Tuesday, 18 August 2015

Grief Is The Thing With Feathers







An anonymous widower ('Dad' throughout) and his young twin sons together mourn the death of his wife and their mother. Dad is a Ted Hughes scholar, working on a book about the poet for a dodgy-sounding Mancunian publisher. A crow arrives, taking up residence in their home and their lives. It's no ordinary crow - it's Ted Hughes' Crow. 

On this premise the author builds a mesmerising polyphonic text (it could be a radio play without much in the way of alteration), a dazzling and richly rewarding debut that fits no existing category. It's hugely original, wayward and heartfelt - a terrific first book. It's bound to annoy Hughes purists and Plath devotees, and that's a welcome bonus. I don't want to give too much away so will - with apologies to the author - use this blog to bang on about a favourite subject.

Writing in Modern First Editions: Their Value to Collectors (1984), Joseph Connolly  (who would later become a Faber author) lamented the steep decline in the appearance of Faber & Faber books over the previous two decades. To make his case (and it seems to me an irrefutable one) he compared consecutive volumes in Lawrence Durrell's five-novel sequence known as the Avignon Quintet:

All the vibrancy has gone; no more two coloured cloth cases with labels, lozenges and rich gold blocking. No more   textured, unlaminated brightly coloured d/ws bearing sweeping Berthold Wolpe graphics. Just plain  plain paper boards and water coloured dust-wrappers.

At the time Connolly was writing - thirty years ago now - Faber designers seemed to lack vision, confidence and innovation, as any Google image search of Berthold Wolpe's magnificent dust wrappers will confirm. His wrappers are timelessly modern, reassuringly confident and sexy in the way (say) Bernard Herrmann's credit sequences for Hitchcock movies are. They are unquestionably among the best dust-jackets ever designed - and the books they embellish are pretty good also.

The last Faber book that looked that like a proper Faber book - to me, at any rate - was  the volume of Jarvis Cocker's Mother, Brother, Lover (2011). At the author's insistence the main colour of the dust-wrapper had to correspond with a particular brand of Bourneville chocolate. You'll note the use of something close to Wolpe's Albertus typeface which, by the way, is used for street signs in the City of London, and  can also be seen in colossal upper case decorating the lintel (if that's what you call it) of Centre Point, the 33-story office tower designed by George Marsh of Richard Seifert and Partners and built between 1961 and 1966. If it suddenly  toppled in a north-easterly direction the rubble would just about reach the doorway of the Faber offices in Great Russell Street.


I'm a great admirer of Jarvis Cocker, as it happens, but it rankles that he gets this kind of treatment while the rest of Faber's magnificent poetry backlist doesn't appear in a similar format (stable, durable, dignified, timeless). Did Cocker (famously a graduate of St Martin's College) insist on this treatment? Do other writers not have his savvy, his clout? The book contains his selected lyrics, which are accorded the same respect as Crow and Wodwo. Cocker isn't much of a poet, but then Ted Hughes couldn't have delivered a blistering performance of Common People to a huge crowd at Glastonbury. Watch that here and marvel.

I have many Faber books from the 1930s which are still fresh and bright and have a pleasant smell, whereas paperbacks (not only from Faber) published ten years ago fall apart in my hands (so-called 'perfect' binding), and the nasty cheap paper is brown and crackly. Bad value, I'd say.

Grief Is The Thing With Feathers is one of the most beautiful Faber editions I've ever seen. A return to form? Faber's in-house designers have revived the look and feel of the company's books in their heyday: stately Wolpe lettering, a memorable illustration by the aptly-named Eleanor Crow, matt wrappers. And it's proof that you really can tell a book by its cover - this is a  covetably lovely first edition of a sensationally original debut. 

Cover images © Faber and Faber





Sunday, 9 August 2015

Utopia at the Roundhouse

To the Roundhouse arts centre in Camden, there to see the installation UTOPIA, by tha artist and film-maker Penny Woolcock.

Except that we didn't see it. Arrinving shorly before the timed entry on our tickets we learned from font-of-house staff that there was a 'technical hitch' and there would be 'a few minutes' wait before the doors opened. Ten minutes later and I was told we might like to have a drink while we were  waiting, and were directed to something called The Camden Beach, a summer attraction sponsored by a vodka company and situated on a veranda space outside the building.

