Southampton launches new bid to be City of Culture (From Daily Echo)

loosehead wrote:
So in a labour councillors own words. "This was in addition to the opening of the Sea City museum and the attention placed on the city for the centenary of the sinking of the Titanic and the refurbishment of the Tudor House museum," he said. So a museum we have to thank the tories for which Labour supporters attacked as a white elephant & a waste of money, a refurbished Tudor house museum which took place under the Tories . put this with the cultural Quarter & yet again this council are using the great ideas of the Tory council as if it was all done by Labour?

loosehead wrote:
So in a labour councillors own words.
"This was in addition to the opening of the Sea City museum and the attention placed on the city for the centenary of the sinking of the Titanic and the refurbishment of the Tudor House museum," he said.
So a museum we have to thank the tories for which Labour supporters attacked as a white elephant & a waste of money,
a refurbished Tudor house museum which took place under the Tories .
put this with the cultural Quarter & yet again this council are using the great ideas of the Tory council as if it was all done by Labour?

Terry_Nutkins wrote:
That’s laughable. Judging by how the council charge extortionate costs for street licenses (hence why So’ton rarely has street performers and performing arts of any worth unlike other cities with an iota of cultural pedigree) and how they acted with the Gantry and how the Mayflower just puts on lame musicals, pantos & little of any artistic merit (go to Winchester theatre royal), it’s clear the cultural merits of our local council are pretty much non-existent. Oh no, sorry. Our cerebral incumbents did come up with a miraculous gem to rival Portsmouth and the Spinnaker tower....firing laser beams from the Civic Centre clock!! OUTSTANDING! With brain power like that and town planners as we do, no wonder this city has gone to the dogs. So sad. All the potential Southampton had as a town, with the maritime history and the influx of cruise ships, the marina, West Quay, green spaces...and what do we do? Totally ruin the city with ill thought town planning and barricades of flats, shutting off the waterfront from the shopping district. Genius! A 6 year old could plan a better model for a city so I don’t hold much hope for the massively arrogant suggestion we are even in the reckoning for a cultural award when we are when of the most culturally backward councils in the UK. Hilarious suggestion though. Good joke! Maybe they thought they were viable because they built another Titanic museum and shut off an open space in central town which is rarely used. Perhaps they share some deluded view we are now some cultural ambassador for Britain! Ridiculous!! They couldn’t even make a worthwhile spectacle of the Titanic’s 100th anniversary so I hold absolutely zero faith in an historically impotent cultural council.

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:
So in a labour councillors own words.
"This was in addition to the opening of the Sea City museum and the attention placed on the city for the centenary of the sinking of the Titanic and the refurbishment of the Tudor House museum," he said.
So a museum we have to thank the tories for which Labour supporters attacked as a white elephant & a waste of money,
a refurbished Tudor house museum which took place under the Tories .
put this with the cultural Quarter & yet again this council are using the great ideas of the Tory council as if it was all done by Labour?

It is a fact.

The White Elephant is here, so the City Council has to make the best of a bad job.

Once the initial enthusiasm wore of - and that did not take long - the number of visitors has dwindled.

Why?

Because it was put in the wrong place.

No complaints about a refurbished Tudor House Museum. That is actual history, and should be preserved.

George4th wrote:

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:
So in a labour councillors own words.

"This was in addition to the opening of the Sea City museum and the attention placed on the city for the centenary of the sinking of the Titanic and the refurbishment of the Tudor House museum," he said.
So a museum we have to thank the tories for which Labour supporters attacked as a white elephant & a waste of money,
a refurbished Tudor house museum which took place under the Tories .
put this with the cultural Quarter & yet again this council are using the great ideas of the Tory council as if it was all done by Labour?

It is a fact.

The White Elephant is here, so the City Council has to make the best of a bad job.

Once the initial enthusiasm wore of - and that did not take long - the number of visitors has dwindled.

Why?

Because it was put in the wrong place.

No complaints about a refurbished Tudor House Museum. That is actual history, and should be preserved.

The only White Elephants that Southampton has had have been Labour Councils!! Hence why we have NO CULTURE! If you want culture you have to go to a Tory or LibDem led Council area!
>
This current Labour council has shown us their bad decision making and their level of incompetence. And that's on top of the fact that they are a divided party with some of their Councillors splitting off to form their own Left Wing group!!
>
If, and it is a big if, Portsmouth are daft enough to get in bed with Southampton on this "culture" issue, it is almost guaranteed that the Labour council will waste the money as they have always done! (Just like the last Labour government wasted our money and left us in debt!)

southy wrote:
Loose did you see what I posted for you yesterday about your freind Mike Tucker he put his other foot in his mouth now.

sotonboy84 wrote:

Terry_Nutkins wrote:
That’s laughable. Judging by how the council charge extortionate costs for street licenses (hence why So’ton rarely has street performers and performing arts of any worth unlike other cities with an iota of cultural pedigree) and how they acted with the Gantry and how the Mayflower just puts on lame musicals, pantos & little of any artistic merit (go to Winchester theatre royal), it’s clear the cultural merits of our local council are pretty much non-existent. Oh no, sorry. Our cerebral incumbents did come up with a miraculous gem to rival Portsmouth and the Spinnaker tower....firing laser beams from the Civic Centre clock!! OUTSTANDING! With brain power like that and town planners as we do, no wonder this city has gone to the dogs. So sad. All the potential Southampton had as a town, with the maritime history and the influx of cruise ships, the marina, West Quay, green spaces...and what do we do? Totally ruin the city with ill thought town planning and barricades of flats, shutting off the waterfront from the shopping district. Genius! A 6 year old could plan a better model for a city so I don’t hold much hope for the massively arrogant suggestion we are even in the reckoning for a cultural award when we are when of the most culturally backward councils in the UK. Hilarious suggestion though. Good joke! Maybe they thought they were viable because they built another Titanic museum and shut off an open space in central town which is rarely used. Perhaps they share some deluded view we are now some cultural ambassador for Britain! Ridiculous!! They couldn’t even make a worthwhile spectacle of the Titanic’s 100th anniversary so I hold absolutely zero faith in an historically impotent cultural council.

Don't forget the extension to Westquay, covering the last few bits of undeveloped open space in the city.
Another run of fast food restaurants will surely boost tourism and make Southampton stand out from any other city/town/retail park...

I suggested to the council that the land next to Westquay in front of the old walls should be turned into another park which will not only be a great back drop and compliment the old city walls but will open up more outside space for people to use, an extension to the boat show (instead of reclaiming more of the water) and somewhere to see the ships come in. But guess what, nobody ever replied. May be something to do with planning ideas that the council pass make a lot more short term money to line their pockets with rather than any investment in the heritage and future of Southampton.

ToastyTea wrote:
Is this a joke, joining forces with the skates and bringing the name of our good city down, makes me feel sick.
And anyway neither of our cities should even bother with trying to apply to be city of culture as neither city has any.
If it was city of shopping, then yeah maybe could apply as we have all the boring chain stores here in 1 place, but city of culture, give over.

ToastyTea wrote:
Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

AlwynM wrote:
Will the lot of you stop being so self defeatist!!!

Have you seen the competition?

Also, since when has the word 'culture' only referred to 'Theatre and symphony goers' ?

The same old sneering took place when Liverpool was nominated and it had the worst reputation of possible every other city in the UK - deserved or not.

At least the people of that city got behind it 100% and guess, what? They won and it was a fantastic year.

Culture belongs to the people, don't mistake culture for snobbery. There is all kinds of culture.

I think you should all get behind this 100% and draw on Southampton's strengths because it's a prize definitely worth fighting for.

Stop being so miserable and show some enthusiasm. Get behind your city!!!

kingnotail wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Terry_Nutkins wrote: That’s laughable. Judging by how the council charge extortionate costs for street licenses (hence why So’ton rarely has street performers and performing arts of any worth unlike other cities with an iota of cultural pedigree) and how they acted with the Gantry and how the Mayflower just puts on lame musicals, pantos & little of any artistic merit (go to Winchester theatre royal), it’s clear the cultural merits of our local council are pretty much non-existent. Oh no, sorry. Our cerebral incumbents did come up with a miraculous gem to rival Portsmouth and the Spinnaker tower....firing laser beams from the Civic Centre clock!! OUTSTANDING! With brain power like that and town planners as we do, no wonder this city has gone to the dogs. So sad. All the potential Southampton had as a town, with the maritime history and the influx of cruise ships, the marina, West Quay, green spaces...and what do we do? Totally ruin the city with ill thought town planning and barricades of flats, shutting off the waterfront from the shopping district. Genius! A 6 year old could plan a better model for a city so I don’t hold much hope for the massively arrogant suggestion we are even in the reckoning for a cultural award when we are when of the most culturally backward councils in the UK. Hilarious suggestion though. Good joke! Maybe they thought they were viable because they built another Titanic museum and shut off an open space in central town which is rarely used. Perhaps they share some deluded view we are now some cultural ambassador for Britain! Ridiculous!! They couldn’t even make a worthwhile spectacle of the Titanic’s 100th anniversary so I hold absolutely zero faith in an historically impotent cultural council.

Don't forget the extension to Westquay, covering the last few bits of undeveloped open space in the city. Another run of fast food restaurants will surely boost tourism and make Southampton stand out from any other city/town/retail park... I suggested to the council that the land next to Westquay in front of the old walls should be turned into another park which will not only be a great back drop and compliment the old city walls but will open up more outside space for people to use, an extension to the boat show (instead of reclaiming more of the water) and somewhere to see the ships come in. But guess what, nobody ever replied. May be something to do with planning ideas that the council pass make a lot more short term money to line their pockets with rather than any investment in the heritage and future of Southampton.

Parks alone do not equal culture. This dump needs much more than just parks to rescue it from cultural purgatory. Maybe start by turning the walls into a real tourist attraction, the way it stands now you barely even know they are there.

Beer Monster wrote:

AlwynM wrote:
Will the lot of you stop being so self defeatist!!!

Have you seen the competition?

Also, since when has the word 'culture' only referred to 'Theatre and symphony goers' ?

The same old sneering took place when Liverpool was nominated and it had the worst reputation of possible every other city in the UK - deserved or not.

At least the people of that city got behind it 100% and guess, what? They won and it was a fantastic year.

Culture belongs to the people, don't mistake culture for snobbery. There is all kinds of culture.

I think you should all get behind this 100% and draw on Southampton's strengths because it's a prize definitely worth fighting for.

Stop being so miserable and show some enthusiasm. Get behind your city!!!

Agreed, the only English competition that has any credibility is "East Kent", and that's not a city. God knows why they didn't just go with Canterbury.

The fact that the year that Liverpool had under the banner has transformed the place into somewhere reasonable to visit should provide ammunition to actually think about how we can really improve our city. As much as it pains me to say it, buddying up with Pompey will give us an edge for existing interests.

foresthorse wrote:

ToastyTea wrote:
Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

They probably realise that there are some narrow-minded, myopic morons out there who have some sort of risible obsession with hating another city, but thankfully they are capable of rising above that level of dimwittedness. Maybe Soton should apply to become a City of Simple-minded Stupidity. You could drive the float!

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
I remember how everyone laughed out loud when Glasgow was awarded City of Culture status. Oh and how they sneered when the accolade was conferred on Liverpool.

The current UK City of Culture is (London)Derry and they came through a stiff competition to narrowly neat Sheffield, Birmingham and,er, Norwich.

With a bit of imagination and some more positive vibes I don't see why the two Solent Cities couldn't put together a credible bid for UK City of Culture playing to their respective strengths.

Of course there are those out there whose narrow view of culture blinds them to a lot of really good stuff happening. I hope that the two Councils can raise their sights a little higher in order to help boost the local economy through encouraging investment for our rich heritage and emerging creative industries.

Good luck to them

kingnotail wrote:

foresthorse wrote:

ToastyTea wrote: Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

They probably realise that there are some narrow-minded, myopic morons out there who have some sort of risible obsession with hating another city, but thankfully they are capable of rising above that level of dimwittedness. Maybe Soton should apply to become a City of Simple-minded Stupidity. You could drive the float!

Exactly. Not even like it's Liverpool vs Manchester or Glasgow vs Edinburgh. Not even Birmingham vs Wolverhampton..

ToastyTea wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

foresthorse wrote:

ToastyTea wrote: Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

They probably realise that there are some narrow-minded, myopic morons out there who have some sort of risible obsession with hating another city, but thankfully they are capable of rising above that level of dimwittedness. Maybe Soton should apply to become a City of Simple-minded Stupidity. You could drive the float!

Exactly. Not even like it's Liverpool vs Manchester or Glasgow vs Edinburgh. Not even Birmingham vs Wolverhampton..

Are you kidding me, the rivalry and hate between us and those fishie mutants is much more fierce then that of the likes of the northern vile accent folk scousers vs mancs. Do they have to be bussed in when they play each other for fear of vioence ? no. They get on just fine, it's all pretend with them.

ToastyTea wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

foresthorse wrote:

ToastyTea wrote: Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

They probably realise that there are some narrow-minded, myopic morons out there who have some sort of risible obsession with hating another city, but thankfully they are capable of rising above that level of dimwittedness. Maybe Soton should apply to become a City of Simple-minded Stupidity. You could drive the float!

Exactly. Not even like it's Liverpool vs Manchester or Glasgow vs Edinburgh. Not even Birmingham vs Wolverhampton..

