The Grade 1 listed building, which includes St James Park station, is widely regarded as one of Britain’s finest pieces of architecture – one of the lasting legacies of Frank Pick’s time at London Underground.
Pick firmly believed that the Underground’s above ground headquarters should present just as strong an image of the network’s commitment to quality as the stations below. The responsibility for designing the building was thus given over to Charles Holden, and sculptural contributions were sought from the likes of Jacob Epstein, Eric Gill, Allan Wyon, Henry Moore, A H Gerrard and Samuel Rabinovitch. Pick had to battle hard to keep the project true to his vision – even threatening to resign during the controversy over Epstein’s “Day” and “Night” sculptures if the Board ordered the statues’ removal.
Upon its completion in 1929, the building was London’s tallest building and has remained a key part of the area’s landscape ever since.
As part of various ongoing savings programmes, TfL have been redeploying and rationalising a number of teams and assets, but few will have expected 55 Broadway to have been on the list of options for change.
TfL have, however, confirmed that his is indeed the case and that whilst they have no intension of relinquishing the freehold, they are investigating their options:
TfL regularly reviews its property portfolio to ensure that it has the best network of buildings to run effectively. As part of this prudent management TfL is considering a range of options for properties such as 55 Broadway which might include potentially vacating the premises in the future, though the freehold would be retained. This assessment is still in the early stages with no plan of action finalisedTfL’s own statement is relatively noncommittal, but sources suggest that whilst a decision has yet to been made, the relocation of a major slice of the current activity based at the building is being strongly favoured, combined with a renovation of the building after which other occupants would be sought.
Financially it’s certainly a decision that would make a lot of sense – as anyone who has been inside it will vouch, 55 Broadway is not a building that is exactly cheap to maintain. Similarly, its age and protected status make it a complex environment in which to run a modern office.
Vacating the building might, however, be seen by many as a step to far. As was once (in)famously asserted, London Underground are running a railway, not a museum, but the Underground’s history and heritage form a key part of both what it is and how it is perceived. In that regard, abandoning such a major part of the legacy left by the some of the Tube’s most celebrated names might feel to many like a betrayal of a major part of the Underground’s past. Whilst it is highly likely that TfL would carry out such an exit with great care, unwelcome comparisons with some of the disastrous station renewal works of the past -which condemned whole swathes of the Underground’s history to the bin forever - would no doubt be made.
Ultimately, if the decision is indeed made to vacate, then no matter how good the reasoning or how sensitively it is carried out, it will be seen by many as a sad milestone in the Underground’s history.
"unwelcome comparisons with some of the disastrous station renewal works of the past -which condemned whole swathes of the Underground’s history to the bin forever"
ReplyDeleteCould you please provide some examples?
Tiling at Goodge Street,for example.
ReplyDeleteTiling is indeed the big one.
ReplyDeleteThe scale of what was lost at platform level on all the Leslie Green stations is quite scary.
The problem is that if 55 Broadway is not suitable for TfL's office, it is probably not suitable for most other companies either so they may struggle to lease it out.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they should move into that nice shinny tall building across the road
ReplyDeleteIt will be fascinating to see how English Heritage and Westminster City Council react - grade 1 does mean something. And given how it was built as an open plan office, well, I'm sure it still could be. But yes, difficult to describe but it is indicative of the current panic, and lack of intellect that permeates the organisation at the moment.
ReplyDeleteI'm told by a chap in group property (and it maybe idle chit chat)that TfL had organised space in The Shard but had decided to sell that on for a profit and look at less glamorous offices.
ReplyDeleteAgree about the suitability as an office. Most of the office space is cramped and chaotic. Lots of odd partitions, doors, corridors etc with strange trunking and exposed services. Lots of wasted space. The previous contributor is right, a new tenant would have to spend more than a few quid to turn it into something rentable in the 21st Century. Shame but hopefully the listed status will protect the parts that haven't disappeared under decades of Public Sector quality fit outs, may possibly pay for some restoration if done with some thought? An architect reading will possibly comment?
