International Pool

rainone · Post by **rainone** » Mon 10 Mar, 2008 6:22 pm

fevlad wrote: rainone wrote: Back to the Poulson connection............ 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. Correct, but the council instructed the reduction in the pool size. It was a pretty succesful non international pool - probably biggest mistake was that it should have been called the "Leeds Big Pool", why they persisted with the International in the name I'll never know. It was a good place for a swim though. And, if you remember this is typical of what we had to swim in before it was built:http://www.leodis.net/display.aspx?reso ... SPLAY=FULL

fevlad · Post by **fevlad** » Mon 10 Mar, 2008 6:24 pm

absolutely

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Wed 19 Mar, 2008 9:14 pm

Just a reminder that the International Pool closes forever this weekend, when the art installations in the main and junior pools close on Sunday 23rd March, according to tonights YEP.This will be your last chance to get inside the building before it is demolished to make room for more soulless offices and executive luxury apartments (with juliet balcony views of the Inner Ring Road).The weather is meant to be a bit poor this weekend, so I might pop down there myself.

Post by **chameleon** » Wed 19 Mar, 2008 10:07 pm

raveydavey wrote: Just a reminder that the International Pool closes forever this weekend, when the art installations in the main and junior pools close on Sunday 23rd March, according to tonights YEP.This will be your last chance to get inside the building before it is demolished to make room for more soulless offices and executive luxury apartments (with juliet balcony views of the Inner Ring Road).The weather is meant to be a bit poor this weekend, so I might pop down there myself. All hale the ..... Spiracle! The proposed new building.

Post by **chameleon** » Sat 26 Apr, 2008 4:22 pm

The new deveopment for the Pool site has taken a turn with the 'Spiracle' being abandoned.Seemingly the developers are reacting to the realisation that Leeds centre is rather over-subscribed with unlet flats and re-sales seeing equity loss.The Spiracle was said to cover only 20% of the site but, it was going to be some 24 floors, so quite a big chunk really. Back to the drawing board!

Phill_d · Post by **Phill_d** » Sat 26 Apr, 2008 4:26 pm

I like this one.All hail the Spiracle. YEAH!............................Erm maybe not. DOH!

fevlad · Post by **fevlad** » Sat 26 Apr, 2008 5:09 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. superb analysisalthough opn top of this Pulson's company when they built airedale general showe a lack of unhderstanding of basic geology.

Trojan · Post by **Trojan** » Sat 26 Apr, 2008 5:33 pm

I understand the point that buildings may last for 50/100 years but the equipment they house doesn't - however, to take one example, Morley Swimmng Baths on Fountain Street lasted for about 70 years before it closed in the seventies and was replaced by the current one - as far as I know most of the original equipment was still in use at the end of its life and it was only because this equipment was coming to the end of its life that the facility was closed. Contrast that with the International Pool or the more recent still Morley Sports Centre which is about to close for ever after just over 30 years existence. What is the explanation for the disparity between the life of Edwardian/Victorian equipment and that installed in the sixties and seventies - presumably cheaper spec.

Post by **chameleon** » Sat 26 Apr, 2008 6:17 pm

Phill_d wrote: I like this one.All hail the Spiracle. YEAH!............................Erm maybe not. DOH! Drawings I've seen phill, all look as though the forms were built after (if not during) a damn good night out

Phill_d · Post by **Phill_d** » Sat 26 Apr, 2008 6:21 pm

chameleon wrote: Phill_d wrote: I like this one.All hail the Spiracle. YEAH!............................Erm maybe not. DOH! Drawings I've seen phill, all look as though the forms were built after (if not during) a damn good night out Yes I've seen the thing. It was nick named the plate of Poppadoms. I think it went rather well with our other 'Dalek' building