Demolishing arguments

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kat

The point is the housing stock was good in its day imagine if our victorian fathers took that attitude all those years ago and decided not to build and to conserve what they had. Most old housing stock doesnt come up to standard its not feasible to bring them up to standard either. Look at the foot print of those buildings alone fine in there day but impractical today too large to expensive to heat and run.No secure parking places, no where suitable for children to play no green spaces. fine in there day yes but we have to move on to build new homes that are more energy efficient take up a smaller square footage of land (population increase to think of). Health surveys done when they have looked at areas of poor housing stock prove that their is a link to the quality of stock and the overall health of the area concerned. Improving health means less money needs to be spent on healthcare, improved areas mean people come back to the area, and employment too.
you have to look at the bigger picture, health, enviromental impact, employment=investment
kat:034:

---

Your argument reads as though its been lifted without any critical analysis direct from the developer's glib and glossy brochure or fly-through video! Taking your argument to its logical conclusion why should we conserve ANY historical buildings at all? Let's demolish the Georgian quarter and all those large mansions around Sefton Park and replace then with semi-detached bungalows fitted with solar panels etc. No one is arguing for retaining poor housing stock so I'm not sure where you are going with that one.

Your misleading comments about cost of refurbishment have been tackled elsewhwere. The large houses in Edge Lane are not suitable for families with young children but they are suitable for everyone else - in other words the near majority of householders these days. Refurbished they would make ideal accomodation for childfree couples, healthcare staff, students and academics from the nearby universities, people working in the science and technology park and anyone else who wanted to live in such fine buildings. The people opposing the CPOs for the Edge Lane area aren't arguing that the area should be left alone. They have alternative proposals for redevelopment which the local media seldom discuss. I can't think why.

Of course it isn't simply the large houses along Edge Lane that will be demolished. There are mass demolition plans for the smaller terraced houses between Edge Lane and Wavertree Rd, Edge Hill. This amount of demolition seems to be part of a greater plan which is independent of the necessities of any road improvement scheme. Most of these houses look in quite good condition but are now mostly boarded up awaiting demolition. Recently, I had the priviledge of being invited into one of the few houses still occupied in Plimsoll St. The lady had lived there for 50 years, all her married life. The house was in mint condition and did not deserve demolition.

These properties are very similar to those in the nearby Kensington Fields area which seem to have survived the demolition ball.

From today's DP:

Quote:

---

Campaigners have renewed their battle after the change in govern-ment leadership, with hopes new Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Communities Secretary Hazel Blears will have a re-think about clearing thousands of old terraced homes.

Sandra, 62, said: “We campaigned for two years to try and save our homes, but one by one people have left and virtually every house is boarded-up.

“I wanted to stay because it has been my home for 32 years and is a lovely little house. It has been a smashing neighbourhood and very friendly. The kids around here were never any trouble.

“But now I have sold up to the council and I am waiting to move to the new houses around the corner in Cleveland Street. The nice thing is I will be joining five of my old neighbours.

“My house and the rest of Madryn Street is coming down as part of phase two of the clearance plan. I have heard the third phase will not be going ahead, it’s a pity it is too late to save our houses. I will be sad to go and hope to take as many plants with me to my new home where I will have a small garden.”

Cllr Marilyn Fielding, Liverpool City Council’s executive member for Neighbourhoods and Housing, said: “We’re happy to have been able to use Housing Market Renewal funds to help another resident move home and stay in the community.

“I can assure residents our plans for HMR in the Princes Park area are unchanged.

“The small number of residents opposed to regeneration are entitled to approach the Government, but we are confident the wishes of the majority who live in the neighbourhood and support the programme will be upheld.”

Nina Edge, campaigner for the Welsh Streets said: “We desperately need the new Communities Mini-ster to talk to Yvette Cooper, the Housing Minister to tell her enough is enough. What we need is common sense. The problem has changed, so must the solution. Wholesale demolition of half a million homes is not the answer.

“It is clear the Pathfinder demoli-tion machine is being driven by large house building companies that want to maximise profits.”

Ms Edge is backed by Homes Under Threat (HUT), a national net-work of communities under threat of demolition which has welcomed Gordon Brown’s assertion that affordable homes and listening to people would be among his priorities.

