1. Ensuring that existing stock is actually what people want and possibly regenerating that so that buyers’ needs are catered for.
2. Building new developments that the local residents and councils want, which may be large housing estates, if there seems to be demand for it, but may be small developments that are sensitive and in balance with the current development of the area.
3. Redeveloping failing office developments (wherever I go I seem to pass innumerable “office to let” signs!) into apartments.
4. Projects that take derelict houses and redevelop them.
5. Building new developments and plans via the enquiry by design method, where communities feel involved in what’s going on and will therefore be willing to allow developments, even quite large changes, on certain conditions.

All of those, I would say, provide much better quality, cater to more of the community, and create a longer lasting satisfaction for the community than the ugly and dislocated housing developments of the current climate.

I’m with you, Mr Pickles!

It’s all very well designing new age things which look like they won’t stand up so that they look interesting and tug at our inner senses of insecurity and make us feel excited but, honestly… why?  Are we trying to continually unnerve the people of Britain and make them feel uncomfortable with the instability of their lives?  Are we trying to show to other nations how unstable we are and that it wouldn’t take much to make our entire country come tumbling down if you just know which bit to target?

Perhaps this kind of response is exactly what Anish Kapoor was aiming for in his target audience – a kind of confusion and awe.  I certainly think that the sculpture is truly awful, so, that covers the awe bit.  The thing is, even if he did expect this response… WHY?  What is the reason that such a desire to elicit this response is necessary?  Does that not also give you a bigger sense of dysfunction within society as a whole?  And if the only purpose of the sculpture is to elicit this response, then, well, its done.  The response is there!  I have just given it.  So now, cancel the construction. Your work is complete, just by doing such a retarded design. There is certainly no other reason for building the sculpture.  It’s not pretty, it does not gain attractiveness by being over 100 m tall rather than three inches on the page of my laptop computer.

WHY?

It’s a question little asked by clients of their “artists”.  As soon as they know it to be art, it suddenly doesn’t have to have any reason!  OK, I admit that art from the beginning of time wasn’t necessarily useful, but it certainly had a reason!  We’ve even got to the point where attractiveness isn’t considered as a reason for art (otherwise it would actually look good), education isn’t a reason (otherwise it would instinctively say something to anyone looking at it), it isn’t for historical record (because otherwise it would actually depict something of our culture, of ourselves).

So…

Why?

Oh… and who’s paying for this eyesore?

[UPDATE 28/11/11] I’m afraid this eyesore has now been built. I witnessed it from the train on my way to London.  Here’s proof of its profound beauty:

Eldon Terrace

The Shop

It seems that while I was in the USA, poring over textbooks and articles on HVAC and timber, someone had been busy putting the right-hand unit of Eldon Terrace back into use.  It is now a local convenience store, which takes advantage of the old fabric in terms of the concrete steps and shop-front frame.  I’m not going to lie, I think it’s pretty hideous.  The shop-front does not match the brick construction above and makes one uncomfortable.  The nature of the steps creates a bottleneck at the entrance/exit and creates a void underneath them which is wasted, and makes the steps look unnecessarily flimsy. Generally, the shop-front has no proportions and scale and just looks out of place.

However, I don’t want to be too harsh on the shop, since this was obviously inherited bad design from before the renovation, and an occupied shop is always better than one boarded up and disused.

The Café

At the left-hand unit, I saw no noticeable difference when I got back to Leeds in September, but when I passed the building in the past few days, I have noticed that a lot of work is being done to develop it.  The windows have been reinstated, steps cleaned up and a replacement door installed.  The quality of work so far appears to be good, and will surely enhance the building significantly.

I asked someone working on it what was happening to the building and he informed me that it was going to be an internet café. I think that the location of the building is perfect for university students and staff alike and that such a business has potential.

What I am concerned about is that a huge amount of investment obviously has and is going into the building to improve the quality.  Without a strategy to draw customers to that particular venue (over the many other cafés along that street), such work could be wasted.  However, I think that there are many ways that you could take advantage of the building in such a way as to make it a better venue than others.

Suggestions

An area of greenery should be planted outside the entrance to ensure that, with the new improvements, the building does not look even more bare than previously.  Small trees framing the unit would enhance the outdoor space, and if sensitively done, could create an transition space that does not feel too open to the main road.

