glory-glory.co.uk

jimmyb:

To be fair, these buildings are all owned by Spurs. It's Spurs who have neglected to let out the buildings, who have boarded up the windows and who have generally failed to make any effort.......because it is not in their interests:

a) to spend money on buildings that they hope soon to knock down.

b) to show those buildings in their best light.

Because the booming economy of Tottenham Highroad can support more places to buy fags or drink beer.

jimmyb:

Eriktheviking:

monkeybarry:

Nutter-Naylor:

Backlash Against Spurs Stadium Plan

Conservation groups in Tottenham (no giggling at the back, please) are vexed by the local club's plans for a 56,000-seater stadium. The ground's footprint would squash a nearby row of Victorian shops, thee Red House building, an Edwardian distillery, and the now-defunct White Hart pub, some of which lie in a conservation area designated by Haringey council, and replace them with a wide boulevard between Tottenham High Road and the new stadium. The Victorian Society argues that "a bland open space that will be a wasteland apart from on match days"; those familiar with certain parts of Tottenham might think that a wasteland would be an improvement.

http://londonist.com/

 

Very tongue in cheek..........

seriously, who had heard of any of these before? let alone cared they existed.................yeah im sure its conservation ground, but this country needs to make sure it has the balance between conserving its history and creating future history (so the conservationists in 70 years can moan and bitch because "something is progressing" and "it might kill a plant"

 

The problem is national planning policy. Listed building and conservation areas take precedent over pretty much everything else. They are strict no development zones. There are very special circumstances where it can be overlooked but only by the Secretary of State. Generally, the only way listed buildings can be knocked down is if they are irreparable and/or are falling down. Generally, the underhand way to overcome this is to set them on fire (arson). 

Guidelines for the demolition of listed buildings aren't entirely rigid and inflexible. There is plenty of room for manoeuvre. Of the buildings that are earmarked for demolition along the High Road, only two are nationally listed Grade 2. For such buildings, it is perfectly normal to argue a case for their demolition if it will be for the greater good and if there is no viable alternative. That's what Spurs have done in their planning submission. Haringey are clearly on board and will happily grant permission - even if they might play to the gallery by pretending to put up a bit of a fight and making Spurs submit a second, improved application.

Long term, though, there's no danger that the new stadium won't get planning approval.

Long term i agree there is no danger but; Listed building means listed - the reason its there is to protect the building from this kind of action. Now, this is a different case altogether - it is of national importance (world cup bid and all) 

but see here;  http://www.haringey.gov.uk/conservation-3.pdf for the policies relating to conservation and listed buildings. See point CSV2. 

WookieD:

jimmyb:

To be fair, these buildings are all owned by Spurs. It's Spurs who have neglected to let out the buildings, who have boarded up the windows and who have generally failed to make any effort.......because it is not in their interests:

a) to spend money on buildings that they hope soon to knock down.

b) to show those buildings in their best light.

Because the booming economy of Tottenham Highroad can support more places to buy fags or drink beer.

I'm sure that Spurs could have let the shops (and the flats above?) if they had made a bit of effort and if they had set a competitive rent. After all, it can't be just a coincidence that that stretch of the High Road was always fully let until the past three or four years, when the boards started going up. It seems clear to me that Spurs have been working towards this for a while - gradually getting all the tenants out.

I'm not criticizing Spurs, by the way. It's the logical course of action, considering their stadium plans.

We should just build the stadium on top of them (preserving them at the same time).

Just look at the *cough* lovely *cough* Wood Green Crown Court as an example of architectural beauty *cough*

Eriktheviking:

jimmyb:

Eriktheviking:

monkeybarry:

Nutter-Naylor:

Backlash Against Spurs Stadium Plan

Conservation groups in Tottenham (no giggling at the back, please) are vexed by the local club's plans for a 56,000-seater stadium. The ground's footprint would squash a nearby row of Victorian shops, thee Red House building, an Edwardian distillery, and the now-defunct White Hart pub, some of which lie in a conservation area designated by Haringey council, and replace them with a wide boulevard between Tottenham High Road and the new stadium. The Victorian Society argues that "a bland open space that will be a wasteland apart from on match days"; those familiar with certain parts of Tottenham might think that a wasteland would be an improvement.

http://londonist.com/

 

Very tongue in cheek..........

seriously, who had heard of any of these before? let alone cared they existed.................yeah im sure its conservation ground, but this country needs to make sure it has the balance between conserving its history and creating future history (so the conservationists in 70 years can moan and bitch because "something is progressing" and "it might kill a plant"

 

The problem is national planning policy. Listed building and conservation areas take precedent over pretty much everything else. They are strict no development zones. There are very special circumstances where it can be overlooked but only by the Secretary of State. Generally, the only way listed buildings can be knocked down is if they are irreparable and/or are falling down. Generally, the underhand way to overcome this is to set them on fire (arson). 

