Balfron Tower Planning Application

BALFRON TOWER PLANNING APPLICATION

Comments to Tower Hamlets Council on Planning Applications Nos. PA/15/02554 and PA/15/02555 relating to Balfron Tower, The Brownfield Estate, 7 St Leonard's Road, London E14 0QR

JAMES DUNNETT, MA, Dip Arch, RIBA for DOCOMOMO-UK

General Observations

Balfron Tower was designed by Erno Goldfinger for the LCC/GLC as social housing and built in 1965-67 and it was listed Grade 2 in 1996. It, along with its ancillary buildings and the whole of Goldfinger's work on the Brownfield Estate in Poplar, were nominated for listing at Grade 2* by DOCOMOMO-UK in 2014 and we understand from Historic England that their recommendations are to be submitted very shortly to the Minister responsible. So in our opinion these applications should be considered on the assumption that the whole of Goldfinger's work on the Estate has been listed at grade 2*.

Indeed the Brownfield Estate has to be seen as the most intact complex of Goldfinger buildings in existence, and thus of capital importance, though it was not in fact - as wrongly stated in the applicant's Heritage Significance Report para.1.1 - 'Goldfinger's first public housing project'. The first was at Abbotts Langley in Hertfordshire eight years earlier, which has largely been demolished. Though it prefigured his work in Poplar in various ways, one of the useful aspects of the Heritage Significance Report is the demonstration in its Figs 2.17- 2.23 of how far Goldfinger was thinking 'from scratch' in the design of Balfron. Fundamental aspects of the design such as the wide spacing and plan form and fenestration of the service tower, are not present in the earliest sketches, and even the question of whether the access corridors should be central or lateral was undecided: the final result was the product of very hard development work apparently over two years from late 1962-64. It was all carefully considered and none of it was a foregone conclusion.

DOCOMOMO-UK believes that the refurbishment of Balfron follow more closely the lines of the recent refurbishment carried out to Goldfinger's Carradale House adjacent, which from an architectural conservation point of view is far preferable as a model - though certainly not perfect - to what is now proposed for Balfron. In Carradale the flat plans have been lightly modified rather than ripped out altogether and the windows have been renewed in white- painted timber, with the cladding adjacent renewed as timber boarding. There exists a market for those who would be willing to buy into a block of such fame who would recognize that they will have a somewhat different product to what is generally on offer from the commercial market, and would be ready to appreciate aspects of its design that the present proposals will obliterate. 'Mid-century Modern' is now a fashionable sought-after category in architecture and design, whereas what we are being offered is 'Noughties post-Modern'. Certainly there are original features of Balfron which the present proposals aim to re-instate, and that is very welcome. But, as will be explained, even in these cases the accuracy aimed for in the reinstatement does not seem to be as complete as it should be.

The impact of the proposed changes to Balfron will be discussed under individual subject headings.

Windows

The proposed complete replacement of the windows and the external cladding alongside them will be the most striking change in the appearance of Balfron. The original windows to the flats were all timber, white painted, and all survive except on the east and south elevations where they were replaced about twenty years ago in white UPVC as near possible to the original design, when funds became available from the Ministry of Transport for renewal following the widening of the Blackwall Tunnel approach road. The solid panels alongside the windows are stained vertical timber boarding on the west front, facing the balconies from which the stain can easily be renewed, and a neutral grey vitreous enamel (or similar) panel on the less-accessible east elevation. The bedrooms generally face east or south and the windows are of a particular design which he did not repeat elsewhere - presumably in response to the visual and aural 'traffic pollution' in that direction prevalent even at the time of design on that particular site. The windows on these faces are mostly in the form of clerestory windows at high level against the ceiling, which they illuminate nicely, with only a single pivot window coming down to low level. The windows facing west, on the other hand, are all of the pivot variety coming down to low level, except for those giving directly onto balconies, which are vertical sliders presumably to avoid obstructing use of the balconies. There is thus a clear distinction between the two principal facades of Balfron responding to local environmental conditions, but the present proposal is to use windows of similar design on both facades, thus eliminating this important distinction.

