Turning tides for Hull’s waterfront - Research by Saskia Tideman

Course : AR2A011 2020 April 2020

Turning tides for Hull’s waterfront From active industry to touristic curation and urban amnesia

Saskia Tideman A thesis submitted in the partial fulfillment for the degree of Masters of Science in the Faculty of the Built Environment Technical University of Delft Supervisor : Thomas van den Brink

Abstract The story of Hull’s docklands is an endless struggle to keep up with industrial ambitions which came to a sudden halt due to a perfect storm of circumstances. Since, the city has retreated from its waterfront, struggling to re-use docks whose industrial purpose disappeared. This thesis sets out to understand the city’s relationship with its Maritime Industrial Heritage (MIH), by questioning how deindustrialised docklands were re-used and whether Hull’s cultural regeneration features a fair representation of MIH. If Hull’s docks are regenerated without considering wider social, economic and urban ramifications, this priceless cultural asset risks dereliction and misuse. The study of archival sources, press and academic papers provided a nuanced understanding in Hull’s MIH. Fieldwork and photography have provided insight into their current condition. Research on the topics of cultural regeneration, waterfront redevelopment and industrial heritage supplied a context on the basis of which Hull’s relation with its MIH could be appraised. This thesis finds that Hull has always entertained an ambivalent relationship with its MIH. This ambivalence suggests a bias against heritage associated with less desirables images of the past, and this selectiveness affects both the choice of MIH which is curated, as well as the manner in which it is presented. While most post-industrial docks have been reused, their portrayal of maritime heritage is caricatural and romanticised. Hull’s fish dock, however, was never developed due to the different stakeholder views of the sites’ role in place-memory. This thesis finds that Hull’s nascent ambitions to improve its city-destination potential following its nomination as City of Culture in 2017, still fail to present a nuanced vision of the city’s maritime past. This has led to urban amnesia, whereby the built testimony of the fishing industry is disappearing. This thesis finds that tourism, due to its requirement for simplified maritime narratives, cannot ensures the safeguarding of Hull’s disappearing MIH. This thesis concludes that a new model of community-based redevelopment is needed to retain and protect Hull’s contentious MIH site. Key words: maritime industrial heritage, regeneration, waterfront, Hull, dock, urban amnesia

Contents Abstract 1

Contents

Introduction

1. The palimpsest waterfront

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 25 29 35 37 39 41 43

Victoria Dock Queen’s Dock also named The Dock and The Old Dock Junction Dock later renamed Prince’s Dock Railway Dock Humber Dock Albert Dock

Alexandra Dock George Dock Elizabeth Dock

1.1 First Stage, The primitive port city 1.2 Second Stage, the expanding port city 1.3 Third stage, the modern industrial port city 1.4 Fourth stage, the retreat from the waterfront 1.5 Fifth stage, the redevelopment of the waterfront 2. Present condition of Hull’s contested Maritime heritage 2.1 Humber Dock 1809 – 1968 2.2 Victoria Dock – 1845 – 1968 2.3 St Andrew’s Dock - 1883- 1975 2.4 Factors influencing dock re-use 3. The future of Hull’s Maritime Industrial Heritage 3.1 Yorkshire Maritime City Masterplan’s selective curation of heritage 3.2 Tourism cannot do justice to Hull’s MIH 3.3 A model of redevelopment which combats urban amnesia

Conclusion

List of Figures

References

Appendix - Photo journal ‘Glory Past?’

William Wright Dock St Andrew’s Dock

Figure 0. Key map of Hull’s Dock, reproduction drawing by author, 2020 [reproduced with GIS Data provided by OS Meridian 2, n.d.]

Word count : 9872 words including in-line referencing excluding abstract, annotations, references, and appendices 1

Contents Abstract 1

Contents

Introduction

1. The palimpsest waterfront

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 25 29 35 37 39 41 43

Victoria Dock Queen’s Dock also named The Dock and The Old Dock Junction Dock later renamed Prince’s Dock Railway Dock Humber Dock Albert Dock

Alexandra Dock George Dock Elizabeth Dock

Conclusion

List of Figures

References

Appendix - Photo journal ‘Glory Past?’

William Wright Dock St Andrew’s Dock

Figure 0. Key map of Hull’s Dock, reproduction drawing by author, 2020 [reproduced with GIS Data provided by OS Meridian 2, n.d.]

Word count : 9872 words including in-line referencing excluding abstract, annotations, references, and appendices 1

Introduction

Left : Figure 1.1. Home, Percy. N.d. Hull Docks and the Humber Estuary, NER poster map, 1900-1915. This poster from the early 20th century highlights the strategic position of the city, connecting Yorkshire Hinterland to the North Sea. Bottom : Figure 1.2. Hull’s location within the United Kingdom, reproduction drawing by author, 2020. [reproduced with GIS Data provided by OS Meridian 2, n.d.]

Humber estuary KingstonUpon-Hull

Hull, officially Kingston-upon-Hull, is a medium-sized city in East Riding Yorkshire, England. It lies at the confluence of the River Hull and the Humber Estuary, see Figure 1.1 and 1.2. Hull’s maritime industries and docklands have fueled the city’s economic growth over at least 800 years. At its peak in the mid 19th century, Hull was the UK’s third-largest port, active in commercial shipping, deep-sea fishing and ferries (Bax and Fairfield 1978). However, in the mid-twentieth century, Hull’s traditional industries went into decline, following significant damage from the Blitz, the automation of docks, and the loss of fishing rights. This perfect storm dealt a blow which was hard to recover from. Today, Hull ranks highest in the UK on most indices of deprivation and poverty. Kingston-upon-Hull is one of the 5 most deprived local authorities in England with 22.7% of its population living in income-deprived households (Ministry of housing communities and local government 2019). While the city has become synonymous of deprivation and poverty in the public eye, Hull is making an effort to reinvent itself based on culture and heritage. In 2017, the city won the bid for the City of Culture, directing a billion-pound investment towards regeneration efforts. (Hull City Council n.d.a) More recently, the Yorkshire Maritime City masterplan has broken ground. Its chief aim is to curate Hull’s maritime heritage to reinforce the city’s cultural and touristic appeal. Today, the docks which were once the powerhouse to Hull’s maritime power, are being reused to facilitate a different form of economy. Following industrial decline which lead to the redundancy of half its docks, Hull needed to reassess the relevance of these sites to its economy and urban fabric. This lead to various forms of reuse ranging from industrial renewal, to residential, commercial and leisure uses. However, Hull’s nascent ambition for touristic regeneration presents a danger to MIH as the commercialisation of deindustrialised heritage landscapes is predisposed towards a tabula-rasa approach which preserves only the maritime theme. (Atkinson, Cooke and Spooner 2002) This is done at

the expense of the physical preservation of Maritime Industrial Heritage sites and the loss of the plurality of narratives which revolve around maritime heritage. This is problematic as heritage ‘“offers a `hereness’ that reproduces stable, historic identities”. (Atkinson, Cooke and Spooner 2002) Heritage enables cities and communities to retain their identity in the globalising world.

This thesis researches Hull’s relationship with its historic docklands in past, present and future. To do so, it investigates what has become of Hull’s docks which no longer have an industrial purpose and whether Maritime Industrial Heritage sites are integrated in Hull’s cultural regeneration. In this thesis, Maritime Industrial Heritage (MIH) refers to the built remains of Hull waterfront’s industrial sites. These include harbours, docks, dry docks, fish quays and shipbuilding facilities. Buildings whose purpose was not strictly industrial but administrative are not included in this thesis’ definition of MIH, as these prestigious establishments are already held in high regard, and their status is already enshrined in national registers. The definition here used for MIH will produce a bias towards buildings which capture the zeitgeist of Hull as a maritime power, from the point of view of those who laboured, rather than upper-class individuals who orchestrated the industry. This deliberate bias attempts to combat the inherent selectivity of conservation practice, which tends to privilege “legitimate” heritage which conforms with the desired image of the past (Kisiel 2019). Furthermore, the choice of not studying Hull’s current industrial docks stems from the understanding that the debate relating to MIH’s condition in those locations is not relevant : these privately owned docks and their secure sites are entirely removed from the urban fabric. Furthermore, most of the developmental changes required by the industry do not require the council’s permission. (Smith and Ferrari 2012)

Introduction

Humber estuary KingstonUpon-Hull

Introduction

While continued industrial activity has a definite effect on MIH, studying the heritage present in these docks is not telling of Hull’s relation with its docks as it is removed from any form of urban vision. In contrast, non-industrial re-use compels the rethinking of these MIH and their value: when a dock looses its industrial purpose, its relevance to the city must be reassessed.

Figure 1.3. Thesis geographical scope, reproduction drawing by author, 2020. [reproduced with GIS Data provided by OS Meridian 2, n.d.] The illustration outlines on a present day map the geographic scope of this thesis. The region includes all land that was at any point in time part of the docklands. The illustration further highlights the de-industrialised docks which this thesis focuses on. The urban relevance of the docklands lies in both the size of the docklands as well as the cultural value they embody; by perforating the city with new bodies of water, Hull’s docks changed the urban fabric forever.

River H

De-industrialised dock

ull

Industrial Dock

Kingston-upon-Hull

Geographic scope

b Hum

tua r Es

1km

Hull’s MIH’s value is not derived from its aesthetic qualities but rather the legacy it represents. Hull’s docklands represent a unique cultural capital which risks dereliction or misuse if they aren’t redeveloped with a historic perspective in mind while being thoughtful of wider social, economic and urban ramifications. The risk of this loss of MIH is compounded by the absence of a waterfront masterplan which would ensure comprehensive redevelopment. Without a masterplan and academic engagement, Hull risks commercial piecemeal development with insufficient attention paid to historic and social considerations. Historic literature evaluates how Hull’s docklands evolved, while press-readings provided insight into redevelopment initiatives. Both primary and secondary historic sources are numerous; while photographic surveys provide a visual database on the evolution of the docklands. Archival sources from the Hull History Centre shed light on unpublished policy and unbuilt projects. Analytical infographics and drawings and a photographic survey provide further research material and methods. However, due to the limited amount of analytical – rather than descriptive- literature specifically written about Hull’s MIH, the research is complemented with background reading on the themes of industrial and maritime heritage, waterfront development, and cultural-lead regeneration. This contextual research has highlighted common opportunities and challenges in re-use, which are highly relevant to Hull’s deindustrialised docks. The cross-referencing of Hull specific literature and thematic readings enables the critical appraisal of Hull’s relationship with its MIH. Indeed, only one author, Atkinson, has carried out research

linking these themes with Hull’s MIH sites. His writings provide a critical note of how Hull MIH has gained recognition as heritage, highlighting the difficulty in redeveloping docks due to social tension and contested memories. His last publication on this topic dates back to 2008. Since his last publication, many large scale redevelopment initiatives have gained planning approval and broken ground. There is, therefore, an urgent need to bridge the gap between Hull’s MIH sites and academic literature on waterfront development, cultural and heritagebased regeneration and the contested value of maritime and industrial heritage. Without closing this gap, Hull risks the permanent loss of what remains of its MIH. The stakes are high as what is destroyed today is lost forever. The first chapter presents a study of the historical development of the waterfront and the evolution of the port-city relationship at an urban scale, focusing on the geographic region highlighted in Figure 1.3. It also explores the diversity of Hull’s MIH. This chapter tackles the first part of the research question by narrating the evolution of the waterfront and the port-city relationship. The second chapter is a study of Hull’s waterfront at closer scale through the case study of three historic docks: St Andrew’s Dock, Humber Dock and Victoria Dock. This chapter explores the present condition of the relics of the maritime industry within the waterfront and their diverse fates. It then identifies factors which have determined how the docks developed. Having elucidated the historic background and current condition of Hull’s MIH, the third and last chapter looks into the future. This chapter assesses Hull’s budding interest in improving its cultural offering which has fueled the Yorkshire Maritime City, a masterplan intent on curating Hull’s heritage to increase the city destination-tourism appeal. The chapter takes a critical stance on the degree of integration of MIH within the initiative. It highlights that the selection made by Yorkshire Maritime City does not do justice to Hull’s rich maritime history and the communities which served it, and that a new model of regeneration must be developed to do so.

2km

Introduction

River H

De-industrialised dock

ull

Industrial Dock

Kingston-upon-Hull

Geographic scope

b Hum

tua r Es

1km

2km

1. The palimpsest waterfront

1800s

1750s

1830s

1850s

1890s

2010s

Left : Figure 2.1. Evolution of the docklands, reproduction drawing by author, 2020. [reproduced with GIS Data provided by OS Meridian 2, n.d.] Diagrammatic representation of the evolution of Hull’s Waterfront from the Middle Ages to today. Its visualises the progressive splaying of the docklands along the Humberside. Today, the vast majority of the docks are either industrial or have been re-used for industrial purposes. Only one dock lays idle. Today, Hull’s waterfront is a palimpsest, where new uses cohabitate and occasionally overwrite legacy structures.

Bottom : Figure 2.2. Dockland growth and evolution of the port-city relationship, original drawing by author, 2020. This illustration demonstrates the speed of growth and decline of the docklands. The study of this has enabled the identification of stages which provide the structure to the first chapter. The diagrams represent the shifting relationship of the port in black and city in white.

The notion of port-city relationship is vital to understanding opportunities regarding dock re-use as these generally involve non-industrial activity. Such activity mostly relies on a (port) site’s connection to the city. Hoyle described in 1989 the phases of port development and their consequences for portcity linkages. Hoyle’s stages apply to Hull and have provided the structure of this chapter (Hoyle 1989).

1km

2km

B- Expanding port city Overwriting the medieval moats with Hull’s Town docks during Regency 1773-1850

D- Retreat from the waterfront Post-war decline of Hull’s waterfront 1940-1980

Number of active docks (excluding temporary closure)

New construction Existing dock Redundant and de-industrialised dock

by Figure 2.2. This historic overview suggests that, especially in the early 20th century, pragmatism trumped conservation in the name of Hull’s industrial growth ambition. The changes made to Hull’s waterfront and the factors driving them are complex, and are further discussed in chapter two.

1930s

? ?

