Beautiful House Being Trashed

[Tony]

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.

[gemma86]

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.

[Tony]

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.

[t020]

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.

[Tony]

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.

[t020]

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.....

[gemma86]

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.

[sham71]

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.

[Tony]

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.

[t020]

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?