europa!

It was entertaining last week to see most European nations revert to type and play more or less exactly the roles they have cast themselves in over the last hundred years or so.

Of course, it could (and maybe should) be argued that the nation state itself is a thing of the past and that we would (and maybe will) be infinitely better off now abandoning the concept and embracing instead much larger organisational unions to handle continental and global issues while dealing with the comparatively banal day-to-day running of our communities at a regional and local level.

Except, this seems to go straight against the grain of the European psyche. If there is such a thing. And if there is such a thing, what is it? Who knows. But what we can observe looks something like this:

The Germans, having spent the entire second half of the 20th Century convincing everyone that they don't want to domineer everyone, shape Europe in their image and run it so it works, find themselves in a position where, if they want to shape Europe in their image and run it so it works, they really have to domineer everyone. Which is awkward, because they've just convinced everyone that they won't.

The French, having spent all of the 20th Century becoming almost completely irrelevant to the rest of the world but extraordinarily important to themselves, find themselves in a position where they realise that - although they tried to convince themselves and everyone else to the contrary - faced with domineering Germans they will effectively roll over and do whatever they're told. Which is awkward, because although they never really convinced anyone other than themselves that they wouldn't, it's still embarrassing when they do.

The Italians, having spent the second half of the 20th Century getting over the fact that they had put at their helm a preposterous buffoon whom they then unceremoniously ditched before entering an extended phase of administrative limbo, find themselves in a position where they've just had to unceremoniously ditch a preposterous buffoon and could now well be facing another phase of extended administrative limbo. Which would be awkward, if anyone cared.

The Austrians, having spent the first half of the 20th Century being sort of German but not really and the second half explaining to the world that they sort of weren't really German though in a way they were, find themselves in a position where they are sort of German, but not really. Which is just awkward.

The Spanish and the Portuguese, having spent the first half of the 20th Century creating and then the second half of it dealing and pretty much coming to terms with their own mess, find themselves in a position where they would like to and probably could be dealing with any new mess they may have created for themselves, by themselves, if only the Germans would let them. Which may be awkward if they don't.

The Greeks, having spent the last two and half thousand years enjoying the fact that they gave us civilisation, find themselves in a position where everybody suddenly blames them for giving them a crisis. Which is awkward in so far as both is at least partially true, but pointing out the latter feels rude.

The Dutch and the Other Two that make up Benelux, having spent the last seventy-odd years feeling increasingly chipper about practically everything and being universally loved (the Dutch) and largely ignored (the Other Two) respectively, find themselves in an unchanged position where everybody still loves (the Dutch) or largely ignores them (the Other Two). Which is only awkward if you bump into one and mistake them for another.

The former Eastern Bloc, having spent the last seventy-odd years and probably about the seventy-odd years before that in various constellations under some sort of imposed rule or totalitarian regime, find themselves in a position where they are just glad that that's all over now and happily take a bit of domineering from whoever manages to put some order into their affairs. Which is a little awkward for most, as that happens to be the Germans.

The Scandinavians, having spent their entire history being healthy, free-spirited and nordic, they are not going to change now, are they. So they find themselves in a position where they are just going to continue doing their own thing while being nice to anyone who buys their furniture and music. Awkward does not come into it.

The British are, you will note, on an island. They don't trust the Germans (except their cars), don't like the French (except their wine), don't respect the Italians (except their art, their food, their wine, their coffee and their lifestyle, and Tuscany, of course), don't pay much attention to the Spanish (not even when on holiday there), don't know much about the Portuguese (except that that's where Port comes from), don't view the Greek as contemporary (but relish the Classics), and don't care much about the rest (except the Dutch, whom they love, and the Polish, who are forever friends and really the best builders they've ever had). This is broadly the position they've always found themselves in and they're quite happy with it for the foreseeable future. Cheers.

(The Swiss. With a practically uninterrupted history of independence, democracy and neutrality, the Swiss neither are nor do they want to be part of the European Project. Which makes perfect sense, because sitting at the heart of Europe, on spectacular mountains, with a flourishing economy, a stable currency, and a train set that runs literally like clockwork, why on earth would they?...)

