2006 Awards

If it was physically possible, given the restrictions of the building itself, everyone should go to see the York Cold War bunker and hear the story it has to tell. It is the largely untold story of how the ‘Yes Ministers’ of the 60s, and later decades, tried to face up to the day-to-day realities of imminent nuclear annihilation in this country.

English Heritage deserves a commendation for bravely attempting to tackle this raw and emotionally powerful subject. The introductory film is disturbing… to think this was going on in places literally below our feet. As our guide said, visiting this place changes your view (for a certain CND / Greenham Common generation - one of the main target audience groups) of your childhood forever.

Current interpretation has its limitations however (certainly, from the evidence of our visit, betraying a lack of guide training), and needs some tweaking to fully realise the potential of the site:

1. The stated aim is ‘to provide information…’. Please read Tilden again. It should be engaging, provocative, interactive (in terms of encouraging and trying to answer questions), etc.
2. Much of the interpretation is dependent on the performance and skills of the guides. Our gum-chewing guide’s skills - and awareness of guiding as an interpretive technique – was woefully lacking. To be fair, he was very good at ‘providing information’ though – see i. above. But no attempt was made at the outset to engage with the audience (assess our background and interests, where we were from, etc), or to encourage questions or discussion on what was likely to be a very emotive subject, or even set the context for the building as a whole right from the start. The ‘introductory’ film was not that – we sat and watched it about half way through the tour. No attempt appears to be being made to monitor guide performance and the messages / stories being communicated.
3. Linked to the above, much more effort could be made to communicate with teenagers (an identified target group after all) who, on the evidence of our visit, were almost totally ignored. If the guide had at least looked at them it would have been an improvement. They might have been asked, for example, to comment on what they feel are the greatest threats today, to try to raise some discussion on the comparison between fears of the Cold War in 60s to fears of Terrorism today – ie relate (Tilden again) to their own lives in some way! We wonder if the EH could target teenage groups studying history / politics GCSE or A-Level to visit and use as starting points for debate. Even performing arts or arts students, or design graphic students, would find the site interesting and could look at fascinating issues such as, propaganda v. brainwashing or justifiable public concern.
4. There are undoubtedly some fascinating stories to be told here by the ex-ROC volunteers themselves. What motivated them to serve? How did they deal personally with the threat of Armageddon on a day-to-day basis? Unfortunately they are not currently involved in the face-to-face interpretation of the building, and sadly there are apparently – and wrongly in the opinion of these judges – no plans to involve them directly in the future. Rather, they are seen only as possible source for future oral history testimonies. Get them involved first hand (Tilden yet again) through ‘live interpretation’ with the visitor while they are still around, rather than second hand though the EH tour guide!
5. Post visit opportunities to follow up the stories were limited (as our guide had to rush off for the next group) to the possible £14.99 purchase of a weighty tome on the Cold War.
6. At the time of booking, EH staff should be trained to enquire about any requirements to cater for special needs on the tour (eg for physical access, hearing, etc.).

We sincerely hope that current planning permission restrictions and other factors can be overcome in the future to enable more visitors to access this remarkable and frightening survivor of the Cold War.