'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!

Am I Cambridge's Piloti? No. But...

I readily admit that a blog should be updated regularly to justify its space on the Internet, and that the length of each post shouldn't be over-long. Otherwise, it's drifting more into essay and book territory, rather than a diary-style format. And I am not that pretentious. At least, my 9-5 work doesn't allow it.

But I can't help the infrequency of the posts here. The nature (as it were) of this blog is (supposedly!) limited to Environmentalism, Planning and the like, so I shouldn't just be posting short entries about any sort of thing that's crossing my mind. At least, that is the restriction I have forced upon myself here. And besides, (of late) I have tried to open up my less-developed thoughts into Twitter territory, rather than (perhaps more wisely) keeping them to myself - like most people do!

So, if you want to see more regular rants from me, and on a wider scale of topics (albeit not all my interests - I am a jack of all trades after all, and certainly master of none), then check out: https://twitter.com/akazeeox

***

Anyway, back to the subject of this post...

Cambridge, my home city, is the forefront battlefield in the overall 'war' that I fight in, and it significantly influences, tempers and nurtures the regular thoughts and considerations that fuel this blog overall. And the current pressure on housing nationally - both in terms of quality and quantity - is very much in the top 10 of these regular thoughts... a major concern that is omnipresent and likely to forever remain so.

And lo!, with the major issues around housing shortages (which I promise to return to for a later blog), I thought for this blog entry I would separate out one facet of it, and thus at the same time try and address the sin I confessed in the first paragraph above... by posting something shorter!

So, what's the particular problem here?

Well, it's architecture, or rather: "Architecture" and the way both the city council (seemingly) and developers continue to produce sloppy work and, to compound things, make it worse by - basically - lying about their presentations.

By presentations, I mean both the final 'look' of the buildings (whether residential or otherwise) and, before completion, the various publicly presented artists' impressions and (semantics around) the words used on the construction site billboards.

Put simply, the architecture is dull, unimaginative and, sometimes, intrusive. And the promotion of them is borderline lying, basically!

Of the latter, for example, check this billboard text for some housing currently being built:

"Beautifully landscaped grounds and surroundings" it says! Well, "rubbish" I says! [sic]

You might counter immediately by saying that it isn't even finished yet so I shouldn't even be commenting on that aspect ahead of time. But let me tell you:

(a) the "surroundings" are arguably Cambridge's most ugly road, Newmarket Road, which may or may not be gentrified by the help of this development, but otherwise consists of two, dull and new, hotels nearby, a (now closed) car retailer showroom, a furniture shop, some allotments (which are 'green' at least, but not what many would consider attractive landscaping) and other various retail and mixed-use developments. Yes, there is an old mediaeval church opposite the development, but it is a major highlight on an otherwise ugly dual-carriageway.

(b) the use of "beautifully landscaped grounds" is such a throw-away term that it is arguably undermined as soon as you (mis)use it. For it to be genuinely beautiful, we must assume something special is going on (don't you think?): either in terms of mature trees and special plants, or even unique or noteworthy hard landscaping or outdoor 'art'. And I will make a bet right now that none of this shall come to pass. It will have some medium height saplings, hedging and raised flowerbeds with brick surrounds at best. There may be a few modern art elements, such as reflective metal balls, or night-time lighting that provides both 'art' and (to a degree) security. And if there are any lawns or 'wild corners', they will be so insignificant and small-scale that their beauty will be skin deep at best.

So, if you can't lie on these billboard advertisements, should you say anything? Yes, by all means. Just don't use wishy-washy adjectives that are an insult to intelligence.

Not convinced?

How about the adjoining boards?

This board shows some plain, but informative, text (which is good!)... but we also see an artist's impression revealing the (proposed) rear view of the development.

Knowing the site (which is here by the way) I can already tell that it's going to be hard work for the aforementioned beautifully landscaped grounds and surroundings to tuck themselves in, or around the site. But the artificial render itself reveals the truth anyway! There is simply no space on the site for anything, but the building (and its basement) itself. 

And this final board takes the (overpriced) biscuit in my opinion.

The new developments that are springing up all over Cambridge at the moment nearly all claim to be 'prestigious'. Now, I have no doubt their finishing (internally at least) might be quite tidy and expensive... but how many prestigious developments can you have before they then (all) become common? Or perhaps the right antonym is: modest?