Guidelines for the demolition of listed buildings aren't entirely rigid and inflexible. There is plenty of room for manoeuvre. Of the buildings that are earmarked for demolition along the High Road, only two are nationally listed Grade 2. For such buildings, it is perfectly normal to argue a case for their demolition if it will be for the greater good and if there is no viable alternative. That's what Spurs have done in their planning submission. Haringey are clearly on board and will happily grant permission - even if they might play to the gallery by pretending to put up a bit of a fight and making Spurs submit a second, improved application.

Long term, though, there's no danger that the new stadium won't get planning approval.

 

Long term i agree there is no danger but; Listed building means listed - the reason its there is to protect the building from this kind of action. Now, this is a different case altogether - it is of national importance (world cup bid and all) 

 

but see here;  http://www.haringey.gov.uk/conservation-3.pdf for the policies relating to conservation and listed buildings. See point CSV2. 

 

As I said, the point is that these  guidelines aren't inflexible. If Spurs can show that their proposal is for the greater good of the local area and its community and if there is no viable alternative proposal, then councils will give permission to demolish listed buildings...especially since neither of the two principle buildings in question - Fletcher House and Warmington House - are so very special.

Just to give you an idea, Fletcher House and Warmington House are both Grade II listed buildings - the least important grading (after Grade II* and Grade I). There are 375,000 nationally listed buildings in England alone. 92% of those are Grade II. So we're not talking about an endangered species.

jimmyb:

WookieD:

jimmyb:

To be fair, these buildings are all owned by Spurs. It's Spurs who have neglected to let out the buildings, who have boarded up the windows and who have generally failed to make any effort.......because it is not in their interests:

a) to spend money on buildings that they hope soon to knock down.

b) to show those buildings in their best light.

Because the booming economy of Tottenham Highroad can support more places to buy fags or drink beer.

I'm sure that Spurs could have let the shops (and the flats above?) if they had made a bit of effort and if they had set a competitive rent. After all, it can't be just a coincidence that that stretch of the High Road was always fully let until the past three or four years, when the boards started going up. It seems clear to me that Spurs have been working towards this for a while - gradually getting all the tenants out.

I'm not criticizing Spurs, by the way. It's the logical course of action, considering their stadium plans.

Of course they could have. It doesn't detract from the fact that Tottenham is shit hole that is in desperate need of redevelopment and these lovely red brick buidlings are part of the cull.

Short term hitches/hold-ups won't be allowed either now the ground is officially tied to the 2018 bid.  Minor problems like this would reflect badly on the whole bid now. 

Eriktheviking:

monkeybarry:

Nutter-Naylor:

Backlash Against Spurs Stadium Plan

Conservation groups in Tottenham (no giggling at the back, please) are vexed by the local club's plans for a 56,000-seater stadium. The ground's footprint would squash a nearby row of Victorian shops, thee Red House building, an Edwardian distillery, and the now-defunct White Hart pub, some of which lie in a conservation area designated by Haringey council, and replace them with a wide boulevard between Tottenham High Road and the new stadium. The Victorian Society argues that "a bland open space that will be a wasteland apart from on match days"; those familiar with certain parts of Tottenham might think that a wasteland would be an improvement.

http://londonist.com/

 

Very tongue in cheek..........

seriously, who had heard of any of these before? let alone cared they existed.................yeah im sure its conservation ground, but this country needs to make sure it has the balance between conserving its history and creating future history (so the conservationists in 70 years can moan and bitch because "something is progressing" and "it might kill a plant"

 

The problem is national planning policy. Listed building and conservation areas take precedent over pretty much everything else. They are strict no development zones. There are very special circumstances where it can be overlooked but only by the Secretary of State. Generally, the only way listed buildings can be knocked down is if they are irreparable and/or are falling down. Generally, the underhand way to overcome this is to set them on fire (arson). 

So should we expect a fire in the summer?

tc:

Eriktheviking:

monkeybarry:

Nutter-Naylor:

Backlash Against Spurs Stadium Plan

Conservation groups in Tottenham (no giggling at the back, please) are vexed by the local club's plans for a 56,000-seater stadium. The ground's footprint would squash a nearby row of Victorian shops, thee Red House building, an Edwardian distillery, and the now-defunct White Hart pub, some of which lie in a conservation area designated by Haringey council, and replace them with a wide boulevard between Tottenham High Road and the new stadium. The Victorian Society argues that "a bland open space that will be a wasteland apart from on match days"; those familiar with certain parts of Tottenham might think that a wasteland would be an improvement.

http://londonist.com/

 

Very tongue in cheek..........

seriously, who had heard of any of these before? let alone cared they existed.................yeah im sure its conservation ground, but this country needs to make sure it has the balance between conserving its history and creating future history (so the conservationists in 70 years can moan and bitch because "something is progressing" and "it might kill a plant"

 

The problem is national planning policy. Listed building and conservation areas take precedent over pretty much everything else. They are strict no development zones. There are very special circumstances where it can be overlooked but only by the Secretary of State. Generally, the only way listed buildings can be knocked down is if they are irreparable and/or are falling down. Generally, the underhand way to overcome this is to set them on fire (arson). 

