Oh the irony… I am writing this over 2,000 miles away in the historic city of As Salt in Jordan. I’m here exploring how old buildings and monuments can contribute towards our future… indeed how their adaptation can help us reduce our use of precious resources and energy.
My home for the afternoon, Bayt Daish, is not even that old – a 1950s building which five years ago was a ruin, but has since been beautifully restored by the Petra National Trust. It has now found a new life as a place where tourists like me can visit and where local people make a living. This is where I’m following the depressing news of Angela Rayner’s decision to approve the demolition of Orchard House, Marks & Spencer’s flagship building on Oxford Street.
The Government has missed a critical opportunity to mark a change in a wasteful attitude
Why depressing? Because the Government has missed a critical opportunity to mark a change in a wasteful attitude which considers buildings to be disposable. Is your building a bit worn at the edges? Perhaps it needs some work to modernise or make it more energy efficient? Maybe there’s a little envy of the starchitect design next door? Well, don’t worry, Knock it down and start again!
At the moment in the UK, we demolish more than 50,000 buildings a year. Of course some will not be fit for purpose, but that’s still an enormous amount of embedded carbon and past energy thrown away, to be replaced by a new building which needs yet more carbon and energy. This hardly fits a Government agenda of achieving Net Zero, especially when we consider that the building and construction sector is responsible for 40-50 million tonnes of C02 annually – that's more than aviation and shipping combined.
Orchard House, or 458 Oxford Street, was built 1929–30 by Thomas & Edge Ltd to designs by Trehearne & Norman. Originally a speculative development, rather than purpose-built for M&S, but Simon Marks, the founder’s son, was determined to have a store on Oxford Street: ‘even if it never makes a profit, it will be a good advertisement for the business’.
It wasn’t the first M&S in London either, that was at Southwark, nor was it intended to be the flagship showroom, which was the later Pantheon store at 169–171 Oxford Street. But it soon expanded to become the largest.
Built in the classical style, it was faced in stone and originally had sculptures on the external doors, windows and balconies depicting characters from Lewis Carolls’ Alice in Wonderland and Alice through the Looking Glass – the White Knight remains above the corner window intersection with Orchard Street peeping beneath the projecting clock. It’s an interesting slice of London history, even if it has lost its original interiors and is not listed, not least because it fits and complements the rhythm and flow of Oxford Street, particularly with the Selfridges building opposite.
M&S have now got their wish to tear down Orchard House and replace it with a 9-story building which will include a smaller shop, café, offices and gym. This is needed, they say, because shopping habits have changed particularly since Covid and the current store does not offer an ‘attractive, pleasant experience for customers’. Retrofitting the old store was simply not possible.
This has been comprehensively challenged by many campaigners including SAVE Britain’s Heritage, who argue convincingly, that retro-fit of the old shop would not only save energy, but time and make the obvious point that heritage buildings contribute significantly to the economy. The former Fenwick's on Bond Street or the new IKEA at Oxford Circus are good examples of old buildings nearby that have been successfully re-purposed for the 21st century.
Reusing old buildings is not anti-development – it’s the opposite
Reusing old buildings is not anti-development – it’s the opposite – just look at the draw and economic impact of a places like Tate Modern. How difficult can it be to repurpose a building deliberately designed as a shop and office block into… er… a shop and office block?
Consider this – Battersea Power Station, finally completed in 1955, at one time produced a 5th of all London’s electricity. The design and spaces required to achieve this were necessarily vast – huge turbine halls and four enormous chimneys requiring six million bricks. To convert such a structure to a new use would be an obvious challenge, but it has now undergone an extraordinary transformation into a shopping complex, offices and residential, effectively from a cathedral of power to a temple of consumption. If it can be done at Battersea, then surely, we must try harder with other easier historic buildings such as Orchard House.
Thankfully, London still has a wealth of structures that date back centuries, despite rebellion, flood, the Great Fire of 1666 and The Blitz. These buildings and monuments make London London. They give our city its distinctive spirit of place, distinguishing it from other great metropolises, attracting visitors and making it a desirable place to live. In this context, it is critical that we hold onto the things that define this city, including its architecture.
Therefore there is another related trend that we should be wary of associated with this disposable attitude – and that is to pay attention to what replaces the places which are demolished. Too often the new structures have little in common with the buildings that went before them, or as importantly, the local London townscape around them. Does our city need more AnywhereArchitecture?
I want London to look like London, and so do those who are visiting the city. They are not coming here to enjoy the bland universality of towering plate glass and steel but instead to wander through the mazy complexity of a slow-built, distinctive place. Everything changes, but let’s make sure the change is for the good.
So, my challenge to Angela Raynor is not to consider the decision to allow demolition to be a victory for economic growth (which could have been achieved equally effectively through investing in heritage), but a step further away from a sensible strategy towards reducing energy use and another unwanted challenge which will encourage the erosion of London’s unique character.
We’re moving away from single-use plastics, so why not apply the same logic to historic buildings – they can be effectively adapted and modified for new uses. Let’s take the ‘Reduce, Reuse and Recycle’ mantra and apply it to our buildings too.
John Darlington is Director of Projects for World Monuments Fund