Are you kidding me, the rivalry and hate between us and those fishie mutants is much more fierce then that of the likes of the northern vile accent folk scousers vs mancs. Do they have to be bussed in when they play each other for fear of vioence ? no. They get on just fine, it's all pretend with them.

Lone Ranger. wrote:
I dont like to keep updating Tory posters on the so called "triumphs" of their local party and poor results whilst governing locally but:- . The Tudor House refurbishment was not started due to the kindness of the Tory party in Southampton. . Grants were made available for the project dating back to 2003.... Quote:- . A MASSIVE lottery windfall has secured the future of one of Southampton's best-known and most historically important landmarks. The 500-year-old Tudor House in Bugle Street will undergo major structural repairs and refurbishment over the next three years in a £2.3m project to restore the building. The cash has come from a lottery award of £1.598m and £590,000 from Southampton City Council. The historic building has been on an "at risk" heritage register and closed in April last year while the council prepared a bid for the Heritage Lottery Fund. Fears had been expressed that the historic building would be closed permanently. Now city bosses say the museum will reopen within the next three years. City heritage chiefs say they will have to apply for a second lottery grant to open a so-called "interpretation" museum. But they say the building will be open to the public in some form - even if their second lottery bid is unsuccessful. City Council heritage conservation manager Kevin White said: "This means we now have sufficient money to carry out the repairs we need to do. "The Heritage Lottery Fund insisted that we split our bid and are insisting that we put in a separate bid for the interpretation. But whatever happens, the council is determined to re-open it as a museum." Heritage chiefs say a second lottery bid - which could be for almost £1m - will have to be put to the Heritage Lottery Fund in order to pay for the "interpretation" aspect of the museum. The exact nature of the fresh bid has yet to be worked out but could include putting a roof over King John's Palace. The distinctive Tudor House building which dominates St Michael's Square was built in about 1492 but originally consisted of three buildings dating back to about 1150. Work on restoring the building will start early next year after contracts have been signed and detailed plans have been drawn-up. Tudor House itself is likely to be swathed in scaffolding for as long as two years. Throughout the period, a detailed survey will be carried out by the city council's archaeology team. As well as structural repairs and new services, better disabled access, including a lift, will be installed. During the repair programme, city heritage officers will also be working on the second phase bid which could include displays about the history of the building. Head of the city council's archaeology team Dr Andy Russel said he was looking forward to surveying the building which would give a unique insight into the construction of the site. He said: "There will be things that have fallen beneath the floorboards over the past 500 years. I am also hoping we could find some shoes hidden in chimney stacks." . Source ...... Daily Echo .... 2003 and 2005. . Dont like to "P" on your fireworks but just helping to get the facts straignt

malcher wrote:
Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well!
As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

Outside of the Box wrote:
Went to councils Gateway office last week, Loads of people of different cultures and nationalities, it was like the European Signing Contest, everyone signing on for tenancies and benefits, looks like we've nailed it, Pompey will hinder us, the closest they have to Culture is a Boy George album.

ToastyTea wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

foresthorse wrote:

ToastyTea wrote: Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

They probably realise that there are some narrow-minded, myopic morons out there who have some sort of risible obsession with hating another city, but thankfully they are capable of rising above that level of dimwittedness. Maybe Soton should apply to become a City of Simple-minded Stupidity. You could drive the float!

Exactly. Not even like it's Liverpool vs Manchester or Glasgow vs Edinburgh. Not even Birmingham vs Wolverhampton..

Are you kidding me, the rivalry and hate between us and those fishie mutants is much more fierce then that of the likes of the northern vile accent folk scousers vs mancs. Do they have to be bussed in when they play each other for fear of vioence ? no. They get on just fine, it's all pretend with them.

Lone Ranger. wrote:
I dont like to keep updating Tory posters on the so called "triumphs" of their local party and poor results whilst governing locally but:-
.
The Tudor House refurbishment was not started due to the kindness of the Tory party in Southampton.
.
Grants were made available for the project dating back to 2003.... Quote:-
.
A MASSIVE lottery windfall has secured the future of one of Southampton's best-known and most historically important landmarks.

The 500-year-old Tudor House in Bugle Street will undergo major structural repairs and refurbishment over the next three years in a £2.3m project to restore the building.

The cash has come from a lottery award of £1.598m and £590,000 from Southampton City Council.

The historic building has been on an "at risk" heritage register and closed in April last year while the council prepared a bid for the Heritage Lottery Fund. Fears had been expressed that the historic building would be closed permanently.

Now city bosses say the museum will reopen within the next three years.

City heritage chiefs say they will have to apply for a second lottery grant to open a so-called "interpretation" museum.

But they say the building will be open to the public in some form - even if their second lottery bid is unsuccessful.

City Council heritage conservation manager Kevin White said: "This means we now have sufficient money to carry out the repairs we need to do.

"The Heritage Lottery Fund insisted that we split our bid and are insisting that we put in a separate bid for the interpretation. But whatever happens, the council is determined to re-open it as a museum."

Heritage chiefs say a second lottery bid - which could be for almost £1m - will have to be put to the Heritage Lottery Fund in order to pay for the "interpretation" aspect of the museum. The exact nature of the fresh bid has yet to be worked out but could include putting a roof over King John's Palace.

The distinctive Tudor House building which dominates St Michael's Square was built in about 1492 but originally consisted of three buildings dating back to about 1150.

Work on restoring the building will start early next year after contracts have been signed and detailed plans have been drawn-up.

Tudor House itself is likely to be swathed in scaffolding for as long as two years. Throughout the period, a detailed survey will be carried out by the city council's archaeology team.

As well as structural repairs and new services, better disabled access, including a lift, will be installed.

During the repair programme, city heritage officers will also be working on the second phase bid which could include displays about the history of the building.

Head of the city council's archaeology team Dr Andy Russel said he was looking forward to surveying the building which would give a unique insight into the construction of the site.

He said: "There will be things that have fallen beneath the floorboards over the past 500 years. I am also hoping we could find some shoes hidden in chimney stacks."
.
Source ...... Daily Echo .... 2003 and 2005.
.
Dont like to "P" on your fireworks but just helping to get the facts straignt

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote:
Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well!
As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre.

Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton

On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night.


http://www.cunard.co


.uk/destinations/reg


ions/british-isles-i


reland-and-northern-


europe-cruises/

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote:
Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well!
As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre.

Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton

On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night.


http://www.cunard.co


.uk/destinations/reg


ions/british-isles-i


reland-and-northern-


europe-cruises/

George4th wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
I dont like to keep updating Tory posters on the so called "triumphs" of their local party and poor results whilst governing locally but:-
.
The Tudor House refurbishment was not started due to the kindness of the Tory party in Southampton.
.
Grants were made available for the project dating back to 2003.... Quote:-
.
A MASSIVE lottery windfall has secured the future of one of Southampton's best-known and most historically important landmarks.

The 500-year-old Tudor House in Bugle Street will undergo major structural repairs and refurbishment over the next three years in a £2.3m project to restore the building.

The cash has come from a lottery award of £1.598m and £590,000 from Southampton City Council.

The historic building has been on an "at risk" heritage register and closed in April last year while the council prepared a bid for the Heritage Lottery Fund. Fears had been expressed that the historic building would be closed permanently.

Now city bosses say the museum will reopen within the next three years.

City heritage chiefs say they will have to apply for a second lottery grant to open a so-called "interpretation" museum.

But they say the building will be open to the public in some form - even if their second lottery bid is unsuccessful.

City Council heritage conservation manager Kevin White said: "This means we now have sufficient money to carry out the repairs we need to do.

"The Heritage Lottery Fund insisted that we split our bid and are insisting that we put in a separate bid for the interpretation. But whatever happens, the council is determined to re-open it as a museum."

Heritage chiefs say a second lottery bid - which could be for almost £1m - will have to be put to the Heritage Lottery Fund in order to pay for the "interpretation" aspect of the museum. The exact nature of the fresh bid has yet to be worked out but could include putting a roof over King John's Palace.

The distinctive Tudor House building which dominates St Michael's Square was built in about 1492 but originally consisted of three buildings dating back to about 1150.

Work on restoring the building will start early next year after contracts have been signed and detailed plans have been drawn-up.

Tudor House itself is likely to be swathed in scaffolding for as long as two years. Throughout the period, a detailed survey will be carried out by the city council's archaeology team.

As well as structural repairs and new services, better disabled access, including a lift, will be installed.

During the repair programme, city heritage officers will also be working on the second phase bid which could include displays about the history of the building.

Head of the city council's archaeology team Dr Andy Russel said he was looking forward to surveying the building which would give a unique insight into the construction of the site.

He said: "There will be things that have fallen beneath the floorboards over the past 500 years. I am also hoping we could find some shoes hidden in chimney stacks."
.
Source ...... Daily Echo .... 2003 and 2005.
.
Dont like to "P" on your fireworks but just helping to get the facts straignt

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzz....
Wake me up when it's over!

George4th wrote:

ToastyTea wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

foresthorse wrote:

ToastyTea wrote: Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

They probably realise that there are some narrow-minded, myopic morons out there who have some sort of risible obsession with hating another city, but thankfully they are capable of rising above that level of dimwittedness. Maybe Soton should apply to become a City of Simple-minded Stupidity. You could drive the float!

Exactly. Not even like it's Liverpool vs Manchester or Glasgow vs Edinburgh. Not even Birmingham vs Wolverhampton..

Are you kidding me, the rivalry and hate between us and those fishie mutants is much more fierce then that of the likes of the northern vile accent folk scousers vs mancs. Do they have to be bussed in when they play each other for fear of vioence ? no. They get on just fine, it's all pretend with them.

Using football examples is never a good idea. Describing poor behaviour among many football supporters usually only applies to the tribal neanderthals (and Southampton has quite a few!) that invariably masquerade as football supporters.
>
Portsmouth has a lot more going for it than Southampton.
Southampton will never be better than Portsmouth while Southampton has a Labour council. History shows that our Labour councils have been vastly detrimental to the progress of Southampton, especially while being controlled by the Unions!

George4th wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote:
Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well!
As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre.

Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton

On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night.


http://www.cunard.co



.uk/destinations/reg



ions/british-isles-i



reland-and-northern-



europe-cruises/

And Liverpool owes it all to that well known Tory, Michael Heseltine! He did wonders for Liverpool and their regeneration!

kingnotail wrote:

George4th wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote:
Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well!
As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre.

Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton

On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night.


http://www.cunard.co




.uk/destinations/reg




ions/british-isles-i




reland-and-northern-




europe-cruises/

And Liverpool owes it all to that well known Tory, Michael Heseltine! He did wonders for Liverpool and their regeneration!

Come on, Michael Heseltine is one of the most left-wing Tories in history. A committed pro-European, and the guy that brought down Thatcher. A good guy in my book!!

kingnotail wrote:

George4th wrote:

ToastyTea wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

foresthorse wrote:

ToastyTea wrote: Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

They probably realise that there are some narrow-minded, myopic morons out there who have some sort of risible obsession with hating another city, but thankfully they are capable of rising above that level of dimwittedness. Maybe Soton should apply to become a City of Simple-minded Stupidity. You could drive the float!

Exactly. Not even like it's Liverpool vs Manchester or Glasgow vs Edinburgh. Not even Birmingham vs Wolverhampton..

Are you kidding me, the rivalry and hate between us and those fishie mutants is much more fierce then that of the likes of the northern vile accent folk scousers vs mancs. Do they have to be bussed in when they play each other for fear of vioence ? no. They get on just fine, it's all pretend with them.

Using football examples is never a good idea. Describing poor behaviour among many football supporters usually only applies to the tribal neanderthals (and Southampton has quite a few!) that invariably masquerade as football supporters.
>
Portsmouth has a lot more going for it than Southampton.
Southampton will never be better than Portsmouth while Southampton has a Labour council. History shows that our Labour councils have been vastly detrimental to the progress of Southampton, especially while being controlled by the Unions!

I agree with the first part of your comment, but you can't blame the failings of Southampton on a Labour council. Most of the major midlands/northern cities have been doing very well for themselves in terms of regeneration, tourism and general economic success for the past 10-20 years, and trust me, you won't find any Tory councils there. Southampton has had both Tory and Labour councils over the past few years, and it seems like neither have done much to rescue Southampton from economic and cultural oblivion. But maybe the blame falls less with politicians, and more with the attitudes of the population?

kingnotail wrote:

George4th wrote:

ToastyTea wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

foresthorse wrote:

ToastyTea wrote: Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

They probably realise that there are some narrow-minded, myopic morons out there who have some sort of risible obsession with hating another city, but thankfully they are capable of rising above that level of dimwittedness. Maybe Soton should apply to become a City of Simple-minded Stupidity. You could drive the float!

Exactly. Not even like it's Liverpool vs Manchester or Glasgow vs Edinburgh. Not even Birmingham vs Wolverhampton..

Are you kidding me, the rivalry and hate between us and those fishie mutants is much more fierce then that of the likes of the northern vile accent folk scousers vs mancs. Do they have to be bussed in when they play each other for fear of vioence ? no. They get on just fine, it's all pretend with them.

