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!