Before accessing the open-air space (with its beach huts and deck chairs and piped reggae-lite and bars and pop-up eateries) we had our bags searched and then paused to study the lengthy list of restrictions and prohibitions (couched in a jocular and dispiriting register: 'No Obvious Letching', 'No Heavy Petting' and so on). Absolutely everything you'd expect to be able to do on a beach was prohibited, apart from swimming, which wasn't possible because there was no water. This wasn't so much a beach as a sanitised desert.

But there were 150 tonnes of sand! And five private beach huts available for hire! And three different eateries! And dozens of deck chairs!

What we had was a heavily-policed and intensely commodified private space, everything was branded with the vodka maker's logo. It wasn't (as fliers claimed) an authentic if nostalgic British beach experience (no slap 'n' tickle or kiss me quick, no Reg Dixon at the Mighty Wurlitzer or winkles and whelks) but something closer to a bowdlerised Ibiza or Aya Napa. It was perfectly horrible.

Blinking at the price of the drinks (which included a 'Sex on the Beach cocktail) and unsettled by the sight of male and female citizens in pallid states of exposure we went back to the lobby where I glanced at the Utopia programme. The installation appeared to share certain values with the Camden Beach:

2 years in the making
3km of audio cable
33,265 cardboard boxes
15 tonnes of rubble
1,200 props.
2 cars
90 speakers
Over 6,000 hours of work

I'm tempted to add exclamation marks to each of these Barnham and Bailey huckster phrases. They seemed to me to set the wrong tone - logistics are one thing, but we were after an aesthetic experience, and possibly illumination. Who cares how many kilometres of audio cable went into the blasted space? What's that got to do with anything? A few other aspiring (and perspiring) Utopians had by now congregated outside the closed entrance. We'd now been waiting for about an hour and I spent a while gazing at an informative and well-designed wall display showing the history of the building since its origins in the 1830s as an engine shed for the London to Birmingham railway. It was later a bonded booze warehouse. It has had mixed fortunes over the past half century, skirting and sometimes embracing the radical.

As a 1960s concert venue it staged gigs by Jim Morrison and the Doors, and Jim Hendrix, and the Soft Machine and Genesis. As a theatre venue it hosted performances from Stephen Berkoff, Ginsberg and Ken Campbell. In the punk years Blondie and Siouxsie and the Banshees and the Buzzcocks and Patti Smith all passed through the doors currently shut to us. I recall visiting the Roundhouse for a brilliant production of Hamlet in modern dress (quite a rare thing back then) with Ben Kingsley as the Prince and the late Bob Peck as the First Gravedigger. It was (I learned today) the playwright Arnold Wesker who, in the 1960s, led the revival of the Roundhouse as 'Centre 42' (after the Trades Union resolution that urged the improvement of arts provisionthroughout the country. It became (according to the Roundhouse's erratically literate website) it became 'one of the most cutting-edge performing arts venue  [sic] in the country.

The most recent refurbishment - and the most successful - followed acquisition of the site in 2006 by the philanthropist Torquil Norman, after whom an upstairs bar is named. He was reportedly aghast, being a low-key chap, at such recognition and agreed only if a plaque were erected recording his distaste at the honour. This, amusingly, appears. He also insisted that he have a single free martini whenever he went to the bar, which seems fair enough given the many millions he has invested in the site. I like the cut of Torquil Norman's jib, and you might like to look him up on Google.   

Back in the lobby again. There were now about fifty people milling around and the next wave of 'timed entry' punters had started to drift in to be told that the doors would open 'in about five minutes'.  I noticed a printed sign on one of the entrance doors:

This instillation [sic] contains flashing lights and images. Patrons with photosensitivity are asked make [sic] themselves known to a member of staff.

Another friendly young member of the front of house staff then took me to one side to explain that some elements of the installation were unsuitable for children because there was a 'very explicit' description of a murder and of a couple screwing (not her phrase). We had a ten-year-old boy with us who perked up at the prospect but I felt uneasy as this was the first suggestion that the installation content was likely to be unsuitable for children. 
Being told by another very patient Roundhouse person that it would still be 'only about five minutes'  because of 'a minor technical hitch' I rather rudely asked the person at the box office if they'd tried switching it off and switching it on again. And our boy Frank said, with comic gravity 'You can't switch off Utopia".

