A Tale of Three City (Football Teams)

I got into an argument with a friend last night about the status of professional football teams in our home town of Cambridge. And whilst I can’t rightly remember why we were arguing (I think he was saying that Cambridge’s minor football clubs really weren’t that important in the grand scheme of things), I still thought there was enough of a stance to take in opposition that it would not only be worthy of debate then... but it would also justify an entry into my blog here, now… even though I still have many other outstanding topics I need to write about!

The Beautiful Game

So, I guess my proposal/desire here is for the city of Cambridge to have a singular, successful and sustainable professional football team (built around the core of the current Cambridge United (Utd.) set-up), and that its stadium (wherever that may be) is better integrated in terms of the city's planning needs/provision. I want this club to be a strong asset to the city, both in terms of (on-the-pitch) successes and the subsequent knock-on 'boost' to the local economy that having a successful, and high quality football-playing, team can bring.

But to do so then, I think the current situation regarding the local teams that people pay money to watch would need serious addressing.

It's all a bit wishful thinking maybe, but that's what my blog is all about after all!  

Background

Despite the strong influence the Cambridge Rules of 1848 had on the establishment of the modern rules of Association Football, Cambridge is not what you would call a "Footballing City". Whilst Cambridge Utd has had some moderate success over the past 20 years or so (including once getting to within a single victory of Premier League football), the overall history of professional team(s) playing the game in and around the place does not recall the same richness of cup successes or stretches of higher league membership when compared to some of the other equivalent-sized city teams in the immediate region*.

Indeed, Cambridge Utd itself did not even exist until 1951 when the ambitious Abbey United took on a more city-wide scope and re-named itself. At around the same time, Cambridge City Football Club, then Cambridge Town FC, had just beaten United into receiving the official, and inaugural City-status, title of City Football Club and, despite a preference for amateur status, was still arguably the bigger club of the two – at least in terms of prestige. Indeed, its then home (at the southern end of Milton Road) was in a more central ‘city’ position than Utd's, and attendances could even, on occasion, push the 10,000 mark.

However, Cambridge Utd then undertook a truly noteworthy run of success for such a young club, and quickly accelerated beyond City in terms of league results and the resulting status that that brings, making it to the giddy heights of the then 2^nd Division (now The Championship) at the end of the season of 1977-8. It has thus maintained the position of being Cambridge's 'biggest' club ever since.

At about the same time, Histon FC (bearing in mind they were effectively just a large village side) were slowly-but-surely cementing themselves as a reasonably solid semi-professional unit, and in 1966 joined the Eastern Counties League, where they would then play for the next twenty-five years, eventually securing a place in its Premier Division.  

Crossroads

So, skipping ahead in time a bit, on entering the ‘noughties’, these three closely-neighbouring sides - quite amazingly - found themselves within almost-touching distance of each other in the lower divisions of the English (semi) professional football leagues.

Cambridge Utd had suffered consecutively poor seasons and finances since the late 90's, and even found themselves losing Football League status in 2005. Stuck in The Conference National league (now ‘The National League’, at Tier 5), they had come right down the ladder and alongside that of an up-and-coming Histon, whilst Cambridge City had also recently solidified themselves in the Premier League of the Southern Football League, which was (then) only a single promotion away from Conference football. The chance of all three being in the same league at the same time (and for the first time ever) was very much on the cards!

It was such a bad time for Utd that they came very close - on more than one occasion - to closure. The decrepit ground was very expensive to upkeep, attendances were down, and conflict over future strategy and managing finances meant that relations between various Chairmen and Boards and the fans hit an all-time low.

Relocation, relocation, relocation

Cambridge Utd’s dire straits had put any thoughts of redeveloping their aging football stadium or moving to new premises on hold. Indeed, whilst some money had been found to start the redevelopment job just after the Millenium (resulting in a new all-seater South Stand in 2002 and an increased length of available pitch to accommodate further expansion/building, including a hotel, at the Newmarket Road End), the eventual 'emptying of the coffers' left them with a rather bizarre current (and still current!) situation of having higher quality and modern facilities available to away fans (in said South Stand) than those for their own loyal supporters (who are effectively stuck in old sheds away from the (also-rapidly-aging) Main Stand on the eastern side of the ground).

But the talk of a move was always there… and the city planners had often eyed-up the large area encompassing the pitch, stands and car parking off Newmarket Road as a potential space for new housing... regardless of the club's struggles to secure “new ground for a new ground” elsewhere.

And in 2011, it looked like some new ground was indeed finally available...

After another failed proposal, and subsequent short-lived interest, in relocating the club to the north of the city in Milton in 2006, more strongly-developed plans to incorporate a new stadium into the new Trumpington Meadows development to the south of the city were then mooted, and integrated within a wider, community-oriented, Cambridge Sporting Village that took on the role of providing the whole area with new sporting facilities and not just a football ground.

Indeed, for a little while, all looked quite rosy for incorporating the football club into this new suburban area, and many fans started to think-through the logistics of how to get to the new ground on match day (investing hope that a new railway station for the city could be built at Addenbrookes Hospital nearby).

However, strong opposition to the plans (including NIMBY responses from (relatively) nearby inhabitants as well as local councils) put an end to it all (at least in terms of Utd’s involvement in the Sporting Village project), and the club looked set to remain on Newmarket Road and return to the concept of redevelopment rather than re-location.

At least, with some stability returning to the club's of finances and a long-awaited promotion and return to the Football League in 2014-15, there was an easing of any latent fears that the club could go under again and that the ground would be sold off for housing regardless of the football club's needs.  

***

At around the same time as the shenanigans surrounding Utd’s hunt for a new ground, Cambridge City, now dwelling in Tier 7 of the professional leagues, had somehow (eventually) secured planning permission to move out of their old ground and move into a new stadium in the Green Belt to the south at Sawston.

This development (still work in progress), whilst perhaps not to the same scale of any new ground plan for Utd, is still not insignificant, and involves the construction of a sporting arena with a capacity for 3,000 fans (despite City games rarely pulling in more than 500 people nowadays).

What’s your argument, John?

Well, I guess the main cut and thrust of all this is that I can’t understand the City Council here – and the main driver behind me writing this blog entry is to ask an open question:

"Why allow Cambridge City to build a new ground in the Green Belt but not, seemingly, help Cambridge Utd - the bigger club - build one there as well?"

In a city where we have already established that there isn't really much of a big football following, there is, none-the-less, still a requirement to support (at City Council level) the needs of three separate football teams that have grounds in (relatively) close vicinity to each other, and have infrastructure (travelling fans, powerful lights and car parks, etc.), that all need complex management and planning support on (home) match days.

And all this whilst still struggling to find space for new housing, fight encroachment on an already buckling Green Belt (well, sometimes!) and strategise over ways to tackle the city’s desperate transport problems and future planning needs through the City Deal plan.

Loyal Fans

In other (legitimately strong) footballing cities in the UK, the idea (or at least proposals) of mergers or ground shares never seem to go down well. One side (or class) of a city nearly always has such distaste (or even hatred) of the other that the idea of coming together for the greater good is outweighed by a strong and everlasting core loyalty.

