CA16

Number 16 April 1991

A review of current Architectural and Environmental Issues and events in the Cambridge area produced by theCambridge Association of Architects. The views /n rñ/5 newsletter are those of the individual contributors and not of the Association. Newsletter co-edited by David Raven and Colen Lumley. ’Cambridge Architecture’ Trumpington Mews, Trumpington, Cambridge.

A PLAN FOR CAMBRIDGE TheLocal Plan currently in preparation for the City is the first concerted attempt to address the issues of its planning and development since the Holford Plan of 1950.

One of the main directives of the latter was to contain and stabilise the size of the City. In the intervening decades thepopulation of •,ater’ Cambridge has doubled (which isa .asure one supposes of its effectiveness).

The Holford Plan was commissioned by the County and very much coloured by the planning orientations of its remit. The Local Plan isa different kind of opportunity, still bound by its tripartite allegiancies to the City corporation, the University and the County administration, but better focussed through the Local Plan framework toaddress the planning and design issues of the built environment of theCity.

The experience of planning in the intervening four decades and new perceptions of the environment; coupled with the impact of car ownership, new patterns and scale of knowledge, work and employment, which have dramatically affected the use of the City; presenta quite different background and basis fora contemporary planning study.

Public and governmental suspicion and “ satisfaction with planned environments ' x . lead toa reactionary climate against which new proposals have tobe measured.

Excessive reliance on the results of public consultation is one result, which is open to abuse by manipulation. Dissatisfactions with

AGM The Annual General Meeting of theCambridge Association of Architects will be held oa

Tuesday 14 May 1991 .at the UNIVERSITY CENTRE Mill Lane Cambridge.

6.00pm Buffet and wine 6.30pm General business 7.00pm Discussion: Media & Marketing 8.00pm Coffee and close Guest speakers:Russ Craig and Patricia Stewart — RIBA andEastern Region Councillors with specific responsibilities for Marketing and Media matters in the Eastern Region.

planning are of course endemic and inevitable, and area component of democratic life; we can never hope tosatisfy everybody all the time on every aspect. We must be careful to distinguish in our criticism between these existentialist disappointments and those which havea structured relationship with the common objectives.

The Local Plan forCambridge is therefore an instrument for obtaininga consensus on developmental issues, set in the volatile context of town and gown history. The methodology of any Local Plan is directed towardsa limited (and partially unspoken) range of objectives. It could be said that the tendency is to mask andblurr issues for the very purpose of obtaining general agreement, and to avoid issues entirely that confuse its main aims. That its main purpose is to provide information on which political and economic decisions for implementation and approval of development may be made.

Conservation and preservation are admitted under sufferance as topics, relatively speaking.

The problem of theLocal Plan is that it makes holistic proposals on the basis ofa partial set of values. Its omissions are deliberate, forminga political embargo on discussion and proper representation of the various levels of cultural worth ofa place and of creative possibilities for regeneration.

The problem foranyone interested in the architecture and urban morphology of this unique City could be,that by the introduction ofa Plan, an instrument of powerful influence on future growth is brought into being, which, by its remit, misses out and bypasses the essence and spirit of the place.

That much is already evident from therather glib videod image of theCity and its life (its emphases and lack of emphasis) presented to the sessions of public consultation on Questions and Choices fortheLocal Plan.

This is not a criticism of the Local Plan in itself asa planning tool; it is, rather,a commentary on theshortcomings of the context in which planning issues are represented. In this case the danger is (as in the Holford Plan)a woefully inadequate representation of the physical character and quality of the City will be made, resulting in proposals which only partially address the problems and possibilities seen from the urban morphology and design point of view.

It is one thing to criticise (but even criticism hasa place in affecting changes of attitude).

The recent planning enquiry over development fortheSports Centre on the West Cambridge site has the Corporation and the University in adverserial roles. The last significant time this occurred over planning issues the roles were reversed with the University pressing the City to dedicate the Lion Yard sites to culturally orientated projects. A real possibility would seem tobe theestablishment of study areas within the Local Plan, for key developments and urban design environment, forfurther investigation by appropriately constituted study teams combining Local Authority and private agency skills. These teams could including key representations by relevant parties like the University.

The CAA is proposing to runa series of workshop discussions on architectural aspects of the Plan. (continued on page 2)

' .’