 

So should we expect a fire in the summer?

Its not uncommon to be honest, councils generally know it goes on and are happy for it to as they have one hand tied behind their back in regards to policy. They are rarely investigated. There have been 2/3 instances here in Liverpool where listed buildings have been refused planning permission and they have gone up in smoke within a year.  

jimmyb:

monkeybarry:

ok, i love this picture of the "well loved" buildings...................................................i LOVE the way the windows are covered with MDF.................a true area of natural beauty

To be fair, these buildings are all owned by Spurs. It's Spurs who have neglected to let out the buildings, who have boarded up the windows and who have generally failed to make any effort.......because it is not in their interests:

a) to spend money on buildings that they hope soon to knock down.

b) to show those buildings in their best light.

Why can't we build around them and turn them into a McDonald's or summit??? (they've done something very similar with an old building that's now a Maccy D's in Newbury Park if anyone knows the area??)

Failing that, we could preserve it as some kind of 'old fashioned Member/Supporters' club... in the same way as Fulham have always kept the Cottage in the corner going... would it really be that difficult??

erm, yes, i guess it would... and look like an eye-sore at the same time... f@ck it, it has to GO... move wit da timez peoples! 

1 8 8 2:

jimmyb:

monkeybarry:

ok, i love this picture of the "well loved" buildings...................................................i LOVE the way the windows are covered with MDF.................a true area of natural beauty

To be fair, these buildings are all owned by Spurs. It's Spurs who have neglected to let out the buildings, who have boarded up the windows and who have generally failed to make any effort.......because it is not in their interests:

a) to spend money on buildings that they hope soon to knock down.

b) to show those buildings in their best light.

Why can't we build around them and turn them into a McDonald's or summit??? (they've done something very similar with an old building that's now a Maccy D's in Newbury Park if anyone knows the area??)

Failing that, we could preserve it as some kind of 'old fashioned Member/Supporters' club... in the same way as Fulham have always kept the Cottage in the corner going... would it really be that difficult??

erm, yes, i guess it would... and look like an eye-sore at the same time... f@ck it, it has to GO... move wit da timez peoples! 

Some of the buildings in question (including one of the Grade II nationally listed buildings) would have to go anyway because they intrude on the new stadium's foot print.

The buildings in the picture could be left untouched but they would create stadium access problems; they would look silly and out of place; and they would prevent the building of the new public square.

1 8 8 2:

jimmyb:

monkeybarry:

ok, i love this picture of the "well loved" buildings...................................................i LOVE the way the windows are covered with MDF.................a true area of natural beauty

To be fair, these buildings are all owned by Spurs. It's Spurs who have neglected to let out the buildings, who have boarded up the windows and who have generally failed to make any effort.......because it is not in their interests:

a) to spend money on buildings that they hope soon to knock down.

b) to show those buildings in their best light.

Why can't we build around them and turn them into a McDonald's or summit??? (they've done something very similar with an old building that's now a Maccy D's in Newbury Park if anyone knows the area??)

Failing that, we could preserve it as some kind of 'old fashioned Member/Supporters' club... in the same way as Fulham have always kept the Cottage in the corner going... would it really be that difficult??

erm, yes, i guess it would... and look like an eye-sore at the same time... f@ck it, it has to GO... move wit da timez peoples! 

The J Haynes stand at the cottage is grade ii* listed....

Conservation should be considered but so should the wider benefit to the local community of the project as it has been drawn up. Somewhere commonsense and balance have to be found.

It's a good thing that there are groups of this ilk out there thinking about heritage, history and the environment. If there weren't, Britain would end up looking like a charachterless aluminium and plastic shithole in no time.

Let's hope some agreement can be reached and the project continue as planned. Maybe the club can placate the Society by putting up some money in future to restore and repair some other Victorian sites in the local Community ?

Clarky:

Conservation should be considered but so should the wider benefit to the local community of the project as it has been drawn up. Somewhere commonsense and balance have to be found.

It's a good thing that there are groups of this ilk out there thinking about heritage, history and the environment. If there weren't, Britain would end up looking like a charachterless aluminium and plastic shithole in no time.

Let's hope some agreement can be reached and the project continue as planned. Maybe the club can placate the Society by putting up some money in future to restore and repair some other Victorian sites in the local Community ?

