Is The National Trust Creating Trust Issues?

You'd have thought the National Trust would have had enough beautiful buildings in need of rescue to cherry pick and restore the most amazing national headquarters possible, even in the middle of London. Or failing that they could have talked to the Society For The Protection Of Ancient Buildings who maintain a list of At Risk historic buildings For Sale. 

Instead they opted to erect the above temple to the worst of flimsy bland modernity in Swindon for £14.5m, representing a rather large V-sign to their many thousands of members. Ok, it has green credentials (if you discount its construction footprint) but how much more inspirational it would have been to show how a historic building could have been 'greened' to a similar degree without compromise to its architectural integrity.

Recently their outgoing (thank goodness) £183,000pa director Dame (how?) Helen Ghosh has dragged NT into the eye of a storm by putting the National Trust, somewhat inexplicably, at the heart of celebrations commemorating the 50th anniversary of the de-criminalisation of homosexuality.

Not content with trying to force NT's many thousands of (mostly retired) volunteer staff and guides whose free labour the charity relies on to proudly wear rainbow badges, thus alienating many scores, some of whom have resigned after more than 20 years of giving their time to the charity, Dame Helen also 'outed' the late owner of Felbrigg Hall, left to the National Trust by lifelong bachelor, Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer, something his surviving friends and family insist he would have been horrified by as he was he was 'a very private man' and of an era where most people kept their private lives private. Then there was the ghoulish exhibition of 51 nooses at Kingston Lacey to mark those who were hanged for their proclivities in less enlightened days - moving, no doubt - but hardly relevant to (or the place of) a conservation charity.

Earlier in the year Dame Helen enraged members and staff alike by banning the word 'Easter' from the Great Egg Hunt' events promoted across NT properties and she has previously outraged art lovers by removing many paintings from NT properties (NT hold one of the largest collections of art in the country) to encourage a less middle class demographic to visit, an object significantly reduced admission (or even free days) would be far more likely to achieve. Similarly she has stripped a lot of antique furnishings out for the same reason (let's hope they do an audit of everything she's removed before she leaves - or even better compel her to reinstate it.)

The latest is that NT have stopped asking visitors to rate their 'enjoyment' of visiting a National Trust property as the percentage of positives was plummeting.

My last visit to an NT house was to Prime Minister Disraeli's House Hughendon in High Wycombe about a year ago. I loved the house and garden and found 'Dizzy' a fascinating character, but what impacted on my NT 'experience' is that the moment we admitted to not being NT members, the young spiv in the ticket office proceeded to do a hard sell on my mother and me for ten minutes or so rather than just smile sweetly, hand us a membership leaflet, let us buy the tickets and get on with it. The tea shop was overpriced (as expected) and delivered distinctly underwhelming menu options, my watery hot chocolate at the luxury price of £3.40 being particularly disappointing.  The gift shop had a few nice trinkets, but again overpriced enough to easily resist temptation (particularly for my mother's generation, who now have money late in life but have never developed a habit of spending it on unnecessaries, owing to the privations of  their early life). Note*: It was once a fantasy job of mine to become 'chief buyer' for a major historic attraction, in which case, I would have used the William Morris 'useful and beautiful' criteria as my mantra for selection and known exactly how to hook my mother's generation into buying!

While I appreciate the fact that most large houses have now opened their Below Stairs world as well, what I don't like are too many ropes in the way and not enough artifacts on display. I don't like most dumbing down or Disneyfication of our heritage, though that said, I don't mind the odd wax figure here and there or staff dressing up. In fact I prefer staff dressing up as it adds to the atmosphere. Laid banquet tables are also fine with me.

I like the tea room and WC's to be as beautiful as any other area, preferably with Victorian replica sanitaryware and William Morris wallpaper in the loos and at least appear to be genuinely historic and in sympathy with the property, even if they are modern add-ons. I think well-behaved dogs should be as welcome as well-behaved children. More places to take your dog is definitely a national need. But one of the absolute joys of visiting a historic property, apart from to admire its beauty and absorb its history, is that the admission fee usually guarantees you some peace from overcrowded and raucous public areas where graffiti and anti-social behaviour such as littering or excessive noise, might be on display. If people have to pay admission, they generally respect a space far more.

I also approve of the public events such as the organised fire work displays, concerts, ghost hunts, banquets and other entertainments that many NT properties now host. This is an important revenue stream for them and often forms special and even landmark memories for attendees.

Drag hunting on NT land remains a dilemma if the accusations are founded that it is used as an excuse to 'accidentally' tear apart live animals in the process, but if anti-hunt protesters have solid film evidence that this is happening, then they need to submit this to the Police and the RSPCA. 

It is not up to the NT to take action on the basis of online petitions unless this evidence has been submitted to and is confirmed by the relevant channels. If drag hunting were to be banned there is also the matter of all the hounds which would be culled if they were no longer needed, which is a cruelty issue in itself. The NT are meeting to decide the matter on 21st October.

Hopefully with the departure of (Dame) Helen, the NT can focus on getting back on track and back to the mission people join them for - to save the nation's heritage.

Ain't Nowt So Pretty As A Garden City (or building for NIMBYs)

Over a century after the first, Letchworth, was begun, garden cities are in the news again as news leaks that the government seek to construct two more, preferably in the south east of England. 

