Cathedral of science? No thanks

Published: 1 July, 2010

• LABOUR councillor Peter Brayshaw’s response on Monday night to a deputation from Somers Town protesting about the “cathedral of science” proposed on land near the British Library was like an archer firing arrows from its bell tower into the peasants below. 

Prominent in his five points, barked out as on a firing range, was his recitation of the medical bodies and Nobel prizewinning scientists whose enthusiasm for the scheme far outweigh concern of local residents that the cathedral would swallow up land badly needed for housing and amenities and that it infringes Camden’s Unitary Development Plan and Local Development Framework.

Candy Udwin valiantly defied her elected councillor’s tirade to stress that it was important that Camden Council stick by its previously agreed plans.

She made the point that the cathedral architect’s second design was uglier than the first. 

Certainly that gargantuan bluebottle depicted in the New Journal would arouse the ghost of John Betjeman, saviour of St Pancras station, were its ugly bulk to tower over the landscape. 

Has the architect no shame? Frankenstein at least fled from the ugliness of his monster.

Cllr Brayshaw queried whether Ms Udwin truly represented the views of Somers Town, yet he had attended a packed meeting in St Mary and St Pancras School Hall which was almost universal in its condemnation of the scheme, and where a proposer of the scheme said the monstrosity was necessary on the prime site in order that a “critical mass” of scientists could finally break the hold of “killer diseases”. 

Do we assume the critical mass must link hands and intone an incantation?

Don’t they have emails with which to share ideas?

Or will they swap brainwaves at the juice bar, a boon that has been added in cathedral 2’s plan?

Convenience and prestige are driving factors, so scientists from out of town can drop in via Europe’s biggest transport terminus with buzzing brains.

What if – adjacent to this terminus – a drain corrodes, as at the cattle research centre at Pirbright, where there were several organisations to pass the diseased buck, as there would be at the cathedral of science?

When I asked that question at a “consultation” in Coopers Lane TA Hall I was told that the organisation involved in waste disposal had “an excellent track record”.  

They’d only need to stumble once. 

The cathedral of science, like RBS, should not be “too big to fail”. It should not exist on the proposed site in any form.

ROB INGLIS
Goldington Street, NW1