Should we 'save' old buildings

[tzijlstra]

Oh, Leeuwarden, I've been there. I spent a happy three weeks in Harlingen drilling a gas well.

 

Nice, I spent my happiest childhood years in Harlingen, lovely town!

[JFKvsNixon]

Who is the "we" that is going to save the buildings, and who are we saving it for? The trouble is, if nobody wants to use the building in it's current form surely it's not fit for purpose irrespective of how nice it looks?

 

How a building looks is only a small part of whether or not a building is a success, making the building work is the really tricky part. Making building look good and work well makes it an outstanding building.

 

In the past, a lot of the buildings were vanity projects designed and built to represent the wealth and the taste of the person who commissioned the building. Today, things are very different, buildings are business projects and they must make a profit unless of course they're built out of public funds then they must represent value for money.

[crookedspire]

.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.

Attercliffe had the demo treatment thirty odd years ago I really don't think it needs yet more of what's all ready been done. The Adelphi is a gem of a building and could easily be reused along with the Burton building because its old doesn't mean it should be written off with that train of thought we should have demolished the Tower of London many years ago.

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2016 at 07:45 ----------

 

Who is the "we" that is going to save the buildings, and who are we saving it for? The trouble is, if nobody wants to use the building in it's current form surely it's not fit for purpose irrespective of how nice it looks?

 

How a building looks is only a small part of whether or not a building is a success, making the building work is the really tricky part. Making building look good and work well makes it an outstanding building.

 

In the past, a lot of the buildings were vanity projects designed and built to represent the wealth and the taste of the person who commissioned the building. Today, things are very different, buildings are business projects and they must make a profit unless of course they're built out of public funds then they must represent value for money.

Do get your point about modern buildings but so many are really bland and characterless and the same design .

[ECCOnoob]

Attercliffe had the demo treatment thirty odd years ago I really don't think it needs yet more of what's all ready been done. The Adelphi is a gem of a building and could easily be reused along with the Burton building because its old doesn't mean it should be written off with that train of thought we should have demolished the Tower of London many years ago.

 

But this is the old story.

 

You say the Adelphi and Burton building "could easily be re-used" but could they really?

 

Say im looking for a small office space for my company. I have a choice between a purpose build block on the technology park or the Burton building. The modern block is fully DDA compliant, has all the proper correct fire equipment, escapes, toilet facilities, heating, electrics, telephony cabling and lighting needed for an office to run.

 

OR

 

I buy the beautiful looking but not suitable Burton Building. I have to then spend money on renovations to make the interior suitable, money on conversation to make the building DDA compliant (including installation of a lift or major renovation of any existing lift), I have to ensure that all the fire escape route are compliant and if not, spend money on modernising them.

 

I may wish to do that, if the look of the building will be of benefit to my business. However, if its not - why would I spend such money?

 

You cannot force a tenant to move in. You cannot make someone spend money to keep a building in condition if it doesn't serve a purpose.

 

You comment about the Tower of London but lets be serious. The tower is of historical national importance. It is still used and attracts thousands of tourists every day paying money for its upkeep and operation.

 

IF the Adelphi or Burton Building had the same attraction and footfall I would be on your side. Fact is, however nice they look, they don't. They are just a old shop (like dozens of other Burton Buildings around the country) and an old cinema (just like many of the others around the country).

 

If enough people want to save it - they will. Just look at the brilliant work that people have done saving the Abbeydale Picture House. However, "it looks nice" is not enough for thousands of pounds to be spent on keeping something standing with nobody in it.

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2016 at 12:38 ----------

 

Do get your point about modern buildings but so many are really bland and characterless and the same design .

 

I agree but this of course is the problem when you build something commercially with a strict budget. Its not a modern phenomenon either. There are plenty of identical and bland old designs too - we just see them with different (and rather rose tinted) eyes now.

 

Fact is, as someone pointed out earlier, any building which goes the extra mile in terms of aesthetics is nearly always done for vanity reasons and never commercial.

 

Just take a look around Central London. We have the Natwest Tower, The Gherkin, The cheesegrater and of course the Shard. Why do those towers look so unique when compared to the hundreds of other identi-kit glass cubes that surround them? - vanity.

 

When building those particular ones budget was overruled by showing off.

 

The NatWest wanted a bold statement for their international office HQ

The gherkin was a statement piece in response to the IRA bombing of the old Baltic Exchange

The Cheesegrater wanted to claim the crown of the tallest building in the City of London.

The Shard wanted the crown as the tallest building in Western Europe.

 

There will be dozens of others built for the same reasons over the years. There will be thousands of others drawn on paper but never approved.