Oh, and the Irish! Well, having spent the first half of the 20th Century wrenching themselves free from British rule and the second half winning Eurovision song contests, they find themselves in a position where everybody simply adores them, if nothing else for their very fine stout...


sebastian's website sebastian on facebook

killing killers

A lot of people in the UK are demanding a debate in parliament about the death penalty. Of course, we can debate it. But can we really, seriously, consider bringing it back?

No. Under no circumstances.

Judicial murder and a civilised society do not go together. We can either aim to make the world a better place, in which case we have to break the cycle of violence, terror, revenge and barbarism; or we keep ourselves base and unevolved, maintaining the fantasy of 'justice' through retaliation.

Violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred. Whether it's a Myra Hindley, or the killers of Jamie Bulger or someone like Breivik. Their wrongs must not pull us down to their level. If we allow them to, they win, we lose. If we want to be better than them, we have to have the courage to show this through our actions.

Every Time.


(There is a counter-petition which asks for the government to keep the existing ban on captial punishment in the UK. You can sign it here )

sebastian's website sebastian on facebook

rupert

As he flies into this country - to do what exactly? To salvage his operation here? To oversee damage limitation? To apologise? - it is worth calling to mind just what exactly this man is. Not who, that's a matter for his biographers, but what he represents and embodies.

The great writer Dennis Potter memorably called his cancer Rupert, after Rupert Murdoch. And that, I am convinced, is precisely what Rupert Murdoch is. A malign tumour that has been sitting on one of the vital organs of our society - the media - for four decades and whose effect on the entire fabric that enmeshes our journalism with our politics, our judiciary, our police, our culture, our perception of ourselves, indeed our identity as a people, has been to damage it in the most insidious and pervasive way imaginable.

There has, yes, always been a market for tittle-tattle, there is, patently, a hunger for gossip and salacious stories, but while the great British public have to bear their share of responsibility for buying the lies, the trash, the made-up sensations, the half-truths and untruths peddled as facts, the misogyny, the homophobia, the xenophobia, the small-mindedness and intolerance, the thoroughly un-British unfairness of a small band of hand-picked henchmen and women, part family, part cronies, taking it upon themselves to threaten, bully, blackmail, intimidate and manipulate everyone from elected politicians to people who happen to carry out their work in the public eye to members of the royal household to anyone really they themselves consider 'fair game'; while it is true to say that much as every country gets the government it deserves it also gets the press it deserves, there is one fact that can't and mustn't be overlooked. Which is that the mindset - I can't bring myself to calling it a 'culture', as that would suggest there was anything in the least refined or civilised or even just human about it - which this man has instigated and spread is in itself as toxic as the brand he has just culled from his stable. You can create markets. As any drug dealer will tell you, you can manufacture (again, we can't justly call it 'cultivate') demand, even if it is for something that makes you sick. You can awaken, appeal to and feed into the lowest, most base instincts and by feeding them create more appetite for them. Like the sugar in sweets and the salt in crisps, you know it rots your teeth and gives you heart disease but you've tasted it now so you want more. What this man is responsible for, and if not single-handedly then most assuredly as its most effective, most efficient and most devastating operator, is the systematic destruction of ethics in journalism. This is a man who knows how to extract a price for everything and who knows the value of nothing, indeed. He is the nemesis of culture, the debilitating blight that has made it almost impossible, at times, for decency, in this country, to breathe.

As he flies into this country, this man, we are, I believe, within our rights to call for his arrest. He stands accused, personally and as the Chairman and CEO of News Corporation, parent company to News International, of the corruption, the interception of communications, the interference with a police investigation, that his people stand accused of. If he says he didn't know about them, I say he is a liar. And if he isn't a liar, then he is grossly, criminally irresponsible, because know about it, he should: these kinds of scoops do not come out of nowhere. And if he did know about it, and admits as much, he is, of these crimes, guilty. I believe we are within our rights to call for the arrest of his son, James Murdoch, Chairman and CEO of News Corporation Europe and Asia, and his Chief Executive of News International, Rebekah Brooks/Wade too. I believe we are within our rights to call for these people to be brought to justice.

Rupert, the cancer, ended up killing Dennis Potter. We need not let Rupert, the man, kill civic society in our country. We can excise him, or at the very least tame him. The rampant multiplication of his cells can be stopped, we have the wherewithal. And as for BSkyB: there is no way this person and the persons who do his bidding can be, in any meaningful way, in any way that doesn't make a mockery of language, sense and reason, be described as either 'fit' or 'proper'.

is earl's court worth saving?

