What possesses people?

[andrew gayton]

each case on its merits. a perfectly good building will need less intervention than a crumbling pile. the question should also be asked if ruined, should it be consolidated as a ruin, as once 'rebuilt' interest can be lost.

 

[borischarlton]

Yes, I think that if "ensuring structures don't simply crumble away" was to make the Country billions, then it would be done. We have a future to think of not just a past!

 

[Nemesis]

Well, I can't be arsed to argue the philosphy of why we conserve things, but we are party to international charters and stuff like that.

 

[borischarlton]

Andrew, a fine point and one I had not thought of. I very much enjoyed looking round Corfe Castle because of its condition and how it became that way.

 

[CHRIS]

The reason why money is spent on the Olympics is that it will create massive income for lots of people and a pile of old stones will not!

Like it or not this is why.

With talk of a minimum wage of £10-11 for all workers and all direct employment you can see why, this will more than offset the £20 per year on all council tax bills in London. It is sad I know but people are like this and Red Ken loves the masses.

 

[Nemesis]

Well, the Olympics won't create apenny for me and I have not one jot of interest in it.

So much is bollocks too - I see a very good historic factory site, a former sweet and lozenge factory, is now to be razed in order to site the 'sustainable' wood chip boiler.

Kings Yard, by the canal, great Belfast Truss roof.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The reason why money is spent on the Olympics is that it will create massive income for lots of people and a pile of old stones will not!

Bull. The Olympics beats being Capital of Culture and god knows how many other things as a total waste of money, utterly disproportionate amounts have to be spent to attract incoming cash for a brief period, and the long-term result tends to be underused sports facilities in the wrong locations. The only massive income it creates is for consultants who get paid whether it's a success or not and will be well clear when it's time to pick up the pieces.

On the other hand, and to take just one example, Fountains Abbey (which, if properly conserved, will be there a damn sight longer than the Olympic velodrome) has around 200,000 visitors a year, each paying as a rounded average, 6.00 each to do so. So that one, of many, heritage sites brings in around 1.2 million a year, every year. Even allowinf for the cost of upkeep and generally running the place, that's a net surplus of about half a million, plus the intangible benefits that the local community derive from it.

 

[Nemesis]

And of course so many smaller sports facilities, well used by locals, are being razed in order to build the Olympics site!

 

[borischarlton]

Sorry, but wether it is right or wrong if there was large amounts of money to be made from historic buildings every single one would be not just kept, but restored to the very best standards. You would not be able to move for em'

 

[Nemesis]

So it's just about cash then that we keep historic buildings?

 

[borischarlton]

Nope but it sure does help

 

[Craig]

The olympics isnt actually generating that much new employment is it? After all, there is virtually full employment in London.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Sorry, but wether it is right or wrong if there was large amounts of money to be made from historic buildings every single one would be not just kept, but restored to the very best standards. You would not be able to move for em'

Depends what you mean by "restored". The vast majority of the 500,000 listed buildings in England are maintained in good order by their owners because it makes economic sense to keep them so.

The vast majority of ruins which are Scheduled Ancient Monuments are maintained in their ruined condition, by their owners, because although "restoring" them isn't usually an option, it's not a massive burden to keep them at least standing.

Some historic sites are potential moneyspinners, others are just places where people are happy to live, a few are deliberately neglected by owners who think they'll eventually be able to get rid of them, and one or two are taken on by idiots like the bloke in Wales and wrecked.

I really don't understand where you are coming from with your "argument"

 

[Nemesis]

Old buildings can generate cash too.

Look at the saving of Dumfries House - which will in the end regenerate its surroundings and provide employment and leisure opportunities for many people. In the end far more than the cash taken to buy it.

Oh, its quite a nice building too, with one or two sticks of decent furniture.

Some of us care you see about our history and our surroundings and think some of our past is worth preserving. OK it's a struggle at times as so many are money grubbing Philistines but some folks think that life is about a bit more than just how much cash some can make.

 

[Nemesis]

The olympics isnt actually generating that much new employment is it? After all, there is virtually full employment in London.

You have to wonder then where all these workers are going to be brought from, and where they are going to live.

I also deplore the robbing of arts and heritage cash to pay for it all, while at the same time the sector is being harangued to make the most of the opportunities that the influx of visitors is supposed to bring.


In my view few will stay to travel the country to visit our cultural delights.

 

[borischarlton]

I really don't understand where you are coming from with your "argument"

Thats a little unfair, it got hijacked by the Olympics!

 

[Nemesis]

Well - I don't understand what your argument is about historic buildings either.

You saying we should bulldoze the lot as cleared sites make more cash?

 

[borischarlton]

Of course not I love old buildings and live in one. I was simply trying to say that in the past many buildings have been altered, for the good and bad. I do not agree with what this chap in Wales has done at all with this particular house. However people did in the past completely destroy by modernising, as in the art deco period. We now see these houses as having fantastic character, many of which are now listed.

 

[CHRIS]

Craig you are correct re near full employment in London but I have contact with at least 10 companies from NE, NW and N of border who will be providing services for the olympics and they will be reaping the benefits of them, they are small outfits not massive soul less corporations.

Also as per news this week even more Poles will be staying full time than first envisaged so I just think more will come (My company actively recruites at universities over there), so we end up will less accomadation so prices rise and we build more c"£$ house in the flood plain - sorted!

Gareth I agree totally with you but I am just saying what people in he area area saying as they have been won over by the kings of spin this is not my view.

But I am looking forward to Tour De France this weekend in London

 

[Nemesis]

I still don't see tha argument though - so it's OK to destroy historic buildings? There seems not to be logic in this at all.