The Design Debate: Styles of architecture in towns like Winchester

29th April 2004, Winchester Guildhall

Debate Chairman:
Christopher Harvey Clark QC, Chancellor of the Diocese of Winchester

Speakers:
Richard Feilden OBE MA(Cantab) AAdip DipArch Cons RIBA
Adam Wilkinson MA MSc, Secretary SAVE Britain's Heritage

This paper can be download.

Welcome
Mrs Pat Edwards opened the meeting, welcoming all who had come. She introduced the guest Chairman Christopher Clark QC, a barrister with chambers in Winchester, and Chancellor of the Diocese of Winchester.

Chairman's Introduction
The Chairman opened by describing the view from his window - one which included buildings of several ages and styles, from Searles House to the Crown Court, but which nonetheless he found harmonious. He thought the variety of texture a particular characteristic of Winchester.

He remarked on the challenge of responding to the juxtaposition of the new with the old, the question of imitation versus innovation and the likelihood that there would be no absolute consensus this evening.

He introduced the first speaker Richard Feilden, who was an architect who had done work locally including major works for King Alfred's College.

Richard Feilden

Richard gave an illustrated presentation. He opened with a series of controversial buildings from different eras. He stated that all new buildings should strive for intelligence and integrity, and should reflect their times, and went on to illustrate this point with various examples. He showed how, in Bath and Camden, development styles had evolved as building had spread outwards over the centuries. In high streets such as Winchester different style patterns were laid one on top of another.

He showed some "horrors" such as a municipal building in the centre of Bath, and some modern hotels, and in particular the way in which buildings can adversely affect the shape and pattern of the street.

Richard then spent some time on the work his firm had done for King Alfred's College on the West Downs site. He explained the particular characteristics of building student accommodation, and the need to take account of the site and its context. He showed how a modern approach could be used successfully to link two older buildings, and how in several instances this had led to interesting opportunities for displaying art.

The next few examples were of housing estates which Richard's firm had designed. He stated that places had to make up their minds about what they were, and where they were going. This could influence choices about options for layout of sites and streets. Finally he showed the use his firm had made of mezzanines and environmental efficiencies in a building in Swindon.

Richard drew seven principles in conclusion:

1. The environment is in a constant state of change - architects today are dealing with more accommodation, larger buildings and new approaches to light and ventilation.
2. Environmental conditions and expected comfort levels have changed and this affects design.
3. We should ask for intelligence and sensitivity in design, not feeble imitation and not incompetent pastiche.
4. It is not necessary to worry too much about local materials.
5. The scale of developments has increased but, rather than one design seeking to emulate development over centuries, a good way to tackle large developments is to have a masterplan and then several architects designing within this.
6. It should not be necessary to seek to save everything which is some years old. Poor or inappropriate buildings should and will be replaced in time.
7. Not all architecture has to be "landmark" in its approach to design. Some contexts do not require it.

Debate

The Chairman asked Richard what he had meant by literacy in architecture - Richard thought it went alongside intelligence, and said a good eye for relationships was key to good architecture. Robert Adam and Richard debated the merits of imitation and pastiche, and Mr Adam suggested that the zeitgeist of design was up for grabs.

Kate Macintosh asked how hard it was to persuade clients to spend money on environmentally efficient buildings. In response Richard explained that his clients' preferences were placed on a scale ranging from good practice to cutting-edge for environmental aspects of their buildings.

Simon Eden (Chief Executive Officer of Winchester City Council) spoke of natural selection in design in towns, and felt that the luxury of making mistakes was not available. Richard said that leaseholds complicated matters, and that mistakes on usually short-lease commercial properties were less difficult to expunge than those on usually much longer-lease residential properties.

Adam Wilkinson

The Chairman then introduced Adam Wilkinson, Secretary of SAVE Britain's Heritage, who was also a medieval historian and Russian speaker.

Adam said that the basic point of SAVE was that there was some element of history wherever one looked, so any development should have regard to what was already in place around it. Best practice in conservation should go hand in hand with good design - bad architecture could kill an area but good architecture could bring an area to life. Most of the slides Adam showed illustrated buildings not in isolation but in various contexts, and whereas some worked well many detracted from rather than enhanced the street or area, and often exhibited "bad manners".

Examples of poor buildings included:

• Large "mansion blocks" in city suburbs, emulating existing blocks but with modern storey heights which increased density but spoiled the line of the street.
• Georgian or other traditional styles used without the appropriate attention to detail and with poor materials.
• Entryless or blind frontages on busy streets.
• Buildings set back from the prevailing frontage of the street.
• Blind facades, ugly neon signs, poor application of scale (modern hotels and supermarkets were often guilty of these features).

Examples of good buildings included:

• Boldness in the right place.
• Rebuilding in the original style in the right place (e.g. in a homogeneous London square).
• Playful use of older styles adapted to a contemporary situation.
• Use of more than one style where this harmonises the gap between two existing buildings of different styles.
• Clever use of styles which surround the site (the Co-op in Ilminster was particularly cited here, with features drawn from the adjacent Edwardian building and the nearby market hall, executed with high quality materials and good detail).

Adam said that proper maintenance of buildings could increase the worth of keeping them even where they were not remarkably good. He mentioned also the value of actively designing the backs of buildings, which were often on view. There was a balance to be found between keeping the character of the street and adding variety and new enrichment. It was clear from his examples that often no regard was paid to this, particularly by larger commercial concerns; and that even where some effort had been made to do so it was easier to fail than to succeed in achieving the optimum balance.