And as for 'cultural' - do not make me laugh! It occupies the site of a long-closed (and mainly empty) Greene King Brewery (later owned by 'Eastern Gate Property Ltd'),  and the featureless, window-less facade was long neglected and ignored. Indeed, it was only during a short-lived period where 'high brow' graffiti was sprayed on it where it genuinely entered into everyday public conversation.

But don't be fooled that this is the culture Aspen Build (the developers) are referring to. They are likely laying claim to the wider area, where some remnants of the former, dissolved Barnwell Priory still exist, and some nice period (residential) houses hide away in nearby back roads.

But that would be wrong as, like over-using the word 'prestigious', peppering 'culture' onto anything and everything undermines its power as a useful, applicable word.

Cambridge is a rich, old and famous place no matter where you compare it to (and is therefore considered a very lucky place to live in by many), but let's not lie that the site this particular building occupies is 'cultural'! (And 'PRIME cultural' at that!) If it's simply about History and 'Age' we're talking about, then it's all about context... to some Americans (for example) a house over 100 years old is ancient. But to most Europeans it is not. And in Cambridge, with an established history spanning back beyond even the formation of the University in the 13th century, some (arguably tatty) industrial sheds dating from the 1960s are not worthy of recognition. And if they were, they would probably not have been allowed to be demolished in the first place!

A quick Google search reveals that 'cultural' means 1: relating to the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a society. and also 2: relating to the arts and to intellectual achievements.

Now, just about anything, or practice, or place, etc. can justify formatting within the first category, so we must surely interpret the promoters here as meaning the latter, more exclusive (prestigious!), definition (otherwise, it's even more a throwaway word!). 

Or maybe I'm wrong and one of the developers really does like Banksy?

***

  

Darn it, even this post has gone on too long! 

In Part II of this post, therefore, I will explore some examples of Cambridge's recent (dull as ditchwater) 'nouveau' architecture, and the fact that, despite all the 'exclusivity' and 'prestigious' vocabulary, there's very little reason for the future Pevsners of the world to be getting their pens out to make notes. 

As usual: thanks for reading... and feel free to disagree!

Pil--  Sorry, ZeeOx

Multi-purpose nature reserves? What are they? Aren't they country parks?

Cambridge's Coldham's Common is a designated local nature reserve...

http://lnr.cambridge.gov.uk/nature_reserve/coldhams-common/ 

However, that definition, grandiose and official as it sounds, is actually a bit loose in my opinion... Coldham's Common is more a collection of sports fields, general, grassed open spaces and (genuine) wild borders and corridors... some following field edges, others, the small stream (Coldham's Brook), which forms both the space's northern and eastern boundaries.  It is also bisected by the Cambridge to Ipswich branchline!

The reason I say all that is because, unlike most of Cambridge's other public open spaces and commons, it is heavily used by sports teams, and so (presumably) has a management plan oriented around both the needs of the pitches' maintenance as well as any wildlife in the vicinity.

It is in the news (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/New-10-year-vision-management-loved-Cambridge/story-28884179-detail/story.html) because a new "ten year Operational Management Plan" has been mooted by the City Council... a plan that accepts the Common as a "multifunctional, natural green space".

I would therefore like to counter that any "multifunctional space", regardless of how green, is not a nature reserve! Otherwise, we could start pretending that some of the better back gardens out there are also full-on nature reserves, even if the trees are used for goalposts, and the lawn for swingball!

As I type this, I have not yet digested all the material available or made a definitive opinion on any of the proposals... so I am therefore just making a quick blog post here as a holder for further comment...

and...

...to point out AGAIN that, if a place like Coldham's Common is a multifunctional, natural green space (and, maybe that's fair enough!)... what a shame the Phase 2 (2014) extension (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/New-habitats-created-Logans-Meadow-nature-reserve-Cambridge/story-22497281-detail/story.html) to Logan's Meadow (see my blog entry 'Missed Opportunity?' from last year: http://streetnveg.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/missed-opportunity.html) could not have been more radical in scope and pushed forward towards being a 100% guaranteed, fairdinkum, showcase nature reserve!

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

Angela Briggs, Planning Officer, apparently said "the nature reserve was a “green lung” between Riverside and the Vie development". I (still) fully agree with that... but I would also add that, if we are going to athropomorphise things correctly, lungs tend to come in pairs... and the other lung in this case has collapsed, and is covered in dog poo.

