A
Anonymous
Guest
Ruins are eminently listable (the fact that almost every scheduled ruin is also listed shows that). Below ground remains, yes, that's where scheduling is sensible, but it should really stay there.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Right - you try getting Smithfield General Market listed then - as it was bombed during the war and a tower repaired in fifties style. EH say it's not listable. It only just falls short...
It's a matter of digging in heels and refusing to go back on previous decisions. Incompleteness is frequently cited as a reason not to list.
Hopefully the Sec of State will once again override but who knows.
Mostly I bet ruins were listed in the sensible system before the current mania for types, and only listing certain examples of each. So one street of Geo houses can be listed in an area, but another nearby, rather better examples, not listed.
Don't get me started...
It's a matter of digging in heels and refusing to go back on previous decisions. Incompleteness is frequently cited as a reason not to list.
Hopefully the Sec of State will once again override but who knows.
Mostly I bet ruins were listed in the sensible system before the current mania for types, and only listing certain examples of each. So one street of Geo houses can be listed in an area, but another nearby, rather better examples, not listed.
Don't get me started...
A
Anonymous
Guest
The Smithfield general market buildings (which I know, very slightly, as I used to work not far from them), look to me like a classic example of what Conservation Areas were intended to protect – i.e. an unlistable building which contributes positively to the townscape and to the setting of more architecturally important (listed) buildings nearby. No-one could seriously argue that on their own merits they are at all outstanding architecturally – there are similar bits of (pleasant, slightly hamfisted and usually unlisted) 19th century commercial architecture in almost every town in the UK. I would have thought they might scrape through as listable for Group Value, and it's not clear how SAVE think listing them will *really* be any better than the current situation, given that demolition controls already exist in respect of the buildings, and listing would certainly put greater constraints on possible adaptive reuses. In the current climate of "let's redevelop", I suspect listing won't make much of a difference anyway, even if an approval to demolish went all the way to call-in.
It is, however, incomprehensible (to say the least) that the Corporation of London seems so willing to let them be pulled down. If I could be convinced that the replacement would preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area then fair enough, but clearly the proposals don’t.
I do, however, find SAVE’s “preserve everything by listing it” approach a bit odd. It’s also a dangerous game to start saying that such-and-such is the “finest example in the country” – it undermines the next campaign to save a similar site elsewhere.
If I may be permitted a further rant about SAVE, I’m also less than convinced by their self-congratulatory backslapping about what a marvellous group they are. A lot of their successes have been achieved on the back of other organisations’ work, and their attention-seeking jumping up and down has often worked against them (as Betjeman once said, you shouldn’t go on about how much you love an old building, it just makes the Powers That Be more determined to destroy it). There sometimes seems to be a lack of discernment about what’s actually worth fighting for (just because the Harpur-Crewe family couldn’t be bothered to use the waste-paper basket does not, of itself, make the skiploads of junk now being cared for by the National Trust at Calke Abbey into a precious time capsule/national treasure, but because SAVE made a noisy fuss about it the NT ended up lumbered – mot juste – with it. Ditto Tyntesfield).
Running for cover now…
It is, however, incomprehensible (to say the least) that the Corporation of London seems so willing to let them be pulled down. If I could be convinced that the replacement would preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area then fair enough, but clearly the proposals don’t.
I do, however, find SAVE’s “preserve everything by listing it” approach a bit odd. It’s also a dangerous game to start saying that such-and-such is the “finest example in the country” – it undermines the next campaign to save a similar site elsewhere.
If I may be permitted a further rant about SAVE, I’m also less than convinced by their self-congratulatory backslapping about what a marvellous group they are. A lot of their successes have been achieved on the back of other organisations’ work, and their attention-seeking jumping up and down has often worked against them (as Betjeman once said, you shouldn’t go on about how much you love an old building, it just makes the Powers That Be more determined to destroy it). There sometimes seems to be a lack of discernment about what’s actually worth fighting for (just because the Harpur-Crewe family couldn’t be bothered to use the waste-paper basket does not, of itself, make the skiploads of junk now being cared for by the National Trust at Calke Abbey into a precious time capsule/national treasure, but because SAVE made a noisy fuss about it the NT ended up lumbered – mot juste – with it. Ditto Tyntesfield).
