Restoration - What Do You think So Far?

[Penners]

The current series of Restoration, in my view, highlights even more starkly than previous series the dilemma that is faced by our architectural heritage restoration/conservation community.

There are so many buildings that have fallen into disrepair because - to be blunt - they are now totally unsuited to the needs of today.

Yes, if they were in good order they would get used to a certain extent, but would the usage really justify the vast sums of money required to bring them back to a decent condition? And - even if they had Restoration money thrown at them - would the intended use ultimately generate enough ongoing income to continue their upkeep? Or would they slowly start to disintegrate again?

There have been several cases in point. Last night, for example, we were shown a wonderful redundant lighthouse on the bleak, remote island of North Ronaldsay. It's in a terrible state, and needs a capital sum of (if I remember correctly) over £1.2m to bring it, and its little attached dwelling house, back to good order.

What's the population of North Ronaldsay? 60 souls - and falling. That's an expenditure of £20,000 per person.

If money were no object, then it would be wonderful, even honourable, to restore this building to pristine condition, allowing the good folk of North Ronaldsay to have a tower to climb and a re-created lighthouse-keeper's cottage, complete with box beds, to admire, and to hold community gatherings in. They might even generate a trickle of income from a few hardy tourists visiting the island and the building.

But can we honestly see this remote, cash-strapped, dwindling community affording the upkeep of the restored building? And would it really contribute sufficient to their lives to justify this huge investment?

The same argument can be applied to a number of the buildings that we have seen in this, and previous, series of Restoration. It would be absolutely wonderful to wave a magic wand and save them all. But it all comes down to money - today's capital and tomorrow's revenue.

It's heartbreaking to have to think in these terms about precious parts of our architectural heritage. But I can't see any way around the problem.

Can you?

 

[Schoolmarm]

No me neither. Creative thinking and flexible use sometimes helps though.


People will pay good money to rent lighthouses as holiday destinations, clearly not all buildings are suitable for that though.

 

[biffvernon]

I was thinking the same, Penners, about the Ronaldsay lighthouse. But why are there only 60 souls on the island? The Island used to support a much larger population and the world is getting more crowded.

The lateral thinking is to make N Ronaldsay an attractive place to live. It is very energy rich. Wind, wave and tidal power is there in greater abundance than just about anywhere on the planet and could form an enormous export industry, given the capital expenditure on the generating capacity and infrastructure. Such an industry would allow the island to support a much larger population, with all the 'advantages' that would follow. There's a lot of money in this energy lark - the Saudis are buying 72 tiny little aircraft from us for £10 billion. That's just to help them protect what's left of their oil.

The restoration of the tower could be paid for out of the petty cash.

 

[Schoolmarm]

When would restoration have been filmed?

I just googled this to learn more and the site has been updated in june.


http://www.orkneycommunities.co.uk/NORTHRONALDSAYTRUST/

 

[Penners]

That's a very interesting site, Marm. But the Heritage Lottery Fund award appears to be for the new lighthouse site, rather than the old one that was shown on Restoration.

However, it still prompts questions about the validity of a donation of £300,000 to this community. I don't begrudge it - I really don't - but purely as an academic question, I do wonder whether it's the best use of lottery money.

 

[Penners]

why are there only 60 souls on the island? The Island used to support a much larger population and the world is getting more crowded.

I know about as much about demographics as I do about lunar vulcanology, Biff, but I have always felt that communities have a kind of critical mass. Below this level, there's not enough employment, thus not enough money, thus not enough things to spend money on, to make the place attractive for people to live. And that's particularly true of a weather-beaten place like Ronaldsay (other than for rufty-tufty, steely-eyed, granite-jawed giants like you and me).

The trouble is, when a community is below that threshold and dwindling, then I suspect that people see no prospect of it ever reaching critical mass. So, not only do incomers not go there, but the young of the existing community steadily trickle away.

All that you say about the energy potential of the area is undoubtedly true. But do the installations really have to be manned? Given the lack of attraction for people to go and live there, I reckon energy companies are more likely to build fully automatic plants (as witness the newer lighthouse) and run them from the mainland.

