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.
No comments:
Post a Comment