Running for cover now…
A
Anonymous
Guest
I would run for cover, Gareth, as you obviously haven't a clue really, and as for a congratulatory back slapping group - nothing could be further from the truth, but you only see a tip of an iceberg of a great deal of hard work and a vast amount of effort and worry, all carried out on a shoestring. We should give up then and leave no-one to campaign for the buildings? EH certainly won't, and I've never noticed the amenity societies prepared to take legal action to defend a principle. SAVE does of course work with other people and organisations. It also gees them up on many occasions.
As far as Smithfield goes - I'm probably now the 'expert' on the buildings, including the cold store which I did a great deal of work on (and it's now listed... although we are still arguing about that one...) and history, innovation and construction interest at the very least should make them listable. I am aware of other market buildings listed which IMHO are no better or worse... Certainly many eminent historians and others whose opinions I value believe they should be listed, and have backed my research and written to the Sec of State. EH is the sticking point, and as I've read all their past reports I think they have made major errors which they now are unable to backtrack on. It's all very politically and legally sensitive at the moment however, and the ins and outs of it all too detailed to write. They do admit the Gen Market 'just falls short of being listable' - and yes, group value along with White House cold store and the Holborn Viaduct should come into it.
We are up against a megabucks developer however...
Conservation Area Status is a joke these days, especially where the Corp of London is concerned, and there are already people lining up to re-use - listing won't stop sensitive repair. It may add an extra layer of protection however. Pity many other buildings in the area, great swathes of listed and CA buildings, are pencilled in for demolition for Crossrail. Not really necessary. Still, once they are gone the sites can be redeveloped... all in the public interest etc...
Calke and Tyntesfield I think were worth the struggle - I love them both, and I do know the story behind both. Calke, in amongst the rubbish, has some wonderfully preserved features and furniture. I have a poster from the campaign for that on the wall in front of me. As a Trust member I'm delighted they have been saved for the nation.
I think Span 4 and Pathfinders are worth a fight, too. And the many smaller buildings which SAVE has defended over the years, along with local activists. Help, advice, letters of objection, drawing up alternative plans, and publicity are all useful in the struggle.
Winchester Barracks, anyone?
As far as Smithfield goes - I'm probably now the 'expert' on the buildings, including the cold store which I did a great deal of work on (and it's now listed... although we are still arguing about that one...) and history, innovation and construction interest at the very least should make them listable. I am aware of other market buildings listed which IMHO are no better or worse... Certainly many eminent historians and others whose opinions I value believe they should be listed, and have backed my research and written to the Sec of State. EH is the sticking point, and as I've read all their past reports I think they have made major errors which they now are unable to backtrack on. It's all very politically and legally sensitive at the moment however, and the ins and outs of it all too detailed to write. They do admit the Gen Market 'just falls short of being listable' - and yes, group value along with White House cold store and the Holborn Viaduct should come into it.
We are up against a megabucks developer however...
Conservation Area Status is a joke these days, especially where the Corp of London is concerned, and there are already people lining up to re-use - listing won't stop sensitive repair. It may add an extra layer of protection however. Pity many other buildings in the area, great swathes of listed and CA buildings, are pencilled in for demolition for Crossrail. Not really necessary. Still, once they are gone the sites can be redeveloped... all in the public interest etc...
Calke and Tyntesfield I think were worth the struggle - I love them both, and I do know the story behind both. Calke, in amongst the rubbish, has some wonderfully preserved features and furniture. I have a poster from the campaign for that on the wall in front of me. As a Trust member I'm delighted they have been saved for the nation.
I think Span 4 and Pathfinders are worth a fight, too. And the many smaller buildings which SAVE has defended over the years, along with local activists. Help, advice, letters of objection, drawing up alternative plans, and publicity are all useful in the struggle.
Winchester Barracks, anyone?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Oh - I think also it was the Secretary of State who called Smithfield the finest group of market buildings in the country! I have the letter somewhere in the heap on my desk. She has of course taken the unprecedented step of asking Prescott for a call in! As have others of course - we are still waiting.
A listing, a de-listing application, another listing application, a Cert of Immunity and a demolition application are floating around at the DCMS.