Using football examples is never a good idea. Describing poor behaviour among many football supporters usually only applies to the tribal neanderthals (and Southampton has quite a few!) that invariably masquerade as football supporters.
>
Portsmouth has a lot more going for it than Southampton.
Southampton will never be better than Portsmouth while Southampton has a Labour council. History shows that our Labour councils have been vastly detrimental to the progress of Southampton, especially while being controlled by the Unions!

I agree with the first part of your comment, but you can't blame the failings of Southampton on a Labour council. Most of the major midlands/northern cities have been doing very well for themselves in terms of regeneration, tourism and general economic success for the past 10-20 years, and trust me, you won't find any Tory councils there. Southampton has had both Tory and Labour councils over the past few years, and it seems like neither have done much to rescue Southampton from economic and cultural oblivion. But maybe the blame falls less with politicians, and more with the attitudes of the population?

George4th wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

George4th wrote:

ToastyTea wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

foresthorse wrote:

ToastyTea wrote: Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

They probably realise that there are some narrow-minded, myopic morons out there who have some sort of risible obsession with hating another city, but thankfully they are capable of rising above that level of dimwittedness. Maybe Soton should apply to become a City of Simple-minded Stupidity. You could drive the float!

Exactly. Not even like it's Liverpool vs Manchester or Glasgow vs Edinburgh. Not even Birmingham vs Wolverhampton..

Are you kidding me, the rivalry and hate between us and those fishie mutants is much more fierce then that of the likes of the northern vile accent folk scousers vs mancs. Do they have to be bussed in when they play each other for fear of vioence ? no. They get on just fine, it's all pretend with them.

Using football examples is never a good idea. Describing poor behaviour among many football supporters usually only applies to the tribal neanderthals (and Southampton has quite a few!) that invariably masquerade as football supporters.
>
Portsmouth has a lot more going for it than Southampton.
Southampton will never be better than Portsmouth while Southampton has a Labour council. History shows that our Labour councils have been vastly detrimental to the progress of Southampton, especially while being controlled by the Unions!

I agree with the first part of your comment, but you can't blame the failings of Southampton on a Labour council. Most of the major midlands/northern cities have been doing very well for themselves in terms of regeneration, tourism and general economic success for the past 10-20 years, and trust me, you won't find any Tory councils there. Southampton has had both Tory and Labour councils over the past few years, and it seems like neither have done much to rescue Southampton from economic and cultural oblivion. But maybe the blame falls less with politicians, and more with the attitudes of the population?

"Most of the major midlands/northern cities have been doing very well for themselves in terms of regeneration, tourism and general economic success for the past 10-20 years,"

Most of it was based on moving over-blown Public Sector Services to these areas as a form of Political Engineering by the Labour government. These areas are not doing so well now!

kingnotail wrote:

George4th wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

George4th wrote:

ToastyTea wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

foresthorse wrote:

ToastyTea wrote: Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

They probably realise that there are some narrow-minded, myopic morons out there who have some sort of risible obsession with hating another city, but thankfully they are capable of rising above that level of dimwittedness. Maybe Soton should apply to become a City of Simple-minded Stupidity. You could drive the float!

Exactly. Not even like it's Liverpool vs Manchester or Glasgow vs Edinburgh. Not even Birmingham vs Wolverhampton..

Are you kidding me, the rivalry and hate between us and those fishie mutants is much more fierce then that of the likes of the northern vile accent folk scousers vs mancs. Do they have to be bussed in when they play each other for fear of vioence ? no. They get on just fine, it's all pretend with them.

Using football examples is never a good idea. Describing poor behaviour among many football supporters usually only applies to the tribal neanderthals (and Southampton has quite a few!) that invariably masquerade as football supporters.
>
Portsmouth has a lot more going for it than Southampton.
Southampton will never be better than Portsmouth while Southampton has a Labour council. History shows that our Labour councils have been vastly detrimental to the progress of Southampton, especially while being controlled by the Unions!

I agree with the first part of your comment, but you can't blame the failings of Southampton on a Labour council. Most of the major midlands/northern cities have been doing very well for themselves in terms of regeneration, tourism and general economic success for the past 10-20 years, and trust me, you won't find any Tory councils there. Southampton has had both Tory and Labour councils over the past few years, and it seems like neither have done much to rescue Southampton from economic and cultural oblivion. But maybe the blame falls less with politicians, and more with the attitudes of the population?

"Most of the major midlands/northern cities have been doing very well for themselves in terms of regeneration, tourism and general economic success for the past 10-20 years,"

Most of it was based on moving over-blown Public Sector Services to these areas as a form of Political Engineering by the Labour government. These areas are not doing so well now!

Doing better than Southampton, methinks..

George4th wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

George4th wrote:

ToastyTea wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

foresthorse wrote:

ToastyTea wrote: Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

They probably realise that there are some narrow-minded, myopic morons out there who have some sort of risible obsession with hating another city, but thankfully they are capable of rising above that level of dimwittedness. Maybe Soton should apply to become a City of Simple-minded Stupidity. You could drive the float!

Exactly. Not even like it's Liverpool vs Manchester or Glasgow vs Edinburgh. Not even Birmingham vs Wolverhampton..

Are you kidding me, the rivalry and hate between us and those fishie mutants is much more fierce then that of the likes of the northern vile accent folk scousers vs mancs. Do they have to be bussed in when they play each other for fear of vioence ? no. They get on just fine, it's all pretend with them.

Using football examples is never a good idea. Describing poor behaviour among many football supporters usually only applies to the tribal neanderthals (and Southampton has quite a few!) that invariably masquerade as football supporters.
>
Portsmouth has a lot more going for it than Southampton.
Southampton will never be better than Portsmouth while Southampton has a Labour council. History shows that our Labour councils have been vastly detrimental to the progress of Southampton, especially while being controlled by the Unions!

I agree with the first part of your comment, but you can't blame the failings of Southampton on a Labour council. Most of the major midlands/northern cities have been doing very well for themselves in terms of regeneration, tourism and general economic success for the past 10-20 years, and trust me, you won't find any Tory councils there. Southampton has had both Tory and Labour councils over the past few years, and it seems like neither have done much to rescue Southampton from economic and cultural oblivion. But maybe the blame falls less with politicians, and more with the attitudes of the population?

Despite taking over Southampton council during the worst economic period imaginable, the Tories performed over and above what was expected. And into the bargain they managed to bring some culture to Southampton and have superb plans drawn up for the future of our City. This was after roughly 25 years of Labour Councils doing nothing but driving the City of Southampton backwards!! (Loving helped by the Unions!!)
>
Then many of the citizens of Southampton then showed their stupidity by voting into power the very Labour Party who had been rubbish in their previous 25 year tenure! (And ignoring the fact that their wonderful Party had led the UK to Bankruptcy during 13 years of incompetent rule!)

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

Stephen J wrote:
The logic behind the negative, cynical comments defies me. Southampton could well do with improving its cultural offer, so isn't the City of Culture initiative the perfect vehicle for achieving that objective? It's not so much about what Southampton is doing, it's about what it could do if it put its mind to it. If we want more and better 'culture' in Southampton, we should shut up moaning and support the bid.

George4th wrote:

Stephen J wrote:
The logic behind the negative, cynical comments defies me. Southampton could well do with improving its cultural offer, so isn't the City of Culture initiative the perfect vehicle for achieving that objective? It's not so much about what Southampton is doing, it's about what it could do if it put its mind to it. If we want more and better 'culture' in Southampton, we should shut up moaning and support the bid.

I guess my frustration comes from seeing how the Unions ruined Southampton (and the country during the 60s,70s,80s) by their non-stop agitation and strikes. It drove Southampton Docks etc etc into the ground and business left Southampton as fast as it could.
>
Successive years of Labour controlled councils/Labour MPs failed to accept what had happened/was happening and ignored it all for their own political ideology. Southampton citizens were used and abused by Labour councils and Unions.
>
We are suffering the legacy of those days of not so long ago.
>
Business is very reluctant to move to Southampton - in the world of big business, Southampton still has a reputation for trouble!
>
We need to turn that reputation around. Southampton needs to be made more attractive to business and it needs to be more attractive to the Entrepreneurs and the young and educated.
We need a "Can do" attitude from the people of Southampton! Throw away the whinging and the moaning and the criticising! (Yes, I've had a moan but I see it as a positive moan!)


P.S.
I can't see a Labour council doing this!

Stephen J wrote:
The logic behind the negative, cynical comments defies me. Southampton could well do with improving its cultural offer, so isn't the City of Culture initiative the perfect vehicle for achieving that objective? It's not so much about what Southampton is doing, it's about what it could do if it put its mind to it. If we want more and better 'culture' in Southampton, we should shut up moaning and support the bid.

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

George4th wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

George4th wrote:

ToastyTea wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

foresthorse wrote:

ToastyTea wrote: Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

They probably realise that there are some narrow-minded, myopic morons out there who have some sort of risible obsession with hating another city, but thankfully they are capable of rising above that level of dimwittedness. Maybe Soton should apply to become a City of Simple-minded Stupidity. You could drive the float!

Exactly. Not even like it's Liverpool vs Manchester or Glasgow vs Edinburgh. Not even Birmingham vs Wolverhampton..

Are you kidding me, the rivalry and hate between us and those fishie mutants is much more fierce then that of the likes of the northern vile accent folk scousers vs mancs. Do they have to be bussed in when they play each other for fear of vioence ? no. They get on just fine, it's all pretend with them.

Using football examples is never a good idea. Describing poor behaviour among many football supporters usually only applies to the tribal neanderthals (and Southampton has quite a few!) that invariably masquerade as football supporters.
>
Portsmouth has a lot more going for it than Southampton.
Southampton will never be better than Portsmouth while Southampton has a Labour council. History shows that our Labour councils have been vastly detrimental to the progress of Southampton, especially while being controlled by the Unions!

I agree with the first part of your comment, but you can't blame the failings of Southampton on a Labour council. Most of the major midlands/northern cities have been doing very well for themselves in terms of regeneration, tourism and general economic success for the past 10-20 years, and trust me, you won't find any Tory councils there. Southampton has had both Tory and Labour councils over the past few years, and it seems like neither have done much to rescue Southampton from economic and cultural oblivion. But maybe the blame falls less with politicians, and more with the attitudes of the population?

Despite taking over Southampton council during the worst economic period imaginable, the Tories performed over and above what was expected. And into the bargain they managed to bring some culture to Southampton and have superb plans drawn up for the future of our City. This was after roughly 25 years of Labour Councils doing nothing but driving the City of Southampton backwards!! (Loving helped by the Unions!!)
>
Then many of the citizens of Southampton then showed their stupidity by voting into power the very Labour Party who had been rubbish in their previous 25 year tenure! (And ignoring the fact that their wonderful Party had led the UK to Bankruptcy during 13 years of incompetent rule!)

So now the people of Southampton are stupid are they.
.
Perhaps that they just saw the true value of a local CONservative party and an incompetent leader
.
Shame that you follow the same ideals regarding deocracy as 2-3 other Tory posters do ......... .
.
Democracy is great ..... But only when its in your favour

southy wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

No Liverpool is alot older as a dock than Southampton as been, Liverpool predates the Romans Britian as a dock, Southampton only came about during the end of Roman Britian

sotonboy84 wrote:

Stephen J wrote:
The logic behind the negative, cynical comments defies me. Southampton could well do with improving its cultural offer, so isn't the City of Culture initiative the perfect vehicle for achieving that objective? It's not so much about what Southampton is doing, it's about what it could do if it put its mind to it. If we want more and better 'culture' in Southampton, we should shut up moaning and support the bid.

And how do you go about doing that if Southampton City Council has never shown any interest in preserving or promoting Southampton's heritage and culture?

SSC is only interested in lining their pockets and doesn't care who or what gets in their way. Applying for this culture status is just another sniff of money they think they can get their hands on.

Listen to what people want and celebrate the city's heritage and culture and prove to everybody what you stand for.

kingnotail wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

But the Southampton waterfront is a dilapidated dump, whilst Liverpool's definitely isn't.

AlwynM wrote:
Will the lot of you stop being so self defeatist!!!

Have you seen the competition?

Also, since when has the word 'culture' only referred to 'Theatre and symphony goers' ?

The same old sneering took place when Liverpool was nominated and it had the worst reputation of possible every other city in the UK - deserved or not.

At least the people of that city got behind it 100% and guess, what? They won and it was a fantastic year.

Culture belongs to the people, don't mistake culture for snobbery. There is all kinds of culture.

I think you should all get behind this 100% and draw on Southampton's strengths because it's a prize definitely worth fighting for.

Stop being so miserable and show some enthusiasm. Get behind your city!!!

sotonboy84 wrote:

southy wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

No Liverpool is alot older as a dock than Southampton as been, Liverpool predates the Romans Britian as a dock, Southampton only came about during the end of Roman Britian

Thanks, but I wasn't referring to the Romans, but the more recent passenger services with Cunard, White Start, P&O etc etc...

Terry_Nutkins wrote:

AlwynM wrote:
Will the lot of you stop being so self defeatist!!!

Have you seen the competition?

Also, since when has the word 'culture' only referred to 'Theatre and symphony goers' ?

The same old sneering took place when Liverpool was nominated and it had the worst reputation of possible every other city in the UK - deserved or not.

At least the people of that city got behind it 100% and guess, what? They won and it was a fantastic year.

Culture belongs to the people, don't mistake culture for snobbery. There is all kinds of culture.

