Cathedral Lanes

I've stated the ring road is a bigger problem, and that an entertainment venue is necessary. I've also stated many routes need to be changed to make them more legible and I don't disagree that Coventry needs those things you list. But I also said in my last posts that they won't open until the demand is there and demand won't be there until they open up. So you have to work with what you've got, and the most recognisable asset is the cathedral. That is a fact. So make the absolute most you can of it. Show it off in as much glory as you can instead of hiding it behind stuff like something to be ashamed of. It can be used as a means of enticing locals as well as tourists. Not necessarily to visit the building itself but to just make it a more pleasant area to be. Make people want to hang around a bit longer and so spend a bit more money. Use it a means of civic pride, so people want or even feel obliged to support the centre instead of out-of-town retail parks. Use the improved setting and sense of grandeur as a short-term offset to the poorer choice and convenience of souless retail sheds. Make it something that you feel you ought to a least show friends/family to have a look at before they take them to Birmingham/Leamington/Warwick, just to help get the numbers up and slowly, bit-by-bit those things that are missing will consider it worthwhile trying out the city centre and an upward cycle can begin. Even just creating a sense of pride can reduce minor social problems, which can put people off and would help the local authorities save money on having to deal with them. Money they can use elsewhere.

Why would anybody want to struggle moving big boxes or any boxes across vast distances in the centre of Coventry when they can go to a retail park where there is free and, most importantly, convenient parking? Life and the way we live it is changing. Harking back to life 60 years ago is not going to work, not in Coventry or anywhere else.

What people want in a city centre is a nice clean environment and somewhere decent to sit down for appropriate refreshment and entertainment. I am not sure that the people of Coventry, the residents, are willing to support and use such facilities, certainly not enough to keep them paying..

I think the links between Broadgate and the Cathedral are pretty poor - consisting of that lane which is almost tucked away behind Cathedral Lanes and not really a clear route from Broadgate. Cathedral Lanes was originally meant to improve this, but they didn't do it properly, and then they blocked it off leaving a fairly unsightly 'backage' facing the Cathedral - which about sums up how much they care about. But I'd say who cares? Most of us residents have no reason to go beyond Broadgate as there's nothing there apart from the Cathedral and the University buildings. I think in ten years I've walked through that route about a dozen times, and most of those times I literally had to force myself to go through the Cathedral just to remind myself Coventry city centre wasn't all dreadful. I guess the pre-war city was very different in that area as it was housing and businesses surrounding the church so people would walk around the lanes there to get from houses or workplaces to Smithford Street. Now it's just the route for students to get to the Poundshops. I think Broadgate's days as the 'focal point' are well and truly over. It was once the point where routes into the city centre met (Both vehicles and pedestrians) and became the 'natural' focal point because of this. Hertford Street, Trinity Street, and that squalid walkway through Primark aren't really as busy anymore (And about as appealing as a midnight walk through downtown Aleppo.). Does Coventry really have a focal point? Where's its 'New Street'? That litter filled fountain seems to the busiest point in the city centre these days, probably because people drive to Barracks or West Orchards or Lower Precinct and park up and just use the precinct.

Does the cathedral even get many tourists anymore? Years ago when I was a student at the Poly, Priory Street used to be full of coaches all the time. The few times I've been to the Cathedral in recent years it always feels quite dead around there. There are usually more skateboarders than tourists. The MBRT tries to be more than a 'load of old cars'. We've taken the kids there quite often during holidays, but they're bored with it now and upset that the museum removed the car they could sit in and play with. I'm more interested in how the car industry affected the city culturally and socially and have absolutely no interest in the product itself. The MBRT does cover some of that, which is good and means it's interesting for a non-car lover like me (who spent 12 years working in the the car industry as well!) I have zero interest in visiting the new cathedral (been there once). I'd love to explore the crypts beneath the old one, though.

I know someone who used to work on coach trips, and he told me this. They just popped in for a brief stop and then moved on. No one really wanted to stay long in Coventry. When I first came here I never understood why the locals were so cynical about the place. No I understand why. This is a city that treats its own residents like second class citizens.

Oddly enough I used it every evening between 1965 and 1967, it was my route home from school. The bus stopped outside Owen Owen. There was a subway between their basement and the library. Then it was a walk either through the old cathedral graveyard or down St Michael's Avenue and then down the steps to Priory Street where I must have been photographed by hundreds of tourists.

Separate from who does or doesn't visit the cathedral, why block off the beautiful scenic view from Broadgate by dumping a giant building in front of it? Why don't the council have to get planning permission from an unbiased authority? The government stopped them from demolishing Kirby House, why didn't they not allow this building?

This blocked view is what I am referring to.

So, once Cathedral Lanes is demolished what would we do with the open space. Do forumites suggest we pave the space over as has been done in Broadgate. Why not suggest there should be an open view of the Cathedral from St John's Church and demolish everything in between We could then create an inner city park for the odd tourist to marvel at our foresight and integrity - but even then some would complain the necessary trees and plantings spoiled their view. While we are on the subject of tourism, where do the tourists come from? We do have longer term tourists too - but we label them as students, and they spend a lot more than the day-trippers.

