Medieval Far Gosford Street - Coventry - Proposed Masterplan

[CovAD]

Originally Posted by NewTroll

Read the article - in short, it's a speculative development, with no one signed up (Fingers crossed that someone is found at MIPIM). Building looks OK, if somewhat generic... More interesting is the way it'll create more a street scene at the bottom end of Far Gosford Street where it's all currently open and shit.

I don't see any point in recreating City Walls though.

I thought that was one of the things you liked in the Jerde plan?

Don't really see the point in recreating a small part of the wall for the sake of it though. It would help keep with the general principles but surely it'd be expensive, especially to make it look medieval?

Timber-framed buildings? To be honest the ones we've got are wasted in Spon St, so maybe they could be moved there instead and let something else be built next to the SkumDome.

Actually, you mentioned in another thread about the problems of the service area around the back of Broadgate and how much better it'd look with the old cottages still there when I suggested a park area - maybe some of Spon St could be moved there instead?

[NewTroll]

Originally Posted by CovAD

I thought that was one of the things you liked in the Jerde plan?

Don't really see the point in recreating a small part of the wall for the sake of it though. It would help keep with the general principles but surely it'd be expensive, especially to make it look medieval?

Timber-framed buildings? To be honest the ones we've got are wasted in Spon St, so maybe they could be moved there instead and let something else be built next to the SkumDome.

Actually, you mentioned in another thread about the problems of the service area around the back of Broadgate and how much better it'd look with the old cottages still there when I suggested a park area - maybe some of Spon St could be moved there instead?

No, the aspect of Jerde that I liked was the office development following the line of the city wall (There's a similar area in London, and Wall Street is named after New York's city fortifications.) I think it's completely pointless to try to rebuild historic buildings years after they have gone just for the sake of it. It's one thing to preserve this stuff, but to try to somehow bring it back is just baffling to me - it's gone, get over it. It'll never be the same, lacking the weathered look and the ravages of history, and why on Earth should we waste time and money rebuilding old city fortifications when the remains we already have are mainly tucked away or hidden?

I always thought the prob. with the city centre was one of scale - the pre-war city was tiny, still showing its origins as a market town of small buildings. The post war city was 5 times larger, and any new buildings were bound to be larger than what was already there...

[Sebadude]

The Hotel's at the other end though, isn't it - good news though. One of the new units halfway up has already been occupied by a mini supermarket.

[NewTroll]

The hotel's down at the roundabout from the picture in the CET.

I hope they get of that bloody awful tyre place and build up the street there as well.

[Sebadude]

Hmm, I saw the pics and it looks like they're where Musical World is now... opposite Lloyd's Bank.

[NewTroll]

Originally Posted by Sebadude

Hmm, I saw the pics and it looks like they're where Musical World is now... opposite Lloyd's Bank.

No, it's partly where "Monsoon" is - the image shows a huge roundabout in it!

[CovAD]

Originally Posted by NewTroll

No, the aspect of Jerde that I liked was the office development following the line of the city wall (There's a similar area in London, and Wall Street is named after New York's city fortifications.) I think it's completely pointless to try to rebuild historic buildings years after they have gone just for the sake of it. It's one thing to preserve this stuff, but to try to somehow bring it back is just baffling to me - it's gone, get over it. It'll never be the same, lacking the weathered look and the ravages of history, and why on Earth should we waste time and money rebuilding old city fortifications when the remains we already have are mainly tucked away or hidden?

I always thought the prob. with the city centre was one of scale - the pre-war city was tiny, still showing its origins as a market town of small buildings. The post war city was 5 times larger, and any new buildings were bound to be larger than what was already there...

I thought I might have misunderstood, but with those blocks being built around the Bull Yard area as a representation of the wall I wasn't sure.

[NewTroll]

Originally Posted by CovAD

I thought I might have misunderstood, but with those blocks being built around the Bull Yard area as a representation of the wall I wasn't sure.

There is some shitty plan to rebuild a city gate there as well. I was referring to the area round Bishop Street, where the office development on the masterplan follows the line of the city wall.

[CovAD]

Originally Posted by NewTroll

There is some shitty plan to rebuild a city gate there as well. I was referring to the area round Bishop Street, where the office development on the masterplan follows the line of the city wall.

The Bishops St doesn't completely follow the line of the wall, or we'd have to build one of the office blocks in the middle of the ring road! I thought that patch of land was in the Swanswell Initiative block, not Jerde though, or has it been shifted over? Is there demand for that many office blocks though, especially if we're spending that money on the ring raod to get Friargate started? Maybe entertainment/residential would be more appropriate?

I'd not noticed that gate before but one of the 'rocks' is definitely a gate, I assume as a replacement for Greyfriars Gate.

Although I think it looks alright with the stretch of recreated wall I'd still personally prefer to see it as a normal road linking New Union St to Croft Road, to provide another east-west route across the city centre, and you'd then be able to put a relatively central MCSP opposite Christchurch Spire which can be easily accessed from junctions 5,6 and 7. It'd also make Greyfriars an excellent public square with this route mixed in with the people coming from the train station into the centre.

[NewTroll]

Originally Posted by CovAD

The Bishops St doesn't completely follow the line of the wall, or we'd have to build one of the office blocks in the middle of the ring road! I thought that patch of land was in the Swanswell Initiative block, not Jerde though, or has it been shifted over? Is there demand for that many office blocks though, especially if we're spending that money on the ring raod to get Friargate started? Maybe entertainment/residential would be more appropriate?