Life-long fans are very rarely happy with (new, singular) ground moves, let alone the idea of sharing facilities with local rivals... or being behind the creation of a new joint-team. For them, it is not always about the money or silverware at the expense of everything else, it is more about the prestige and history. So, whilst I don’t quite get it myself, I see that it is a ‘thing’ and I acknowledge it.

That said, Cambridge Utd does not need to look for a rival in Cambridge City or Histon. Indeed, when they sometimes meet in cup games (or formerly in a league) in more modern times, I would often hear of fans being split as to who to support, and many “hangers-on” and peripheral fans (away from the core supporters) would go along to these matches with no expressed interest in which side should win.

Cambridge Utd’s true “local” rivals are Peterborough Utd (see here!), and whilst the fans often sing of their hatred of Boro’ (aka 'The Posh'), they have not met them for a derby match for 15 years now as the northern Cambridgeshire club occupy a higher status, with a bigger ground and bigger following.

But it need not be so in my mind. Or at least, it could all have been so different!

Whilst my friend is right that few fans actually follow these other teams in and around Cambridge (and thus don’t make a dint into the core support of Cambridge Utd**), I would still say that all the associated advertising, “extra-curricular” ground hire revenue, and even trickled-thru pub chatter and local news, gets cluttered-up by the presence of so many average teams and their financial needs.

Semi-professional footballers still need to get paid. 'Small' grounds still need to be safe. And sponsorship still needs to be sought to make ends meet.

With a rather limited population of 120,000 or so, there are only so many businesses in Cambridge ready to hand over cash to poorly supported teams with minimal (or at least limited) media 'impact'.

History Repeating

The chances of Cambridge Utd hitting another poor run of form and dropping out of the Football League are certainly not fat. One would like to think that both the finances and the players are better managed than 10 years ago, and that the club should be able to at least stay mid-table in League Two, even if it can't quite yet reach a good enough consistency to get promoted out of it. But... it is a precarious position to be in, none-the-less. And not good for its financial backers. Utd ideally need to get into League One to make things a little more comfortable.

And whilst, perhaps, Histon's decent run of form from 2007 to 2011 is very likely to have been a one-off in its Annals, I would say that Cambridge Ciy's new stadium, when they eventually move in, could trigger the new stadium effect and result in an upsurge of performance and possible promotion or two...

And I would therefore argue that, in doing so, it could also very much result in Utd losing fans (and revenue) and increase the chances of them both meeting up in the same league for the first time not so far down the road.

Yes... all very hypothetical and a worst-case scenario for Utd fans... but stranger things have happened in football.

Fantasy football

I would like Cambridge to have just one professional team, and for teams like City and Histon (if they must survive) to take on the roles of feeder clubs. Cambridge Utd has a good youth academy system, so it could still all work well to the development of good players feeding the main team and getting decent experience playing in lower leagues first, whilst Utd itself starts a sustained push to go back up toward the higher end of the English Football League.

And, at the same time, having just the one “big ground” could mean the freeing-up of space for housing, and enable local planners to work out the movement of people more easily, and give Cambridge Utd (and the city as a whole) a modern home to be proud of.

Yes, new stadiums can be a bit soulless (my friend pointed out how dull Colchester Utd’s new ground is for example), but surely some semi-decent architect can challenge this issue, and move things beyond the provision of four square, albeit all-seated and weather-protected, flat-topped sheds? And anyway, who said the Abbey was an attractive ground and truly worth keeping?

And the 'look' externally? Trees! I've said it before, but if you cover any dull or ugly building with trees, you can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse! 

Anyway, all that said, I suppose, ideally, Cambridge Utd should stay at The Abbey… but both the needs of modern transport and the cramped nature of the site (limiting any expanded capacity to around 11 or 12,000 all-seated) has always put me off the idea and I still remain solidly in the #NewGroundCamp***, even though I am no longer a regular supporter and thus arguably shouldn't have a say in the matter!

Prawn sandwich, anyone?

Redevelopment does seem to be the flavour of the month yet again (see the CUFC website link again, and this one from the BBC showing a slightly different design)…  but I would say this is only really because the club have no other choices available to them.

And that’s a crying shame I say, but (t)here we go!

 ZeeOx

*Such as Norwich City or Ipswich Town…

** Truly, many Utd fans come from quite a good way away to watch home games at the Abbey.

*** I propose this hashtag! (Although I haven't checked to see any prior use.)

You have to choose!

(Proviso: this was written in haste and with passion... and thus without the diligence and due care of my normal post proofreading... let alone a scientific paper! I'll edit it up as I go along, but I promise to retain its primary 'essence' and honesty, for good or ill, at the core.)

I have been driven (as it were) with a desire (or rather, frustration) to post a quick blog entry elucidating my immediate thoughts with respect to the Westminster hearing that took place yesterday on Dr Mark Avery's (and 123,075 co-signers'!) petition to ban Driven Grouse Shooting (DGS) ...as well as a more recent counter-petition set up by the pro-shooting lobby.

Before I do though, I think it is only right to suggest that you watch the recording in full first and perhaps also consider analysing the additional supporting documents before you make any conclusions of your own. A conclusion that might decide whether I am making any valid points here... but, most importantly, should also define whether you believe there was a winning side in this first (shorter) half of the action... or not.

By the way, for a good while now I have wanted to write a nice, detailed, post on the case for banning DGS (which is not the same as walked-up shooting by the way), but of course, I won't be able to do any better than the 320 or so pages of Dr Avery's book, Inglorious, which I implore anyone interested in UK conservation and (future) countryside planning to read, regardless of initial viewpoints. I also don't want to waste space writing about it in full for this 'meeting reaction' blog post.

What I will point out, in the interests of clarity, is that, of course, in order for there to be debate, there has to be opposition. Therefore, the position on DGS made by the Countryside Alliance (CA), Moorland Association (MA), Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) and British Association for Shooting Conservation (BASC) is somewhat different from Dr Avery's, and we must also factor in that of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), who (currently) take a position, arguably, of somewhere in between.

As Dr Avery has so often put it himself: you have to choose!

So, what happened yesterday?

Trying to be as succinct as possible, what happened was that Dr Avery formally presented his petition and argument (being the main name behind the petition to ban DGS) to a "party neutral" panel of MPs alongside that of Jeff Knot of the RSPB, who's organisation did not support the petition, but certainly shares some of its core concerns, namely raptor persecution, habitat degradation and flood risk.

Whereas, in full opposition, Liam Stokes of the CA and Amanda Andersen of the MA, put their case for retaining the DGS industry and protecting grouse moors and grouse shooting.

And... that's it really. This was merely a preliminary set of Q&As to the full debate, so there was no cross examination or chances for come backs. Mark and Jeff went first and Liam and Amanda went second. And that was that.

No-score draw

So, my initial thoughts were that both sides did well. At least, in the eyes of those present on the panel. I think that Mark and Jeff put their cases well, but that their 'united front' approach may have confused those MPs present as to who wanted what, and whether there was consensus on the core issues*. It may have sounded good on paper, but I feel their honest and open approach was slightly undermined by a feeling that they weren't always singing from the same hymn sheet and thus were easier to divide and conquer by the panel's subsequent questions.