I think you should all get behind this 100% and draw on Southampton's strengths because it's a prize definitely worth fighting for.

Stop being so miserable and show some enthusiasm. Get behind your city!!!

Get behind your city? Are you part of the rose tinter, blindly optimistic brigade? I've spent a lifetime waiting for something good to happen and the potential of the city to be realised. I finally realised my blind optimism was overly optimistic and deluded. A nice way to think, having hope, but unrealistic.

When history proves the local authorities are absolutely clueless and capitalist gain wins over culture every day of the week (as others rightly point out - shocking how the medieval walls & buildings have been barricaded almost out of sight by new construction - see my town planners comment), then we have every right to give up hope, moan, express our displeasure and berate those custodians responsible. Really, we should be furious when you look at what they had at their disposal and what a complete balls up they have made. But, because it's spread over 2 decades or more, it's more sublte & not so obvious unless you've lived through all the changes and have a better perspective than new arrivals who probably haven't seen the depths to which it has sunk.

I have a strong opinion about Southampton but I am entitled to it. I have lived here my entire life and I am just tired of seeing every chance of prosperity thrown away by a special class of clueless idiot and I won't even get started talking about the town planners.....what a good job they did on Ocean Village. Come to Southampton to see......flats! Still, they did a good job of shutting down the marina bars and lively area it once was. Not just an overpriced bar or 2 for Steve Hughes to overcharge customers. Southampton has become a joke and you're welcome to blindly encourage and sit on your fence but it is a p*ss take of a town.

I know running a town/city (small town mentality) is never easy with budgets and big business and 'pressure' from developers *cough* but, let's be fair, there is not excuse for the sheer array of large scale and long term detrimental planning. Southampton could have really been put on the map and had infrastructure to make us proud (West Quay is a good development to be fair and needed for any successful city but it is only a cash cow for the city. It does not lend to the cultural part).

Oh, and regarding our parks which are to be commended (it must cost the SCC a lot), no they are not a cultural asset in essence but they were in April last year as our extravagant Titanic memorial commemoration showcased to the world.....Oh, the blue print of the ship spray painted on the park. WOW! This is the exact point I am trying to make and the mentality we are dealing with here. Some genius thought that a fitting tribute for such a huge date of historical importance to the city. Cheap and lack luster, as was the view of most people I asked about it.

City of culture my a*se. City of vultures, picking off developer fees and council tax from residents for any construction they can cram in and sign off the planning register, irrespective of the environmental impact and aesthetics to our already lame duck of a town. It will never change until we appoint a diligent, forward thinking Councillor of discernible intelligence and foresight or even a mediocre town planning officer! ;o)

Terry_Nutkins wrote:

AlwynM wrote:
Will the lot of you stop being so self defeatist!!!

Have you seen the competition?

Also, since when has the word 'culture' only referred to 'Theatre and symphony goers' ?

The same old sneering took place when Liverpool was nominated and it had the worst reputation of possible every other city in the UK - deserved or not.

At least the people of that city got behind it 100% and guess, what? They won and it was a fantastic year.

Culture belongs to the people, don't mistake culture for snobbery. There is all kinds of culture.

I think you should all get behind this 100% and draw on Southampton's strengths because it's a prize definitely worth fighting for.

Stop being so miserable and show some enthusiasm. Get behind your city!!!

Get behind your city? Are you part of the rose tinter, blindly optimistic brigade? I've spent a lifetime waiting for something good to happen and the potential of the city to be realised. I finally realised my blind optimism was overly optimistic and deluded. A nice way to think, having hope, but unrealistic.

When history proves the local authorities are absolutely clueless and capitalist gain wins over culture every day of the week (as others rightly point out - shocking how the medieval walls & buildings have been barricaded almost out of sight by new construction - see my town planners comment), then we have every right to give up hope, moan, express our displeasure and berate those custodians responsible. Really, we should be furious when you look at what they had at their disposal and what a complete balls up they have made. But, because it's spread over 2 decades or more, it's more sublte & not so obvious unless you've lived through all the changes and have a better perspective than new arrivals who probably haven't seen the depths to which it has sunk.

I have a strong opinion about Southampton but I am entitled to it. I have lived here my entire life and I am just tired of seeing every chance of prosperity thrown away by a special class of clueless idiot and I won't even get started talking about the town planners.....what a good job they did on Ocean Village. Come to Southampton to see......flats! Still, they did a good job of shutting down the marina bars and lively area it once was. Not just an overpriced bar or 2 for Steve Hughes to overcharge customers. Southampton has become a joke and you're welcome to blindly encourage and sit on your fence but it is a p*ss take of a town.

I know running a town/city (small town mentality) is never easy with budgets and big business and 'pressure' from developers *cough* but, let's be fair, there is not excuse for the sheer array of large scale and long term detrimental planning. Southampton could have really been put on the map and had infrastructure to make us proud (West Quay is a good development to be fair and needed for any successful city but it is only a cash cow for the city. It does not lend to the cultural part).

Oh, and regarding our parks which are to be commended (it must cost the SCC a lot), no they are not a cultural asset in essence but they were in April last year as our extravagant Titanic memorial commemoration showcased to the world.....Oh, the blue print of the ship spray painted on the park. WOW! This is the exact point I am trying to make and the mentality we are dealing with here. Some genius thought that a fitting tribute for such a huge date of historical importance to the city. Cheap and lack luster, as was the view of most people I asked about it.

City of culture my a*se. City of vultures, picking off developer fees and council tax from residents for any construction they can cram in and sign off the planning register, irrespective of the environmental impact and aesthetics to our already lame duck of a town. It will never change until we appoint a diligent, forward thinking Councillor of discernible intelligence and foresight or even a mediocre town planning officer! ;o)

sotonboy84 wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

But the Southampton waterfront is a dilapidated dump, whilst Liverpool's definitely isn't.

But Southampton didn't take millions of pounds of EU money to build a passenger terminal under the pretence that it would only offer day cruises then changed its mind and wanted to offer turnaround cruises then once discovered it breached the rules, reluctantly had to pay the money back.

They weren't exactly forthcoming with paying the money back either…

" Mayor Anderson told the (Liverpool) ECHO: “We’ve got officers going over (to Europe) in the next fortnight to speak with them and we have no doubt we are in the right."
"The State Aid rules mean grants cannot be used to help one private business benefit over its rivals"

Sneaky and deceptive. Just like its inhabitants.

Terry_Nutkins wrote:

Terry_Nutkins wrote:

AlwynM wrote:
Will the lot of you stop being so self defeatist!!!

Have you seen the competition?

Also, since when has the word 'culture' only referred to 'Theatre and symphony goers' ?

The same old sneering took place when Liverpool was nominated and it had the worst reputation of possible every other city in the UK - deserved or not.

At least the people of that city got behind it 100% and guess, what? They won and it was a fantastic year.

Culture belongs to the people, don't mistake culture for snobbery. There is all kinds of culture.

I think you should all get behind this 100% and draw on Southampton's strengths because it's a prize definitely worth fighting for.

Stop being so miserable and show some enthusiasm. Get behind your city!!!

Get behind your city? Are you part of the rose tinter, blindly optimistic brigade? I've spent a lifetime waiting for something good to happen and the potential of the city to be realised. I finally realised my blind optimism was overly optimistic and deluded. A nice way to think, having hope, but unrealistic.

When history proves the local authorities are absolutely clueless and capitalist gain wins over culture every day of the week (as others rightly point out - shocking how the medieval walls & buildings have been barricaded almost out of sight by new construction - see my town planners comment), then we have every right to give up hope, moan, express our displeasure and berate those custodians responsible. Really, we should be furious when you look at what they had at their disposal and what a complete balls up they have made. But, because it's spread over 2 decades or more, it's more sublte & not so obvious unless you've lived through all the changes and have a better perspective than new arrivals who probably haven't seen the depths to which it has sunk.

I have a strong opinion about Southampton but I am entitled to it. I have lived here my entire life and I am just tired of seeing every chance of prosperity thrown away by a special class of clueless idiot and I won't even get started talking about the town planners.....what a good job they did on Ocean Village. Come to Southampton to see......flats! Still, they did a good job of shutting down the marina bars and lively area it once was. Not just an overpriced bar or 2 for Steve Hughes to overcharge customers. Southampton has become a joke and you're welcome to blindly encourage and sit on your fence but it is a p*ss take of a town.

I know running a town/city (small town mentality) is never easy with budgets and big business and 'pressure' from developers *cough* but, let's be fair, there is not excuse for the sheer array of large scale and long term detrimental planning. Southampton could have really been put on the map and had infrastructure to make us proud (West Quay is a good development to be fair and needed for any successful city but it is only a cash cow for the city. It does not lend to the cultural part).

Oh, and regarding our parks which are to be commended (it must cost the SCC a lot), no they are not a cultural asset in essence but they were in April last year as our extravagant Titanic memorial commemoration showcased to the world.....Oh, the blue print of the ship spray painted on the park. WOW! This is the exact point I am trying to make and the mentality we are dealing with here. Some genius thought that a fitting tribute for such a huge date of historical importance to the city. Cheap and lack luster, as was the view of most people I asked about it.

City of culture my a*se. City of vultures, picking off developer fees and council tax from residents for any construction they can cram in and sign off the planning register, irrespective of the environmental impact and aesthetics to our already lame duck of a town. It will never change until we appoint a diligent, forward thinking Councillor of discernible intelligence and foresight or even a mediocre town planning officer! ;o)

Oh, and for what it's worth, Liverpool is a great city so deserves the title. For musical culture alone. I am loyal and patriotic when deserved but Southampton doesn't even come close to cities like London, Manchester, Glasgow and Liverpool. You only need to look at heritage towns like Bath, York and similar to see how well run a town can be and how good they can look with sensible building and disciplined town planning sympathetic to the environment and existing heritage.

Liverpool have a lot more reason to be proud unlike long term So'ton residents. Having said that, scousers were not 100% behind the city. Most of the residents were up in arms like most in regenerated areas of 21st century capitalism a decade or so back. The Paradise Street project and inner city redevelopment, regenerating and re-building large parts of Liverpool and out-pricing the residents, forcing them out of the central and redeveloped areas leaving over-priced city centre apartments and homes for the desired catchment. The locals were furious about it. This happens a lot.

southy wrote:
kingnotail going back some now on this web blog, I said the best thing that could be done in southampton while they had the chance again, some agreed others did not those that was thinking about capitalism.
What I said was this, buy up every thing with in the old city walls, build it all in a time period say like tudor times, rebuild all the walls

southy wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

No Liverpool is alot older as a dock than Southampton as been, Liverpool predates the Romans Britian as a dock, Southampton only came about during the end of Roman Britian

aldermoorboy wrote:
The Sea Museum can win it for Southampton. Great City go for it.

kingnotail wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

But the Southampton waterfront is a dilapidated dump, whilst Liverpool's definitely isn't.

But Southampton didn't take millions of pounds of EU money to build a passenger terminal under the pretence that it would only offer day cruises then changed its mind and wanted to offer turnaround cruises then once discovered it breached the rules, reluctantly had to pay the money back. They weren't exactly forthcoming with paying the money back either… " Mayor Anderson told the (Liverpool) ECHO: “We’ve got officers going over (to Europe) in the next fortnight to speak with them and we have no doubt we are in the right." "The State Aid rules mean grants cannot be used to help one private business benefit over its rivals" Sneaky and deceptive. Just like its inhabitants.

Even if they were sneaky and deceptive (they aren't), then at least it would mean they can be BOTHERED to do something! It seems like most people in Southampton haven't bothered with anything in years.

kingnotail wrote:

aldermoorboy wrote: The Sea Museum can win it for Southampton. Great City go for it.

Ha ha, you are completely delusional!!

phil maccavity wrote:

southy wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

No Liverpool is alot older as a dock than Southampton as been, Liverpool predates the Romans Britian as a dock, Southampton only came about during the end of Roman Britian

Southy
Once again you dont check your facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!.
Liverpool does not... 'predate the Romans as a dock'...
The very first mention of Liverpool was in a deed signed by Prince John in 1190 and, in 1207, the now King John signed the charter founding the town of Liverpool.
Prior to this the main port of the area was Chester, founded by the Romans as the settlement of Deva.
Liverpool only took over from Chester as a major trading port in the 16th/17th century when the River Dee began to silt up.
Southampton (Clausentum) had also been developed as a small trading sea port by the Romans.
So effectively Southampton pre dates Liverpool as a port although the Mersey was once the 2nd largest port area in the world in the 1800's, after London

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:
kingnotail going back some now on this web blog, I said the best thing that could be done in southampton while they had the chance again, some agreed others did not those that was thinking about capitalism.
What I said was this, buy up every thing with in the old city walls, build it all in a time period say like tudor times, rebuild all the walls

"...buy up everything with in the old city walls..." Is this another example of you demonstrating that you're in touch with reality? And anyway, the last thing Southampton needs is a fake Tudor theme park.