ZeeOx

It Ain't Rocket Science.

A Happy New Year to you.

Rather than catch up on the (now four!) outstanding blog entries I need to write, I am going to write a quick entry regarding flooding and housing... even if there are numerous blogs and articles out there that cover it better than I ever could!

***

After one of the UK's worst periods of flooding since...well, the last time!... and the mildest December on record, a lot of fuss is being made (again) about the Environment Agency's response (or lack of) to the floods and what could have potentially been done - both before and after.

Yet again, people talk of inadequate defences, un-dredged rivers, saving water voles and subsequent insurance nightmares.

Also, the now standard post-flood debate rages on about how much money the (allegedly once cash-strapped) Majority Conservative Government should be dredging out (as it were) to help versus how much they have done (and then say they are truly doing all they can to help).

Well... I am not going to jump right down the EA's or Conservative's throats this time (or at least for this blog!) and say it is entirely their fault and that they could have done much better all round.

That may well be true (and I note that EA's Chairman, Sir Philip Dilley, has just resigned from his £100,000 a year 3-days-a-week post), but regardless, what I am going to briefly comment on here is just what we should be doing now... in general - for the the future - and why it shouldn't need to be a divisive, political 'thing'.

Before that though, let's establish some facts first. Here are three indisputable (albeit flippantly put) truths...

No. 1 - lots of rain falling in a short period makes rivers and streams rise in height.

No. 2 - if water levels rise higher than flood defences, houses previously protected behind the defences are then in danger.

No. 3 - if you make it easy for water to disperse quickly down hills, water flows more quickly and rises higher if there's plenty of water behind it.

I hope we're agreed? Good. So...

Can we stop the rain falling?

Well, possibly... if we can make it rain, we can likely stop it too... especially if there was a genuine and full #COP21 response to Global Warming. But... for the sake of argument (and to appease the H.A.R.M. conspiracy theorists and right-wing climate change deniers), let's say that we can't really avoid rain falling and a potential flooding scenario being repeated. At least in the short term.

Can we build flood defences higher?

Yes. Just like a Trump Wall, it could be done. But do we want towns and villages protected by walls that are considerably higher than the ground floors of the houses behind them? And how much would that truly cost to do it everywhere? And remember, many of the walls that were engulfed this time around were not old. They were new flood defences. Many weren't even breached or damaged, they were simply topped by waters exceeding the planned/expected (e.g. 100-year) flood prediction levels. I mean, how high should you build a defensive wall before it gets silly?

Can we intercept the water?

Yes we can. A lot of effort (and for relatively low cost) can be made to intercept water before it reaches places of habitation. In other words, from land higher up where the bulk of rain falls and thus flows from.

Indeed, new policy is already being implemented here... where farmland will now be deliberately flooded when waters rise so as to slow up the movement of flood water before it reaches towns and cities. Some farmers may already be kicking up a fuss about it, but they know that the masses (of voters) that live in towns and cities will get priority over protecting crops and sheep... in much the same way that, historically speaking, farms and the needs of farms tend to get prioritised over the needs of wildlife and the habitats they live in. And besides, the farmers have been told that they will be paid subsidies for doing this 'service'.

***

But this is a response to flooding as it is happens of course,. Surely a wiser, cleverer course (as it were) would be to prevent the floods from happening at all? (Or, at least, reduce the floods to manageable levels?)

We've already agreed that we really can't stop the rain from falling and the conditions being 'right' for flooding... so to stop rain from turning urban areas into lakes, we must employ some basic land management techniques upriver... such as blocking up water courses so that water is slowed. Or reforesting land so that soils retain water more efficiently. Or bringing back old peatlands so that they become natural water reserves. Or reducing the numbers of sheep overgrazing on the hills in the first place. And so on and so forth!

Yes, yes, a lot of these things will have a negative impact on the people that work the land (i,e. farmers)... but if we can compensate them for having floodwater on their land when the floods occur, surely we can compensate them for reducing the sheep, reforesting the land and plugging up their once-drying-out bogs to help stop the floods from occurring in the first place? As with most "natural" disasters, I'd happily pay extra taxes to help prevent rather than simply cure.

Just Google some of these concepts... you'll get lots of returns, and lots of critique and balanced opinion too. I therefore do not need not explain any of them (badly) myself here. It's not just George Monbiot's idea you know... numerous people have been telling us about these solutions for decades!

