Putting you on the spot, can you recall the details of York’s coat of arms? I bet most of us can’t, whereas you’ll easily visualise the Yorkshire flag.

If so, what does it say about the merits of the city’s official emblem as a form of logo, or, in modern phrasing, ‘brand’? Or does it matter if our city emblem is a bit dull and forgettable?

A recent moment of serendipity got me thinking about our coat of arms and why it has seemingly never changed, whereas so many logos in life are continually changing and, from it, offers far greater public interest.

Scrolling through an online news feed while stuck in traffic on the A59 at the very edge of the city’s boundary, an item popped up about a possible ‘leak’ of next season’s Leeds United’s home strip. It proved to be fake, of course, but there was a moment of excitement that the football shirt would feature the classic ‘smiley’ badge of the 1970s as its new logo (if you know, you know!) And then, looking up to spot the city’s boundary sign, complete with the coat of arms emblem…

York’s civic coat of arms is a shield of St George’s flag with five lions arranged across the red cross bit. There’s a saltire cross formed of a sword and mace behind the shield, with a ceremonial cap of crimson velvet lined with ermine resting on top.

Its history is more interesting than how it looks. York was granted its shield of arms under Edward III, who effectively made the city the capital due to making it his base to wage campaigns against the Scots. He even held numerous parliaments in the city, and, in 1328, married his Queen, Phillippa of Hainault, here. Why there are five lions is unknown, but until 2015 a former coaching house on Walmgate, now the Watergate Inn, was known as The Five Lions.

As to the sword, mace and cap, a physical sword was presented to the city by Richard II in 1389 to symbolise privileges bestowed on York. (It was lost in the late 18th century). He also presented a mace (since disappeared) and cap (disintegrated) when he returned to the city with his Court in 1392 to escape an outbreak of plague in London. But the addition of these to the shield of arms of the city as Civil Regalia seems to have come from a bit of design whimsy of 1730 to complement a fireplace in the then new Mansion House. Besides, these additions have no heraldic authority as they aren’t recorded by the controlling body, the College of Arms.

So, what’s the message found in our city’s coat of arms? The use of lions, the mace and sword are heavily associated with the monarchy, especially as a military force. Even the cross of St George is about war, being “the military saint”, and often connected with The Crusades.

This might still appeal to some traditionalists – and those who have a grudge against the Scots! – but for many it’s a message of power formed in the 14th century, a time and context remarkably different from how we live today.

Should our attitude towards the city’s emblem be more organic and change over time – just as football strips and club logos seemingly change every season? York’s rich history of chocolate, Quakers, railways, merchants, nurseries … even the tansy beetle might have been or be worthy inclusions to the emblem.

If this sounds sacrilegious towards our heritage, then here’s two thoughts. New civic emblems and flags are created and change over time. A gold border with acorns was added to the historic arms of Chester in 1974 to acknowledge the inclusion of new land from a major boundary change. The flag of Yorkshire – the House of York’s white rose on a blue background – only dates from 1960 (the flag of Lancaster, only since 2008!), even if it already feels iconic and historic.

Secondly, this is not a rally cry to ‘replace’ the emblem through some act of iconoclastic destruction. It’s wonderful that our city emblem is literally ‘trapped in stone’ in York: on the façade of the Bars of City Walls, the drinking fountain of the Museum Gardens, and Mansion House, among others. But should we design and introduce a new version to reflect our modern city?

By Duncan Marks, July 2025

The post York’s historic coat of arms: time for a modern redesign? first appeared on York Civic Trust.

And yet, York is criss-crossed with trails, footpaths, and alleys that connect us to those who walked in the city centuries before us. Their choice of routes has directly shaped some of our modern road, path and cycling networks.

York’s unofficial paths came to mind recently during the council consultation for a new path between the Salisbury Road area and Scarborough Bridge. There’s clear indication of where people like to walk here (but it wasn’t one of the options). It’s close by the willow trees along the riverbank – illustrated by the well-worn track caused by people and a fair few dogs walking on the grass.

These types of tracks are called ‘desire lines’ or ‘desire paths’. They’re often the most-direct route between two places. But they can also come from other reasons – the most scenic, the safest feeling, the most quiet.

The oldest human footprints found outside Africa are at Happisburgh in Norfolk. They’re c.900,000 years old, include footprints of children, and were made in wet mud that became fossilised. It shows the simple act of walking as the earliest way humanity engaged with and left its trace upon nature; desire lines are part of this ongoing story.

