The County Council where I stay (near Edinburgh, Scotland) has embarked on a place-making project, which is described as a full review of council properties which ‘provide or have the potential to provide in-person services’. Some 29 council owned buildings have been identified across the Country. The list spans a wide variety of buildings from modern council offices, a historic town house, a former sheriff court, libraries, community centres, and a concert hall. Some are moth-balled, some have structural issues whilst others are in daily use. It includes buildings that offer face-to-face contact for residents using council services, public access to computers, bookable meeting space and some which have potential as a community anchor or hub.
New approaches to the operation of these buildings could help ensure the council makes efficient use of its assets and is able to offer good quality, modern and flexible facilities within local communities to respond to community need. The Council anticipates that their objective can be achieved through a variety of measures such as co-locating services in local service hubs, or through providing opportunities for communities to take over the running of some buildings through leasing or community asset transfer or by working with other community service agencies.
The plans are being formulated against a substantial process of consultation with business groups, public service providers, community groups and the wider public. I attended one such consultation session held in the local library. It was encouraging that emphasis was being given to the placemaking concept, albeit through the better understanding of the uses to which buildings currently owned by the council could be put, drawing on information about the current use made of the buildings and on suggestions for improvement from local communities.
Placemaking through buildings
It is of course a truism to say that places are more than the buildings within them. The Council, as with all local authorities in Scotland (and the UK) is struggling for resources, and more efficient use of the buildings it has, or passing ownership or management of some over to community organisations, could make a significant contribution to improving its financial situation. If the place-making objective of the programme is to be realized the social and spatial aspects of community life need to be considered too. What goes on in the buildings is important, but so too is the role of buildings in helping to create community spaces beyond their walls to encourage social activities and foster place identity and sense of place amongst community members.
The particular buildings on the County list which most interested me are the Town House (left image below) and the old Sherriff Court building (on the right) in the town where I live. Both occupy prominent positions in the town centre and are fine buildings. The Town House dates from the 18th century and was designed by William Adam in 1748 with later additions in 1830 and 1888. The original building had accommodation for the previous Sherriff Court and was the meeting place of the Town Council, whilst the lower floor was the town jail. Now, despite a recent and expensive renovation, it is the meeting place for the Council, but used by nobody else.
The Sherriff Court building dates from 1833, and was an early example of a court house in Scotland, constructed following the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act of that year. It has a fine facade fronting on to a wide public area, but ceased to function as a court in 2015 when hearings moved to Edinburgh. The court furniture has been removed leaving a significant space looking for a new use.
Both are important buildings in their own right: the Town House is designated a category A listed building and the Court house in in category B. They have played a central role in the town’s history and heritage. Steps have been taken to conserve both buildings, especially the Town House on which substantial funds have been spent. If they are to be part of a modern place-making project, a shift in thinking is required away from the material conservation of the buildings to a concern with the perspectives of the people who are or could be affected by the conservation of prominent parts of their town’s heritage.
Functional improvement and heritage conservation
This Council project faces a challenge in balancing functional and efficiency improvement in a way which enhances the community benefits of heritage conservation.
Modern urban heritage has a number of functions. Principally, it acts first as a carrier of a town’s history and culture and secondly as a resource helping to sustain the day-to-day life within the town. The first helps define place identity for local people and as an attraction for tourists and visitors. The second supports the richness of the lived-experience of residents and the local economy. Thinking through the role of older, culturally significant buildings has also therefore to embrace ideas of place: modern urban heritage and place have to be interwoven.
Maintaining and developing public space is a task that requires creativity, professionalism and community participation, especially when the concern is to create and sustain places that are intended to promote the value of architectural heritage. Good public spaces can enhances the spatial perception of historic buildings not as stand-alone items but as an element in the public space network. Similarly, revitalized historical buildings can contribute to the improvement of the entire area in which they are located. Architectural heritage can revitalize under-used or mis-used public spaces. It is commonly agreed that heritage conservation can bring many social and economic benefits which enhance a sense of identity and local character in the community. The trick therefore is to find functions for heritage buildings that act together with place to produce enhanced ‘placeness’, the ability of an area to sustain a stimulating lived-experience for all.
Conservation for future development
My local town is a place with a long historical heritage. Currently it is the service centre for a range of public services and businesses for the wide, largely rural area in which it sits. It is has also expanded rapidly in the last few years and has become something of a commuter town with its good road links to Edinburgh only 20 miles to the west. At the same time the trend towards centralizing public services has led to some roles, such as the justice function, being located elsewhere. The functions of the town are gradually evolving so balancing urban development, functional improvement, and heritage conservation becomes important.
In 2008, English Heritage, the non-departmental public body that advises on heritage assets introduced the term ‘constructive conservation’ to define an approach to heritage management that focuses on managing change and accommodating the changes necessary to ensure the continued use of buildings at risk. The two buildings I have focused on here have plenty of scope for new uses. They sit close together facing on to a wide street. Close by are banks, a public hall and pubs and a restaurant. The space around them has all the ingredients for the formation of an attractive civic square for the town, a space for social interaction for local people and visitors.
The role of a civic square would be enhanced by the uses which can be found for the spaces in the Town House and the Court building. The Town House apparently once hosted a drama group: the free space in the building could make an excellent small theatre space. The Court Building could be opened up to provide a prominent visitor centre to promote local heritage and the area’s tourism offer.
The town also lacks the presence of higher education and easily accessible community education facilities. The Court building could be a base for such a learning facility which could be a boost to the local economy and to the skills and opportunities available to local people. I have written about the importance of learning in community development and of university outreach previously here.
These buildings could be a potential case study for constructive conservation. It could demonstrate the interaction between heritage and the changing functions of the town, to the benefit of both. But the Council has a job to do to engage the enthusiasm of the community, community organisations, businesses and public agencies such as universities to realize that potential.
I love this piece! Thanks for sharing a little part of your side of the world! In western Melbourne where I work, there is a constant tension between redevelopment of a building to support more community cohesion and connection, verses having a reduced council budget to redevelop due to the financial environment, verses just doing some ‘Band-Aid’ improvements so it stays ‘workable’ without triggering disability compliance because it has been seen as not accessible. It’s so hard to convince others as to the why of needing to make a space usable for people so it makes them want to come back again and again.