Before getting into the specifics
of this particular piece, it's important to note that no-one is suggesting that
all change is bad, or even that historic cities such as Chester shouldn't
evolve to keep pace with the increased social and economic needs of our ever
changing modern country. Nobody imagines for one second that modern day
Cestrians would want to live in a first century Roman military fortress, with
its sparse wooden built barrack houses, or its open cesspits; no more than they
would want to live in one of the city's former early modern housing
"courts", with their shared sanitary facilities, diseases and pests.
Change is necessary for any
society to evolve and develop, to make things better for the citizens who
inhabit that particular society, whether that's in terms of their individual
health, housing, employment or just the general surroundings in which they
live. Chester is no different in that respect from any other community that exists in the UK today, other than it
just happens to be a city that has a history that most other English cities
would envy and who would doubtless take better care of; and make better use of,
had they been fortunate enough to be given the opportunity.
For anyone who has spent the time
studying Chester's extensive past, the one thing that is immediately evident,
is that throughout its long history the city has often been ill-served by
successive generations of selfish and self-interested civic leaders, who have
quite blatantly put their own commercial interests ahead of the city's. Whether
it involved the preservation of Chester's once busy medieval port, the routine
maintenance of the canalised River Dee, the conservation of the city's historic
building fabric, or the protection of Chester's largely hidden Roman
architecture, all too often decisions regarding their futures has come down to
a simple matter of pounds, shillings and pence; and whether their loss or
destruction can be turned into a commercial opportunity.
The civic vandalism wrought
during the 1960's, when huge swathes of Chester's historic landscape was gouged
out of existence for the construction of the Inner Ring Road system, the
"Forum" precinct and the Grosvenor Shopping Centre, leading to the
loss of innumerable architectural treasures, was just that particular periods
instance of civic and commercial opportunism. Go back sixty years, to the
beginning of the 20th century and there was a previous round of commercially
driven regeneration, in Bridge Street, at the High Cross, in Lower Northgate
Street, in St Werburgh Street and in Frodsham Street. The difference being in
this instance, there was there was at least some effort to mitigate the damage
done to Chester's architectural heritage by the likes of architects Douglas and
Lockwood.
Looking back to the early 1900's
and the regeneration that took place, local residents, planners, architects and
commercial developers had exactly the same sort of conversations, as were had
in the 1960's and that are still being had today, regarding the effect of such
modern developments on the ancient fabric that each of these disparate parties
professes to value and say they wish to protect. The difference is of course,
one only has to look at what has resulted from the various regeneration schemes
over the same period, contrasting the generally sympathetic designs created by
the likes of Douglas and Lockwood, with the brutally modern designs put in
place during the 1960's and 1970's. Interestingly, in the public discussions
surrounding the recent plans for the regeneration of Dee House in Chester,
supporters of the scheme made the rather spurious argument that as an 18th
century property it should be conserved and regenerated, yet numerous far more
historically valuable properties and features were systematically wiped from
the earth to make way for the Inner Ring Road, the Grosvenor Shopping Centre
and the Forum precinct, with little if anything being mentioned about it.
So here we are again, some fifty
or so years later having a similar argument about regenerating Chester's Market
Square area, which some forty or fifty years after demolishing the
hundred-year-old Market Hall and then scraping the underlying Roman
architecture into oblivion, the city's civic leadership and business community
have decided has become a blight on the city's landscape. No doubt those who
opposed the destruction of Chester's beautifully constructed 19th century
Market Hall and its replacement with the brutally utilitarian Forum precinct
can at least have the satisfaction of saying to the designers and planners who
created it "Told you so", although that matters little now that the
damage has been done. A grand ornate building that stood for a century and that
would doubtless grace any historic English city was torn down to make way for a
"box" design that has only lasted half the time of its predecessor;
and that most historic cities wouldn't give a thank-you for! Only in Chester!