A listing, a de-listing application, another listing application, a Cert of Immunity and a demolition application are floating around at the DCMS.
A
Anonymous
Guest
"...you obviously haven't a clue really..."
Thanks for that, Evelyn. I'll just go and crawl back under my stone now, cowed by the superior weight of your judgement, before which we must all bow. I assume you've never been a local authority conservation officer, having to juggle conflicting demands from all sides, or wondering which deserving pensioner's thatched roof you can afford to grant-aid out of your £20,000 budget this year? Thought not.
Seriously though, I'd rather not fall out over this, and I may have been over-hasty in condemning Tyntesfield (as the NT doesn't seem to have another representative High Victorian house), although I'm still horrified by the multiple HLF grants thrown at the place, which would have saved a few hundred lesser buildings (and not all in one place, so the wider public might have felt the benefit a bit more). I can't believe that Kylie buying it was really going to be the disaster some suggested (look at Toddington and Damian Hirst's recent purchase of all the drawings to go with it).
My view of Calke I stand by, it's just yet another rather dim stuffed-and-mounted NT house full of (mostly) junk, made a celebrity by early eighties Brideshead fake-nostalgia. Cadw do it much better.
Oh, and the "best market buildings in the country" quote came from SAVE's website.
Thanks for that, Evelyn. I'll just go and crawl back under my stone now, cowed by the superior weight of your judgement, before which we must all bow. I assume you've never been a local authority conservation officer, having to juggle conflicting demands from all sides, or wondering which deserving pensioner's thatched roof you can afford to grant-aid out of your £20,000 budget this year? Thought not.
Seriously though, I'd rather not fall out over this, and I may have been over-hasty in condemning Tyntesfield (as the NT doesn't seem to have another representative High Victorian house), although I'm still horrified by the multiple HLF grants thrown at the place, which would have saved a few hundred lesser buildings (and not all in one place, so the wider public might have felt the benefit a bit more). I can't believe that Kylie buying it was really going to be the disaster some suggested (look at Toddington and Damian Hirst's recent purchase of all the drawings to go with it).
My view of Calke I stand by, it's just yet another rather dim stuffed-and-mounted NT house full of (mostly) junk, made a celebrity by early eighties Brideshead fake-nostalgia. Cadw do it much better.
Oh, and the "best market buildings in the country" quote came from SAVE's website.
A
Anonymous
Guest
"I've never noticed the amenity societies prepared to take legal action to defend a principle"
David Lloyd, ex parte SPAB, v Sir Bruno Welby, Welby Almshouses, Denton, Lincolnshire 198?, on just as much of a shoestring and 10+ years before No1 Poultry. And (unlike SAVE) they won. There are others.
David Lloyd, ex parte SPAB, v Sir Bruno Welby, Welby Almshouses, Denton, Lincolnshire 198?, on just as much of a shoestring and 10+ years before No1 Poultry. And (unlike SAVE) they won. There are others.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well, I'm afraid we have fallen out Gareth. No. I have never been a local authority CO - I have, however, defended CO's regularly on this site but possibly I won't from now on? I do appreciate how hard a job it is.
Without SAVE, its reports and campaigning, all done on a shoestring, I think that this country's historic buildings would be considerably fewer by now. It is a truly independent organisation, ready at times to take up cases which the amenity societies can't or won't. Of course it works closely with the amenity societies; a number of Trustees and Committee members are also involved with other societies. Only wish we had their funding. It has also, over many years, been an excellent training ground for many in conservation - the SAVE diaspora is very wide indeed.
Not sure you have much idea at all of the work of SAVE, nor am I sure why you feel the need to attack. I also know that you shouldn't believe all you read in the press - Tyntesfield wasn't being rescued by any pop star, it was being split up ready for a sale, its contents to be dispersed and the estate flogged off in lots. The walled garden was cleared (ancient espaliered fruit trees and all) ready to be sold for a housing site. The house was probably going to be sold for commercial premises, hotel or flats, Oxford Movement chapel and all. It's a magnificent place, and when it is possible to fully open to the public I think it will prove one of the Trust's greatest attractions. A great deal of hard work went on by SAVE to raise public awareness of what was happening - before the Trust took up the cause.
