Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16120
- 16139)
16120. Next door to that is the next slide.[48]
A slightly eclectic building but, nonetheless, one which contributes
to the area and to the feel of it and to its general vibe.
16121. With the next slide we are back over
at Smithfield.[49]
Again, with this block here around Lindsey Street and Hayne Street,
we are losing a block of decent, handsome buildings that contribute
to the townscape which are economically viable, when there are
other buildings in the area which do not make any positive contribution
that could be lost. This warehouse would go.
16122. The next slide, next door to this is
another really handsome Victorian warehouse, really solid and
musty.[50]
One of the surprises is you do not know it is there until you
start walking behind the main streets. This would be demolished.
16123. The next slide.[51]
I understand this one will go as well. It is quite a sweet-looking
little building, something which certainly you would not expect
to be right next to the City of London but it is. It survives
there quite happily, contributing to the sense of the place, and
this sense of place, once gone, is lost forever.
16124. Next we come on to the Chambers and Partners
building, the next slide.[52]
Although it is argued that the art deco additions are merely that,
just art added as deco somewhat later, the essential proportions
of the building are really rather good. The next slide shows this
well, how it turns the corner and on the left-hand slide you will
see the Smithfield market Grade II* listed.[53]
This building forms a setting of the Grade II* market. It has
large windows to the ground floor which might be able to drop
perhaps, might I suggest it create an entrance to a tube station.
It is the sort of building which, we would hold, should survive
and yet with Crossrail it will go.
16125. Next one is the next slide, a little
butcher's shop, very much a part of the life of the area.[54]
It dates from about 1900 and in the 1930s its interior was altered
but it still retains the route to keep the meats cool and a lovely
sign, `Edmund Martin Limited', not too many of those around at
the moment. The sort of building which, unfortunately, makes easy
pickings for large projects.
16126. We are approaching the end of the slides.
The last three are of the corner of Oxford Street and the buildings
which would be lost there with the Tottenham Court Road Eastern
Development, if we can flip on to that.[55]
Here you see its upper floors. It is a handsome, well-detailed
building. It is robust and holds its own against Centre Point
and it really should not be lost in this day and age, but rather
more likely will that.
16127. Go on to the next slide, you can see
how its neighbour turns the corner and forms an important part
of the townscape.[56]
Wherever you approach this area from the east, whether it is from
St Giles or down New Oxford Street, you get a good view of this
building, and the building next to it as well would be lost. It
is a nicely-detailed building. Then the final shot seems to be
a repeat of the previous slide so you need not worry about that.[57]
16128. Mr Wilkinson: The point is is
this necessary? Is this loss? I am sorry it was long, but hope
you enjoyed it and gave light relief from talking about railway
matters, but is this loss really necessary? We hold that it is
not really necessary. Over at Smithfield there are alternatives.
There is the ugly building I showed you, which could be destroyed,
and that will drop you straight down on the tracks. Just down
Charterhouse Street from there, there is another dreadfully ugly
building that contributes nothing positive to the area. This again
could be dropped to provide access in some form if needed. These
alternatives have not been fully explored by Crossrail and have
been looked at possibly cursorily after we have contacted them
about it, particularly in that case. With Tottenham Court Road
at the eastern end, it appears there has been a lack of co-ordination
with the designers associating between London Underground and
Crossrail. Surely, the existing entrance to the Underground could
be used and adapted rather than knocking down the building in
front of you or on the corner here to create that? With the western
end of Tottenham Court Road Station, there are a number of buildings
in the area which do not contribute to the sense of place and
do not contribute to the history and character of that area which,
if lost, would not be missed and which, if lost, would possibly
give alternatives to getting down to the platforms as opposed
to knocking down historic buildings. We have only had cursory
discussions with alternative engineers outside of Crossrail about
this. We have not been able to fully engage them because, as a
small organisation, we do not have the funds to properly engage
them. However, we would dearly like to come up with some alternatives.
The alternatives, of course, will not be as cheap as knocking
down historic buildings, but then it is a question really of how
you value your heritage and what price you put on it. Thank you.
16129. Chairman: Could I ask one or two
questions, Mr Wilkinson?
16130. Mr Wilkinson: Please.
16131. Chairman: Are you an architect
or engineer?
16132. Mr Wilkinson: I am a historian
and I have a master's in history and language and a master's in
historic conservation which is from Oxford in Oxford Brookes.
The course gives you a very strong look at all aspects, you are
like a jack of all trades, but an expert in none.
16133. Chairman: The reason why I ask
that is because if your argument is Crossrail has followed a route
and taken out a variety of buildings, without some engineering
synopsis or direction your case for knocking down other buildings
instead of the ones that are being prescribed can be equally guilty
of the same offence. You have just taken buildings in the near
vicinity and seemed to have said, "They can be knocked down
rather than the other ones".
16134. Mr Wilkinson: As I say, for us
to carry out the study would require a large amount of funding
which we do not have. I would like to be able to explore this
in further depth and possibly present something to the Committee.
16135. Chairman: Have you met with Crossrail?
16136. Mr Wilkinson: We have met with
Crossrail and discussed in depth some of the alternatives at Farringdon
and the answers from Crossrail have been, "Well, it is possible
but . . . " and it seemed to come down to a question of expense.
That was through the headlines that were done, I think at a high
level rather than getting any depth into it.
16137. Chairman: The other thing I wanted
to ask you about is whilst there are some quite beautiful buildings
that you quite properly highlight, there is a number of buildings
which are not what they seem to be. The art deco one is one of
them. It is not very old at all. These things have been added
quite recently. Do you think that is a good enough reason for
keeping it?
16138. Mr Wilkinson: My argument is not
so much the individual buildings, it is about the townscape and
how they work together. The art deco building on the corner of
Smithfield and Lindsey Street is a handsome building on its own
point. I was trying to show you that without the art deco being
added to it, you have got a building there which is well-proportioned
and which fits in with the area well. In fact, some might argue
the paint job is a bit garish and unpleasant, but without it you
have got a better building. I very much think buildings such as
this do make a contribution to people's lives and to the quality
of life as well. It is not just about the architecture in itself,
it is about that sense of place that I was talking about which
makes Smithfield or the area south of Oxford Street, makes it
slightly interesting and different and helps towards getting enjoyment
out of it.
16139. Chairman: So your argument is
beauty is in the eye of the beholder who likes a particular thing
around the area and is worth keeping in the landscape?
48 Committee Ref: A182, Alternative view of Great
Chapel Street (LINEWD-28905-031). Back
49
Committee Ref: A182, View of Lindsey Street and Hayne Street
(LINEWD-28905-032). Back
50
Committee Ref: A182, View of buildings at Lindsey Street and
Hayne Street (LINEWD-28905-033). Back
51
Committee Ref: A182, Alternative view of buildings at Lindsey
Street and Hayne Street (LINEWD-28905-034). Back
52
Committee Ref: A182, View of Chambers and Partners, Long Lane
(LINEWD-28905-035). Back
53
Committee Ref: A182, View of Chambers and Partners, Long Lane
and Lindsey Street (LINEWD-28905-036). Back
54
Committee Ref: A182, View of Edmund Martin Limited, Lindsey Street
(LINEWD-28905-037). Back
55
Committee Ref: A182, View of Tottenham Court Road and Centre
Point (LINEWD-28905-038). Back
56
Committee Ref: A182, View of Charing Cross Road and Tottenham
Court Road (LINEWD-28905-039). Back
57
Committee Ref: A182, Alternative view of Tottenham Court Road
and Centre Point (LINEWD-28905-040). Back
| 
