The local precedent of the Horniman Museum shows that a modern design can complement a Victorian building (hats off to grahamw's practice!)

Is there not the potential for joining the sites of Louise House, the Pools and possibly even the Library into one "campus" style leisure, entertainment and education venue blending the Victorian buildings with sensitive, well-designed modern extensions (and getting a modern pool into the old buildings/new extensions, even if it means filling in the old pools and digging new ones)?

I agree totally.

I heard from Annette Stead from Lewisham Council, she has advised that "Both Louise House and Forest Hill Pool site will be looked at in regard to developing a new pool. There will be opportunities to make input in regard to the new pool when a consultation programme is developed and I hope this will be some time over the early summer period".

My concern from speaking with local residents here, is that they either have no idea that the pools are to be demolished, or the ones that are aware, are under the illusion that the facade is being salvaged.

Is there a campaign to save this building or at least parts of it? I did contact the Forest Hill Society but they were unaware of one and seemed to accept the inevitability of its entire demolition.

Never fear you are not alone!

Total demolition is certainly not inevitable and we can still have a high quality new pool without losing our heritage. The Sydenham Society have been in touch to tell me they are campaigning to keep at least some aspects of the historic fabric of the site. Myself and other concerned architects are now helping advise the society in ways of achieving this.

good for yourself

It seems that the key debate is whether the current Victorian building has enough historical and architectural merit to justify the retention of at least its facade and whether is is to be replaced with a modern building of equal or superior standard. I do think that as one of the first Victorian pools in London it has great historic value and that the facade is actually very attractive and worth saving. Moreover, I am not aware of any example of a modern pool in Lewisham of architectual merit - but please let me know if anyone is aware of one. That doesn't mean that with a good architect Forest Hill couldn't be the first but does give a warnning that a building we know is good and is currently standing could be replaced with something far worse. It all sounds a bit like the 1960s when Euston Station was destoyed in the name of progress and being modern and not 2008 when the refurbed St. Pancras showed how the old Victorian facade and train shed could be extended with a new building behind. Southwark Council are adapting rather than destoying Dulwich Pools which is in a much more restricted site - it would be great to see Lewisham do the same! I've got kids and I want them to have a pool but I also want them to have a respect for their heritage.

There have been several disparaging remarks about the architectural merits the pools, both here and elsewhere. They were not listed when an application was made to English Heritage in 2006 but I though it might be useful, so that we can all be better informed, to give a couple of quotes from their advisor's report. His conclusion was that:

And the Countersigning Advisor added:

It is clear that they considered the pools to have significance in a local context (which is what we are concerned about); it was at a national level that the pools did not warrant listing.

Incidentally, the same architect's pools at Ladywell were recently listed gradeII.

I do think people need to decide whether they want a Victorian building or decent sports and leisure facilities that meet current and local needs and are affordable to run. I do not think that both are compatible on this particular site.

Roz, you've clearly studied the site and building in some detail so can you explain how it differs from the Kentish Town baths, designed by the same architect as the Forest Hill pools in 1900. There is much information on the decision by Camden Council to follow the wishes of its residents and refurbish the pools, but here are a couple of links to be going on with:
http://tinyurl.com/2l9l6s
http://tinyurl.com/3dlmry
http://tinyurl.com/2nk7pa

It is, perhaps, a superior building to our pools, but does that make a difference?

Unless I've got my figures in muddle, I would say there is quite a difference between the ?25m available for Kentish Town bath refurb and the circa ?5 million available for FH Pools. You could certainly do a great job of refurbishing FH Pool with that sort of budget, but this is Lewisham, not relatively wealthier Camden. People have deeper pockets up there.
I am also aware that the Kentish Town campaign has /had at its heart the Talacre Sports Centre debacle. Talacre Sports Centre was built a few years ago near to the baths but contained no pool as KTB were still operational.There was an alternative site for a pool adjacent to the new sports centre but just as the Council was realising that refurbishment of KT baths was expensive and other options were needed, this site was sold off to a private housing developer for the princely sum of ?300k.
The KT baths issue is therefore in a different context to ours, ie one where a newbuild on the same site was highly improbable for planning and practical reasons, and the most reasonable alternative site for a newbuild option on a Council owned site was no longer available. Therefore the choice was between refurb or no pool . The Council chose the refurb. Acquiring another site of that size in KT is not possible due to prohibitive land values,as well as the little problem of not much land around.
In FH an onsite newbuild remains a viable option and remains as far as I can see the only option that would produce the best use of public money and gets the facilities we need.

I am not saying don't hang on to old buildings, and there is nothing wrong with valuing heritage but what seems to be missing amongst all thos passion for retention is a discussion on value for money, which the Council is duty bound to consider. This ongoing debate is principally between aesthetes and pragmatists.

"This ongoing debate is principally between aesthetes and pragmatists."
Did you mean philistine?

To clarify, it is the aesthetes and the philistines who normally battle it out.

The budget for the pools is not ?5m, it has been doubled.

As the council does not 'hypothecate' capital receipts the reported cost is currently ?9.5m.

If items omitted from the February report to the Mayor are included, the total costs look like they could be nearer ?11m.

I may be wrong but I also think the costs don't take into account expected inflation due to the London Olympics.

