“Prior to Illuminations Churchill House was occupied by Land Travel which went into liquidation.”

“I'm not sure to what good use this structure could be used for to be honest. But if Bath residences have some valid ideas, why not have these published and let people vote on them. If none are feasible, then take it down.

I'll start the ball rolling. How about a Casino inside?”

“In which case Roger, my recollection matches yours - Illuminations only used the ground floor and basement, and in any other town would be in a cheap warehouse on an industrial estate, not right next to the main shopping centre. I suspect the rent per square foot for Churchill House was significantly lower than say Boots just over the road - which is what I meant by low rent. I agree that it wasn't a pound shop or charity shop but it was a long way from earning its keep on a prime city centre site.”

“My recollection was that once SWEB moved out of Churchill House, it struggled on for a while with low rent retailers using parts of it"

Your recollection is incorrect. It was for many years home to a lighting shop called, I think, Illuminations. I don't recall it ever housing low rent retailers.

-”

“Whatever happened to that 1980s art work called (I think) the Bath Panorama? Items I recall from the Chronicle at the time seemed to suggest that it had to go into storage because there was nowhere to display it. Where is it now? How about displaying it somewhere like this? Let's face it, something cultural is going to have to breathe life into the 1950s East Berlin that is currently being erected on WR.

Yes, the gasometer is currently ugly, but it will pale into insignificance as the rest of the WR goes up.”

“Why, in the name of all that is holy, would you want to preserve that hideous eyesore?

Bulldozer now please.”

“My recollection was that once SWEB moved out of Churchill House, it struggled on for a while with low rent retailers using parts of it, but it was clearly not in a condition to attract the sort of high profile, high rent tenants that would be expected in its location right next to the main shopping centre. Had it not been demolished it would have needed substantial refurbishments and updating to enable it to be worth keeping on such a prime site.

That said I fear that history will judge the whole redevelopment of Southgate to have been poorly judged - it has increased retail space at a time when high street retailing is declining in favour of online sales, it has sacrificed a sensible road layout, and street space to gain extra retail floor space, hence the tight rabbit warren feel of the shopping areas, introduced a nightmare car park entrance, put the bus station further away from the station than is ideal, and failed to open up the river front where the bus station now stands. It will no doubt serve as a monument to what happens when you put financial considerations before any other. Its only real saving grace is that cosmetically it looks better than the buildings that were there before with the exception of the bus station vs Churchill House.

For a better scheme including a river frontage I'd still have sacrificed Churchill House, and I've no great desire to see the gasometers saved just to become another museum constantly begging for handouts. For once I agree with Bath Preservation Trust - in the context of Bath, neither are/were worth saving, when what we have that does need to be saved already leaves very limited space for modern facilities.”

“I proposed that Dorchester Street should be underground with the bus station and short stay parking beneath the railway station. But that is water under the bridge, Multi are not going to start from scratch just because we agree that the whole development is a pig's ear. What should change is the Council's attitude to developments. Instead of cosying up to a developer and accepting whatever scheme is presented by their nameless, faceless third rate "architect", any new proposal should first attract an open competition by renowned architects and the public vote on the most appealing. This should then be put out to tender.

The council could first give outline ideas or in the case of the gasometer, let the architects free to provide suggestions. Who knows, maybe the cynics could be converted.”

“The bus station is without doubt unfit for purpose. And in the wrong place. Given that it's sensible to put bus stations close to railway stations it should have been rebuilt roughly where it was before, on the footprint of what is now Debenhams, with offices above. The former Churchill House site could then have become the prestige department store, complete with a two-floor "flying bridge" extension over the roadway and the opportunity to create the likes of riverside terrace cafes as well. When Southgate falls down in about 30 years maybe they'll do that. Or not.

As for the gasholder: there are other preserved ones, mostly in better condition and best displayed in context within industrial museums. I don't see much point in keeping this one in "splendid isolation". And I actually care about industrial heritage.”

“if the landlords could have rented churchill house in those last years then I'm sure they would have done it, the demolition suggests they were unable to."

That's nonsense. Churchill House was in use until B&NES sold it to the Southgate developer, who then chose to keep it empty. Like it or loathe it, it was a perfectly serviceable building that would have been retained had it been in the developer's interest. It was demolished because it didn't fit in with the design of the proposed bus station.

-”