Should we 'save' old buildings

[El Cid]

People in Leeds are being asked for their views on the future of Yorkshire's oldest trading building as it celebrates its 300th anniversary.

 

The city council plans to restore the First White Cloth Hall as part of a £2.6m scheme to rejuvenate Kirkgate. That was in 2011, I believe its still not finished.

 

The above is just one example, but years afterwards, are they just a bind for the owners.

Should we just knock them down, and replace them with a modern building? If we had few old buildings, perhaps we might treasure them more?

[Anna B]

I think beautiful old buildings should be treasured.

 

When I think of all the lovely old Victorian buildings that were demolished in the 60s, (and more to the point, what they were replaced with!) and I think how we will never have the money again to lavish on all the beautiful decoration and detail they were adorned with. They were also built to last.

 

We had an empire once, and these buildings are an outward sign of that past. Change the inside, maybe, to make it useful in the modern world, but keep the facade where possible..

[crookedspire]

Iv got piles of photos of demolished buildings not just Sheffield but also Chesterfield. I know change happens but we have lost far too much . Sheffield buildings they should have retained : Grand Hotel, Hole in the Wall pub to name a few.Buildings that are under threat like the old citadel on Cross Burgess Street , Record Ridgeway tool works and Queens Hotel could be all reused but instead left to fall down they all tell a story.

[Guest]

No we shouldn't knock them down, they're part of our heritage. Shall we go and knock down all the castles and ruins of castles and destroy our history too? After all they're all old and require maintenance.

[ECCOnoob]

I see this argument raised a lot but there is always a big question.

 

Its all very well keeping these old nice looking buildings but WHO is going to pay for their upkeep?

 

With the rare exception of buildings of historical interest with a large tourist following/national importance or other feature, most old buildings (no matter how beautiful) eventually stop serving a purpose.

 

They become increasingly expensive to maintain, inhabitable, unsafe, non compliant with changing safety/health laws or simply no longer practical.

 

You cannot force an owner to redevelop. You cannot force tenants to stay in a building just to keep it a nice thing to look at.

 

Someone has to pay the bill.

 

If there is a genuine demand and genuine reason to save an old building, we already have ways of preserving them. That's why we have English heritage. That's why certain buildings get listed.

 

However not every nice looking historical building in every city can or should be saved.

[Anna B]

I see this argument raised a lot but there is always a big question.

 

Its all very well keeping these old nice looking buildings but WHO is going to pay for their upkeep?

 

With the rare exception of buildings of historical interest with a large tourist following/national importance or other feature, most old buildings (no matter how beautiful) eventually stop serving a purpose.

 

They become increasingly expensive to maintain, inhabitable, unsafe, non compliant with changing safety/health laws or simply no longer practical.

 

You cannot force an owner to redevelop. You cannot force tenants to stay in a building just to keep it a nice thing to look at.

 

Someone has to pay the bill.

 

If there is a genuine demand and genuine reason to save an old building, we already have ways of preserving them. That's why we have English heritage. That's why certain buildings get listed.

 

However not every nice looking historical building in every city can or should be saved.

 

Old buildings give a place character, and make it a place people want to visit. They will pay for themselves in terms of tourism and trade. They are attractive and also adaptable to many new purposes.

 

New buildings also cost money, and aren't built to last.

 

Think of the modern buildings that have been and gone since the 60s; the eggboxes, the registry offices, Kelvin flats, hole in the road, concourse above Pond Street, (and soon the new Pond Street interchange,) Sheaf Valley baths... to name a few.

 

How much has that cost?

[Guest sibon]

 

New buildings also cost money, and aren't built to last.

 

Think of the modern buildings that have been and gone since the 60s; the eggboxes, the registry offices, Kelvin flats, hole in the road, concourse above Pond Street, (and soon the new Pond Street interchange,) Sheaf Valley baths... to name a few.

 

How much has that cost?

 

Indeed.

 

In my experience, buidings from the 60s, 70s and 80s are often far less fit for purpose than those built in Victorian and Edwardian times. All down to build quality, choice of materials and craftsmanship.

 

To answer the OP directly, of course we should preserve old buildings. We should require the owners of such buidings to maintain them properly. If they can't look after our heritage, the owners should be compelled to sell to someone who can.

[Nagel]

Indeed.

 

In my experience, buidings from the 60s, 70s and 80s are often far less fit for purpose than those built in Victorian and Edwardian times. All down to build quality, choice of materials and craftsmanship.

 

My house is Edwardian. The building standards are atrocious compared to modern houses. When work is done and I can see behind the plasterwork I realise how shoddy and bodged it really is.

 

I choose to live in it rather than a new build because I like the character and style of the period features, but let's not romanticise the build quality.

[Guest sibon]

My house is Edwardian. The building standards are atrocious compared to modern houses. When work is done and I can see behind the plasterwork I realise how shoddy and bodged it really is.

 

I choose to live in it rather than a new build because I like the character and style of the period features, but let's not romanticise the build quality.

 

Mine is early Victorian. It still has the original windows, doors, fireplaces, plaster, coving etc. Not bad going for over 150 years old. I can't imagine that there will be many houses from the 1970s left in another 150 years.

[tzijlstra]

.as someone who loves architecture, this is a very difficult question. Each time one of the old mills or historic houses burns down my heart skips a beat. But there has to be a balance and that balance needs to be sensible.

 

Consider for example Attercliffe, near the city centre with excellent road connections and ripe for wholesale development. There are some beautiful old commercial buildings there but practically all of them are well past their sellby date. It would pain me a lot, but buildings like the Adelphi theatre and so on should be cleared so that the area can be used for housing, the sort where people actually want to live.

 

As a librarian by trade I know how much old Victorian buildings are holding back public libraries in this city, difficult to make accessible, poor conditions to store books in and often to read in as well. They are often gorgeous buildings but... And it is that but that leads to the practical buildings people seem to hate. Built with a defined lifespan for a reason, the reason being that things have to move on, a brand new central library, like in Birmingham and Newcastle would be a huge shot in the arm of the cities libraries.