Sheffield's high-rise flats: when did the 'shame' begin?

[Plain Talker 11]

Properly? You must be joking.

 

The majority of the building that were built then have now been demolished because of bad construction; bad design, foundations poorly laid, crumbling concrete and all manner of faults. Speed and cheapness in construction was more important then than quality.

 

Returning most back to a habitable state was possible in most cases but not cost effective so most were knocked down because it was too expensive to rectify the faults. SCC failed to maintain them, in most cases received funding to knocked them down and then failed to replaced them. One of the reasons Sheffield now suffers from a lack of social housing.

 

It would be interesting to know just how many properties have been demolished because of the above and how many were replaced.

 

the later system-built properties, such as Broomhall flats, were definitely poorly constructed, but the earlier high-rise like Park Hill, Martin Street/ Netherthorpe etc were reasonably well put-together. I think it was poor maintenance/ lack of maintenance, rather than poor construction which "did-for" most of the high-rise that were demolished.

 

Regarding Hyde Park, Park Hill and Kelvin, I think the three developments went down in quality as they were constructed, that of the three PH was the better-constructed, then HPF was poorer, and Kelvin was, perhaps poorer still.

 

Broomhall flats, I think were extremely shabbily built.

[stringfellow 10]

Park hill should be blown up!!

[Plain Talker 11]

Park hill should be blown up!!

 

Park Hill Flats were very well designed, and very well laid out.

[stringfellow 10]

Park Hill Flats were very well designed, and very well laid out.

 

they were well laid out for drugies, and muggers, they are an eyesore, my opinion and 99% of sheffield people agree, judging by the reactions when it was announced the had been listed,

[muddycoffee 10]

One of the modern problems relates to the fact that these buildings were designed and built when gas was cheap for heating and so they were built with no insulation.

 

Today the price of heating is extremely high and therefore to keep the flats viable they have had to retro fit insulation and cladding.

All the tower blocks were built with accommodation on the ground floor for a caretaker, which in today's world would seem to be the kind of luxury you would expect in a millionaire's complex. Whereas back in the late 1950s the council could still justify this expense and no doubt this was a way to keep the buildings in great condition.

[Plain Talker 11]

they were well laid out for drugies, and muggers, they are an eyesore, my opinion and 99% of sheffield people agree, judging by the reactions when it was announced the had been listed,

 

I don't agree with that, at all, when I lived on Hyde Park, and when my Grandma lived on Park Hill, there was a pride in the building.

 

We still mopped the communal landings outside our front doors, and there was a sense of community, and of neighbourliness.

 

It wasn't the buildings that were the problem, it was the people who were put in them. The rules changed about who was to be housed, and the council could no longer vet prospective tenants as to who was a suitable tenant.

 

As Doublewood's late mother would have said "You can put pigs in palaces, but they'll still be pigs..."

Edited May 6, 2012 by Plain Talker
(I can't spell "grandma!" Duh!)

[chem1st 10]

I don't agree with that, at all, when I lived on Hyde Park, and when my Grandma lived on Park Hill, there was a pride in the building.

 

We still mopped the communal landings outside our front doors, and there was a sense of community, and of neighbourliness.

 

It wasn't the buildings that were the problem, it was the people who were put in them. The rules changed about who was to be housed, and the council could no longer vet prospective tenants as to who was a suitable tenant.

 

As Doublewood's late mother would have said "You can put pigs in palaces, but they'll still be pigs..."

 

Systematic discrimination (and the ulterior motives behind it) is leading the city to ruin.

 

Chantry house that was demolished last week, somebody on here said could not attract tenants. Another said it was only advertised for let to the over 60s?

 

I'd imagine lots of young people in Sheffield wanting to move out, couples who might embark on a period of working and saving before starting a family, they would have gladly lived there. But they never got the chance.

[Plain Talker 11]

Systematic discrimination (and the ulterior motives behind it) is leading the city to ruin.

 

Chantry house that was demolished last week, somebody on here said could not attract tenants. Another said it was only advertised for let to the over 60s?

 

I'd imagine lots of young people in Sheffield wanting to move out, couples who might embark on a period of working and saving before starting a family, they would have gladly lived there. But they never got the chance.

 

Chantrey House was definitely turned into a sheltered housing for the over-sixties. I think it was for probably the last 15-20 years of its life.

 

There are identical towers at Stannington, which were clad, and refurbished, and a security entry system installed, about 20 years ago. A friend of mine lived in them, and they were very nice inside.

 

I don't know that vetting a tenant pre-signing the contract is too discriminatory. I think what's discriminatory is to force people to put up with anti-social neighbours.

 

Doublewood has been enduring dreadful discrimination, and specifically-directed criminal damage, noise, and threats of death/violence from an antisocial neighbour, who was only moved in last autumn. In one incident, one of the neighbours' cronies tried to smash though the front door, and was threatening to kill him. If this anti-social tenant had been vetted, (in most senses of the word! lol) then he would not have been given this property and the opportunity to make his threats.

 

As I said in my earlier post, about the quote from his late mother, "You can put pigs in palaces, but they will still be pigs!"

[phantom309 10]

they were well laid out for drugies, and muggers, they are an eyesore, my opinion and 99% of sheffield people agree, judging by the reactions when it was announced the had been listed,

 

There was no such things as "drugies" and "muggers" when they were built and it was a generation later before they graced this country so no one can foresee what society will be like in 20 years time.

[ECCOnoob 1,050]

There was no such things as "drugies" and "muggers" when they were built and it was a generation later before they graced this country so no one can foresee what society will be like in 20 years time.

 

What are you talking about. So nobody took drugs and nobody got mugged pre 1960? I dont think so.

[Plain Talker 11]

What are you talking about. So nobody took drugs and nobody got mugged pre 1960? I dont think so.

 

I certainly never encountered a drug addict till we were well into the 1980's.

[chem1st 10]

I certainly never encountered a drug addict till we were well into the 1980's.

 

Everybody was smacked off their tits, courtesy of their local chemist, 100 year or so years ago. Legally smacked of their tits. Pubs did a roaring trade, and there was Gin lane.