Another Part of Leicester's Heritage disappears.....

[Houdini Logic]

when did it stop ? no fecker told me i was free

They've given you internet access - stop being ungrateful!

[lou]

Why do people get nostalgic/defensive about things just because they are old?

I'm sure many more people will get enjoyment out of the new sports centre/swimming pool than they would a bridge

Only if theyre students of DMU.

Id get far more enjoyment from a pub than a poxy swimming pool anyway.

[Houdini Logic]

Only if theyre students of DMU.

Not sure about that - I play 5-a-side every week at a Uni pitch, they're usually much better and much cheaper than private pitches

[Lillehamring]

At least we have an excuse for a good old piss up on Saturday

without me i'm afraid, had to change the date of my visit - but there's a ticket for plymouth going spare....

[Lillehamring]

Why do people get nostalgic/defensive about things just because they are old?

I'm sure many more people will get enjoyment out of the new sports centre/swimming pool than they would a bridge

well, on a literal level, you can't be nostalgic about things that are still a part of your life:

The term nostalgia describes a longing for the past, often in idealized form.[1] The word is a learned formation of a Greek compound, consisting of νόστος, nóstos, "returning home", a Homeric word, and άλγος, álgos, "pain" or "ache". It was described as a medical condition, a form of melancholy, in the Early Modern period, and came to be an important topic in Romanticism.[1]

In common, less clinical usage, nostalgia includes a general interest in past eras and their personalities and events, especially the "good old days" of a few generations back recast in an idyllic light, such as the Belle Époque, Merry England, Neo-Victorian aesthetics, the US "Antebellum" Old South, etc. Sometimes it is brought on by a sudden image, or rememberance of something from one's childhood.

but, specific to this debate it is not so much the beauty of the structure, but of the senseless destruction of something... obviously in the 80s preserving something as a monument to industry wasn't considered necessary... but go down northgates street now and the place is just a heartless abandonded wilderness, the area where they pulled down the arches is a disused (except by gypsies) car showroom.

further more, if they had left the infrastructure in place, it would have been more viable to set up a light rail linking the west end to birstal and the mass of residential areas in between.

for such a (generally) ugly city as leicester, it seems odd that most of the anti-destruction lobby cite the ugliness of the bridges as reason enough for destruction...

yet i'm sure no one would object to the demolition of the holiday inn or the haymarket....

the difference between the two examples is the potential super building one could build on the haymarket site, compared to the fact that you can't build anything on the site of a bridge, other than another bridge.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and i think things like railway arches and bridges of this period are wonderful to look at....

[lou]

Not sure about that - I play 5-a-side every week at a Uni pitch, they're usually much better and much cheaper than private pitches

They havent said if the general public can use the new hall or pool yet and I enquired about using the gym at the Sandford centre when my hubby ran a martial arts club there and it was very expensive for the public.

Besides its not like theres not plenty of pools and gyms around anyway.

[Lillehamring]

here is another example of how thoughtless and lazy planners in leicester are...

whilst i don't personally have a problem with the bede business park development:

it seems tragic now that for just one extra building (see map below) they felt the following buildings were not worth preserving:

as you can see, the retention of them would have had little impact on the overall plan - money and convenience, it really should be the city motto

the site is the small white rectangle, furthest right...

[lavrentis]

Blah blah blah abuse Leicester this abuse leicester that

[Houdini Logic]

well, on a literal level, you can't be nostalgic about things that are still a part of your life:

but, specific to this debate it is not so much the beauty of the structure, but of the senseless destruction of something... obviously in the 80s preserving something as a monument to industry wasn't considered necessary... but go down northgates street now and the place is just a heartless abandonded wilderness, the area where they pulled down the arches is a disused (except by gypsies) car showroom.

further more, if they had left the infrastructure in place, it would have been more viable to set up a light rail linking the west end to birstal and the mass of residential areas in between.

for such a (generally) ugly city as leicester, it seems odd that most of the anti-destruction lobby cite the ugliness of the bridges as reason enough for destruction...

yet i'm sure no one would object to the demolition of the holiday inn or the haymarket....

the difference between the two examples is the potential super building one could build on the haymarket site, compared to the fact that you can't build anything on the site of a bridge, other than another bridge.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and i think things like railway arches and bridges of this period are wonderful to look at....

Hardly senseless though - that may be an argument if they were turning the area into a landfill site.

My problem with this is people are too quick to jump on the 'preservation' bandwagon, when they need to look at this with a rational head - it's a bridge that no-one cares about/visits and if they could put something useful in place then brilliant.

Also, I think the attractivness of a site does and should play a big part in whether it stays or not.

