M I
GATEWAY TO CAMBRIDGE Visitors to Cambridge arrive witha mental picture ofa gracious city, of elegant historic and modern buildings slotted intoa green riverside landscape, an orderly market town. The expectations of those arriving by train are hardly reinforced as they step out onto the forecourt of Cambridge Station, to be confronted by one of Cambridge's most unkempt and shapeless environments.
,
InMay 1933, architects, collaborating with other built environment professionals and members ofthecommunity ina weekend urban design workshop, investigated the
25 A
review ofcurrent Architectural and Environmental Issues and events in the Cambridge area produced by theCambridge Association of Architects. The Views inthis newsletter are those of the individual contributors and not of the Association.
opportunities of urban regeneration in the Srarion Road area, commencinga search fora better image forCambridge. The workshop was one ofmany forminga nationwide exercise initiated by the Royal Institute of British Architects, and designed toraise awareness in thecommunity oftheopportunities for making our cities and towns more livable, and to inspirea shared vision of the city. The Station and its environs was chosen asa
topic because it embodiesa number ofkey issues which arepertinent to the City and irs future and because it is separated from thehistoric centre of the City and its issues. Within the circumstances of time and resource the process was seen tobe as important as the ideas that came outoftheworkshop. One of theaims was toobtaina better understanding of what we mean by Urban Design and toaddress the rhetorical question of who is responsible forthe design of the urban environment? Do we leave it to the developer, whose predilection in our enterprise economy is to gate their
developments and who generally are hostile to mixed development and people friendly envi-
ronments. It is common experience that mod-
ernplanning methods have failed to producea
satisfactory physical environment. The focus of
attention on Urban Design rests on the belief I/Tar planning controls cannot inthemselves produce satisfactory environments. Ouestions of form, shape, legibility, access and permeability, aesthetic quality, and the quality of life in our cir/es depend ona different level of attention and skill. Urban design is about theperception and sensory experience of our surroundings, together with the character and use of city space in the public realm. We cannot design cities; we can plan frameworks and we can design systems ofopen and built space, systems ofmovement. We can design fragments that will modify, and over time, merge wifh other fragments of the urban milieu. Planning is about coping with the in exorable process of change and urban design is about keeping on top and safeguarding, improving and providing the vision for attractiV'e forms ofliving. This cannot be done by conservation alone, holding on to the status quo, the comfort of the familiar. The dynamism oflife demands creative and forward looking attitudes that respect the past and are constantly enriching it and overlaying /t with innovative and fresh forms inparallel with the constant evolution of economic and technological forms. Cambridge is blessed with marvellous sets of
COMMUNITY
VOICE
As local residents who are not architects we‘d like to say that the workshop was well organised and very enjoyable. The p rese ntatio n s we atte n d e d were mainly very useful and it was a good idea to intersperse working sessions and talks. We liked having several workingsg roups, but we both felt ve ry m u ch “the to ken resi dent” in our groups, and one of the groups did notfunctions at all well, manly due to overbearing behaviour on the part of one architect. It would have been good to have one group of residents who could call on the se rvi ces ava iIa b Ie thu s sta rting with wh at residents want first just in one case. The children‘s group was excellent b ut unexpected). G rou ps of architects can be quite daunting, but it was great fun and quite exciting to see the creativity of “architects at play”. It was encouraging to see how many groups wanted to incorporate more green space, linking the station area with the Botanic Gardens, and on Iy one of th e s c h e m es i ntrod u ced g rossIy u n s u itab Ie fe atu res s u c h a s Sch Iu m berge r-styIe tent-like featu res.A bit mo re realism would have been helpful to establish possibilities at the outset. We a re deIig hted th at th e Cambridge Urban forum has been formed out of this worksh o p a n d both i ntend to attend in future. Let us hope that some concrete proposals can come outofthis. Beverley Sedley Anne Chippindale