The chapter studies the evolution of Hull’s waterfront to identify Hull’s MIH sites and understand the various pressures that led to urban changes. The analysis of historical maps is complemented by the interpretation of historic sources which provide a context to the changes observed. The featured maps vary in original purpose, which provides a nuanced view of the evolution. These maps have been edited and annotated to aid the reader to find relevant information. Figure 2.1 highlights the changes observed since the mid 18th century: the docklands constitute a defining urban feature, which lead to the expansion of the rail network as well as waterline creep. The sequence of diagrams shows the shifting of Hull’s industries away from the centre and the expansion of the city. However, this (de)growth was not linear in time as illustrated

Hull extents Waterline Railway

12 10 08 06 04 02 00

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

A- Primitive port city

1km

2km

The Haven’s pre-industrial quays on the river Hull Until 1773 City

C- Modern industrial port city Humberside docklands expansion to the East and West in the Victorian Era 1850-1940

E- Redevelopment of the waterfront Ambivalent reuse 1980-present day

Port

1. The palimpsest waterfront

1800s

1750s

1830s

1850s

1890s

2010s

1km

2km

B- Expanding port city Overwriting the medieval moats with Hull’s Town docks during Regency 1773-1850

D- Retreat from the waterfront Post-war decline of Hull’s waterfront 1940-1980

Number of active docks (excluding temporary closure)

New construction Existing dock Redundant and de-industrialised dock

1930s

? ?

Hull extents Waterline Railway

12 10 08 06 04 02 00

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

A- Primitive port city

1km

2km

The Haven’s pre-industrial quays on the river Hull Until 1773 City

C- Modern industrial port city Humberside docklands expansion to the East and West in the Victorian Era 1850-1940

E- Redevelopment of the waterfront Ambivalent reuse 1980-present day

Port

1538 Figure 2.3. First Map of Hull, Unknown Author,1538.

1.1 First Stage, the primitive port city - until 1773 The Haven’s pre-industrial quays on the river Hull

The image features one of the earliest maps of Hull circa 1538. Hull is walled on three side and all maritime trade operates on the banks of the river Hull. [1] primitive quays [2] chain guarded harbour [3] moat [4] ‘forelands’ to the south of the town’s seaward wall was a landing area for ships, used as a waste dump and red-light district.

01 03 02 04

Hull was founded in the 12th century by Monks, who required a port to export wool. The Old Harbour, named the Haven, was located on the West bank of the river Hull and consisted of primitive quays, visible in Figure 2.3. Quays consisted of a landing stage for unloading and unloading cargo boats, their accessibility subject to the tide. In the early 11th century, Hull “was assigned as the sole port of exportation for the whole of Yorkshire” (MacTurk and Hoole 1879, 11) by royal decree. This ensured its status as a major English port for centuries to come. Hull was a chain-guarded harbour with side wharves, the old walls and the moat, visible in Figure 2.3 (Jones 1919). Tudor Hull traded both with nearby coastal towns and other countries. In the first stage of the port city relationship, both landscapes entertain a close spatial and functional relation. The late 17 century saw a boom in trade and shipbuilding. Celia Fiennes wrote in May 1697 “the buildings of Hull are very neat [it has] good streets. It’s a good trading town by means of the great river Humber that ebbs and flows like the sea.” (Fiennes 1888) Ahead of the industrial revolution, the increased demand for wood and iron boosted traffic in raw materials, which made up 50% of England exports by 1700. “Hull was then second only to London as an importer [in raw materials], and its trade […] closely rivalled that of the capital.” (Alison and Kent 1969). th

Over time, the west bank of the river Hull was pushed eastwards, reclaiming land accommodating “new wharves, long linear warehouses and distinctive staiths”. (Hull City Council 2017a) In time, the eastern bank was occupied by a fortified garrison, made accessible by the first north bridge built in 1541. Hollar’s Map (Figure 2.4) shows what might be Hull’s first drydocks, dug into the river bank. As shown in the veduta drawn across the Humber estuary, the Humber’s waterfront was entirely inaccessible due to fortifications. The only unfortified access point to Hull was from the Haven. Additionally, one notices the apparition of the first constructions surrounding the mouth of the river Hull intended to mediate tides and weather. Hull took on a central role in the industrial revolution, its growth only rivalled by Liverpool. In the 18th century, Hull’s exports changed from raw material to goods manufactured by the increasingly industrialised Yorkshire hinterland. Hull grew rapidly, with its population tripling during the 18th century. (Tuck 2007) At the time Hull was not a manufacturing centre, with its only large-scale industry being shipbuilding, and whaling. The lack of hinterland infrastructure increased the demand for shipping. As maritime traffic increased, the Haven was deemed insufficient. In 1756, merchants claimed that Hull’s port had “become not large enough for shipping and [insufficient] room is found to be detrimental and hazardous” (Jackson 1972, 238).

1640 01

Figure 2.4. Hull, Hollar, Wenceslas. N.d. Hollar’s Map depicts the layout of the medieval city, surrounded by fortification and a moat. Though undated, it is said to have been drawn circa 1640. [1] fortified garrison [2] perhaps Hull’s first dry docks [3]first constructions surrounding the mouth of the river Hull intended to mediate tides and weather

1538 Figure 2.3. First Map of Hull, Unknown Author,1538.

1.1 First Stage, the primitive port city - until 1773 The Haven’s pre-industrial quays on the river Hull

01 03 02 04

1640 01

1784 Figure 2.5. A Plan of the Town of Kingston upon Hull : From an Actual Survey, Thew, Robert,1784.

1.2 Second Stage, the expanding port city - circa 1773-1850 Overwriting the medieval moats with Hull’s Town docks during Regency

This map reveals the apparition of ‘the Dock’ to the north of the town, connected to the medieval moats. [1] The Dock [2] Mediaeval moats [3] Expanding of the city beyond the walls to the north [4] Shipyards on bank of the Humber. Sammy’s Point

1850 Figure 2.6. Ordnance Survey County Series 1st Edition 1849-1899, Landmark Information Group, UK, 1850 This Ordnance Survey Map shows the Town Docks, with Railway Dock completed, along with Victoria Dock and the Timber pond, which surround the Citadel. [1] Humber Dock [2] Prince’s Dock [3] Corporation Pier [4] Railway Dock [5] Victoria Dock and its timber ponds [6] The Citadel was demolished giving way to a shipyard.

05 02 06 04 01

In 1773, the Hull Dock Company was founded. It was the first statutory dock company in Britain. Following extreme congestion on the river Hull, the town’s first dock was built on land formerly occupied by Hull’s town walls. (Hull City Council 2017) This marked the end of the primitive era for Hull (Tuck 2007) and second stage of the port city relationship, whereby rapid commercial and industrial growth forces the port to develop beyond the city confines, with the construction of the first docks. Thew’s Map, Figure 2.5, highlights the expansion of the town beyond its medieval boundary to accommodate complimentary activities of the dock, on the land labelled as “Ground belonging to the Dock”. To the South, industrial activity also breached the medieval boundary, with shipyards appearing on the bank of the Humber. At the time, the Old Dock, later known as Queen Dock, was the largest inland dock in Britain. (Neave and Neave 2010, 10).

As steam replaced sail, at the beginning of the 19th century, the Hull fleet made up about 40% of the British whaling fleet. (“Hull And Whaling” n.d.) However, the focus of the port shifted over the 19th century. Passenger transport increased, which lead to the construction of Corporation Jetty in 1810 which accommodated the Humber Ferry which sailed to Holland. Whaling reached its peak in 1820s and declined due to overfishing, and reduced demand for whale oil due to gas lighting. By the 1840s, whaling had been entirely replaced by fishing and “the river was again so crowded that it could reportedly take a ship as long to cover the mile from the dock entrance to the Humber as to sail to St Petersburg”. (Wilcox 2017, 121) Furthermore, changes in boat design required docks which could accommodate bigger boats. The last Town Dock to be built opened in 1846. Railway dock was connected to Humber dock and enabled the transportation of goods from the Town Docks to the hinterland through the railways.

By 1786 there was consensus that “from the great increase in trade at this place, an extension of the dock, or a new dock, has become absolutely necessary”. (Freebody 1844) This lead to the construction of the Humber dock in 1807. Junction Dock (later known as Prince’s Dock) was built in 1829. Figure 2.6 demonstrates that by the mid 19th century, the Town Docks surrounded the old town which had effectively become an island. The excavated earth from the construction of the Humber dock was used for reclamation efforts. (Hull City Council 2005)

Growing industrial ambitions and heightened competition with Grimsby and Goole lead to the extension of the waterfront eastward. Victoria Dock, intended for the trade of timber, was built around the Citadel on the East bank of the river Hull and shown in Figure 2.6. It was both the first dock built east of the river and to be accessible from the Humber. Its opening lead to the subsequent construction of multiple timber ponds, while the land East of the dock was used for shipbuilding. The Citadel itself, was bought by the Dock Company and demolished in 1860s, giving way to the Samuelson and Co. iron ship building. Figure 2.6 highlights the near tripling in surface of the town.

1784 Figure 2.5. A Plan of the Town of Kingston upon Hull : From an Actual Survey, Thew, Robert,1784.

1.2 Second Stage, the expanding port city - circa 1773-1850 Overwriting the medieval moats with Hull’s Town docks during Regency

05 02 06 04 01

1890s 04

1.3 Third stage, the modern industrial port city - circa 1850-1940 Humberside dockland expansion to the East and West in the Victorian Era

01 In the third stage of the port city relationship, industrial growth leads to the separation of industrial grounds from the city as they spread faster than the urban fabric. Through the influence of the docks the medieval town became a modern city. To prosper, the docks required a growing number of warehouses, shipbuilding yards, labour, accommodation, as well as adequate financial and commercial institutions in support of the trade. Thus the industrial zone grew, slowly gaining on the historic town. The edge between city and water was the most active urban zone of Hull in the nineteenthcentury city (Marshall 2003). It was here where the overwriting of the historic city and redundant MIH, to serve industrial activity, started.

02 03

Figure 2.7. Ordnance Survey County Series 1st Revision 18941915, Landmark Information Group, UK, 1890. The map highlights the apparition of the following features : [1] Albert Dock [2] William Wright Dock [3] St Andrew’s Dock [4] Alexandra Dock

1942

“Modern improvement has just destroyed the most ancient building in Hull. [….] The space required for the erection of a new watch-house [….] has led to the pulling down of the old Chain House, at the south end of High street.” (“The Civil engineer and architect’s journal, scientific and railway gazette” 1839, 357). The yet larger extents of the map in Figure 2.7, demonstrate the rapid growth of the docklands and city. The first dock exclusively accessible from the Humber was Albert Dock, opened in 1869, later extended with the William Wright Dock in 1873. Also positioned on the Humber foreshore, St Andrew’s Dock was opened in 1883. Though initially intended for the coal trade, it accommodated the fishing

industry offering highly specialised facilities enabling fishprocessing. All three Western docks were ideally located to enable trans-shipment by rail as they ran parallel to the Selby - Hull railway line that terminated in the centre of Hull. Alexandra Dock was built between 1881 and 1885 on land reclaimed from the Humber, opening further east, leading to further railways development. (Alison and Kent 1969) The comparison of the maps in Figures 2.7 and 2.8 demonstrates that the second half of the 19th century saw the splaying of Hull along the Humber to both the east and west, as the city attempts to reach the docklands. In the early twentiethcentury, seven miles of docks and warehouses fronted the Humber and the River Hull. The city of Hull continued to grow outwards, eventually coalescing with Hessle, home to Hull’s fishing community. Pre-war Hull saw the construction of the last major “maritime” projects visible in Figure 2.8. In 1907 Riverside Quay was built to enable the swift unloading of passengers and perishable goods. In 1914, Hull’s last major dock, King George Dock, was built east of Alexandra Dock. Further east, Salt End Jetties, a petroleum distribution point, was also built in 1914. In the 1920s, all of Hull’s 10 docks were active. Hull was the “third port in the Kingdom” after London and Liverpool. (“Kingston-Upon-Hull: A Wool Port” 1924) The growth spurt is visible in Figure 2.8. In the 1930s, Hull’s oldest dock was backfilled and landscaped into Queen’s Gardens, as the ever increasing ship sizes had made it redundant. This marked the first permanent closure and infilling of a Hull Dock.

01 02 Figure 2.8 Street Map of Kingston upon Hull, England with Military-Geographic Features, Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, 1942 The map demonstrates of the presence of the many ancillary space associated to each dock. For example, the key indicated St Andrew dock is surrounded by fish canning factories, fish markets, an ice factory and port facilities.

[1] Riverside Quay [2] Extension of St Andrew’s Dock [3] Queens Gardens 13

1890s 04

1.3 Third stage, the modern industrial port city - circa 1850-1940 Humberside dockland expansion to the East and West in the Victorian Era

02 03

1942

[1] Riverside Quay [2] Extension of St Andrew’s Dock [3] Queens Gardens 13

1945

1.4 Fourth stage, the retreat from the waterfront - circa 1940-1980 Post-war decline of Hull’s waterfront

World War Two brought about significant damage. The waterfront’s industrial sites, railways and docks were targeted by the Luftwaffe as shown in Figure 2.8. The damage shown in Figure 2.9 was significant. Hull was the second most bombed city in the UK, with over 95% of its houses damaged. (Walsh 2015) 25% of the East Yorkshire trawling fleets were sunk mainly by mines. (Tunstall 1962) The riverside quay was burnt beyond recognition and still today remains in its “historic bombed state” (Hull City Council 2016). Post war reconstruction efforts representing an investment of £55m included the construction of an inner ring road which, still today, cuts off the old city from the industrial waterfront, shown in Figure 2.10. (Hull City Council 2016) In the fourth stage of the port city relationship, the port shifts away further from the city as it becomes increasingly specialised. The introduction of containers and roll-on/roll-off transport leads to the redundancy of historic docks.

Figure 2.9. Street plan of Kingston upon Hull circa 1945 with the plotting the position of all HE bombs and Parachute Mines dropped by enemy action during the Blitz, HM Stationary Office, 1945. The map shows a concentration of bombings near the industrial railways and docks.

1970s

01 02

Figure 2.10 Ordnance Survey National Grid 1st Revision 1949-1992, Landmark Information Group, UK, 1970. The map highlights the apparition of the following features : [1] Elizabeth Dock [2] Closure of Prince’s Dock, Railway Dock and Humber Dock.

By the 60s, Hull’s docklands took a decisive turn for the worst when facing post-industrial decline. The remaining town docks became redundant while the Dock Office was turned into the Maritime Museum. (Young 2018) The 1950s and 1960s also saw the decline of railways as motor transport developed. (Thompson 1990) A Times article from 1961 enunciates well the pragmatism driving Hullensian’s willingness to forfeit the historic docks for modern day conveniences: Queen’s dock reconversion as a park is retrospectively considered as a “wasted parking opportunity” (The Times 1961) while the council suggests also that the redundant town docks “look like foregoing their water and ships for cars before long.”

