THE FUTURE OF THE VALLEYS

The BBC Wales documentary on the future of the South Wales Valleys broadcast on 16 March 2015* may be justified as provoking debate but what is desperately needed is intelligent and rational discussion of the issues. Engineering yet another confrontational exchange may be the default setting for those making cheap television but will do little to address the deep rooted social and economic problems of this or other parts of Wales. All too often any meaningful progress has been retarded by this approach in which reasoning turns quickly to rhetoric.

The documentary did little to properly explore the issues that were raised by Jonathan Adams in his IWA paper entitled A Catalyst for Reshaping the Valley Towns. The key point is in the word ‘reshaping’ and the prevailing tone of the trailers and the programme implied some vague proposal for a latter day Highland Clearance. The suggestion originally made by Jonathan Adams was neither ‘radical’ or ‘controversial’ as claimed by the narrator of the documentary and can in fact be seen  to be a simple reiteration of observations made in the South Wales Outline Plan of 1949;

 “ One of the major tasks facing the present generation is to devise means for rejuvenating the (mining) valleys…. The environment of those who live and work in these valleys must be radically improved……. The dual objective of physical planning in these (mining) areas must be to so ameliorate present conditions that industry can function more efficiently, and that those living there and dependent on it can do so in surroundings, and as part of a social structure, comparable with the best standards of modern neighbourhood planning”(South Wales Outline Plan 1949, p19)

The 1949 plan also suggested that the clearance and ‘thinning out’ of outworn dwellings was part of this process of renovation together with better communications, schools and community centres and recreation facilities. An underlying point is that the settlements in that particular area were dysfunctional from the time they were built. The 1949 plan recognised that the impact of coal mining on forms of urban development  was the rapid unplanned construction of “dwellings anywhere and anyhow” and an “untidy sprawl of towns and villages”. In short the settlements were produced by an inherently toxic combination of economic imperative and challenging topography. The proposals by Jonathan Adams are then more optimistic than the view of the great urban geographer Harold Carter in The Towns of Wales in 1965:

“The general character of these towns is, unfortunately, only too well known, and modern planning can do but little to improve it”

It is not then a novel debate nor did the documentary make any new observations. Those settlements that were the focus of the programme were largely the product of coal mining, an industry which grew from the 1850’s in that area, peaked in 1913 and progressively declined until   1989. In short it is 25 years since it’s been gone and 40 years since Max Boyce recorded Rhondda Grey and the issues are still not being discussed rationally.

The relationship between the Valleys and Cardiff was again raised as a contentious issue although that should be recognised as being symbiotic since BEFORE the industrialisation of South Wales. Cardiff relied upon its hinterland when its principal export was butter. Industrialisation must be seen to have been entirely dependent upon transport infrastructure for only with the construction of railways and connection to docks at Cardiff would the mining industry and ports grow from the 1840’s.  Communications remain central to the overall prosperity of the region and this has, again, been a standing issue since the South Wales Outline Plan of 1947;

 “As to regional communications, drastic improvements are called for ……. Though geographical circumstances in South Wales, and particularly in the mining valleys, often cause difficulties in attaining that end” (P10)

The documentary also did a disservice to the counter arguments for the Valleys.  Clearly there has been a need to address the catastrophic decline in the mining and other industries of South Wales.  As was pointed out in the course of the programme interventions in the form of factory building to create and diversify employment have been undertaken since the 1930’s when unemployment in the Valleys was around 40%. Interestingly the first major initiative, even then, involved the establishment of the Treforest Trading Estate on 272 acres of land closer to the coastal belt. The Distribution of Industries Act 1945 granted extensive powers to the Board of Trade for;

·        Building factories in the old ‘Distressed Areas’ and providing finance for industrial estates.

·        The provision for grants or loans to be made available to industrialists willing to establish factories in in these areas and

·        Financial aid for improvement of basic services and clearance of derelict sites

From the 1970’s there were the land reclamation programmes, industrial estates and other major interventions of the Welsh Development Agency. These so-called ‘regeneration’ initiatives have undoubtedly mitigated the full impact of industrial decline but, overall, GDP figures and other statistics suggest that the Valleys are falling further behind the European average. The area remains consistently at the top of league tables for inequalities of poverty, health and education.  Since devolution over £1.2bn of European aid has been spent in the Valleys and West Wales and nearly £300m on flagship Communities First projects to reduce poverty and empower the poorest areas in Wales. As to the latter the Welsh Assembly's Public Accounts Committee suggest that such initiatives have failed and the conclusion must be that small community based projects, as worthy and well intentioned as they are, will not in themselves reverse the damaging legacy of massive industrial decline.  

A forty minute television programme is not going produce a solution to the problems of the Valleys. From the outset the people who live there had to confront adversity from the nature of the predominant form of employment itself, mining, and the nature of the people who employed them. That history of struggle might even be said to inform the tenor of the argument put on their behalf in that television programme which was one of aggressive sentimentality. It most certainly colours their response to proposals emerging from Cardiff, London or Brussels and therein lays another problem. City regions have been a given through the course of human settlement and the vocal denial of this fact by those who claim to represent valley communities has retarded initiatives which might benefit the region and there is every sign that they will continue to do so. The deep seated parochialism of the Valleys communities can be represented as local pride and independence but there will come a time when the world will decide it can move on without them. 