I believe that that has already been promised in Spurs' proposal - the buildings on the High Road to the north of the site (though they may be Georgian rather than Victorian!).

Fucking goons up to no good methinks.

In Turkey St, about 5 miles north of Spurs, there used to stand a pub called The Plough. Fairview, the builders, bought the pub to turn into flats. The council (or whoever) said no its listed. Very soon after there was an incident involving a jcb and a fire. Pub disappears, the company end up in court and get a £5000 fine. Paid for out of the 30 or so flats they built.

Moral, they should phone up Fairview straight away.

Shouldnt they have thought about this a bit earlier?

Like a couple years ago...the wheels are well in motion now

1 8 8 2:

jimmyb:

monkeybarry:

ok, i love this picture of the "well loved" buildings...................................................i LOVE the way the windows are covered with MDF.................a true area of natural beauty

To be fair, these buildings are all owned by Spurs. It's Spurs who have neglected to let out the buildings, who have boarded up the windows and who have generally failed to make any effort.......because it is not in their interests:

a) to spend money on buildings that they hope soon to knock down.

b) to show those buildings in their best light.

Why can't we build around them and turn them into a McDonald's or summit??? (they've done something very similar with an old building that's now a Maccy D's in Newbury Park if anyone knows the area??)

Failing that, we could preserve it as some kind of 'old fashioned Member/Supporters' club... in the same way as Fulham have always kept the Cottage in the corner going... would it really be that difficult??

erm, yes, i guess it would... and look like an eye-sore at the same time... f@ck it, it has to GO... move wit da timez peoples! 

Yeah, 24 hour drive thru baby!

But in this case those buildings would look very out of place in a new modern surrounding don't you think, even if they did rejuvinate the interiors.

Without the club, sadly, the area has nothing. It's not like someone will come along and restore these buildings to their former glories. And it's not as if people come from miles around to stand and admire the brickwork.

Times change and things move on. The new stadium will bring so much benefit to the local area there's zero chance it won't get the go ahead.

Clarky:

It's a good thing that there are groups of this ilk out there thinking about heritage, history and the environment. If there weren't, Britain would end up looking like a charachterless aluminium and plastic shithole in no time.

In future years won't the mid fifties to mid seventies be remembered as the golden age of town hall inspired vandalism?

As child I remember this 400 year old barn being knocked down in order to build a flat roofed concrete shopping centre complete with Hattie Jacues and Bob Monkhouse to open it.

Try living in Sheffield.  Our giant monument to Eastern Bloc architecture from the 1950s is listed by blimming English Heritage so can't be demolished:

Gutter Boy:

Try living in Sheffield.  Our giant monument to Eastern Bloc architecture from the 1950s is listed by blimming English Heritage so can't be demolished:

 

Christ that looks awful, how on Earth is that listed by English Heritage?  It should be blown up!!!

L.A. Yiddo:

Gutter Boy:

Try living in Sheffield.  Our giant monument to Eastern Bloc architecture from the 1950s is listed by blimming English Heritage so can't be demolished:

 

Christ that looks awful, how on Earth is that listed by English Heritage?  It should be blown up!!!

THat is Park Hill estate in Sheffield and is a seminal piece of English Architecture. The reasons for listing a building are not purely on looks and being aesthetically pleasing but what the building offers out of a historical and architectural interest. Built after the war in about 1947 it was a sign of the times, much of Britain was in squalor, there was still rationing we had very little in the way of metal to build with and most importantly, there was a new thinking amongst planners and architects that the design of a building/housing could better peoples lives. The Park Hill estate was somewhat copied or inspired from one of the greatest urban designers/planners/architects that ever lived, Le Cobusier, if you look at his work it is very similar in style and appearance with big concrete slabs used around a steel structure - at the time a revolution. Today he is still regarded so amongst architects but he was responsible for the big 70's concrete slabs you see in places like Birmingham, Hull, Newcastle etc - the problems was it was shite architects who mirrored his ideas, but badly - more so in this country rather than in Europe. 

Park Hill was a social experiment of creating a neighborhood or community from scratch using a cheap material (concrete) and quickly. In all honesty, it worked and was one of the most desirable places to live (you only have to see pictures of the bombed inner city slums to understand why) but in the 70's became neglected and the downward spiral started.   Today, we see the planners still using the idea of creating communities along the lines of Park Hill so it does mean something. It was an absolute sign of the times both in the normative way of thinking at the time and in design - and for that, it cant be knocked. 

L.A. Yiddo:

Christ that looks awful, how on Earth is that listed by English Heritage?  It should be blown up!!!

Have you been to Sheffield lately. In the context of the rest of this nuclear waste-land that's a des-res. You should visit Parsons Cross.