Guildhall and Ouse Bridge, York. Image: York Museums Trust. Public Domain. (More info)

From present day things, back in time to the 1840s, and some observations of the city from a visitor back then.

When writing about Coney Street recently I remembered a description of it by T J Maslen. His book, Suggestions for the Improvement of our Towns and Houses, was published in 1843.

He wrote about many different towns and cities, and how he thought they could be improved. He wasn’t impressed by York, very disappointed in fact, calling it ‘a small filthily-dirty, confined town’, ‘full of little, narrow, ugly crooked streets’.

He’d heard that the streets were deserted and silent, and that ‘the grass grew in them’. He ventures down some of the alleys and lanes and finds ‘horrible filth scattered about in every direction’. (Some things don’t change, you might be thinking.)

His description of Coney Street, back then:

T J Maslen’s impressions of Coney Street (1840s)

These were of course the days of the coaching inns. They’ve gone, but we still have the races, and Coney Street‘s still a busy thoroughfare, where sometimes on Saturdays you can still see ladies in ‘splendid costume’, though these days on hen party outings.

Clearly Mr Maslen is quite impressed by Parliament Street — quite new then — perhaps he wouldn’t be if he saw it now.

He mentions it again, and then goes on to suggest improvements for the river (where there are too many ‘dung-barges and coal-boats’) and the riverside areas:

T J Maslen’s plans for the river and riverside in York (1843)

He’s clearly a moderniser, and thinks that big wide streets are preferable to the little, narrow, crooked ones.

Obviously his plans to create wide streets on either side of the river in the city centre would have entailed the demolition of the historic Guildhall, and they might look quite odd and comical now. But in his sense that more could or should be made of the river and its banks, in the city centre, he could be seen as ahead of his time. Most areas of the riverside are now accessible, though quite a bit of the riverside to the back of the Coney Street shops still isn’t. That may change, as Coney Street itself changes.

Further information

I’ve written about T J Maslen’s book before, back in 2011. You can read those older pages here and here — or read the book on Google Books, or the Internet Archive (various formats, including a plain text version).

. . . . .

This is part of December Daily, which, despite the lack of available light, has been sustained by many kind comments and virtual coffees, thank you.

The post York, 1840s: a visitor’s impressions, and suggested improvements appeared first on York Stories.

As a place it has been covered on these pages many times over the years, under different names.

It might have been better, to avoid confusion, if this area of land had kept its old name of the York Teardrop (describing the shape of the piece of land) — but clearly a more dynamic-sounding and cheerful name was needed, and now we’re stuck with it.

It’s not really that central at all …  But anyway …

I wrote about the plans for York Central a while back. Hoped that whatever was made from this area would be a positive addition, to benefit residents, something we could feel connected to and proud of.

The signs weren’t looking good on that.

Recently, in November this year, York Central by Allies and Morrison was named ‘best masterplan’ at the 2019 Architects Journal awards:

According to the judges, this 46ha scheme has the bone structure to become better than King’s Cross – the multi-award-winning placemaking poster boy also masterplanned by Allies and Morrison and with which it has numerous parallels.

The plan covers a large brownfield site next to the city’s historic core which radiates from York’s railway station and railyards and incorporates the National Railway Museum, which is the scheme’s main cultural anchor. The project aims to deliver a new park, central gallery, up to 2,500 homes and 100,000m2 of offices, shops and hotels.

Us and our brownfield bone structure, we might be better than that London …

Most interesting, perhaps, is this part of the text:

It will provide a framework for sustainable urban and economic development and create a compact urban extension that is imbued with ‘Yorkness’.

I’m not sure I could refer to ‘Yorkness’ so confidently, even after half a century of living here and experiencing it.

Never mind me and my minor Yorkie gripes, they’ve won an award, and many people seemed very happy about it. (Though other responses on Twitter made it clear that many local residents are far from happy about the award.)

… but, locally, doesn’t look like it’s connecting to many of the people who live here, to Yorkness, Yorkites, Yorkies, still.

. . . . .

Thanks for your virtual coffees in support of the above, and all the rest of yorkstories.co.uk.