    

The people of Wales and many elsewhere fully recognise that there is a unique history and character in the South Wales valleys and acknowledge that it has contributed significantly to a distinct regional identity. However, it may well be the case that more negative perceptions will be formed by the repeated claims that their lifestyle choice to remain there must be perpetuated by permanent subsidy of others in wider society. That was the impression given by those opposing Jonathan Adams proposition and a much more positive and constructive approach and tone may be needed to avoid further alienation of the Valleys from other communities in Wales. My first job was in Cardiff Docks and there was a tacit understanding that I would be obliged to go there i.e. they weren't going to bring the boats around to Skewen to save me the bother. 

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05gndqz/how-green-is-my-valley-a-future-for-the-valleys

WOLF HWYL II - Neath Abbey

As a footnote to the preceding blog Richard Cromwell, the character played by Joss Porter in the BBC adaptation of Wolf Hall, was born by 1502 in the parish of Llanishen, Glamorganshire.  He was the great-grandfather of Oliver Cromwell, and one time owner of Neath Abbey. He was the eldest son of Morgan Williams an ‘aspiring Welsh lawyer’ who moved to Putney and set up as an innkeeper and brewer. Williams was married to Katherine, sister of Thomas Cromwell and both Morgan and Richard would benefit financially through the familial relationship with Cromwell, the younger taking his uncles surname.

Sir Richard Cromwell, a soldier of some note, was introduced to the Court of Henry VIII and was active in the dissolution of the monasteries. Among them was Neath Abbey which was surrendered to Thomas Cromwell in 1539. The site and demesnes at Neath were first leased to Richard Cromwell who then bought the site and demesnes along with a large part of the abbey’s other estates in South Wales for the sum of £731.0s.7 ½d in 1542. The same year he sold on the grange and chapel at Nash, lands in St Brides, Wick and Marcross and the vicarage of St Donats to Sir Thomas Stradling. The Grange at Sker was sold to Christopher Turberville. 

In the course of the 16^th century the site and demesnes at Neath were acquired by Sir John Herbert, second secretary of state to Elizabeth I and James I who rebuilt the former abbot’s house into a large country manor house. (See preceding blog for The Herberts). The remains of that Elizabethan house form the south elevations of the remaining 'abbey ruins'. In the absence of a male heir the estate passed to the Doddington family and then to the Hoby family. In 1699 Mrs Hoby died, and her daughter Katherine, who was married to Griffith Rice of Dinefwr, Carmarthenshire, inherited the bulk of the property. 

The estate remained in the hands of the barons Dynevor until it was sold in 1946 but during the C18th the abbey fell on very hard times. By 1731 it was being used for copper smelting and subsequently as part of the nearby Neath Abbey Ironworks. The Tennant Canal was driven through its south side in the 1820’s and Brunel ran the Vale of Neath railway on an embankment along what would have been the north side of the abbey church in the 1850’s. Various copper works were built on the adjacent river bank through the C18^th including the Mines Royal and Cheadle  It remained in a state of extreme dereliction half buried in industrial detritus which was cleared by volunteers in the 1920’s and 30’s.

Through the 1950’s and 1960’s the town rubbish tip was located across from the abbey on the canal bank. For a short time the ground on the west side of the abbey was used as a greyhound track and then a motorcycle speedway in the early 1960’s. That area is now covered with the Neath Abbey industrial estate facing the A465 dual carriageway and a large used car showroom.

Described by John Leland just before its dissolution as ‘the fairest abbey of all Wales’ it has remained behind a Ministry of Works fence. The setting of the abbey ruins remains an utter disgrace but they are occasionally put to profitable use by BBC Wales when they need a noble ruin completely untroubled by visitors. It should not be beyond the limited wit of Cadw and local planners to formulate a long term plan to incorporate the abbey ruins into a programme of work which would embrace local marshland, the adjacent River Clydach and the Tennant Canal into an attractive local amenity.

This could perhaps be done by the 500^th anniversary of its dissolution in 2039. It would be best not to wait until 2112 and the millennium of its foundation as an abbey…….

WOLF HWYL

The current preoccupation of the BBC with all things Tudor prompts the following account of Cardiff in that period. Whereas in many accounts of the modern city year Zero is 1814 and the ascendancy of the Second Marquess of Bute to the lordship of Cardiff Castle that title, and control of the related lands, may be traced back directly to the later Tudor period. That landholding originated in Royal gift in the C16th and the direct succession of title of the estates of the Lordship of Cardiff from 1547 – 1947 provided the foundation for the exponential development through the C19th which, in turn, secured for what had been a small mediaeval settlement the eventual status of city, capital and seat of government in the C20th.

This earlier history is every bit as colourful as the period of its origin. The source of the Bute family interests may be seen to originate in the grant of lands by Edward VI to William Herbert in 1547, the title passing by inheritance and marriage to the Bute family in 1766. The grant of land and titles to William Herbert between 1547 and 1549 was in reward for his services to the Crown which included the suppression of a rising in favour of the old religion in the West Country. In the course of that campaign it was estimated that some 10,000 peasantry and yeomanry were slain (Thompson 1930 p110).