open spaces, the river, Botanical Gardens, the commons, college courts and gardens, Market Square, Parkers and Christ pieces, the humbler butpotent church gardens inthe City centre, the tree lined avenues into Cambridge. The architectural magnificence forwhich the City is world famous resides in the University and college property. The Civic side has fallen way behind and the City Council iscurrently rapidly disposing of and downgrading itscivic buildings (The Guildhall, Swimming pool and other buildings on Parkers Piece). Cambridge islosing its civic presence. We have toreverse the process. Urban design requires the commitment ofthelocal community. Public investment isneeded tocomplement private investment in the creation and management ofthepublic realm. On the continent they havea much firmer graspo f the relationship between economic activity and environmental quality. Of course there are cultural differences. The British public is highly conservative, highly critical and suspicious of change. But we need tobe conscious of the competition from thenew Europe; not just the big league, Paris, Barcelona, Frankfurt, Rotterdam, but also from smaller regional centreso f EuroLille, Montpellier and many others who know that cities die or flourish depending on their capacity for renewal. We have to learn to accept communal responsibility for the environment and notsimply abdicate in favour of market forces. Although the world's problems cannot be solved in two days, the weekend workshop focuses attention on the shortcomings of the Local Plan as the sole medium forstructuring development and formonitoring and moulding thefuture shapeof theCity’. Its format precludes the influence of ideas and conceptual recognition of the special qualities and opportunities of key sites in Cambridge. The urgent need for a visionary planning brief for the Station area has been highlighted by the Gateway toCambridge project. Urban design offersa methodology forallowing design considerations to drive development, and to inject some cultural vibrancy intoa finance and management dominated scenario. Colen Lumley
Workshop Organiser
VISION FOR CITIES The weekend open-studio, opened by the Member ofParliament for Cambridge, Anne Campbell, provided an inspiring mix of general public and professionals in interactive design sessions, allowing members ofthepublic to experience atfirst hand the processes surrounding the design of the built environment. The intention was to demystify the procedures and demonstrate how laypersons can developa simple, critical awareness oftheir environment anda basic knowledge ofthe processes of development, thereby learning how to influence events constructively. For the professionals it meant submitting themselves to the chaos ofevents, the challenge of broadening attitudes to embrace issues of urbanism and an obligation to communicate in terms that were meaningful in lay experience. The scale and economic level of modern development is such as to intimidate and deter public participation in decision making. Asa society we have handed over too much control to commercial development, which, in turn, to defend its investments, is systematically privatising the public realm. We have asa community towin back our influence on matters of the public realm and to exert ourselves to accept responsibility it through our political institutions, not just blame theplanners. The workshop, instigated by the Regional Architecture Centre, was organised by the Cambridge Association of Architects in conjunction with representatives of the East Anglian Landscape Association. Much care and effort went into the planning of the event under the direction of the executive organiser and coordinator, Anthony Doling. The Steering Group included engineers, planners, conservationists and other specialists and various representatives of the general public. Although aimed atthe adult community,a group ofprimary school children from St Paul‘s School took part for some of thetime. The two day workshop ended witha review by an invited panel of critics and finally terminated in celebratory party spirit with the aid ofa jazz combo. The workshop was made possible through and generous sponsorship, principally by Eastern Electricity, but notably also by the Cambridge City Council anda whole range of companie. reost outstanding contribution to the success ui the event was the generous hosting of the workshop intheoffices of engineers Mott MacDonald, who provideda spacious studio and services slap in the epicentre of the area under study.
