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.)

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.

'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!

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