'

‘“/ r

,. : .:id ‘.::i ,’,:’ .

, r“ . .

‘"" ,..-

’

Colen Lumley

KEY SITES AND PLANNING BRIEFS Stephen Brown TheCity Council Planning Department's publication Questions and Choices identifies the contending demands ofhousing, shopping, tourism, transportation and other key issues. It highlights an attitude to development of significant sites to the whole needs of thecity. The future use of these sites is to be assessed more inclusively on how they answer thedemands ata sub-regional, urban and neighbourhood scale; going beyond thepurely commercial considerations of site development.

Where an owner wishes to dispose of or developa site (for example Eastern Gas and the Newmarket Road gasworks) the Planning Department will make clear what changes it would support. This might be for instance the provision of recreational space where there isa shortage, improvements toa major (and currently tawdry) approach to the historic city, or providing easier access to medical facilities.

, “I„„„„,., „’„;!"""’ ;,., „,s,]'”

KENTUCKY FRIED CRASSICISM

(A Plan forCambridge continued from page 1) The aim is to generatea collective commentary toguide response at the consultation stage. These will be held at the Architecture Centre at6.00pm 30 April (Shape of the City) 27 May (Developing Functions) 24 June (Public Open Space and Urban Design) 22 July (What Kind of Housing). For further information telephone (0223) 843931.

_,

David Raven The scope of prospective development foreshadowed insuch sites could collectively havea profound effect on the city plan. Their impact on the urban framework needs to be considered ona city scale and not just as individual developments.

In the Planning Department Brief for the former hospital facilities at Douglas House, Trumpington Road (prepared asa nonstatutory policy document inanticipation of pressure for redevelopment) key site characteristics were defined, the historical background noted and architectural standards postulated. Landscape conservation, access and traffic management, and policies for land use are provided for guidance of future development.

The scale of the Saxon Street car park site by the City Council was accompanied bya Design Brief and offers had to be submitted with design proposals. The Brief here included guidance on acceptable levels of site density.

The technique of Planning Briefs has its drawbacks. It isa slow process and retards policy formation in the short term. It isa curb to headlong pursuit of commercial gain at the expense ofa more principled and caring approach to the urban environment. Future permissions will favour those projects which demonstrate ingenious and attractive use of sites, to blend with and benefit, and which aresensitive to, the wider urban context.

Many architects will recall the saga which lead to the City Council's partnership with Holiday Inn International Hotels and to the design of the eventual building now fronting Downing Street. Planning permission was granted in February 1987 and thenew Hotel was finally open toguests on the 25th of last month.

During thepublic consultation period effoJ were made in a number ofdirections — and raise the level of discussion about the" kind of building demanded by this location, to involve the Royal Fine Art Commission and tobroaden theoptions and to consider wider competition perhaps appointing an architectural consultant to advise the city.

The planning department however seemed to feel that they were going about it in the right way.I hada letter from theCity Planning Officer at the time, David Urwin, expressing confidence in their approach and in thebelief that it would all eventually lead toa distinguished building.A senior spokesman forHoliday Inns themselves was reported in the ‘News’ (5—11—86) as saying “...we foresee the construction of an outstanding building which will compare favourably with the other famous buildings in the City” — (Kings College Chapel perhaps?). However intheview of one prominent city councillor, environmental considerations for car parking space and not allowing meaningful public discussion on the principle.”

As the community reacts to continuing pressures for growth and change it becomes clear which sites are inadequate, inappropriate, or obsolete. In Questions and Choices various sites in the city are identified. In the Centre major changes areforeseen on the Robert Sayles site, Eaden Lilleys (Green Street side), Central Cinema and theTelephone Managers building in Regent Street. When thenew Regional College is built the present scattered locations at Brunswick School, York Street, Broad Street and New Street will be redundant and questions of appropriate use of these site will arise.

The reality is now before use in the final expression of all those years of political discussion and planning. We get the building we deserve. What have we got—a sort of debased neo classical exterior perhaps trying to look likea grand country house and an interior which certainly spatially interesting but tasteless and strangely out of context. We have also gained about 400 parking spaces (about 350 for the public and 50 for the Hotel accessible from StTibbs Row.) There are some lettable units (yet to be occupied) on the ground floor facing Corn Exchange Street which areona ramped pedestrian route (presently padlocked) intended to link Downing Street etc. to the car park.