GROUP1
GROUP2
Richard Brimblecombe (Co-ordinator) Richard Holliday Vanessa Ross Tex Dallas Steve Humphreys Robert Thompson
IanSteen (Co-ordinator) Jan Atkinson Peter Clark LizGard lanKline Rob Homewood Mo Bradford-Smith Robert Smith Graham Black
Theinfluence of Cambridge University in the siting of the railway station at some distance from thecity centre ensured that the historic heart of Cambridge was unaffected by the dramatic changes wrought by the arrival of the railways. The historic centre isa major tourist destination and Cambridge suffers from an inability to cope with ever-increasing demands on its transportation network. The Station Road area has becomea vital location fora co-ordinated transport policy, the site fora major transport interchange of trains, coaches anda possible future rapid transit system from outoftown parking areas. The route from this key point of arrival and departure to all areas of the city will be an increasing component ofourcity‘s life. The workshop provided an opportunity, to examine the needs and aspirations of local residents and to consider the provision of new facilities to serve the city asa whole. With these aims, our group carried out an analysis of the character of the surrounding area in order that any future proposals would forma cohesive extension. Amongst thecharacteristics noted were thetight-knit residential area to the north of the site; the Botanic Gardens tothewest, which forms the easternmost point ofa “green lung" extending all the way back to the western boundary ofthe h s £2 d e '"I ebd n aIs aI'Io ng H ills Roadq ahe noC’ h east' ago of course the station itself and the major trans-’ port artery of the railway along the eastern site boundary. Buildings and features of note were catalogued in order that any proposals should maintaina sense of historic and cultural continuity. The station building itself, Spillers Mill, the station office and workshop buildings, the city villas along Station Road with their avenue oftrees and the three matching office buildings on the other side of Station Road, all exerteda significant influence on the evolution of our proposals. After developinga broad organisational strategy for the site and co-ordinating land use planning with developments and extensions of the existing road and footpath infrastructure, we concentrated our efforts on developinga sense of convincing architeclural and landscape images for this part of the city. A variety of built form is proposed inresponse to the different opportunities available across the site. Both the existing station colonnade and the impressive core of the Spillers mill are used to regenerate different types of buildings to enclose and forma new station square which would include an area from traffic, planted with trees and animated by ustle of pedestrians and cyclists. The existing Spiilers building would actas the nucleus fora new station hotel in the grand tradition with an adjacent visitor resource centre and lookout tower giving spectacular views over the city for visitors. Nearby, the existing Victorian office and workshop buildings are complemented by new additions to provide mixed use retail and workplace buildings adjacent to new residential areas containinga variety of accommodation to suit the needs ofthe high proportion of transient population inthis area of Cambridge; more traditional forms of housing are also shown. New landscaped gardens are proposed between the rear of the Station Road office buildings and the Hills Road houses with direct connections to the Botanic Gardens. The existing office buildings on pilotis would be enhanced by the free landscaped view beneath the buildings. Landmark buildings are proposed both atthe key junction of Station Road and Hills Road, to identify the route between city centre and station, and also along the railway at the east of the site, to screen the housing from thetracks and to provide drama and interest for those arriving by train. Our proposals show how urban and transportation planning allied to sensitive considerations of both architecture and landscape, integrating new proposalswith worthy existing conditions, can breathe new life into an area of the city.
The objective of our team was toexplore not only possibilities within the site but also its potential asa gateway linking to other parts of the city. The first element of “gateway" could be quite feasibly the Hills Road Bridge corner of the site where it would be possible to providea wide linking structure over the railway to the cattle market site on the other side. Here, partly on the north and partly on the south sides of the railway, an ice rink,a swimming pool and a fun pool could be located, witha dry skislope on the bridging structure. The connections here are very good totherailway system, and to the County Council‘s public transport system proposed forthe disused railway line to Trumpington. Long distance buses could also call here. It might be funded by the type of tourist hotel which we understand is much needed. The second element of gateway, which was not drawn outindetail, was the fanciful idea of introducinga water link from the railway station to the Cam, through the Botanic Gardens. This could take the form ofa canal to provide tourists with the best way to the city. To enhance the link to the centre of Cambridge, we removed much ofthetraffic from Station Road, pedestrianising the forecourt of the station. Here the rapid transit link from Trumpington and the north to the Science Park would be underground, with access from the piazza. We also saw the site asa good location for the housing that Cambridge needs. We were concerned that this housing incorporated the green spaces which form so much ofthecharacter of Cambridge.
Group 1. Station Plaza
A RECIPE ON WHICH TO BUILD
GROUP3
GROUP4
0 Vision is the key ingredient wh i ch c h a n g e s th e world forthe better.
Sherry Armstrong (Co-ordinator) John Cole David Halford Ian Eiloart Christine Knight R.J. Walsh Ann Wochiler
Ann Cooper( Co-ordinator) David Yandell Simon Branson Neill Gooden LizLake Mary Lachlan-Cope Jean LundskaerNeilsen Lee Pilwoon Simon Ruffle
0 We should recognise and reward al I the people who seek to imp rove (a s own e rs ofI an d,as p Ia n ners of cities, as eng ineers, a s a rchite c t s) o u r b u i It environment, by providing rewa rd ing op po rtu n ities with fuIfiI ment foreach of them: if we do not do this th ey wiII withe r o r m ove away. 0 So, we must reward people for what they render, pay peo ple for their ideas and vision. Ideas are as important as the bread we eat: without ideas our minds grow thin and mean.
