***
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!
No comments:
Post a Comment