The post York Central … appeared first on York Stories.

Station front and Queen Street bridge from city walls, October 2018

Previously, some weeks back, we were pondering the reactions to plans for the hugely complex site behind the railway station, known as York Central. As there’s now a planning application in for the hugely complex site in front of the railway station, time for a quick look at that.

Let’s head out through the station entrance and past the taxis and the bus stops, and into the fresh air (well, kind of). Here we have the city walls, with Queen Street bridge taking us round the corner of the walls towards Micklegate Bar, and passing the Railway Institute buildings.

The planning application for the changes in this area can be found on this link:

19/00535/FULM | York Station Frontage

(or go to https://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/ and put 19/00535/FULM in the search box). There’s also an associated application: 19/00542/LBC (Listed Building Consent).

Under these plans, Queen Street Bridge would be demolished, something I covered at some length some months back, and the part of the plans I find most interesting. But the very long description of this application on the planning portal shows the extent of the planned changes:

‘Demolition of Queen Street Bridge and construction of new highway; reinstatement and construction of earth ramparts and retaining walls to part of the City Wall. Demolition of pedestrian bridge and works to the York Railway Institute elevation; demolition of Band Room. Construction of two-deck car park. Part demolition station building (Parcel Square) and construction of a new facade, roof and canopy and associated works to retained elevations. Public realm and highway improvements along Queen Street and Station Road. Demolition of Unipart Rail Service Centre building and construction of temporary surface car park, alterations to existing car park and taxi drop-off arrangements.’

So that’s quite complicated, isn’t it. There are many documents covering this major development. I’ve looked at only a few, and thought I’d mention a few aspects that caught my attention, in a huge amount of information on what is a major development in a historically sensitive area. I hope other websites/local media will cover this planning application more in due course, perhaps.

The view from Queen Street

The proposed removal of the redundant Queen Street Bridge will obviously involve major disruption for a long period of time, so any enhancements it offers to the local landscape and the way we travel around it need to be considerable for it to be worthwhile.

Local media coverage has tended to focus on views of and from the area immediately outside the station. I was interested in seeing representations of how it might look, and how it might work, on Queen Street, approaching the station from Blossom Street.

As I don’t have a photo I’ve turned to Google Street View for a an image of how it looks at present:

Queen Street, Google Street View, July 2018

And here’s how it might look, according to an image in the Design and Access statement submitted as part of the planning application:

Proposals for Queen Street, from the Design and Access Statement (ref 19/00535/FULM)

The removal of the bridge makes way for a flatter and wider road. The pavement on the left looks very wide too, while the cycle lane looks narrow and squashed in next to the traffic, as it is at present.

Perhaps better for cars, buses, taxis etc? But it doesn’t look like an improvement for cyclists.

And of course the image above doesn’t show the inevitable forest of road signs etc that will clutter up that clean-looking space.

The removal of the bridge will give a better view of the station, and one of the Railway Institute buildings. Which leads on to another important aspect of these plans …

Railway Institute band room demolition

These plans, if approved, would mean that the RI would lose a small building they currently use as a band room, which is between the larger buildings, and is to be demolished. Comments on the planning application include quite a few objections, understandably, from members who use this facility and emphasise its importance.

Clearly no demolition should take place until an alternative facility is available to them, acceptable to them, and in use.

Land ownership

Extract from the owhership schedule, York Station frontage plans

In the list of documents submitted with the planning application there’s a ‘Land Ownership Schedule’, which caught my attention.

The document gives an interesting insight into the complexities of what we tend not to think about when travelling across or spending time in this area of land around the front of York station – who owns the various bits of land. Various freehold owners and leaseholders are listed, including those you might expect, like City of York Council, and Network Rail, but there are many ‘unknowns’, and various complicated layers, including the ‘subsoil rights’.

The hotel building alongside the station appears on the list a few times, called the Principal Hotel and the Royal York Hotel, and perhaps remembered by many residents as the Station Hotel. It apparently has large cellars, stretching under the station’s Tea Room Square and it also has ‘Cellars in Footways and Highway – Station Road’. The ‘Owner of surface and subsoil’ is ‘Unknown’ for the bit under the footways and highway.