While Hull remained Britain’s premier fishing port in the 1960s (“Britain’s Freight Ports” 1969) and vast modernisation plans were underway (Miller 1961), the Times Hull Development Committee article explains that the city is “systematically removing its ‘fish only’ label” (1961). The Cod Wars (1958-1976) lead to the loss of access to the fishing grounds in proximity of Iceland, on which Hull’s fishing fleet depended for their cod. The conflict cost Hull 15 000 jobs (Clavane 2016). With the requirement for freezer trawler facilities, fishing activities were relocated to Albert Dock and St Andrew’s Dock was closed and backfilled in the 80s. Following periods of success and decline, Hull’s fishing and shipbuilding industry experienced a final slump. (“The Cabinet Papers : Shipbuilding” n.d.) While the western docks suffered from the loss of fishing, the eastern docks faced increased automation and containerisation leading to further unemployment in Hull as no industry filled the void, accelerating socio-economic decline. In the late 20th century, Hull industrial focus shifted from maritime activities to manufacturing products such as metal boxes, plastic bags, excavators and caravans, as well as flour milling, the combined effect of which was that the city further retreated inland, leaving the waterfront increasingly purposeless. Passenger transport remained one of the strongest remaining activities with more than 28,000 passengers per annum, mainly to and from the continent (Miller 1961). This lead to the extension of King George Dock onto tidal mudflats, together with Queen Elizabeth Dock which opened in 1969. Due to the increasing vessel size, deeper draughts and new requirements for the commerce of timber, Victoria Dock was closed in 1970.

1945

1.4 Fourth stage, the retreat from the waterfront - circa 1940-1980 Post-war decline of Hull’s waterfront

1970s

01 02

1990s

1.5 Fifth stage, the redevelopment of the waterfront - 1980-present day Ambivalent re-use 02 07

03 Figure 2.11. Ordnance Survey National Grid 2nd Revision 1954-1993. Landmark Information Group, UK,1990. Ordnance Survey map depicting the shrinking of the docks, as St Andrew’s dock was backfilled and Victoria Dock redeveloped into a riverside village.

[1] Junction and Railway dock converted as a Marina [2] Prince’s dock build over with a shopping mall [3] St Andrew’s dock still appears on the map as an unnamed dock even though it is has been infilled. [4] The historic shipyards and industrial land near Victoria dock is entirely vacant, awaiting redevelopment. [5] The first phase of Victoria dock riverside village has been completed. [6] Sammy’s point lies derelict. [7] The inner ring road separates the historic docklands from the city

2017

02 01 05

03 02

As many British port-cities in the 80s, Hull made efforts to regenerate its de-industrialised waterfront (Jones 1998) (Hull City Council 2016). Following industrial decline, the liminal space between the city and water became a space of “urban redundancy.” (Marshall 2003) However, the high visibility of the site, and large expanse attracted commercial interest. Retail and tourism became major industries. Figure 2.11 shows how, once bought by the council, Junction and Railway docks were converted to a Marina. Victoria dock was backfilled and built-over with a residential masterplan completed in 1988. Prince’s dock was built over with Prince’s Quay shopping centre. In the 2000s, Hull witnessed a spending boom which resulted in the construction of many leisure projects such as retail outlets, museums and art galleries. This cultural renaissance lead to the urban reassessment of the waterfront of the Old Town. Sammy’s point, which had become a “ramshackle collection of small boat yards and businesses” (Young 2018), was transformed into the council-led Aquarium project, the Deep. On the opposite bank of the river Hull, the £165 million World Trade Centre business district was built. The 2008 recession halted many large-scale development projects. These include the “Boom” a £100 million residential

Figure 2.12. Hull City of Culture Map, Cox, Joseph, 2017. The stylised map of Hull was used as part of the city’s bid for the title of UK City of Culture 2017. The selection of cultural icons demonstrates of the selective representation made of Hull’s MIH. While certain MIH site are outlined (Cooperation pier and Albert Dock) on the background, no text explanation is provided. The words “dock” or “fishing” do not feature once and the only reference to maritime industry is made to the bottom right with the passenger terminal.

In the fifth stage of the port city relationship, the large scale modern port occupies large areas of land while the original core of the harbour is re-used for non-industrial purposes and absorbed by the city. As such, the maritime landscape and its MIH started to be commercialized as a cultural feature.

development on the east bank of the River Hull, featuring luxury riverside apartments, shops, and a luxury hotel (BBC 2006). In the 2010s, the council took on many private sectorled schemes which subsequently collapsed. The historic site of the fruit market was developed into a hip independent shopping street, along the desolate Humber street and a footbridge over the river Hull (Young 2018) In 2013, Hull won the title of ‘European City of culture’ for 2017. This funneled billion-pound investment toward regeneration initiatives, which included renovations of heritage buildings and improvements of the public realm. (Hull City Council n.d.a) This also provided an opportunity to change the public vision of the city as demonstrated by Figure 1.12 which shows a selective curation of the city, leaving out most of the docklands. Keen to secure its legacy, Hull has since developed the Yorkshire Maritime City masterplan, aiming to improve a selection of maritime heritage sites. In 2017, the Old Town area was designated as one of 10 Heritage Action Zones by Historic England with the benefit that the area would get a share of the associated £6 million budget. (Historic England 2017) Some industrial activity remains in the Docks to the far east and west: Albert and William Wright Docks are still open for commercial vessels today. Since 2016 Alexandra Dock is being modernised for wind farm construction by Siemens, following the Green Port Hull initiative. King George Dock hosts the cruise terminal and is estimated to handle one million passengers per year. (“Hull” n.d.)

[1] Victoria Dock has been replaced by a park [2] Hull’s cultural and leisure offering is brought to the forefront with the Maritime Museum, Ferens art gallery and the Deep [3] Regenerated Fruit Market [4]A tokenistic reference made to maritime history with the sketch of a boat and lock gates. [5] The only reference made to the maritime industry is the passenger terminal. 17

1990s

1.5 Fifth stage, the redevelopment of the waterfront - 1980-present day Ambivalent re-use 02 07

2017

02 01 05

03 02

Fate of Hull Docklands

2 . P r e s e n t co n d i t i o n of H u ll’s co n t e s t e d Ma ri t ime he r i t a ge

Co ns tru c ti

on P

er io d

West of the river Hull East of the river Hull

KEY

The Dock

ning

Ope

1775 1778

Industrial Period

1800s

Clo

Humber Dock 1807

1809

d io er

Infilling

Re-Use Period

c an nd du Re

sure

The previous chapter has built up a historic understanding of Hull’s waterfront and the evolving port-city relationship whereby redundant docks were re-purposed to new uses. More or less consciously, Hull has re-appropriated its MIH to bolster its economy in alternative ways. Figure 3.1 illustrates the different ways the docks have adjusted to deindustrialisation.

Junction Dock 1826 1829

Railway Dock 1845 1846

Figure 3.1. Evolution of Hull’s docks, original drawing by author, 2020. Graphic representation of data which enables the identification of trends and factors influencing the likelihood of dock re-use. The infographic represents both space and time, demonstrating trends in how the location and age of a dock may influence its fate: the oldest, most central docks were all made redundant and re-purposed for leisure and cultural uses, while the furthermore recent docks have retained their industrial uses. Here, the life of a dock begins slanted, with its construction. Upon completion, the dot indicates the beginning of the industrial use of the dock. In the case of historic docklands, a second dot indicates the permanent end of such activities, followed by which a second slanted phase begins. During its redundancy, the dock lies in limbo. On most occasion, this phase is terminated by a new form of use, indicated by the horizontal continuation. Docks in bold are used for the detailed study in the following chapter.

Victoria Dock

1845 1846

Albert Dock 1862

St Andrew’s Dock W. W. D. 1869

1869

1873

1883

Alexandra Dock 1881 1885

1900s

King George Dock

1910 1914

10 docks active - Hull is the third port of the kingdom 1930

Queen’s Gardens

1935

1968

1975

Hull Marina Prince’s Shopping Centre

This chapter examines the current condition of three historic docks and compares their circumstances by taking a closer look at the data including larger scale maps, from urban to architectural scale. The sample of case studies, one Town Dock (Humber dock), one East dock (Victoria dock) and one West Dock (St Andrew’s Dock), is deemed representative of the variety of Hull’s de-industrialised dockland. It provides both confirmation and exceptions to the trend shown in the infographic in Figure 3.1. A section on each of the three docks below identifies its past industrial use, redundancy and current condition as well as its heritage value and recent redevelopment history. In doing so, the chapter also aims to identify the main factors influencing the docks’ evolution and whether an effort was made to preserve heritage value.

Elizabeth Dock 1968 1969 1970

1970s

1983 1980s 1990

1988

Victoria Dock’s Residential Masterplan

2000s

5 active docks - The industrial focus is to the east

Fate of Hull Docklands

2 . P r e s e n t co n d i t i o n of H u ll’s co n t e s t e d Ma ri t ime he r i t a ge

Co ns tru c ti

on P

er io d

West of the river Hull East of the river Hull

KEY

The Dock

ning

Ope

1775 1778

Industrial Period

1800s

Clo

Humber Dock 1807

1809

d io er

Infilling

Re-Use Period

c an nd du Re

sure

Junction Dock 1826 1829

Railway Dock 1845 1846

Victoria Dock

1845 1846

Albert Dock 1862

St Andrew’s Dock W. W. D. 1869

1869

1873

1883

Alexandra Dock 1881 1885

1900s

King George Dock

1910 1914

10 docks active - Hull is the third port of the kingdom 1930

Queen’s Gardens

1935

1968

1975

Hull Marina Prince’s Shopping Centre

Elizabeth Dock 1968 1969 1970

1970s

1983 1980s 1990

1988

Victoria Dock’s Residential Masterplan

2000s

5 active docks - The industrial focus is to the east

1942

2.1 Humber Dock 1809 – 1968

Located where the medieval moat was, Humber dock was Hull’s second dock. Opened in the 1809, it was used for shipping and trade of goods such as fresh produce, see Figure 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5. It was permanently closed in 1969, in the second wave of dock closures after Queen’s dock in the 1930s. (Figure 3.6 and 3.7)

Figure 3.2 Town Docks of Kingston Upon Hull, Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, 1942. This edited aerial photo shows Hull’s town and port, the Humber’s jetties, the goods station to the left and top left the passenger station. It features three dock : Humber Dock, behind it Prince’s Dock and the park “Queen’s Garden”. Railway dock is not visible.

2020 Railway Dock

Humber Dock

Prince’s Dock

As an added benefit, Humber dock’s re-purposing provided the catalyst for the regeneration of its surroundings, highlighted in Figure 3.3 in orange. The World Trade Centre occupies what used to be vacant industrial waste land and the previously derelict Fruit Market now hosts a “cultural quarter” featuring art galleries and performance venues in banana-ripening warehouses. (“Fruit Market” n.d.) and constitutes one of the main nightlife locations in the city. This re-purposing has been accused of bringing about gentrification. (Young 2019)

Humber Dock - 2020 World Trade Grade II listed Grade II listed Grade II listed Grade II listed Fruit market Pedestrian bridge Centre railway dock swing bridge swing bridge & mooring posts redevelopment in construction warehouse lock

The publication from the Hull Daily Mail from 1974, provides an interesting perspective on the old waterfront which had fallen out of economic use: “part of that dockland area which abuts the Old Town and the marina […] presents an air of dereliction and decay.” The newspaper hints at different opportunities for re-use, namely shopping and parking, while mentioning that it would be cheaper to convert Humber dock to a marina than fill it in, see Figure 3.8. After years of inaction, the dock was bought by the council and turned into a marina in 1983 : “the muddy wastes of Humber Dock would be transformed into a major counter for small boats, with around 200 bobbling about in the seven-acre area.” (Hull Daily Mail 1974, 7) Today, Humber’s dockside is highly appealing and safe, since “transformed into pleasing waterside walks with open views over the marina.” (Hull City Council 2005) While the inner ring road has made access from the historic centre to the marina difficult, a pedestrian bridge is being built.

Holiday Inn A63 Inner ring road

The Deep (Aquarium)

Figure 3.3 Google Maps satellite photo of Hull Marina, Google, n.d. The illustration shows the changes which have occured since the deindustrialisation of the area. The white annotations highlight the built elements with an identified heritage value, recent development is in orange and the outline of the docks is in blue.

Hull History Centre holds a copy of a feasibility study for the Treasure Island Wharf (1986), an attraction park to the west of the dock. Though not realised, this initiative highlights Hull’s budding tourism ambition. This ambition was confirmed when,

in response to a report claiming that a hotel might enable Hull to retain some tourists passing though the passenger terminal, the Humber dock’s Holiday Inn was built. Figure 3.3 illustrates the listed elements of the dock. The dock itself is listed and located in the Old Town conservation area, which ensures the maintenance of mooring posts, locks, the swing bridge and the only remaining railway dock warehouse. Recent restoration work on the swing bridge (2007) and paving demonstrate the council’s interest in maintaining a manicured appearance (Hull City Council 2005). Only few dockland buildings have survived, namely the former shipping line offices and Warehouse 13 (Hull City Council 2005). The Conservation Area Character Appraisal also mentions intangible features which contribute to the area’s atmosphere such as the “distinctive sound on breezy days when the clinking of rigging fills the air.” (Hull City Council 2005) Today the Humber dock is part of the Hull Old Town Heritage Action Zone (AZ) of which there are 10 in the UK. The 5 year program represents a £1.6m investment in the location. It seeks to “strengthen the link between the city centre with the waterfront” and intends to draw on Hull’s maritime past to attract tourists and increase footfall (Historic England 2017). Humber dock presents an example of what Atkinson describes as “maritime kitsch” landscape, where the sparse remains of the industry are used to perpetuate the archetypal image of the historic waterfront and create a new urban visions. (Atkinson 2008) (Marshall 2003) It seems as if the dock’s central location has provided it with the visibility and funding opportunities required for its reuse and maintenance, shown in Figure 3.9. However, it is worth noting that the dock lay vacant for 15 years and that council funding has safeguarded it from further degradation. Humber dock is an example of how built MIH can be somewhat retained, however its incorporation in place making strategies lead to a simplification of the heritage narratives of the location. This from of re-use is able to nurture further regeneration. 21

1942

2.1 Humber Dock 1809 – 1968

2020 Railway Dock

Humber Dock

Prince’s Dock

Holiday Inn A63 Inner ring road

The Deep (Aquarium)

2. 2.1 Humber Dock 1809 – 1968

Active Industry

Redevelopment Figure 3.8. New Heart for Hull, Hull Daily Mail, 1974.

Figure 3.4. Humber Dock Street, Hull Museums,1884. The drawing depicts the cobbled dockside road featuring the historic rails. These were covered until 2017, when the rail tracks were lifted, cleaned and re-laid.

Figure 3.5. The Humber and Prince’s Docks and environs, Kingston upon Hull, Aerofilms Ltd, 1925 This aerial photo shows the town docks at their peak.

