The Square
Posted by Wally Woodcock
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
A year or so ago I was pleased to get the chance to go to Riverside School and look at the proposals for the pedestrianisation of the Square and the changes to Bridge Gate, and I was happy to support the proposals on the basis of the plans and artist's impressions that I saw. There were no standing stones, and while there was a sundial-shaped ground-level circle (which was what I liked the least), there was no gnomon. (at least I've learned a new word...)
I'm really unhappy about all this - we seem to be having the centre of our town turned into some kind of meaningless postmodern self-indulgence. What's wrong with space and seats?
Message for Hebden Royd Town Partnership - What's wrong with simply doing what you showed us all you were going to do?
From John
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
A huge knife apparently cutting cloth seems to me to be a rather aggressive and somewhat dubious choice for the town centre piece. It would have been a very good idea to give residents an idea of the proposals or, better still, run a kind of competition to see which, from a short list, would be most popular.
If you research the town's name, you find it was originally based on 'Rosehip Dean', because of the abundance of rosehips in the area. A bronze sculpture reflecting that, for instance, would have been a possible alternative.
In my experience, this is another example of the local council's complete disregard for public opinion or, indeed, need, regarding the town. Just look at the grotesque pictures on the front of Ladbrokes, for instance. They certainly captured the spirit of greed there. A nice welcome to the town and, indeed, the only 'advertising' we have here. I wonder what kind of arrangement was struck to facilitate that one?
I don't mind the standing stone idea, but the last thing we need is another grim, overtly aggressive 'stoodley pike' in the area. I really don't like that thing, or what it represents.
Permanent objects should be very carefully thought about, in my opinion.
From Andy M
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
I don't really think that a fustian knife an agressive symbol - unless you're a piece of fustian I suppose! I think this proposal is more in touch with the character/history of the town than some bronze rosehips? I've never really found Stoodley Pike agressive either, even though it is a war memorial of sorts.(Does this make the town war memorial agressive too?)
I agree we should have been consulted though. We could have ahd something commemorating the towns' more recent associations - a monster 4 wheel drive car perhaps.
From Dave
Thursday, October 26, 2006
John, I have heard it all now - Stoodley Pike overtly aggresive. This wouldn't be a bit of "Pike" envy would it? Stoodley Pike having nothing to do with Hebden Bridge anyway - it belongs to Todmorden!
From John
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Further to my last post: Having now seen the design for the centre piece of the sun dial (it can be seen in Innovations café) I have to say I don?t think it?s as bad as it could have been or has been described. In fact there is a retro element to it. I think is quite attractive. I appreciate the concerns over the public space being permanently occupied, though. But, as I said, it could have been a lot worse.
From Tim
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Twelve months ago the St. Georges Square area was a road/car park/pedestrian area. Now (even with the controversial sundial) it will be a place solely for pedestrians - surely an improvement.
From Andy M
Monday, 30 October 2006
I don't seem to remember discussions/protests/diatribes about the sqaure not being pedestrianised whenit wasn't!
I hope the Council don't feel so fed-up with the whole affair that they don't pursue improvements in other Calderdale towns.
From Frances Minto
Monday, 30 October 2006
Seating
Oh where oh where has the seating gone? On bridge gate the seats have been baracaded off for many weeks now. I'm not very good at walking, but shopping on both Crown Street and Bridge Gate is now very difficult. There is now no free seating between the telephone box by george square, and the parking off Bridge Gate. Also I wonder if any disabled parking will become available in the center ie on Crown Street and Albert Street. Disabled parking should be mixed in with other street parking, not put out in remote areas like crosley mill and the market. Hebden is known for its friendly and kindliness towards people of various abilities, but we could do more to be welcoming.
When will the seating come back on Bridge Gate. Will there be public seating in George Square?
From Sara Robinson
Monday, 30 October 2006
I wanted to echo David Wheelers point about keeping the square space flexible.
My work involves running events and street festivals across Yorkshire and one of the first things I do is size up a town centre for good, focal performance areas that provide enough room for the acts (which range from a one person street show to a full scale street extravangza with large set and plenty of performers). Unlike many other towns, Hebden Bridge has exceptionally few areas to host outdoor shows with room for hundreds of onlookers.
I know plenty of great acts that couldn't do their shows with a verticle monument halving available space. Please keep the new, fantastic square as clutter free as possible and expect some exciting events as a result.
