Hi

I got something through the door about a lovely looking 100 year old house being demolished in Fulwood so someone can build flats instead - presumably money talks :(

Its a real shame we have to destroy our history and heritage like this. The place looked lived in and in good nick.

Did anyone else get the leaflet?
It looks like a home made job to drum up support.

Also where is the house?
It didnt say.
The house did look amazing, Id like to look at it before the bulldozers do.

d

I don't know Fulwood that well, but could it be this recent planning application?

http://libplugins.sheffield.gov.uk/planning/details.asp?id=17317

Cheers, Carrie

Interesting that even Fulwood isn't immune from the 'apartment block' disease :D

that IS INDEED a beautiful house and someone should do something about this right now. Dont let the Council knock down yet more beautiful old buildings!!!!!

It's a beautiful Arts and Crafts house, built in 1914 and originally called Carsick Hill Court. Pevsner's Architectural Guide to Sheffield says "(it) combines half timbering and tiling with a most elaborate stone porch and a three story tower"

I am not against progress and modern buildings, but we must not let all of our beautiful old buildings to be demolished for tasteless apartments.

Anyone who wants to object should write to the planning department - if you live in the area, copy it to the local councillors.

A letter will be on its way to the planning people. I shall NOT mince my words here....HANDS OFF. This place I remember from the 70's very well as used to pass it on the way home from school. What a gorgeous and totally individual and beautiful piece of SHeffield heritage..........NO MORE SENSELESS DEMOLITION SHEFFIELD COUNCIL.

Why dont you go and fill the 25,000+ pot- holes in the SHeffield roads if you are bored? Dont go entertaining planning applications for the further destruction of great buildings.

If anyone has a pic of this place perhaps a post of it here? My digital camera is currently very poorly.....

Shouldn't these objections be voiced to the council? If it's made it into the Pevsner's Architectural Guide, surely it's a building of significant interest?

HANDS OFF!! no way are they demolishing that gorgeous house!
Why dont they fill in the loads of empty roads in Parson Cross?? The place is like ghost town.

If someone owns the house and wants to demolish it then they can, it's their house, not yours.

Nick is not terribly bright, bless him, and he is incapable of putting together a coherent, rigorous argument."


:D

That house was on the market in early 2003 when we started looking in this area, it was on for exactly one million.

Bad idea all we need is an Ivy Park Court clad in stone :loopy:

Well Nick is correct in saying that they can quite rightly demolish the house. No planning permission is needed.

Originally posted by Tony
Well Nick is correct in saying that they can quite rightly demolish the house. No planning permission is needed.
Unless it's listed.

Which it isn't. Fair point though.

I don't actually know which house is being talked about because I don't know that area at all, but I think it's a shame when old, beautiful buildings are knocked down or converted into offices or flats when they'd look much better in their original state as houses.
I always think how nice it would be to have the buildings in Paradise Square, for example, as houses rather than solicitors' offices - how big and amazing they could be inside if restored to their original state.
A bit of a pointless post, but the topic reminded me of this!

Its happening all over. All the beautiful buildings being pulled down to make way for 'a sad excuse for apartments'. Monstrous looking things. What happened to preserving our heritage? But then again look what they did with London Bridge- stuck it in the middle of a desert.:rolleyes:

Isn't there enough empty places in Sheffield to build things, every where you look buildings have already being pulled down and left. Why can't they build on them places instead of pulling down our history just to make a quick buck.:mad:

Originally posted by Tony
Well Nick is correct in saying that they can quite rightly demolish the house. No planning permission is needed.

If that's true, then it's a crying shame that should be addressed. If wantonly pulling down a beautiful house isn't sheer vandalism, I don't know what is.

In another thread, I referred to a beautiful house near where I live, that has been distorted and defaced by its new owners, by adding a horrible conservatory and putting up walls everywhere. It was a local thing of beauty, now it's just an eyesore. I feel sad every time I walk past it. :(

It was a house that was loved - now that love has gone

StarSparkle :rant:

Originally posted by gemma86
I always think how nice it would be to have the buildings in Paradise Square, for example, as houses rather than solicitors' offices - how big and amazing they could be inside if restored to their original state.
I think this neatly demonstrates the point that Joe Public can only ever have a faint grasp on the planning system.

Paradise Square, for all its loveliness and quaint charm, was actually houses and shops. Most of the shop fronts were filled in a few years ago, and the inside of the houses gutted to form solicitors offices.

It was also a pretty crabby part of town in its day, with well known scruffy pubs / brothels around and about. The buildings themselves are pretty poorly and cheaply built.

The Square currently is a dark and threatening place to work at night, and its charm is preventing adequate lighting being installed to provide (mainly female) workers with safe streets.

Originally posted by Greybeard
Interesting that even Fulwood isn't immune from the 'apartment block' disease :D

Fulwood's full of apartment blocks from the 50s and 60s.

