The use of GRO in Edinburgh in doubt.

[Guy Etchells]

I tend to take a different view.

Surely the most important aspect is whether the building is suitable for today's (and future) use as an archive?
That is the overriding question. If the answer is yes then there is no reason to move. If the answer is no, and the building cannot be expanded, then a move is essential.

Only after that question has been answered fully should we look at future use of the building.
That is when questions need to be asked about the importance of both the external structure and the internal structure.
If the building is important both internally and externally then any future use must be sympathetic to that.
If either the internal structure or the external structure is important than the future use must be determined accordingly.

Many of the valued old buildings we have are valued today because of how they have developed over their lifetime, the exceptional few are valued because they have changed little in their lifetime and are still fulfilling the use they were designed for.

Register House was one of the first major government buildings to be constructed in Britain and the earliest purpose-built record repository in Britain.
As such there is no doubt about its importance to the history of Britain which is reflected in its listed building “A” status.

Cheers
Guy

[Ruskie]

It is a building of national importance,

Monica

I would like to take issue with this statement.
Make that INTERnational importance!!

I am not surprised that this beautiful historic building has been earmarked for a commercial enterprise - there is much money to be made by it's sale and its prime position is one reason among many.

It should be kept as it is, and it's current use retained, and if expansion is required, then the collection could be split and part of it moved to other premises.

The building would be ruined if it were to be adapted for any other purpose.

Are there any petitions to try to prevent this occurring?

[Forfarian]

Surely the most important aspect is whether the building is suitable for today's (and future) use as an archive?

No, I disagree with you. Quite strongly.

The most important thing is preserving convenient access for users. Putting the whole thing in a seedy peripheral industrial estate with a shortage of parking* and poor public transport* would be catastrophic. If people cannot easily get there, they won't go, and if they don't go the demand for the service will fall and that will provide the Powers That Be with a pretext for reducing it still further.

(*How are the staff going to get to work when the nearest bus stop is 10 minutes' walk away, and there's no parking?)

That could mean further reductions in opening times (or ultimately complete closure).

It could mean that archive material is dispersed or even destroyed. Remember djct in an earlier thread here telling us how (s)he was involved in the destruction of various records which no-one throught would be useful, but which would now have been extremely useful and much sought after?

There must be ways of economising that would still maintain city centre access to the material which is most in demand. I understand that it isn't possible to keep everything in the same place, but I don't think that moving lock, stock and barrel to Sighthill, let alone building a new Records centre somewhere out in the sticks, is the answer.

[hdw]

Other fine buildings in Edinburgh which have been turned to more commercial uses include the former General Post Office (GPO) at the foot of the Bridges, and of course numerous banks and other former financial institutions in George Street, which are now mostly pubs. I was getting hardened to it, but even I was taken aback when I read of plans to convert the former Charlotte Baptist Chapel at the west end of Rose Street into a mega-pub on several floors. As if the "amber mile" didn't have enough pubs as it is! Knowing the Baptist take on strong drink, I'm amazed at them possibly selling out to a pub chain. Unlike most Baptist chapels, it's a fine and striking building.

Harry

[Guy Etchells]

Surely the most important aspect is whether the building is suitable for today's (and future) use as an archive?

No, I disagree with you. Quite strongly.

The most important thing is preserving convenient access for users. Putting the whole thing in a seedy peripheral industrial estate with a shortage of parking* and poor public transport* would be catastrophic. If people cannot easily get there, they won't go, and if they don't go the demand for the service will fall and that will provide the Powers That Be with a pretext for reducing it still further.

(*How are the staff going to get to work when the nearest bus stop is 10 minutes' walk away, and there's no parking?)

That could mean further reductions in opening times (or ultimately complete closure).

It could mean that archive material is dispersed or even destroyed. Remember djct in an earlier thread here telling us how (s)he was involved in the destruction of various records which no-one throught would be useful, but which would now have been extremely useful and much sought after?

There must be ways of economising that would still maintain city centre access to the material which is most in demand. I understand that it isn't possible to keep everything in the same place, but I don't think that moving lock, stock and barrel to Sighthill, let alone building a new Records centre somewhere out in the sticks, is the answer.

There is no disagreement there.
I was addressing the use of the building as an archive or the use of the building if it was deemed unsuitable in the 21st century.

The location of a replacement building is a separate issue. One radical idea would be to build an underground archive under part of Queen street gardens, but I would assume the cost would be prohibitive.
Cheers
Guy

[tidybooks]

Hi All,

I have just noticed that a petition has been raised, I will add link to it, will all persons interesting in saving the GRO, please sign. Thanks.


http://www.rootschat.com/links/01erd/

Tom

[apanderson]

Obviously a very emotive subject.

Yes, it's a beautiful building, there's no argument there, but it is listed and any future plans for an alternative use would be very strictly supervised.

If it is no longer exactly 'fit for purpose', then it's that purpose which should be concerning everyone.

I may be selfish, and I don't apologise for being so, but I'd gladly visit an out of town location whether it's an industrial estate or not. I'm well used to visiting Stirling Archives which is slap bang in the middle of Springkerse Industrial Estate but has ample free parking either directly outside the building or on the roads beside it. It has numerous bus stops around it and is only about a 10 minute walk from the centre of the town.

Personally, I'm not that familiar with Edinburgh, but after having spoken with a few friends who both live and work there, the general opinion is that the proposed new location is extremely easy to get to.

Anne

[hdw]

It's years since I used to go there regularly, queuing on the steps outside until the place opened, but once we were ushered inside I remember that people who had come from afar, and had pre-booked, were attended to first, which was fair enough. They had come from all over the English-speaking world, especially north America. I imagine a lot of them would have been staying in hotels in or near the centre and Reg. House was within walking distance and easily found. Also, anyone coming into Edinburgh by train just had to climb up Waverley Steps and cross the road. So for accessibility the present site is hard to beat. You don't need to know your way around Edinburgh.

Having said that, I don't know how many people need to visit the place in person these days, with so many genealogical aids available on the internet.

Harry

[djct59]

As it's been mentioned again, may I perhaps clarify my earlier post?

In the pre-internet era when huge bags of sheriff court records arrived at the depot in Corstorphine, there was simply no facility to keep them, and digitising was many years in the future. The records were in a dreadful state, sometimes covered in pigeon guano, and we had to wear masks when reading them. The rule then was that everything that did not involve land ownership, boundaries and the like was to be destroyed unless it was felt to be of historical importance. Two students were the sole arbiters of this.

My colleagues (both became eminent QCs - I did it for two years) and saved far more for posterity than the rules dictated, but there were hundreds of undefended paternity cases that appeared then to be of no historical interest. Where a case was defended there was usually some useful information in the case papers as to the lives of rural farmworkers, and these were kept.

Unfortunately for those who are now tracing their family tree and might like to know if paternity was ever alleged  or determined in a court, it was simply impossible to justify keeping these paper records in an archive of boxes, and we hand to handwrite our own indexes (which were typed up months later without my knowledge so these records are also wildly inaccurate).

I now know and regret that there is no method of comparing court records to parish birth records, but I can fully understand the reason why the guidance we were given was in place over thirty years ago.