Leave it as an open space. It allows two historic buildings to frame it (which both have their own story to tell regarding the city's history) and the southern side (once the site of Coventry Castle) could be made to tell that story. I've mentioned this on here before (with apologies for the amateurish design) but here's my take: Broadgate/Precinct idea gallery I haven't got time to go through the extremely lengthy explanation that goes with it, but as you can see the idea does indeed involve creating a route between the cathedral/HT and St Johns, and there are well defined design principles that are centuries, if not millenia, old behind it. People will have a 'journey' they want to do. A start point and a destination. But along that route you can entice them elsewhere through incentives. You create a focal point that draws them along a route, and when they get there reveal another to entice them further along. These can be buildings, artworks/statues, fountains - all sorts of things. They reach their destination, but you've 'led them down the garden path', or in this case down economically active streets whose businesses can benefit from the passing people. Given the disparity of Coventry's most historic/'touristy' structures, this is a design principle that Coventry MUST use. We try and use that disparity as an opportunity, creating routes between these focal points that are economically active and benefit from that movement. In this example, the open space gets more people using the precinct. But for it to work there HAS to be a visual link between them. Modern developments don't do this - deliberately. They are funded by developers who don't want people to move around - if they do that they can take their business to someone else, so they want people to stay put. The out-of-town retail parks, shopping malls like West Orchards - all designed to make you go to that place and offer everything you might need so you don't leave. They're billed as 'mixed-use' - what they really mean is 'self-contained complex'. I could further explain the idea about how I looked at the most common routes and destinations, like those from the railway/bus stations, and where these intersect at nodes and thus get a higher concentration of people. I could also go into why I use a green space due to the effect it has on people's mindset and the effect on their behaviour and spending habits. Or the colour scheme, and the use of small evergreen bushes rather than trees in the design for aesthetic, practical and cost reasons. I also go into the potential downfalls of it, such as the potential for it to be used by drunks/druggies etc, which can all be negated, and are as far as I can see are reduced by opening it up - the CL building provides many ample opportunities to mask anti-social behaviour.

I think you are deliberately missing the point. It's quite obvious from Osmiroid's posts that a great deal more of the churches are visible with the old, smaller temporary buildings than the much larger CL. So, taking this further, the smaller the structures in front get the more of the churches are visible to the point that if nothing was there you'd be able to see practically all of it. There IS a view being blocked. There is a tree at the far end of my garage. The garage has always been there in my memory. Does that mean there is no view of the tree to be had if I took the garage down? As for the comment about economic benefit, it might not make you book an extra night in the location, but it could see someone book at that hotel rather than somewhere else. How many hotels use the view in their marketing blurb? It adds value. You keep on talking about 'hatred' of this building. WHY would people hate it? The design? unlikely - it's no worse and arguably better than others. It's use/history? No reason for that. The only thing that annoys people is the location. It should never have been built - even people on the planning department know this and have told me so, but they're stuck with it. If the decision were put in front of them now, they would say no. If the opportunity came to be able to demolish it, they would.

Firstly, chopping down trees has been happening for a long time. Pretty much any building in this country will have meant a tree being chopped down at some point. Look at post 54. There are trees there (including at least one mature one) that had to be chopped down to build CL. Secondly, there would be no need to level the land. I've looked at it. The elevation difference is 1m, so take into account the average person's height and most people's eye-lines will be above that. I see you completely ignore my example of Exeter, despite it showing exactly the kind of benefits you claim wouldn't happen.

I believe part of the problem in the toing and froing about Cathedral Lanes - or the ring road for that matter - is generational as well as our individual life experiences. At 71 it is obvious that I grew up in the 1950s and marvelled at the new city growing around me. I left school at 15 but continued to learn new things almost daily - and still do. To me a day where I don't learn something is a day wasted. Most days I get new information from this forum. Personally I dislike Cathedral Lanes though not because it blocks the view of the Cathedral. To me it seems to shout its presence mostly due to the colour of its facings. I feel it projects too far forward from the traditional building line. Coventry has a massive problem. Gibson's architecture is getting past its economic life. Also because of people's lifestyle changes it no longer serves the needs of those people. But, there is not the money to replace it. The cathedral spire, if it is to be retained, needs to be sandblasted to get rid of all the grime from the city's industrial past.

I live in London these days (I'm 26 - and have always 'known' Cathedral Lanes), but I was back in the city today and took a wander about. Firstly, what's this concrete wasteland we're calling Broadgate now? Dismal attempt to create a public square. Secondly, I was walking towards the cathedral and walked past some confused looking tourists holding their map this way and that in the middle, of the square, looking directly at Wagamama. A chap walks towards them, and they say, in Dutch or German or Swiss English, 'excuse me, where is the Cathedral" to which this bloke replies, "I don't know, I'm a tourist too". I had to intervene and tell them they were looking at it. I think the Lanes was a disaster architecturally, strategically and aesthetically, and if this restaurant experiment doesn't work, we should get rid and go back to the drawing board for that whole square. It should be the centrepiece, and right now it's a joke. I was embarrassed to show my girlfriend around the place today I'm afraid to say.

The council would rather dig themselves in deeper than be big, admit they were wrong and demolish the eyesore, then at least gain some dignity.