But of course you can - and that's how you get a Dystopia. I haven't seen the installation but suspect it's more about the latter. The statement by Penny Woolcock in the programme says in part:

      I'm utterly complicit, typing this out on my laptop, stabbing at my smartphone, wearing my
      hundred and ten pound trainers, but I don't believe any of us is really comfortable stuffing
      ourselves while others scavenge on rubbish dumps, even if we prefer not to think about it.

She has a point, of course, but she seems to be confusing Utopianism (which is about society) with consumerism (which is about the individual). Feeling uncomfortable about the vast gap between the haves and have nots is a First World Problem of course, and if she's really so unhappy about splashing out a hundred quid on a  pair of fancy plimsolls I can suggest an easy way out of that particular ethical dilemma.

After a 90-minute wait we were offered tokens to get free drinks at the ghastly beach bar, but I didn't want to go back there and being told again that everything would be running 'in five to ten minutes' failed to convince. It was now 2:30. We'd had enough 'all gong and no dinner' by now and began the lengthy process of negotiating a refund from the friendly staff before leaving the building in search of a very late lunch. I reflected, on the way home, that Utopias, being social constructs, cannot accommodate the individual and that they always, always go wrong. I also reflected that, as a conceptual experience exploring thwarted desires and the hollow aspirations of late capitalist consumer culture, the afternoon had been a howling success.

The installation has been widely reviewed and mostly praised. I expect it's terrific but reserve judgement. On 5th August the comedian Russell Brand staged a one-off performance using the set, and I suspect his dazzling loquacity (not to be confused with eloquence) found an apt counterpoint in the overwhelming accumulation of 'stuff' making up Woolcock's Utopia.

'Bloomberg Philanthropics' are the show's corporate sponsors.


Friday, 1 May 2015

Queer Saint : Peter Watson and 'a sort of pamphlet'



The son of a man who owned a thousand-store chain called Maypole Dairies (selling milk, eggs, cheese, butter and - pronounced with a hard 'g' - margarine), Peter Watson was educated at Eton where he developed a taste for flogging. After public school came two academically undistinguished years at St. John's College Oxford, where he failed repeatedly to pass his first-year examinations and left unencumbered by a degree. He is the subject of a new biography, Queer Saint, by Adrian Clark  &  Jeremy Dronfield.

Watson was very rich indeed thanks to a million-pound trust fund generating interest of £50,000 a year, a stupendous sum at a time when (according to his fellow Old Etonian George Orwell), "the real bourgeoisie, those in the £2,000 a year class and over, have their money as a thick layer of padding". Evelyn Waugh spitefully dubbed Watson 'a pansy of means'; Watson sliced back with 'Catholic fascist'.

As one of Britain's wealthiest young men and the most ineligible of bachelors, Watson was  footloose, self-absorbed, erratically generous and a bit of a silly ass, an unlikeable version of Bertie Wooster. He was tall and skinny with a rather frog-like expression, but his clothes were widely admired for their exquisite cut. In the 1920s he owned a coral pink Rolls-Royce with fur-trimmed seats and spent his time travelling between the chic European watering holes that attracted the British ruling classes. Any spare time was spent breaking Cecil Beaton's heart.

Beaton adored the man who would remain the love of his life, and the first third of this biography contains many of Beaton's diary entires recording their multiple rifts and reunions. One gets the impression that Watson was rather a cold fish with a low sex-drive, or perhaps that's just how he felt about Cecil ("Peter is so devoted to me. But the outward forms are never shown"). There were boyfriends galore, and Watson diligently worked his way through all the inter-war German night clubs, attracted, like many of his class and generation, to Weimar low-life. He apparently kept no diary, wasn't much of a correspondent and his co-biographers admit there's not much to be learned about a man who remains spectral and insubstantial, less real than his fortune.

