The Brooks - TrustNews February 1988
Introduction
The exhibition was all that we could have asked of it, and the presentation to Trust members no more of a sales pitch than could be expected. The plans, perspectives and models were examples of good communication; we were also impressed by the sincerity of the architects in their earnest desire to do a good job and to use the best of materials.
Unfortunately, the scheme remains inescapably flawed by the brief, which was designed to give Winchester the best possible financial return rather than the best possible redevelopment in human terms. Of course the brief also called for quality of design and finish, but subject to the overriding requirements of parking and marketable floor space.
The result is an ingenious scheme of very high quality, little to do with Winchester, but in all other respects answering the brief with great skill. Much of what we find to criticise is therefore a product of the brief, and though hopefully improveable, this scheme can never achieve the character which would have been possible had the whole thing been approached with different criteria.
For this reason the Trust's judgment is that the proposed Brooks Development is a tragically lost opportunity rather than a disaster. The traffic congestion will be considerably worse, when it could have been greatly eased, and the shops will be more of those which already dominate the centre, when they could have been what we actually want. The best parts of the scheme will be very good of their kind, but paid for by some grim areas, when it could all have been a credit to Winchester.
Had there been a period of public debate on the details of the brief a very different scheme could have emerged. Rut it is too late for fundamental changes. Let us hope the Council will make really good use of our £8.5 million in other fields, and let us all see what may still be done by the architects to make this as good a scheme as is now possible.
Interior
Given the parameters of the brief, we believe this is a very good solution. It has nothing to do with Winchester as we know it, but that need be no misfortune because Winchester's character has been built up over generations by endless injections of new character, and these arcades look good enough to qualify as worthy of Winchester's future. True, the alleys and courts are not outdoor areas like all the rest of Winchester, but neither are they indoor like so many recent bland shopping centres. This scheme has the potential to carry on the great tradition of Victorian covered markets, with their balconied spaces, glass roofs with elegant iron columns, and disciplined use of external materials for all other surfaces. Moreover, the concept has been turned to even greater advantage by extending part of the concourse down into the two car park decks. This not only adds an exciting element with its elegant central lifts and stairs, but will relieve the parking areas from the usual subterranean gloom and mean, half-concealed pedestrian access routes.
There are some points of worry here, however, like the awkward positioning of some of the columns, which the Trust will take up in detail with the planners.
Exterior
The design suffers from the architects' dilemma of not wanting to be accused of committing the sin of pastiche, while at the same time trying to make a huge building look like an agglomeration of small buildings. One day a brave architect will admit that to do even this is pastiche and go the whole way or not at all. The Brooks scheme is apologetically neither one thing nor the other, and therefore lacks conviction. There is too much to deal with in this article, but it does not need an architect to spot that: the tower is a tack-on nonsense in its present form; to strive for variety and yet repeat the same bay windows (with their quirky inverted-comma-windows above) in three different elevational contexts is illogical; to use flint as if it were an oversize mortar joint is an insult in flint country.
The roof is also worrying. A degree of regimentation is unavoidable and not necessarily a bad thing, but it would be better to introduce variety by changes in height or by other features than to make a change from tile to slate over the residential area, which somehow accentuates both the regimentation and the incongruity of finding bungalows scattered on the top of a building. Rather they need every means to become more a part of it. Might it not also be possible to give them an access from the shopping area, via a small roof garden from which the public could have views of the Cathedral?
Townscape
Walking around the scheme we believe that the creation of a linear market in Middle Brook Street could be very successful. It looks crowded, but London street markets suggest that this may be no bad thing. The fountains and simulated brook will not do, however. Winchester is definitely not a place for fountains as Queen Elizabeth Court and St. George's Street have proved, and a paved apology for a real brook would hardly be noticed. More thought is needed to give us some real running water.
St. George's Street, apart from its southeast corner, is a failure, and we doubt if any tinkering will make it better. The Trust will press for a change to a pentice elevation which would not only give some character to this dreary part of St. George's Street, but also make more sense of Casson's initiative further up the hill and, most importantly, break down the "separate territory" nature of the internal shopping area. A pentice approach would soften the distinction between indoor and outdoor shopping and provide a little continuity with the existing shopping area.
Upper Brook Street starts badly with a road engineer's paradise at the corner. We hope that our enlightened City Engineer will at least manage to do away with standard kerbs, and that the architects, when they put their minds to it, will find something more inspiring than a bicycle rack to fill the improbable extra width of pavement. Further along the street matters get even worse, with the looming presence of the cavernous delivery area continuing around the corner into the Friarsgate extension, which is otherwise entirely devoted to car park entrance and exit.
This whole area is where all the ills of the brief come to a head, and where there is no avoiding the consequences of this type of development. Nevertheless, we feel that some improvement here is essential. Friarsgate and Upper Brook Street cannot be allowed to deteriorate into a snarl of traffic, oil and cardboard boxes. The caverns are an inescapable part of this scheme: busy and noisy during the day, dark and dangerous (or floodlit and ugly) at night. Architecturally, the huge arched entrances, with strange Damoclese windows above, will not help to ease the scale down towards the small houses north of the site. This is especially so if Ladbrokes intend to re-develop the adjoining area as housing.
We do not know the answer, but suggest that a jettied overhang or continuous balcony might help the scale, and that intensification of the planting, particularly with trees on both sides of Friarsgate, and perhaps a pedestrian bridge and landscaped island at he corner, might give scope to create something positive and pleasing, rather than mere S.L.O.A.P. (space left over after planning).
End Piece
There are various technical matters which concern us, such as the water table, the ventilation system, fire escape and night security. For these things, and for the eventual standards of materials and craftsmanship, we rely heavily on the local authorities. In the case of the Brooks development there must be no damaging economies when problems arise, no no-go areas and no artificial stone paving.