What's so great about Old Buildings?

[petromax]

There is a presumption that most old stuff is good stuff; that sees either side of 1900 as a golden age (George's Hall, Liver Buildings, Three Graces, Water Street).

Actually this Architecture represents the upper end of a class system that 'suppressed the workers', so what's so great about it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...xe_Experience/

[Davec]

Think you could apply that reasoning to just about every worthwhile building anywhere in the world at any time in history.

[Oudeis]

Architecture?

I do not know Liverpool, I have seen here many pictures and movies of Liverpool's past, would I know the place now from these sources?

Within the space of all too few generations much of a people's history is lost and without land-marks the geography of a place can also be lost.

I do despise these country houses for much the same reasons as you have put forward; labour cost etc. And how one is supposed to marvel at the costs envolved in their building WITHOUT being asked to consider the human cost not only of the build but of where the money came from too.

I have worked on a few 'prized' examples of times past and I do admire the effort required in the build. Right angle? Whats that?

We should rejoyce in them if they are put to public use. For they do show the effort and expertise shown by a by-gone age of astizan.

Lastly; What are the time-scales of modern buildings? Perhaps we cannot match the past in their efforts, but we can do much to continue history on into the future using architecture as mile stones. My mother was insured by the Liverpool Victoria (if I remember right) and soo I have long been aware of the Liver Building and if that were to go how could I judge what the Liverpool of today is all about?
What use Liverpool has for it's past is up to you all now. I think that the whole thing hangs on what use the present can find for these efforts of yesteryear.

[lindylou]

[QUOTE=Oudeis;198983]
I do despise these country houses for much the same reasons as you have put forward; labour cost etc. And how one is supposed to marvel at the costs envolved in their building WITHOUT being asked to consider the human cost not only of the build but of where the money came from too.
QUOTE]



My dad was always of that opinion. re stately homes, he says why should we pay to go in and 'view' the affluence and luxury that was built from exploitation of the less well off. It was bad enough that the affluent were greedy with their the vast amounts of land and wealth, and had the poor labouring for them for a pittance .. now they want us to pay again !!
My dad won't pay to go in a stately home

[Oudeis]

Well said lindylou's dad.

He will be one of the too few who have read, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.

[lindylou]

Well said lindylou's dad.

He will be one of the too few who have read, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.

he has too ! and been to see the grave of Robert Tressell

[Oudeis]

...and the money GNASHER. Where did that come from?

[had the Nazis formed a statue for some foyer out of the gold teeth and spectacles they had to hand, that too would be OK?]

[GNASHER]

[QUOTE=Oudeis;198998]...and the money GNASHER. Where did that come from? ]

The Royal Mint .
The same sources as now,loans,investment,grants.A tip,never use your own money.
had the Nazis formed a statue for some foyer out of the gold teeth and spectacles they had to hand, that too would be OK?

WTF has that got to do with it?

[Oudeis]

...not sugar, cotton or the slave trade directly?

I do not see the facts of employment at those times as much of a step up from slavery itself.

A man was an asset on the one hand and a liability on the other.

[George]

What's so great about Old Buildings?

in terms of the common mans house they are/where/...had character,take todays and those of the last 20 years...they're lego/boxes and nothing more ie depressing buildings that are a lot smaller inside than a terraced house.

[Waterways]

What's so great about Old Buildings?

in terms of the common mans house they are/where/...had character,take todays and those of the last 20 years...they're lego/boxes and nothing more ie depressing buildings that are a lot smaller inside than a terraced house.

The matchbox size of the house has nothing at all to do with it being old or new. Give me this eco beauty any day that some old Victorian pneumonia home. BTW, it comes in a kit.



The reason we have tiny pokey homes is the land laws and the planning laws. Read this:
How land affects the Average Person

[pablo42]

The matchbox size of the house has nothing at all to do with it being old or new. Give me one of these any day that some old Victorian pneumonia home:



The reason we have tiny pokey homes is the land laws and the planning laws. Read this:
How land affects the Average Person

I agree with you on some points WW, but the use of the land we have needs looking at. In the towns and cities, all over the UK, there are vast tracts unused. The so called brown sites should be freed up. We have a hospital over here, Arrowe Park, it was built on parkland. Miles from the population. Yet Birkenhead has vast tracts going idle. It's been idle for years. I think we should use what we got before we decimate more of the countryside.

[Waterways]

I agree with you on some points WW, but the use of the land we have needs looking at. In the towns and cities, all over the UK, there are vast tracts unused. The so called brown sites should be freed up. We have a hospital over here, Arrowe Park, it was built on parkland. Miles from the population. Yet Birkenhead has vast tracts going idle. It's been idle for years. I think we should use what we got before we decimate more of the countryside.

Of course brownfield land should be utilised, however this land will account for only about 14% of the homes the UK needs. The myth all brownfield land can solve all problems while the stinking rich keep hold of their lucrative acres gets stronger by the day.

