Jump to content

Recommended Posts

From reading John Harrington's and Martin Cassini's excellent posts, explaining the benefits of a shared space scheme,(page 2 Lights Out thread) I was under the impression that the road system we currently have would be improved, and would make using this main road better for pedestrians of all abilities and ages and cyclists as well as motorists.

 

So what are we aiming for?

A shared space scheme, which I believe would alleviate many of the issues....or an extremely expensive covered footbridge so folk don't get wet crossing the road??

What has priority??

 

Just asking!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afraid I can't subscribe to this particular idea.  Footbridges and subways are one of the hallmarks of Sixties and Seventies transport planning.   They sought to make pedestrians "safe" through segregation but all they did was ghettoise them and further entrench the view that the public realm is for traffic while other road users must somehow stay out of the way.  It's a superficially attractive solution but they become nothing but corridors of movement between the car parks and the shops and over time merely add to the sense of disunity on the streets.    Like other street ironmongery they also tend to become unattractive, shabby and alienating in a very short space of time.

I have a particular problem with subways. Apart from the implied assumption that it's for pedestrians to suffer inconvenience in getting from A to B, I find them threatening and hostile and aesthetically they have no place in a city like Hereford that depends on its attractiveness for survival.  I personally won't use the Victoria Street subway after dark and would rather run the gauntlet of traffic at grade.  Maybe it's no coincidence that, in spite of the subways, Victoria Street, Edgar Street and Newmarket Street had more deaths and serious injuries over the last five years than anywhere else in the city.  

It's not the easy solution but, as ever, I'm afraid the answer is to reduce the amount of traffic and reintegrate road users with shared space, good public transport and cycle provision.     

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At last, some common sense spoken. A bridge is never going to happen. It was never in the original scheme and for sure it won't be added as an afterthought. As I've said before, the cost would be huge - £m's - the benefits to the developers marginal at best and it would have to fly over the City Wall, which English Heritage would never allow. The Council lost all control of this site once they handed it over with that ridiculous 250 year lease. Developers only build things that will make them money - the majority of people will arrive and depart in cars -  that’s why there is masses of on-site parking. They have no interest in Widemarsh Street or High Town. The connectivity as originally designed was ideal, but is now being compromised by retaining the dual carriageway, due to the Council's inability to progress the link road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two hundred and fifty bloody years. Nobody told me. Two hundred and fifty bloody years! Good bloody grief. What a lovely arrangement. Whoever negotiated this little slice of pleasure should definitely be kept well away from the table. Was it Jarvis? Tell me it was Jarvis and Im going to spit phlegm. Good grief! Two hundred and fifty bloody years. I mean Two bloody hundred is bad enough. That's plenty to bloody swallow but why add the other fifty on. Fifty years on top of two hundred. My God. Tie me down and tether me to a horizontal bar.

Is this right? The vein in my neck is bulging as I transmit this message. Tell me TwoWheels with or without an 'e' that this is a throw away remark intended to tease me.

Why two hundred and fifty bloody years? Good God. Surely the Council negotiation team could have lopped a bloody century off of this settlement.

Im playing three card brag after and I need to know before I sit at the table is this true?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From reading John Harrington's and Martin Cassini's excellent posts, explaining the benefits of a shared space scheme,(page 2 Lights Out thread) I was under the impression that the road system we currently have would be improved, and would make using this main road better for pedestrians of all abilities and ages and cyclists as well as motorists.

 

So what are we aiming for?

A shared space scheme, which I believe would alleviate many of the issues....or an extremely expensive covered footbridge so folk don't get wet crossing the road??

What has priority??

 

Just asking!!

 

No lights and shared space is the aim as far as I am concerned, I merely suggested a bridge as an optional extra, I know not all agree but I travel the country with my work and have done for many years, so I know first hand that it works, but the lights out shared space has to be the priority. I agree with Amanda about subways far less appealing for me and usually a very hostile environment.

 

I have campaigned for over 4 years to get the traffic lights turned off or at the very least a trial period with them out and that has always been my goal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally!

Some common ground, and common sense!

