Another one bites the dust: more demolition.

[yoofookinwah]

I am not sure if this is 'progress' it is but with a cost.

Hastings could certainly do with Regeneration but at the expense of local architecture designed by a local architect?

The building designed by Henry Ward is to be replaced by a hotel of modern design.

http://www.stomp.uk.com/index.html

 

[Nemesis]

Easington Colliery School (see link to Maeve's article) was called in as being against national planning policy PPG 15.

Sounds like this decision is similar... a building which makes a positive contribution to a conservation area... I assume all involved with the campaign have requested a call-in?

 

[yoofookinwah]

Easington Colliery School (see link to Maeve's article) was called in as being against national planning policy PPG 15.

Sounds like this decision is similar... a building which makes a positive contribution to a conservation area... I assume all involved with the campaign have requested a call-in?

I am not sure to be honest I posted this to highlight more destruction after walking past on Saturday.

They can be contacted at mail@stomp.uk.com if you have any further ideas / avenues for preservation

 

[Nemesis]

Well if they are talking Judicial Review a more appropriate step would be to ask for a call-in... although time is running short to challenge any decision.

 

[ljn]

Certainly not progress. Demolishing a historic building to replace it with some anonymous cheep block would be a step away from making Hastings a desirable town to visit and live in.

It's all about money and quick gains. The councils do it, because there is no money for them in conservation, wheras with development, the council gets loads of money (section 60 etc.) and they don't care how the area will end up like when they are out of office. The gains for the developer and hotel (probably including grants and tax breaks) are enourmous.

In other European countries, people feel the city is "their" city, so if someone proposes to change something, it had better be good. In Italy, only Mussolini dared to demolish entire blocks of town centres and most of their heratige remains to be enjoyed by future generations.
In England, people tend to see the streets, not as their street, but as a collection of private buildings wehre the owners can do what they want. The place is a mess.

It's also ignorance. On one side, the people who decide on town planning in the UK are generally ignorant, low payed, couldn't get a job with Richard Rogers or hadn't the pluck to set up their own practice. Or they are politicians, trying to move up the party ranks, with no interest or knowledge in architecture, the built environment, heratige, aesthetics, history... On the other side Developers want to make the most money in the shortest time, so they arn't going to want to constrain themselfs to an existing building, or set up an international competition to get an inspiring world class design for a building that people would travel the world to admire.

An example is Barcelona and the Oympics = a visionary project that turned the whole city around, devised by a team of world class town planners, Vs. London and the Olympics= sell-of to business and total disregard for the city, architected by politicians.

After folowing the sell-off of the heritage of Dalston, including a really beautiful theatre andother historical buildings ( http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3567/1367/1600/CAMVOLY7.jpg ) to build a bus station and a few "buy to let tower blocks in an area that is full of derelict half empty tower blocks, I can only be cynical.

And the politicians responsible for this, get voted back in.

Here, no one wanted the development, but people can have their say, but don't count. It's just all about money and the fact that a building may look good, have a cultural meaning, make the town as a whole more valuble, just doesn't compete in the liberal capitalist game. It's a deal between a developer and a politician.

Tha agenda has to change. Councils need to have a framework where conservation is economically balance with demolish and rebuild.

 

[Nemesis]

Sadly, the Dalston situation, which I have posted about here for a considerable time,

http://opendalston.blogspot.com/

is now a lost cause, with the latest (and IMHO wrong) legal decision.

All involved put up a tremendous fight, but it's costly and in the end funds run dry to continue - whereas local authorities and megabucks developers can happily continue to spend cash to get what they want in the end.

 

[middi]

Where money is at stake sentimentalism has no meaning.

That is the trend of life and shortsightedness we have created.

It makes the " world go around" and re elects previous governments.

That is what happens when " rich " is immediately interpreted as having to have lots of money.