The Myths of the Planning System

How has this situation come about? In a country that was
among the first to roll back the government?s role in the
economy, why do we still plan our housing in the way we
do? And why do we accept the outcomes of this system,
which forces us to live in crowded, old, small and expensive
housing of a type we do not want?

One reason is that the political alliance to save the
countryside is very strong, but to be successful there
have to be a number of arguments that resonate with
voters. By analysing these arguments we discover that
they are as much folk myths as the view that British
housing is the best in Europe:

? Britain is a small, overcrowded country ? in fact only
around 7.5% per cent of land in Britain is urban, half the
figure in the Netherlands and lower than Belgium, (West)
Germany and Denmark. We are living in crowded and
dense cities, not a crowded and urbanised country.

? Southern England is especially crowded, so new development
should take place in the North ? in fact the
North West is the most urbanised region in England,
and the South West and East Anglia are among the least
urbanised.

? But the South is full of towns? ? development is
usually near major transport links, giving the impression
of over-urbanisation. In addition, there is the
psychological effect of travelling between cities ? one
travels slowly through urban areas but speeds through
rural ones, giving a false impression as to the level of
development.

? We?re all getting older and will want smaller houses ?
in the last 32 years the number of households has
risen by one-third, outstripping the growth of the
housing stock. Besides, many older people do not
want to move out of their houses, and nor should they
be forced to.

? We need agricultural land to be self-sufficient ?
Britain has one of the highest proportions of land
given over to agriculture in the world, and we produce
agricultural surpluses. We are fully integrated in the
world economy and rely on imports for almost everything,
especially energy ? being self-sufficient in food
alone is pointless.

? Cities are bad for environment ? interestingly, it seems
that the kind of low rise, low density housing that
planners and guardians of the countryside dislike is
better for biodiversity than monocultural farmland.

? We need to live at high densities to protect the global
environment ? the planning system?s emphasis on
using brown field land often increases fuel use, as these
sites are not always near existing development or
people?s work places. Taxation is a much more effective
tool for reducing fuel usage.

? Building on brown field sites is always better ? the
number of brown field sites is heavily restricted,
perhaps only 14 per cent of the houses we need could
be built on them. If we are only going to use these sites
then house prices will continue to rocket and we will be
living in very dense, crowded, high rise accommodation
? just what we do not want.

? There are lots of empty buildings we could use ? our
vacancy rate is very low internationally, and some
vacancy rate is required for the market to be flexible.

--------
Countryside organisations are demanding all city brownfield sites be built on.
This should be resisted as we now have an ideal opportunity to leave most
of these sites vacant, cleaned up and made natural again by turning them
into parks, woods and encouraging wildlife for the local population to enjoy.
This is an ideal opportunity to improve brownfield areas, improving the
quality of life of urban dwellers. Righting the wrongs of the incompetent
planners of the past. Areas like Hampstead Heath should be actively
encouraged. Woods in towns and cities would also be a great bonus. The
deliberate differentiation between town and country requires abolition as the
Town & Country planning act attempts to divide. Using the words town and
country sets the tone. It creates conflict. It creates two separate
societies. It creates distrust.

A good read. Opens your eyes....Unaffordable Housing

[pablo42]

You have a point WW, but turning the countryside into huge estates is not good. You can have small high densith housing in towns. there have been some great examples. I believe London has one development that resembles a Spanish town.

[Waterways]

You have a point WW, but turning the countryside into huge estates is not good. You can have small high densith housing in towns. there have been some great examples. I believe London has one development that resembles a Spanish town.

More myths. Concreting over the countryside. Urban sprawl. Emotive terms used by the large landowners, to keep you hemmed up in a tight urban communities. The implications are that we do not have any land. As only 7.5% is settled we can't sprawl anywhere. If all towns and cities were twice the size that is still only 15% of the land used.

About two thirds of all new housing is built within existing urban areas with the remainder mainly built on the edge of urban areas. Very little is built on open countryside.

Land reform must mesh with decent relaxed planning laws that allow the population to build on all land. Laws passed relating to land are rendered sterile if relaxed planning laws are not implemented. Areas of natural beauty, SSSI's, national parks, industrial and commercial sectors, etc, of course should have restrictions, which still leaves a vast amount of subsidised field Britain to build on.

Building on a larger mass of land will eliminate the unappealing high density, high impact developer estates; the sort that make people shudder, with many having to buy as they have Hobson?s choice. Many against building on the countryside envisage high density, high impact developer estates. The vision of these estates stirs negative emotions. That clearly would not occur if the people are allowed to spread out on the land. With cheaper land, people would build larger houses on larger plots for less money. Having the large developers curtailed will result in a mixed assortment of higher quality homes.

"We are living in crowded and dense cities,
not a crowded and urbanised country"

"Planners have created a system
that has led not only to higher
house prices but also a highly
volatile housing market?

Best read the links I give. It will become clearer.