What does Cambridge need? Affordable housing or an ice rink? An ice rink, apparently.

Hello, there. Just signing in to prove that I haven't forgotten about this account...

And to also post quickly that I am upset (again!) about what developers in my home town of Cambridge are in the process of building...

And that's an ice rink.

Does Cambridge need an ice rink?

Well, you may indeed ask. But apparently it does!

The open-air ice rink that is built annually on Parker's Piece proves very popular with visitors and locals alike, and I assume it's this popularity (and potential revenue) that helped make the decision to allow a permanently-built structure* an easy one...

Well, I say it was an 'easy' decision, but it has clearly not been an easy journey to get to a position where turf could actually be dug and work begun. This is Cambridge, after all.

Apparently, the quest to build the ice rink is actually a "25-year saga", and it was way back in 1993 that former Cambridge University ice hockey player David Gattiker left a £1 million pounds bequest to the university for the purpose. This money has presumably been on a slow burn ever since, and it is only in the past couple of years that actual progress could be made, and a potential site not only located, but also fully scoped out and subsequently leased for construction.

As such, work finally started on the Cambridge Ice Arena in November, 2017, and has therefore been underway for some 9 months. It is finally happening, and that is that!

You've a problem with this, don't you John?

Yup.

I'm going to be honest with you. I never knew about this 'saga' in 1993 or 2017, and I have never used the ice rink on Parker's Piece either. So, I haven't ever enjoyed the fun of ice skating and am unable to say with verve and passion, "yes, Cambridge needs a permanent all-year-round option for ice skating!"

But what I do know about is Cambridge's acute shortage of housing, affordable or no. And also, an acute shortage of space to build things on in general. I have often spat out on my Twitter account (and this blog once or twice) my distaste at decisions to build expensive housing in Cambridge, but that pales into insignificance when you (a) read that apparently Cambridge needs an ice rink, and (b) that it is going to built in a spot that is already a nightmare to the movement of the city's road-based traffic. 

The rink is "large" apparently (its 56 metre by 26 metre ice pad meets the requirements of the International Ice Hockey Federation), and not only will it allow 500 skaters to skate at the same time, but will also allow 600 spectators to watch from (presumably) tiered stands at the side (as well as having 340 seats at other times).

And that's interesting. Because if the long-term intention is to build up some sort of city Ice Hockey team that people will pay their hard-earned to support, then surely it's only going to undermine the coffers of other professional and semi-professional sports teams in the city... and if the home matches are going to take place on Saturdays, then the traffic to reach the rink is surely going to clash with that of Cambridge United football club nearby... who just happen to have their home on the same road (Unless the aim is to radically increase the number of Park & Ride buses?)

But regardless of any competitive sporting action, from an active participation perspective, the aim is to have 250,000 visitors a year, and to open 7 (long) days and nights a week. So this means traffic will be worsened (or spread more thinly if you like) across the board!

And that leads me to wonder why we're going ahead with this...

Cambridge doesn't have an ice rink? So what!

Cambridge is a small place really, and if it weren't for the University that gives it city status (make that two!), it would arguably be no more than just a glorified Market Town. It therefore doesn't have a lot of amenities that other cities have. But it also has many other special attractions that larger places don't have as well (for example, its criminally underrated, and free-to-enter, museums). And it should concentrate on those in my opinion, and not water them all down with providing too many other (expensive) options and "things to do". People only have so much money... especially in an expensive town like Cambridge.

• Are locals going to go to the ice rink that's on the edge of town and then double-it-up with an activity in the city centre?
• Are people going to go for, say, food in town and then finish off the night with a skate? How will they get home?
• Are day trippers to the city going to visit King's College or The Botanics and then make their way out to the far end of Newmarket Road for a quick skate before doubling-back and getting the train home? 

These are questions that spring to my mind.

Personally, I don't see what the problem is with having an outdoor, therefore seasonal, temporary ice rink. Especially one that is in a central location that has no additional traffic burden and is close to shops.

And if weather is an annual problem, then maybe do what Norwich does, and put a tent over it to help keep that cold in! Climate change concerns aside, Cambridge's climate doesn't do too badly for cold weather spells during the winter. It is known for being dry... which means it often has open skies... which means it has frostier nights.