George4th wrote:
The only people who denegrate the SeaCity Museum are residents of Southampton (Tourists love it and the Building has been up for Design Awards!), most of whom couldn't be bothered to visit even though they had FREE FAMILY TICKETS! That just about sums up the APATHY of many Southampton citizens. > How many of the critics on here haven't actually visited the SeaCity Museum?!!

southy wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

No Liverpool is alot older as a dock than Southampton as been, Liverpool predates the Romans Britian as a dock, Southampton only came about during the end of Roman Britian

sotonboy84 wrote:

George4th wrote:
The only people who denegrate the SeaCity Museum are residents of Southampton (Tourists love it and the Building has been up for Design Awards!), most of whom couldn't be bothered to visit even though they had FREE FAMILY TICKETS! That just about sums up the APATHY of many Southampton citizens. > How many of the critics on here haven't actually visited the SeaCity Museum?!!

I have but I had to pay as I never received a ticket and when I asked for one, I was told that one was sent to each household and there were no replacements. So one was never sent or it was down to Royal Mail.

So I paid to go, and thought it was s**t.

Just because it's up for a design award doesn't mean it has any. If it was up for an award for managing to get round the planners and English Heritage and destroy a once nice listed building and turn it into something that looks like a pi**ed off face then it'll win hands down!

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

southy wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

No Liverpool is alot older as a dock than Southampton as been, Liverpool predates the Romans Britian as a dock, Southampton only came about during the end of Roman Britian

Southy as usual you are completely wrong..... The following qoute is from Wikipaedia Liverpool's first dock was the Old Dock built in 1715. The old Pool was converted into the enclosed dock. The dock was the world's first enclosed commercial dock. Further docks were added and eventually all were interconnected by lock gates, extending 7.5 miles (12.1 km) along the Liverpool bank of the River Mersey. The interconnected dock system was the most advanced port system in the world. The docks enabled ship movements within the dock system 24 hours a day, isolated from the high River Mersey tides. Parts of the system are now a World Heritage Site.

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

southy wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

No Liverpool is alot older as a dock than Southampton as been, Liverpool predates the Romans Britian as a dock, Southampton only came about during the end of Roman Britian

Southy as usual you are completely wrong.....

The following qoute is from Wikipaedia


Liverpool's first dock was the Old Dock built in 1715. The old Pool was converted into the enclosed dock. The dock was the world's first enclosed commercial dock. Further docks were added and eventually all were interconnected by lock gates, extending 7.5 miles (12.1 km) along the Liverpool bank of the River Mersey.

The interconnected dock system was the most advanced port system in the world. The docks enabled ship movements within the dock system 24 hours a day, isolated from the high River Mersey tides. Parts of the system are now a World Heritage Site.

southy wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:
kingnotail going back some now on this web blog, I said the best thing that could be done in southampton while they had the chance again, some agreed others did not those that was thinking about capitalism.
What I said was this, buy up every thing with in the old city walls, build it all in a time period say like tudor times, rebuild all the walls

"...buy up everything with in the old city walls..." Is this another example of you demonstrating that you're in touch with reality? And anyway, the last thing Southampton needs is a fake Tudor theme park.

Not a theme park, but a trading and living area, there one in France and it gets a lot more people visiting there than southampton, A town in Germany they rebuilt all its all walls after wwii damage they to get a lot of people visiting there. and if done in southampton it would pull in visitors and visitors that would stay longer than just one night, it would pay for it self.
I probley more in touch than you Steph

sotonboy84 wrote:

George4th wrote:
The only people who denegrate the SeaCity Museum are residents of Southampton (Tourists love it and the Building has been up for Design Awards!), most of whom couldn't be bothered to visit even though they had FREE FAMILY TICKETS! That just about sums up the APATHY of many Southampton citizens. > How many of the critics on here haven't actually visited the SeaCity Museum?!!

I have but I had to pay as I never received a ticket and when I asked for one, I was told that one was sent to each household and there were no replacements. So one was never sent or it was down to Royal Mail.

So I paid to go, and thought it was s**t.

Just because it's up for a design award doesn't mean it has any. If it was up for an award for managing to get round the planners and English Heritage and destroy a once nice listed building and turn it into something that looks like a pi**ed off face then it'll win hands down!

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:
kingnotail going back some now on this web blog, I said the best thing that could be done in southampton while they had the chance again, some agreed others did not those that was thinking about capitalism.
What I said was this, buy up every thing with in the old city walls, build it all in a time period say like tudor times, rebuild all the walls

"...buy up everything with in the old city walls..." Is this another example of you demonstrating that you're in touch with reality? And anyway, the last thing Southampton needs is a fake Tudor theme park.

Not a theme park, but a trading and living area, there one in France and it gets a lot more people visiting there than southampton, A town in Germany they rebuilt all its all walls after wwii damage they to get a lot of people visiting there. and if done in southampton it would pull in visitors and visitors that would stay longer than just one night, it would pay for it self.
I probley more in touch than you Steph

A more planned and sympathetic redevelopment of the old town after the war would have been preferable, and that's what I think probably happened with the two towns you mention. Which are they, by the way?

But your comment about "buy up everything with in the old city walls" is the especially crazy bit. Are you seriously suggesting the compulsory purchase of that whole area in order to build it back to how it was in Tudor times? If so, that's not an example of being "in touch".

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

southy wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

No Liverpool is alot older as a dock than Southampton as been, Liverpool predates the Romans Britian as a dock, Southampton only came about during the end of Roman Britian

Southy as usual you are completely wrong..... The following qoute is from Wikipaedia Liverpool's first dock was the Old Dock built in 1715. The old Pool was converted into the enclosed dock. The dock was the world's first enclosed commercial dock. Further docks were added and eventually all were interconnected by lock gates, extending 7.5 miles (12.1 km) along the Liverpool bank of the River Mersey. The interconnected dock system was the most advanced port system in the world. The docks enabled ship movements within the dock system 24 hours a day, isolated from the high River Mersey tides. Parts of the system are now a World Heritage Site.

Wikipedia is editable by anyone so you need to take everything written in it as a guide, and with a pinch of salt. This is the first thing they teach you at university!

southy wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:
kingnotail going back some now on this web blog, I said the best thing that could be done in southampton while they had the chance again, some agreed others did not those that was thinking about capitalism.
What I said was this, buy up every thing with in the old city walls, build it all in a time period say like tudor times, rebuild all the walls

"...buy up everything with in the old city walls..." Is this another example of you demonstrating that you're in touch with reality? And anyway, the last thing Southampton needs is a fake Tudor theme park.

Not a theme park, but a trading and living area, there one in France and it gets a lot more people visiting there than southampton, A town in Germany they rebuilt all its all walls after wwii damage they to get a lot of people visiting there. and if done in southampton it would pull in visitors and visitors that would stay longer than just one night, it would pay for it self.
I probley more in touch than you Steph

A more planned and sympathetic redevelopment of the old town after the war would have been preferable, and that's what I think probably happened with the two towns you mention. Which are they, by the way?

But your comment about "buy up everything with in the old city walls" is the especially crazy bit. Are you seriously suggesting the compulsory purchase of that whole area in order to build it back to how it was in Tudor times? If so, that's not an example of being "in touch".

Can't remember there names now but going back 2-3 years ago i did post there names up, only the one in germany had to be rebuilt the one in france as remain basically unchanged.
I said and era it don't have be tudor (pick as an example) it could at some other point in history.
But some thing like this would bring in the people to visit and not just the one night over stay like they do for the ships, they would make an holiday out of it staying for 1 to 2 weeks at time, not so crazy when you think the city did own a lot of this any way, which a lot got sold off by the Tory Council

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

southy wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

No Liverpool is alot older as a dock than Southampton as been, Liverpool predates the Romans Britian as a dock, Southampton only came about during the end of Roman Britian

Southy as usual you are completely wrong..... The following qoute is from Wikipaedia Liverpool's first dock was the Old Dock built in 1715. The old Pool was converted into the enclosed dock. The dock was the world's first enclosed commercial dock. Further docks were added and eventually all were interconnected by lock gates, extending 7.5 miles (12.1 km) along the Liverpool bank of the River Mersey. The interconnected dock system was the most advanced port system in the world. The docks enabled ship movements within the dock system 24 hours a day, isolated from the high River Mersey tides. Parts of the system are now a World Heritage Site.

Wikipedia is editable by anyone so you need to take everything written in it as a guide, and with a pinch of salt. This is the first thing they teach you at university!

The same information is contained in
Encyclopaedia Brittannica or do you question that as well ?

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:
kingnotail going back some now on this web blog, I said the best thing that could be done in southampton while they had the chance again, some agreed others did not those that was thinking about capitalism.
What I said was this, buy up every thing with in the old city walls, build it all in a time period say like tudor times, rebuild all the walls

"...buy up everything with in the old city walls..." Is this another example of you demonstrating that you're in touch with reality? And anyway, the last thing Southampton needs is a fake Tudor theme park.

Not a theme park, but a trading and living area, there one in France and it gets a lot more people visiting there than southampton, A town in Germany they rebuilt all its all walls after wwii damage they to get a lot of people visiting there. and if done in southampton it would pull in visitors and visitors that would stay longer than just one night, it would pay for it self.
I probley more in touch than you Steph

A more planned and sympathetic redevelopment of the old town after the war would have been preferable, and that's what I think probably happened with the two towns you mention. Which are they, by the way?

But your comment about "buy up everything with in the old city walls" is the especially crazy bit. Are you seriously suggesting the compulsory purchase of that whole area in order to build it back to how it was in Tudor times? If so, that's not an example of being "in touch".

Can't remember there names now but going back 2-3 years ago i did post there names up, only the one in germany had to be rebuilt the one in france as remain basically unchanged.
I said and era it don't have be tudor (pick as an example) it could at some other point in history.
But some thing like this would bring in the people to visit and not just the one night over stay like they do for the ships, they would make an holiday out of it staying for 1 to 2 weeks at time, not so crazy when you think the city did own a lot of this any way, which a lot got sold off by the Tory Council

So one town had to be rebuilt and the other is at it was. Neither applies to the old town in Southampton as it is now. As for selling off parts formerly owned by the council, if it's as you say, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, whether you think it should have happened or not, it happened so we're stuck with it. That's reality for you.

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote: kingnotail going back some now on this web blog, I said the best thing that could be done in southampton while they had the chance again, some agreed others did not those that was thinking about capitalism. What I said was this, buy up every thing with in the old city walls, build it all in a time period say like tudor times, rebuild all the walls

"...buy up everything with in the old city walls..." Is this another example of you demonstrating that you're in touch with reality? And anyway, the last thing Southampton needs is a fake Tudor theme park.

Not a theme park, but a trading and living area, there one in France and it gets a lot more people visiting there than southampton, A town in Germany they rebuilt all its all walls after wwii damage they to get a lot of people visiting there. and if done in southampton it would pull in visitors and visitors that would stay longer than just one night, it would pay for it self. I probley more in touch than you Steph

A more planned and sympathetic redevelopment of the old town after the war would have been preferable, and that's what I think probably happened with the two towns you mention. Which are they, by the way? But your comment about "buy up everything with in the old city walls" is the especially crazy bit. Are you seriously suggesting the compulsory purchase of that whole area in order to build it back to how it was in Tudor times? If so, that's not an example of being "in touch".

southy wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:
kingnotail going back some now on this web blog, I said the best thing that could be done in southampton while they had the chance again, some agreed others did not those that was thinking about capitalism.
What I said was this, buy up every thing with in the old city walls, build it all in a time period say like tudor times, rebuild all the walls

"...buy up everything with in the old city walls..." Is this another example of you demonstrating that you're in touch with reality? And anyway, the last thing Southampton needs is a fake Tudor theme park.

Not a theme park, but a trading and living area, there one in France and it gets a lot more people visiting there than southampton, A town in Germany they rebuilt all its all walls after wwii damage they to get a lot of people visiting there. and if done in southampton it would pull in visitors and visitors that would stay longer than just one night, it would pay for it self.
I probley more in touch than you Steph

A more planned and sympathetic redevelopment of the old town after the war would have been preferable, and that's what I think probably happened with the two towns you mention. Which are they, by the way?

But your comment about "buy up everything with in the old city walls" is the especially crazy bit. Are you seriously suggesting the compulsory purchase of that whole area in order to build it back to how it was in Tudor times? If so, that's not an example of being "in touch".

Can't remember there names now but going back 2-3 years ago i did post there names up, only the one in germany had to be rebuilt the one in france as remain basically unchanged.
I said and era it don't have be tudor (pick as an example) it could at some other point in history.
But some thing like this would bring in the people to visit and not just the one night over stay like they do for the ships, they would make an holiday out of it staying for 1 to 2 weeks at time, not so crazy when you think the city did own a lot of this any way, which a lot got sold off by the Tory Council

So one town had to be rebuilt and the other is at it was. Neither applies to the old town in Southampton as it is now. As for selling off parts formerly owned by the council, if it's as you say, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, whether you think it should have happened or not, it happened so we're stuck with it. That's reality for you.

Well yes we are stuck with it, unless you want to make changes for the better and give people some thing that is worth a visit.
But throwing every thing to the bottom of town is not going to bring people in its going to drive them away, because you cant see any thing that interesting.

kingnotail wrote:

Terry_Nutkins wrote:

AlwynM wrote:
Will the lot of you stop being so self defeatist!!!

Have you seen the competition?

Also, since when has the word 'culture' only referred to 'Theatre and symphony goers' ?

The same old sneering took place when Liverpool was nominated and it had the worst reputation of possible every other city in the UK - deserved or not.

At least the people of that city got behind it 100% and guess, what? They won and it was a fantastic year.