This continued spread of apartment blocks into the suburbs is worrying. Historical buildings are being replaced by "knocked up in 2 months" blocks of faceless, modern apartments. They ruin part of what makes the areas desirable to begin with.

Originally posted by t020
This continued spread of apartment blocks into the suburbs is worrying. Historical buildings are being replaced by "knocked up in 2 months" blocks of faceless, modern apartments.
Your misuse of English is worrying too.

In the main they are simply OLD buildings, not HISTORICAL buildings.

Originally posted by Tony
I think this neatly demonstrates the point that Joe Public can only ever have a faint grasp on the planning system.

Paradise Square, for all its loveliness and quaint charm, was actually houses and shops. Most of the shop fronts were filled in a few years ago, and the inside of the houses gutted to form solicitors offices.

It was also a pretty crabby part of town in its day, with well known scruffy pubs / brothels around and about. The buildings themselves are pretty poorly and cheaply built.

The Square currently is a dark and threatening place to work at night, and its charm is preventing adequate lighting being installed to provide (mainly female) workers with safe streets.

I've always been under the impression that it's the kind of Christmas-card-looking square and that it wasn't as bad as you say because it was a place where the wealthy lived.
I'm not contradicting you, it's been enlightening to find that out.

I suppose most places have their ups and downs through the years ;)

It is fairly pretty now... when the cars are gone, but unfortunately Sheffield lost lots of things in the blitz, and it seems that because we don't have much 'quality' there is a compensating urge to protect things just because they are 'old' rather than because they need protecting.

I wish I could look forward to the day when people were happy to pay for good quality well designed modern buildings in Sheffield. Sadly, Sheffield all too often lags behind other cities in this because of its overly parochial outlook. :(

Originally posted by Tony
Your misuse of English is worrying too.

In the main they are simply OLD buildings, not HISTORICAL buildings.

It's old, it's historical, it's irrelevant anyway...... older traditional houses look much more attractive than big, ugly, new apartment blocks with no character at all.

Originally posted by t020
It's old, it's historical, it's irrelevant anyway...... older traditional houses look much more attractive than big, ugly, new apartment blocks with no character at all.
Utter, utter cobblers.

Originally posted by Tony
Utter, utter cobblers.

So you prefer to look at faceless new blocks rather than older houses full of character? Each to their own I suppose.....

Like I've said in another topic, I find it so interesting to look at old pictures and see old film of how Sheffield used to look. It is such a shame that so many buildings have disappeared and how many times layouts have changed, but I suppose some buildings did have to go for various reasons but it just goes to show how Sheffield makes such short snappy decisions supposedly for the benefit of the future and instead give us something thats depressing and ugly.

Unusually, I find myself agreeing with t020 here.

I can't think of one of the new apartment blocks that have been built or being planned that has architectural merit. And the ones I have been in are not well built either.

Originally posted by t020
So you prefer to look at faceless new blocks rather than older houses full of character? Each to their own I suppose.....
If you want me to construct an argument in favour of quality modern architecture then you know I can do so with little effort.

However, perhaps it is better to each understand that every age has its good architecture and its bad architecture and that 99% in all the ages is merely functional, adequate, economical architecture.

It has always been so, and it will always be so.

It would be plainly ridiculous to suggest that a comfortable yet old car is somehow 'better' than a comfortable yet new car. They are merely different, but separated by age and technology. Buildings are the same.

Originally posted by Tony
If you want me to construct an argument in favour of quality modern architecture then you know I can do so with little effort.

However, perhaps it is better to each understand that every age has its good architecture and its bad architecture and that 99% in all the ages is merely functional, adequate, economical architecture.

It has always been so, and it will always be so.

It would be plainly ridiculous to suggest that a comfortable yet old car is somehow 'better' than a comfortable yet new car. They are merely different, but separated by age and technology. Buildings are the same.


I never said either was "better", so don't put words into my mouth. I said that older buildings are generally more attractive. Please name one new apartment block in Sheffield with any architectural merit. To me, they all look like faceless, characterless, multi-coloured bricked boxes. The issue is entirely subjective of course because it's down to personal taste, which is why I'm not quite sure why you're trying to argue. I suspect that your standpoint isn't neutral because you're involved in modern constructions in some way?

I agree that quality modern architecture is great. Unfortunately, what we have in Sheffield is NOT quality modern architecture. It is totally cost-based, bland, conservative and short sighted.

Good luck to the developers making all the money. They won't, however, be remembered. Unlike Steade, Wostenholm etc that built the Victorian houses in and around Nether Edge.

Originally posted by sham71
I agree that quality modern architecture is great. Unfortunately, what we have in Sheffield is NOT quality modern architecture. It is totally cost-based, bland, conservative and short sighted.

Good luck to the developers making all the money. They won't, however, be remembered. Unlike Steade, Wostenholm etc that built the Victorian houses in and around Nether Edge.

