Are you saying it's ALL down to the council to deal with these privately owned buildings or to spend our rates on developments to benefit businesses?
You said the plans put forward for the redevelopment of Hull were thwarted by the Chamber Of Commerce. So whose fault was it for Hull not being as successfully redeveloped as other cities? You are switching goalposts and arguing for the sake of it. Not for the first time.
I'm not moving the goal posts this or many other times. As far as the Abercrombie plan being pushed, yes, that was largely the chamber of trade. On other issues, why don't the businesses crack on and do it? They'll largely be out of town, why should Hull rate payers help their profits? Do you nag your own council about renevating all the derelict buildings in your area, or are you just insistent on spending Hull rate payers money?
There are so many things that have happened that should not have been allowed, from separating the historic docks from the city centre, to allowing a shopping centre to be built in one of the city's biggest assets, to allowing places like The Mail Buildings to be demolished and be replaced by bland rubbish. A massive factor in the perception of a city comes from the perception of it's city centre and we've made right ****ing mess of ours, largely due to piss poor decisions by the city council.
A cute, trendy sound bite, but it misses much of how these things work. The Council cannot and do not act in isolation. They have a finite budget with many demands. Fitting in with funding private businesses to satisfy non-Hull ratepayers is possibly not top. What they try to do is work with the businesses. If those businesses just sit waiting for hand outs, the council are limited in what they can achieve. It's interesting to see demands for the Council to gift things to private business, given the fuss over the KC.
The redevelopment involves buildings and land the Council don't own and are unlikely to keep ownership of afterwards. If there was a profit in doing that sort of thing, the existing owners would be doing it, not waiting for the Council to take the hit on the works. Most, if not all of the eyesores are owned by private companies that have let them go to ruin. I don't see why they should get money from Hull ratepayers as reward.
Glad to hear it. I thought I was the only one who didn't know what the hell DMD is banging on about. I can only assume he works for the council or has had relatives on the council forbthempast 70 years.
It doesn't surrise me, you seemed to have gained your understanding of how these things work from comments on the HDM website. Any views on the cock ups from ERYC? What about the deprivation in Withernsea, or the wastage on the Beverley SW bypass?
The Abercrombie Plan also involved Sir Edwin Lutyens. The following paragraph about his contribution should be noted. "In 1945, a year after his death, A Plan for the City & County of Kingston upon Hull was published. Lutyens worked on the plan with Sir Patrick Abercrombie and they are credited as its co-authors. Abercrombie's introduction in the plan makes special reference to Lutyens' contribution. The plan was, however, rejected by the City Council of Hull."
I can't comment on where you gained your understanding of these things as you don't appear to have any.
There seems to an echo in here, someone posted that earlier. There's a decent article on the web that gives a bit more detail on the negative reaction from traders to the council pushing the plan, and the traders acted in a way that meant the plan was no longer viable.
Of course. The council just use magic beans to fund the developments, and the private individuals that benefit from the schemes queue up at the Guildhall with barrow loads of money from their profits as a thank you to Hull ratepayers.
Two completely different things. Stuff like the Lord Line and New York Hotel are entirely the fault of private developers not actually doing any development, I think the council are often to slow to act on these things and are too weak on enforcement, but these are primarily the fault of others. Effectively chopping the historic areas of the city centre in half was done by the Highways Agency in partnership with HCC (or their equivalents at the time), there were no private companies involved. Princes Quay was built by a private developer, but couldn't possibly have happened with the council's blessing and it was a terrible decision. The Mail Buildings was a private development, but I believe more should have been done to protect such a great building (along with many other similar buildings). The piss poor quality of the public areas of the city centre are entirely down to the council, though at least City Of Culture will see some of these addressed (it will be interesting to see what happens with Beverley Gate, I suspect it will be added to the list of cock-up's).
You've listed a few issues there. They're not separate things. Saying that shows a lack of grasp of how these things need to include consideration of their impact on other schemes. The enforcement argument is one I've read in the HDM comments. I think some people overestimate the power the council has, especially with a limited budget, but that problem and burden is created clearly by private individuals. What your post does show, is that your claim that it's all down to the Council is simply wrong. For example, 'In conjunction with' the Highways Agency, or whatnever Highways England was called back then could also mean the Council had to make best of a scheme that was initiated for national, not local reasons. There were also private companies involved as some had to be relocated. Anyway, what about the mess your Council are making and the wastage in many parts of their area?
Traders or the Chamber Of Commerce who you previously blamed? How did traders make the council drop such far reaching plans? The council doesn't take any notice of what traders want.
Can't you apply compulsory purchase orders for some reason in Hull. I can't imagine the council in Leeds allowing these eyesores to remain derelict for decades. Look at what was a wasteland in the canal area behind the station in Leeds in the 1970s when I worked there with the area now. Full of attractive places to live, shops, restaurants and bars that don't shut at 11pm as so many do in Hull. All done whilst in Hull they discussed things interminably but did little.
Have a search on here for the more detailed reply. It's not a question of listening or not listening. The Council don't own the land. If the traders limit the chances of chunks of the scheme going ahead, either by accident or design, it starts to impact on the whole scheme. Your ERYC will find the same problems if they get round to looking at similar schemes.
Compulsory purchase isn't what most people assume it is. There are better ways of acquiring land. Hull doesn't shut at 11. Most party goers are only just going out at that time, as for Leeds, I guess it helps that there tax collection area takes in huge chunks of the surrounding villages. Maybe we should follow their example and bring then satellite estate villages into the fold.
I said like many, not all. Will you stop reinterpreting what people actually write? What helps in Leeds is a council which works to attract businesses to the city. They are helped by not having residents who think a council shouldn't help businesses and that they should treat them as the enemy like some do in Hull. Which surrounding villages does Leeds City council get tax from as opposed to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority?
