/rating_on.png "1 Star")
/rating_half.png "3 Stars")
/rating_off.png "4 Stars")
(16 votes, average: 2.63 out of 5)
Loading ...Submitted by Jim Warren, he had the following to say about this recently demolished shopping centre.
According to the council, to replace a shopping centre that is drab and uninviting with one fit for the 21st Century. In practice, it was a “bright idea” for the Millennium to remodel Bath to make it vibrant and relevant to the present day, that then took 10 years to get through the planning process.
How it looked at night
This bright idea ignored the fact that the residents of Bath still bore a grudge that 5 acres of perfectly serviceable 200+ year old mostly Georgian shops were demolished to build Luder’s “shopping centre of the future” (which a graffiti artist labelled “Bath Borstal” even before it had been completed), and now that it is at the end of its useful life residents used to the idea that buildings last centuries found the idea of a 35-year lifespan incomprehensible. It also ignored the fact that tourists come to Bath for its old buildings, not its new ones. It also ignored the fact that Luder’s award winning shopping centre, although getting shabby, contained shops that were doing good business and in the gap between demolishing it and replacing it with new shops, people have learned to shop elsewhere. If you want to see Luder’s centre reduced to rubble and what replaced it, see http://southgate.ipl.com/video.html
Photos thanks to analogueandy on flickr
Holy moly – that pile of crud was “award winning”??? At least the replacement is vaguely in keeping with its surroundings, whereas the “award winning” pile of 1970s crap cannot possibly have been in any sympathy with its location. If I remember rightly, it was the first building you saw as you came out of the station. Imagine visiting Bath to revel in its architectural glories, getting off your train and seeing THAT pile of crap right in front of you. Good riddance!
I mourn the Georgian buildings that were on this site, and I also mourn the terribly weak neo-Georgian tat that is being built at the moment, and the missed opportunity that it represents, but few will mourn Luder’s building. It rapidly attracted the Wimpeys and Poundlands of Bath, and became somewhere to be rushed through. Too many inactive frontages, no easy route from city centre to station, uninviting entrances, cheap materials inside, and above all blocks that were far too big and monolithic, eliminating the complex urban mosaic that makes old city centres so interesting. Sadly the new Southgate is repeating many of these mistakes, without the redeeming integrity of Luder’s design.
“Integrity of design” my arse. It was vile and deserved to die.
It was vile, but it lasted well and served a city with millions of tourists each year for 30 years! Who knows what the replacement will look like in 30 years time? I love seeing pictures of Southgate when it first opened, has anyone got any links to some good ones?
> I love seeing pictures of Southgate when it first opened, has anyone got any links to some good ones?
http://www.bathintime.co.uk is fantastic for old pictures of Bath, including Southgate. Here’s a way into the pictures you’re seeking: http://www.flickr.com/groups/23702100@N00/discuss/72157600304745053/
> and served a city with millions of tourists each year for 30 years!
I think people will argue that the city itself served those tourists, and that it was unfortunate that all routes from the railway station to the city centre pretty much guaranteed a view of the Southgate shopping centre and its nearby bus station and car park. What did it offer that was so amazing? A supermarket, a chemist, a stationers, a cafe, a jewellers and a home-ware shop, but these were all chains that could be found anywhere. And there were a few budget book and card shops too, but these were nothing to write home about. All contained in a building described as an “abortion” before it even opened, and tatty and mildewed beyond belief by the time it was finally pulled down. Rose-tinted specs aside it offered nothing in atmosphere that will be missed (or can’t be recreated anywhere else at any time), and the shops or ones like them were unastonishing so will live again in the replacement buildings. Southgate was a place to be rushed through, not to pause in. I am sure the new Southgate will last at least 30 years, and if it’s nothing but a more pleasant entrance into the city than before (albeit superficially), then that’s fine enough for me. I did have greater hopes for the project several years ago, but reality has sunk in as the buildings have gone up.
Finally, I reckon this site is doomed to contain relatively short-lived structures for many generations to come. It sealed this fate for itself when its historic buildings were demolished in the 70s.