Absolutely agree with Amanda's comment "The answer is to reduce the amount of traffic and reintegrate road users with shared space, good public transport and cycle provision."

Link to post
Share on other sites

It works in Bristol. It will work if they want it to work or would you prefer disabled or mums with buggies/prams crossing the main ring road as it stands ?

Colin this is the nub of it.   The discussion shows how deeply ingrained the assumption is that it's all about enabling mums with buggies etc to stay out of the way.  It isn't: it's about redesigning the roads so that they can go where they want at any point.  

 

I just watched the Old Market animation: even this naive misrepresentation with very few people and no moving traffic managed to make it look bleak, anonymous and unappealing and I'm not surprised the poster of the video disabled the comments!  

 

Biomech made a good point a while back about the attempt to superimpose something urban and inappropriately cutting edge on what is essentially a market town.  He's right.   When I'm coming up with interior design ideas for my clients, the first thing I advise is to go with the flow of the architectural style of the property.   Don't try to put a Rococo mirror in a one bed Bovis home or a heritage cistern in a thirties bungalow and it's the same with street design.  It strikes me again and again, as I look at the banal herringbone paving. ridiculous pretentious street furniture, acres of concrete and not a tree in sight that no-one is looking at this with a designer's eye or with any expertise in how to create visual appeal.   There a stack of studies now confirming that beautiful areas do better economically and until we fill High Town with trees, cyclists, niche local businesses, cafes and attractive traditional shop fronts no-one with any spending power and choice will choose to come to Hereford.  

More than anything it's absolutely crucial that the local business community lets go of this notion that car parks are the answer to their problems.  It doesn't work.  Car parks generate traffic and traffic brings decay and decline.  Seriously go to the Netherlands: thriving local businesses/ very few car parks/ fantastic public transport and cycle provision.   It works there and it could work here and shared space is the first crucial step.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two hundred and fifty bloody years. Nobody told me. Two hundred and fifty bloody years! Good bloody grief. What a lovely arrangement. Whoever negotiated this little slice of pleasure should definitely be kept well away from the table. Was it Jarvis? Tell me it was Jarvis and Im going to spit phlegm. Good grief! Two hundred and fifty bloody years. I mean Two bloody hundred is bad enough. That's plenty to bloody swallow but why add the other fifty on. Fifty years on top of two hundred. My God. Tie me down and tether me to a horizontal bar.

Is this right? The vein in my neck is bulging as I transmit this message. Tell me TwoWheels with or without an 'e' that this is a throw away remark intended to tease me.

Why two hundred and fifty bloody years? Good God. Surely the Council negotiation team could have lopped a bloody century off of this settlement.

Im playing three card brag after and I need to know before I sit at the table is this true?

 

bobby47 - you've known me long enough to realise I don't kick around a number like 250 lightly. Its true, every word, and confirmed some while ago by a 2009 FOI request - 

 

Q4        On what basis was 250 year lease decided to be the most appropriate term?

 

A          The market for lease length was tested competitively and the response was for a 250 year lease term.  This lease term gives the investment market the confidence to provide funding for large development schemes of this nature.  It also attracts the `blue chip' pension funds and investment funds.

Q5        Provide a copy of the cost/benefit analysis for the sale of the ESG land.

A          I understand that no specific cost/benefit analysis has been commissioned or taken place with regard to this sale. 

 

So they stumbled into it without any analysis as to whether it would benefit the County or not ...

 

As for Jarvis, I'm not sure but he may be off the butchers hook, this time, as I think it was Roger Phillips in the driving seat at that time (recently departed from the Cabinet and its offshoots).

Edited by twowheelsgood
Link to post
Share on other sites

Colin this is the nub of it.   The discussion shows how deeply ingrained the assumption is that it's all about enabling mums with buggies etc to stay out of the way.  It isn't: it's about redesigning the roads so that they can go where they want at any point.  

 

I just watched the Old Market animation: even this naive misrepresentation with very few people and no moving traffic managed to make it look bleak, anonymous and unappealing and I'm not surprised the poster of the video disabled the comments!  

