Elgin Place Congregational Church Destruction

[turbozutek]

Next HG team meeting:



Chris...

['Dukes]

That's frigging hilarious. Another Photoshop? It's looking somewhat "compressed" though.

[Closet Classicist]

Re your post Moledinar

CC I'd be careful about referring to evidence of stability. I like a couple of others hadn't seen this video, and I think collectively a new born urban myth of the ilk of "the architect of the kelvingrove art galery commmitted suicide cos the building was the wrong way round" has sprung up. Looking at the vid this morning I was pretty disappointed to see a scoop just fall off a digger.

Well I did qualify it by saying it 'partially disabled' it. Which it did! I wasn't making out that it was some kind of Hollywood special effect ! Must have taken a wee bit of force to wrench that claw off though which would indicate it still having some strength. Besides the guys on site seemed to be scratching their heads about it, so obviously were not expecting it. If it turns out to be an everyday demolition occurence well hands up I got it wrong. The onus is on them to prove this.

[gap74]

OK folks, got this email today from the council, they're apparently posting the stuff out cos it's too big to email - I'll let you all know what's in it when I get it!

Request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

I refer to your request dated 18 February 2005 requesting that certain information be provided to you. I can confirm that the Council holds the information that you are requesting. The Council is treating your request as a request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

The information which you have requested is enclosed. As you will see from the contents there are a number of photographs included in the documents provided. They are not of any use to you as photocopies, but these photographs will be made available to you for viewing should you wish. If you decide to take up this option can you please contact Mr.Donaldson to make an appointment to view the photographs that we have.

The Council accordingly feels that it has complied in full with your request. However, if you feel that this is not the case please contact me at the number below.

[paladin]

if you feel that this is not the case please contact me at the number below.

Is it a FREEphone number

[gap74]

Got the stuff in this morning - about 50 pages, whittling down to about 35 if I ignore the useless photocopies of pictures and fax cover notes.

Mostly consists of various structural reports, the first by a bloke from Historic Scotland who thinks the walls are stable, despite signs of historic subsidence/bowing.

Then they get progressively depressing, a series of reports by commercial consulting engineers appointed by the owner noting that the rear gable is deteriorating and that the Bath St side elevation, although stable after past bowing, now no longer has the roof to keep it from bowing again.

There's some opinion on the costs of shoring and facade retention versus total demolition (about £500k compared to £100k), and a rather sad fact that demolition under the dangerous building order would be OK right away - but work to preserve it would require lengthy listed building consent approvals, during which the building would be open to the elements of a Scottish winter, with the streets still closed off and security hired to look after the site (5k a week! Didn't realise security guards were paid so well these days!).

Finally, after attempting to demolish the rear gable, it collapses partway through. They won't demolish from the Bath St side elevation because it's bowed and could collapse, and demolishing by pushing the walls inwards is considered dangerous too, so the only option open is to demolish from the front facade on Pitt St, pulling the rubble outwards as they go.

So basically, it seems that the main consideration was the red tape, time, cost and logistical difficulty of retention versus the ease with which demolition could have proceeded.

I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with this. I agree that, yes, the rear and Bath St elevations were structurally iffy, but at no point is the salvage of the Pitt St facade during demolition mooted - something I suspect wouldn't have added too much to the cost and time - and something surely worthwhile in the name of saving something of the building?

I'm no expert, though, and if anyone else wants to have a look at the reports, PM me and I'll try to arrange something - I'll maybe send a photocopy.

Gary

[turbozutek]

Excellent info. Gary.

One thing disturbs me worse than even the building being demolished... And that is the LACK of answers on WHY it burnt down and WHO was responsible.

Chris...

[Closet Classicist]

Thanks very much for that Gary. That pretty much concurs with what I have heard. For the want of £400,000 for a retention scheme we lost the building. Demolition was the cheap and sadly not so cheerful option. Deja vu as that is exactly what happened with the Greek Thomson offices on West Regent Street. It happens time and again so we really need some kind of mechanism to circumvent this. I have also heard that the insurance refused to pay up for propping up the building. It was insured but not enough to save it. Also have to say that given its use housing nightclubs and the occupancy numbers that would have involved you would have expected some kind of fire suppressant system to be required. That would have helped save the building had it been installed. Britain is rather arcane in this regard though it is begining to embrace this.

