Hales Street

Tall buildings in a landmark location can look good in a city. I was down on Hales Street today, and this new building is in a good location, and has been designed to look modern and also traditional, plus will be used to create a new space around the river. Gibson's original plan (pre-war) was for a dull, two storey city of uniform buildings and empty spaces around the Cathedral. Thankfully that didn't happen.

The plan to 'open up the river' isn't strictly true and is being used as a marketing ploy - it's basically only the bit already uncovered. The main problem for me is that it's the BACK of these buildings that will be around this new social area and having used that route as a cut-through many times it does feel like somewhere you shouldn't be and you're trespassing or intruding in a private passage. There are bits that go off in all sorts of different angles and it just looks a bit odd. It would be nice if the front of the Burges timber-framed buildings could be shown off with the facades removed but at the same time they'd look wasted on that route with the blank wall at the top. If they had a Spon St style treatment and we could move some of these smaller structures into an area between the three spires to create a critical mass of older buildings so they have enough impact to get visitors attention then even better. Having sporadic small buildings dotted here and there protected helps no-one. Individual small buildings aren't going to get visitor (or even much local) attention but massively hinder any kind of development because no matter where you try and build something will be listed and the entire project will be compromised and then accused of being poorly designed, often because it has to work around the originals. People talk about loss of context etc but the true historical context was lost long ago.

Why 'characterful'? Most of the civic centre buildings and the 60's towers due for demolition are still functioning and almost certainly have more jobs and economic activity that this small row of shops, but that doesn't mean their removal won't be a forward step. The point made was about complementary SIZE, and I just wondered at what stage that ends? What percentage extra height over the existing building isn't acceptable? There doesn't seem to be any kind of economic reality taken into account on this. As I've said I'm not sure about the design of this (or the entire project itself) but I just hate the argument that what is there now is automatically of greater worth than what will be created. Many of the greatest and most famous structures around the country, and indeed the world, are built on top of previous structures that had reached the end of their useful lives and needed to be updated for modern needs and changes in living/industry. They'd look upon this desire to retain everything for even the most spurious of reasons as ridiculous. And I believe future generations will do the same. I'm all for recording with photos/videos/maps/satellite and archaeological digs to provide information for future generations. But actual buildings need to be for the good of the people of here and now - that is the purpose of their entire existence and if they don't do that then they're nothing.

AD wrote, "and having used that route as a cut-through many times it does feel like somewhere you shouldn't be and you're trespassing or intruding in a private passage." That's very true AD especially what they have done in the entrance to Palmer Lane from the Burges.

This is what the rear of the new builds looked like yesterday

I like the cobblestones as you walk through, I like the iron rail leading up to the blue door, I like it as it looks nice and private and ...... I like the idea of it retaining some character. It reminds me of the 'Mews' type of living in some areas. I believe 'The Saint' lived in one. Have a good day Pix if you are out and about.

Getting through the gap Dreamtime was a tight squeeze on my mobility scooter. It would be impossible for a mother with a double pushchair to take her children down to the riverside for a D Di.

My personal view regarding the disagreements here has to do with the generic point of this site. The appreciation of ''Historic Coventry" and what is left of an historic city, that for many reasons has lost a lot of its identity and worth to the people who live there. The suggestion of removing buildings because they are in need of restoration and are shabby is what created much of the modern city centre as it is now. There are many towns across the U.K which have made efforts to preserve the old, in doing so have an interesting, admired and often beautiful setting. So let's do that to as much as there is left, would that not give us so much more of historic Coventry to admire, share and write about!

I agree with you Gumnut. The city need to restore the smaller shops we have left to encourage interesting independent shops into the town. There is enough space for the faceless retailers we see in every town and city across the country. Hales Street would be an ideal location, next to the motor museum and close to the proposed tourist area at the canal basin.

Hi all I agree. Sadly, CCC had a deliberate plan to get rid of independent traders, when they formed their own City of Coventry Ltd, nearly thirty years ago. Not only have we suffered by loss of retail independence & competition, but it has cost us as ratepayers a tidy some into the bargain.

This hits the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. There does seem to be an almost 'Nimby' attitude from some people to anything that happens to be old, no matter how mundane or decrepit. Those buildings in Hales Street are shabby eyesores with little or no architectural or aesthetic merit. They also happen to be in the way of creating something far superior. If that area was opened up the river and its surroundings could become a feature of the centre for leisure, dining and recreation. Hales Street has been something of a blight on the centre for as long as I can remember, just another dodgy street with little to offer. Old is not always better, and often gets in the way of economic progress, which is something Coventry's centre desperately needs. I do take Philip's point about small businesses, but there is a reason for it. Councils (or whoever the landlords are) prefer to have businesses that are part of big chains. If a small individual business were to fail, they stand to lose money on rent, while if a chain closes a branch they get paid regardless. So they are reluctant to take a chance on an entrepreneur. I would always prefer to use a small restaurant business than a chain, but it is very difficult for them to get into any development.

"If that area was opened up the river and its surroundings could become a feature of the centre for leisure, dining and recreation," suggests Mr D-Di. I'm not so sure about that. Because the area will be virtually enclosed it could so easily become a meeting place for druggies and ne'er do wells.

Coventry hasn't 'lost its identity'. It's changing, and people don't like change. The Palmer Lane area's long term plans (which involve small shop units and restaurant units, perfect for the small traders) won't necessarily mean it ends up a meeting place for 'druggies.'

Coventry's never been a good city for ''smaller' retailers as they generally sell more alternative or expensive items and Coventry folk have mainly been more mass market and cheap. The few that aren't tended to travel to Leamington or Birmingham for the more offbeat and expensive stuff. Cathedral Lanes was aimed at this sort of retailer and was not a success. The canal basin tried and was not a success. Fargo Village is trying and appears to be struggling. There has to be demand there for retailers to move in. The overall plan is to bring in small units around Palmer Lane and also retail units underneath the main building aimed at smaller retailers. Maybe this will be a success?