Stonebow House: Not exactly ‘YES’ or ‘NO’…at our last event there was a lot of grey

There doesn’t seem to be one killer argument for keeping Stonebow House. The ‘Nos’ are always more numerous and definitive. Yet – as we found at the Stonebow House: Past, Present and Future event on 26th July – there might be a certain power in the cumulative effect of lots of different arguments.

One of the contributions generated at the Stonebow House: Past, Present, Future event on 26th July.

A little recap and update. We know the City of York Council Cabinet planned on 7th January 2014 to buy the freehold for the land Stonebow House is built on. We know Stonebow House is listed as a ‘detractor’ in York Central Historic Core Conservation Area Appraisal that it should be ‘replaced by [a building] that better responds to the Conservation Area’s characteristics’ (2011, p. 467). We know draft Local Plan emphasizes Stonebow and Hungate as future retail space (June 2013). We’ve heard that the current longterm leaseholder is considering their options. So at this point nothing might change or everything might. What we do know is that if the long term leaseholder wanted to act, any development proposed could be facilitated by the CYC as landowner and planning authority and current policy appears to support in an improvement in appearance in the short term and, with a longer view, a redevelopment of the site. And so there’s no time like the present to experiment with as open, dynamic and plural ‘engagement’ processes around Stonebow House.

Thirty-two of us gathered at the Central Methodist Church on 26th July to explore further the arguments and approaches we started to identify and explore in our first event on 12th April. Before 12th April a team of us worked on exploring the pasts of the site. Martin Bashforth pulled together the various histories of Hungate with a more detailed look at 1911 census and call for photographs via York Past and Present facebook site. Another cluster of us did some work with current uses, holding a stall outside Heron Foods, spending time with the Jorvik café regulars and outside Fibbers. On the day of the event – partially to encourage people over to the event and to give an alternative space for sharing views – we set up Jorvik café history menus.

One of the public stalls run outside of Heron Foods in advance of The Stonebow Inquiry on 12th April 2014

What struck me very clearly when spending time with various groups who use Stonebow House was that ‘public meetings’, in the style we’d set up, were not for everyone. Everyone who paused for a chat outside Heron Foods wanted to talk and debate the issues but not one of those I spoke to came to the meeting itself. Instead the meeting on 12th April attracted a range of people who like meetings and, as someone said it me when I was reflecting on this, ‘are good at them’. Public meetings are not everyone’s style and, we realized, can’t be used as the only means of enabling participation.

All of these experiences shaped our planning for 26th July. Firstly we knew we hadn’t really grasped the architectural question fully. So thanks to Gill Chitty, University of York and Peter Brown, York Civic Trust I was put in contact with Jon Wright, freelance architectural historian and former Senior Caseworker for the Twentieth Century Society and, until 2013, Head of Conservation at the Council for British Archaeology in York. Jon is fantastically knowledgeable about brutalist architecture and had an interesting take on Stonebow House. So through our York: Living with History blog, York Mix, and ultimately York Press, Jon published his take which set out a number of arguments for why York should recognize the value of Stonebow House. Following the blog and article’s wide publication, Jon and I also started to ‘run the arguments’ through the dynamic York Past and Present facebook page to explore which arguments resonated – and which didn’t.

York Past and Present was a space which generated a lot of debate. Rex Barley’s arguments were focused on the dangers of a minority who liked the building outweigh what he saw as the massive majority who see Stonebow House as an eyesore. As Rex couldn’t attend the meeting we agreed I’d print out his comments to share.

Alongside this Lisa, from York Stories returned to her long time interested in Stonebow House. Lisa’s very layer and poetic response has been, since 2004, to see it as a place which somehow defies what is expected of York – burnt our cars and graffiti. In the run up to the 26th July meeting, Lisa also asked her regular readers views of Stonebow House – including three words to sum it up, some of which are pictured here.

Contributed by a reader of York Stories, answering the question: Stonebow House in Three Words?

Before we all met, I did a summary of the arguments which I shared with those registering, we also posted a selection of comments representing these different arguments on the wall, alongside Lisa’s readers ‘Stonebow House in three words’. The event itself was, then informed and shaped by lots of people who couldn’t, or wouldn’t want to, come to meet us at Central Methodist Church on a Saturday afternoon.

Jon Wright introducing the issues.
Photograph by Richard Brigham.

The Living with History event itself began with Jon opening up the issues from his perspective. There were some challenges from the floor immediately – specifically focused on the question of whether Jon thought the building was of high enough quality to be listed by English Heritage. As in the blog, Jon was clear that probably, on balance, it wouldn’t meet the English Heritage listing criteria of being of sufficient ‘architectural or historic interest’ (EH website). However, Jon made a number of others arguments:

• It’s a very York issue: ‘Coming from the station I was struck by how modest it is. It is a building which would go overlooked in lots of other places. But not in York’.
• Memorable: ‘It’s a prominent landmark’
• Tastes go round in cycles: There is a danger of it being lost now without a chance for it to come back into vogue.
• Very few other good examples from 20th Century: Shows the 1960s happened in York too.
• Capital ‘A’ architecture: Form is its function – better than pastiche or buildings that aren’t memorable at all.