If things go ahead as planned, the world famous Earl’s Court exhibition centre and concert venue will be demolished after the London 2012 Olympics, during which it will host the volleyball competitions as the last event ever to be staged there. This forms part of a vast local development programme which has been given the catchy title ‘Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area’ by the three joint owners of said area: the London Borough of Fulham, who hold some of the existing housing stock around the Earl's Court centre, London Transport, who own the tube line that runs underneath it and a fair bit of trackside wasteland around it, and the investment and development company Capco (Capital & Counties), who own both Earl’s Court and Olympia (the old Olympia Centre in Kensington, not the new Olympic Village in East London...)

While a masterplan for the redevelopment appears to be at an advanced stage, a ‘first public consultation’ about it has only just now come to an end (26th april 2011), and this is also the reason I suddenly became aware of - you could say alert to - the impending changes proposed for a place two minutes‘ walk from where I live.


As somebody who generally likes change and embraces the new, I started out looking at the plans for Earl's Court, almost liking them. Certainly I did not see anything substantially wrong with them, apart perhaps from the fact that they seemed somewhat 'pedestrian' and mediocre (if the people who have presumably laboured hard to come up with them will forgive me what is, if anything, an unintended slight), proposing at heart nothing much more and nothing much less than a new set of 'urban villages' much in the general contemporary planning mould that you could find practically anywhere in the world where there's a bit of space with a lot of money sloshing around, handled by a competent team of architects.


(I want to emphasise at this point - as if that were necessary - that I’m not an architect, city planner or urban strategist. It could well be that people who are, not least perhaps the masterplanner himself, Sir Terry Farrell of Terry Farrell and Partners, would venture that I’m talking out of the wrong part of my anatomy, and I grant that purely metaphorically, this may well be the case. So while I certainly have my steadily growing doubts, I do make allowance for their doubting too...)


Examining the plans in more detail, and especially giving them, and my home turf, Earl's Court, a little more thought, I'm beginning to wonder whether this project - also bearing in mind that it calls itself an ‘opportunity area’ - doesn’t in fact miss two giant opportunities and may, for this reason, be misguided to the point where it should be re-conceived:


Firstly, Earl's Court One (there is also an Earl's Court Two, right behind it) is an iconic landmark building of at least some historical significance and architectural interest. It's an exponent, albeit not ‘pure and unaltered', as some might point out, of the Art Moderne Style, which is a less fussy and more robust evolution of Art Deco, and it has its own characteristic elegance and an imposing beauty.
Now if, as the masterplan suggests, venues for large and small scale events should continue to exist in Earl's Court, then keeping this landmark, which itself has come to define the area, intact would appear both the obvious and indeed the inspired thing to do. Internally, as the redevelopment of the erstwhile Millennium Dome demonstrates (also something of a theme park and very middle-of-the-road along the covered mock 'high street', but top-notch inside the performance spaces), there is enormous scope for creating a genuinely exciting, and newly ground-breaking location which can incorporate a sizeable, adaptable performance space for big, top headline acts of the kind that have made Earl's Court famous - Pink Floyd, Madonna, David Gray... - and that the Earl’s Court Centre itself likes to claim it has helped turn into legends, with compendium venues for smaller events, such as a high quality jazz club or independent music club, just as examples. Within the structure, there would be plenty of room to also accommodate a new studio theatre with perhaps two performance spaces (what London hasn’t got enough of and what would therefore be more than a little desirable in this constellation would be a 250-350 seater and maybe a smaller experimental space with a capacity of up to about 150, both with completely flexible and removable seating, so performances can take any shape they like), a state-of-the art digital cinema with two or three screens (we are reasonably well-served with mainstream chains in the area, but what is sorely lacking in London generally are independent cinemas), and, as the icing on the cake, there would still be scope for turning some of the structure into a vast unconventional art/performance space that allows for large-scale, site-specific, non-auditorium style theatre, music and cross-media art events to take place.