TfL were indeed planning to locate to the Shard. I heard that once the developers were confident that they could re-let the space (probably at a higher price) they were happy for TfL back out of the deal if they wanted to.
ReplyDeleteTfL in their short life have had a bit of a track record of not moving into property that they planned to. In part it is a political manipulation from City Hall to encourage development - "you build it and we will promise to take out a lease". I believe at one time TfL was going to occupy Canary Wharf.
"But yes, difficult to describe but it is indicative of the current panic, and lack of intellect that permeates the organisation at the moment."
ReplyDeleteI would consider wanting to stop burning cash on an expensive and very impractical building that would be better spend at the railway a clear sign of intellect.
Yep, I thong tube lines occupying canary wharf was a legacy of Lu promising (or getting special terms?) on rental.
ReplyDeleteIt will be a shame to move out of 55 broadway but it's not a practical office space, it's got lots of little spaces and interconnected buildings. I went to look for some photo copy paper once and was lost for three days.
Thong?! sorry, iPad spell check.... *think*
ReplyDeleteLack of style at Goodge Street ?
ReplyDeleteLocation, Location, Location.
ReplyDeleteIt is not the existing state of the building that will attract investors but its location - handy for Government Offices in Westminster and the Arab world's summer capital, Knightsbridge. Boutique offices for lobbying companies, representative offices for overseas companies,expensive duplex appartments - (although the lack of parking might be a bit of a snag), one more of the increasing number of small high quality hotels in the area - are all possibilities. Leaving the exterior untouched will be integral to most developers plans - it is only if listed status impinges on the internal layout that problems arise.
To me, this makes sense. The needs of TFL are very different from the needs of The Underground Electric Railways Company of London when they built it. They were a commercial enterprise and wanted an impressive building in a central location. TFL needs none of that, being a state owned virtual monopoly. They could make do with use of a meeting room in City Hall and cheaper more suitable modern office space in Zone 2 or 3, renting out the old HQ for a healthy sum to people for whom the desirable location is of more importance
ReplyDeleteIt would be the ideal place to develop an 'MP Hotel' a bit like they have, I believe, in Denmark. MPs would get a permanent room, access to office space and secretarial facilities and a restaurant (there's already one on the ground floor). They would be able to walk to/from Parliament so no more worries about late sittings and it would save us the expense and the possible abuses inherent in the 'second home' system.
ReplyDeleteThe draft Victoria Area Planning Brief, published by Westminster City Council in May 2010 stated:
ReplyDelete"..TfL are currently investigating the potential to redevelop the station building itself at 55 Broadway, although any potential to do so is considerably limited by heritage considerations, structural constraints of the District and Circle Line, fragmented surrounding land interests and also demanding construction arrangements..."
So I am not sure that this news is that unexpected ...
I like that "MP Hotel" idea.
ReplyDeleteAs for TfL: if the building is unsuited to their needs, they're right to consider moving out. LU has changed hugely since Frank Pick's day; what was true then is not necessarily true today.
As for what to do with it: It's a Grade I Listed building, so yes, the interior is bound to be protected too. From the footage I've seen of the inside of the building, it's clear that it's suffered from having wiring and other services added over the years to keep it viable. (Frank Pick didn't have to worry about ducting for IT networks, phones at every desk, air conditioning, and so on.)
This has resulted in a maze of wires and ducts which really don't fit into the look and feel of the building. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of those cables were long disused. (I swear I saw some 10Base-T Ethernet cables in one shot.)
The problem is, after all the later additions can be removed, restoring the building to its original condition, whether a way can be found to hide all that necessary office infrastructure to make the building suitable for its original purpose: office space.
I contend that it is, but it'll require some lateral thinking. E.g. greater reliance on wireless networking for computers (which are almost always laptops these days), femtocells (for mobile telephones, which can substitute for the traditional switchboard setup), and so on.
