Advertising hoardings from Ken Wilson
The picture of advertising hoardings in the October 2013 Newsletter, page 11
[from the Society's Flickr collection - Editor] is an interesting reminder
of what our streets once looked like. At that time the visitor who arrived
at Ipswich station had his first impression of us from a line of hoardings
which effectively blocked the view of the town and as he ventured further,
The owners of the hoardings campaigned vigorously to try to persuade us how
attractive their posters were but the council of the time took firm action
and gradually all hoardings were replaced by something much better.
Incredibly, looking back, not everyone approved of this. The removal of the
particularly dreadful example that you illustrate - the 'two-storey'
hoarding as viewed from Queen Street - provoked an angry letter to the Star
lamenting its loss.
Now, alas, the hoardings have been replaced by a forest of smaller but
equally undesirable advertising boards - and our present Council is the
worst offender, hiding the elegant doorway of St Stephen's church with a
clutch of them plus an ugly concrete advertising column.
Indians and Chiefs - a correction from Ruth Serjeant
I would like to correct the 'job description' given to my position at the
Suffolk Record Office in the article about the Society's slide collection
which appeared in the October 2013 issue of the Newsletter. I was promoted
in it to 'County Record Archivist' (a mix-up caused no doubt as my husband
Bill Serjeant was County Archivist of Suffolk from 1974). My job (part-time
at that!) was as an assistant working on the Local Studies Collection (the
books etc.) at the Ipswich branch of the SRO, and definitely a 'little
Indian' and not a 'big Chief'!
The future of the Cornhill... from Ken Nichols
I should like to add my name to the growing chorus of voices who do not wish
to see the Cornhill reduced in size by fountains, posts or lots of trees etc.
Yes, I would agree that the Cornhill does need a spring clean and a change
from the seam of red bricks could make it more attractive. However, can I
implore the Council not to spend £3 million (if that is the figure) on
filling this ancient meeting place with objects, barriers and create another
Perhaps a large mosaic telling the story of Ipswich would break up the area
of red bricks making it more interesting when empty. Why not involve the
young artists of Ipswich in such a scheme, rather than architects from
outside the town who know little of the history of this place creating a
clone of many other town or city squares?
I do feel strongly that the town does need to retain this area as the
traditional meeting place for crowds to mingle, as Christmas, New Year,
elections, ceremonials and sports achievements are traditionally celebrated
on the Cornhill and long may they continue.
Also, in my opinion, the Cornhill should not be divided from Westgate
Street, Tavern Street, Lloyds Avenue or the route down to Giles Square. Any
interruption in the flow of people making their way across this area to
offices, shops or just as visitors enjoying our town should also be rejected.
The balance of the above money could be well spent on tidying up the 'Mint
Quarter' and the dozen or so other major street projects longing to be put
to the top of the list of improving our townscape.
Think again, councillors; it's not too late for you to listen to the slogan
'Save Our Cornhill Space'.
from John Alborough
May I add another ingredient to the debate over the future look of The
Why can the statue of the soldier that used to stand on the Cornhill not be
brought back? It would add status to the area and be in keeping with the
architecture. It is currently languishing under the trees at the bottom of
Christchurch Park. I would be interested to learn what others think. Shall
we start a campaign?!
from Margaret Woollard
In the report from Norma Laming in paragraph 10 she talks about the council
at one time considering tearing down Christchurch Mansion; we must not
forget what happened to Holywells and its Orangery. The mansion had an
amazing ballroom and held dances on a regular basis. The reason to pull down
this asset to the town was that they could not maintain it. What a shame as,
if not kept as a social asset, it would have been a very nice home similar
Ipswich Football ground from Colin Kreidewolf
It was disappointing to read the Snippets 2 section of the newsletter and to
see that in the reference to Portman Road no mention was made of who
petitioned the Council to achieve the Asset of Community Value registration.
The Ipswich Town Independent Supporters Trust completed all the necessary
registration documents and made the case for the assignment including
responding to questions from the Council. It was the Council as a body that
listed it under the Localism Act although we note they are also the owners
so they could have objected. They did not.
While there is a Labour administration I do not believe there is any danger
of the ground being sold but the local Conservative MP argued earlier this
year for a sale but for a derisory £1m; with rent at £114k
currently that hardly seems sensible. (A similar ground at Peterborough was
bought by the Council to save the football club some years ago for £8m
and they charge the club £350k a year.) The ground has been in
sporting use since 1853 and this is the 125th anniversary of the Town's
official move to Portman Road (October 1st was the anniversary).
Meanwhile inaccurate op-ed pieces such as those referring to the town centre
redevelopment process are printed as if they are the views of the Society.
Coupled with the correction relating to John Field, it is a worrying trend.
Otherwise the Newsletter continues to be very interesting and welcomed.