The question of whether retail giant Marks & Spencer will knock down and rebuild its flagship Oxford Street store continues to grab headlines, and has been one of the most contentious debates for our sector that I can remember. It has pushed the debate on rebuild vs retrofit to the forefront of built environment conversations, as well as into the public consciousness.

Fundamentally this debate is not about a retailer remodelling a store, but about developers developing a building. It is a question that has to be looked at on its specific circumstances, but also in terms of its wider context and the precedent it sets. 

The panellists acknowledged that the decision should be based on a comprehensive evaluation of various factors. They emphasised the importance of considering the benefits of utilising existing structures, such as the Net Zero Journey, embodied carbon, carbon savings, flexibility, and usability. The conversation also extended to elements like townscape, heritage, design, and the planning or legislative framework.

Fred Pilbrow, Founder of Pilbrow & Partners and the architect behind the proposed replacement for the M&S flagship, initiated the debate by questioning whether it is ever appropriate to demolish a building. He argued that some buildings may not be suitable for retrofitting, as they may lack important elements or be in a state of disrepair. In the case of the M&S store, Pilbrow set out the case for demolition, highlighting the dated, confusing and even chaotic configuration of its structure, which he argues leaves demolition as the only viable option. 

Mark Tillett, Director at Heyne Tillett Steel, countered this argument by emphasising the need for judgment and context in decision-making. He stressed the importance of responsibility in evaluating cost, value, time, and carbon additions. Tillett also urged architects and developers to challenge their briefs, conduct thorough research, and explore creative solutions to ensure the best possible decision is made. He emphasised the necessity of really interrogating the structure and existing conditions of a building, especially when dealing with large-scale projects like the M&S store.

Jay Morton, Associate at Bell Phillips, proposed the idea of establishing a government task force to facilitate knowledge sharing and provide a reliable foundation for decision-making in such cases. 

The discussion then shifted to the impact of sustainability drivers, with Tyler Goodwin from Seaforth Land pointing out the increasing importance of sustainability considerations in the decision-making process for commercial developers. He argued that this shift should influence the choice between rebuilding and retrofitting, citing the changing attitudes of the new generation.

The debate highlighted a concern regarding decision-making driven primarily by metrics and data, rather than good design, leading to a "crisis of boringness.". There is a perception that refurbishment is complicated, expensive, and doesn’t give as much creative freedom as a new build. But the panel made their case against this well, and refurbishment and retrofitting were presented as viable, profitable alternatives that can revitalise spaces, reconnect communities with heritage, and benefit the environment.

Ultimately, the panellists agreed that decisions such as the M&S one should be made on a case-by-case basis. While retrofitting may be suitable for the M&S Oxford Street store when considered in isolation, the broader conversation necessitates openness to both retrofitting and rebuilding. Each option carries significant social, environmental, and economic impacts. The panel encouraged exploring multiple possibilities before reaching a decision.