Culture belongs to the people, don't mistake culture for snobbery. There is all kinds of culture.

I think you should all get behind this 100% and draw on Southampton's strengths because it's a prize definitely worth fighting for.

Stop being so miserable and show some enthusiasm. Get behind your city!!!

Get behind your city? Are you part of the rose tinter, blindly optimistic brigade? I've spent a lifetime waiting for something good to happen and the potential of the city to be realised. I finally realised my blind optimism was overly optimistic and deluded. A nice way to think, having hope, but unrealistic.

When history proves the local authorities are absolutely clueless and capitalist gain wins over culture every day of the week (as others rightly point out - shocking how the medieval walls & buildings have been barricaded almost out of sight by new construction - see my town planners comment), then we have every right to give up hope, moan, express our displeasure and berate those custodians responsible. Really, we should be furious when you look at what they had at their disposal and what a complete balls up they have made. But, because it's spread over 2 decades or more, it's more sublte & not so obvious unless you've lived through all the changes and have a better perspective than new arrivals who probably haven't seen the depths to which it has sunk.

I have a strong opinion about Southampton but I am entitled to it. I have lived here my entire life and I am just tired of seeing every chance of prosperity thrown away by a special class of clueless idiot and I won't even get started talking about the town planners.....what a good job they did on Ocean Village. Come to Southampton to see......flats! Still, they did a good job of shutting down the marina bars and lively area it once was. Not just an overpriced bar or 2 for Steve Hughes to overcharge customers. Southampton has become a joke and you're welcome to blindly encourage and sit on your fence but it is a p*ss take of a town.

I know running a town/city (small town mentality) is never easy with budgets and big business and 'pressure' from developers *cough* but, let's be fair, there is not excuse for the sheer array of large scale and long term detrimental planning. Southampton could have really been put on the map and had infrastructure to make us proud (West Quay is a good development to be fair and needed for any successful city but it is only a cash cow for the city. It does not lend to the cultural part).

Oh, and regarding our parks which are to be commended (it must cost the SCC a lot), no they are not a cultural asset in essence but they were in April last year as our extravagant Titanic memorial commemoration showcased to the world.....Oh, the blue print of the ship spray painted on the park. WOW! This is the exact point I am trying to make and the mentality we are dealing with here. Some genius thought that a fitting tribute for such a huge date of historical importance to the city. Cheap and lack luster, as was the view of most people I asked about it.

City of culture my a*se. City of vultures, picking off developer fees and council tax from residents for any construction they can cram in and sign off the planning register, irrespective of the environmental impact and aesthetics to our already lame duck of a town. It will never change until we appoint a diligent, forward thinking Councillor of discernible intelligence and foresight or even a mediocre town planning officer! ;o)

This guy knows what he is talking about. Would have loved to have seen Ocean Village in better days, it is currently a depressing place with very little on offer.

George4th wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

George4th wrote:

ToastyTea wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

foresthorse wrote:

ToastyTea wrote: Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

They probably realise that there are some narrow-minded, myopic morons out there who have some sort of risible obsession with hating another city, but thankfully they are capable of rising above that level of dimwittedness. Maybe Soton should apply to become a City of Simple-minded Stupidity. You could drive the float!

Exactly. Not even like it's Liverpool vs Manchester or Glasgow vs Edinburgh. Not even Birmingham vs Wolverhampton..

Are you kidding me, the rivalry and hate between us and those fishie mutants is much more fierce then that of the likes of the northern vile accent folk scousers vs mancs. Do they have to be bussed in when they play each other for fear of vioence ? no. They get on just fine, it's all pretend with them.

Using football examples is never a good idea. Describing poor behaviour among many football supporters usually only applies to the tribal neanderthals (and Southampton has quite a few!) that invariably masquerade as football supporters.
>
Portsmouth has a lot more going for it than Southampton.
Southampton will never be better than Portsmouth while Southampton has a Labour council. History shows that our Labour councils have been vastly detrimental to the progress of Southampton, especially while being controlled by the Unions!

I agree with the first part of your comment, but you can't blame the failings of Southampton on a Labour council. Most of the major midlands/northern cities have been doing very well for themselves in terms of regeneration, tourism and general economic success for the past 10-20 years, and trust me, you won't find any Tory councils there. Southampton has had both Tory and Labour councils over the past few years, and it seems like neither have done much to rescue Southampton from economic and cultural oblivion. But maybe the blame falls less with politicians, and more with the attitudes of the population?

Despite taking over Southampton council during the worst economic period imaginable, the Tories performed over and above what was expected. And into the bargain they managed to bring some culture to Southampton and have superb plans drawn up for the future of our City. This was after roughly 25 years of Labour Councils doing nothing but driving the City of Southampton backwards!! (Loving helped by the Unions!!)
>
Then many of the citizens of Southampton then showed their stupidity by voting into power the very Labour Party who had been rubbish in their previous 25 year tenure! (And ignoring the fact that their wonderful Party had led the UK to Bankruptcy during 13 years of incompetent rule!)

cantthinkofone wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

Terry_Nutkins wrote:

AlwynM wrote:
Will the lot of you stop being so self defeatist!!!

Have you seen the competition?

Also, since when has the word 'culture' only referred to 'Theatre and symphony goers' ?

The same old sneering took place when Liverpool was nominated and it had the worst reputation of possible every other city in the UK - deserved or not.

At least the people of that city got behind it 100% and guess, what? They won and it was a fantastic year.

Culture belongs to the people, don't mistake culture for snobbery. There is all kinds of culture.

I think you should all get behind this 100% and draw on Southampton's strengths because it's a prize definitely worth fighting for.

Stop being so miserable and show some enthusiasm. Get behind your city!!!

Get behind your city? Are you part of the rose tinter, blindly optimistic brigade? I've spent a lifetime waiting for something good to happen and the potential of the city to be realised. I finally realised my blind optimism was overly optimistic and deluded. A nice way to think, having hope, but unrealistic.

When history proves the local authorities are absolutely clueless and capitalist gain wins over culture every day of the week (as others rightly point out - shocking how the medieval walls & buildings have been barricaded almost out of sight by new construction - see my town planners comment), then we have every right to give up hope, moan, express our displeasure and berate those custodians responsible. Really, we should be furious when you look at what they had at their disposal and what a complete balls up they have made. But, because it's spread over 2 decades or more, it's more sublte & not so obvious unless you've lived through all the changes and have a better perspective than new arrivals who probably haven't seen the depths to which it has sunk.

I have a strong opinion about Southampton but I am entitled to it. I have lived here my entire life and I am just tired of seeing every chance of prosperity thrown away by a special class of clueless idiot and I won't even get started talking about the town planners.....what a good job they did on Ocean Village. Come to Southampton to see......flats! Still, they did a good job of shutting down the marina bars and lively area it once was. Not just an overpriced bar or 2 for Steve Hughes to overcharge customers. Southampton has become a joke and you're welcome to blindly encourage and sit on your fence but it is a p*ss take of a town.

I know running a town/city (small town mentality) is never easy with budgets and big business and 'pressure' from developers *cough* but, let's be fair, there is not excuse for the sheer array of large scale and long term detrimental planning. Southampton could have really been put on the map and had infrastructure to make us proud (West Quay is a good development to be fair and needed for any successful city but it is only a cash cow for the city. It does not lend to the cultural part).

Oh, and regarding our parks which are to be commended (it must cost the SCC a lot), no they are not a cultural asset in essence but they were in April last year as our extravagant Titanic memorial commemoration showcased to the world.....Oh, the blue print of the ship spray painted on the park. WOW! This is the exact point I am trying to make and the mentality we are dealing with here. Some genius thought that a fitting tribute for such a huge date of historical importance to the city. Cheap and lack luster, as was the view of most people I asked about it.

City of culture my a*se. City of vultures, picking off developer fees and council tax from residents for any construction they can cram in and sign off the planning register, irrespective of the environmental impact and aesthetics to our already lame duck of a town. It will never change until we appoint a diligent, forward thinking Councillor of discernible intelligence and foresight or even a mediocre town planning officer! ;o)

This guy knows what he is talking about. Would have loved to have seen Ocean Village in better days, it is currently a depressing place with very little on offer.

Yep. Terry puts it well.

Ocean Village opened when I was a kid, before I moved away from the area. It was a bright, vibrant centre of evening entertainment with a family feel to it.

When I returned to Southampton about 8 years ago I returned to Ocean Village looking for something to do, and wondered if I was in the same place. PriceWaterhouseCoope

r's local offices aren't very entertaining...

I get the impression that those who defend Southampton to the hilt have probably never spent much time elsewhere. Cardiff, Bristol, Bath, Brighton, Chichester - all have far more to offer. As does Portsmouth these days I'm afraid. Even many much smaller places like Weymouth/Portland are more attractive propositions.

The cries of Southampton's amazing historical appeal are also nothing more than delusional. Several of the places listed above have far much more to offer in that respect, not to mention the likes of Salisbury, Dorchester, Winchester etc.

The truth of the matter is that Southampton's current greatest asset is that it's on the edge of the New Forest and within striking distance of more appealing places.

Those that get upset about their beloved city being so criticised would do better to direct their anger at the council for facilitating it.

Linesman wrote:

George4th wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

George4th wrote:

ToastyTea wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

foresthorse wrote:

ToastyTea wrote: Do these city leaders not realise how much we hate that city (skates)!!! I'm actually quite angry about this.

They probably realise that there are some narrow-minded, myopic morons out there who have some sort of risible obsession with hating another city, but thankfully they are capable of rising above that level of dimwittedness. Maybe Soton should apply to become a City of Simple-minded Stupidity. You could drive the float!

Exactly. Not even like it's Liverpool vs Manchester or Glasgow vs Edinburgh. Not even Birmingham vs Wolverhampton..

Are you kidding me, the rivalry and hate between us and those fishie mutants is much more fierce then that of the likes of the northern vile accent folk scousers vs mancs. Do they have to be bussed in when they play each other for fear of vioence ? no. They get on just fine, it's all pretend with them.

Using football examples is never a good idea. Describing poor behaviour among many football supporters usually only applies to the tribal neanderthals (and Southampton has quite a few!) that invariably masquerade as football supporters.
>
Portsmouth has a lot more going for it than Southampton.
Southampton will never be better than Portsmouth while Southampton has a Labour council. History shows that our Labour councils have been vastly detrimental to the progress of Southampton, especially while being controlled by the Unions!

I agree with the first part of your comment, but you can't blame the failings of Southampton on a Labour council. Most of the major midlands/northern cities have been doing very well for themselves in terms of regeneration, tourism and general economic success for the past 10-20 years, and trust me, you won't find any Tory councils there. Southampton has had both Tory and Labour councils over the past few years, and it seems like neither have done much to rescue Southampton from economic and cultural oblivion. But maybe the blame falls less with politicians, and more with the attitudes of the population?

Despite taking over Southampton council during the worst economic period imaginable, the Tories performed over and above what was expected. And into the bargain they managed to bring some culture to Southampton and have superb plans drawn up for the future of our City. This was after roughly 25 years of Labour Councils doing nothing but driving the City of Southampton backwards!! (Loving helped by the Unions!!)
>
Then many of the citizens of Southampton then showed their stupidity by voting into power the very Labour Party who had been rubbish in their previous 25 year tenure! (And ignoring the fact that their wonderful Party had led the UK to Bankruptcy during 13 years of incompetent rule!)

The last time that Southampton had a Labour run Council was in 2000.

From 2000 until 2008 there was No Overall Control and the Tories ran it from 2008 until 2012.

With regard the claim that the Labour Government led the UK into bankruptcy. Had it escaped your notice tlhat the financial problems faced were not confined to the UK, but were International?

It had it's beginnings in the USA and spread world-wide, which is why Greece has gone bust, with Spain, Italy and Portugal teetering on the brink.

Labour saved the UK from the same problem by bailing out banks and building societies and Councils that had invested in Icelandic Banks that had gon bust.

What alternative policy did your beloved Dodgy Dave propose?

He did not.

What's happening now that the Tories are in cahoots with the LibDems to run the show?

We lose our AAA rating, and are heading for a triple-dip recession.

Not to worry though. The highest earners are getting a tax-break, while the 'Plebs' have to take a cut.

kingnotail wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Terry_Nutkins wrote:
That’s laughable. Judging by how the council charge extortionate costs for street licenses (hence why So’ton rarely has street performers and performing arts of any worth unlike other cities with an iota of cultural pedigree) and how they acted with the Gantry and how the Mayflower just puts on lame musicals, pantos & little of any artistic merit (go to Winchester theatre royal), it’s clear the cultural merits of our local council are pretty much non-existent. Oh no, sorry. Our cerebral incumbents did come up with a miraculous gem to rival Portsmouth and the Spinnaker tower....firing laser beams from the Civic Centre clock!! OUTSTANDING! With brain power like that and town planners as we do, no wonder this city has gone to the dogs. So sad. All the potential Southampton had as a town, with the maritime history and the influx of cruise ships, the marina, West Quay, green spaces...and what do we do? Totally ruin the city with ill thought town planning and barricades of flats, shutting off the waterfront from the shopping district. Genius! A 6 year old could plan a better model for a city so I don’t hold much hope for the massively arrogant suggestion we are even in the reckoning for a cultural award when we are when of the most culturally backward councils in the UK. Hilarious suggestion though. Good joke! Maybe they thought they were viable because they built another Titanic museum and shut off an open space in central town which is rarely used. Perhaps they share some deluded view we are now some cultural ambassador for Britain! Ridiculous!! They couldn’t even make a worthwhile spectacle of the Titanic’s 100th anniversary so I hold absolutely zero faith in an historically impotent cultural council.