Lots of pictures on the aforementioned flickr group Southgate, Bath including some fantastic retro ones from the brilliant http://www.bathintime.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/groups/23702100@N00/discuss/72157600304745053/
I quite liked it having been brought up in Bath it was’nt poundlands etc till the very very end up untill about 2004 it had a boots, bhs whsmith adams, wallis etc. I dunno it had a shitty chic appeal for me if i’m really honest- way too much brown but that could have been changed. If it was lightened up i reckon it could have had a real airy modern feel. It never had a revamp in all it’s 30 years of life and then was condemed for being old fashioned. It had smooth lines and a real brutalist streamlined feel, not like the truly foul nearby bus station oh god that was bad! The new design is some half hearted mock georgian mess would prefer sexy old southgate anytime!!
This is a really ugly building. One can even say that it is extremely ugly. Why do we talk of architecture in such rubbish properly? Let’s call it but simply by his real name. The is simply waste. For it is garbage, and this one put away.
My 1970’s Southgate scheme did not destroy beautiful Georgian buildings. The site was a mixture of rather poor uninteresting Victorian buildings. I argued at the time that the development should have included the car park as an integrated development but that was not accepted. I have no problem with it being replaced – cities are organic and grow and change as demand and use change. But is what has replaced it – pretend Georgian facades clipped onto a modern plastic shopping centre – worthy of Bath? I suspect not. The issue on replacing buildings should be – is it better?
I’m pretty sure that while some of the buildings were Victorian, with even one or two from the early 20th century, the majority were Georgian. And I will never agree with the perspective that the demolished buildings were uninteresting. If nothing else the Sack of Bath made people appreciate that the city’s value is in its relative completeness, not in its having one or two tremendous set-pieces that are without context. All the various quirks of the less important buildings added to the city’s rich character.
I find the 2010 version of Southgate to be fairly tacky on the whole, but I think we’ll struggle nowadays to agree on whether one thing is “better” than another. Progress-towards-Enlightenment is an outdated concept. What are the criteria for “better”?
Mr Luder (if indeed that is you),
I live in the shadow of two of your contributions to British architecture here in Gateshead.
It is only my opinion, although it seems to be shared by the local council here, but I would argue that my mother’s dog leaves more meaningful contribtutions when she takes her for a walk.
You have campaigned vociferously for these to be retained. Well – help yourself. You can come here and remove them both and re-erect them near you.
Good luck with planning permission, by the way.
But there is a serious side to the club, too. It aims to draw attention to the growing popularity of demolishing buildings, rather than finding ways of breathing new life into them. It is a trend totally inconsistent with society’s new-found focus on sustainability.
The above is a quote from this: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/the-director-of-the-rubble-club-talks-about-the-serious-issues-behind-the-club/5209781.article
Is it too easy to say that this only seems to be an issue now that these architects’ works are the ones being demolished? The era in which the majority of these architects operated took as its ethos the gleeful demolition of perfectly sturdy buildings in the name of “progress”. Old buildings that could have done with a bit of a clean-up were ripped down and replaced with things that we now largely hate, not only because they are unpleasant to look at, casting deep shadows and making us feel miserable around them, but because of the philosophy they took while they were taking their place.
My 1970’s Southgate scheme did not destroy beautiful Georgian buildings.
To all who have read this far – just to let you know: Owen Luder is here either unaware of history, or is deliberately spreading misinformation! The beautiful bit is subjective but his Southgate scheme did destroy Georgian buildings. His Southgate scheme was revolting though, so I can imagine why his subconscious would attempt to find justification over these past 30 years or so!
I am sorry that Owen Luder has chosen to put up such a silly comment about the date of the buildings in Southgate Street. Some certainly had Victorian frontages, and the New Inn was a late Victorian rebuild, but many were Georgian and even earlier, although, to be fair, much of the street had been destroyed by fire in 1726. I commend Owen Luder to read The Lost Pubs of Bath, of which I happen to be co-author with Dr Andrew Swift, if he doubts this.
I am particularly sorry because there were much better ways to defend it. One thing a lot of Bathonians appear to have forgotten that the drainage at that end of town left a lot to be desired – come a hot summer, and, as I can remember, walking down there meant putting your hand over your nose and mouth, the smell was so bad. (I have mentioned this to other people who usually say – Oh yes, I’d forgotten that! Yes it was terrible!) However, the most important question anyone should ask about a building is not “What does it look like?” but “Does it work?” Luder’s Tricorn in Portmouth never worked but Southgate was a pleasure to shop in, especially with small children in tow. Yes it had convenience stores, but that end of town always did. Milsom Street had the “posh shops”. Now we have a ghastly, bland, ignorant Mock-Georgian shopping centre, with menacing blocks towering over a maze of contrived streets which bear no relation to any town which grew organically. Alas poor Bath!