Tuesday 16 September 2014

CARDIFF COAL EXCHANGE




As a coincidental footnote to the previous blog (Nairn’s Cardiff) a new campaign to save the Cardiff Coal Exchange has been called for by the local MP, Stephen Doughty. In his commentary on Ian Nairn’s 1960’s essay on Cardiff Owen Hathersley noted of Butetown that “ The ‘Victorian commercial core of the utmost probity’ nearby is just left to (literally) rot, without the slightest attempt to connect it to the new centre.” At the heart of this is the Cardiff Coal Exchange the present condition of which is, by any measure, a disgrace. Mr Doughty is to be commended for calling for direct action from civic society. By that I mean those who have even a shred of self-respect as citizens of Cardiff – a city which was suggested to be ‘the best UK city to live in’ only last week[1]. (Which was of course duly translated into ‘one of the best in Europe’ by the reliably partisan local press[2]). 

The initiative may necessarily come from within for it is to those citizens of Cardiff that the value of the Cardiff Coal Exchange, expressed as Symbolic and Cultural Capital, belongs. 
Conservation of the Coal Exchange may not be seen as a priority elsewhere in Wales, and in the South Wales Valleys in particular. There the building may be regarded as a symbol of the exploitation of their communities to the advantage of the agents and middlemen of Cardiff who erected it solely for their personal economic gain. The Coal Exchange was not built by the pantomime villains of socialist folklore, the aristocratic or commercial elite of the day (the mining and shipping magnates), but by the emergent bourgeoisie. The autocratic power of the Second Marquess of Bute became a less decisive influence on the development of Cardiff after his death and during the period of the minority of his successor when the Bute estates were administered by Trustees (Davies 1981). Thereafter greater influence was evidenced by the growth of civic society and, particularly, those who prospered from the Bute investment in the infrastructure of Cardiff Docks – the so-called ‘wharf aristocracy’ or ‘Docksmen’. They themselves were, in their day, very distinct from the ‘Townsmen’ the latter being inclined to the conservative and the ‘Docksmen’, by their nature the speculators, chancers and grifters drawn to the potential fortunes to be made in the heyday of coal shipping (Daunton 1977).



As noted in the previous blog the siting of the Coal Exchange in Mountstuart Square was a consequence of, on the one hand, the failure of the original vision of the Second Marquess of Bute for a planned residential development and, on the other, the runaway success of coal exportation through his docks.  What had been a residential square in the Georgian manner became the centrepiece of that ‘Victorian commercial core of the utmost probity’ referred to by Ian Nairn. That was separated from the city by the remainder of Butetown which, before the original Loudon Square was completed, was falling somewhat short of ‘utmost probity’. “The Merthyr Guardian was describing the Bute Street area as ‘increasingly vile and abominable….keepers of public houses and brothels are gradually obtaining possession of the whole street…. Cardiff is gaining a world-wide reputation as one of the most immoral of seaports’. Nevertheless, even today, with much of Butetown demolished, enough remains of the original concept to provide a striking example of Victorian architecture and town-planning in what has been described as ‘perhaps the most tranquil and evocative commercial centre in Europe.” (Davies 1981 p200)

The availability of an open square was then a matter of circumstance but the building of the Coal Exchange was not promoted by the Third Marquess of Bute. It may be better seen as an opportunistic response of the Bute Estate to market demand as, from the terms of the lease, they were not doing the Docksmen any favours. The ground lease of the Coal Exchange was granted for 99 years in 1883 at a peppercorn for the first three years, £100 p.a. for the following two, £200 in the fifth, £700 for the following four years and thereafter £1,000 p.a. for the duration of the lease (Davies 1981 p196). The cost of construction was reputedly £60,000 so the return to the Bute Estate might be regarded a fully commercial rate for the ground. By the reckoning of Daunton (1977) this would be a significantly better percentage return than that enjoyed on the massive financial investment in constructing the docks and also involve much lower risk. The docks, however, created the demand whereby the Bute Estate could exploit their monopoly position on land in central Cardiff.