Jon recognized that the building does have its problem at street level – but that there is a lot of potential for reuse.

Having heard Jon’s account, everyone went out into the sun to have another look at the building. Quite a few people went up to the carpark area, others tried to stand back and look at it from street level.

One of 40 ‘three words on Stonebow House’ contributed via York Stories and at the event on 26th July.

We then reconvened in small groups in continue the discussion. Key arguments in favour of complete redevelopment:

• Contexts: ‘Doesn’t fit into it’s context’. ‘Can we put it on wheels and take it to the university; (the argument made for it being a distractor in CYC Conservation Area Appraisal).

Arguments for evolution / reuse of the building – started pragmatically and moved on to environmental questions:

• Would anything better go in it’s place?: Could be worse…
• It’s in good condition: Noted the concrete is in good nick.
• Historical importance – in spite of itself: ‘the building is important because it became a symbol of why York needed to be good at conservation!’
• York’s made up of lots of little bits of history: why not have a 20th Century bit too?
• Environmental costs of demolishing the building

One participant did want to consider English Heritage listing. Yet another made a strong case for keeping the decision as local as possible:

• Users not academic interest: ‘This is not a matter of academic interest (is it good architecture). It should be decided by English heritage. What really matters is the people of York. The real question is does it serve local interests’.

These reflected arguments made on facebook, comments on blogs/articles and via the York Stories survey. Yet it was noticeable how pragmatic the small group discussions seemed to have become by the end of the meeting. It was as if the fact of the building had been accepted and people had moved onto what to do about it. There were lots of constructive ideas about reuse. Lots of ideas of gardens in the sky. Or about affordable housing in the tower. There is clearly not one argument that is generally thought to be convincing – but the power of lots of smaller ones seemed to add up to something.

One of the contributions to our wall of ‘Stonebow House in Three Words’

There are two comments made in the room which seemed to sum up this emerging sense that the issues around Stonebow House are not at all clearcut. The first, was, ‘it’s a bit like the more you interact with it, the more friendly it becomes’. And finally ‘it’s ours!’ Love it, hate it…Stonebow House is now part of York. It is now our responsibility and, one way or the other, the feeling of the meeting was that we wanted to accept that responsibility, together and locally.

Submitted by one of York Stories readers to the question: Stonebow House in Three Words

Stonebow House: Running the Arguments

One of over 30 Stonebow House in ‘three words collected via York Stories at at the 26th July event.

Since we started our quest to explore the pasts, present and future of Stonebow House we’ve been collecting arguments. Arguments in favour of keeping Stonebow and developing it. Arguments for the complete redevelopment of the site. As well as all sorts of arguments which are either more pragmatic, contingent on what else might happen or specifically interested in process of decision making.

Democracy has always been about persuasion. So over the past five months we’ve been experimenting with a democratic research process – one which has sought out arguments from all over place. Once the arguments were gathered we then – like a series of diagnostics – ‘ran the arguments’ in numerous places. We’ve done this most dynamically and conversationally in our meetings (12th April; 26th July) and on the York Past and Present facebook group but also via articles on York Mix and York Press. Which arguments have found most favour? How do they relate? See my first attempts in narrative form and visually at mapping out type, popularity and the relationship of key arguments.

What’s interesting here is that while there is one BIG argument for demolition – which is the first thing most people say. Ugly. Eyesore. Monstrosity. And there is no killer argument for keeping it – no one is saying Stonebow House is the ‘best ever’ brutalist building. However, there are lots of smaller arguments in its favour. When they are all added up are they convincing?

A diagram of the arguments made around the past, present and future of Stonebow House

Here is a more narrative version of our collection of arguments.

Architectural significance. There is the question of whether Stonebow House is ugly or an eye sore. Both words are commonly used. This is by far the most common type of word used to describe the building and directly associated with demolition.

One of the ‘Stonebow House in Three Words’ submitted via York Stories

There is the question of whether it is a good example of brutalist architecture:

It may be in your opinion an eyesore. I’m not particularly fond if it. It’s too masculine for me, but it is of the period and has endured. This is a very good example of what the sixties were about concrete, and squares angles, some far too simple and bland. One can’t say this is plain and simple, the site is an odd shape and I think this Stonebow house is a brilliant example of the time and it will endure.
(Ann Gray, comment made on the Living with History blog, 21st July)

Key arguments in favour of it’s architectural merit have include its ‘honesty’ and ‘modesty’ – as its form and its function are aligned (Jon Wright, 26th July event). Yet Jon Wright also argues that while Stonebow is ‘good its not great’:

Coolly considered and perhaps in spite of everything above, Stonebow House is good but not great, the myth about it being listed already is unhelpful and untrue and it is at best a borderline candidate on a national level but that should not mean it has to go.
(Jon Wright, Living with History blog, 10th July)

Submitted by a reader of York Stories website, to the question: Stonebow House in Three Words?