0 What we seek to do today is immensely important. 0
It isa bo ut peo p Ie owners ofland
as
0 Abouta European city which must be proud
0 Abo ut peop Ie, so me unborn, who have expectations. Barrie Munn
The scheme providesa gathering-place fortourists and young people, locals and visitors seeking leisure activities, which the historic centre cannot accommodate. We were also mindful ofthe local need forhousing and the fact that this is alreadya strongly established business area. We brought together as many strands of the urban fabric as possible: living, work and recreational buildings and outside spaces which would interact economically and benefit from optimising use. If this was to bea welcoming place it should endeavour to have some ofthequality of the more picturesque central areas extending the relationship between green space, buildings and water. We proposed to makea bold link with the river Cam, across the Fen, via the Botanic Gardens. This would give the areaa special quality appropriate to its upgraded status. Traffic was to be minimised. Cars and coaches would stay to the south ofthe railway. Travellers could cross to the station or pick up the park and ride tracked bus in the square created atthe head ofStation Road. Traffic up this avenue would be restricted to taxis and there would be no connection to Tenison Avenue. Major civic buildings,a cinema,a concert hall and a conference building; would be located beside thec Cafes and bars serving the users of these civic buil ings are grouped around the square.A hotel is dever-oped on Station Road, with gardens beside the water. The old mill buildings are converted intoa Youth Hostel and tourist information buildings. Housing is designed in dense conventional street patterns to the south and ina large-scale perimeter development on the Ridgeons site. This createsa green space, used by the residents but also enhancing the station square. Cycle and pedestrian routes are threaded through the open space and beside the canal. Office buildings, accessible from across the tracks, and workshops, accessible from Devonshire Road, complete the development, providinga barrier to railway noise and further places fora variety of work.
Group 3. Scheme plan
GROUP5
A galaxyof speakers made special inputs on a range of topics at reg ular interva 1s
Sue Crowther (Teacher) Francis Gower Jonathan Pittock Jonathan Studdert William Sedley Lucy Ward Eligio Cerval Ian Martin Clare Chippindale
throughout the workshop,
developing the general dialog ue. The com b ination o f p ractica I s tu dio wo rka n d talks constituteda un ique seminar providinga dazzling assemblageof information and design knowledge focused on the Station area.
A small group from St Paul‘s Primary School participated inthe workshop on Saturday morning. On the Thursday before the weekend we looked atthe site and began tothink about possibilities. The whole area was too biga brief for children so we concentrated on the Station Road/ Hills Road triangle. The children were very stimulated by the experience. Their attention was held and their questions were mature; they seemed torealise very quickly the value of the site and their ideas were economic as well as environmentally responsible. Unlike the adults, they hada great respect for the existing buildings and were reluctant to demolish anything. Having examined the surrounding parts of Cambridge, they realised the importance o1 green areas and water and small-scale development. Most oftheir designs showed areas for recreation for adults as well as for children. The "pickyou-own" fruit farm was especially memorable. This was a thoroughly worthwhile experience forthe group and createda lot of interest and discussion at their school.
