STOP THE TROLLEYBUS !

Kevin Grady says the trolleybus is in the city’s best interests (Yorkshire Evening Post June 28, 2013). Dr Grady is the man whom the press used to dub the town’s ‘achitectural heritage watchdog’ (YEP, May 15, 2002, March 3, 2010), but more recently – and somewhat tellingly – as simply the ‘civic watchdog’ (Guardian Unlimited, October 21, 2010). The press stressed fairly recently that Dr Kevin Grady and the Leeds Civic Trust “have a substantial say in what happens to development in the city” (YEP, November 8, 2012), and this has been so for some considerable time. We are reminded that “Dr Kevin Grady heads Leeds Civic Trust’s committee which monitors new planning applications concerning the Leeds metropolitan district and he often meets with developers before plans are formally submitted to the council.” (Yorkshire Post, June 19, 2013 (cf. YEP, June 21, 2013).

His general opposition to the original Clarence Dock development (where he also came up against English Heritage) has been proved right, and he rightly praised the Light shopping and leisure complex (YEP, November 14, 2002) which makes a point of hiding everything within the old Leeds Permanent Building, and also the conversion of Carr Mill into student flats on the Meanwood Roasd (YEP, May 14, 2003, June 24, 2003). I think most can, like him, approve of this and other examples in Leeds which give new life to old buildings, etc., etc.

However, if wary of choosing them as places to live (Building Design, April 07, 2006, p.8, September 29, 2006, p.8) and wary of profileration, he saw it as as “vital that Leeds capitalises on the tremendous development boom.” (YEP, November 30, 2006), and he was at one time a wholehearted supporter of the plans for some of the ever higher modern Towers of Babel (and remember what has been said about the reputation of both Leeds City Council and the Civic Trust for showing scant respect for the views of the general public and on the ambiguous relationship with developers (cf. Ian Strange & David Whitney, ‘The Changing Roles and Purposes of Heritage Conservation in the UK’, Planning, Practice & Research, Vol. 18, No. 2–3 ( May–August, 2003, pp. 219–229 (p226), etc).

He welcomed the ill-fated “kissing towers” project, which he saw as exciting (see Martin Wainwright, The Guardian, October 4, 2004, p.5). He also backed the equally disastrous Lumière project in Wellington Street (YEP, September 18, 2006). In 2007, he said it was too early to make a definitive judgement as to whether the profileration of modern blocks of flats for letting in the town centre was a good or bad thing, while others already insisted that Leeds was repeating mistakes in this field that had been made already elsewhere (YEP, December 13, 2007). Grady accused Leeds of lacking “some of the drive and boldness readily apparent in Manchester” (Yorkshire Post, May 11, 2005, May 20, 2005), and when some members of the trust quibbled over the height of the Lumière and the Sky Plaza buildings being chosen simple to outdo Manchester, he reminded them: “Cities are in competition and have to keep up with the best and it is relevant to look across the country at others.” (YEP, January 1, 2008). Yet as one critic of the Council and of the Civic Trust said at the time: “Leeds floats to a considerable degree on binge drinking, binge shopping, hype and unsustainable property speculation” (YEP, September 30, 2006). Plus ça change!…

Then came the crunch, and among the first victims was the “Kissing Towers” scheme. When Kevin Grady was reported as saying that the “Council ought to have chosen a more modest scheme by a local developer”, Councillor Andrew Carter accused him of being “wise after the event” (Yorkshire Post, July 18, 2008; cf. YEP, July 18, 2008). For some, Kevin Grady’s “recommended reliance upon “local developers” calls up memories of a certain Mr Poulson, whose seductive powers equalled those of Godzilla” (YEP, July 25, 2008).

Then it was the turn of the Lumière project to turn to dust, and now it was reported that “Dr Kevin Grady, of the Leeds Civic Trust planning and heritage watchdog, has since indicated that he believes Lumiere and other high-rise development schemes proposed for the city prior to the crash were a step too far” (YEP, August 9, 2012) (sic!)

Critics, quoting the impact of the internet and of out-of-town shopping, are not quite so sanguine as he is in seeing developments such as Trinity as “critical to the future prosperity of Leeds city centre as a shopping destination” (YEP, September 17, 2012).

Whether you share his enthusiasm for the buildings housing BBC North and the College of Music on Quarry Hill or not is a matter of taste (YEP, September 23, 2003), and it is interesting to see his views on the importance of the space around Victorian villas in the suburbs (YEP, December 27, 2002):

‘Dr Kevin Grady of Leeds Civic Trust said: It is in the suburbs where the
danger of losing important unlisted buildings of local but not national significance
is greatest.

Dr Grady said attempts to get the houses listed as Graded buildings through English Heritage inevitably failed. They took the attitude the houses are not of national significance.

But in fact they are of major local significance not only for their character and history but for the green breathing spaces they provide.’

Why then can he not then see the importance of the space in the suburbs as a whole (keeping trees and roads of a reasonable width, etc. and not sacrificing everything to traffic)? In 2003, he even organized seminars about ‘the quality of life’ in various suburbs (Yorkshire Post, January 15, 2003) and he appreciated how “Leeds is quite exceptional”

in being among the greenest cities in Europe through the number of its parks (July 29, 2010). But perhaps he cares more about the waterfront just south of the river (see YEP, September 5, 2003, etc (too many article to list here) than what happens further north, and that is why he welcomes Allied London with such open arms? He has seen them as the saviours of Clarence Dock, having “ticked all the boxes” (YEP, August 5, 2012)

Note his complaining about a lack of consultation with the Civic Trust over the future of Leeds Parks (YEP, February 24, 2004). He also wished that more time had been given before the decision to demolish the non-Olympic swimming pool was taken (Architects Journal, October 29, 2009). The biter bit?

His current enthusiasm for the trolleybus echoes his earlier enthusiasm for Supertram (failing to see that that the two projects are somewhat different). It is interesting to quote what he said at the time (YEP, March 19, 2004)

‘Our one major worry about Supertram was that the attractiveness and character of the city would be greatly damaged if a cheap and utilitarian system was built.

However, those concerns have been allayed by the sensitivity the planners have shown to the particular needs of different locations and the high-quality design standards being employed.’

Ho! Ho! Note also how the Civic Trust was criticized at the time for refusing to look at technological developments already taking place in buses which undermined the argument for a tram (YEP, January 20, 2005). Note also how preparation for the Supertram was the reason giving for demolishing the historic Tetley Brewery (YEP, May 15, 2002) and for unsuitable alterations to the River Aire Bridge (YEP, July 31, 2002, August 1, 2002, etc.), even if the Civic Trust objected to both. Incidentally, Kevin Grady is fond of Victorian tram pylons Those preserved at Roundhay park “are a very prominent reminders firstly that Leeds was a very go-ahead city when it came to public transport in Victorian times” (YEP, May 27, 2010). I am not sure that modern pylons would attract the same sympathy.