An uncertain future for Goldfinger's Edenham Care Home site

EMMA DENT COAD on the fight in west London to conserve Modernism’s social purpose.

First published Summer 2015

I am a socialist. That means I must challenge the financial models put forward to justify unspeakable developments, especially where a building with social value has been demolished. I have read several financial viability assessments and picked them apart. They base their calculations on distorted economic figures and a sprinkle of magic dust, backed up by policy-driven, consensus-building exercises they call 'consultation' and tortured readings of various planning policies and regulations.

All of which brings us to the now empty site of Edenham Residential Care Home, designed by Ernö Goldfinger as the final set-piece of his 'cradle to grave' Cheltenham Estate. The site lies at the foot of Trellick Tower and next to Edenham Way – both thankfully now listed.

In 2006 I was elected local Councillor for Golborne ward that accommodates the Cheltenham Estate, and was immediately faced with the prospect of the Goldfinger care home being demolished as it was not considered to be 'fit for purpose'. We pleaded, petitioned and campaigned, I chained myself to the gates, to no avail. It was demolished in 2008.

Rather than give up altogether, Edenham Way Residents' Association worked with me and a group of local architects to produce an alternative future for the site. This was carefully researched and based on evidence of local need – including a new facility for older people's housing, a health centre, and open space, all sorely needed. The Council was polite enough to give us a hearing, and even incorporated some of our ideas into the Core Strategy. But clearly the ambition was to 'regenerate' by building private housing in this area of severe deprivation.

Golborne is the joint poorest ward in London, along with one in Haringey. Health outcomes are shocking – the life expectancy between my ward and Royal Hospital is nearly 20 years. We proposed a health centre, housing for older people, community
space including a Goldfinger Centre for the thousands of Trellick Tower lovers who visit from all over the world, and some kind
of training/education centre for our unemployed or under-skilled young people. All of this was to be based in the vestiges of the Trellick Tower garage space, expanded with a glass curtain wall extension. With that as a prerequisite, and new housing for social rent, local people would probably accept a modest amount of private housing.

However, this is not what is now being proposed. The Supplementary Planning Document, which had adopted some of proposals from the residents' Vision for Edenham, was altered at the last minute by the Cabinet Member to introduce an element of doubt with the addition of the words 'and ensure a good mix of uses in the area', which frankly could mean anything – a casino? Night-club?

The SPD had also stated that a sports pitch was to be re-provided, but at the last minute a diagram in the document was altered 'to avoid confusion that relocation... is pre-determined'. Again this introduced doubt where previously there had been clarity. Then, the words 'communal open space' have been altered to 'private open space' which is a very different matter altogether. We are told there is 'no interest' in older people's housing, but this is not what I was told by the organisation who is interested.

Finally, and most importantly, the health clinic for which there is a proven need, and a desperate necessity, is also in the balance. There are three GP practices within a stone's throw of the site, all poorly accommodated for modern needs (albeit one is the original Goldfinger design and listed). There is a proven need for an all-encompassing health clinic, including health screening and support with chronic illness management. The decision on this vital element is being pushed to the very end of the process, indeed we are told 'the SPD is designed to be able to accommodate this once the word on approvals and investment required has been understood'. More weasel words.

The problem with this re- positioning exercise is that we are now heading towards precisely the kind of development that we neither want nor need. As Hubert-Jan Henket said at the last DOCOMOMO International Conference: 'Any transformation should respect the intentions of the original architect, interventions should be in balance with the cultural value of these intentions, and these should add to the architectural quality of the whole'.

The Modern Movement was and is an ideological movement; it is built ideology. The conservation and reinstatement of social purpose should have equal standing with that of physical conservation. If we cannot preserve the social value of this world-renowned site, we are destroying not just a building but its meaning. And this process would annihilate the huge significance of an icon of the Modern Movement.