Why Coventry's historic city centre will stay and debate is skewed

[dutchman]

A plaque explaining Coventry city centre’s pioneering, pedestrianised post-war redevelopment quotes its internationally celebrated architect Sir Donald Gibson



That quote, on the plaque entitled ‘The Architect’s Vision’ at the top of the Upper Precinct ramp, reads: “If you cannot put up buildings of your own time, you might as well forget it. A town must live, you cannot wait until fashions change.”

It’s therefore ironic that the government has now listed more parts of the Upper Precinct upon national heritage adviser Historic England’s recommendation.

It has sparked sometimes heated but valuable public debate on our city centre’s past, present and future.

Yet it seems to me that two fundamental arguments underpinning the public debate are flawed.

The first is the view that somehow Coventry’s “nationally important” listed post-War architecture is the reason for poor retail performance.

Take, for instance, the unpopular 1980s addition, Cathedral Lanes shopping centre – which blocked views to the cathedral, a central tenet of Gibson’s design. It has been largely empty for decades.

Neither is it an architectural gem. It’s more akin to the modern ubiquitous construction that can make it difficult to tell some towns’ shopping centres apart.

Many shops are boarded up elsewhere in Coventry city centre away from the listed areas, as with other towns and cities in the internet shopping era. Many are located in ‘city centre south’ which is prioritised for redevelopment to attract more much-needed desirable stores.

The second well-intentioned but skewed argument is the overemphasis on developers’ profit margins.

A city centre is ultimately a civic space for people.

The primary focus must surely be on the experience of shoppers, visitors and others who make or break the city centre’s daytime and nighttime economy.

Many have unsurprisingly expressed that they like the canopies. Not because of how they look but because they keep the young, elderly, disabled, all of us, dry in the rain. There’s a simple human desire for shelter.

Historic England has rightly emphasised how Gibson’s city centre was planned as an egalitarian civic space for people to share and enjoy amid post-war optimism and regeneration.

Perhaps BHS’s corner canopy could go, like Waterstone’s opposite already has. But should the rest? Really?

The Upper Precinct ramp, also earmarked for demolition, serves a purpose too. To help those including the disabled get to the now listed upper floor link walkways.

It could be argued that elements of the listings are not merited. Not all of Coventry city centre should be preserved, clearly.

Everything must earn its place in the city centre of the future. But most of what emerged from Gibson’s imperfect masterpiece will be part of it.

Not even the pre-2010 Jerde masterplan – backed by the council’s then Conservative administration – with rooftop parklands and an egg-shaped structure at the now listed Central Library – proposed abandoning the Gibson Precinct ‘cross’.

A council taxpayer-funded campaign in recent years championed the ugly and less-than-loved post-war ring road.

So why not similarly promote, champion and sell the unique post-war centre? And find innovative ways of attracting more people to live, work, shop and play in it, in the run-up to hosting UK City of Culture in 2021.