NTBCC WILL OPPOSE OLD ROYAL HIGH SCHEME
New plans for the old Royal High School were roundly criticised at last night’s meeting of the New Town and Broughton Community Council.
There was some agreement that the latest iteration of the proposal had improved on previous ones, and that the eastern accommodation block was to be applauded for its hugging of the hill.
But the six-storey western block was condemned by all for excessive height, bulk and the way it would obscure views of the Hamilton building and its landscape context.
Planning convener Richard Price asserted that the underlying economic model for the hotel required more development than the site could properly take.
He further expressed irritation at a tweet by Urbanist Group’s Taco van Heusden on 3 September which appeared to suggest that NTBCC had ‘refused to meet. Point blank’ after submitting its initial response to the developers’ PAN proposals.
Price said that, on the contrary, the NTBCC had explicitly invited the developers to meet and discuss the issues (see Twitter exchange below).
Taco van Heusden @HeusdenTaco @papawasarodeo @theSpurtle@EdinburghWH many organisations joined the dialogue since March. Some chose absenteeism.
papa was a rodeo @papawasarodeo @HeusdenTaco @theSpurtle you contacted @theAHSS and invited dialogue after the public exhibitions?
@HeusdenTaco @theSpurtle and was the @NTBCC included in those hours, days, weeks, months of dialogue?
@papawasarodeo @theSpurtle @theAHSS curious comment. Consultation period is meant for dialogue. Interested parties stayed long thereafter.
@papawasarodeo @theSpurtle @NTBCC they refused to meet. Point blank.
Choice language
As the room warmed up, so did the language.
‘Hanging Gardens of Babylon’, ‘disgraceful’, ‘gross’, ‘tawdry’ and ‘squeezing a quart into a pint pot’ were some of the choicer phrases used by NTBCC councillors and members of the public to describe the hotel plan.
One sceptic recommended more detailed scrutiny of the economic arguments presented by Oxford Economics, which suggest huge financial rewards from the hotel for Edinburgh and Scotland generally.
Fundamental change required?
Architect Neil Simpson is a lecturer at the Mackintosh School of Architecture in Glasgow, and sits on the board of the Edinburgh Old Town Development Trust.
Last night he called for a fundamental change of approach in planning matters, towards one which allows officials and politicians to exercise greater discretion on the kind of new uses to which Edinburgh's historic buildings are put rather than being confined to the conservation and design issues which arise from their adaptation.
Simpson said that Edinburgh risks a stultifying overprovision of hotels to the exclusion of other, more imaginative activities which are what attract visitors to the city in the first place.
Urban conservationist and writer David Black added his voice to the chorus of disapproval. He had earlier contacted Spurtle with some wide-ranging and vividly phrased comments about architect Gareth Hoskins’s work.
Among those which are publishable, he likened the proposed hotel accommodation wings to ‘a spatchcock of Darth Vader’s galactic hideaway and the bunker scene from Downfall. If this gets the go-ahead, Edinburgh’s finished’.
NTBCC members seemed to agree, and when asked to show how they stood – for or against the proposal – there was unanimous opposition to it.
So strongly do its members feel on the question that an interim statement will be issued shortly as a means of galvanising objections to the plan as widely as possible. NTBCC will submit a lengthier appraisal for CEC’s Planning Department in due course.
Still in the dark?
You can examine the plans for yourself HERE, but be warned: the Portal sometimes runs a little slowly owing to the number of documents. You can make a representation for or against (deadline 2 October) by e-mailing carla.parkes@edinburgh.gov.uk citing Ref. 15/03989/FUL.
Very few people have read through all the documentation yet, but to help you start getting your head around the arguments, here are six key questions and characteristic answers which have emerged over recent days on the Spurtle’s website and social media.
1. Is the restoration and refurbishment of the historic Hamilton building OK?
Yes
- Now much less intrusive than earlier versions, and should be welcomed.
- Opening up entire building to public, for first time in its history, is a huge step forward.
- Atrractive mixture of hospitality and cultural applications.
No
- Restoration and refurbishment also possible under alternative music-school scheme.
- So, too, opening-up of the building for regular musical performances/events.
- Commercial concentration on interior-design is less attractive option than working with the grain of building’s original educational purpose.