***

So, like most things in Environmental Management, the potential solutions have already been found and though they are nearly always relatively simple in design, the solutions on the ground are rarely straight forward to implement. They often involve multi-tiered strategy and a lot of hard work bringing conflicted parties and interests together.

However, just a few basic changes in approach can still reap an instant award... and, as I said at the beginning of this blog entry, it is not rocket science and I don't want to make this a party political thing.

Slowing and absorbing the water higher up reduces the floods lower down... and building houses away from flood plains on higher ground reduces the pressure and has a bonus in allowing excess water to go where it should, rather than into overland flow.

Although I note the current Prime Minister, David Cameron, is potentially a bit confused about what is a flood plain, if people feel that avoiding genuine flood plains is a pie in the sky luxury we can't afford considering just how many houses we undoubtedly need to build in the future, then I say take a leaf out of The Netherlands' book.

The Dutch have rather a good track record with knowing how to deal with floods(!). So if we don't mind borrowing their heavy duty pumps when we have water to shift, then surely we shouldn't also mind borrowing their ideas and techniques when it comes to innovative ways of building in 'watery' places and anticipating what's needed when the water levels get too high?

Let's not just agree that these are all good ideas though... let's actually start implementing them! If we can't stop building next to rivers... let's at least stop building sub-standard buildings that not only occasionally flood themselves but also help pass on the problem downstream because the water has no other place to go.

Best,
ZeeOx

Reminder 2!

Yet another note to self.

Not only do I have to start writing the outstanding post on dull urban architecture, and then finish the post on Fracking, but I also have two more ideas for post to write...

One on 'invasive' British spiders, and how the Media, in all its forms, seems to be embroiled in a conspiracy of disseminating lies and half-truths along with self-interested pest control firms.

And one on the ever-increasing sterile 'gardens' and open spaces in CBDs, and how a lack of interest, care, or finances is affecting our urban invertebrate populations.

All these are most likely best left to the new year as I am so disorganised right now that I doubt I'll manage one, let all four!

We'll shall see though I guess.

Best,
ZeeOx

Quick post to remind, well, myself really.

I am going to post an entry here soon regarding dull 'urban' architecture... and how developers decide to employ 'modern' styles under the moniker of "exclusive" or "prestige" without care or forethought concerning the reality of the design and/or the subsequent long-term effects or reception.

I'll be using a few examples from my home town of Cambridge, a place where you'd expect a bit more effort to be made!

Watch this space! (Yes, I'm talking to myself... as no-one else is likely to read this! Still... it's good karma to get it off my chest.)

Wildlife versus Sustainable Energy - is there a conflict?

Before I attempt to answer the question posed by this latest Blog entry, I think I need to sketch out a little bit of background first in order to help you understand where I'm coming from!

---

Whenever I hear a generic Conservative politician, barmy Republican Presidential candidate or Climate Change Denier say they find Wind Farms ugly (or even £150,000-a-year BBC Arts Editors for that matter*), I despair.

Not necessarily because they are wrong (I think they ARE wrong by the way, but beauty is subjective and they are entitled to their opinion)...  but more because I believe they think (a) everyone must think the same, (b) that it is simply a given FACT... and (c) that that in someway then helps strengthen an argument they might be in the middle of making as to why we don't need them in general.

I disagree with that side of things more than with any insignificant artistic debate!

Wind Farms undeniably take up space, and by their nature are also very visible, so therefore they are hard to hide. But that does not necessarily mean they "ruin views" or are eyesores as a result. It befuddles me that some people seem to think turbines are ugly, but the rape fields in front of them are acceptable. Or that we must not build these things simply because they devalue the views... but electricity pylons or mobile phone masts are more tolerable because they are arguably indispensable.

I often wonder what such people would have thought of windmills when they first started appearing in the countryside, buildings that people NOW concede can (and do) add value to a landscape.

And so, there is conflict here. People who say they love the countryside taking issue with modern machinery that has to be placed in the more wild areas we have in order to function. They often ask (fence sitting) people things like: "would you want to live underneath a windmill then?" and so on.

But I say that such people have selective memories... or, rather, cherry pick when to attack something and when to keep quiet.

