Post-war redevelopment

Suggesting that Gibson's plan doesn't work for today's needs is a bit of an oxymoron. Society's needs change and are ever-changing. For any reasonable size building the individual building concept to it's fruition is often a period of around 10 years. During the 1980s when I worked in a School of Architecture it was suggested that, from completion, a building had a lifespan of around 50 years - and an economic lifespan of perhaps 30. For most of my childhood I lived in one of the BSIF houses off Charter Ave (built between 1947 and 1950). The windows were large to let in the light (but let out a lot of the heat with just single glazing). It had a bathroom rather than having to use a tin tub in front of the fire. But, Building Regulations wouldn't allow them to be built today. In the early 1970s I bought a house (built 1969) on the Cannon Park Estate which was more advanced. It had gas-fired central heating and hot water at the turning on of a tap (though still stored in a hot-water cylinder). The house came with a brick-built garage taking up part of the garden. Again, a replica of the original build wouldn't pass Building Regulations at today's standards. (Merely writing that came as a shock that it was 40 years ago.) I don't suggest for a minute that these houses should be demolished and we should start again. I merely suggest that the reduced number of houses being built today reflect the needs of a home in today's society - or at least those ideas of people's needs through the eyes of planners and builders within a constricted budget. In essence Gibson's plans if carried forward today would result in a truly massive shopping mall with many acres of fertile ground given up to a car park. To my mind a shopping mall is about as interesting as a prison but with consumers there merely for the retailers to pick their pockets. But, modern consumers like them because they are not exposed to the elements, and with the multitude of security personnel employed feel it is a safe environment. The day of the small corner shop has vanished. The day of the High Street shop has vanished. The Lower Precinct has now been a covered area for around 10 years. Has that increased the number of people shopping in the area. In my teens I always felt it to be a 'grey' area, lacking in colour, lacking in interest. But, that was before the western end with its tower and shops had been built and closing off the 'square'. What was the first shop you passed, again in my teens, being the Co-op Drapery Dept is now tucked away in a corner - almost out of sight. With planned cities/towns there is little scope for a start-up business to open a shop selling items a large retailer hasn't the room for. In another thread members have written about the number of small bakeries that traded for years. They are not provided for in modern developments - regarded as uneconomic.

I once read this quote somewhere: nothing dates quicker that someone else's vision of the future. Coventry has lost it's outer ring of streets, which is where you'd find business who don't want to be in the 'core' where rents are traditionally expensive. These streets are what was destroyed to build the ring road. This is where you'd find the 'bakeries' and other businesses. Planned cities are rubbish.

They published a brilliant little booklet a few years back that had a guide to all the bits and pieces and route to see them all... It just seems difficult to get people to come here in the first place, due to the general poor image the city has. Most of the people I've worked with in the city are from elsewhere and only ever see the suburban business parks. They're generally surprised when they find out about some of the city's history, and it you dig you can find fragments linking to it. I think the work they are doing at Fargo is interested in that the developers are doing a series of gradual improvements - they started off doing up the buildings, filling in some of the gaps and are now reconstructing the bottom end to make the street more continuous. It would be interesting to see how this pans out. The same developers are also attempting to link up the remains of Whitefriars with the city centre by opening it up. When you have things like Spon Street that still feel unfinished (And bodged) then I wonder if the approach taken at Far Gosford Street would be a good approach to make the city more appealing between the 'nice' bits. I've given up telling people about the city's good bits now. No one's interested. It's just associated with poor post-war buildings, empty shopping precincts and the ring road. Most people's minds are made up and the few who try are scared off when they see it or have to use the ring road.

Tell the council that! They've spend decades on developments aimed at tourists. Cathedral Lanes was supposed to be for tourists, and that whole ridiculous (And failed) Priory Place was supposed to be for tourists coming from the Cathedral to the Motor Museum. There just aren't enough to support the businesses so they close down or move downmarket or just go for the student market, which isn't really want people who live here want. The theatre is pretty average, to be honest, and can't handle large shows that many other provincial theatres can. (You have to travel out of town for that). We don't have a central music venue for decent sized popular acts (And the other venues we do have are out of town in purpose built complexes). This means few visitors in the city centre for leisure, hence lack of business for city centre restaurants and bars. One reason why Priory Place failed was its awful location (It's almost unbelievable that the city made the same mistake again!) and lack of attraction nearby that meant footfall for the restaurants. Fargo is building a music venue, which should be good for the businesses there. I doubt it will be a great shopping town, not while its saddled with that precinct that has been unable to attract retailers for decades. Retailers don't want to open up in these dreadful post-war complexes anymore. They want to be in large complexes on well known, busy streets. The council in Coventry had it in for the city centre since the 1930s - you have to wonder why they seemed so determined to destroy it.