From Zoe Smith
Thursday, 2 November 2006
On a recent visit to Hebden Bridge I asked some Rotarians who were running a stall in St Georges Square what was happening about the seating. I was told that the seats would be back, and that they were getting a coat of paint before their return.
As my family was one of several that paid for a commemorative seat in the Square the council will need to ensure that these seats are returned. Otherwise there will be a few disgruntled people wanting to know what has happened to the seats they have paid for.
From Andy M
Thursday, 2 November 2006
You could try asking the Council directly about this rather than speculating and worrying about things that may not happen?
From M O'Sullivan
Wednesday, 8 November 2006
I thought the idea of the sundial was to show that we do have a sense of humour around here after all, isn't that right?...
From Kathy
Monday, 13 November 2006
Have read the papers and forums on this issue for weeks - you really do not know how lucky you are. Every day when I wake up here I am thankful to live in such a wonderful place - where you can walk out of your door and down to the town, have coffee or a glass or two of beer/wine, read papers, watch the wildlife and then within minutes be striding across the moors in total tranquility.
What does it matter whether a sundial or whether sculptures are in place - there are some definite improvements to be seen - makeover of some of the buildings (Oasis losing the bright colours, White Swan new Fascia, Coffee Cali new Fascia) - all have contributed to a nicer looking centre - come on, get a grip, there are far more worthwhile things to worry about for example, ensuring that developers don't move in building so called "eco homes" which turn out to be blocks of flats 6-7 storeys high!
From Dennis Ritchie
Monday, 13 November 2006
What on Earth is going on in our town? How many more bad surprises are the residents in for if planners who obviously haven't got a clue about the importance of preserving Hebden Bridge's unique appearance with its wealth of beautiful old buildings and original features which are cherished by locals and visitors alike have their way?
Decisions in favour of demolition, alterations and inappropriate use of empty commercial space are being made without proper consultation of residents, with disregard to their concerns and interest and without giving appropriate consideration to suitable alternatives if the preservation of such a building, institution or feature seems upon thorough investigation not feasible.
Recent examples of such irresponsible and inconsiderate decision-making are the removal of the stone setts at the foot of the old packhorse bridge in connection with pedestrianizing Bridge Gate using miscoloured raised paving stones which do definitely not make it a pleasure to stroll along the new pedestrian zone, and the imminent demolition of the tin tabernacle in Union Street.
The new design of St. George's Square which is completely out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area and contradictory to the original plans is the latest demonstration of the thoughtlessness and incapability of "pale theoreticians" making decisions without properly considering their suitability for the intended purpose and/or setting.
The original 3-armed lamp post which has lightened up the square beautifully over such a long time simply dissappeared and we should now embrace an obtrusive unsuitable sculpture instead. No way!
As readers already said in the Hebden Bridge Times of 19th October, this is happening failing appropriate public consultation. It is rightly claimed that the square is supposed to be a place to relax and enjoy and should not be cluttered with unsuitable features - appropriate lighting, some green and ample seating: yes, sculptures and the like: no.
In my opinion the appearance of St. George's Square does not gain at all with the intended "decorations"; on the contrary, the new design spoils what could be a welcoming place of calm in a busy town. The plans in their present form should not be allowed to go ahead. Instead, the new face of the square must be designed without unnecessary clutter to fit in with its surroundings incorporating the reinstatement of the original lamp post.
From Andrea Jessen
Monday, 13 November 2006
When we saw Norman Masters from the Hebden Bridge Times recently he gave us an "advanced warning" that some figures would be published relating to the new "decorations" of St. George's Square, but we were not prepared for the shock of looking at those huge amounts of money swallowed up by the very controversial scheme for the new face of the square!
The gnomon and the bollards may be interesting from an artistic point of view and would certainly look great in an appropriate setting, but that is certainly not St. George's Square. An amazing amount of money is supposed to be spent on a totally unsuitable design which would not be in keeping with the historic environment instead of allocating those funds available to the renovation of areas in our town which are in real and desperate need of improvement and repair, such as Central Street and Pitt Street.
Amazingly, the Mayor apparently backs Calderdale Council for their use of funds even though they are ignoring their consultants' expert advice that something has to be done about Central Street. We would have thought that people assuming responsibility for this town would prioritize the interest and quality of life of its residents and not, as another reader rightly said last week, the branding of Hebden Bridge imposed on us by people who do not seem to care for the town and its citizens, but for their egos and pockets. We need appropriate allocation of funds with priority on neglected areas where people live, work and go to school to make those safe and pleasant.