Server rooms and the like don't need to be in the same building, as long as there's a damned fast connection to it (and an independent, redundant, connection, for backup.) The rise of "cloud" computing also helps there.
If this proves impossible, only then should a residential use be considered: "Plan B".
*
Converting the building to residential purposes may be feasible, but most will want an apartment with a kitchen and bathroom. That means plumbing, and lots of it. It'll also mean partitioning the open plan spaces as well.
That could cause ructions with conservationists as it will inevitably result in modifications to the interiors. The wealthy tend to want their own décor in their own apartments; they won't want to pay huge sums for a flat that they can't even hang a picture in without a full inspection, with documentation signed in triplicate.
It gets worse if you start thinking of turning it into a hotel: how do you fit dozens of en-suite bathrooms into a building that was never designed for that much plumbing, without causing irreparable harm to the Listed interiors?
MPs, on the other hand, should be less likely to want to damage a Listed interior, so I suspect this could well be the only real option for turning the building into a residence. But I doubt even an MP will want to share a bathroom with a bunch of neighbours, so the plumbing issues remain. (Similarly, all MPs will want IT facilities as well, so we're stuck with those problems again too.)
*
Plan C is the "demolition" option: we have the technology to make very, very accurate recordings of structures now: laser scanners, Ultra High-Def video recording (if you think your 40" LCD TV is "HD", take a look at a RED camera sometime. And then go talk to the Japanese to see what they're researching right now), and so on. Record the building's exterior and interior in anal detail. Record its context—the surrounding structures—too.
Then knock it down.
The building would then not be lost forever: we could visit it in a 3D CGI environment any time we liked.
To paraphrase the earlier line about TfL: London is a living city, not a graveyard for old buildings that look nice, but which nobody wants. Not even the Victorians—let alone Frank Pick—expected most of their structures to be around forever, but we have the means to ensure that, even though they're gone, they need not be forgotten.
If 55 Broadway was designed as open plan and is now cluttered, it just needs a decent re-fit. Rent in a new building will be much higher than the doubtless negligible rent in the current building. The point was well made above that modern tech may cut down the amount of ducting and cabling necessary.
ReplyDeleteBeing involved in a blue chip company making a similar move with a poor outcome I can see quite a few parallels...
"TfL in their short life have had a bit of a track record of not moving into property that they planned to. I believe at one time TfL was going to occupy Canary Wharf."
ReplyDeleteThey occupied Canary Wharf for a short time on a temporary basis. I've not heard of any long term plan for it. And as regards the first comment I see no evidence of that. TfL took a lease out on the brand new Palestra and now occupy it with around 3000 staff. In fact, it's rapidly looking like becoming the main TfL offices.
Maybe it is possible to temporarily downgrade its listing to a Grade II so more can be done to its interior? If the alternative is it being abandoned without new tenants, surely the listing system could be flexible?
ReplyDeleteThe LUL Network Operations Centre and BTP MICC Control Room are set to leave 55 Broadway in 2012 (to a new mega Command and Control Centre with several other functions in too). Most likely off to Palestra.
ReplyDeleteLUL when it was still LRT had some floors in an office owned by a bank or somesuch firm at Canary Wharf (overlooking the Jubilee station - the one with the stock market prices on) and Tube Lines HQ is around there too.
They could restore the exterior, a few showcase rooms and the entrance hall to their original state, and refurbish the rest of the interior to make it usable.
ReplyDeleteThe entrance hall is one of the few bits that are actually anythink like the origional. There are a few wood paneled board rooms and lift lobies, otherwise it's "1970's local authority aesthetic"
ReplyDeleteLeasing it (but retaining the free hold) may actually be the best thing for the building itself. If LU retain control over what happens to it then it may actually find a private investor to refurbish it sympathetically. It would be a hard sell for TfL to spend the many millions to restore it's glory.
Grade I listing doesn't mean a building cannot be redeveloped, it just means it costs a lot more. The St Pancras hotel is a recent example.
ReplyDelete