It is a challenge to give an endless succession of jaunts to Paris. Venice, Monte Carlo, Le Touquet, Cannes and Palma, and New York any kind of structure or significance, let alone urgency. We are regularly told that Watson was variously impatient to be somewhere, or desperate to be somewhere else, or keen to move on - but his life had no real drivers, no imperatives, no challenges, no deadlines. It's the free-wheeling sybaritism, of course, that makes this book such a compelling page-turner, plus our own prurience. Is this really how big money behaved?

Watson is hardly extravagant by today's hip-hop bling-laden standards. He bought a succession of superb properties in chic districts of London and rented a spacious apartment in Paris, filled them all with books and artworks and expensive gramophones, installed a trophy lover (including the sulkily beautiful and epically unreliable Denham Foutts, 'the best-kept boy in the world'), travelled abroad again, bought another apartment - and so the years went by.

His main interest, which arrived quite late in life, was art. He began to collect paintings and reinvented himself as a dealer, rapidly becoming a well-connected expert on European modernism and acquiring works by Picasso, Max Ernst. Paul Klee. Joan Miro, Matisse, Leger  and many others. His magnificent art collection was lost when Nazis looted his rue du Bac apartment It was the outbreak of the second World War that seems to have given him a real sense of purpose and direction. 

During the Blitz he could have sought refuge in any number of country retreats but instead moved into a relatively modest Kensington apartment building and bravely - or obtusely - sat it out. At the outbreak of the war he financed Horizon magazine (which he described to a friend with typical self-effacement as 'a sort of pamphlet') Co-edited by Cyril Connolly and (anonymously) Stephen Spender, Watson bankrolled it to the tune of £33 a month, enough to cover the production and postage of 1,000 issues. This was peanuts to Watson but made a world of difference to the magazine, which had a modest circulation for the time (never above 10,000). It remains a cultural high-point of the last century.

About ten years ago I bought a complete set of Horizon from the late Peter Joliffe, who ran the wonderful Ulysses bookshop in Museum Street, Bloomsbury. It cost me £450 and he kindly let me pay in instalments. It took me nearly five years to read the whole run of 102 issues, from 1940 to 1949, rationing myself to one or two issues each month. It was an education. Horizon had a unmatchably illustrious list of contributors from Auden to  . . . well everyone.

It's a commonplace view but misleading to imagine that the values of Horizon represented what we were fighting for, and if the Nazis loathed Entartete Kunst so much there was surely much to be said in its favour. Watson was the magazine's de facto arts editor and in a position to encourage new talent. Issue 4 (April 1940) published a gauche and unnerving monochrome sketch portrait by a teenage artist introduced to Watson by Stephen Spender - it was Lucian Freud's first appearance in print. When Ernst Freud urged his son to give up studying art Watson promptly paid Lucien's art school fees, explaining to the boy's headmaster that he was doing so "because I am very fond of him and believe in him". This is almost supernaturally prescient as young Freud had yet to show any signs of talent. Through the years that followed Watson repeatedly made Freud's career possible, smoothing is way into the highest cultural echelons. Watson adopted and supported many young male artists, not always disinterestedly. Among another protégés were John Craxton and the two Roberts. Colquhon and McBride.

Soon after the war ended Watson threw a party to mark the return from America of his then-lover Foutts (who didn't show up). The 18-year-old painter Michael Wishart was present and described 'a large salon filling up with men and their expensive looking toy-friends' [sic]. The biographers take up the story in a cherishably hilarious paragraph:

Among them he recognised Baron Alexis de de Rédé [sic, although that first accent is unnecessary] - the darling of Marie-Laure de Noailles and Étienne de Beaumont's saloniste circle - and his keeper Arturo Lopez-Willshaw, the art-collecting son of an Argentinian guano tycoon; also present were the nineteen-year- old Olivier Larronde, protégé of Cocteau and Jean Genet, with his inseparable partner Jean-Pierre Lacloche, offspring of the Lacloche jewellery family […], the artist Maurice Van Moppès and actor Jean Marais, among others . . .

Such densely-populated paragraphs (which may entrance or repel, accordion to taste) occur more frequently in the post-war years as Peter's friends are seemingly without number. The main lovers - Cecil Beaton, Denham Foutts, Waldemar Hansen and Norman Fowler - surely not the same Norman Fowler who was Margaret Thatcher's Secretary of State for Transport, alas - come and go, and here are many others.