In the York Past and Present facebook debates ‘better’ examples have been given – from University of York, Central Hall, to National Theatre and Barbican in London:

Key question for me is… Is it good architecture…. The answer is resounding no. It is not how it looks but does it function, the answer architecturally is no. In contrast the national Theatre is a great building, it may not be pretty but it is great architecture. Same with the barbican, love it hate it it works and is a fine example of its time. This is not. It should go.
(from York Past and Present debate, 10th July)

We are being asked by Jon Wright, in his article, to consider: ‘what, exactly, York would lose if it were to go. Coolly considered and perhaps in spite of everything above, Stonebow House is good but not great . . .’ Great it certainly isn’t – so what would we lose? A few businesses that could be moved elsewhere and a building that is truly vile. What would we gain? Hopefully a far better building that the people of York could actually love as well as use. It surely isn’t worth keeping just to prove that we do have a 1960s example of brutalist architecture?
(from York Past and Present debate, 10th July)

York as a setting. Another argument is that it isn’t a bad building on its own terms but is bad specifically because of its setting – it could be ok elsewhere but not in the historic environment it’s in:

Stonebow House as a design might be ok in Peckham or Cumbernauld but good architecture in the wrong place is bad architecture.. Some buildings grow into their surroundings but this one has not; it’s been hated as long as I’ve lived here and that is unlikely to change now.
(from York Past and Present debate, 10th July)

This is basically the argument in the York Central Historic Core Conservation Area Appraisal that it should be ‘replaced by [a building] that better responds to the Conservation Area’s characteristics’ (2011, p. 467).

Then there is Jon Wright’s argument that Stonebow is important because it shows the ‘20th Century happened in York’.

‘Stonebow House in Three Words’, submitted by one of the readers of York Stories

An argument made at 26th July event was that York had a little piece of every period of history – why get ride of 1960s. On York Past and Present facebook, this argument has been challenged by a number of people and alternative processes of documentation and commemoration suggested:

Ok I will not lie, I’m by far no expert of architecture, but I do appreciate how buildings look. This building is one of the prominent buildings I have to look at and visitors to our city have to view coming in that side of York. Although the bad taste is taken away once past this building and people enter our wonderful city. I understand Jon’s point about the history of the building and its not just a case of eliminating that part of our history it must be a very difficult decision to make. Can we dig it up and move it to a buildings history museum? joking aside how about a historical point after its been knocked down of the building maybe a model or a plaque describing what was once here in its place? this type of architecture should be described as one of the 20th century mistakes and that these enclosed concrete jungles should never be considered again!!
(from York Past and Present debate, 10th July)

Landmark. Another argument made is that it might be worth keeping because it’s a landmark and because it’s memorable:

I think it should stay, just to show the people of York how crap most UK cities are. We need something to moan about! Yey stonebow, future generations will thank us, that we saved you…..hmmm….possibly

You could be right. I have hated it but I’ve grown up with it. Fond memories of Fibbers beneath. It would be like losing your three legged pet
Ha ha! Sod it….let’s keep it and let our children make the decision if it’s awful
(from York Past and Present debate, 10th July)

It is a landmark now. Maybe not one everyone likes but at least it is a talking point.
(from York Past and Present debate, 24th July)

Though there have been a number of counter arguments to this point made:

Memorable – “worth remembering or easily remembered, especially because of being special or unusual.” doesn’t mean its good. the plague, ww1, etcetc were memorable..
Yes, memorable, but for all the wrong reasons.
(from York Past and Present debate, 24th July)

One interesting argument that developed at the event on 26th July, and has developed further since, is that Stonebow represents York’s traditions of activism and conservation. One way of framing this argument is, effectively, that it was such a terrible building that it kicked off York’s conservation movement! Jon Wright has taken this line of thought in the other direction on a recent facebook debate arguing:

I have been unable to think of anywhere else with such a strong suite of architectural history from all periods. It is no accident. In 1596, Clifford’s Tower was saved from demolition by public reaction, in the C19th the walls were saved, in the 1950’s and 60’s pioneering conservation studies and pilot programs for restoration were conducted here. Apart from the more obvious and more loved medieval, Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian and early C20 architecture, York also has good post war architecture, Patrick Gwynne’s Theatre extension, and the really good Fielden and Mawson extension at King’s Manor, not least. Stonebow is, for me, part of that strata of the city’s continued development through time and whilst it could do with a rethink and a remodel, is part of that tapestry that makes York so diverse and rich. York has pioneered conservation studies, techniques and approaches for hundreds of years, why stop now? Reworking and re-using Stonebow creatively, whilst saving the best bits of its design is a challenge, but a worthy one, that could show other places how to deal with divisive and troublesome buildings like this.
(York Past and Present facebook debate, 2nd August)

Social uses. There is the argument that socially important things happen there. Cheap shopping, friendships, live music. These were the points made by regulars at the Jorvik Café on the history menus we left on all the tables:

One of the Jorvik Cafe History menus with the comments of one of their regulars

To meet all the friends I have made and have a coffee and a smoke and have a food laugh. Everyone is very friendly including the staff in the café.

We now come to shop at Heron. Meet friends @ the Jorvik Café where, over the years, we have made lots of good friends, please do not destroy our favourite shop and café.

We have been coming to this place for a long time. I hope it will stay what it is.(Comments writing on the back of Jorvik Café History menus, 12th April)

But others think the ground level shops are less well maintained. Submitted at the 26th July event.

