When I was at school (in the Fifties) I found a copy of the Abercrombie Plan for Hull, in the school library. Something I was reading this morning reminded me of it. So I looked it up and found these: http://www.mylearning.org/the-hull-blitz/p-3265/ http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/026654398364464?journalCode=rppe20#.VM39DGisX4U https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=abercrombie plan hull&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=y_zNVKOJI4bbavqOgKgG&ved=0CCcQsAQ http://rtpi.org.uk/media/998232/yps_hull_1940s_report.pdf What might have been, eh?
Good stuff Stanley and I agree what might have been indeed. But as always any money available would have gone on rebuilding London and other so called big cities, just like these days really.
It was not a case of the money going anywhere else. The Chamber Of Commerce were against it, not wanting too much change. It isn't just recently that Hull was held back by a lack of forward thinking. Lots of places across Europe were far more damaged than Hull but were rebuilt by the 1960s. Yet 70 years after the war we are still discussing what to do with remaining bomb damaged sites.
We were offered money, on the basis we accepted the Abercrombie plan. I'm glad we didn't accept it - for every good part of the plan, there are 2 bad parts. I've seen an artist's impression of High Street in the old town - their plan was to build a dual-carriageway right down the middle, meaning most would be knocked down!!! There is an image of Wilberforce House with a flyover in front of it! We'd have been another Coventry, but with less investment, because we're further north. Even then, Coventry has seen attempts at an overhaul to modernise it over the last decade or so, as the post-war attempts at modernism look dated already. The people of Hull re-built Hull - the CECIL building on Anlaby Rd/Carr lane junction was the first post-war cinema to be built in the UK. Our city centre is quite a unique mish-mash of buildings, but I'd rather it that way as we actually retained some character and history - we still have enough in place (despite the council at times attempting to follow the Luftwaffe plan as the alternative to the Abercrombie Plan) to capitalise on the great story the city's history has to tell and have enough 'brownfield' space to shape the future of the city into what we want it to be - we just need to see some investment!
OK dazzar - I'd given it a good gander when I first found it (about 60 years ago!). I must admit I hadn't studied the Plan closely when I started this thread. I know you're very interested in the city's history and its buildings. So I'll take good note of your reply.
Plymouth also used parts of the Abercrombie plan. Can't see how anyone can regard Hull city centre as something to aspire to. Mish mash is accurate but not in a positive way. Cities in Europe mostly rebuilt the centres as they were, something that they did with far more damage than Hull had. Which is why they are more pleasant places to visit in the main. Rotterdam went the other way and demolished the buildings which were left and started from scratch. Both ways ended up with more attractive or functional centres. The people of Hull rebuilt the city? Did they all chip in? A meaningless statement.
Yes, most cities got the relevant funding to rebuild! The UK donated money to Germany to rebuild Dresden! Hull's bomb damaged ruins were either in no state to be re-built, or there simply wasn't the funding for the very few that were. Rotterdam is a model Hull should aspire to - but it's a bit easier for Rotterdam, what with it being the second largest city in The Netherlands and one of the biggest ports in the world. Hull needs to preserve the old town, enhance it's tourist offering by telling the city's story better and utilising what we have better (for example, Mutiny on the Bounty is a story known worldwide - The Bounty was built in Hull and the place it was built is sat barely used with the land surrounding it run down - would that happen in York?). The new town area, because it is under-developed and a mis-mash of buildings, you can eventually look to get rid of the ones that don't work and use the land to create something new and exciting (the former LA's site for example). A mis-mash creates a unique look - if you want everything to look the same, we may as well flatten the city centre and get Barratt homes to redesign it. The new town needs to be treated as a blank canvas - which is what Rotterdam does well. It uses the design of it's buildings as a tourist attraction. People visit Rotterdam to see it's buildings, which is something Hull (as an undeveloped blank canvas) should look to do in the new town area - none of this 'blending in with its surroundings' rubbish. We need to be unique and characterful - look at Leeds - other than the new arena, the corn exchange, town hall and Bridgewater Place, it is very identikit. You could blindfold somebody, plonk them in the middle of the city and they could be in any other city - there isn't a lot about it that is different. All the high-rise apartments, look like high-rise apartments you see in a lot of other cities. As for the people rebuilding Hull being a meaningless statement, it isn't. The Corporation funded the rebuild of the city - so it was local money which rebuilt Hull.
