![]() The outer skin, energy-inefficient and worn out, needs replacing in any event. Inserting new shafts is tricky, as it is impossible to punch holes in the tower’s idiosyncratic structure without removing larger quantities of concrete than is needed for the openings alone. It has low ceiling heights and current standards require more lifts than it now has. ![]() The Euston Tower plans are more thoughtful than most, but they don’t constitute such rewiring.īritish Land’s arguments go like this. The same, he says, is true of construction. Simon Sturgis, an expert on sustainable building design, quotes the former Bank of England governor Mark Carney to the effect that the climate emergency requires a complete rewiring of the economy. This is progress relative to M&S’s proposals, but it also shows how challenging it is to keep old buildings whenever possible. The floors, columns and glass cladding of the building, it says, will have to go. Here, the developers British Land, one of largest property companies in the country, working with the Danish architects 3XN, the British practice DSDHA and engineers Arup, have reviewed the options for keeping the building and has come to the conclusion that it can retain 25% of the old structure, in the form of its foundations, basement and central core. Building regulations are silent about the energy and emissions that go with construction An elegant-enough rectangular composition wrapped in greenish glass, it is the least glamorous of the three. This is the 36-storey Euston Tower, once the home of Capital Radio, one of a triad of 1960s tall buildings stretched along Tottenham Court Road, the other two being the BT Tower and Centre Point. Meanwhile, a mile or so to the north-east of the Oxford Street M&S, another high-profile stack of building materials – embodied carbon and embodied energy, to use the technical terms – faces possible removal to landfill and replacement. Sheffield City Council’s recently revealed plans to reuse the city’s former John Lewis store suggest that there are alternatives to demolishing out-of-date retail. ![]() If Gove is the slightest bit serious about reducing the country’s climate emissions, he should refuse permission to the rebuild. In the case of M&S it would be perfectly viable to keep and renovate the current building – a revamped version could be up and running and earning the company income if it hadn’t chosen a different route. The most sustainable building is the one that is already there, as the now-fashionable saying goes. What is at stake is the effect on climate of the demolition and replacement of old buildings.Ĭonstruction requires colossal amounts of energy and causes vast emissions, facts that have led to the belated realisation that it is better wherever possible to renovate rather than rebuild. ![]() In his capacity as secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, he has to determine whether Marks & Spencer can or cannot demolish its flagship store in Oxford Street, London, and replace it with a new office and retail development, following a public inquiry into its proposal. Some time between now and the 20th of this month, Michael Gove is due to make one of the more momentous planning decisions of recent times. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |