Comments on: Southgate Shopping Centre – Owen Luder, Bath

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 11:54:27 +0000

I’d like to think that was the real Owen Luder posting above. How amusing, if distressing, to see a great master architect attacked by the hoi polloi who know nothing of his art. Derwent Tower and Trinity Square in Gateshead are masterworks. Southgate less so, I think. The only Luder original of any size still standing is the Catford Centre in south London, I think. Has the trademark megastructural external staircases.

By: affliction rotation 4.0.1

affliction rotation 4.0.1 — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 06:14:30 +0000

Was’t looking for this specifically but I took the time to read it and wanted to say thanks A~

By: Lucrecia Mott

Lucrecia Mott — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:12:39 +0000

Man oh MAN, schadenfreude feels gooood….

By: Kirsten Elliott

Kirsten Elliott — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:50:45 +0000

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!

By: Reality Control Here Is A Fact

Reality Control Here Is A Fact — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:02:35 +0000

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!

By: D Garner

D Garner — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:10:01 +0000

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.

By: John Gilbert

John Gilbert — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:30:59 +0000

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.

By: gdb

gdb — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:11:10 +0000

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”?

By: Owen Luder

Owen Luder — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:35:52 +0000

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?

By: Maryland

Maryland — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:33:26 +0000

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.