Annotated summary of the keynote lecture at the Resilient Heritage Conference, Peterborough 15 July 2011. Thinking out loud about how buildings must stay useful, and how we might achieve that most appropriately. Let the debate continue. More talks at www.built.org.uk

1. USE Them
OR LOSE them
Old buildings with new purposes
Jonathan Foyle CEO World Monuments Fund Britain

2. NOTE
A longer version of this presentation was given as the keynote lecture for
the ‘Resilient Heritage’ conference in Peterborough, 15 July 2011,
organised by Alice Kershaw of Opportunity Peterborough. Now, it must be
admitted that the author has a tendency to extemporise when speaking:
the annotations here helpfully get to the main points, and are intended for
you to answer to your satisfaction.
We begin with this quote…

3. “No building is ever perfect. Each building,
when it is first built, is an attempt to make a
self-maintaining whole configuration. But the
predictions are invariably wrong. People use
buildings differently from the way they thought
they would.” Christopher Alexander
This reasonable statement implies that adaptive reuse is the
natural course for buildings if they are to remain of use to society.

4. 1954. A modern masterpiece: The Manufacturers Trust Co, 510 Fifth Ave, New York.
(Gordon Bunshaft for Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.)
Banking de-fortified, made translucent and platonically simple

5. 2011. 510 Fifth Avenue is gutted to become a clothing outlet, under Vornado Realty Trust.
The entrance is to be resituated; the escalator reversed, the vault moved. On the basis the
envelope remains intact, the Landmarks Preservation Committee gave approval for work in
April 2011. On 14 July 2011 a judge halted work after a legal challenge was made by the
Citizens Emergency Committee to Preserve Preservation [sic] which argues its Landmark status
must extend to the interior features, because of its transparency. It is now gutted and static.

6. QUESTIONS:
• If its transparent, seminal design is its defining characteristic and significance, is
510 Fifth Ave inherently incapable of adaptive reuse?
• Whose responsibility is it to maintain commercial buildings in a preserved
original form that may, because of Landmark or Listed status preventing any
significant changes, now be unsuited to commercial market forces?
• If no financially viable alternative proposal is presented for re-use or funded
preservation, what is the likely future for the building?
• If it cannot be changed and remains unused as a direct result, is the cause its
specific original design or is the current preservation ethos over-zealous ?
• Is the total preservation of buildings a denial of the natural order of change?
• If so, where do we stop? Should the Taj Mahal become a shopping centre
because of the demand for souvenirs it generates? Or is the inherent
commercial character of 510 5th Avenue and its situation more clearly
paradoxical in this case?

7. Let’s look at broader circumstances.
What are we dealing with?
BUILDINGS ARE FOUND IN
6 ESSENTIAL STATES

8. 6 ESSENTIAL STATES
1: MUSEIFIED

9. Sir John Soane’s Museum, London. Bequeathed to the nation as a museum in 1837, but it has changed.

10. The rarest of buildings: Maison Mantin, Moulins, France. Locked up in 1905 for 100 years. Re-opened 2010

11. 6 ESSENTIAL STATES:
2: STILL PERFORMING THE ORIGINAL FUNCTION

12. Bradford, St George’s Hall. Built as an entertainment venue for the working population of the town, 1849-53

13. Still an entertainment venue, though has had an organ fitted, new stage, cinema, lighting etc...

14. 6 ESSENTIAL STATES:
3: SURVIVES WELL BUT REDUNDANT

15. Temple Works, Holbeck, Leeds 1836-40

16. Grade 1 Listed flax mill. Planning permission for partial demolition, flats, retail refused 2005.
Now essentially redundant, with recent partial collapses, though used for arts performances.

17. 6 ESSENTIAL STATES:
4: DISAPPEARED OR RUINOUS

18. Liverpool, waterfront in 2010. Note the church tower.

19. Liverpool, waterfront in c.1860. Only the church remains identifiable.
But without significant loss, we wouldn’t have the famous waterfront we know today.