On the edge and ata grander scale are the worked-out chalk pits between Romsey and Cherry Hinton. The tracts of wasteland, hazardous landfill, dry and water-filled pits offera prospect ofa new expanse of urban development.

Going through the Hotel entrance doors you are almost immediately taken up by escalator to the Atrium level which is above thecar park. This has an exciting scale and is where everything happens — reception, bar, restaurant, sun terrace, swimming pool,

,

Ii

'” ^

,. . ..

i /â

"' '

'

"

•.’q

':°.

What ofits townscape qualities? The hotels sits on what cotild be called the working classical frontage of Pembroke and Downing Street rubbing shoulders with various v,ersity departments such as Archaeology Zoology. The street frontage is very rich inpattern and relief and hasa great deal of architectural quality — perhaps not fully appreciated because of the narrowness of the thoroughfare and its fairly intensive vehicular use. An analysis could have been made ofthe immediate street frontage to perhaps establish architectural characteristics and themes forexpression or reinterpretation in the new building. The scale and grain of the street needs tobe respected. It needsa frontage which is lyrical, good humoured, interesting etc. nota flat stage set approach.

The heavy handed and simplified neoclassical facade of the new building is something of an historical travesty and prevents the building actually fitting in.

We must look fora new building to respect, reinforce, reintroduce, reinterpret the particular genius loci of the place. It might c•-Main elements of pastiche but should e

S

1

ltne'ti e e life enf na bce bdlden ft should also conveya sense of public use and involvement beyond any narrow definition of commercial function. Could something like this have happened inFlorence or Bruges? It would seem inconceivable.

Perhaps in the end we should atleast be thankful that this long standing wasteland in the centre of the city has been filled. In city terms something is better than nothing.

We are experienced contractors able to offera wide variety of services

• • •

t ,*,

s

ii ’ i tg

„ u

8tlt8 b i0i ztit

sin

'

conference& banqueting facilities and with access to 199 bedrooms on4 floors The buildings organisation seems sound butcould we not havea straightforward modem interior instead of all this make believe and pretentious design and decoration — a style which has some authentic character which perhaps would help visitors to Cambridge to appreciate their historic surroundings rather than unwittingly debasing them?

• • •

-' .

'£"..'

Specialist Joinery Nanufacture uPVC Window Nanufacture& Fitting Full Building, Electrical and Highways Naintenance Specialist Metalworks/Sign taking Graffiti Removal, A full range of Printing Servi

Mill Road Depot, Cambridge Tel:(0223) 358977

1.A

Sporting History

Richard Brimblecombe One of themost potent qualities of Cambridge's environmental character is the extent and variety of the green landscape which is interspersed with the urban fabric.

The historic centre with its manicured College grounds is surrounded bya series of public commons andparks, which serve to give definition between thehistoric centre itself and the surrounding neighbourhoods.

Each ofthese open spaces has its own particular quality arising from its size, shape and surroundings. Patterns of use have evolved reinforcing the individual characteristics of one area from another.

period it was reputed to be the best public cricket pitch in the country nurturing such famous talents as Jack Hobbs. It was also the venue atwhich theoriginal set of rules for Association Football were promulgated.

As well as its use for both informal recreation and organised sport the Piece hosts all manner ofother parades, fairs and gatherings, the most remarkable of which was thepublic banquet celebrating Queen Victoria's Coronation in 1838 attended by an estimated 15,000 people, over half the City's population.

The boundaries of the open space are clearly and simply drawn by thesurrounding roadways with definition given by the buildings and trees which line the perimeter.