What may then be considered in passing are the economic consequences. By the mid 1880’s we can, for example, make some fine distinction between the Third Marquess of Bute and the various companies controlled by the Bute Estate. Whereas the second Marquess had been an autocrat who built and controlled a fledgling organisation his son inherited, via the trustees and the period of his minority, distinct commercial enterprises which had wider corporate responsibilities. These commercial organisations had to service the financial demands of the Third Marquess to fund his many interests -including architectural and other patronage- whilst maintaining the economic viability of the various commercial enterprises. In simple terms one can then sketch out a chain whereby costs incurred by the Third Marquess (gold stars on bedroom ceiling) are funded by increased harbour duties, mineral royalties and ground rents on Coal Exchanges. These in turn are then passed through the middlemen, shippers, colliery owners to the source of production. They in turn cut costs (thinner beams in coal seam ceiling) and, for every extra halfpenny a ton abstracted in Cardiff all those underground in the valleys had to shovel that much harder.

This is of course a simplified – or simplistic- outline of the cause and effect of the commercial self- interest of the ultimate beneficiaries of coal production, many of whom were based in Cardiff and, in particular, those intermediaries that made their money from brokerage. This emergent bourgeoisie had, in the main, little personal connection with Cardiff let alone its hinterland. Simply by looking at the population statistics in that period of exponential growth would establish that most of the residents would be, at best, first generation Cardiffians. In reality the majority of those involved in coal shipping had been attracted to the area solely in pursuit of personal gain. However unenlightened their self-interest it nevertheless produced lasting benefit for the city. The construction of the Coal Exchange was as important a contribution to the infrastructure of the (then) town as the cultural, educational and administrative buildings at Cathays Park and elsewhere. The Coal Exchange firmly established Cardiff’s dominance as the commercial and economic centre of South Wales and, thereby, its supremacy in the urban hierarchy. Although it was supplanted by Barry in the tonnage of coal exported Cardiff remained the centre of the coal trade. And by that time Cardiff had, of course, been designated a city. It may then be argued that, from the outset, the principal beneficiaries of such buildings have been the people of Cardiff.

Theoretically there should not then be the expectation that the salvation of the building be funded by those outside the city. There are those who will, on the foregoing grounds, view the Coal Exchange as simply a monument to Victorian venality and oppose any wider financial contribution to its restoration. Taking such line of reasoning to its (il)logical conclusion we might briefly consider the case of Cardiff Castle which has, over the course, been a symbol of Roman, Norman, Plantagenet and feudal subjugation of the indigenous population and was elaborately and expensively restored largely through their indirect exploitation during the 19th century[3]. Lesser cases would be Duffryn House and gardens, Insole Court or any other edifices erected on the proceeds of coal mining and shipping. Blaenavon is a World Heritage site, Big Pit is maintained by our National Museum and there is a tollbooth in St Fagans. In fact many of Britain’s most cherished heritage attractions are the legacy of far more oppressive exploitation both here and, more particularly, overseas.

The converse argument is therefore that architecture and landscape is the repository of our collective memory and we simply recognise the past for what it is. Our common heritage. The ascendancy of Cardiff and the other major urban centres through the abstraction and exportation of coal is absolutely central to the story of modern Wales. The Coal Exchange may be seen to symbolise the epicentre of that trade and consequent development. The Victorian Society consider the building one of Wales’ most important landmarks and that society (unsuccessfully) campaigned to save the London Coal Exchange from deliberate demolition rather than neglect. The Cardiff Exchange probably has less importance in terms of architectural history than that.