Horizon continued to appear monthly until the end of the 1940s but the later issues lack the energy and urgency of the wartime numbers as Connolly became increasingly disenchanted and disengaged. The postwar Labour settlement and the radical democratisation of the arts left Watson adrift, despite his energetic role in the creation of the Institute of Contemporary Arts. His life gradually reverted to the sybaritic aimlessness of his twenties.

His death was lurid and his co-biographers, in a lamentable lapse of taste, begin and end the book with an atrociously over-written account of the night in question - my advice is to skip all that and, come to think, skim the first twelve chapters because it's all lovers' tiffs and wagons-lits.

Watson was an enigma, a riddle without  sphinx. He was a leading member of what Auden referred to as 'the Homintern', a network of powerful gay men involved in the arts as painters,  art gallery owners, ballet directors, movie producers, record label executives, and photographers. Was he, as Beaton described him, a Queer Saint? We are keen these days, and with good reason, to canonise dead gay men such as Alan Turing,  but this may lead us to belittle their achievements which were in spite of, not because of, their necessarily covert sexual identities.

Stephen Spender said, with some acuity, that Watson was  "essentially made for honeymoons and not for marriages". Things went awry when a lover became in any way emotionally committed or dependent when he would be promptly dropped, although an enduring friendship was often the result. In a rare moment of self-awareness Watson said in a letter to Waldemar Hansen that his "greatest need [was] to love rather than be love"'. He found self-worth in the dispensation of his affections, but could not it seems endure their reciprocation. Whether this was through feelings of unworthiness or masochism is hard to say. So he found some consolation in art.

Relationships aside there is little in his life to vex or distress him - the loss of his marvellous art collection in Paris and its slow recovery; juggling simultaneous lovers; currency export regulations that put a curb on his spending when abroad and recurrent bouts of severe jaundice. His life in the late 1940s became increasingly ascetic, to Cyril Connolly's disgust; he lived in a very comfortable but tiny London flat and he didn't even own a car.

A few grating infelicities aside ("In that year John Craxton transitioned from his student phase"; while relationships between Watson and Hansen "transitioned into a strange, frostily civil friendship"; "Lys obliged his needs in every respect"; that sort of thing), Queer Saint is a compelling reminder of a time when wealthy, cultivated homosexuals could devote themselves to art without the associated celebrity, before cultivated taste was displaced by populist and oligarch values and before the commodification of art as tax-avoiding shadow currency. Despite Beaton's overwrought description Watson was no 'Queer Saint' but, if anything, all too human,


QUEER SAINT: The Cultured Life of Peter Watson by Adrian Clark  &  Jeremy Dronfield
288 pp.    John Blake Publishing     £19.99


Wednesday, 29 April 2015

Spiegelhalters saved!

Blowing my own trumpet, and why not?

Spitalfields Life is the best London blog, written by the anonymous and self-effacing Gentle Author. It's a daily treat, and essential reading, not only for Londoners.

Here's the  selfsame Gentle Author on my (successful) campaign to preserve a plucky little East End building from some arse-brained redevelopment: Saving Spiegelhalters. She or he is typically eloquent on the history of this unique survivor, and there are plenty of great images. My thanks to him/her and those readers of Spitalfields Life who supported my campaign.

Next? Norton Folgate, a short distance to the West, is the big one. A hundred Spiegelhalters in this lovely unspoilt quarter currently under threat from acquisitive cackheads at British Land. This includes the potential loss of a truly lovely pub called The Water Poet.

I'll be blogging about all this very soon for the TLS, so shall keep my powder dry (as nobody says these days). Thanks to all - and you know who you are - for backing the campaign. This really mattered!

And (by the way) we're still campaigning as we haven't yet see the architects' revised proposals. They aim to retain the facade but remember - we want to structure listed and preserved for future generations! See the campaign website here.


Thursday, 23 April 2015

World Book Day

Today is World Book Day (and is there a single day of the year left which is not similarly appropriated for some good cause?). It's also Shakespeare's birthday, and St George's Day to boot.

