- Posts: 119
- Thank you received: 0
Renovation or Demolition...?
14 Jun 2008 10:58 #1
by Phillip Rhodes
Apathy and OUR silence is as powerful as any bulldozer and equally cherished by developers.
Renovation or Demolition...? was created by Phillip Rhodes
I’m constantly been told that the cast concrete technical buildings at Driffield are beyond saving and should be demolished. That said, I am also constantly being reminded that basket-case buildings can easily be turned round. Anyone a fan of C4’s Grand Designs?
The problem isn’t money related, either. If a building can be leased or sold at a profit, then its usually a done deal. The problem at Driffield is this: who would want to work out of an old concrete building?
The only way to preserve a building is through continued habitation. Furthermore, the only way to finance any preservation or restoration project is to secure either a rental income or sale. To secure a tenant or buyer, you have to provide a marketable structure – something pleasing to the eye. If you offer up a structure high on defects or aesthetically dysfunctional, then you’re wasting everyone’s time and money. That said, the work needed to turn-round the buildings at Driffield isn’t that difficult to achieve.
Metal window frames can be removed, sand-blasted, galvanised, powder-coated, before being re-glazed with modern, energy-saving glass (as efficient as double-glazing). There are also numerous products available to waterproof flat roofs. Internal walls and ceilings can be panelled with energy-saving insulation boards, then skimmed with plaster. Then it’s the electrics and plumbing before decoration. Sounds easy. It isn’t. Firstly you have to remove the asbestos, which is an expensive process. Even reusing the existing metal window frames is more expensive than using replacement plastic units.
That leaves the external appearance. Spalling is a major issue, but considering the solid-concrete walls are between 9in and 14in thick (thanks Paul), these structures are extremely robust and can be steam-cleaned, then repaired. However, the biggest issue to resolve and which is open to debate here on this forum is this: rendering the exterior of a cast concrete technical building will improve aesthetics and marketability, but at the cost of devaluing the structure’s originality? There are a number of products available (currently being researched) that would alter the appearance of these structure, yet they would also preserve the original concrete. That said, the method of construction – cast concrete poured in three food daily layers – can clearly be seen and would be lost. If you render the structure you loose this detail, but through improving the appearance you secure a tenant/buyer and thus secure the future preservation of the said structure. What would you do?
Remember preserving Driffield (or any other airfield) is about money. Preservation has to be self-financing and profitable. At Driffield, the (1) main stores, (2) engineering block, (3) armoury, (4) link training building, (5) central heating station, (6) parachute store and various MT vehicle sheds could be reused. That said, it would be more profitable to demolish everything onsite and build hundreds of expensive houses.
However, the local council (I am told) would rather see the original buildings reused. English Heritage also aren’t happy with proposals to demolish all the buildings. Strawsons Property plan to retain maybe four or five buildings, none of them are the technical buildings. The biggest weapon with have in our arsenal is the downward turn in the housing market. House builders are laying off workers, while new projects are currently on hold. What fate awaits RAF Driffield? Not sure. My preferred bidder would have reused most of the existing buildings, but even he would have needed to build new homes to balance the books.
Oh, another issue is this: most of the camp is situated on a flood plane
)
The problem isn’t money related, either. If a building can be leased or sold at a profit, then its usually a done deal. The problem at Driffield is this: who would want to work out of an old concrete building?
The only way to preserve a building is through continued habitation. Furthermore, the only way to finance any preservation or restoration project is to secure either a rental income or sale. To secure a tenant or buyer, you have to provide a marketable structure – something pleasing to the eye. If you offer up a structure high on defects or aesthetically dysfunctional, then you’re wasting everyone’s time and money. That said, the work needed to turn-round the buildings at Driffield isn’t that difficult to achieve.
Metal window frames can be removed, sand-blasted, galvanised, powder-coated, before being re-glazed with modern, energy-saving glass (as efficient as double-glazing). There are also numerous products available to waterproof flat roofs. Internal walls and ceilings can be panelled with energy-saving insulation boards, then skimmed with plaster. Then it’s the electrics and plumbing before decoration. Sounds easy. It isn’t. Firstly you have to remove the asbestos, which is an expensive process. Even reusing the existing metal window frames is more expensive than using replacement plastic units.
That leaves the external appearance. Spalling is a major issue, but considering the solid-concrete walls are between 9in and 14in thick (thanks Paul), these structures are extremely robust and can be steam-cleaned, then repaired. However, the biggest issue to resolve and which is open to debate here on this forum is this: rendering the exterior of a cast concrete technical building will improve aesthetics and marketability, but at the cost of devaluing the structure’s originality? There are a number of products available (currently being researched) that would alter the appearance of these structure, yet they would also preserve the original concrete. That said, the method of construction – cast concrete poured in three food daily layers – can clearly be seen and would be lost. If you render the structure you loose this detail, but through improving the appearance you secure a tenant/buyer and thus secure the future preservation of the said structure. What would you do?
Remember preserving Driffield (or any other airfield) is about money. Preservation has to be self-financing and profitable. At Driffield, the (1) main stores, (2) engineering block, (3) armoury, (4) link training building, (5) central heating station, (6) parachute store and various MT vehicle sheds could be reused. That said, it would be more profitable to demolish everything onsite and build hundreds of expensive houses.
However, the local council (I am told) would rather see the original buildings reused. English Heritage also aren’t happy with proposals to demolish all the buildings. Strawsons Property plan to retain maybe four or five buildings, none of them are the technical buildings. The biggest weapon with have in our arsenal is the downward turn in the housing market. House builders are laying off workers, while new projects are currently on hold. What fate awaits RAF Driffield? Not sure. My preferred bidder would have reused most of the existing buildings, but even he would have needed to build new homes to balance the books.
Oh, another issue is this: most of the camp is situated on a flood plane
) Apathy and OUR silence is as powerful as any bulldozer and equally cherished by developers.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 Aug 2008 19:34 #3
by Peter Kirk
No Amount Of Evidence Will Ever Persuade An Idiot (probably not Mark Twain)
Replied by Peter Kirk on topic Renovation or Demolition...?
I think where a sound building could be adapted then it should. I am not a great fan of modern architechure, especially glass boxes (air con must cost as much as the building in summer!) so using old airfield buildings makes sense.
I can also see that a lot (the majority probably) of people would not worry if the whole lot was bulldozed. So it is important that a good use is found for buildings that deserve preservation or re-use, even if this means changing the look to meet modern standards.
I would imagine that concrete may be a bit of a problem for developers as it is more difficult to cut new openings let alone fix things to.
I doubt very much if we could stop progress that will destroy a lot of our aviation heritage but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Good luck with your efforts.
Peter
P.S As regards the flood plain I thought it was compulsory to build all new housing below sea level!
I can also see that a lot (the majority probably) of people would not worry if the whole lot was bulldozed. So it is important that a good use is found for buildings that deserve preservation or re-use, even if this means changing the look to meet modern standards.
I would imagine that concrete may be a bit of a problem for developers as it is more difficult to cut new openings let alone fix things to.
I doubt very much if we could stop progress that will destroy a lot of our aviation heritage but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Good luck with your efforts.
Peter
P.S As regards the flood plain I thought it was compulsory to build all new housing below sea level!
No Amount Of Evidence Will Ever Persuade An Idiot (probably not Mark Twain)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.037 seconds
