Facadism

[Feltwell]

Hideous. Ghastly. Beyond hideous. Some of these are works in progress, but some of the completed ones are just an abomination - the 2nd one down ("The Cock & Hoop"), the 4th one down (465 Caledonian Road) especially.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-50396337

How the hell do these get past the planners? The 1st one is Grade 1 listed! - And there's clearly nothing original left behind the façade. I guess they might have saved a few token architectural details to put back in.

 

[88v8]

Progress!! Progress is good, right?
And anyway, most people don't really care.
Pity the poor COs.

And then in terms of general planning, there's the idiocy of continued building on flood plains, and in even more general terms the sheer imbecility of allowing the UK's population to rise and rise which generates the pressure to build more and more.

Climate change! they shout.
Emergency!!
And then it's back to business as usual.

Ivor

 

[Feltwell]

Please Ivor, let's not turn this from a "look at this abuse of our old buildings" thread into an immigration and election debate. It's a Period Property forum after all, and what is an acceptable view on politics and immigration to some is uncomfortably close to offensive for others.

 

[plasticpigeon]

Progress is good! Not sure this is progress though, as progress is supposed to making things better, as opposed to modernising, expanding or changing, which doesn't always achieve that goal.

 

[wobs]

Vandals! How do they get through planning? You'd think London would be a bit more strict about its Grade I's.

The second one especially is bad, but so to is the 465 Caledonian Road.

I could live with Spotted Dog , as at least it incorporates the front into the structure.

We have one example in Hull, but at least we have the excuse that the building was bombed in the war, and was derelict for decades before it was incorporated into some apartments:

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4312359

Not great, but at least it is part of the new building.

 

[Flyfisher]

How the hell do these get past the planners? The 1st one is Grade 1 listed! - And there's clearly nothing original left behind the façade.

I wondered that as well. Perhaps one of our resident COs (or even Natural England and the Secretary of State!) can explain the thinking behind it being acceptable to destroy listed buildings as long as the front is kept intact.

Having said that, if these buildings are going to be destroyed anyway, I suppose it is better to keep the facade as intact as possible than to destroy that as well. Perhaps the best 'deal' that can be wrangled in our quest for continuous economic growth . . . :roll:

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The first one is a bit misleading - that section of the facade fronted a 1960s office building which has recently been replaced, the fine interior that, together with the exterior, merits the Grade I listing is behind the other section of the facade and is now known as the "Gibson Hall" and used for events.

 

[Feltwell]

I have mixed feelings about that Hull one - on the one hand, it's not very sensitively done, but that's a personal view on aesthetics. On the other hand, if the Luftwaffe had taken away much of what it was anyway, and the alternative is what was left disappeared entirely, then it's not a bad thing. But in London, there will nearly always be an economic viability to retaining and sensitively modifying an old building, but not as strong in economics of course as flattening it and building something new. Retaining the façade just looks a total mess in many of those examples.

I could be accused of hypocrisy over old buildings - I always hated the 1960's Brutalist Central Library in Birmingham (I was a student in Brum in the early 1990's):-

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?img...-nlAhXF0eAKHWxVAlcQMwheKAMwAw&iact=mrc&uact=8

I was glad to see it go and be replaced by the new library, which is very good I think - perhaps better inside than outside, but it does look better in the flesh than pictures would suggest - so I would call that positive progress. Fans of Brutalist architecture would say otherwise of course and would say it's just as bad as when they knocked down the Victorian buildings to build the Brutalist structures.

Speaking of which, if they've just left the original Victorian one alone back in the 70's, it would have been much better still....

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/ne...mingham-central-library-through-years-4731847

 

[Feltwell]

The first one is a bit misleading - that section of the facade fronted a 1960s office building which has recently been replaced

Ahh - "sins of the past". Maybe not so bad on that example then!

 

[george2019]

Progress!! Progress is good, right?
And anyway, most people don't really care.
Pity the poor COs.

And then in terms of general planning, there's the idiocy of continued building on flood plains, and in even more general terms the sheer imbecility of allowing the UK's population to rise and rise which generates the pressure to build more and more.

Climate change! they shout.
Emergency!!
And then it's back to business as usual.

Ivor

While planning isn't perfect, I don't know of any residential development on floodplains ever having taken place since the Flood and Water Management Act came into existence. It's a straight forward no for housing (with nuances for less vulnerable developments).

It's developments in the 70s, 80s and 90s which are now subjected to flooding, since they were located on the basis of no flooding in recent memory.

 

[Feltwell]

When I left University in the early 90's, I was interested in going into flood & coastal defence management and I was applying for a graduate scheme at the now-defunct National Rivers Authority. Then the Government funding was slashed - graduate scheme was cancelled, lots of experienced engineers were being laid off, so no chance for an young fresh-out-of-university engineer. So I went off and did something very different.

Fast forward 15 years when floods were all in the headlines and have been periodically ever since, and suddenly we didn't have enough experienced engineers. Funny that.

All of which has got nowt to do with the horrors of facadism, but there we go!