The left image shows the original design; the right image is the final product. (Guardian)

In London a developer has been ordered to tear down a completed 23-story residential building in the Royal Borough of Greenwich, in the southeast of London, because it deviates too far from the original proposal. Residents of 204 flats will have to find lodgings elsewhere. The authority that so declared states that the ruling is unprecedented, and maybe it is. If so, that’s damned pathetic. But whether it is or not, it has been decried as unfair and even brutal.

I disagree. It should be considered necessary and appropriate, even laudable. If such “brutal” rulings had been issued regularly over the years, where appropriate, this one would be unnecessary. Developers would understand by now that the rules for buildings are real, not to be ignored. The big problem is that developers do not believe planning authorities ever enforce the rules. And for years they have not done so. Here is a quote from the Guardian by the paper’s Robert Booth:

The visualisations before planning permission was granted over a decade ago showed a standard piece of contemporary residential architecture with details intended to render an otherwise blocky project easier on the eye. What was built is far more rudimentary and, in parts, resembles stacked shipping containers. There had been complaints from local people, the council said, adding that some of the buildings occupied a bigger footprint than allowed and there were missing facilities, including for disabled people.

Aidan Smith, cabinet member for regeneration, described it as a “mutant development that is a blight on the landscape.”

You can almost hear the developer saying, out of the corner of his mouth, “Oh, boo-hoo! Our footprint is too large, and the playground is not quite up to snuff. Cry me a river!” Well, don’t cry me a river, don’t tear the building down. Do throw the reprobate into the clink.

In Providence, the same situation prevails, except that it’s hard to imagine any board, panel, committee or authority having the balls to actually order that a completed building be torn down, anywhere in this city, this state or this country. For any reason. Period. Any reader who knows of such an order being enforced in the United States, please write and let me know.

The Providence Preservation Society has voiced its regret that an old house at 108 Waterman St., near Brown University on historic College Hill, is threatened with demolition. It is a lovely Arts & Crafts sort of quasi Victorian Gothic building of some distinction. In fact, however, the Providence Historic District Commission has ruled that the building is not architecturally significant enough to lift a finger to save. Its proposed replacement is not all that bad, if you believe they will build what they have promised to build. Tsk, tsk. Shame on these “commissioners”! Where is the hangman when you need him!

Photo of 108 Providence St., on College Hill, slated for demolition, courtesy of PHDC. (Trulia)

Here is the proposed residential building proposed for 108 Waterman St. (City Plan Commission)