Herbert ( c. 1501 - 1570 ), was the eldest son of Sir Richard Herbert (‘ Ddu ’) of Ewyas , bastard of William Herbert (d. 1469 ), earl of Pembroke of the first creation.  Described as a "mad fighting fellow," the young Herbert was noted for his intense ambition, fierce temper and hot-headed nature. He left his early employment as a gentleman servant to the earl of Worcester when he fled to France to avoid arrest for killing a city sheriff in Bristol. He joined the service of the French King Francis I, as a soldier earning royal favour for his martial skills and a recommendation to the service of Henry VIII  who much valued him, and heaped favours and honours upon him.

Herbert's first wife, Anne Parr, was sister to Catherinr Parr, sixth wife to King Henry VIII from 1543. He rose with the Parrs after his sister-in-law's marriage and from 1545 and 1546 acquiring in course the lordships of Miskin, Glynrhondda, Llantrisant, Neath Ultra and Neath Citra, the manor and Borough of Neath and the town of Briton Ferry. He was created Baron Herbert of Cardiff  and earl of Pembroke in 1551 and accumulated other lands and offices in South Wales , including the lordships of Usk , Trelleck , and Caerleon. As an executor of Henry VIII 's will, he became a governor to the young King Edward VI , one of his privy councillors and a Knight of the Garter.

After the death of Edward VI, Herbert initially supported (some would say initiated) the plot to crown lady Jane Grey of 1553 having married his eldest son and heir, Henry to her sister, Lady Catherine Grey. When it became clear that Mary Tudor would take the throne as Mary I Herbert cast his daughter-in-law out of the house and had the marriage annulled. Lady Jane and her father were subsequently executed for high treason in 1554 and, having distanced himself from the Grey family after their fall, Herbert secured the new queen's favour by crushing Thomas Wyatt's rebellion and commanding her army in France in the campaign of 1557.  

He remained in favour under Elizabeth , who made him ‘ custosrotulorum ’ of Glamorgan in 1567 and lord steward of her household in 1568 . He further increased his estates by purchasing the Llantarnam monastic lands but finally lost favour through his support of the proposed marriage of the duke of Norfolk to Mary , Queen of Scots. He died on 17 March 1570 , and was buried in S. Paul's.

It must be noted that this William, Earl of Pembroke had a brother, Sir George Herbert, who inherited the Craddock Estates in Swansea from his mother and, following the dissolution of the monasteries, acquired the Grey Friars property in Cardiff. When he purchased the friary lands he also purchased land in Llanishen, Llysfaen, and Roath. This may have been an opportunistic acquisition and not necessarily a royal gift. Sir George Herbert was, however, ‘granted’ Tewkesbury and Margam by the King and also land at Cogan, near Cardiff, where he built a house and the adjoining lands at Llandough. His son built a mansion at Cogan Pill and his grandsons were Sir William Herbert of the Friars, John who was secretary to both Elizabeth I and James I, and Nicholas who was MP for Cardiff 1584-5.

As Sir George Herbert had a son and grandson both called William and it is important to make a clear distinction between the two family lines. The Pembroke line holds Cardiff castle and the estates in Glamorgan which eventually pass to the Bute family by succession and marriage. That line has a significant role to play in the patronage of art and architecture in Britain, less so of that in Cardiff directly. To clearly differentiate reference will be made to Sir William, grandson of Sir George Herbert, as Herbert of the Friars. He inherited the Grey Friars monastery adjacent to the castle and used its materials to construct a mansion which he called ‘The Friars’ which that branch of the family occupied until circa 1730.

"By the late 16th Century, Cardiff’s finest house graced the land where once the Greyfriars stood. The grand stone Tudor mansion complete with bays and fine windows, became known variously over the years as the Friars, Whitefriars, or Herbert House. This was the home of Sir William Herbert (1548-1610). However, in contrast to the grace and beauty of his house, he appears to have been a rogue of the first order!"

Sir William Herbert of The Friars and his brother Nicholas were, by the colourful account of Herbert Thompson, of a belligerent and quarrelsome nature  (Thompson 1930 pp111-113). In 1576 he had to appear before the Council in the Marches in connexion with a brawl between his servants and those of inveterate foes William Bassett I of Beaupré and William Carnein which a constable was ‘grievously hurt’. In the same year an appeal was made to him as a piracy commissioner to rescue a foreign victim of pirates under the protection of his powerful kinsman, Sir John Perrot, but he declined to intervene. Tudor Cardiff was rife with piracy and goods plundered from the shipping routes to and from Bristol were  landed into South Wales, especially Penarth and Cardiff.

Herbert of the Friars was variously a Knight, a Justice of the Peace, and served as Sheriff of Glamorgan but far from upholding law and order, he exploited his position ruthlessly, and made significant personal gains through collaborating with pirates and shielding them from justice. One of the most notorious of them, John Callice was even a guest of Herbert’s in his mansion at the time of one investigation. The successive  investigations by the Admiralty and the Privy Council were hampered by Herbert intimidation of the local populace and he and other prominent South Wales citizens, were simply fined and bound over for their dealings. In addition to those authorities concerned with suppressing piracy Herbert of the Friars also troubled those concerned with other aspects of law and order. Actions were brought against him in the Star Chamber alleging that he had contravened crown grants by disposing of property while he was Sherriff of Glamorgan. He was again called to the Star Chamber concerning  a dispute between borough and county over the building of Cardiff bridge in 1577-87, and in 1596 when the bailiffs of the town sued on charges of rescuing his servants from Cardiff gaol, procuring by intimidation a partial coroner’s verdict on a townsman who was killed, and threatening to have the borough charter annulled. Herbert was back the following year for another Star Chamber action, accused of using ' 400 of the posse comitatus to overawe the town and to rescue a kinsman, leaving the bailiffs helpless, the town in an uproar, and peaceful citizens afraid to stir abroad. In the end, he was fined 1,000 marks, but he retained his seat on the council in the marches'.