People who argue against this say – this type of activity (friends meeting) could happen elsewhere:

I think that keeping an eyesore of that significance for the benefit of a few people is genuinely unfair on the rest of York. After all the cafe and shop can rent new premises in nicer buildings… The string of argument that fails to see this flies in the face of progress
(from York Past and Present debate, 10th July)

Others have asked whether it’s true there are other places where these activities could happen – given the costs of land and rent in the city centre.

Then there is the question of how looks and uses get connected. Does the way the building looks and its comparatively low status in York’s built environment – create lower rent levels which enable certain kinds of businesses, cultures and social lives to happen? Maybe. We need to know more about this – but people point out the rent hike prompted Fibbers to move to Toff Green.

Would be get anything better. But the question often gets raised of whether we would get anything better? Would a new building enable the kinds of culture and social lives Stonebow does?

Consider this: any developer that takes on Stonebow House will want returns. If they knock Stonebow House down and the area is turned into a grassed area with a fountain, and maybe Stonebow itself is widened a bit, would the contractor get their moneys’ worth out of the job? no. So then it becomes economically unviable.
(From York Press comments, 24th July 2014)

If it goes (along with the small independent businesses who can’t afford a lot of other places in York), what will we get? Not a park that’s for sure. We will end up with a giant Premier Inn a Travel Lodge or similar, I say keep it.
(York Past and Present Comments, 24th July 2014)

It seems unlikely, given the cost of the land, that it would be turned over to be a park. Any investment requires return and that means more expensive rents and therefore shops. Are we enabling a balance of types of cafes/social spaces in York for all incomes? Should we (as the people of York) make this a condition of any development?

Environmental questions. Questions have also been raised about the quality of the building – will it last in any case? Equally, others have made ecological arguments about the benefits of reuse.

Reuse. Ideas for reuse have ended up gathering round affordable housing in the tower or some kinds of music and arts centre.

Do we know how often the car park is used? and is it necessary. I could easily visualise an entertainments centre with multiple concert venues small intimate cafe acoustic type to a one floor Duchess/Fibbers type. or maybe a large hall split into smaller rooms when necessary. FULLY soundproofed too. easy when starting from scratch. Take the tower down and just have 2 stories covering the whole site getting rid of the car park.
(from York Past and Present debate, 10th July)

How about covering Stonebow House with a ‘living wall’ and roof garden. Would hide it’s ugliness and also benefit York’s air quality?
(from York Past and Present debate, 4th August 2014)

Democracy and decision making. Finally, there have been points contributed about decision making and democracy. Questions have been raised about how the original decision to build Stonebow House was made in the first place – we know it was by competition but who judged it and by what criteria?

You can call these types of structure Art if you like but i would bet that 99% of the population do not like them, they were created by self indulgent architects who back in the day convinced, narrow minded councils and governments that this was the way forward, it has since been seen that they do not age well but also structurally most are not sound, especially those built for housing !!
(from York Past and Present debate, 10th July)

And another argument about democracy – it has been suggested that there is a danger that the smaller number of people who think the building should be kept might get heard, ignoring a majority who for range of different reasons don’t like it.

It is a matter of regret that, as citizens, we allow our quality of life to be destroyed by the decisions of a narrow clique “who know best”. None of my comments are in any way intended to be personalised to anyone taking part in this discussion just my own observations through my lifetime on seeing the effects of ill-judged decisions on us all.
(from York Past and Present debate, 10th July)

I have just read the article re stonebow house. And i have to Jon Wrights comments are absolute clap trap! One of his reasons for keeping it is: “Once its gone it will be gone forever” can you believe that? His voice is allone in the wilderness, but he’s speaking at the meeting about its future? Are 1000s against being invited? HAH!’
(from York Past and Present debate, 24th July)

This is not a matter of academic interest (is it good architecture). It should be decided by English heritage. What really matters is the people of York. The real question is does it serve local interests’.
(at the Stonebow: Past, Present, Future event on 26th July 2014)

Though it wasn’t put exactly in this way on facebook – there are some crucial issues here. Can expert opinions be legitimate if they can’t convince a wide majority of people? Can the numerous small arguments here outweigh the one most often made argument against Stonebow? (Ugly, Monstrosity, Eye sore). But the real question is, if and when the time comes, can our insights into the dimensions of the arguments around Stonebow House feed productively into a decision making process?

Stonebow House: Why it’s an important building for York

Image courtesy of York Mix

The next in our series of Stonebow events will be 26th July, 1-4pm, Jon Wright will join us to explore the architectural significance of Stonebow House. Jo argues below that it’s an important building for York as it shows that ‘the late Twentieth Century happened here too’. Register for your free place.

Jon Wright

1960’s and 70’s concrete buildings are not easy to fall in love with. For many they are not even likeable and represent a complex mix of visual offensiveness, social ill and cultural prejudice that largely seems to condense into a couple of fundamental arguments to do with their materiality and form and the perceived detrimental social results of that form. I.e. – it’s large, made of concrete and therefore ugly and in some way contributes or indeed is the cause of some form of urban blight. The logical conclusion to such a view is that the object of this view should be torn down. I’m paraphrasing and generalising of course, but only to balance things. As with any issue of taste and prejudice, it’s simply not that simple but it is inexorably linked to a wider disenchantment with post-war architecture and its legacy in the UK. Part of this has to do with the name this kind of architecture was given by it’s early advocates, Brutalism, which has nothing to do with being brutal, but everything to do with the French word for raw concrete, beton brut.