As the wholly inspired and ingenious conversion of the Turbine Hall at Tate Modern illustrates: a big empty space is not a big empty space, it can bring value, visitors, and - directly or indirectly - revenue to an area, if its potential is recognised and utilised. Of course, we don't need another Tate Modern here, but this kind of bold, conceptual thinking that recognises Earl's Court as a unique location and maximises its potential would genuinely move Earl's Court forward as a destination and also serve the twin goals of on the one hand preserving an historic architectural icon, while rejuvenating and newly inspiring people locally and from all over London (as well as the massive tourist contingent that's already here anyway) to use Earl's Court as a place of inspiration. A set of ‘urban villages', by contrast, is something that could take shape anywhere in the world and nobody would be any the wiser as to where they were or why they were there. Yet surely the point and substance of redeveloping a local area like Earl's Court is to take its character, its identity and build on that, expand on it, make it clearer, more pronounced: enhance it. The current masterplan does nothing of the sort, it eradicates the Earl's Court identity and imposes a fairly bland globally applicable residential patchwork on the area instead.


Secondly, then, keeping Earl's Court One (in particular) would of course require comprehensive re-imagining of the surrounding development area. Here, I feel that the proposed plans are, while not inherently objectionable, timid and tame (although it could be argued, of course, that being timid and tame is inherently objectionable...). I see this, too, as a chance for bold, inventive planning, in which, to my mind, real emphasis should be given to architectural and conceptual innovation, with a clear focus on the kind of communities that one would like to build/facilitate in the area. My impression is - and I consider myself on somewhat less firm ground here than with my first point above - that the plans are principally aimed at a broadly affluent corporate clientele, which is understandable in so far as the development cost will be huge and investors will want to see a return. But Earl's Court is a multifarious, diverse, complex community that has often in the past been described as essentially transient. Here is the opportunity, I believe, to set a marker for the area to be evolved and characterised as an 'organic' continuation of where it's coming from. I would certainly like to see the pendulum of the 'happening place in London' swing back now from Hoxton and Shoreditch to the centre-west, and what better place for this to take root than here in Earl's Court, which has a long-standing association with artists, actors, performers, writers, musicians, photographers, poets and thinkers, and why not bring into the fold contemporary artisans, designers and specialist manufacturers. With the Design Museum set to move into the former Commonwealth Institute up the road, with Olympia still there as a conference venue, and Earl's Court's status as a music, performance and art location reinvigorated, we could find ourselves with a ‘magic' triangle of culture, commerce and community that people will want to come to not just because it's convenient for the airport, but because it has identity, character and real content to offer.


Targetting, and making an area accessible to these kinds of people, projects and enterprises is in itself, of course, an investment, because they are not, I realise, the most profitable bunch, but as has been shown over and over again, in the King's Road, in Notting Hill, in Dalston and Southwark: if you have or make available useable, accessible and above all affordable spaces where creative people can work and live and in particular also showcase their work, then the moneyed people will invariably follow. The difference is that without the people who make and create things you get corporate lets and sterile gated communities where people on two-year contracts watch HD TV and go to the gym before moving on to their next assignment in Singapore. With the ‘artists and creatives’, you still get those, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, indeed, you need a blend and after all, somebody has to come and engage with all the art, the music, the performance and the cinema that's being produced, but you also get the vibrancy and dynamics of a thriving culture. I think therefore that this is essentially a choice between: just going for the money and plonking down a soulless pseudo-village, or going for the character of an urban area and allowing the content to pull the money, thus creating a thriving, lasting, spirited mix of life.


So I’m coming around to answering the question in the affirmative. I think that maybe Earl’s Court is worth saving. I think the current masterplan can and should be rethought, that Earl's Court One at least should not have its current Certificate of Immunity from Listing (COIL) renewed but instead be protected from demolition and that the Earl's Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area ought to be developed as not just a commercial, but also conceptual and civic project that genuinely relates to, enhances and evolves earl's court as a cultural hub.

(I’d be seriously interested to know what other people make of it all. and here are some links to related websites):


the developers’ masterplan
a ‘causes’ page set up by people who want to save earl’s court
a tandem facebook page
a 'save earl's court' twitter feed (added July 2012)
a facebook page dedicated to c. howard crane, the architect of earl’s court
and his wikipedia entry

sebastian's website sebastian on facebook