In York, desire lines are most evident in grasslands, seen across common lands such as the Strays, Hob Moor and Clifton Backies. They are shown as simple earthen footways on the earliest Ordnance Survey maps of York, or etched in vegetation in early aerial photographs taken over the city. No doubt these types of tracks were shortcuts in centuries prior to this.

Much of York’s urban centre is a legacy of desire lines formed in the centuries after the Romans. The Romans were rigid and predictable in how they planned fortified camps and towns; Eboracum was effectively a grid system to garrison 5,000 legionnaires. After the Romans left, and the city fell into ruin, it was the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings who weaved new routes between the Roman ruins: Blake Street, Finkle Street and Goodramgate are testament to this.

In the case of New Walk along the River Ouse, a panoramic esplanade created in the 1730s, and one of the earliest in the country, ironically even this is not spared. Parallel tracks on the bank of the river run alongside the Georgian elm tree-lined walkway. They may have been made by those who simply prefer the sunshine along the river than the dappled shade of ancient elms, but likely, too, by children, in particular, who prefer the variation of a track in grass, where tree roots and level changes add variation, much more fun than the boring predictability of the tarmaced New Walk path.

But what can desire lines tell us about York’s past?

Tangibly, they show us how parts of the city were once separate and even remote, requiring tracks to be trodden to connect them. They tell us where people were permitted to roam, or at least considered the risk of trespass worth it. Children, too, who are often excluded from the annals of history, are particularly apt at making new routes, in play or, historically, the consequence of work tasks given to them.

Desire lines also help identify historic sites that were important to people. These are diverse, ranging from a river landing where the RSPCA centre is today, the Terry’s chocolate factory when a major employer, the Knavesmire for the races (some things don’t change), and the Tyburn on Tadcaster Road, where people were executed (some thing’s fortunately do change!).

They also indicate that our forefathers weren’t too dissimilar from us: leading perceivably busy lives, or simply lazy enough to opt for the shortest route possible.

Some of the historic York desire lines went on to be formalised as official, constructed paths and roads. A simple pathway that cut across Micklegate Stray on the earliest OS Map of 1852 is today’s Scarcroft Road. Where better to build a road or speculative housing than where people are evidently coming and going?

As man-made routes showing where we want to go, and not told to go, for some, desire lines are seen even as mini acts of defiance; two fingers raised against the social control aspect of modern urban planning. Should we observe more where us ‘masses’ talk with our feet, to help how we do urban design in York? Should we welcome children, especially, to show us where and how fun can feature as part of our grand designs?

The post York’s ancient ‘desire lines’ – the city paths of tomorrow? first appeared on York Civic Trust.

Since the introduction of British Summer Time in 1916, the guardians of York’s public clocks have sought to keep people on time throughout the year. There are few modern public clocks that automatically update to reflect the changes in British Summer Time.

Public clocks have been a feature in York for nearly 700 years. In the 1300s, the first public clock in York formed part of the city’s council chambers on Ouse Bridge. It regulated the day for the whole city, setting the time when people could trade at the city’s markets and the start of council meetings and court proceedings. (The clock was replaced in the 1500s and, when the present Ouse Bridge was built in 1810, this ‘new’ mechanism was repurposed in Hull and can now be seen in North Lincolnshire Museum in Scunthorpe.)

Standing on Ouse Bridge today, looking towards Coney Street, you can see the oldest surviving public clock in the city – the painted clock face high up on the wall of the Spurriergate Centre (St Michael’s Church). Originally painted in the late 18th century and moved to its current location when the church tower was removed in 1960s. The clock has informed travellers of the time for over three hundred years. The clock mechanism was updated in 1896 by York’s premier clockmaker, George JF Newey, who was also responsible for clocks on Coney Street, George Hudson Street and De Grey House on St Leonard’s Place, amongst many others.

York is rich in public clocks with over 17 examples in the city centre alone. The majority of people now look to their phones, wrists or ears to find out the time. Yet our public clocks fulfil a valuable role in setting the character and ambience of our society. The little Admiral on top of the clock in at St Martin le Grand’s church on Coney Street is perhaps one of the most photographed statues in the city.

