retail Standards say ‘no’

The former London College of Fashion building is being demolished -
not because it is unfit for modern retail,
but because it is unfit for a 𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 of retail.

Much of the public case for demolition is framed around a particular retail paradigm: assumptions about column-free efficiency, double-height space, and extensive glazing. The argument is standards-led, not conditions-led.

And these standards are doing a lot of heavy lifting here to justify demolition.

In our campaign, we interrogated this logic at its source by speaking directly to leading voices in fashion and retail: the very sectors these standards claim to represent.

Their response was consistent and unequivocal:
this is not what retail consumers are asking for.

Retail consumers are rejecting cookie-cutter white boxes. They are seeking authenticity, distinctiveness, sustainability, and places with an identifiable cultural equity - qualities the former LCF building already possesses.

Which begs the question:
If the market does not recognise these assumptions about itself, what are these standards for? And can they credibly function as proxies for market intelligence?

Because there is a clear gap between specification-led development logic, which prioritises abstract compliance and professional defensibility, and brand-led consumer reality, where recognition, culture, and identity determine whether places succeed.

And retail is not the exception. The same standards-led logic also underpins commercial workplace design under BCO specifications, as well as architecture as a whole.

When standards are taken as gospel, used to close the discussion rather than open it, design stops serving the market and starts serving the comfort zone of those making the decision.

And comfort is rarely where innovation or market performance comes from.