C O N T E X T 1 2 8 : M A R C H 2 0 1 3 51 I have emailed to take issue with this development but have received no satisfactory explanation to date. The question of who should be in a position to make crucial decisions cropped up in December when I went to an RTPI event in the south west to speak about the joys of the IHBC and the need for conservation services in local authorities. During the Q and A session, a question from the floor set me thinking about who makes decisions in the built environment. One of my fellow speakers, Robert Franklin, was particularly erudite and wise on the subject of the need for the built environment professionals to work together. He is the chair of the RIBA Conservation Panel. His talk, without the benefit of slides or any gimmicks such as pictures of George Clooney (that was me, I am afraid), was riveting and inspirational on the joy to be found when we all pull together to produce buildings and spaces of quality. On the train back home I started to think about what Franklin and the other speakers had said about the quality of buildings and spaces, and who is crucial to the decisions that help sustain or create these buildings or spaces. I found that it was easier to think who should not be involved in the decision making. If you asked my daughters and their friends, they would specify more cinemas, 24-hour opening for Costa Coffee, better rail services and outdoor seating. If you asked my mother, there would be no cobbles or setts because she can not walk comfortably on them with her arthritis. My father’s pet obsession is poorly detailed cills and window reveals. Mr E would stipulate that every local development framework contains a policy in favour of cycle shops. My sister-in-law would favour a retail policy focused on handbag and stationery outlets. This flippant train of thought leads me to a consideration of what would happen if particular individuals or professions held sway over the shaping of places and towns, and the design of buildings. Perhaps it is easier to identify what could happen if one profession or group held sway over the others. In terms of urban design, what we think is attractive, inviting and sustainable, such as compact townscapes, with courtyards and alleyways providing views, drama and texture, is to the police’s crime reduction team a recipe for all sorts of nefarious activity and a blatant invitation to crime. How many of us have been disheartened by requirements to open up the spaces, widen the pathways, remove the hedges and provide football-ground-levels of illumination to scupper the lurking criminals who bide their time waiting for urban designers to provide fertile territory for anti-social behaviour. Planning is a democratic activity. We are all affected by it and can all, to some degree, become involved in it, from election as a councillor on the planning committee, perhaps, to the submission of a comment or objection to a planning application, plan proposal or policy. However, does the present system favour the involvement of some groups or interests over others? I think a clear pattern would emerge from a breakdown of the demographic profile of objectors or supporters of particular proposals or policies. My daughters and their friends have strong opinions, and very sound ones in most instances, but they are not a visible or vocal group. They often comment that there is not enough casual seating around town or that it is too formal, such as the traditional park bench. They need something more communal, where they can eat their sandwiches outside on the grass if fine, or where they can gather and socialise. However, apparently people find groups of teenagers threatening or untidy. They are less so if you actually live with them, and understand their habits and codes. But I recall meetings where members of parks departments insisted that a circular bench around a tree could not be installed because it would mean the lower branches would be accessible and ‘young people’ would harm the tree. What would our towns and villages look like if this sort of attitude prevailed? I remember the confusion I felt during a visit to Cape Town. The suburbs are quite conventional in an architectural sense and not dissimilar to European towns. But the relationship of the houses and gardens to the public spaces, roads and footpaths is completely different. Each house is surrounded by a solid wall with wire or spikes, and an electric gate guards the entrance. There would be no way to approach the house on foot from the street if not invited in by the householder. This creates an uncomfortable and hostile environment, where the residents are detached from their surroundings behind the high secure walls. This is an instance where considerations of security have prevailed, shaping the appearance and experience of the townscape. It is an extreme example of what happens when circular benches are prohibited because of what mischievous teenagers could do. So it is important that we all have an input into the design of our public places and our buildings. It may be simple to argue that some groups or professions should have no involvement. I can imagine a world where highway engineers do not insist on railings, yellow lines, multitudes of signs and warnings, and it seems a perfect Shangri-La. But then not everyone is as careful a driver and courteous parker of their vehicle as I am.We need a system where we could provide a professional mash-up of urban designer/conservation officer/architect/highway engineer to ensure that buildings and spaces are beautiful, useful and safe. I do not imagine that such an environmental paragon exists, so in the meantime we all have to play nicely and work together. The enthusiasms and professional proclivities can all blend happily together to cancel out the excesses and lack of logic, allowing for the positive and delightful. Jo Evans, chair@ihbc.org.uk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=