In article ,
Greg Hennessy wrote:
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? :-)
2 Willow Road?

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

Goldfinger was many things but hypocritical is not among them. He liked
modern functional buildings and built one for himself. He lived on the
top floor of Balfron House for two months. (OTOH look up the story
about him and Ian Fleming, and also the one about "Goldfinger here!")

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.

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

This manages to mention three buildings (Bankside, Battersea and
Liverpool Anglican Cathedral) designed by my favourite architect of
all time, Sir Giles Gilbert Scott. Scott had a genius for making
functional buildings into popular landmarks. In Battersea Power
station it is tragic that successive failures have left the building
in such a condition that the original chimneys have to be replaced
with facsimiles. Bankside has unfortunately been converted in a
quite unsympathetic way.

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.

But why would you want to demolish such a nice distinguished building?

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.

Speaking as a representative of the local electorate, I'd prefer that
we have guidance from experts on what is a proper historic building
design and what is undistinguished.

--
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.

David Boothroyd ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

In Battersea Power station it is tragic that successive failures have
left the building in such a condition that the original chimneys have to
be replaced with facsimiles.

Quite. Absolutely criminal what's been done to/with Battersea.

David Boothroyd wrote:

Speaking as a representative of the local electorate, I'd prefer
that we have guidance from experts on what is a proper historic
building design and what is undistinguished.

But you ignored the guidance from the experts at English Heritage
regarding Great Portland Street station.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:38:23 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

No building under 100 years old should be listed period.

There have been too many mistakes made in the past to simply abandon
what protection we do have.

If we ignored everything under 100 years, we could all too easily find
ourselves with nothing - or only inferior examples - left by the time
the most important buildings were "old enough". For example, 100 years
would rule out listing anything related to the two world wars, surely
a rather important part of our history. And where would British cities
be without a 71 year old phone box design?

The Victorians often flattened what went before to build their
railways and satanic mills. After all, Georgian buildings were then
fairly recent, and there were loads of 'em... Post-war Britain then
did the same thing to the Victorians, and look what monstrosities that
could produce, perhaps doing more long-term harm to the fabric of some
cities than the Luftwaffe managed.

For some reason a lot of people think listing is about buildings being
twee and pretty - it isn't, it is about them being of architectural or
historic interest. It also isn't about fossilising them (thankfully -
I've lived in a Grade I building, and I wouldn't fancy C17th plumbing
and wiring).
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:29:21 +0100, Paul Corfield
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.

Exactly, which is why unaccountable quangos stuffed with worthies should
not be in a position to implement and enforce what are entirely subjective
judgments.

That decision should ultimately be borne by those who end up paying for it.

- the listing of the Thames
Tunnel being a great example of how to multiply the cost of a project
several fold.

Never mind the opportunity cost of putting a transport artery out of action
for far longer than expected.

Bishopsgate goodsyard being another example of EH's unaccountable
interference.


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 , David
Boothroyd writes
In article ,
Greg Hennessy wrote:
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? :-)
2 Willow Road?

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

Goldfinger was many things but hypocritical is not among them. He liked
modern functional buildings and built one for himself. He lived on the
top floor of Balfron House for two months.
Interesting. I thought it was Trellick tower. You live and learn!
Thanks, David.

(OTOH look up the story
about him and Ian Fleming, and also the one about "Goldfinger here!")

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.

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

This manages to mention three buildings (Bankside, Battersea and
Liverpool Anglican Cathedral) designed by my favourite architect of
all time, Sir Giles Gilbert Scott. Scott had a genius for making
functional buildings into popular landmarks.
Like the K2/K6 telephone kiosks, then? :-)

In Battersea Power
station it is tragic that successive failures have left the building
in such a condition that the original chimneys have to be replaced
with facsimiles. Bankside has unfortunately been converted in a
quite unsympathetic way.
It wasn't my intention to single of GGS. But I admire his stuff a
great deal, so I suppose I did so subconsciously.

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.

But why would you want to demolish such a nice distinguished building?
Probably because he doesn't think it's nice and/or distinguished.
That's the thing with taste, isn't it?

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.

Speaking as a representative of the local electorate, I'd prefer that
we have guidance from experts on what is a proper historic building
design and what is undistinguished.
Glad you think so!
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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

In article ,
Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , David
Boothroyd writes
This manages to mention three buildings (Bankside, Battersea and
Liverpool Anglican Cathedral) designed by my favourite architect of
all time, Sir Giles Gilbert Scott. Scott had a genius for making
functional buildings into popular landmarks.

Like the K2/K6 telephone kiosks, then? :-)

Definitely!

In Battersea Power
station it is tragic that successive failures have left the building
in such a condition that the original chimneys have to be replaced
with facsimiles. Bankside has unfortunately been converted in a
quite unsympathetic way.

It wasn't my intention to single of GGS. But I admire his stuff a
great deal, so I suppose I did so subconsciously.

If you really like his buildings, one of the best is the one he built
for himself at Chester House, Clarendon Place W2 (just off Bayswater
Road). It is quite the most beautifully proportioned neo-Georgian
house I have seen. I was walking by it once when I thought "that
house looks just like Cambridge University Library designed as a two
storey house" which was not surprising!

Speaking as a representative of the local electorate, I'd prefer that
we have guidance from experts on what is a proper historic building
design and what is undistinguished.

Glad you think so!

Well, I'm atoning for just having given permission to demolish a 1928
neo-Georgian building which I actually quite like. (EH thought it
undistinguished though, and it was unlisted)

--
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.

In article ,
Greg Hennessy wrote:

Bishopsgate goodsyard being another example of EH's unaccountable
interference.

I'm currently working for the company which persuaded the local
council to give permission for its redevelopment.

--
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.

In article ,
"Richard J." wrote:
David Boothroyd wrote:

Speaking as a representative of the local electorate, I'd prefer
that we have guidance from experts on what is a proper historic
building design and what is undistinguished.

But you ignored the guidance from the experts at English Heritage
regarding Great Portland Street station.

There was a conflict between them and the 20th Century Society.
Advice and guidance from experts is only advice and guidance.

--
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.

In article ,
(David Boothroyd) wrote:

If you really like his buildings, one of the best is the one he
built for himself at Chester House, Clarendon Place W2 (just off
Bayswater Road). It is quite the most beautifully proportioned
neo-Georgian house I have seen. I was walking by it once when I
thought "that house looks just like Cambridge University Library
designed as a two storey house" which was not surprising!

Eek! Complete with tower?!

--
Colin Rosenstiel