Dorman Long Tower - Listed Building Status

BoroMart said:
so I guess the question is does that bother you, and do you think they should get away with it?
Click to expand...

It doesn't bother me, no, so there's nothing to get away with.

If he'd requested a building be stripped of long held listed status to demolish it, I'd be uncomfortable.

What actually happened was him immediately protesting against a building being given last ditch status 4 days before it was scheduled to be brought down and succeeding in doing so.
It should never have been listed in the first place.

Obviously the fact I really did not like the building and didn't place any value on it whatsoever is playing a part with my views, every single brutalist buildings is horrible.
 
Glad to see the Transporter Bridge has Grade II* Listed Building status though, and has since 1985, that's a true iconic structure of Teesside and it should be repaired and maintained.
 
TeaCider said:
Glad to see the Transporter Bridge has Grade II* Listed Building status though, and has since 1985, that's a true iconic structure of Teesside and it should be repaired and maintained.
Click to expand...
Even if it "gets in the way" of development plans?

Let's not forget it is largely useless as a "bridge" as it only carries ten or so cars per journey and closes if there is a stiff breeze, costs a lot of money to maintain and could be replaced by a modern functional bridge for a fraction of the cost...
 
TeaCider said:
Glad to see the Transporter Bridge has Grade II* Listed Building status though, and has since 1985, that's a true iconic structure of Teesside and it should be repaired and maintained.
Click to expand...
once a building gets its listed status it should be doubly hard to remove it, otherwise the whole process is pointless. Shouldn't matter if it has had that status for a day or for 100 years.

I get your point on brutalism, but the Southbank Centre and Dunelm house are two iconic brutalist buildings. At this rate their will be no brutalists structures anymore and that would be bad
 
Muttley said:
Even if it "gets in the way" of development plans?

Let's not forget it is largely useless as a "bridge" as it only carries ten or so cars per journey and closes if there is a stiff breeze, costs a lot of money to maintain and could be replaced by a modern functional bridge for a fraction of the cost...
Click to expand...

Even then given it's one of only 3 remaining examples of a transporter in the UK and one of 12 in the world and it's actually got a use.

Same as the lifts at Saltburn, which should also be repaired and restored, unique structures with a function and aesthetically pleasing.
 
BoroMart said:
once a building gets its listed status it should be doubly hard to remove it, otherwise the whole process is pointless. Shouldn't matter if it has had that status for a day or for 100 years.

I get your point on brutalism, but the Southbank Centre and Dunelm house are two iconic brutalist buildings. At this rate their will be no brutalists structures anymore and that would be bad
Click to expand...

To an extent I agree, but given I think it was wrongly given the status in the first place, I'm happy that it was done on this occasion.

Despite the fact I think they're both disgusting buildings, the Southbank Centre at least has major functions.

I wouldn't be sad at all if there were no examples of brutalist structures left in the world, but I'll admit that it's brutalism in particular that I have a problem with though, and I'm sure there are plenty of examples of buildings I would rather were maintained that have been demolished by people who hold similar views towards other architectural styles.
 
GazC_MFC said:
My family has a history of iron fighting in this area. I’m not sure what benefits of preserving the building brings to the area?
Click to expand...
My family does too. And ultimately it comes down to whether you value our past or just want the traditionally pretty bits. Also, it was a brilliant, unique structure and had a beauty all its own
 
TeaCider said:
It doesn't bother me, no, so there's nothing to get away with.

If he'd requested a building be stripped of long held listed status to demolish it, I'd be uncomfortable.

What actually happened was him immediately protesting against a building being given last ditch status 4 days before it was scheduled to be brought down and succeeding in doing so.
It should never have been listed in the first place.

Obviously the fact I really did not like the building and didn't place any value on it whatsoever is playing a part with my views, every single brutalist buildings is horrible.
Click to expand...
Historic England don't just list buildings on a whim.
 