Jeff made it clear the RSPB (still) favours a licencing scheme as the next attempt to address the outstanding issues, and whilst Mark admitted it would be good to have, as would having a vicarious liability law in England, it would ultimately fail because the DGS industry cannot be trusted to comply. (Don't quote me that those were his words verbatim by the way, as they were not.)

Liam and Amanda, on the other hand, seemed more content with deferring to each other's 'expertise' and using a joint-argument that banning 'their' industry would result in the loss of jobs and 'biodiversity' on Britain's upland communities. And neither wanted any changes in existing laws either. In other words, their hymn sheet was pretty much the same... almost word-for-word.

Frustration...

So, again, I won't dip too much into what was said across the two hours or so as you can all review it for yourselves. I will admit that some of Amanda's words riled me into firing off (as it were) a few angry real-time tweets as I watched, but I did try and stay calm and objective overall none-the-less.

What I will say is that I thought the MPs' panel exposed a clear bias of, admittedly openly declared, existing interests, and that the questions were all pretty standardised and without a consideration for joined-up thinking or strategy. But then again, perhaps that is all MPs are allowed to do...or capable of... or simply want to do.

Yes, I think Angela Smith asked the best questions, and yes, no doubt the pro-shooting lobby thought Simon Hart and Chris Davies picked the necessary holes in the various arguments and reasons put forward for banning DGS... but what I would have really liked to see was some passion from some (inner) city MPs, asking questions without the aforementioned interests... just to see what they would ask and how they would react. But maybe we yet will...

Joined-up thinking

The presentation by Mark and Jeff, if one could argue at all that it got clogged up, was a little stalled by the claims of 'Science'. Whilst the evidence is there that flooding, just for example, is exacerbated by DGS land management (and it was highlighted), there was just as much chatter (and agreement) around it about where scientists and their reports oft contradict each other... and whether more work was needed to highlight what is going on on a wider scale. Considering the rather linear (as opposed to holistic) thinking of the average MP, that kind of talk and peripheral uncertainty didn't help I think.

After all, there is good science and bad science.... and I find opinion pieces like this, pardoning the pun, just muddy the waters.

I think it would have been nice, for example, for a short, even prepared, summary to be allowed to be read out at the end of each presentation. But perhaps that can happen for the longer, Round No. 2?

But what I thought didn't come out well at all was a consideration about how this all ties in with a Post-Brexit Future Britain, and what will happen when the CAP ends, and how UK taxpayers will react to the general needs of farming across the UK... in the short term, mid-term and long term.

Amanda Andersen tried to paint a picture of how upland communities are fragile and that losing DGS will mean an end to traditions and the qualified people who help maintain the land, and Liam Stokes seemed obsessed with asking what the true alternatives there were to replacing what 'good' DGS currently provides.**

And, in all honesty, I think these are good points to make, and they were well made.

But I would also counter by saying that they are easy points to make. 

And what I would also like to add is that we have to start thinking about the bigger picture one day. Farming as a whole only employs about 2% or so of the nation's workforce, and DGS is hardly a speck on that statistic, no matter how wide you cast the net of influence. So, with respect to just aiming at banning DGS initially, we mustn't mix up the needs - and problems - of, say, upland sheep farming, or start plucking the heartstrings by suggesting communities would be broken by losing DGS... if, as by the CA's own admission (when it suits them), these communities are already broken. You can't have it both ways, surely?

But it does make sense to me to at least have a quick, and FAR wider, look at the picture (and possible future) beyond DGS, and to, just out of interest, consider what getting rid of all UK bloodsports AND even the meat-for-food industry as a whole, could actually result in. Getting rid of the sheep industry... and cattle farming... and so on as we approach a future where we can no longer rely on meat to provide for our growing populations seems inevitable in my mind. None of the aforementioned parties are looking at this right now... and why would they: it doesn't affect what they currently stand for. The MA wants to protect heather-dominant moorland, the CA wants to protect current and historic 'country' interests (not undermine them), and Mark wants to focus on ridding the country of a specific form of hunting in order to give the #BanGS3 campaign focus. Talking about banning the meat industry in the context of the proposal to ban DGS would be debate suicide. Only the Green Party seems to have the (meat-free) guts to hint at such issues in their policy portfolios; the rest of us seem to have our heads stuck in the bog.

In a way then, it's just the RSPB who are knocking on this door out of the main protagonists highlighted at the beginning of this post. Whilst they want to give 'Nature a Voice', they are actively looking into how to do this without undermining our farming and food production needs.

Am I going too far talking about a meat-free future? For this post... perhaps, it's way off-track from the task at hand. And it's not as if Dr Avery is not blogging about it. But what I would say is that you should try replacing DGS with fox hunting... or badger baiting in this debate, and then ask yourself the same questions about whether you (would then) want to ban it. Would you ban badger baiting if it still employed lots of people and maintained well-established traditions and a unique type of land management?

Pro-shooters would no doubt immediately argue that badger baiting, or even fox hunting, are not the same thing here as grouse are eaten... and looking after the wild Red Grouse habitat is necessary because it is a meat (food) industry. Well, perhaps... but I ask you, without bias, how many of you ever see grouse in your local shops, let alone then buy it and eat it? It is not a (food) industry that, if lost, would affect many people. As a sport and country pursuit? Maybe... so let's just admit that!

In my eyes, the 75% or so of the World's Upland Heather Moorland that we have in the UK (that the CA and MA continually love to highlight) is too much, Yes, it is a lovely-looking landscape and of value to (some) eyes and (some... not much) wildlife, but I say we could do with getting rid of a good deal of it.

Simply put, I believe we need more native forestry in this country. And I think our uplands - including sheep pasture AND heather moorland are good places to put it, rather in our lowlands, where farming of a more practical nature takes place. To summarise (simply, in a rather Leadsom-like fashion), let's use the flat lands for crops, and the sloped lands for trees!

Getting rid of DGS will help birds of prey, mountain hares, reptiles, water quality, the climate... and will also put a well overdue debate over land ownership on the agenda, but it WILL undoubtedly also get rid of (some) jobs. And Governments don't like getting rid of jobs as a general rule... but it's not as if they haven't done this kind of thing before.

A small ray of light in all the uncertainty is that, unlike in abandoned coal mines, the 'new', DGS-free UK uplands will surely present some new, eco-oriented, employment opportunities if the Government plans ahead and applies strategy.

And there we have it then... as I said... if the Government plans ahead and strategises.

I don't think they ever will... even though, in a way, Brexit (for good or ill) provides an opportunity. The rule book has been torn up after all... so let's start again and prove all those Remainers (like me) wrong!

Back to the meeting please, John!

Yes, sorry... I guess what I am drifting about trying to say is: for all that a Westminster debate brings, talk is cheap. Hen Harriers need help now for example... and, with the greatest respect to intelligent and well spoken people like Jeff Knott, and even Liam Stokes, they are young and perhaps don't yet feel the long-term frustration that someone like Dr Avery must feel.

