Oh, I agree absolutely; that aspect sucks, but no one is forcing me to pay to see shitty remakes and lackluster reboots of stuff that used to be cool when I was young.
I avoid that nonsense like the fuckin’ plague and I’m never surprised when the effort to capitalize on nostalgia fails.
If this thing is built to comply with 2018 building codes, it won’t even be a replica of a Neutra, and whomever he sells it to should have no problem pointing out that it’s of no historical value whatsoever when they apply to tear it down and build a 4000 sqft mansion.
does sf not have a listed listing
Is that actually listed? It is in a conservation area but I can’t see that the building itself is listed.
In many cases that’s why something gets listed. Listing is not just for buildings of outstanding architectural merit, it’s also to preserve typical buildings of the past.
So, for example some streets of bog-standard Victorian terraces get listed because they are bog-standard and if you don’t list the “typical/boring” buildings developers knock all of them down and you have none left.
The Carlton Tavern in London (a 1920s pub which was the only building on its street to survive the Blitz and had many original features including the tiled exterior) was illegally demolished in 2015 while it was being considered for listing. The owners told the landlady to close the pub for two days for an inventory- she came back to find it a pile of rubble.
The local council ordered it to be rebuilt ‘brick by brick’ , and banned the owners from selling the land until the pub was rebuilt. They also refused to allow them to include any residential accommodation in the rebuilt pub - they had demolished it after their initial application to replace it with a block of flats with a ground floor bar was refused.
The latest news is that the rebuilt pub, which is not yet completed, is being advertised for sale.
I understand the argument, but buildings built in a given period are typically typical. If you can’t tear at least some of the typical ones down – this one was built as a parking garage in the 30s? – you get kind of stuck.
So, for example some streets of bog-standard Victorian terraces get listed
I certainly think an argument can be made that zoning can be used to maintain historical character of streets. We even do this in my young neighborhood. However, some ways of doing that work better than others, and this instance seems rather bad. It neither retains the old facade in its original form, nor does it expand with something complementary (like the Guggenheim addition in NYC).
At least it doesn’t set nearby cars on fire.
From a Ye Olde England standpoint, this is hilarious. There was a similar case over here a decade or two back where a property speculator was told to rebuild a listed building he’d “accidentally demolished”. In that case, the building was maybe 400-500 years old.
@Ministry I actually rather like that Sainsbury’s one. It looks a bit like the ghost of the old building, haunting the new.
And the rolling dunes that were destroyed by Trump’s golf course in Scotland (which he still owes a school and several houses for)?
Well spotted! I must have confused the regulations or misremembered local news coverage. The building next door, the Alexandra Hotel, is Grade II Listed so the developer of this block of student apartments was probably given permission so long as the facade was retained (sort-of…) for group value.
It is surprisingly successful - walking or driving past, one only notices the street-level frontage. Anyone who looks up can’t quite believe it, though.
Me too, in theory. It’s just a concept that needs to be executed really well or it looks unfinished. It looks unfinished, IMO.
Walking along New Street in Birmingham is a bit like that. Pretty much everything above the ground floor is High Victorian in to Edwardian. I’m sure that other cities of a similar vintage are the same.
Agreed, and that is the way the system works over here (or at least is supposed to).
The listing agency selects ‘typical’ buildings to preserve, say a building here or maybe a street there, rather than every building of x-type getting listed.
Some of the choices can be a bit odd and certainly there are some buildings listed which many people would in fact like to see demolished post-haste (sometimes including the architect themselves) because they are typical of a certain expression of a particular architectural trend that everyone except architectural historians wishes would be forgotten forever.
It also leads to nice little Tudor thatched cottages not being listed because the listing agency says we’ve got enough of those.
Oh good. I thought I was going bonkers. It’s funny but I don’t recognise that area at all even though I must have spent a fair bit of time in the Pendle Witch.
Lancaster seems to changed massively since I was last there which is admittedly [mumble, mumble] years ago.
As @eunasmith says - normally, it’s the ground floor that gets destroyed and as long as you only ever travel through British cities on the top deck of double-decker, you get quite a nice tour of British historical architecture.
In this case they seem to have plate-glassed the ground floor years ago and then moved in on the upper floors.
It does sort of work as you say. I’ve certainly seen a lot worse.
The Rose and Crown in Carlisle was demolished five years ago. I can’t work out why it wasn’t a listed building as it was one of the 14 new model inns designed by Harry Redfern that were prototypes of the modern British pub.
If you do want to see one of the new model inns then the Cumberland Inn is the least modified. It’s close to the bus and train stations too, so you don’t have to spend too long in Carlisle. Just don’t visit on a Friday and Saturday night, or any time this Friday (Black Eye Friday).
This is not just illegally tearing down historic buildings. My father was an architect and a long time rule follower. He would constantly point out buildings that violated some code or ordinance that the builder/architect had knowingly violated. A prime location is the gated neighborhood they lived in at the beach. There were rules/ords that put limits on the height of homes. More often than not, they exceeded the height “oops, our bad, you can’t expect us to tear down the house???” or pushing property limits (which can be important when one boundary is a sandy cliff-side down to the sea). As with most things, money=rules do not apply. Glad to hear they didn’t blink, and are going to (try to) make him rebuild. Not sure I’d put a bet on it…
State certified real property appraiser for a neighboring county here…
The remodel yet complete teardown/gutted ploy may work with the building department, but doesn’t work against the county assessors office. And no, leaving one wall up does NOT keep us from treating a remodel as new construction. We can do any percentage of new construction versus remodel. 90% new 10% old? Fine, we’ll add 90% of the new home construction as what we call “equivalent to new construction.”
And new construction assessment in the Bay area is going to be high.
We see tricks like this all the time
The reputable companies in it for the long run will check permits, but it is amazing what you can find someone to do if you waive around sacks of cash.
There was an update to some local laws a few years ago when developers realised that the completely outdated fines for knocking down a listed building were pocket change compared to the potential gains of throwing up some modern prefab on the “accidentally” demolished ruins.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