The elevations 'as proposed' on these two facades can be seen to be clearly duller than the existing with their unusual and distinctive glazing pattern. It is claimed that it would be impossible to restore the windows on the east facade to the original detail because little is known of it, but in fact original windows survive in at least one flat, and original drawings are almost certainly available in the RBA Goldfinger collection. It is not clear why the solid panels beneath the clerestory windows could not be treated in the same way as proposed for the solid panels in the altered design to allow acoustically-attenuated ventilation.

The windows on the west elevation with pivots above two horizontal lights were designed, as described in the Design and Access Statement, to allow them to be cleaned from inside, but in an ingenious combination of formal and technical solution typical for Goldfinger, they also created a rhythm and pattern of central importance to the vitality of the facade, an inbuilt balance or counterpoint of horizontal and vertical that he always aspired to. It need not be taken for granted that all such windows need to be replaced. In other towers such as at the Barbican original timber windows have been refurbished. They were mainly double-glazed from the start. Total renewal would not necessarily be accepted in an eighteenth century listed building. But even if many or all need to be replaced, it is not clear why the existing profiles and material could not be retained even if the windows were in future to be cleaned from outside from gantries. From my own brief experience of living in one of these flats I can say that the existing windows from inside give a very satisfactory combination of view out with feeling of solidity. Though the proposed design now copies the basic divisions of the existing, the constant thin aluminium box-sections proposed will give none of the varied effect of the present and look like poor imitations.

Then there is the question of the colour of the windows, which it is proposed will be a dark brown anodized finish, as against the present and original white, the argument advanced for the change being that it will show the traffic-generated dirt less. It is true that the replacement UPVC windows on the east elevation looked dirty within a very few years of their 3 installation, thus giving the lie to the notion that UPVC windows are maintenance free, but it seems likely that the proposed perforated corrugated metal panels will be liable to become clogged with dirt, and if the windows are in future to be cleaned from gantries externally, then the cleaning could presumably extend to the window frames as well. I believe that in Goldfinger's mind the smooth white frames served to highlight by contrast the rough texture and red-brown aggregate of the concrete - and of the timber boarding. He very much liked to express the different inherent qualities of natural building materials. The white colour of the triple pivots of the living rooms on the west elevation serves to bring them forward in contrast to the recessed dark timber boarding behind the balconies, thus enhancing the sense of relief. The proposed uniform brown will flatten all those contrasts. In addition to these considerations there is the fact that at present the uniform colouring of Balfron Tower, Carradale House, and Glenkerry House allows these three principal buildings in Goldfinger's part of the estate, and which together form a single composition of great importance, to read together. They all have white windows, stained timber boarding, and concrete with exposed Thames Valley aggregate. If the timber boarding and the white windows are suppressed in the single largest element, Balfron Tower, then the unity and expressiveness of that composition will be seriously weakened. It may of course be the applicants' deliberate intention to make Balfron stand out as different to identify it as 'private' as compared to the others still 'social' - but that would clearly not be an acceptable argument in this context.

It is my belief (but apparently not the applicants') that the steel windows in the public areas have been replaced once already - I remember seeing stacked replacement windows in the garage about 15-20 years ago. But there is no harm in their being replaced again provided it is like for like and that the 'slit windows' are painted black externally, to retain their 'slit' quality.

Plans of the Flats

The intention of the applicants is to transform completely the planning of all the flats (not 'tweak' them, as claimed at one point in the documentation), apart from a very small number of 'heritage flats'. They will mostly be open plan, with the living spaces on the smaller units entered directly from the access galleries without any lobby. The living spaces will generally contain the kitchens and sometimes the bedrooms as well, so the notion of 'two living spaces and two bedrooms' characteristic of most of the flats at present will go, and where there are separate bedrooms they will be fewer than originally. Generally there will be single bathrooms containing the WCs, unlike the present standard for all but the smallest '2-person' flats. New service risers will be installed on the opposite walls to the present. It is claimed that this is what 'everyone wants' today.