BoroMart said:
once a building gets its listed status it should be doubly hard to remove it, otherwise the whole process is pointless. Shouldn't matter if it has had that status for a day or for 100 years.

I get your point on brutalism, but the Southbank Centre and Dunelm house are two iconic brutalist buildings. At this rate their will be no brutalists structures anymore and that would be bad
Click to expand...
Dunelm House 1966
Southbank Centre (Hayward Gallery) 1968

Dorman Long Tower was built 1955-1956 and trumps these two significantly in terms of architectural importance relating to the Brutalist style. We were at the very forefront of new emerging materials, technologies and processes.

Like the much lauded designs of the Bauhaus movement which were clearly influenced by Christopher Dresser of Linthorpe Potteries fame. Seen as futuristic and highly innovative in the twenties.. imagine what it was like to have that 46 years prior!

EE13B9gWwAEXKW4
 
LaPennaBianca said:
My family does too. And ultimately it comes down to whether you value our past or just want the traditionally pretty bits. Also, it was a brilliant, unique structure and had a beauty all its own
Click to expand...
It had a life span of twenty more years even with millions spent,can't stand this reverence about "our heritage" and "our past", from people who never set foot in the works, who will care in another generation.the young uns don't care now.The area became industrialised because iron ore was found in the hills, that stopped being mined in the 1950's. How much money would you have contributed towards a fund and upkeep. Have you ever been on the site where it was located, it's the back of beyond.
 
Ex pfc wintergreen said:
It had a life span of twenty more years even with millions spent,can't stand this reverence about "our heritage" and "our past", from people who never set foot in the works, who will care in another generation.the young uns don't care now.The area became industrialised because iron ore was found in the hills, that stopped being mined in the 1950's. How much money would you have contributed towards a fund and upkeep. Have you ever been on the site where it was located, it's the back of beyond.
Click to expand...
Funding was being secured as soon as it was listed to repair the damage done by Ben Houchen.

Re Brutalism: English architects Alison and Peter Smithson were believed to have coined the term in 1953. The Dorman Long Tower built in 1955-56 was one of the earliest examples of this in the United Kingdom along with Hunstanton School completed in 1954 in Norfolk, and the Sugden House completed in 1955 in Watford.

Incidentally Peter Smithson was born in Stockton-on-Tees and met his wife while studying architecture at Durham University, what a fantastic opportunity we had to showcase our revolutionary and forward thinking industrial past and perhaps link this in with some of our most notable residents. as I've said before the Dorman Long Tower was hugely important structure both architecturally and historically, I was speaking earlier today with a reporter from The Architects' Journal who cannot believe this has been allowed to happen.

Funding was in place do something really special.. now like most other things those funds will go elsewhere for folks in other parts of the country to enjoy and experience their heritage.. I would even go so far to say to those less deserving.
 
Muttley said:
Even if it "gets in the way" of development plans?

Let's not forget it is largely useless as a "bridge" as it only carries ten or so cars per journey and closes if there is a stiff breeze, costs a lot of money to maintain and could be replaced by a modern functional bridge for a fraction of the cost...
Click to expand...
Isn't there a debate going on in Middlesbrough Council about not spending the amount of money needed to keep it as a working bridge - or has that debate already taken place?

If it is to no longer be a working bridge then there is an argument for what is its purpose?
 
newyddion said:
Funding was being secured as soon as it was listed to repair the damage done by Ben Houchen.

Re Brutalism: English architects Alison and Peter Smithson were believed to have coined the term in 1953. The Dorman Long Tower built in 1955-56 was one of the earliest examples of this in the United Kingdom along with Hunstanton School completed in 1954 in Norfolk, and the Sugden House completed in 1955 in Watford.

Incidentally Peter Smithson was born in Stockton-on-Tees and met his wife while studying architecture at Durham University, what a fantastic opportunity we had to showcase our revolutionary and forward thinking industrial past and perhaps link this in with some of our most notable residents. as I've said before the Dorman Long Tower was hugely important structure both architecturally and historically, I was speaking earlier today with a reporter from The Architects' Journal who cannot believe this has been allowed to happen.

