TL/DR: Read the Developer Presentation [32MB file] from the meeting papers here. Then let the developers know your views via their website here.
I moaned about this a little in some previous blogposts but felt it needed one of its own to make the point.
In the grand scheme of things you don’t need me to tell you what to think about the proposals. That’s for you to make your initial comments to the developers. After all, you might like minimalist ‘Cambridge Vernacular’ and that the city should build much more buildings like this at a much higher density. Either way, feel free to start the conversations with your local elected councillors.
“What is Modern Cambridge Vernacular and who decided it should be a thing?”
This came up again with the proposals for another tech park in the Cherry Hinton/Queen Edith’s borderlands on the edge of East Cambridge. It was covered by the Cambridge Independent here. I touched on it in a blogpost complaining about the piecemeal community facilities that do nothing towards meeting the wider demand for city-wide and regional facilities that come with the rapid growth of what has since the interwar era been seen as something of a regional settlement. I also complained about the lack of public transport provision, stating that the East Cambridge Sci/Tech parks should contribute substantially more towards a rail-based public transport system.
In their proposals for redesigning the facade, they’ve decided to choose what one of the councillors described as ‘reconstituted stone’ which they say sort of resembles the stone colour used by the colleges. Just without the artistic detailing. A very different approach to that in this article about the much-lauded Marmalade Lane and the choice/variation of the bricks. One thing seldom mentioned about Marmalade Lane (see here) is that they managed to avoid the very heavy land price penalty in their agreement with Cambridge City Council (see the briefing here from 2019) so, along with a very talented group of people and residents were able to create something that mass builders and property speculators could not hope to get near because their business model relies on extracting as much financial value as possible, rather than investing and retaining that value in the community of people that will live there.
Spreadsheet architecture to the left of me, boxes to the right, here we are stuck in the middle of Cambridge…
That will be Project Newton – the Land South of Coldham’s Lane which includes a post-war unregulated rubbish tip. Although their website says https://www.cherryhintoninnovation.co.uk/. Make of it what you will.
I took a few photographs of their models – one made out of those pink biscuits from the 1980s and the other made out of matchsticks. I had asked them specifically not to give Cambridge another site full of spreadsheet architecture and (not surprisingly) they completely ignored me. I don’t blame the individuals – this is an issue with the industry and the system. (I wrote about the earlier consultation back in the spring so they were more than familiar with my issues.) I also tipped off councillors on East Area Committee about the issues with this application – you can watch their debate here.
“The Combined Authority is lobbying Network Rail regarding doubling the [Cambridge-Newmarket] track”
Cllr Katie Thornburrow (Lab – Petersfield) East Area Cttee 23 June 2023
My big issue was transport, and as I didn’t see anything in the update from developers, I simply re-stated the case for building a railway or light rail station on the site as part of a proposed upgrade. (You can also drop the developers a line here, asking them to work with the Combined Authority and the County Council to get a the track upgraded and a new station serving that science park development built)
As I discussed here in this video, this is the line that needs upgrading
Back to the Grafton Centre – and their tiny portion of community space.
One strategic problem / governance design flaw in how Cambridge is run as a city is that there is no competent authority who can mandate the developers to work together and come up with a package that can help fund essential and desirable infrastructure. Furthermore, there isn’t an alternative that enables local government to tax the developers and the businesses on their sites a surcharge to pay for that infrastructure either. A sort of ‘Cambridge Premium’ if you will.
I can’t pretend to say I’m particularly moved by the promises below. I guess the problem I have is I’ve seen it all before and it’s just buzzword bingo for someone to tick the box on a form.
The exterior of the buildings is not a style of architecture that I like but then if they are going for a style that gets the men who put the Eddington designs together then I guess I’m not their target audience.
Looking at the location map and the estimated new jobs created (over 2,100 on page 49/50 of their pack), there is no way that there are that many unemployed sci/tech people looking around for work. The area profile for Cambridge (Item 5 of the CPCA Employment and Skills Committee papers 03 July 2023) tells us this. Therefore, a lot of people are going to have to commute into the site. That being the case, that strengthens further my case for a suburban or light rail stop for the Beehive Centre – mindful of RailPEN’s proposals which I’m still moaning about.
Above – the Grafton Centre’s proximity to the Cambridge-Newmarket rail junction and Coldham’s Common.
Ideally transport officers should be putting pressure on Grafton Centre developers to fund part of the railway/light rail station at the Beehive Centre alongside a major contribution from RailPEN given that such a station would only be a 15 minute walk. Furthermore, the Grafton’s developers could fund the creation of a new active travel route that also passes the Crown Court building. (Personally I’d like to see all the law courts in Cambridge relocated to a new legal quarter site at the top of Castle Hill as proposed in the 1950s)
Why did the Grafton Centre fail as a retail outlet?
I moaned at the proposals at the time back in 2021. Furthermore I had another moan later on about an ugly design that’s gathering dust somewhere which tried to compare the beautiful Cambridge Co-operative Society mosaic sign with grey brickwork.
