editor
hiraethified
Really fucked off about that.
The redevelopment of Loughborough House, Loughborough Junction
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
I'm keen to see how it looks when it's finished.
[edit] do we know the expected end date? I assume some time this summer
[edit] do we know the expected end date? I assume some time this summer
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
I can't help thinking that after months of lambasting it on here, it could end up looking absolutely inoffensive. Think I'll reserve judgement until it's finished.
editor
hiraethified
Boy are you missing the point.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Just trying to remain positive 
ChrisSouth
Well-Known Member
Just trying to remain positive
Remember, that on here, inoffensiveness and positivity are the worst possible combination.
editor
hiraethified
You don't think he's missed the point here? It is one of the few architectural landmarks in central Loughbourgh Junction with any character and turning it into something bland and 'inoffensive' is the very thing some of us have been fighting against from the start.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I think there are a number of important points which arise from this matter, not just one. All he said was it might not end up being as offensive as he was anticipating. It's a perfectly valid opinion and not necessarily at odds with the point which you have designated The point.
editor
hiraethified
I don't think anyone said the new building would be 'offensive' architecturally- just hideously bland and devoid of any notable historic features, which are now being all stripped out. That is what the discussion has been about - what we're losing and what it's being replaced by.
Not sure why you're choosing to argue for him though. I'm sure he can speak his own mind.
editor
hiraethified
I thought he'd missed the point with his one-line comment. And then you charged in. Why? Why don't you let him argue for himself? Why do you have to pipe up every time? I'm sure he can argue his own viewpoint very capably and I'm happy to have the discussion. With him. Not you.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
So now it's also wrong to support another poster's POV or comment on the ongoing discussion. Good work.
editor
hiraethified
It is when it happens on just every about single thread and has long become a personal vendetta. Please stop now. And yes, I am asking nicely.So now it's also wrong to support another poster's POV or comment on the ongoing discussion. Good work.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
<ed: off topic material removed>
Last edited by a moderator:
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
At the risk of instigating another proxy war, might I suggest that referring to it as an 'architectural landmark' is a bit strong?
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
More a cheaply constructed building of unusual design embellished with some distinctive ornamentation.
It did/does hit people "in their face" if they are driving down Herne Hill Road.
What I would like to know though is why there is this "bating" atmosphere on here? It's a bit like Tom Brown's Schooldays. Are you playing Flashman - or is that Rushy?
editor
hiraethified
I found it architecturally interesting and I'd say it was something of a landmark in the immediate area. I was always fond of its design and always took photos over the years whenever I passed (this one is from 2007).
It looks shit now and it's going to end up as a totally forgettable building with no features of note.
boohoo
No.
I see what SpamMisery is saying that the end result might not be ugly. But the point is that it will conceal a rather nice Victorian building - in fact it is destroying many of it's original features.
It's easy to be complacent - it is after all only one building. I'm sure the Victorians and the developers of the 1930s and 1960s thought there was a lot of pre-Victorian timber framed buildings in London so removing some would still leave many left. However in the whole of greater London there is approximately only 400 left.
Development across London is happening at a fast rate. We need to be careful that we aren't too laid back as things that are of local historical interest are destroyed.
I go past this building on the train and the side view is appalling. I build better lego towers.
It's easy to be complacent - it is after all only one building. I'm sure the Victorians and the developers of the 1930s and 1960s thought there was a lot of pre-Victorian timber framed buildings in London so removing some would still leave many left. However in the whole of greater London there is approximately only 400 left.
Development across London is happening at a fast rate. We need to be careful that we aren't too laid back as things that are of local historical interest are destroyed.
I go past this building on the train and the side view is appalling. I build better lego towers.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
My understanding, and I'm no longer sure where it comes from, is that the Victorians had quite a different attitude to old buildings than that which we do today. They were not all that interested in how many examples were left to preserves. It was much more "out with the old, in with the new". It was all about "progress". That's what led to the SPAB being set up by William Morris et al.
boohoo
No.
yes -seemed to be a similar attitude in the 1960s and 70s. A large percentage of the big old houses around Norwood got taken down in the 1960s. Each generation decides something or another is old hat.
An organisation that appeared in the mid 1970s was the SAVE Britains' Heritage - John Harris, one of the founders, wrote a book called No Voices from the Hall: Early Memories of a Country Hall Snooper in which he visits lots of empty manor houses after WW2. He mentions that in one year in the 1960s, one old country house was being destroyed every two weeks ( and many of them designed by top English architects.)
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Was that not largely a result of inheritance tax rather than fashion?
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
All true. It's rubbish.
But, it's happening, has happened.
Being laid back, or not, or complacent, makes no difference.
It's down to the planners. And there may be no grounds, or hope, for complaint. Or a desire to enforce, possibly on cost grounds
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
There seems to be an sag in the middle. Subsidence/settlement/damp?I found it architecturally interesting and I'd say it was something of a landmark in the immediate area. I was always fond of its design and always took photos over the years whenever I passed (this one is from 2007).
It looks shit now and it's going to end up as a totally forgettable building with no features of note.
Part of Coldharbour Lane was reed beds. There was a notorious murder case involving the reed beds in 1836/7 - detail here
Not sure where exactly - though this sort of area makes sense (the bit of Coldharbour Lane running from Loughborough Junction to Brixton was called Camberwell Lane in those days).
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
One again you have tagged me and it does not show up as an alert. Weird. Maybe it detected that you are stirring?
boohoo
No.
I'm not sure of the ins and outs. Here's a wikipedia overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_country_houses_in_20th-century_Britain
Similar threads