However, it is a difficult job maintaining the city’s public clocks. How many times have you looked up and noticed, somewhat annoyingly, that one of the city’s clocks seems to be telling the wrong time? You might suspect that a historic city like York would have a city official with a quaint title, something like the Timemaster or Keeper of the Clocks – but alas no. Today the majority of the city’s largest and most prominent clocks are set and maintained by the amazing yet small group of volunteers of the York Clock Group. Reaching many of these turret clocks, as they are known, involves running the gauntlet of ladders, pigeons and inaccessible spaces. Sometimes it is just not possible to reach a clock and so time stands still or is out of step with the seasons of the year. On this particular occasion nothing to do with climate change.

For travellers who came to York before November 1840 this would not have been too unusual as there was not a standard time across Britain – local time ruled. Local time was set by the sun and with no means of communication faster than a horse or pigeon this did not really matter. The development of the railways and the electric telegraph greatly sped up communications between towns and cities and local time variations became a problem. In 1852 cutting edge electric telegraph equipment was installed at the Royal Observatory Greenwich which could transmit accurate time signals throughout the country. Within three years nearly all public clocks were set to ‘railway time’ displayed on station clocks adjusted regularly to the signals set from Greenwich.

In our global digital world today, time is mostly set according to Co-ordinated Universal Time (UTC), making the old ways of localised time feel very parochial.

So, when you look up at York’s rich array of public clocks, as tens of millions of people have done before, just consider their history and the work that goes into maintaining them and that they might not be telling the wrong time – just another form of time.

The post Going back in time: Secrets behind York’s public clocks first appeared on York Civic Trust.

Removing Queen Street bridge near the station has revealed views of our fabulous city walls that haven’t been visible from ground level since 1877 when the bridge was built.

Beautiful as they are, they’ve not always been so highly treasured by the city. Two hundred years ago, they were very much under threat.

It reminds us to think about whether we make the most of our walls – or do we perhaps take them for granted? And if so, what more might be done with them?

In 1800, a series of petitions were made by York Corporation to the House of Lords. They appealed for permission to remove the city walls, posterns, the bars and their barbicans. The petitions were refused, fortunately.

Shocking as this sounds today, it highlights challenges York was facing at the time … and with some resonance today.

Our modern thinking that grand medieval walls are amazing heritage, which leads to tourism and income, was still a century away in 1800. Instead, the walls were seen as a financial burden on York and its citizens.

Other British cities with medieval walls, such as Edinburgh and Newcastle, had by 1800 recently pulled them down, making it more tempting for York to follow.

York was hoping to sell off the materials of the walls and the rampart land to pay for other city improvements – practical ones, such as desperately-needed repairs at Ouse and Foss Bridges.

By the 1800s, York’s walls had fallen into great disrepair. They were largely still shattered by cannon fire and tunnelling that had occurred in the Civil War siege of the city in 1644. They then suffered a century of theft of stone and illegal encroachment on the ramparts from buildings and gardens – with some of the latter still evident today.

The budget for annual repairs had been £20 in 1721 – or £3,600 in today’s money. But this was evidently insufficient; by 1827, a report suggested that £5,000 (nearly £500,000 today) was required to repair the walls – a huge sum given how cheap the cost of labour was then.

Is the council’s current budget sufficient to sustain our walls? Despite a dedicated team of stonemasons, erosion, cracks, and sagging is evidently taking its toll on some of the walls.

It’s a controversial idea for some, but international cities charge tourists to access their city walls (€29 in Dubrovnik). Could the income be ring-fenced for the maintenance of York’s walls and other monuments?

Another reason for the 1800 petitions was because the walls physically constrained the city. The width of the barbicans was too narrow for the volume of horse-drawn traffic, creating bottlenecks, and there were no separate gates for pedestrian access – all passed under portcullis. (And we think our city’s traffic problems are bad!)

For the city to function in the emerging industrial age, it simply wanted to break free of its walls.

The arrival of the railways in the 1830s and 40s also led architect G.T. Andrews to insert 70ft wide railway arches in the walls near Queen Street, and narrower ones on Station Road and near Tanner’s Moat. The arches allowed access to the original railway station, part of which survives as the Council’s West Offices, and for the railway coal depot at Tanner’s Moat.

If there was a clue our mediaeval walls were largely rebuilt by the Victorians, it is these arches!

Attitudes to conservation have evidently changed greatly since the 1840s. But it is interesting to ask under what conditions, with what public gains, would a new 70ft arch in the city walls be allowed today?

York as a tourist destination developed from the late-nineteenth century onwards. The appeal of its walls was fundamental. Chester aside, York is a unique English city for its medieval walls.