The North Sea Oil boom brought a huge change to the Shetlands, but oil exploration is, by its nature, very labour-intensive. I suspect that setting up wind- or wave-power hardware would be much less so, and pretty short-term. There would probably be a short burst of intense activity, then, once the kit was in place, it would all go horribly quiet again.

 

[Nemesis]

In fact that is a very small Lottery grant.

This may put that cost into perspective:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1978259.stm

(note - it wuz the previous lot wot actually commissioned the thing...)

 

[Penners]

In fact that is a very small Lottery grant

...relative to some of the profligacy we have seen. I don't think it changes the points I've mooted, though.

 

[Nemesis]

Given that part of this scheme will apparently enable a cottage to be rented out by the National Trust, that may bring some tourism to the island, which in turn will aid the local economy.

National TV exposure also helps of course, it made me want to visit... so it may in the long term be a wise investment to keep a small community viable.

Pump priming in this way may bring also further interest and private investment/donations. It's often the way. Brackenrigg Tower, in the first series, didn't in the end get Lottery funding, to be made into a museum, but it did get a private buyer to restore it as a home.

HRH is looking at pumping money into another of the 'hopeless' cases...

 

[NT]

>People will pay good money to rent lighthouses as holiday destinations,

but not 1.2 million. Probably not even a tenth of that.

 

[Nemesis]

You have to give them credit for effort:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G1980

 

[Nemesis]

I've looked again at that scheme and thought about the Lottery cash. Of course we are here entering far wider and murkier territory - the politics and ethics and philosophy of conservation, and it's stuff of doctorates not posts on PPUK. We seem happy to spend vast amounts of cash to purchase paintings for the nation to hang in galleries remote from many, for example, yet cash and policies to preserve other parts of our heritage which is often more accessible is so often withheld or totally insufficient; one has to wonder why.

At the bottom of this ramble is a link to a piece of wider reading, from the Times.

Marcus is a national treasure, IMHO.

And the full report link is there, at the bottom of his article. Long but important and I'm pleased that the views of those I know worked hard to present written and oral evidence to the select committee have in so many cases been taken notice of. Of course the government response will be dimissive as ever - but the point regarding funding is hard to argue against.

This is a government with no interest in historic buildings whatsoever. A new Permanent Secretary has been appointed at the DCMS - he was so excited about his new job and what it covered that he forgot to mention historic buildings was part of it. As indeed did the Prime Minister when he wrote to Tessa Jowell setting out his agenda for her Department.

I do know that Lottery cash isn't given without a vast amount of thought and requirements for match funding and business plans etc etc. Scary amounts of work and paperwork involved. I say so with feeling, having some involvement with a building featured on a previous Restoration and for which the suposed businesss partner in the venture pulled out, I believe rather scared off by the requirements of Lottery funding. If all goes belly up too there are provisions regarding having to pay back the cash. I suspect that here there are other forces at play than simply the islanders themselves, and I suspect that if someone begins to delve there will be national and regional policies (and funding) regarding trying to support small traditional communities and prevent them from becoming unviable. It's all so much a vicious spiral I agree.

However, further investigation beyond the Restoration short presentation by Marianne and Ptolo ('the Sonny and Cher of conservation' according to the Guardian... :wrysmilemoticon does suggest a wider scheme of trying to give tourists and the islanders both something of value. The scheme will involve local communities and the wider public and give access to the buildings - all Lottery requirements, along with interpretation and education - cash isn't simply thrown at the buildings.

Maybe a small but significant increase in tourism will result - I rather like the idea of a lighthouse trail, and I'm possibly intrigued enough to consider visiting at some time in the future, being that sork of geeky anoraky nerd who has holidays doing that sort of thing. Hell, if the bit of ruined wall beside where I live can be declared a World Heritage Site and bring visitors from all over the world to walk alongside it then who is to say that they won't flock to a lighthouse trail?