Some will just remember the remains of The Friary which remained a Cardiff landmark until the late 1960s, when it was shamefully demolished and replaced by the Pearl Building, more latterly known as capital Tower. Others might conclude that this is perhaps a more fitting memorial to the lawless and corrupt Herbert than that in St John's Church, Cardiff.

Further references; 

 Thompson, H. M. (1930). Cardiff. Cardiff, William Lewis.

- See more on Tudor Cardiff at the excellent : http://www.thepennypost.co.uk/2011/05/08/cardiff-history-the-forgotten-rogue-of-tudor-cardiff/#sthash.C9zMFsgU.dpuf

on William Herbert at

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/herbert-william-i-1539-1609

---

NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INTERVENTION

The recent criticism of commercial property acquisition by the National Assembly for Wales appears to have revived a very old issue or, more correctly, issues. The first is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to defend such action as strategic intervention in the absence of any apparent strategy. Were this an official and widely applied strategy then it would signal a significant reversal of Assembly policy to that which has prevailed. That was, of course, informed by a view that questioned the efficacy of public sector intervention in property markets. It favoured ‘investment in people not places’ and abandoned what Reinhold Niebuhr dismissed as ‘salvation by bricks’. In short, the prevailing wisdom which saw the abolition of the Welsh Development Agency, the Land Authority for Wales, the winding-up of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and other agencies of intervention in regional property markets.

There is, in my view, a case to be made for some clear policy on public sector intervention and that issue is considered further below. I will first briefly address any defence of opportunistic or reactive property acquisition as may be offered. Under certain circumstances public sector intervention may be essential to prevent the wider economic impact of catastrophic failure in the commercial property sector. Such measures were deployed following the Secondary Banking Crisis of 1973 and were central to Government and Bank of England intervention which ensured the controlled disposal of property to arrest the rapid deflation of property values. In subsequent recessions fiscal and other measures have been deployed to mitigate market failure. Such action may be inevitable periodically as, in the view of some, too great a proportion of the UK economy is vested in landed property which is, by its nature, a notoriously imperfect market. An aspect of that imperfection may be illustrated in the simplest of terms by reference to the fundamental economic principles of supply and demand. Overall demand for property can change very quickly, supply cannot. Coupled with this are further factors such as transactional speed and cost and other considerations. Stated simply, property is a long-term business and those that participate in it with a short term view are inevitably at greater risk.

I have no knowledge of any recent cataclysmic failure in the local property market which might have precipitated public sector investment with the attendant risk concomitant upon the Welsh Assembly acquisitions at issue. Given the historic and persistent antipathy to financial support for projects in the capital from elsewhere in Wales it is perhaps unsurprising that the opponents of the current administration would take the opportunity to denounce such initiatives. Perceptions that central Cardiff enjoys relative prosperity compared to less advantaged parts of the region have been, and evidently remain, a persistent factor in the standing debate on the allocation of financial resources. This would inevitably call to question a speculative property investment by the Assembly in Cardiff Bay, where £2.4 billion was invested and, even more specifically, at Callaghan Square which was created as part of a PFI project which will cost the public sector circa £190m. In the latter case the State sponsored project was undermined by competing speculative development which syphoned off occupational demand for commercial development. In that instance it may be claimed that the private sector were very much smarter and lighter on their feet than those in the public sector. The converse argument is that those entrepreneurs produced low quality buildings and, consequently, low value jobs and, if Cardiff is to be the locomotive of regional economic growth, intervention remains necessary to achieve better quality commercial accommodation and higher value employment opportunities.

If the market will not then provide buildings of suitable quality on a speculative basis, as the costs of doing so exceed a guaranteed return, there is a form of market failure. We could address, in passing, the cherished myth that the private sector is significantly less risk averse than the public sector here. The underlying rationale of intervention is that there must necessarily be some sort of support, usually in the form of direct or indirect financial subsidy, provided by the public sector to underwrite such risk. Alternatively there are the variants of public/private partnerships, wherein the risk is shared and/ or borne largely by the former, or the public sector must make ensure the provision directly through its agencies with the concomitant risks.

This then leads back to the issue of who makes such provision in Wales where, in the past, so-called ‘regeneration’ was predicated on financial intervention in such markets and implemented by bodies like the Welsh Development Agency. Many in regional government remain adamant that the dissolution of that agency was necessary but, in this context, that question may be revisited. One can argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that the participation of the WDA in property markets evolved over time and had moved to that question of quality. Originally it had been largely reactive and a response to the rapid decline in extractive and heavy industry. That was referred to colloquially as the ‘Red Shed Program’ and, in crude terms, meant the bulldozing flat of redundant collieries or other plant and the creation of ubiquitous cul-de-sacs of light industrial units. One problem with these was that such provision proved a deterrent to private sector investment as commercial developers saw the public sector as providing such accommodation at subsidised rental levels. The disposal of those estates to the private sector was in many respects then beneficial in establishing a ‘true’ market, although that was probably not an intentional objective of the then Secretary of State who ordered that sale.