Of course, St. George's Square in the centre of the town should be a peaceful and uncluttered open space to rest and enjoy. But that could be achieved in a far less expensive and obtrusive and much more suitable way as the original artist's impression shows, at the same time leaving funds for those other areas in need of urgent attention.
It is definitely imperative to think again!
From Jacob
Monday, 13 November 2006
Kathy and others that suggest there are more important things to worry about than the stone scuptures (and I use the term loosely), are wrong. There is every reason to complain about these sculptures if:
1. They have been erected without proper consultation.
2. They are without artistic merit.
In the first case, it is just this kind of attitude that allows for houses to be built in Colden. Allowing something garish and inappropriate in one place, without resistance, only encourages the same kind of behaviour regarding other developments.
In the second case - and I am happy to debate this with you Mike Williams - the so called sculptures are embarrasing. To say that these clownish, cartoon like figures have been inspired by waymarks and milestones is nothing more than a self-justifying joke. They are a parody of sculpture and frankly, an insult. To assume that these are suitable for the square without consultation, open competition or seeking advice from public art specialists is a gross misuse of funds and the Council should be taken to task about it.
From Andy M
Tuesday, 14 November 2006
'They are without artistic merit'
What an extraordinary amount of vituperative comment on what is basically a matter of personal taste. OK, perhaps we should have been consulted but, lets face it, they're better than the Gorillas in Mytholmroyd.
From Joseph
Tuesday, 14 November 2006
'They are without artistic merit'
Jacob, I wonder whether you'd be free to pop round to my house sometime to check whether any of my paintings, or photographs have any artistic merit either? I thought they had (as I quite liked them) but now realise I may have been mistaken.
From Jacob
Tuesday, 14 November 2006
My comment is in no way malicious and, to say that something is alright because it is not as bad as something else is plain silly. Furthermore, 'without artistic merit' is not a matter of opinion, but plain fact. They are not in keeping with the square and, are poorly executed and ill-thought out. Proper consultation would have identified this, had it been entered into.
From Tim
Tuesday, 14 November 2006
Art by committee (or consultation) results in Athena style blandness.
From Jacob
Tuesday, 14 November 2006
I'm more than happy to Joseph ... and if you would be interested in displaying them, I could advise you on the best way to go about it. In fact, why not mount them on stands and display them in George's Square. I understand that you don't have to get permission - and they have to be better than what is already there.
From Jonathan Timbers
Tuesday, 14 November 2006
I really like the sculptures - I think the one which depicts Hardcastle Craggs is really clever in its use of perspective and the one with the Christian symbolism and coffin on the one side and the Green Man style figure on the other suggests the folk traditions which lie behind the Calvinism that settled into the Yorkshire character from the 16th century onwards.
I think some of the comments which I have read on this website have shown this town at its very worst. Trying to suggest that there is a causal connection between the sculptures and the 'eco-homes'/ hobbit hutches in Colden verges, frankly, on the irrational.
However, in particular I think that Mike Williams, the local artist responsible for the sculptures, has been treated very shoddily. I for one welcome his contribution to the town and celebrate it. We should be proud and positive.
Incidentally, has anyone noticed the mosaic which has gone up under the bridge in the park, opposite the bowling green? Isn't it fantastic!!!!
But was anybody consulted?
From Joseph
Wednesday, 15 November 2006
I agree Jonathon. It is no wonder we have a reputation for being a town of small minded whingers when you read this (and other) threads. Mike's a lovely chap, and does not deserve this ignorance. And if I worked for the council, it would make me think twice about doing anything for this town.
From Brian
Friday, 17 November 2006
Mike, if you still have the strength to read this I would like to say how great I think your sculptures are. The previous comment by Jacob was grossly offensive and plain wrong.
Posted by Rev Tony Buglass
Friday, 17 November 2006
"Furthermore, 'without artistic merit' is not a matter of opinion, but plain fact. They are not in keeping with the square and, are poorly executed and ill-thought out."
Sorry, Jacob - in order to justify your claim that this is not a matter of opinion, you offer nothing more than opinion. I can with equal (if not more) justification argue that they are in keeping with the square (nice stone, harmonious colours, etc), that they are well-executed (skilful carving; I did some sculpture when I studied art at school, and know how hard it is), and cleverly thought out (intriguing designs, interesting development of themes).