One cannot imagine that a single
tear will be shed for the Forum and its associated Market Hall, or indeed for
the Gateway Theatre, or nearby Princess Street Bus Station. Similarly, one
doesn't imagine that the Crown Plaza Hotel, or the various commercial buildings
in and around Hamilton Place will be missed by most of the local population,
although no doubt the loss of the car-parks might be noticed by some. Whilst
the passing of these largely unimaginative buildings might not be mourned by
most Cestrians, one suspects that what replaces them is of far more importance
to local people; and it is perhaps that more than anything else, which poses
the greatest worry to those of us that have an interest in Chester and its
continuing history.
One has to say though that the
portents thus far are not good for Chester's Market Square! Rather than
repeating the mistake of introducing brick and concrete functionality and
utilitarianism to the area known as the Northgate Quarter, this time the city
planners appear to have chosen steel, wood and glass to build their new vision
of Chester, to sit alongside the 1930's Grade II Art Deco Odeon Cinema, the
19th Century Gothic Revival Grade II listed Town Hall, the 19th century Coach
House (formerly the Coach and Horses) Inn and the remaining facade of the
Westminster Coach & Motor Works dating to 1914.
Stretching from Northgate Street
and the Market Square westward to St Martin's Way, which is part of the city's
highly damaging Inner Ring Road system and from the northern end of Shoemaker's
Row to the 1930's Odeon Cinema, this entire section of the city, including the
four previously noted landmark buildings, will become the location for what can
only be described as the latest in a long line of new Cathedrals of Consumerism
in Chester. The Northgate Quarter is set to include a six-screen 715 seat
cinema, a major department store, an assortment of shops, cafes and restaurant,
a new Market Hall for local traders, an 800 space multi-storey car park and
finally, a new 167-bed Crown Plaza Hotel.
Now, whilst any new business is clearly
welcome in Chester and any replacement for the ugliness of the Forum precinct
and its surrounding contemporaries would doubtless have a positive effect on
this part of the city, quite whether a collection of highly conceptualised
buildings made of glass, steel, plastic and wood, which simply house
more-of-the-same-old businesses, would actually sit happily alongside a 1930's
Art Deco cinema, a Gothic Revival Town Hall, a 19th Century Coaching Inn, or an
early 20th century coachworks facade, remains the question. After all, only
fifty years ago, the architects who designed the Forum precinct and the rest of
the modern buildings in this area of Chester undoubtedly believed that they too
had found the long term design solution to the problems that the city faced at
that time.
After all, let's remember that
Chester has had any numbers of cinemas in the past, including the Odeon itself,
which is now to be given a new lease of life as a mixed arts centre, or
something similar. If there was such a desperate need, or demand for a
multi-screen cinema, then why have all previous venues failed so abysmally? As
for the major department store that's been promised as the flagship for the new
retail project, just who will that be? As a significant number of the major
brands are already present in Chester, wouldn't they just be swapping one
location for another; and how would that actually add value to the city's
economy? As for the assortment of new stores, cafe and restaurant, doesn't the
same thing apply? Swapping a branch in Bridge Street, Eastgate Street or the
Grosvenor Shopping Centre, for a new location in the Northgate Quarter would
add little or nothing to the overall economic benefit, other than to leave an
empty retail unit in one or other part of Chester city centre.
It's also worth bearing in mind
that at the same time a new restaurant is being offered in the new Northgate
Quarter, there are proposals to add a further five new restaurants, to the four
existing eateries in the Pepper Street Dining Quarter of the city, which
doesn't even take into account those that already exist elsewhere in Chester.
Within the past few months at least two restaurants are reported to have closed
their doors, while another newcomer has set-up in the belief that they can turn
a profit. And of course, none of this takes account of the numerous city centre
pubs and hotels that also offer dining facilities to their customers and
non-residents, all of them targeting the same customers of which there must be
a finite number?
Then finally there is the new
167-bed Crown Plaza Hotel, which is essentially replacing itself in the
marketplace and is therefore likely to be economically neutral in terms of any
actual financial benefit that it will bring to the city. This of course doesn't
even begin to take account of other developments that are proposed for other
parts of the city, including the newly announced Thwaites boutique hotel, bar and restaurant that is planned for
the Dee House / Amphitheatre site in the coming years. Quite whether Cheshire
West and Chester Council are simply adopting a "build them and they
will come" attitude to new restaurant and hotel developments in the
city is unclear, but it seems to be an extremely risky strategy for any
investor in an industry where the failure rate for most restaurants is around
59% within the first three years.
