Broadgate

Demolition has begun - report

An idea so bad they had a ceremonial demolishing of it!

Sorry, Flapdoodle, We`ll have to agree to disagree. The problem has always appeared to me that the people making these grand plans have no affinity to Coventry and no idea what constitutes history. Any building over 50 years old now seems an automatic candidate for demolition.

Here's another photo of the bridge under construction

Remember how it used to look?

So what does constitute history? A majority of the things that have influenced and shaped history are nothing to do with buildings - they're inconsequential and a mere circumstance of the events that just happened to occur in that place. Someone may well come up with an idea to save the world in a McDonalds or Tesco's but it won't be because they're in McDonald's or Tesco's - it'll be a culmination of experiences from many different places. Having an outside influence involved alongside local knowledge is far better than just those with local knowledge because those people can be too heavily influenced by how things are/were and miss better solutions and opportunities because of it. I still hear so many people bang on about how we need more motor industry when there are so many potential industries, many with huge growth prospects, we could try and entice. The only reason being history rather than cold hard facts. Time and again history has shown that reliance on a particular industry will inevitably eventually lead to stagnation and decline after a boom - you need a variety of industries that are constantly being changed and updated. The FTSE would die very quickly if it just said 'these are the top 100 companies and that's that". But they don't - companies get dropped and others replace them. So it should be with towns/cities and the buildings within them. Change is not necessarily bad, nor is it necessarily good, but it is necessary. As for any building over 50 years old being an automatic candidate for destruction. Doesn't it logically make more sense for older buildings to be considered first? They're far more likely to require repairs, be inefficient (or worse, dangerous) and just generally not meeting the requirements of the modern world. Or should we leave them as decaying hulks and use up even more land to build new buildings that people want to use? And just look at some of the old buildings that have unbelievably expensive repairs in recent years despite no-one having any clear plan on what to do with them after. It's very unlikely a newer building would get that, and certainly not without a concrete plan in place for afterwards. Far more is done to preserve old buildings than general maintenance and upkeep of newer ones (which is often neglected because of short-term gains for profits rather than expense), but people will see what they want to see.

That is nonsense.

Cities and buildings are in a constant state of flux. The old Cathedral was a product of Victorian reconstruction and it's now a shell thanks to 20th century weaponry. Most of the pre-war buildings have been altered. Some of them are fragments of larger complexes. Some of them are like milk teeth, vestiges of something that is no longer in use, but have somehow survived. (i.e. City walls and gates.) Even the timber framed buildings aren't original. Some of them have been rebuilt with timbers from elsewhere, and many of them bricked up. Economics caused a post-medieval decline, and as a side effect meant a lot of the old city was just reused, and also a 20th century boom that resulted in new suburbs and city centre facilities to deal with the growing population - part of which included plans to remove the old city and its narrow roads and slums. Wartime bombing, plus a post-war boom, meant more changes, most of it driven by businessmen from outside the city (Alfred Herbert wasn't local). Long term economic decline from the late sixties meant more changes. Even the post-war city has been heavily altered, with bits added, bits altered. Even the medieval Earls weren't adverse to a bit of planning, laying out streets to build on to raise revenue, and the city owes its founding to the politics of the time, where Lords fund churches and religious houses, which leads to growth and the creation of market places... all by outside forces who didn't 'know' the town at the time.

CKD 1D, your post 577 is she, that was the 1949 place and now I'm in doubt, a 1720's book states she only rode the High Street.

Did any of you attend the unveiling of the statue of Lady Godiva in Oct 1949? We could have met unknowingly.

Perhaps you can spot yourself Kaga !! I may have been there but in my pushchair as I was only 2

Another great photo Anne. I'm still keen to know about the layout of the 'green' - which to me appears to resemble the layout of a church (the cathedral?), though I have yet to find any news that this was done.

I agree with you Neil (see my post 582 and others of the layout). The island with its paved area and lawns does recall the layout of a church with the semi-circular 'apse', the main 'nave' and the N & S transepts! Thanks also to Annewiggy for the dedication and opening of the new island in Broadgate. Did you know that Holland gave hundreds of flower bulbs, and I believe Russia gave small silver birch trees that were part of the original setting? I think the Broadgate island was liked by most Coventrians and whatever replaced it was manifestly inferior.

The island had its faults - for example I think having it surrounded by traffic made it far less accessible than it should've been as the main focal point of the city centre but at the time I don't think they foresaw the huge increase in traffic that would occur. I also don't think the small shacks in front of the cathedral were that good, but are nowhere near as obtrusive as Cathedral Lanes. I think that is where the whole island concept became lost, when it became very enclosed with Owen Owen/Primark and Broadgate House cutting off main routes visually and making them much less popular. It is good to see some of this being rectified with Broadgate House going though I'd prefer it if they removed all of it rather than just the lower level, but it's a start. It'd be great if they could do the same on the other side but I can't see how they could without major alterations being required. Then there was, IMO, the worst mistake they made with the aforementioned CL encroaching in the space and blocking off the views and routes of the churches and the thankfully removed canopy. Having said that there are some elements of the newer design I like - it feels a lot more usable with the less traffic although IMO they have gone too far the other way now and having at least a single road along it I don't think would be that bad. I think the trees will become a problem as they mature making the surface uneven, as well as creating too much shade and blocking views. If leaves etc aren't collected in autumn either it could slippy and just generally look untidy. As I've shown before, I'd be happy to keep the paved area largely as it is now (minus the trees) if it could be contrasted with a green space reminiscent of the island where CL is.

Annewiggy, I'm sure you would have been, it seemed the whole of Coventry was there that had survived the war. I was 22 at the time and was extremely proud of my city. If I remember correctly, we sang hymns that had almost everyone with tears running down their cheeks, for it was still fresh in our minds. It wasn't about the shape or the legend, it went much deeper than that, it was about 'The People of Coventry' that had borne so much and striven so bravely during those eventful and fateful years. I believe everyone thought the statue would convey a story no words can tell - the yesterdays are not dead, the shadows of the past, the happiness and the heartbreak, are here for generations to see. A part of history in the destiny of the human race.