COMMENT The new chairman of Historic England, Lord Mendoza, was featured in The Times recently saying: “It hurts me when I see new buildings.”
I’m hoping these comments were taken out of context, because to have such an important decision-maker and leader seemingly so opposed to new buildings has serious – and worrying – implications, not only for the real estate industry, but also for the environment.
The comments are particularly concerning when taken in conjunction with the recent decision by levelling up secretary Michael Gove to reject the redevelopment of Marks & Spencer’s Marble Arch flagship store, partly on the grounds of sustainability.
More nuanced approach
I fear we may be straying into territory where the much-needed and admirable focus on adaptive reuse of buildings is blurring the broader picture of sustainability and how we live in harmony with our planet. I feel compelled to make the case for a more nuanced approach to how we allow our cities to evolve, as a binary attitude to old and new buildings is not just hurtful, it is damaging and misleading.
I have always been passionate about breathing new life into heritage buildings, and at AFK Studios we are huge advocates of adaptive reuse. It is one of the reasons we choose to base our London studio in a warehouse that was once a fashion factory – perhaps it still is.
Fashion aside, what is enduring is the significant contribution that heritage buildings make to the grain, scale, detail and cultural understanding of our places and spaces. They are vitally important, and wherever possible we must work with them to instil new life. However, this cannot be a “one size fits all” approach, for we risk losing sight of the bigger picture and damaging our ecosystem.
Expansive view
Firstly, from a continuity of the planet perspective, it is imperative that we balance economic sustainability with environmental sustainability. They are intrinsically and fundamentally linked – although not all of our current interventionist politicians would seem to agree.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the city is the most sustainable construct we have, and it demands an expansive view of how we live in harmony with the environment. After all, intensification of land use around key transport nodes leverages the carbon invested to create that infrastructure – think of the millions of tonnes of carbon used to construct the Elizabeth Line in London, and how densifying around those stations enables us to capitalise on existing carbon expenditure. It also helps to avoid urban sprawl, which accelerates transport emissions – the greatest single source of greenhouse gases.
As we strive to create uniform ways to measure and predict carbon impacts, we should think broadly to consider the urban ecosystem in which buildings reside, rather than merely assessing buildings in splendid isolation. Far worse would be to vacuum-seal our cities by blocking the development of well-located new buildings which, through their intensification of land use, help unlock wider environmental gains.
Proxy arguments
Lord Mendoza rightfully observes that “Historic England is the arm of government: we are here to protect”. Notwithstanding this noble mission and the importance of retaining heritage buildings that serve us, I am worried by recent planning decisions and Lord Mendoza’s comments. Some observers have already concluded that if a heritage argument to retain a building is not sufficiently strong, then a proxy environmental argument will be marshalled to prop up or lead the case for retention – usually without the fundamental larger environmental context being considered.
I do, however, agree with Lord Mendoza’s point about making the best of what we already have. This approach has been a cornerstone of “development” since time began. Thankfully, the resetting enabled by the pandemic is also motivating a shift away from isolated single-use buildings to buildings that enjoy a mix of uses – be they the small adaptive reuse developments that we are currently working on or the large estates that we are helping to reposition and make more attractive to people today.
Now is not the time to lose the love for new buildings – the natural environment needs us to be more critical in our thinking. A more nuanced and considered outlook is required when we appraise both retrofits and new buildings if we are to address some of the most important social and environmental issues of our time.
As an industry, I sincerely hope we can convince Lord Mendoza to be appreciative of, not hurt by, new buildings that address sustainability aims beyond the narrow focus of their plot boundaries.
Earle Arney is co-founder and chief executive of AFK Studios
