by Cyclo2000 » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:11 am
First up, I think he's deed, to paraphrase Monty Python.
I've been searching for info on this most visionary of architects and found bugger aw.
Now I knew he was involved in the developement of Portadown, so I searched around that and found that he was involved in the "Copcutt Controvesy" over sectarian planning in Craigavon in Ireland....
"The New City and the Onset of Counter-propaganda: Planning the New City
Brings Division
O’Neill, with the help of Jack Sayers, sought to use the Belfast
Telegraph to promote the ideals of liberal Unionism as well as the policies
and plans of his leadership. However, those who believed they would be
affected by the development reacted severely and swiftly against it—and
O’Neill. Newspapers representing interests other than Sayers movement
toward progressive Unionism used the controversies to discredit the new
city plan and O’Neill. Their first opportunity came on August 14,1964
when the chief architect of the new city resigned and what became
known as the “Copcutt Controversy,” ensued.
In 1964 Professor Geoffrey Copcutt, then principal architect for the
Cumbernauld new town in England, was selected to head the design
team for the yet un-named new city. However, on August 8,1964, only
months after his arrival in Northern Ireland, Copcutt issued a
memorandum against the Government in which he both resigned and
expressed doubts about the feasibility and practicality of the new city
project.
The 7000 word document was decidedly critical of both the
Stormont Government and the new city plan and echoed early concerns
about the effects of the project. Copcutt questioned O’Neill’s policy of the
“unswerving pursuit” of all aspects of the Matthew Plan and expressed
the belief that the new city was merely a “propaganda project” to further
O’Neill’s ideology, rather than a legitimate planning project. In addition,
he criticized the movement toward centralized planning, warning that
this trend “was effectively extinguishing activity at the grass roots,”
leading to an “eventual erosion of local determination of local affairs.”
The demographic composition of Lurgan and Portadown as “Catholic”
and “Protestant” towns respectively would present “special problems for
the state appointed Development Commission to integrate both towns
properly.” In his estimation “Londonderry was the obvious contender for
injection and expansion” and would be evidence of “the sincerity of the
desire of Ulster to prepare for the 21st century.” But he was most
scathing in his criticism of the entire Stormont system:
I have become disenchanted with the Stormont scene and despite the knowledge
that there are three times as many employed in central government as there are
university students, I am sceptical of its ability to progress with the technical
developments necessary…we have watched the date of our legislation recede and its
form change, we have seen opposition build up and be optimistically discounted…It
is beginning to seem as though we are being asked to engineer propaganda rather
than a city. (Memoradum from Geoffrey Copcutt to the Ministry of Development
August 14,1964)"
The local newspapers sought to put their own spin on the crisis, reporting from a varierty of veiwpoints (often sectarian)
The Irish Times, sympathetic to the plight of Catholics in
the North and the cause of Nationalism, reported that Copcutt “opened
up a flood gate of criticism on the heads of Government” and called the
new city architects memo:
a 7000 thousand word outburst...which put the controversial cat among the
political pigeons... Copcutt resigned as protest against the discrimination of
Catholics. (August 14,1964)
The Belfast Newsletter (Loyalist/Unionist) used the event to publicize the
plight of farmers, to discredit O’Neill and to highlight the perceived
usurpation of Unionist controlled local government by the Ministry of
Development:
The Copcutt controversy is stirring up feelings against the Government from
Councillors in Derry and Belfast to farmers everywhere. Londonderry was elated,
Lurgan and Portadown were aghast, farmers in Armagh, many of whom would have
their land vested for the new city were chortling with glee and the rest of Ulster
was taken aback by the bombshell... Other than the new city there is one major
problem that will have to be considered—one which is political dynamite- the
reorganization of local government...Mr Copcutt’s reappraisal of the new city
project has also provided strong backing for farmers who are protesting the
establishment of a new city. (Belfast Newsletter August 15,1964)
An August 18,1964 letter to the editor by JM Cox in the Belfast
Newsletter questioned the wisdom of O’Neill’s so-called “brave new Ulster
and its new image” and reported that the Copcutt Controversy was
rapidly “becoming a crisis.”
It seems to me that the Government have been more interested in image building
instead of getting something done. I think Mr. Copcutt was shows quite clearly that
the Government were only interested in imagery where this project was concerned.
(Belfast Newsletter August 18,1964)
Finally, The Derry Journal used the resignation-- and Copcutt’s call to
redevelop Derry, rather than construct an entire new city--as an
opportunity to once again draw attention to the neglect of the north-west.
The siting of the new city near Belfast is the equivalent of shutting the gates of
Derry. Mr. Copcutt’s suggestion that Derry should be developed as the new second
city was unanimously acclaimed by all parties in Derry. The Derry Corporation will
approach the Government to implement the ideas of Mr. Copcutt. (Derry Journal,
August 14,1964)
The Belfast Telegraph article, though quoting some excerpts from
Copcutt’s memo, focused upon the technical merits of the plan by way of
an interview with Sir Robert Matthew, who originally recommended the
new city. Matthew spoke of the controversy as nothing more than a
manifestation of the provincialism of the region:
I am not alarmed by anything that he (Copcutt) said... It is symptomatic of this
small area that such a report should be regarded as so important. The thing is out
of proportion. Copcutt never expressed his anxieties about the project and had
ample opportunity to discuss them. (Belfast Telegraph, August 15,1964)
Andrew Boyd’s article for the Irish Times described both the
depth of division within the Unionist party as well as the prominence of
certain newspapers in widening the split:
But more important than the barbs which Mr. Copcutt has been shooting at
Stormont, is the revelation that the Unionists, especially the Unionist newspapers
are split into those who follow the Prime Minister and those follow Mr. Faulkner.
No one ever dreamed of the day when a Unionist newspaper would sustain a
campaign against the Prime Minister, yet this is exactly what the Belfast Newsletter
has been doing. For two weeks the Newsletter has been playing up the Copcutt
controversy in the hope that it would become a major political issue to and create
such a crisis in the Cabinet that it would split and bring the O’Neill Administration
to an end. The Belfast Telegraph, however, continues to talk about ‘new images’
and scornfully wonders if Copcutt was ever up to the task of planning a new city
(The Irish Times September 1,1964)
Alter Aterius Auxilio Veget