To feel weirdly sad that a shit hole is getting redeveloped.

[UrbanBrawl]

Several times a week I walk past a small part of a city centre made up of a collection of fairly routine Victorian industrial buildings - what used to be small workshops. They’ve been empty for years, run down, graffiti everywhere, falling to bits. But they ooze character. I don’t know why, it’s sort of urban decay, a glimpse of the past. There’s just something sort of quiet and time-capsule like about this small collection of ramshackle buildings.

Anyway, they’re now slated for demolition, to build another tower, made from glass, identical to dozens of others in the city, and in other cities. Once done it’s going to be cleaner, look nicer but it’s also a bit soulless? I feel quite sad about it. AIBU? Any know what I’m talking about?

Not unreasonable at all, a beautiful old church was knocked down in my town a while ago, it had been derelict for years but was a stunning building. They haven't even built anything in its place so it's just wasteland now, makes me a bit sad every time I go past it.

Thank you!

The thing is, these aren’t even stunning buildings - they’re just fairly run of the mill, probably not very well built Victorian industrial buildings. No great architectural achievement. But they have such atmosphere about them, in part because of the state they’re in.

I can’t help thinking that the city’s desire to invest and develop means it’s losing its character and becoming just like the next big city.

It's as if nothing was learnt from the architectural destruction from the '60s and '70s. 🙄

@UrbanBrawl I totally get it

Maybe it's just the sadness of a lost attachment to the past

I felt like that when they finally knocked down the Insull memorial, which was part of a national temperance hospital near Euston. It was out of use for decades, i think. I used to go past it on the bus. So when they finally knocked it down for HS2, it felt like a loss and I can't articulate why. I did find a blog about it, but it doesn't even show the part of the building that was attractive. Maybe that small section sticks out in my mind for some reason. The rest of the hospital wasn't attractive in any way - so that bit kind of stuck out.

I think it was a favourite among people who explored abandoned buildings. But those blogs are often taken down, aren't they? No one wants to get charged with having entered illegally.

I suppose I spent so many years seeing it from the bus, it just became part of my consciousness.

Maybe it's the sadness of the fleeting nature of things. And when something that you've seen all your life suddenly vanishes, it registers at a deep emotional
level even when it shouldn't.

I get what you mean. Parts of Glasgow (I live just outside it) are like this, some lovely old derelict buildings doomed for demolition. In fact it’s probably true in most cities.

It’s a shame the original buildings aren’t being repaired and done up.

I get it.

A town near our village must have a really brilliant planning department, because they have regenerated the shithole areas, put up loads of glass towers, but kept the Victorian redbrick buildings and turned them into a classy walk through mall of boutiques and cafes. Not like Manchester Affleck's, not still down at heel, but really smart, without losing the charm. (I like Afflecks, btw, just saying it is possible to keep these places without them staying rundown.)

Me too, OP... I love old buildings and the life and times they suggest. I'd far rather see the buildings done up and the area regenerated, than demolition. Extra minus points if a soulless box that will probably not last 50 years is put upon its place.

The difficulty with a lot of of these old buildings is the cost. It's actually cheaper to knock them down and build something new.

I mostly don't feel that planners are doing this in a sympathetic way, but they clearly don't want to. I couldn't believe it when I saw old pictures of the arch at Euston Station - I don't know if they had the excuse of cost for demolishing that.

The glass and box thing is unfortunate. It was ever thus. I watched a programme about Impressionists and the period just before- and apparently some of that was inspired by the rebuilding of Paris. So some of the paintings of stations and busy places were done because they knew they were about to knock them down. They had some quotations saying how strange the coming demolition was making them feel.

I think that there is a balance to be struck and we are nowhere near it. Doesn't Edinburgh have some good rules about this? About things being properly in keeping with the local area? I haven't been for ages so I don't know what it's like.

I always feel like this. I like old things even if they’re not beautiful. They represent the past and tell a story.

The difficulty with a lot of of these old buildings is the cost. It's actually cheaper to knock them down and build something new.

This is true; but I think it's a really reductive way that they look at it - whether it's councils or individual developers who buy up beautiful old houses, only to knock them down and build identikit modern buildings in their stead. There can never be any new 17th/18th/19th century houses built, so I feel very strongly that we should preserve the ones that we have wherever possible. If you don't want an amazing historic house, how about you just don't buy one - and leave them for the people who do want them?

Obviously buildings are not the same as people, but they do often form a very important part of the unique 'soul' of communities - and of course they can stand there for centuries, in a way that no individual person ever can. I would very much hope that nobody would look at the average balance sheet of people's lives and declare that we should kill off everybody over 70 and aim to replace them all with babies, as they provide 'better value' longer term on a purely financial basis, until they too get old.

In England we seem to be really good at looking after our very old historical buildings and traditions, but really shit with our modern history.

I disagree. Plenty of old buildings should be kept for historical or social value of course - if they can be repurposed and actually used and maintained by new owners.

But there are thousands of jerry-built Victorian shit heaps that were only built as cheaply as possible to squeeze money from the poorest.
Those places are absolute money pits because they were built so shoddily. Not built to last. Not built with any thought whatsoever for the comfort and safety of any occupants.