Architecturally the work of Edwin Seward may be considered better represented elsewhere in the city. Recent works to the Cardiff Royal Infirmary display those buildings to greater advantage and the Old- Old -Old Central Library in the Hayes considered by some his finest building (Newman 2004 p211). (The conversion of the latter to the ill- fated Centre for Visual Arts may perhaps be noted as regards any suggestion as to where the future use of Coal Exchange may lie)  The ‘debased French Renaissance vocabulary’ of the exterior elevations of the Coal Exchange are less remarkable and the architectural value of the building is largely in its lobby and trading hall (Newman 2004). To some extent that argument has already been lost as successive planning consents have permitted significant alterations including the threat of extensive demolition and retention of the facades. It is probable that public access to the lobby and hall would have been very restricted had the Macob consent for conversion of the building to residential use proceeded. It remains, however, a listed building of some architectural importance and more social and historic significance.



However, after all the above is said one has to question whether any cultural heritage case or argument is really the best way forward. We can turn now to the Welsh Government who devote proportionately less resources to a) Cadw than are allocated to the equivalent bodies in other regions of the UK and b) Visit Wales whose marketing in part promotes that heritage. This may be underlined by the recent decision of the Welsh Government leadership that the Cabinet does not need a Culture Minister. In the first instance their attention may best be arrested by suggesting that the current predicament of the Coal Exchange is a direct result of the negligence of their officers. This may be outlined by moving to the more recent history of the Coal Exchange.

The Cardiff Bay Development Corporation  acquired the Coal Exchange in 1988. At that time it was in multiple occupation having been previously acquired by a company called Control Securities who had carried out alterations and ‘improvements’ in anticipation that the building would be the home of a Welsh Assembly following the devolution vote of 1979. The proposal for regional devolution at that time was defeated by a majority of 4:1 (20.3% for and 79.4% against) with only 12% of electorate voting in favour of establishing an assembly. Neil Kinnock was one of six south Wales Labour MPs who campaigned against devolution on centralist, essentially British-nationalist grounds. When the Coal Exchange was owned by CBDC it housed, among others, the offices of Mrs Glenys Kinnock MEP. There was, in fact, a multiplicity of tenants and both this and nearby buildings around Mountstuart Square enjoyed something of a false dawn, particularly during the period of CBDC’s operational lifetime. Animation and design companies, a theatre group in the former St Stephens church, artists studios and a host of other activities which were attracted initially by the relatively low cost space in that area and then by the presence of complementary activity. New bars and restaurants opened and there was a lively music scene with The Dowlais, The Exchange itself and other venues (the fabled Casablanca Club was an early casualty).

CBDC formulated various proposals for the restoration and adaptive re-use of the Coal Exchange. The estimated costs were somewhere north of £10m and commercial companies were invited to tender on the basis that they would undertake that work. In short, such capital expenditure was to be a condition of such sale. Macob were selected having bid something in the region of £800k. At that time the rental income for the hall and various offices and other occupiers in CBDC's time may have been in the region of £400k a year. Subsequently the building was vacated of tenants in anticipation of major development. Following the dissolution of CBDC it would appear that the property was sold by the Welsh Government in 2001 without the condition to spend the £10m + on immediate repairs and refurbishment. The figure reported in the property press at the time was £500k for the 200,000 sq ft building (£2.50 per square foot).

Macob, to their credit, allowed continued use of the hall as a music and function venue and many notable events happened there. I would make it absolutely clear that John Roberts of Macob is a decent and honest man who extended the use of the Coal Exchange Hall as a music venue at some considerable personal expense. However, Macob - then effectively under the control of another individual- subsequently revised the proposals for the building from those originally presented to CBDC to a residential development which would have seen the hall closed as a music venue and reduced to a form of atrium.  On securing consent for that development the building was re-mortgaged at the then market peak and, in the subsequent recession, represented negative equity. The residential development did not proceed. John Roberts resumed personal control of Macob, re-opened the hall for a time and started carrying out some essential repairs and refurbishment on the building. This has been a losing cause in the economic climate of recent years and, as is now the case, has resulted in the company that owns the building going into liquidation.