Debate

The Chairman said he had inferred from Adam that he was not against good modern architecture - if harmonious, with a good rhythm and good manners, it could be equally successful whether modern or traditional. Adam agreed, and added that what was good on paper could be spoilt by poor execution. The Chairman asked what the Trust's Development Control panels might usefully look for in designs. Adam suggested looking at the context of the street, and then at how the building "talked to its neighbours", how well mannered it was to its surroundings, how well it fitted into the liveliness of the area (which might differ between town centre and suburbs). Richard suggested that one could focus on detail and materials but that the whole was the overriding consideration.

There was some discussion between the Chairman, Adam and Michael Morris about the good manners of maintaining the " rhythm " of a building and a street, using both vertical and horizontal lines, and appropriate spacing of doors, windows and roof features amongst other things. Roger Brown cautioned that good mannered buildings were desirable but that too slavish an adherence to this principle might lead to an unutterably dull environment. Adam agreed that some variety and fun in design were important but must always maintain a good quality. He said there was a case for some buildings to be decent rather than outstanding, and that good sustainability came of less frequent replacement of buildings - easier to achieve if they were unremarkable but good quality. Roger Brown felt that planning authorities had to strike a balance with architects between control and freedom.

Tommy Geddes (King Alfred's College) posed that the purpose of buildings was an important factor, and that preserving heritage could be detrimental to a community particularly when it conflicted with affordability of housing. The Chairman asked him whether Richard Feilden's student village served its purpose: he thought it did so well, though it had been very controversial at first, and there was a still a problem with the high rents charged (at £75 per week the fifth highest student rent in the country). Affordability was a big issue. Adam maintained that good architecture didn't have to be expensive. Richard said that the role of the client was crucial - cost was an important element but value even more important. The right budget was rarely the lowest - there was a skill in making best use of, say, the 10% above the lowest figure, to raise a building from being featureless.

Robert Adam wondered how, with the current planning system, cities could be protected from poor design - Adam felt that the first priority was to rekindle a sense of design in planning departments, and an improved knowledge of the subject. At this point the Chairman involved some of those present from the City Council: Cllr Georgie Busher spoke as Chairman of the Planning Committee and said that, however it appeared, the Committee did try to achieve good results. They were hampered by, amongst other things, lack of direct conversation with architects - usually it was the developer who dealt with the planners, and often developers changed architects during a project. Robin Cooper (Director of Development Services) added that eight out of ten applications submitted had not used an architect, and that architects rarely attended Planning Committee meetings. Richard Feilden's view was that where the architect was able to talk to the Committee as well as to the planners this was often very fruitful.

Kate Macintosh asked Cllr Busher about the problem of developers impoverishing the design after permission had been granted, and wondered how the planning system could be more assertively used to enforce the design as granted. Cllr Busher acknowledged this problem and said that the recent additional money granted to the Planning Department was partly to be used to employ a Compliance Officer for this very purpose. Pat Edwards added that planning law was often unhelpful to planning authorities, particularly when cases went to appeal.

Cllr Busher raised an issue which was current in Winchester - the large house in a large plot sold off for multiple housing units - and asked what advice the speakers had on this. Richard Feilden answered that each site should be judged on its own merits, and that one should be willing to accept that over a long period of time the character of a city could and should change to meet that city's social needs. He cited Barcelonetta as an example of this, where over three centuries the restriction on height had changed from two, to three, to four storeys as housing need increased.

Adam commented that in the suburbs, as well as in the centre, some areas were well worth preserving, both buildings and spaces. He urged consideration of the application of Conservation Area status and Article 4 directions for suburban areas.

Chris Higgins of King Alfred's College likened design knowledge to musical aptitude - someone tone-deaf would not know if a musician was playing in tune or not, and he felt that in terms of good design developers were usually tone-deaf! The question of "copyright" was raised - Richard said there was no real protection in law for the work of an architect and advocated choosing one's clients carefully.

Huw Thomas pointed out that traditionally architects have not dealt with mass housing, and that working with developers was a new and potentially promising change. There was some evidence that the better developers were beginning to realise that good design paid and reduced delay.

Michael Carden raised the issue of how designs were presented, and how often buildings are presented only in elevation, without perspective views which are particularly important in street settings. He feared that they were also too often designed only in elevation as well, resulting in poorer design. Richard agreed but thought this trend was being reversed. He did have concerns about the increasing number of people coming into architecture without hand-drawing skills, though he acknowledged the great power of modern computer drawing tools.

Conclusion

In summing up the Chairman said he found it impossible to sum up! He took two quotations from the sheet handed out at the debate:

A work of art is no good if it does not provoke a furore. Sir Isaiah Berlin 1930

"I do not wish to influence Mr Rushworth", he continued: "but, had I a place to new-fashion, I should not put myself in the hands of an improver. I would rather have an inferior degree of beauty, of my own choice." Jane Austen, Mansfield Park

and added a few final words. He had been impressed with Richard's insistence on intelligence and literacy in design, and found that in keeping with Adam's principle of good manners and harmony. He appreciated the need for a balance between harmony and innovation, and noted that the purpose of buildings and the question of cost and value were also important factors in design. Lastly he noted that constructive dialogue was very important and that there was clearly room to increase the amount of contact between architects and planners.

Vote of Thanks

Michael Carden thanked the Chairman and both speakers for an interesting and stimulating event and asked those present whether they would be interested in a further event on the topic - to which the response was that they would. Finally he thanked all for attending.