Calke I adore. Its wider story is that of the land fund being resurrected and turned into a fund of last resort to rescue the nation's treasures, This is the fund which allowed the purchase of Tyntesfield.
Toddington - another SAVE campaign, to prevent Warner from ruining it. SAVE put in detailed objections to the planning permission, SAVE applied for and got the change of use to a single dwelling. Dr T was very rude about this - told SAVE's President and Secretary he held SAVE personally responsible for it continuing to be a BaR - and Damien Hirst's purchase has vindicated SAVE's stand over that one.
It's easy to carp, from the safety of working for a local authority. It's bloody hard to raise your head above the parapet and campaign for things you believe in at times. Sad to have to put up with flak from those who you though possibly may have been on your side and supportive.
Without SAVE, its reports and campaigning, all done on a shoestring, I think that this country's historic buildings would be considerably fewer by now. It is a truly independent organisation, ready at times to take up cases which the amenity societies can't or won't. Of course it works closely with the amenity societies; a number of Trustees and Committee members are also involved with other societies. Only wish we had their funding. It has also, over many years, been an excellent training ground for many in conservation - the SAVE diaspora is very wide indeed.
Not sure you have much idea at all of the work of SAVE, nor am I sure why you feel the need to attack. I also know that you shouldn't believe all you read in the press - Tyntesfield wasn't being rescued by any pop star, it was being split up ready for a sale, its contents to be dispersed and the estate flogged off in lots. The walled garden was cleared (ancient espaliered fruit trees and all) ready to be sold for a housing site. The house was probably going to be sold for commercial premises, hotel or flats, Oxford Movement chapel and all. It's a magnificent place, and when it is possible to fully open to the public I think it will prove one of the Trust's greatest attractions. A great deal of hard work went on by SAVE to raise public awareness of what was happening - before the Trust took up the cause.
Calke I adore. Its wider story is that of the land fund being resurrected and turned into a fund of last resort to rescue the nation's treasures, This is the fund which allowed the purchase of Tyntesfield.
Toddington - another SAVE campaign, to prevent Warner from ruining it. SAVE put in detailed objections to the planning permission, SAVE applied for and got the change of use to a single dwelling. Dr T was very rude about this - told SAVE's President and Secretary he held SAVE personally responsible for it continuing to be a BaR - and Damien Hirst's purchase has vindicated SAVE's stand over that one.
It's easy to carp, from the safety of working for a local authority. It's bloody hard to raise your head above the parapet and campaign for things you believe in at times. Sad to have to put up with flak from those who you though possibly may have been on your side and supportive.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yes, I'm actually aware of this case - and others. I think (need to check) this may have been when David Pearce was SPAB Sec? I'm also aware of how much of a shoestring SAVE operates on as opposed to others, believe me. And I am a SPAB member.
I think you may find SAVE rather more involved behind the scenes with cases than is often apparent.
Simply because you have no idea of the outcome of action doesn't mean you shouldn't take it.
Currently asked for, and got, a call-in over Easington Colliery School. Hardly a glamourous treasure house which will win national publicity. Ex Durham mining village. Given consent to demolish by local authority despite its Grade II status and a charitable trust with a good reputation ready to take it on and re-use as small business units. The CO is not a happy bunny about that one.
Great deal of hard work now to be done by SAVE's Secretary for the inquiry. May not win - does that mean we should have just not bothered?
Farnborough - should SAVE have given up there and allow it to be bulldozed? Pathfinders - do we just give up, or comtinue to help support local groups fighting this? Span 4 at Paddington - should we simply allow that to be bulldozed for commercial gain? That may possibly put a potential WHS at risk of course - but hey, so what?
And I am aware of the SAVE website and Smithfield. I do believe it to be the finest set of market buildings now existing in the country - as does apparently the Secretary of State. These are buildings with a tremendous history, especially as part of the forwarding of the frozen meat trade which aided so much in the latter part of the 19th century and start of the 20th the prosperity of other nations and helped raise the standard of nutrition in this country amongst the poor. The Jones' Fish Market was converted to be a Colonial and Foreign frozen meat market, and is attached to an early example of a cold store (1898-9) of architectural and historic interest.