I live in a Grade 2-listed terrace house of an absolutely standard type of c.1830 (facing open space like a flat in Balfron!) and when I recently did some building works I was not allowed to lose the trace of any original room or remove any original window. In a major work of modern architecture, by contrast, it is apparently considered acceptable to do both comprehensively. There is a link between the inside and outside of a building. The west facade of Balfron, for example, reflects the distinction between the living room (triple pivot windows flush with the facade) and the dining-kitchen (recessed behind balcony), but in many of the proposed plans these spaces will be continuous, so that distinction on facade will be meaningless. When Goldfinger's own self-designed house of 1938 in Willow Road was listed in the 1970s he was asked by the Architects' Journal for his reaction, and he said he agreed that the exterior should not be changed - 'that is fundamental' - but that it would be 'rather 4 ridiculous' if he was not allowed to change the inside (he had recently made minor internal changes and he was probably thinking in those terms). He was also adamant that 'architects make houses, for others to make homes in' - the implication being that there should be freedom for the interior. He was however a very close student of the design of the plans of each unit of housing, and particularly keen, for example, that entry into any unit should as far as possible from the middle, to avoid corridors, as it is via the stairs from above and below into the units above and below the access galleries. The flats are generally planned according to his 11" (280mm) grid. Many of the spaces and hallways created were very carefully considered, with symmetrical balanced doors for example, and are the reason why many people regard the flats in his blocks as 'beautiful'. Hence I am unhappy with the proposed wholesale destruction of these flats.

In my brief experience of living in Balfron I did not feel that the absolutely standard living room was uncomfortably small. The spaces felt well-balanced. If it is true that the flats intended for four people by Goldfinger will now typically be occupied by just two (presumably working in finance at Canary Wharf) then the merging of WC with bathroom may be workable, but otherwise I feel it would be unworkable. I would prefer to see a sliding partition installed between the present kitchen-dining rooms and living rooms adjacent so that the two can be opened into one another or kept closed, but that the feeling of two rooms should be retained. In my experience of Denys Lasdun's Keeling House, not far distant, which has been 'privatised', the original windows and the original plans (barring a new opening between kitchen-dining and living room) have been retained. In Carradale House the original plans have been retained apart from, in my opinion mistakenly, merging bathrooms and WCs. The age and character of the interior should reflect the age and character of the exterior. I feel that the future of Balfron Tower may be threatened by this radical transformation of its interior into a pattern that may well prove to have inherent weaknesses. As maintained above, someone buying in to Balfron will self-evidently not be buying into a 'Noughties' development and will, in my opinion, be ready to accept flat plans that may seem to the applicants old-fashioned.

Plans of Public Areas

Similarly the reshaping of the recesses off the access galleries seems uncalled for. Presently some of the doors are 'forward', others 'back', and Goldfinger strove always for variety. So why change it? The intention in listing a building is to retain its characteristics unless there is some inescapable need for change. The quarry tiles on the floor of the access galleries are characteristic of the period of the Tower and hence contribute to its flavour and character, which would be appreciated by a certain class of resident, but these are to go.

It is good news that there will be an attempt to use the 'social rooms' in the circulation tower more effectively, but the apparent absence of any WC in them would seem to render that open to question, and one is uncertain about the lifts opening straight into them. One is disappointed that the boilers will no longer be at the top of the circulation tower and the tank rooms removed from the tower so that the 'gargoyles' will no longer have any function. One is also concerned that the rubbish chute will be removed completely from ground floor upwards so that residents will have to bring rubbish bags down to the entrance hall, which threatens to become congested and perhaps smelly. The experience of Trellick Tower might be studied, where the chute remains in use, as it does in a number of late-Lubetkin towers in Hackney recently visited.

Architectural details

It is admirable that the intention is to replace the important roof-top 'cornices' at the top of the east and west facades, vital architectural features removed at the time the block was handed over from the GLC to the Borough in 1985. But it is of some concern that a 'glazed balustrade' is to be installed between them and the parapet of the roof proper below - which is of adequate height to be safe by itself. The glazed balustrade may reflect the light and get dirty and in both ways undermine the spatial transparency below the 'cornice' which is a critical architectural characteristic. Likewise it is worrying that the material of the replacement cornice is not be as original, but of 'glass-reinforced concrete' which may not match the remainder of the concrete in texture or colour. Furthermore, there is evidently no intention of replacing the three floodlights that were originally housed in the cornice and provided the principal public lighting to the open space in front of the Tower - as well as constituting a highly dramatic feature after dark. Instead, a bar of light is to be installed under the cornice of a purely decorative character.

