Spon Street

I have a vague memory of Mr Goddard. I think I'm right in saying he often rode a bike. He was a slim chap and his dress was unusual, either jodhpurs or something similar, with long knee-length socks.

A section heading in F.W.B. Charles' report in the Birmingham & Warwickshire Archaeological Transactions for 1978-1979, pp.113-114, appears to relate to 16 Spon Street being taken down and later being re-erected as 142-143 Spon St. The paragraph appears to suggest that the building may have been moved, but I'm not entirely sure. Its a complex business, the Spon Street Townscape Scheme, but Charles' paper is worth a read in that respect, and related papers by other authors.

As we're talking about the movement of buildings, I think most people on here would agree there are still a decent number of old/historic buildings in the city, but they are far too far apart to be able to utilise them to their full extent for tourism purposes or for Coventry to feel historic. So, if these were to be collected together in a Preservation Zone or similar to try and achieve some sort of critical mass to kickstart historical tourism, where would people place them? Try to reignite the old E-W route and re-connect Spon St and FGS as an historic old street? Create a N-S zone through the city centre from the station to Lady Herbert's/Canal Basin, incorporating the Cathedral Quarter? Or somewhere else?

That was Queen Victoria Road!

No16 was formerly Browns Fish Saloon at 142. It was extensively remodelled to resemble the building whch had previously stood at No16.

Thanks for that input Dutchman. Your tongue-in-cheek quip about why it was pulled down made me smile. But I would like you to fill me in about the foundations of the outbuilding dating back to Saxon times - some evidence please. Or is that a send up too?

Both comments (I think?) are from John Ashby's book "Spon Street and Spon End: a History of the People and Buildings". I don't have the book to hand at the moment so am unable to check it. This is a view of the rear of No67 (part of the Co-Op building) but I'm not sure if these are the Saxon ruins referred to above:

SPON STREET COBBLES RIPPED UP AND REPLACED WITH YELLOW-FLECKED BLACK TARMAC! What an absolute mess! I heard this atrocity being discussed on the radio this morning and thought "..it can't be THAT bad" - but it is! Here are the photo's that BBC-Coventry & Warwickshire have placed on Facebook. I think the person responsible for ripping up the cobbles should be dragged here and placed in the stocks so that people can show their feelings. I don't complain very often about Coventry's planners - but this has really got me going. Not only does it look monstrous, but the quality of work is appalling, especially considering it was the councils own team. I shall be contacting my councillor (who is also the present Lord Mayor) to complain.

Here is a film from 1968 from the MACE archives entitled Meet the Mayor, during it you'll see film of Spon Street looking worse for wear.The gentleman talks on how the council are going to bring it back to its former glory. Lasts 9 mins

Agreed it looks appalling - but were they actually cobbles that they replaced? - there were some laid around part of the roundabout at the junction with Corporation Street but the area shown in the pictures looks like it was paved with bricks : (courtesy Google Streetview) It does look as if they have covered over the outline of Spon Gate which was laid out in the roadway

I think you are right MR, looking at the original view in GS they don't look like true cobbles, although they do look slightly smaller than "block pavers", but either way they looked much better than this mess! And well spotted, they have almost completely covered up the Spon Gate outline - it just remains partially visible on the footpath. Anyone wishing to register their dislike on how this looks and/or the quality of the work can do so using the council's freephone number 0500 834333

Hi all, There was a lot of discussion about this with Lorna, on Breakfast wireless this morning. The problem with the existing cobbles was that even at just ten miles per hour, a vehicles hammer-blow weight is nearly doubled, which was causing damage to some of the building foundations, as it did to the side wall of the old cathedral recently.

Hi Philip, for the benefit of people who don't know (like me!).... what's "a vehicles hammer-blow weight"? I've never heard that expression before. Also, how would a tarmac surface reduce any damage that might be caused "to buildings foundations"? Thanks

I'm not against the removal of the cobblestones, as although they do look more 'periodic', they aren't the best for actually using. I've tripped on those cobblestones a couple of times so I imagine they can't be brilliant for the elderly or less abled. I was also unaware of the problems Philip describes for the foundations (although I imagine the work itself did little good either) But the work is shocking! Why the yellow flecks are in it I don't know - looks like when someone has split a bag of crisps on the carpet and trodden them in. Had it been just to retain the outline of the gate I think it'd be alright, but they just appear to be there for no reason. What happens when the tarmac starts to wear away and break - there's just going to be a load of loose stones in the road to damage the cars or for people to slip on? The join in the middle looks terrible and the work around the drain covers is amateurish. The council should be recalling the workmen who did this to do a proper job of it, and make enquiries how the work managed to get to that stage without QS asking questions.

That looks absolutely hideous. How on earth can they spend money on this? It's worse than the horrendous job they did on the High Street a few years back - the one that looked like paving stones etched into hardened plasticine... It's bad enough that they made a rubbish job of 'rebuilding' the street, they then have to add this.