Rather standing out as a reminder of times past is the interestingly-named ‘Imperial Tobacco Pension Trustees Ltd and Imperial Investments Limited’ – ‘Freehold owner of the cellars at the Royal York Hotel.’

Tea Room Square’s ownership complexities even include an entry for who owns ‘subsoil rights below and above Principal Hotel cellars’.

The nearby cholera burial ground is in there too, its freehold ownership ‘unknown’.

Then we’re back into the complicated layers when it comes to Queen Street Bridge. The ‘Owner of bridge and the parcel of land under the bridge arches (unregistered)’ is Network Rail, and the ‘Owner of part of land beneath north footpath and substructure’ is City of York Council.

Extract, owhership schedule, York Station front

After all these subsoil layers, unknowns, and complexities it’s reassuring to note that the owner of ‘York City Walls and Embankments’ is ‘The Council of the City of York’.

The route of the railway lines

I’ve mentioned before that one of the reasons I had mixed feelings about the demolition of Queen Street bridge was because its arches, when viewed from underneath (from the level of the station’s car park), helped to highlight the original line of the railway lines through the walls to the old station (now West Offices). It was therefore pleasing to see that the Design and Access statement suggests ‘feature paving following the route of the former railway lines’. An image is included of how this might look:

From the Design and Access statement (part 2)

An essential detail, I reckon. Even better if these could be steel rather than shiny stone.

And a multi-storey car park …

Comments on the planning application include concerns about the proposed new car park. Historic England’s response to the plans (PDF here) highlights that they are rather surprised at the lack of detail and information on this aspect:

‘on the basis of the drawings provided we have to question whether it is desirable or appropriate to construct the multi storey car park using a faux medieval design approach.’

I’m struggling to imagine a faux medieval car park, and though I could go off to find the relevant document on the planning portal, this page is long enough already, so I won’t.

We need to rush off towards town, towards many other stories, and attempt to catch up on all the things I’ve been trying to get something written about for months.

– – – – –

Your virtual coffees continue to support this one-person effort to continue to compile, and maintain, a resident’s record of York and its changes. Your coffees help pay the hosting fees, and in general bring good cheer. Thank you.

The post Station front planning application: notes and queries appeared first on York Stories.

Previously, some weeks back, I left us standing by the riverside admiring Scarborough Bridge. I had intended to stay by the riverside, and focus on proposed flood defence works, but the flow of planned pages was interrupted, and the writing dried up for a bit as I had to attend to other commitments. But let’s take up near to where we left off. As Scarborough Bridge is so close to the railway station, and there are significant developments in plans for the land around it, let’s hang around the station area for a while.

From Scarborough Bridge we can head off up the path by the sorting office, and up the cycle/pedestrian path to access the station from one end. Across the platforms at this end, as pictured above, we can see through to part of the National Railway Museum and one edge of the piece of land known as York Central. I’ve written about it many times in the past, but not recently.

As was widely reported in the media last month, the outline planning application for this huge and complex site was approved by the planning committee on 25 March. That’s obviously a major milestone in what has been a long-running project. Reaction has been rather mixed, and interesting, and I wanted to write something about that, and some coverage of it in the Yorkshire Post this week.

A year ago today, 27 April 2018, I paid a visit to the My York Central exhibition/consultation event at the NRM on the York Central plans. The display boards were covered by an impressive number of post-it notes, with many ideas and responses.

Post-it notes on exhibition boards at the NRM, 27 April 2018

Clearly many people put a lot of time and effort into engaging with the plans, wanting to help shape them.

It’s important to acknowledge the huge amount of work that has gone in to this project to develop the large area of land behind the station. It’s important to acknowledge how long it has taken, in terms of years, and in terms of the many hours of work by many individuals, organisations, companies over that time, and particularly in the last year or so.

Many of the people who worked on putting the outline planning application together have been handsomely rewarded financially. It’s also important to recognise that many people, whether as part of a group or as individuals, put in a commitment, many hours, and didn’t get paid for that, but did the work because they care about the future of the city.

