{"id":770109,"date":"2025-01-10T13:32:46","date_gmt":"2025-01-10T13:32:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?p=770109"},"modified":"2025-01-13T11:40:11","modified_gmt":"2025-01-13T11:40:11","slug":"council-rubberstamps-demolition-of-hodders-stirling-winning-building","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/council-rubberstamps-demolition-of-hodders-stirling-winning-building","title":{"rendered":"Council rubber-stamps demolition of Hodder\u2019s Stirling-winning building"},"content":{"rendered":"

The nearly 30-year-old building has sat empty for nearly a decade and is due to be flattened as part of the redevelopment of the Adelphi Village area, a scheme backed by a partnership between the University of Salford, Salford City Council and the English City Fund (ECF), as the AJ revealed<\/a> late last year.<\/p>\n

The team made a \u2018prior approval\u2019 application in November, effectively notifying the local authority of its intention to demolish the office scheme under permitted development rules.<\/p>\n

Despite efforts from environmental campaigners and a failed attempt by heritage group the Twentieth Century Society<\/a> to get the landmark listed, the council signed off<\/a> the university and ECF\u2019s request just before Christmas.<\/p>\n

The Hodder<\/a> block was completed in 1995<\/a> and was described as a \u2018dynamic, modern and sophisticated exercise in steel, glass and concrete\u2019 when it won the first RIBA Stirling Prize the following year. It was originally designed to be the School of Electrical Engineering before a change of use, during construction, to the Faculty of Art and Design Technology.<\/p>\n

In 2018<\/a>, plans were unveiled to convert the building into a primary school. This was under wider proposals by 5plus Architects for the university\u2019s existing campus and surrounding area, which included the delivery of a significant amount of new housing.<\/p>\n

But the school scheme was ditched and the development team has been looking at \u2018explored multiple options\u2019 for the long-vacant four-storey block. Demolition could start as early as March.<\/p>\n

The Twentieth Century Society\u2019s request to have the building listed was backed by a trio of campaign groups committed to highlighting the up-front carbon impact of demolition and rebuild: Architects Declare<\/a>, Architects Climate Action Network<\/a> (ACAN), and Don\u2019t Waste Buildings<\/a>..<\/p>\n

In a statement Historic England said: \u2018While the Centenary Building has some design interest, winning the RIBA Stirling Prize in 1996, when considered against the criteria for listing buildings of a recent date, it lacks the special interest to merit listing in a national context.\u2019<\/p>\n

The official report (see attached) adds: ‘Although undoubtedly of some design interest, the Centenary Building was not technically innovative and has not been shown to be influential elsewhere, as was hoped when it was awarded the Stirling Prize.’<\/p>\n

A spokesperson for the project backers told the AJ in November that, while \u2018careful consideration\u2019 had been given to the building\u2019 history, it \u2018no longer met modern standards and requirements\u2019 and had \u2018now been vacant for a third of its built life\u2019.<\/p>\n

They added: \u2018Future proposals will \u2026 seek to incorporate sustainable building design practices and materials, ensuring support for Salford\u2019s sustainability goals.\u2019<\/p>\n

A statement released on behalf of the partnership today (10 January), added: ‘[We] welcome the decision by Historic England to refuse listed status for the Centenary building.<\/p>\n

‘In reaching the decision to demolish the Centenary building, careful consideration was given to the building\u2019s history and heritage, and a number <\/em>of experts were consulted as part of this. We\u2019re pleased to see that Historic England\u2019s assessment is in line with their findings.<\/p>\n

‘We look forward to work beginning on the project, which forms part of the \u00a32.5 billion Cresent Salford masterplan to provide a broad range of housing to cater for the needs of Salford\u2019s community.’<\/p>\n

Speaking to the AJ when plans to demolish the block first emerged last November<\/a>, Hodder Associates founder Stephen Hodder said he had received the news with \u2018great dismay\u2019.<\/p>\n

He told the AJ: \u2018This is not borne out of nostalgia, it being the inaugural RIBA Stirling Prize winner, or indeed the importance of the building to the development of our practice, but as an original signatory to Architects Declare and past chair of the Construction Industry Council\u2019s Climate Change Committee, I simply cannot support the demolition of a building that is only 30 years old.\u2019<\/p>\n

Hodder added: \u2018[We\u2019re] not aware that there has been an exhaustive effort to repurpose the building.<\/p>\n

\u2018For a university that promotes its sustainability credentials, the intention to demolish surely undermines the credibility of its policy.’<\/p>\n

See the Centenary Building in the AJ Buildings Library<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Hodder<\/p>\n

\n

Comment<\/h3>\n

Catherine Croft, director of the Twentieth Century Society<\/strong><\/p>\n[The Society] is disappointed and thinks this is the wrong decision. As well as failing to recognise heritage value, the decision not to list has effectively stymied prospects of environmentally sustainable reuse of a substantial and soundly constructed building.<\/p>\n

The only criteria for determining whether or not to list a building are its architectural and historic interest (the current condition and prospects for future use are not legally relevant). As the first ever recipient of the Stirling Prize, the Centenary building certainly has historic interest. We are concerned that the report relies in part on thirty year old-hearsay, including comments about how well the services originally functioned, the lack of a reception area (incorrect), and dissatisfaction with the lack of a caf\u00e9 when this was not part of the brief (there was a caf\u00e9 in the adjacent linked building).<\/p>\n

This is frustrating, as is the somewhat cursory nature of the report. It was issued just before the Christmas break, and we feel it would have been better to have allowed more time for sources to have been thoroughly checked, and a more reasoned conclusion to have been reached.<\/p>\n

The language of the AJ\u2019s article is spot on: the council have now been able to ‘rubber stamp’ and ‘wave[d] through’ demolition without the scrutiny the case deserved. This is clearly not the best solution, when conversion to a primary school was being proposed until relatively recently. It\u2019s not too late for the University to reconsider their wasteful and irresponsible plans.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n