/rating_on.png "1 Star")
/rating_off.png "5 Stars")
(27 votes, average: 3.96 out of 5)
Loading ...Berners Pool in Cumbria, a former Roses Design Awards Grand Prix winner, is about to earn its architect entry into the Rubble Club, despite the fact it is less than five years old!
Stephen Hodder, director of Hodders Associates explains the background: “There was no public swimming facility in Grange-over-Sands, schoolkids were being bussed to neighbouring swimming pools, so residents got together as the Cartnell Residents Association Trust with the aim of bringing a new pool to the area.
View from the building
“It was a project we were involved with from day one and there was an incredible community spirit. A mail shot of 12,000 took a matter of hours, there was sponsored walk money, £800,000 was donated by 1,000 people and all their names were etched in a screen as a recognition of that commitment. When funding was secured hundreds of people were on the promenade, a local butcher supplied sausages.
“Architecturally the building represented a number of themes, a plinth of in situ concrete covered different level changes almost in a Miesian way with the main pool bulk above and admin and cafe as another object on top. Outside that legibility and orientation is very clear.
“Owned by South Lakeland District Council the pool hall extends beyond the curtain walling to frame the landscape, producing a terrific view of the bay. There was one 90 year old gentleman who’d been a member of Grange-over-Sands swimming club from year dot. Every day he’d climb out of his car in his zimmer and into the pool and he always said the quality was unsurpassed.
“It was incredibly popular with the residents but as a building type I don’t know of a local authority who are running a pool for profit. In the end tragically it just didn’t work commercially for them. The trustees who had been instrumental in creating the building had passed over to a second generation and soon after that we noticed that a structural glass door had been broken and not repaired.
What I mourned was how expendable all that energy was when so many people had given so much.
appalling that a piece of architecture such as this cannot be saved. more than just another building.
There’s a bit more to this story. One of the factors in the failure of the project was the building itself. The roof leaked badly wrecking timber flooring and, after closure, bringing down ceilings. Windows leaked. A service duct had such major problems that the main disabled loo was unuseable. The structural glass panel mentioned just exploded one day. There were major ventilation problems leading to areas of mould growth and the showers didnt drain properly. The builders blamed the architects, the architects blamed the builders. The trust didnt have the resources to seek redress legally. The local council refused to take over the running of the pool from the trust because the building was in such poor repair that it needed at least another million pounds spending on it. The response from private operators was similar. The building looked fabulous and was a joy to use until it started raining. It was undoubtedly the greatest disappointment of my life.
Local Council budgets will change from one year to the next and so will the people that administer them. It is tragic therefore that these transient factors should have the power to make a permanent decision on this fine piece of community architecture. Consideration should also be given to the amount of resources (including Carbon) required to build something of this size. Renewal and recycling should really be mandatory these days, demolishing a building after 5 years is quite frankly obscene!
Local residents should rise up and oppose this with all their might, it is they who got it built, now is the time to save it.
Our children have few first rate facilities. I thinks it’s a disgrace that such an inspired building is been pulled down. We are hosting the Olympics in 3 years time. What sort of a message does this needless destruction sent out?
I absolutely loved swimming in this building and the prospect of Arnside from the water across the bay. We drove some distance from Kendal where the pool is more glum than glam! Despite some rather unimaginative management arrangements [terrible food and glass doors to the pool which were never open] it was elegant and looked like a good blueprint for how building should be conceived in an area where the built environment has looked backwards for too long.
It was a shame too that in the design stages more money was not found to increase the size of the pool. The scrimping started too soon.
The reputational damage done to the concept of contemporary building in this area arising from the management of the buildings problems has made it harder to innovate in an area already blighted by conservatism and the fear that contemporary statement architecture damages the cultural propositions of heritage.
I am dismayed by the glee [I told you so] expressed by many that the building has failed.
This suddenly makes a lot more sense after reading Carole Taylor’s comment. Knocking down a useful building in good working order after 5 years is simply vandalism, but if this pool wasn’t built properly it’s unfortunately a different matter. Think of the Thermae Spa in Bath, which went from a budgeted cost of £13m up to £45m thanks to construction faults. A small town council couldn’t possibly afford such an open-ended liability, and it’s unreasonable to blame them for the faults of others, including the architects.
This really is a sad one, seems the places most in need of good public buildings are the least able to maintain them
This is one of the big tragedies of Grange. So much effort was put into getting the pool on the local agenda and actually built, a magnificent achievement by the local people. Unfortunately the cost cutting that went on at design stage downgraded the facility so it was unmanageable and uneconomic to run. Whilst the design concept worked well and it was an excellent pool to swim in with its unique swimming view. The over expensive and unnecessary design detail made it a nightmare to manage on a day to day basis. The fact that 2 years after the pool was opened the building and M & E had still not been signed off, as there were many unresolved serious ventilation and structural problems for which there was no money to rectify speaks for itself. The opening was delayed because the pool was not ready to programme and this seriously eroded the little extra finance the trustees has available to run the pool before it opened. Lack of cash flow and pending large plant expentiture was the final straw. Only £300,000 to £500,000 would have secured the pool at that time. Now it is a total wreck and unfortunatly has to go. Many tried so hard. Berners RIP
I know nothing of the local circumstances, but the story unfolding here is a common one. When new schemes are commissioned very few organisations (public and private sector) consider the full extent of the commitment needed. The whole life cycle ‘cost in use’ is several times the cost of the building. When maintenance budgets are cut and/or faults obverlooked, you can be sure that it is the beginning of the demise of the facility.
Clissold and Berners seem to display worrying similarities.
Did the same builder build them both ?
Interesting question from Alex, but in fact it was the same architect!
“same architect………..” hmmmmm
Many things are the culprit in this demise, but the construction details published in the Architects Journal building study showed fundamentaly flawed detailing born of an architectural intent that appears more about graphic design on a piece of paper than something that can be practically built and endure without excessive defects and maintenance. Much of this inadequacy cannot be blamed on budget cutting and cost cutting. The architecture is suspect. It does all practical and competent modernists a diservice.
Its a cruel twist of fate that because of the procurement process the builder and architect could not be sued to get both recompence for the community and an inquiry into the architects competence.
puzzled, If all building regs were complied with,and I presume local council inspectors, were involved at each stage of build, why did builders / architect get paid if the final job was not signed off, and why cant legel action be taken against both builder /architect?. after so few years, to become unusable something was not done correctly
interesting article !