Above – how can something artistic inspire such grey blandness?
“Is retail dying on its feet or are the current owners simply charging rents far above the market rate and saying ‘Look! Retail is so last millennium!’?”
I’m sure there’s a retail consultant out there who can provide some policy-based evidence-making for your project for the right price. I wouldn’t dream of such practices myself, but then that’s why I’m not in retail. The few people I do know in retail tell me about how high the rents are in Cambridge. In which case doesn’t “Econ 101” say supply/demand means that if demand is low, prices will fall?
That depends your assumptions – one of them being that retail is the only function you can use the land for. The developers on the other hand know that it’s possible to make the case to the city council to get permission to get a change of use (which may mean messing around with the SPD document on The Grafton here) secured for the site and enable it to be converted to whatever the latest bubble is – in this case sci/tech premises.
Given the huge financial gains available, the incentive to try this is massive – even though residents in East Cambridge and east of Cambridge who go to the Grafton and see it and the Beehive Centre as working class retail sites are understandably up in arms. Why? Because Cambridge then becomes unaffordable for them. Not everyone can afford to shop at the M&S food hall or buy boutique bread at £5 a loaf. And if you’ve not seen the latest “State of the City Report, I have news for you.
Above – Food Bank use has almost quadrupled since the 2015 general election
Below – State of the City 2023 – last item and last document from the Strategy and Resources Committee on Monday 03 July
Above – the inequalities make for grim reading.
Cllr Sam Davies MBE (Ind – Queen Edith’s) things it’s an under-estimate as the report does not cover the free food hubs.
I agree.
There are #LibDemGraphs and then there are developers who do this:
Above – laughable at trying to give the impression that life science will only take up a small fraction of the floor space.
Without the already-consented spreadsheet architecture hotel (10,000 square metres in the small print) just under 5/7ths of the floor space is life science – where the money is. The community space is so small it doesn’t even appear on the above diagram. If you have a magnifying glass you might spot it below.
Above – Can you spot the community space?
As mentioned in my previous blogpost:
Please tell them they need to provide much more community space and facilities
Above – minuscule teaching space for visiting school children. Clearly the developers don’t seem to have taken into account the average class sizes for state schools after 13 years of Tory austerity.
More brochure greenwashing.
Above – I’m expecting a giant f’king honeybee sitting on massive droplet of water in their public art. Otherwise there’s gonna bee trouble!!! Geddit?!?
The Grafton Brochure isn’t a serious proposal in my book: It’s a negotiating position.
Above – have they seen East Road on a busy rainy cold autumn evening?
One to see what they can get away with when coming face-to-face with under-resourced and over-stretched council officers. Officers that Michael Gove and his predecessors prevent from gaining additional resources by enabling councils to cover their costs from wealthy developers in application fees. If Gove and the Conservatives were serious about supporting local government, they would have removed the ban on councils covering their costs – and being able to compete with the private sector on salaries for qualified and talented town planners. The question for Labour is whether they will remove that ban. Over to you Ms Nandy. (If you have a local Labour councillor, drop them an email and ask them to contact their party’s policy unit on town planning/local government to make the case)
“Can someone tweak the Circular Economy principles to contain a clause that says ‘no ugly s**te?”
Actually there’s a more serious case here.
Just a quick search for ‘beautiful buildings’ and ‘mental health’ comes up with one of many articles (this one from Australia below. -I could not vouch for its reliability but the headline looks nice!)
The more important thing is that Michael Gove and fellow ministers want to change planning policy to get architects designing beautiful buildings. The problem inevitably is that beauty is inevitably in the eye of the beholder. In this article which disagrees with Gove, there are some examples that I like, and some which I find hideous. The problem with too many new large developments in Cambridge is that they pay lip service to the buildings that draw millions of tourists to our city every year. And yet to get to them they have to go through this corridor of blandness – whether the southern entrance into Cambridge railway station or the missed opportunity that is Newmarket Road.
My take?
Cambridge Deserves Better
Above – my quotation on the front page of the Cambridge News 28 April 2023
Only that time I was complaining about the proposals to demolish our art deco cinema on Hobson Street. I’d rather not be complaining and moaning about building design. Please can someone give us something that is truly inspirational and breathtaking? It’s not like the money ain’t there.
Right?
And if the decision-makers at Cambridge University and its member colleges refuse or are unable to spend even a fraction of that huge amount raised on new shared facilities to bring town and gown together – and for the combined benefit of town, gown and villages, then the institutions either need to reassess their values and the texts of their royal charters, or ask themselves why they are in our city. Because carrying on business as usual is not going to make the title of most unequal city in the UK go away. Quite the opposite.
Food for thought?
- Follow me on Twitter
- Like my Facebook page
- Consider a small subscription or donation to help fund my continued research and reporting on local democracy in and around Cambridge.
The Cambridge Town Owl 