You may have walked through Castle Park hundreds of times without realising St Mary-le-Port was even there.
Neglected and tucked away behind the derelict former Bank of England building in the north west corner of the park, it is steeped in history and thought to be the site of Bristol’s very first Anglo-Saxon settlement.
There is a plaque describing this proud history, but not much of that is left either:
It is now an area of Bristol under scrutiny because of the Bristol Central Area Plan, consultation for which ends on October 18.
Naysayers claim that the plan is a “land grab”, giving a huge chunk of Castle Park including the historic St Mary-le-Port to developers.
But proponents of the scheme have ambitions that the St Mary-le-Port area could be restored to its pre-war function as the centre of Bristol’s shopping district.
The council document says: “Redevelopment of the outdated and underused buildings on the site would significantly enhance the area.
“It could allow for reinstatement of some of the historic street layout and provide a strong link between the Broadmead area and St Nicholas Market.
“The site’s location means it would be suitable for mixed used development but securing a viable scheme remains a challenge.”
Here are more photographs of the area around the former church:
Disappointing to see you join the Post in partial reporting of this story.
The maps and plans which show just how much Park land is to be transferred to developers are available and clear. But you seek not to report them, instead focusing on this straw man argument of the derelict buildings.
No one opposes the idea that something must be done about the buildings. But, there is a real issue about whether developers should be given such a large part of the park as well. Especially as this fight was fought before and in 2011 the City Council agreed not to sell park land.
Harry, you are a baffoon!
Brilliant argument Joe. So convincing in its detail that I have nothing to say in reply.
Joe, it’s spelled “buffoon”. Also, your usage of it is incorrect in any case – Harry raises a perfectly valid point.
It seems that history counts for nothing against money – for developers, the council, whoever. Shame.
It’s Ironic, there was huge opposition to Castle Park initially, the majority of Bristolians wanted the original shopping centre rebuilt, and to this day Bristolians bemoan the tragic loss of so many historic and more importantly beautiful buildings and wish there was some reconstruction; now that we have the opportunity to rebuild and reclaim what was lost, we have a self-appointed, militant minority group of people (who probably aren’t even from the city!) objecting to it and deciding that they somehow speak for the city.
————
“It seems that history counts for nothing against money”- Bob.
Given that there is indications in the plans to resurrect (very partially) the medieval street pattern and buildings lost during the war, as well as make a (much) better setting for st mary le port, if anything, history counts for a lot in this instance. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Tim – False on 3 points.
1. The plans contain nothing of the sort. The plans are for a hotel on the site with restaurants (it suggests Pizza Express or Wagamamas) at the bottom. The plan recognises no demand for shops in the vicinity and does not intend at all to recreate a shopping district
2. There was not public opposition to a park. Instead, there was a 10,000 person petition against the current buildings being built in 1960 because people wanted it as a park. But our property developer chums wanted the current buildings built (the ones now called “eyesores”)
3. The park did not cause loss of historic buildings. The bombing caused that. There was nothing but rubble there after the war. The photos show this clearly.
Still – if you shill for property developers, why let facts get in the way
The old buildings are indeed an eyesore and need completely refurbishing. People opposed to these plans would welcome refurbishment of the buildings. But the argument that building on some of the existing green space near them is necessary is completely fallacious. People have put forward beautiful sympathetic designs in the recent past which do not involve any existing green space or cutting down trees. The only reason the developers want to do so is to make lots of extra money for themselves. And as for the protesters being a militant minority who don’t even live here – well, that comment isn’t even worth dignifying with an answer.
Nah.
1) The plans (of which there’s several swirling about) that have been put forward have made no mention of specific tenants, which they’re not supposed to do (and for a start a hotel in an of itself isn’t a bad thing).
In fact in the various BCA documents, it is made fairly clear and stressed that independent led tenants are the preferred.
———–
2) (from Bristol; a photographic collection; just one of many sources): In 1947 a poll organised by the Bristol Trades Federation gave the following results:
13,363 were in favour of rebuilding Castle St et al.
418 in favour of Broadmead.
Bristolians never embraced Broadmead like they did Castle street, hence the massive opposition in the 60s which would have (and did) resulted in any chance of it becoming the main retail core again. It wasn’t even a park throughout most, or possibly, all of that period.
Funnily enough I wouldn’t want the rest of the park to be built over either so you can’t use that argument against me, unfortunately for you.
——–
3) yeah funnily enough, and park street was bombed extensively and subsequently rebuilt. In Europe they sympathetically rebuilt many lost buildings and still do, yet the chance to have even the opportunity to rebuild just a partial smudge of The High St and people like you kick up a fuss when it isn’t needed, and manipulate what is being said.
———-
“Still – if you shill for property developers, why let facts get in the way -”
I speak for myself, not some shill and as someone who has lived here for a very long time with roots going back generations have every right to say it.
So mind your half assed passive-aggressive tone, sunshine. You clearly don’t have a hard grasp on the facts either, and have your own petty agenda, so shut up, you have no right to even remotely pre judge others.
Shut up should I ?
Yet another pro corporate commentator seeking to silence those who point out these plans involve sale of large amounts of parkland to developers.
Not seen the plans have I – What not even the DTZ proposal which led to this land grab ?
I won’t seek to silnce you though. Its just your side that uses threats and misinformation.
I just had a look at the proposed area that will be ‘grabbed’ by developers.
Seems fair to me. We’d loose very little parkland – certainly no great area that I ever see in use – and for that finally rid the city of a huge eyesore.
Is it ideal? Nope. Is it a reasonable compromise? I think so.