David Boothroyd wrote:
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.

OT, but is this some kind of attempt to smear Ming as "just as bad as
Labour" for believing what Mr Blair told everyone before the Iraq war?

While I understand (especially today of all days) that believing what
that lot say is a deeply unwise plan, I'm not convinced that their
mendacity was so clear four years ago that an opposition spokesman
would have been right to automatically assume our PM would take us to
war based on a tissue of lies.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

In message ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes
In article ,
(David Boothroyd) wrote:

If you really like his buildings, one of the best is the one he
built for himself at Chester House, Clarendon Place W2 (just off
Bayswater Road). It is quite the most beautifully proportioned
neo-Georgian house I have seen. I was walking by it once when I
thought "that house looks just like Cambridge University Library
designed as a two storey house" which was not surprising!

Eek! Complete with tower?!

Well I could do with a house with such a tower for my books.......
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:59:19 +0100, David Boothroyd
wrote:


I know that tastes differ but that's just a *bit* sweeping, don't you
think? :-)
2 Willow Road?

Especially 2 Willow Road. Add everything else the hypocrite inflicted on
society at large to the list also.

Goldfinger was many things but hypocritical is not among them.

Au contraire, millionaire Marxists are inherently hypocritical.

He liked modern functional buildings and built one for himself.

Something he wouldn't be permitted to do today due to ridiculous planning
regulation.

He lived on the top floor of Balfron House for two months.

Wow, a whole 2 months before fleeing back to leafy Hampstead.

(OTOH look up the story
about him and Ian Fleming, and also the one about "Goldfinger here!")

I am conversant with that. Fleming had a point.

[snip]


55 Broadway?

Site has got to be worth a large sum of money on the open market, freeing
up resources which could be much better utilised elsewhere in the tube
system.

But why would you want to demolish such a nice distinguished building?

If it's not fit for purpose, it's 'niceness' is irrelevant. LT is there to
provide public transport, nothing else, it's assets are not there for the
benefit of train spotters, architecture wonks or unaccountable quangos who
don't have to pick up the tab for specious contradictory regulation.

EH should have been severely slapped down on the Thames Tunnel issue.

There was absolutely no useful purpose served by their interference.

One suspects that if it was possible to consult Brunel on the matter, the
engineer would have been 1st to fire the shotcrete gun.

if self selecting worthies want to impose the costs of their architectural
tastes on society as a whole.

They have two choices.

They can buy said properties and do with them what they will.

Or they can consult the local electorate directly through a proposition
system and abide by that decision.

Speaking as a representative of the local electorate, I'd prefer that
we have guidance from experts on what is a proper historic building
design and what is undistinguished.

Such 'advice' is only valid if the alleged experts guidance is objective.
In the case of the EH et al, it is not.



greg
--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:06:39 +0100, Arthur Figgis ]
wrote:

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.

Mistakes which were entirely driven by central planning with SFA direct
local decision making.

The 1947 T&C planning act abrogated planning from localities.

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,

So.

surely
a rather important part of our history. And where would British cities
be without a 71 year old phone box design?

That's a decision for localities and their electorates to take. Not by
unaccountable whitehall dictat.


The Victorians often flattened what went before to build their
railways.

Which are now run far beyond capacity, expansion completely hamstrung by
ridiculous planning regulation.

If continentals can put new railways underground to spare property deemed
worthy, it's shouldn't be beyond the wit of the UK to do the same.

After all, Georgian buildings were then
fairly recent, and there were loads of 'em...

There was loads of victorian building too. Without needing Whitehall to
manage it.

Post-war Britain then did the same thing to the Victorians,

Post war Whitehall did it to the Victorians, While the rest of Europe
attempted to rebuild shattered towns and cities to how they looked on the
31st of August 1939.

Central planning fetishists such as Patrick Abercrombie were let loose,
armed with powers to seize & destroy what the Luftwaffe couldn't.

and look what monstrosities that
could produce, perhaps doing more long-term harm to the fabric of some
cities than the Luftwaffe managed.

Did you expect anything better from wholly unaccountable civil servants in
Whitehall ?

The destruction of Plymouth and the creation of monstrosities such as
Stevenage, Harlow et al was entirely the fault of micromanaging state
control.


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.

That's fine, they can make their case for listing directly to the local
electorate, who can then pick up the costs which listing brings.



greg
--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

In message , Greg Hennessy
writes
Post war Whitehall did it to the Victorians, While the rest of Europe
attempted to rebuild shattered towns and cities to how they looked on
the 31st of August 1939.

Sorry Greg but that bit just isn't true. Many continental cities
suffered from a love of concrete and a naivety of design just as much as
Britain. More so, to be honest.

Cologne's stunning cathedral was (and to a large extent still is)
surrounded by wholly insensitive development out of scale, and keeping
and more importantly difficult to maintain well and keep looking good.

And don't let anyone tell you that cities like Dresden were in any sense
"fully restored". Only a minor (if amazingly beautiful) part of the
historic centre was rebuilt "as before". Take a stroll along the
nearby Prager Strasse and you could easily be in Stevenage or Harlow but
without the nice bits. Brussels has lots of the same and so do any
number of other continental cities.