Think how prominent the walls are in historic photos or postcards of the city – many with that iconic view looking along the walls, over Lendal Bridge, and with the Minster standing majestically beyond, or those vibrant, vintage railway posters advertising trips to York.

The walls also give the city a clear sense of definition – within the historic core, and without; perfect for tourists to find their bearings.

How different might York have been had the walls been demolished in the early nineteenth century? It’s impossible to say, but with so many people in York employed in the tourist sector, would we still be attracting 10m visitors annually without our city walls?

The post How York came close to losing its city walls 200 years ago first appeared on York Civic Trust.

York’s city centre is renowned for its exceptional wealth of preserved heritage, and yet remains an ever-evolving city.

Piccadilly, York Central, the Mecca Bingo site, Foss Islands Road, the removal of Queen Street bridge … just a few of York’s ongoing city-centre redevelopments.

But do we too often focus on redevelopment as simply changing individual buildings, sites or street layouts?

Do we operate in a ‘silo’ mentality, and fail to ‘join up the dots’ of how the city might best be transformed and experienced as a series of interconnected places? Indeed, have we lost the art of ‘vision’-thinking for York?

Such questions are timely. City of York Council is developing a York Movement & Place Plan. It aims to “identify how best to balance the needs of streets as travel corridors and as places where people live, shop, go to school and enjoy their leisure”. For it to succeed, however, it needs to embrace successful placemaking as well as combating the city’s ‘movement’ issues.

Two of York’s pre-eminent thinkers on the city’s future shape were the prominent local politician, J.B. Morrell, and Lionel Brett – the latter better known by his title, Lord Esher. In his 1940 book, ‘The City of Our Dreams’, Morrell outlined a vision for York that would also greatly inform the even more radical – and largely unadopted – 1948 postwar plan by York Corporation.

Morrell’s vision was dramatic. It included widespread demolition of buildings within touching distance of the city walls’ external ramparts. Why? To better present the walls – and free up space for an inner ring road! But he also had fine ambitions for Exhibition Square and the area around Clifford’s Tower as high-quality civic spaces; two locations in York that still require a substantial rethink.

Esher’s ideas for redesigning York’s city centre featured in his 1968 Government Report called ‘York – A Study in Conservation’. He targeted rejuvenating York by making the most of its heritage and yet making it a working city for a modern age. A small amount of pedestrianisation – a cutting edge and controversial idea then – clearing of poor-quality housing and dirty industrial businesses within the city centre, and generally thinking of how York might be experienced as a place to live and work in were at the heart of his vision.

Both men operated at a time when York welcomed, or at least was prepared for large scale change; a more confident age, perhaps. They also built on a Victorian and Edwardian tradition of bold interventions and redevelopment of the city centre.

Two examples are the creation in the 1830s of Parliament Street as the principal market area in the city, and the making of Duncombe Place through the clearance of Little Blake Street in 1859-64. Both resulted in a huge loss of medieval housing that we’d now consider utterly charming and highly conservable, which changed the character of the spaces and sacrificed some of the historic street layouts that had been established since the time of the Vikings. But they vastly improved the function of the city economically, by strategically connecting and creating open spaces, and, with Duncombe Place, improved the setting of The Minster.

One strength of Morrell and Esher’s visions is their consideration of redevelopment in human terms: how people might experience spaces, and not simply the architectural qualities of buildings and spaces being created. It’s a simple concept, but so often overlooked – especially when tempted to primarily find traffic solutions to aid movement between spaces.

But is a traffic solution really a successful solution without also improving the quality of the places it connects?

Consider the new ‘frontage’ scheme for York Railway Station, for example. It provides fabulous opportunities to reshape how people arriving by rail access the city centre, to see their route as a space they move through, experience, and engage with. How might a transformed Rougier Street and area along North Street lead them to a more pedestrian-friendly Ouse Bridge, and then, say, to Clifford’s Tower as part of the Castle Gateway project? Equally, how can improvements to the public realm and access in Lendal, Coney Street or Exhibition Square interact with people arriving via a route using Scarborough Bridge and the Museum Gardens?

We’ll each have different visions for the city centre’s redevelopment. But there’s merit for us in following Morrell and Esher’s lead in considering how such changes will be experienced, enjoyed, and interconnected.

The post We need some proper visionary thinking about York’s future first appeared on York Civic Trust.

In the last 15 years, work by the City of York Council, My Future York, York Bid, York Civic Trust and the Bishopthorpe Road, Micklegate and Fossgate Traders Associations have developed plans to enhance parts of the city that were suffering from being dominated by tarmac and a lack of priority for people and high quality places.

