Talk:Lowestoft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Third River Crossing

I have lived in Lowestoft for 15 years. I am still an ousider The obsession with traffic problems and certainly the religion of the third river crossing have been the only "campaign" from the locals I have witnessed in those fifteen years. Somehow the fallacy that building their beloved third river crossing will solve the town's problems needs to be stressed - evidence found to include here. After all businesses flock to London, Manchester and many other places which have terrible transport problems; I think all the "traffic stuff" on this page should be removed - of no consequence. OK perhaps just a sentence or two. Including it makes the town (and its inhabitants) look obsessed by an issue of relatively little consequence. The replies to my pointing this out will probably prove me right... What about the lowest education standards in Suffolk? What about the lack of new industries with well paid jobs - so that anyone with qualifications must move? Not a word, not a dicky-bird... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.20.169 (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's in a name

I recently came back to this article and noticed that any mention of John Edward Hloover has been deleted, and in its place irrelevancies regarding the Yarmouth herring trade. As all Roman Hill pupils had to engage in studies of the beach village, we were all taught that Lowestoft is a consonental shift from 'Hloovers Toft' based on the founder of the beach village.

-- On a similar topic (which is why I put it here - I'm not the above user who failed to sign their comment), I just edited this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowestoft#Waveney_Sunrise_Scheme_And_Associated_Works and removed the false statement regarding no-one knowing who Thomas Crisp was (In relation to Tom Crisp Way's naming). 82.27.16.206 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sunrise Scheme Neutrality

The following quoted paragraph (Sunrise scheme section) in my opinion lacks neutrality "local government not finding out or asking the wishes of local people, and instead imposing badly thought out, expensive schemes which are if anything detrimental."

Have flagged it for POV Check.

You Decide :)

The fact that these obviously subjective observations are offered as fact disqualify it from serious consideration. Whilst the sunrise scheme has its detractors, it also has its admirers. (But I don't particularly like it).

The Sunrise (or as we like to call it The Sunset) Scheme I live in Lowestoft and none of my family have heard anything good said about the scheme except by the designers, builders and the local council. The money for this and the South Lowestoft Relief Road should have been used for a third crossing. All these two schemes have done is waste about 45 million GBP of taxpayers money. Foggy dew 19:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I live in Lowestoft too and while i personally like the sunrise scheme i am of the opinion that the money would have been better spent on a third road crossing.

I live in Lowestoft as well,and it is obvious to anyone who does so that the detractors are more numerous than the admirers as proved on various forums,and so are perfectly entitled to present their viewpoint.


Points taken, I live in Lowestoft too, was just trying to keep the article in an encyclopaedic format. Flag removed

[edit] My opinions

I moved back to the UK from abroad about three years ago from one of the so-called richest countries in the world. I have a Suffolk background and now, to my suprise, live in the town.

Lowestoft may well suffer from a lack of taste in its regeneration, but actually it suffers more from a lack of self-esteem. The town and its buildings are of good quality. Walk along London Road North and look above the modern shopfronts and see the original buildings behind. Think of the High Street stripped of hairdressers, junk shops, charity shops, and with the properties renovated and you would have an Aldeburgh or Southwold. Lowestoft has a lot of potential, but suffers from a peculiar East Anglian form of self-detraction.

"Lowestoft may well suffer from a lack of taste in its regeneration, but actually it suffers more from a lack of self-esteem." It has a lack of self esteem because its got the A12 cutting though its vitals, and the disused seaward harbour that is presented in an ugly industrial way rather than for recreation. It should be an attractive seaside resort yet the council have been determined to present it as a seedy northern industrial town. " Lowestoft has a lot of potential, but suffers from a peculiar East Anglian form of self-detraction." Its the incompetant planners and council administrators who have been imposing 'destruction' upon us, the locals just have to suffer it and are powerless. Makes me feel depressed. 80.0.107.16 (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The High Street is a tiny part of the town, and comparatively few people pass through it each day. Whereas tens of thousands of people are forced to commute or everyday through the horrible ugliness and seedyness of the area around Asda, recently voted as being the worst eyesore in Suffolk by listeners to BBC Radio Suffolk. It also creates a very bad impression on tourists and visitors to the town. The sad thing is that its only just been built - why wasnt it built with much greater care and attention? The area could have been made to look attractive and prestigeous - executive waterfront town houses for example, and instead its just replaced the old disused industrial buildings with even more ugly new industrial buildings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.1.184.77 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Our glorious planners have now allowed an ugly industrial yard of heaps of rusting metal to be placed near the bridge, which thousands of townspeople and tourists drive past everyday. Planners! Sit up and pay attention! Industry tucked away out of site good! Industry that everybody has to drive past and in an area near sea and lake that would be better used for recreation very bad! 80.0.117.222 (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


