|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » UNESCO say a polite no to tunnel |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tjj 3606 posts |
Jun 19, 2017, 09:44
|
||
|
I posted this news link under the Consultation thread a few days ago but it probably warrants new one as the existing one now unwieldy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-40286120?SThisFB Also this from the HA blog. https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2017/06/19/unesco-polite-but-firm-it-is-not-considered-satisfactory-to-suggest-tunnel-benefits-offset-the-damage/
|
|||
Howburn Digger 986 posts |
Jun 27, 2017, 19:48
|
||
|
A longer tunnel, a land bridge, extensive use of landscape haha's, a Fairy Rainbow? There is simply is no end to the endless line of pointless pitches thrown by the infrastructure landforming Heritage Industry Companies like Infandor, Colicon, Myrimmer, Pelladinnor etc. as they try and get their respective snouts in the Public Money Slurry Pool. If the road annoys the stones then close the road and make people go round the long way. If it simply annoys some visitors then they must be told to get over it. And get over themselves. They built a crapulous visitor centre and a bus road which cuts across the Henge not once but twice. What a sham. English Heritage suggests a visitor should "Watch the seasons pass and take a trip through time with our incredible "audio-visual 360 degree view from inside the Stones" in the visitor centre. Imagine what it feels like to stand in the middle of Stonehenge at winter and summer solstice, with this unique and memorable experience." If visitors are being encouraged to imagine that lot above the Pan Pipes, Dream Catchers and Ambient Whale noise then they can surely imagine that the traffic on the A303 isn't there... http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/properties/stonehenge/things-to-do/stonhenge_138-_15-08-14_robert-smith---copy-crop I'd like the M74 removed and diverted under a big tunnel as it interferes with the vibes at Wildshaw Burn. http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/3588/wildshaw_burn.html K2 Plant Hire had the right idea. Enough of Stonehenge. It simply doesn't work properly any more. It has been broken down for years. Either let it crumble gently to dust or grind up the weathered old rocks, recast them with some industrial resin and reconfigure the place for a New Age. It'll cost a lot less than a tunnel or a Fairy Rainbow.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 07, 2017, 07:52
|
||
|
They've now said it formally: the advantages CANNOT be offset against the damage and the scheme should be reconsidered. https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/unesco-formally-confirms-uk-government-should-reconsider-stonehenge-a303-project/
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 07, 2017, 08:20
|
||
|
And how about a hand for the Stonehenge Alliance who were in Krakow lobbying - you know, the people Mr Pitts said acted like “the archaeological wing of Donald Trump’s social media campaign” and their leaflet imagery was “worthy of Putin-supporting trolls”. https://www.facebook.com/stonehengealliance/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf (Scroll down to see if he seems right).
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jul 07, 2017, 09:56
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: They've now said it formally: the advantages CANNOT be offset against the damage and the scheme should be reconsidered. https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/unesco-formally-confirms-uk-government-should-reconsider-stonehenge-a303-project/ So when push comes to shove, who actually has the last say on this, us or UNESCO?
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Jul 07, 2017, 13:48
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: nigelswift wrote: They've now said it formally: the advantages CANNOT be offset against the damage and the scheme should be reconsidered. https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/unesco-formally-confirms-uk-government-should-reconsider-stonehenge-a303-project/ So when push comes to shove, who actually has the last say on this, us or UNESCO? Us. And this bit of 'us' i.e. many eminent voices in the archaeology world plus also my own small voice - says leave the A303 unchanged if widening into a dual carriageway OR building the short tunnel option in anyway impacts on the Stonehenge WHS - which of course it will. What was your definition of 'Us'.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jul 07, 2017, 14:00
|
||
|
tjj wrote: Sanctuary wrote: nigelswift wrote: They've now said it formally: the advantages CANNOT be offset against the damage and the scheme should be reconsidered. https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/unesco-formally-confirms-uk-government-should-reconsider-stonehenge-a303-project/ So when push comes to shove, who actually has the last say on this, us or UNESCO? Us. And this bit of 'us' i.e. many eminent voices in the archaeology world plus also my own small voice - says leave the A303 unchanged if widening into a dual carriageway OR building the short tunnel option in anyway impacts on the Stonehenge WHS - which of course it will. What was your definition of 'Us'. The government. For what it's worth leave it as it is now as the sensible people from down here in the west take alternative routes depending on the time of the year. That'll save us a few pounds!
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 07, 2017, 15:41
|
||
|
"What was your definition of 'Us'." That's a tricky philosophical question! Personally I don't think "us" are to always be in charge merely because we're us. That's all bus talk. I like the idea of a supra-national body that can overrule the (sometimes) awful UK decisions such as going to war unjustly and damaging a world heritage landscape (the clue's in the word "world!").
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Jul 09, 2017, 09:13
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "What was your definition of 'Us'." That's a tricky philosophical question! Personally I don't think "us" are to always be in charge merely because we're us. That's all bus talk. I like the idea of a supra-national body that can overrule the (sometimes) awful UK decisions such as going to war unjustly and damaging a world heritage landscape (the clue's in the word "world!"). In the current debate about Stonehenge and the impingement of modern traffic I was suggesting UNESCO was supporting the 'us' I personally identify with. I realise the big 'Us' is the government of the day and of course agree with you that the peace-keeping constraints which can be imposed by the United Nations is necessary and essential. With the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) being a self-explanatory branch of that. I do hope our government is listening. I came across this interesting nine year old piece about UNESCO - it shows Stonehenge (still with the A344 running by) and the ever growing problem of traffic acknowledged. Am sure its appeared on this forum in the past but worth another airing. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-big-question-what-is-a-world-heritage-site-and-does-the-accolade-make-a-difference-997955.html
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 09, 2017, 09:28
|
||
|
It's a good discussion to be having today as hopefully The Lake District is about to be given World Heritage status. Incidentally, one sentence in the Bath article stood out for me: "Enthusiasts for the scheme attack those who would keep Bath as "a city in aspic"". Aspic's impossible of course, but I don't like people who are trying to make hundreds of millions of pounds out of developments being contemptuous of conservation, as if it's somehow a bad thing.
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
