On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:38:23 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

No building under 100 years old should be listed period.

There have been too many mistakes made in the past to simply abandon
what protection we do have.

If we ignored everything under 100 years, we could all too easily find
ourselves with nothing - or only inferior examples - left by the time
the most important buildings were "old enough". For example, 100 years
would rule out listing anything related to the two world wars, surely
a rather important part of our history. And where would British cities
be without a 71 year old phone box design?

The Victorians often flattened what went before to build their
railways and satanic mills. After all, Georgian buildings were then
fairly recent, and there were loads of 'em... Post-war Britain then
did the same thing to the Victorians, and look what monstrosities that
could produce, perhaps doing more long-term harm to the fabric of some
cities than the Luftwaffe managed.

For some reason a lot of people think listing is about buildings being
twee and pretty - it isn't, it is about them being of architectural or
historic interest. It also isn't about fossilising them (thankfully -
I've lived in a Grade I building, and I wouldn't fancy C17th plumbing
and wiring).
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK