International Pool

Post by **chameleon** » Sun 09 Mar, 2008 11:42 pm

tyke bhoy wrote: fevlad wrote: it might have already been mentioned on here but wasn't the pool built 1 ft short and therefore couldn't be used in internationally recognised competitions? From memory, and as I have stated on here before, I believe it was much less than a foot. The pool was regulation size until they tiled it. So a quarter of an inch, or so, at each end made it about a half inch too short. that's my memory of it anyway That was what I always understood, but talking to a chappy within the Council seemingly in the know on all things Pool, this was not the whole story, he gave the impression it was simply poor design/construction, though, who really knows?

Trojan · Post by **Trojan** » Sun 09 Mar, 2008 11:44 pm

fevlad wrote: it might have already been mentioned on here but wasn't the pool built 1 ft short and therefore couldn't be used in internationally recognised competitions? I've been told that the Wigan International Pool - which is also falling apart, is one foot short of the required distance for an international pool. Whether either story is apocryphal I'm not really qualified to say.

Post by **chameleon** » Sun 09 Mar, 2008 11:46 pm

fevlad wrote: a misconception about poulson was that he was an architecthe had no architectural qualifications and never designed or was involved in the design of a building in his life.Poulson was a wheeler and dealer.He wasn't just involved in corruption with T Dan Smith but government ministers like Reginalfd maudling as well.it might have already been mentioned on here but wasn't the pool built 1 ft short and therefore couldn't be used in internationally recognised competitions? Quite right - he was simply the entrapaneur with his name on the company hoarding. There was a documentary on television last year which looked at the man, his dealings and his 'work'.

Trojan · Post by **Trojan** » Sun 09 Mar, 2008 11:49 pm

Although he claims to be an architect on the plaque pictured, I'm sure I saw somewhere that he had no formal qualifications, he did however employ qualified architects. As I've posted before Poulson's biggest crime was getting caught. There's loads of corruption in construction, I'm sure he wasn't doing anything the rest weren't up to - he didn't invent it. Although in the early seventies when Andrew Cunningham who was also implicated, was leader of Durham County Council I remember seeing some graffiti on the County Hall there saying "out demons out" I wondered what it meant at the time, presumably it was connected to corruption.

Phill_d · Post by **Phill_d** » Mon 10 Mar, 2008 12:31 am

chameleon wrote: tyke bhoy wrote: fevlad wrote: it might have already been mentioned on here but wasn't the pool built 1 ft short and therefore couldn't be used in internationally recognised competitions? From memory, and as I have stated on here before, I believe it was much less than a foot. The pool was regulation size until they tiled it. So a quarter of an inch, or so, at each end made it about a half inch too short. that's my memory of it anyway That was what I always understood, but talking to a chappy within the Council seemingly in the know on all things Pool, this was not the whole story, he gave the impression it was simply poor design/construction, though, who really knows? This seems to be the official version regarding the L.I.P and Olympic standards. Take it with a pinch or salt, or believe it.... The choice is yours. I'm totally un biased The International pool has never lived up to it's full potential over the years. Originally the Pool would be built to Olympic standards. However, in order to cut costs, Poulson was asked to reduce the width of the tank in his design.It was the decision of the Council to reduce the design width of the pool which led to rumours that the pool was not big enough for competitions, a myth which has been chinese-whispered into a number of variations, the most prevalent, but incorrect, being the pool was 1 inch to short when the tiles were added

Brandy · Post by **Brandy** » Mon 10 Mar, 2008 1:17 am

whats an inch between friends eh? lol well Olympic standards or not, i have many GOLDen memories of the old place and will definitely miss it!

Phill_d · Post by **Phill_d** » Mon 10 Mar, 2008 1:21 am

Brandy wrote: whats an inch between friends eh? lol well Olympic standards or not, i have many GOLDen memories of the old place and will definitely miss it! Well said Brandy

