C O N T E X T 1 1 0 : J U LY 2 0 0 9 9 of reduced waste, high-quality results and cost effectiveness. Two articles explore the use of mortar in circumstances likely to be unfamiliar to UK readers. In the first, Mary Brush and Didier Repellin discuss the French and Italian techniques of mortar injection and use a case study of Villa Medicis in Rome. The building is partly owned by both France and Italy, requiring international agreement on the appropriate approach to mortar injection repair of load-bearing masonry walls. In the second, Dorothy Krotzer and JohnWalsh analyse mortars and stuccos used in three historic buildings at the College of Charleston in South Carolina.They review mortaranalysis methods such as acid-digestion, imaging, and instrumental techniques, calling for greater collaboration between conservators and material scientists when undertaking such projects. Two articles might have particular interest to those dealing with buildings at risk.The first is a study by Janet Null of the environmental deterioration of different materials and structures in the same environment. Null uses a case study of two surviving buildings of the Adirondacks Iron and Steel Company in upstate NewYork: a c1834 timber-frame house and the 1854 stone blast furnace.The second article, by Mark Davis and Dan Eschenasy, is a detailed methodology and evaluation of the condition of 19th century masonry facades of typical four- and five-storey walk-up buildings in Manhattan and Brooklyn. The Twentieth Century Society’s magazine C20 (Spring 2009) is much concerned with controversial listing cases (or perhaps that should be refusal to list and de-listing cases).These include the decisions – widely reported in the architectural press – not to list Robin Hood Gardens, London (by Alison and Peter Smithson 1967–72); and to de-list 24–26 Hereford Square, London (by Colin St JohnWilson, 1958) which enjoyed statutory protection for only two years.The society feels that ‘English Heritage (no doubt principally due to resource constraints) has failed to adequately defend its own views, and there is now the prospect that anyone who has the money to spend on competent consultants will be able to get the result they want’. Society director Catherine Croft also refers to listing issues, and to the proposed public vote on candidate buildings which English Heritage hopes will be fronted by a TV series in 2010 – a sort of ‘Listing on Ice’. Perhaps this will see the unlamentedTessa Jowell’s vox pop approach to heritage adopted at last, with a ‘What do you want listed next?’ thematic methodology. The society’s view is that ‘the modern world’ should be next.This would cover omissions from the 1950s, but also give special emphasis to the 1970s and the buildings that just missed out on the last post-war listing programme by being too young under the 30 year rule. The society is also concerned to highlight the plight of 20th century building in conservation areas, where many are identified as being ‘detrimental’ to the character of the area and therefore effectively constituting development sites.While not all 20th century infill development is good, the society argues that a lot of excellent but under-rated examples should be better recognised (as in the case of the Colin St John Wilson flats referred to above). Elsewhere in the issue, John Allan celebrates the continuing success of Finsbury Park Health Centre (designed by the Tecton architecture practice under the leadership of Berthold Lubetkin, 1938). He emphasises the humanitarian messages embodied in the building: legibility, flexibility, responsiveness and inclusivity.These save the building from the predicament of so many other similar ‘heritage assets’ by retaining its social application and its community of loyal users. Allan, who is also Lubetkin’s biographer, undertook a systematic but partial restoration for Islington Health Authority in 1994-5. But he is concerned about a 21st-century battle between the conflicting claims of social ownership and a narrow calculation of real estate equity within the NHS. Other valuable contributions include one by Chris Rodgers on the death of landmark headquarters buildings – often iconic structures for multinational corporations – which once vacated are the subject of drastic and unsympathetic remodelling. He also addresses the proposal to give greater protection to one of the largest groups of 20th-century buildings in Marylebone by extendingWestminster City Council’s Dorset Square Conservation Area. Finally, this column has not in the past extended its range to cover the many free publications that pass regularly across local authority desks, often consisting mainly of regurgitated press releases from product manufacturers. But one startling item caught this reviewer’s attention (before the APT journal arrived – see above), which seemed so physically devastating in its impact that it is worth highlighting here, especially in the light of the proposed tightening of the Building Regulations highlighted in the previous issue of Context. The article, fromLocal Authority Building and Maintenance (April 2009), is a ‘step-by-step’ guide to the ‘refurbishing’ (sic) of Victorian housing in conservation areas in Camden to meet carbon reduction targets under the Decent Homes Standard. Apparently 60 per cent of housing in Camden is in conservation areas.The project, called ‘Victorian House of the Future’, involves radical internal surgery (the impact of which is well illustrated).The article states that the works show ‘how refurbishment of solid-walled properties can balance high levels of energy efficiency with practical conservation demands’. Furthermore, ‘preserving the heritage of our homes does not have to be an obstacle to reducing carbon emissions’. The conclusion reached is that ‘much of the heritage of the house has been retained, such as the masonry features on the exterior.The interior doors have been retained and the proportions of the rooms are unchanged’ (but smaller because of all the internal insulation). Quite a feat of conservation then? Readers may judge for themselves from the photos if the appropriate balance has been struck.The approach of totally gutting the interior (and, it seems, fitting uPVC windows to the ground floor) shows clearly the pretty drastic impact on the character of buildings in conservation areas that the government may now require to meet its carbon reduction targets by 2020.The APT article states that English Heritage was initially involved in assessing ‘the heritage aspects of the house’, but this is not mentioned here. Bob Kindred MBE
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=