I wasn’t one of them, I’ve had to focus my energies elsewhere, but have done my best to keep up with happenings, including watching parts of the webcast of the planning meeting to decide whether to approve the outline plans.

The meeting included excellent and passionate speakers, and many strong objections.

But of course, by that stage, it would be approved. This long-running saga of the old ‘teardrop’ site has been going on for years, and so much work and time has gone into getting it to the stage of an actual outline application.

I’m not on Twitter much these days, but did check it for comment and reaction during the planning meeting and in the day or two afterwards, as the news of the application approval was reported. Anger and dismay was expressed in many tweets from local residents who had campaigned against various aspects of the plans, with things getting a bit heated and personal at one stage, on Twitter (as things so often do on Twitter).

Alongside the anger, and forming a striking contrast, were many celebratory and triumphant comments from organisations and companies who had been involved in developing the plans to this stage, pleased that the plans had been approved. It looked like a complete divide, opposing views.

I looked for something that might balance it out, from someone who knows the city well and has been observing the city and its goings-on for longer than I have. In such situations I often look to see what Steve Galloway thinks. His view is that ‘the progress made in bringing forward the site will probably be recorded by history as the major achievement of the current Council coalition administration.’

Still another stage to go through yet, however, as a call-in request means Communities Secretary James Brokenshire is considering the plans, and could order a public inquiry to scrutinise the project, as reported in the Yorkshire Post earlier this week.

York Civic Trust and the city’s MP Rachael Maskell are opposed to the plans, and support a call-in and further scrutiny. As would many of the people who spoke at the meeting on 25 March, I would assume.

On the other hand, the Yorkshire Post reports that

‘two Yorkshire council leaders, Wakefield’s Peter Box and Bradford’s Susan Hinchcliffe, have now written to the Minister along with Ben Still, the director of the Leeds City Region Local Enterprise Partnership, to reassure him about the level of support for York Central.’

I’ll just leave that there, and you, dear readers, can decide who might know best about the level of support, whose support is being referred to, etc. Otherwise I might start going on about ownership and cultural significance, etc, again.

The Yorkshire Post too has a view, presumably in response to the above, published a couple of days ago (25 April). Headed ‘The Yorkshire Post says: Landmark York Central development offers county-wide benefits’, it refers to the ‘political, business and civic leaders from across Yorkshire who want to maximise the benefits that can be accrued’.

The development opportunities of York Central seem to have been enthusiastically embraced by many, but it does rather look like this huge development is something on its own, a kind of separate thing to the city, and that it has failed to connect to the energies around it, those demonstrated by the passionate people who had high hopes for the site.

I’d prefer to think that this important place, once a thriving industrial area, a heart of York, still felt like ‘ours’, something the people of York will feel connected to, proud of, fond of, part of. It’s not looking that way at present. I hope that in time that will change.

– – – – –

Footnote

York Stories is my personal perspective on York and its changes. It has been online for 15 years in various forms, updated frequently sometimes, at other times with quite long gaps between its observations/musings. I’ve been online browsing, connected to this thing called the internet, for 20 years. Among the increasing amount of content and all the sound and fury of social media I find I appreciate more the more thoughtful things I find,  a considered view, a long view. As a York born-and-bred person who has memories of this city going back to the 1970s I do my best to add my bit to the online world in a thoughtful kind of fashion, and keep the angry/opinionated stuff to offline discussions at the kitchen table. If you’d like to support this online thing, with its monthly hosting bills and its generally tranquil and advert-free environment, your virtual coffees are always appreciated – essential actually – in keeping it online.

The post York Central update: reaction to outline planning approval, from York and beyond appeared first on York Stories.

Queen Street bridge, with the railway station behind, from the city walls, 26 Nov 2018

From Hudson House, built on part of the old railway station site, just inside the city walls, to Queen Street bridge, close to the current railway station, just outside the city walls.

Hudson House has been demolished, and it looks likely that Queen Street bridge will also be demolished, as part of the plans for the station front and the area around it.