They are damp, cold, rat infested (terraced houses are terribly prone to rats - ask me how I know), really expensive to heat and maintain.

We are doing it right ATM as far as I can see. We are selective in the right way.

OP your local historical "artifact" was an unusable space of no historical or social value. It represents the worst of Slum Landlords so better its gone and the space finally utilised to its full advantage.

@Politicians247UnderwearExtinguishingService on an emotional level I feel the same way as you a lot of the time

On a practical level, I've seen buildings staying empty (in London) because they can't get anyone to even rent them as offices or for other purposes. I'm talking about really big places though. If that's the situation, then sometimes I appreciate that the owner has no option other than to sell to someone who's just going to knock it down. It cost us an eye bleeding amount of money to keep parliament going as a workplace. Would it be better as a museum? Just a thought.

it is a pet hate of mine when somebody - like a private individual - buys a historic house, often listed, and then starts badgering to change the external appearance. I can only think that they picked it up on the cheap.

I have done a lot of opposing planning schemes. Funnily enough, there's a local guy here who was actually really disappointed in me when I said that I don't oppose everything! He literally quizzed me on why not - and then gave a big sigh and said how disappointed he was!

But I think if we oppose absolutely everything, we're not going to be taken seriously anyway.

I did oppose the Boris Johnson garden bridge scheme and I'm convinced that a lot of people who were polled simply thought of it as being a pretty bridge, possibly didn't look at the application details. Hugely problematic in so many ways.

Sorry, I've gone off on a London tangent

I love history, but some of the time I have spent in archives has led me to wonder "what do we do with all this stuff?" It's really interesting to look at. But then when we can't store it, what do we do with it?

Perhaps this is part of the sadness - ultimately we're all going to be forgotten? Well, unless we are well known for some reason.

For those who enjoy history, there were time capsules found at the temperance hospital.

thank you for posting @UrbanBrawl it made me look up photos of the old place and that's how I found out about the time capsules. There's a good blog post here.

https://jameskneale.com/2018/10/30/the-journey-begins/

What do you mean by this please?

Totally agree and get it. This is currently the reason that I’m skint. We purchased a Victorian, listed, money pit and saved it from becoming a HMO (only grade 2 and some the area have been granted permission). We are sympathetically restoring. It makes me so sad to see our past being erased. Anything older than 1930 is a tragedy IMO.

totally agree op, a city loses its soul one building at a time in someways, when those every-day spaces disappear...I know not everything can be kept, but in my humble opinion not enough of it is kept, and once it's gone, it can't be brought back again really

Because they’re structurally unsound and it’s so much more expensive to keep them
when they’re dilapidated. We should’ve outraged
be outraged that places are allowed to get to that state, not that the trigger is pulled when it’s too late.

Derelict buildings are often unsafe. Items à easy as saying "renovate them". If that was feasible it would have been done long ago.

Well yes, and they are often deliberately left to deteriorate, bought up in land banking schemes, until more a intensive, more profitable scheme gets permission

I lived in East London before the Olympics and would frequently walk the greenway. There were loads of old buildings and little industries and though it was tatty and grimy in places it had a bit of an edge to it. That all went and the shiny and clean came in which was lovely but the character went out.

Agree. Less profit for the profit mongers though.
Worst yet, the owners often allow these buildings to fall into great disrepair as once they've gone past a certain stage they are allowed to be knocked down, whereas before they are often not.

Very good point. It's almost like we think that history stopped at one point and we forget the simple fact that time marches on and today's recent history could be destined to be somebody's ancient history far into the future.

Yes, we own and enjoy stuff whilst we're alive; but we are also the guardians of it for future generations. Just like there are lots of lovely things that millions of babies rely on, but they would never be able to obtain them for themselves if people who were born long before them hadn't done it on their behalf... that's how I see it with beautiful old buildings.

Thank you, that's a wonderful, heartfelt post - and I completely agree with you.

I accept that we can't halt progress forever, and that we can't force younger generations to love the things that we do... but are we doing our job properly in giving them a grounding in respecting history, for them to make an informed choice as to whether or not they share those feelings?

I live in an old market town and we've got a big new monstrosity being built as a focal point in the centre of the town. It overlooks a number of beautiful old buildings (all still in regular use) - dating back as far as the 17th century; however the council has confirmed that, as part of the government funding that is being used towards it, they are effectively forbidden from making it look nice and in keeping with the area, as (without any sense of irony) 'sustainability' means modern and brutal and apparently not even able to be given a sympathetic veneer. Yes, it seems to be the de facto law that we now actively want to erase any historic beauty for generations to come.

I do also very much agree about people buying up listed buildings and then campaigning to be allowed to change them. Yes, they probably get them cheaper because of the restrictions on them; and they want to have their cake and eat it by getting those restrictions overturned, whilst still benefiting from the bargain price that those restrictions led to. It kind of reminds me of the people who buy houses in the centre of long-established rural farming communities, and then demand that the animal noises and smells be stopped, because it turns out they chose not to buy in a location that suited their requirements.

Such a shame that we have apparently lost the ability to make any new buildings that look beautiful.