The construction interest of the General Market is immense, and its place in construction history, with its use of Phoenix Columns and the 'modular' roof structure (along with laminated trusses) I don't think has been given the weighting it deserves in EH's continuing refusal to think it listable. I do have an early EH report which said these were common cast iron columns and nothing remarkable - they do get it very wrong at times.
I think you may find SAVE rather more involved behind the scenes with cases than is often apparent.
Simply because you have no idea of the outcome of action doesn't mean you shouldn't take it.
Currently asked for, and got, a call-in over Easington Colliery School. Hardly a glamourous treasure house which will win national publicity. Ex Durham mining village. Given consent to demolish by local authority despite its Grade II status and a charitable trust with a good reputation ready to take it on and re-use as small business units. The CO is not a happy bunny about that one.
Great deal of hard work now to be done by SAVE's Secretary for the inquiry. May not win - does that mean we should have just not bothered?
Farnborough - should SAVE have given up there and allow it to be bulldozed? Pathfinders - do we just give up, or comtinue to help support local groups fighting this? Span 4 at Paddington - should we simply allow that to be bulldozed for commercial gain? That may possibly put a potential WHS at risk of course - but hey, so what?
And I am aware of the SAVE website and Smithfield. I do believe it to be the finest set of market buildings now existing in the country - as does apparently the Secretary of State. These are buildings with a tremendous history, especially as part of the forwarding of the frozen meat trade which aided so much in the latter part of the 19th century and start of the 20th the prosperity of other nations and helped raise the standard of nutrition in this country amongst the poor. The Jones' Fish Market was converted to be a Colonial and Foreign frozen meat market, and is attached to an early example of a cold store (1898-9) of architectural and historic interest.
The construction interest of the General Market is immense, and its place in construction history, with its use of Phoenix Columns and the 'modular' roof structure (along with laminated trusses) I don't think has been given the weighting it deserves in EH's continuing refusal to think it listable. I do have an early EH report which said these were common cast iron columns and nothing remarkable - they do get it very wrong at times.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sorry Evelyn, we clearly aren't ever going to agree (more's the pity), but how do you square your statement that you are aware of the Welby Almshouses case (and others) with your insistence that "I've never noticed the amenity societies prepared to take legal action to defend a principle", which you used as part of your attack on me for having the temerity to state what was clearly a personal view on the alleged greatness of SAVE?
Your posts are always full of "SAVE did this" and "SAVE did that", and I just think perhaps it's time someone here championed the cause of some of the other societies (national and local) who also do a lot of work both publicly and behind the scenes but because they don't make such a song and dance about it, and their origins are no longer quite so tied up with a metro-centric media world (e.g. SPAB, founded 1877; Georgian Group, 1937; Victorian Society, 1961; Twentieth Century Society, 1979) don't get celebratory 6-month exhibitions at the V and A to celebrate such a minor landmark as their own 30th birthday.
The society (part of one of the above) which I chair celebrates (for slightly odd reasons) both its 50th and 75th birthdays next year and the most we've managed to do to celebrate is put "75" on all the envelopes that go out from the office.
Your posts are always full of "SAVE did this" and "SAVE did that", and I just think perhaps it's time someone here championed the cause of some of the other societies (national and local) who also do a lot of work both publicly and behind the scenes but because they don't make such a song and dance about it, and their origins are no longer quite so tied up with a metro-centric media world (e.g. SPAB, founded 1877; Georgian Group, 1937; Victorian Society, 1961; Twentieth Century Society, 1979) don't get celebratory 6-month exhibitions at the V and A to celebrate such a minor landmark as their own 30th birthday.
The society (part of one of the above) which I chair celebrates (for slightly odd reasons) both its 50th and 75th birthdays next year and the most we've managed to do to celebrate is put "75" on all the envelopes that go out from the office.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Tyntesfield - Kylie was used by all the media (directed by whom, I wonder? could it have been SAVE?) as THE example of why the house (not the whole estate) HAD to be "saved for the nation"
I notice you didn't disagree about the vast HLF expenditure on the place after the NT took over.
And what other result could there have been after all the publicity?
In the past SAVE have held up various commercial uses / subdivision as the model of what should be done with country houses. You can't have your cake and eat it.