For what it's worth, I reckon we've actually done a *better* job with
our urban fabric than many of our neighbours. (Though that's not to
say we don't have some monstrosities, too.)
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In article om,
"John B" wrote:
David Boothroyd wrote:
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and
biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier
contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should
have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.

OT, but is this some kind of attempt to smear Ming as "just as bad as
Labour" for believing what Mr Blair told everyone before the Iraq war?

No. It is a demonstration that the belief that Baathist Iraq had weapons
of mass destruction was reasonable and shared widely. It is therefore
irrational and ahistorical to claim that the only reason people believed
Iraq had WMD was that it was in the dossier.

While I understand (especially today of all days) that believing what
that lot say is a deeply unwise plan, I'm not convinced that their
mendacity was so clear four years ago that an opposition spokesman
would have been right to automatically assume our PM would take us to
war based on a tissue of lies.

No lies were told. The Prime Minister had been advised by the
intelligence agencies that Iraq had WMD, and believed it (not
surprisingly given that everyone else believed it as well), and
said to the public what he honestly believed in private. If that
analysis turned out to be wrong, it was not because the Prime
Minister was attempting to deceive.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.

In article ,
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article ,
(David Boothroyd) wrote:

If you really like his buildings, one of the best is the one he
built for himself at Chester House, Clarendon Place W2 (just off
Bayswater Road). It is quite the most beautifully proportioned
neo-Georgian house I have seen. I was walking by it once when I
thought "that house looks just like Cambridge University Library
designed as a two storey house" which was not surprising!

Eek! Complete with tower?!

Fortunately not.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:54:05 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:59:19 +0100, David Boothroyd
wrote:

55 Broadway?

Site has got to be worth a large sum of money on the open market, freeing
up resources which could be much better utilised elsewhere in the tube
system.

But why would you want to demolish such a nice distinguished building?

If it's not fit for purpose, it's 'niceness' is irrelevant. LT is there to
provide public transport, nothing else, it's assets are not there for the
benefit of train spotters, architecture wonks or unaccountable quangos who
don't have to pick up the tab for specious contradictory regulation.

So LU shouldn't do anything to reflect its heritage, its history and its
design excellence?

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?

All of the stations that are excellent examples of historical designs
should be flattened and replaced with mindless railway versions of a bus
shelter? Do you have shares in Metronet and Tube Lines as I'm sure they
would much prefer to bring in some prefabricated load of crap rather
than deal with the existing stations we have with all of their
difficulties and foibles? I'm sure they'd much rather not have to worry
about heritage features, design and special material requirements.

I really do not understand your approach to building design and
preservation - does function always override form in your book?

Speaking as a representative of the local electorate, I'd prefer that
we have guidance from experts on what is a proper historic building
design and what is undistinguished.

Such 'advice' is only valid if the alleged experts guidance is objective.
In the case of the EH et al, it is not.

They aren't paid to be objective. They are paid to fulfil their brief as
set by legislation.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:54:05 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:59:19 +0100, David Boothroyd
wrote:

55 Broadway?

snippitty So LU shouldn't do anything to reflect its heritage, its history
and its
design excellence?

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?

All of the stations that are excellent examples of historical designs
should be flattened and replaced with mindless railway versions of a bus
shelter? Do you have shares in Metronet and Tube Lines as I'm sure they
would much prefer to bring in some prefabricated load of crap rather
than deal with the existing stations we have with all of their
difficulties and foibles? I'm sure they'd much rather not have to worry
about heritage features, design and special material requirements.

True Story - Back in the happy days when we were a railway and the company
plan was but a twinkle in somebody completely Dagenham's(1) eye there was a
little depot called Arnos Grove. It was a happy place, friendly, quiet,
spares on the end of an autophone in the public bar of the Arnos Arms(2)
that kind of thing.
The train crew locker/messroom was reached via a door trainside of the
barrier in the booking hall. Although appearing to be made of wood this door
weighed so much as to be made of pig iron and with monotonous frequency
would physically pull the screws holding the hinges from the concrete door
surround. Eventually one of us would wake/sober up enough to notice and
wander down to the SM to report the defect.
A repairman would, in the fullness of time arrive and amid much sucking
of teeth announce that "well guv, yer problem is that the door's to heavy,
what you need is a completely new door and frame..." you know, gentle reader
what's coming next "...but this is a listed building see, so we're
b*ggered." He would then fill up the gaping screw holes with yet more
concrete, wait for it to set and rawplug the "Black Gate" back into the
wall, safe in the knowledge that he had a job for life. Of course, once the
dark side gained control, and the company plan arrived in all it's evil
majesty, the little friendly depot was closed, it's inhabitants scattered to
the four corners of the combine, the locker/messroom was converted into a
palatial GSM's office. First thing on the conversion? Yep, replace that
bloody door!

(1) Dagenham - Mad, several stops past barking.
(2) Those of you who live at the east end of the Picc think it's rough now,
in those days if a train sat down in the platform with no relief, you had to
wait for the guard to finish his pint and the driver his game of pool before
we turned a wheel.

Trust me I'm a DMT, would I lie to you?
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change from jealous to sad to reply.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:43:09 GMT, "Steve Dulieu"
wrote:

[big snip]

Trust me I'm a DMT, would I lie to you?

I think I'll refrain from answering that question in a public forum ;-)
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!