They see solutions to be found in discourse and compromise; but I don't... at least, not in this case. If anything, it's the failure of already decades-long talk and debate that makes me lean to a total ban... and whilst the call to ban DGS has triggered all sorts of other interesting (and arguably more important) things to debate beyond just the fate of some, albeit rather special and beautiful, birds of prey, let's not forget: wildlife crime triggered all this in the first place... and the wildlife crime will go on if we stick with the status quo.

Must Hen Harriers go extinct in England first before we then acknowledge the fault(s) and resort to considering re-introduction? Why must we always accidentally tread in the smelly stuff first before deciding our shoes were overdue a good clean anyway? (And all the other fun analogies!)

What next then?

Well, the full debate takes place at 4.30pm on October the 31st. Let's perhaps ignore all what I've written above and reserve full judgement until the main course is served.

I will no doubt post a reaction on here to that too, so watch this space! Or... let's watch it together first. I promise not to talk over the action and say the film isn't as good as the book!

ZeeOx

* Which there no doubt is by the way!
** I'm guessing he was very much of the 'few bad apples' brigade.

P.S. I'll tidy this all up later and add some meta tags... I've got a working day to put up with first!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/07/mps-to-debate-ban-on-grouse-shooting

Cambridge's Success - A Blessing or a Curse?

I came into work early this morning in order to crack on with some outstanding work... but now feel I need to get this quick rant/post off my chest first before I do!

Basically then, it's to do with the (Greater) Cambridge City Deal. I heard this morning that some form of protest is taking place later today in opposition to Council plans to shut down various city roads at different times to help address the traffic problem.

Now, the reason I want to rant is not because I disagree - or agree - with these protesters. It seems quite illogical to me that if you want to help protect trade in our dying town and city centres, the first thing you do is make it difficult for workers to get to work, goods deliverers to deliver and shoppers to shop. That said, a successful, and ever-growing, place like Cambridge needs to try and do something about its already serious transport problems otherwise things will get (far) worse. (And that, indeed, is what the City Deal purports to do.)

So, where is the rant?

Well, it just got me thinking about Europe. Yes, looking across to the continent for potential solutions to our problems doesn't seem to be very popular right now it's true, but I was thinking about both what radical plans some cities there employ to address the similar problems Cambridge has, and also, what cultural differences exist alongside them that help enable those solutions to be genuinely successful.

And I'm thinking about Belgium. Yes, that small, divided, country with two languages (three actually), an EU Parliament, and an alleged obsession with chocolate, lace, chips and (really, let's be honest, the best) beer.

When some small towns over there start to develop similar traffic issues that Cambridge is experiencing, I believe they have two distinct advantages.

1. They (tend to) have powerful, decision-making, local mayors.
2. They have a different approach to when to do business.

Regarding the first point, this is something we are slowly beginning to understand and take on board in the UK. The powers of The Mayor of London (the real one that is, rather than the one that wears a silly hat) are now seen as helpful and aiding decentralisation of Government, so proposals are popping up everywhere for other similar roles to be made for other large UK cities... and, indeed, wider areas. Will the, rather bizarre, plan for a directly elected Mayor of East Anglia be successful? Who knows. Either way, it doesn't appear that powerful roles for administering smaller cities (on their own) seems to be on the agenda yet.

And regarding the second point, this is where I feel there is an issue then, and a need to rant...

To address this then, I want to ask a couple of questions first.

Why does Cambridge have a traffic issue? 

Well, because it is ever-successful, but at the same time constrained by geography and history. You can't knock down its old buildings to widen roads! (Well, you can... but there are limits!)

Where are commuters heading? 

Cambridge has thousands of people heading into - or through - the town every morning in order to get to their place of work. Commuters heading to the train and bus stations in order to go beyond the city, students wanting to get to class, lecturers wanting to beat them there in order to teach them, scientists, researchers, regular business workers and so on. And, of course, this is the pretty much the same thing that happens in every town, wherever you go...

But it also has shop workers trying to get into work to set up shop (of course) and deal with the goods deliveries that (need to) take place ahead of opening time. Again, the same as in other UK cities... but not necessarily Belgium.

Shopaholics

In the UK, we are used to Sunday being a rest day, and down-town shops usually opening between the hours of 9am and 5pm every week day and Saturday. But in Belgium (and many other European countries), you sometimes find shops closing on a Monday or Tuesday, and not Sunday (despite an arguably more influential Church). You also find shops open well into the evening on most days, but not necessarily during the morning.

Why? Well there are different local laws in different cities (see Point 1!), but generally speaking it's because there is an acknowledgement that having everyone (try and) do the same thing at the same time not only creates traffic congestion, but it also also prevents good, strategic, business from taking place. As I see it, shops that can afford to be closed at 10 am in the morning clearly have a decent financial strategy... or at least, a balanced one.

Long story short, I believe we need to tackle the current mindset we have in the UK... or Cambridge at least. Shops should be allowed to open before 9am... and/or after 5pm. In Cambridge, we do have late closing on Wednesdays now, and that's good, but that just makes the working week longer. Those shops closing at 7pm, etc. should also be opening at 11am in order to give their workers the same working conditions that other office workers have. Also, having your workers work longer means the pressure is on to make a greater profit in order to then pay them (and address the other overheads). It needn't be that way... (shock-horror!) making extra profit isn't everything*.

Different frogs, Different times

So, if we have office workers going to their office for 9, but shop workers going to their shops for 11, we stagger the impact of the daily commute and resulting traffic on our city's transport infrastructure. Do you really need to widen roads that remain empty half the day?

Also, imagine finishing work on a weekday at 5 and being able to then do some clothes shopping in town before you head home! No need to bunch everything together for one mammoth shopping operation on the Saturday... when everyone else is thinking - and trying to do - the same thing.

Walk, bike, bus, car, train...

For me, very little that takes place in Cambridge over the next few years to help address its transport problems will have the genuine impact that helps all. Doing something will have a positive impact somewhere for sure, and it may even help a certain section of the community or a set of businesses... but what it will also likely do is upset others at the same time, or prevent some other option from doing better.

Today's planned march seems to illustrate that point well.

But I am also thinking of the Busway as I type this, too. I won't go into detail here, but the fact the Busway is now well used (and perhaps even admired by some) doesn't mean we should then forget about what could have been...

And now we hear of plans for a new Busway for Cambridge! One that takes out countryside this time (rather than a pre-existing railway track), and all for trying to, admirable though it is, remove the car from the transport equation.

Anyway, whilst my desire for there to be an orbital underground railway with spurs linking existing out-of-town Park and Ride sites in Cambridge seems fanciful and extortionate, it is worth noting that all the other transport "solutions" still cost a lot of money**... and a lot of that money ends up in feasibility studies and legal disputes rather than in actual construction.

Right, rant over: I wanted this to be short. Back to work!

Cheers,
ZeeOx

*You may disagree... but I am not trying to be a Communist here! Radical growth and profit that cannot be sustained usually results in failure, long term. That is boom and bust economics in a nutshell.

**Money in terms of budget... and money in terms of lost revenue to those businesses negatively impacted by the new operations.