As for carping from the "safety" of being a local authority conservation officer, I'd like to see you try it.
Sorry Evelyn, but if you tried getting out into the real world instead of posting thousands of responses from the safety of your computer desk, you might have a better understanding of the issues facing conservation at the moment, especially with a government (never thought I'd say it, but almost makes me want a come back by Nicholas Ridley, at least he was a straightforward enemy) that hates old buildings with a vengeance.
I notice you didn't disagree about the vast HLF expenditure on the place after the NT took over.
And what other result could there have been after all the publicity?
In the past SAVE have held up various commercial uses / subdivision as the model of what should be done with country houses. You can't have your cake and eat it.
As for carping from the "safety" of being a local authority conservation officer, I'd like to see you try it.
Sorry Evelyn, but if you tried getting out into the real world instead of posting thousands of responses from the safety of your computer desk, you might have a better understanding of the issues facing conservation at the moment, especially with a government (never thought I'd say it, but almost makes me want a come back by Nicholas Ridley, at least he was a straightforward enemy) that hates old buildings with a vengeance.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I'm probably going to get this all wrong, but I was under the impression that;
a. Evelyn does travel far and wide with people from SAVE.
b. Evelyn is proud of SAVE because she is extremely involved with them.
c. In various posts/replies she has recommended all the societies you mentioned when they were the right thing to recommend.
d. You clearly WANT someone like Evelyn if you only managed to get a 75 on the envelopes.
e. Evelyn regularly has dealings with the stupid current government.
f. You are wrong and deeply insulting to suggest she only sits behind a computer posting.
Why don't you champion those other causes, Evelyn can champion whomsoever she likes.
Gawwwd.
a. Evelyn does travel far and wide with people from SAVE.
b. Evelyn is proud of SAVE because she is extremely involved with them.
c. In various posts/replies she has recommended all the societies you mentioned when they were the right thing to recommend.
d. You clearly WANT someone like Evelyn if you only managed to get a 75 on the envelopes.
e. Evelyn regularly has dealings with the stupid current government.
f. You are wrong and deeply insulting to suggest she only sits behind a computer posting.
Why don't you champion those other causes, Evelyn can champion whomsoever she likes.
Gawwwd.
A
Anonymous
Guest
OK, possibly a rather rash remark - but I am very aware of case law etc. I'm also aware of how pro-active SAVE is in using the law, rather more often than other societies.
I am also of course very aware of the national amenity societies, I'm a member of SPAB and the AMS (whose Secretary is a former SAVE Secretary and serves on its Committee) and the 20th c Soc is in fact a few feet away in the same office as SAVE... and if you had more idea than you obviously have you would be aware that SAVE works very closely with them. In fact on a couple of occasions when I've phoned for some help with a building I've been referred by their case officers to SAVE! See the VocSoc website re saving buildings...
If you read this site more regularly you would appreciate how many times I do recommend that people go on SPAB courses, buy the publications etc. I regularly post a link to the 20th c Soc Building of the Month, where appropriate I refer people to the Geo Soc and the Vic Soc.
SAVE works with local Civic Societies and local conservation groups where it can, although with a tiny staff and limited resources it can't always do as much as it would like. SAVE championed these societies when appearing at the CSC last year re CABE and also Pathfinders. SAVE's small Pathfinders fighting fund has been set up (with a private donation) to help local groups campaign. Merseyside Civic Society is one example where SAVE has been working closely. A couple of weeks' ago SAVE contributed a great deal of information to a Public Inquiry regarding the architectural and historic merit of a group of houses in Liverpool which local campaigners are trying to prevent being bulldozed.
I have no idea why you are being so churlish - maybe you should simply be pleased that an exhibition (and book) which continues to be hard-hitting about conservation - it's not a cosy backslapping celebration - is raising more awareness amongst those who matter. Politicians etc...
SAVE was formed from a hard-hitting exhibition at the V and A. It was formed I add because some of its founders thought that other societies at the time weren't being much use in defending the historic environment.
So - you won't want any of your BaR put on the register this year then <IMG SRC="http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/discussing/smileys/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT="
"> ?