GROUP6 Chris Fleming-Jones( Co-ordinator) ••ijd Cawston John Forrest A.W.Richford Glackmeyer Michael Keverne Vladimir Ladinski Jamie Buchanan We setouttoresolve five problems which we identified in this area of Cambridge, but which arealso relevant to the city ina wider context: e The need forlow-cost student accommodation, short and long term e The combination of housing with low-cost workshop/business premises to enable those working of the city to live over or close to their workspace. e The need, primarily for the visitor/tourist, for the station to createa more positive identity and "point of arrival". 0 The need to inject some ofthe"street life" prevalent inthe Mill Road area across to the Station area. Our proposals therefore included: • Openinga cycle/pedestrian link between Mill Road and Hills Road. This would be flanked by low-cost workshop/retail outlets on the route of the existing unofficial short cut. e The conversion ofthe Spillers Building intoa student hostel. e The removal ofthe existing station facilities at present within the front portico (i.e.. the café and part of the ticket sales) to outside the station building. Traffic d then pass through the portico toa drop-Off in front of the station. The station building would tf... ufore be restored back to its original design. e The creation ofa station square by the removal of Murdoch House on part of that area. 0 The provision of an "extension" to the Botanical Gardens across Hills Road toprovidea green wedge into the Spillers site and across Station Road into the Ridgeons site. This will givea meaning and continuity to the new open space created e Providinga combination of new housing on both sites, with new office buildings on the south side of Station Road togivea mix of development and enable
GROUP7 Robert Mull (Co-ordinator) Liz Anzer Sheila Lindsay Gus Milstein Margaret Downing Jean Perraton Our overall reaction to the workshop was very positive; the main interest was to work with members of thelaypublic who, although thin on the ground were consistently stimulating and direct. Our group spent considerable time speculating on Cambridge‘s civic identity. We agreed on only one thing: that the gateway should focus on the ambitions and concerns ofthe general public. We discussed how the dynamics ofour group might recreate the forces of competition, conflict and compromise that actually shape the urban environment. We agreed that our proposal must accommodate diverse opinions and change overa period of time. We therefore speculated on three time-scales: one year, five years and fifty years. Our aim was to producea large civic space between Hills Road and Station Road inwhicha range of public events could take place, from carboot sales to political rallies. Over thefifty-year time scale Cambridge‘s civic identity could emerge, as defined by its permanent residents, leading toa consensus which would allow more permanent and decisive development. At the meeting place of Hills Road and Station Road, we proposeda tall heroic building, as the focus ofthe civic space with the bus and train station behind it, which acted as an orientation point on +he journey into the city centre. We proposed that the Ridgeons site be the subject of two open competitions, the brief for which would be agreed through local consultation and realised within the five-year period. Our presentation was a fairytale, tracing the fifty-year time scale througha series of layered drawings which attempted to model theevolution of the site, demonstrating how small changes inyear one might have dramatic consequences inthefuture.
Anne Campbell MP Cambridge opening speech Colen Lumley Chairman ER RIBA introduction to workshop Peter Studdert Director Planning Services Cambridge - the planning background Barrie Munn Solicitor The search fora vision Jon Harris Designer and Illustrator perce ptions of the area and local history Jamie Buchanan Landscape Architect - the landscape architect‘s view Beth Morgan Chair/Cambridge Environment Committee City perspectives and residential requirements Margaret Badcock Cambridge Tourist Officer tourism management
Debbie Trebinski Divisional Architect British Rail British Rail and Cambridge Station Mike Sharpe Cambridgeshire Transport Officer - Transportation policy affecting the Station area The Carving Workshop theBirmingham redevelopment project David Yandell Chairman CAA Impressions from studying, living and working inCambridge Peter Sharratt Short Ford Associates The urban design opportunity Gregory Penoyre Penoyre Prasad Architects Urban design experiences Dr Donald Pigott Director University Botanic Gardens - The gateway to the University Ian Davidson Lifschutz Davidson Urban design experiences George Henderson National Co-ordinator RIBA Vision for Cities
THE REVIEWING PANEL: Professor Peter Carolin Department of Architecture Cambridge Paul Finch Editor Building Design Richard MacCormac President RIBA Hugh Pearman Architectural Contributor Sunday Times Professor Ivor Richards Welsh School of Architecture.