[Lillehamring]

Blah blah blah abuse Leicester this abuse leicester that

super constructive, thanks for your input...

some people on here may not remember these places, i remember them fondly, i'm sure many others do, it's part of leicester's heritage and culture, and also shows people why sometimes a little thought goes a long way....

if you find it boring, don't read the thread - it's pretty apparent what people are going to be talking about on here

[Edmund]

here is another example of how thoughtless and lazy planners in leicester are...

whilst i don't personally have a problem with the bede business park development:

it seems tragic now that for just one extra building (see map below) they felt the following buildings were not worth preserving:

as you can see, the retention of them would have had little impact on the overall plan - money and convenience, it really should be the city motto

the site is the small white rectangle, furthest right...

give it a rest. We know our city is shit in comparison to the great architectural feats around Europe, but do you have to rub our nose's in it everyday.

Yes we know our building planners our shit.

Yes we know are transport is shit.

Yes we know our bus station is shit.

Yes we know our new builds are shit.

Yes we know our theaters are shit.

Yes we know our stadium is shit.

Yes we know our council is shit.

Yes we know our music venues are shit.

etc etc etc

But we deal with it because not all of us have the luxury of living in Oslo

[hairy]

Yes we know our new builds are shit.

Not all

but most, yes.

[Houdini Logic]

let's be honest, Leicester folk are renowned for moaning.

let's face it - the city isn't that bad, we have some nice old and new buildings and I could list a lot of other places that are much, much worse...

That said, the bridge is ugly as sh*t - get rid of it

[Lillehamring]

this has nothing to do with me living in Oslo, this is about being proud of Leicester's heritage and exposing the mistakes that have been made in the past (and are still being made) so hopefully what is left of leicester's history won't go the same way... believe me i could fill a thread on oslo's heritage that has disapeared, but it wouldn't be relevant to many people who visit FT

for the record, i think the plans for the bus station are very exciting, and i quite like this development:

i think this is quite a good looking building, too:

...the kirby & west building and the GCR depot are important memories for me and i'm sure other people too, suggesting that they might have been retained given how little was gained hardly deserves these sort of reactions, especially in a thread dedicated to such examples.

what on earth do you expect to be posted in this thread?

[Lillehamring]

Hardly senseless though - that may be an argument if they were turning the area into a landfill site.

My problem with this is people are too quick to jump on the 'preservation' bandwagon, when they need to look at this with a rational head - it's a bridge that no-one cares about/visits and if they could put something useful in place then brilliant.

Also, I think the attractivness of a site does and should play a big part in whether it stays or not.

it strikes me as senseless to demolish something when it doesn't need to be - in the case of the bowstring bridge, whilst it may be ugly and boring to some, to many it is a part of their lives and memories - with a bit of thought and commtment it could easily have been incorporated into the design, ultimately nothing will be built on the bridge's footprint.

this is just about the council and the DMU saving money, that simple...

and the whole 'demolish for safety' is balls, as they have kept and maintained several GCR bridges of the same age along the great central way and in the bede park development - so, again, they could have done a better job at preservation.

some people may not be interested in how leicester used to be, and how it's changed, but i am, even if i no longer live there, i still have very fond memories and hate to think that these memories are destroyed so casually...

[Edmund]

let's be honest, Leicester British folk are renowned for moaning.

let's face it - the city isn't that bad, we have some nice old and new buildings and I could list a lot of other places that are much, much worse...

Correct.

this has nothing to do with me living in Oslo, this is about being proud of Leicester's heritage and exposing the mistakes that have been made in the past (and are still being made) so hopefully what is left of leicester's history won't go the same way...

Fairplay to you and there is nothing wrong with reminiscing on where you use to live but if your so passionate and really feel angry by the changes, you should be on the first flight back to England and running for council. At the end of the day we can reminiscent and complain all we want on the forum but fook all will get done. People slag the council off at every opportunity but I don't see why they don't try running for office if they think they can do better.

...the kirby & west building and the GCR depot are important memories for me and i'm sure other people too, suggesting that they might have been retained given how little was gained hardly deserves these sort of reactions, especially in a thread dedicated to such examples.

I think the reason why you're getting these reactions is because it's becoming a little bit tedious now. The constant threads slagging of every decision the council make (not saying I agree with them). The constant comparison between Leicester and great European cultural cities. etc

We all know Leicester isin't the greatest and were no Cambridge but I can name you just as many parts of Leicester which still keep their heritage. Take stoneygate for example.

Leicester will change wether you like it or not and maybe you don't agree with these changes and thats fair enough but you have to move with the times. If not then run for council and stop these changes yourself.

You don't hear Egyptians complaining that they don't build pyramids anymore.

[Guest]

You don't hear Egyptians complaining that they don't build pyramids anymore.

They aren't knocking them down, either.

[Edmund]

They aren't knocking them down, either.

Thats's because people from around the globe come to see them.

I've not known the bowstring bridge to be a tourist hot spot.

Just for the record I wanted the bridge to stay and love old heritage but at the same time understand why the council are regenerating the city even if it's not to everyones tastes. The point I'm making in relevance to the comment on Egypt is that cultures move on.