 

Biomech made a good point a while back about the attempt to superimpose something urban and inappropriately cutting edge on what is essentially a market town.  He's right.   When I'm coming up with interior design ideas for my clients, the first thing I advise is to go with the flow of the architectural style of the property.   Don't try to put a Rococo mirror in a one bed Bovis home or a heritage cistern in a thirties bungalow and it's the same with street design.  It strikes me again and again, as I look at the banal herringbone paving. ridiculous pretentious street furniture, acres of concrete and not a tree in sight that no-one is looking at this with a designer's eye or with any expertise in how to create visual appeal.   There a stack of studies now confirming that beautiful areas do better economically and until we fill High Town with trees, cyclists, niche local businesses, cafes and attractive traditional shop fronts no-one with any spending power and choice will choose to come to Hereford.  

More than anything it's absolutely crucial that the local business community lets go of this notion that car parks are the answer to their problems.  It doesn't work.  Car parks generate traffic and traffic brings decay and decline.  Seriously go to the Netherlands: thriving local businesses/ very few car parks/ fantastic public transport and cycle provision.   It works there and it could work here and shared space is the first crucial step.    

 

Amanda please note I said as it stands..

 

I am totally behind shared space, no lights and a wonderful integration where everything and everybody is equal, the road does not belong to anyone!

 

The only reason I suggested a tunnel/bridge is no matter how good shared space is, when it rains or snows and is freezing cold you still get soaked and shiver, I have been involved in design and everything from manufacturing to supplying carpets, curtains and soft furnishings to ceramic/porcelain wall and floor tiles and as I said it was suggested merely as an optional extra but as a designer it's also about appeal and standing in the cold vile weather right now does not sound attractive to me but my shopping experience in Bristol yesterday was superb and did not get wet at all. At the end of the day it is probably too late anyway and this will never be implemented, however, I do believe that this was an opportunity to link high town with the new ESG missed. 

 

 Onward and forward with our light out and shared space campaign. :Winky:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amanda please note I said as it stands..

 

I am totally behind shared space, no lights and a wonderful integration where everything and everybody is equal, the road does not belong to anyone!

 

The only reason I suggested a tunnel/bridge is no matter how good shared space is, when it rains or snows and is freezing cold you still get soaked and shiver, I have been involved in design and everything from manufacturing to supplying carpets, curtains and soft furnishings to ceramic/porcelain wall and floor tiles and as I said it was suggested merely as an optional extra but as a designer it's also about appeal and standing in the cold vile weather right now does not sound attractive to me but my shopping experience in Bristol yesterday was superb and did not get wet at all. At the end of the day it is probably too late anyway and this will never be implemented, however, I do believe that this was an opportunity to link high town with the new ESG missed. 

 

 Onward and forward with our light out and shared space campaign. :Winky:

 

I agree with you Colin but unfortunately they were not that clever to come up with a simple idea like this. I do like the idea of removing the lights and having some shared space and I was in the Netherlands last year and Amanda is spot on, they have it sussed over there for sure and it could easily be the same here with very little effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No you would not need to have steps! Go back a few posts and read previous comments by K.Butt & Steve Major HERE.

Seriously...From 2nd level of debenhams to 2nd level of........Tesco !!! or 2nd level of Debenhams to 2nd level of Maylords.

Lol  :Grin:

Another reason a bridge would be pointless and a waste of money is people will still get off the bus at Tesco and cross Newmarket St to development and vice versa.Also people walking from town towards Tesco would not go into Tesco go up a lift and then walk across a bridge then get out of the lift to get into another lift to get to ground floor.

Same goes for Debenhams to Maylords

Edited by ragwert
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously...From 2nd level of debenhams to 2nd level of........Tesco !!! or 2nd level of Debenhams to 2nd level of Maylords.

Lol  :Grin:

Another reason a bridge would be pointless and a waste of money is people will still get off the bus at Tesco and cross Newmarket St to development and vice versa.Also people walking from town towards Tesco would not go into Tesco go up a lift and then walk across a bridge then get out of the lift to get into another lift to get to ground floor.

