(Sorry for the potential paywall). Recently @Fal posted a really interesting video about, well, Football / Soccer. And I mentioned in passing that some of the buildings were lovely but gently...
And here's an article that explores this phenomena a bit further. They talk about buildings "mysteriously" catching fire, and then "falling down", and the local council just issuing re-build orders, especially when it's obvious that accelerants and bulldozers were used.
The aim is to make it painful for building owners to do this. Finding the right tiles, and the right tradespeople to fit them, is going to be expensive, and because he's not allowed to sell it until he's fixed it he's basically wrecked.
Good on the UK for actually standing up to developers who break laws, but I think their laws are just going way too far towards historical preservation. Development should be conducted with care...
Good on the UK for actually standing up to developers who break laws, but I think their laws are just going way too far towards historical preservation.
Development should be conducted with care to preserve the aesthetic of a community and respect the history of the area, but preventing redevelopment to remember the past is architectural hoarding. If the building does not meet the needs of the community, clear the way for more efficient land use. Compromises can be made to maintain the historical facade and build a taller building through it. You can even force developers to maintain the interior charm of the original building if it's deemed important by the community.
I agree that modern development in a historical area has the potential to suck the personality from a community and turn it into a generic charmless area, but our communities are not time capsules. Human settlements are living tools that are molded to fit the needs of the current population. We should pause to remember how our cities used to be, but we must do it in a way that allows our cities to adapt.
What's perhaps missing from the story here is that this is a well known grift that's been run for decades. These beautiful, historic buildings ARE usually meeting the needs of the community, but...
preventing redevelopment to remember the past is architectural hoarding. If the building does not meet the needs of the community, clear the way for more efficient land use
What's perhaps missing from the story here is that this is a well known grift that's been run for decades. These beautiful, historic buildings ARE usually meeting the needs of the community, but they are also sitting on extremely valuable land. Major developers (think 'Dubai' or 'Saudi' amounts of money) buy such listed historical buildings in the city centre, close them down deliberately, then let them rot for a decade until they are crumbling ruins. Finally, the buildings "accidentally" catch fire, and then the "unsafe" remains are bulldozed within 48 hours before any arson investigation can be completed. Voilà: your £200K investment has matured, all legal barriers have been removed, and you now have fresh, prime city-centre land to build a £multi-million hi-rise.
The real story here is that communities have got sick of this obvious grift and are starting to successfully push back. It's big news that councils (who are typically financially incentivised to turn a blind eye to developers' misdeeds and ignore the community) are finally being pressed to do something about it, and that multiple such get-rich-sort-of-quick scams have been forcibly reversed.
Edit: Another thing worth noting is that such buildings are sometimes sold from public ownership to developers for bargain-basement prices, with the express contractual stipulation to be repaired and maintained - then they simply are not repaired or maintained. They are basically stealing this land from public ownership, and trashing genuinely extraordinary centuries-old buildings in the process.
Definitely not, and I think self balancing loops in regulation are sorely lacking. I think the problem is no one trusts the other side to act with any decency. Developers are just there to make...
Definitely not, and I think self balancing loops in regulation are sorely lacking. I think the problem is no one trusts the other side to act with any decency. Developers are just there to make money, and the NIMBYs are there to block everything. Or that’s how it’s perceived, and it is probably the behaviour that is rewarded with success.
I think at a population level this trust problem is very difficult to solve, and there is no political will to do so in any case.
Exactly where and how to draw the lines around preservation vs new development will always be at least a little contentious, but I think the balance here is actually pretty good. The planning...
Exactly where and how to draw the lines around preservation vs new development will always be at least a little contentious, but I think the balance here is actually pretty good. The planning system as a whole is definitely far from perfect, and the broader incentives around housing are an absolute mess in a lot of ways, but I don’t generally see historic buildings as a significant part of the issue.
The rulings around these pubs aren’t the norm, they’re newsworthy because the local councils did specifically decide to protect them, the developers tried to pull their whole “oops, looks like it burned down by complete unavoidable accident, how terrible, I guess I may as well build my original plans on the site now” bullshit, and rather than rolling over and accepting it as fait accompli the councils have started saying “like fuck you will, you’re paying to put everything back exactly how you found it”.
It’s pretty much the platonic ideal of justice as far as I’m concerned: person who thinks they’re rich enough to be above the law and/or is trying to treat fines as a cost of doing business gets slapped right back down in a way that costs them enough to discourage others from chancing it and makes the community whole. It’s precisely the right message to be sending: fines aren’t just a cost, the laws aren’t there just to set the price, they’re there because you’re not supposed to do the thing - and while it’s a bit of a shame that enforcing that is even notable, I’m sure as hell glad that it’s happening.
[Edit] Just to address this bit specifically, because it’s particularly relevant:
Compromises can be made to maintain the historical facade and build a taller building through it.
A decent number of these kind of cases were already supposed to be that kind of compromise. The developer applied for permission to build, it was granted with a requirement to preserve historic parts in a way that would make the process slower, trickier, or otherwise more expensive. Developer smiles and agrees, and then (depending on precise level of sketchiness and sophistication) either bulldozes the thing and blames it on a tragic misunderstanding and miscommunication, or just hands a wedge of cash to a low level criminal and claims total shock when they wake up to someone telling them there’s been a fire on the site.