This was on the agenda at the recent council executive meeting on 29 November. The report prepared for it (PDF on this link) ‘sets out progress to date on the above scheme and seeks approval to submit a planning application and proceed to work with partners on the detailed scheme in the Spring’. As approval was granted, a planning application for changes in this area will follow in due course.

There are many aspects to the proposals. A consultation over the summer provided information on the various aspects of the redesign, which looks interesting and has been generally welcomed (though there are some specific concerns, raised at the meeting this week, more on that later perhaps).

Here on York Stories I’ve often liked to focus on lesser-known aspects of the local environment, and Queen Street bridge probably comes in to that category.

The bridge on Queen Street was built to cross the railway lines that once went through the city walls to the old station (see the previous page). The site of the old station has changed a lot over the years, and no longer has railway lines. Queen Street Bridge has therefore been redundant as a bridge for many decades.

Here’s a photo from the archives taken from Queen Street bridge, showing the railway lines going under it and through the city walls.

How it used to be around here: taken from Queen St bridge, showing the railway lines still in use through the arches in the city walls (source & more info)

I’ve taken many photos on and around Queen Street bridge, and was pleased to find that I have one that’s taken from more or less the same place, as it looked this summer, 2018:

Taken from Queen St bridge, showing the arch in the city walls in Aug 2018. Hudson House development site beyond

The Hudson House site is visible through the archway, and in the background so is the end of West Offices.

Queen Street bridge isn’t generally recognised as a bridge, these days, and that’s not surprising, as many of us will have never seen anything travelling underneath it. I remember as a teenager catching buses from Acomb into town, and how the buses would follow this bit of road close to the city walls, rounding the corner here, with the station building mainly below, and I never gave it a thought. It was just a bit of road. An elevated bit of road.

It takes a while to fully appreciate the histories/levels/layers of a place.

Queen Street bridge, looking towards the Railway Institute, 1 July 2018

The bridge was built in 1877-8, close to the corner of the city walls, surprisingly close.

Anyone looking down on the bridge from the city walls might notice that between the old stone of the walls and the rather more recent bridge are these steps, at one time accessed from a gate on the bridge. Another apparently more recent gate has also been added at the top of the steps.

Steps, and litter, between Queen Street bridge and the city walls, 3 Oct 2018

I wonder how long it is since anyone went up or down these steps. This stepped area appears to be serving no purpose apart from being an informal litter bin, a dead debris-collecting space.

The demolition of the bridge would open up views of this part of the city walls, the arches here, where the trains used to come in.

On Queen Street bridge, looking down on the archways cut through the city walls (1 July 2018)

On Queen Street bridge, looking down on archways cut through the city walls (1 July 2018)

The bridge has clearly changed a bit since it was built, and from above just looks quite modern and concretey.

Queen Street bridge, looking from the city walls, 26 Nov 2018

Further information from York Civic Trust explains some of the history of the bridge and why it now looks more modern and concretey:

The bridge, built in 1877-8 to replace a level crossing which had existed since 1839, served to admit railway tracks across this street into a railway terminal depot within the city wall. Although new station facilities were provided outwith the City Walls with the opening of the current station in 1877, the North Eastern Railway (NER) wished to retain railway access across Queen Street, although their use of the tracks would be considerably reduced. Railway use of the level crossing fell considerably with the opening of the 1877 station, road use however rose greatly, so the bridge was built at the behest of York Corporation during 1877-8. The Bridge was modified in 1909, with the two northernmost arches being replaced by a single steel-girder span. In conjunction with the corporation having acquired horse-drawn street tramways, and a move to electrify them, the bridge was widened by moving the pedestrian footways out onto extensions flanking either side of the bridge. These were constructed at the city’s expense using reinforced-concrete stanchions; a good relation had existed for some years between the NER and the ‘Hennebique ferro-concrete’ consultant L.G. Mouchel. The bridge ceased to span railway tracks in the mid-1960s with the building of Hudson House. By the 1970s, the concrete structure was beginning to pull away from the original bridge, possibly as a result of vehicles mounting the pavement, so work was carried out to bond these back in and address damage to the bridge parapets.