20. 6 ESSENTIAL STATES:
5: RESTORED

21. “… Restoration of ancient buildings [is] a
strange and most fatal idea, which by its very
name implies that it is possible to strip from a
building this, that, and the other part of its
history - of its life that is - and then to stay the
hand at some arbitrary point, and leave it still
historical, living, and even as it once was.”
William Morris, SPAB Manifesto 1877

22. Morris’ position should be seen in the context of Victorian
‘improvements’ : aesthetic design adjustments to ancient buildings,
removing archaeologically sensitive material like plaster or inserting church
tracery in imitation of a favourite epoch where no such examples formerly
existed.
These attempts to revise buildings into a notional perfection often
effectively destroyed or falsified their true evolving history or ‘life’,
which was gained by the inevitable yet unforeseeable changes and/or reuses
Christopher Alexander referred to.
But the thing is, there are different kinds of restoration…

23. Lord Grimthorpe’s inventions
at St Albans Cathedral were
infamous in Morris’ day.

24. But far more acceptable is the restoration of essentially surviving but damaged
or depleted architecture which is backed by good evidence.
(Marble Saloon, Stowe House, a World Monuments Fund project)

26. Restoration which is essentially
speculative but which is reversible
(Stirling Castle, James V’s Palace)

27. Lincoln Cathedral
Restoration of glass,
smashed by iconoclasts
but set in a new permutation

28. Restoration can also be achieved
graphically, leaving the building
untouched.
(Hampton Court, c.1525)
J Foyle www.built.org.uk

29. 6 ESSENTIAL STATES:
6: REMODELLED FOR ALTERNATIVE USE

31. “There are large palaces, building complexes, or
agglomerations that constitute whole pieces of
the city, and whose function now is no longer the
original one. When one visits a monument of this
type […] one is struck by the multiplicity of
different functions that a building of this type can
contain over time, and how these functions are
completely independent of form.”
Aldo Rossi

32. What is common to all these buildings?
(OK, except the very unusual Maison Mantin…)

33. NO BUILDING
WILL SURVIVE
INTACT

34. CHANGE IS
INEVITABLE

35. CONSERVATION
IS MANAGING
CHANGE

36. How and why do buildings change?

37. • Limited usage

38. • Limited usage
Demand for use

39. • Limited usage
Demand for use
• Poor resources

40. • Limited usage
Demand for use
• Poor resources
Skills and capacity

41. • Limited usage
Demand for use
• Poor resources
Skills and capacity
• Maintenance burden

42. • Limited usage
Demand for use
• Poor resources
Skills and capacity
• Maintenance burden
Capital investment

43. • Limited usage
Demand for use
• Poor resources
Skills and capacity
• Maintenance burden
Capital investment
• Inadequate income

44. • Limited usage
Demand for use
• Poor resources
Skills and capacity
• Maintenance burden
Capital investment
• Inadequate income
Sound business plan

45. • Limited usage
Demand for use
• Poor resources
Skills and capacity
• Maintenance burden
Capital investment
• Inadequate income
Sound business plan
• ‘Replaceability’

46. • Limited usage
Demand for use
• Poor resources
Skills and capacity
• Maintenance burden
Capital investment
• Inadequate income
Sound business plan
• ‘Replaceability’
Suitability

47. • Limited usage
Demand for use
• Poor resources
Skills and capacity
• Maintenance burden
Capital investment
• Inadequate income
Sound business plan
• ‘Replaceability’
Suitability
• Restrictive legislation

48. • Limited usage
Demand for use
• Poor resources
Skills and capacity
• Maintenance burden
Capital investment
• Inadequate income
Sound business plan
• ‘Replaceability’
Suitability
• Restrictive legislation
Legal permission

49. • Limited usage
Demand for use
• Poor resources
Skills and capacity
• Maintenance burden
Capital investment
• Inadequate income
Sound business plan
• ‘Replaceability’
Suitability
• Restrictive legislation
Legal permission
• Bad politics

