South Bridge Gable: The Cockburn Associations Amended Sub-Committee Report

The Cockburn Associations points are added in bold type to the officers report. We would ask that you take our points, and our objection, into account when determining the application.

The South Bridge gable is not a reinstatement of the original dominant gable but has been designed to reflect the character of the three remaining gables. Its height, profile and width are closely based on the gable opposite but not its scale, detail and window pattern. The top floor of the hotel rises above the gable but is sufficiently set back to be hidden when viewed from South Bridge allowing the gable to read as the predominant feature and recreating the set-piece of the four gables at the Cowgate/ South Bridge junction except it isn't a set-piece when the four parts do not match equally and one has a different proportion. Windows above the South Bridge level take their proportions from the traditional windows on the street but are of a much smaller size and are regularly positioned over the height and width of this part of the gable but in a different pattern because of the reduced scale. The use of both glazing and 'dummy' glazed panels allow for the hotel functions behind while retaining the windows in an ordered fashion even though the order is incorrect and does not reflect the original floor heights. At the lower level the windows are designed differently reflecting the fenestration to the adjoining bridge link and the commercial frontages on Cowgate although in the original there were no shop windows on this facade. The end result is a contemporary gable that succeeds in forming an appropriate corner treatment and transition between the two very different characteristics of the site although a transition is not what is needed here as the gable belongs very much to the South Bridge building and has nothing to do with the mediaeval-pattern buildings or their replacements in the Cowgate below, while respecting the three existing gables in a half-hearted way which creates a disharmonious grouping where previously there was unanimity. There have been a number of objections regarding the gable notably from EWH and the Cockburn Association. Historic Scotland has made no definitive comment on it and the EDUP has supported a more modernist approach. The brief for the site, approved by Committee in October 2003, did not support 'pastiche' architecture where there is a degree of fakery and illiterate use of quasi-historical emblems and motifs; regrettably what seems to be presented here where the building is disguised to appear proportionate

to its neighbours but is clearly not able to do so because of its compressed floor heights. There are a number of intellectual debates that could be had about what the correct approach should be. Generally conservation philosophies take their cue from conservation charters such as the Venice and Burra Charters which bodies such as EWH support. The Venice Charter states; "The valid contributions of all periods to the building of a monument must be respected, since unity of style is not the aim of a restoration." And "Replacements of missing parts must integrate harmoniously with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the artistic or historic evidence." However this is not a conservation project, all of the different periods of the original building's evolution having been destroyed in the fire so these charters do not apply and to recreate that history of varying styles and alterations would be false. It is on this basis that the Planning Brief supports the re-instatement of the original gable but not a replica of the original Kay's facade except, surprisingly it does "a faithful recreation of Kay's built scheme might be considered an acceptable solution" so it does not rule that out and admits it would be a valid approach if handled skilfully. The Planning Brief from the 2003 public consultation on the matter is still, of course, a valid material consideration and the only policy document unique to this site. Not only would the authenticity of such an approach be questionable but it would not sit comfortably with the modern architecture to which it is attached though this highlights the inadequacies of the modernist building to which it might be attached rather than any flaw or inadequacy in the gable as originally designed to sit in the set-piece. The more simplified gable as detailed in the application integrates harmoniously with the building and much less so with the surrounding area whilst being of its time and clearly standing out from the designed streetscape in which it stands. There is an argument that the 4th gable finishes off this part of South Bridge. The other three gables have the original detailing. However, it is difficult to appreciate the four gables together as there are limited viewpoints and so the context is not necessarily a visual one but one more of cultural and historical significance though this has never troubled other 360 spatial relationships within the New Town such as Charlotte Square, which cannot be appreciated visually from any single viewpoint. On balance, the more modernist approach is true to evolution of this site and our compromise approach to contemporary architecture and modern planning whilst still failing dismally in respecting the extraordinary and unique historical and architectural context.