What possesses people?

[Penners]

I just keep asking myself why would anyone do this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/05/nhouse105.xml

 

[Nemesis]

Sadly, it cannot of course be restored to 'former glory' and in all probability should be de-listed.

Why? I don't know. Ignorance in some cases, arrogance in others. It's only heartening that there was some action taken and that the judge took his duties seriously. It is not always the case.

I wish someone could explain to me why some of those calling them selves Historic Buildings Consultants spend a great deal of their clients' time arguing that historic buildings are of no value and should be ruined or demolished in order that said client developer can make a heap of cash out of the development, or indeed applying for listed buildings to be de-listed in order that they can be altered or demolished, but it's a rum old world.

 

[Penners]

Given that he clearly has a great deal more money than sense, why couldn't he have just bought himself a wreck of a bungalow to demolish, then build a completely new gin-palace?

But then I suppose I've answered my own question - 'more money than sense'.

 

[Nemesis]

I bet he thought he was improving it...

 

[Penners]

'Many fine examples of late 18th-century joinery and craftsmanship such as six-panel doors, moulded architraves, plaster cornices and marble fireplaces had all been ripped out. The tall, Georgian sash windows had been replaced with modern units.'

Makes you weep.

 

[Nemesis]

Ah but I bet they were uPVC...

 

[Penners]

Oh, thank goodness. I was afraid he might have fitted that old-fashioned stuff called wood.

 

[plumbers mate]

When it's gone, it's gone.
Anything he does will be a reconstruction not a restoration and there is debate as to the validity of that.

 

[Penners]

Agreed, but the fact that it will cost him half a mill is at least some kind of disincentive to others.

 

[Gervase]

Trouble is, Hazell can afford it without batting an eyelid. Tasteless twonk!

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, which is why it was good he is being forced to restore. I appreciate that what's gone is gone, but a mere fine would effectively mean he'd bought his way around the law. At least this way he must pay to restore things to their original form and there is some poetic justice in the sense that he'll have to replace items that, presumably, he didn't want in the first place.

Nevertheless, a sad tale all around.

 

[borischarlton]

BUT, If he had done it in 1920, would we now be enjoying a beautiful art deco house? It would apear that at anytime in our past people could "modernise" and develop a property so that it grows and changes with the times. Is that not why we now have such interesting houses? Do we now have to "lock a house in time"?
Rob

 

[Nemesis]

No, but we do have to comply with the law in this country, and he didn't.

So what do we do - just not have any protection of historic buildings, and allow a free for all?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

BUT, If he had done it in 1920, would we now be enjoying a beautiful art deco house? It would apear that at anytime in our past people could "modernise" and develop a property so that it grows and changes with the times. Is that not why we now have such interesting houses? Do we now have to "lock a house in time"?
Rob

There's a massive difference in quality and that elitist thing, taste, between what a wealthy man might have done 70 or 80 years ago: http://www.elthampalace.org.uk/
and what happens now - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=466268&in_page_id=1770&ICO=NEWS&ICL=TOPART I know it's the Daily Mail, but it does have a photo.

 

[Nemesis]

Also - listing a building doesn't prevent all change, but it does mean that change respects what's there.

We have a finite number of historic buildings, and isn't listing about preserving good examples for future generations?

 

[borischarlton]

A free for all, no far from it. We must have systems in place but they must allow for development, for that is surely what has given us such a diverse housing stock? Can you imagine what some people were thinking at the begining of art deco? To some it must have looked hidious and dare I say it tasteless?

 

[Nemesis]

But there is plenty of space for new build - the point of listing is to protect the best of the old from being destroyed.

 

[andrew gayton]

an increasing problem; far too many people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

 

[borischarlton]

I quite agree and especially in this case. But there are times when the system just seems crazy. I have seen on Grand Designs and read on this forum about the crumbling castle that was quite literally going to end up as a pile of stone. Now surely any type of restoration was going to be in the building best interest, but what they had to do to keep E.H. happy would surely put other people off taking on such a project. Therefore are we losing historic buildings?

 

[Nemesis]

Not really - some buildings and structures are best preserved as Scheduled Ancient Monuments - which this one was.

It was only special circumstances which allowed this to be done at Hellifield. And it wasn't keeping EH happy really, it was ensuring that what was done was was done correctly to preserve what was there as afar as possible while ensuring the new was suitable too.

It all takes time.

What would be useful would be some sensible level of public funding to ensure structures don't simply crumble away.

But we prefer to spend it on things like the Olympics.