[gap74]

OK, I'm about halfway through digitising all the records I was sent, and converting them into Word documents. I'm not sure what the situation is regarding copyright on this stuff, though, so I'm nervous about posting any of it here.

I'll stick the first two things up and see....

Any editing I've done is marked with square brackets and is simply to omit incidental material or names and contact details that aren't important.

First up is the initial report into the blaze by the council's building control department.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SERVICES
BUILDING CONTROL AND PUBLIC SAFETY

DANGEROUS BUILDINGS
EMERGENCY INCIDENT REPORT

IR No: /04/189
Surveyor in Charge: B.Kelly

Date Incident Reported: 26/11/04
Time Incident Reported: 8.45am
Time Arrived at Incident: 9.40am
Origin of Report: Fire Control (Johnstone)

Locus: 193 Pitt St and 240 Bath St

Nature of Incident:
Fire damaged building consisting of two no. nightclub premises.
Request from Fire Brigade to give initial opinion on the structural integrity of the building during their fire-fighting operations.

Action Taken:

26.11.04 – Inspection undertaken to establish integrity of building during fire-fighting operations. Advised Fire Brigade and Police that it would not be advisable to enter main “dance hall” area, due condition of building.
Contractor instructed to provide supply of haras fencing.
Haras fencing erected to Sauchiehall Lane only.
Attendance of various meetings with Fire Brigade and Police.
Inspection of Fire Brigade’s exclusion zone, undertaken as a result of request from Police.
Premises inspected between 309 and 325 Sauchiehall St as rear fire exits terminate in Sauchiehall Lane, adjacent to building – All premises agreed to continue trading, subject to specific exclusion zones within their premises.
201a Pitt Street excluded to any access to their premises (letter to Occupants).
Re-inspection at 8.30pm, at request of Fire Brigade, to give opinion on condition of Bath St elevation

27.11.04 – Inspection of premises, undertaken from crane and manbasket – refer to Structural Reports.
Meeting with Building Owners.
Haras fencing erected to provide exclusion zone around premises.
Request made to Fire Brigade re: confirmation of service disconnections- Fire Brigade confirmed that Transco would re-attend.

[some material regarding contractor who supplied fencing, crane and manbasket]

Details of Factors/Owners (if known):
Kapital Ltd, 3rd Floor, Trident House, 42-48 Victoria St, St. Albans, Hertfordshire

Owner Identified at Time of Incident: Yes
Summary of Discussions:
26.11.04 – Owners Representatives Ian Gass and B.D. Caplan agreed to instruct Contractor to provide mobile crane and man basket, to allow inspection of building.
Site security also instructed by owner.
27.11.04 – Meeting on site with Owners and their Representatives re: progression of items in relation to public safety.

Other Relevant Information:
[some material relating to Building Control staff who attended and how much overtime they claimed! Also list of contacts in regards to the above works. Then the following list of documents, not all of which I seem to have been sent]

1. Ownership details from Land Register
2. Copy of Structural Report from H.Palmer
3. Structural Report from Ian Gass (Structural Partnership)
4. Copy of Report from Lothian Webster (Historic Scotland)
5. Copy of Email from Ranald MacInnes (Historic Scotland)
6. Letter to Owner, confirming works on voluntary basis
7. Letter to Owner re: works undertaken on instruction by Building Control
8. Letter to Occupiers of 201a Pitt St re: excluded access

Site passed from Fire Brigade to Police at 10:45am (29.11.04)

[gap74]

Second up is the Historic Scotland report, the first of several structural reports but the only one not done by the owner's own structural engineers. This is comparitively optimistic compared to the proceeding reports, which point out that the costs and logistics of what this guy suggests may not be economically viable...

I should point out that the order I'm presenting this stuff in is the order it was sent to me, which seems to be roughly chronological.

240 BATH STREET GLASGOW, PREVIOUSLY ELGIN PLACE CHURCH

Date of Visit: 27 November 2004

Reporting Engineer: Lothian Webster [Historic Scotland]

Introduction

The former church on the North West corner of the junction of Pitt Street and Bath Street was discovered to be on fire around 5:45am on Friday 26th November 2004. The fire brigade were quickly on the scene and believed they had controlled and localised the fire to a room in the basement. However, it appears to have spread through the cavities in the walls and turned into a major conflagration. The fire was considered not to be fully extinguished even on the morning of the following day, Saturday 27th December 2004.

