidence! may I suggest a POST EXAM project?! perhaps you could doodle a more appropriate building, send it to them and see wot happens? you could put posters around the site and get residents feedback! I got a job by the way! will email you and han x
Mark, certainly interesting thoughts. I am sure Georgian architecture is deceptive in many ways, as you suggest. However I don’t buy the rubble wall one. You look at a Georgian building and see stone, so you think it stands up by the shear mass of the stone. And it does. As I understand it, the rubble infill would not work with the ashlar front. But enough ashlar and it the wall would be strong enough, it is just cheaper to use the rubble infill. Also bear in mind that cutting ashlar is ridiculously inefficient so using the rubble in gainful employment is a good construction technique.
The Southgate development will have tourists believe it is Georgian and stands up by stone, not concrete and steel.
Hiding details such as the electric cables around my desk or gutter details does not seem to be deceptive, at least in the terms I was talking about - the relationship between form and structure and consequently that of material use.
And the point about the Georgian buildings being damp and cold is interesting. Compared to our era they are bad, with lots of cold bridges etc. But what about in their context? How did their buildings compare with those of the 100year period before? What if we go back to buildings before the use of glass?!
Certainly interesting points, but think we are not talking about the same stuff.
give me the real thing every time
Hear hear, Rob. I kind of sympathise with the planners, in that there seem to be rather vocal sections of the bath populace that strenuously object to anything out of the ordinary, and don’t seem to be able to distinguish architecture from mockery (although the busometer is still hideous..). This has the appearance of architecture-by-committee.
On a slightly unrelated note: even with slot-together system building of steel, aluminium, rockwool and glass we still seem to be incapable of consistently making buildings that don’t leak.
The short life span has a benefit - it’s that much sooner until the planners of bath will have another opportunity to make an appropriate and sensitive development to enhance bath rather than cheapen it. I say give two fingers to the greedy developers, raze the thing and have a park.. it isn’t as if Bath really needs more coffee houses and jewellery shops.
Still, I’m sure the finished thing will be quite pleasant while it lasts - save for the gnashing of architecturally -sensitive teeth.
I agree with Laura’s last bit - redesign it, put posters up around Bath, grow your beard back, and chain yourself up to the cranes that are making this monstrosity!
Let’s get the world to open their eyes..
All this talk of monstrosities, white elephants and inappropriate really makes me chuckle. This development would be classed as high quality, reserved and inexpensive out here in Doha! As for being a white elephant - the entire city of Doha will turn out to be so in time i’m pretty sure!