GROUP8
GROUP9
Colen Lumley (Co-ordinator) Ivor Richards Renée Taylor Kim Ng David Wright Robert Armstrong Beverley Sedley
John Preston( Co-ordinator) Kate Collins Chris Wordworth Ann Jones Diane Haigh Stephen Brown
Group8 represented the strategic interests of the Workshop and much ofits time was taken up with organisation and co-ordination of the total activity. Within the time available attention was divided between identifying the key issues surrounding the future of the Station Road area accompanied bya complementary search forformal expression appropriate to the development opportunities. The main strategy was to focus attention on the possibility afforded by the location of Cambridge Station of its becominga new city sub-centre, witha mixture of private and public development, generating sites fora key civic building, and developing its own characteristics and functions, allied with the creation ofa new public space, forming botha metaphorical and actual gateway totheCity. Such development providing the opportunity for building an appropriate environment fora city of international acclaim, in place of the totally unsatisfactory present conditions of the Station forecourt and Station Road, and taking advantage ofthe predisposition for change ofland use and new development inthis area. The introduction ofa greater mixture of uses and relocation of industrial and merchandising, building on and complementing its present status asa business centre and recognising the dimensions of the tourism management problem is seen as the key to regeneration. The raised value of property deriving from the increase in density would assist in the financing. The notion of extending the transportation theme is advocated, making the Station the site fora tourist coach point and parking area, linking witha new fast track city transportation system, shuttle bus to the historic centre and Science Parks, Guide Friday tourist buses, and improving the present facilities for car and cycle parking.A travel centre providing facilities for all classes of tourist, business/conference and other visitors, and the local community, would be linked with other tourist information services relocated to this transportation mode. The special nature of Cambridge and theimprovement ofvisitor experience, not to mention better control of visitors, demandsa new kind of facility, for interpretation of the City and its cultural and academic heritage, and for the promotion of commercial and technical services and products which reflect the research and development capability of the Cambridge region. Such a project would be more thana conventional visitor centre, it could attracta wide range of agencies and be a forum fordesign and research related interests. Cambridge is desperately short of affordable town houses, providing apartments forthe young and itinerant community characteristic of the City. The increase in density of such forms ofresidential development will contribute to the liveliness and urban quality necessary to sustain the vision ofa new sub-centre for Cambridge.A new approach to procurement of appropriate forms ofhousing will be required, for mixed private and public financing and mixed occupation.
We started by looking strategically at transport issues, with the station as the core ofa new interchange incorporatinga new terminu.s witha raised bus and coach station, and the LRT from the park and ride at Trumpington.A tram service would link the interchange and the city centre alonga “greened” Station road. We looked just outside the site to convert the office block on the Hills Road/Brooklands Avenue junction into the multi-story car park which its appearance suggests. The focus of our scheme wasa new station plaza flanked by an opera house tothe north and with Spillers mill converted toa centre forthe visual arts. The opera house would bea major building of equivalent height to the mill building, whose tall flank to the plaza would be used forlaser displays. New tourist facilities and shops would be provided inthe plaza. To the south of the mill building new offices would follow the boundary ofthe site along the railway. These would have an outlook overa new car park on the former railway yard area. A link would be established to the Botanic Gardens across Hills Road, anda terrace of houses would face the park north of this line. The office buildings on the south side of Station Road would be connected to this route, with only DaedeusHousedemolishedinordertoformthe extension of Tenison Road.
Group8 . Scheme plan
Place de lagare
Reflections David Yandell
GROUP 10 Nicholas Ray (Co-ordinator) Tim Pitman Anne Chippindale Barrie Munn Beth Morgan Thomas Chippindale Rachel Hallett Don Hutchinson Joseph Marinescu Rhona Fleming Jeremy Stacey Urban design should not just be about traffic flows, adequate car parking, sensible phasing and good fl scape, important though these are. It should be about vision, and possibilities which could lift ti .. spirit. We really enjoyed the week-end‘s work since it provideda chance to consider an important piece of the city of Cambridge, indirect dialogue with area residents. Only by makinga bold hypothesis can certain opportunities be fully grasped. From ourapparently bizarre suggestion - that Station Road could be flooded to forma canal -a number ofstrategic decisions follow naturally: about access, the position ofa bus interchange, the nature of the housing courts that could be provided adjacent to the station square, and the necessity of demolishing one prominent building. The canal idea was poetic, referring to Coleridge‘s Xanadu (Coleridge was a member ofJesus, the landowner forpart of Station Road), allusive in immediately introducing the visitor toa city where water isa most important ingredient, and, we argued, practical. The occupants ofthe office buildings along Station Road, Mott MacDonald, are one of the largest water engineering firms inthe world. They were also our hosts forthe design weekend, and their regional director was a member ofour team. Barrie Munn, another team member, produced a discounted cash flow analysis showing that the cost of the canal work was recoverable within ten of construction because ofthe increased asset \ s of the properties. He convinced everyone (well almost). We were notimpressed by arguments that Cambridge needs tatty fringes (it has plenty of them); that somehow arriving ata nondescript wasteland was an appropriate prelude toa city international importance; that we in England would do better not to attempt this sort of thing because when we tried to make grand plans, like at Docklands, they always went offhalf-cock. As a group, we find it shaming that in France, Spain or Italy, imaginative ideas are regularly proposed and frequently acted upon, whereas inthis country we seem frightened of visions and apologetic about our professional skills.
