Demolition of Holborn Studios.

Comments



Comments submitted in February/March 2013



Objection from Roger Squires, IWA (North & East London Branch)

I wish to register our serious concern about the comprehensive development of the Eagle Wharf Site / Holborn Studios. Our concerns relate to the potential loss of a significant icon on the Regents Canal, namely the Works Chimney, and the profile of the Works Buildings on the canal side, all of which reflect in the waters of the canal to provide a timely reminder of why the canal was built and the industries that were attracted to its banks. Sadly, over the years, there has been a slow but marked erosion of that 'canal scape', to the extent now that only a few examples remain. We feel that the loss of the Eagle Wharf structures would seriously erode the canal envelope. We accordingly register our objection to the wholesale redevelopment of this site in the manner currently proposed.

I am writing to object to the proposed demolition of Holborn Studios. I am an Islington resident and have lived near the Canal since 1985. I take an active role in my Community and volunteer for Islington Council. I am a member of FORC, The London Wildlife Trust, London Parks and Gardens Trust and The London Society. I am also the Secretary of The Angel Association. London and its unique heritage is important to me as it is to all Londoners. The very few open spaces in Islington, and the Canal in particular, are highly valued by Islington residents. We are very lucky to have the Canal and it must be respected and treasured. On any given day the Canal is well used by pedestrians, cyclists and boaters. It is a traffic free oasis in the midst of a bustling City. The Canal side landscape is of great significance to all Canal users. You are much more aware of your surroundings when walking along the tow path or enjoying a Narrow Boat ride. The Holborn Studios are part of the architectural heritage of the Canal and should be preserved. Further into Hackney, there is more and more development and the interesting mix of buildings along the side of the Canal is being replaced by homogenous modern office and apartment blocks with little or no architectural merit. Access to the Canal is often restricted from these sites. How can that be in the public interest? What about the adverse effect on the use of water borne freight? I support the work of the Canal and River Trust in promoting the Canal and its important industrial heritage. The Regent's Canal celebrates its bi-centenary in 2020. At a time when we should be celebrating its heritage and rich history, a proposal is put forward to demolish these important buildings. Even the possibility of retaining the frontage at least with its iconic chimney is dismissed out of hand as impracticable. To state the obvious - once the Studios are gone - they are gone forever - and irreversible damage will have been caused to the identity of this part of the Canal. Losing yet more studios and workshops would adversely impact the life, diversity and vibrancy of the Canal. I am aware that others are responding in detail and I will not, therefore, go through the documents or plans line by line. In my opinion the comments made by the Heritage Consultant describing the courtyard surroundings as "plainly utilitarian in common with innumerable workshop or industrial administrative buildings throughout Britain"; and the external buildings as "typical of innumerable similar buildings and compositions of similar buildings along roads and canals throughout the industrial towns and cities of Britain" are inappropriate and unhelpful. Just because these structures can be found elsewhere in the country does not make them less important in Islington and Hackney. I was also puzzled by the statement that the buildings were "sub standard". In what way? They seem to perfectly serve the purposes of those who currently use them. The site seems to me to have great potential as a light and airy space within which to work. Would it not be possible to keep the Holborn Studios and redevelop the unattractive buildings nearby - for example Access Storage?

Holborn Studios is an historical building with importance for the the local community, Regents Canal and the Arts in general. The proposed development risks ruining the character of the area and would contribute to a loss of industrial heritage. The original Holborn Studios is a vibrant, creative institution that affords local people and visitors a strong sense of place, and as such is a valuable landmark in Hackney. The demolition of the Holborn Studios and proposed replacement will affect the quality of everyday space in the area and contribute to a feeling of isolation from the environment.

The buildings that are currently in situ at Eagle Wharf are pleasing to the eye both historically and artistically. They form part of the heritage of the waterways. The proposed works are tasteless, tacky and have no artistic merit whatsoever. The song lyrics 'Little boxes made of ticky-tacky, Little boxes, all the same' spring to mind, do they not?
I most strongly object to the proposed works!

I wish to add my voice to all those who have written in to you OBJECTING to the proposals to redevelop the Holborn Studios etc at 49-50 Eagle Wharf Road. In particular I am fully supportive of all the considered comments which Ian Shacklock of the Friends of the Regents Canal has sent in to you earlier. The proposed new blocks look hideous and anonymous, exactly like all those vast piles of flats which have sprung up beside the Thames, particularly on its eastern reaches. While the Thames is big enough to take this scale and style of development, our little canal is a much more intimate space for local residents, and the new vast and glassy lumps will overwhelm it. Acceptance of this planning application will destroy a slice of Hackney's industrial and much more recent arts and photographic heritage which will be to everybody's permanent loss except the developers. There will be the removal of the Victorian Chimney, which is a lovely visual punctuation mark as one looks down the canal, supported by the various low buildings below which are in the correct scale. Shocking planning decisions echo down the years as examples of mismanagement of our communal heritage, the Euston Arch demolition coming to mind as a notable example. Please do not repeat this mistake at the Holborn Studios.

I would like to make my objections to the above planning application for the following reasons. 1,The building has some aesthetic merit with particular reference to the skyline and the victorian chimney stack. 2. It is one of the few buildings on that stretch of the canal that carries a reminder of the industrial and architectural heritage which was of great significance to the development of Hackney, its loss would be felt more greatly because of the scarcity of such buildings. 3. The building currently houses robust and thriving businesses which, with there particular emphasis on photography, culture and the media, benefit from the buildings unique and somewhat quirky design. 4.These businesses provide good employment and represent an essential resource to the creative industries on which Hackneys future depends, they are attracted to this kind of infrastructure and such buildings are an important asset to the borough. 5 There is potential for the sensitive redevelopment of the building and its commercial future could be easily guaranteed without losing it's character. 6 The access to light and sky would be significantly reduced on the opposite bank of the canal. This would effect not only local residents but the vast number of people using the canal for recreational purposes.