(source (PDF))

There is impressive 19th century brickwork underneath it, in parts of the tunnels visible from the level of the station car park alongside. But from all other angles it looks rather awkward now, a concretey thing rising up out of car park and blocked off with steel fencing.

Queen St bridge from the car park area by the station, city walls and RI buildings behind, 16 Feb 2016

All it does is to restrict all the traffic here to using it, while there’s a lot of land just below it and around it that could be remodelled to fit better with the needs of the 21st century city.

Queen St bridge from the access road through the Railway Institute buildings, 16 Feb 2016

Walking round the walls from Micklegate Bar to the front of the station and looking outwards from the walls it’s clear what space could be opened up if it wasn’t here. It’s not just the bit in the corner, noticeably raised up for the tunnels below for the trains, but the whole slope into it. On the city walls walkway, not far from Micklegate Bar, Queen Street starts to rise up in level to meet the bridge that once crossed railway lines:

From the walls, not far from Micklegate Bar, the road rises towards Queen St bridge (26 Nov 2018)

Then we approach the corner, with the Railway Institute buildings (several, of various dates) in their proud position, close to the ‘new’ (current) railway station.

Railway Institute buildings and Queen Street bridge, looking from the city walls, 26 Nov 2018

Then we’re at the corner of the city’s historic walls, with the end of the railway station platforms on the right, and the Railway Institute buildings straight ahead.

Railway Institute buildings and Queen Street bridge, looking from the city walls, 26 Nov 2018

Back in early 2016, when a public consultation on plans for the whole York Central/station area asked for our views, there were concerns about the future of the Railway Institute buildings. Back then I wrote about those buildings and Queen Street bridge, and felt quite strongly that none of these structures should be demolished, as they’re so important in illustrating the railway heritage here, and the line of the old lines in to the old station.

But since then, as we have had more detailed plans of how changes here might make better use of the space, and benefit everyone who uses the current station, and travels to it and past it (whether in vehicles, on foot, or by bike), I can see that the demolition of Queen Street’s bridge does make sense.

More importantly, in the wider plans, the Railway Institute buildings are to stay in place, though one small building, the band room, looks likely to be demolished, as a planned road won’t fit round it.

Much more could be said about the wider plans for the area, and many interesting comments were raised in the discussion at the executive meeting this week. More later perhaps on other aspects.

For now though, I want to zoom in on the previous image …

Queen Street bridge, cycle lane ‘END’, 26 Nov 2018

In the middle of Queen Street’s bridge, somewhat randomly, a marked cycle lane on the road reaches its ‘END’.

Quite what people cycling here are supposed to do at this point isn’t clear. It’s the old-style ‘we’ve done our best on this cycle lane thing, but, oops sorry, that’s it for now. There might be a bit more further down, not sure.’

If the bridge is demolished then it makes more space for everyone. This space should I hope work better for all road users, and pedestrians.

On the 2016 page focused on this area I wanted to see the bridge kept because its arches underneath seemed like they’d provide a good traffic-free route for cyclists, if opened up rather than fenced off and blocked. I imagined us being able to cycle through them and the arches in the city walls here, along the remaining access road to the side of the Hudson House site, to the NER war memorial and West Offices.

Some of the information provided in the consultation this summer included a diagram suggesting this link past Hudson House might be part of the redesign of the wider area. Other plans didn’t include this link. So I’m not sure whether it’s part of the plans or not.

The planning application documents I’ve since looked at relating to the Hudson House development indicate that the site, as bought by Palace Capital, includes the part of the access road alongside it. In other words, as I understand it, it’s private land.

For the sake of the city’s heritage, and our understanding of it, I hope that this line of travel will be part of the wider scheme. If the removal of Queen Street bridge is supposed to help us better appreciate the heritage/cultural value of those 19th century arches cut through the walls — which is one of the reasons given for the bridge’s demolition — then cycle/pedestrian lines of travel through them, and to the old station they served, are a crucial part of it. We can look at them already, from the bridge, as I’ve pictured above. Travelling through them, like the trains used to, that’s the bit I’m interested in.