The density of building on the three sides to Park Terrace, Parkside and Regent Terrace was established during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries where as that to Parker's Piece is distinguished primarily by Gonville Place has always been rather more its public prominence, bounded on three dispersed with the open spaces of Petersfield sides by major traffic routes and crossed by and Donkeys Common (now theswimming footpaths connecting principle areas of the pool) at the eastern comer and thefree City. The physical prominence of thePiece is standing building of the sports hall and car matched by its place in both local and park replacing the earlier City gaol. Mature national history. From its early days, leased elm and lime trees planted in the midas two fields by a cook called Parker from his nineteenth century lined all sides of the Piece employers, Trinity College in 1587 (hence although sadly only the limes to Parkside the name Parker's Piece) it passed into Town remain after the ravages of Dutch elm disease ownership in 1613 inexchange forland in the last three decades. forming Trinity Colleges holding along the Backs. Its use asa sporting venue began in Unlike any other public space in Cambridge 1831 when theCity allowed theUniversity to thehorizontal expanse of Parker's Piece is preparea cricket pitch on part of the land unencumbered by any vertical intemiptions providing that the pitch was available to both save for ‘Reality Checkpoint’, the lone Town andGown (aninteresting precedent for central lamp post reputed to be the first the present debate on the University's electric street light in Cambridge. The proposed West Cambridge sports centre).

Piece's sheer scale and simplicity of shape Since that time the Piece has secured its make ita truly noble element in the fabric of place in sporting history. In the post war the City.

2. Architectural Boundaries Syd Furness As you stand under thelamp atthecentre of Parker's Piece and take in the four surrounding facades you ask yourself where else in town is there such an opportunity to see buildings as the architect does on his drawing board — in pure elevation instead of from oblique angles. Under these circumstances one could be forgiven for expecting that the architecture here could have been better. Look tothenorth for this is the most fortunate elevation remaining, including the beautiful Georgian terrace and the old part of University Arms Hotel, although the later extension to this building is ofa scale completely foreign to the vicinity (and what prompted those curious window surrounds?).

The east and south aspects facing Parkside and Gonville Place, although rather disappointing asa result of the architectural standards achieved in the recent buildings (they have had sufficient comment notto rekindle old flames here) are with the exception of the fine buildings on the north half of Parkside, fairly nondescript.

However it is the west side which has really interested me for some time. This was once largely composed oftheback ends of the buildings which faced Regent Street and as such obviously did not concern their designers or builders to the same extent as the fronts The result was a surprisingly good collection of modest small scale elements which managed despite the disparity of function to producea natural unforced cohesiveness rare by most standards. This happy state existed until some tenyears ago when predictably — land values and occupancies were looked into and redevelopment and “rationalisation” took CRICKET OR GOLF? Asthe recession deepensa note of alternative activities to keep local Architects off the streets may be helpful.

A cricket team, comprising Association members hasbeen active for some years now. A fixture ust has been established against other local professionals. Most matches areplayed on the University ground atFouriers.Any Architects wishing to take part should contact James Griffith on Cambridge 835998.

An annual golf match is also organised.

The fixture list could be expanded if there was sufficient interest. Anyone interested in the golf match should contact Richard Brimblecombe also on Cambridge 835998.

over, resulting in the current situation. If the Lloyds Bank Building is anything to go by, the non-importance of therear view is to be signalled bya change of material from expensive stone to cheap facing brickwork and aluminium windows and it is still unclear whether this particular rear end is offices or residential. Maybe it doesn't matter what goes on behind facades like this.

The other new buildings along Regent Terrace include one commercially dull, and one bright pompous Flash-Harry which will never requirea date stamp, and the rather jolly pastel green modifications to the rear of the hotel building. Of all the new “accomplishments” this is by far the most effective and continues the spirit of Regent Terrace in the face of much opposition. In the middle remainsa small group of houses and flats and the admirable Avery building, which will serve to remind us of what has recently been lost.

However, although not strictly part of the west elevation — there looms above it all from thefarside of Regent Street an enormous landed whale ofa roof profile obliterating much oftheskyline. There seems tobe an Orwelliari chant of “Pitched roofs good; flat roofs bad” currently intoned by most architects; if there was evera situation where this should have oeen ignored,. it must be here. The office building beneath this ignoble hat has no more storeys than the nearby Army andNavy recruiting building — which probably created ,tiie precedent for the number offloors permicssible — yet this last named building does not register at all on the skyline because it has a flat roof. The result of the pitched roof solution is that one of Cambridge's best views of thesetting sun has been sadly affected for some time to come.