I would like to register my objection to the above plans. The location is metres from my home and regularly enjoyed when I walk, jog and cruise that way. I am surprised that these Buildings are not already protected. I believe they are a great example of our industrial heritage in this part of central London and an important aspect of the Regents canal's character. Failure not to preserve this character and to replace entirely with something very different seems wrong to me. I feel especially emotional about the chimney for some reason, it seems like quite an iconic building in the area and such buildings will I am sure never reappear once they are demolished. I do hope that these plans can be rethought.

As a resident of nearby St Peter's Ward, and user of the Regent's Canal, I wish to make the following comments on the proposed redevelopment of 49-50 Eagle Wharf Road: 1. The canal is special because it is a traffic-free open space available to the public. The towpath provides a safe, pleasant path along which to walk, jog or cycle without fear of being hit by lorries or cars and to breathe fresh air and enjoy the canalside views. This amenity is especially important in Islington which has the lowest proportion of open space of any London Borough. The value to its many users of the canal experience will be greatly reduced if the canalside is allowed to become totally dominated by uninteresting, characterless offices or flats. 2. The Regent's Canal will celebrate its bicentenary year in 2020, and along the canal are locks, tunnels, and canalside buildings which reflect the history of the canal system and enable users to connect with our industrial past. This is part of our heritage and it would be tragic if it were all destroyed to make way for bland, functional buildings which drain the interest and joy from quotidian lives. 3. The buildings currently on the site (Holborn Studios) provide a light and airy workplace for workers in the creative industries (e.g. artists and photographers). They make use of canal locations, and gain inspiration from working in converted industrial buildings. Those currently working there have shown that they can make good use of the existing buildings and neither want nor need to be moved into high-cost new buildings.

I am writing to comment on the proposals to demolish and replace the buildings at the Holborn Studios site. I have compared the existing buildings to those that are proposed and am frankly shocked at what is being proposed. I am therefore opposed to the proposals, as the historic chimney and the industrial frontage form a major contribution to the character of the canal. The plans should work with and retain the existing structures rather than destroying them. Surely we have learnt from the mistakes of the past where old buildings of character were knocked down and replaced by characterless structures which invariably have failed to pass the test of time.

On one clear point of principle I feel strongly about and that is that the working heritage of the canal is critical to the character of the canal, and that there is no reason why (apart from laziness and greed) that there could not be imaginative reuse of the existing building and a fusion of old and new rather than wholesale demolition.

The proposed architectures offers nothing to the ongoing heritage of the canal and the architects would do well to refer to English Heritage's publication 'Constructive Conservation, sustainable growth for historic places' which focuses on the active management of change in ways that recognise and reinforce the historic significance of places. The publication says:

'Britain gave birth to the Industrial Revolution with the result that we now have a substantial heritage of fine industrial buildings that, because of their scale, construction and large open floor plans, can make flexible and adaptable space for new industrial and on-industrial uses.'

The canal system is a world class historic estate, a unique legacy of man made waterways and associated structure. The Victorian architecture of the Holborn Studios may not themselves be listed but they have significant heritage interest which form a fundamental element of the setting of the canal as well as providing character of space that there is much demand for especially related to the creative industries.

The articulation and materiality of the proposals are out of character with the canal, the building could be anywhere, it is unlikely to contribute to the future heritage assets of the Regent's Canal, instead it erodes quality of the setting of the canal. The fact that the existing building is not listed makes it particularly important that the local community express their objection forcefully, and on this point it might also be worth contacting Marcus Binney of SAVE: http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/



Initial Comments from Canal Supporters (October 2012)



It is stated that the nearby Gainsborough Studios is the largest and most distinctive canalside building in the area. There is no doubt that it is a large building, but does it ever encourage visitors or animate the area? Click here to see some photographs of the Gainsborough complex.
Since the concept of this scheme is to provide space for economic activity, together with some houses, I personally welcome it, even though it means sacrificing the heritage and individuality of the canal. What should be done is to scrutinise the design of what is proposed.
We should fight this to keep the remaining wonderful buildings along the canal.
When I saw exactly where it was it struck me how all these buildings are (normally) on the south side of canals, thereby obstructing sunlight. My feeling is that an environmental study needs to be done. There is also the matter of air quality, the buildings may for themselves be compliant but what of the area they over-shadow?
What will bonny Prince Charlie have to say? (Prince Charles is the Patron of the CRT)
From a boaters point of view such areas are indeed sterile ... can't do this, can't do that ... boat solar panels would be useless. The air from the construction enclosure would probably be still and stagnent. As for architectural and historical merit forget it. There is no sense of historical preservation nor constructive historical offering.
I completely agree that the modern replacements are often too big, intimidating, characterless and unsympathetic to their environment. The materials they use usually look better suited to the square mile and seem at odds with the nature and water that surrounds them. The white building appears to be 1930's with a slightly deco appearance. The other is a classic waterside warehouse with a great deal of character if you have any taste!
I don't blame the developer wanting to make best use of space. The existing buildings are probably of little use for conversion and this is better than some plans which just offer slab sided high-rise buildings that turn the canal into a bleak canyon.
the industrial facade should be kept or replaced if demolition is allowed.






Return to comments page