Peter Franklin: "Blacklist ugly and dysfunctional buildings"

Peter Franklin is a Conservative policy advisor, speechwriter and contributor to The Guardian's Comment Is Free.

> Policy summary

A national blacklist of ugly and dysfunctional buildings that should be demolished and replaced.

> Policy explanation

The current listing system for buildings allows planning authorities to identify and protect the most precious features of our architectural heritage. The system also helps direct the flow of public and private conservation funds to where they’re most needed.

However, in order to give due recognition to the carbuncles as well as the gems, the listing system needs to be supplemented by a blacklisting system for the worst buildings in our villages, towns and cities.

Bad architecture is much more that just an eyesore. Various studies have shown, as commonsense would lead one to expect, that ugly buildings have a negative impacts on local economies, community cohesion, neighbourhood security and even mental health.

Under the new arrangements, local people would have the right to petition their councillors to have their least favourite buildings blacklisted. Given enough signatures, the council would be obliged to vote on each petition. As with the existing system there would a grading system, with grade 2, grade 2* and grade 1 blacklisted buildings.

Government planning guidance would be amended with provisions requiring planning authorities to take blacklisting into account when considering planning applications and development plans.

> Political risks and opportunities

There is a possibility that a blacklisting system would allow a bunch of Prince Charles types to launch a national witch-hunt against modernist architecture. Well, that’s the opportunity; the risk is that it might not turn out that way! Still, it’s worth a try.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• What should the hurdle be in terms of signatures required to get a building blacklisted?
• What sort of features deserve grade 2* status as opposed to the normal grade 2 blacklisting?
• How should the most spectacular horrors, deserving of grade 1 status be identified?
• What practical consequences should blacklisting have?

> Costs

The blacklisting system shouldn’t have any extra costs. Local campaigners would be responsible for the expense of organising a petition. Planning departments would be responsible for maintaining an up-to-date register of blacklisted buildings which would be published on the council website.

The system could even raise money by surcharging the owners of blacklisted buildings, the money raised going into a conservation fund for ‘whitelisted’ buildings or as grants for the demolition of blacklisted buildings.

 

Comments

[Gildas]

What exactly is the point of this?

If the objective is to create a comprehensive list of the horrors of modern architecture to help people lobby planning departments then why does it need to be a Big Government, centrally mandated idea, rather than done now by an independent pressure group?

On the other hand, if the idea is for the Blacklist to actually have teeth, then it is a terrible idea. Private property is the basis of a free society, but is one of our liberties which is most often overlooked. Why should councils be able, at the instigation of some agitated busybodies to blight my property with a blacklisting, just because they don't like what it looks like? Say I own a building that is considered ugly (and I fully accept your criticism of modernist architecture), if it is blacklisted that is going to impact (at the very least) on my ability to sell the property.

Planning laws already infringe enough on property rights. Lets not add to the mess.

[James Maskell]

Didnt Cameron comment on this in the Independent on Sunday the past week arguing that cul-de-sacs led to social problems and that he would prefer to see proper houses rather than social housing? I think Cameron is wrong and that a whole range of housing needs require a range of housing types. Ive always considered cul-de-sacs quite nice actually and that they can foster a community spirit.

As for this proposal, Im afraid I dont really like it for the reasons that Gildas gave. The buildings may be ugly but people may live there. We have a tower block which may not be the prettiest thing (its definitely ugly - Arlington House, Margate) but it is home to dozens of people and they would not appreciate it being knocked down because it was considered ugly.

[Phil Taylor]

This is an awful idea. We have enough town hall bureaucrats without coming up with new things for them to do.

Yes, there are some ugly buildings. That said it is expensive and wasteful to tear them down before their time.

[Peter Littleton]

I agree with Gildas' view about individual freedom for individuals to build according to their own personal tastes - and I might add, budget. The idea that these people should be made to pay a surcharge is worrying.

My other concern is that many of the ugliest buildings are owned by public institutions. I think it would be a bad idea were these organisations to be forced to undertake costly building work at the expense of the taxpayer or service users, simply because some of the locals didn't like a buildings. Such structures should serve out their natural life, and then planners should be more vigilant in rejecting applications for ugly buildings in the future.

[Londoner]

I am attracted to the idea that truly awful buildings should be demolished but would be worried if the final decision on, say, compulsary demolition, was left entirely to popular petition. For instance recently there was a poll about ugly buildings in London and lots of people voted for the National Theatre (not beautiful from the outside but wonderful inside producing wonderful theatre and unlikely to get the resources to re-build if it were wantonly demolished) and the Swiss Re ("Gherkin") building In the City which in my opinion is rather handsome and therefore just demonstrates people's ignorance (or my differing prejudice).