It would be good to take advantage of the multiple spaces available – other cafés just have the one space and this can limit the intimacy that is possible. The upstairs rooms could be independent spaces that could be rented out, or just used by a small group who want to be in a private area. The downstairs area is also its own area that could be rented for small parties and events.

A possible alternative management structure would be to have a small members only club. The club would attract members through members-only promotions. For example, members would get two free coffees a day and would be able to book private rooms, get a private locker and use the in-house computing facilities. It could be a mini-conference centre or venue for small-scale events. An advantage of this model would be that you could get cash up front, which could then pay for the facilities that would be used by the members. If you created a membership structure that worked on the basis that the longer you took a membership for, the less you pay per month, you could get members paying for a full 9 months (an entire university year), or a year, up front, meaning that cashflow would be easier to manage.

In general, I’m optimistic that the outcome of this side of the house will be a much better place than what it as before, and better than its neighbour. I just hope that it’s sustainable!

“Firstly, I am very disappointed with this website.  1. It is flashy and confusing, looking like its made for 5 year old kids rather than adults who actually care about this stuff. 2. In the what would your eco-town look like section, it is ridiculous that you can only choose 5 from the list.  To be a really good eco-town, all of those should be satisfied and no one is any more important than another. Results are also going to be skewed by the fact that people start at the top, and ones further down the list will tend to get neglected more often. 3. General feedback is mixed up with this silly questionnaire where the questions are again stupid.  I mean, the topics depend on so much that the answers are meaningless.  For example, I am very willing to reduce energy consumption, but not if it greatly affects my costs to the point that it becomes out of proportion with the environmental saving.  I would rather use the same energy, but from a sustainable source.

“I am an architectural engineering student with particular interest in the social and environmental impacts of architecture. For this reason, I particularly care about HOW these issues are resolved, as opposed to what I would prioritise.  A good architectural designer should be able to balance the benefits and consequences of designing an eco-town rather than go by public priorities, which aren’t necessarily taking everything into consideration.

“For example, it may be that most public want “affordable” family detached homes that are reasonably spaced out.  However, for the interest of environmental concerns, it may be better to encourage a more communal living style, where car driving is discouraged by having mixed-use developments rather than zoning. Since the largest car-use is for a daily commute, the people who live in the houses should work within walking distance.  Thus, it should be calculated how many jobs would be created in any given area and enough housing created within easy walking distance of these to easily cover those jobs, also taking into consideration those who don’t work, work from home or whose business involves travelling around.  The same thing for entertainment.  Perhaps the research that should be conducted at this stage should be asking potential residents what they like to do in their spare time and making sure that those facilities are provided within walking distance, rather than having to travel to the nearest city for every need.

“Studies should also be conducted on whether the common practice of communities disintegrating because easy commuting to cities means that residents only socialise with friends in the city rather than their local area can be discouraged by the design of the town itself.

“I know I have only covered transportation here, but there are other advantages to having very close-knit communities, such as that heating and energy systems can be shared and therefore made more efficient by economy of scale.  It may be that having more compact living may also open up more space for cultivation by small-time farmers who could then sell back to the community they live in.  This type of farming, run under some kind of cooperative scheme would probably be much more efficient than expecting residents all to grow their own food, where it is unlikely that many of them would have the time or will to run an allotment or vegetable garden.

“It may also be an advantageous to make spaces flexible.  For example, several buildings could be initially zoned as residential, but designed with enough flexibility that they could be easily changed to commercial if demand required it, rather than buildings having to be demolished if such changes need to be made, or that outdoor spaces may initially be a car parking space, but that it could be easily converted into a pleasant patio space for a resident who doesn’t own a car.  Most car parking spaces wouldn’t currently fit this criteria and are thus wide empty ugly voids to those who do not own cars.

“In short, I’m very much into the idea of eco-towns.  It needs to happen, and I want to be at the forefront of supporters for this cause.  However, I think that the way that this has been conducted so far, in true Labour Government fashion, has been disastrously top-down heavy with no real substance. “

The refused proposal was for Jurys Berkeley Court, a multi-use redevelopment that would provide offices, residential apartments and leisure facilities.  And oh, here’s a big surprise, both the developer and the architect are “disappointed”.  I mean, perhaps the architects of buildings sometimes think that there design is useless and aren’t disappointed when they’re told that they can’t have it built, but something tells me that it doesn’t happen that often.  But there’s another thing, they also go on to say that they are disppointed because the design would have provided many facilities and opportunities to the local community.  Well, I’m only a student so I’m not fully aware of how these things work, but aren’t the features such as sports hall, day care centre and the economic effect it has on the local community ones of the programme, rather than the design.  I mean, anybody could make a drawing with a number of boxes, label them sports hall, day care centre, apartments and youth club, but that doesn’t mean its a good design!  If the architects had said “I think we nailed the fluidity of our design for the youth club because of the way it really interconnected with the apartments and other facilities,” perhaps I would have been more convinced.