 

However, this is the exception to the rule 90% of the time a building is built down to the penny and vanity and aesthetics rarely outweigh the budget and practical needs.

[Nagel]

The Tower of London remained in use for one of its original purposes right up to WW2. In fact a little past the end of WW2 as the Kray Twins were locked up there briefly in the 1950s. It was also an army garrison.

 

As for the Adelphi, it's a great building in the wrong location. There's be a case for preserving the facade by moving it to a more commercial location and attaching a modern building behind it.

[crookedspire]

Both the former Burton building and the Adelphi were up for sale a while back both were sold. So somebody out their thought they were worth buying. As for Attercliffe wasn't their some grand plans to build housing and other projects?

[tzijlstra]

Both the former Burton building and the Adelphi were up for sale a while back both were sold. So somebody out their thought they were worth buying. As for Attercliffe wasn't their some grand plans to build housing and other projects?

 

ECCO already addressed your first reply the way I would have, except you said - 'I really don't think it needs more of what's all ready been done'. It does, it looks dreadful yet is in a perfect position to be turned into an asset for the city rather than a sinkhole for seedy clubs.

 

The reason Attercliffe isn't developing is because the council is not pro-active enough to do so, it sees investment there as a risk rather than an opportunity. But something has to be done at some point and smart investors know that, so they bought the Adelphi and Burton building, rubbing their hands whilst waiting for the day the council comes in and says - these buildings are beyond repair, we are finally going to do something (at which point it is probably going to cost significantly more).

 

Why wait until then instead of shaking the whole thing up when it is clearly needed (which it has been for years and years)?

 

Also - if the council took an aggressive development stance on the area, it could develop a plan that puts buildings worth preserving at the heart of the redevelopment, automatically ensuring their continued survival.

[Fogey]

ECCO already addressed your first reply the way I would have, except you said - 'I really don't think it needs more of what's all ready been done'. It does, it looks dreadful yet is in a perfect position to be turned into an asset for the city rather than a sinkhole for seedy clubs.

 

The reason Attercliffe isn't developing is because the council is not pro-active enough to do so, it sees investment there as a risk rather than an opportunity. But something has to be done at some point and smart investors know that, so they bought the Adelphi and Burton building, rubbing their hands whilst waiting for the day the council comes in and says - these buildings are beyond repair, we are finally going to do something (at which point it is probably going to cost significantly more).

 

Why wait until then instead of shaking the whole thing up when it is clearly needed (which it has been for years and years)?

 

Also - if the council took an aggressive development stance on the area, it could develop a plan that puts buildings worth preserving at the heart of the redevelopment, automatically ensuring their continued survival.

 

It might also depend on what the 'plan' in terms of acceptable development is for that area, if the whole area is designated as some kind of industrial zone then its not likely that the council is going to encourage investment for different types of use. I know of the Adelphi building and Burton's but I wouldn't consider either of them to be particularly exceptional or outstanding examples of a particular style or construction methodology, in that instance maybe the local area plan doesn't actually require these buildings to be saved or renovated.

[samssong]

ECCO already addressed your first reply the way I would have, except you said - 'I really don't think it needs more of what's all ready been done'. It does, it looks dreadful yet is in a perfect position to be turned into an asset for the city rather than a sinkhole for seedy clubs.

 

The reason Attercliffe isn't developing is because the council is not pro-active enough to do so, it sees investment there as a risk rather than an opportunity. But something has to be done at some point and smart investors know that, so they bought the Adelphi and Burton building, rubbing their hands whilst waiting for the day the council comes in and says - these buildings are beyond repair, we are finally going to do something (at which point it is probably going to cost significantly more).

 

Why wait until then instead of shaking the whole thing up when it is clearly needed (which it has been for years and years)?

 

Also - if the council took an aggressive development stance on the area, it could develop a plan that puts buildings worth preserving at the heart of the redevelopment, automatically ensuring their continued survival.

 

Attercliffe not developing? Have you not noticed the new technology centre and sport facilities on the old Don Valley site or the hundreds of new works units spread around the East end on the site of the old steel works and further on the new Ikea will rise from the ashes of Tinsley wire .

Just look around.

[tzijlstra]

Attercliffe not developing? Have you not noticed the new technology centre and sport facilities on the old Don Valley site or the hundreds of new works units spread around the East end on the site of the old steel works and further on the new Ikea will rise from the ashes of Tinsley wire .

Just look around.

 

There is certainly some activity in the direct area, I do hope it trickles down. But I am talking about street-scenes like this. Not particularly attractive.

 

It certainly could be made a lot better than that.