The developers were quoted in the local press as saying that there were no objections to the plans for this building at the relevant stage - Like the sunset scheme how many people where aware of just what was plannedFoggy dew 18:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The sunrise scheme comments come across as an opinion and not one that is fact. For example:
1 "In fact the paving changed from an attractive red brick to Coronation Street-style grey cobblestones which are out of character with the area, and a few trees were planted. " - the old red bricks had a number of places where they had been removed for works and replaced with tarmac. They were uneven and slopped at various angles in a number of places. They needed refurbishment or replacement. An opinion on whether grey is better than red is not appropriate.

I agree with the original writer that it is a fact not an opinion that the red brick paving was changed to grey cobblestones, and I also agree that the cobblestones are more unattractive than what was there before. It would have been easy and inexpensive to have replaced or relaid the bricks if and where needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.48.12 (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
The new paving looks worse than the old ones as the light colour shows up all the dirt and filth. I've never seen anyone scrubbing them clean. Lowestoft is so badly planned and managed that I'm beginning to wonder if councillers and officials are devil-worshippers trying to make the town look like Scunthorpe. 80.0.117.222 (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that a lot of people have written in the loacl press saying they do not like the sunset scheme Foggy dew 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

2 "There has been much controversy over the scheme with people branding it as a waste of money that could have been invested into schemes such as the third River Crossing." - Some of the works are in preperation for a possible third crossing with announcements of two possible routes to follow in 2007. An opinion that the money should be spent elsewhere isnt appropriate for works that are ongoing.

"Some of the works are in preperation for a possible third crossing" - that is simply not true, as nobody has decided where any 3rd crossing is going to be yet. "An opinion that the money should be spent elsewhere isnt appropriate for works that are ongoing" - oh yes it is.

3 "and creating several fountains for children to play in, although these have been criticised as resembling a flushing toilet for dogs." - There was one such complaint of this type in the local paper letters section. Following weeks had more letters in support of the fountains with a view that the person "whinging" didnt have children and didnt want features for the benefit of children. During warm weather the facility is always busy with children playing in it. One person's criticsm shouldnt be included.

The position of the fountains has changed the way that the Rememberence day parade worked Foggy dew 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

4 "Lowestoft does have the problem of local government not finding out or asking the wishes of local people, and instead imposing badly thought out, expensive schemes which are if anything detrimental." - opinion of an individual. Although there are some areas which do make you think the comment is correct, proving it is harder

If you limited content to only what had been actually proved in court, this encyclopedia would be very thin.

This statement is true for most of the UK Foggy dew 18:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

5 "The most serious mistake has been the failure to exploit the centrally situated Lake Lothing as an area for recreation and waterside homes, and instead the derelict industrial areas have simply been replaced by misplaced unattractive industrial and commercial buildings which create a bad impression of Lowestoft for people driving past. The council have decided to evict eight firms near ASDA so they can have some fancy new offices,even the MP has protested loudly at this latest arrogant uncaring attitude." - this is all opinion and appears to anti-local Govt. Much of that area is still under development and parts of that area include the route for one of the proposed 3rd river crossing. This "venting" shouldnt be in the article and certainly not on incomplete works.

This is not all opinion. If the planners are lazy or incompetant, then it is not unreasonable to say so. There have been other examples throughout the country of similar mistakes being made. Maybe the overall trouble with Lowestoft is that its being pushed more and more down-market in the hope of getting UK tourists, when instead tourists and residents alike would prefer it to go upmarket like Southwold and Aldeburgh. Also, the Sunrise Scheme is not incomplete but 99% finished.