There are, it seems, 781 million illiterate people in the world - or 'people who lack literacy' as they are more sensitively categorised. Of theses, shockingly, 32 million are in the United States.  Imagine not being able to read and write. Imagine not being able to read and write and living in the United States. I'd be interested to know what (if anything) connects that huge minority. Do they fit any demographic? Are they wholly illiterate, or simply have problems with reading and writing? Literacy of course has nothing to do with literature - it's about reading pharmacy labels or timetables or cooking instructions or public signage. It's about navigating the world, day by day.

The reason I haven't blogged at all for the past few weeks is because

a) I started a new job (which is publishing-related in that I now work for the mighty Pearson organisation, owners of Penguin Books and the Financial Times and much more). This has kept me busy, an old dog learning new tricks and

b) I've been working flat out to complete About a Girl, to be published by CB editions in September this year. This is a monograph about the author Eimear McBride and her debut novel A Girl is a Half-formed Thing.

But I'm prompted by World Book Day, and more particularly by a colleague at Pearson, to offer this link to something very worthwhile:

Do take a look at Project Literacy

And for my regular readers who expect something a tad more literary on this blog here's something I learned this week: Anton Chekov had a dachshund named Quinine

Friday, 20 February 2015

On Michael Hoffman

Where Have You Been? is the title of a new collection of Michael Hoffman essays, an early contender for my book of the year. It's published by Faber, and a snip at thirty quid.

Hoffman is a German-born poet and translator and (give or take a couple of years) my contemporary. I see him, not unsentimentally, as a kindred spirit. This may be because, like me, he doesn't own a television and (again like me) doesn't regard this as an affectation.

But he reads what I read, or has read what I feel I should read, and he writes about what he reads in prose that is, it strikes me, exemplary. He has blind spots (Auden, Larkin) but nobody's perfect.

Above all he is brilliant at the endangered art of close reading - of particular poems by Robert Lowell and Ian Hamilton for instance, that prompt in me two reactions: that I must re-read the poems in question and do so with Hoffman's eye and ear. Because he is so acute, so finely-tuned, that he applies defibrillators to the work under consideration. He makes it new.

Reading his latest book over the past few days (and rationing myself as this sort of thing doesn't come along often enough to gobble up) has reactivated my long-dormant interest in Ted Hughes, a poet I once admired but lost track of decades ago. There are wonderful pieces on Ian Hamilton,  W. S. Graham, Kurt Schwitters (and many German writers unknown to me) and a brief evisceration of Gunter Grass. Apart from the minor irritation of American spelling ('ocher' in particular made me double-take) this is a book I'll savour throughout 2015.


Tuesday, 17 February 2015

Saving Spiegelhalters - latest

The CAMPAIGN to save a plucky east End landmark continues unabated, with national and international news coverage and more than 2,500 online signatures.


You can now object to the developer's crass proposal by filling in a form on the Tower Hamlets Council Planning Department website, and I urge you to take a minute out of your busy day to do just that. We need your support! We need names! To object to this thoughtless, wholly inappropriate and lazy scheme CLICK HERE.



The development company behind this plan, Resolution, has now filed proposals with Tower Hamlets Council Planning Department. There is a great deal of documentation, including the following statement from their architects, BuckleyGrayYeoman:


The Vision:
Recognises and contributes to the significance conservation area [sic], for future generations to admire; and

• Enhances the quality of the existing architecture, whilst maximising accessibility, functionality and sustainability


"Vision"? Mneh. And get a proof-reader, fellas.

Here's what else they have to say:

5.26  Whilst much time has been spent exploring options for the Spiegelhalters void, significant challenges have been raised by its unfortunate deterioration of the unit over the years. Today, only a portion of the facade remains precariously intact. The proposals seek to convert the void into a new main entrance for the building, providing a vibrant extension to the public realm and a celebratory homage to the history of the former Spiegelhalters. Although options to reinstate this façade have been explored, these have been considered to be unfeasible due to structural implications and financial viability. 