As for any new hotel venture in
the city, well the success or failure of any new business remains to be seen,
although as previously noted the Crown Plaza brand already exists in the
Northgate Quarter and will simply shift its position through the construction
of a new building, whilst maintaining its name and general proximity to the
city centre and the Roodee Racecourse. It's a questionable hypothesis whether
or not the actual regeneration of the Northgate Quarter itself will make the
Crown Plaza any busier, or anymore popular than it currently is. After all, one
suspects that many of its clients use the hotel because of its location, its
prices and its close proximity to the Roodee for the various horse-racing
events that take place throughout the year. It seems highly unlikely that the
presence of a new cinema, restaurant or arts centre is going to be a principle
driver behind increased guest numbers at a already existing hotel?
Trying to calculate the exact
number of hotel, motel and guest-house rooms for rent in Chester at any one
time is incredibly difficult when so many providers fail to offer such obvious
information on their corporate websites. However, if one takes the following
examples, the Crown Plaza (167), the Blossoms Hotel (67), the Grosvenor Hotel
(80), Queens Hotel (218), Mill Hotel (132), Eaton Hotel (20) as well as the
likes of Travelodge, the Abode, Roomzz, the Stafford and the Belgrave, there
must be close on a thousand guestrooms available at any one time in the city.
According to the Council's own figures the top sixteen hotels in Chester had an
80% occupancy rate during the peak seasons, between May and August, suggesting
that even at its busiest time of year there were still around 200 rooms not
being occupied, yet the planners answer seems to build and offer more?
A century or so ago, Chester's
liquor licensing authorities and the city Police, struggled to contain the
number of drinking establishments in the city, not just to reduce the levels of
drunkenness and civil disorder, but also to decrease the numbers of bars that
were actually being run at a financial loss. Businesses going out of business
for want of customers benefits nobody, not the owners, not the city and
certainly not those customers or creditors who might lose out financially as
and when a business goes bust.
Chester's problems are many and
varied, but for the most part seem to centre around the obvious inability of
its civic leaders, planners and architects to offer a single unifying vision of
what the city is and what sort of place local people would like it to be. Is it
a Roman fortress, a Norman stronghold, a Medieval folly, an insignificant
provincial city, a tourist attraction, site of the oldest racecourse in the
country, a quirky retail shopping centre, or a combination of all these things?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, with a
new generation of civic leaders, planners and architects, comes a new grand
plan for the city, this one called Chester's "One City" proposal,
which is designed to bring together all of the various parts, or
"Quarters", of the city together. Finally recognising the damage done
to Chester's historic city landscape by the highly restrictive and damaging
Inner Ring Road system during the 1960's, which essentially "chopped"
the city into a series of bits, the latest "One City" proposal is at
least an attempt to bring these disparate bits back into one single city-scape,
although whether that's actually physically possible remains to be seen. At
it's heart is an attempt to undo history, which is impossible, as the buildings
and the features that were torn out of the ground to make way for the ring-road
are long gone, never to be replaced.
And anyway, what right has anyone
to have confidence that this generation of civic leaders, planners and
architects will be any more insightful or successful than their predecessors?
Rather than insisting on a new Northgate Quarter design that is sympathetic to
the landmark buildings that already exist, the Town Hall, the Coach House, the
Library facade, the Art Deco Odeon, or indeed the ancient Cathedral, once again
they have chosen to "modernise" the landscape with today's cutting
edge designs and materials.
One only has to look at the proposed
designs put forward a few years ago for the planned office buildings at Gorse
Stacks, which was said by most to have resembled a "Glass Slug". Or
maybe people should consider the new bus station that's currently being
constructed on the site now? An amorphic roof design with grass growing on the
top, which is a significant distance from the proposed new Market Hall and that
will doubtless cause all sorts of traffic problems for the already congested
Inner Ring Road system. And that doesn't even begin to measure the damage that
this new construction will cause to the aesthetic quality of the Gorse Stacks
skyline, backed as it is by the main tower of the city's Cathedral, the city
walls and King Charles' Tower, virtually all of which have now been blocked
out.
