Pre-match drinking - all change next season

[Jimbo]

Because if it has to go to help regenerate the area, then so be it. It's a decent building, but there's nothing there which would be an irretrievable loss.

This is the point. Does it really have to go to regenerate the area? Is there another way? Has the council really looked into the alternatives? According to the quote in the article, apparently not. It's the easy way.

And of course it's a link to the area's past. How could it not be?

[dave.woodhall]

And if by some miracle these buildings were restored, you would be complaining that the city centre was choked, overcrowded, public transport was appalling and something should be done about it.

Thanks for telling me what I'd be complaining about in a hypothetical future where all our great old buildings remained. As far as I know, very few of those I mentioned made way for road or public transport improvements (except Easy Row). They were just replaced by ugly new buildings, some of which are now either being demolished or covered up. The monstrosity that replaced the Queen's Hotel is now being partially cladded in reflective metal sheeting so it'll reflect the nice old buildings opposite. If it wasn't so tragic, it'd be funny.

I'm sure that when these 'great old buildings' were built someone complained that whatever it was they replaced was going. And as Chris pointed out, they, nor you, didn't have to live, work or try to make a go of a business in them.

[pauliewalnuts]

And of course it's a link to the area's past. How could it not be?

In that case, most of the housing stock of the area is a link to the area's past, too.

Nobody wants to see nice, old buildings demolished needlessly, but it has to be accepted that sometimes, there is a need, otherwise nothing moves forward.

As for whether the council gave it due consideration or not, I don't know that they did, but then again, I don't know that they didn't either.

Apparently, it is going because the road junction there needs to be widened to carry traffic to the new industrial park. So there is at least some semblance of a reason for knocking it down.

Maybe the viability of the industrial park depended on improved access, or the development would have gone elsewhere? Maybe organising access to go around the pub would have cost so much, the whole scheme would be at risk. I don't know, but then again, neither do any of us.

Admitting that there might be compelling economic reasons to knock it down doesn't equate to being some kind of latter day Manzoni, unable to appreciate the mistakes made in the past.

It's just not that simple.

[Jimbo]

Do you not think those buildings were great?

They seem to manage ok in other cities around the world. And lots of them are able to use their 'difficult and expensive to maintain' old buildings to attract tourists. The way the city shaped up after the 1950s, it's not surprising people thought it a concrete mess. They weren't 100 percent correct, but we're still dealing with the damage that perception has done to our city.

I'm not against demolishing buildings altogether, obviously, but in a city that's done away needlessly with far too many, we should be extra careful about what we demolish next.

[pauliewalnuts]

Do you not think those buildings were great?

They seem to manage ok in other cities around the world. And lots of them are able to use their 'difficult and expensive to maintain' old buildings to attract tourists. The way the city shaped up after the 1950s, it's not surprising people thought it a concrete mess. They weren't 100 percent correct, but we're still dealing with the damage that perception has done to our city.

Christ, Jimbo, of course I thought they were great, who wouldn't?

I've seen the pictures, and seen what has replaced them and think it depressing. I am sure every single person on this thread would look at those pictures and think exactly the same.

That's not the argument, though, is it? The argument is about this specific building and whether it should or should not be demolished, and all that is happening is some people are raising the point that there might actually be a convincing argument for it going. That's all.

[dave.woodhall]

How many cities of Birmingham's size, and our climate, have been successfully repackaged as tourist attractions based on anything as late as the Victorian era? Some of those old buildings might have been nice to look at, but they were hardly the Uffizi. As Carl Chinn of all people once put it - it's easy to criticise but something had to be done, and done quickly in post-war Birmingham.

[Jimbo]

And of course it's a link to the area's past. How could it not be?

In that case, most of the housing stock of the area is a link to the area's past, too.

Quite right, and most of it's gone. Certainly around the environs of the Edward.

Maybe you're right? Maybe there is a compelling case to demolish it? Maybe there really is no other way?

Maybe the council should have to prove all this without doubt before they swing the wrecking ball?

[Jimbo]

Do you not think those buildings were great?

They seem to manage ok in other cities around the world. And lots of them are able to use their 'difficult and expensive to maintain' old buildings to attract tourists. The way the city shaped up after the 1950s, it's not surprising people thought it a concrete mess. They weren't 100 percent correct, but we're still dealing with the damage that perception has done to our city.

Christ, Jimbo, of course I thought they were great, who wouldn't?
 

Sorry, Paulie, that question was aimed at Dave. But yes, it depresses the hell out of me. What a city it would have been if we'd kept most of our proud heritage intact.

