nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Epidemic of listed buildings burning down

pocketse

I can't help but notice the amount of sites owned by developers with listed buildings on them where the building gets targeted by vandals and gets burned down. I don't want to name anywhere in particular but there was a school in Dublin a couple of weeks ago which was the latest one. Im sure a quick google will find it. Once the building is burned down, its not reinstated and anything can be built. Surprisingly convenient for a developer who would rather demolish than have to deal with a listed building.

I'm sure there'll be plenty who will bring up the fact that there's a housing shortage and a homeless crisis and we shouldn't be bothering with listed buildings but I disagree. I think if the authority in charge of listing properties has placed a value on a particular building it should be adhered to. I suspect this is similar to the penalty point saga, where everyone knew if you knew the right person you could make them disappear. This I imagine is another wink wink, nudge nudge situation, "Sure if the building were to somehow be destroyed by fire.........."

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Your Face

It's an old tactic and not just with listed buildings.

Idbatterim

A huge amount of stuff they protect, is total and utter garbage!

greenspurs

Idbatterim wrote: »

A huge amount of stuff they protect, is total and utter garbage!

Such a blinkered view ........

Idbatterim

greenspurs wrote: »

Such a blinkered view ........

I actually spend a lot of time on architectural forums and have an interest in it. A lot of the stuff that was ripped down here was a crime! But they went to the other extreme now, save it for no other reason than its age and compromise the new scheme going in ...

skooterblue2

Idbatterim wrote: »

A huge amount of stuff they protect, is total and utter garbage!

An Tasice is branch of mental health disorders unto itself. If a building has served its purpose pull it down and move on.

Seth Brundle

skooterblue2 wrote: »

An Tasice is branch of mental health disorders unto itself. If a building has served its purpose pull it down and move on.

...and replace it with a lot of bland and uninteresting "architecture"?
We don't need to destroy everything!

kneemos

A lot of buildings are saved for no other reason than they used to be a workhouse or somebody famous went to school there.
All for preserving architecturally interesting or important stuff,but a lot of it is just left till it falls apart.

Fr_Dougal

Buy the property
let it go to wrack and ruin
Get it deemed unsafe
Rebuild
Profit

pocketse

skooterblue2 wrote: »

An Tasice is branch of mental health disorders unto itself. If a building has served its purpose pull it down and move on.

I'd possibly agree with that if we were to build something remotely architecturally interesting in its place, but its probably going to be an uninteresting bland apartment block or a row of uninspiring three bed semis. Or you could re-purpose it and still have your apartment block, it will just cost more to build. The Colosseum hasn't been used for its purpose for centuries, should that have been knocked? Look at Georgan Dublin. Whatever your opinion i don't think the best way to decide what should be preserved should be left up to the developer who has bought the plot with a pack of matches in his hand.

cursai

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Buy the property
let it go to wrack and ruin
Get it deemed unsafe
Rebuild
Profit

All my properties are listed buildings. People say I'm a slum landlord.
It's just not true, I'm just waiting for a profit.

wakka12

skooterblue2 wrote: »

An Tasice is branch of mental health disorders unto itself. If a building has served its purpose pull it down and move on.

Resuing built heritage has positive social, historical, economical and environmental benefits

Anyway what was the school that was burnt down? I couldnt find anything online

pocketse

wakka12 wrote: »

Resuing built heritage has positive social, historical, economical and environmental benefits

Anyway what was the school that was burnt down? I couldnt find anything online

Will pm. Was in Ballyfermot. Heard it on the radio at the time and that's what immediately came to mind. There was also on old hospital in cork last year, and the college on the malahide road designed by James Hoban.

skooterblue2

wakka12 wrote: »

Resuing built heritage has positive social, historical, economical and environmental benefits

Anyway what was the school that was burnt down? I couldnt find anything online

It does and I am all for that as long as it can be re-purposed for something else. The amount of parochial houses and bishops palaces that arent fit for purpose are astounding. The amount of convents that cannot be changed for a different purpose. They were built for a time and technology that no longer exists. You have to a place heated, maintained and fit for purpose for it to survive.

You see houses abandoned for a short time how damp and moulds come in. Have you ever seen these hospitals converted to hotels? Convents turned into nursing homes? Sometimes its best to knock and rebuild.

wakka12

skooterblue2 wrote: »

It does and I am all for that as long as it can be re-purposed for something else. The amount of parochial houses and bishops palaces that arent fit for purpose are astounding. The amount of convents that cannot be changed for a different purpose. They were built for a time and technology that no longer exists. You have to a place heated, maintained and fit for purpose for it to survive.

You see houses abandoned for a short time how damp and moulds come in. Have you ever seen these hospitals converted to hotels? Convents turned into nursing homes? Sometimes its best to knock and rebuild.

