Should we 'save' old buildings

[Fogey]

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.

 

Absolute rubbish. The buildings you mention were frequently built of very high quality materials to space standards that we battle for today. The problem such buildings have is incredibly bad management and badly considered alterations by idiots that think only Victorian buildings are worth spending money on. We should require owners of all buildings to maintain them properly, not just old buildings.

 

Anyone who thinks older buildings dont have to be maintained or didn't go through periods requiring alterations or upgrades as a result of trying different technologies is kidding themselves.

[samssong]

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..

 

The Empire on Charles Street what a lovely building it was!!as we glance across the road further up the street we can see other iconic buildings that this council now want to demolish in the name of progress a progress that destroys the very heart and soul of a City.

 

---------- Post added 15-04-2016 at 07:35 ----------

 

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.

Don't worry Sheffield Castle is buried under the much missed Castle Market (demolished and moved to the Moor) our planners are going to uncover it so as we can once again gaze at its splendour.

[El Cid]

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.

 

I read it as libertarian at first

 

I like the old buildings and believe in recycling, but I dont think people want the extra expense, there are old buildings that are just left to rot, because of planning laws.

Out of town shopping, is that made easier because they can start with a clean slate?

[tzijlstra]

I read it as libertarian at first

 

I like the old buildings and believe in recycling, but I dont think people want the extra expense, there are old buildings that are just left to rot, because of planning laws.

Out of town shopping, is that made easier because they can start with a clean slate?

 

Lib(e)r(ta)rian by trade here

 

Old buildings become run down for a reason, they were built in a certain era to meet criteria of the day. But we have different criteria now and distinctly different uses. That is why I raised the issue of libraries.

 

My first job as graduate trainee was with a library that was built around 1850 if memory serves me well. It was beautiful and as it was built as a corn-exchange originally the, very large, main room was beautifully lit by natural light. But because it was one big space it was incredibly inflexible and the sound reverberated around so on busier days or at events the room wasn't pleasant to be in and read - no quiet corners. It was also impossible to keep the temperature and humidity right - not good when you have historic collections.

 

The children's library was tucked into the basement (much like Sheffield, come to think of it, the whole library was like Sheffield except the whole main floor was one open space bar the stair-house), with very poor light, even with the aid of artificial light, bad oversight for the staff leading to potential danger zones for the kids (later resolved by removing 20% of the collection) and so on.

We also couldn't alter anything without full permission of the listed building committee.

 

So management decided to investigate alternatives. It turned out that a brand new, purpose-build library, conditioned with appropriate rooms and so on could be build for a fee that would be earned back within 24 years based on savings to running costs of the old building alone. It was decided in the council that the historic building needed a function and the library was the most suitable function, fair enough. But it goes to show that if a company has the same decision it isn't going to think twice about going for the new build.

[samssong]

Lib(e)r(ta)rian by trade here

 

Old buildings become run down for a reason, they were built in a certain era to meet criteria of the day. But we have different criteria now and distinctly different uses. That is why I raised the issue of libraries.

 

My first job as graduate trainee was with a library that was built around 1850 if memory serves me well. It was beautiful and as it was built as a corn-exchange originally the, very large, main room was beautifully lit by natural light. But because it was one big space it was incredibly inflexible and the sound reverberated around so on busier days or at events the room wasn't pleasant to be in and read - no quiet corners. It was also impossible to keep the temperature and humidity right - not good when you have historic collections.

 

The children's library was tucked into the basement (much like Sheffield, come to think of it, the whole library was like Sheffield except the whole main floor was one open space bar the stair-house), with very poor light, even with the aid of artificial light, bad oversight for the staff leading to potential danger zones for the kids (later resolved by removing 20% of the collection) and so on.

We also couldn't alter anything without full permission of the listed building committee.

 

So management decided to investigate alternatives. It turned out that a brand new, purpose-build library, conditioned with appropriate rooms and so on could be build for a fee that would be earned back within 24 years based on savings to running costs of the old building alone. It was decided in the council that the historic building needed a function and the library was the most suitable function, fair enough. But it goes to show that if a company has the same decision it isn't going to think twice about going for the new build.

Have you ever thought of putting up for the Council .

[geared]

We should preserve old buildings, and IMO alot of it falls on the council to enable it to happen, for the reason ECCOnood has raised.

 

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?

 

It costs a ton of money to restore/redevelop an old building and whoever is putting that in needs to see a return.

There are lots of planning restrictions on older buildings, in some cases these need to be relaxed to allow development.

 

In all likelyness it will mean they get converted into residential use as thats most likely to give a return, it might even need a partial rebuild or extension to the building.

 

If the planning department made that process more simple, streamlined and less hassle then you might see more older buildings being brought back into use - it's obvious their original purpose has long passed.

[tzijlstra]

Have you ever thought of putting up for the Council .

 

I was active on my Dutch council. I haven't had time to do so yet here, but yes, thought of it and likely to follow up on it. Expect a lot of heated debate in the Town Hall in a decade or so

[Berberis]

Looking at modern architecture, going from the 60's brutalism to modern day glasshouses, I must say I prefer the architecture from 100+ years ago to what we see in the UK now.

 

It says a great deal when buildings more than 100 years old are still standing and loved, while people describe 70,s & 80's buildings are eyesores and comparing for them to be torn down.

[Jonny5]

Old buildings should be maintained.

 

The old Salvation army in Sheffield is one of the best facades in the city. Disgraceful the state its been allowed to get into.

 

I'm sure that some posters on here never leave Sheffield and have never seen how properly run cities look after their assets and heritage.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Jonny5

[Jeffrey Shaw]

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.

Is it a Listed Building (Grade 1, 2*, or 2) or in a Conservation Area?