I wouldn't have any problems with seeing that demolished, only they'll probably build something even worse in its place.
I don't know the school, architecturally, at all, but I knew a few people that went there and they speak very highly of it. It doesn't look like the most architecturally incredible place, but it is listed so I assume has some merit. Partly I posted as I wondered if anyone here did go and what they thought of the buildings. Personally, I don't believe only the cream of the crop, the really interesting, Grade I listed sort of buildings, should be saved. I'm a big fan of ordinary buildings that work well, and think that retaining and reusing them should always be the first option considered. Sometimes they need to go, but for me it should be reluctantly.
However, there's another question there, which is why a historically successful school needs to be 'transformed' architecturally in order to improve. It has had some below-par Ofsted inspections recently, and I like to believe in the transformative power of architecture as much as anyone, but I'm sceptical of much of the Inner-city Academy branding. The money and resources that will go into rebuilding the school, the irrevocable loss of much of the site... for what benefit? Are the existing buildings architecturally inadequate? By that I mean, they may be inadequate environments right now, but could it be fixed by maintenance or intelligent refurbishment or provision of equipment etc. Are there issues with management, teaching, organisation, delivery etc? (people-based issues, rather than building-based). Given the history of the school (emphasis on performing arts), there might also be an issue with how well they 'fit' with the Oftsed inspection format or system, but I wouldn't know about that.
I don't know much about the school or the proposals, I believe the campaign is partly an attempt to make the issues more visible and force genuine consultation. When it's gone, it's gone.
I don't know the school, architecturally, at all, but I knew a few people that went there and they speak very highly of it. It doesn't look like the most architecturally incredible place, but it is listed so I assume has some merit. Partly I posted as I wondered if anyone here did go and what they thought of the buildings. Personally, I don't believe only the cream of the crop, the really interesting, Grade I listed sort of buildings, should be saved. I'm a big fan of ordinary buildings that work well, and think that retaining and reusing them should always be the first option considered. Sometimes they need to go, but for me it should be reluctantly.
However, there's another question there, which is why a historically successful school needs to be 'transformed' architecturally in order to improve. It has had some below-par Ofsted inspections recently, and I like to believe in the transformative power of architecture as much as anyone, but I'm sceptical of much of the Inner-city Academy branding. The money and resources that will go into rebuilding the school, the irrevocable loss of much of the site... for what benefit? Are the existing buildings architecturally inadequate? By that I mean, they may be inadequate environments right now, but could it be fixed by maintenance or intelligent refurbishment or provision of equipment etc. Are there issues with management, teaching, organisation, delivery etc? (people-based issues, rather than building-based). Given the history of the school (emphasis on performing arts), there might also be an issue with how well they 'fit' with the Oftsed inspection format or system, but I wouldn't know about that.
I don't know much about the school or the proposals, I believe the campaign is partly an attempt to make the issues more visible and force genuine consultation. When it's gone, it's gone.
/foreverresistanttochange