The subsequent campaign of attracting inward investment was also be seen as having been facilitated in part by low unit costs of land and buildings provided by such agencies. That proved to be a relatively short term advantage as lower labour and other costs elsewhere in the world significantly undercut any benefit afforded by cheap accommodation provided in Wales. As major investment declined critics of the WDA questioned the wisdom of ‘renting jobs from the Japanese’ and advocated support for indigenous SME’s and investment in The Knowledge Economy. The response to the latter was the building of ‘Technium’ buildings in proximity to Universities or areas where growth might be encouraged in specialised fields. Initially hailed as a visionary initiative this proved to be unsuccessful commercially and, for some observers, the final nail in coffin that had been constructed for the WDA by its critics in the Assembly. For those, all of the foregoing programs had been predicated on the philosophy of ‘build it and they’ll come’. Those who held the view that the job of government is to increase demand and not tinker with supply were in the ascendant.

A more enlightened view may be that it is not one or the other and that you have to do both to increase the chances of success. Moreover you have to take a much longer term view than may be taken by either commercial developers or elected politicians. In the case of the first, the property development industry in Britain has been dominated by the ‘hit and run’ style of operation since the 1960’s. The prevailing modus operandi in the commercial sector is to build, let and sell as quickly as possible. In the residential house building sector it is simply to build and sell quickly. Both sectors are conscious of the need for speed to avoid the recessionary cycles which have marked property markets, particularly since 1973. In the public sector the short-term view may be attributed to the electoral cycle, which seldom matches the aforementioned recessionary cycle in property markets,and the demand for politicians to produce ‘outputs’ which can be whipped out and waggled in the face of the electorate come polling day. That might be dismissed as a crude and cynical assessment but a cursory analysis of the rhetoric, which is further simplified and amplified by regional media, will evidence the pre-eminence of quantitative claims – numbers of jobs particularly – which are the currency of political claims.

There therefore needs to be a counterpoint to this where the argument for a long term strategy is formulated and properly explained to the electorate as has been the case in Scotland and elsewhere. If intervention is necessary in land and property markets then this should be supported by detailed research and a consensus secured across all parties to ensure that such policy as is necessary can be implemented across much longer property development cycles, let alone the political election cycle. If such policy were to be implemented by the civil service of the Assembly then that section of it responsible needs to be clearly identifiable and fully accountable. At risk of again returning to old issues, the abolition of Quango’s on the grounds that they represented a ‘democratic deficit’ can be questioned in the light of recent property market intervention where no-one can be clear who did what and why.

Some greater maturity would also be desirable in the debate that might inform such policy. All too often in Wales we subside into the sophistry of what may be termed ‘emotional economics’ for want of a better expression. That is the expression by the opponents of investment in contentious development in terms of schools, hospitals, or other essential public services which require accommodation of improved quality. All are necessary and finite economic resources need to be allocated rationally. The priorities need to be clearly established through intellectual analysis and reasoned argument and not the weary and tiresome rhetoric that passes for such in political exchanges.

As mentioned above Scotland has a clearly expressed the economic rationale for government intervention and we need to raise the level of debate and clearly address the issues which are not dissimilar here. Such policy then addresses the disparities that arise from market failure and what may be an essential role for government intervention to deal with related problems. This informs and underpins regeneration strategies which in turn have a strong equity rationale.

“Therefore, both efficiency and equity considerations can justify regeneration projects involving components such as land renewal, commercial, industrial, retail and housing development, improvements in transport and accessibility, environmental improvement,support for business, training and community development. If regeneration policy is effective in identifying relevant market failures, and is well-targeted at addressing equity issues, then it will maximise the possibility of convergence between wealthier and poorer regions, resulting in significant improvements in social cohesion, and potentially boosting long-run economic growth as well.”

(COMMUNITIES ANALYTICAL SERVICES, SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT)

A key phrase in that quotation is, again, ‘long-run’ and the longer term view that is critical in dealing with the property market. In that respect the Welsh Assembly might also revisit the principles of stewardship and better understand how those might have better informed their policy objectives on sustainability. Were they so minded they would also note that housing is included in the Scottish strategy and consider what is, perhaps,an even stronger case for intervention in residential land markets. This would address both the provision of affordable housing and the development of better quality planned settlements across Wales. They need, of course, look no further than the principles upon which the Land Authority for Wales was founded, which was to harvest the uplift in value which inevitably follows planning consent for more valuable use and re-invest that in public projects for wider social benefit. Ultimately that objective was perverted and LAW was denigrated as ‘the Quango that made money’. There is an opportunity to learn from and not repeat the mistakes of the past. In some instances land acquired by that public body was sold at enhanced values and funded major public infrastructure but the related private sector development was of questionable quality. There are numerous exemplars of radical intervention in Europe and elsewhere which would inform and extend such analysis of the benefits that can flow from such policy.

This might be a more enlightened and forward thinking approach than the seemingly spontaneous acquisition of second-hand airports in the wrong location. Such actions merely confirm the view of critics that market intervention is, at best, a very blunt instrument. My conclusion would be that such intervention is but one of the tools in the box and, given the innate imperfections in the property market, may not be refined and deployed as a precision instrument. It can, however, be used with greater skill and, handled with care, intelligence and skill, support and advance wider policy objectives.

