| Street Clutter Article in the Examiner [14. Feb 2006 17:41] |
|
Dr Cedric Cullingford, Professor of Eductaion at Huddersfield University and member of the Society recently (06/01/06) had the following article published in the Huddersfield Examiner regarding the signs and 'street furnature' in our town centre.
To view the entire article, Click here. |
| Library and Market Hall [28. Sep 2005 21:39] |
|
| These have at last been listed, both at Grade 2. Kirklees promised consultation on the area is still awaited. |
| Response to St George’s Square Revival [15. Sep 2005 14:59] |
|
The Society has considered the preliminary proposals of Kirklees MC in committee on two occasions and takes the view that there are three alternatives for the future of St George’s Square.
Firstly, exclude all traffic and make the area pedestrian friendly. Secondly, increase the bus flow and make the area into more of a passenger interchange. Thirdly, do nothing.
The argument for a traffic-free zone is that traffic detracts from the magnificence of the Square and is dangerous for pedestrians. The area could be developed for recreation and leisure with outdoor restaurants etc – but restaurants in particular would of course need weather protection such as screens and canopies and these would need to be sympathetic to the environment. The loss of traffic would be a boon to people who work in the area and to the new residents it is hoped to attract into flat developments presently proposed.
An earlier proposal for the Square was the incorporation at its lower end i.e. outside The George Hotel of a sunken garden (with fountains?). This would surely be a great improvement on the suggested addition of even more of Marshalls’ finest – which can be extremely depressing on wet days when there is no relief to break the monotony. Fountains or public art would in our view provide the focus which all the Council’s present schemes lack. There is also some concern about possible vagrancy and this could be deterred by careful planning.
Of course, the question then arises as to how vehicular access would be obtained. It is the Society’s view that this should either be by link off Fitzwilliam Street, preferably with a multi-storey car park on the site of the existing temporary one or off John William Street just past The George Hotel, again preferably with a multi storey car park, but this time on the railway-owned land at the back of The George Hotel. In the former case, passengers would enter the station, and the non-travelling public the Square, via the underpass – which would be opened up and improved. We understand that there are presently objections from the railway authorities to the extension of the underpass - which presumably accounts for there being no mention of it in the Council’s leaflet and the entrance not showing in the sketches. We would like to hope that the Council would not regard such objections as being insurmountable and would be happy to participate in any negotiations. However, misgivings have been expressed by some of our members about the safety of underpasses and they would prefer a footbridge. This might be more acceptable to the railway authorities.
The second option is to improve the present interchange of passengers by bringing the various modes of transport closer together i.e. by bringing more buses into the Square. Some would argue that the purpose of a railway station is to access the railway and that its forecourt should be geared to railway users. Others would say that Huddersfield is different in that it has a very fine “stately home with trains in it” masquerading as a railway station and therefore needs a proper “stately home” forecourt.
There is no doubt that the present system is woefully inadequate. We hear tales of people exiting the railway station and not being able to find their way to the bus station. Even those who do so may have to lug heavy articles up St George’s Street – and often in poor weather. Not very friendly to visitors or residents, and particularly difficult for the elderly and infirm. To have more buses using the Square would therefore be a great improvement from this perspective, but the downside, as said earlier, is the greater danger and annoyance to pedestrians generally.
A number of people are of the opinion “if it aint broke, don’t fix it” which brings us to option three. It could be argued that the present set up addresses part of each of the above arguments for the Square and is therefore the best compromise. To do nothing would certainly avoid the inevitable disruption of earthworking and “monkeys” would not have to learn new “tricks”. It would also answer the unfounded criticism of the general public (who, not surprisingly perhaps, do not understand the funding principles under which the Council is constrained) that the Council is wasting taxpayers’ money.
An extension of option three, perhaps option 3b)?, might be to make some “improvements” without totally disrupting the present arrangements. We think here of the earlier reference to improving/extending the greenery and introducing some public art including fountains. The placing of a Tourist Information kiosk and the improvement of the present connection between rail and bus by diverting rail passengers along towards the tunnels, adding lifts and putting in covered walkways – even a travelator up St George’s Street - might also be considered.
We note that there is no provision in any of the Council’s options for the long-standing practice of coaches setting down and picking up passengers – or is it proposed that this is to be outlawed and coaches re-directed to the bus station? And what about the numerous times when buses have to be laid on as an alternative to trains because of e.g. track maintenance. Have the train-operating companies and Network Rail been consulted about this?
We have to admit to having some difficulty in forming a unanimous view of the proposals. However, the majority view is that nothing should be done.
We hope our comments are of assistance and, if the Council decides to press ahead and make changes, we would very much appreciate having the opportunity to comment on the more detailed designs.
18 August 2005 |
|
