Another one bites the dust...

[Gareth Hughes]

Allegedly a victim of the bad weather.
Before: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/907234
After: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2215479
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-12103425

Still, the traditional methods of getting rid of problem buildings are still alive and well (and only a fortnight after being sold at auction):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bradford-west-yorkshire-12104556

 

[JoceAndChris]

I just despair at that.

 

[Flyfisher]

I wonder if the ice house will be rebuilt? It looks as if all the materials are intact so a rebuild would be a genuine repair rather than a pastiche and not too big a job in the grand scheme of things. I can imagine the red-tape problems though if the ownership is unknown.

The Keithley fire is very depressing though. Given that the building was listed, what are the legal powers available to force a restoration? I realise such buildings are often fully destroyed and therefore cannot really be 'restored' as such, but to do nothing must surely encourage such "traditional methods" of clearing away troublesome heritage from a prime development site.

If the new owners were forced to rebuild an identical building then it would prevent the site being further developed and the huge cost (imagine the fun a CO could have in specifying the precise materials and methods required for the rebuild) might discourage such 'accidents' in future. The original building may be lost forever but such actions could give it some legacy.

Oh dear, such a cynical point of view to start a brand new year. Perhaps it really was a genuine accident?

 

[Penners]

That's a great shame. I've stopped in Long Stratton often, on the way to visit daughter, and been fascinated by the old ice house.

It's interesting that the structure appears to have been only a single brick thick. Surely there must have been more to it than that, for its original purpose? I can't believe that a single-skin brick wall would offer much insulation to the ice, even though part of it was underground. Would the domed part have been covered with a thick layer of soil and vegetation?

 

[downshifter]

Penners comments that there must be more to ice houses than a single skin of bricks which is right. The design of ice houses primarily reflected the properties of ice. A ball of ice is less likley to melt than a cube as there is less surface area in proportion to the cubic contents of its mass for melting agents to attack. Consequently ice houses tended to be circular in plan with an egg shaped or inverted conical base to ensure that ice melting at the top and bottom would produce a sphere, the ideal shape for storage. Another factor when storing ice is the changes in pressure caused by meting and re-freezing when two blocks come into contact with each other. This results in a more compacted and inert block less sucepitable to melting. Ash and salt was sometimes added to ice to help this process. The best way to prevent melting however is to prevent air moving around. water conducts heat more quickly than air and with moving air a cycle of melting would ensue. To solve this the gap between the walls of the ice house and the ice caused by melting was insulated with materials such as straw, reeds or sawdust. Thus with an emphasis on internal insulation to manage air flow and the shape of the ice blcok itself the nature of the outer skin of the icehouse was not as significant as might be thought. There were/are examples of double skin and cavity walled icehouses but these are not as common (more expensive?) and are late 18th entury in date. Often soil and vegetation was piled over the outer skin but these were as much to landscape the building in a garden or grounds. The Norfolk example is in an urban area.
Sorry this turned out to be a bit of an essay. Happy New Year

 

[Penners]

No apology needed, downshifter. A very interesting essay!

 

[Moo]

Who needs Wikipedia when you've got PPUK!

 

[Gareth Hughes]

And another...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-12127990
Managing it as a ruin seems a rather "final" way to deal with it

 

[Flyfisher]

I don't understand the 'partial demolition' thing. Why would they do that? Could part of the building be unstable/unsafe?

Why not deconsecrate it and sell it off to someone? Surely a conversion would be preferable to demolition?

A sad end to such a fine building, even if it's past its prime.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I wonder if the ice house will be rebuilt?

Possibly...
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/collapsed_long_stratton_ice_house_could_be_rebuilt_1_832164

 

[Penners]

Thanks for the update, Gareth. Fingers crossed.

 

[Penners]

Oops! Double post. Funny old internet connection where I am, at present.

 

[JoceAndChris]

How lovely that people realy do care enough - let's hope some skilful members of the community offer to do the work on a voluntary basis.

 

[masochists-r-us]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-12648329

We were devastated to see the aftermath of this when we drove past one of our favourite local buildings last week.Only the shell remains although one wing appears to have been untouched. Very sad.

 

[Penners]

Very sad.

 

[robgil]

And another...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-12127990
Managing it as a ruin seems a rather "final" way to deal with it

I think its a disgrace to be fair, why not turn it into something useful like a community centre or even a family home. Demolishing a decent building and turning it into a ruin is a wasteful act of selfishness with a ''if we cant have it no one can'' attitude if you ask me.
Damn them all into internal darkness and shameful damnation I say, heathens.

 

[robgil]

And another...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-12127990
Managing it as a ruin seems a rather "final" way to deal with it

I think its a disgrace to be fair, why not turn it into something useful like a community centre or even a family home. Demolishing a decent building and turning it into a ruin is a wasteful act of selfishness with a ''if we cant have it no one can'' attitude if you ask me.
Damn them all into internal darkness and shameful damnation I say, heathens.

 

[robgil]

And another...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-12127990
Managing it as a ruin seems a rather "final" way to deal with it

I think its a disgrace to be fair, why not turn it into something useful like a community centre or even a family home. Demolishing a decent building and turning it into a ruin is a wasteful act of selfishness with a ''if we cant have it no one can'' attitude if you ask me.
Damn them all into internal darkness and shameful damnation I say, heathens.

 

[Moo]

I'd always thought that ruins were buildings in arrested state of romantic decay.
To get the wreckers in seems like cheating.