All of which appears to be simply incompatible with the facts. The December 2014 report Structural Notes on the Front Elevation by Alan Baxter Associates is one of the documents submitted by the developers and one wonders whether they've taken the trouble to read it, because it states unambiguously:

Based on our observations, the façade is in reasonable structural condition for its age and we do not believe that the removal of the façade is necessary, structurally [...] The masonry is supported across the entire width of the building by a primary beam. From a distance, it was not possible to accurately confirm the condition of this beam. The feasibility of retaining the façade is, somewhat, reliant on the integrity of this beam as to replace it, whilst retaining the masonry, would be difficult. That said, we do not see anything to suggest the beam was in distress and needed to be replaced.

That seems pretty clear. The facade is in surprisingly good nick, the supporting beam seems to be doing the job for which it was designed and the remaining structure is (to use a word architects and planners seem to favour) viable. I know it's just a tatty shop front with nothing behind it apart from a century of  indomitability - but that's the whole point of this campaign. It's worth preserving because it's awkward.

It won't get listed as a distinguished piece of architecture - because it isn't a distinguished piece of architecture, It's a run-downfacade that represents everything we used to value as a society and a community and it should remain as a permanent and heart-warming 'up yours' to bullying planners, developers and architects. It should make bureaucrats break out into a cold sweat. It should cheer the rest of us up, forever.


If the developers are worried about the 'difficulty' of incorporating the historic facade into their design, or the 'financial viability' of doing so, maybe they're in the wrong business. The 'unfortunate deterioration' is the result of deliberate negligence, by the way. There's nothing 'unfortunate' about taking the roof off and ripping out the interior.

(If you have time, you can read the complete report on the current condition of the Spiegelhalter facade:
http://planreg.towerhamlets.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Other-958805.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=958805&appid=&location=VOLUME5&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1)

If you're still reading this the chances are you work for Resolution, or BuckleyGrayYeoman, so here are two more points to ponder:

1. According to the Stepney Green Conservation Area Character Appraisal:

The loss of Wickham’s and Spiegelhalters would have a very detrimental impact upon the character of the conservation area and so the situation will be closely monitored.

The Spiegelhalter façade is integral to the development of Wickham’s and the appearance of the department store today cannot be understood without it. Deprived of the interpolation of the modest Spiegelhalter façade, the break in the monumental parade of columns becomes unintelligible. The Spiegelhalter façade should therefore be retained as an essential element of the Wickham’s elevation and its proportions and massing in relation to the Wickham’s building should be preserved.

Relationship to Spiegelhalter’s:

• The Spiegelhalter façade is integral to the development of Wickham’s and the appearance of the department store today cannot be understood without it. Deprived of the interpolation of the modest Spiegelhalter façade, the break in the monumental parade of columns becomes unintelligible. The Spiegelhalter façade should therefore be retained as an essential element of the Wickham’s elevation and its proportions and massing in relation to the Wickham’s building should be preserved.

• It should be noted that the original floorlevels of the Spiegelhalter building and Wickham’s Department Store do not correspond, meaning that any connection between the two would require a change in level.

• The potential exists to restore the Spiegelhalter building as an independent shop unit, which could provide additional floor space and revenue whilst maintaining the logic of the original construction.


2. The developer's Planning Statement (also available online) includes the following: 
.
5.27  The proposed new entrance is of exceptional design quality and will include the highest quality materials to recognise and enhance this part of Mile End Road, as well as the wider Stepney Green Conservation Area. The proposed development better reveals the significance of the building with a sensitive and innovative approach to celebrating its rich history. Any negligible impact would certainly be outweighed by the significant benefits of the proposals, including creation of high quality flexible office space for SME’s, significant job creation and enabling the high quality restoration of the building. 

Full marks for "negligible impact" as a euphemism for "total destruction of the site". You'll notice the complete lack of coherence in the argument - the 'significant benefits' (i.e. the creation of office space behind the Wickham's facade) have nothing to do with the proposed destruction of the Spiegelhalters facade. That an existing entrance and staircase are already available (and the Alan Baxter report recommends just such a solution) has not been considered by architects committed to the destruction of the historic facade, which CAN be restored and become a crowd-pulling architectural feature of the Mile End Road instead of a gimcrack gesture.

More on this to follow.

Meanwhile, please spread the word, support the campaign and follow this blog.


Message ends. Thank you.