To reduce distortion by arch anti-modernists etc (it should be a matter of quality not style), therefore the initial petition should just result in a local ballot at the time of the next local elections - maybe then with the right of a final appeal by the owner to some independent national body. If successful that would then result in the building being listed as one of just two grades - grade 2 which would mean that the planning authority would fast track and look favourably upon planning applications for re-development and grade 1 which would require redevelopment proposals within 5 years. In the meantime both grades would attract a Council Tax surcharge on the owner (not the occupier, who may be poor and without influence) (say, 15% for grade 2 and 30% for grade 1), of which at least half would have to go into a local environmental improvement fund (including grants towards demolition etc) and the other half used to reduce the general level of Council Tax locally.

With these sorts of refinements, I would be in favour - and there is at least one building near where I live in central London that I would start petitioning against right away!

[James Maskell]

Londoner, the Houses of Parliament dont count...

[Alison Anne Smith]

"This is an awful idea. We have enough town hall bureaucrats without coming up with new things for them to do.

Yes, there are some ugly buildings. That said it is expensive and wasteful to tear them down before their time.

Posted by: Phil Taylor"

Totally agree Phil. Subjective views on buildings serves no purpose, other than local action groups wasting tax payers money on drawnout decision making & lawsuits. Was this suggested by lawyers ?

[Kevin Davis]

This does seem a touch bureaucratic. I do however see a system where any attempt to demolish a listed building should be put to the public. The real problem is some of the good buildings that get ripped down.

[aristeides]

This is an excellent policy idea which will have a positive impact on people's quality of life.

To address some of the criticisms so far:

>>>Why should councils be able, at the instigation of some agitated busybodies to blight my property with a blacklisting, just because they don't like what it looks like?<<<

Fine - let's start with council owned or built properties then; they tend to be the worst offenders anyway.

>>>That said it is expensive and wasteful to tear them down before their time.<<<

The proposal did not say that blacklisted buildings would be torn down on spec but would be that blacklisting would be taken into "account when considering planning applications and development plans." That said, there are eyesores which really should be prioritised and tackled early on - this is a good policy with which to fight local and mayoral elections.

>>>I agree with Gildas' view about individual freedom for individuals to build according to their own personal tastes - and I might add, budget<<<

Unfortunately, this point does not bear any relation to the current reality of planning laws which are already highly restrictive and prescriptive.

>>>I am attracted to the idea that truly awful buildings should be demolished but would be worried if the final decision on, say, compulsary demolition, was left entirely to popular petition.<<<

The policy rightly does not leave the process entirely down to popular petition. There is also probably a role for a veto (say at Mayor of London level for London). Having said that most of Londoner's other refinements seem sensible.

What is best about this policy is that it begins to address a political failing that is absolutely rife in Britain today, namely that nothing ever seems to get done. People wonder why they have to walk past an ugly grey sixties block covered in graffiti day in day out and no one seeming to care. It is soul-destroying. Of course there may be some unintended consequences but we have to try and we have to start.

[Christian Holliday]

Who decides what is ugly and what is not? Let the market decide: If it is truly aweful then no one will want to buy it, work in it or live in it. Such buildings will then become surplus to requirements and will be demolished in any case.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Define "ugly"...

[NigelC]

No. What if campaigners choose my house?

[Sedge]

Perhaps because of the concern over infringement of civil liberties/the right to own property, this list should initially (or possibly permanently) be limited to vacant, unused buildings?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Then you'd be sharing a shelter with Mr Vaizey :-))))

[Stephen B]

I'm against the idea on the grounds that tastes shift - the National Theatre is still considered ugly but I think its time will come (St Pancras Station used to be considered the acme of bad taste and yet is now wildly popular).

[aristeides]

What is it with all these questions about what is ugly? If Conservatives do not have sufficient confidence in their critical faculties to be able to decide what is ugly and what is not, we are in a very sorry state indeed. Equally, we should be prepared to trust local people to be able to make such decisions as well.

Incidentally, there is obviously a process which decides which buildings are worthy of listed status so the inverse is entirely logical.

[DavidTBreaker]

I like the idea of blacklisting ugly buildings, however it is all getting very bureaucratic from the sounds of it here. It needs simplifying. Without changes it is also too risky in this form.

First of all, there should never be a requirement to demolish a building, it is private property and not the property of the state. I am though not in favour of a building ‘free for all’ - in whatever style - as one building can negatively affect its area so there needs to be some control as anything else falling under the ‘harm theory’. David Ricardo developed Smith’s free market theories and agreed the need for some limit to building as land is a finite resource, and can affect others. But if the ugly building already exists, it’s the council’s stupid fault for letting it be built in the first place.

Secondly, any decision must be made by locals, not ‘experts’ - whether council, architects or whoever. Remember ‘experts’ in the 1960s and earlier demolished hundreds of beautiful old buildings to build total dumps. Covent Garden and Canterbury City Centre were both listed for the bulldozer by ‘experts’ and ‘town planners’.

Thirdly, style has got to come into it. Whatever style you like, they don’t all work together in the same place. For instance, I like “The Gherkin” in Central London, but not in Bath or Salisbury. There has to be a sense of place in all buildings - size, materials and to some extent style relating sympathetically to the area and its neighbouring buildings. Things shouldn’t really “stick out like sore thumbs”.

