Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by dangie, Jul 21, 2021.
Keep and preserve the best of the old and build only the best of the new seems a reasonable proposition. And if well marketed will still be a place people want to come and visit. May be even more so than before. nothing needs be lost and much gained.
This has been mooted for a while now. I've seen it covered a few times.
When I was in Brussels there was some uproar as an inspector ruled that the Grand Place was violating its Heritage conditions and a great clean-up of building frontages and outdoor seating was rushed through.
Edinburgh must be next!
Elephant warning in Liverpool.
Will hotel prices drop?
Makes a change for them stripping the wheels from your car.
I thought that they had moved on to catalytic converters.
Down with historic baggage.
There's an old disused school just up the road which is listed and builders weren't allowed to knock it down. Net result is another house built in green space so we can keep a crumbling eyesore.
My next door but one is a decaying old cottage that has been empty for many years. it is surrounded by security fencing and is an eyesore. The council keep refusing planning permission for one reason after another. What they will allow is no way financially viable for the owners. It is not owned by a developer but a private individual who wants to live there. It is tiny in a fairly big garden. So lets refuse the demolition but keep an eyesore. really does not make sense!
I would guess if one of the councillors lived where you live it would have been demolished by now.
World Heritage Site status effectively means that the UN, in the shape of UNESCO, can tell a country how to manage a site. What it doesn't do, as far as I know, is provide the money for the upkeep of the site. Trying to manage a crumbling old building is vastly more expensive than building something new but sometimes the old is worth saving, other times it is not. UNESCO don't have the resources of local knowledge to determine which applies so they just expect the country concerned to keep things as they are. Is World Heritage Site status worth anything in reality?
It actually does open up funding from the World Heritage Fund.
One thing is certain Change is inevitable.
On the bright side - it will fall down eventually.
About 40 years ago an older colleague told me her brother could not get house insurance. It was a listed building and no one was making the glass required to replace the windows anymore.
Thanks Nick, I was unaware of that.
I was thinking more about an arsonist and insurance fraud for the house near Nige. I guess the insurance companies were thinking the same about your friend's brother's listed building.
I really doubt it is insured TBH.
It was OK when it was like this. It was well hidden. When they expected the permission, they cut back the trees etc, stripped the overgrown land back and then surrounded it with metal fencing. Annoyingly premature!
Screenshot 2021-07-21 at 20.28.05 by Nigel G, on Flickr
Nige, this plot doesn't by any chance happen to provide access to another piece of land (with poor access) behind this?
From my experience (many decades ago) a lot of behind the scenes
skulduggery occurs in Parish and local councils. There were instances of someone not wanting land redeveloped because it would reduce the value of their property, or on the other hand, eventually benefit from the land being developed.
Of course it isn't. Any sensible insurance company wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
Separate names with a comma.