HUT spokesperson Sylvia Wilson said: “It does not make sense for the Government to destroy communi-ties when there is a housing shortage.

“Just because a house is a terrace or in need of some investment, it doesn’t mean it can’t be renovated more quickly and more cheaply than destroying communities and having to build new.”

---

The dishonesty of the politician is all too clear to see. The residents of the Welsh Streets weren't offered a choice of either rennovate the Welsh Streets OR moved to a modern new build off Park Road (Cleveden Park). If this had been the case the majority of people would have chosen to stay. They were given Hobson's choice!

Time and time again local politicians who wouldn't dream of living in one of the new builds themselves seem content to bulldoze entire communities under the banner of housing renewal. Most of you probably haven't seen Cliveden Park. Aesthetically it's not a patch on what a rennovated Welsh Streets could have been. Many of the terrace houses in the Welsh Streets could easily have been converted from two up, two down to four up, four down suitable for families - backyards could have been knocked together to form 'courtyards' ;). The treelined streets are full of charm (unlike Cleveden Park!).

In future, give people a real choice and we will see whether people choose to stay or move out. Giving people the choice of either you move out to a new build or you can stay in a street full of boarded up properties until the whole area becomes rat infested and derelict and you're forced to sell is no choice at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jericho

Time and time again local politicians who wouldn't dream of living in one of the new builds themselves seem content to bulldoze entire communities under the banner of housing renewal. Most of you probably haven't seen Cliveden Park. Aesthetically it's not a patch on what a rennovated Welsh Streets could have been. Many of the terrace houses in the Welsh Streets could easily have been converted from two up, two down to four up, four down suitable for families - backyards could have been knocked together to form 'courtyards' ;). The treelined streets are full of charm (unlike Cleveden Park!).

---

Hi Jericho

I have to say from my visit to Liverpool in May I found it highly depressing to see huge swathes of the city just swept away. I agree that some accommodation could have been made to preserve rather than simply scrap what was there. :PDT_Xtremez_42:

Chris

its the cost of doing them up, dunno why people just dont get it, and the immense problems that come to light later on. for example most old homes do not have wall cavrtys, which means no insulation material can be inserted to bring it up to the "decent homes standards", ok, maybe they could stud out the entire building and put insultion in but, then it makes the hallways and stairwells too small, most people dont want to share a back garden (knocking two back yards into one) most people want places that are safe to park their cars and safe areas for their children to play in. by the time you strip a terris house back to its shell, take the roof off, underpin the foundations, bring new mains electricity, water, and gas into the building then you may as well have started from scratch anyway. Then theirs the problem of back alleyways, residents have told us time and again that they dont like them, their easy access for crime, even when alleygated schemes are employed. people want cheap to run homes that are warm without having to run heating all day.New housing if built sympathetically will out perform old housing stock on all accounts. Besides as our population increases we need smaller energy efficient affordable housing, which old victorian housing stock just doesnt provide.
kat:handclap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kat

its the cost of doing them up, dunno why people just dont get it, and the immense problems that come to light later on. for example most old homes do not have wall cavrtys, which means no insulation material can be inserted to bring it up to the "decent homes standards", ok, maybe they could stud out the entire building and put insultion in kat:handclap:

---

Of course that well known very old decrepit terraced property called 10 Downing St, London, or even Buckingham Palace, doesn't have a cavity wall either !! The reality of modern housing is poor sound insulation which is much more of a nuisance. Ask the people of the Clevedon St, Toxteth redevelopment area about this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

I agree. These properties have stood for a hundred years and many of them would stand for another hundred, (which is probably considerably longer than the new builds that replace them will).

---

my house was built in 1878 and is still going strong with many more years of life in it.

It's a lovely Victorian terrace - 8 rooms, very spacious, double hall, would cost the earth if it was in a different location. No way could we buy a house now of this size in any other place.
These new houses would literally fit into our back kitchen (and I'm not joking !).