It will undoubtedly be regretted that buildings like Portsmouth’s extraordinary Tricorn Centre and the Trinity Car Park in Gateshead, both below, have been lost to us, with many other lesser buildings falling by the wayside too. Even if listed, like the Grade II* Commonwealth institute in Kensington, post-war buildings are rarely treated like listed buildings of earlier periods.

The Tricorn Centre in Portsmouth

These are facts not lost on those who work in historic buildings conservation and indeed, English Heritage continue to thematically assess various types of post-war buildings for listing – the real question is what will we have lost when that cycle has been completed? The populist arguments outlined above persist and remain pervasive so the fight is very much on at the moment for this part of our built heritage.

Trinity Car Park in Gateshead

In 2012, The World Monuments Fund placed ‘British Brutalism’ on it’s Watchlist – this list, designed as a high profile global alert system for buildings and sites in peril sought to highlight the fact that we were willfully deleting an entire generation of buildings, largely through the planning system, that deserved better treatment, that deserved a second look – it was a decision that underscored a slowly encroaching feeling that we should look again, beyond the easy and the lazy, to see something else in these structures. Jonathan Meades recent series on Brutalism on BBC4 furthered that idea and other contributors like Owen Hatherley have done much to further wider understanding and appreciation of these buildings. Attitudes can only be fairer as a result. It is with these issues in mind then, surely, that we should approach York’s Stonebow House, an island of post war idealism and aesthetic, situated in one of England’s most historic city centres and surrounded on all sides, by important buildings from other, various periods of the city’s rich history.

Stonebow House was completed in 1965 at the height of the post war commercial boom, for Renown Holdings PLC and was designed by Wells, Hickman and Partners. Roy Hickman, a partner in the firm had a house that he designed independently, listed by English Heritage in 2012 and the text in the list description mentions Stonebow House –

Wells, Hickman and Partners were based in Charing Cross, London, and completed a variety of commercial and residential schemes, which were written up in the architectural press. Much of their work seems to have been focused in the southeast, with one notable known exception being Stonebow House (1964), a mixed retail and office development in the centre of York. Designed for Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd, the scheme was the winning design in an open tender competition initiated by York City Council.

It conforms, in design terms to much of the architectural thinking of the time with its elevated office accommodation raised up on a base that was part-retail precinct and part-streetscape, with car parking on the roof, invisible to the street. The architects saw the potential in connecting the pedestrian walkways to the topography of the surrounding streets, providing a basement level below and a paved walkway above that are both accessed from street level – the complex is surrounded at first-floor level by concrete balustrade that curves to reflect the bend in the road. Modest in scale for the period, the 4-storey office building above sits on the eastern the podium below, preserving views of St Saviour’s Church from the main shopping area of the city. Stonebow is York’s considered and modest version of the slab and podium architecture espoused by le Corbusier. In it’s materials too, it is of substantially higher quality than a first glance would reveal. Just like stone, concrete comes in many forms and qualities and that used at Stonebow is both well considered and expensive with a sandy aggregate stone finish used throughout. In plan form then and in build quality, Stonebow distinguishes itself and makes it all the more understandable why it was the winning design of the Council’s original competition.

Of course, just like those who wish it go, this is an opinion, and there are other considerations to do with potential reuse, the potential quality of any replacement and perhaps more significantly, the ecological arguments that accompany any planning decisions. These are matters for further consideration and debate but no decision should be made without thinking about what, exactly, York would lose if it were to go. Coolly considered and perhaps in spite of everything above, Stonebow House is good but not great, the myth about it being listed already is unhelpful and untrue and it is at best a borderline candidate on a national level but that should not mean it has to go. Several years ago, Exeter City Council saved and reused a 1960’s building to great effect, after overturning a demolition proposal – fully modernised, it now houses John Lewis and was repaired and converted at a lesser cost than a demolition and new build.

York does not have very many buildings of this type and even fewer of this quality from the post-war period. When you consider the city centre in particular, it really comes down to this example. Regardless of taste, it has achieved the status of a prominent local landmark. Too many buildings of this type have been lost and their loss regretted not to think extremely carefully about what it would really mean for York and it’s wider urban fabric if it were to be taken away. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. Before that happens, its qualities, without the fog of prejudice, need to be considered along with everything else. York has the chance to be progressive, to show how conservation of this kind of building can be a creative and positive exercise and indeed, save a part of the city that makes it quite clear that York is not just a bucolic medieval idyll, but that the late 20th century happened here too.

Jon Wright is a freelance architectural historian and teacher with particular knowledge of the history and conservation of 20th century buildings. He is the former Senior Caseworker for the Twentieth Century Society, an amenities group set up to preserve buildings from 1914 onwards and was the Head of Conservation at the Council for British Archaeology in York until 2013. He now lives in London.