Not many people celebrate the 'Coventry we have gained' because it's rubbish - a decaying precinct that can't attract retailers, an ugly University campus that was thrown up in fits over the years, an incredibly ugly ring road and vast areas of economically dead land and dead ends and bizarre (And generally awful) things like the sports centre. About the only decent thing is the Herbert Art Gallery, but that was planned pre-war and it's at least on something that might be classed as a 'street', even though it's a poor mess of disjointed buildings and blank walls. The evening economy is dead as well. The city centre has no real network of streets, and everything that could be good about it has been ruined in some way. Even Spon Street is a mess. Comparing it to the pre-war city is a false argument. There's no doubt that the pre-war city had problems (Both with the nature of the old town and social problems due to sanitation), but they could have been sorted out without resorting to flattening it all. Old streets are now pedestrianised in many old towns, and city centre buildings that were once 'slums' are retail units, businesses or city centre housing. I see little justification for some of the destruction that took place - because the result is a pretty dire (And not just here!) Most of it was done by people following an ideology. Gibson wanted to demolish the whole of the Cathedral Quarter for absolutely no reason other than his own ego!

flapdoodle suggests "The city centre has no real network of streets" That's a valid point only if you define 'streets' as thoroughfares which you can access by car. "The evening economy is dead as well." I live in sheltered accommodation where there are 63 flats. Lots of events are provided: we even have entertainers come in. On a really good evening we sometimes get 16 people in the audience. But all this has to stop at 7pm! Why? Because it would interrupt the soap operas on TV and the audience figures for our local provision would dwindle to just one or two. And this is for entertainment provided 'just along the corridor'. They don't even have to leave the building.

I mean streets, whether they're pedestrianised streets (I mean streets lined with varying looking buildings that form proper lines along the street, squares and intersections with clear routes and no clutter built across the road or tunnels leading into squalid, hidden squares that no one ever uses.) that link up with streets carrying traffic, whatever forms an urban grid that's well connected and allows people to flow in whatever means possible. This is what precincts that are inward looking don't do, and tend to have the service areas facing outwards. Simple example would be somewhere like St Helier, where the main pedestrianised shopping street is bisected by roads carrying traffic and pedestrianised squares always have road alongside them. Plymouth, with some of the same issues as Coventry, is moving towards re-opening up parts of the pedestrianised area. These areas tend to be safer as well. It makes no sense for Broadgate to be pedestrianised after 5:30. They might as well open it up and allow parking. It'd probably be good for the new restaurants there and make people feel safer.

I hear what you are saying but when the 'precincts' in Coventry were planned and built there were less worries about 'feeling safe' in the city centre. Though of course I cannot vouch for the ladies.

Market Way and Smithford Way were originally planned to be open to through traffic as seen here: Pedestrianisation was a last minute afterthought.

Actually, the original plans were for the precinct to be totally pedestrianised. It was the 'Fourth' plan that introduced the road through the precinct. The government didn't believe that there was public support the plans (3rd plan) and also were a bit worried about the untried nature of the ideas for the precinct. (They made the council 'prove' that they had not imposed this plan on the city. In the end the council consulted with traders who were used to being on roads and tended to have customers that drove up outside and parked. So the compromise of a road was put in. The 'Third Plan' shows a long precinct lined with four storey buildings arranged in squares, a lot more like the one in Rotterdam. I've actually seen a report from 2006 that recommended putting the road back in for traffic. These days people do tend to use retail parks where you can drive almost to the shop you want and get the thing you want! So maybe the traders were right back then, but all those type of stores moved out of town and I can't see why you'd want to drive outside most of the city centre shops - although I could see restaurant owners wanting this.

As this forum seems to continually argue the toss about the aims and objectives of the planning of this city, I would like to post this link that shows the original town planners did try to solve the problem.

The most interesting thing about that propaganda movie is that it stars Compo from 'Last of the Summer Wine'! It's been floating around for years.

The film is on again this Friday Morning 7:25am. 'Talking Pictures' Channel 343 for those who want to record/watch on their TV's instead of the computer