Going back to the Northgate
Quarter itself, on the western flank of the proposed development area, fronting
the section of the Inner Ring Road system known as St Martin's Way, it appears
that almost the entire length of the roadway, from Watergate Street to King
Street, will become a sheer cliff-face of glass, steel, wood, plastics and
concrete, replicating and extending what is currently there in the shape of
today's Crown Plaza Hotel. Already criticised for the adverse effect this new
development will likely have on Chester's increasingly threatened historic
skyline, it can only surely be a matter of time before more serious modern
encroachment occurs and once that happens, what price Chester's history and
heritage then?
It used to be the case that the
uniqueness of Chester was its elevated galleries, or Rows, populated by a
multitude of novelty shops, art galleries, antique dealers, local tradesmen and
little specialist outlets. At street level there was the likes of individual
newsagents, map sellers, toyshops, booksellers, fishmongers, jewellers,
cobblers, shoe-shops, bars, cafes, restaurants and numerous other retailers,
some of which were simply a branch of a large high street chain, but also many
of whom were entirely Chester-based, owned and run. Not any more! Increasingly,
the vast majority of Chester's retail units are owned and run by high street
multiples whose presence in the city is a "given", as it would be in
any other modern British shopping centre. Be it a McDonalds, a Tesco, a KFC, a
Miss Selfridges, a Primark, or any other common high street shopping name,
they'll be somewhere in the city, with the result that despite its history, its
architecture, its elevated galleries, or even its out-of-place shopping
centres, Chester is now no different in terms of shopping content than any
other city in the British Isles. In fact it has become so similar to every
other shopping centre in the country that it even has mainstream charity shops
occupying units in the historic rows and the absolute absurdity of having
supermarkets chains occupying a row level shop unit, as well as one of the
oldest former pub buildings in the city.
Even accepting that a great many
people find the whole retail experience exciting or therapeutic, one might
still ask the most obvious question, why would you go to Chester, when the
likes of Liverpool, Manchester, Warrington, or even Cheshire Oaks are likely to
be bigger and better? After all, not only have they spent considerably more on
reinventing themselves as regional retail shopping centres, but also have the
infrastructure to deal with large numbers of visitors and shoppers, unlike
Chester, which was never designed to cope with the levels of traffic that it is
forced to handle today, even more-so since its ability to grow was restricted
by the 1960's Inner Ring Road system.
Rather bafflingly, one of the
main planners of Chester's "One City" proposal seems to blame the
city's Roman grid-like layout for the fracturing of its various
"Quarters", when in fact there didn't appear to be such a major
problem, prior to the Inner Ring Road being laid down, which seems to have encouraged even more road traffic into the
city. There's a suggestion that the ring-road has acted as a restriction to
Chester's growth, preventing its retail centre from spreading outward, as would
normally happen, had the likes of Northgate Street, Foregate Street and Brook
Street, not been severed and choked off by the new road system. Any number of
pre-existing houses and business premises were simply bulldozed out of
existence to make way for the ring-road, properties that may well have provided
the growing space for many of Chester's new and emerging businesses.
But therein lies Chester's
greatest difficulty, a problem that has existed for years and that will
continue to exist until these same civic leaders, planners and architects
choose to deal with it.....the city's traffic. It's arguable whether or not the
two new projects in Chester, the Northgate Quarter and the Gorse Stacks Bus
Station will actually solve any of the congestion problems that currently
affect the city, or will they in fact make them worse? It seems unlikely that
the levels of traffic servicing the Northgate Quarter will be lessened, simply
because of the presence of the various stores, market traders, hotel guests and
city visitors who will use the new parking facilities being provided in that
area. Moving the Princess Street bus services to Gorse Stacks, where it is
bounded by the ring-road and the George Street access road to the Frodsham
Street car parks seems equally problematic, so how exactly does either scheme
represent any sort of improvement to the level of traffic chaos Chester
regularly experiences?