In these areas a great deal of intensive work by individuals and local groups has achieved successful compromises that have improved the public realm, making it more accessible and welcoming to all, and providing increased economic opportunities for local businesses.

The successes have often required a huge amount of voluntary effort and leadership and have relied on the generosity of effort of individuals. But are we now failing to do this?

York is a city of many parts that have developed over centuries.

The city is not dominated by a single design like Bath or Milton Keynes.

Each neighbourhood has its own character developed by continuous change and adaptation.

These changes are most often driven by local authorities, commercial enterprises, or individuals and to a lesser extent by local communities.

Many have not stood the test of time and have disappeared leaving little trace whilst others have remained and added to the rich urban texture of York.

The City of York Council has just finished a second round of consultation with residents, businesses and the wider community to share and test ideas exploring how to improve Front Street in Acomb.

The Phase 2 consultation looked to ask the community for its views on making Front Street a more welcoming space, protecting the pavements and reviewing the recently installed bollards and seating, the future use of the road and markets and activities.

In 2022 following extensive local consultation City of York Council published the Future of Acomb Front Street Study, setting out a 10-15 year vision for the area.

Funding was secured from the central government’s UK Shared Prosperity Fund to address some of the needs identified through the consultation.

Unfortunately, the resultant scheme with its oversupply of bollards was not met with enthusiasm as what was delivered did not fit with the ideas expressed for the area and seemed to differ from the options proposed as part of the study.

The Future of Acomb Front Street Study contained some bold and design-led ideas for transforming this important part of the life of Acomb to create something that York and Acomb could shout about and which would benefit both residents and businesses in the area and put the community at the heart of the development.

The study was a strong piece of community-inspired design that unfortunately felt far short of the community’s expectations in its initial delivery.

York Civic Trust has been actively involved in commissioning reviews and advocating improvements to the places people live and work for nearly 80 years.

The Civic Trust sponsored a ground-breaking report by the leading architect Lord Esher in 1969 setting the groundwork for the next 50 years of development of York, commissioned reviews and design studies from urban designers including George Pace’s important work on Bishophill in early 1970’s and more recently Derwenthorpe and the former Terry’s factory site.

The Trust has actively supported local Traders’ Associations and organizations such as York Bid and the council to improve the public realm across the city.

The reactions to the recent Front Street improvements have clearly demonstrated the passion for and the desire to achieve high-quality public realm that local people possess.

There have been many complaints that the standard of York’s public realm is slipping and that perhaps the gains made in recent decades are being lost as uncoordinated development, lack of investment, poor maintenance and a lack of agreement and vision take over.

City of York Council, with ever-diminishing resources, cannot do it all. External funding opportunities such the UK Shared Prosperity Fund have come along, and York needs to be ready to respond proactively.

Is it not time for our city to have a strong design-led public realm strategy, developed by local communities, urban designers and policy makers, that covers the whole city? Not one that is developed and put on a shelf, nor requires endless volunteer advocates, but one that is held close to the heart of the city and informs all of our futures.

The post Acomb’s ‘Bollardgate’ row shows need to design spaces people want first appeared on York Civic Trust.

York Civic Trust is supporting the proposed re-development of Coney Street – after previously objecting to the original design scheme.

The proposal, first submitted by Helmsley Group in December 2022, involved major regeneration of Coney Street’s retail, leisure, commercial, and residential spaces – including a riverside walkway and student accommodation.

York Civic Trust, which is a formal planning consultee for City of York Council, objected to the initial scheme due to concern about an underwhelming public realm, the size of buildings on the river front, and access and safety issues.

Taking these concerns into account, Helmsley Group and their architects have worked closely with York Civic Trust, as well as a range of other groups and organisations, to establish a design that better benefits the city. Under the revised proposal, the riverside buildings have been setback to provide a stronger public realm including a link between the river and the street, and improved access issues by reducing potential bottlenecks.

Now York Civic Trust has supported the revised scheme, appreciating Helmsley Group’s receptiveness to their original comments, and call the scheme a ‘once in a century opportunity.’

Andrew Morrison, CEO of York Civic Trust, said, “We previously objected to the detailing of the scheme, although we welcomed the principle behind it. This is a once in a century opportunity to reconnect the city centre’s commercial heart with the river, just as it was centuries before. It can create a new community and bring economic benefits including regeneration of Coney Street.”

