By David Vickery 07/03/2023
The University of Sunderland is running a slick public relations campaign to rid itself of the prestigious National Glass Centre (NGC) at little cost. It may even make a good profit. It no longer wishes to have a large public exhibition space, café, shop, expensive glass furnaces and multi-purpose teaching facilities which attract hundreds of thousands of visitors a year. The University considers that the NGC no longerforms part of its key academic objectives.
The University’s strategic aims, as set out in its Annual Report and £250m Investment Plan(January & February 2023), is to concentrate on technology and health. It’s the white hot heat of technology and not the heat of outdated glass furnaces that it desires. And the University wants to ramp up its politically sexy Canary Wharf London campus, close to Government and the country’s financial centres. Perhaps it should now be called the University of London and Sunderland?
To justify its closure proposal, the University commissioned in early 2022 architectural, structural and cost reports (published in March 2023) which artificially inflated the cost of bringing the NGC up to modern standards. Instead of the report’s lower £14m estimate, the University has chosen to go with a much higher £45m estimate, partly by including the replacement cost of 25 year old mechanical and electrical plant which has already been written off over 5 years of depreciation.
Having inflated the cost, and before publicly announcing the imminent closure of the NGC in early January 2023, the University convinced Sunderland’s local MP, Julie Elliott, Sunderland Culture, and Sunderland City Council that the NGC’s retention was not economically feasible. And, no doubt, that keeping it could prejudice future University investment in its St Peter’s campus and elsewhere in the city. All have, in consequence, accepted the NGC’s closure in principle.
The University have made a small gesture by saying it might be possible to retain some glass “academic work” and exhibition display space elsewhere in central Sunderland (no glass furnaces). But at the same time it hedged the retention possibility by saying this would only happen “as far as it is practically possible and viable”. No-one knows where a reduced NGC could go. The proposed Culture House has been mentioned as a possibility, but it is relatively small and already has much of its recently reduced floor area pre-allocated for a library, café, local history collection and other cultural uses. It is unlikely glass teaching and exhibition space, let alone furnaces, could be fitted into the building on a sufficient scale to justify calling it a“National” glass centre.
Dotting the NGC’s present functions around the city would destroy its attractiveness as an institution and visitor attraction. The joy and unique selling point now of the NGC is that you can visit everything in one place – see an exhibition, watch glass being blown, have a meal or drink, and take a course.
What no-one has so far mentioned is what the University will do with the vacated NGC site, which is in a much sought after riverside position, just right for luxury residential development. And the University has not said whether any of the funds from the disposal or redevelopment of the NGC site will be returned to Sunderland people.
A number of important questions remain to be answered:
– Why has the University artificially inflated the cost of retaining the existing iconic and nationally regarded NGC building?
– How much money is the University prepared to “gift” towards the alternative NGC provision that is currently being sought?
– Why have the City’s representatives so quickly accepted the NGC’s closure withoutclosely examining the University’s cost figures and without having any confirmed alternative provision?
– What happens to the NGC site?
And, lastly, the most important question:
– Will Sunderland’s representatives agree to the plan by a financially driven University, keen on increasing its liquidity level and being net cash positive, to close down and divest itself of a cultural, artistic and architectural jewel which provides work, education and pleasure for many thousands of people, both locally and nationally?
At best, at the end of all this, what will be left will be just a small and inconsequential glass exhibition and teaching space, possibly scattered throughout the city. It would be a forlorn shadow of its present greatness.
At worst, an alternative site(s) for the NGC will not be found.
Whatever the result, the University will congratulate itself on having successfully removed an unwanted liability from its books whilst at the same time making a financial killingto add to its existing £51.5m cash reserves.
This is not the way for a renowned and rich“anchor” institution to treat Sunderland’s people, or its artistic community, or its proud history and heritage.
Game-changing £250 million investment for University of Sunderland | The University of Sunderland
National Glass Centre | The University of Sunderland
National Glass Centre – Julie Elliott MP (julie4sunderland.co.uk)
David Vickery
David Vickery is a retired senior town planning inspector, and previously also worked as a town planner.
Save the National Glass Centre 
Absolutely disgraceful to hear the reason behind the impending closure of the National Glass Centre. Also that our so called MP agrees knowing that Sunderland will lose its history of glass if this is to go ahead. Sunderland University should hold its head in shame as they are not only losing a visitor attraction, but closing an academic resource. I have no doubt that someone will profit from the sale of the site, which seems to happen a lot in Sunderland.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Architects & Contractors should be pursued for “Professional Negligence” for designing & building it to last just over 20 years? Surely such a prestigious building as NGC should have.a projected lifetime of at least 50 years? Poor design or poor build? Or both?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The NGC was specially sited close to where glass making in Sunderland and indeed in England started with the building of Monkwearmouth monastery, and in close proximity to St. Peter’s Church. It is part of our heritage and the University must not be allowed to close it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s more to life than academic success. Where would we be without art, artists and artisans? Who will honour the natural heritage of our homeland? We need to encourage all that begins as inspired idea and is transformed into reality through the skills and the hands of the artist /artisan.
SAVE AND CHERISH THE SUNDERLAND NATIONAL GLASS CENTRE!!!!!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is atrocious and despicable this should not be allowed to happen shame on all involved
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a city councillor 1979 -2008 I was involved and followed in the early development of the NGC though I advised against the local taxpayer getting financially involved long term. In the main the city council has stayed at arms length to this TWDC and University project. I fully concurr with the view its about the University wanting to rid themselves of liability for this ill conceived structure even tho I love it.Anyone associated with construction could see through the inflated repair cost claims.I predicted a long time ago the glass concept would fail and the building could come back to the people for a nominal £1 and be the site of a Maritime museum.The costs of the building was heavily supported by a ECC grant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another part of Sunderland heritage going .. I wonder who got the backhander for that .. disgusting we need this it brings visitors to Sunderland and is educational to our children
LikeLiked by 1 person
The important part of the Glass Centre was that it kept a vital historic link to the town’s internationally recognised history of glass making. This will soon be lost and our children will not know what an important city this was, and not just for ship building.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Could be opportunity to apply for Listed Status:
Click to access Revised_Principles_of_Selection_2018.pdf
EXTRACT:
9. Buildings less than 30 years old: such buildings are not normally considered to be of special
architectural or historic interest because they have yet to stand the test of time. It may
nevertheless be appropriate to list some modern buildings despite their relatively recent
construction – for example, if they demonstrate outstanding quality (generally interpreted as being
equivalent to Grade I or II*). The Secretary of State calculates the age of a building from the point
at which the ground was first broken.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you 🙏 I will look into this
LikeLike
is anyone bringing the Architects, Designers, and contractors to account for this obviously flawed construction? NO EXCUSES, Ignorance in this case is Negligence! Must be a legal obligation on the relevant authorities to ensure this building should last more than 20 years? (leaking issues developed several years ago) Original contracts need examining with a legal “fine toothcomb”. NO EXCUSES Sunderland City Council & University of Sunderland need to act to preserve this Heritage Structure!
LikeLiked by 1 person
At the moment we are just trying to get the council and uni to invite the community into these important talks about our future. Locals should be engaged and listened to. Thanks for your support. Keep an eye on the blog for updates.
LikeLike
Too much English Heritage is being overlooked or actively destroyed. We need to preserve the old crafts for future generations as living history and Sunderland University and Council Members, (public servants paid by us), MUST listen to, and abide by, the decisions of THE PEOPLE! THAT IS DEMOCRACY!!
LikeLiked by 1 person