A REPOSITORY OF OUR COLLECTIVE MEMORY - Earls Court 1937-2014 R.I.P.

The Earls Court exhibition hall is to be demolished and replaced with a 70 acre ‘super village’, the villagers occupying ‘penthouses with floor-to-ceiling glass and roof terraces’ which the media reports as already being sold with prices beginning at £1.5m. God knows the poor huddled masses within the M25 desperately need housing and the promises of a public library, a new high street and a park are to be seen as welcome relief for them. As selfish and anti-social as it may then seem in this season of goodwill I nevertheless mourn the loss of yet another place which features so strongly in my personal memory. In this instance, given the scale of the building and the range events of events it has hosted, I would imagine that thousands will also regret its passing. For that reason alone I was surprised that the 1937 art deco building known, in recent years as Earls Court 1, was not listed. Clearly it was not recognised as a national monument but it should perhaps be remembered as having been a national institution.

It was, for example, the venue for the Royal Tournament an event which in its day may certainly be described as such an institution. As a child I recall that we watched it as a family year on year and admit that, for me, the only item of any real interest or excitement was the Field Gun competition. That, much like the varsity Boat Race, generated vocal and partisan support for the rival crews around the family hearth, despite the fact that no one knew or cared where Gosport might be. Those who weekly scratch away at the bottom of the barrel called televised light entertainment might well consider reviving the Field Gun Competition with teams comprising so-called celebrities and live ammunition.

The first time I can recall visiting Earls Court was for the International Cycle Show around about 1967 as the pubescent part of a small and unruly delegation from the Port Talbot Wheelers. I cannot recall what logic informed the day trip to London where we looked at state of the art equipment that we could not afford because we had spent the money on train tickets, refreshments and admission to the International Cycle Show. I then recall we walked for several hours trying to find Paddington Station, probably because we had no money left for Tube tickets, and caught the last train home.

Prior to that Earls Court had featured as the first real landmark you saw on a car journey to London, a looming grubby white monolith glimpsed from the A4 as you left Hammersmith and crossed the bridge to the West Cromwell Road.  It was something you looked out for, a nice shiny sixpence on offer for the first one who spotted it. Then, if travelling onward to Greenwich via the Chelsea Embankment and Vauxhall Bridge, we would pass the front of it and never failed to be impressed by the sheer scale of the façade. We might have compared it to an Odeon on Steroids but I’m not sure steroids had been invented then. It was that abiding memory of scale and solidity that perhaps led me to make the presumption of permanence- the erroneous assumption that it was as inviolable an object as Buckingham Palace.

But it was that oblique view from the A4 of Earls Court against a London sky which resonated later. When Pink Floyd released the Animals album with Battersea Power Station on the cover against such a sky it could just as well have been Earls Court, which had the same Pharaonic scale and the more direct association with the band. We probably saw them as often, if not more, at the Wembley Arena but the abiding memory is always one of Earls Court. Certainly that is the recollection of the early 70’s and the peak of their achievement with Dark Side of the Moon. It was of course where they then did The Wall which everyone thought was amazing at the time- but now realize was not really. Then later, the final Waterless shows in 1994 which dispensed with all his My Dad Died In The War For You material and served up the goods with Earls Court as a massive psychodisco. Then that was pretty much it until the one-off reunion in Hyde Park for the Bob Geldof Pension Fund in 2005.

So, the memories are there and are obviously coloured by the occasions and more than a dram of nostalgia. Leaving aside that sentiment and its indisputable place in popular culture in this country for 77 years one might still conclude that Earls Court deserved to be recognised as a piece of Britain’s heritage. My more objective memory is that it was, in truth,  a bit of a shithole with unpleasant staff and lousy, overpriced catering which, for the provincial visitor, distilled the principal features of London itself. English Heritage should have given it Grade II* as being an exemplary building of its time. 

The 'I was there' image. Their very last show (until of course the last, last one...)

SOCIALLY COMMITTED (not Socialist) - David Mackay and Cardiff Bay

“Architects have given up too easily their role in the architecture of cities, of the public space. It has been left to planning ... Most public space is addressed by engineers, trying to get a car somewhere as quickly as possible.” David Mackay 1913-2014

A tip of the hat and a fond farewell to David Mackay, who died last week. Mackay was a partner in the Barcelona architecture practice MBM (Martorell, Bohigas & Mackay) and had what proved to be as short and frustrating a connection with Cardiff as Zaha Hadid. Through his design of the athletes’ village and harbour for Barcelona’s 1992 Olympic Games, and elsewhere, he gained an enviable international reputation for repairing and shaping cities. He was commissioned by the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation to design the square and avenue that would physically and symbolically re-unite the city centre with its waterfront. His vision was never realised but the misappropriation, dilution and perversion of his master-plan took place over a period of time and did not attract the same degree of attention as the spectacular collapse of Zaha Hadid’s Cardiff Bay Opera House.

It is worth then considering David Mackay’s involvement with Barcelona which started in the 1960s and, as recorded in the Guardian obituary of 23 November “….he took a stand against the neglect and speculation that ravaged the city under the Franco dictatorship. It blossomed in the 1980s, when the Socialist party that ran the city council responded to pressure from below to create more public space and convert post-industrial wastelands to housing and social use.” [i] 

It may then be remarked that Mackay’s principles can be compared and contrasted with those who failed to implement the aspirational vision for what became Callaghan Square and Lloyd George Avenue in Cardiff.

