On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:41:37 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

For those interested in more detail of the Great Portland Street case,
there is a .pdf file at
http://tinyurl.com/s7m6u . English Heritage supported the application
but the 20th Century Society objected. (Some of the tiles date from the
1920s.)

English Heritage are right and the 20th Century Society (whoever they
are, I've never even heard of them before) are wrong. The original
design intent wasn't to have 80-year-old tiles looking terrible, and
you just have to have looked at the difference between Queensway and
Lancaster Gate to see the difference retiling can make.

Now that doesn't mean the responsible person in LUL shouldn't be
punished for violation of listed building regulations, but I'm
surprised that the committee felt a site visit was necessary. It's a
no-brainer to me.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

English Heritage are right and the 20th Century Society (whoever
they are, I've never even heard of them before) are wrong.

The 20th Century Society seems to be the latest Gavin Stamp enterprise.
He seems to have moved on from the Victorians since I knew him.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
James Farrar wrote:

English Heritage are right and the 20th Century Society (whoever they
are, I've never even heard of them before) are wrong.

The C20th Society aims at preserving the best 20th Century buildings.

The original design intent wasn't to have 80-year-old tiles looking
terrible, and you just have to have looked at the difference between
Queensway and Lancaster Gate to see the difference retiling can make.

The remaining tiles at Great Portland Street don't look terrible.
And the samples of the new ones did not look like much of an
improvement.

Now that doesn't mean the responsible person in LUL shouldn't be
punished for violation of listed building regulations, but I'm
surprised that the committee felt a site visit was necessary. It's a
no-brainer to me.

I wasn't actually on the committee for the decision to make a site
visit (I'd swapped duties with someone else). However, there is a
limited amount you can learn about historic fabric without actually
seeing it in situ. And not every member of the committee travels
by tube (I do, but not all the Tories).

Westminster is not a planning authority which often goes on site
visits.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:41:37 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:


And how would that help the travelling public - your electors?

It doesn't.

The
application was actually trying to recreate the original look of the
tiling, which is currently a mixture of original vitreous enamel and
later ceramic tiles, some quite modern. It would revitalise a "tired
public transport facility" in the words of your officers.

Proof if any were necessary of the ridiculously arbitrary and subjective
nature of the listing process.

No building under 100 years old should be listed period.



Your decision appears vindictive to me.

Of course it is. Did you expect anything better from pettyfogging
officialdom.


greg

--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:37:48 +0100, David Boothroyd
wrote:

In article ,
James Farrar wrote:

English Heritage are right and the 20th Century Society (whoever they
are, I've never even heard of them before) are wrong.

The C20th Society aims at preserving the best 20th Century buildings.

'best' does not include brutalist desctruction of towns and cities
throughout the UK, a school of architecture which appears to a favourite of
this self selecting group of unaccountable worthies.

No building under 100 years old should be listed period.


greg

--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:37:48 +0100, David Boothroyd
wrote:

In article ,
James Farrar wrote:
English Heritage are right and the 20th Century Society (whoever they
are, I've never even heard of them before) are wrong.
The C20th Society aims at preserving the best 20th Century buildings.

'best' does not include brutalist desctruction of towns and cities
throughout the UK, a school of architecture which appears to a favourite of
this self selecting group of unaccountable worthies.

No building under 100 years old should be listed period.

Funny, that's what they thought of Victorian buildings in the 50s & 60s,
and what the Victorians thought of buildings before them.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:03:40 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:37:48 +0100, David Boothroyd
wrote:

In article ,
James Farrar wrote:
English Heritage are right and the 20th Century Society (whoever they
are, I've never even heard of them before) are wrong.
The C20th Society aims at preserving the best 20th Century buildings.

'best' does not include brutalist desctruction of towns and cities
throughout the UK, a school of architecture which appears to a favourite of
this self selecting group of unaccountable worthies.

No building under 100 years old should be listed period.

Funny, that's what they thought of Victorian buildings in the 50s & 60s,

'they' being talentless poseurs such as the Smithsons, Goldfinger et al +
their public sector sponsors who destroyed towns and cities in the
interests of 'modernism'.

and what the Victorians thought of buildings before them.

The Victorians didnt have ridiculous restrictions on land use.

The Victorians would not have countenanced leaving the site of a former
power station in the middle of London standing empty for decades because
unaccountable worthies deem it do.


If the '20th century society' (sic) deem buildings to be so important, they
can pay the price for keeping them.




greg

--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

In message , Greg Hennessy
writes
No building under 100 years old should be listed period.

I know that tastes differ but that's just a *bit* sweeping, don't you
think? :-)

The Hoover Building?
2 Willow Road?
Bankside Power Station?
Coventry Cathedral?
Liverpool Cathedral (either one, come to think of it)?
City Hall in Norwich?
The facade of Buckingham Palace?
55 Broadway?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:35:47 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:

In message , Greg Hennessy
writes
No building under 100 years old should be listed period.

I know that tastes differ but that's just a *bit* sweeping, don't you
think? :-)

The Hoover Building?

A thin facade on a supermarket. Leveling the site and building housing on
it would have far better served that part of West London.

2 Willow Road?

Especially 2 Willow Road. Add everything else the hypocrite inflicted on
society at large to the list also.

Bankside Power Station?

A.n other ridiculous waste of extremely scarce resource.

It and Battersea should never ever have been built in the middle of London
in the 1st place.

One has to ask why more self serving worthies such as Serota et al at the
Tate deserved a handout valued at 10's if not hundreds of millions.

Coventry Cathedral?

If the local religious tribe feel that they need a new place to worship,
it's no concern of those who don't.

Liverpool Cathedral (either one, come to think of it)?

See above.

City Hall in Norwich?

A decision for Norwich and it's local electorate, not worthies living
nowhere near the place.

The facade of Buckingham Palace?

If her Maj feels the need to change it and is picking up the bill, why not.
55 Broadway?

Site has got to be worth a large sum of money on the open market, freeing
up resources which could be much better utilised elsewhere in the tube
system.


if self selecting worthies want to impose the costs of their architectural
tastes on society as a whole.

They have two choices.

They can buy said properties and do with them what they will.

Or they can consult the local electorate directly through a proposition
system and abide by that decision.



greg


--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:41:37 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

David Boothroyd wrote:

As it is now not possible to put the original tiles back, this
normally means that whoever was responsible for removing them gets
prosecuted for damaging a listed building without permission.

And how would that help the travelling public - your electors? The
application was actually trying to recreate the original look of the
tiling, which is currently a mixture of original vitreous enamel and
later ceramic tiles, some quite modern. It would revitalise a "tired
public transport facility" in the words of your officers. Your decision
appears vindictive to me. What do you actually want LU and Metronet to
do now?

I think the issue here is that the authorities or bodies with
responsibility for making these judgments don't give a damn what LU or
Metronet do provided they do as they are told. Cost is also not a
concern for those issuing their judgments - the listing of the Thames
Tunnel being a great example of how to multiply the cost of a project
several fold.

While I admire good architecture [1] and think that there is much on the
LU network that is worthy of retention and careful and appropriate
restoration I know from personal experience how unbelievable it can get
in dealing with local authorities and English Heritage.

While I don't know the facts in this case concerning removal of the
tiles I can clearly recall an old memo (in the years after the Kings
Cross fire when there was a lot of Fire Precautions work undertaken)
that made clear the consequences of working without proper consent on
listed buildings. This is the sort of thing that really should not
happen given LU's past experience in this area.

[1] an entirely subjective matter I accept.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!