You are of course free to disagree with me, as no doubt you will. However, that is because artistic merit is largely down to taste and opinion. Monet and his Impressionist friends spent years ridiculed by the Academie, but have since been recognised as great artists. I'm no fan of Picasso, and I think Jackson Pollock is rubbish. But others will pay large amounts for their works. It's a matter of taste, not of objective criteria.
And writing off the works of a talented sculptor in terms which simply indicate that you haven't understood it insults both you and the sculptor.
From Damian
Friday, 17 November 2006
Art is personal, and personally I think they stink (along with the yellow brick road)
From Andrew Hall
Friday, 17 November 2006
Feelings seem to be running high on both sides of this debate.
Perhaps Jacob went a bit too far in saying that the stones are entirely without artistic merit. This of course is wrong. In a world where a pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a canvas of entirely one colour, plastic tubes to slide down, and an inverted chair are all considered to have artistic merit and to be worthy of public funds, I don't think it's right to say the stones are without artistic merit.
Whatever their merit - and there are those who like them and those who dislike them - I think it's only fair to be honest about them. Art is always going to be subjective.
So where do I stand? Well, quite simply, I hate them. To me, they stand in the square like some sort of rotten and disfigured tooth stumps. I am sure that the artist has exceptional talent but, in my opinion, that talent has been misused and misdirected to produce these meaningless and shallow carvings.
We know that these stones are there as traffic controlling measures - Anthony Rae has said as much. In a way, this adds insult to injury. I find it a little sad that an artist allows his work to be used as something as mundane as a traffic controlling measure. It's a bit like using a Shakespeare first edition as a doorstop, or ripping up an old master to use the back of the canvas as a shopping list.
I agree with Tony Buglass - they do fit in with the rest of the scheme. But my interpretation of the rest of the scheme is not favourable. Multi-coloured cobbles from China, clashing painfully with the traditional Yorkshire stone of Hebden Bridge (and Mr Rae, local Friends of the Earth representative, how do you justify shipping a basic commodity such as stone half way across the world with all the costs in terms of pollution and fuel consumption that this entails?), and a sundial which wrecks the square for many community activities, and as far as I can see, is simply an ego trip for its instigator. Our town is becoming a bit of a toytown. It is becoming a lie. How I detest these people who impose such nonsense on our town and justify it in the name of art or progress!
I can already sense the bristles of indignation from people reading this. To them I ask, is it better to be totally honest and speak your mind or should you lie,just because your opinions might offend somebody? I firmly believe in the former, but in our anodyne and oh-so-sensitive world, I know I'm in the minority.
From Jan Scott
Saturday, 18 November 2006
I have no issues whatever with Mike Williams. He was presumably commissioned to do the work and has done it. Neither do I have any real issues with the standing stones per se. (Though having them next to the black bollards does look very odd.)
My irritation and feelings of impotence are to do with a feeling that, having backed the traffic management scheme wholeheartedly and been delighted by and grateful for, for example, seeing Bridge Gate open up, I have been let down by the very people who firstly gave their time and energy to that process and then let the planned open space in the Square be compromised.
That and what has been revealed as, at best, confusion about the consultation process.
Posted by Rev Tony Buglass
Saturday, 18 November 2006
On the subject of the "yellow brick road" and whether it fits Hebden Bridge's traditional Yorkshire stone, etc - has anybody actually bothered to look? I did today, as I was walking through in the rain. Two things struck me:
- The setts in Bridgegate are tonally no different from the surrounding areas. The colours are quite subdued, especially in the rain;
- The yellow stones are pretty much the same colour as the paving stones at the bottom end of Bridgegate, and the paving sstones on the bridge past the new chippy, and the paving stones in that part of Market Street.
So in terms of the coliour scheme of the town's architecture, it looks like they fit with what is actually tere, even if that doesn't fit with what some folk think they see.
PS - walking past the square the other evening, I saw a man eating his fish and chips off the top of one of the effigies. They are just the right height for a standing table. You see how creative and versatile our artists are? Well done, Mike Williams!
From Jonathan Timbers
Sunday, 19 November 2006
Apart from the general small-mindedness of this debate, I think that it raises only one significant issue. Is art appreciation subjective? Whether we like something or not, is it just our opinion?
On one level, it must be. I like the sculptures and others don't. I like Tracey Emin's work, Damian Hirst etc., others don't.
