Poll: Should Broadgate be listed
This poll is closed.
YES
64.00%
16 64.00%
NO
36.00%
9 36.00%
Total 25 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Listing Broadgate.. unthinking bureaucracy or what?
#21
Jack Wrote:I feel this is part of a larger political agenda between different factions within government.

But I dont understand why a modern building should be listed.

Listing can be based on purely architectural merit. From personal experience I was doing a scheme in Norfolk some years ago and a listed building in my dataset had been listed just months after completion, owing to its 'unique' design.
Reply
#22
I am sure that bishopsgate which I think had a lot of excavation archaeology (possibly not all published) is somewhere the cynical use of heritage should not have prevailed in what ever it is that the planners think they are doing on behalf of the great british public. Demolishing buildings which presumably are viable for another 100 years I think is possibly not a sustainable use of resources and that it is being funded by a bank who all seem to have the run of our capital city is obscene sadness. Whats really wrong with the “city” is that it should be incorporated into a borough of London that has a resident population and not one governed by business representation. Business representation based on paying business rates I think went out for the rest of the country sometime in the 1960s. There again I also think that business rates should also be abolished in this virtual world-its not as though google pay them

as for eh listing 'unique' surely by being listed it then becomes un'unique'
Reason: your past is my past
Reply
#23
Quote:a listed building in my dataset had been listed just months after completion, owing to its 'unique' design

This is highly unlikely given the '30 year' rule.

Perhaps it was 'locally listed' a move which conveys little actual protection.
Reply
#24
Applying for a COI is just a way for developers to remove uncertainty and risk from an aspect of a site. Not 'dangerous' as Sith states. More dangerous to not have applied and then be potentially faced with a spot listing. But not something that would be advisable for every site Unit - back in your hole and leave the little old ladies alone.
Reply
#25
I guess listing doesn't always have anything to do with heritage:

'Heritage - features belonging to the culture of a particular society, such as traditions, languages or buildings, which still exist from the past and which have a historical importance'
- Cambridge dictionaries online

Ooo found my own answer:

'Listed building - a building of great historical or artistic valuewhich has official protection to prevent it from being changed or destroyed'
- Cambridge dictionaries online (my italics)
Reply
#26
Quote:[SIZE=3]I guess listing doesn't always have anything to do with heritage:
[/SIZE]
No jack it’s a modern practise. “Unfunded pension” grabbers from before the days of eh discovered that you could write addresses on to a list and there’s been no looking back by these jobsworths ever since. Love to know how much the whole process of putting in for a coi then processing it and then having the listing rejected by jeramy (its not giggs) hunt costs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/15/broadgate-listing-rejected-by-jeremy-hunt

Presumably ehs criteria, make it up as it suits you, for listing are all wrong. Will eh appeal the decision. Take it to the people of bisposgate. Start a save the forests campaign. Will they have to review all their other listings. Maybe they should get out there now and list everything before a coi is requested again….Surely hunt should fire them for giving wrong advice to the government?

Quote:[SIZE=3]Applying for a COI is just a way for developers to remove uncertainty and risk from an aspect of a site. Not 'dangerous' as Sith states. More dangerous to not have applied and then be potentially faced with a spot listing. But not something that would be advisable for every site
[/SIZE]
So why cant little old ladies have a bit of the uncertainty removed? Where's the cut off point


might have to start thinking about these as well

application for a lawful development certificate
Reason: your past is my past
Reply
#27
young Jack. It has no relevance what Cambridge Dictionaries online say about listing or heritage, I'd advise a perusal of government policy and related statutes. :face-approve:
Reply
#28
why isnt it obvious to a developer whether a site should be listed or not
Reason: your past is my past
Reply
#29
Unitof1 Wrote:why isnt it obvious to a developer whether a site should be listed or not

I'd imagine that the clue is in the title developer - in order to turn a profit, they have to develop the site in some way, and in most cases this involves demolishing whatever's there and cramming in as many houses/flats/offices as they can get away with. The vast majority would see no reason why anything should be listed, as it would just be an impediment getting in the way of their development. As a group that is unlikely to appreciate any reason why a structure should be listed, they're perhaps not in the best position to be impartial arbiters!

While I don't necessarily agree that Broadgate should be listed (I've never been there, so I don't know what it's like as a building), you could argue in the other direction and ask if you don't agree with listing, how would you stop a developer knocking down St Paul's or the Tower of London - both occupy valuable real estate, why not knock them down and stick up a few flats? Similarly, while Broadgate may not appear to have particular architectural merit at this point, because similar architecture is all around us and we're perhaps overly familiar with it, this may not be the case in 50 years, when all the other late 20th century concrete shopping centres have been removed. It's not so long ago that it was proposed to demolish St Pancras station, now acknowledged to be a gem of Victorian architecture.

I'd also disagree with the quote from Lord Wolfson in the original article, 'This decision sacrifices new development, the architecture of the future, to preserve the unremarkable architecture of the past. It is but one example of how unthinking bureaucracy is fossilising the UK economy.' There seems to be an implicit assumption that knocking down perfectly serviceable buildings is a sustainable way of operating, that old automatically equates with bad and worthless while new is shiny and good. God forbid that anything should get in the way of the developer making as much profit as he can!
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Transferable skills - Listing the useful ones. BAJR 16 5,992 21st October 2011, 12:54 PM
Last Post: Unitof1
  Fun and frolics on BAJRs Wiki listing BAJR Host 3 1,357 30th October 2009, 05:02 PM
Last Post: Guest
  Spot Listing and spot scheduling troll 21 11,588 1st February 2006, 03:24 AM
Last Post: deepdigger

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)