Logan runs, and so do dogs. (A Logan’s Meadow update)

I am looking south-west across a grassy flood plain towards the tall ash trees in the distance. It is mid-June and everything is taking on a verdant hue. The noises that surround me in this close, and already somewhat damp, early evening air are dominated by constantly-babbling (and oft-amplified) rowing boat cockswains (and the loudhailing coaches that follow alongside on bicycles), but the bridge I am standing on, despite its young age, also sways, creaks and groans to the pressure put on it by the numerous cyclists and joggers that use it on a daily basis. Indeed, it is so noisy and wobbly that to a reasonably hefty person like myself, it makes one react as if it were some sort of World War II temporary munitions Bailey bridge. Secure enough, but by no means re-assuring under foot!

But there is also another sound that can be heard: the swifts are finally back in the vicinity and taking an interest in the swift tower again, complete with new, starling-proof caps on the 100 or so entrance holes (http://lnr.cambridge.gov.uk/keep-eye-swift-tower/).

Alongside it, the new extension to the Logan’s Meadow LNR seems to be blooming, with ever-growing reeds with their roots in water, and already-tall, meadow grasses on the drier ground alongside. So, all is good, right?

Well, not quite.

I’ve been keeping a regular eye on this place as late Spring has slowly progressed into early Summer. It is at about halfway along my preferred route for the daily walk home from work and a perfect place to stop and take a breather if you've been walking hard. This preference is much swayed not by the general views, but more by the specific presence of a ditch that provides some of the best close views of water voles you could ever hope for... I cannot help but to keep coming back to see how they are doing!

...But all is not well.

Whilst I sometimes question if my almost concrete-set view (of the place) is sensible, or indeed even partially correct, all I ever conclude after deep thought is that the points I made in my blog entry of June 2015 still hold. And then I, again, lament that this place could be so much better!

What is wrong?

I don’t need to go into that here (please read this instead), but I do feel the need to update you so I can start some kind of timeline with respect to looking at this place more regularly from now on. Despite my untrained eyes, I intend to blog again (and again) about his place, and tell you what I see. Who knows, maybe the Council will one-day up their game and do something more radical and fully wildlife-oriented!

What do you see, John?

I see dogs. Lots of dogs.

And, even though we are entering the summer season, I see empty football pitches. I so very rarely see the football pitches being used – for either football or other sport. And no surprises why perhaps… the soil was nigh-on saturated during the, admittedly unseasonably wet, Spring and early Summer and, in places, the grass was too long and unmaintained. Don't forget: this is a flood plain, and whilst many town park football pitches are hardly Wembley-like in quality, it doesn't help when there's seemingly no groundsman (or woman) regularly at work helping to at least keep the grass height down. Again I ponder, why would you play football here when you can go just around the corner to the semi-decent pitch at St. Andrew’s Wreck?

I do see the new sports outdoor gym-style equipment being used though. At least, in the last few weeks when the temperatures (or, more likely, available sunlight) have been condusive for evening fitness activity. It is only a small paved 'nooky' corner of the overall space, but I concede: it seems to be well used so far. 

I also see rubbish. Not so much out of water, but enough to distract me. Indeed, AND ONCE MORE, one of the most conspicuous pieces of litter is the black plastic of a dog poo bag. Sometimes, brazenly left at the side of a hedge or tree, but often just in the water, half floating like some soiled mini-black iceberg… presumably thrown there so it then can’t be easily seen. Out of sight, out of mind, eh?

Okay, okay... tell me some new things!

So, an admission: I don't really understand the nuances of crop rotation on flower meadows, but I must say, when I was looking at the slow growth of the plants in the “E: Marginal meadow planting” area in early Spring, I was worried. The soil looked almost bare, and I wondered if mowing the space before Winter's end had had any genuinely positive purpose for resident wildlife. Remember, this section effectively comprises the majority of the fully dedicated-for-nature 2014 "Phase 2" extension of Logan's Meadow reserve... but at that point, the football pitches themselves actually contained (or rather, retained) more wildlife.

But, conversely, when things finally kicked off and the plants grew and the flowers bloomed, it was all really quite pleasant and, again, forced me to engage in said 'deep thought' and question my convictions.

Fast forward to August.

Visually, not much has changed. The football pitches are much the same, albeit a lot drier at long last, and the view west from the bridge shows even taller grasses on the borders, and reasonably mature green reeds interspersed by subtly violet-flowered willow-herbs along the cut-off channel. There is more colour, and less green, but it certainly does look different when the sun's out!

The football pitches. Welcoming enough on a warm evening... but empty.

Decent colours and native perennials. I wonder if there are any rodents in there?

But on the eastern side of the bridge (where the water voles usually are), things are quite different...

Whilst the open space there is for the communal use of the adjoining private residences (and therefore not technically within the bounds of the Council LNR), the site is publicly accessible, and flood plain/field is now like a jungle! And, at the same time, the ditch there has dried out. Again!

I can't quite work this 'drying' out as it is in an older and more established water course than the permanently-wet Logan's cut-off channel... but I guess the simple fact is that there is (a) too much plant material clogging things up at the river-feeding ends (that even the water voles, which consume approximately 80% of their body weight every day, can't get through) and/or (b) the ditch's bottom is just that little bit higher than the (presumably quite low) average Summer depth of the adjoining (and heavily controlled) River Cam. If the rain cannot keep it filled in Summer, the river certainly cannot either. In its middle section, it is never more than 20cms or so deep anyway.

Dried-up ditch (August 12th, 2016). Two dumped bikes just off camera!

So... for the second year running, no more voles will likely be seen as Summer turns into Autumn. Whilst I can confirm breeding took place in there this year, my guess is that this (still man-made) stream/ditch/channel (sorry, I know I am not being consistent!) is more ephemeral in nature and will simply never remain wet all-year-round. It just goes to prove how dry Cambridge is I guess. We had a lot of a rain this summer, but it wasn't enough to stall the same drying-out process by more than a few weeks.

Juvenile Water Vole, June 26th, 2016

Where are you going with this, John?

Well... the grassy field that is not in the LNR has an amazing structure of wild plants. Plants you do find in the LNR's verges, but on a larger, untidier scale! Tall nettles, (land-rooted) reeds, meadowsweets, bramble, thistles. It's great!

To date, I don't know when it is going to be cut, but I hope it is not soon as I have found something there this year that I was only ever half-hoping I would... and that is: a Wasp Spider colony! 

Wasp spider (Argiope bruennichi), Cambridge, August 12th, 2016.

Why is this significant? 

Other than being (arguably!) very pretty and still quite hard to find in the UK, these spiders aren't protected, but... they are a great indicator species: and that means, quite simply, we have good habitat here! And with good habitat, other interesting species abound. For example, after a quick survey with a friend where we found 8 Wasp spiders in total, we also found other species of meadow and grass-loving spiders, plus numerous grasshopper and cricket species that they would (then) feed on, including the once-hard-to-find Roesel's Bush-cricket. 