Thats true, I think the restrictions they put on buyers of listed buildings are way too harsh. For something like an old hospital or monastery that generally wont have any other practical use in todays society they should be giving a huge amount of leeway to the buyer to do mostly whatever they like, because there probably wont be any other buyers, and the alternative is it rots and collapses. But most councils in ireland seem to prefer see it collapse than be re used in a way thats not considered ideal historic conversion

Seth Brundle

wakka12 wrote: »

Thats true, I think the restrictions they put on buyers of listed buildings are way too harsh. For something like an old hospital or monastery that generally wont have any other practical use in todays society they should be giving a huge amount of leeway to the buyer to do mostly whatever they like, because there probably wont be any other buyers, and the alternative is it rots and collapses. But most councils in ireland seem to prefer see it collapse than be re used in a way thats not considered ideal historic conversion

If you leave it up to developers "to do mostly whatever they like" then they will destroy whatever character the building has.
It is for the same reason that we protect the archaeological heritage e.g. not letting farmers build on ring forts.
If your problem is the developers allowing the building to fall into disrepair then we need to legislate and enforce this, not create a free for all policy :rolleyes:

skooterblue2

pocketse wrote: »

I'd possibly agree with that if we were to build something remotely architecturally interesting in its place, but its probably going to be an uninteresting bland apartment block or a row of uninspiring three bed semis. Or you could re-purpose it and still have your apartment block, it will just cost more to build. The Colosseum hasn't been used for its purpose for centuries, should that have been knocked? Look at Georgan Dublin. Whatever your opinion i don't think the best way to decide what should be preserved should be left up to the developer who has bought the plot with a pack of matches in his hand.

That is a separate issue. I am talking about retain places with low BER ratings, high ceilings, Building have at best a 100 year life cycle.

Graces7

pocketse wrote: »

I'd possibly agree with that if we were to build something remotely architecturally interesting in its place, but its probably going to be an uninteresting bland apartment block or a row of uninspiring three bed semis. Or you could re-purpose it and still have your apartment block, it will just cost more to build. The Colosseum hasn't been used for its purpose for centuries, should that have been knocked? Look at Georgan Dublin. Whatever your opinion i don't think the best way to decide what should be preserved should be left up to the developer who has bought the plot with a pack of matches in his hand.

well said; thank you

JustAThought

pocketse wrote: »

Will pm. Was in Ballyfermot. Heard it on the radio at the time and that's what immediately came to mind. There was also on old hospital in cork last year, and the college on the malahide road designed by James Hoban.

Gannon - Pyrite King. Screwed half of north county Dublin on pyrite houses. Still managed to take the priceless Harry Clarke windows out of the attached Chapel before the school and " priceless protected heritage and unique architecture" was burned to the ground overnight. Odd how he is just casually building houses there now. There you go. Same old story. Arson pays.

whisky_galore

Irish people have a fetish for new, and more often than not, really fugly buildings. No inclination or imagination on how to update an old building for a new purpose, save outright demolition or demolition and just saving the facade as a sop to 'heritage'.
I notice a few fires in idle buildings in and around Cork city too. Oh dear, can it be coincidence or some sort of spontaneous combustion?

skooterblue2

whisky_galore wrote: »

Irish people have a fetish for new, and more often than not, really fugly buildings. No inclination or imagination on how to update an old building for a new purpose, save outright demolition or demolition and just saving the facade as a sop to 'heritage'.
I notice a few fires in idle buildings in and around Cork city too. Oh dear, can it be coincidence or some sort of spontaneous combustion?

What ever you do dont mention the old "Crows Nest" at the end of the Western Road. Word is the insurance company never paid out.

Mal-Adjusted

I can certainly see both sides. Buildings of architectural or historical importance absolutely should be protected. A friend of mine lives in an old RIC barracks and has severe restrictions on what she can do regarding doors and windows and such (though she does get some sort of grant, i believe)

...but on the other hand, it can also go too far. In the middle of Ennistymon, the main thorough-way between Ennis and Lahinch goes over a narrow bridge at "Blakes corner" called so after two old listed buildings beside the bridge.

It's a congestion nightmare, especially during the summer where 10,000 cars a day use it. The presence of these two empty buildings, with barred doors and windows, prevents both widening of the bridge or constructing a traffic calming roundabout.

Clare Co.Co. plan to build a new bridge down the road, which will involve the destruction of at least three properties, including a local flower shop.

Just think about that, homes and a business will be knocked to save two empty, useless buildings that Clare Co.Co. bought and subsequently are letting rot away.

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2018/0409/953189-ennistymon-munster/

JupiterKid

I can also see both sides of the argument.

We absolutely must protect our built heritage and to this end we are much better now than, say, 30 or 40 or 50 years ago when so many historic Georgian buildings were wantonly destroyed to be replaced by architecturally inarticulate godawful ugly monolithic office blocks. There is now a real widespread appreciation of our historic built fabric compared to the era of the Wood Quay saga.

That said, sometimes the urge to protect existing built heritage or the "character" of a district does go too far and this can frustrate or impede badly needed new development - particularly with respect to locations suitable for high density housing close to high volume public transport corridors in Dublin and Cork. Often, this is just NIMBYism masquerading as "conservation." Venice is an extreme example of a once fully living city that has turned into one giant museum. There needs to be a finely tuned, balanced aporoach.

Protect what is deemed to be possible to reuse or repurpose with imaginative architectural solutions but also redevelop where the common good dictates.

Dakotabigone

The gallon of petrol was just resting in my account.

