London masterplanner Sir Terry Farrell suggests refurbishment may be better than redevelopment. Should more of the capital’s building stock go down this route?
The argument about how much of London should be preserved and how much should be razed to the ground and started again has been raging since Wren’s rebuilt St Paul’s Cathedral first made its mark on the city’s skyline. Recently, architect Sir Terry Farrell weighed into the debate with the thought that it would benefit the capital if more buildings were refurbished rather than renewed from scratch.
“The opportunity to think about refurbishment is all well and good, but it can’t be done in splendid isolation. It needs to be undertaken as part of the bigger picture because, as popular as the green belt may be in the public’s eye, brownfield development is not always the most sustainable,” says David Waterhouse, associate director at Design Council Cabe.
He suggests that the Greater London Authority, as part of its forthcoming review of the London Plan, determines a capital-wide strategic vision relating to refurbishment. “I would really like the new mayor to take this on board,” he adds.
While Waterhouse is supportive of the concept of refurbishment – reusing the embodied energy in an existing building is clearly better from an environmental and accessibility perspective – he has little truck with those who would preserve London in aspic and is sensitive to the differing types of use buildings are put to.
“Refurbishing commercial buildings is trickier than residential ones,” he concedes. “It is necessary to ask whether they can meet the requirements of modern working – and quite often older buildings are not able to deliver that.”
What do other members of the London Forum think?
Jo Valentine, chief executive, London First
Sir Terry Farrell may well be right. London could see more emphasis on the refurbishment of existing properties in the coming years, particularly as a result of increasing construction costs and a shortage of skills. And there are good reasons for wanting to preserve historic buildings. London is one of the great historic capitals, so those buildings with strong heritage should be retained where there is a convincing case for doing so.
Yet London is also the global centre for business. We need to keep up the pace with world-class cities. To do this and to provide much-needed regeneration in parts of London, we need large scale redevelopment, particularly around transport hubs. London’s population is expected to reach 10m by 2036. To accommodate the 50,000 new homes needed every year, much better use of existing land is essential. Refurbishment alone won’t deliver the density required to support its growth. The solution will be a mix of tradition and innovation: distinctively a London theme.
Simon Cookson, real estate partner, DLA Piper
One of the enduring attractions of London’s real estate market is that it is open and transparent. Any developer is going to look hard at the evolution and shape of their new building; whether they can reuse the current substructure, adapt or add to the structural frame, or whether it needs to be demolished and the whole project started again. Re-use is not a new phenomenon. Broadgate West (2000) and the Broadgate Tower (2009) both used a portion of the substructure of the earlier buildings. Sir Terry Farrell did not really mean there is a preponderance of refurbishment flooding London’s development landscape. He is alluding to a continuation of careful reuse of London’s building stock.
Ben Frodsham, associate, Indigo Planning
With land and floorspace at a premium, total rebuilding is rarely viable unless a significant uplift in value can be realised; it is more attractive commercially to refurbish and extend existing stock. But with an urgent need to significantly boost housing delivery, the focus, at least in the short term, needs to be on maximising the use of previously developed land and buildings to achieve higher densities. This cannot be done by refurbishment alone. In constrained locations, whether because of conservation merit or other reasons, refurbishment or conversion makes sense. But in highly accessible areas near key transport hubs, replacing existing buildings with much higher density development should always be considered.
Bill Page, business space research manager, Legal & General Investment Management
New and iconic buildings are an important part of London’s brand. Innovative architecture can spread excitement beyond our property industry, but proving any effect on “dynamism” – or actual inward investment – alongside known drivers like workforce, transport and transparency is challenging. Economics suggest Sir Terry Farrell will be right. Rising tender prices at a time of flat values and slowing rental growth make all development appraisals more challenging. This will be felt particularly by new build with its greater delivery risks. Refurbishments give our industry (and its researchers) the ability to see meaningful “before and after” metrics on property occupancy, be it sustainability, productivity, health or staff retention. More data here will help us all.
Dan Bayley, managing director, central London offices, BNP Paribas Real Estate
Refurbishment has long been a feature of the capital’s built environment – the swathes of Georgian townhouses now used as West End office space are a prime example of how successfully the capital has adapted to Londoners’ changing needs. In most cases redevelopment doesn’t make sense, economically or environmentally. Most offices built since the mid-1980s have floor depths and floor-to-ceiling heights that remain suitable for today’s occupiers. Entirely new developments may command slightly higher rents but carry significantly higher capital costs, hence why refurbishment, even with recladding, makes commercial sense.
Vacant office space in London is in short supply, and the skyline must inevitably rise in some places if we are to meet our competing needs for new homes and business space. Ultimately, both refurbishment and redevelopment will be vital to ensure that London remains a leader on the world stage.