A quick summary

So, I see the water voles just off-site. And now I see the wasp spiders just off-site, too. And whilst the older part of Logan's Meadow still returns some exciting sightings from time-to-time (I found a great cluster of Common Newts the very same day that both a Kingfisher flew right over my head and fledgling Sparrowhawks called for food in the tree above for example), I still see standards slipping in the extended part next door.

Yes, these kinds of projects can take time to come good. And yes, there is still some enjoyment to be had from in the extended part. 

But... I believe you can fast-track a place into success if you put both hard work in and go full-in with your hand on the rules and aim big! For example, I would ban dogs from Logan's Meadow tomorrow if I had a chance! Or at least restrict them to being on leads.

I know dogs are walked on both sides of the bridge, regularly disturbing the water voles especially... but it seems to me that Logan's Meadow is the preferred target location for the dog walkers, rather than elsewhere.

Dogs ruin the Phase 2 cut-off channel's water clarity by swimming and paddling through it at all times during a regular day... and, along with bored teenagers and even the homeless, they upset what other wildlife might want to settle in the wilder parts simply by continual (off-lead) disturbance. Reduced dog impact would show results pretty quickly I think. And even if not, there'd be no little black bags of poo cluttering up the place...

But, don't get me wrong, dogs aren't to blame here really... owners are. And if people can't give an urban nature reserve enough respect (either through ignorance or design), then I don't think the wildlife will either. 

Good luck enticing (the now on the increase) otter to come back to the old 'hidden' holt there for example!

Anyway, that's all for now then. I'll try and add some more photos to this asap to pad it out a bit further! 

Cheers,

ZeeOx

***

Talking of the Phase 2 extension, I can’t find a recognition of the enlarged LNR space on the Cambridge City Council's dedicated LNR website. After a website update, it just shows the old LNR map, pre-extension:   

http://lnr.cambridge.gov.uk/nature_reserve/logans-meadow/ (Info Panel PDF is out of date: http://lnr.cambridge.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/LogansMeadow-LNR-Panel.pdf )

Compared to:-

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/logans-meadow-local-nature-reserve

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Logans-meadow-project-poster.pdf

'Piloti' Part III - The Bad AND Ugly (with a cameo by the Good)

Despite my previous post saying there are few brownfield sites in Cambridge offering large-scale development opportunity, there are still many significant (extensive) areas currently being developed in and around the city.

Indeed, Cambridge has arguably just entered a time with the most building activity since Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries and recycled some of the stonework to help build new University colleges.

How? Well, because the Green Belt* has finally been broken into and the city has been allowed to expand onto surrounding farmland. Somehow, City Planners managed to get around the old Local Plan and have allowed thousands of new homes to be built both inside and beyond the old city limits.

Why? Because, according to the Government, the UK needs hundreds of thousands of new homes... and quickly!

***

The first area to take note of, therefore, is the work taking place in the environs of the world famous Addenbrooke's Hospital in the south. AKA: "The Cambridge Southern Fringe" development. This work, once finished, should culminate in nearly 4,500 new homes.

The second is to the north-west of the city, aka: "The Cambridge Northern Fringe" (original!). Again, land that was long part of the Green Belt has been sacrificed for nearly 6,000 planned homes.

The third is to the east of the city, aka: "Cambridge East" (1,700 homes).**

The fourth is Orchard Park, an area in between the city's northern A14 bypass and the original city limits on King's Hedges Road. Unlike it's siblings, it is now nearly complete, and already has many inhabitants living there, plus a school, a community centre and a hotel. It was, to me, the first clear sign of the impending attack on the Cambridge Green Belt.

Because I want to move on in this post, unfortunately, I am not going to discuss these places now, either as a whole, or in the minutiae. I am not even going to discuss the merits of keeping, or removing, this protected area (effectively since 1992) either. I simply list them for interest as we must crack on. With an estimated 30 to 40,000 homes needed to be built in the area in total, I will no doubt return to them for another post on another day!

The final one (and therefore main focus for this blog entry) is the CB1 development.

Unlike the above, this development is not on ex-arable land once set-aside as a buffer for natural city expansion. CB1 is indeed a pure brownfield site, set in and around the city's (currently only) mainline railway station.

(The fun, cartoony, overall plan on the advertising hoardings. ...note the blue roads!)

So, is CB1 actually okay? And is it too early to dismiss those fringe developments as ugly***?

Well, to answer these questions I think we need to first step back a touch and think about Cambridge's unique position in the country...

Cambridge is a place people want to visit and, indeed, live in. It has a world-leading University, with world-leading research and associated businesses. It is also rather beautiful in places, with historic buildings and attractive open spaces.

The beauty fuels the reputation, and the reputation maintains the beauty... at least, in theory!

Regardless of where you are, when building massive, out of proportion buildings or developments, you have to think about what negative affects they may bring to the arena. The positives are clear; new places to live and work, and new, efficient facilities, but anything new might undermine what brings people to a place like Cambridge in the first place; either to visit for a day, or for a holiday, or for a degree... or for life.

This means, I believe, that you cannot just build dull, faceless architecture in a city renowned for beautiful buildings. You have to up your game in Cambridge. Whilst I might prefer those designs that compliment the past (because, simply, it's harder to go wrong), I guess you could find a home for new radical architecture, at least in the pavilion-style sense. But what is actually happening is that the new buildings going up are neither 'old' or 'innovative'.

Look at this building for example: the 'Microsoft Research HQ'.

Yes, it is modern. And it is no doubt a very nice place to work in: light, fresh and airy!

But does it speak: "Cambridge"? Or even: "Special"?

I would argue that this building is an all-round disappointment! What is radical about it that justifies its place better than, say, a building employing, say, a more classical design?

This is generic 'downtown' architecture and, being opposite the main railway station, one of the first buildings you see on entering the city by train. Welcome to Cambridge!

(Read Bill Bryson's 'Notes from a Small Island' if you want to ponder further on the old 'sense of place' chestnut.)

The Microsoft Research HQ will eventually be obscured by 'One Station Square' (going up in the foreground of the above shot)... but apparently this has "been designed as a modern interpretation of classic design proportions to compliment the Grade-2 listed train station façade." (sic). As it's not ready yet, I will leave it up to you to decide whether it might be worthy of such a claim judging by the artist's impressions... (coughs)

Talking of the railway station, I believe the rest of the CB1 development is shaping up to be of the same, dull affair. In places it looks alright I guess, but at the edges especially, where it has to overlap with older buildings, this dullness is accentuated as buildings have to sit side-by-side with older, and arguably better, buildings.

Look how the recently finished apartments to the (back) left have no continuity with the existing station buildings beside it. N.B. The building on the right in the foreground pre-dates CB1 and is also pretty awful in my opinion... but at least it presents a beveled arcade of window arches that (I suppose) are an attempt to compliment the station's.

I could go on then. But I won't! You're either going to be with me by now or: completely... lost!

What about materials?

There is a cosmetic building material that seems to be well-loved by both architect and developer alike right now, and that is natural (aka: untreated) wood. It is everywhere!

I have no doubt it will feature heavily in CB1, so let's look at an example on another (finished) development not too far away in the city centre...