Fourthly, it cannot be entirely on ‘quality’. You could build the best 3D glow in the dark cyber-kinetic scorpion shaped multi-story car park ever but it would still be ugly and damage the area.

The Royal Festival Hall is awful, but as you say, good inside. An X-list needn’t mean demolition, it could have an allowance for “re-facing” the building. A new façade could be built and new windows added. In Ashford there’s an awful multi-story building with blue plastic tiles as its external facing - why not replace with glass or brick?

The Blacklist or X-List as it was known should work like this;
Residents petition of say 5% of the area
Building analysed by a surveyor, historian and petition leader - report to council
Council lists building with one grade; Grade X

All X-listed buildings should have an open invitation to redevelop - in short an easier planning system. For example the 60% expansion limit and change of use restrictions could be removed.

Therefore; no force, no fuss, no ‘BIG GOVERNMENT’.

Restrictions however; no pre-war buildings to be X-listed, building listed must be ‘out of synch’ with the area (sticks out due to excessive size, overbearing clash of colour/style), and must not be of significant importance.

[Burkean]

I find it rather amusing that someone named Aristeides is arguing in favor of blacklisting.

As to the main point, let history be the judge. Good buildings will survive, bad buildings will be torn down. If the main concern is the listing as significant of brutally ugly buildings, then have a policy where those buildings can be delisted.

I'm also reminded of the chap in Oxford who had the shark on his roof and the attempts by the council to get him to take it down. I applauded his resistance to council bullying. This is exactly the sort of policy that busybodies and moaning minnies would have used against him.

[Jon Gale]

It should be much harder to get planning permission for ugly buidings (based on local objections). At the moment when the Parish council is against something, representing the local opinon, the distant County Council can overide it and decree a new carbuncle can be built.

[Ted]

No - tastes change.

The likeihood is a building that creates sufficient emotion is one with merit - it's the dull that blight our lives not the carbuncles, which can be jewels as well as boils

In the 60's people positively hated Victorian brick buildings (luckily Kings Cross St Pancreas, Prudential in High Holborn survived but many didn't). Art Deco buildings were the pits - great numbers torn down especially in seaside towns (and even now that great art deco facade at Highbury....).

[Peter Coe]

Hmm, "St Pancreas" eh? Would that be near the Royal Liver Building, or the Kidney Opera House?

[aristeides]

>>>I find it rather amusing that someone named Aristeides is arguing in favor of blacklisting.<<<

Yes - but I am prepared to fill in the application to blacklist my own house, if you can't do it!

[Ted]

Peter Coe

obviously the Royal Liver building :-)

- another Art Deco gem.

[DavidTBreaker]

I agree it should be harder to get planning permission - indeed impossible - for ugly out of character buildings, we have enough already! However parish councils are usually a nightmare and do not in my experience represent local opinion. That is why I favour greater freedoms providing it doesn't clash or detract from the area, hence my obsession with local materials, local character, sympathetic nature etc. A codified set of rules would reduce objectivity and state interference…we’d all know, in plain text, what can and cannot be done (for example, new conservatory, fine, who does it harm? Paint your house bright purple, no way because it clashes).

As for tastes changing, true, but some things are timeless. Some beautiful villages have had ‘tourists’ since the railways opened - they must be doing something right. The post-war era was very abnormal historically; lots of socialism, obsession with 'brave new world' and 'white heat of technology'...rubbish basically. We should have buildings built to last (no pun intended), not flavour of the year fads (bad for environment, cost and aesthetics). I also add most 'unpopular' buildings in the 1960s were only ever 'unpopular' with architects and councils - not with ordinary people who hadn’t been brainwashed into architectural socialists.

Saint Panc station was deemed bad taste as it was rather over the top and ‘tacky’ as I recall, and I guess it is, but still beautiful - always was and always will be. I always put it down to snobbery myself, and being next to Brunel’s Kings Cross which is certainly more refined and graceful with its almost glass Cathedral like platform roof. The Royal Festival Hall will never be loved…sorry, but it has nothing to please the eye, but plenty to offend, jutting from the Thames bank like a tomb stone. National Theatre too. They was never designed to be loved or beautiful, just functional, as with all that era’s architecture. It was function over form. Slowly architects are discovering we can have both form and function, fully and in equal measure, without compromising either.

As for the dead crocodile in Oxford. I imagine the council were heavy handed, personally I cannot see a dead crocodile on a roof as jutting out significantly, plus it’s only temporary. Also it was made from only natural materials, namely a living crocodile which had become deceased. Perhaps its colour scheme clashed?

[Richard]

"Who decides what is ugly and what is not? Let the market decide: If it is truly aweful then no one will want to buy it, work in it or live in it. Such buildings will then become surplus to requirements and will be demolished in any case."

The problem is that most ugly buildings are not private property. The market was ignored when they were built.

"Define "ugly"..."

Concrete tower blocks for starters.