Same goes for Debenhams to Maylords

 

With respect, I think you need to get out a bit more. Have a look at some of the photo's already added within this thread, it works in other cities and Hereford is no different, I think you are just putting up obstacles, this is just another option that could of been used. A bridge would of been privately funded too so do not worry yourself about the costs. 

Edited by Bill Thomas
Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, I think you need to get out a bit more. Have a look at some of the photo's already added within this thread, it works in other cities and Hereford is no different, I think you are just putting up obstacles, this is just another option that could of been used. A bridge would of been privately funded too so do not worry yourself about the costs. 

 

I had the exact same thoughts. It's no big deal and it clearly would of worked but hey ho  :Hmm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, I think you need to get out a bit more. Have a look at some of the photo's already added within this thread, it works in other cities and Hereford is no different, I think you are just putting up obstacles, this is just another option that could of been used. A bridge would of been privately funded too so do not worry yourself about the costs. 

I think you need to think a bit more about what people do to get from A to B.Instinct tells us to try and get from A to B in the quickest/shortest possible way.Why go up and down lifts to access a bridge that only takes people from one part of the town to the other when most people would come from Widemarsh Street as they do now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to think a bit more about what people do to get from A to B.Instinct tells us to try and get from A to B in the quickest/shortest possible way.Why go up and down lifts to access a bridge that only takes people from one part of the town to the other when most people would come from Widemarsh Street as they do now.

We are talking about crossing over the main ring road (dual carriageway) from the ESG into the town and obviously the quickest way is directly across the main road but you are the one harping on about people with disabilities, old or young including parents and grandparents with pushchairs and prams as long as you are happy for these people to negotiate across the busy road in all weathers then fine, but me personally, I would prefer my 82 year old mother to get out of the car and be able to go from one side to the other without any of these obstacles and staying warm, dry and safe at the same time especially now that they came up with the brilliant idea to fill in the subways. We will never all agree and I like Colin accept that it is far too late to even try and get something like this installed but what I do agree with is that this was an 'alternative' opportunity completely missed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what a lot of subways in the UK look like. Not very nice.

Exactly Martin! Given the choice between and proper tunnel/bridge or a subway I think most people would prefer the bridge, and just to add when we were in Bristol last week Christmas shopping we also noticed that their footbridge is heated which was a pleasant surprise, and this is the one we used a few months ago at the Arndale shopping centre in Manchester.

post-109-0-27369400-1387714525_thumb.jpg

 

Still let's hope that the shared space will work and there will be no need to discuss a bridge again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of place, out of time, doesn't fit into Hereford at all, but the animation almost makes it look good!

Anyway, point is - the webcam link don't work! Any ideas?

Nothing would ever fit for the ioc though would it, and why are you looking at the webcam link?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be no bridge and there will be no subway. As I have said, the whole OLM scheme was sold to the Hereford public on two premises - a cinema (and this is the most quoted reason for support among the public); and connectivity.

The current scheme for connection is a dumbed-down version of the original Hamilton-Baillie plans which would have reduced Newmarket Street and Blueschool Street to a 'leafy boulevard'. The only link we will get now will be by crossing over massive 'sleeping policemen' and negotiating traffic-lights to avoid the trundling 20 mph limited traffic.

I fully support Amanda's reference to the Netherlands' approach but would make the point that the OLM will have dozens of trees and that High Town has one. Widemarsh Street (the connecting artery) has NONE! Surely, one simple element enabling the OLM to read through into the original retail area would be an extension of tree-planting into the historic centre?

In support of the alarm raised by the fact that the developers and the ultimate owner (British Land) have been granted a 250-years lease on the OLM site, please consider that this virtual freehold on a valuable city centre site of several acres was sold for just £1m - YES, one million pounds! I hope Messrs Philips, Blackshaw, Bretherton & Co are happy with their legacy for the city.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry Beynon

the alarm raised by the fact that the developers and the ultimate owner (British Land) have been granted a 250-years lease on the OLM site, please consider that this virtual freehold on a valuable city centre site of several acres was sold for just £1m - YES, one million pounds! I hope Messrs Philips, Blackshaw, Bretherton & Co are happy with their legacy for the city.

