Not exemplar architectural design
Planning application 14/13247 ( Sept 2015 )
What we said at the presentation DC meeting on the 14th of October 2015
What we said at the presentation DC meeting on the 14th of October 2015
Good evening councillors, officers ladies and gentlemen. I am Tony Lancaster and I am here on behalf of the Riverside Residents’ Association and Kingston Residents Alliance.
I have here some words that have been said or written by Kevin Davis concerning his aspirations for, in particular TOPO and major developments generally.
… a town where we preserve the cultural and historic aspects of Kingston by bringing striking architecture
… great buildings that even when some believe it is too tall we can at least say the design was exceptional.
… we want buildings fit for Kings, not to be destroyed by Vikings.
Yes fine aspirations indeed. Over here I have some root vegetables, parsnips in fact. Well this is disappointing it seems that it is true after all…. fine words butter no parsnips.
So if fine words are not enough to get St George to design architecture of merit and quality where can we look to find the guidelines for quality architectural design?
I started with the Royal institute of British Architects document entitled ‘Good design - it all adds up’ Of their 10 ingredients for good design point 1 was delivering what the client has asked for, point 5 was delivering a return on investment and seven was completion on-time and on-budget
I won’t list here the other seven banal and unimaginative ingredients. But not a single mention of the end user nor a mention of aesthetics nor anything approaching a usable or measurable definition of what good design is.
So I looked at CABE. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment they say:
“CABE starts from the belief that architecture affects everyone, every hour of every day, but good design is about much more than how things look. It is about uplifting communities and transforming how people feel and behave. It is also about using resources effectively and imaginatively. In short, good design improves the quality of life for everyone.”
A successful project , they say, “will relate well to the geography and history of the place and
● respect important views
● respect the scale of neighbouring buildings
● use materials and building methods which are as high in quality as those used in existing buildings”
Well that’s rather better isn’t it. But unless I am mistaken (looking in the parsnips dish) those parsnips show no sign of getting coated with butter.
So I tried the government’s National Planning Policy Framework It says:
“It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design.
The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. It should respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials and be visually attractive as a result of good architecture...”
Oh goodness, my poor unbuttered root veg. Can’t somebody tell me what good architecture actually looks like?
I thought I’d ask our planners. Whilst they have lots to say about the Health Impact, on the heritage aspect, on the transport, even on the trees, on energy and sustainability, car parking, and of course they have their guidelines which are just that and may be safely ignored by St George. But not a word about architectural quality. They like to think this results in a decision made on balance. But they use a mere proportion of the metrics that are available and their recommendations are anything but balanced.
Not a word about what a community might want for itself. Not a hint about how to create an architectural vernacular that makes a better place.
Making a better place. Isn’t this what we all want? This is the concept of placemaking, an idea that has been around though pretty much ignored since the 60’s and much influenced by the work of Jane Jacobs. She said “As in the pseudoscience of bloodletting, just so in the pseudoscience of town rebuilding and planning, years of learning and a plethora of subtle and complicated dogma have arisen on a foundation of nonsense.”
So What is Placemaking?
It is only when buildings and spaces respond to people’s needs that they can truly be called a place.
With community-based participation at its centre, an effective Placemaking process capitalises on a local community’s assets, inspiration, and potential, and it results in the creation of quality spaces that contribute to people’s health, happiness, and well being.
This means putting people at the heart of the creative process, unearthing the real needs of a community, empowering stakeholders, creating goodwill, inspiring community spirit and building consensus. Far from imposing ready-made off the shelf solutions, we build a vision together.
Councillor Davis has on at least three occasions I have witnessed held up his hands in resignation asking that what can he do? The council doesn’t own this land all we can do is respond to the proposals submitted.
Does that mean we are powerless in the face of any amoral bottom-line motivated business, the Vikings as Mr Davis has called them? Powerless when they come to our town to do what they want without ever asking us what we want or what values we hold. Free to ignore our guidelines, free to ignore the views of experts, and free to create buildings with little or no design quality, buildings that are not exceptional, nor striking and are not fit to be seen in the company of the word iconic.
But I do not entirely blame St George, though I despair at their apparent lack of manners and socail responsibility. If all the experts and policy makers are unable to define good design, and have no clue about building the right places it is not fair to lay the blame for these inappropriate proposals solely at their door.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. It is possible, and very necessary that we create a definition of a well designed architecture and its interface with the needs of a present and future community. That way St George and future developers will understand what is needed and what to do and won’t waste their money and our time. And we won’t risk having incredibly wrong solutions put in front of us.
Until then though I must use my common sense, my experience of living in this town for 30 years, my own aesthetic sensibilities and my lifelong interest in architecture. And when I do that then I see a proposal which is ugly, lumpen and insensitive and which tramples on the architectural style of the town, kicks sand in the face of 2 heritage buildings, insults the community by its fake attempt at consultation, spits in the face of placemaking and provides not a single idea of quality. Please St George go away or do it right and do right by us.