50. • Limited usage
Demand for use
• Poor resources
Skills and capacity
• Maintenance burden
Capital investment
• Inadequate income
Sound business plan
• ‘Replaceability’
Suitability
• Restrictive legislation
Legal permission
• Bad politics
Working relationships

51. • Limited usage
Demand for use
• Poor resources
Skills and capacity
• Maintenance burden
Capital investment
• Inadequate income
Sound business plan
• ‘Replaceability’
Suitability
• Restrictive legislation
Legal permission
• Bad politics
Working relationships
=Liability, loss
=Asset, use

52. • Limited usage
Demand for use
• Poor resources
Skills and capacity
• Maintenance burden
Capital investment
• Inadequate income
Sound business plan
• ‘Replaceability’
Suitabililty
• Restrictive legislation
Legal permission
• Bad politics
Working relationships
=Liability, loss
=Asset, use
Q: Are these temporary circumstances or a major socio-economic
trend? In the mid seventeenth century, Canterbury Cathedral was
considered derelict and most useful for its salvaged materials.
Should its fate have followed the demands of the time?
Ask: is a long-term view being taken over short-term expediency?

53. HOW DO WE DEFINE APPROPRIATE
CHANGE?

54. ‘PRESERVE AT ALL COSTS’ IS UNFEASIBLE

55. REASONABLENESS MUST APPLY

56. TAKE THE LONG-TERM VIEW

57. MIND YOUR LANGUAGE

58. A WORD OR TWO:
WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE LANGUAGE WE USE?
‘Conservation’ and ‘preservation’ sound like the aim of preventing change.
‘Let’s make… nothing happen!’
Alright, sometimes that is the case, when buildings face threat or destruction.
Except… the best preservation encourages imagination: effecting a transformation into new uses, to be
enjoyed by more people, bringing sustained care and support for a sound future.
It’s entrepreneurial, involved, dynamic and brings new life. Our terminology should reflect that.
It may sound close to the too-cynically used term ‘regeneration’ which has justified 1001 bad
developments, but I think good reuse of historic buildings is ‘revitalization’.
Revitalization isn’t static. It’s smart, relevant and engaging. After all…

59. CONSERVATION
IS MANAGING
CHANGE

60. HOW COULD WE DO IT BETTER?

61. PROMOTE A CULTURE OF
RESPONSIBLE RE-USE

62. 5-POINT PLAN: ‘Protect and Revitalize’
• FACILITATE: HLF should move beyond individual projects and purchase and co-
operate quarries timber forests to ease and subsidise the supply of now costly
traditional materials for repair and new build nationwide. EH protection would be
assisted; the preserved and new built environment made more harmonious.
• TRAIN: Skills training and its value depends on supply and demand for available
materials. Living traditions should inform contemporary design. But 50% of architects’
work is to historic buildings: RIBA should stipulate historic design and materials as part
of the RIBA Pt I and Pt II syllabus to improve skills toward extension and re-use.
• INCENTIVISE: The VAT rate for approved alterations, repairs should be at least
made equivalent to new-build; challenge funds for custodians of old buildings?
• INFORM AND ENGAGE: Public trends and perceptions are rarely changed
without benefits. The value of responsible reuse should be better publicised in clear
language and in terms that meet a broad public and commercial audience.
• BE PREPARED TO MOTHBALL for the long term if no suitable use is identified

63. So the title should perhaps have been…

64. USE Them
MOTHBALL THEM
OR LOSE them
Old buildings with new purposes gained through loosening up a bit
and embracing change… or at least keeping good examples in
arrested decay awaiting the right new use whilst we teach people how
to appreciate and look after them, dangling a financial carrot
to make it all just a bit easier, whilst rebranding
conservation/preservation.
(But that wouldn’t have worked. )
Jonathan Foyle World Monuments Fund Britain