Stonebow House – reflections on April event and next steps

We’re just now in the process of pulling together our next Stonebow event, which will be on 26th July, 1-4pm, Central Methodist Church, St Saviourgate. In advance of that, here is a full account of our first meeting written by Martin Bashforth. If you were there and would like to also share your take on the meeting – please comment below or write to yorklivingwithhistory@gmail.com

One of the public stalls run outside of Heron Foods in advance of The Stonebow Inquiry on 12th April 2014

Stonebow Inquiry: Past, Present, Future Event 12 April 2014
Martin Bashforth
[The report that follows is subject to the disclaimer that it does not represent meeting minutes and is only one person’s view of what happened and an honest attempt to capture what was heard as best can be made sense out of notes taken. Any apparent missing elements or misrepresentations are unintentional.]

The event took place at the Central Methodist Church Hall directly opposite Stonebow House, which was the subject of the ‘inquiry’. It followed a series of drop-in sessions at the city library over several weeks, and direct discussions with customers of the Jorvik Cafe at Stonebow House and with users of the two evening entertainment venues, Fibbers and the Duchess, as well as a considerable effort at networking with people interested in a personal or professional capacity. Although there was no official presence from the City Council, on the grounds that the phrase ‘Stonebow Inquiry’ sounded too legalistic, the sessions were attended by one Labour and two Green Party councillors in their personal capacity.

There were five displays on tables and walls: a selection of ‘blue plaques’ to commemorate people and cultural memories of the area around Stonebow House; a display of photographs old and new of the area by ‘York Past and Present’; a display of old maps and material from the 1911 census to portray the past communities in and around the area; a display of alternative and eco-friendly architectural solutions to the ‘problem’ posed by the brutalist architecture of the building; a table of questions and invited answers posing the political issues involved. There were also specially produced ‘menus’ on display in the neighbouring Jorvik Cafe, which also supplied refreshments for the day.

There were two discussions in circles: about 25 people attended the one in the morning and 20 in the one in the afternoon, with some overlap of people. As well as the councillors and the meeting organisers, those attending included a planner from Leeds, a resident from the adjacent almshouses at Lady Hewley’s Buildings, a variety of academics and students, people with a personal interest in the building (including at least one actual leaseholder), members of local history groups including York’s Alternative History and York Past and Present. A number of existing or former bodies turned up: the chairman of York Civic Trust, ex-members of the Hungate Community Trust who had been involved in the adjacent area development process until 2006, representatives of Planning Consultative bodies and the River Foss Society. There were also a number of people with strong views either for or against retention of the existing building, as well as those simply curious.

Some fairly typical comments were that Stonebow House was an eyesore, a disgrace to the rest of York, a source of noise, dirt and social nuisance, as well as soulless. Others were equally adamant that many of these issues could be addressed, either through imaginative architectural renovation and regeneration, through technical and community solutions to the associated nuisances, and that the building retained considerable value to its present day users. Those with knowledge of the political and planning realities tended to advise that there was unlikely to be any attempt to destroy the building, at least unless there was huge potential for a developer to extract maximum profit from any redevelopment of the site – which would rule out replacement by an area of quiet, park-like recreation, or something which opened up wide vistas and viewpoints. Many of those who favoured retention of the building referred to its value for the less well-off, with a relatively cheap supermarket and a cafe that acted as a social gathering point that was not too gentrified, as well as the site of two major fringe entertainment venues. As one visitor summed it up, “what people do, how people interact, was more important than the building as such.” Another suggested that “it doesn’t have to be pretty to be useful.”

Concerns were expressed as to the uncertainties created around Stonebow House itself and as to the likely physical outcomes of redevelopment of the associated Hungate area. The latter, on the other side of the road from Stonebow House itself, had been an area of largely 19th century working class housing, shops, workshops and factories demolished principally during the 1930s and the subject of redevelopment plans that fell mostly into abeyance around 2006 and as a result of the recent recession. In principle there were plans for about 750 flats, some of which were intended to be ‘affordable’ with other planning gains coming from the provision of some sort of community facility. In practice development had been piecemeal: Hiscox Finance would bring a major employer, though the employees might not actually live in the area; St John University have a 240 room building for their students, but these would be a changing constituency of temporary residents; DEFRA has a securely guarded site that raises questions as to the viabilities of private and public spaces in the area. In terms of employment opportunities, the area will be very different from its 19th century origins.

Of the main flat developments, the concern is that precedence will be given to the higher-value accommodation, while developers might renegotiate the proportion of affordable housing stock under new rules. In turn this may lead to a degree of gentrification in the area, pushing up the rentals for Stonebow House and making it difficult to sustain its present social value. One change that had already occurred was the plan for a series of cafes and other social spaces along the bank of the River Foss, replaced by a single cafe. There was generally a lack of green spaces and public areas in which social interaction could occur and assist in the formation of a community process. While there might be an improvement in the physical provision of housing over what had existed in the 1930s, there would be little chance of helping to develop the social spirit that once characterised the area and that would, in its turn, put value on Stonebow House.