Warsaw old town was completely demolished by the Germans, they decided to totally rebuild in the same old style. It is now a beautiful area. We don't always need to build big modern buildings.
What's currently happening to the White Harte pub (by Drypool Bridge), dazzar? It's a David Reynard Robinson building and I love his stuff.
I think 'old town' is the key element there. There was lots lost - key historical buildings, palaces. Hull was already a fairly modern city by WWII, due to the fishing industry and the wealth of shipping merchants, it has always looked to change and evolve.That's why the majority of our key main historical buildings now, are from around the Victorian era. Our city walls, fortifications and blockhouses were demolished for the sake of practicality and progress - hindsight of knowing how much tourism means to a place these days would have no doubt seen them preserved, but tourism wasn't really as much of a 'thing' back then. You didn't look to preserve something, unless it was something like a place of worship and considered important to the people - hence Holy Trinity Church.
Not sure really - last I knew, the lady who owns Whittington & Cat and the Railway at Ellerby owned it, but it looks to have closed. Unsure if she still owns it?!
We contributed to rebuilding Dresden which was in Soviet occupied territory? When was that? In the 1940s this country received more Marshall Aid than either Germany or France. Unfortunately theLabour Government wasted a lot it whilst France and Germany used. It sensibly. The council paid to build the Cecil? So they will have run it and made money when it was sold? Councils get most of their money from central government which is what makes thinking Hull did something unique as being incorrect.
Many of Dresden's most historic and iconic buildings were rebuilt in the 80s, 90s and 00s, with funding help from the UK. No, the Cecil was built by Hull Cinemas Ltd, which owned 10 other cinemas in the city. It was designed by Hull architects Gelder & Kitchen. 'councils' were very different back then - The Corporation was run more like a business, it owned all the public transport in the city and it owned the city's telecommunications network (KC) amongst other things. They provided services for Hull people, using their 'companies' to raise money from Hull people.
So the people of Hull didn't build the Cecil? Other than those employed by the company doing the building. Sounds good, built by the people of Hull, but meaningless rhetoric. Your asserting that Dresden was rebuilt with UK money is somewhat disingenuous. It was not properly rebuilt by the East German government and only got to bring itself to its former glory following the reunification of Germany and using the riches of West Germany. We made a few symbolic gestures.
If only it was true though. The lack of development and change in Hull compared to other cities was a disgrace. Car parks which were bombsites and unprepared buildings for decades after the war when other cities had sorted them out long before. In the 1960s Hull had a better centre than Leeds and they used to come from Leeds to ?Hull for a night out as it was better. Now compare the two. I worked in Leeds then and scarcely recognise the place now whereas Hull has hardly changed in many ways.
I'm afraid in this instance Castro is correct I've been going to Leeds since the 1950's when it was a sh**thole but today their shopping archades and indoor market put Hull's to shame unfotunately. And many of us can still remember the club scene in Hull around the Bailey's night club era Hull was buzzing but look in the city centre these days at night, dead. It seems as though grand plans come and go for Hull and that seems as far as it gets pieces of architects paper. How long since the City of Culture announcement? What's been done? How long since 'improvements' to Castle St were first mooted? What's been done? Princes Quay 2? Forget it along with many other improvment, regeneration scheme's, Hawthorn Ave is an example where old houses were flattened, including the one I was born in, and then just left as derelict land. Like the former L.A.'s the row of shop on Ferensway that included Richer Sounds at one point. But one thing there will be plenty of is excuses as to why this or that can't be done be it planning permission, legal difficulties, ownership, we've heard them all and all they are are are excuses to do nothing.
please log in to view this image Was this tower the Prudential Building? I believe that, to the left of it, stood Powolny's Restaurant which, I believe received a direct hit, sealing many sheltering in its basement. please log in to view this image