I'd not noticed that gate before but one of the 'rocks' is definitely a gate, I assume as a replacement for Greyfriars Gate.

Although I think it looks alright with the stretch of recreated wall I'd still personally prefer to see it as a normal road linking New Union St to Croft Road, to provide another east-west route across the city centre, and you'd then be able to put a relatively central MCSP opposite Christchurch Spire which can be easily accessed from junctions 5,6 and 7. It'd also make Greyfriars an excellent public square with this route mixed in with the people coming from the train station into the centre.

If you look at the Jerde plan, from the top of Bishop street down to belgrade plaza there's a line of office blocks - this follows the line of the city wall.

There's no demand for residential properties in the city centre. Hence the collapse of most of the city centre residential schemes.

[Dr Pepper]

Rear extension to Hand and Heart pub.





Gosford Arms pub now has some scaffolding,

[Dr Pepper]

The area covered by this proposal is outlined in blue, with the current one in red.





This is what is currently there. The building is nothing special and has an end missing.





Just a small car park behind.





Looking up the street.

[NewTroll]

The buildings and general area is dreadful! This is a good proposal and will create a nice sense of place. I hope they can get a tenant for the hotel.

It's good that they are going to be replacing that pointless junction there with a building.

Now that tyre place needs to go.

[NewTroll]

Is the Gosford Arms open?

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by NewTroll

Is the Gosford Arms open?

Yep.

[stig1982]

The inside story...

http://cmis.coventry.gov.uk/CMISWebP...Document=13174

Makes interesting reading. A lot of land has been acquired behind the scenes in readiness for comprehensive development along the entirety of the street (including the Industrial Estate), it would seem.

[stig1982]

Have a good look at this website. There is plenty of information on the plans for FGS. Make sure you look at each of the 'areas' of work i.e. commercial, mixed use, conservation, residential etc.

http://www.pcptarchitects.co.uk/index.html

[Lostboy]

Originally Posted by NewTroll

No, the aspect of Jerde that I liked was the office development following the line of the city wall (There's a similar area in London, and Wall Street is named after New York's city fortifications.) I think it's completely pointless to try to rebuild historic buildings years after they have gone just for the sake of it. It's one thing to preserve this stuff, but to try to somehow bring it back is just baffling to me - it's gone, get over it. It'll never be the same, lacking the weathered look and the ravages of history, and why on Earth should we waste time and money rebuilding old city fortifications when the remains we already have are mainly tucked away or hidden?

I always thought the prob. with the city centre was one of scale - the pre-war city was tiny, still showing its origins as a market town of small buildings. The post war city was 5 times larger, and any new buildings were bound to be larger than what was already there...

I hope you will qualify that to some extent. The ruined post-war medieval cities of Germany and Poland were restored immidiately afterwards and they had beautiful cities (whilst updating them with underground car parks in the town square, very clever) we have the ugliest cities outside the old soviet union, precisely because we did not immidiately repair and restore our heritage. I agree revival now is pointless, but immidiate revival is not.

[stig1982]

Looks like I stand alone then! I think that the construction of timber framed buildings and a possible reconstruction of the city gate are excellent ideas. For me it's not about creating a tacky theme park feeling; it's about putting tried and tested quality buildings back into the city centre and putting them into use. It's also about social history - putting back some of the architecture once very typical to Coventry back into the city centre.

The idea isn't to create a timber framed building with straw floors and candles for light! The building(s) will be used to house modern businesses, residents, shops etc. They will just happen to be of a design that was once prevalent in Coventry and has, sadly, virtually been lost through war and decades of careless town planners.

To me its not important whether the buildings are weathered or rustic looking. They're not meant to be museum pieces; they're meant to be functional. Not every modern functional business/dwelling has to be in a modern built/designed building.

A blend of 1) restored original buildings, 2) new buildings constructed of traditional materials and historic designs, and 3) modern buildings which are in keeping with their surroundings is, IMHO, a fresh and original way to complete a development in Coventry. Particularly in a Conservation Area. If the Council had adopted this approach in the past then we wouldn't be stuck with so many crumbling derelict buildings, deprived areas and blocked off streets now.

CDP should be watched carefully by all other developers interested in Coventry. I believe that CDP's vision and quality of build should be the level other developers aspire to. Every project completed by CDP in Coventry to date has been amazing.

I appreciate that many of you have different views on this subject and I'm not going to enter into silly debates. I just think that people should be a bit more open minded when developers propose to build a few new buildings in 16th century design in a Conservation Area. Think twice before dismissing the ideas as fanciful, twee or retrospective. The developers are not saying that all new developments should be "replicas". They're just trying to add something to an otherwise modern development which is a bit different, unique, and very "Coventry".

As for rebuilding Gosford Gate, why not?! It'd be a great local landmark and add great character to the area. It'd celebrate the city's past and mark the ambition of Coventry's regeneration. Is a rebuilt City Gate so different to erecting a statue of Sir Frank Whittle, or a bronze sculpture of one of the Belgrade Theatre's key figures? Is it that different to building a replica of the Coventry Cross (which I think works very well). Must all new statues, monuments or sculptures be of a modern and contemporary design?

[stig1982]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

Rear extension to Hand and Heart pub.





Gosford Arms pub now has some scaffolding,

I wonder if they'll add another storey to this building? A modern glass extension on top would look pretty cool.