Alltheabove sins and omissions however, pale in the face of the greatest damage suffered in recent years by the Piece and which cannot be blamed on planners, developers, their architects, or commercial viability.I refer to the loss of the elms,a magnificent collection of specimen trees which commanded andvisually controlled the west, south and north elevations (the limes still survive along Parkside). These trees were of course not in existence when theoriginal buildings were erected — but from oldprints it is clear that the architecture stood on its own merit. It seemsa cruel irony that just when we needed them most they have gone — how long goes ivy take to grow?

END OF THE GIAS General Improvement Areas (GIA) came into being under theHousing Act 1969 with the purpose of slowing down slum clearance (which was proving too costly). Perceptions of old housing stock were changing. People

realised that obsolete housing terraces could be upgraded and made into very livable homes. Building Societies however were slow to support this new attitude and a first task was to convince them and owners that their money was well invested.

One ofsixposting houses in Cambridge, its loss of function asa post house resulted with the arrival of the railway in the 1840s. The Yard was always part of the site and it still retains vestiges of the stables.

The Eagle was popular with Second World War pilots from thelocal wartime airfields, and the ceiling of the Bar has been faithfully preserved with its tobacco varnished inscriptions bearing witness to that episode in the life of the town. It has beena favoured haunt of student and graduate life mixing it with the townies and tourists. The popularity of the Yard inthesummer months provided some reason for anxiety about noise level on the part of the College (which was probably more worried in reality about the inconvenience sometimes toaccess to faculty parking at the rear of the yard).

In essence GIAs entailed the examination of existing groups of obsolete properties and their environment witha view to improvement rather than redevelopment.

Essential to this process was consultation with, and obtaining the confidence and participation of the affected community.

Experience improved therelationship and effectiveness of these projects and overcame thereluctance within sections of the City Council over theunconventional procedures associated with the implementation of GIAs. Now, twenty years on, the Government has terminated the scheme; thethreat of slum clearance is no longera blight. One of the most rewarding benefits was the good relations fostered between Councillors, officials and residents asa result of the involvement anda more effective servicing of community needs.

To mark thedemise of thescheme an exhibition of the Cambridge General Improvement Area schemes will be at the Guildhall, Cambridge 22-27 April and other venues subsequently.

Richard Darlington (GIA Officer 1972—91) Colen Lumleys2 year term as CAA Chairman officially ends with the AGM on May 14th and should not pass without comment. This has beena remarkable period of development for theAssociation at all levels. Much of this has been due toColens almost fanatical commitment, inspiration and hard work. It would be impossible here to describe all the achievements and sometimes almost imperceptable changes which have occured under his influence. The Association is very much alive and kicking — the kind of body it ought tobe.His will bea very hard act to follow.

Colen is standing for election as the new Regional Chairman. One might be sceptical of the value ofa regional organisation for East Anglia when it encompasses such disparate Associations stretching from theLondon suburbs to deepest Norfolk.

Ifanyone can begin to instilla genuine sense of identity and purpose to the region and therefore to regional decision making then perhaps Colen can in partnership with our able Secreatary/ Director. The new Architecture Centre could be the beginning of something truly remarkable for the Region.

DR Photographs pages 1&3 reproduced by courtesy Kevin Allen Photography, Norwich.

Photograph of Eagle courtesy of Cambridge Evening News.

THE EAGLE* Colen Lumley After many months of negotiations planning permission has been given for work tothe oldEagle Inn inBene't Street. The building forms part of property along Bene't Street and Kings Parade all in the ownership of Corpus Christi College and undergoing phased redevelopment and repair at the present moment. Controversy arose over the College's seeking ofa change of use and over the closing of tht• carriage entrance to the old Yard. The reason behind this was the disturbance to student occupation of the upper levels of buildings surrounding the yard, particularly during exam periods. The College also sought to enclose the galleries which were added totherear range of the Eagle atabout 1826.

The Inn isa timber framed structure with brick under-building, converted probably and added toformer buildings dating from the lateC 16 and earlyC 17. Recent work has uncovered original miillioned windows and wall paintings. The later street range, faced in brickwork then in Ketton stone, was constructed in 1688 and still retains its original fenestration openings and separate inn entrance and carriage entrance. The street range was divided from thetavern at the rear in the early 1850s and became offices in the 1860s until the present alterations.

The site was given to the College in 1525.