Funding was in place do something really special.. now like most other things those funds will go elsewhere for folks in other parts of the country to enjoy and experience their heritage.. I would even go so far to say to those less deserving.
Click to expand...
It may have been of architectural interest but that is all, wrong place and too expensive, you could build a climbing tower/ ride in a homage in a better location cheaper. Furnace next. And those concrete towers at billingham can go once they are of no use.
 
Ex pfc wintergreen said:
It had a life span of twenty more years even with millions spent,can't stand this reverence about "our heritage" and "our past", from people who never set foot in the works, who will care in another generation.the young uns don't care now.The area became industrialised because iron ore was found in the hills, that stopped being mined in the 1950's. How much money would you have contributed towards a fund and upkeep. Have you ever been on the site where it was located, it's the back of beyond.
Click to expand...

Well nobody will care if we don't do anything to preserve it.

I never set foot in the works. I'd wager you didn't fight in the first or second world wars, but you still think of them as your history. A d if I tried to fill in the cabinet war rooms with concrete, given they're of no use any more, you'd rightly tell me I was doing our past a disservice.
 
LaPennaBianca said:
Well nobody will care if we don't do anything to preserve it.

I never set foot in the works. I'd wager you didn't fight in the first or second world wars, but you still think of them as your history. A d if I tried to fill in the cabinet war rooms with concrete, given they're of no use any more, you'd rightly tell me I was doing our past a disservice.
Click to expand...
That would be a historic buildings of national importance at a time when the future of the country was at stake, not a disused and derilict coal bunker, your analogy is pointless and silly.
 
LaPennaBianca said:
My family does too. And ultimately it comes down to whether you value our past or just want the traditionally pretty bits. Also, it was a brilliant, unique structure and had a beauty all its own
Click to expand...
I don’t value my past? I find that insulting.

It was a coke silo at the end of the day. The blast furnace is a much more symbolic building to the area and it’s history.
 
TeaCider said:
No, it couldn't.

I expect most listed buildings weren't cheap concrete monstrosities used to store coal for less than 20 years between 1956 and the 70s, in the middle of nowhere, and have then lain derelict and decaying for twice as long as they were ever used.

On top of it's complete lack of appeal or history, it was also actively impeding redevelopment of an industrial wasteland that would bring jobs back to an area that desperately needs it.

I've seen far more outrage about this useless hulk being torn down than I ever saw about the Regent Cinema being torn down and that had far more merit to be kept and restored.
It's just weird.
Click to expand...
Maybe because (a) this didn't need the same level of care as the Regent due to it not having people coming inside, and (b) because this isn't being replaced by a similar building in the same location.

I'm not suggesting the Regent decision was the very best possible but there seems to have been a reasonable compromise after a few years of discussion.

This, like the Scientific Institute, was ripped down without any pretence at discussion and without anyone being able to propose funding methods etc. despite Historic England getting involved specifically to slow the process down.

It is a disgraceful assault on the area no matter what you think of the aesthetic qualities of this particular building.
 
Ex pfc wintergreen said:
That would be a historic buildings of national importance at a time when the future of the country was at stake, not a disused and derilict coal bunker, your analogy is pointless and silly.
Click to expand...
The Dorman Long Tower was a historic building of national importance. I think the most disappointing thing of all through this whole process has been that many people don't realise that. INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED by historians and architects alike.
 
Ex pfc wintergreen said:
That would be a historic buildings of national importance at a time when the future of the country was at stake, not a disused and derilict coal bunker, your analogy is pointless and silly.
Click to expand...
So should we demolish Stonehenge to make it easier to get that new road in?

A disused and derelict ?thing? that wasn't "of national importance at a time when the future of the country was at stake" and is preventing development?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top