Redundancy Figure 3.6. Humber dock looking across to Railway Dock. Marshall, Peter. 1975. The photo shows the progressive silting of the dock as it is redundant.

Top : Figure 3.8.a. Sketch drawn over a photo of the vacant dock showing a potential reuse scenario. Bottom : Figure 3.8.b. Description of five scenarios of reuse, all of which feature a Marina (F), they consider different combination of shopping and office over Prince’s dock. Some consider infilling Railway Dock.

Reuse Figure 3.7. Humber Dock from Wellington St, Marshall, Peter, 1982 The photo demonstrates that most dockside buildings have already been destroyed, with only the railway dock warehouse remaining.

Figure 3.9. Current condition of Humber Dock and surroundings, original photos by author, 2020. Figure 3.9.a. The new pedestrian bridge of the ring road

Figure 3.9.b. Humber Dock reconverted as a Marina

Figure 3.9.c. Humber Street and Fruit Market redevelopment

2. 2.1 Humber Dock 1809 – 1968

Active Industry

Redevelopment Figure 3.8. New Heart for Hull, Hull Daily Mail, 1974.

Figure 3.5. The Humber and Prince’s Docks and environs, Kingston upon Hull, Aerofilms Ltd, 1925 This aerial photo shows the town docks at their peak.

Redundancy Figure 3.6. Humber dock looking across to Railway Dock. Marshall, Peter. 1975. The photo shows the progressive silting of the dock as it is redundant.

Figure 3.9. Current condition of Humber Dock and surroundings, original photos by author, 2020. Figure 3.9.a. The new pedestrian bridge of the ring road

Figure 3.9.b. Humber Dock reconverted as a Marina

Figure 3.9.c. Humber Street and Fruit Market redevelopment

1942

2.2 Victoria Dock – 1845 – 1968

Figure 3.10. Victoria Dock with timber yard in Kingston upon Hull, Oberkommando der Wehrmacht,1942. This edited aerial photo shows Victoria Dock and its lumber yard and storage basins, as well as the Outer Basin and Half Tide Basin which are accessed via the Humber.

Victoria dock was the first mercantile dock outside the historic town, built around the Citadel in 1850. It shipped cattle, coal and mostly timber and heightened demand required the expansion of both ancillary facilities such as warehouses, timber ponds and shipyards shown in Figure 3.10, 3.12 and 3.13. Made redundant in 1968, the 150 acre site lay vacant for more than a decade, see Figure 3.14 and 3.15. It was then taken over by a private development company in order to build the Victoria Dock Village. (Bellway Homes n.d.) Planning permission was granted in 1986 for 1500 homes, Figure 3.16. (Hull City Council 2012) The vision was to create a “riverside community, selfcontained, yet essentially part of Hull, [tastefully] designed to link with the port’s past, yet incorporating every amenity for today’s lifestyle.” The development features a primary school, hotel, shops, pubs, village hall, leisure amenities and a mile-long frontage on the River Humber, highlighted in Figure 3.11. Maritime heritage provided a successful feature of place-marketing strategy : the village’s streets bear nautical themed names and are adorned with anchors. Atkinson named the aesthetic “maritime kitsch.” The project won awards from local and national organisations, including the best urban development of 1993. (Atkinson 2008)

2020

Victoria Dock - 2020 Scheduled monument ‘Hull Locally listed Castle south Brockhouse’ slipway

Locally listed half-tide basin

Listed swing bridge

Right of way

Previous location of Victoria Dock

Siemens industrial dock further east.

Figure 3.11. Google Maps satellite photo of Victoria Park, Google, n.d This annotated aerial photo shows the changes which have occured since the deindustrialisation of the area. The white annotations highlight the built elements with an identified heritage value, recent development is in orange and the outline of the docks is in blue.

While affordable housing was planned, it was never built. Rents were soon among the highest in the city, (Atkinson 2008) which raised similar gentrification-related questions as the Fruit market redevelopment near the Humber dock did 15 years later. Indeed, the development did not receive unanimous support, and was described by Fitzgerald as a “rather crass development that has spoilt [many] docks […] and there is no response to the unique character of Hull” (as quoted in Atkinson 2008). Another source remarked that the development featured “sufficient ‘historic’ maritime kitsch motifs to make it saleable to its middle-class residents”, but was very critical of the design approach, stating that it

commercialised maritime elements while stripping them of their historic value (Atkinson 2008). Atkinson further remarks that “despite a clear recognition of the fabricated nature of this kitsch aesthetic, […] people still claimed to like it.” He notes that inhabitants feel detached from the area’s history. (2007) This may be due to the insufficient remains of genuine heritage. While the park follows the rough outline of the dock, no trace of MIH remains as shown in Figure 3.11. The only listed element by Historic England is a conservation area featuring the remnants of 17th century garrison fort and the swing bridge from the dock. Slipway and half -tide basin have been kept and are locally listed since 2007. (Hull City Council n.d.b) Today, Victoria’s residential masterplan, much like Humber dock, present a textbook example of the regeneration model used globally. The sanitised dockland was “designed to appeal to a wide constituency through a sentimental, nostalgic vision of a maritime past” and made little effort to maintain a sense of history through the preservation of MIH. As Avni and Teschner (2019) wrote the “indigenous presence is symbolically represented in the built environment through arts, street names, and parks, yet absent from more substantial forms of recognition.” This type of conservation, while proved economically profitable, comes at the loss of the plurality of histories which inhabited the dock when it was active. The uniformity and increasing ubiquity of such waterfront redevelopments risks devaluing post-industrial docklands heritage, as all remaining MIH is stripped of its meaning, see Figure 3.17. Victoria further illustrates tensions in waterfront regeneration, as the east of the village is protesting against industrial development of the site currently buffering the residential area from Alexandra dock which remains industrial. According to the council, the site presents a potential to capture economic activity related to Siemens activity in the dock. (Hull City Council 2012) 25

1942

2.2 Victoria Dock – 1845 – 1968

2020

Victoria Dock - 2020 Scheduled monument ‘Hull Locally listed Castle south Brockhouse’ slipway

Locally listed half-tide basin

Listed swing bridge

Right of way

Previous location of Victoria Dock

Siemens industrial dock further east.

Chapter 2 2.2 Victoria Dock – 1845 – 1968

Active Industry

Redevelopment

Figure 3.12. Victoria Dock, Gibson, Paul, 1905.

Figure 3.13. Victoria Dock in 1946, Hull Daily Mail, 1946

Figure 3.16. The New Riverside Village In The Heart Of Hull, Bellway Homes, n.d.

The photo portrays the bulk unloading of timber cargo.

The photo portrays the busy dock side, where cargo is transported from bulk shipments on boats to wagons on rails.

The drawing shows the work in progress of the redevelopment as the first phase of residential buildings has been delivered.

Redundancy Figure 3.14. Victoria Dock, Marshall, Peter, 1982 The photo shows the deserted dockland prior to its preparation for redevelopment.

Reuse Figure 3.15 Attendant’s Office for Filling of Victoria Dock,Marshall, Peter, 1982

Figure 3.17. Remains of Victoria Dock and surroundings, original photos by author, 2020.

The photo indicates that the dock is in the process of being infilled.

Figure 3.17.a. Silted locally listed slipway

Figure 3.17.b. Grade II Listed Bridge

Figure 3.17.c. Victoria Dock half tide basin

2. 2.2 Victoria Dock – 1845 – 1968

Redevelopment

Active Industry Figure 3.12. Victoria Dock, Gibson, Paul, 1905.

Figure 3.13. Victoria Dock in 1946, Hull Daily Mail, 1946

Figure 3.16. The New Riverside Village In The Heart Of Hull, Bellway Homes, n.d.

The photo portrays the bulk unloading of timber cargo.

The photo portrays the busy dock side, where cargo is transported from bulk shipments on boats to wagons on rails.

The drawing shows the work in progress of the redevelopment as the first phase of residential buildings has been delivered.

Redundancy Figure 3.14. Victoria Dock, Marshall, Peter, 1982 The photo shows the deserted dockland prior to its preparation for redevelopment.

Reuse Figure 3.15 Attendant’s Office for Filling of Victoria Dock,Marshall, Peter, 1982

Figure 3.17. Remains of Victoria Dock and surroundings, original photos by author, 2020.

The photo indicates that the dock is in the process of being infilled.

Figure 3.17.a. Silted locally listed slipway

Figure 3.17.b. Grade II Listed Bridge

Figure 3.17.c. Victoria Dock half tide basin

1942

2.3 St Andrew’s Dock - 1883- 1975

Figure 3.18. St. Andrews Dock in Kingston upon Hull, England, Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, 1942. The edited aerial photo shows the riverside quay in the forefront, and from left to right, St. Andrew’s Dock Extension and St. Andrew’s Dock with large fish halls on the north bank, William Wright Dock and Albert Dock.

2020

St Andrew’s dock was active between 1883 and 1975 and was home to the UK’s biggest trawler fleet. (St. Andrew’s Dock Heritage Park Action Group STAND n.d.) St Andrew’s Dock featured an ice factory, railway sidings, a box making factory, banks, cafes, shops, maintenance split ways as well as a post office, doctor’s surgery and police station, complete with prison cells, visible in Figure 3.18. (Gooding 2013) The advent of freezer trawlers rendered St Andrew’s facilities obsolete. Consequently, the fishing fleet made Albert Dock facilities redundant in 1975 and St Andrew’s lay idle until it was infilled in the late 80s, see Figures 3.24 and 3.25.

(Atkinson, Cooke and Spooner 2002). The east remained vacant, becoming a “Geographical Priority Area” in the city’s regeneration strategy. (Atkinson, Cooke and Spooner 2002)

Named after the patron saint of fishermen, St Andrew’s Docks is a location of collective memory and mourning, See Figure 3.27. A 1954 survey found that “for every fisherman working at sea there were up to three people working ashore in associated jobs. This totalled almost 50,000 workers in 1954.” (Gooding 2013 The dock’s deserved role in Hull’s memory may be evidenced by the staggering deep-sea fishing’s fatality rate, which was 20 times that of men in manufacturing industries (Schilling 1971). An estimated 6,000 men died at sea and left grieving communities ashore. (Kitching,2019)

“[St Andrew’s Dock] needs very substantial investment if its [original] character is to be preserved and enhanced and its history interpreted to enable it to be understood by future generations. It is likely that this can only be achieved by redevelopment of the majority of the area in a manner reflecting […] the area’s special character.” (Hull City Council Planning & Design Committee 1996)

Today, the vandalised remains of the dock are a metaphorical graveyard for the fishing industry. The 1949 locally listed Lord Line building – landmark offices of the former trawler company- has been subjected to trespassing, vandalism and arson and has become a “magnet for anti-social behaviour”. (Newton 2019) While publicly accessible and featuring a right of way (Hull City Council n.d.d), the area is derelict and unwelcoming.

St Andrew’s Dock - 2020 St Andrew’s Retail Park

Infilled Extension of St Andrew’s Dock

Infilled St Public Right Andrew’s Dock of Way

Grade II listed hydraulic St Andrew’s Consevation Locally Listed Area (excludes the dock) Lord Line Building tower and pump house

Figure 3.19. Google Maps satellite photo of St Andrew’s Dock, Google, n.d. This annotated aerial photo shows the changes which have occured since the deindustrialisation of the area. The white annotations highlight the built elements with an identified heritage value, recent development is in orange and the outline of the docks is in blue.

In 1986 St. Andrew’s Quay, a retail park development, lead to the infilling of the dock. (Thompson 1990) (Hull City Council Planning 1993) The extension of the dock was turned into an anyplace development visible in Figure 3.19. Warehouseretail stores surround tarmacked parking, while the only reference made to the site’s past is an underwhelming mural

The eastern section of St. Andrew’s Dock was declared a Conservation Area in 1990 and the hydraulic tower and pump house was grated Grade II listed status. A 1993 report describes that the dock and its buildings were in “great need of repair”. (Hull City Council Planning) Its riverside location, history and the character is believed to present great potential for re-use however.

A 1993 feasibility study and a 1997 planning application put forward a proposal for a mixed-use leisure, retail and office development based upon a maritime theme; the architecture would be based on a “modern maritime informed aesthetic,” see Figure 3.26 (Hull City Council Planning 1993). The project featured a memorial garden and heritage centre. However, this was deemed insufficient by the local pressure group, the St Andrew’s Dock Heritage Park Action Group (STAND) and the council did not approve the plan due “to its insufficient sensitivity to Hull’s fishing heritage and to the dock’s central place in this memory.” (Atkinson, Cooke and Spooner 2002) Furthermore, was said of the dock that the “attractiveness as a destination would diminish if references to the past were removed from the urban environment.” Interestingly, this contrasts entirely with the waterfront regeneration model followed by Victoria dock and Humber dock. 29

1942

2.3 St Andrew’s Dock - 1883- 1975

2020

(Atkinson, Cooke and Spooner 2002). The east remained vacant, becoming a “Geographical Priority Area” in the city’s regeneration strategy. (Atkinson, Cooke and Spooner 2002)

St Andrew’s Dock - 2020 St Andrew’s Retail Park

Infilled Extension of St Andrew’s Dock

Infilled St Public Right Andrew’s Dock of Way

Grade II listed hydraulic St Andrew’s Consevation Locally Listed Area (excludes the dock) Lord Line Building tower and pump house

2. 2.3 St Andrew’s Dock - 1883- 1975

‘bad’ condition * Expected to deteriorate significantly *

No significant change*

Deteriorating *

Improving significantly*

Deteriorating * Deteriorating significantly *

Manor Properties (landlord)

Condition of St Andrew’s Dock according to each year Heritage at Risk Register (Historic England)

Figure 3.20. Evolving condition of St Andrew’s Dock in relation to the landlord, council and community’s proposals. original drawing by author, 2020. Schematic representation of the evolution of the condition of St Andrew’s Dock in the last 10 years based on the Heritage at Risk register by Historic England, cross-referenced to information from Hull’s planning portal and Hull live, the local newspaper. The supervision of the condition of St Andrew’s seems entirely detached from ongoing projects.

Purchase of the site

Planning proposal for a student accomodation campus

‘very bad’ condition*

Planning ammendement

Application to demolish the Lord Line Building and the hydraulic tower and pump house by Manor properties

Council Action Community involvement

Planning application and re-use suggestions

‘It is proposed to [...] make good the cleared site’

Rejection of the planing proposal

Planning permission granted

Petition campaigning for the Hull City Council to takeover the site and convert it into a museum on the fishing industry, in memory of over 6,000 trawlermen that died from the city.

Petition to stop the Lord Line from being demolished (2,091 signatures).

* Information obtained from each years Heritage at Risk Register.