Don't forget the extension to Westquay, covering the last few bits of undeveloped open space in the city.
Another run of fast food restaurants will surely boost tourism and make Southampton stand out from any other city/town/retail park...

I suggested to the council that the land next to Westquay in front of the old walls should be turned into another park which will not only be a great back drop and compliment the old city walls but will open up more outside space for people to use, an extension to the boat show (instead of reclaiming more of the water) and somewhere to see the ships come in. But guess what, nobody ever replied. May be something to do with planning ideas that the council pass make a lot more short term money to line their pockets with rather than any investment in the heritage and future of Southampton.

Parks alone do not equal culture. This dump needs much more than just parks to rescue it from cultural purgatory. Maybe start by turning the walls into a real tourist attraction, the way it stands now you barely even know they are there.

southy wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

southy wrote:

sotonboy84 wrote:

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:

malcher wrote: Other cities around the world, fortunate enough to have a waterfront, have invested in access and development of their waterfront. Here we do all we can to make it inaccessible and hidden from site! If something is not done urgently to improve traffic flow to and from the docks we'll be losing some cruise and commercial shipping business as well! As ABP have ownership of most of the waterfront it is difficult, but something needs to happen to make the most of this valuable asset.

If I was going to go on a cruise, I know where I would want to embark and dis-embark, not some grotty quayside miles from the city centre. Compare the following to a miserable quayside in Southampton On the Cunard web page, spectacular image of QM2 berthed in Liverpool at night. http://www.cunard.co .uk/destinations/reg ions/british-isles-i reland-and-northern- europe-cruises/

You'll find that the dock gates are opposite the city centre and take a few minutes to reach, and have been used by passengers far longer than Liverpool has. This isn't an opinion but fact so take it you haven't embarked on a cruise from Southampton.

No Liverpool is alot older as a dock than Southampton as been, Liverpool predates the Romans Britian as a dock, Southampton only came about during the end of Roman Britian

Southy as usual you are completely wrong.....

The following qoute is from Wikipaedia


Liverpool's first dock was the Old Dock built in 1715. The old Pool was converted into the enclosed dock. The dock was the world's first enclosed commercial dock. Further docks were added and eventually all were interconnected by lock gates, extending 7.5 miles (12.1 km) along the Liverpool bank of the River Mersey.

The interconnected dock system was the most advanced port system in the world. The docks enabled ship movements within the dock system 24 hours a day, isolated from the high River Mersey tides. Parts of the system are now a World Heritage Site.

Thats present day stuff, there a good Documentry on pre-roman Liverpool and its connection to Ireland with trading and where trading was done it also carried passengers as a secondry

arizonan wrote:
Liverpool and Glasgow were European Cities of Culture, not UK C'soC.
Good to hear that Liverpool is a,'reasonable' place to visit.
I am sure that the Las Vegas style and size casino planned for Southampton, will add greatly to its cultural offer.By the way, is the casino meant to attract the old dears before taking a cruise? An answer to Liverpool's proximity to cruise passengers maybe?
Visited Southampton and Portsmouth once, Southampton has reason to feel inferior to Pompey.
News:- Government not sending Liverpool Waters to public debate, planning permission already given by Liverpool C.C., so lets hope the first phase includes the Cruise Terminal.

phil maccavity wrote:

arizonan wrote:
Liverpool and Glasgow were European Cities of Culture, not UK C'soC.
Good to hear that Liverpool is a,'reasonable' place to visit.
I am sure that the Las Vegas style and size casino planned for Southampton, will add greatly to its cultural offer.By the way, is the casino meant to attract the old dears before taking a cruise? An answer to Liverpool's proximity to cruise passengers maybe?
Visited Southampton and Portsmouth once, Southampton has reason to feel inferior to Pompey.
News:- Government not sending Liverpool Waters to public debate, planning permission already given by Liverpool C.C., so lets hope the first phase includes the Cruise Terminal.

I would go futher Liverpool is a great place to visit.
The central area has, of course, benefitted from billions of £ worth of EU and UK grants.
Despite being one of the country's poorest regions, hence the requirement for significant aid, the Lord Mayor boasts about how many people from the Merseyside area go on cruises and how important it is for the EU to provide State aid to help underwrite a cruise terminal.
Meanwhile the Liverpool Waters Scheme looks wonderful on paper but with a 30 year completion horizon will it ever get built?
Eric Pickles has wisely left the decision making process in the hands of Liverpool Council who will be left with the problems if things go wrong.
Many people in Liverpool are questioning why there is the need for thousands of new apartments, several new hotels, massive additional shopping centres at a time when the suburbs of Liverpool have been given very little attention.
The new cruise terminal project is interesting.
All fine and dandy if part of a proper commercially justifiable project.
If this goes ahead will the Liverpool Tax payer have to bail out the Riverside Terminal in which they have invested £8m?

loosehead wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:

arizonan wrote:
Liverpool and Glasgow were European Cities of Culture, not UK C'soC.
Good to hear that Liverpool is a,'reasonable' place to visit.
I am sure that the Las Vegas style and size casino planned for Southampton, will add greatly to its cultural offer.By the way, is the casino meant to attract the old dears before taking a cruise? An answer to Liverpool's proximity to cruise passengers maybe?
Visited Southampton and Portsmouth once, Southampton has reason to feel inferior to Pompey.
News:- Government not sending Liverpool Waters to public debate, planning permission already given by Liverpool C.C., so lets hope the first phase includes the Cruise Terminal.

I would go futher Liverpool is a great place to visit.
The central area has, of course, benefitted from billions of £ worth of EU and UK grants.
Despite being one of the country's poorest regions, hence the requirement for significant aid, the Lord Mayor boasts about how many people from the Merseyside area go on cruises and how important it is for the EU to provide State aid to help underwrite a cruise terminal.
Meanwhile the Liverpool Waters Scheme looks wonderful on paper but with a 30 year completion horizon will it ever get built?
Eric Pickles has wisely left the decision making process in the hands of Liverpool Council who will be left with the problems if things go wrong.
Many people in Liverpool are questioning why there is the need for thousands of new apartments, several new hotels, massive additional shopping centres at a time when the suburbs of Liverpool have been given very little attention.
The new cruise terminal project is interesting.
All fine and dandy if part of a proper commercially justifiable project.
If this goes ahead will the Liverpool Tax payer have to bail out the Riverside Terminal in which they have invested £8m?

I watched a program where Liverpool people wanted to buy most of two old terraced estates I think one was Kirby or a similar name.
Jo Anderson was there when a list of names of buyers were given to him & he poo hooed it away only for at the end of the program we were told he'd sold the estate to a developer who was going to knock down the whole estate & put up expensive properties which many Scousers couldn't afford,
this was done not for the benefit of the people but to pay the grant money?
I can't believe that Liverpool with all it has to offer visitors isn't getting more than they are?

phil maccavity wrote:

loosehead wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:

arizonan wrote:
Liverpool and Glasgow were European Cities of Culture, not UK C'soC.
Good to hear that Liverpool is a,'reasonable' place to visit.
I am sure that the Las Vegas style and size casino planned for Southampton, will add greatly to its cultural offer.By the way, is the casino meant to attract the old dears before taking a cruise? An answer to Liverpool's proximity to cruise passengers maybe?
Visited Southampton and Portsmouth once, Southampton has reason to feel inferior to Pompey.
News:- Government not sending Liverpool Waters to public debate, planning permission already given by Liverpool C.C., so lets hope the first phase includes the Cruise Terminal.

I would go futher Liverpool is a great place to visit.
The central area has, of course, benefitted from billions of £ worth of EU and UK grants.
Despite being one of the country's poorest regions, hence the requirement for significant aid, the Lord Mayor boasts about how many people from the Merseyside area go on cruises and how important it is for the EU to provide State aid to help underwrite a cruise terminal.
Meanwhile the Liverpool Waters Scheme looks wonderful on paper but with a 30 year completion horizon will it ever get built?
Eric Pickles has wisely left the decision making process in the hands of Liverpool Council who will be left with the problems if things go wrong.
Many people in Liverpool are questioning why there is the need for thousands of new apartments, several new hotels, massive additional shopping centres at a time when the suburbs of Liverpool have been given very little attention.
The new cruise terminal project is interesting.
All fine and dandy if part of a proper commercially justifiable project.
If this goes ahead will the Liverpool Tax payer have to bail out the Riverside Terminal in which they have invested £8m?

I watched a program where Liverpool people wanted to buy most of two old terraced estates I think one was Kirby or a similar name.
Jo Anderson was there when a list of names of buyers were given to him & he poo hooed it away only for at the end of the program we were told he'd sold the estate to a developer who was going to knock down the whole estate & put up expensive properties which many Scousers couldn't afford,
this was done not for the benefit of the people but to pay the grant money?
I can't believe that Liverpool with all it has to offer visitors isn't getting more than they are?

Loosehead
It wasnt Kirkby. I think it was round the Toxteth area, perhaps the Welsh Streets where Ringo Starr was born.
Toxteth was once an area where a lot of the Liverpool Merchants lived in the mid 19th century but got blighted after ther riots in the 1980's
The sad fact that Liverpool has a great stock of Edwardian and Victorian houses which, much to the annoyance of local people, have been pulled down to make way for modern boxes which then affect the community feel of the area.
It would have been far better to spend some of the copious amounts of economic regeneration money Liverpool received on refurbishing both artisan and the wonderful old Merchant Housing stock into modern day accommodation, rather than waste millions on a under utilised canal extension, failed Boat Show, provision of a commercially unjustified cruise terminal, training 100's of hairdressers for half a dozen jobs and many other misguided projects that do nothing for the more disadvantaged elements of Merseyside.
Joe Anderson, as a staunch Labour politician should know better.
John Prescott is another who had the power to protect and improve Liverpool's heritage when he was in Govt Office. All he wanted to do was destroy decent houses.

03alpe01 wrote:
This story is funny. Portsmouth better be the most cultural city in the World, because Southampton isn't! Well, we've got about every ethnic miniority here, but there is sod all to do here, the city is a bore and the council are stupid turds and have been for ages. The Titanic museum is a prime example. Southampton has actually had a Titanic museum on the Waterfront (what you can see of it behind the ferry terminal) for many years, in what is a very historical building. This was not good enough for the council, so they decided to pay for a third of Sea City, claiming it's the best Titanic Museum. Have they not heard of Belfast? They then wonder why they have no money.
Next, the council decide to stop the building of the snow dome, which would have really put Southampton on the map BIG time as it would have attracted people from all over to the city, and it would have given the people the ice rink that the city has been crying out for, for the past 25 years. There reason for this was that they wanted water related stuff on the waterfront. So why did they move the Titanic Museum from next to the docks, to the middle of town, spend millions of pounds in the process and then wonders why they have no money.
But it's alright, Watermark WestQuay will save us, that'll give us BIG leisure facilities. OH NO WAIT!!! That's giving us a record breaking FOURTH cinema, MORE fast food outlets and EVEN MORE shops, despite the fact that half the shops on the high street are going bust, nope we still need more. The fact that they actually believe the Bargate Centre can carry on as a retail centre is just funny as. Words can't even begin to describe how clueless Southampton City Council are. To put into perspective, the student flats and doctors surgery are getting called a "landmark". What the blazes makes a block of flats and a doctors surgery a "landmark"? A landmark is something that people want to see, something that people bring their cameras to see, something that is well known across the Country, and sometimes even the World. Not a block of student flats and a doctors surgery.
Anything that's good in Southampton just gets turned into flats and housing and it can't go on. If only there was something we could do about it...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
Any town / city that puts its name forward in the hope of winning the title " City of Culture " must be able to meet the following conditions.

Have good cultural credentials , they could be art, music , architecture etc.
A friendly population consisting of a diverse cultural mix that welcomes visitors , that provides a friendly and safe atmosphere for the events to be staged.

Be able to provide a non-stop range of events throughout the year-long event for the visitors and locals to support.

The most important criteria is that the population of the town or city should get behind the cause and have a UNITED PRIDE in what is happening in their town / city to ensure that the event leaves a lasting legacy.

kingnotail wrote:

03alpe01 wrote:
This story is funny. Portsmouth better be the most cultural city in the World, because Southampton isn't! Well, we've got about every ethnic miniority here, but there is sod all to do here, the city is a bore and the council are stupid turds and have been for ages. The Titanic museum is a prime example. Southampton has actually had a Titanic museum on the Waterfront (what you can see of it behind the ferry terminal) for many years, in what is a very historical building. This was not good enough for the council, so they decided to pay for a third of Sea City, claiming it's the best Titanic Museum. Have they not heard of Belfast? They then wonder why they have no money.
Next, the council decide to stop the building of the snow dome, which would have really put Southampton on the map BIG time as it would have attracted people from all over to the city, and it would have given the people the ice rink that the city has been crying out for, for the past 25 years. There reason for this was that they wanted water related stuff on the waterfront. So why did they move the Titanic Museum from next to the docks, to the middle of town, spend millions of pounds in the process and then wonders why they have no money.
But it's alright, Watermark WestQuay will save us, that'll give us BIG leisure facilities. OH NO WAIT!!! That's giving us a record breaking FOURTH cinema, MORE fast food outlets and EVEN MORE shops, despite the fact that half the shops on the high street are going bust, nope we still need more. The fact that they actually believe the Bargate Centre can carry on as a retail centre is just funny as. Words can't even begin to describe how clueless Southampton City Council are. To put into perspective, the student flats and doctors surgery are getting called a "landmark". What the blazes makes a block of flats and a doctors surgery a "landmark"? A landmark is something that people want to see, something that people bring their cameras to see, something that is well known across the Country, and sometimes even the World. Not a block of student flats and a doctors surgery.
Anything that's good in Southampton just gets turned into flats and housing and it can't go on. If only there was something we could do about it...

