4 ms·

To be fair, most historical buildings of that age would be listed[0]. However there are plenty of buildings from 100 - 200 years ago that are not listed. For ex

To be fair, most historical buildings of that age would be listed[0]. However there are plenty of buildings from 100 - 200 years ago that are not listed. For example, the last remaining building of a historic factory in the village where I grew up was refused listed status, it has since been distroyed by fire in a convenient 'accident'. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listed_building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listed_building

Jedd 9y ago
Yup, we've got that here in AU - but I gather the de-listing process isn't especially arduous, given the potential $-incentives for developers to push through. It seems to rely on the presence of motivated defenders, with sufficient time and resources - a big ask given what they're up against.
7952 9y ago
A lot of railway structures are not listed. Bridges are particularly threatened at the moment as they are not high enough to allow electrification. This is shame considering how historically significant these railways are. Network Rail are very relaxed about demolishing Brunel structures.
- Boothroid 9y ago
  This is one thing I just do not understand about many of my countrymen. So often I seem to read about wanton destruction of precious places such as buildings, forest and so on. Some of the destroyers are demonstrably ignorant/moronic, but the worst are the intelligent but sociopathic cynics that wilfully destroy, almost always in the hunt for profit. Ugh. For example a property owner near me destroyed some greatly loved ancient woodland in defiance of legal protections on the woodland. His response to legal action is to sell the woodland - if there were any justice he would be forced to reforest it, and fined half his fortune or something equally fierce. We don't deserve to have nice things around when we let these people thrive.

4 ms·

To be fair, most historical buildings of that age would be listed[0]. However there are plenty of buildings from 100 - 200 years ago that are not listed. For ex

by PoachedSausage 9y ago

Jedd 9y ago
Yup, we've got that here in AU - but I gather the de-listing process isn't especially arduous, given the potential $-incentives for developers to push through. It seems to rely on the presence of motivated defenders, with sufficient time and resources - a big ask given what they're up against.
7952 9y ago
A lot of railway structures are not listed. Bridges are particularly threatened at the moment as they are not high enough to allow electrification. This is shame considering how historically significant these railways are. Network Rail are very relaxed about demolishing Brunel structures.
- Boothroid 9y ago
  This is one thing I just do not understand about many of my countrymen. So often I seem to read about wanton destruction of precious places such as buildings, forest and so on. Some of the destroyers are demonstrably ignorant/moronic, but the worst are the intelligent but sociopathic cynics that wilfully destroy, almost always in the hunt for profit. Ugh. For example a property owner near me destroyed some greatly loved ancient woodland in defiance of legal protections on the woodland. His response to legal action is to sell the woodland - if there were any justice he would be forced to reforest it, and fined half his fortune or something equally fierce. We don't deserve to have nice things around when we let these people thrive.