No doubt it will become clearer in due course …

… But for now, I’m really keen to move on to another bridge, and exciting developments there, at last. Enhancement, replacement, and long awaited … (update: ooh, here’s that page.)

. . . . .

York Stories is a resident’s record of York and its changes. I write about what I know, and raise questions about what I don’t know. I recognise, as many people do, the value of local knowledge, and do my best here to share the perspectives and thoughts of this particular resident, born in the city in the late 1960s, observing the changes. I’ve always aimed to represent things as clearly as possible to as wide a readership as possible, as accurately as possible. It takes a while to do that, and to reach the standard I always aim for. If you’ve found it of value then virtual coffees are always appreciated. Thanks to everyone who supports these York Stories in this way.

The post Queen Street bridge, and the station front plans appeared first on York Stories.

Signpost pointing to ‘St George’s’ (car park)

St George’s Field: where to start … Well, we already did, on the previous page, when looking at Tower Gardens. Tower Gardens used to be part of St George’s Field — something I hadn’t really thought about until focusing on this whole ‘Castle Gateway’ area with more attention.

St George’s Field is an area rich in history, a place that should resonate with meaning for citizens, but what is it now? The signpost pictured above, on the riverside near Tower Gardens, points the way to ‘St George’s’, and has a car park symbol. I thought we still called it St George’s Field, but that signpost doesn’t. Perhaps just as well, as visitors might be disappointed if expecting a field, some kind of flowery meadow with the Ouse lapping gently at its banks.

The names of familiar places are always worth thinking about. We tend to say them without thinking of how and where they originated, how long the name has been used, whether it was imposed on a place by authority or is one of the names locals call it. It could perhaps be seen as significant that the world ‘field’ isn’t on that sign. After a few more decades of the ‘field’ being covered in tarmac it might eventually drop that reference to its former appearance/associations, as Tower Gardens seems to have replaced the earlier name of St George’s Park/St George’s Gardens, as previously mentioned.

The citizens of York don’t seem to object to the fact that ‘our field’, with its ancient rights, is now a car park. In our recent history, in most of our remembering, if we think of it at all it’s as a car park, as it has been covered in tarmac and filled with cars and coaches for decades.

From trees, to tarmac, cars and coaches

Approaching it from Tower Gardens, passing under the archway of the Skeldergate Bridge approaches, we’re on a narrow strip of land that might be more likely to remind us of when this area was more green and field-like. Going through there and looking back to the bridge and Tower Gardens the treeline of New Walk is more obvious. Truly impressive trees here.

Riverside trees, New Walk, by Skeldergate Bridge, May 2014

But then we move away from the area immediately next to the river and the rest of our ‘field’ looks like this.

St George’s Field car park, July 2017

Over there on the horizon, slightly hidden behind trees, Clifford’s Tower and the spire of St Mary’s, Castlegate.

Here those buildings feature in a view from some centuries back:

Clifford’s Tower, Castlegate Postern etc from St. George’s Field, by Henry Cave. (Image courtesy of York Museums Trust: Public Domain)

Across St George’s Field towards the same buildings (or a couple of them) in July 2017:

Across St George’s Field (car park), 19 July 2017

This triangle of land between the Ouse and Foss is almost all covered with tarmac, and boring-looking but essential buildings like toilets, and looming over it on one side the Foss Barrier. This area is filled not only with the parked coaches and cars but cluttered with the accompanying ‘furniture’ of tall poles with lights and CCTV cameras and large signs providing information.

Past the coaches and cars parked here, towards Clifford’s Tower and the remnants of the castle wall, you can see how the roads carved it all up, raised themselves higher than the old land as it was.

But then people who arrive in coaches and cars need places to park, and this is one of several bits of Castle Gateway given over to parking. The most obvious is the car park right next to Clifford’s Tower, and there are many calls to remove that one. Comparing the two bits of land, it’s interesting to note that there seems to be more of a sense of ownership over the Clifford’s Tower/Castle car park site than there is over St George’s Field/car park, when in terms of land ownership and rights it should perhaps be this bit we’re fighting to ‘reclaim’. (Or perhaps both.)

