| Summary : A reinforced concrete detached house roughly rectangular on plan (built by 1960), although one corner stands forward from the main block. The building is of two storeys with an inverted pitched roof. There is a central chimneystack set to one side of the valley of the roof. A rainwater downpipe, with hopper, is fixed below the valley gutter to either side. The building has white rendered walls with small, irregular fenestration with replacement frames in uPVC. One opening has a small balustraded balcony above a garage door. There is a single-storey range, most likely a later addition, with main entrance leading to a lobby and a further room. The additional range has timber sidings, redolent of narrow weather-boarding. The architect is unknown, although a building is marked on a development plan of the university site of 1956, drawn by R D Hunt. The consulting architect to the university at this time was Sir Howard Robertson, although he is not believed to have personally designed House 99. The building is marked on the development plan as `Warden's House' and it is thought that it served as the residence for the women's warden of Horwood Halls of Residence. The building appears to have been extended and remodelled in the later 20th century, and is currently (2010) the residence of students. This building was assessed for listing in 2010 but failed to meet the required criteria. |
More information : The building was constructed circa 1959 and was occupied by
1960. The architect is unknown, although a building is marked on a development plan of the university site of 1956, drawn by R D Hunt. The consulting architect to the university at this time was Sir Howard Robertson, although he is not believed to have personally designed House 99. The building is marked on the development plan as `Warden¿s House¿ and it is thought that it served as the residence for the women¿s warden of Horwood Halls of Residence. the building appears to have been extended and remodelled in the later 20th century, and is currently (2010) the residence of students.
This reinforced concrete structure is roughly rectangular on plan, although one corner stands forward from the main block. The building is of two storeys with an inverted pitched roof. There is a central chimneystack set to one side of the valley of the roof. A rainwater downpipe, with hopper, is fixed below the valley gutter to either side. The building has white rendered walls with small, irregular fenestration with replacement frames in uPVC. One opening has a small balustraded balcony above a garage door. There is a single-storey range, most likely a later addition, with main entrance leading to a lobby and a further room. The additional range has timber sidings, redolent of narrow weather-boarding. Concrete steps, dark brown brick garden walling and timber railed fencing may be later additions, or truncated parts of original features. The applicant has claimed that the interior has original features such as a concrete stair, in-built seating, murals and brick chimneybreast. The claim is possibly valid, although no evidence has been submitted to support it.
The general principles used are that all buildings and structures built before 1840 are listed; and after 1840, because of the greatly increased number of structures erected and the much larger numbers that have survived, progressively greater selection is necessary. More detailed guidance is provided by the English Heritage Selection Guide on the Modern House (Domestic 4). This sets out that Modernist and post-modern houses dating from the post-war period must have a high quality of design, probably by an architect or architectural practice of note, and be little altered, with a well conceived and intact internal plan and fittings. The case for national interest would be strengthened by the innovative use of unusual materials or features, and by the retention of a garden scheme that may have been important to the original design. House 99 falls within Howard Robertson¿s Scandinavian period of influence, as embodied in other buildings at Keele University such as the library. This work was not generally well-regarded at the time, and considered a little out of date by this period. House 99 is much later than examples in Denmark in the 1930s/ 40s (Jacobsen, and Arhus University); and less bold, and with less group value, than roughly contemporary examples in England, such as the single-storey houses by Llewelyn, Davies and Weeks at Rushbrooke, Suffolk (listed at Grade II). The design of House 99 is somewhat tentative in its handling and lacking in boldness. Moreover, the building has been altered, with the addition of a single-storey range, the replacement of window frames, and the alteration/addition of some garden boundary treatments. It is constructed using standard materials. The intactness and quality of the interior is unknown, but highly likely to have been compromised by changes of use, and by general student activity.
The applicant asserts that the building may have been an influence on Team 10, a progressive group of architects in the 1950s and later. However, no evidence has been provided that conclusively demonstrates this. A recent English Heritage study on post-war universities did not identify House 99 as a building of interest, and the lack of any known published material on the building indicates that its influence within the canon of post-war architecture, if any, is negligible. Furthermore, in designation terms, even if an association with Team 10 were proven this would be unlikely to override the high level of alteration to the building. In summary, House 99 is not an innovative or bold design in national terms, it is altered, and the architect and date of construction are unknown. Therefore, it does not meet the criteria for listing. However, the building has some good architectural qualities, is an unusual building type for this area, and is certainly of some local interest. (1) |