Cockburn Association: South Bridge Gable Alternative Sub-Committee Report
-
Upload
stvedinburgh -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Cockburn Association: South Bridge Gable Alternative Sub-Committee Report
-
8/3/2019 Cockburn Association: South Bridge Gable Alternative Sub-Committee Report
1/2
South Bridge Gable: The Cockburn Associations Amended Sub-Committee Report
The Cockburn Associations points are added in bold type to the officers report. We would
ask that you take our points, and our objection, into account when determining the
application.
The South Bridge gable is not a reinstatement of the original dominant gable but has been
designed to reflect the character of the three remaining gables. Its height, profile and width
are closely based on the gable opposite but not its scale, detail and window pattern. The
top floor of the hotel rises above the gable but is sufficiently set back to be hidden when
viewed from South Bridge allowing the gable to read as the predominant feature and
recreating the set-piece of the four gables at the Cowgate/ South Bridge junction except it
isn't a set-piece when the four parts do not match equally and one has a different
proportion.
Windows above the South Bridge level take their proportions from the traditional windows on
the street but are of a much smaller size and are regularly positioned over the height and
width of this part of the gable but in a different pattern because of the reduced scale.
The use of both glazing and 'dummy' glazed panels allow for the hotel functions behind while
retaining the windows in an ordered fashion even though the order is incorrect and does
not reflect the original floor heights. At the lower level the windows are designed
differently reflecting the fenestration to the adjoining bridge link and the commercial
frontages on Cowgate although in the original there were no shop windows on this
facade. The end result is a contemporary gable that succeeds in forming an appropriate
corner treatment and transition between the two very different characteristics of the site
although a transition is not what is needed here as the gable belongs very much to
the South Bridge building and has nothing to do with the mediaeval-pattern buildings
or their replacements in the Cowgate below, while respecting the three existing gables in
a half-hearted way which creates a disharmonious grouping where previously there
was unanimity.
There have been a number of objections regarding the gable notably from EWH and the
Cockburn Association. Historic Scotland has made no definitive comment on it and the
EDUP has supported a more modernist approach. The brief for the site, approved by
Committee in October 2003, did not support 'pastiche' architecture where there is a degree
of fakery and illiterate use of quasi-historical emblems and motifs; regrettably what
seems to be presented here where the building is disguised to appear proportionate
-
8/3/2019 Cockburn Association: South Bridge Gable Alternative Sub-Committee Report
2/2
to its neighbours but is clearly not able to do so because of its compressed floor
heights. There are a number of intellectual debates that could be had about what the
correct approach should be. Generally conservation philosophies take their cue from
conservation charters such as the Venice and Burra Charters which bodies such as EWH
support. The Venice Charter states;
"The valid contributions of all periods to the building of a monument must be
respected, since unity of style is not the aim of a restoration." And
"Replacements of missing parts must integrate harmoniously with the whole, but at
the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not
falsify the artistic or historic evidence."
However this is not a conservation project, all of the different periods of the original
building's evolution having been destroyed in the fire so these charters do not apply
and to recreate that history of varying styles and alterations would be false.
It is on this basis that the Planning Brief supports the re-instatement of the original gable but
not a replica of the original Kay's facade except, surprisingly it does "a faithful recreation
of Kay's built scheme might be considered an acceptable solution" so it does not rule
that out and admits it would be a valid approach if handled skilfully. The Planning
Brief from the 2003 public consultation on the matter is still, of course, a valid
material consideration and the only policy document unique to this site.Not only would
the authenticity of such an approach be questionable but it would not sit comfortably with the
modern architecture to which it is attached though this highlights the inadequacies of the
modernist building to which it might be attached rather than any flaw or inadequacy in
the gable as originally designed to sit in the set-piece.The more simplified gable as
detailed in the application integrates harmoniously with the building and much less so with
the surrounding area whilst being of its time and clearly standing out from the designed
streetscape in which it stands.
There is an argument that the 4th gable finishes off this part of South Bridge. The other three
gables have the original detailing. However, it is difficult to appreciate the four gables
together as there are limited viewpoints and so the context is not necessarily a visual one
but one more of cultural and historical significance though this has never troubled other
360 spatial relationships within the New Town such as Charlotte Square, which
cannot be appreciated visually from any single viewpoint.On balance, the more
modernist approach is true to evolution of this site and our compromise approach to
contemporary architecture and modern planningwhilst still failing dismally in
respecting the extraordinary and uniquehistorical and architectural context.