[edit] Wind Turbine

It is the world's largest wind turbine. is unsubstantiated. Google [1] gives several alternatives to this claim which are all bigger.--JBellis 12:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The Lowestoft Journal said it was the world's largest Windturbine.User:slamdac 20.11 5th February 2005 (UTC)
No It didn't, It said it was the 3rd largest in Europe. User:Cooleo 18.51 30/10/2006

It seems many people have strong views on the subject of the wind turbine. Anonymous editors have added their opinions and their opinions on the neutrality of the local press. This is probably not the place to air those views so I editied the article to reflect facts rather than opinion. User:lanesra68

It is only poorly educated people who pronounce Lowestoft Lowstuff!

[edit] Information written in the 1st person

I was just doing a disambiguation repair on this page and I noticed that an anonymous editor had added some information to the Geography section that is written in the first person and contains several statements that show POV. I have removed the information from the article and placed it here:

  • Lowestoft is one of tyhe most popular seaside resourts in britian. It is like a smaller version of LA with less of gene simmons. I currently attend kirkley high school located in the south side of the town. This is the school the darkness went to and where the channel 4 series "rock school" was filmed. In that series the naritor described lowestoft as one of the most rundown seaside towns in britian. This isnt true. Every town and their good parts and their bad parts and the progeam focused on the bard parts of the town. Lowestoft is actually a beuitful place to go on hoilday and to live in.
Lowestoft also has an annual airshow that attracts in excess of 300 000 people a year. It sees planes like the harrier and the eurofighter typhoon, making this one of the most popular arishows in britan.

Could an editor more familiar with the subject review the information, correct it and return it to the article if necessary? Thanks. Road Wizard 16:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Lowestoft is a popular seaside resort. The music group The Darkness were students at Kirkley High School. There is an annual air show that attracts over 300000 spectators per year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.48.12 (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Channel 4 TV programme

I watched this and although you would expect the normal sequence of events to be:

1) Visit area beforehand and get to know it

2) Write a script story based on 1)

3) Go and shoot film to illustrate the script

What they actually did was:

1) Shoot film nearest, quickest, least effort

2) Concoct a story - any story - that fits these film clips.

A lot of the footage was shot just a few yards or a few feet away from the school - for example in the road outside or in an adjacent alleyway.

The programme wasnt so bad - at least it showed that Lowestoft looks quite nice, has big sandy beaches, and so on.

The article is currently a mess - it should for example be divided up into sections.

[edit] Lowestoft Witch Trials in the 17th Century

It would be interesting and rewarding if someone from Lowestoft could add some more information on the Lowestoft Witch Trials in the 17th century; I've come across bits and pieces on them on the web and there have been books written on them. They seem fascinating. Any takers? -- PD 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This has already been done - see my website at www.lowestoftwitches.com Ivan Bunn Ivanawbunn 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just at your site, it is really good! The background for my interest is a simple one, I searched the internet for my daughter and sons' names one day and found they were online; Amy and John Denny (!). The last witch to be burned in Britain or Ireland was also burned just outside of my home town in County Tipperary, shockingly this took place a few hundred years later. -- (PD 05:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Facts about opinions

It is reasonable to include the facts about commonly held opinions in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.1.184.77 (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Criticism of local government has been removed

Looking again at this article after some months it seems that someone had been through it and censored out all the negative and critical things. Would anyone like to try to justify this? 80.2.222.220 12:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kirlkley Fen as "Public Open Space"

I was surprised to read in the paper (The Journal 28 March 2008) that the proposed school to the rear of Walmer Road has been scrapped because the land has been used by the public as open space for over twenty years, and by law it can be given town or village green status which prevents any development. The article only said that people walked their dogs on it, and children played on it - exactly what happened at Kirkly Fen before the so-called bypass was built.

Does this mean that Kirkley Fen could have become a town green if someone had applied for this, and thus the building of the new road would have been prevented? I've felt really depressed about this as it could have saved me and thousands of other people the daily psychological torment of loud road noise, and saved the public the wasting of tens of millions of pounds of public money. Please could someone tell me the truth. 80.0.107.16 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)