Looks like the national picture theater might be saved, I hope so http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Bomb...le-monastery/story-21230837-detail/story.html
As much as it may be a good thing - I wonder how successful an attraction, of it's nature, it will be in that location - it does highlight the monstrous knuckle-dragging approach of HCC; after all, it has only taken them about 70yrs to give it serious consideration.
It will come as a surprise to some but many cities all over Europe suffered far worse bomb damage than Hull. They, however, rebuilt decades ago. Many of them rebuilt ancient buildings brick by brick, some completely rebuilt from new. They all did a better job than what was done in Hull. The fact this building is still there over 70 years on is something to be condemned not celebrated.
The night the National got bombed, Charlie Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator' was showing. The audience ran into the foyer and the cinema got hit. There were, apparently, no casualties. Fact. Great news if it gets saved and used.
As I read it (but I could be wrong), it's private property that the land owner implied a trust could use it as a heritage site. After the trust did the ground work, the owner had a change of heart and said they had a commercial use for the site, which the Council rejected. Not sure how that's the council's fault to be honest.
Would have thought the best thing to do would be dismantle it and rebuild it in the museum area back of town and restore it to its former glory. Should be possible shouldnt it?
Bombed in 1941. The Council haven't attempted to redevelop at any time since then. Thier one redeeming act was to make the property Grade 2 listed, which is part of the reason why the current owners (who bought it 7 or 8 years ago) hands are tied to an extent. Another prominent current example of them doing **** all for decades is the Wellington Street property that they're left, to the point where it now has to be demolished. Still we'll have some nice new modern building on Bransholme soon to compensate.
This is spot on as it would bolster an area that can be a tourism focussed point - excellent comment. Again, spot on. I think CPO s have been around for a long time; the way was always there, just the civic will that was lacking.
So you reckon they should compulsory purchase buildings from the owners? Okay, I buy a building, saying I intend to use it. I don't use it, but have various business reasons why not. As with the picture house, a volunteer group (with some council support) looks to renovate/reuse. At what point should the Council step in and who funds it? Should the owner profit from neglect? Bare in mind, the early 1940's wasn't particularly a boom time for building. The 50's, 60's and into the 70's were tied up with slum clearance, so it cuts a few years out of your scenario.
If a building is left derelict due to (supposedly) planning constraints imposed by HCC, then, perhaps, HCC have a civic responsibility to move it forward, one way or another. They seem to have realised that now, 70 yrs on, but whether or not they will be able to agree an action is questionable. The point about there not being funding available might be relevant, but it was, I would of thought, more a question of priorities. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but some proactive regeneration, to enhance the tourism aspect of Hull, might of been considered a beneficial thing.
Ok, I'll concede 4 decades (1940/50/60/70) and run the clock down to just 30 years of inactivity, a lack of ambition and class A ineptitude demonstrated by succesive local Councils. I'll also concede The Deep was something they got right and for that credit is due. Other than that ... what? Compare Liverpools regeneration since the late 80's with Hulls over the same period. Slightly larger scale than Hull, but facing very similar issues over time. War damage/slum clearance/industry collapse/unemployment and so on. On a smaller localised scale compare Salford Quays over the past 10 or 15 years. Then look at St Andrews Dock and the Lord Line building.It's embarrassing. A gilt edged chance to develop that area (and do it properly - not ****ing DIY shops and theme pubs) was lost when the 2 previous biggest trawling ports in the world went toe to to over building a Fishing Heritage Centre. Regarding CPOs. Both Liverpool and S Quays sought them. Both councils sought and took advantage of funding available to them. OK so some owners might profit from it short term, but consider that to the longer term benefits. Pass through Liverpool or Salford Quays to somewhere else? Or stop there, or indeed purposefully travel there to spend money there? Pass through Hull via Beverley Road, to somewhere else? Or stop there, or indeed purposefully travel there to spend money there? Lets hope that some of those that worked so hard for 2017, don't get sidetracked by the decision makers.
Bit of a jump from talking about one specific building and something I've knowledge of, but I'll try to play with the posts in the new position. The schemes you mention are (I think) privately funded. Now, I'm not saying our Council are perfect, far, far from it, but they have taken the lead in quite a few initiatives to encourage funding into the area, recently the Building Schools for the Future and PFI's and in the past, joint ventures such as the Council House sales and renovations, Victoria Dock and Mount Pleasant area for private/public sector co-operation. But there are controls on local Government spending and, similar to Sport England and the Stadium, some areas are more favoured than others. Sheffield has had many, many millions (if not billions) of pounds of central funds pumped in to schemes, that are now to be refinanced because they failed. Hull takes little income from rates due to the lack of high tax band housing, yet it needs to find funds for works that benefit the region rather just this Authority and ratepayers. The debate about how much Hull gets from Central Govt isn't straight forward, but it doesn't cover the essentials. Add the low funding to the lack of private investment, and the Council don't actually do too bad with what they get. As I mentioned, I'm not a pro-Council person by any stretch, but a lot of the criticism is wide of the mark, and seems to be based on bollocks from the same news outlet that gets heavily criticised for it's lack of accuracy and apparent anti-Hull editorial policy.
Cities all over Europe had far worse damage than Hull but were rebuiltby the end of the 1950s. Surely they could have sorted things out in Hull and not have this eyesore still there over 50 years later than places like Hamburg, Cologne and others.
I thought someone had said it was bought 7 or 8 years ago and has Listed II constraints, if that is wrong then I take your point; but 70 yrs . . .
It can develop into a broader discussion or it can stay with this one building that has remained a derelict for 70yrs, despite council, government, European and very other change; lots of other British cities got to grips with the options and lobbied, argued and influenced decisions to gain economic development - is there really a viable argument that any of the HCCs did?
This site is of National importance. It should preserved and used not as a place of remembrance, but as a place for education. I wouldn't move it, but I would like to see the whole site used. It would make a great venue for some of the City of Culture projects.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Smal...s-Acorn-Fund/story-21236187-detail/story.html I know its not the right place exactly, council related though. It just cheers me up looking at the picture. The eyes follow you round the room.
