Listed Structures - Any Point in Saving Them?

[CarltonA]

I'm broadly in favour of preserving historic buildings and structures but some may be just a burden and of no further use. Rusty and decaying seaside pier remnants or this bridge at Warrington for example:
http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/showthread.php/68441-Warrington-Transporter-Bridge-February-2012

The Warrington Transporter Bridge (or Bank Quay Transporter Bridge) was opened across the tidal River Mersey in 1916

Designed by William Henry Hunter, and built by contractor Sir William Arrol at a cost of £34,000, to connect parts of the Joseph Crosfield and Son Ltd soap and chemical works

It was originally one of two such bridges at this location, the other having been built in 1905

Initially it carried railway trucks up to 18 tonnes in weight but was converted for road vehicles in 1940 and upgraded to 30 tonne weight limit in 1953

What do members think, pour money in or get real and scrap?

 

[John Webb]

The Warrington transporter bridge was built for private company business, unlike the few other examples dotted around the countryside. So there is not only the problem of whether or not the structure should be preserved, but who contributes to it. The owner and/or the public? And if the latter, how in turn do you allow the occasional public viewing so they can see what's been preserved with their contribution(s) when it stands on private property?

One advantage of this particular example is that it is relatively small, so the preservation costs shouldn't be huge.

 

[edwin_m]

The Warrington transporter bridge was built for private company business, unlike the few other examples dotted around the countryside. So there is not only the problem of whether or not the structure should be preserved, but who contributes to it. The owner and/or the public? And if the latter, how in turn do you allow the occasional public viewing so they can see what's been preserved with their contribution(s) when it stands on private property?

One advantage of this particular example is that it is relatively small, so the preservation costs shouldn't be huge.

Can't we find some Native Americans who have a canyon in the wrong place and a gang of willing Geordies who are prepared to rebuild it?

 

[fowler9]

Its complicated isn't it. I love this country and all of its variety. The bridge in Warrington is brilliant but a lot of people would not appreciate their money being spent on saving it. At the same I wouldn't want the country being rebuilt every couple of decades based on our current short termism.

 

[Busaholic]

I'm broadly in favour of preserving historic buildings and structures but some may be just a burden and of no further use. Rusty and decaying seaside pier remnants or this bridge at Warrington for example:
http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/showthread.php/68441-Warrington-Transporter-Bridge-February-2012

What do members think, pour money in or get real and scrap?

I don't know the Warrington bridge, so don't have any views on it. I too broadly agree with preserving historic structures, but not when they've gone too far down the road towards oblivion, like the West Pier at Brighton. Brighton has a pier, celebrate it and don't waste tens of millions in recreating a pastiche which will require huge sums to maintain and be a 'white elephant' from the start.
Perhaps more controversially, and having passed it hundreds of times over the years at close quarters, I've long been of the view that Battersea Power Station (or what remains of it) should be knocked down. Being of the view that Pink Floyd stopped playing decent music in late '68 might be a factor, I admit.

 

[infobleep]

I always remember the bridge at Rugby, which I liked passing under but I believe it's gone as I don't see it now.

There is a signal box on the Willesden Junction main line which I enjoyed passing but that went and in its place just a concrete platform with, as far as I can tell, nothing on it. Don't know if anything is stored within it mind you.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

These listed burdens may be a burden now, but who knows, they could be useful attractions or put back into original use in the future.

In my area there's a huge Ice Factory that's been closed since 1990. It was the largest I think. It is in bad knick with both the port and the council not repairing the listed building. There has been much talk about demolishing it in the council's ''masterplan 2009'' but a group now has plans to turn it into a working museum or cinema.

 

[CarltonA]

The Warrington transporter bridge was built for private company business, unlike the few other examples dotted around the countryside. So there is not only the problem of whether or not the structure should be preserved, but who contributes to it. The owner and/or the public? And if the latter, how in turn do you allow the occasional public viewing so they can see what's been preserved with their contribution(s) when it stands on private property?

One advantage of this particular example is that it is relatively small, so the preservation costs shouldn't be huge.

There is no real incentive for for private enterprises to restore these things or they cannot afford to do so. They are prevented from destroying them by the listing so they will leave them to become unsafe instead. Birnbeck Pier for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birnbeck_Pier