I can genuinely sympathise with individuals who wanted to make a modification to their homes and got caught up in the bureaucracy, but they aren’t generally the ones who go on to ignore the decision and eventually get ordered by the court to rebuild what they destroyed. There’s nothing noble about the people who find themselves on the wrong end of this, they just thought they could pad their profit margins by forcing the court’s hand.
(Sorry for the potential paywall).
Recently @Fal posted a really interesting video about, well, Football / Soccer. And I mentioned in passing that some of the buildings were lovely but gently dilapidated, and falling into deep disrepair.
And here's an article that explores this phenomena a bit further. They talk about buildings "mysteriously" catching fire, and then "falling down", and the local council just issuing re-build orders, especially when it's obvious that accelerants and bulldozers were used.
Here's another example: https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/20084938.brighton-pub-owner-destroyed-historic-tiles-given-year-replace/
The aim is to make it painful for building owners to do this. Finding the right tiles, and the right tradespeople to fit them, is going to be expensive, and because he's not allowed to sell it until he's fixed it he's basically wrecked.
I'm pretty sure Bloomberg keep CityLab articles outside of their paywall.
Good on the UK for actually standing up to developers who break laws, but I think their laws are just going way too far towards historical preservation.
Development should be conducted with care to preserve the aesthetic of a community and respect the history of the area, but preventing redevelopment to remember the past is architectural hoarding. If the building does not meet the needs of the community, clear the way for more efficient land use. Compromises can be made to maintain the historical facade and build a taller building through it. You can even force developers to maintain the interior charm of the original building if it's deemed important by the community.
I agree that modern development in a historical area has the potential to suck the personality from a community and turn it into a generic charmless area, but our communities are not time capsules. Human settlements are living tools that are molded to fit the needs of the current population. We should pause to remember how our cities used to be, but we must do it in a way that allows our cities to adapt.
What's perhaps missing from the story here is that this is a well known grift that's been run for decades. These beautiful, historic buildings ARE usually meeting the needs of the community, but they are also sitting on extremely valuable land. Major developers (think 'Dubai' or 'Saudi' amounts of money) buy such listed historical buildings in the city centre, close them down deliberately, then let them rot for a decade until they are crumbling ruins. Finally, the buildings "accidentally" catch fire, and then the "unsafe" remains are bulldozed within 48 hours before any arson investigation can be completed. Voilà: your £200K investment has matured, all legal barriers have been removed, and you now have fresh, prime city-centre land to build a £multi-million hi-rise.
The real story here is that communities have got sick of this obvious grift and are starting to successfully push back. It's big news that councils (who are typically financially incentivised to turn a blind eye to developers' misdeeds and ignore the community) are finally being pressed to do something about it, and that multiple such get-rich-sort-of-quick scams have been forcibly reversed.
Edit: Another thing worth noting is that such buildings are sometimes sold from public ownership to developers for bargain-basement prices, with the express contractual stipulation to be repaired and maintained - then they simply are not repaired or maintained. They are basically stealing this land from public ownership, and trashing genuinely extraordinary centuries-old buildings in the process.
Further edits: SPaG
Definitely not, and I think self balancing loops in regulation are sorely lacking. I think the problem is no one trusts the other side to act with any decency. Developers are just there to make money, and the NIMBYs are there to block everything. Or that’s how it’s perceived, and it is probably the behaviour that is rewarded with success.
I think at a population level this trust problem is very difficult to solve, and there is no political will to do so in any case.
Exactly where and how to draw the lines around preservation vs new development will always be at least a little contentious, but I think the balance here is actually pretty good. The planning system as a whole is definitely far from perfect, and the broader incentives around housing are an absolute mess in a lot of ways, but I don’t generally see historic buildings as a significant part of the issue.
The rulings around these pubs aren’t the norm, they’re newsworthy because the local councils did specifically decide to protect them, the developers tried to pull their whole “oops, looks like it burned down by complete unavoidable accident, how terrible, I guess I may as well build my original plans on the site now” bullshit, and rather than rolling over and accepting it as fait accompli the councils have started saying “like fuck you will, you’re paying to put everything back exactly how you found it”.
It’s pretty much the platonic ideal of justice as far as I’m concerned: person who thinks they’re rich enough to be above the law and/or is trying to treat fines as a cost of doing business gets slapped right back down in a way that costs them enough to discourage others from chancing it and makes the community whole. It’s precisely the right message to be sending: fines aren’t just a cost, the laws aren’t there just to set the price, they’re there because you’re not supposed to do the thing - and while it’s a bit of a shame that enforcing that is even notable, I’m sure as hell glad that it’s happening.
[Edit] Just to address this bit specifically, because it’s particularly relevant:
A decent number of these kind of cases were already supposed to be that kind of compromise. The developer applied for permission to build, it was granted with a requirement to preserve historic parts in a way that would make the process slower, trickier, or otherwise more expensive. Developer smiles and agrees, and then (depending on precise level of sketchiness and sophistication) either bulldozes the thing and blames it on a tragic misunderstanding and miscommunication, or just hands a wedge of cash to a low level criminal and claims total shock when they wake up to someone telling them there’s been a fire on the site.
I can genuinely sympathise with individuals who wanted to make a modification to their homes and got caught up in the bureaucracy, but they aren’t generally the ones who go on to ignore the decision and eventually get ordered by the court to rebuild what they destroyed. There’s nothing noble about the people who find themselves on the wrong end of this, they just thought they could pad their profit margins by forcing the court’s hand.