Since the dock has changed ownership again. Both planning applications and community led proposals have produced proposals, shown in Figure 3.20. Most recently, the owner of the Lord Line applied for the permission to demolish it. This was unanimously refused by the council. (Young 2017a)

“If these two symbolic and historic buildings are lost it will effectively render the current heritage planning controls as useless, resulting in an inevitable application by the landowner to ask for the Conversation Area status to be removed.” (Young 2017b) Today, St Andrew’s remains vacant and in “very bad condition” according to the 2019 Heritage at Risk Register. The dock has spent 40% of its life deteriorating and redundant. The tactless redevelopment of the extension of St Andrew’s dock and the failure to regenerate St Andrew’s is due to many factors. The location of the dock, a 50min walk from the centre, prevents it from being an attractive location for investment, while the private ownership of the land limits the council’s involvement. The surroundings of the dock aren’t attractive as the area relied entirely on the fishing industry and have since declined. However, the root cause of inactivity and indecisiveness is that St Andrew’s stakeholders do not share the conceptions of the value of the site and its roles in place-memory. The designation of the conservation area against the advice of Historic England (Atkinson, Cooke and Spooner 2002) and the exclusion of St Andrew’s dock from the conservation area bearing its name Figure 3.19 (Hull City Council n.d.c) are proof of this. St Andrew’s dock provides an example of the challenges in redeveloping waterfronts where social and commercial interests conflict, leading to a deadlock and degradation of heritage assets leading to urban amnesia (Avni and Teschner 2019). 31

2. 2.3 St Andrew’s Dock - 1883- 1975

‘bad’ condition * Expected to deteriorate significantly *

No significant change*

Deteriorating *

Improving significantly*

Deteriorating * Deteriorating significantly *

Manor Properties (landlord)

Condition of St Andrew’s Dock according to each year Heritage at Risk Register (Historic England)

Purchase of the site

Planning proposal for a student accomodation campus

‘very bad’ condition*

Planning ammendement

Application to demolish the Lord Line Building and the hydraulic tower and pump house by Manor properties

Council Action Community involvement

Planning application and re-use suggestions

‘It is proposed to [...] make good the cleared site’

Rejection of the planing proposal

Planning permission granted

Petition campaigning for the Hull City Council to takeover the site and convert it into a museum on the fishing industry, in memory of over 6,000 trawlermen that died from the city.

Petition to stop the Lord Line from being demolished (2,091 signatures).

* Information obtained from each years Heritage at Risk Register.

Active Industry Left : Figure 3.21 Fish being Unloaded from a Trawler, My Learning, n.d. The photo shows the fish market to the north of the dock

Top Right : Figure 3.22. ‘Man O War’ Leaving St Andrew’s Dock, Innes, Donald, 1955. This photo captures the aspect of the construction around the lock gates.

2.3 St Andrew’s Dock - 1883- 1975

Bottom Right : Figure 3.23. St Andrew’s slipway, Hull Now, n.d. This was located to the west of the dock extension.

Redevelopment ? Figure 3.26. St Andrew docks Hull Feasibly study, Hull City Council Planning, 1993. Left : Figure 3.26.a Visual of the redevelopment of St Andrew’s Dock as a marina and its extension being infilled and turned into a park. Right : Figure 3.26.b Alternative design suggestions, which suggest varying degrees of infilling of the dock.

Redundancy

Figure 3.24. St Andrew’s Dock, Marshall, Peter, 1981. The photo shows early stages of deterioration as the dockside is being grown over.

Reuse Figure 3.25. St Andrew’s Dock, Lord Line Building and road, Marshall, Peter, 1983. The photo shows buildings to the right of the Lord Line which no longer exist.

Figure 3.27. Remains of St Andrew’s Dock and surroundings, original photos by author, 2020. Figure 3.27.a. Memorial to fishermen lost at sea

Figure 3.27.b. The Lord Line building (left) and Grade II Listed Pump House (right) see across the lock gates.

Active Industry Left : Figure 3.21 Fish being Unloaded from a Trawler, My Learning, n.d. The photo shows the fish market to the north of the dock

Top Right : Figure 3.22. ‘Man O War’ Leaving St Andrew’s Dock, Innes, Donald, 1955. This photo captures the aspect of the construction around the lock gates.

2.3 St Andrew’s Dock - 1883- 1975

Bottom Right : Figure 3.23. St Andrew’s slipway, Hull Now, n.d. This was located to the west of the dock extension.

Redundancy

Figure 3.24. St Andrew’s Dock, Marshall, Peter, 1981. The photo shows early stages of deterioration as the dockside is being grown over.

Reuse Figure 3.25. St Andrew’s Dock, Lord Line Building and road, Marshall, Peter, 1983. The photo shows buildings to the right of the Lord Line which no longer exist.

Figure 3.27. Remains of St Andrew’s Dock and surroundings, original photos by author, 2020. Figure 3.27.a. Memorial to fishermen lost at sea

Figure 3.27.b. The Lord Line building (left) and Grade II Listed Pump House (right) see across the lock gates.

Fate of Hull Docklands Construction phase

2.4 Factors influencing dock re-use

The Dock 1775

1778

Industrial use Limbo following closure Leisure (Queens Gardens)

Humber Dock

Marina

1807 1809

Retail (Prince’s Shopping Centre)

Junction Dock

Residental & Leisure (Victoria Park)

1826

1829

Old Town outline

Railway Dock

Victoria Dock

1845 1846

Albert 1862 Dock St Andrew’s Dock 1869

WilliamWright Dock 1869

1869

1873

1883

Alexandra Dock

The research underpinning this paper has identified two scenarios following redundancy: re-use versus abandon. The chapter has found that while Humber and Victoria Dock harbour different new uses (residential and leisure), the model of redevelopment in both cases favours a romanticised vision of the maritime past that is detached from the specific local history. In contrast, stakeholders in Andrew’s Dock are determined to preserve the authenticity of the fish dock, which has prevented any development proposal from being realised. The factors which determine which scenario occurs have been identified. In summary, these are location and age, ownership, funding opportunities, the social connotation of the dock and stakeholder management.

According to Smith and Ferrari, it “avoided the discontinuities that political cycles and events can entail”, and (Smith and Ferrari 2012) The (compulsory) land purchases made by Yorkshire Forward enabled the completion of improvement and development projects such as footbridge over the river Hull and developer of the Fruit Marker in Humber Street. Sadly, the private company was liquidated in 2010 in the aftermath of the crisis. (Fulcher 2010) According to the Hull Daily Mail, “if Yorkshire Forward had purchased the [St Andrew’s] site back in 2010 this would be a different story now.” (Johnson as quoted in Young 2017b). That perspective does not consider however why the dock was never purchased by Yorkshire Forward in the first place.

Location and age are inseparable as the docklands grew in time along the waterfront and away from the historic center, see Figure 3.28. Out of the eleven docks, the first 6 are no longer in use and the first 5 have been re-used. The docks which were re-used are within 20min walk from the centre of Hull. At the time when the Town Docks were built, the port and city were closely integrated, which facilitates the later re-use of the docks. Additionally, the maritime associations of older sites are more easily romanticised and dissociated from the lived experiences of most people. (Day and Lunn 2003)

The reality though is that success of a redevelopment cannot easily be “predicted” by simple factor assessment. Redevelopment remains highly complex and influenced by various perspectives. Atkinson describes that Hull is “excising” less marketable images from the city’s branding, such as the “dirty and smelly fishing industry.” This is compounded by fresh and painful memories. (Atkinson 2008) This attempt at concealing Hull’s fishing legacy has been at work since the mid-twentieth century. In 1961, the Times wrote that Hull is “systematically removing its ‘fish only’ label”. But, in parallel and importantly, this view is challenged by communities whose family heritage is vested in St Andrew’s dock and who have fiercely defended the dock. Complicating things further is Atkinson’s observation that the Lord Line Building, which has recently been centre stage in the redevelopment debates, is a problematic symbol as it represents trawler management rather than the working class. Indeed, “the vast majority of fishermen, past and present, that pass through Memory Lane do not wish to see the Lord Line Building preserved to the trawlers’ owners, who they are in dispute with over their claim for compensation.” (Hull Daily Mail as quoted in Atkinson, Cooke and Spooner)

1881

1885

King George Dock 1910

1930

1914

1935

1968

1975

1970

1983

1983 1990

1988

Elizabeth Dock 1968 1969

West Docks

Town Dock

East Docks

Figure 3.28 Evolution in use of the docklands in relation to their proximity to the historic centre, original drawing by author, 2020.

Land ownership and funding availability are major factors in enabling redevelopment. Queen’s dock, Prince’s Dock, Humber dock and Railway dock were all bought by the council which then re-used them. This was also the case of Sammy’s point which became the Deep (aquarium). Private investment may play a role too as with Victoria’s dock, however, the development was partially funded by an Urban Regeneration Grant fund. (Bellway Homes n.d.). The ability for the council to buy this land and develop it is, however, subject to funding opportunities. An example of best practice for re-use is “Yorkshire Forward”, an organization established in the late 2000s and which managed previously public-sector assets. Yorkshire Forward brings together public-sector agencies and private-sector investors towards a common development goal. Though it did not contribute to any change in the docklands, it proved effective for the re-use of other derelict heritage sites.

Dockland regeneration therefore also deals with issues in balancing new construction with authentic built heritage, and social justice, which touches on representation, inclusivity, access, and affordability. However, such challenges can be mitigated by increasing community involvement. 35

Fate of Hull Docklands Construction phase

2.4 Factors influencing dock re-use

The Dock 1775

1778

Industrial use Limbo following closure Leisure (Queens Gardens)

Humber Dock

Marina

1807 1809

Retail (Prince’s Shopping Centre)

Junction Dock

Residental & Leisure (Victoria Park)

1826

1829

Old Town outline

Railway Dock

Victoria Dock

1845 1846

Albert 1862 Dock St Andrew’s Dock 1869

WilliamWright Dock 1869

1869

1873

1883

Alexandra Dock

1881

1885

King George Dock 1910

1930

1914

1935

1968

1975

1970

1983

1983 1990

1988

Elizabeth Dock 1968 1969

West Docks

Town Dock

East Docks

Figure 3.28 Evolution in use of the docklands in relation to their proximity to the historic centre, original drawing by author, 2020.

01 Left: Figure 4.1 Location of the Yorkshire Maritime City masterplan sites, reproduction drawing by author, 2020. [reproduced with GIS Data provided by OS Meridian 2, n.d.]

05 04

[1] The North End Shipyard [2] The Arctic Corsair [3] Queens Gardens [4] Hull Maritime Museum [5] Dock Office Chambers [6] Spurn Lightship Bottom: Figure 4.2 Yorkshire Maritime City masterplan within the wider context of the waterfront, reproduction drawing by author, 2020. [reproduced with GIS Data provided by OS Meridian 2, n.d.]

1km

Waterline

Outline of all historic docks

Intervention sites of the Yorkshire Maritime City Masterplan

Industrial docks Administrative boundary of Kingston-upon- Hull

3 . T he f u t u re o f H u ll’s Ma ri t i m e I n d u s t ri a l He rit age The previous chapter looked at the current condition of historic docks, which revealed a discrepancy between locations. The case studies revealed which factors influence re-use, which gives an indication on how Hull’s selects the MIH it curates. Indeed, Hull favours a ‘blank slate’ approach, whereby landscapes provide a maritime feel without bringing up controversial associations. This third chapter looks into the future and studies how Hull selects and curates its MIH within its regeneration portfolio. In the last 50 years, Hull’s interests in developing the city as a tourist destination has grown. This is evidenced by a 1989 report by the Yorkshire and Humberside Tourist Board on the impact of tourism in Yorkshire which already then investigated ways of encouraging passing-by passengers from the ferry terminal to linger. (Yorkshire and Humberside Tourist Board 1989) More than 30 years later, the nomination as the City of Culture of 2017 furthered the importance of tourism and its inter-relation with culture-led regeneration. Tourism is

Hull’s fastest-growing industry and the city is also a major subregional retail centre (Smith and Ferrari 2012) “Culture and the arts are now being embedded into all of [Hull’s] long-term city strategies.” (Hull City Council n.d.a) Hull’s current tourism offer shown in Figure 2.12 includes the historic Old Town and Museum Quarter, Hull Marina and The Deep aquarium. The latter, built in 2000, remains Hull’s poster child in marketing campaigns while the recent Humber Street and Fruit Market developments have provided a new destination. The City of Culture program yielded £300m generated by the local tourism industry across the year. (Serota 2019) and Hull’s Local Plan to 2030 asserts that promoting Hull as a visitor destination is a key aspect of ensuring economic growth. Furthermore, Hull’s history is identified as instrumental in achieving this. (Hull City Council 2014) which is why the City of Culture title provided a significant incentive to revitalise the historic quarters. (Hull City Council n.d.a)

2km

N 37

01 Left: Figure 4.1 Location of the Yorkshire Maritime City masterplan sites, reproduction drawing by author, 2020. [reproduced with GIS Data provided by OS Meridian 2, n.d.]

05 04

1km

Waterline

Outline of all historic docks

Intervention sites of the Yorkshire Maritime City Masterplan

Industrial docks Administrative boundary of Kingston-upon- Hull

2km

N 37

3. 3.1 Yorkshire Maritime City Masterplan’s selective curation of heritage

Top : Figure 4.3. Visual of the North End Ship Yard, Hull City Plan, n.d. The currently silted and derelict dry dock with become the permanent dry-berth for the ‘Arctic Corsair’, a ship which will be made publicly accessible. The 20th century Scotch Derrick Crane on site is intended as a symbol of Hull’s recent maritime past. Bottom : Figure 4.4 Work beings on the North End Shipyard site. Original photo by author, 2020.

