3 ms·

My house was built in the 1870s so I'm quite familiar with most of the things I mentioned above! Thankfully it's not in a conservation area though. I certainly

My house was built in the 1870s so I'm quite familiar with most of the things I mentioned above! Thankfully it's not in a conservation area though. I certainly think there needs to be a balance between the needs of modern occupants of a building and the desire to preserve the heritage of traditional buildings. If there isn't an acknowledgement of the need to modernise these buildings they fall into near museum status. I don't think that is good for modern day occupants or for those who would wish the home to be maintained into the future.

CalRobert 7y ago
It definitely isn't - protection is often the first step to a building falling in to decay. That way you can get it delisted, hopefully. This dilapidated mill was in horrible shape in street view 8 years ago, and since then has rotted even further. It's dangerous and hideous, but it's "protected" so it remains a huge burden on the town. It's illegal to tear it down. You'd be a moron to put any money in to instead of just building something else. But the heritage fetishists won't delist it so it remains, an eyesore and attractive nuisance, which does wonders for liability insurance no doubt. https://goo.gl/maps/r2STVqbRMLmbhDY3A https://goo.gl/maps/r2STVqbRMLmbhDY3A Hell, imagine if we had protected status for codebases. "You could rewrite this from scratch but dammit you're going to keep this in jQuery because that's our heritage!