Again it is admirable that frameless plate glass doors are to be provided to the ground floor entrance lobby, as originally, which will restore the natural light that was lost when the present heavy timber doors were installed. But again it would seem that the re-creation is not be exact - there will only be one set of doors, without a lobby between two sets as originally (which made sense of the present mosaic-clad 'porch'), and the intention seems to be that the full-height vertical pull handles will be of timber, whereas all the evidence from other places where Goldfinger used this detail (e.g. Trellick Tower) is that they will have been of metal.

Landscaping

The present landscaping between the Tower and the East Cross Route/Blackwall Tunnel approach, has matured and is very attractive, as well as being as far as one can tell the original landscaping - including paths and earth modelling - installed by Goldfinger or under his direct supervision. It seems entirely appropriate, but it is be replaced by something much more elaborate. The same applies to the trees along St Leonard's Road, and grass slope: it is of admirable simplicity and there is no need for the proposed elaboration.

I am not clear to what extent landscaping in terms of planting is subject to planning control, but the general character of the proposed landscaping seems likely by its lushness to undermine the 'distinctive character' of Goldfinger's estate. The intention to provide an irrigation system to the planting boxes in the balconies is to be welcomed, and trailing plants from those boxes would look good - as they do under similar circumstances at the Barbican But the bareness of the approach path from St Leonard's Road is appropriate to the character of the geometrical character of the architecture, and planting along its length will fight that. Think of Luis Barragan persuading Louis Kahn to have no planting in the courtyard of the Salk Institute in California! However planting is transient, and more important is to comment on proposed changes to the hard landscaping. The partial filling-in of the by-now famous play structure is a regrettable interference with its original sculptural quality, as it the associated breaking of part of the parapet surrounding it. Of course it needs repair and refurbishment but it will be more valued if it remains in original 'iconic' condition, as featured in the recent 'Brutalist Playground' exhibition at the RIBA, and can be made to work as such.

Similarly the proposal to close the circuit of the service road around the circulation tower. Goldfinger clearly envisaged that delivery and collection vehicles could circuit the tower without making three-point turns, and I used it that way myself when moving into and out of Balfron. It is quite probable that the desire to make such a circuit possible was the idea that triggered the moving of the circulation tower so far away from the 'accommodation tower' - they were intially closer in early sketches - and hence engendered one of the most striking architectural features of the whole building.

Conclusion

The need for investment into the maintenance and repair of Balfron Tower, which has received little for some considerable time, is evident and acknowledged. However, dilapidation due to insufficient care and investment by those responsible for the building in the past cannot be a reason now for granting consent for more damaging works of alteration and renewal than would otherwise be permitted. The intention of local housing association and 'regeneration' agency Poplar HARCA, in which the property was vested by Tower Hamlets Council more than a decade ago (it is understood), is that that investment will come from private developers to whom the block will be sold, and the accommodation as a whole will no longer be 'social housing', but on the private market. The central involvement of commercial interests in this way was always likely to come with pressures to make the Tower and surroundings more similar in appearance and feel to other recent commercial residential developments in the area, and this application bears that out.

It is the belief of DOCOMOMO-UK that Balfron Tower would best remain as social housing for which its design, history and conception suit it, and its conservation might then more readily follow the example of the rfurbishment of Carradle House adjacent, which is to remain as social housing. But even in the context of privatisation it is our belief that a Conservation plan that followed much more closely the original design would capitalise on the widespread existing enthusiasm for Goldfinger's architecture and Mid-century Modern in general. What is proposed risks doing it serious damage, and consent should be refused.

James Dunnett MA, Dipl Arch, RIBA for the WOrking Party and DOCOMOMO-UK

10 October 2015.