Mackay moved to Barcelona in the 1950’s with his Catalan wife and in 1959 he started working with Josep Martorell and Oriol Bohigas, becoming a partner of MBM in 1962. The two older architects were committed to the re-introduction of rationalist, social architecture to Catalonia and opposed, on social and ethical grounds, the uncontrolled speculative building boom of the 1960s that destroyed much of Barcelona. Their emphasis was on the social role of architecture, its integration and relevance to the urban environment and public space. Theirs was not a mission to leave individualistic monuments to their architectural talents but a careful and considerate response to the social requirements of each commission. They operated in that space between town planning and architecture which we may call urban design. Their belief was that modern architecture could contribute creatively to the identity of a city, enhance its cultural landscape.

Mackay and his partners also sought to achieve mixed-use of activity that ensured that people could work, live and play in districts and bring life to its streets and squares through the whole day. In the event this was not achieved in the Olympic Village at Barcelona, where it was originally intended that affordable housing would be offered after the Games. It was perhaps a victim of its own success, market forces and lack of resolve on the part of the Socialist city government resulting in it becoming an up-market residential ghetto. With the exception of the marina area, few businesses occupy space at street level and away from the coastal frontage it can appear dead and dreary. This will of course sound very familiar in the context of Cardiff Bay. It must be stressed, however, that in Barcelona the original design concept was realised and it was the end use that was betrayed in the failure to properly implement stated social objectives. In Cardiff the kudos – or Cultural Capital- represented by MBM and the Barcelona development was acquired and is perceived by some to have been cynically used in the marketing and promotion of an urban redevelopment that did not have the resources for it to be fully implemented. A visionary project was promised which was originally intended to replace the railway embankment with a broad tree lined boulevard and an integrated tram system.

The importation of internationally recognised design talent to master plan this and other projects was central to a strategy intended to establish Cardiff's place among regional capitals and assure its recognition as a centre of excellence in the reclamation and revival of post-industrial waterfront cities. The stated objective at the time was for a 'ceremonial avenue' and references made to 'Cardiff's Champs Elysees'. In short, not a mere piece of road infrastructure but a PLACE, a civic space with a distinct character and identity. 

By association the rhetoric and marketing alluded to Barcelona and the virtues of a thoroughfare and public space which would be, in itself, an object of universal admiration. 

As to how realistic this was, in principle and practice, needs to be considered. Looking, for example, at the promise of ‘our very own Ramblas’ it is questionable whether this was a tenable proposition from the outset. The Ramblas has 1.6m people at one end and the Mediterranean at the other. That population is concentrated in an area 100km2, an urban population density of 16,000 km2. That may be compared to the density of Cardiff which, even now, is only 5,900km2, the city having fewer than 350,000 souls in an urban area 75.72 km2. Given the advantages of climate and the relative lack of private gardens it is perhaps unsurprising that the inhabitants of Barcelona are more inclined than those of Cardiff to take their recreation in public space. That said the frontage to Cardiff Bay will now, on a sunny day, evidence many strollers but, it may be said, simply not enough of them inclined to populate a 1km avenue.

It may also be added that it is the claims made upon it that might have been contested rather than the aspiration. Ambitious it certainly was but the promoters of the project should perhaps be commended for that. Precious little vision and ambition has been displayed in urban matters by those who constrained the budget then terminated the life of the Development Corporation before such works were completed. The political context in which Mackay was working in both Barcelona and Cardiff may be loosely described as ‘socialist’ and their civic leaders publicly committed to urban renewal. There, however, the resemblance may abruptly end. The internal priorities and external pressures on CBDC may be attributed to politics which were more Byzantine than Barcelonan. The Development Corporation itself may be considered the bastard offspring of an unholy coupling of One Nation Conservatives and oligarchic Labour Party leaders. In any consideration of the redevelopment of South Cardiff at the end of the 20^th century the Cardiff Bay Barrage will always be the White Elephant in the room. That project focussed opposition to the Development Corporation from politicians within and without Cardiff. It created divisions of those who claimed to be of a ‘socialist’ persuasion, some of whom formed curious alliances with those of other faiths. That said, the barrage perhaps merely served to focus the antipathy of Valleys Labour towards the perceived disproportionate investment in Cardiff, Old Labour towards Quango’s and New Labour towards Old Labour. Most of the foregoing were challenged by an emergent cadre of aspirant career Labour politicians who didn’t leave school before the age of 25 and who formed a loose alliance with The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Such alliances then shifted further at the end of the Millennium and those lucky enough to have drawn a winning ticket in the Assembly Election Lottery had to translate their vocal opposition to CBDC and all its works into responsible governance. And failed.

In practical terms the barrage drained the administrative and financial resources of CBDC and diverted them away from the strategic (physically and symbolically) objectives of re-uniting the city centre with the waterfront. In the final assessment what was eventually produced bore little or no resemblance to the designs produced by David Mackay. The concise appraisal is offered by Geraint Talfan Davies;

“…the sad, misplaced suburbanism of Cardiff’s Lloyd George Avenue; the linked Callaghan Square that could have been a treasured public space but is, in fact, a rectangular, furnished roundabout. All of these have occasioned deep and obvious disappointment among citizens.” (Talfan Davies 2008 p289).