The Yorkshire Maritime City Masterplan builds upon the legacy of UK City of Culture in support of its aspiration to create a world-class visitor destination. Planned to complete in 2022, the Yorkshire Maritime city is a multi-million-pound heritage regeneration project. (Waite 2018) It will deliver the refurbishment and preservation of four historic maritime sites and two historic ships whose location is shown in Figure 4.1. The culturally driven masterplan is part-funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Hull City Council and recognises the “need to protect, preserve and promote our rich maritime history, global links and how we became the city we are today.” (“The Project” 2020) According to its website, it “draws on Hull’s unique spirit and sense of place, focusing on the promotion and protection of Hull’s maritime history.” (“Hull Yorkshire’s Maritime City Project” n.d.) The Yorkshire Maritime City masterplan will connect heritage sites within the old town and intends on revealing the history present in the built-in environment which passers-by are currently oblivious to. It will provide access to sites which have previously been removed from the city, such as historic boats and dry docks. This pitch for the touristic appeal of these suggestions is convincing as it provides an array of heritage-related activities. The masterplan’s only intention in highlighting recent history is the restoration of a 20th century Scotch Derrick Crane part of the North End Ship Yard project (Figures 4.3 and 4.4.). Unlike the Heritage Action Zone, this masterplan can span locations within Hull and, unlike policy development, it represented an opportunity in funding. However, what Figure 4.2. shows is the geographically limited scope: all sites are located within the vicinity of Old Town. An obvious omission in Yorkshire Maritime City is its lack of engagement with St Andrew’s dock. While the masterplan’s sites do have their origin in the maritime industries, they lost their industrial functions a long time ago, having since become recreation spaces. Queens Dock has been a park since the 1930s and the Old Dock Offices has been Maritime Museum since the 1970s. Furthermore, the Dock

Offices, have never seen industrial activity but only enabled administration of the Maritime industries. While they do present an aspect of maritime history, the masterplan is solely adding a new layer of re-use on something that had already been reinterpreted after its redundancy. According to Day and Lunn (2003), the ‘heritagisation’ of the sea, determined by the sites of Yorkshire Maritime City, presents a nostalgic and melancholic narrative with is dissociated from the lived experiences of most people. As Kisiel (2019) expressed, these sites conform to conventional and accepted notion of what heritage is, namely buildings which conform with the desired image of the past. They represent a romanticised vision of the industrial past, rather than Hull’s recent maritime activity. The narrative depicted by the Yorkshire Maritime City is that of a removed maritime past and an industrial past that has since been overcome. Kisiel (2019) writes that this approach to industrial pasts is prevalent in previous postindustrial cities which also obtained the title of Capital of Culture such as Liverpool and Glasgow. ‘In the European Capital of Culture framework, the industrial past is not so much silenced, but rather is packed as part of the narrative of rise and fall of the industry which is replaced by the service economy, part of which is the culture. […] It was not the old shipyards and former factories that stood in focus, but rather the creative industries that replaced them. […] Overcoming this rather simplistic view of the industrial past would require much deeper engagement with the past, beyond mere scenography.’(Kisiel 2019) The maritime narrative depicted by the Yorkshire Maritime City masterplan is not representative of Hull’s diverse maritime history in part due to its obvious omission of the fishing industry. This selective approach disproportionately affects working-class communities whose lives were invested in the fishing industry and who are seeing the remains of the industry in ruin. Having personally weathered the consequences of the loss of fishing, one might support these communities’ entitlement to heritage. It also leads to the further deterioration of unique MIH assets.

3. 3.1 Yorkshire Maritime City Masterplan’s selective curation of heritage

3. 3.2 Tourism cannot do justice to Hull’s MIH

Figure 4.5 Hessle road street art. original photo by author, 2020. The graffiti features a image of a modern boat and the ‘headscarf’ wives who fought for safer measures on trawlers.

“The path back for declining industrial [cities] is long and hard. Over decades they must undo the cursed legacy of big factories and heavy industry” (Glaeser as cited in Martin et al. 2016) Industrialisation left a physical legacy which today is regarded with indisputable emotional ambivalence which makes it problematic in city branding attempts. Industrial heritage represents “a common and proud, though often painful, past.” (Storm as quoted in Kisiel 2019) and in the case of Hull’s, the fishing industry, even though now gone, has left its mark. (Figure 4.5) It seems that in the case of Hull, the growth of the tourism sector will not provide a lifeline to MIH sites. Atkinson points out that appealing to a broad audience requires the “sanitisation” (2008) of landscapes, which leaves out the grittier reality of the industrial heartlands. However, it is precisely that authenticity which enables MIH sites to bear witness to the past. Relying on tourism and cultural regeneration which further hinder the development of sites whose role in place-memory and local identity is contested, as in these locations, preserving spirit of place and practising conservation with development is harder than ever. (Avni and Teschner 2019) Furthermore, the social intricacies of these sites lead to a lack of interest in overcoming the logistic and strategic issues mentioned in the second chapter, namely land use and targeted policy. In 1978, Burgess writes that while contemporary fishing and dock activities do not receive much attention : “the historic character of the city, including the fishing activities, is clearly important to the indigenous population.” Hull needs to

acknowledge the value of heritage separately for its destination branding value to safeguard the remains of its maritime industries. The bias in curating the maritime theme and a romanticised vision of Hull’s very old interaction with the coast, rather than the specific history of the site has led to the discrimination of the industries around which Hull’s working class’s lives revolved. As one-fifth of Hull’s population was involved in fishing in 1954, this has led to controversy. (Gooding 2013) (Atkinson 2008) Furthermore, there is a need to acknowledge that a prerequisite of successfully developing these challenging sites requires engagement with local interests rather than adopting a set model of development which favour touristic appeal. Hullensians believe strongly in the value of their heritage. A report by Historic England found that industrial heritage is viewed locally as a reminder of the economic decline of the area but the Humberside and Yorkshire agree more than any other region that “industrial heritage is important to pass on to future generations” and it should be safeguarded because “direct ancestors worked in those buildings.” (BDRC Continental 2011) The 2017 Supplementary Planning Document 2: Heritage & Archaeology reminds us that “the historic environment is a fragile and finite resource, once an element of it is lost, it is gone forever.” (Hull City Council 2017) St Andrew’s dock, the only dock whose future is truly uncertain, is a relic of Hull’s fishing past, and while older generations are making their best efforts to share their heritage, living memory will fade. If this is compounded with the loss of the built testimony of these times, “many Hull people felt that a part of their history was also disappearing, a history with which many of them had close family ties.” (Hull City Council Planning & Design Committee 1996

3. 3.2 Tourism cannot do justice to Hull’s MIH

Figure 4.5 Hessle road street art. original photo by author, 2020. The graffiti features a image of a modern boat and the ‘headscarf’ wives who fought for safer measures on trawlers.

3. 3.3 A model of redevelopment which combats urban amnesia

The previous section has highlighted that Hull’s regeneration agenda will not secure Hull’s vulnerable MIH. This has led to the sketching out of a model of regeneration which prioritises heritage conservation as an enabler of a rebirth which is not fueled by tourism but rather local growth. The SWOT analysis to the left provides a basis for an the alternative model of development for St Andrew’s Dock.

Strengths

Weaknesses Poor access

Rich cultural capital which is valued locally A local community engagement which is keen to secure the built legacy Recognition of the heritage status of the dock thanks to the Heritage at Risk Register High site visibility on the waterfront

Discrimination against the industry Difficulty in reusing a dock which has already been infilled. MIH in poor condition Difficulty to attract investment due to a current developmental standstill Split land ownership

Opportunities

Threats

Potential for grassroots development Environmental improvement to current brown-field site. Strong community involvement. Economic diversification and job creation Conservation of unique MIH assets Improved public realm engaging with past sea related activities such as angling Community curation of personal narratives and an authentic representation of the fishing industry Relocation of Hull’s fishing heritage centre.

Profit-driven development which risks demolishing MIH due to its associations Tactless development which misuses the heritage values and commercialises the maritime themes without engaging with the complexities of the heritage

Furthermore, lessons can be learned from other east-coast towns such as Lowestoft and Grimsby, which celebrate their fishing heritages in place-marketing strategies. (Robinson 1996). While this may have been facilitated by their less sudden decline (as the Cod wars hit deep seaports such as Hull hardest) there may be lessons to learn for Hull. St Andrew’s dock redevelopment relies on community engagement and economic diversification. Such a model would also provide an opportunity to tap into the studies and proposals that local groups have brought forward. The main challenges of this unproven model is that it will provide little appeal to investors (Figure 4.6), however, this can be overcome by stages development which is orchestrated within a masterplan. Most importantly, this model ensures that the built heritage of the ex-fishing community is preserved. Finally, one might even wonder if redevelopment which fights the commercialisation of maritime heritage may be, in the globalised future, a unique position to attract tourism thanks to it distinct identity.

Portrayal of ‘maritime Hull ’

perceived by strangers

perceived by working-class communities

New Model

Current Model

which city leaders and investors believe will ‘sell’

Figure 4.7 Venn diagram of the perception of Hull different maritime identities, original drawing by author, 2020. The model which combats urban amnesia must find a way of reconciling the image local communities have of MIH with a vision which can attract investment.

Progressive gentrification of such a model as it becomes more successful which would lead to the exclusion of the working class once again Continued industrial activity to the East (William Wright Dock) Balancing conservation and development ambitions.

Figure 4.6 SWOT analysis of a new model of waterfront redevelopment, original drawing by author, 2020. 43

3. 3.3 A model of redevelopment which combats urban amnesia

Strengths

Weaknesses Poor access

Opportunities

Threats

Portrayal of ‘maritime Hull ’

perceived by strangers

perceived by working-class communities

New Model

Current Model

which city leaders and investors believe will ‘sell’

Figure 4.6 SWOT analysis of a new model of waterfront redevelopment, original drawing by author, 2020. 43

Conclusion

Overwritten Waterfront

Time

This thesis set out to understand Hull’s relationship with its MIH through the study of dockland history, the current condition of the docks and the use of these sites in regeneration initiatives. The first chapter researches the evolution of the docklands and port-city relationship. This clarifies the historic context and economic factors which lead to the redundancy of half of Hull’s docks. This further revealed that while most deindustrialised dock lay idle for a period, 5 of the 6 redundant docks have been re-used for leisure, commercial and residential purposes. The second chapter researches if and how the city reassigned meaning and value of these redundant docks in the contemporary urban context. This research highlights that the prevalent waterfront redevelopment model used in Hull is troublesome; it over-simplifies heritage narratives and leads to the loss of MIH and the richness and variety of narratives which built heritage materialise. Indeed, the reuse of docks often implies a ‘sanitisation’ which simplifies heritage narratives to appeal to a wide audience and therefore sites’ whose role in place-memory is contested do not appeal to investors for reuse. Studying the current condition and circumstances of these docks provided insight into the factors influencing re-use, namely land ownership, dock age, location. Finally, in the third chapter, this thesis questions the future of MIH through the study of the Yorkshire Maritime City masterplan. The chapter finds that in the attempt to capitalise on maritime heritage to increase the cultural offering of the city, the masterplan presents a bias towards old maritime heritage sites, while leaving the more recent ex-industrial sites – powerhouses of maritime power – to deteriorate further. This reveals that both the ‘Hull of the past’ and ‘Hull of the future’ does not wish to engage with the historic complexities of heritage landscapes. What the masterplan proves is that Hull’s is planning on continuing to curate its maritime image by leaving out less desirable images of the past. Furthermore, the city’s interest in cultural regeneration exacerbates the overwriting of the built testimony. This thesis, therefore, suggests that Hull’s remaining MIH relies on the development of a regeneration model which does not rely on tourism. Instead, a new model of waterfront redevelopment which encourages economic growth in a heritage sensitive manner should be developed. This would enable the fair portrayal of the authentic maritime past and its un-photogenic features.

West Docks

Town Dock

East Docks

Figure 5.1 Overwritten waterfront, original drawing by author, 2020. Today, maritime heritage is being capitalised on, in order to remedy the economic decline which resulted from disappearance of past maritime industries. However, land use pressures required most of these sites to accommodate new purposes. This has led to the destruction and overwriting of priceless historic docks, whose existence is not longer justified by their industrial purpose. In time, if un-addressed Hull’s waterfront will loose its specific character and identity.

Through the study of the docks evolution and their integration in current regeneration initiatives, this thesis has studied the symptoms of a wider issue; Hull’s ambivalent relationship with

its MIH. The phenomena has already done permanent damage to the priceless built heritage which testifies of times past. This thesis calls for the challenging of the status quo. Firstly, further research is required to inform policy and design. To this end, Hull’s relation to MIH and the multiplicity of memory associated with these sites must be pinned down. This may require further critical reading of press, past policy as well as the analysis of images depicting how Hull has portrayed its maritime heritage through time. Secondly, public consultations and research-bydesign may offer insight into how MIH sites can be assessed, (re)defined, and used in urban regeneration. Such research will provide opportunities to develop a nuanced solution that will improve the economic situation of the city while safeguarding of MIH and the interests of communities. While in Hull currently, the heritage which attracts investors is different to the heritage revered by local communities, the challenge is to find a way of combining both interests toward a common development goal. The question on which Hull’s MIH depends is not whether Hull’s promotion of a maritime heritage is biased, as conservation is an intently selective process. Rather, it is whether the motivation for selection in Hull has been conscious, and whether it can be remedied to provide social justice towards the people which have fueled Hull’s maritime power. Processes of heritagisation are not clear cut issues and there are many conflicting interests, however, the decision-making process leading to the choice of sites and the form of re-use must be transparent and just, and should not enable the erasure of key parts of Hull’s history. The factors influencing the condition of the docks today are still at work in future development and, given its earlier outcomes, this relationship needs to be reconsidered as the prize is the retention of priceless heritage. The pre-requisite of safekeeping of Hull’s heritage is that the city comes to terms with its painful past and the plurality of histories and memories that these spaces materialise. This is both an academic, policy and design challenge which requires multi-disciplinary involvement. As the introduction explained, the waterfront is a palimpsest. The interface between the centre and estuary has constantly evolved, and it will continue to do so, overwriting previous layers of history. The question is not therefore whether the waterfront will change but rather how should we guide its evolution. Hull needs a shift of paradigm, enabling it to approach the entirety of the docklands not as a past to be overcome but rather as a social and economic resource, to both visitors as well as local communities. Hull has always made a living from the sea and de-industrialisation must not be the reason for this 800 year old traditional to wane.

“The sea seems to touch something special in the British psyche, as a maritime nation, we should not forget it” (Day and Lunn 2003) 45

Conclusion

Overwritten Waterfront

Time

West Docks

Town Dock

East Docks

Through the study of the docks evolution and their integration in current regeneration initiatives, this thesis has studied the symptoms of a wider issue; Hull’s ambivalent relationship with

“The sea seems to touch something special in the British psyche, as a maritime nation, we should not forget it” (Day and Lunn 2003) 45

List of Figures

Figure 0.

Tideman, Saskia. Key map of Hull’s Dock. 2020. Reproduction drawing.

Figure 1.1

Home, Percy. N.d. Hull Docks and the Humber Estuary, NER poster map, 1900-1915. Image. https:// www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/poster-produced-by-north-eastern-railway-to-promoteroutes-news-photo/90735368. (accessed February 24, 2020).

Figure 1.2

Tideman, Saskia. Location of Hull in the UK. 2020. Reproduction drawing.

Figure 1.3

Tideman, Saskia. Thesis geographical scope. 2020. Reproduction drawing.

