Comments on: New paving, King’s Square

By: AndyT

AndyT — Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:56:54 +0000

Well, 5 years on and I’m still angry that the Council wasted our money on this tacky paving in our historic city. How jealous I am of the people of Beverley who managed to successfully persuade East Riding of Yorkshire Council to not do the same there (only on an even bigger scale). Who are these awful people who spend our money on cultural vandalism, making our cities and towns look worse. Unforgivable.

By: Ian Ramsden

Ian Ramsden — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 08:04:33 +0000

Having been abroad for the last 12 months I have only been able to follow the King’s Square debate online so until yesterday I had no right to comment as I had not seen the new paving in situ. Having now seen it I would like to say that it’s the most hideous thing I have seen in my home city since the Pavement carbuncle was built in the ’60’s. It makes King’s Square look like a cheap, imitation film set. I also see that the junk food vendors have also moved in to further debase what should be a keynote space in the heart of the city. This is not protecting the heritage of York for future generations; it’s simply maximizing the short term revenue and destroying a cohesive space. Would you put a chipboard wardrobe in a Georgian boudoir?

By: Ralph

Ralph — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 19:29:52 +0000

Marc’s perspective is interesting and provocative. I certainly can’t agree with it. Are flagstones really no different to asphalt? Might cobbles or setts just as well be poured concrete? Is the ground really just “negative space”, with structures only mattering visually from eye level upwards? Ground treatments surely make a huge contribution to the quality of public spaces and the way they are experienced. Paving interacts visually with surrounding buildings, responds to varying contours, signals different usages, entrances and exits, expresses places to linger and places to move through. Different materials and surfaces, varying scales of component parts, have a huge visual effect on a space (as well as reflecting practical issues of safety, traffic management and so on). If we take Marc’s argument that the sole purpose of paving is to be “bland, sterile, uniform and soulless” we might as well tarmac everything.

By: Thom Wiseman

Thom Wiseman — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:42:51 +0000

What I am at a loss with is what the remaining £450,000 is going to be spent off.

I think if that is the bulk of the work done then there is a huge over pricing.

By: Marc

Marc — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:48:15 +0000

I get the feeling I might be in a minority of one here, but I feel that some of the critics of the Kings Square redevelopment has been ridiculous. The new paving has been variously described by its detractors as “bland”, “sterile”, “uniform”, and “soulless”. But how can any of these terms be a legitimate criticism of paving? Because paving should be bland, sterile, uniform and soulless. Paving is not a destination or an attraction. Paving is not supposed to be compelling. Paving is there to cover up the interesting geological and biological features of a space and render the environment underfoot sterile. Sterilising the environment is the very point of paving.

The first time I visited Kings Square after the renovation, I – like many others – went there to look at the paving. But the second time I went, I really didn’t notice it. When in the square I found that my eyes were drawn to buildings and features of interest: The incongruity and diversity of the buildings that make up the Duke of York; the cat on the roof; the bloody Chocolate Story tricycle that shouldn’t be permitted to clutter that environment. I was able to take in so much more as a result of not having to think about – or look at – the paving (and as I’m usually with a two-year-old who sees no inherent peril anywhere, that came as quite a relief).

I think of it as negative space. As in other areas of art and design, the negative space is the part that the eye can ignore which draws it to the features of interest. It actively focuses the eye on the historical interest and beauty that is already there. Does it really matter if the bit we walk on is flat and uniform and uncluttered and safe when it helps us to appreciate the interesting features that the square has?

As for the expense (also much criticised), I don’t know if £490,000 to repave Kings Square is good value (and remember, the work hasn’t been completed yet) as I’m not in the construction industry. Nor have I ever been responsible for costing a civic refurbishment on this scale. But I suspect that applies equally to most of the people complaining about the cost.

I like it.

By: Elizabeth Hardcastle

Elizabeth Hardcastle — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:26:27 +0000

The cart tracks and setts led one into the square from the Shambles and back into the Shambles and seemed to connect the two areas. However, having looked at old pictures of the square – including those on City of York Council planning website – I can see that the setts are fairly recent. It seems sad, though, that this square lost its church and had its old buildings replaced by 1960s nondescript buildings. I signed the petition about the setts. This square could be anywhere in the country, no character at all. The mulberry tree should be retained. another symptom of the current city council, oblivious to the views of York citizens, hell bent on making its mark on the city, seems to have no feeling for the character of York.