Capital mustn’
Critics once lambasted the Balmoral’s ‘bulbous tower’ but now it’s a listed building, writes Donald Anderson
inally, there is Princes Street. In the minds of many the jumble of buildings along this street is now irremediable. But in our view the site is of such importance that an attempt should be made to solve the problem. The new design should avoid the monotonous uniformity of the original and the chaotic confusion of the modern frontage.”
These are not my words but are from the Report of the Lord Provost’s Advisory Committee on City Development, published way back in 1943. The report also talks about the issues in the city’s Royal Mile, which back then wasn’t a gleaming spectacle full of tourists as highlighted in a council report published just this week. In fact, the High Street was derelict.
The report states that “the houses have been gradually allowed to sink into decay. Many of them are now closed and windowless, many patched and broken, affording precarious shelter to their inhabitants. They attract the interest, and, owing to their condition, the amazement of the tourists who visit them”.
It’s an incredible report and was seminal in getting the city to take action to restore the fortunes of its centre, leading ultimately to, among other things, the 1960s Princes Street Masterplan. While the report shows remarkable vision and foresight, the eventual outcomes were mixed, as is demonstrated by even a cursory glance along Princes Street today.
There are those in Edinburgh who decry modern developments in the city. Indeed, the tourism industry has attracted claims from some that it is spoiling Edinburgh for its residents. But the growing pains of success are far easier to deal with than the dereliction and decay of economic failure described in the 1940s. Yet, hardly a day goes by without controversy over something new that’s decried as demeaning or damaging to what