Figure 2.1

Tideman, Saskia. Evolution of the docklands. 2020. Reproduction drawing.

Figure 2.2

Tideman, Saskia. Dockland growth and evolution of the port-city relationship. 2020. Original drawing.

Figure 2.3

Unknown Author.1538. ‘First Map of hull’. Scale not given. Archaeological Journal 175 (1): 87-156. do i:10.1080/00665983.2017.1368156.

Figure 2.4

Hollar, Wenceslas. N.d. Hull. Scale not given. ‘Wenceslas Hollar Digital Collection.’ Nd. <https:// hollar.library.utoronto.ca/islandora/object/hollar%3AHollar_k_0957> (accessed February 24, 2020).

Figure 2.5

Thew, Robert.1784. A Plan of the Town of Kingston upon Hull : From an Actual Survey. Scale 1:2500. https://bvpb.mcu.es/es/consulta/registro.cmd?id=441312. (accessed February 24, 2020).

Figure 2.6

Figure 2.7

Figure 2.8

Figure 2.9

Figure 2.10

Figure 2.11

Scale 1:2500. http://edina.ac.uk/digimap. (accessed February 24, 2020). Figure 2.12

Cox, Joseph. 2017. Hull City of Culture Map. Image. https://www.behance.net/gallery/50825287/HullCity-of-Culture. (accessed February 24, 2020).

Figure 3.1

Tideman, Saskia. Evolution of Hull’s docks. 2020. Reproduction drawing.

Figure 3.2

Oberkommando der Wehrmacht . 1942. Town Docks of Kingston Upon Hull. Image. https://www. davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/

Figure 3.3

Google. n.d. Google Maps satellite photo of Hull Marina. Image. https://www.google.com/maps/place/ Hull+Marina. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.4

Hull Museums. 1884. Humber Dock Street. Image. https://twitter.com/hull_museums/ status/565140651486887937. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.5

Aerofilms Ltd. 1925.The Humber and Prince’s Docks and environs, Kingston upon Hull. Image. https://images.historicenglandservices.org.uk/flight/ports-docks-harbours/kingston-hullepw012696-13447450.html. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.6

Marshall, Peter. 1975. Humber dock looking across to Railway Dock. Image. http://re-photo. co.uk/?p=8035. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Landmark Information Group, UK. 1850. Ordnance Survey County Series 1st Edition 1849-1899. Scale 1:2500. http://edina.ac.uk/digimap. (accessed February 24, 2020).

Figure 3.7

Marshall, Peter. 1982. Humber Dock from Wellington St. Image. http://www.hullphotos.co.uk/ images/4-docks/32q13.html. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Landmark Information Group, UK. 1890. Ordnance Survey County Series 1st Revision 1894-1915. Scale 1:2500. http://edina.ac.uk/digimap. (accessed February 24, 2020).

Figure 3.8

Hull Daily Mail. 1974. New Heart for Hull. Image. Hull. Hull History Centre.

Figure 3.9

Oberkommando der Wehrmacht. 1942. Street Map of Kingston upon Hull, England with MilitaryGeographic Features. Scale : 10,000. David Rumsey Collection. https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/ servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~273150~90047579/ (accessed February 24, 2020).

Tideman, Saskia. Current condition of Humber Dock and surrounding. 2020. Original photos.

Figure 3.10

HM Stationary Office. 1945. Street plan of Kingston upon Hull circa 1945 with the plotting the position of all HE bombs and Parachute Mines dropped by enemy action during the Blitz. Scale not given. http:// www.rhaywood.karoo.net/bombmap.htm. (accessed February 24, 2020).

Oberkommando der Wehrmacht . 1942. Victoria Dock with timber yard in Kingston upon Hull. Image. https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~273360~90047134:View--GB6,-BB10,-Nr--19--Victoria-?sort=pub_list_no_initialsort%2Cpub_date%2Cpub_list_no%2Cseries_no. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.11

Landmark Information Group, UK. 1970. Ordnance Survey National Grid 1st Revision 1949-1992. Scale 1:2500. http://edina.ac.uk/digimap. (accessed February 24, 2020).

Google. n.d. Google Maps satellite photo of Victoria Park. Image. https://www.google.com/maps/place/ Victoria+Park. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.12

Landmark Information Group, UK. 1990. Ordnance Survey National Grid 2nd Revision 1954-1993.

Gibson, Paul. 1905. Victoria Dock. Image. https://www.paul-gibson.com/trade-and-industry/the-timberindustry.php. (accessed April 7, 2020).

List of Figures

Figure 0.

Tideman, Saskia. Key map of Hull’s Dock. 2020. Reproduction drawing.

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

Tideman, Saskia. Location of Hull in the UK. 2020. Reproduction drawing.

Figure 1.3

Tideman, Saskia. Thesis geographical scope. 2020. Reproduction drawing.

Figure 2.1

Tideman, Saskia. Evolution of the docklands. 2020. Reproduction drawing.

Figure 2.2

Tideman, Saskia. Dockland growth and evolution of the port-city relationship. 2020. Original drawing.

Figure 2.3

Unknown Author.1538. ‘First Map of hull’. Scale not given. Archaeological Journal 175 (1): 87-156. do i:10.1080/00665983.2017.1368156.

Figure 2.4

Figure 2.5

Thew, Robert.1784. A Plan of the Town of Kingston upon Hull : From an Actual Survey. Scale 1:2500. https://bvpb.mcu.es/es/consulta/registro.cmd?id=441312. (accessed February 24, 2020).

Figure 2.6

Figure 2.7

Figure 2.8

Figure 2.9

Figure 2.10

Figure 2.11

Scale 1:2500. http://edina.ac.uk/digimap. (accessed February 24, 2020). Figure 2.12

Cox, Joseph. 2017. Hull City of Culture Map. Image. https://www.behance.net/gallery/50825287/HullCity-of-Culture. (accessed February 24, 2020).

Figure 3.1

Tideman, Saskia. Evolution of Hull’s docks. 2020. Reproduction drawing.

Figure 3.2

Oberkommando der Wehrmacht . 1942. Town Docks of Kingston Upon Hull. Image. https://www. davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/

Figure 3.3

Google. n.d. Google Maps satellite photo of Hull Marina. Image. https://www.google.com/maps/place/ Hull+Marina. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.4

Hull Museums. 1884. Humber Dock Street. Image. https://twitter.com/hull_museums/ status/565140651486887937. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.5

Figure 3.6

Marshall, Peter. 1975. Humber dock looking across to Railway Dock. Image. http://re-photo. co.uk/?p=8035. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Landmark Information Group, UK. 1850. Ordnance Survey County Series 1st Edition 1849-1899. Scale 1:2500. http://edina.ac.uk/digimap. (accessed February 24, 2020).

Figure 3.7

Marshall, Peter. 1982. Humber Dock from Wellington St. Image. http://www.hullphotos.co.uk/ images/4-docks/32q13.html. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Landmark Information Group, UK. 1890. Ordnance Survey County Series 1st Revision 1894-1915. Scale 1:2500. http://edina.ac.uk/digimap. (accessed February 24, 2020).

Figure 3.8

Hull Daily Mail. 1974. New Heart for Hull. Image. Hull. Hull History Centre.

Figure 3.9

Tideman, Saskia. Current condition of Humber Dock and surrounding. 2020. Original photos.

Figure 3.10

Figure 3.11

Landmark Information Group, UK. 1970. Ordnance Survey National Grid 1st Revision 1949-1992. Scale 1:2500. http://edina.ac.uk/digimap. (accessed February 24, 2020).

Google. n.d. Google Maps satellite photo of Victoria Park. Image. https://www.google.com/maps/place/ Victoria+Park. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.12

Landmark Information Group, UK. 1990. Ordnance Survey National Grid 2nd Revision 1954-1993.

Gibson, Paul. 1905. Victoria Dock. Image. https://www.paul-gibson.com/trade-and-industry/the-timberindustry.php. (accessed April 7, 2020).

List of Figures

Hull Daily Mail. 1946. Victoria Dock in 1946. Image. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-eastyorkshire-news/stunning-transformation-plans-victoria-docks-606328. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.14

Marshall, Peter. 1982. Victoria Dock. Image. http://www.hullphotos.co.uk/images/4-docks/32n32. html. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.15

Marshall, Peter. 1982. Attendant’s Office For Filling Of Victoria Dock. Image. http://www.hullphotos. co.uk/images/4-docks/32p43.html. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Bellway Homes. n.d. The New Riverside Village In The Heart Of Hull. Image. Hull. Hull History Centre.

Figure 3.17

Tideman, Saskia. Remains of Victoria Dock and surroundings. 2020. Original photos.

Figure 3.18

Oberkommando der Wehrmacht . 1942. St. Andrews Dock in Kingston upon Hull, England. Image. https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~273187~90047039:View--GB3,-BB-10,-Nr--42--St--Andr?sort=pub_list_no_initialsort%2Cpub_date%2Cpub_list_no%2Cseries_no. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Google. n.d. Google Maps satellite photo of St Andrew’s Dock. Image. https://www.google.com/maps/ place/St+Andrew’s+Dock. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Evolving condition of St Andrew’s Dock in relation to the landlord, council and community’s proposals. original drawing by author, 2020.

Figure 3.21

My Learning. n.d. Fish being Unloaded from a Trawler. Image. https://www.mylearning.org/resources/ fish-being-unloaded-from-a-trawler. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.22

Innes, Donald. 1955. ‘Man O War’ Leaving St Andrew’s Dock. Image. https://www.innes.co.uk/man-owar-leaving-st-Andrew’s-dock-1955.html. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.23

Hull Now. n.d. St Andrew’s slipway. Image. http://www.hullnow.co.uk/concepts/heritage-dock. . (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.24

Marshall, Peter. 1981. St Andrew’s Dock. Image. http://www.hullphotos.co.uk/images/4-docks/27p24. html. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.25

Marshall, Peter. 1983. St Andrew’s Dock, Lord Line Building and road. Image. http://www.hullphotos. co.uk/images/4-docks/36k55.html. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.26

Hull City Council Planning. 1993. St Andrew docks Hull Feasibly study. Image. Hull. Hull History Centre.

Figure 3.13

Figure 3.16

Figure 3.19

Figure 3.20

Figure 3.27

Tideman, Saskia. Remains of St Andrew’s Dock and surroundings. 2020. Original photos.

Figure 3.28

Tideman, Saskia. 2020. Evolution in use of the docklands in relation to their proximity to the historic centre . Original drawing.

Figure 4.1

Tideman, Saskia. 2020. Location of the Yorkshire Maritime City masterplan sites. Reproduction drawing.

Figure 4.2

Tideman, Saskia. 2020. Yorkshire Maritime City masterplan within the wider context of the waterfront, Reproduction drawing.

Figure 4.3

Hull City Plan. N.d. Visual of the North End Ship Yard. Image. https://cityplanhull.co.uk/index.php/hullyorkshires-maritime-city/. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 4.4

Tideman, Saskia. Work beings on the North End Shipyard site. 2020. Original photo.

Figure 4.5

Tideman, Saskia. Hessle road street art. 2020. Original photo.

Figure 4.6

Tideman, Saskia. SWOT analysis of a new model of waterfront redevelopment, original drawing by author, 2020. Original drawing.

Figure 4.7

Tideman, Saskia. Venn diagram of the perception of Hull different maritime identities. 2020. Original drawing.

Figure 5.1

Tideman, Saskia. Overwritten waterfront. 2020. Original drawing.

List of Figures

Hull Daily Mail. 1946. Victoria Dock in 1946. Image. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-eastyorkshire-news/stunning-transformation-plans-victoria-docks-606328. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.14

Marshall, Peter. 1982. Victoria Dock. Image. http://www.hullphotos.co.uk/images/4-docks/32n32. html. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.15

Marshall, Peter. 1982. Attendant’s Office For Filling Of Victoria Dock. Image. http://www.hullphotos. co.uk/images/4-docks/32p43.html. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Bellway Homes. n.d. The New Riverside Village In The Heart Of Hull. Image. Hull. Hull History Centre.

Figure 3.17

Tideman, Saskia. Remains of Victoria Dock and surroundings. 2020. Original photos.

Figure 3.18

Google. n.d. Google Maps satellite photo of St Andrew’s Dock. Image. https://www.google.com/maps/ place/St+Andrew’s+Dock. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Evolving condition of St Andrew’s Dock in relation to the landlord, council and community’s proposals. original drawing by author, 2020.

Figure 3.21

My Learning. n.d. Fish being Unloaded from a Trawler. Image. https://www.mylearning.org/resources/ fish-being-unloaded-from-a-trawler. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.22

Innes, Donald. 1955. ‘Man O War’ Leaving St Andrew’s Dock. Image. https://www.innes.co.uk/man-owar-leaving-st-Andrew’s-dock-1955.html. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.23

Hull Now. n.d. St Andrew’s slipway. Image. http://www.hullnow.co.uk/concepts/heritage-dock. . (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.24

Marshall, Peter. 1981. St Andrew’s Dock. Image. http://www.hullphotos.co.uk/images/4-docks/27p24. html. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.25

Marshall, Peter. 1983. St Andrew’s Dock, Lord Line Building and road. Image. http://www.hullphotos. co.uk/images/4-docks/36k55.html. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 3.26

Hull City Council Planning. 1993. St Andrew docks Hull Feasibly study. Image. Hull. Hull History Centre.

Figure 3.13

Figure 3.16

Figure 3.19

Figure 3.20

Figure 3.27

Tideman, Saskia. Remains of St Andrew’s Dock and surroundings. 2020. Original photos.

Figure 3.28

Tideman, Saskia. 2020. Evolution in use of the docklands in relation to their proximity to the historic centre . Original drawing.

Figure 4.1

Tideman, Saskia. 2020. Location of the Yorkshire Maritime City masterplan sites. Reproduction drawing.

Figure 4.2

Tideman, Saskia. 2020. Yorkshire Maritime City masterplan within the wider context of the waterfront, Reproduction drawing.

Figure 4.3

Hull City Plan. N.d. Visual of the North End Ship Yard. Image. https://cityplanhull.co.uk/index.php/hullyorkshires-maritime-city/. (accessed April 7, 2020).

Figure 4.4

Tideman, Saskia. Work beings on the North End Shipyard site. 2020. Original photo.

Figure 4.5

Tideman, Saskia. Hessle road street art. 2020. Original photo.

Figure 4.6

Tideman, Saskia. SWOT analysis of a new model of waterfront redevelopment, original drawing by author, 2020. Original drawing.

Figure 4.7

Tideman, Saskia. Venn diagram of the perception of Hull different maritime identities. 2020. Original drawing.

Figure 5.1

Tideman, Saskia. Overwritten waterfront. 2020. Original drawing.

