Historic 400-year-old ceiling destroyed by developers

[RoyReed]

Outrage as 400-year-old room destroyed by student flat developer

 

[editor]

Wankers.

 

[big eejit]

Can you believe these fuckers?

I see the architects involved are proud to be based in the UNESCO World heritage city of Bath. Shame they don't give a toss about Bristol's heritage.

(@BBA_architects): BBA Architects Ltd (@BBA_architects) on Twitter

 

[Ponyutd]

Small minded fuckers.

 

[StoneRoad]

Vandalism !

The developer should have to pay for the ceiling to be rebuilt ...

 

[Wookey]

Terrible cunts.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Proper professionals at work

 

[Puddy_Tat]

cunts

and maybe they ought to have got round to listing it before now...

 

[1927]

Happened to the Firestone Building on Great West Road too, pulled down over a bank holiday before inspection.

Surely an easy solution would be once a building has been submitted for inspection no works should be allowed until an inspection has been carried out. But thats too easy and logical for anyone in authority to accept.

 

[Fez909]

Happened to the Firestone Building on Great West Road too, pulled down over a bank holiday before inspection.

Surely an easy solution would be once a building has been submitted for inspection no works should be allowed until an inspection has been carried out. But thats too easy and logical for anyone in authority to accept.

Happens all over. This, from Middlesbrough in 2006 still sticks in my mind:

The former Cleveland Scientific Institution building has been reduced to a pile of rubble by developer Mandale Properties.

Mayor Ray Mallon, who was unaware of the demolition plans, described it as "an assault on the town".

He hit out at the demolition of the 134-year-old Victorian building but stressed that Mandale Properties had done nothing wrong legally.

Mr Mallon has learned that Mandale Properties informed the council six weeks ago of their plans for the prominent building in Corporation Road.

"But there was clearly a flaw in the council's system as that information did not spread to the top of the organisation," he said. "I was unaware of Mandale Properties' intentions."

He confirmed the building was not listed and the council could not have prevented its demolition.

"In Middlesbrough we have too few important Victorian buildings. It should have been refurbished," he said.

"I told them I would expect the site to be used for a building of some significance that the people will be more than satisfied with. They gave me a guarantee they would do that," he said.

Alan Tickner, a past president of the institution, said the organisation had sold the building with a view to its character being maintained.

"We have a paucity of old buildings in Middlesbrough. This building loss removes part of the town's heritage."

Joe Darragh, Mandale Properties' estates director, said: "We are developers and we want to develop in Middlesbrough. We followed all the procedures and will follow the procedure to get planning consent for a nice building.

"We are playing everything by the book and we feel we have done nothing wrong."

He said a development of a tall office block or apartments, or student accommodation, was being considered for the site.

My bold.

The site is still empty as of today. It's currently a car park.

Here's what they knocked down:



It's not the prettiest building in the world, but there's not many old buildings in Middlesbrough, so it's a fucking disgrace to knock down a piece of history like this.

 

[xenon]

Tossers.

More student flats.

 

[WouldBe]

Wankers.

I can't see how in the case of the Cleveland Scientific Institution, you can just knock a building down before planning permission has been put in for the site.

 

[pogofish]

Happened to the Firestone Building on Great West Road too, pulled down over a bank holiday before inspection.

Yup. I knew someone who worked for the firm involved with that - Apparently they had a pretty big party to celebrate/gloat over the demolition as they knew full-well what they were doing and why.

 

[pogofish]

Wankers.

I can't see how in the case of the Cleveland Scientific Institution, you can just knock a building down before planning permission has been put in for the site.

If the authorities don't have the will to save it, it will go.

Same here - An important old building was on the edge of out new exhibition centre site. Not significantly impinging on the main plans, so it was made a condition of development that it be preserved/retained.

And:

Guess what project is still going full-steam ahead because its considered too important to stop!

 

[wiskey]

Maybe we need a law change that says anything over 50 years old needs assessment before it can be demolished.

What we don't need are more student flats

 

[Poot]

I must admit that I have nothing against student flats because they free up other housing so therefore the net amount of housing in cities is increased. But not at the cost of the other (older) stuff. That's madness!

 

[1927]

Maybe we need a law change that says anything over 50 years old needs assessment before it can be demolished.

What we don't need are more student flats

What a great idea. Although there are buildings less than 50 yrs old that are listed, but it's a great start!

 

[WouldBe]

If the authorities don't have the will to save it, it will go.

