Sanctuary
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 17:55
|
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: Mustard wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote:
Totally agree, pointless to put in a perimeter path that still creates a feeling of distance.
I'm not so sure. I always feel Silbury Hill is quite a difficult monument to engage with, and the idea of a circular path at a distance really appeals. At the moment, there's no real access, and no way to approach the monument. I think if you provide people with SOME way of approaching it and interacting with it, it will reduce the perceived need for climbing the hill. But this is all speculative, and we'll never really know what approach is the best one until something is actually tried.
True, we cannot know, but going by my own experience viewing from even quite close (from the road or from the field via the gate to the east) I want to get closer, much closer!
One worrying possibility, I suppose, is if people were allowed within touching distance they might be tempted to take lumps of the hill home with them as a souvenir. Sounds odd, I know, but I bet there would be a few.
Yes there's always a SOD or two about :-)
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 17:58
|
|
Mustard wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: Mustard wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote:
Totally agree, pointless to put in a perimeter path that still creates a feeling of distance.
I'm not so sure. I always feel Silbury Hill is quite a difficult monument to engage with, and the idea of a circular path at a distance really appeals. At the moment, there's no real access, and no way to approach the monument. I think if you provide people with SOME way of approaching it and interacting with it, it will reduce the perceived need for climbing the hill. But this is all speculative, and we'll never really know what approach is the best one until something is actually tried.
True, we cannot know, but going by my own experience viewing from even quite close (from the road or from the field via the gate to the east) I want to get closer, much closer!
One worrying possibility, I suppose, is if people were allowed within touching distance they might be tempted to take lumps of the hill home with them as a souvenir. Sounds odd, I know, but I bet there would be a few.
Guess it's all very much dependent on the individual. I'd like to get closer to Silbury and move around it, but still from some distance away. I don't feel the need to get close. It'd be nice to climb it, but I don't feel a need to in order to appreciate it as a monument.
I think there'll always be a downside to any approach. Unless you cover it in a glass dome, there'll always be a trade off.
I'm still waiting for my mate Simon Werry (aerial photographer on the BBC's AFRICA) to fly me around the hill...now THAT'S the way to view it!!
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 18:03
|
|
VBB wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: Mustard wrote:
Unless you cover it in a glass dome, there'll always be a trade off.
Agreed.
You have just bought a glass gnome, at trade price?
They would look good around that perimeter walk, fishing lines dangling in the moat!
Brilliant idea...the return of the Coelacanth to keep it authentic :-)
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 18:04
|
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: Harryshill wrote: The path wouldn't need to 'engage' with the monument at all points, it could snake.
It could indeed, nice idea.
I'll adder that to the suggestion list then :-)
|
Mustard
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 18:07
|
|
VBB wrote: Keiller did react of course and wanted to knock down the pub and did demolish some of the houses (as did the NT).
Demonstrating that it's all a matter of perspective and personal preference. I'm not keen on the idea of sticking a path up Silbury and a viewing platform at the top, but I imagine the next generation of anoraks would be largely untroubled by it because it would be what they were used to.
|
Mustard
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 09, 2013, 18:09
|
|
VBB wrote: Is this the longest Silbury thread on tma without war breaking out and the topic getting locked?
Has the evident damage got tma-ers to pick up the same hymn sheet and discuss rationally?
I need a lie down, I feel dizzy!
I think it's helped that the focus has remained on Silbury (about which most of us seem to broadly agree) rather than the principle of access (permitted or otherwise) to monuments in general.
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 18:22
|
|
Mustard wrote: VBB wrote: Keiller did react of course and wanted to knock down the pub and did demolish some of the houses (as did the NT).
Demonstrating that it's all a matter of perspective and personal preference. I'm not keen on the idea of sticking a path up Silbury and a viewing platform at the top, but I imagine the next generation of anoraks would be largely untroubled by it because it would be what they were used to.
Well I think that's spot on Mustard. From my teens onwards I grew up with the path which was always there. It was 'part' of the hill as far as I was concerned and whenever kids were asked to draw the hill, there was the path!
|
Harryshill
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 19:47
|
|
Can't see us stopping that processes, but I think we should be slowing it down as much as pos.
|
bladup
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 09, 2013, 19:57
|
|
It is great, isn't it, I think it's because we all agree something has to be done, but the main works that need to be done still involve the tunnels [and there imminent collapse] even more than the problems of people's feet, this is far more important to the overall survival of the monument, I'd say by x100.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 09, 2013, 20:04
|
"and there imminent collapse"
News to me. Last I heard a degree of upwards migration was anticipated over time but not to the surface.
|