Needless to say there were lots of practical ideas, some contradictory, some more in hope than expectation. Whatever happens, the spaces and places need to be captured and documented as they are now, to help understand the process of history. Attention needs to be given to the needs of existing users, whether commercial enterprises or customers or footfall in passing. There should be thought about the context in which Stonebow House lies, and the need for social space, for green space, for access, for interaction, for viewpoints. There is an important need for opportunities for evening leisure, other than the standard fare of pubs and clubs, with attention to the less ordinary and to groups of people, such as young teens for whom there is little on offer. Affordable housing close to the city needs to be more of a priority, informing this and all other surrounding developments. If existing amenities are lost to any proposed developments, attention needs to be made to possible alternatives: this will be particularly true for the alternative cultural venues. Attention needs to be given to the needs of all people in the area: those who live there, work there, run their businesses there, pass through, and these need to be attended to in a balanced and fair way beneficial to all concerned. Stonebow House in particular could represent the solution to the need for a major arts and cultural centre that is lacking in York, without damaging what is already there and without causing problems to other developments in the area.

There was considerable discussion as to how the process that has been engendered by this event can produce positive and constructive outcomes for all interested parties – particularly as it had proved possible for a wide variety of people and opinions to come together, speak and be heard in a supportive and courteous environment, however strong opinions might have been. It was felt that particular effort needed to be put into how the gap can be bridged between the mutual perceptions of the Council, developers, businesses and the wider community. As one person put it, “how do we get ‘them’ to help ‘us’ help ‘them’ get to a good answer?” It was felt important to generate forums for this to happen before actual developments occurred and to bring in a much wider variety of people and interests other than those present on this day. There was a need to get a public debate going through the Press and local radio. How do you bring together the different imperatives of economics, imagination, community and culture? How do you avoid the debate causing uncertainty and planning blight?

It was recognised that the core of a developing network existed in the form of the lapsed Hungate Community Trust. A meeting was to be organised at the Black Swan in April to try to revitalise this organisation and build on its existing legal constitution and status within the planning context for Hungate as a whole. While there was a need to bring in other groups and interested parties, this would be a useful starting point.

At the same time, as part of the wider discussions around the Living With History, Helen Graham has a meeting with James Alexander in the near future, where she can raise questions on behalf of those interested, as well as asking about future plans, processes, timetables and staffing resources In particular this may be an opportunity to open up some transparency about plans for Stonebow House and the Hungate context, as well as any wider strategies and policies.

Timetable for The Stonebow Inquiry: Past, Present, Future, this Saturday

Just an update about how we’re planning to run the Stonebow event on Saturday. The event will include a ‘drop in’ element as we’ve been developing a number exhibitions (to look at and add to) but there will also be a more formal introduction and small group discussion beginning at both 11.30 and 1.30. If you’re planning to come, then you just need to pick one of these times – looking forward to seeing you there!

11.00-11.30 Informal welcome, tea and coffee, look around and add to the exhibits

11.30-12.00 Introduction to what we found so far about Stonebow’s past and the present

12.00-13.00 Small group discussion about Stonebow’s past, present and future and plan next steps

13.00-13.30 Lunch – look round, and add to, the exhibits

13.30-14.00 Introduction to what we found so far about Stonebow’s past and the present

14.00-14.30 Small group discussion about Stonebow’s past, present and future and plan next steps

14.30-15.00 Final chance to look around and add to the exhibits and close.

Call for photographs of Stonebow, Stonebow House and Hungate pre-1955

View of Central Methodists Church during Stonebow construction

The York: Living with History project is holding an event to explore the past, present and future of Stonebow House – The Stonebow Inquiry, 12th April, 11am-3pm, Central Methodist Church, St Saviourgate.

As part of The Stonebow Inquiry we’re going to have an exhibition of images of Stonebow and the surrounding area and are calling for submissions.

Have you got old images of the Hungate area/Pavement/Peasholme Green/Whip-Ma-Whop-Ma-Gate?

Or have you taken photographs of Stonebow House that might make people see it the building differently?

All images will be properly credited.

All submissions to yorklivingwithhistory@gmail.com by: 8th April 2014, 12noon.

To register for your free place: http://thestonebowinquiry.eventbrite.co.uk
Refreshments and lunch provided.

This event is part of the York: Living with History Inquiry: https://livingwithhistory.wordpress.com/ It is being co-ordinate by University of Leeds, York’s Alternative History and York Civic Trust and is jointly funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council via the ‘How should decisions about heritage be made?’ project and the EPSRC Culture and Communities Network+ ‘StoryStorm’ Network.

The Stonebow Inquiry: Past, Present and Future

What is the history of the Stonebow area? Who uses Stonebow House today? How can we make a decision about the future of Stonebow House?

View of Central Methodists Church during Stonebow construction

12th April, 11-3pm
Central Methodist Church

In 1955 a new road was created, demolishing the Old George Hotel.
Before that there was Hungate, a densely packed area of housing and workshops.
In 1964 Stonebow House was built.
In it was Carline’s, (possibly) York’s first supermarket, where you could save 2p on a bag of sugar.
In 1992 a venue opened, it became much loved, it was called Fibbers.
And on 7th January 2014, the City of York Council decided to buy the freehold to Stonebow House with the aim of ‘entering negotiations with the long leaseholder on options for the building and sites future’.