If the building has to go it has to go but at least by having to get permission first before demolishing it would give a chance for the building to be documented and / or any interesting features to be saved before the building is lost forever.

Same here - An important old building was on the edge of out new exhibition centre site. Not significantly impinging on the main plans, so it was made a condition of development that it be preserved/retained.

And:

Guess what project is still going full-steam ahead because its considered too important to stop!

If a council can order a building to be demolished if it's not got planning consent they should also be allowed to make developers rebuild any building that should have been preserved / retained or was demolished without permission to do so.

 

[dylanredefined]

Maybe we need a law change that says anything over 50 years old needs assessment before it can be demolished.

What we don't need are more student flats

Not everything old is worth preserving though.

 

[pogofish]

If the building has to go it has to go but at least by having to get permission first before demolishing it would give a chance for the building to be documented and / or any interesting features to be saved before the building is lost forever.

If a council can order a building to be demolished if it's not got planning consent they should also be allowed to make developers rebuild any building that should have been preserved / retained or was demolished without permission to do so.

This again brings the whole question of council/developer relationships and the issue of granting permissions to "Masterplans" that need not reflect the final constructed project- and can be varied with varying degrees of informality/unaccountability as they progress.

 

[pogofish]

Maybe we need a law change that says anything over 50 years old needs assessment before it can be demolished.

What we don't need are more student flats

I can also see how a reg like this could be used to the developers advantage. After full-on demolition, the other tactic that IME is more often used by developers with an inconvenient historic building is to do nothing at all - till the place is neglected/vandalised/degraded to the point that little else can be done but demolish it. Or a fire gets started - which happens surprisingly often, esp just before they submit a new/revised plan for the site.

I had an interesting chat with the developer of one of our local student flats projects once - As he put it over, the cost recovery period is nuts. At local prices, he was planning to have all his money back in well under four years - And after that, its all profit and staggering amounts of it, for years on end!

 

[SpookyFrank]

I can't fathom the number of student flats going up. I can't fathom the lack of joined-up thinking from planners, if planners are even still a thing these days.

 

[wiskey]

we have a LOT of student flats in Bristol, I do understand that with two uni's we probably have a lot of students to go in them but it's making the centre of town weird because nobody is in them in the summer and no families can find places to live.

 

[1927]

Not everything old is worth preserving though.

Hence the reason for an assessment before demolition is allowed.

 

[ddraig]

some student flat blocks change use after being permitted

 

[FridgeMagnet]

we have a LOT of student flats in Bristol, I do understand that with two uni's we probably have a lot of students to go in them but it's making the centre of town weird because nobody is in them in the summer and no families can find places to live.

Was talking to someone a few days ago who'd been kicked out of his rental (shared with others) with just a couple of weeks notice because it was actually student flats and the agency hadn't said so. Obviously people would have looked elsewhere if they'd known. Illegal of course but what are you going to do?

eta: West London. I hear from my stepmother that huge amounts of student housing redevelopment is an issue in Exeter too.

 

[Tankus]

Big student blocks popping up in Cardiff too

 

[xenon]

Was talking to someone a few days ago who'd been kicked out of his rental (shared with others) with just a couple of weeks notice because it was actually student flats and the agency hadn't said so. Obviously people would have looked elsewhere if they'd known. Illegal of course but what are you going to do?

anchovies in the duts.

 

[pogofish]

I can't fathom the number of student flats going up.

Nationally, the student accommodation market is sitting at just a tad under six billion - and set to rise further as unit are encouraged to expand but the brakes remain on certain types of infrastructure work.

Then there is the short-term nature of lets as populations turn-over on a regular three/four year cycle depending where you are and the market has been driven up from the days of grotty shared flats etc that most of remember from our days. Modern student accommodation is sold as a premium/cool/fashionable product, either rented rented or in some cases sold to parents as an "investment" at better starting prices compared to conventional flats. New-build is also seen as most desirable so kids "get the best" That's a pretty compelling reason for developers to get their snouts in the trough.

Saying that, it isn't quite as rosy as a few years back - there are signs that funding is slowing, now major players like pension funds and international companies have taken an interest - they are a bit less wild-west in their approach.

 

[spanglechick]

I'd imagine that if you're a student scumlord, it makes financial sense to cash in your stock of damp Victorian terraces with very little modernisation - as the housing crisis means these are being gobbled up by middle class professional couples priced out of the *nicer* areas but still willing to pay over the odds for something with high ceilings.

Scumlord instead invests in new build rabbit hutches, and saves a fortune in maintenance bills.