Mr Bloke Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 14 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said: If nobody wants to invest in a run down listed building full of asbestos, thats hardly the fault of the local authority isnt it? And the minute the local authority spend the money to do so, people would be straight on here to moan what a waste of money it is, so they cant really win. Think calling it a "historic" building is a bit of a stretch too tbh.  They have been very clear that all potential plans involve the building coming down (or most of it far beyond what the listing allows), you cant polish a turd, whoever listed it is an irresponsible moron. Hmmm... And this is the sort of blinkered response I was expecting! Think about it - a 'historic building' is not 'historic' at the time it's built. People only moan because they're fed up with the same old people doing the same old things and perhaps not surprisingly... ... producing the same old results! And whoever listed the building is only thought to be an 'irresponsible moron' by those who don't like the idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 15 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said: https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/leeds-house-fraser-store-set-24262259  Only 5 objections for a department store that has stood since the 1950s on the major shopping street in Leeds. Much more sensible. Hmmm... But doesn't that just prove my point? In years to come, when all the large department stores have disappeared... ... Sheffield would have a 'tourist attraction' that many cities will be thinking maybe they should have also kept! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHasRisen Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:  And whoever listed the building is only thought to be an 'irresponsible moron' by those who don't like the idea... Literally almost everyone else. Be honest, you only agree with the listing to be contrary because the Council dont agree The listing procedure in this country isnt fit for purpose.  What is so special about a decaying ex-department store built in the (I think) 1960s? Absolutely nothing. Something something Cole Brothers something something. Edited August 18, 2022 by HeHasRisen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 16 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said: Literally almost everyone else. Be honest, you only agree with the listing to be contrary because the Council dont agree The listing procedure in this country isnt fit for purpose.  What is so special about a decaying ex-department store built in the (I think) 1960s? Absolutely nothing. Something something Cole Brothers something something. Hmmm... I'm not saying that I agree with the listing... ... just that SCC have now been presented with a golden opportunity to 're-think' the potential benefits there may be in keeping the building. Ask yourself why the council don't agree - it's because it's going to cost them us money... ... and them a bit lot of hassle! They seem to think that a few shipping containers will get people back into Sheffield (although that seemingly 'simple' project is probably a good indication why they feel ill-equipped to handle anything a bit more 'substantial') ... so why wouldn't a renovated department store, one of a dwindling number left in the country? And by 'renovating' it, I don't necessarily mean fully returning it to it's original purpose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHasRisen Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 (edited) Listing a building like this presents a "golden opportunity"?  Really dont think many are going to agree with you mate, but keep smoking whatever it is you are on. Kommune mk 2 isnt going to bail them out this time. Edited August 18, 2022 by HeHasRisen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 6 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said: Listing a building like this presents a "golden opportunity"? Â Really dont think many are going to agree with you mate, but keep smoking whatever it is you are on. Hmmm... Yep - it makes SCC revisit their earlier 'easy option' of just getting rid! Anyway, I can see you've now run out of any valid points you may have had... ... so I think it's time for me to leave until someone with some fresh ideas pops up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHasRisen Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 (edited) I am just surprised you want them to potentially spend a shed load of money (money they dont have btw, have you seen the defecit figures?) to get round the listing when the easy (and cheaper) option is for it not to be listed in the first place by an absolute cretin, it contradicts everything you have ever posted about the esteemed local authority. Edited August 18, 2022 by HeHasRisen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewC Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 I actually don't mind a lot of the building - I don't think there's anything wrong with the Barker's Pool frontage at all, that a good clean and fresh windows wouldn't solve, but I don't agree with the listing, as it's going to massively stifle the involvement of private developers who - after all - are the ones with the money to do anything with it, whether retaining part/all of the building or starting anew. Â Some of the bidders put forward plans that did retain some of the existing structure but even they have apparently been put off by the listing itself, and the general feeling that there is mismanagement of the whole process by the council since this listing has moved the goalposts deep into the bidding process (not entirely the councils fault of course, but hey-ho). Â Also, even if some proposals intended to retain some or all of the shop section, virtually none of them had any interest in working with the car park section. It's out-of-date as a car park, it's facades and ground level is completely at odds now with the old and new buildings around it which all have or will have active frontages, and bringing cars in to the city via that route is also feeling more outdated the more other areas around there become pedestrianised. Â There are a host of new car parks which are modern and in much better locations and more easily accessible. It's really not needed or suitable, and it's listing is a cause for concern. I imagine the council/developers will still try and get it (the car park) demolished - it's just that process becomes much more difficult now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHasRisen Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 Hang on...so even the multi story car park bit got listed as well?  Christ sake 🤣🤣🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewC Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 (edited) 8 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said: Hang on...so even the multi story car park bit got listed as well?  Christ sake 🤣🤣🤣 Yes, of course? It's the whole building. The white-tiled facades of the car park get a specific mention in the reasoning.  And, again; from an architectural/design point-of-view I can appreciate the car park as a sort of, one-off impressive sight. But there in lies the exact problem with listing a building like this; being vaguely impressed by the soaring facade of white-tiles once in a lifetime is all well and good, but it does absolutely nothing for local people going about their every day lives who want to use the area. It's now going to just be an intrusive museum piece.  A couple of years ago when there were some suggestions that the JL building could be retained (for environmental reasons more than the listing), I was suggesting to some people (trying to be positive!) that you could try and make the car park softer, more human in scale, by greenwalling it, just covering it in greenery so it becomes an attractive 'greenspace' (think M&S Simply Food on Ecclesall Road), but now you can't even do that since the white-tiles are literally the main reason given for listing the car park section. D'oh. Edited August 18, 2022 by AndrewC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now