References

Allison, K. J, and G. H. R Kent. 1969. The Victoria History Of The Counties Of England. London: Victoria County History Atkinson, David, Steven Cooke, and Derek Spooner. “Tales From The Riverbank: Place-Marketing And Maritime Heritages”. International Journal Of Heritage Studies (2002) 8 (1): 25-40. doi:10.1080/13527250220119910.

“The Civil Engineer And Architect’s Journal, Scientific And Railway Gazette”. 1839. https://archive.org/details/ civilengineerarc02lond/.(accessed April 4, 2020). Clavane, A., 2016. A Yorkshire Tragedy: The Rise And Fall Of A Sporting Powerhouse. London: Riverrun.

Atkinson, David. “Kitsch geographies and the everyday spaces of social memory”. Environment and Planning A (2007), volume 39, pages 521 ^ 540 DOI:10.1068/a3866 https://journals-sagepub-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/doi/ pdf/10.1068/a3866

Cooke, Ron. N.d. “Treasuring heritage – how Heritage Lottery Fund is supporting Hull” www.visithull.org. https://www.visithull.org/discover/treasuring-heritage-heritage-lottery-fund-supporting-hull/. (accessed April 4, 2020).

Atkinson, David. “The Heritage of mundane places,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, ed. Graham, Brian and Howard, Peter (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008) p381 – 397.

Day, Ann, and Ken Lunn. 2003. “British Maritime Heritage: Carried Along By The Currents?”. International Journal Of Heritage Studies 9 (4): 289-305. doi:10.1080/1352725022000155045.-

Avni, Nufar, and Na’ama Teschner. 2019. “Urban Waterfronts: Contemporary Streams Of Planning Conflicts”. Journal Of Planning Literature 34 (4): 408-420. doi:10.1177/0885412219850891.

English, Charlie. “To Hull And Back: The Rebirth of Britain’s Poorest City.”The Guardian, September, 11, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/11/-sp-to-hull-and-back-the-rebirth-of-britains-poorest-city. (accessed April 4, 2020).

Bax, A., and S. Fairfield. 2015. The Macmillan Guide To The United Kingdom 1978-79. London: Palgrave Macmillan Limited. BDRC Continental. 2011. “Industrial Heritage At Risk Public Attitudes Survey”. London: English Heritage. https:// historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/har/nat-results-public-attitudes-industrial-heritage-pdf/. BBC. “Wartime bomb danger.” BBC, January 16, 2006. http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/yorkslincs/series9/week_ two.shtml. (accessed April 4, 2020). Bellway Homes, n.d. “The New Riverside Village In The Heart Of Hull, Bellway Homes : Looking To The Future, Linking With The Past.” L.711.52V. Hull. Hull History Centre. “Britain’s Freight Ports”. 1969. http://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/18th-july-1969/61/britains-freightports--i. Burgess, Jacquelin A. 1978. Image And Identity. Hull: University of Hull. “The Cabinet Papers : Shipbuilding”. n.d. Nationalarchives.Gov.Uk. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ cabinetpapers/themes/shipbuilding.htm#The%20Geddes%20Committee. (accessed April 4, 2020). Clark, Michael. 1985. “Fallow Land In Old Docks: Why Such A Slow Take-Up Of Britain’s Waterside Redevelopment Opportunities?”. Maritime Policy & Management 12 (2): 157-167. doi:10.1080/03088838500000051.

Fiennes, Celia. 1888. “Through England On A Side Saddle In The Time Of William And Mary, Being The Diary Of Celia Fiennes.” Digital.Library.Upenn.Edu. https://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/fiennes/saddle/saddle.html. (accessed April 4, 2020). Freebody, T. 1844. The Hull Dock Bill, 1844. Report Of The Proceedings In The Committee Of The House Of Commons. Reprinted From The Hull Packet. Hull: House of Commons. “Fruit Market.” N.d. cityplanhull.co.uk. https://cityplanhull.co.uk/index.php/fruit-market/. (accessed April 4, 2020). Fulcher, Merlin. “Spending cuts kill off Hull regeneration company” www.architectsjournal.co.uk, 10 June, 2010. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/spending-cuts-kill-off-hull-regeneration-company/8601212. article. (accessed April 4, 2020). Gooding, Chris. 2013. “Heritage Dock.” http://www.hullnow.co.uk/concepts/heritage-dock. (accessed April 4, 2020). Historic England. 2019. “Heritage at Risk Register 2019 - North East & Yorkshire”. historicengland.org.uk. https:// historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/har-2019-registers/. (accessed April 4, 2020). Hoyle, Brian Stewart. 1989. “The Port—City Interface: Trends, Problems And Examples”. Geoforum 20 (4): 429-435. doi:10.1016/0016-7185(89)90026-2.

References

Atkinson, David. “The Heritage of mundane places,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, ed. Graham, Brian and Howard, Peter (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008) p381 – 397.

Day, Ann, and Ken Lunn. 2003. “British Maritime Heritage: Carried Along By The Currents?”. International Journal Of Heritage Studies 9 (4): 289-305. doi:10.1080/1352725022000155045.-

Avni, Nufar, and Na’ama Teschner. 2019. “Urban Waterfronts: Contemporary Streams Of Planning Conflicts”. Journal Of Planning Literature 34 (4): 408-420. doi:10.1177/0885412219850891.

References

“Hull”. n.d. Abports.Co.Uk. https://www.abports.co.uk/locations/hull/. (accessed April 4, 2020). “Hull And Whaling”. n.d. hullhistorycentre.org.uk. http://www.hullhistorycentre.org.uk/research/research-guides/ hull-whaling.aspx. (accessed April 4, 2020). Hull City Council Planning. 1993. “Department St Andrew docks Hull Feasibly study.” L.711.52 (DUP). Hull. Hull History Centre. Hull City Council Planning & Design Committee. Urban Conservation and Design St. Andrew’s Dock Conservation Area Character Statement . Hull : Hull City council. 1996. http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/pls/portal/docs/page/home/ planning/conservation/conservation%20areas/st%20andrew%27s%20dock%20caca.pdf (accessed April 4, 2020). Hull City Council. Conservation Area Character Appraisal South old town. 2005. http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/pls/portal/ docs/page/home/planning/conservation/conservation%20areas/old%20town%20(south)%20caca_0.pdf (accessed April 4, 2020). Hull City Council. Site 3 Keystore SiteEarle’s Road Hendon Road, Hull. 2012. http://www.hull.gov.uk/sites/hull/ files/media/Editor%20-%20Planning/Keystore%20Site%2C%20Earle%27s%20Road%2C%20Hedon%20Road.pdf. (accessed April 4, 2020). Hull City Council. Hull Local Plan to 2030. 2014. http://www.hull.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/policies-and-plans/ local-plan (accessed April 4, 2020). Hull City Council. Heritage Evidence Base. 2016 http://hullcc-consult.objective.co.uk/file/3598012 Hull City Council. Supplementary Planning Document 2: Heritage & Archaeology. 2017. http://www.hull.gov.uk/sites/hull/files/media/Editor%20-%20Planning/SPD%202%20Heritage%20and%20 archaeology_0.pdf. (accessed April 4, 2020). Hull City Council. A billion pound investment driven by the UK City of Culture. n.d.a https://www.localgov.co.uk/ Library/supplements/hull_lr.pdf. (accessed April 4, 2020). Hull City Council. Current Local Buildings List. N.d.b. http://www.hull.gov.uk/sites/hull/files/media/Current_Local_ Buildings_List_0.pdf. (accessed April 4, 2020). Hull City Council. My Hull [map]. N.d.c https://maps.hull.gov.uk/myhull.aspx. (accessed April 4, 2020).

Hull City Council. Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2009 – 2019. N.d.d, http://www.hull.gov.uk/sites/hull/files/media/rights_of_way%20plan_2009to2019.pdf. (accessed April 4, 2020). Hull Daily Mail. 1974. “New heart for Hull : a Hull Daily mail supplemement based on Town Docks feasibility study, prepared for Hull City Council by the Hull Docks Planning and Design Consortium set up to report on the future of the city’s unique centre. ” L.711.52. Hull. Hull History Centre. “Hull Yorkshire’s Maritime City Project”. n.d. Hull Culture And Leisure. https://www.hcandl.co.uk/museums-andgalleries/hull-maritime-museum/hull-yorkshires-maritime-city-project. (accessed April 4, 2020). Jackson, Gordon. 1972. Hull In The Eighteenth Century: A Study In Economic And Social History. Hull: University of Hull. Jones, Andrew. 1998. “Issues in Waterfront Regeneration: More Sobering Thoughts-A UK Perspective”, Planning Practice & Research, 13:4, 433-442, DOI: 10.1080/02697459815987 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697459815987?tab=permissions&scroll=top (accessed April 4, 2020). Jones, Rodwell. 1919. “Kingston-Upon-Hull: A Study In Port Development”. Scottish Geographical Magazine 35 (5): 161-174. doi:10.1080/14702541908541610. “Kingston-Upon-Hull: A Wool Port”. 1924. Journal Of The Textile Institute Proceedings 15 (7): P284-P284. doi:10.1080/19447012408660966. Kisiel, Piotr. 2019. “Unwanted Inheritance? Industrial Past As The EU Heritage”. International Journal Of Heritage Studies, 1-15. doi:10.1080/13527258.2019.1678053. Kitching, Sophie. “The moving moment Hull remembers 6,000 trawlermen lost at sea.” Hull Daily Mail, January 20, 2019. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/moving-moment-hullremembers-6000-2448450. (accessed April 4, 2020). MacTurk, G. and Hoole, K., 1879. A History Of The Hull Railways. Knaresborough: Nidd Valley Narrow Gauge Railways Ltd. Marshall, Richard. 2003. Waterfronts In Post-Industrial Cities. 1st ed. Taylor & Francis. Martin, Ron, Peter Sunley, Peter Tyler, and Ben Gardiner. 2016. “Divergent Cities In Post-Industrial Britain”. Cambridge 53

References

Journal Of Regions, Economy And Society 9 (2): 269-299. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsw005.

Thompson, Michael. 1990. Hull Docklands. Beverley, North Humberside: Hutton Press.

Miller, Harry. 1961. “New look for Hull docks.” L387.1 DUP. Hull. Hull History Centre.

The Times Hull Development Committee, 1961. “Changing face of Britain’s third port.” L.380.086 (DUP). Hull. Hull History Centre.

Ministry of housing communities and local government. 2019. “The English Indices of Deprivation 2019 (IoD2019)”. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/835115/ IoD2019_Statistical_Release.pdf. (accessed April 4, 2020). Mistry, Pritti. 2017. Can Hull build on its UK City of Culture status beyond 2017? www.bbc.co.uk. https://www.bbc. co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-42338276 Newton, Grace. “Hull’s landmark Lord Line trawler offices saved from demolition.” Yorkshire Post, November 8, 2019. https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/heritage-and-retro/heritage/hulls-landmark-lord-line-trawler-offices-saveddemolition-1747784. (accessed April 4, 2020). OS Meridian 2 [NTF geospatial data], Scale: 1:50 000, Ordnance Survey, GB. Using: EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service, <http://edina.ac.uk/digimap>, Downloaded: February 2020. “The Project”. 2020. Maritime Hull. https://maritimehull.co.uk. (accessed April 4, 2020). Robinson, R. 1996. Trawling: the rise and fall of the British trawl industry. Exeter: Exeter University Press Roger Tym & Partners. 2003. Roger Tym & Partners. 2003. “The Renaissance Of Hull City Centre : A Masterplan to Guide Planning and Investment” http://hullcc.limehouse.co.uk/file/2056325 Schilling, R. S. F. 1971. “Hazards Of Deep-Sea Fishing”. Occupational And Environmental Medicine 28 (1): 27-35. doi:10.1136/oem.28.1.27. Serota , Nicholas. “Why the arts can lead the revival of Britain’s towns.” The Guardian, June 16, 2019. https://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/26/art-revive-britain-towns-hull-margate-creative-high-streets-nicholasserota. (accessed April 4, 2020). Smith, Harry and Ferrari, Maria Soledad Garcia. 2012. Waterfront Regeneration : Experiences in City-building. London: Routledge, St. Andrew’s Dock Heritage Park Action Group STAND. N.d. “The Birth Of STAND”. Hullfishingheritage.Org.Uk. Accessed April 10. https://www.hullfishingheritage.org.uk/about-us/. (accessed April 4, 2020).

Tuck, Sarah Jane. 2007. Socio-Economic Aspects of Commercial Ports And Wharves In Southwest England: A Grounded Theory Approach To Regional Competitiveness. Plymouth: University of Plymouth. Tunstall, J. 1962. The fishermen: The sociology of an extreme occupation. London : MacGibbob & Kee p42-43 Waite, Richard “Purcell wins contest for regeneration of Hull as tourist destination.” architectsjournal.co.uk, August 10, 2018. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/story.aspx?storyCode=10034109. (accessed April 4, 2020). Walsh, Stephen. “London 0, Hull Plenty: How Is Life In England’s Only ‘Affordable City’?.” The Guardian, October 30, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/oct/30/hull-the-city-that-gentrification-forgot. (accessed April 4, 2020). Yorkshire and Humberside Tourist Board. 1989. “Summary : a report on the impact of tourism in Yorkshire and Humberside : to estimate visitor nights, visitor spending and tourism related employment at the district level”. L.338.4791. Hull. Hull History Centre. Young, Angus. “Lord Line building saved from demolition by councillors.” Hull Daily Mail, December 6, 2017a. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/lord-line-building-saved-demolition-886365. (accessed April 4, 2020). Young, Angus. “Plans submitted to demolish the Lord Line building in Hull.” Hull Daily Mail, June 16, https://www. hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/plans-submitted-demolish-lord-line-116593. (accessed April 4, 2020). Young, Angus. “The Huge Land Deals Behind The Biggest Developments In Hull.” Hull Daily Mail, July 8, 2018. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/huge-land-deals-behind-biggest-1756723. (accessed April 4, 2020). Young, Angus. “From derelict warehouses to Hull’s swankiest area in just 10 years - Fruit Market’s incredible transformation.” Hull Daily Mail, April 19, 2019. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/fruit-market-swankiest-area-hull-2773899. (accessed April 4, 2020).

References

Journal Of Regions, Economy And Society 9 (2): 269-299. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsw005.

Thompson, Michael. 1990. Hull Docklands. Beverley, North Humberside: Hutton Press.

Miller, Harry. 1961. “New look for Hull docks.” L387.1 DUP. Hull. Hull History Centre.

The Times Hull Development Committee, 1961. “Changing face of Britain’s third port.” L.380.086 (DUP). Hull. Hull History Centre.