Here's a quick fact to consider then: mobile phones, televisions, washing machines, showers, trains, whatever... need (expendable) energy in order to function. And that energy has to come from either a finite or renewable source. A battery, the mains, whatever. If you want to use electricity, you must sacrifice something along the line to make it.

For example, if people say electric trains are 'cleaner' than diesel ones, they might be right... but we must still not forget that the power that propels said clean trains still has to come from somewhere... i.e. a power station. And if that power station belches out just as much (or more) fumes than the former diesel trains did, have these trains actually been improved?**

But most people don't live near power stations and so "out of sight, out of mind" creeps into the debate. So all we see if we don't think about it, are new electric trains moving along cleanly, without the spewing out of ugly smells, dirty liquids and dangerous fumes of before.

----

So... with all this in mind, I am still going to declare my love for the powering of all things in a renewable fashion... and I think that such people who argue against such an approach, from whatever angle, can be easily countered!

This renewable energy must be produced using natural sources, namely: wind, sun and water.*** Each has its own resulting type of  power "station"... but regardless of their scale or footprint, I would argue that they are in no way worse than the nuclear or fossil fuel power stations they might replace, regardless of whether you don't happen to like how they look, or the noises they make and so on.

BUT...

I believe there is another possible conflict here. And one that is harder to pick sides on or argue for a definitive solution. And this question (finally!) is the one I proposed as the title of this latest Blog entry...

Wildlife versus Sustainable Energy - is there a conflict?

I see this conflict as between those renewable power stations/installations and the wildlife they might even be said to help protect.

Taking each of the three standard renewable energy sources, we have three potential types of power station:-

1. Wind Farms (of turbines)
2. Solar (Power) Farms (of solar panels)
3. Hydro-electric power (either by river damming OR by tidal power)

And, bearing in mind the above example above about the electric trains, and things often being "out of sight and therefore out of mind", this results in three potential (and different) conflicts with 'nature' and the wildlife that it imbues...

These conflicts are usually direct: obvious and on view... rather than being something more subtle that is harder to detect at first, or further down the line before it takes impact.

These are undeniable problems:-

1. Wind Farms kill birds.
2. Solar Power Farms take up a lot of space.
3. (Freshwater) Dams prevent fish movement and (Estuary-based) Dams affect the feeding grounds of wading birds.

I think some pro-renewable energy fans keep quiet about this in just the same way as those people who hate wind farms mentioned above do... and that is a problem.

In order to continue the push towards moving over to renewable sources (or rather, moving AWAY from non-renewable sources), we must acknowledge the problems and consider them in all cases.

I think that, in the grand scheme of things, we may reach a point where we have to admit that renewable/sustainable energy sources are not heavenly solutions... without sin. They are not. They are merely the lesser of two evils.

When we are able to say that, and admit its truth. we may then move on to the, arguably better, task in hand... and that is not using more renewable energy at all - and actually simple using less energy full stop. That is, even, knowing when not to use it AT ALL.

This is a harder test, but it is arguably easier to achieve!

For example, instead of wearing uncomfortable office clothes in summer, managers could consider allowing their staff to wear less and switching off the expensive air conditioning.

Or, in winter, not putting on the heating when putting on a jumper will suffice.

It doesn't matter to some people whether the energy heating their rooms comes from the sun or from coal... as long as it does the job. So, how do we encourage this moral duty without making energy so expensive that it forces peoples' hands?

To be honest, I don't know! I fear it will only happen when we've run out of fossil fuels completely and are in the process of a forced conversion of all energy-hungry equipment to more renewable sources. At this point, people might start thinking that saving energy starts in the home... and not at the power station that you can, or maybe cannot actually see.

Cheers,
ZeeOx

N.B. This is a first draft... I'll tidy it up (typos, interesting links, etc.) in due course!

*I saw Will Gompertz, former media director at the Tate group of museums, and BBC's chief Arts Editor say on Have I got News for You that Wind farms are undeniably ugly. 1. How can someone who thinks Damien Hirst is "one of the greatest exponents of creative thinking today” be listened to? And 2. How can someone be so old-fashioned in their view of something very modern in design and presence? Shouldn't they, rather, be right up his street? (Or hedgerow.)

**Yes, they probably still have, but that's a separate argument!

***I know that wave power, biofuels, biomass, geothermal methods, etc. produce energy too and could also be added to this division, but we'll ignore all these for now too!