But the same could be said of the Rev Buglass's christianity. The truth of Christ's resurrection is only his opinion. I doubt whether most people in this town agree with him (though he shouldn't assume that I would be one of them). Muslims, who believe in Jesus and his message, don't believe in the resurrection either. So, it's just a matter of opinion.
However, if this is the case, then why do some people devote their lives to the church or think that art is important?
Why do we pay taxes to the arts at all? Why not ten pin bowling, which is probably more popular than art?
Frankly, why does any public money or charitable funds go to art at all when some children in Calderdale don't even get adequate help from social services when their families are in crisis, or being abusive?
Because if art is just about individual opinion and likes and dislikes, people should pay for it out of their own pockets after they have paid their taxes to help those most in need.
Now I don't feel comfortable with that view, but those who support spending public funds on art or art festivals for that matter need to come up with a better rationale than the one I've read in this thread - otherwise we're just paying our taxes for people's hobbies!
Posted by Rev Tony Buglass
Monday, 20 November 2006
Thank you, Jonathan - I don't think I've seen such a big leap from "small-minded nit-picking" to big and profound issues. I'm still rying to work out from your apparent double negative what you're actually saying about the resurrection, but I must simply say that it isn't just a matter of my opinion, or even the opinion of the millions of believers who do think Jesus was raised from the dead. I am currently working on a 45,000 post-grad dissertation which explores the NT traditions for historical evidence for the resurrection, and while there is room for discussion and interpretation, there is a lot of evidence that something did happen that morning. And it wasn't just hallucination. But you'd expect me to say that, wouldn't you? :)
Some opinions are just that - subjective opinion. Others are opinions based on evaluation of something concrete or functional. Artistic merit is partly about liking or not liking. I quite like the effigies; I don't like Tracey Emin's work at all. But there is also something about art as a community function, an expression of aesthetic or spiritual values which enables a community to say something about itself. Perhaps that is reason for tax-support for the arts. It shouldn't be at the expense of other urgent needs, but that raises all sorts of issues about ethics, priorities, community, etc.
Just the sort of thing Jesus was concerned about, eh?
From Jacob
Monday, 20 November 2006
Clearly my response is not to everyone's liking. I am sorry if I have offended anyone - in particular Mike Williams - but I stand by my comments. Art, design, architecture, planning, are all matters of personal opinion. I accept that it is subjective and everyone cannot be pleased all the time.
I do believe that we have a somewhat contradictory response here, though. Many people apppear not to like the sculptures. Some say they could be worse. A small minority appear to like them.
Regardless of these opinions, the sculptures have been erected without consultation or competition.
How would people feel if the sculptures were painted, or graffitti were added, both - in the eyes of some - valid art forms. I am sure people would be (rightly) disgruntled. To my eyes, that is precisely what these sculptures are. A form of graffitti - vandalism even - in a perfectly well designed and functioning square.
This, I stress is personal opinion, but valid, nonetheless. I firmly believe that if there had been consultation, with both the people of Hebden Bridge and public art professionals, the sculptures would not be there.
From Jonathan Timbers
Tuesday, 21 November 2006
I would be very interested in reading the Rev Buglass's dissertation if he would be kind enough to lend me a copy (happy to pay for the copying).
With respect to him, I have to admit I was surprised to see that he was arguing in this thread on the basis of a relativist position since such approaches usually, I understand, are seen as anti-thetical to the spiritual frame of mind. Accordingly, I am glad that he has now clarified his position by saying 'But there is also something about art as a community function, an expression of aesthetic or spiritual values which enables a community to say something about itself'.
I wholeheartedly endorse that view. Even that great existentialist Samuel Beckett said that art (in its broadest sense, including literature) was 'a stain upon the silence', which presupposes something transcending the here and now, however ironically and tragically. R. S. Thomas described 'the poem shut/uneasy fossil/ in the mind's rock' and 'music/ we might have heard/ in the heart's cloisters'. The point being that this is all about more than stamp-collecting or even football. Just because there are different opinions doesn't mean that they are all equally valid or that there is no truth to reach out to.
It is helpful when others - like artists or ministers - try to guide the rest of us towards some partial recognition of what that might possibly be.
Posted by Rev Tony Buglass
Tuesday, 21 November 2006
Jonathan wrote "I was surprised to see that he was arguing in this thread on the basis of a relativist position since such approaches usually, I understand, are seen as anti-thetical to the spiritual frame of mind."