[Jimbo]

How many cities of Birmingham's size, and our climate, have been successfully repackaged as tourist attractions based on anything as late as the Victorian era? Some of those old buildings might have been nice to look at, but they were hardly the Uffizi. As Carl Chinn of all people once put it - it's easy to criticise but something had to be done, and done quickly in post-war Birmingham.

It's not about repackaging, it's about having a cultured and attractive environment in which we can welcome tourists. But it's not just about tourism, it's about the people who live here. I for one feel better about where I live when I'm surrounded by beautiful, historic buildings as opposed to concrete / corrugated steel monstrosities which need demolishing every 40 years or so.

[dave.woodhall]

How many cities of Birmingham's size, and our climate, have been successfully repackaged as tourist attractions based on anything as late as the Victorian era? Some of those old buildings might have been nice to look at, but they were hardly the Uffizi. As Carl Chinn of all people once put it - it's easy to criticise but something had to be done, and done quickly in post-war Birmingham.

It's not about repackaging, it's about having a cultured and attractive environment in which we can welcome tourists. But it's not just about tourism, it's about the people who live here. I for one feel better about where I live when I'm surrounded by beautiful, historic buildings as opposed to concrete / corrugated steel monstrosities which need demolishing every 40 years or so.

I'm sure you do. I'm also sure that the majority of people who work in the city centre would much rather spent their time in the monstrosities you abhor than the nice-looking and inefficient buildings you love to look at.

[Chris Smith]

How many cities of Birmingham's size, and our climate, have been successfully repackaged as tourist attractions based on anything as late as the Victorian era? Some of those old buildings might have been nice to look at, but they were hardly the Uffizi. As Carl Chinn of all people once put it - it's easy to criticise but something had to be done, and done quickly in post-war Birmingham.

It's not about repackaging, it's about having a cultured and attractive environment in which we can welcome tourists. But it's not just about tourism, it's about the people who live here. I for one feel better about where I live when I'm surrounded by beautiful, historic buildings as opposed to concrete / corrugated steel monstrosities which need demolishing every 40 years or so.

There needs to be a balance though and you just seem opposed to anything changing, ever. That's what the listing process is for, recognising those buildings that have merit and where every effort should be made to made to maintain them but, in conjunction with the planning laws, recognising that there are other criteria that also have to be considered.

[Brend'Watkins]

How many cities of Birmingham's size, and our climate, have been successfully repackaged as tourist attractions based on anything as late as the Victorian era? Some of those old buildings might have been nice to look at, but they were hardly the Uffizi. As Carl Chinn of all people once put it - it's easy to criticise but something had to be done, and done quickly in post-war Birmingham.

Well, we can manage to save certain Victorian buildings when we put our mind to it.  Buildings around Margaret st in town are just facades with the interiors adapted for modern (late 80's) office space.  The area is better for it than a new build even though the cost of doing so is greater.

Back to the Edward, from what I've seen of it's interior it certainly isn't original but for some plaster coving in certain areas. It's the facade that's iconic for the area and that for me is the important bit.  I doubt very much that there isn't a solution that would allow the Edward to remain.  It might cost a bit more short term but long term we reap the benefit.

[Jimbo]

How many cities of Birmingham's size, and our climate, have been successfully repackaged as tourist attractions based on anything as late as the Victorian era? Some of those old buildings might have been nice to look at, but they were hardly the Uffizi. As Carl Chinn of all people once put it - it's easy to criticise but something had to be done, and done quickly in post-war Birmingham.

It's not about repackaging, it's about having a cultured and attractive environment in which we can welcome tourists. But it's not just about tourism, it's about the people who live here. I for one feel better about where I live when I'm surrounded by beautiful, historic buildings as opposed to concrete / corrugated steel monstrosities which need demolishing every 40 years or so.

There needs to be a balance though and you just seem opposed to anything changing, ever. That's what the listing process is for, recognising those buildings that have merit and where every effort should be made to made to maintain them but, in conjunction with the planning laws, recognising that there are other criteria that also have to be considered.

That's not true at all. I've stated that I'm not against the demolition of all old buildings. What I'm against is the needless demolition of old, characterful, aesthetically pleasing and / or historically important buildings, to be replaced by ugly structures that will themselves require demolition in a relatively short space of time. Especially when those who stand to benefit most are contractors, developers and councillors.

[Chris Smith]

One man's "aesthetically pleasing" is another man's "monstrous carbuncle" , it's all subjective.

[Jimbo]

One man's "aesthetically pleasing" is another man's "monstrous carbuncle" , it's all subjective.

Well, I'm sure some people might find Florence a monstrous carbuncle, and Milton Keynes aesthetically pleasing. But they'd probably be idiots.