What's wrong with property developers making money?

A bit of a straw argument in places i,e "The suggestion is that making money out of property development is somehow a bad thing" (I never said that and no-one advocates Soviet-style state-managed planning), otherwise paradoxically I agree with some of what you wrote.


So let's see.


You write: "In order to be successful buildings don't just have to look great".


Exactly. Take a look at a significant number of city centre "luxury pads". Not only do they look like hives (not all of them, but certainly a good few), but they are also built on the cheap. I won't mention any specific names and locations for obvious reasons, but I can tell you horror stories endured by friends of mine or myself.


Brand new, mega-expensive, glossy (on paper) "21st century" apartments were cracks appeared within months of moving in, along with leaks, dog-like fittings and installation, crap insulation, etc...


The current marketing campaign is so anxious to portray Birmingham as a "European hub", using cliches as "cafe culture", "urban living" and similar, but you won't find the same proliferation of Clone Shopping Malls and Mixed Use in Paris, Rome, Barcelona or Berlin. Mixed Use is abhorred by most Europeans, precisely cos it's impersonal, anonymous and -ugly-.


And I hate to say that, because I love Birmingham, and I guess if I'm spending time typing up this stuff, it's obviously a sign that I care about it.


Now, on to the second aspect:


John Madin went on record as saying that no other city in the world would be so light-hearted in demolishing some carefully planned buildings of architectural merit. I have to agree with Madin.


I remember when I was at Uni there were people coming to Brum on purpose to look at BBC Pebble Mill or the Post & Mail building!!! And to think those two buildings were pulverised in seconds.


What is so wrong with restoring???? That's what generally happens in most European cities, for goodness' sake. But it's obviously not as financially rewarding.

Now, if the Central Library was to be replaced by a Museum, or a Square or something architecturally or culturally significant, I'd be saying "bring in the bulldozers and do so now!". But the fact is, it's gonna be another "mixed-use" area, the same you could get in Sheffield, Cardiff, Manchester, or a 100 yards down the road in Brum.


One final thing. I know you can't bite the hand that feeds you and fair play to you for declaring your interest. But the way you portray those "poor" developers almost brought tears to my eyes. They must be starving, poor little things.


Except, everyone knows, it's one of the most rewarding businesses on earth. By far. Entire countries based their economic fortunes (followed by recessions) on the building industry.

Nothing wrong with profit. But yes, something wrong with profiteering.

Thanks Claude. I think we probably need to agree to disagree. Rest assured - no offence taken.

Thanks Emma.

I think Claude makes a number of different points which fit into two main categories: (i) he doesn’t like what we’re doing to the city centre now and (ii) he is concerned that property developers are guilty of profiteering. That second point may come down to a question of what’s an acceptable level of profit margin. I imagine most of us may well have differing views on that.

To answer your question, I don’t think it’s the case that we knock everything down. Baskerville House and the Mailbox are two recent examples of very successful redevelopments of existing buildings in the city centre.

I think the question “why doesn’t restoration happen more often?� is in part a question of personal taste (do you like the 1960s buildings or would you rather they were replaced?), partly a question of economics (it may cost proportionately more to redevelop an existing building than to replace it) and quite a lot to do with the planning regime and what the Council wants for the city centre. It’s clear that they’re not fans of the brutalist buildings and I have to admit that I agree with them.

In my experience, the economics question may be the key one. 1960s buildings do not conform to modern office standards and refurb costs (to get them to the required standard) can be excessive.

I'm interested in this debate having been a resident of brum in the past and also a town planner myself, working soley in the private sector for private developers/house builders.

its interesting to read about people's desires to see 1960s architecture retained and restored. buildings designed in the 60s had a certain style and were appropriate for the day. for many though they have started falling apart and the cost of restoration in comparison to the returns that someone buying them and doing the restoration does not make it viable.

if a public body was to come along and say we'll restore a duff old building for the sake of retaining a piece of history what would your response be to that? good use of public of funds or terrible waste.

unfortunatley public bodies dont come along too often wanting to do the above so its left to the private sector to make the most efficient use of land - a limited commodity in this country. and leaving monuments to bygone ages of architecture that has no place (in my opinion) in the modern day really isnt hte way to go.

John,

Your attitude to 60s buildings is rather out-dated.

Not only do many of the buildings of this period have significant merits (visit any other forward looking UK city and you'll find buildings of this period being imaginitevly reused) but there are strong environmental reasons for not simply demolishing and rebuilding everything.

Birmingham is slightly unfortunate in the sense that it seems to be permanently afflicted by a mentality that believes the buildings of the recent past are not worth keeping. Every generation we have a wholesale demolition of what our fore-fathers built, usually just as the rest of the country is developing an appreciation for what was briefly deemed unfashionable.

This is exactly what happened in the 60s and 70s when the city systematically destroyed most of its fantastic Victorian architectural legacy. Today we are taking the same short-sighted approach to the buildings that replaced so Victorian structures - knock 'em down!

Already with the loss of the old Madin-designed Post and Mail building we've seeen the needless demolition of a building that was beginning to gain national attention as a great example of its kind. The ironic thing about the redevelopment of the site is that the new building is actually a poor immitation of exactly the same kind of architecture - ie Miesian inspired corporate glass and steel. But few in Birmingham seem to understand the perversity of what is going on.