The inn existed befor‹: 1667 and has always retained its function although undergoing changes of name andfortune. First known as The Post House, later as the Eagle and Child Inn, Eagle Tavern, Eagle Hotel and Posting House, it came up intheworld in 1688 with the establishment of regular coach services.

EASTERN

REGION CENT&E ARCHITECTURE

The College has of course been inownership of thesite for centuries. It isa site that has an accustomed town useforthesame length of time and was, until closed for the present building work,a feature of city life frequented on equable terms by members of town and gown. Its history and associations form part of the collective memory ofthe City. The act of closing the use of the Yard represented by the planning concession will undoubtedly be provocative, ata time when most thought the old antagonisms had finally been laid to rest. It would be an ironic incursion on city life by the one college in Cambridge that was founded by thetown and indicates that it has lost touch with its roots.

The loss of public houses of any real character in the city centre in recent years only serves to highlight this. *Historical information based on notes by Oliver Rackham.

RIBA

B ookshop For Books on:

- Architectural Exhibitions - Talks - Advice - Conference facility - Information RIBA Eastern Region Tel: (0223) 324157

There has been concern over theoutcome of theplanning negotiations (CA no.8 April 1989). Many will be relieved now that, under thewatchful eyes of the City's Conservation Department, the future use and fabric of the Eagle is safeguarded and is to be restored in its historic form, with the ground floor of the street range converted back toand connected with the pub, and restoring its street entrance.

The conservationists have achieved their aims. Frequenters of the Eagle have been less well treated. The compromise on which planning permission was granted was that the gates to the carriage entrance could be closed on up to 100 days of theyear, to suit the College. That is to say the days when the Yard would be most usable and most likely to be used.

- Architecture - Building - Construction - Design - Environment

KINGS PARADE

CAMBRIDGE

The Architecture Bookshop Open Mon-Sat 9.30am-6.00pm Tel: (0223) 356953

COMMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAMBRIDGE ARCHITECTURE NEWSLETTER WELCOMED. CONTACT THE EDITORS: DAVID RAVEN (0223) 353115 (tel) 353112 (fax) COLEN LUMLEY (0223) 843931 (tel) 844426 (fax)

YOUNG ARCHITECTS' GROUP

CAA

Youare invited to join us in the Arts Theatre Cafe offSt Edwards' Passage on the 1st and 3rd Thursday of each month at6.30pm (for informal discussion or gossip). We also need toplan the events over thecoming weeks including the CAA exhibition.

There arevacancies on the Executive Committee of theCambridge Association of Architects. Members wishing to influence the activities can do so more readily by joining the Executive. Your views and participation will be welcome.

All are welcome, especially people who are perhaps new to Cambridge and kicking their heels.

Further information: Roger Wilson 0763 248944 Colen Lumley (0223) 843931

Debate Monday 29 April Architecture Centre, King's Parade — 7.30pm. ‘This house believes Stirling’s History Faculty Library building should have been demolished’.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

1991

For further information contact:

6.00pm 14 May — University Centre CAA ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING (see separate panel)

Carl Rowland — 240331 evenings David McClean — 328322 evenings James Bourke — 413261 evenings

6.00pm 29 May — Fitzwilliam College Visit to MacCormac Jamieson Prichard Chapel (meet atPorters Lodge)

6.00pm — 21 June E1y/Cambridge river cruise (booking essential) 6.00pm3 June — Architecture Centre Discussion evening with the Director of Planning/City Council Sunday 30 June WORLD DAY OFARCHITECTURE Architectural Tour 6.00pm 15 July — Trinity Centre Science Park Green Architecture talk by Peter Davey (Editor Architectural Review) 6.00pm 1st Monday ofmonth (excl BH) Architecture Centre CAA Executive Committee meetings (open to all)

FullColourGopiesflormtheMurberOnetear, producedonCanonGolomrLaserCopiersCLC 1BCLM5OO. CopiesthatyourilnotbeGevearecopies.

AndpricesthatrneambusimessfrornaslorasAOpence’perA0copy. * Qu ant i ty m ust excue d TO0 totalcopi es prc›d uce cl o n C LC i p rices are p I us NOT. M acCLCi s ubjecttocc›rri pat ibi1i ty.

0 amDridge Srinti ng Park Milto n G ambridge Telephone O223 420862

CB4 6AZ