new foyer at st george’s…

I love St George’s – it’s definitely my favourite concert venue in Bristol and, last night, was the first time I’d been able to experience its new Foyer (a £6.3million extension by the Midas Group), which opened last month. I’d endeavoured to see the new building a couple of weeks ago when I called in for mid-morning coffee, but everything was locked up… which I found somewhat surprising.
It’s obviously early days and things still look a little unfinished (a scaffold tower remains at the Great George Street entrance) and I freely accept that I haven’t been able to explore the new facility in its entirety but, I have to say, I was left feeling rather underwhelmed.
Yes, there are lots of aspects of the new extension that are very good (it’s very light and airy in character, the external areas will work well during the summer months, the entrance into the auditorium is a huge improvement etc) and it will clearly provide a great new resource for the city but, especially when compared with the recently-opened extension to the Old Vic Theatre down the road (which, admittedly, was more than twice the cost), I think it falls well short of my personal expectations.

For me, the new building seems to lack design coherence. My initial impression was that it had been designed by a group of individuals - each responsible for particular elements – but who hadn’t really managed to get together to coordinate things in terms of the overall building design.

Here, for example, are just a FEW matters that I found unsatisfactory (and, yes, I know this is all very subjective)(photos numbered clockwise, starting top right):
1.    The new exposed concrete staircase immediately adjacent the entrance is fine, but sits uncomfortably with the adjacent white staircase (with its curved half-landings and solid balustrade walls)(photos 1+5). 
2.    I think the metal balustrading, with its vertical spindles, looks rather dated to my eyes (or perhaps the designers are TRYING to give it a retro ‘feel’?)(photos 7+9). There’s also a very strange detail at the bottom of the concrete staircase (photo 6) where the balustrade is continued back just beyond the half-landing (looking almost like an after-thought to try to prevent children from playing under the stairs!). It all looks rather awkward and incongruous. 
3.    In use (ie. before the performance/during the interval), there was clearly insufficient space for people to sit (there were a total of only eight small tables, I counted) or to stand against or find somewhere to put their drinks glasses while chatting. No one, it seems, had thought this through. There was a distinct lack of shelves or ledges for putting down glasses (comparison with the Old Vic is embarrassing in this respect – where they try to utilise as much space as possible for such purposes).
4.    I wasn’t able to get into to the large seminar room on the first(?) floor, but noted that it had a fully-glazed wall running alongside a balcony walkway link to the ‘white staircase’ described above. The trouble was that someone had decided to install the small server counter with all its rubbish, wires and general paraphernalia exposed and visible from the walkway link. Ridiculous! (photo 2)
5.    Everything looked a little bare (including the bar)(photo 8). I quite like a ‘minimalist feel’ but I don’t think they’ve got things right, here. I’ve no idea if they provide food in the bar/foyer. Hopefully, they do - but there certainly weren’t any notices or information. In fact, what little signage there was, all felt rather like an afterthought – notices/directions on music stands being placed in inconvenient locations so that people were constantly walking into them, for example (photo 1).
6.    I had assumed that the old bar area would be incorporated into the new bar/reception area but it seems that most of it has been devoted to small seminar rooms(?), offices and a rather disappointing ‘history of St George’s’ display that wastefully (to my mind) utilises quite a large area.
7.    I think it’s all crying out for someone to ‘take control’ of St George’s new facility… in terms of the whole experience, what it looks like, what message it conveys to its punters… and getting the small details ‘right’. At the moment, it looks a little as if no one cares (or is bothered) about such issues.
8.    I could go on…

I might be being a little unfair in this initial assessment and absolutely appreciate that I need to visit on a number of occasions and at different times of the day to fully appreciate how the new building is being used and what additional resources it provides. Sadly, in addition to its design deficiencies, it left me with a sense that it was only AFTER the building had been ‘handed over’ that anyone had been allocated the task of actually managing its use (I may be wrong!)… so, instead of utilising the construction time for this purpose, it felt as if there were more important things to think about.

Yes, a wonderful new resource for the city, but perhaps an opportunity not fully realised?
PS: I know that this will seem incredibly trivial in the whole scheme of things, but I also thought that whoever chose the wine glasses ‘got it wrong’! It seems that all the glasses have 4” stems – just perfect for ‘ease-of-knocking-over’ (not that I did, you understand!). They just seem incredibly impractical or is that just me?
Photos (numbered clockwise starting, top right): 1: main stair plus signage; 2: seminar room from balcony walkway (showing back of server+ paraphernalia); 3: general view from white staircase; 4: front sitting area from white staircase; 5: white staircase; 6: balustrade rail to main staircase; 7: main staircase and walkway from front balcony walkway; 8: foyer and bar area; 9: front balcony walkway; 10: external view, with scaffold tower.
All taken very rapidly, before I wrote my blog post.

how NOT to boost construction…

So, it seems that the government has come up with another initiative to “cut costs for the construction industry and boost the economy”. This time, ministers have ordered a wide-ranging review covering all aspects of building regulations - including fire safety, wheelchair access and standards on energy efficiency.

In my view (given 30 years plus architectural experience), while SOME simplification of SOME regulations might be helpful, I feel that, once again, the government is missing the point. Self-regulation by the construction industry and changes in building standards will actually do very little to stimulate construction - it will do virtually nothing to encourage clients, developers and contractors to implement projects. At present, it’s really difficult to get speculative commercial and residential schemes to start on site due to the dire economic climate – with job security so uncertain and very little prospect of this changing in the foreseeable future, people are unwilling to commit themselves to new mortgages and, likewise, firms are loathe to take risks due to commercial uncertainty or, indeed, are unable to get banks to lend them money.
THAT is why, for example, the developer for the proposed mixed use scheme just down the road from us (Wapping Wharf in a prime harbourside location, comprising apartments, shops, restaurants, bars and a hotel) is NOT prepared to make a start on site – they don’t want to be faced with the prospect (and the crippling expense) of empty apartments and units at the end of the contract… modifying construction standards will NOT be the reason our local scheme gets built (and, remember, these have been introduced for a purpose, not on a whim, on the basis of vast experience within the industry)!
It seems to me that, with the urgent need for affordable homes throughout the country, it would make far more sense for the government to assist housing associations (ie. provide funding), so that they can get contractors building again.
Clearly, this would require some expenditure by government and, of course, we all know that’s not going to happen!     
PS: You might also recall that the government has recently announced an “emergency” year-long free-for-all in house extensions. In my view, this is a ludicrous step that will a) not increase construction to any worthwhile extent and b) will merely result in an increase number of neighbour disputes (oh, more work for solicitors… silly me!).

Again, a case of the government tinkering in things it doesn’t really understand.