DS86DS

Idbatterim wrote: »

A huge amount of stuff they protect, is total and utter garbage!

You sound like a 1970's Dublin City councilor.........raze Temple Bar for a brutalist Soviet-style bus terminal...... knock down half of the City Centre for motorways....all lived happily ever after

gozunda

DS86DS wrote: »

You sound like a 1970's Dublin City councilor.........raze Temple Bar for a brutalist Soviet-style bus terminal...... knock down half of the City Centre for motorways....all lived happily ever after

Interesting read "The destruction of Dublin" by Frank McDonald.

He called out the corruption and wrecking brigades much beloved of some 'developers' in Ireland. Looks like things havn't changed that much tbh ....

wakka12

Seth Brundle wrote: »

If you leave it up to developers "to do mostly whatever they like" then they will destroy whatever character the building has.
It is for the same reason that we protect the archaeological heritage e.g. not letting farmers build on ring forts.
If your problem is the developers allowing the building to fall into disrepair then we need to legislate and enforce this, not create a free for all policy :rolleyes:

Thats very true, but as I said the alternative is it rots and collapses. How is that better?

pocketse

wakka12 wrote: »

Thats very true, but as I said the alternative is it rots and collapses. How is that better?

Perhaps because once it’s gone it gone for ever. It can take decades for a building to be destroyed over time. More time for a serious investor to save the building.

Don’t get me wrong, im not overly impressed by the idea of just letting a building fall apart but I prefer it to someone lighting a match under it. There’s definitely room for someone to look at a better system for the preservation of our historic buildings.

whisky_galore

Irish people don't take pride or aren't all that interested in historic buildings, in spite of all the 'we're all about heritage' horse**** Failte Ireland put out.

Take someplace like Warsaw, bombed into the ground during WW2, and they rebuilt the old town faithfully from scratch using old plans, paintings and photos.
Here they'd rather demolish and plonk a retail outlet or whatever in the historic quarter adjoining the GPO because someone would rather line their pockets.
Many cities in Europe have a historic centre, which has buildings restored to the nines, cobbles, etc nearly like being on a movie set. The modern buildings somehow designed to blend in. Here it's stick any crap in if it can get past planning, no matter how it looks. If it doesn't make a quick buck, Paddy isn't interested. Fwiw I think it's a miracle Temple Bar and anything of Georgian Dublin survived at all.

wakka12

Thats true, but unfortunately you have a very idealised vision of how people in other european countries treat their historical buildings too. Look at whats demolished in manchester and glasgow regularly, amazing buildings that would simply be unthinkable of demolishing here are regularly given permission to be demolished by city/county councils in the UK

Two recent examples from Manchester
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=147481403&postcount=5

This victorain infirmary in Glasgow, permission given to clear all buildings on site except the one listed building in the complex which is a small gate house

Even in france this cathedral was demolished in 2016 for example
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=104783146&postcount=24

This belgian palace demolished in 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2teau_Miranda

Cathedral in germany being demolished 2017 to make way for oil drilling
47F2808000000578-5262641-The_demolition_was_the_latest_step_in_energy_company_RWE_s_demol-a-47_1515761461518.jpg

47F2808000000578-5262641-The_demolition_was_the_latest_step_in_energy_company_RWE_s_demol-a-47_1515761461518.jpg

These examples would simple never ever happen in ireland

And even though Dublin lost a lot, look at how much Manchester, Birmingham, Moscow, Melbourne, Beirut, Rio de Janeiro, Oslo, Helsinki, Brussels and thousands of cities across the world did to their historical building, at least Dublin is somewhat recognisable as the city is has been hundreds of years ago, some of the other cities look as if they were constructed in the 60's and grew from then despite being hundreds of years old and once possessing thousands of amazing buildings

And you want to see something that will completely shock you? VIenna, often lauded for it's amazing preservation of historical buildings is demolishing hundreds of it's beautiful art nouveau and jugendstil mansion blocks to replace them with cheap ugly tatty ****e

Heres a sample showing dozens of tragic examples
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=154350164&postcount=438
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=154350276&postcount=439
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=154350450&postcount=441

In the grand scheme of things Ireland treats its historical buildings extremely well, and the general population does in fact seem to care about their cultural heritage more than most nations

Sadly I also used to believe Ireland had very poor maintenance of it's historic buildings but unfortunately the rest of the world the situation is for the most part,much much more dire. There are some beautiful old towns in european countries but they are cherry picked, and often the lucky few bits which fortunately didnt meet the wrecking ball in the ****storm of poor urban planning that swept the entire globe in the post war period and late 20th Century, not just ireland or Dublin. And thankfully Ireland has at least changed more than most countries and isnt still demolishing important historical buildings. And sorry to make this so long but I just find it unfair when I hear so many Irish people say things like you said when in actual fact Ireland deserves to be credited for how much more it respects it heritage than most countries in the world

And just on the point of Warsaw..it is not far from a miracle it was reconstructed, there was massive opposition from most people even a lot of locals because they understandably just wanted food and shelter after enduring a brutal 5 years and not for money to be wasted on building some old pretty buildings again