Comments on: Berners Pool – Hodders Associates, Cumbria

By: Alison and Tom Binks

Alison and Tom Binks — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:14:34 +0000

We are totally disgraced with the site of Berners now, it should be knocked down with a JCB digger! It will never be the same again.

By: writing skill

writing skill — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:14:28 +0000

interesting article !

By: jim

jim — Sat, 29 May 2010 15:55:23 +0000

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

By: David

David — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:39:28 +0000

“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.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:44:54 +0000

Interesting question from Alex, but in fact it was the same architect!

By: alex splode

alex splode — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:24:11 +0000

Clissold and Berners seem to display worrying similarities.
Did the same builder build them both ?

By: Lionel Prodgers

Lionel Prodgers — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:39:47 +0000

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.

By: David Huggett

David Huggett — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:41:37 +0000

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

By: James Thorp

James Thorp — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:47:03 +0000

This really is a sad one, seems the places most in need of good public buildings are the least able to maintain them

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:07:57 +0000

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.