2. Is the design of the bedroom blocks respectful, sympathetic or complementary to the Thomas Hamilton centrepiece?
Yes
- A little set back without being slavish or tediously reverential.
- Could be better, but could be a lot worse.
- A future classic.
- Don't let heritage fuddy-duddies block healthy change and progress.
No
- Architecturally illiterate. Grotesque. Resembles Mayan or Incan interloper.
- Six-storey western block menaces Hamilton building, damages context of St Andrew’s House, looms over Regent Road.
- Overall, unsympathetic in terms of scale, proportion, treatment of light and shadow, roofscape.
- Don't surrender Edinburgh to philistine commercial interests.
3. Will views of the old Royal High School and its setting be preserved?
Yes
- The receding bedroom terraces reflect the igneous origins of Calton Hill and Salisbury Craigs.
- Grassed roofs diminish the visual impact of the building against the greenery of the background.
- Any losses to views are outweighed by other gains from the overall scheme.
No
- Key view of Salisbury Crags from the West would be partially obscured.
- Hamilton’s oblique approach from Waterloo Place with gradually unfolding views would be destroyed.
- Uninterrupted landscape setting of Hamilton building against Calton Hill, as seen from the south east, lost.
- Grassed roofs not visible from most angles, including street level. Viewed from within the hotel, mock-ups suggest roofs unattractive and scroggy.
4. Are the proposed materials appropriate in this context?
Yes
- Striking, bold, exciting use of matt copper façade.
No
- This style is alien to the site and to Edinburgh. Concerns about how it would weather with age.
5. Is the proposed change of use appropriate?
Yes
- Crumbling old building needs radical new input of people, money, vision.
- This is a bold and fully funded scheme with international appeal and economic benefits.
- Cash-strapped City of Edinburgh Council would be irresponsible not to grab this opportunity.
No
- Granting long lease to private sector is akin to selling off family silver.
- Should build on its educational heritage.
- Architectural problems stem from inappropriate business model.
- Fully funded, architecturally non-intrusive alternative scheme for music school is waiting in the wings.
- Hotel disrupts historic cultural context of Edinburgh’s Acropolis, diminishes cityscape as a whole, threatens World Heritage Site status.
6. Do the economic arguments in favour of the hotel outweigh any ‘moderate adverses’?
Yes
- Massive shot in the arm for Edinburgh and Scottish tourism.
- Oxford Economics is highly reputable independent consultancy.
- Quite right that money should talk since whole proposal has been driven by CEC's Economic Development from the outset.
No
- Nothing could compensate Edinburgh and Scotland for ruination of an international icon.
- He who pays the piper names the tune.
- Councillors on Development Management Subcommittee lack competence to judge economic case.
Readers may also find it helpful to read the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel's report of a meeting held on 6 May 2015. This succinctly describes many of the challenges, opportunities and concerns surrounding development of this 'unique and nationally important historic building and landscape setting'.
For further recent coverage of this story, see:
'New new plans for old Royal High', 2.9.15
'Wilkinson's "deep regret" at Royal High plans', 3.9.15
Got a view? Tell us at spurtle@hotmail.co.uk and @theSpurtle and Facebook
--------------------------------------------
New Town & Broughton Community Council condemn 'quart in pint pot' hotel for old Royal High. Are they right? http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/…/community-council-cond…
Patrick Hadfield Yes!
Ady Gaham Yes the new town & broughton community council are correct .
Cal Daniels They are spot on, especially the one on the left which, when viewed from the front, looks like it's cowping over into the street, totally at odds with the natural flow of Calton Hill itself.
Bill Dunlop Yes Indeedy!
Oh dear @HeusdenTaco, there seems to be some dubiety about your claim. Care to clarify? http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/community-council-condemns-quart-pint-pot-hotel … @theSpurtle @NTBCC @theAHSS
Dashiell BadHorse No. We want more sandstone & glass square boxes. Ffs. That's a stunning piece of architecture. Unlike the hideous cinema that went up next to the Playhouse. This level of work should be encouraged. Meantime, the Edinburgh Hoohah Society should all be forced to study the form and finally learn the difference between "but it's got sandstone walls" and "shit".