Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Silbury Hill »
Silbury Hill trespassers
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 30 – [ Previous | 123 24 25 26 27 28 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
tjj
tjj
3606 posts

Re: Sponsored signage?
Jan 11, 2013, 08:50
VBB wrote:
Littlestone wrote:

Serious question (yes I know it is rare): with EH putting a hold on blue plaques (sort of) because they are skint, they could potentially claim they can't afford new/more signs. My reaction is Silbury can't afford not to have improved signage (and they should have taken note all along). Whilst I loathe the idea, and feel something of the spirit of place would be eclipsed, and it might even be counterproductive, what do people here think about signage potentially being sponsored?

Before anyone says that won't happen, the WHS road signs were always an embarrassment, have needed replacing for 5 years, and it looks like sponsorship might be the only way of achieving that. Yuk!


Personally I think discrete sponsored signage is the lesser of other more drastic suggestions that have been considered and dismissed. High wire fencing with barbed wire or (heaven forfend) razor wire would give Silbury the atmosphere of a military installation. While we are so focussed on people not climbing the mound we are overlooking the fact motorists break the speed limit on the A4 right next to Silbury all the time. Some going as fast as 100 mph through a WHS site where visitors wander across the road to visit WK long barrow and along the narrow footpath to the Silbury viewing point without any real comprehension of the danger they are in. Silbury is probably my favourite and most loved ancient monument but I still think people come first.

Doing something to slow traffic down on the stretch of the A4 should also be a priority - if Silbury is as solid as it is claimed to be then the damage of footfall is superficial and on a par with the rest of Avebury. Otherwise, English Heritage (if they are the grown-ups) should be leading by example and refusing all requests, including money making ones, for one-off permissions to go up there.
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Re: Sponsored signage?
Jan 11, 2013, 08:55
tjj wrote:
VBB wrote:
Littlestone wrote:

Serious question (yes I know it is rare): with EH putting a hold on blue plaques (sort of) because they are skint, they could potentially claim they can't afford new/more signs. My reaction is Silbury can't afford not to have improved signage (and they should have taken note all along). Whilst I loathe the idea, and feel something of the spirit of place would be eclipsed, and it might even be counterproductive, what do people here think about signage potentially being sponsored?

Before anyone says that won't happen, the WHS road signs were always an embarrassment, have needed replacing for 5 years, and it looks like sponsorship might be the only way of achieving that. Yuk!


Personally I think discrete sponsored signage is the lesser of other more drastic suggestions that have been considered and dismissed. High wire fencing with barbed wire or (heaven forfend) razor wire would give Silbury the atmosphere of a military installation. While we are so focussed on people not climbing the mound we are overlooking the fact motorists break the speed limit on the A4 right next to Silbury all the time. Some going as fast as 100 mph through a WHS site where visitors wander across the road to visit WK long barrow and along the narrow footpath to the Silbury viewing point without any real comprehension of the danger they are in. Silbury is probably my favourite and most loved ancient monument but I still think people come first.

Doing something to slow traffic down on the stretch of the A4 should also be a priority - if Silbury is as solid as it is claimed to be then the damage of footfall is superficial and on a par with the rest of Avebury. Otherwise, English Heritage (if they are the grown-ups) should be leading by example and refusing all requests, including money making ones, for one-off permissions to go up there.


Nicely put June
Littlestone
Littlestone
5386 posts

Edited Jan 11, 2013, 09:02
Re: Sponsored signage?
Jan 11, 2013, 09:02
Sponsored signage is not such a new idea (and there are green plaques as well as black plaques by the way which have nothing to do with English Heritage). So, given that Silbury is privately owned, sponsored signage ‘might’ be the way to go - but only after twisting EH’s arm around its back to do it first.

There was someone from EH on Radio 4 a couple of days ago trying to explain English Heritage’s reasons for shelving the blue plaque scheme. One bit of interesting info to come out of the prog however was that The National Trust might take over some of the BP responsibilities from EH.