Coupled with that is the continued physical separation of the community to the west by the railway embankment and the failure to deliver the levels of social integration advocated by MBM in their work elsewhere. Talfan Davies goes on to comment that these places are the antithesis of urban design, a process which assumes the purpose and intent implicit in the original appointment of David Mackay. The objectives of reshaping the city for the better were compromised by many factors and culminated in the implementation of infrastructure works through a private finance initiative. Inevitably the procurement of public works by such means places priority on the lowest bid not the achievement of the superlative design standards that were central to the mission originally stated for CBDC by the Secretary of State. In the course of that process social responsibility is to some degree abrogated and, following the dissolution of the Development Corporation, the City Council permitted the construction of a series of ghettoes in South Cardiff. I was going to refer to that as a ‘free for all’ but it was, of course, not. It was an opportunity for those with the financial means to develop or acquire apartments in gated blocks.

I am not aware of David Mackay making any public condemnation of Cardiff and, if he did, it certainly did not attract to the city the unwelcome attention of the international design community as the Zaha Hadid affair continues to do. Privately he expressed some frustration with the procurement of public works in Britain and, in particular, practices such as private finance initiatives which would invariably mean that the designer would be alienated and lose control over the final quality of projects. That such disappointment was expressed quietly is another measure of the man. Others in his position might have complained more loudly about the responsibility without power of the designer and the betrayal of trust by those who commissioned them. Far better that his association with Cardiff be quietly forgotten and little connection made between his designs for Bute Avenue and Square  and the travesty that now sits in their place in the form of Lloyd George Avenue and Callaghan Square.  

If there is to be a verdict in this piece it is that the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation definitely appointed the right man, but possibly for the wrong reasons. By my reckoning the blame cannot be attributed solely to the Corporation but, as was the case with the Opera House fiasco,  the (dis)credit must be shared more widely. Put bluntly, it takes a lot of people a lot of time and effort to fuck things up as frequently and as badly as we do in Wales. To some extent it is institutionalised, many of the participants outlined above having subsequently been at the epicentre of the concentric circles of self-interest that we call ‘government’ in Wales. It is those, who were critical of CBDC, who may suggest that the Corporation only ever intended to rent from David Mackay his reputation. To simply draw upon and then disburse for their commercial ends the cultural capital represented by that man.  

Mackay’s personal commitment to social justice was attested by his actions in opposition to the Franco dictatorship, assisting activists to contact the foreign press and he was a founder of Amnesty International in Spain. Given the earlier comments about the political context of his abortive work in Cardiff it is perhaps a shame that he didn’t stick around here longer.

Talfan Davies, G. (2008). At Arm's Length. Bridgend, Wales, Seren.

              

---

[i] http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/nov/23/david-mackay

CARDIFF - 'The City of Dreadful Knights'?

The Philosophy Café, Cardiff Tuesday 21 October 2014

The proposition will be put that the development of Cardiff has, historically, been shaped by those described as patrons and by actions and behaviours termed patronage. The terms ‘patron’ and ‘patronage’ appear frequently in writing on architecture and the built environment but are seldom clarified in such use. The characteristics of patronage will be defined as used in that context and the presentation will also explain how behaviour so described may merge with other common definitions of that term. These, and the relevant powers commanded and deployed by those termed patrons, will be illustrated by reference to the development of Cardiff which may be described as being ‘founded on patronage’.

Such powers can be initially defined as: “the possibility of imposing one’s will upon the behaviour of other persons” (Weber 1954). However, references to patronage frequently mention the ‘rich and powerful’ or ‘powerful and wealthy’ patron and the command of economic resources will be discussed as but one source of power together with the relevant instruments of power which may be deployed by those described as patrons of architecture and the built environment.

A further quotation which will be discussed is that;

“There is no absolute correlation between the powers that shape a space and the relationships of power that space shapes. There is no fixed form of power, no formula…….mean people can make generous places, and vice versa.”(Moore 2012)

Some consideration will then be given to the motivation and intent of those described as patrons and, in so doing, the positive connotations of patronage in urban development historically contrasted with other meanings of the term. Reference will be made to other derivatives of the Latin root pater which will include paternalism, patrimonialism and patronisation which can have more negative association in writing on the built environment. Such characteristics will, hopefully, be more than amply demonstrated by those who have shaped the historical development of the city of Cardiff.

Among the themes that will hopefully be explored by open discussion following the presentation will be whether the forms of patronage which have enabled architectural and urban development historically are possible in a democratic polity like contemporary Britain and;

·        How the aspirations of urban regeneration policy and design control are affected by commercial development practice and realpolitik with consequent impact on the quality of such development.

·        The influence of culture as an aspect of conditioned power and the persistence of personality and coercive power in the development process

·        Whether probity, expressed as public accountability, has inhibited innovation and contributed to the mediocrity of architecture and public spaces. 

A short presentation will be given at the Philosophy Café, The Gate, Keppoch Street, Roath Cardiff at 8pm on Tuesday 21 October 2014 followed by discussion of the themes until 10pm.

Refs.

Moore, R. (2012). Why We Build. London, Picador.

              

Weber, M. (1954). Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society. Cambridge,Mass., Harvard University Press.