Do many residents use it for parking when going in to town? Or is it almost all tourist/visitor parking? Does it matter if it’s the latter, as long as the income from it comes in to the city council? Have we had any say in the past about what happens on ‘our’ field, and do we still have the right to dry our washing here, and get our bows and arrows out, as our ancestors did …

Ah, so many questions, and so many layers of history here, in this piece of land where the rivers meet. Too much to cover on this page. Anyone interested should get hold of a copy of this book by Chris Dowell, which I’ve been reading with interest:

York St George’s Field: Not Just A Car Park, by Chris Dowell

Chris and John Dowell talk about aspects of St George’s Field, including the baths mentioned in comments on the previous page, in a series of short videos on the My Castle Gateway YouTube channel.

Fairs and fireworks

Apart from the St George’s Baths, the other association many York residents may have with St George’s Field is that it has been the site of the annual fair, talked about with fondness by Chris Dowell on the videos mentioned above. I remember being aware of the excitement of it, as a child/young person, but only because of the way friends talked about it, looking forward to going. I vaguely remember a brief visit as a teenager, one dark evening, all lights and noise. On another occasion, also quite a long time ago, I wandered past on a sunny Easter Sunday afternoon, noticing the massive painted lorries, and a discarded Frankenstein behind the rides. By then I was in my 30s and, and perhaps too old to enjoy it.

At the edge of the fairground, St George’s Field, Easter 2006

Discarded Frankenstein, St George’s Field fair, 2006

Other community gatherings have happened here. While searching through the YMT online collections for old illustrations I also found a listing for a poster they have from 1986, printed by the Open Road Printing Co-op. It advertised:

‘Firework Spectacular. Wednesday November 5th at Saint George’s Field Carpark. Display begins, 7.00pm. Admission free. City of York Leisure Services’.

Ah, the old days, when City of York Leisure Services had money to burn.

Anyone remember that firework display in 1986? Were there others here on St George’s Field? (I remember one from the early 1990s, at the Eye of York/Clifford’s Tower, and one in 2005, before they fizzled out as a free open-to-all city centre kind of thing.)

Future, and flowers

What else do we think of when we think of St George’s Field, and — as My Castle Gateway is asking — what do we want to see here, be able to do here, in the future?

There’s an online survey for the My Castle Gateway project on this link. Another way to contribute your thoughts if you’re not able to get to the events being held in association with this consultation.

Time to wander on from this particular bit of the Castle Gateway. From the tarmac-covered field we go back to the riverside path, to the confluence, where a well-known blue bridge takes us across the narrow Foss entrance, to the Foss Basin, the target for more musings/thoughts/photos, perhaps, next week.

By the Blue Bridge there’s a lovely area of wildflowers and bee-friendly flowers. Technically I think I ventured just outside the ‘Castle Gateway’ area boundary when I took this, but thought I’d share it anyway, after all those rather boring pictures of vehicles and tarmac.

Wildflowers by Blue Bridge, 19 July 2017

And here we might pause awhile by the confluence, and think about what a lovely word it is. A confluence is where two rivers meet, but another definition of it, suggested on this page, is ‘a convergence or combination of forces, people, or things’. Applicable, it seems, to the My Castle Gateway consultation, which is by residents, and for residents, and is attempting to bring together positive forces, many people, and a combination of thoughts on the many things that make up the Castle Gateway area.

Appropriate for future plans for a part of York where we/the council have ownership and rights over areas of land, and making far more sense to me than previous ‘visions’ for this area and others produced in the past (York Press). I hope we’re now past the point where we pay large amounts of money to outside experts for their ‘visions’/plans — it made me bristle with indignation back then. It’s now abundantly clear that there’s enough expertise locally, from many different perspectives, from people who know and understand the place, on many different levels, living and working here.

More later, perhaps. I’m off to stare at the river(s).

The post Castle Gateway studies: St George’s Field, New Walk, confluence appeared first on York Stories.