The local authority’s building control department and the fire department convened on site at 10:00 on Saturday 27th November 2004 to consider the condition of the building, inspection being made from hanging baskets and a walk round. The building could not be entered at ground level due to debris and the hazard from material falling from above.

Access beyond the “Herras” safety fencing defining the site was denied to Historic Scotland personnel during this exercise and only provided after 12:00am [sic?] when the fire brigade, building control and the owner’s structural engineer had completed their inspection. Historic Scotland’s engineer was given the opportunity to inspect from a hanging basket in the company of Glasgow’s building control engineer at approximately 13:30. It was advised at this time that the area around the building was to be made secure by relocating fencing to positions that would allow one way traffic down some adjacent streets. A dangerous building notice is to be served on the owner which will require making safe or demolition. Discussions will take place within the council on its approach to the structure during the week commencing 28th November 2004, these discussions will be of major import due to the inclusion of demolition in the notice. The position of the insurers and the extent and detail of cover is unknown.

This following report describes the building as observed from the limited inspection available and outlines an approach to making safe.

Description

The category A listed Structure was constructed in 1855 as a Greek Temple fronted church with basement. The main hall is rectangular with an extended portion to the rear incorporating a stair well and service rooms with lower level adjuncts for halls and offices to each side. The ashlar sandstone front and side walls are lamp blacked, the rear elevation is constructed in squared rubble. The front elevation consists a near full width ashlar stone staircase, with stone side parapets, leading up to a landing off which rise the six columns forming the hexastyle Greek Ionic portico. The entablature has a pediment which incorporates in the tympanum a sculpted floral decoration. The central portion of the wall incorporates three high doors and is recessed from the side stairwells walls.

The elevation facing onto Bath Street consists of five full bays with substantial height of solid stonework over, up to an overhanging wall head. The channelled stonework defining the basement below the main windows incorporates four bays and an entrance door adjacent to the lower level adjunct. The outer boundary of the site is formed in dwarf stone walls with a cast iron railings and a formed entry lintel over onto Pitt Street. The elevation facing onto and set well back from Sauchiehall Lane also has limited fenestration with five bays with channelled basement stone below.

The rear elevation is some 1.5 metres from the adjacent properties and has few window openings. There is a significant crack and bulge, neither of which is recent, in the lower levels of this wall to the towards Sauchiehall Lane where it is surmised there are few internal connecting walls. I am unsure about the existence of flues in this wall, I suspect there are none as chimney stacks exist elsewhere and pots are evident on the return walls above the lower levels adjuncts, none are evident on the rear wall head. The internal stairwell walls have been used to tie back this wall with patriss plates evident.

The roof is believed to have been a low duo pitch with lead over the wall head forming a hidden gutter behind raised edge stones. The support system was large timber trusses, subsequently strengthened by the addition of steel trusses, to each side with timber purlins running longitudinally likely supporting rafters and sarking.

Internally the hall appears to have had a mezzanine floor introduced, I am unsure whether galleries existed. As no actual measuring was possible at the time of inspection the dimension of the building are estimed from plans dated 2004, that may have been reduced, and assessment on site. The full length is approximately 32 metres front wall to rear and width 19 metres outer face of side wall to outer face of side wall. Outer walls appear to be full depth masonry with a width of around 750mm, wall head is approximately 1.2 metres wide giving an overhang of 450mm. The wall head stones are full width to counteract the cantilever effect of overhanging.

Condition

The roof condition was suspect over many years and this is reflected in the outer bow at wall head on the Bath Street elevation with some gaps in the coping stone joints. This is believed to be old movement which is reinforced by photographs of the building when first put up for sale. The roof structure was inspected by a government engineer in 1972 and it was noted at that time that measures to strengthen the roof had been carried out. Ends of trusses that had suffered rot had been removed and replaced with spliced metal end bearers. Other truss ends had been reinforced with metal plates and some trusses had been augmented by steel trusses placed either side and bolted through. In the cupola longitudinal latticed steel girders were introduced between timber beams and spanned onto introduced single steel trusses.