In his postings of 5 March Michael (Chair of the Forest Hill Society) makes clear his view that the old Pools building should go, in its entirety, and that it should be replaced with a new, high quality, modern building.

Michael also made clear that the view he expressed was personal to him i.e. he was not claiming to represent the views of the Forest Hill Society. However I see from the second of his two postings that Michael refers to the Forest Hill Society presently working with the Council on this matter. It is not clear from his posting what views are being put to the Council by the FHS but it seems a safe bet that the FHS are presently telling the Council that they support complete demolition of the exisiting building.

That of course is a legitimate viewpoint and it has attracted some support in this thread. However, the poll figures suggest a majority in favour of retention of the old building, or at least incorporation of much of the old building into any new-build. I suspect that that is a widely held view.

The Pools issue is very important and, whatever the final decision, it will impact on the built landscape of Forest Hill for years to come. My question for Michael then is to ask whether he has consulted with FHS members before adopting a policy of demolition?

The Forest Hill Society does not adopt policy except at quorate General Meetings (we are looking to organise one in the next few months). The policy of domolition is that of Lewisham Council and my understanding is that this is supported by local councillors in Forest Hill, Perry Vale, and Sydenham, as well as the mayor who made the decision in cabinet.

It is the duty of the Forest Hill Society to constructively engage with the council on such matters and to represent views of local residents (which does include representing views that I may not personally agree with). When the consultation exercise was undertaken in 2005/2006, when the pool was still open, opinion was split pretty evenly between those who wanted a new pool and those who wanted refurbishment. Many people who did want refurbishment chose this option because it was the only way to retain two pools on the site, something which is vital in a modern pools facility and something that the current building houses. Given that the new proposal does include two pools if the council were to survey local residents and particularly pool users, my expectation would be that there would be a majority in favour of the rebuild option. But this alone does not make it right.

In the next week representatives from Forest Hill Society and Sydenham Society will be meeting with Lewisham councillors and officials regarding possible options. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed to make sure that the best solution is arrived at - whatever that may be. But the Executive of the Forest Hill Society has agreed that if the council's plan is to demolish the existing pools then we will work with them to make sure that Forest Hill gets a good new design that recognises in some way the architecture that may be lost. If it can be proved that Forest Hill can get a better pool with better facilities, in a new building which complements the library, faster than the refurbishment option, and for approximately the same price, then I think it would be foolish for local residents not to at least listen to the proposal from the council.

We will provide you with more information regarding any plans as soon as we know what they are. In the meantime I make no apology for my personal view that the sooner swimming returns to Forest Hill the better it will be, not just for swimmers but for local shops and schools.

I have young children too, and swimming is our favourite sport. Whatever happens we will be swimming weekly in Forest Hill Pools.

I accept the fact that the old pools leak and that repairing them will not be cost effective in the long run. I also have some sympathy with the council in that they do seem committed to providing swimming on the site, which is the main priority.

What I do not accept is that the old facade is bad Victorian architecture. If you ignore the fact that it is tatty (which could easily be remedied) it is a nice example of the Queen Anne revival style. The detailing on the brickwork is attractive and whole has an interesting rhythm and an imposing quality. I think most people who dismiss it do so because it is so familiar and is currently undermaintained.

The cost difference between a complete new build and a new build behind the old facade is only ?200,000 (ont he council's won figures). As a proportion of the budget it is small fry.

The facade should not go: it can easily be worked with. The proposal to demolish Louise House is equally sad. This building is not outstanding in itself, but there is nothing wrong with it and it has some historical and social interest and could easily be incorporated or reused. Its fate is simply to provide a site for an enabling development to fund the pools.

The hope that any new pool will be outstanding is a forlorn one. I do not doubt that a wonderful new pool could not be designed by a leading architect. But we won't get that: look at the new extension at Deptford Wavelengths. It is OK but it is not outstanding by any stretch. The Bridge is an architectural mess.

A decent architect with some conservation experience could retain the old facade and build on both sides (which are about 30% of the width of the plot) and have some fun with new parts providing disabled access and so on. The new build could be taller than the exiting facade. It only needs some imagination and vision and could be an outstanding example of this type of work.

Let's demand the best of the past and the best of the future in one landmark building, not an ahistorical off the peg shed.

I've just uploaded some slides from a talk I gave recently that mentioned the and related buildings. I hope they explain why some of us believe that the buildings have merit, and deserve some degree of protection.

Steve
I to would like to retain the old building ( or facade ) with modern pools , I remember many happy times there in my younger days.
However I am not an expert at economics. It seems the neighbouring library might be an example
The building is great ( not sure about excessive nighttime lighting , how much does this cost .) But from my one visit I was terribly disapointed with the quantity and quality of the books.

This is a false dichotomy.

It is perfectly possible tp retain the facade and have modern pools behind.

They are great and give a good idea of the past.

This is a false dichotomy.

It is perfectly possible to keep the Victorian facade and build excellent new pools behind it. Have the best of both worlds. If you look at Steve Grindlays plans it is obvious that the frontage building just "bolts on" to a couple of large pool sheds. It will even stand up on its own while you knock down the sheds and build something new behind or at the side. the extra cost for this is only ?200,000 (on the council's own figures).