Under Threat: Board School - Bucks Row

[Chris]

No one is forcing you to read and/or post to this thread. If you feel the proposed changes to the board school building are not worthy of discussion, then may I respectfully suggest you refrain from posting here, and contribute to the threads that do interest you.

Well, quite. Indeed, it may well be that telling other people what their business is, is none of Stephen Thomas's business!

[babybird67]

i've signed

i think it's important to preserve what we can.

[Andrew Firth]

We're here to discuss who or what JTR was.

What property developers get up to these days is none of our business

I have to disagree. Who or what JTR was, is just one topic of discussion out of many regarding the Whitechapel murders. There are many, many other sub-topics of interest covered on these boards, and changes to JtR locations is one of them.

No one is forcing you to read and/or post to this thread. If you feel the proposed changes to the board school building are not worthy of discussion, then may I respectfully suggest you refrain from posting here, and contribute to the threads that do interest you.

All the best
Andrew

[Stephen Thomas]

We're here to discuss who or what JTR was.

What property developers get up to these days is none of our business

[Andrew Firth]

Had a quick play around in Photoshop, to create a montage with a difference. Instead of buildings that aren't there anymore, this is a building (or part of one) that is not yet there, and hopefully won't ever be built.

Sorry chaps, it just looks all wrong.



All the best
Andrew

[Andrew Firth]

It makes you wonder what the reaction was to the building of the extra floor on top of the Commercial Street Police Station back in the 1900s.

At least that was built in the same style as the existing structure.

Andrew

[Celesta]

Everything changes. It either creeps inexorably into decay or dust, or man intervenes to speed up the process. Preservation is only for the moment and is egoistic in nature. Allow change. The best one can get is a false concept of preservation. The reality is that nothing is static.

Good luck.

Mike

It's not like they're tearing it down. That's something to be grateful about. Many other sites are gone. At least this one will remain. Perhaps they could do something more in tune with the original architecture, but the building will remain, and that's a good thing. If there must be change, at least it's not drastic. Or not too drastic.

[KatBradshaw]

When I lived in Manchester my housemate did an internship with Urban Splash. They did a lot of good work preserving the nature of Manchester's industrial past without hiding it under concrete. So many places have been wreacked, Huntingdon near where my parents live was once a beautiful Medieval market town then was vomited on from above by a cement mixer in the 1960s.

[Chris]

Well, this is the plan. To be honest (and I don't want to sound contrary), but it doesn't look that bad. Hardly a devastating change.

Obviously it's not "devastating." But why on earth add a modern glass and metal story on the top of a Victorian building that's been sensitively restored?

"Everything changes. It either creeps inexorably into decay or dust, or man intervenes to speed up the process. Preservation is only for the moment and is egoistic in nature. Allow change. The best one can get is a false concept of preservation. The reality is that nothing is static."

I don't see the logic of this. Just because preservation is never perfect or permanent it doesn't mean it's not worth attempting to the best of our abilities. Otherwise why not tear down the Wren churches in the City and build office blocks instead? That's what the Victorians used to do, and I'd venture to suggest it's left us a lot poorer.

[Andrew Firth]

John, fair enough, it could have been much worse. But this is still pretty awful.

For me, the most galling thing, is that they're proposing a metal panel finish to this extension, which will stick out like a sore thumb. Considering they could have opted for a brick finish, to ensure the new floor was in keeping with the 1876 building, this seems like a poor choice of materials.

Anyway, I seriously hope they don't build it. It would be a shame if they did. We already have the forthcoming removal of the Woods Buildings overbridge crossing Whitechapel station, which will mean that when the Crossrail station is completed, there will be an archway on the high street leading off to nothing at all. The last thing we need is to lose the one remaining "landmark" from 1888 in this area.

All the best
Andrew

[John Bennett]

Well, this is the plan. To be honest (and I don't want to sound contrary), but it doesn't look that bad. Hardly a devastating change.



"Everything changes. It either creeps inexorably into decay or dust, or man intervenes to speed up the process. Preservation is only for the moment and is egoistic in nature. Allow change. The best one can get is a false concept of preservation. The reality is that nothing is static."

Difficult for some to accept perhaps, but true in some way...

[Andrew Firth]

Thanks for highlighting this Adrian. I've signed the petition, and I suggest that anyone else who cares about the east end and its buildings does so too.

All the best
Andrew

[The Good Michael]

Everything changes. It either creeps inexorably into decay or dust, or man intervenes to speed up the process. Preservation is only for the moment and is egoistic in nature. Allow change. The best one can get is a false concept of preservation. The reality is that nothing is static.

Good luck.

Mike

[The Grave Maurice]

Isn't Trinity House the only bit of architecture than remains, more or less unchanged, at any of the 1888 sites? We should inundate the buggers with objections.

[Chris]

Signing the on-line petition at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petitions/trinityhall/

Thanks for publicizing this petition. The link should read as follows:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/trinityhall/