Interesting thought - does that make me relatively relativist? Or just confused? I suspect the big problem for what is often perceived as the "spiritual frame of mind" is the difficulty in distinguishing between the core revelation and the peripheral details. At its most extreme, this becomes fundamentalism, and the inability to see anything right in any other position. I find that just too black-and-white. (Hang on - I'm a Newcastle fan: things are supposed to be black-and-white!)
The dissertation isn't finished yet. Another few months, possibly a year. I'll be happy to share it then.
But I have a more immediate concern with the Square. On Dec 24th, about 7-800 people will gather for the annual carol singing with the Junior Band organised by Churches Together. Not only will we have this blessed gnomon, but now there is also a large Christmas tree planted in the middle of the space. This is not very joined-up thinking. The pedestrianisation of the Square should have enhanced public use, but all of this is going to obstruct one of the most popular events in the town.
From Joseph
Tuesday, 21 November 2006
I think thats all fine Jacob. Its quite a long way from your original " Furthermore, 'without artistic merit' is not a matter of opinion, but plain fact." comment that I took exception to however.
From Jacob
Tuesday, 21 November 2006
I rest my case. Oh...and by the way...anyone walking into, tripping over or even falling off said sculptures (brilliantly described elsewhere as 'Shane McGowan's teeth') will find adequate and competitive representation on a 'no win, no fee' basis.
From Andrew Hall
Tuesday, 21 November 2006
Tony Buglass points out that the first casualty of the cluttered square is likely to be the ecumenical carol service on Christmas Eve.
It's really a case of what God has joined together, let gnomon put asunder ;-)
From Anne
Tuesday, 21 November 2006
Christmas carols in the square will certainly be affected by the new traffic measures and the design of the square, but it won't all be for the bad. People will be able to congregate on the upper part of the pedestrianised Bridge Gate (outside the Shoulder of Mutton) without fear of being run over. Yes, the gnomon will get in the way a bit, but it's not like everyone is going to sit/stand still and watch a concert, with an obscured view. People mill around and huddle to keep warm, and just enjoy being there. I have been to the Christmas carols for the last 10 years or so and only rarely have I been able to actually catch a glimpse of the musicians - there are just too many people for that. So long as you can hear them it's just as pleasurable. In my opinion.
From Jack Hughes
Tuesday, 21 November 2006
Is there any truth in the rumour that the gnomon is being made, not by a local artist, but by a Dublin based sculptor? "Gnomon is in Ireland", maybe?
(That's enough of these! - webmaster)
From Andy M
Saturday, 25 November 2006
If increased clutter in the square means an end to mime acts and morris dancing I'm all for it ;-)
From Graham Barker
Tuesday, 21 November 2006
If the same people who are foisting a sundial on us were to be put in charge of the new Wembley Stadium, I bet they'd insist on sticking a 50-foot statue of Stanley Matthews in the middle of the pitch.
From Jonathan Timbers
Sunday, 26 November 2006
Yes, but Graham given the way that England are playing at the moment that might be a good thing!
(That's enough of these! - webmaster)
From Adam B
Monday, 27 November 2006
Alternatively; if the same folk who're in charge of Wembley were put in charge of re-building the square it'd never get done anyway and we wouldn't have to worry about it! ;-)
From Nina Bleasdale
Saturday, 2 December 2006
I drove into Hebden Bridge last week having been away for some months to find... The square has become a shape and the pavement has been relaid with yellowed brick. I think I might have seen a scarecrow but actually I'm told that what I saw were stones.
Carved stones with messages on. I saw black bollards and a tree. I didn't though see the seat that was dedicated to my inlaws. It's been moved without consultation and will now be erected elsewhere. Instead, I understand that we will see a beautiful sundial. It will shine I'm told and be fierce I'm told and it will represent Hebden and put this fine town on the sculpture trail map. I think this is where you will find Arthur. It's great we are having a sword with which to fight. The children of the Bridge will unite and all will be peaceful when sat on the round seat. Do you think it advisable to have a tethering post for the horse?
From Zoe Smith
Monday, 4 December 2006
After seeing the revised plan of the square with no sign of any bench seats on it I contacted the council to see what was happening about the commemorative benches.
Five seats with commemorative plaques had been placed in St George's Square over the past few years. In the refurbished square there will be four circular seats set around trees. The plaques from the original benches will be placed on these seats, with the fifth going on a seat down by the river next to the Pack Horse bridge. The original benches will then be re-used at other locations.
See also