1. All the cinemas in Southampton are pretty crap (Leisure World? Don't make me laugh. What a dive!)

2. Just because it's in a large development, doesn't mean it's 'fast food'. Places like Brasserie Blanc, Jamie's, Carluccio's, Las Iguanas, Loch Fyne etc. won't touch Southampton with a barge pole in it's current state.

3. You're right about the 'landmark' block of flats. Only in a city as truly crap as Southampton would a 15-storey block of student flats be regarded as something to get excited about!

03alpe01 wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

03alpe01 wrote:
This story is funny. Portsmouth better be the most cultural city in the World, because Southampton isn't! Well, we've got about every ethnic miniority here, but there is sod all to do here, the city is a bore and the council are stupid turds and have been for ages. The Titanic museum is a prime example. Southampton has actually had a Titanic museum on the Waterfront (what you can see of it behind the ferry terminal) for many years, in what is a very historical building. This was not good enough for the council, so they decided to pay for a third of Sea City, claiming it's the best Titanic Museum. Have they not heard of Belfast? They then wonder why they have no money.
Next, the council decide to stop the building of the snow dome, which would have really put Southampton on the map BIG time as it would have attracted people from all over to the city, and it would have given the people the ice rink that the city has been crying out for, for the past 25 years. There reason for this was that they wanted water related stuff on the waterfront. So why did they move the Titanic Museum from next to the docks, to the middle of town, spend millions of pounds in the process and then wonders why they have no money.
But it's alright, Watermark WestQuay will save us, that'll give us BIG leisure facilities. OH NO WAIT!!! That's giving us a record breaking FOURTH cinema, MORE fast food outlets and EVEN MORE shops, despite the fact that half the shops on the high street are going bust, nope we still need more. The fact that they actually believe the Bargate Centre can carry on as a retail centre is just funny as. Words can't even begin to describe how clueless Southampton City Council are. To put into perspective, the student flats and doctors surgery are getting called a "landmark". What the blazes makes a block of flats and a doctors surgery a "landmark"? A landmark is something that people want to see, something that people bring their cameras to see, something that is well known across the Country, and sometimes even the World. Not a block of student flats and a doctors surgery.
Anything that's good in Southampton just gets turned into flats and housing and it can't go on. If only there was something we could do about it...

1. All the cinemas in Southampton are pretty crap (Leisure World? Don't make me laugh. What a dive!)

2. Just because it's in a large development, doesn't mean it's 'fast food'. Places like Brasserie Blanc, Jamie's, Carluccio's, Las Iguanas, Loch Fyne etc. won't touch Southampton with a barge pole in it's current state.

3. You're right about the 'landmark' block of flats. Only in a city as truly crap as Southampton would a 15-storey block of student flats be regarded as something to get excited about!

The cinemas here are just as good as anywhere else though, nowhere got specially recognised as being a town with a cinema. Infact, Southampton has one of only two IMAX screens in the country South of London (the other being in Crawley). What I'm saying is we definitely do not need a 4th cinema, especially when this one is supposedly a "luxury" cinema, which are known to charge double the price of an ordinary cinema ticket, and in a heavily student populated city, would this make good business sense? I've never heard of those restaurant chains (I'm from Southampton, so what did you expect?) but do we really need as many as 15/16 of them all in one place? And thanks about the so called "landmark" block of flats. Why on Earth the Echo made such a big deal of it I don't know. I'm amazed this city doesn't have an ice rink (which would help combat the obesity levels in the city) or a concert venue. They would put us on the map, far better than this lot ever would. Try going to Basingstoke, they've got an ice rink, there getting Airkix Indoor Skydiving, and they still manage to make bingo halls work!

03alpe01 wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

03alpe01 wrote:
This story is funny. Portsmouth better be the most cultural city in the World, because Southampton isn't! Well, we've got about every ethnic miniority here, but there is sod all to do here, the city is a bore and the council are stupid turds and have been for ages. The Titanic museum is a prime example. Southampton has actually had a Titanic museum on the Waterfront (what you can see of it behind the ferry terminal) for many years, in what is a very historical building. This was not good enough for the council, so they decided to pay for a third of Sea City, claiming it's the best Titanic Museum. Have they not heard of Belfast? They then wonder why they have no money.
Next, the council decide to stop the building of the snow dome, which would have really put Southampton on the map BIG time as it would have attracted people from all over to the city, and it would have given the people the ice rink that the city has been crying out for, for the past 25 years. There reason for this was that they wanted water related stuff on the waterfront. So why did they move the Titanic Museum from next to the docks, to the middle of town, spend millions of pounds in the process and then wonders why they have no money.
But it's alright, Watermark WestQuay will save us, that'll give us BIG leisure facilities. OH NO WAIT!!! That's giving us a record breaking FOURTH cinema, MORE fast food outlets and EVEN MORE shops, despite the fact that half the shops on the high street are going bust, nope we still need more. The fact that they actually believe the Bargate Centre can carry on as a retail centre is just funny as. Words can't even begin to describe how clueless Southampton City Council are. To put into perspective, the student flats and doctors surgery are getting called a "landmark". What the blazes makes a block of flats and a doctors surgery a "landmark"? A landmark is something that people want to see, something that people bring their cameras to see, something that is well known across the Country, and sometimes even the World. Not a block of student flats and a doctors surgery.
Anything that's good in Southampton just gets turned into flats and housing and it can't go on. If only there was something we could do about it...

1. All the cinemas in Southampton are pretty crap (Leisure World? Don't make me laugh. What a dive!)

2. Just because it's in a large development, doesn't mean it's 'fast food'. Places like Brasserie Blanc, Jamie's, Carluccio's, Las Iguanas, Loch Fyne etc. won't touch Southampton with a barge pole in it's current state.

3. You're right about the 'landmark' block of flats. Only in a city as truly crap as Southampton would a 15-storey block of student flats be regarded as something to get excited about!

The cinemas here are just as good as anywhere else though, nowhere got specially recognised as being a town with a cinema. Infact, Southampton has one of only two IMAX screens in the country South of London (the other being in Crawley). What I'm saying is we definitely do not need a 4th cinema, especially when this one is supposedly a "luxury" cinema, which are known to charge double the price of an ordinary cinema ticket, and in a heavily student populated city, would this make good business sense? I've never heard of those restaurant chains (I'm from Southampton, so what did you expect?) but do we really need as many as 15/16 of them all in one place? And thanks about the so called "landmark" block of flats. Why on Earth the Echo made such a big deal of it I don't know. I'm amazed this city doesn't have an ice rink (which would help combat the obesity levels in the city) or a concert venue. They would put us on the map, far better than this lot ever would. Try going to Basingstoke, they've got an ice rink, there getting Airkix Indoor Skydiving, and they still manage to make bingo halls work!

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
This forum is supposedly about Southampton putting itself forward to winning the opportunity to become
" City of Culture ".
In order to do this lists should be drawn up regarding the cultural items that Southampton has to offer.
In the event of Southampton winning this title the council should enlist the help of citizen volunteer groups to greet and assist visitors at all the events and functions which will have to be organised throughout the year long event.
These volunteer groups are the key to a successful event and were used by Glasgow ( European Capital of Culture ), Manchester ( Common-wealth Games ) , Liverpool ( European Capital of Culture ) and London ( Olympic Games )

Any town / city that puts its name forward in the hope of winning the title " City of Culture " must be able to meet the following conditions.

Have good cultural credentials , they could be art, music , architecture, history etc.
A friendly population consisting of a diverse cultural mix that welcomes visitors , that provides a friendly and safe atmosphere for the events to be staged.

Be able to provide a non-stop range of events throughout the year-long event for the visitors and locals to support.

The most important criteria is that the population of the town or city should get behind the cause and have a UNITED PRIDE in what is happening in their town / city to ensure that the event leaves a lasting legacy.

03alpe01 wrote:
But here's the thing though, Leisure World actually houses Southampton's "Premier" nightclub in Oceana. Imagine the uproar from the students and young people (we have approx 50,000 in the city and surrounding areas) if Oceana was to close. Don't get me wrong, I'm no clubber and wouldn't mind seeing Oceana shut, but personally, I can't see Leisure World shutting any time soon with Oceana and an IMAX cinema there and hey guess what? A whole lot of restaurants. This is getting to be more of a joke than the ice rink saga

03alpe01 wrote:
The three largest cinema chains in the UK are Odeon, Cineworld and Vue. Southampton has these, albeit the Vue is in Eastleigh, but is still really accessible for Southampton residents. Whilst I grant you, Southampton is a sh*thole when it comes to leisure facilities, what can we do to improve this? What would give us more to do than what's already on offer? Also, what is so pants about Leisure World?

kingnotail wrote:

03alpe01 wrote:
The three largest cinema chains in the UK are Odeon, Cineworld and Vue. Southampton has these, albeit the Vue is in Eastleigh, but is still really accessible for Southampton residents. Whilst I grant you, Southampton is a sh*thole when it comes to leisure facilities, what can we do to improve this? What would give us more to do than what's already on offer? Also, what is so pants about Leisure World?

You barely even have to go inside it to answer that question.

loosehead wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

03alpe01 wrote:
The three largest cinema chains in the UK are Odeon, Cineworld and Vue. Southampton has these, albeit the Vue is in Eastleigh, but is still really accessible for Southampton residents. Whilst I grant you, Southampton is a sh*thole when it comes to leisure facilities, what can we do to improve this? What would give us more to do than what's already on offer? Also, what is so pants about Leisure World?

You barely even have to go inside it to answer that question.

Why not look at a bit of culture & go to the Mayflower or the Guildhall or Nuffield theatre or is that not your scene?

03alpe01 wrote:
The Guildhall is decent, but would never attract a top major league artist as it is far too small for the major acts. The Nuffield is on the University site, and doesn't hold anything overly major. The Mayflower, is a really nice place except it lacks a car park

03alpe01 wrote:
The three largest cinema chains in the UK are Odeon, Cineworld and Vue. Southampton has these, albeit the Vue is in Eastleigh, but is still really accessible for Southampton residents. Whilst I grant you, Southampton is a sh*thole when it comes to leisure facilities, what can we do to improve this? What would give us more to do than what's already on offer? Also, what is so pants about Leisure World?

arthur bloggs wrote:
The headline should read "CITY OF LITTER", not city of culture. Just look at Thomas Lewis Way, Woodmill, the roads outside the Royal South Hants, Burgess Road, Harrison Road, parts of Shirley, St Mary's, Above Bar, etc the list goes on and on. I dread to think what visitors to Southampton think. This city is DISGUSTING! Fish and chip wrappings, McDonalds happy meals, Sainsburys chicken wraps, carrier bags, plastic bottles, nappies, you name it ... all just dumped on the ground. And don't get me started on chewing gum. Just look at the "pavement" at the entrance to West Quay - it's utterly revolting, right at the entrance to our flagship shopping mall. Even some of the roads (e.g. Woodmill Lane) have splodges of chewing gum stuck to the carriageway.

I pay my council tax to get reasonable city services. If the council can't even sweep the streets then they sure as hell shouldn't be dappling with people's council tax in organising some embarrassing extravaganza that will only showcase our filth and squalor to the rest of the UK.

And, for the record, this major south-coast city is woefully deficient on basic amenities that other places (even some villages) have as standard and which would need to be put in place for a serious "city of culture" bid. For example...
(1) A tourist information office
(2) At Christmas... some lights
(3) Some decent signs WELCOMING people here. If you visit Bournemouth, Salisbury, Fordingbridge (much smaller than Soton) you will be greeted by a nice welcome sign and planted flowers/shrubs. It makes tourists feel valued. Here, however, you get a sign saying welcome to dump-land, sponsored by snows group.

Doesn't bode well for our "bid" does it?

kingnotail wrote:

loosehead wrote:

kingnotail wrote:

03alpe01 wrote: The three largest cinema chains in the UK are Odeon, Cineworld and Vue. Southampton has these, albeit the Vue is in Eastleigh, but is still really accessible for Southampton residents. Whilst I grant you, Southampton is a sh*thole when it comes to leisure facilities, what can we do to improve this? What would give us more to do than what's already on offer? Also, what is so pants about Leisure World?

You barely even have to go inside it to answer that question.

Why not look at a bit of culture & go to the Mayflower or the Guildhall or Nuffield theatre or is that not your scene?

The Guildhall is a decent music venue, like any you would expect to find in a moderately sized town. Big deal. Can't comment on the Nuffield, and from the advertised events I get the impression that the Mayflower is mainly Lloyd-Webber hell..