It worked because it was a combination ofa party and think-tank, because forarchitects it evoked the nostalgia of the studio and the ‘crit’, because professional rivalries were eclipsed bya shared cause, because the combinations of laypeople and school kids were respected and integrated, because there was a chance to do something unfettered, sweeping and grand. Cambridge is held in common, we love it, we want to nurture it. From theoutset there came confidence that the event was well conceived and well organised. The format of work-bursts interspersed with specialist views and information provideda breather although sometimes one was reluctant to lose momentum.A good place to work, free coffee and do‘nuts, the fresh spring air, plenty of felt tips and paper all contributed to the success. Tony Doling shone outas chief organiser, carpenter, spirited host and eventually jazz player atthe bop. The talks ranged from the challenging (Barrie Munn‘s call fora ‘stately pleasure dome’) to the exotic (Penoyres excursion to Samarkand) tothe down to earth (BR‘s Eastern Region architect saying they could only afford to paint4 stationsa year) to the entertaining (Jon Harris’ history of the railway station and its unbuilt precursors). Some groups assembleda little nervously, somewhat inawe ofthehandpicked pre-selected cadres, ;but pretty soon as we gotto know thelocale we got to know each other. Not only dida confusion of possibilities begin to simplify itself but we began to see what might be achieved. The general debate within groups concerned priorities. The Cardiff connection inthe s.e. corner got schizoid, part gripped by formalism, part concerned to identify what was really needed. Robert Mull‘s group, asa result of its own inability to agree, realised that this was very natural and healthy, turned necessity into virtue and positeda programme ofindefiniteness. Others gripped with ‘grand project’ fervour drovea canal through the Botanic Garden or sunk and flooded Station Road. It could all be rationalised - flooding Station Road would so increase the value of the office blocks now reflected in water, that the scheme would be self-financing (?). Eventually came thecountdown, the intense presentation, drawing millions of pounds ofdevelopment witha 30p felt tip in 30 minutes. Then theexpositions, not too repetitive and not all made by local middle-aged architects all culminating inthe review and summingupbytheillustrious visitors, generally benign with no harsh words. Did all this energy and creativity really achieve anything? It certainly generateda great sense of camaraderie and a confidence that good ideas and enthusiasm could turn tides. To those not used to desig ning it showed whata gripping and complex process is involved. It broadcast to the public that it might be possible to achieve something both picturesque and popular by intervention. It is questionable however whether all the key issues were identified and considered inthe rush.
Presentina the scheme
Outlook towers
Summary ofthe workshop proposals The workshop generateda wealth of ideas by grace of the freedom it set itself fora visionary overview ofthe opportunities and potential of the sites in the immediatevicinity of Cambridge Station. The site for the project was selected forits significance and implications for the future of the City. In this wider conte›‹t the general issues were seen tobe thepossibility of regarding the Station and its immediate environs asa potential sub-centre, assisting the problems oftheCity asa whole by creatinga certain density of new development with its own specific character and attraction. A second issue was the opportunity to improve the image ofCambridge atthis metaphoric as well, as actual, ’gateway‘ to the City. The possibilities fora transport interchange, travel centre and tourist point, all rolled intoa scheme that would carry implications of improvement tothevisual character at this thresh old of arrival and buildinga positive face for the many sorts of visitors to this historic and modern Cify. Coupled with this is the integration with new rapid transport, shui:tIe bus, park and ride, tourist coach park concepts. Better management oftourism anda better presentation of the City for the many classes of formal and informal and commercial visitor, the opportunity for promotion of the City, could be met b/ an expansion of the visitor centre concept to include interpretation of Cambridge‘s heritage of architecture, people and achievements, its innovatory culture through history and the present, and forward into the future. A major issue is the regeneration ofa civic image, through the provisiono fa site fora building project that serves the community purpose, and the regeneration of the public realm with the forming ofa new public place, or square. Mixed development, is another prime issue relevant