But perhaps this melting problem is tied to the fact that the concept is too strongly associated with it coinciding with Christmas. December is still a relatively mild month in the south of England, so I would say: if it must be open-air, put the ice rink up in January rather than November, and take it down in late February rather than January.

Yes, that might hit the number of users, but people still visit and live in the city at that time... and, you know, maybe having the amenity exist after Christmas (and the January sales, etc.) might even help boost city centre trade in that late winter lull when not much else is happening.

Melting progress

But I digress. This post shouldn't be side-tracked by the Global Warming debate.

Of course, as is typical of such works in this town, the new ice arena project has slipped behind schedule. It was initially set to open to the public in the summer 2018, but is now aiming for a 2019 opening. Admittedly, an unforeseen delay did occur when 200 unexploded incendiary devices were found, but apparently that was not enough to delay the then revised Autumn 2018 opening.

Also, not that it makes a massive difference on anything, the official Twitter account has not tweeted since May. A bit odd from a marketing perspective though, don't you think? Surely they'd currently be in the final phase of a "Look what we're doing!" PR campaign?

Pucking the trend

Right, let's put the skids on this quick (for once) post.

I think Cambridgeshire could do with an ice rink. The history of Fen skating (racing) is certainly strong in a county context (my grandfather raced in the Fens so I am not without knowledge on this) and it would be nice to allow the traditions of that sport in particular to continue whilst we continue to endure mild winters that prevent the once popular annual competitions from taking place.

BUT... I would like it built elsewhere. How about a Fenland town like Ely, Chatteris or Wisbech getting this rink instead? Not only would it be more relevant to the traditions of the actual local populace (David Gattiker and his University pals aside), but it would also be a major boost to their (sometimes) suffering (and often otherwise limited) economies. Does the project really need the million pounds' head start just so that it gets built within the city limits? (And, just out of interest... I wonder if such limits on the cash being spent were ever stipulated? How far outside the city could you go?)

By the way, Peterborough already has a permanent ice rink, so why shouldn't we be encouraging people to use that, instead? I mean, it's technically in the county and certainly not that far away (and it has direct and regular train, coach and bus connections, too), and it's not as if the building of an ice rink is going to be a 100% guaranteed business success either...

And having one in the Fens somewhere would also reduce the fear of Newmarket Road suffering from even more traffic congestion... I mean, it might get to the point where even if you fancied skating on certain days, you'd never get there if you decided to drive.

The horse has bolted

And what would I put in its place? Well, if the land must be built on at all (just being inside the Green Belt after all), I would, you know, maybe build some Affordable Housing?

And how would that not also make the traffic worse, John?

Ah, well, I would not have any parking spaces. Radical I know, but that would (a) allow more houses to be built, and (b) help keep their prices down (you know, affordable?)... and there just happens to be a Park & Ride option next door to allow those people who work in Cambridge city centre to commute in by existing buses... if they're not cycling in, that is.

Is it a shame that we would then have lost the £1 million donation?

Perhaps. But let's not forget that the project (that is happening after all) has also received nearly double that in terms of a £1.85 million loan from South Cambridgeshire District Council**. Yes... that's taxpayers' money!

Imagine that spent on an innovative affordable -and sustainable- housing project, instead? (Where I'm sure there would be plenty of other backers.) Cambridge is one of only a few places in these #ProjectFear times where really interesting and innovative (and maybe even risky) projects can easily get backing and sponsorship, even if the immediate outcome is not massively profitable.

Dreams... reality

But, this is all moot of course. The ice rink is being built, I am not a city planner... and I have no doubt it will be lauded as a wonderful asset to the city once it opens***.

By some, at least.

And certainly not me.

Cheery-bye,
ZeeOx

* And thus one that does not make you feel that you really have to stay forever upright for the duration of your skate, regardless of skill level (not to prevent pain and bruising per se, but more to avoid getting a rather soaked posterior due to all the partially-melted ice that makes it look like you're skating over a slightly icy puddle rather than actual hard ice).
** Did David Gattiker know that would happen?
*** Because something always sounds better than nothing, eh?

 

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