However after the mixed success of Letchworth, Stevenage, Hatfield, Hemel Hempstead. and Welwyn Garden City, all employing Hertfordshire as their test bed, but which quickly lost the original ideals of affordability and self-containment (too close to London so perfect for commuting, resulting in rocketing prices). Simultaneously there was an effort made to cultivate 'garden suburbs' such as Hampstead in London and these were arguably much more successful in cultivating a beautiful, vibrant and practical (if still expensive) environment for habitation. At the end of the 19th century/turn of the 20th century other worthy ideas such as 'model villages' - prime examples being Bourneville (Cadbury) and Port Sunlight (Sunlight soap) were constructed independently by (usually Quaker) manufacturers to provide decent attractive housing in a healthy environment of lifetime communities for their workers inclusive of facilities such as sports clubs and theatres. Early social housing initiatives such as London's Peabody Estate were also a great success and many are still in use today. When ugly urban development got out of hand on the South Downs, the National Trust was apparently founded in protest to protect the area!

The planning movement then lost enlightenment and focus, roughly in conjunction with the invention of and growing love affair with concrete and other cheap new modern building materials following wartime shortages, with the creation of 'new towns' such as Milton Keynes and Telford, the emphasis on an elephantine indoor shopping centre and multi-storey car parks at their soulless heart, rather than green spaces, if you can find the towns through the proliferation of ringroad spaghetti and endless roundabouts (proud English invention first seen in 'garden city' Stevenage) surrounding each. Then disastrous 'cities in the sky' and sprawling brutalist concrete 'overspill' estates came along creating more social ills than they solved. 

Here are some examples of horrific housing that post-date the 'garden city' era.

Since then Britain has seen its towns and cities mercilessly cut up by ringroads, sacrificed to the alter of the motor car and haulage lorry, and careless ribbon development (aka urban sprawl) allowed to run riot in the name of profit, despite all the lip service paid to 'greenness', 'infrastructure' and 'community', all of which are severely compromised by such short-termism. Now the green belts, intended to act as the 'lungs' of each city are under threat, as are the once-strict planning laws intended to protect them, in addition to preventing building on the flood plains and upholding the rights of historic buildings. 

A 'housing crisis' apparently trumps all other considerations be they legal, logistical, cultural, human - even down to the quality of the materials used (the majority of modern buildings may have to conform to various energy-saving standards but somewhat negate this by not being constructed to last beyond 50 years, making them little better than pre-fabs, destined not to outlive their manufacturing carbon footprint) and certainly not worth their exorbitant construction costs as the buyers are not compensated or discounted for the quality of materials employed/longevity compromised. Observe any new building, particularly those possessed of a flat roof, and I guarantee you will see scaffolding and contractors on said roof within two years of erection.

So what is to be done about the housing crisis? Well has anyone seen The Truman Show? One of the unsung stars of the film is Seaside, Florida, a  master-developed 1970s experiment in New Urbanism, whose stated development tenets are:

1. The neighborhood has a discernible center. This is often a square or a green and sometimes a busy or memorable street corner. A transit stop would be located at this center.
2. Most of the dwellings are within a five-minute walk of the center, an average of roughly 0.25 miles (1,300 ft; 0.40 km).
3. There are a variety of dwelling types — usually houses, rowhouses, and apartments — so that younger and older people, singles and families, the poor and the wealthy may find places to live.
4. At the edge of the neighborhood, there are shops and offices of sufficiently varied types to supply the weekly needs of a household.
5. A small ancillary building or garage apartment is permitted within the backyard of each house. It may be used as a rental unit or place to work (for example, an office or craft workshop).
6. An elementary school is close enough so that most children can walk from their home.
7. There are small playgrounds accessible to every dwelling — not more than a tenth of a mile away.
8. Streets within the neighborhood form a connected network, which disperses traffic by providing a variety of pedestrian and vehicular routes to any destination.
9. The streets are relatively narrow and shaded by rows of trees. This slows traffic, creating an environment suitable for pedestrians and bicycles.
10. Buildings in the neighborhood center are placed close to the street, creating a well-defined outdoor room.
11. Parking lots and garage doors rarely front the street. Parking is relegated to the rear of buildings, usually accessed by alleys.
12. Certain prominent sites at the termination of street vistas or in the neighborhood center are reserved for civic buildings. These provide sites for community meetings, education, and religious or cultural activities.
13. The neighborhood is organized to be self-governing. A formal association debates and decides matters of maintenance, security, and physical change. Taxation is the responsibility of the larger community.

Can we learn anything from these aims and their material realisation below..?

Well I'd live there (were it not for the years-long waiting list of hopeful residents waiting to get in!) As I've said before on this blog, everyone's a NIMBY when it's THEIR back yard, me included. That is human nature and not a fault in itself (or a legitimate excuse for the government or local authorities to steamroller opposition to insensitive or inappropriate housing schemes) as long as it doesn't lead to hypocrisy. If building has to happen however, it can at least be sensitive to its surrounds, beautiful, future-proofed and fit for human habitation without the need for anti-depressant dependency, and involve the communities which it is going to affect in its planning. There is no ruling saying new housing, especially 'affordable' or social housing, has to be ugly, poky and devoid of character. Anyone looking at most new housing plans would assume that this country was in thrall to such legislation.