“The revised scheme addresses issues we raised, and the modest impact on heritage and setting has been balanced by positives from the scheme. We therefore support the application.”

In the comment submitted to the Council, York Civic Trust said that they supported the revised scheme due to, ‘the improved architectural design of newbuild on Coney Street’ and, ‘a more organic and varied use of shopfronts.’ The comment also states that, ‘the balance in favour of the scheme is largely dependent on the realisation of the riverside walkway.’

Max Reeves, development director at Helmsley Group, said: “Throughout our extensive planning for Coney Street Riverside we have taken a heritage-led approach to regeneration, working in close partnership with key organisations across York.     

“Both Helmsley Group and York Civic Trust are passionate about working tirelessly to shape the future cultural and economic prosperity of York, whilst being sensitive to its unique history and heritage.

“We are grateful to York Civic Trust in its influential role as a formal planning consultee to City of York Council for supporting our application.”

The outcome of Helmsley Group’s planning application is anticipated to be determined by City of York Council in the coming months.

The post York Civic Trust Supports Coney Street ‘Once in a Century Opportunity’ first appeared on York Civic Trust.

The City of York Council has agreed to develop a new Local Transport Plan to replace the one issued a decade ago, which will be published for consultation in 2022. The Trust were invited to provide advice on what might be included in the new Plan, and have now submitted our initial proposals.

Last year the Trust convened a Citizens’ Transport Forum, with 100 members drawn from across the city to discuss the city’s transport needs. In its report, Towards a Transport Strategy for York, the Forum argued that any new Local Transport Plan “needs to adopt a holistic, bold and visionary strategy which achieves significant changes in travel behaviour in the immediate future”.

We have taken that as our starting point, and looked for ways in which the city’s transport system can contribute positively to the challenges of reducing carbon emissions, improving the environment and public health, supporting the economy and making it easier for people to take part in everyday activities.

The Trust’s 16-strong Transport Advisory Group, which draws on expertise in all aspects of transport policy, has spent the last few months reviewing the 2011 Local Transport Plan, suggesting the focus for the new Plan, and developing specific suggestions for improving public transport, walking and cycling, making it easier for people to travel less, and managing car use and the road network.

Among the suggestions in its initial proposals are:

· Giving pedestrians greater priority and more direct routes when crossing roads

· Developing a connected, continuous and safe cycle network

· Using park and ride sites as local access hubs, with more orbital bus services

· Local centres and community hubs to support working from home

· A parking policy to help manage levels of car use

· Using traffic control and communications technology to discourage through traffic

Professor Tony May, Chair of the Trust’s Transport Advisory Group, said:

“Since the Council’s current Local Transport Plan was produced a decade ago, much has changed, with electric cars, bikes and scooters, ride-hailing services such as Uber, increased online shopping and now more working from home. At the same time we have new commitments to carbon reduction and air quality, and need to support economic recovery. We have gone back to first principles and asked what sort of city we want, and how can transport best contribute. We have looked in turn at each of the forms of transport, and at how they can best support one another. We have looked internationally for examples of good practice.

We would like to hear from everyone about the ideas which attract support, those that don’t, and suggestions that we might have missed.

The proposals are available on our website, along with our review of the 2011 Local Transport Plan and overview of the approach that we have adopted.

The post Be bold and visionary in your new Local Transport Plan, says York Civic Trust first appeared on York Civic Trust.

For those who follow the Civic Trust on our social media platforms, you will have noticed that we’ve been very focused on the Bootham / Gillygate / St. Leonard’s Place road junction recently. This is due to City of York Council putting forward two consultation options for members of the public to consider. One option offered like-for-like changes; the other option offered a safer road option, especially for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as widening of the public realm in front of Bootham Bar, with only a small amount of added congestion – a clear improvement in our view.  

Armed with analysis of the Trust’s Transport Advisory Group, we have led an active social media campaign focusing on the transport benefits of the second option. But what a great opportunity this is to re-imagine the area as a place, not just about movement through it and away from it as swiftly as possible. Given the historic structures at the junction – the City Walls and Bootham Bar, the De Grey Rooms, the Art Gallery, and Queen Margaret’s arch (formerly an access route to St Mary’s Abbey) – this junction really does need attention to make it fit for purpose as part of our great city.

The response to the social media campaign has been greatly encouraging – with 1,916 engagements and over 100 comments on Twitter alone. We look forward to the outcome of the Council’s consultation.

The post Bootham Junction Consultation Attracts Attention on Social Media first appeared on York Civic Trust.