Stonebow House was designed by Wells, Hickman and Partners, comissioned through an open tender by City of York Council. It was built in 1964.

Some kind of decision about Stonebow House is coming.

The Stonebow Inquiry will ask three questions:

• How can all of us in York make good decisions about the future of Stonebow House?
• What do we need to know?
• Who needs to be involved?

On the day we will explore these questions by sharing what we’ve learnt so far in the Inquiry through archival research and people sharing their knowledge, stories, memories or photographs:

• What is the pre-Stonebow history of the site?
• What is the history of the building and area since 1964?
• Who used, and uses, the building?

We will then move on to consider how a good decision might be made. How might expanding what counts as an evidence-base help create engaged public debate? How can people who care about the area and the building shape any future decisions?

The event will involve a number of different activities from walking tours around the site to group discussions. At this stage we aren’t trying to make the decision itself. We are trying to think about how a decision might be ultimately made that democratically engages York’s citizens.

To register for your free place: http://thestonebowinquiry.eventbrite.co.uk

Refreshments and lunch provided free of charge.

This event is part of the York: Living with History Inquiry: https://livingwithhistory.wordpress.com/ It is jointly funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council via the ‘How should decisions about heritage be made?’ project and the EPSRC Culture and Communities Network+ ‘StoryStorm’ Network.

Stonebow House’s architects (it isn’t listed by English Heritage)

Stonebow House was designed by Wells, Hickman and Partners, commissioned through an open tender by City of York Council. It was built in 1964.

Taken from English Heritage website:
‘Stonebow House was designed buy Wells, Hickman and Partners were based in Charing Cross, London, and completed a variety of commercial and residential schemes which were written up in the architectural press. Much of their work seems to have been focussed in the south-east, with one notable known exception being Stonebow House (1964), a mixed retail and office development in the centre of York. Designed for Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd, the scheme was the winning design in an open tender competition initiated by York City Council’.

As York Stories has shown definitely, Stonebow House is not listed by English Heritage – though this has been a much discussed point over the years. Neither, does it seem are any other buildings built by Wells, Hickman and Partners which have been listed, though two are mentioned on the National Heritage List for England.

A call for all Stonebow images, histories and stories

An eyesore or the only place in the city centre you can get an old fashioned cup of tea/buy affordable milk/ dance all night to something other than chart music…

View of Central Methodists Church during Stonebow construction

How can we as a city make a good decision about Stonebow House? What do we need to know about the history of the site and the uses of the building? Who needs to be involved in the decision?

For the York: Living with History Inquiry I’ve been hanging out quite a bit in and around Stonebow House recently and one thing is clear – although sometimes and by some it is maligned as an eyesore, it is a very well used part of York and used throughout the day. Heron Foods supermarket is busy (not least due to its affordability), the Jorvik Café has its regulars coming in chatting and heading out to catch some winter sun and Duchess and Fibbers seem to be buzzing. Yet the future of York’s only major brutalist building is in the public eye and a topic for public discussion (see York Stories for a thoughtful account).

In the City of York Council Cabinet meeting held on 7th January 2014 it was decided that the the City of York Council would buy out North Yorkshire Council freehold – £62,250 – so they would fully control the land though not the building itself, which is on long term lease. As stated in the Cabinet report prepared for the January Cabinet meeting, this timing comes as the previous owner of the building (Brightsea UK Ltd has gone into receivership with all of its holdings being taken up by US global private equity firm Loan Star).

The motivations for buying out the freehold were made pretty clear at the time of the decision. As Councillor Dafydd Williams put it (3.40 in the You Tube clip) the benefits of owning the freehold – bought from North Yorkshire County Council for less 50% of it’s commercial value – meant ‘more options for the future use of the site. There are a number of interesting things which cold be done with it’. Or as the report put it explicitly: ‘it was agreed that ownership of the freehold of the whole site should be pursued to enable City of York Council to enter negotiations with the long leaseholder on options for the building and sites future’.

Since then in an article by York Press journalist Stephen Lewis Council Leader, James Alexander is quoted as saying the options include: ‘Recladding; demolishing and rebuilding or upgrading, but we would need to work with existing business, the Duchess and Fibbers, and others that are there’.

In other words a decision is coming up – but we don’t yet know when and we don’t yet know the criteria that will be used. Rather than wait until we know when the decision will be made we’d like to start now. As part of the Inquiry we’d really like to ask three questions:

• How can all of us in York make a good decision about the future of Stonebow House?
• What do we need to know about the long histories of the site and its uses today?
• Who would need to be involved to make a good decision?

To kick us off we want to call for anyone who has any images of Stonebow or memories of Stonebow House or want was there before to get in contact. You can contact us via this website or via yorklivingwithhistory@gmail.com

On Monday I dropped into the Central Methodist Church to see about renting a room for one of our events and got talking to the Warden. He shared with me a collection of photos and maps he’d been developing over many years. Fascinating views of St Saviourgate pre-Stonebow.

The amazing collection of images and maps developed over many years by the Warden of the Central Methodist Church on St Saviourgate.

View of Central Methodist Church before Stonebow House was built.

View of the Old George Hotel which was once on Whip-ma-Whop-ma-gate

View of Central Methodists Church during Stonebow construction