Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 272

Thread: What's so great about Old Buildings?

  1. #16
    Smurf Member scouse smurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bootle
    Age
    50
    Posts
    933

    Default

    That suggests we should forget and destroy everything from the past, if it doesn't have a use nowaday. If we thought like that, we'll end up with more stupidly shaped concrete and mirrored buildings which will need replacing again in 50 years.

  2. #17
    Came fourth...now what? Oudeis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    908
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    ss,
    Only if we began with stupidity could we end up with it.

    Where is the confidence in ones neighbours? Wher is the imagination? The foresight?

  3. #18
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    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
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  4. #19
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scouse smurf View Post
    That suggests we should forget and destroy everything from the past, if it doesn't have a use nowaday. If we thought like that, we'll end up with more stupidly shaped concrete and mirrored buildings which will need replacing again in 50 years.
    This is a major problem. The notion that buildings must be a permanent structure and be there for centuries. It is a functional structure. They outlive their usefulness and in most cases need adapting to cope with needs, by extending and the likes, as time moves on.

    We do not think a car needs to last 200 years, so why do we have this attitude towards buildings? Pre-fabbed buildings can look terrific - it is just design. Want to to look Tudor? You got it. Want it to look like a Cornish cottage? You got it. When the useful life is over they are cheaply replaced. I see nothing wrong with that.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  5. #20
    Pablo42 pablo42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Wallasey
    Posts
    2,650
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    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.

  6. #21
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pablo42 View Post
    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
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  7. #22
    Pablo42 pablo42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Wallasey
    Posts
    2,650
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    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.

  8. #23
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pablo42 View Post
    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.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  9. #24
    Senior Member danensis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    80

    Default

    To return to the original question "What's so great about Old Buildings?" its about scale and context. There are one or two modern buildings that give a nod to their surroundings, but most architects want to be noticed, and New Brutalism never really disappeared.

    John

  10. #25
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danensis View Post
    To return to the original question "What's so great about Old Buildings?" its about scale and context. There are one or two modern buildings that give a nod to their surroundings, but most architects want to be noticed, and New Brutalism never really disappeared.

    John
    In the case of Liverpool the planners make sure they do not want any building to be noticed. The Caesar Pelli building is a non-entity as the planners lopped off about 7 to 10 floors reducing impact. The Brunswick Quay Tower is another prime example, which was rejected.

    The Liver Blgs can be described as brutalism. It was meant to be noticed. The Capital Building is pure brutalism - although this is a highly functional eco building before eco was fashionable.

    Which leads me to, why aren't all buildings facing water using a heat pump to heat and cool using the dock or river water as the Capital Building did in 1973? The city has much innovation in these matters, and even St. George's school, Wallasey. St. George's Hall being the world's first air-conditioned building. The city should insist on these being implemented.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  11. #26
    Senior Member GNASHER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Barking up the wrong tree
    Posts
    316

    Default

    [QUOTE=Waterways;199050]This is a major problem. The notion that buildings must be a permanent structure and be there for centuries. It is a functional structure. They outlive their usefulness and in most cases need adapting to cope with needs, by extending and the likes, as time moves on.]

    I know lets fill in the docks and canals and build on them.

  12. #27
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GNASHER View Post
    I know lets fill in the docks and canals and build on them.
    We could do. We could fill in the River Mersey as well and make the city like Manchester. Leeds & Birmingham. Fantastic! Then we can be notorious as Swindon.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  13. #28
    Senior Member petromax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danensis View Post
    To return to the original question "What's so great about Old Buildings?" its about scale and context. There are one or two modern buildings that give a nod to their surroundings, but most architects want to be noticed, and New Brutalism never really disappeared.

    John
    Surely there's more to it than just 'fitting in' (if you just fitted in to say, Slough, you'd have to worry). Where does this need to conform come from?

  14. #29
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by petromax View Post
    Surely there's more to it than just 'fitting in' (if you just fitted in to say, Slough, you'd have to worry). Where does this need to conform come from?
    Bath is all Georgian, except where they stupidly demolished parts in the 1970s for shopping malls, etc.

    The attraction of Bath, which is not that big, is that it is all the same style of Georgian buildings.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  15. #30
    www.liverbuild.co.uk chrismarsden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danensis View Post
    To return to the original question "What's so great about Old Buildings?" its about scale and context. There are one or two modern buildings that give a nod to their surroundings, but most architects want to be noticed, and New Brutalism never really disappeared.

    John
    Check out the work of Le Corbusier for some ideas on Urban Development.

Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. SS Great Eastern
    By Colin Wilkinson in forum Colin Wilkinson's Streets of Liverpool
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-08-2011, 05:40 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •