Talk:St Michael and All Angels Church, Lowfield Heath

destroyed by the expansion of London Gatwick Airport ???

I am uncomfortable with this phrasing, although it might be over-enthusiastic on my part to change it. It came to my attention first because the author uses "by" instead of "for the expansion..." Then, on reflection, "destroyed" seems to be biased POV, and much of the article seems oversentimental. The airport structure didn't expand all by itself like a mold or an amobea, people were involved, but who? And it is unclear if it refers to buildings and infrastructure (roads?). It's not clear to what extent people were living or working there (with the exception of church services), or if it was in some state of semi-abandonment. The term "Village" generally includes legal status, properties and land and water use rights, and the inhabitants themselves who (I hope!) were not "destroyed." The "expansion of the airport" obviously refers to some decisions from a group with legal status in Britain. It may or may not have been voted upon by residents, or a board of directors, government officials, or a corporate body- the article doesn't make this clear at all, referring only to the "expansion" of the airport. The article seems written with a vague agenda against London Gatwick or expansion in general. I understand the emotion. I've done historical research on the Quabbin Reservoir which supplies much of the Metropolitan Boston Area with drinking water since the 1940s. The Quabbin's creation required the flooding of the Quabbin Valley and the dissolution, in April 1938, of four towns: Dana, Enfield, Greenwich, and Prescott. The residents of four villages had their property bought out, all buildings (including all churches) were demolished to their foundations, and even the trees and vegetation were cut and burned. The Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), now the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA), oversaw the construction and maintain the system after its completion. The project was enthusiastically supported by lawmakers in the Boston area, but bitterly opposed by residents of the affected towns, who took their case to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and lost. I present this case because the rhetoric about these towns being "destroyed" and "drowned" seems somewhat more justified, despite the reservoir providing millions with remarkably clean water for the past 60 years. In contrast, this St. Michael's article depends a lot on an idealized conception of a quaint little community in "Merrie Ol England." When an article describes a "village" being "destroyed" by the expansion of an airport, relevant facts should be presented explaining who, what, where, how and why. Cuvtixo (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your comments. I will respond briefly here, but am willing to go into further detail.

• As this article is specifically about the church, it contains less detail about the developments in the village than the Lowfield Heath article itself. Some of the extra information you refer to is covered there. In particular, I would contend that the other article attempts specifically to describe the things mentioned in your last sentence above. (Whether I have been successful in this, of course, is another matter, on which I would appreciate your thoughts.)
• The Gatwick-related changes were not particularly strongly opposed. The village (as noted in the Lowfield Heath article) was never very large, significant or "successful" (that's not quite the right word) considering its advantageous geographical position. From my research I get the impression that from the early 1950s, apart from initial surprise and discomfort among its residents when the council revealed the plans to expand Gatwick (despite its previous belief that a different location would in fact be chosen for London's second airport), there was little protest and almost a sense of inevitability as the changes happened.
• On reflection, "destroyed for..." would be better than "destroyed by...", although it is true to say that large parts of the land which the village used to cover are now within the airport boundaries. Broadly, the N and W sides of the village were demolished to expand airport land, while the buildings on the S and E sides were replaced by new post-airport development which is just outside the airport boundary (and now inaccessible from the airport because of increased perimeter security, although originally traffic and people could pass freely between this development and the airport land).
• The Lowfield Heath article itself (I hope) makes it clear that it was an ordinary, albeit not very dynamic, village until the 1950s, with houses, shop, school etc. It wasn't already in a moribund state when the airport expansion was announced; instead the decline happened fairly quickly afterwards. The inhabitants were essentially "displaced" (as the plaque on the church wall puts it). As far as legal status goes, the Lowfield Heath name still exists, but no longer defines a specific place; rather, it refers in a fairly vague way to the area north of the northern extremity of Crawley, south of the airport and around the main road.
• As for what type of airport infrastructure etc. now stands on the land, it's the southern perimeter road, a car park (next to the runway), the runway itself and the grass around it. I probably ought to add this to the Lowfield Heath article (perhaps a satellite map image could support it as a ref?).
• The land would have been compulsorily purchased by the government.
• Overall, while it's true to say the "destruction" has not been as dramatic as the Massachusetts examples, it's true to say that the village no longer exists as a residential location, and that all of its former buildings (except the church!) were removed, either directly for the development of the airport or indirectly to provide airport-related services, buildings etc. My main response is that the Lowfield Heath article itself explains (or attempts to explain) the issues in more depth than the church article, which tries to focus mainly on that building. If the village-related context I have given in this article is unsuitable, I'll try my best to improve it.
• I should add that any appearance of bias is not only unintentional but does not reflect my views of airports in general or Gatwick in particular, both of which I am generally in favour of.

Hope that helps a bit. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very nice. A bit of a overreaction on my part, but, in wake of the Wikipedia's fundraiser, I am very worried that, in general, more wikipedia entries will be posted with political agendas instead of less. Certainly Wikipedia needs money and support, but its still, money also corrupts. And I just happened to see on the front page that day, this bit on "Do You Know? From Wikipedia's newest articles..." Hopefully I will get a chance someday to see this church. Its probably heartening and maybe even a bit inspirational to see this church, which I think has a good chance of surviving long after all traces of the airport are gone! Cuvtixo (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)