Yes, I doubt any new builds now will be around in 100 years time.

It's a simple thing. Some things are old some new, some things are good some are bad. Most are 'adequate'

However, 'old' and 'historical' are entirely different things.


If we can close that idea for a while though, the fact remains that proportionally people in Sheffield seem unwilling to pay for quality compared to other cities. I believe that this is more of a issue than old-v-new.

surely the fact that the cost of these apartments has gone through the roof in the last few years gives the developers more scope to build better.

200 apartments at £75,000 each is £15m.
200 apartments at £150,000 each is £30m.

Have any developers given us 'backward' sheffielders the choice of something better that we have turned down?

I think it is more the case that costs are kept to a minimum resulting in ever increasing profits as the prices have gone up.

Well prices in Sheffield are consistently 20% or more below similar cities. However, it still costs the same to build here.

Your example above is a gross oversimplification. Developers pricing work on previous evidence and pricing / cost is an incremental thing because of the huge numbers at risk, so you are unlikely to have had an opportunity to 'turn something down' because it wouldn't be offered in the first place.

Now that is the techical reason for the historical position, so all that said :roll: there are a few schemes which look very interesting! The ones you talk about now were planned 5+ years ago.

There is an old yet true adage that Sheffield is 5 years behind Leeds and 10 years behind Manchester.

If Sheffields buildings are improving, imagine what Manchester has planned!!!!! :wow: This might help. (http://www.hughpearman.com/articles5/skyscrapers.html)

Originally posted by Tony
It's a simple thing. Some things are old some new, some things are good some are bad. Most are 'adequate'


I'm not talking about functionality though, I'm talking about appearance, and in MY opinion (and I suspect most peoples') new build houses and apartments lack the same amount of character and charm compared to older houses.

Originally posted by Tony


If Sheffields buildings are improving, imagine what Manchester has planned!!!!! :wow: This might help. (http://www.hughpearman.com/articles5/skyscrapers.html)


That 'Skyhouse' would look well in Fulwood ;) , but how do you force a 'social mix' ? Those paying 500 grand and up for the posh bits won't be very comfortable sharing the building and it's facilities with the common herd of key workers. The very concept negates the exclusivity that people with lots of money want most to enjoy.

Anyway it's a little hard to take seriously an article in which John Prescott is described as a 'luminary' :P

Originally posted by sacredearth
Its happening all over. All the beautiful buildings being pulled down to make way for 'a sad excuse for apartments'. Monstrous looking things. What happened to preserving our heritage? But then again look what they did with London Bridge- stuck it in the middle of a desert.:rolleyes:

I've actually been there, to Lake Havasu, it's very tacky, they have a London village thing thats cheap and nasty, the weather was nice though, it was about 95 degrees I think.

One old building I would have liked to have see restored and used as flats was the factory just off Park Square, opposite Granellis sweet shop, that was about 150 years old, but no-one was up in arms when that got demolished to build a car park, perhaps it wasn't pretty enough to save ?

What you also have to consider is if you owned that old house you own something worth about £1 million but if you demolised it and built a housing block you would own something worth £30 million or more, what would you (honestly) do ?

In today's Telegraph it says that the Ranmoor Conservation area has been extended, and that this house now falls in it, which should protect it.

It was actually rushed through for that very purpose, the Council planners do try their best to protect buildings sometimes, obviously. The same thing happened when the Porterbrook Conservation area was extended to protect the Wards Brewery Clock Tower, I seem to remember?

I thought that factory building was impressive and worth saving for another use too nick, but by the time i found out it was due for demolition, it was toooo late to do anything effective about it .. a great pity - we might have had a conservation area extended to save it ... hmmmm!

One area that ought to get some attention is the area around Meersbrook Park, Albert and Shirebrook road and what's left of Artisan View, Springwood Road etc.. there's some fairly historical, unusual and mixed architecture around there that could just be dropped anytime the owners feel like it ..

The planning, conservation and heritage regulations/laws seem to be a total mess and local interests are lost in the national applications. Developers can do as they like and seem to feel bound only by what the market will bear and what will line their and their shareholders pockets. If they're turned down frivolously, they just appeal to the Secretary of State and often get their way and then we have to pay the piper ...

grrrrrrr! makes me soooo mad sometimes

Yeah, let's stop knocking down old buildings to build new ones, and build Will Alsop's trans-Pennine city (http://society.guardian.co.uk/urbandesign/story/0,11200,1394436,00.html) instead

It was also a pretty crabby part of town in its day, with well known scruffy pubs / brothels around and about. The buildings themselves are pretty poorly and cheaply built.
They may have been seemingly poorly built but they had style in those days, something the modern architect seem's to lack,
these old building style's have stood the test of time and are still loved, having been involved in the demolition and building trade, give me the old anyday.
Show me a modern building that's well built, eggbox walls and doors, cement that takes weeks to go off etc. etc.