Not too bad a view I suppose (although I would argue that the vista's 'greenery' has little wildlife merit (the tree in the foreground is pre-existing))... but just look at the wood. It has only been in place for less than a year and it is already rotting away!

I suppose there is a thought that people like to see exposed wood in design as it has connotations of nature (and thus, beauty). But let's not forget that, just like the employment of flat roofs, combining untreated wood with water is not very sensible! Would you want your home's windows surrounded by, ever-increasingly, damp wood?

I wish these people had my love of pitched roofs as they do untreated wood!

***

So, where are we going with all these wavering paragraphs and random thoughts about development design, advertising and execution?

The (overall) point I guess I am trying to make is that, whilst I am happy that Cambridge is addressing its need for new housing (and it is good, to an extent, that things are happening fast and progress is being made with regards to getting things built), things are happening without genuine thought to the future, and without any respect to what makes Cambridge a great place to be in.

No one wants pontification and debate to prevent things from actually happening on the ground, so you could say that less red tape and delay results in action. But rash action is potentially disastrous when you are talking about developments using a finite space. The planning shouldn't be about what you can't do, it should be about what you need to do.

Cambridge is still a small place. Despite the peripheral developments, there are few (and fewer) opportunities inside the city to get things right. And what has already happened all seems a bit dry and without excitement, despite the endless sexy adverts, hoardings, artist's impressions and photo mock-ups. If only modern Cambridge could live up to what you see written on the glossy hoardings!

And that's a shame considering the role Cambridge plays in the minds of many... the many who know Cambridge well, and the many who have never been there. Those who know it well see standards slipping (and that's not just me). And those that arrive in the city for the first time cannot fathom why certain, generic, buildings were allowed to be built.

Rather than just stumbling by, shouldn't Cambridge be showing the nation, nay the world, how it's to be done right?

Where is 'The Good' in all this, then?

There is a chance for salvation, or rather, redemption.

Whilst we cannot (arguably) knock down these new buildings and start again, we can perhaps improve them. And I deem The Good here as being an old softie who can help!

For I am calling The Good in this blog entry: vegetation. And by that I mean: plants, trees, flowers, and grass... all that, in planning terms, softens the hard landscape around it.

By softening the landscape around buildings, or indeed, by adding plants to the very buildings themselves, you can cure a lot of ills.

Sometimes new (and relatively old) buildings have been saved by the addition of new plants and trees that have grown up to compliment, or even hide, them. And sometimes, existing mature trees and greenery can be integrated into the development from the off.

The former can be quite expensive, and (depressingly) takes time to come fully into effect, and looking after greenery during building work can be very difficult too... but it is proven that such integration and effort helps add value to a place - both financially for the developers and subsequent owners, and also for those simply in the vicinity.

There are a good deal of examples of this, but not too many in Cambridge unfortunately. Trees (and their roots) can take up a lot of space, and can even undermine the foundations of the very buildings they adjoin.

An alternative, and very trendy, option is to employ green walls. These walls can, at the least, enhance the look of a dull building's façade. But at their best they can also improve air quality, wildlife... and even produce food for consumption. And they do all this whilst not even taking up any space on the ground!

That said, I will close this entry by showing you a photograph of a simple roadside path that I know of in the Cambridge suburbs. The houses there are insignificant, small, and terraced, but the road is secluded and attractive because many of its verges have been planted up with herbaceous borders. Simple, cheap and effective.

There are also mature trees along the road, which, apart from producing shade and damp, really boost the scene too. It looks best in summer of course, but even in winter it adds a little, and is far better than muddy grass or hard concrete. Imagine if all residential suburban paths looked like this?

What do you think?


 ZeeOx.


* Cambridgeshire CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) chairman Michael Monk said: "In recent years substantial areas on the edge of Cambridge city have been taken out of the original green belt to allow major developments to take place - to the north, north-west, east and south" (sic).

** There are other large sites far beyond Cambridge too, including long-planned-for developments that are so large they are effectively new towns. Maybe I'll write about those another day!

*** I am aware this post doesn't show any photographs of them, sorry!

'Piloti' Part II - Cambridge's recent 'Nouveau' Architecture

So, before this second part gets added to the ever-lengthening list of unwritten, and 'planned' blog posts, here is the quick (as possible) follow-on to my earlier commentary on the poor presentation regarding some of the new building developments in Cambridge.

***

You could argue that there are three different approaches to the employment of architectural 'styles' in modern building work...

1. is copying from the past, either by the poaching of mixed, vernacular styles or by using more precise period forms.

2. is employing modern styles, and by that I mean all the accepted (or new!) forms... modern, post modern, brutalist or whatever.

3. is by creating compromise forms, which are often attempts to merge between the (potentially various) styles encountered in a development's surroundings, resulting in bespoke designs that are (allegedly) preferable to 'planners' (a new vernacular if you like), but often are just design standard fudges, or contradictory in a stand-alone context.

In my opinion, therefore, those buildings employing the more modern styles (No.2) tend to end up as 'failures' in Cambridge. Perhaps not for those who buy them, or indeed live/work in them, but more for the city as a whole.

Of course, depending on the planned building's function or usage, you also have various restrictions or requirements that force your hand. For example, the general convention that modern shop fronts should need/use quite a lot of glass and look 'open fronted', means that ground floors will always lean towards a certain appearance. This eye-level appearance, therefore, is more functional (or rather, marketing controlled) than aesthetical, and prevents certain architectural styles from being employed across the whole structure... at least convincingly.

In Cambridge, as with many historical towns for that matter, we have rather a few local restrictions in place that prevent private developers from completely 'going to town' (as it were) on new developments, although these laws and guidelines tend to be more related to restrictions in scale, content, height, etc., rather than the actual design and the material used. Apart from in specific conservation areas and the denser historical areas though, it is still surprising how much leeway you can find with the actual styles themselves.

For example, perhaps the most well-known local, albeit loosely interpreted, 'rule' for many years in Cambridge has been that no new development must exceed in height that of King's College Chapel.* This therefore, theoretically, severely restricts the amount of office and/or residential space available in an already cramped city's central business district (CPD).

***

So, what's happening out there?

Cambridge, perhaps due to having a past that lacked significant (first or second tier) industry, does not have many brownfield sites**. This means that (a) new development opportunities within the 'regular' built-up space don't tend to be very large in area. And (b) pressure has (until recently) been put on the maintenance of a containing Green Belt so that many economic and residential developments (that would otherwise occur naturally in a linear spread) tend to appear in a band of commuter-dominated villages that exist just beyond the belt itself.

In these smaller developments, therefore, the majority of construction has been in one-off, in-filling or densification, residential projects. And because properties closer to the city centre can be very expensive indeed, a lot of these projects are to create further expensive homes or flats that maximise profit to the developer and help maintain a high average property price that is often beyond the finances of the majority of people who work in the city.

For example, on Arbury Road, quite a way outside the city centre core, an old garage and M.O.T. testing centre was recently sold and demolished. The space now appears to be being densified for at least six new properties.

(Source: Google Maps.) 

Despite the small space, my guess is that they will still be marketed as 'family homes' and that 'private' parking and 'gardens' will somehow still be provided, despite the fact the overall footprint is little more than that of one of the surrounding properties (which aren't particularly luxurious at that).