More recently there was action by Cardiff City Council who invoked legislation which may have led to a coercive acquisition of the building from Macob. That action might have been regarded as an enterprising and entrepreneurial attempt to restore the position that had been achieved by CBDC but proved to be abortive. Alternatively their action may be expressed as a cynical and opportunistic attempt to secure an asset which was bought and paid for by the taxpayer via CBDC and sold, either incompetently or corruptly, by officials of the Welsh Government in 2001. There is therefore a case for formal public investigation into the recent history of the Coal Exchange to determine whether incompetence or corruption of public officials placed it in the hands of Macob. The question that needs to be addressed concerns the terms of the sale to Macob by the Welsh Government. The fault and any blame in this sorry affair would appear to lie squarely with the latter.

If, as is rehearsed above, the Cardiff Coal Exchange is held to be Cardiff’s problem then, at a minimum, some claim may be made by the city on The Welsh Government for financial assistance by way of reparation for the negligence of their officers.

That then deals with the issue as to how the attention of the Welsh Government may be arrested as regards the future of the building. The blame game will not, however, save it. The future of it, and Mountstuart Square was probably at the feet of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation in that brief renaissance. Rather than be distracted or impeded by the cultural and heritage issues outlined above the future of the Coal Exchange is probably not a Grand Projet but in the fields of entertainment, education and experiment. A community led project which would see the restoration of the building as an extended exercise in building restoration skills led in part by local universities and FE Colleges. Conservation and traditional building skills are desperately needed across Wales and the Coal Exchange could provide hands on experience to students for several years.

For the sake of clarity I will elaborate on this. In my view students of architecture, engineering or other constructions would benefit as much from seven weeks on the trowels as seven years on Autocad. As to the crafts I am not suggesting some Equal Opportunity Community Youth Training Work Experience venture. I would be more inclined to an elite cadre comprising the best four or five students in each of the ‘biblical skills’ selected from the FE Colleges of Cardiff and its neighbouring boroughs. These should be selected on merit and superior ability not proportional representation, allocation, sex, creed, colour or by virtue of being distantly related to the Board Member of a Welsh Institution. The objective would be for them to leave after a year of advanced applied education and be recognised as the leading practitioners of their craft in their generation. Training which is informed by the pursuit of excellence and leads directly to highly skilled jobs.

This will, in turn produce relatively low cost accommodation of some quality which can be occupied across a range of uses.  As Jane Jacobs observed over fifty years ago – ‘new ideas need old buildings’. Obviously this challenges the fixation of our politicians with shiny new buildings on roundabouts but the Welsh Government should have seen the error of that way. Was not the Techniums Fiasco a contributory factor in bringing about the ultimate demise of the Welsh Development Agency? As may be observed from the preceding blog more locally much of what has replaced older buildings is not very good.



The origins of the Coal Exchange and cultural/ heritage baggage of its distant past are then as little if we can posit a future where it is possessed for the common good. That can be guided by the intelligent and inventive thinking that has informed the effective regeneration and adaptive re –use of older buildings elsewhere. Among these are, for example, the Custard Factory, Birmingham and The Melting Pot, Edinburgh. The Coal Exchange offers the advantages of an outstanding venue in the hall and a wider variety of potential use around in the building. This could include low cost foyer style residential accommodation in one wing, studios in another. In its commercial heyday the building had restaurants, a gentleman’s club and a wine merchant in the lower floor. More recently Mountstuart Square has doubled up as a Dalek devastated London. Somewhere between the two is a future for the Coal Exchange.

If you have any thoughts on that Mr Doughty, who represents Cardiff South and Penarth, can be contacted at stephen.doughty.mp@parliament.uk


References

Daunton, M. J. (1977). Coal Metropolis Cardiff 1870-1914. Leicester, Leicester University press.
              
              
              






[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29174074
[2] http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cardiff-voted-one-best-cities-7503586
[3] A future blog will deal with the Pembrokes who preceded the Butes as lords of Cardiff castle.

No comments:

Post a Comment