The roof structure as revealed by the fire induced loss of sarking and slates is much as described in the report of 1972. The heat of the fire has caused the light steel trusses to buckle and has severely charred the timber trusses and purlins. The trusses are still able to support their own weight however the cupola area looks precarious. The fact that the steel trusses have buckled as a result of expansion rather than push the wall head out reflects their structural purpose being to resist vertical loads, and demonstrates the wall’s solidity. Only one cap stone on the lane wall head was noted as having been displaced slightly outward. I understand there is an introduced mezzanine floor consisting of concrete “bison” slabs presumably on some steel support structure, this is now covered in roof debris. The remains of the roof structure will need to be removed utilising cranes and men in hanging baskets. Cross ties such as scaffold ladder beams or “Metsec” lattice beams to the wall heads will need to be introduced to compensate for the loss of the original trusses. It would be worthwhile at this stage to introduce a temporary roofing system such as “Coverspan” to allow the interior to dry out. To counteract the small risk of wall head stones being dislodged these should be strapped down.

Walls generally are sound with tight joints and no sign of major deflection, other than the commonly occurring slight bows caused by the roof truss deflections and old settlement and movement, there is little in the way of recent activity or major stone damage due to fire. The introduction of cross head wall ties as part of the roof structure removal should ensure the walls stability in the medium term; water shedding measure need to introduced to protect them against deterioration due to water ingress and weathering in the medium to long term. Window openings could not be inspected in detail but it appears that safe lintels are still intact. The windows can be framed out or lintels replaced should they have been compromised by the fire.

Removal of debris may need to be by crane grapple for large material and then hand removal out through existing doors and windows once overhead areas are secure.

The Greek Temple frontage has lost its roof and tie back to the main building, while it is likely the low profile, sturdiness of columns and general mass will be sufficient to ensure it stands the introduction of ties back to the front wall will be worth consideration.

An advantage the building has is that it is within a defined boundary and unless major wall collapse was to occur any localised failures will fall within the curtilage.

The rear wall has an historic movement problem that appears to relate to poor foundations and insufficient ties to the rear face of the wall. Localised shoring around the bulging area near the base off a thick raised concrete ground slab should secure the bulge against future outward movement in the short term.

Conclusion

I am of the opinion, subject to detailed close up inspection, that the outer envelope of the structure can be made safe and retained if appropriate shoring and tying is introduced. Any future use of the structure will likely include introduction of an independent supporting frame within this envelope.

Lothian Webster BSc Ceng MICE

[Closet Classicist]

Thanks Gary.

It is interesting how the Historic Scotland Structural report done on the 27th November differs so much from the Structural Partnership one of the same date....

HS say it can be saved while Structural say it should be demolished as collapse is iminent. The approaches and styles are so different they might as well have been referring to seperate buildings for all the two reports have in common. I was impressed by the thoroughness of HS's report in the circumstances. And then as you say no other parties had the opportunity to assess the structral integrity of the building. It is also interesting that neither HS or GCC planning were present when it was decided to demolish...

[crusty_bint]

Dear me, is B. Kelly an office boy at Building Control? He should stick to making coffees and not fudging reports! Although nice trick of his, padding it out with lots of times, dates, numbers, names, addresses, and has he just learnt the term haras fencing? Another good space filler.

But hey, it was Christmas! You can't really expect anyone with a brain to give up some of thier holidays to attend... would you?

Thanks for requesting and posting this stuff Gary!

Crusty

[Closet Classicist]

Crusty the B Kelly referred to is actually a good guy. His report is only in the direct post fire period i.e. 27th November. I understand he was not present on the 24th December. It's the conversation between the Structrual, Dem master and Building control on Christmas eve that is the important one for determining the buildings demise.

[crusty_bint]

Sorry if hes a mate CC, I suppose it is a bit childish of me to mock jis report writing style... didn't mean to offend (you) No really, fair point, Ive jumped the gun a wee bit. I wait, woth baited breath, the next part of the Elgin Place soapumentarydrama.

Crusty

[Closet Classicist]

None taken! He's not a mate or anything crusty rather it is just that I have had dealings with him on several occasions and he is a professional and diligent character and always tries to be as helpful as possible.