So then, with that background in mind, and to limit this blog entry's length, I am now going to show single examples for each of the three architectural styles mentioned above. This will not quite support my argument that things are going badly in the city, as I have chosen two examples out of the three that I actually deem quite successful. The problem is, I guess, that there are so few of these small new developments, and that it is the larger-scale developments (that you could probably count on one hand) that skew and change the playing field. But more on that later***...

1. Copying from the past

There is a stretch of relatively new housing in Chesterton (north Cambridge) that employs a kind of mock-Georgian style. Whilst it might not be completely 'classically pure' in an academic sense, I still deem the development cohesive, and not a compromise form (see No.3).

Indeed, this 'acceptable' classical/Georgian pastiche could work anywhere in my opinion. And yes, I do like the work of Quinlan Terry, if you must ask! FYI: I remember one of my old lecturers at University always referred to him as 'poor old Quinlan Terry'. But my guess is that his banker has never called him that.

So, why is this development particularly good? Well, again, I must introduce my bias here: I like pitched rooves (sorry, roofs!) on UK residential buildings, as I find them both aesthetically pleasing and most useful in a country where a lot of rain falls, and often. It amazes me how many developers are happy to put up new buildings with flat roofs in this country... I often return to them after they are built too see drainage stains and overflowing drains on rainy days.

I also find that any style of building that has its design 'root' in classical (Greek) architecture, put simply, pretty much always works. And as we can look back into 3000-odd years of history to back that claim up, I am not going to defend that point any further.

Finally, I see that it works well in its immediate environment. It is not fully surrounded by Georgian housing, but it still works well alongside and opposite what is there, both old and new(er)... albeit significantly helped by a generous dollop of greenery, especially mature trees (more on that later too***).

2. Employing modern styles

In another example of densification nearby, there is a case where one, post-war, detached home has been (presumably) purchased simply for the creation of four expensive new homes.

(The original home...Source: Google Earth.)

This, again, could be seen as a good thing for a city starving for more homes. However, let's not get ahead of ourselves...

Park View, in Church Street, Chesterton, is now nearly complete. The above photos come from advertisement hoardings from directly outside the development when it was in the early stages of construction, and it now looks like this... at eye level.

(Note how the brick is much darker than in the artist's impression. 

This is certainly not standard Cambridge Gault Clay brick!)

So, why all the fuss? Just because I think it looks like a secondary school, it doesn't mean it isn't well regarded by others!

Well, I guess there are two reasons...

One is that the design is not sympathetic to the surrounding housing - in any way. And, whilst that might be okay when compared to the (ugly to most) 1970s' flats directly opposite, it is perhaps not so good for the Grade I listed medieval church nearby (as you can see in the photo) and the Grade II listed Chesterton House next door (to the north). (Compare that to how the mock-Georgian example used above sits alongside its neighbours, and how, for (albeit borderline) townhouses, they are set back behind very high (private) walls. Is it not a common sacrifice for living in posh townhouses that your front door still tends to be close to the street that it is on?)

I would also argue that the modern design is hardly radical, and therefore not something for true fans of contemporary design to make a massive song and dance about, at least from the street level (inside, and its rear aspect, might well be better... but the public never see this, rightly, of course).

The second reason is the price...

Each of these properties are/were on sale for a cool 1.5 million of your British pounds.

And as they all have five bedrooms each, they will not likely appeal to newly employed singles or couples, even if they could afford to buy them. Why would a young, trendy, well-paid professional want a five bedroom house?

So... "in-your-face" design coupled with "laugh-in-your-face" prices.

Just imagine if this site had incorporated a development with a slightly more dense capacity, with one and two bedroom flat units being presented inside a more traditional townhouse-style design. There, I guess, would still be a case for innovation/modernisation to be incorporated in the architecture if necessary, but with a slightly more conservative approach, appreciating its position in a relatively attractive and desirable area, the result needn't be so abrasive.

Oh, and as before, if you are not quite convinced by my argument here... just imagine being the new owner of the first property (nearest the church)...

I'm not sure I'd want to shell out £1.5 million on a house with windows directly (and literally just a few metres) above and beside a public toilet block, but maybe I am just a (wannabe) snob! I mean, there clearly is someone who's okay with it as it has been already bought, along with all its three neighbours!

3. By creating compromise forms

Here, on Godestone Road, is an example of what I mean by 'compromise style'.

Whilst the design is rather dull on its own, it sits well amongst its immediate neighbours. Neighbours being: mainly (rather basic) Victorian and Edwardian terracing... houses that were once the homes of the city's poorer inhabitants.

The design elements are simple, with basic lintels, wooden door porches and (rather radical and 'artistic') projecting half-beams. I admit it has a touch of the Brookside Close about it, but it somehow works.

The houses are no doubt cheap in the materials used, such as the use of a rather crude local brick, but the extra effort in design, slightly set-back presentation, plus off-centre and detached unit and tidy hedging, make them most pleasing to the eye in my opinion... at least, given the limited possibilities of the location. I'm not sure of the need for the incorporated off-street garages, but that is perhaps the proof that these homes' prices may still be out of reach for many of Cambridge's workers.

N.B. The building in the background on the second picture. This is the new Travelodge hotel on Newmarket Road that sits alongside the 'prestigious' development discussed in the previous (Part I) blog entry. See how its flat roof doesn't particularly compliment those properties in the foreground view!

***

Now, I know I said there would be one example of each type... but perhaps there is room for one more interesting, and arguably well received, 'compromise' form...

On Elizabeth Way, a strange series of events led to a pub being demolished and, as is typical of many pubs today, the site being developed for housing. Nothing odd, or happy, there perhaps, but what is odd is that the pub's facade, after demolition, was maintained for a good many months whilst debate (and no doubt planning permission disputes) took place.

Again, why is this not bad news? (You may ask.) Well, it may be, but what has now replaced the pub is a fine development, nay award winning. Whilst it does not help the city's blue or white collar housing problem, the building is for student accommodation, which is always helpful for a city with two universities and numerous adult colleges and language schools. Indeed, there are 23 one-bed and studio self-contained apartments.  And, it is very well presented, being both stylish and complimentary/sympathetic to the surrounding terracing's style(s).

What is needed, I believe, are more such developments... except this time, for said blue and white collar workers, not students. Where a small area becomes available for a potential redevelopment into a few houses, the decision should be made (at council level) to build one and two bed starter homes for young professionals.

Anyway, this is perhaps straying too far from the original point of the blog entry.

I will therefore close for now... and perhaps add one final entry next into this series regarding some of the larger developments being undertaken in Cambridge. And the ugliness that then ensues...

Cheers,
Zeeox 
    

* Of course, many buildings do so, both old and new (The University Library tower on West Road or the Botanic House Building at the junction of Hills Road and Station Road)

**Saying that, there have been a good few developments on sites once used by 'industry'. These include: the former Phillps/PYE works in Chesterton, the CB1 development around the railway station, and the former cattle market on Cherry Hinton Road.

*** Please see Part III!