to this lacation, the offsetting of the current loss of urban cohesion through single function developments, be it housing estates, rerai/ centres, or science and business parks (ghettoes). The other general issue reflected in all the workshop groups was therecognition of the need forrestoring the residential stock in the Cily centre. The area offers opportunities to address the specific residential shortfall in Cambridge. One class isa ffordable accommodation, for the young and fortheitinerant community’ of scholars, professionals, english language students and others attracted to the City by its particular blend ofacademic and vocational institutions. Another area of housing requirement frustrated by the absence ofa stock of suitable buildings istown houses forprofessional people. Revision of thought regarding housing form is vital to serve these particular types of need, which arenot met by thedeveloper led market. The wide felt need forhousing associated with light workshops, studios, office and studies, isa reflection of modern lifestyles and changing and integrated patterns of living and working, to which theLocal Plan pays inadequate heed. Many oftheideas generated inthe workshop were held incommon, invarious permutations. Other issues and proposals included imaginative landscaping treatment forgreening the area andf linking with the Botanic Gardens. The exploitation of water, another Cambridge feature, produced some dramatic proposals. The conversion of the existing Spillers Mill asa land-
mark building and the replacement of Kett House with a landmark building to signal the junction with Hills Road, was a recommendation inseveral schemes. Better access to the s/te, from Hills Road, was advocated inall of the schemes. Access ofother sorts, linking with the Cattle Market site would broaden thepossibilities of distribution of shared facilities for parking and connection with leisure and cultural uses. The creation of sites for facilities for the Arts, one group even advocating it as a location for an arts centre, was a feature of half of the group proposals. Almost all of the groups followed the Local Plan recommendation ofthearea asa site fora new hotel, with various suggestions on the class of hotel trade. CL
THE SCANDINAVIAN INFLUENCE - 1993 World Architecture Day tour Amidst all the new building of recent decades in Cambridge, by successions of British architects, we have become accustomed to see it as a dialogue with ourselves;a dialogue with history, certainly, in both style and building organisation, but always essentially with local social and architectural prototypes. For myself, asa research student back from Helsinki, Ralph Erskine‘s arrival at Clare Hall in the late 60s, with fresh Scandinavian thinking on the evolution of those prototypes, offered very welcome liberation from the absurd formalism inwhich some Brits had corsetted my first college, new Hall. Twenty five years later it was thereforea delight to present the continuing merits of Clare Hall toa wider audience. As Colen Lumley reminded us on the sunny open-top bus, Scandinavia‘s invasion of Cambridge had ancient and aggressive origins. Looking back on the triad of buildings we visited of Clare Hall, Henning Larsen's Moller Conference Centre at Churchill and Erik Sorensen's Crystallographic Data Centre in Newtown, one realised what benefits their benign aggression continues to bring. Here is some ofthefreshest and most radical thinking on updating ofthe old prototypes, by people of such international calibre that they were mercifully not overawed by the name ofthis place, which still keeps so much modernisation at bay on other fronts. For myself and others, the extreme formal simplicities of the Churchill building needed complementing by better details and better resolution of some basics in the plan. At the Crystallography,a brilliant sectional solution was mixed with sound Scandinavian workplace practice. In the north they have long understood thata staff lunch kitchen,a cosy fireplace and fridges for staff shopping foster office efficiency: asa junior architect in 60‘s HelsinkiI soon took them forgranted. Here intranslation to 90‘s Cambridge, however the mix seems tohave got rather romantically overloaded. Nonetheless, as new prototypes fora college community,a specialist teaching centre and a research environment, these recent Vikings, like their forebears, have brought much-needed genetic invigoration to the stock of this region. The chance to step back fora fresh view inthe lively company ofnon-professionals was a reminder of how valuable this Cambridge institution of the World Architecture Day tour has become. Catherine Cooke
Editorial Board: David Raven t co—editors
Colen Lum ley Richard Brimblecombe Anne Cooper David Yandell
Cambridge Architecture c/o Trumpington Mews Trumpington, Cambridge CB2 2LS