 

Came across this article in The Guardian today and thought not only has the OLM freehold been given away, but I imagine access to the development will be controlled for the benefit of the owners in the manner descibed below:

 

From The Guardian today:

 

At last, a law to stop almost anyone from doing almost anything

 

Protesters, buskers, preachers, the young: all could end up with 'ipnas'. Of course, if you're rich, you have nothing to fear.

 

Until the late 19th century much of our city space was owned by private landlords. Squares were gated, streets were controlled by turnpikes. The great unwashed, many of whom had been expelled from the countryside by acts of enclosure, were also excluded from desirable parts of town.

 
Social reformers and democratic movements tore down the barriers, and public space became a right, not a privilege. But social exclusion follows inequality as night follows day, and now, with little public debate, our city centres are again being privatised or semi-privatised. They are being turned by the companies that run them into soulless, cheerless, pasteurised piazzas, in which plastic policemen harry anyone loitering without intent to shop.
 
Street life in these places is reduced to a trance-world of consumerism, of conformity and atomisation in which nothing unpredictable or disconcerting happens, a world made safe for selling mountains of pointless junk to tranquillised shoppers. Spontaneous gatherings of any other kind – unruly, exuberant, open-ended, oppositional – are banned. Young, homeless and eccentric people are, in the eyes of those upholding this dead-eyed, sanitised version of public order, guilty until proven innocent.
 
Now this dreary ethos is creeping into places that are not, ostensibly, owned or controlled by corporations. 
It is enforced less by gates and barriers (though plenty of these are reappearing) than by legal instruments, used to exclude or control the ever widening class of undesirables.

 

I remember this happening at the back of Argos where pedestrian access to the Buttermarket was closed with the erection of gates. All the alterations to Widemarsh Gate are for the benefit of the shopping development with traffic being fed towards it. I can imagine a time when you will be able to wave your credit card at the traffic lights and they will change to allow you to pass through the traffic to enter this temple of consumerism as quickly as possible. However it won't work the other way.

Edited by megilleland
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article.

I have now done a Land Registry search - should have done this ages ago.  The freehold is registered under Title No HE31002 and HC are still noted as freehold owners.  

HC granted an option to purchase to Stanhope back in November 2009.  ESG Herefordshire Ltd is a party to that agreement but without seeing it I can't work out what the various obligations are.    HC are still shown as registered proprietors so the option has not yet been exercised but, in the meantime, Stanhope has entered into a number of agreements to grant leases to various retailers including, depressingly,  Nando's Chickenland -as if the degradation of the city isn't enough let's promote animal suffering and become obese as well.   Anyway,  these agreements for lease will complete when the builds are substantively completed and, I imagine, at the same time as Stanhope exercise their option, so whist the Council is contractually obliged to transfer the land it hasn't yet done so, unless the option has been exercised but Stanhope's title hasn't yet been registered but I doubt that. 

Worryingly I also note that the Old Market Inn was granted a ten year lease in September 2011.  I suspect that it is excluded from the security of tenure provisions of the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act and that when that lease expires it will be good bye Old Market Inn.

Most unexpectedly of all, the Filed Plan,  which broadly delineates the boundary of each registered title, indicates that, along with the old market site, most of Newmarket Street itself is included within title no HE31002 and could form part of the land to be transferred to Stanhope under the option agreement although the Authority would continue to own the metalled highway.   I cannot tell without seeing the agreement and that has not been filed at the Land Registry.   It would be helpful if a councillor could request copies of these documents.   I think that it is legitimate for the public to know what is being sold off and for how much but I suspect they would cite "commercial confidentiality".  Nevertheless councillors are entitled to see these documents.     

There is no reference to British Land or 250 year leases and I would be interested to know where this information has come from.  There are other title numbers and documents referred to but I cannot obtain copies without paying further fees.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work there Amanda. ESG Herefordshire Ltd changed its name to Hereford Futures on 30 June 2010 and is currently registered at a house in Ledbury. The info about the 250 year lease came from IOC if I recall, it's certainly how I heard about it. It was common knowledge well before the last election.

 

British Land's website claims '100% British Land ownership' of the OLM site, 310,000 square feet. 

Edited by twowheelsgood
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...