Abbey Foregate and A Little White Lie

In architecture, as in all things, a little white lie is often better than the truth.

I say this as someone who, over these past few weeks in this column, has often touched upon the thorny subject of what makes a building 'historic' or of 'historic value' - and also as someone who likes to ask the question: Do unwanted ugly buildings deserve to be preserved just as much as unwanted beautiful buildings?

In other words, we all love Rowley's House, Bear Steps and St Chad's. But does anyone care very much when the Midland Red bus garage in Ditherington is smashed to the ground? Would anyone worry if there were plans to demolish the old Woolworth's building in Castle Street (yes, the one that replaced the lovely Raven Hotel)? Are tears likely to be shed if there are ever plans to sweep away the 1960s Shirehall next to Lord Hill's Column? And what about the domineering 1960s Market Hall clocktower? Would anyone care two hoots it that went?

What has prompted me to raise such questions again is the unveiling last week of a £4 million redevelopment plan for a stretch of Abbey Foregate.

Now, there are of course wonderful great stretches of Abbey Foregate which are unspoilt, rather lovely, and (by anyone's definition) historic. So which bit are we talking about here? We're talking about the Heaths Houses site, that bland stretch of sheltered housing across the road from The Cedars and which, if you are walking away from town, comes just before The Brick pub.

Severnside Housing announced back in June 2011 that it was closing the sheltered housing after failing to fill empty bedsits.

So far, 40 elderly residents have been moved to alternative accommodation, with another 16 due to be rehomed when suitable properties become available.

The plans for the redevelopment of the site have just gone on display. And having given them just a cursory glance, I have to say that what they have in mind looks very nice indeed. The proposal is for 41 houses and flats which could be completed by 2015.

There will be nine townhouses, seven of which will be for market sale, and 31 two-bedroom apartments, and a single one-bedroom apartment - all kind of mock-Georgian in appearance.

In short, the existing buildings, constructed in two phases in 1967 and 1988 and which never once pretended to be anything other than buildings of that time, will be swept away and replaced with much prettier buildings of 2015 but pretending to be from 1815.

And so a 1967 truth will be replaced by a 2015 lie. And hence my contention that a little white architectural lie can be better than the unattractive (and out-of-keeping with the rest of the road) truth.

Now, it's not that I always prefer a lie to the truth. Stay with me on this.

Whilst considering the pluses and minuses of various drinking hostelries he had known, the American writer Garrison Keillor once talked about the enchanting atmosphere of a genuinely old bar, a place which, in its time, had seen generations of drinkers come and go; a place in which the bar-stools are well worn from having had so many people sit upon them over the years. And his argument was that there is a world of difference between these old bars and the new bar which has a decor carefully designed to make it look as if it is old. 

He said (and I have never forgotten this) that it is like the difference between the truth and a lie.

On this I am as one with Garrison Keillor.

The new pubs can never be a match for the old pubs. The Beaten Track does not stack up against the Nag's Head or The Loggerheads or The Golden Cross or the Yorkshire House. Not because The Beaten Track is not a nice place - because actually it is. But because The Beaten Track is new. It might like to pretend that it's old with its fireplace and its soft lighting, but it's new. Simple as that. 

But now here is where I perhaps contradict myself (if I haven't done so already!) and possibly even show myself up to be a hypocrite.

My regular readers will know that I have been passionate about saving Besford House in Belle Vue, a Victorian mansion that had been under threat of demolition and replacement with new housing. So how can I now be supporting the demolition of Heaths Houses in Abbey Foregate and their replacement with new housing?

To me, this question is easily answered. Besford House is both (a) historic and (b) beautiful, and (c) would have been replaced by inferior buildings. On the other hand, Heaths Houses are (a) of no historic value and (b) ugly, and (c) will be replaced by superior housing.

Or am I indeed being a hypocrite? Answers on postcard please. (Or in a letter or an email).