BD mag... Stop the bulldozers!

[Nemesis]

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=719&storycode=3086596&c=2&encCode=0000000001302c12


No idea if the link will work but trying anyhow...

 

[Penners]

So where's the piece on EC? Isn't she a "footsoldier"?

 

[Nemesis]

Nah - not important enough! Also I don't have strange red trousers. Hmmmm.

 

[Penners]

I've always suspected that people who wear strange red trousers do so to disguise strange red backsides.

 

[Nemesis]

I could not possibly comment... shall I ask him?

I think it's basically a distinct lack of dress sense which has his friends in despair at times.

Not that I can talk, I tend to be of the 'throw on what is the least dirty from the laundry basket' school of fashion.

 

[plumbers mate]

And use the same system of stroage in the kitchen? ie dirty dishes are in the sink, clean ones are stored on the draining board.

 

[Nemesis]

Nope - I have a tiny dishwasher, and use that - otherwise there would never be any clean crockery!

It's the one bit of housework I actually do! I never cease to marvel at it... dirty in clean out. No hassles.

 

[Nemesis]

We’re not a bunch of woolly-minded aesthetes,” says Wilkinson.


Em - actually I think possibly I am...

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm in no way advocating that the destruction of Smithfield is desirable, but I don't agree with the following quote from the article "Take away London’s historic buildings, and it becomes a less attractive place to work. Then rental values decrease, and you shoot yourself in the foot. "

I suggest that all the recent docklands developments have proved that you don't need historic buildings to create a valuable working environment with high rental values.

It may well be true that Smithfield is “a building that’s eminently capable of reuse as office studios or retail space,” - similar to the Hop Exchange just south of London bridge I guess - but a taller, modern building will create more floorspace and thus yield more income.

As I said, I think it would be very sad to see Smithfield demolished in the wake of another glass tower monstrosity, but it seems dangerous, to me, to use an argument in its defence that is so easily and obviously disputeable.

 

[Nemesis]

Oh crap. It's a major set of historic buildings in a conservation area and should be protected from demolition. I agree totally with Adam - too much is being needlessly destroyed and it is becoming a less attractive place. Large chunks of empty office space too.

Covent Garden Market , Leadenhall, Billingsgate Fish Market... all retained (after a struggle naturally) and making cash.

And much of Docklands is shite really. The best bits are where there is still some history left. Too much is an arid desert.

I've spent the past three years doing all within my power to stop the demolition of the Genral Market, the Annexe and Red House and I ain't stopping now. Nor is English Heritage. We have a call-in, the Sec of State for Culcha Meeja an Sport herself even joined in asking for one, although Thornfield has managed to mess all that up and heaven only knows now when the inquiry will take place.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I've always suspected that people who wear strange red trousers do so to disguise strange red backsides.

He's not wearing them on the cover of the paper version...

 

[Nemesis]

What's he wearing then? Hopefully something...

Nothing to rival S Thurley on telly last Saturday, royal blue suit with cerise silk lining and matching cerise shirt...

 

[Gareth Hughes]

What's he wearing then? Hopefully something...

Nothing to rival S Thurley on telly last Saturday, royal blue suit with cerise silk lining and matching cerise shirt...

I'll leave Adam's alternative dress to your imagination (Oh, OK, it's a normal pair of chinos)

As for Gloriana Thurley, he always did overdo the sartorial. He's not a propoer conservationist of course...

 

[Nemesis]

Oh well. Not his kilt then. Or his PJ bottoms in which I recall he appeared in the AJ...

Not a proper conservationist? Of couse he's not. He's a bloody historian and TV presenter.

I recall the Observer did a feature in which they used him as a model.. the scan of that went the rounds of many offices I understand, a great many mugs of tea split over keyboards...

 

[Flyfisher]

Oh crap.

Calm down :shock:
I entirely agree that it would be detrimental to bulldoze Smithfield (I thought I said that).

My point was about using an argument that could be easily disputed such as Take away London’s historic buildings, and it becomes a less attractive place to work. Then rental values decrease, and you shoot yourself in the foot. I absolutely agree "much of docklands is shite", but given the undoubted financial success of Canary Wharf, for example, it only helps to prove the point that 'shite' does not result in reduced rental values.

The article had already stated "It’s about architecture as a money-making machine" and I suspect that a big shite tower would make more money than redeveloping Smithfield into office studios or retail space - otherwise, why wouldn't the developer go with the preservation option?

Woolly-minded asthetes versus hard-nosed property developers will always create passionate debate, but I can't see the point in denying basic economics.

 

[Nemesis]

Believe me there is nothing woolly minded about it - you don't take on the City of London and a megabucks developer armed with a copy of Ruskin's works.

I'm not really woolly minded, just a spot hungover. Perfectly capable of taking on a certain Historic Buildings Consultant (paid a large sum of cash...) and causing a major change in the plans for Smithfield... which must have cost them a bob or several.

It was a magazine article and a sound bite. But yes I agree - take away the attractive parts of a city and replace with dismal blocks and people don't want to live and work there. It gets hard to rent out space and so the yields from development aren't what was projected. Canary Wharf isn't the City. And by God it's grim, although not as grim as East India Dock.

 

[Nemesis]

And here's Marcus in BD:

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=719&storycode=3086595

 

[Craig]

The wharf is crap. Dont think I have ever met anybody who likes working there and rents are less than half what they are in the West end.

 

[Flyfisher]

No argument from me about the working environment. On the occasions I've been there I've always been amazed why people do work there, but they must have their reasons. Horses for courses I guess.

 

[Nemesis]

Most have little choice - it's a job. And the rents are cheap...

The big nobs hang out in prestige historic buildings elsewhere!