I doubt that this will win Restoration, that seems to go to more sexy buildings with larger communities to support, but I do think the publicity which Restoration is bringing to parts of our historic and architectural heritage is no bad thing. TV is actually doing very good work at the moment - there's Dibnah with the great and the good of conservation being talking heads about how great an influence his TV progs have been, Ptolo D on villages, and a smashing series on Thursdays of man-made wonders around the country which is unmissable viewing for me. I hope it's repeated soon.

I have to say that the winner of last week's programme, the workshop with tools, was one I loved but thought hadn't a chance, and I was heartened that it won this round.

We are spending an absolute fortune on the Olympics. I have no interest whatsoever in the Olympics. I believe that it will be a disaster for many historic buildings (although it may have in a roundabout manner have helped to save Span Four I admit) and the costs will be astronomical. Much of this cash is coming from Lottery funding. I am unconvinced of the wider and longer-term benefits. I doubt that this emphasis on sport will rescue the yoof of Lunnon from crime and hooded tops as is claimed.

I was one of those who responded to the recent consultation regarding the future of Lottery funding, frightened that the 'good cases' part may be got rid of - or at least the percentage given to heritage.

Thnkfully this isn't the case, heritage will remain, but the e-mail I received about this tells not the whole story.

It mentions that Lottery money will be used for funding the Olympics (along with the Council Tax of Londoners, who will also be paying through the nose for this... ) and that the percentages for good causes remain the same. However, once the vast sums for the Olympics are creamed off, even with a specific additional Olympics Lottery, that means the total pot for the causes is much smaller, and of course Lottery income is falling too.
This has been a major, major source of rescue of buildings of historic and architectural merit for the future.

So that leads me, in a roundabout way, to David's issues with spending a large sum of dosh on a remote building in a small community.

I reckon this is a well-thought through scheme and if it does get its funding I think will have been thoroughly assessed for viability. I think it may well attract more people to the island, and that in turn may help the local economy. Visitors will help pay for the ferry and ensure that is viable. It may even persuade some people to return to the island, and to try to live there. It's not impossible.

I think small and remote communities deserve a share on Lottery funding just as much as anyone else does. It may in fact be of more benefit in remote places with little else to offer to the residents, give some community pride, and make those communities viable. In the overall scheme of the money this country wastes on wars I reckon we should as a nation take a risk with the dosh.

Evelyn





Click link here:




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,61-2301781,00.html

 

[Sue Wilkinson]

This is a government with no interest in historic buildings whatsoever.

Or the countryside and its many and varied requirements or small businesses in whatever form.

I could rant on, but I won't, I'll spare you all that.

Sue

 

[plumbers mate]

There is always a token industrial site.
This week coming is a quarry workshop complex in North Wales.

It's a gorgeous site and has been well surveyed (hmm, hmm and I would recommend all to vote for it )))
Pen yr Orsedd Quarry workshops...

Makes a change from the posh houses and churches.

PM

 

[Nemesis]

Plumbers mate eh? Maybe you should see GK's pics - the thread re the apostrophes... or is that apostrophe's?

Yes that slate quarry I gather has been well surveyed :winkingemoticon: and I will be voting for it...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/northwest/sites/nantlle/pages/penyrorsedd.shtml

 

[Penners]

It's a gorgeous site and has been well surveyed (hmm, hmm and I would recommend all to vote for it

Do I detect a hint of vested interest? :wink:

 

[Nemesis]

My lips are sealed Penners - but do vote!

(I have no vested interest, and PM's interest isn't in any way financial...)

 

[plumbers mate]

I had two goes to register and the second time (when it worked) I forgot the apostrophe. Annoying since it's a bug bear of mine.
Anyway it's one keystroke fewer!

 

[Penners]

Ah, but then you'd have had the dilemma about where the apostrophe was to go. Are you mate to just one plumber, or several?

Life's never easy.

 

[L1zzy]

The lighthouse got my vote last night - I thought it was great and had great provenance and whats more that cute little girl who curtsied to Griff Rhy Jones at the local hop made me think we should be thinking of the next generation and if the renovation of the Lighthouse means a future for her on her home island then I'm for it.

I know I'm just a softy......