As was said right at the
beginning of this post, change is often a necessary thing, especially when it
relates to people's health and well-being, but change simply for the sake of
change is often unwise and proves to be more costly in the long run. In terms
of what's been done to Chester's historic buildings in the past, clearly it's
impossible to undo the damage that's been done, as after all, those buildings
cannot be rebuilt or those lost treasures replaced.
And as was also said earlier,
it's unlikely that anyone would grieve over the impending loss of the 1960's
utilitarian monstrosities that currently inhabit the Chester Northgate Quarter,
but then no-one should believe that it's perfectly acceptable to replace them
with a modern day version of the same thing. It surely must be a mark of almost
immediate failure if the designers and architects of the new Northgate Quarter
only see their creations in place for the next forty, fifty or sixty years,
assuming of course that they even last that long? The "baby" of the
four landmark Chester buildings that currently inhabit this part of the city,
the Art Deco design Odeon, has lasted and been preserved because it's special,
as are the Library facade, the old Coach House, the Town Hall and obviously the
city Cathedral, but can anyone say the same for any of the new buildings that
will sit alongside them?
It clearly seems to be the case
that some of those who are charged with running the city, its civic leadership,
are only too happy to put personal legacy, financial consideration and perhaps
even individual vanity before the need to protect the city for its future
generations of Cestrians. Building a better future for the people of Chester is
a perfectly acceptable approach to take, provided it's not done at the expense
of its past, otherwise what's going to make our home city any different from
anywhere else in the UK? Chester is indeed fortunate enough to have a small
number of worthwhile; and in some cases world famous attractions that draw
large numbers of people to the city, including its Zoo, its Racecourse and its
almost unique collection of disparate buildings, be they churches, elevated
shopping galleries, Georgian townhouses, or even its city walls and
half-recovered amphitheatre. Contrast that to the numbers of retail customers
who might make a special journey into Chester to purchase goods or services
from a store or a provider that they couldn't find elsewhere in the northwest
of England, assuming of course that you can think of one. The point is; from a
purely retail perspective there is nothing new or unique about Chester at all,
but from a tourism point of view, there is much to commend it and by spoiling
or neglecting that particular brand, you damage the city's economy.
Those paid to promote Chester to
the wider world would have us believe that Chester is currently attracting tens
of millions of visitors each and every year, yet when pressed on any firm
figure will admit that they don't actually know, as there's no real way to
count people coming to the city, or indeed for how long. However, rather than
anything like the 31m people bandied about by some, the true figure is likely
somewhere well below 10m, but not less than a couple of million. Taking into
account that Chester's biggest and most notable tourist attraction is Chester
Zoo, with 1.6m visitors a year, then adding 230,000 for the Cathedral, 295,000
for Chester Races and a further 100,000 for the Chester Museum, you could quite
easily see that the city (assuming that you include the Zoo) probably attracts
3-4m visitors every year, about 1/10th of what's claimed for it by some.
An equally extraordinary argument
put forward by one of those responsible for promoting Chester to a global
audience, was that the city having a rich and varied heritage wasn't enough to
attract visitors; and that the city needed to have the sorts of retailers and
restaurants that are generally and widely available elsewhere in the UK. Which
sort of begs an obvious question, are visitors coming to Chester for the sort
of shopping and dining they can get in virtually every other city in the
country, or are they coming to Chester for its history, heritage and ambience?
Once again it seems the basic
argument comes back to what sort of city Chester sees itself as. Is it
fundamentally a tourist destination that tries when it can to incorporate
modernism, but without risking or damaging its core historic fabric? Or does
Chester see itself as a leading retail shopping centre, competing with the
likes of Liverpool and Manchester; at the same time being prepared to sacrifice
whatever architectural and archaeological treasures the city possesses in
pursuit of the customers money? It seems beyond doubt than Chester cannot be
both, despite the best efforts of its civic leaders to try and prove otherwise.
Given the outcomes thus far and the loss of innumerable and irreplaceable
buildings to date, one cannot imagine that there's much to feel optimistic
about for the future either.