[davieG]

Thats's because people from around the globe come to see them.

I've not known the bowstring bridge to be a tourist hot spot.

Just for the record I wanted the bridge to stay and love old heritage but at the same time understand why the council are regenerating the city even if it's not to everyones tastes. The point I'm making in relevance to the comment on Egypt is that cultures move on.

There was a group of architects from Manchester down to see it a couple of months ago, ironically some having earned their qualifications at DeMontfort University.

Just because it's not a mainline attraction doesn't mean it's not visited. Do you think hoards of people go visiting other listed building, the University Building on Viccy Park is listed and you don't see too many tourist around there.

Besides the argument for retaining it was that it was unique in it's design the same reason given for preserving hundreds of buildings many in a worst state than this bridge.

Lets not forget they wont be building anything on the bridge footprint unless they decide to put the swimming pool in the middle of the road.

[Guest]

Thats's because people from around the globe come to see them.

I've not known the bowstring bridge to be a tourist hot spot.

Just for the record I wanted the bridge to stay and love old heritage but at the same time understand why the council are regenerating the city even if it's not to everyones tastes. The point I'm making in relevance to the comment on Egypt is that cultures move on.

Ah, so you want to move the goal posts. As davieG pointed out, there was an engineering interest in the Bridge. And if you want to get into changing arguments, the whole pyramid phase was just a fad, and didn't last long. Tombs were far more popular.

[Edmund]

Just because it's not a mainline attraction doesn't mean it's not visited. Do you think hoards of people go visiting other listed building, the University Building on Viccy Park is listed and you don't see too many tourist around there.

Besides the argument for retaining it was that it was unique in it's design the same reason given for preserving hundreds of buildings many in a worst state than this bridge.

Lets not forget they wont be building anything on the bridge footprint unless they decide to put the swimming pool in the middle of the road.

I don't dispute what you're saying. I'm not saying a spot/building should be saved solely on a tourism basis, I was just mentioning that as the reason why the pyramids aren't being knocked down.

To be honest I've not read the ins and outs of the bridge so I can't comment on it.

Again i don't want to get involved in the bridge dilemma, I was just merely pointing out the fact to Valerenga that these things happen and the way we go about building things changes as years pass.

Ah, so you want to move the goal posts. As davieG pointed out, there was an engineering interest in the Bridge.

Like I said above I don't know the ins and outs of the bridge dilemma so can't comment, but my initial post wasn't aimed at that particular case anyway. It was my bad I shouldn't have mentioned it in my last post.

the whole pyramid phase was just a fad, and didn't last long. Tombs were far more popular.

Exactly proves my point. We go through fads as you like to put it.

Just because they built buildings a certain way 40-100 years ago doesn't meant they employ the same techniques, design etc today.

[Guest]

Exactly proves my point. We go through fads as you like to put it.

Just because they built buildings a certain way 40-100 years ago doesn't meant they employ the same techniques, design etc today.

Hmmm, so just because something is a "fad", it shouldn't be preserved even if it is of architectural, design, engineering interest?

Once it's gone, it's gone. Like everything else. Oh well, at least the students will have fun.

[davieG]

Just because they built buildings a certain way 40-100 years ago doesn't meant they employ the same techniques, design etc today.

And that's exactly why people want them preserved.

[Edmund]

Hmmm, so just because something is a "fad", it shouldn't be preserved even if it is of architectural, design, engineering interest?

No not at all. It just shows that trends change and have done throughout history. I'm not saying it's to everyones tastes but it happens. I for one think that blue building near the station is hideous but I'm not going to complain about it at every opportunity.

Once it's gone, it's gone. Like everything else. Oh well, at least the students will have fun.

I refuse to comment on the Bowstring Bridge.....

And that's exactly why people want them preserved.

I'm on your side when it comes to preserving buildings of interest but the point I was trying to make is it's all good slagging the council off at every opportunity but unless someone stands up and runs for office nothing will get done.

Each case has to be judged on it's own merit and when you get a scenario were the up keep of a building outweighs the heritage can you blame them. The sad fact is it all comes down to money at the end of the day.

[davieG]

No not at all. It just shows that trends change and have done throughout history. I'm not saying it's to everyones tastes but it happens. I for one think that blue building near the station is hideous but I'm not going to complain about it at every opportunity.

I refuse to comment on the Bowstring Bridge.....

I'm on your side when it comes to preserving buildings of interest but the point I was trying to make is it's all good slagging the council off at every opportunity but unless someone stands up and runs for office nothing will get done.

Each case has to be judged on it's own merit and when you get a scenario were the up keep of a building outweighs the heritage can you blame them. The sad fact is it all comes down to money at the end of the day.

Running for office wouldn't make any difference because these are party political decisions so unless you can persuade a whole party with all it's vested interests, not always in line with voters interests to change you're buggered.

I could never belong to a political party that would determine the way I voted on individual policy my conscience wouldn't allow me to.