Summary of Conference papers read by:

Summary of Derek Latham's conference paper

The issue of how buildings performed financially and non financially was an issue Derek Latham, of Latham Architects, returned to later when he said there were difficulties in cost comparisons because of assumptions made. “At the moment,” said Latham, “there is insufficient data to genuinely compare maintenance costs of existing buildings with the supposedly non-maintenance costs of a new building.” QS’s tended to make the assumption that new build elements had a 60-year lifespan, or whatever, whereas nobody was giving guarantees on old property. “It’s a mentality we have to get out of,” he said.

   Derek Latham

David Tomback had accepted there could be difficulties of evaluation. After all, there was no commercial rent from a monument like the Albert Memorial. However, tourists came to this country because of its heritage buildings. And it was in competition with other countries for the tourist trade.

The fact that poorly maintained buildings detracted from the appeal of an area to tourists was demonstrable at Buxton before the renovation of the Crescent there, he said.

This theme was continued by Derek Latham who said the conservation of historic buildings was not merely a heritage issue. However, he was concerned about giving tourists too high a priority. “If we treat listed buildings (as opposed to national monuments) as museum pieces we will be in danger of creating theatre sets for tourism which will require constant revenue subsidy and repeated reinterpretation to maintain their attraction.”

He said new, appropriate and viable uses had to be found for buildings if they were to have a sustainable, long term future. Neither should buildings be considered in isolation, but in their environmental and economic context, area by area. “Identify the appropriate use of the location, not the building,” he said.

Certainly it was important to understand the history of a building, but it was also important to understand its significance to the locality and, perhaps, the country in general.“ Secondly,” he said, “the brief for the proposed use must be established as if for a new, purpose-designed building, unfettered by apparent restrictions imposed by the building.” The key, he said, lay in identifying the minimum amount of intervention necessary for the proposed use and then designing what changes were necessary with clarity and sensitivity.

If major alterations were being required by a building’s owner, it was worth re-examining what the owner actually wanted. He said he could name a dozen or so projects where his practice had been called in to make major changes but had in fact been able to achieve what was wanted with only minor changes.

In one case a client had wanted to spend £2 million on changing the use of a building. “You think: why? Someone else could use this building the way it is.” So he recommended to the client that the building be restored without making major changes and sold to someone who wanted it the way it was, leaving the client to buy a building with the facilities he wanted. It was what the client did, turning the £2 million alteration project into a £50,000 job. An interesting measurement of a fee earner’s integrity!

Apart from satisfying clients, architects have to satisfy planners and funding bodies and Latham had found models often conveyed to planners and funders a better idea of what was proposed than drawings.

And, he said: “Don’t let a contract get in the way of communication. Manage the project, or use a good project manager. He said architects should explain what they were planning and why to the contractors so the contractors would “honour the building”. Finally, he suggested that whatever work was carried out for one client, it should be with future uses of the building in mind. He called it a “loose-fit approach” which would maintain the sustainability of the building stock.