Developers’ reticence, wrangling over multiplexes, garish logos on banks and agents’ poor writing elicit comment from John Gummer
At a recent British Urban Regeneration Association (BURA) conference, many of the key issues facing the development industry came up. The underscored red line on the BURA logo delicately picks up the body’s image, and quite right too – city care is going to be as important as healthcare if we are to site however many million new homes. The conference sought to bring a holistic approach to the problem of meeting future housing demand.
It is all too easy to come at the regeneration debate from one’s own particular restricted angle. As Secretary of State, I encountered that sort of tunnel vision every day. So it was refreshing to see so many viewpoints presented. The head planner at Newham gave the view from a borough that continues to have massive regeneration needs; the home builder, from Wilcon Homes, put the case for off-the-peg housing and, as you would expect from a conference sponsored by Berwin Leighton, we bore the legal implications in mind.
Although the debate ranged from South Africa to north London, something seemed to be missing. I finally saw what it was: there was no speaker from the development industry and no one even ready to speak up from the floor. The industry really does need to be much more willing to speak up for itself. Developers are the professionals who alone can make regeneration work. Yet, too often, the industry behaves as if it accepts the subservient role which its opponents deem appropriate. It needs a new resolution for the new financial year: stop being reticent about the case for development.
The flicks
The renaissance of the cinema continues to confound the doom merchants. Mind you, customers are continuing to demand ever-higher standards. In the 1930s people were glad to get out of the house and demanded little. Today, with central heating, fitted carpets, and expensive furniture at home, they insist upon a higher degree of comfort and amenity. Sound systems are now so good that customers expect audile miracles when they pay for a seat.
Above all they expect choice – hence the popularity of the multiplex. Originally an out-of-town solution, it is now part and parcel of the fightback in the high street. That’s because cinemas are increasingly seen as engines of regeneration. Even so, local authorities have often been inflexible about the changes needed to turn an old cinema into a modern multiplex. More difficult still has been reconciling the need to preserve historic buildings while still being able to show a choice of films by increasing the number of screens.
Now English Heritage hopes it has come up with a solution. In the autumn, it will unveil its proposals to cinema operators, enthusiasts, conservationists, local authorities and planners. It is this London seminar which will thrash out a workable policy specially designed for the cinema. The aim will be to protect the best but enable the rest to adapt to modern needs. It’s a real breakthrough in thinking and English Heritage deserves the industry’s backing.
High street style?
I’ve banked with the Midland for 40 years, but the coming of the HSBC with its mindless logo and its inappropriate signs has made me restive. The high street banks were a symbol of solidity and reticent good taste. Great red letters and garish triangles have changed all that, to the detriment of the urban scene. Perhaps the City and Westminster could lead the way in insisting on a return to corporate decorum.
Postscript
My comments on the language of estate agents has elicited a good deal of comment, none more effective or welcome than Drivers Jonas’s riposte that it at least had tried to improve things by publishing a guide to writing. Very good it is too. It is hot on such horrors as using nouns as verbs (to “author” a report), and mixing up “disinterested” and “uninterested”, “discreet” and “discrete”. However, should it really allow split infinitives or refer to “mind mapping” and “outliner applications”? Nor am I convinced that I would start sentences with “and” or “but”. However, overall, it is excellent. I particularly liked its damning example of structure: “His English is poor. He cannot spell. He does not know the first thing about grammar. He cannot join up his writing. He must be a house agent.” I wouldn’t have dared say that myself!