The truth is that any architect is going to be disappointed that their design is rejected, and any developer is going to be disappointed that they have to lose more profit by delaying the start of construction, but what about the considerations of those who will use it?  I wonder how many potential residents and members of the local community looked at the plans and thought “I’m disappointed that this has been refused planning permission.”  By the looks of the images, which really “break the mold”, as the article puts it, of Dublin’s current architectural programme, I would doubt that many would really pledge their full support.  The only benefit for them is that they might get it sooner, but why would anyone allow anyone to perform architectural murder for the sake of getting something sooner?  Well the answer to that is a lot of people, but that still doesn’t mean that its right.

I pledge my full support to the council for standing up against the large companies who think they are God’s gift to architecture because they can draw an odd-shaped steel frame and cover it in glass.  Note:  I don’t pledge my support unconditionally.  These councils also have to be responsible enough to support developments that really will make a difference to the local communities, even when their design might be such that a small insignificant piece of legislation is ignored for the sake of getting the project through faster, reducing the chances of massive losses on the part of the small-time developer who can’t afford to keep paying interest payments on a site that is generating no income.

My message to council representatives out there: take responsibility for what you do.  You are public servants, not people out to just get what you want.  Respect the views of those you represent, and don’t let corporate big guns shoot your ethics into dust for their own profit-making agendas

The property is bad repair and is an eye-sore on the area of Leeds University that it is central to.  There are cracks in the North face brickwork (the left-hand side), windows need replacing and obviously something needs to be done about that shop-front.

However, the location is great.  You only have to cross the road to be at the university.  It takes less that twenty minutes to get downtown.  There are ranks of shops practically next door.

From a practical point of view, I don’t think it would be too difficult to improve this building.  Add double glazing to the windows, include insulation throughout.  Check out the basement and keep an eye out for moisture.  Remove that stupid shop-front and replace it with a new section – depending on the use, this could be a timber framed shop-front or, if residential, some windows, perhaps including another bay.  At the back of the house there is an exterior staircase and two very small yards.  The back of the house does seem quite imposing, with its bare walls reaching up to the eaves.  I like it, but it does look a bit bare and featureless.

All these improvements would cost a lot of money though, and that would be the main problem in tackling the development of this building, and probably the reason why nothing has been done with the building up til now.  Well, that and getting it through planning, at any rate.

The planning constraints on a building such as this must be incredibly constricting.  In 1996 planning permission was granted to change the use of 15 Eldon Terrace to offices, but an application earlier this year to change use of 14 Eldon Terrace to a taxi control office was refused. Another 2008 application for both properties stating a “Change of use of former student letting office to form ground floor restaurant with bin store to rear” was also refused. The planning authority obviously aren’t happy with that use, bearing in mind the fact that it is right next door to residential property, a busy road and where there are already several eateries.  They are jumping on it for commercial usage, but I don’t think the planners really appreciate that.  At most it would only become a shop/estate agent office (since it has been previously) and, frankly, I don’t think that’s going to happen because of the poor access that the building has to the road.

However, I don’t think that this building has seen the end of its days yet.  For one thing, the owner of the property has too much tied up in it but also, the planners probably wouldn’t allow its demolition anyway.  No, I have a nobler purpose for it, and one that I think all parties would appreciate better than what is there now. The exact details I will withold, but there are some general principles which I will outline here.

Get the University involved -With the site being so close to the university, there will always be a lasting connection between the campus and Eldon Terrace that cannot be broken, so the University of Leeds should be able to have an impact to what happens to the site.  I’m not saying that they should be able to choose, but they should be in on discussions.

