The Ruin of Our Cities - Trust Annual Report 1964
by
James Lees-Milne
Reprinted by kind permission of the Sunday Times from the issue of September 20th, 1964
York, Wells, Gloucester, Salisbury, Worcester, Lincoln, Exeter and Hereford. What do these names immediately imply? Some of England's most historic cathedral cities. Sherborne, Farnham, Tenterden, Abingdon, Andover, Poole, Cirencester and Bath. And these? Just a few of our smaller towns which for ancient beauty and character have been admired and loved for hundreds of years by discriminating people. Well, then, my advice to those who have not visited them is to do so at once—at least to visit those which are still intact. Some like Worcester, Exeter and Gloucester have practically gone already, and are no longer worth looking at as cities. In ten years' time at the present pace of "progress" all England's old cities will have altered beyond recognition. In twenty years they won't be there at all. Instead the cathedral or great church will be left dominating a uniform sea of concrete chunks, commerical, commonplace, and soul-less.
What exactly, you may ask, is happening? If you cannot see for yourself, get hold of the blue, glossy "Property Developer" for 1964 with a Foreword by the Rt. Hon. Sir Keith Joseph, Bt., M.P. From it you will learn how a host of giant development companies, their anonymity often protected by the most innocuous-sounding names, proclaim their pious intentions. They phrase them something like this: "The---- ----- Group are undertaking the re-development of (mentioning some ancient borough of renown) with high quality blocks in keeping with the historic background." Or, "---- ---- Properties Ltd. are actively seeking prestige locations with or without planning consents for composite site developments."
Among them are speculators who are hungrily buying up the centres of our cathedral cities and market towns for astronomical sums which individual freeholders simply cannot resist. Reluctant sellers are tempted or cajoled into submission. Sometimes the most recalcitrant are finally driven to capitulate by the appalling devastation left around them. Frequently one firm of speculators will re-sell a whole area to a second for a handsome profit.
Eventually all the buildings of the area, good, bad and indifferent are swept away and replaced with chain-stores, supermarkets and blocks of flats devoid of distinction and all looking alike. Occasionally the replacements boast the tacit approval of the Royal Fine Arts Commission. But as this body has no power of veto and is composed mostly of professional architects its blessing on contemporary building enterprise does not count for much.
It goes without saying that, in the process of wholesale clearance, those buildings of historic interest not yet listed by the Ministry of Housing disappear automatically. Those listed as of historic interest under Grade III enjoy no statutory protection. So far so easy. Those under Grade II and even Grade I can also be got rid of. But it involves rather more time and ingenuity.
The speculator is bound to give the local authority two months' notice of his intention to demolish. The local authority, if it thinks preservation desirable, must refer to the Ministry of Housing, which may then consult various local amenity societies as well as interested parties before submitting the case to its Advisory Committee (Chairman, Sir William Holford, creator of St. Paul's Cathedral precincts). By the time this committee decides whether or not to recommend a preservation order by the Minister the two months have most probably elapsed. If by chance they have not, the owner can still demolish the building on payment of a £100 fine. To a company whose assets may be £100 million this sum is not even a flea-bite.
There are, too, other ways out. Supposing a preservation order has been imposed on a Grade I or Grade II house, the owner has merely to take a few tiles off the roof and rearrange the gutters so as to conduct the rainwater inside the building. In no time there is rampant dry-rot and decay. Within a year or so the Corporation will agree that owing to advanced dilapidation the building had better come down. Sometimes the owner will put in undesirable, temporary tenants who will work havoc as quickly as an English winter—a quaint form of Rachmanism. Or he will threaten indefinitely to defer development of a whole area so that the Corporation, terrified of losing rates, will consent to demolition of the isolated listed building.
These things are happening all over the country. Are the "development" firms I have described philantropists? Are they engaged upon making a more commodious and beautiful Britain? No. They are out to make money. There are people today amassing stupendous fortunes by systematically destroying our historic cities.
Why then do the local authorities not stop it ? The answer is that few members of Corporations or Urban District Councils seem to care, fewer still to have any sense of history or aesthetics, many have commerical interests in these transactions, and most welcome the accompanying rise of income from rates. Very occasionally there are conscientious City councils, such as those of Chester and Chichester. The majority, in so far as the beauty of their cities is concerned, are indifferent or downright bad, like Worcester, Cirencester and Bath.
The preservation societies are well aware of the scandal of the ancient cities. So are the officials of the Ministry of Housing's historic buildings department, some of whom are well-known architectural historians and nearly all men of knowledge and taste. They are in despair, for they can do nothing. They complain that they are not allowed enough inspectors to complete the listing of historic buildings: that the early lists are skimped and inadequate: that no protection is given to buildings however important their interiors if the façades are dull: that no consideration is given to the group value of streets and squares: that thousands of buildings provisionally listed have already waited for anything up to six years for implementation by the Minister: and that the two months' notice and £100 fine are farcical.
For thirteen years we have had a Conservative Government some of whose members might have been expected to care about England's architectural heritage. There have been precious few signs that they do. It is true that after repeated prodding the present Minister of Housing has announced his intention to make pilot studies of the centres of twelve historic towns. Up to date we have not been told which they are to be. He had better hurry up if he wants to save any. The centre of Worcester. for example, is practically flat. Hitler in a series of Baedeker raids could not have blitzed more effectively the old buildings of this historic and once lovely city than the developers have blitzed the area north of the cathedral. Another plan has been put forward to dispose of the Bridge Street area in the same manner.
The next Government might take a leaf out of the French book. France has recognised that her historic cities are the State's responsibility. They are to be safe¬guarded by Paris, and no longer left to provincial incompetence and half-measures. Negative methods of scheduling have been abandoned. Instead, under a law passed in 1962, a positive system of urban renewal by means of loans and subsidies has been set in motion.
Detailed studies are being made of a thousand historic city centres. The old buildings of merit within them are to be preserved and renewed only by architects qualified as archaeologists and city planners, working under the direction of the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, with powers, co-operation of the Ministry of Con¬struction. Moreover, whatever elements make a city centre historic, archaeological, artistic or picturesque, are to be retained.
Much emphasis is put upon the "atmosphere" of the area, which may involve the strict retention of old street alignments, pedestrian alleyways, the height of new elevations and the building materials to be used. Either the owners of historic buildings will be financed direct by the State, or the buildings will be appropriated and returned afterwards to the owners who must then refund the enhanced value of the improvements. The perimeters of the cities are still left in which the speculators may do their worst, or best.
But, it will be objected, France has for Minister of Cultural Affairs an exceptional person in the forceful scholar Monsieur Andre Malraux, whose powers are practically autocratic. What of it? There are plenty of potential Messieurs Malraux in this country waiting to be given a chance. What we need and must have immediately is a Ministry of Cultural Affairs, with powers. The first duty of such a Ministry should be to stop the trafficking in what is left of our beautiful cities by speculators actuated by gain.