I am also of course very aware of the national amenity societies, I'm a member of SPAB and the AMS (whose Secretary is a former SAVE Secretary and serves on its Committee) and the 20th c Soc is in fact a few feet away in the same office as SAVE... and if you had more idea than you obviously have you would be aware that SAVE works very closely with them. In fact on a couple of occasions when I've phoned for some help with a building I've been referred by their case officers to SAVE! See the VocSoc website re saving buildings...
If you read this site more regularly you would appreciate how many times I do recommend that people go on SPAB courses, buy the publications etc. I regularly post a link to the 20th c Soc Building of the Month, where appropriate I refer people to the Geo Soc and the Vic Soc.
SAVE works with local Civic Societies and local conservation groups where it can, although with a tiny staff and limited resources it can't always do as much as it would like. SAVE championed these societies when appearing at the CSC last year re CABE and also Pathfinders. SAVE's small Pathfinders fighting fund has been set up (with a private donation) to help local groups campaign. Merseyside Civic Society is one example where SAVE has been working closely. A couple of weeks' ago SAVE contributed a great deal of information to a Public Inquiry regarding the architectural and historic merit of a group of houses in Liverpool which local campaigners are trying to prevent being bulldozed.
I have no idea why you are being so churlish - maybe you should simply be pleased that an exhibition (and book) which continues to be hard-hitting about conservation - it's not a cosy backslapping celebration - is raising more awareness amongst those who matter. Politicians etc...
SAVE was formed from a hard-hitting exhibition at the V and A. It was formed I add because some of its founders thought that other societies at the time weren't being much use in defending the historic environment.
So - you won't want any of your BaR put on the register this year then <IMG SRC="http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/discussing/smileys/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT="
"> ?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Schoolmarm - I'm a volunteer. I'm not paid like Gareth is, although I did spend my working life doing a bloody difficult and demanding job too. I spend a great deal of my own time (and money I add!) doing what I can for conservation. I'm not paid by anyone, as you well, know, to sit behind a computer and post on PPUK, do research, try to get buildings listed, write letters, hassle my local authority, respond to Government documents, write letters of objection etc etc. I also, when I can get to the SAVE office, 300 miles away, stuff envelopes, do filing... and I'm quite good at finding buildings at risk and taking pics to try to find a re-use for them.
I have been involved with conservation, in one way and another however, since long before Gareth Hughes was born. I cannot for the life of me see why he is carping, apart from the fact he seems to have his nose put out of joint about something.
I could start pulling apart the work of a large number of groups allied to conservation, and Conservation Officers as well, but I hardly think that is the purpose of this website and I hardly think it would (or is) serving any useful purpose. I think singing from the same songsheet (as with Heritage Link Gareth - set up by the founder and President of SAVE in fact...) is rather more productive than pointless in-fighting.
I presume that, if his local authority went against his advice and voted for the demolition of a listed building, he wouldn't want SAVE to then demand a call-in and appear at a Public Inquiry. I presume he wouldn't want SAVE to try to draw up alternative plans either (by volunteer architects) as it has done on a number of occasions, or try to find an alternative use for a threatened building, as it is currently doing for one in my locality?
With regard to Tyntesfield - I was one of the first National Trust members to call and give a (I admit small!) donation to add to the fighting fund. As a Trust member I'm delighted that this entire estate has been saved for the nation. It is easily accessible from Bristol, and I know, as I have visited, how much pleasure, in the long term, the entire place will bring to so many. The idea that SAVE spread a story around the press that Kylie was going to buy it is risible. The alarm regarding the sale was raised by eminent historians, who contributed to the SAVE emergency report on what was being split up and lost - the contents were being catalogued ready for the sale by a well-known auction house.
With regard to Toddington, the Warner deal was voted for by local councillors against the advice of the CO, although SAVE knew that a couple of people were waiting in the wings to step in and buy if the house could have change of use and be put up for sale on the open market. Different buildings at times need different solutions.
I have been involved with conservation, in one way and another however, since long before Gareth Hughes was born. I cannot for the life of me see why he is carping, apart from the fact he seems to have his nose put out of joint about something.
I could start pulling apart the work of a large number of groups allied to conservation, and Conservation Officers as well, but I hardly think that is the purpose of this website and I hardly think it would (or is) serving any useful purpose. I think singing from the same songsheet (as with Heritage Link Gareth - set up by the founder and President of SAVE in fact...) is rather more productive than pointless in-fighting.
