The X-list
George Ferguson gives his view of Northampton’s bus station
George Ferguson
Enlarge
image
Former RIBA president George Ferguson makes a plea to improve the environment by sweeping away the buildings everyone hates
What do most of us want to do when we move into a new house? Before I think about improvements, I make a hit list of the horrors – the crazy paving fire surrounds, garish wallpaper and tacky extensions. Removing these abominations gives an instant lift in spirit and value, before any repairs and refurbishment have been carried out.
I have the same reaction when I roll up in a town I haven't visited before – a reaction confirmed by an eye-opening Wonders and Blunders tour of Britain I made in the summer of 2003, in my first month as president of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). Every town in Britain contains buildings or structures whose removal would dramatically improve both the enjoyment and value of the place and the setting for our historic environment.
Protect the context
The successful transformation of London's Trafalgar Square
Sparkpics
Enlarge
image
The owners of some buildings of historic value are fortunate enough to receive conservation grants. I have long advocated, though, that, apart from protecting our heritage from the ravages of time and bad restoration, we should shift the emphasis to the improvement of the settings of our historic buildings and areas. We have some splendid new examples of this, such as the recent transformation of Trafalgar Square, but are seldom brave enough to tackle the thornier issues, like the removal of a 1960s office block which oppresses the adjacent space and buildings. What is the point of ploughing public money into prettifying our heritage if we ignore its setting and how it is used and enjoyed?
This is why I advocate an X-list of buildings and structures that have a negative impact on their local environment. It is no use just wishing these things away. We need to identify and agree about which buildings and structures come into this category.
I intended that this process would lead to heated public debate which, in turn, would generate greater interest in and understanding of the local built environment and heritage. Though not everyone will agree completely, I am confident that there will be a high level of consensus about many of the buildings. My recommendation is that the final decision would lie with an expert committee, convened by English Heritage, like the current listing process.
The process of deciding
So what should happen to an X-listed building? Eventually it should be either demolished or radically transformed in response to the criticisms that led to it being listed. This can be achieved in several ways:
- There should be a planning decree that such X-listed buildings should not be considered for change of use or alteration, such as from office to residential use, without good evidence that this will bring such beneficial changes that the reasons for the original listing will no longer be valid.
- There should be a stipulation that a demolition notice will be issued if such a building is left vacant for more than, say, two years.
- Planners should be guided to encourage the replacement of such buildings with appropriate rewarding redevelopment.
- Finally a major new grant fund should be established, equivalent to the funding available for repairing historic buildings to help tip the balance in deciding whether to refurbish or demolish.
I am appalled by the results of a feeble planning decision in my home city of Bristol, which has allowed the vulgar redundant post-War office blocks to be tarted up to extend their lives for another generation as student accommodation. If X-listing had been a possibility, they could easily have been replaced by more appropriate development.
Voice of the people
In the time I have been advocating X-listing I have received a small amount of hostility from a handful of old modernists who, I suggest, fear that their buildings will turn up on the list. I have been treated with tolerance from some planners and politicians, who receive it with a wry smile, implying that I am an idealist lunatic who is clearly not familiar with the realities of the planning system. But I have had enthusiastic support from local media and the public in towns and cities where I have canvassed the proposal and there was an overwhelming response to our request on this website for the public to nominate the building they would most like to see demolished.
To the horror of a couple of architectural critics who accuse me of supporting mob rule, I have dared suggest that local media and the public should be involved selecting such buildings, though not in the making final decision, since that must take into account the architectural, engineering or historical significance.
What on earth is holding us back from what must surely be the most effective way of transforming the historic environment? I challenge the Government to take up this challenge and to lead the world in instigating a scheme that could make a remarkable difference to our enjoyment of our built and natural surroundings. Meanwhile, I shall go and take a hammer to that crazy-paving fireplace!