| |
Still time for proper look at refitting Sobell Centre
• ATTITUDES to buildings of the 1960s and 1970s are comparable now to what they were to Victorian buildings 30-40 years ago: few questioned a decision to pull them down and proper studies to re-use, adapt or refurbish them were rarely carried out. It was always maintained and accepted almost without question that refurbishment would be more expensive than rebuilding. As a result millions of houses of a type now coveted were destroyed and numerous public buildings were lost.
In the case of the Sobell Centre, Councillor Ruth Polling seems to find it enough to say that it will “be demolished because it is in a very poor state” – contrary in fact to appearances (Campaign to save Sobell comes to the centre’s own front door, August 22). No proper study has been made, or at least made public, of the potential for refurbishment and adaptation. Instead, positively misleading information about it is put in the public consultation document, such as that there “is lots of wasted space” in it. Indeed, I have been told by the council that only 40 per cent of the existing building is devoted to sports uses compared to 60 per cent of the (as yet undesigned) proposed buildings.
As an architect, I have checked the plans and find that only about 17.5 per cent of the existing building is devoted to corridors, offices, entrances and plant rooms – not 60 per cent as the council seems to claim. How valid is a consultation exercise when based on erroneous information?
Similarly, it is claimed by Cllr Polling that there will be “more open space” in the (as yet undesigned) proposed schemes – despite the new buildings apparently having higher ground cover. Analysing the limited information available would indicate that this is mainly achieved by much reducing the amount of parking. This option would be available with the existing building by grassing over most of the existing parking.
Alternatively, it could be developed for housing – or even probably used as a site for a swimming pool (the council having demolished the former pool in Hornsey Road).
No proper study of the alternatives can be made until the council has commissioned a serious refurbishment proposal – as it has done in the case of Ashmount School.
JAMES DUNNETT
James Dunnett Architects
Barnsbury Road, N1
• TRICIA Clarke urges us to spend our council tax on refurbishing and developing the Sobell Centre (Save the Sobell, August 22).
I would like to ask by how much does the Labour group propose to put up the council tax by to pay for this proposal? I expect to see this amount in the Labour group alternative budget next year.
CLLR LUCY WATT
Lib Dem deputy council leader
|
 |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