I presume that, if his local authority went against his advice and voted for the demolition of a listed building, he wouldn't want SAVE to then demand a call-in and appear at a Public Inquiry. I presume he wouldn't want SAVE to try to draw up alternative plans either (by volunteer architects) as it has done on a number of occasions, or try to find an alternative use for a threatened building, as it is currently doing for one in my locality?
With regard to Tyntesfield - I was one of the first National Trust members to call and give a (I admit small!) donation to add to the fighting fund. As a Trust member I'm delighted that this entire estate has been saved for the nation. It is easily accessible from Bristol, and I know, as I have visited, how much pleasure, in the long term, the entire place will bring to so many. The idea that SAVE spread a story around the press that Kylie was going to buy it is risible. The alarm regarding the sale was raised by eminent historians, who contributed to the SAVE emergency report on what was being split up and lost - the contents were being catalogued ready for the sale by a well-known auction house.
With regard to Toddington, the Warner deal was voted for by local councillors against the advice of the CO, although SAVE knew that a couple of people were waiting in the wings to step in and buy if the house could have change of use and be put up for sale on the open market. Different buildings at times need different solutions.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I have also, in the past, posted about this too. Just thought I'd mention it.
A
Anonymous
Guest
"Self-congratulatory pats on the back" Gareth- why who could you possibly mean? Not the doyenne of this forum, surely?
A
Anonymous
Guest
I see - we are descending into the snide and the silly and the anonymous now. Bet you feel really so much better for that, eh?
I just care about historic buildings. Have done for decades. If I can further ther cause in any way I can I will. I'm not apologising for that.
If that comes over as 'self congratulatory' it's far from the truth.
I just care about historic buildings. Have done for decades. If I can further ther cause in any way I can I will. I'm not apologising for that.
If that comes over as 'self congratulatory' it's far from the truth.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I'm interested, Gareth, in your opinion that I have no real idea of the issues facing conservation at the moment? Or that I am unaware of the political dimension? This is so staggeringly wrong it's beyond comprehension!
I did contribute a great deal of information to the Commons Select Committte Inquiry on CABE last year - as an individual - and I'm considering what I can write for the latest one on the historic environment.
Pathfinders? How unpolitical is that one?
I rather think that raising the political stakes re conservation is part of what was behind Simon Jenkins major article about the work of SAVE in last week's Guardian.
I did contribute a great deal of information to the Commons Select Committte Inquiry on CABE last year - as an individual - and I'm considering what I can write for the latest one on the historic environment.
Pathfinders? How unpolitical is that one?
I rather think that raising the political stakes re conservation is part of what was behind Simon Jenkins major article about the work of SAVE in last week's Guardian.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I don't actually think that the present government hates historic buildings with a vengeance actually - David Lammy doesn't, his predecessor Lord McIntosh didn't. Which is not to say all is perfect, far from it, but there are some highlights.
Tessa Jowell did list Red House against EH advce, and is defending it against the de-listing application. I do find the DCMS decent people to deal with.
Tessa Jowell did list Red House against EH advce, and is defending it against the de-listing application. I do find the DCMS decent people to deal with.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi Gareth
You mention in your post about Tyntesfield something about SAVE supporting the subdivision of country houses where this seems the most pragmatic way to prevent demolition or destruction by neglect.
You may be interested to know (as I have discovered through Evelyn's post about the V&A exhibition) that they have been 'generously supported' this year by a property development company called the Dare Group with (one assumes) a huge donation. Dare specialises in? Sub-dividing country houses and 'enabling development' in the grounds. Dare-group.co.uk I think.
I wonder what the other amenity societies think of it?
You mention in your post about Tyntesfield something about SAVE supporting the subdivision of country houses where this seems the most pragmatic way to prevent demolition or destruction by neglect.
You may be interested to know (as I have discovered through Evelyn's post about the V&A exhibition) that they have been 'generously supported' this year by a property development company called the Dare Group with (one assumes) a huge donation. Dare specialises in? Sub-dividing country houses and 'enabling development' in the grounds. Dare-group.co.uk I think.
I wonder what the other amenity societies think of it?