The ruination of Sheffield - St Vincents

[kaytie]

I used to have contract parking at St Vincents. My understanding was that the church closed because the congregation had moved away and a new St Vincent church was built at Crookes . The profit from the car parking was used for this replacement church.

 

Totally agree with the views about that ghastly monstrosity the Eyesore -Sorry Diamond. Utterly hideous!

[samssong]

Ah, what would Sheffield Forum be without a recent post bashing the University for something it isn't responsible for. If you actually check the application you can see it is Unite PLC who applied for the contract, that is a private firm. But let's blame the University, after all, St. Vincent's Quarter is such a beautiful and valuable part of the city centre in its current form...

 

PS - where will the street prostitutes and dealers go?

Amsterdam:hihi:

[tzijlstra]

Amsterdam:hihi:

 

That would make your visits very expensive samssong!

[Bob Arctor]

How it got through planning I'm not entirely sure. Pretty much everybody was strongly against it. I guess money talks..

 

I actually like it. But the reason it will have got through the planning process despite so many objections will be that, as we discovered with campaign to refuse permission to demolish the shops by Devonshire Green, the objections have to relate to technical breaches of planning guidelines. Whether or not people want or don't want it doesn't apparently come into it, which seems extremely undemocratic.

[Fogey]

I actually like it. But the reason it will have got through the planning process despite so many objections will be that, as we discovered with campaign to refuse permission to demolish the shops by Devonshire Green, the objections have to relate to technical breaches of planning guidelines. Whether or not people want or don't want it doesn't apparently come into it, which seems extremely undemocratic.

 

Planning and democracy are interesting bedfellows, on the one hand, the built environment impacts significantly on everyone and in more ways than just the visual so we all feel we should have a say. On the other hand, none of us would be happy being told what we can and can't do with our property by other people.A tough line to walk.

[boozy.bird]

Yes I can see that the company developing the area are called Unite but this is for student accommodation..... Do you suppose all these facilities are for people that are from the school of hard knocks or the school of life. or maybe just maybe they are for university students.

How much student accommodation, facilities, hubs & pubs does one city need.

In todays Sheffield star yet another page concerning the development of Hollis croft and the multi story buildings in the area.

I guess you might feel differently if they wanted to redevelop the football ground, but that would never happen. Well never say never.

I am not opposed to change and redevelopment of rundown areas but please try and conserve some of the cities history.

It's not so long ago that Sheffield council were tearing down high rise blocks saying that they were not good for the Sheffield area and no here we are again building more.

[Blackbeard]

Sadly many churches are now redundant, when did members of this thread last go into a church apart from a wedding, funeral or a christening? St Vincent's was built for the Catholic Irish imigants escaping the Irish potato famine and was also used by the Italian and other immigrants in what was as then a very deprived part of Sheffield, yes we had emigrants in the 1840's.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Blackbeard

[Daven]

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=st+vincents+church+sheffield+picture&id=F2AC82FFBADDD474D9D7312826DF4D51997F160D&FORM=IQFRBA

I love old buildings but they are not all beautiful and they are not all worth saving.

However, this is a nice building but derelict. Surely it's better for it to be renovated and reused than destroyed ?

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2016 at 12:03 ----------

 

lot of history to st vincents.

 

http://www.sheffieldindexers.com/Memories/CherishedMemories_HistoryofStVincentsSheffield.html

 

Indeed it has.

[ECCOnoob]

You seem to be blurring several issues here.

 

Firstly the old argument of "how many student flats, facilities pubs does the city need" is pointless. Clearly, it needs more otherwise a private development company wouldn't build them. Businesses arn't stupid. They know the demands and market.

 

Secondly you compare the loss of an abandoned decaying old church which has not been substantially used by its owners for nearly 20 years to a stadium which is used to thousands of fans every other week and run as an operational business every day of the week. Why should the council pull down one of the football grounds - they are being used. St Vincents is not.

 

Thirdly, you are trying to compare council OWNED vandalised, abandoned and unfit for habitation housing blocks which quite rightly were pulled down to well maintained, privately owned and privately maintained businesses. What involvement to these buildings do the council have again? See point one. If a developer knows the market and they are being USED what right has the council sticking their beak in and saying they cannot build.

 

"it looks nice" doesnt pay the bills. Its all well and good demanding the council prop up these buildings but what is the purpose. You are certainly not telling me that, nice as it is, St Vincents has some national and vital historical purpose that must be preserved. Its a church. A very nice chuch. BUT nobody is using it. Nobody cared enough since 1998 about it, its owners seemed quite happy to sod off to their new premises and take the money from the car parking land - but now there is talk of it being pulled down, suddenly there is protest. Its rediculous.

 

If there were crowds of people by the busload pouring in to Sheffield to stan outside and look at it. If people were queing up to pay a few quid for a tour inside I might be more on your side. There isn't and therefore im not.

 

Sometimes a building can be incorporated into a new development. Some excellent examples of such are shown all over the city. Sometimes the building is useable for some other purpose and again some excellent examples are around.

 

On the other hand, sometimes its just not practical or economical for a developer and quite rightly it has to be pulled down.

 

I say again, nice to look at is not enough. Someone or something has to pay the bills and unless people are prepared to put their hand in their pocket to save their beloved St Vincents why the hell should precious council monies be spent on it. Its not a council building.

[Daven]

You seem to be blurring several issues here.

 

Firstly the old argument of "how many student flats, facilities pubs does the city need" is pointless. Clearly, it needs more otherwise a private development company wouldn't build them. Businesses arn't stupid. They know the demands and market.

 

Secondly you compare the loss of an abandoned decaying old church which has not been substantially used by its owners for nearly 20 years to a stadium which is used to thousands of fans every other week and run as an operational business every day of the week. Why should the council pull down one of the football grounds - they are being used. St Vincents is not.

 

Thirdly, you are trying to compare council OWNED vandalised, abandoned and unfit for habitation housing blocks which quite rightly were pulled down to well maintained, privately owned and privately maintained businesses. What involvement to these buildings do the council have again? See point one. If a developer knows the market and they are being USED what right has the council sticking their beak in and saying they cannot build.

 

"it looks nice" doesnt pay the bills. Its all well and good demanding the council prop up these buildings but what is the purpose. You are certainly not telling me that, nice as it is, St Vincents has some national and vital historical purpose that must be preserved. Its a church. A very nice chuch. BUT nobody is using it. Nobody cared enough since 1998 about it, its owners seemed quite happy to sod off to their new premises and take the money from the car parking land - but now there is talk of it being pulled down, suddenly there is protest. Its rediculous.

 

If there were crowds of people by the busload pouring in to Sheffield to stan outside and look at it. If people were queing up to pay a few quid for a tour inside I might be more on your side. There isn't and therefore im not.

 

Sometimes a building can be incorporated into a new development. Some excellent examples of such are shown all over the city. Sometimes the building is useable for some other purpose and again some excellent examples are around.

 

On the other hand, sometimes its just not practical or economical for a developer and quite rightly it has to be pulled down.

 

I say again, nice to look at is not enough. Someone or something has to pay the bills and unless people are prepared to put their hand in their pocket to save their beloved St Vincents why the hell should precious council monies be spent on it. Its not a council building.

 

Totally agree.

To the OP - 'ruination of Sheffield' is something the Luftwaffe very nearly did in 1940 - too strong a word to describe the possible renovation of a derelict church I think.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Daven