Some people I know with new houses ; one has to keep the fridge in the hall because the kitchen is so miniscule.
Another pushed back the armchair and it made al hole in the weetabix wall :shock:

the walls are so thin you can hear people pull the cahin in the next house - and worse noise than that ! :shock:

Many of the new houses are built so close together they might as well be terraces. Lucky if you can walk shoulder width between some that I've seen .. and the cost of these shoeboxes is astonomical. :neutral:

I'd only consider a new build if it was near enough the proportions that I'm used to living in, no way could I survive in wendy house. :shock:

see also post no. 144 in this thread. I am proud of my lovely house ! :) :)

Taffy,
*lol* yes all homes are rebuilt like buckingham palace and have a price tag to match, by the way have you read the decent homes standard or should I say regulations? I have several years back and the amount of legal legislation locked up inside such a document or set of documents makes no bones about the standard of housing and in particular noise pollution. If homes are built with poor sound proofing then thats a matter between the home owner purchaser and the building company concerned. I can assure you terris houses are very noisy I visit my friend every day she lives in one, you can hear the children next door runing up and down the stairs! There are so many regulations out now governing new build, the sad thing is people just dont bother to read through it. There are strict regulations under the environmental acts if noise pollution is such an issue.
kat

Jerhico.
>Your argument reads as though its been lifted without any critical analysis direct from the developer's glib and glossy brochure or fly-through video! Taking your argument to its logical conclusion why should we conserve ANY historical buildings>
no listed buildings of architechtural significant importance are completely different and built to a much higher specification than the usual run of the mill terris house or even some victorian houses,dont get me wrong they were fine in their day! oh and by the way I do look at critical analysis I have in the past sat on many board meetings looking at the bigger picture asking residents what they would like to see improved in their areas, looking at the social demographics of the areas, drugs, crime, unemployment, no go areas,
people wouldnt live in certain areas due to the reputations some have earnt themselfs. In the past we polled primary care trusts on the health of certain areas, we polled the police we looked at unemployment and the lack of facilitys to train and give back respect to the young. Before anything ever hits the table the amount of research is staggering.If no one will invest in an area then you have to look at why, and if the majority of residents feel they would like to live in a nicer environment, a place for children to be safe and play, better health facilitiys then all this comes under redevelopment making space for these new facilities.
kat:034:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kat

Taffy,
*lol* yes all homes are rebuilt like buckingham palace and have a price tag to match, by the way have you read the decent homes standard or should I say regulations? I have several years back and the amount of legal legislation locked up inside such a document or set of documents makes no bones about the standard of housing and in particular noise pollution. There are so many regulations out now governing new build, the sad thing is people just dont bother to read through it. There are strict regulations under the environmental acts if noise pollution is such an issue.
kat

---

There is of course a big difference between theory and actual building practice in applying the building sound abatement regulations. The intentions are good but the end result can be poor. This was confirmed to me in recent discussions with an architect I know. I suspect not too many building site labourers have read the regulations either !!

Taffy,
I would have thought that was down to local building control, I have used with success such regulations, but I have to agree its sad when corners are cut more building companys need to be held more accountable, like the sadly most recent events surrounding housing stock being built on flood planes.
again, though this seems to be a local building control issue. I can only say that over here on the wirral they are very strict with building code. I have sat on council meetings where officers if something hasnt been complied with have ordered demolition or steps taken to make good the abaitment.
kat

I'll be back to this debate ..... I've got to go now :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

havn't had time to read all the posts - got to log-off. :)

Less than half a mile from the planned demolition of the Welsh Streets off Prince's Ave, similar property off Lodge Lane is to be renovated at £8000 each. See

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liver...0252-19438604/

Different areas have different needs. In some cases it may be best to keep the existing houses but in others such as the dge lane area it is best to demolish the houses because of things like the road, poor living and working environment, lack of local facilities and the simple fact that people don't want the houses. Not everywhere is the same.

Taffy, yes Liverpool housing trust
whom most probably got a grant in any case most refurbs as they are passionatly named have a shelf life of around 22 years.(source housing corporation) for eight thousand pounds all I can say is it wont be much of a refurb. More like a cosmetic look nice to hand on to some mug look!
think about it, damp coursing, electrics, plumbing, sewerage, re plaster, insulate, new bathroom, new kitchen and most probably new works to the roof to prevent the spread of fire, which sadly in the past most terris houses seem to have shared lofts
gosh though eight thousand pounds my kitchen cost over a thousand and I wouldnt say it was lavish by todays spending standards.
kat