rainone · Post by **rainone** » Mon 10 Mar, 2008 5:20 pm

Back to the Poulson connection. He was a Licentiate of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), this was a lower level of membership open to people who didn't have architectural degrees. I think he was qualified to something like ONC or HNC standard (BTEC / HTEC). So strictly speaking he was not a fully qualified architect, but this was not unusual, most construction industry professionals of the 1950's were only qualified to this level as the opportunity to obtain a degree was limited. He was allowed to practise as an archtectural company, but always employed degree qualified architects.He built up a company that was the largest practise in Europe so he didn't do too badly for a Pontefract company. As with any company in any industry, the main role of the company managers is to find new work and manage the company; this is particularly true of larger professional practices. So it is not unusual that he did little hands on design. Also remember that architects then were not allowed to advertise, they had to find clients through meeting them, getting referrals or more simply finding work because of who you knew rather than what you could do. It’s not surprising a culture of corruption was rife particularly when taking out a client to lunch in order to get to know them was, and still is, classed as corruption in the Public Sector.Another interesting thing he did was to run a multi-discipline company where all the construction professionals were found in one company: architects, structural and M&E engineers, quantity surveyors etc. This was radical at the time but not uncommon now. Looking at all this he was ahead of his time in having this type of practise of a large size.In terms of the quality of his work, he never set out to be the Norman Foster of his day; he did everyday commercial jobs, some with more architectural style than others. He was working in an age where Brutalism, new materials and technology and a lack of understanding of how modern materials responded over time often led to poor quality buildings. Look at the Leek St. Flats as the classic example of these problems: Brutal in style, inadequate understanding of ventilation and the thermal properties of the structure, detailing that failed too soon - and these were built under factory conditions with Poulson nowhere in site.Poulson prided himself upon the ability to drive costs down, bet your bottom dollar that his clients would have been attracted to this. I once read that the Yorkshire Post did a survey of the buildings he had designed and found that overall they provided value for money for his clients - I suppose this means they were brought in cheaper than the competition were doing. As he was working mainly for public bodies - Councils, British Rail, NHS etc one can only assume they were aware of this and it put him in good stead. Of course we all know about his dodgy dealings and whether you believe his detractors that he was the master corrupter or take his side where he was simply generous in helping out his clients with minor gifts, there's no doubt he was doing wrong, but nothing that was particularly uncommon, as someone said earlier his mistake was that he got caught. You should question the way the local and national politicians behaved far more than what he did. They were not poor simply duped officials, they were used to it, as it was the norm.But back to the L.I. Pool, I always loved the building and still think it was a good example of architecture of its day. Architecture is not simply about what the outside looks like, it is also about how it functions internally, I think it did this well. Don't forget most building come to the end of their life due to how well they are looked after, and whether they are used. Leave any building empty or poorly maintained for even a short period of time and it will rapidly deteriorate. I noticed above people are quoting 50 - 100 year design life’s. This is for the building, not its services systems such as the heating, electrics and ventilation etc, these rarely last more than 25 years, with regular replacement accepted as part of a buildings life time costs. Now think about this, what is a swimming pool? It's a house for services - all the pool water systems, filtration, the ventilation of the pool and changing areas, heating, electrics etc - all in all a heavily serviced building where the cost of renewing the services for the LI Pool would be in the many millions, and I bet they were all ready for renewal. Add this to the fact that as a swimming pool it is a very unique building being hard and costly to change its use - imagine the amount of work needed to convert the massive open space to offices or residential, and I suspect the overall economics of doing anything with it wouldn't stack up leaving it far cheaper to knock down and build something new.

Phill_d · Post by **Phill_d** » Mon 10 Mar, 2008 5:56 pm

That was very interesting reading there rainone. Thanks for taking the time to write that down. cheers!!!

fevlad · Post by **fevlad** » Mon 10 Mar, 2008 6:10 pm

rainone wrote: Back to the Poulson connection. He was a Licentiate of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), this was a lower level of membership open to people who didn't have architectural degrees. I think he was qualified to something like ONC or HNC standard (BTEC / HTEC). So strictly speaking he was not a fully qualified architect, but this was not unusual, most construction industry professionals of the 1950's were only qualified to this level as the opportunity to obtain a degree was limited. He was allowed to practise as an archtectural company, but always employed degree qualified architects.He built up a company that was the largest practise in Europe so he didn't do too badly for a Pontefract company. As with any company in any industry, the main role of the company managers is to find new work and manage the company; this is particularly true of larger professional practices. So it is not unusual that he did little hands on design. Also remember that architects then were not allowed to advertise, they had to find clients through meeting them, getting referrals or more simply finding work because of who you knew rather than what you could do. It’s not surprising a culture of corruption was rife particularly when taking out a client to lunch in order to get to know them was, and still is, classed as corruption in the Public Sector.Another interesting thing he did was to run a multi-discipline company where all the construction professionals were found in one company: architects, structural and M&E engineers, quantity surveyors etc. This was radical at the time but not uncommon now. Looking at all this he was ahead of his time in having this type of practise of a large size.In terms of the quality of his work, he never set out to be the Norman Foster of his day; he did everyday commercial jobs, some with more architectural style than others. He was working in an age where Brutalism, new materials and technology and a lack of understanding of how modern materials responded over time often led to poor quality buildings. Look at the Leek St. Flats as the classic example of these problems: Brutal in style, inadequate understanding of ventilation and the thermal properties of the structure, detailing that failed too soon - and these were built under factory conditions with Poulson nowhere in site.Poulson prided himself upon the ability to drive costs down, bet your bottom dollar that his clients would have been attracted to this. I once read that the Yorkshire Post did a survey of the buildings he had designed and found that overall they provided value for money for his clients - I suppose this means they were brought in cheaper than the competition were doing. As he was working mainly for public bodies - Councils, British Rail, NHS etc one can only assume they were aware of this and it put him in good stead. Of course we all know about his dodgy dealings and whether you believe his detractors that he was the master corrupter or take his side where he was simply generous in helping out his clients with minor gifts, there's no doubt he was doing wrong, but nothing that was particularly uncommon, as someone said earlier his mistake was that he got caught. You should question the way the local and national politicians behaved far more than what he did. They were not poor simply duped officials, they were used to it, as it was the norm.But back to the L.I. Pool, I always loved the building and still think it was a good example of architecture of its day. Architecture is not simply about what the outside looks like, it is also about how it functions internally, I think it did this well. Don't forget most building come to the end of their life due to how well they are looked after, and whether they are used. Leave any building empty or poorly maintained for even a short period of time and it will rapidly deteriorate. I noticed above people are quoting 50 - 100 year design life’s. This is for the building, not its services systems such as the heating, electrics and ventilation etc, these rarely last more than 25 years, with regular replacement accepted as part of a buildings life time costs. Now think about this, what is a swimming pool? It's a house for services - all the pool water systems, filtration, the ventilation of the pool and changing areas, heating, electrics etc - all in all a heavily serviced building where the cost of renewing the services for the LI Pool would be in the many millions, and I bet they were all ready for renewal. Add this to the fact that as a swimming pool it is a very unique building being hard and costly to change its use - imagine the amount of work needed to convert the massive open space to offices or residential, and I suspect the overall economics of doing anything with it wouldn't stack up leaving it far cheaper to knock down and build something new. but it was the inside of the building that was the problem-it wasn't fit for purpose-staging international(hence the name) swimming events.