Do something that the planning office will pass – Its no use trying to propose the kind of thing which they obviously don’t want at that location.  Any kind of eatery or cafe, nightclub or bar will not get planning permission here because there are too many of the already, and building another at such a location will destroy the residential image of the building and area beyond.  The building is generally residential, so the local government cannot refuse the reuse of the site as a residential usage, provided that the other elements of the design fit their criteria.

Make it nice – I believe that, if enough money and effort is poured into this site, it could be a proud building on that corner, rather than the eye-sore that it is today.  If effort is put into the design to make sure that it is not only respectful to its heritage as a traditional Leeds terrace, but also that the craftsmanship and style make it a stunning conversion rather than simply patching up something which was falling into decay, then the building will create a more polished feel to that area, rather than being the black hole of that intersection.

Get the money from London -  We’ve admitted that it would cost quite a bit to develop this property into the kind of thing I describe above, but let us also admit that the students of Leeds university don’t all come from Leeds, in fact, a lot of them come from London and the South, where money is generally more available than it is up here.  Some such London investor might be looking for a place for their children to live for their time at university, and would be willing to invest that small proportion of their savings making sure they have a property that benefits from its proximity to the university, as well as its stylish environment (created once we’ve had a go at it, obviously).

Develop a financial plan -  It may seem rich at a time when the housing price is falling to expect an investor to put his money into a site that is in such bad repair that it has been derelict many years, but, I believe that creating value in a house is more than simply how much you could get in rent.  People aren’t going to pay huge amounts more for being in a house close to campus without any other reason, but they are willing to pay extra if they can guarantee they will be with a group of good mates in that house.  Some people would say that you can never guarantee things like that.  I respectfully disagree, but that’s where I’m going to stop in terms of my ideas for this property.

If you want to ask me any further questions though, please do by leaving a comment below, especially if you are the owner! 

UPDATE 24th Feb 2009: go to  www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9nN3b8hPB0 for a video of the building’s context in Leeds.

Where in the UK, if a building looks like it was built in Tudor times, it probably was built in Tudor times. In the USA, that house was quite definitely not built in Tudor times, and could have been built anytime from the 1890s (following on from the Victorian Tudor revival in Britain) to the present day, although there probably have been various windows of time when it has gone in and out of fashion.

The campus architecture, however, features no Tudor style architecture, but there is plenty of Georgian style architecture. The place is riddled with it! Being something of an amateur historian, I can confidently say that when good old Georgy sat on the throne in Britain, the negotiations for the purchase of this part of Pennsylvania from the Native Americans were just being completed, so these buildings couldn’t have dated from that period.  In fact, this school was founded only in 1855, and at that time as an agricultural school in the middle of rural Pennsylvania.

^ McElwain Hall, South Halls, PSU

So evidently, the architecture that harks to the Georgian era here at PSU have been designed with that intention by the architect in the interest of choosing a style that suits the building’s purpose, the campus’ image and the budget, considering the popular construction methods of the time.  In this case, the time was the late forties, when the campus underwent a drastic development phase.  The date on this building is 1948, I believe.

There are various other things which mean that dating the buildings is difficult for me.  There was no big seventies phase of masses of grey concrete, for example, unlike in many British universities.  There were seventies developments at PSU, but they were more subtle, in keeping with the traditional feel of the site.  Even the most modern architecture (with the exception of the Lewis Katz building, in my opinion), follows on from the themes and ideas of the previous architecture on site.  The classical proportions, the vertically proportioned windows.  The delicate choice of matching materials and colours and appropriate decoration.

I can’t help thinking that, in Britain, any university constructing new buildings for their site, would be much more focused on the statement of that particular building within its contemporary context than within its historical and local context.  A good example of this (a building insensitive of its local context) is the new Broadcasting Place building which is being constructed by Leeds Met University on Woodhouse Lane, Leeds.  Its proximity to the Old Broadcasting House (a fine example of the classical style) creates a contrast that is self-indulgent to the university and architect, and insulting to tradition and local sensitivity.

^ Broadcasting Place overshadowing Old Broadcasting House in Leeds

I wonder whether current architecture will be easy to date for future architectural students; whether they will say “its ugly and deformed with an insensitivity to its local context – it must have been built in the late ’00s”.  I wonder whether these universities will learn from their mistakes and create policies that protect the architectural heritage of their sites.  I wonder whether American architecture will be easier for me to date once I have been looking at it for longer than a month (the length of time that I have been here).

Only time will tell.