So there you have it; when it comes to Silbury we have English Heritage, The National Trust, Lord Avebury and us lot all with a vested interested in getting something done re: improved sinage – failure to do so is not on the cards.
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: Sponsored signage?
Jan 11, 2013, 09:06
Maybe Penny Plant would do it for free?

Nah, the obvious answer is the public, people on sites like this and others, it's The Big Society isn't it, and we're the ones that seem to care. At the bottom it could say, discretely, Provided by the Friends of Silbury...

The good thing about that is we could maybe have a bit of a say in the design, and be allowed to source them, probably from China, for a very small fraction of what EH pays....
VBB
558 posts

Re: Sponsored signage?
Jan 11, 2013, 09:14
nigelswift wrote:
Maybe Penny Plant would do it for free?

Nah, the obvious answer is the public, people on sites like this and others, it's The Big Society isn't it, and we're the ones that seem to care. At the bottom it could say, discretely, Provided by the Friends of Silbury...

The good thing about that is we could maybe have a bit of a say in the design, and be allowed to source them, probably from China, for a very small fraction of what EH pays....



A few years back I floated the idea of a competition grouped by age, to design three new roadside entrance signs for the WHS, sponsored by whoever. It came to nought because the cash was unlikley to be found to even run the competition. If this competition idea was used re the Silbury signage as an outreach art project, it would be an EH exercise suggested to local schools to educate pupils about the monument and why it shouldn't be climbed.
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: Sponsored signage?
Jan 11, 2013, 09:40
Nice. Outreach, engagement, kids, all the right buttons pushed.
Littlestone
Littlestone
5386 posts

Re: Sponsored signage?
Jan 11, 2013, 09:40
VBB wrote:


A few years back I floated the idea of a competition grouped by age, to design three new roadside entrance signs for the WHS, sponsored by whoever. It came to nought because the cash was unlikley to be found to even run the competition. If this competition idea was used re the Silbury signage as an outreach art project, it would be an EH exercise suggested to local schools to educate pupils about the monument and why it shouldn't be climbed.


Nice idea - never forgetting however that it was English Heritage that ‘involved’ Avebury school kids with their Silbury time capsule project (seem to remember that the little dears were very disappointed when the idea was shelved). Point being after that fiasco I’m not entirely sure that EH are up to delivering the goods in a competent manner - they'll need watching every step of the way.
VBB
558 posts

Re: Sponsored signage?
Jan 11, 2013, 15:06
VBB wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
Maybe Penny Plant would do it for free?

Nah, the obvious answer is the public, people on sites like this and others, it's The Big Society isn't it, and we're the ones that seem to care. At the bottom it could say, discretely, Provided by the Friends of Silbury...

The good thing about that is we could maybe have a bit of a say in the design, and be allowed to source them, probably from China, for a very small fraction of what EH pays....



A few years back I floated the idea of a competition grouped by age, to design three new roadside entrance signs for the WHS, sponsored by whoever. It came to nought because the cash was unlikley to be found to even run the competition. If this competition idea was used re the Silbury signage as an outreach art project, it would be an EH exercise suggested to local schools to educate pupils about the monument and why it shouldn't be climbed.



Local schools used to take classes to the summit!

http://www.oodwooc.co.uk/ph_SilburyH.htm
harestonesdown
1067 posts

Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 11, 2013, 20:35
Steve M wrote:
I don't come here very often - is this as rational as it gets?


Ooh, you should have witnessed it when i was here. !
harestonesdown
1067 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 11, 2013, 20:39
bladup wrote:
Nice, you want me electrocuted, you sound great, no wonder your always looking for people to live with you, you and no telly, i'd rather be electrocuted, It's not hard to cut a wire, my name is Blades, I see by the photo that you used to go up, very interesting.


Steve is an absolute gem of a bloke Paul, and probably knows more about Avebury than the rest of the membership here combined, bar maybe VBB*.

*Cabbies are a rarity on Sunday mornings in Wiltshire ghost towns. ;)
Pages: 30 – [ Previous | 123 24 25 26 27 28 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index