Dose of realism needed to make Guildhall pay its way (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Dose of realism needed to make Guildhall pay its way
11:54am Saturday 12th May 2012 in Letters
HAVING been a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects for 35 years, I am all in favour of architectural competitions, but I fail to see how a future for the Guildhall complex can be secured by inviting international architects to come up with some grand design at a cost to ratepayers of £35,000.
The listed status of these buildings severely limits the scope for any significant alterations. What is needed is not some modern architectural vision with little prospect of being either approved or affordable, but an idea to find a financially viable beneficial use for the existing premises; a use which will fund its renovation and future maintenance.
Continuing office use will not do it. The city is full of empty office space and there is a plethora of unimplemented planning consents for new office buildings.
Whatever use is proposed it must be a realistic one which does not cost the earth and can be relied on to generate an income sufficient to support the future well-being of the buildings.
Matthew Laverack, Chartered architect, Lord Mayor’s Walk, York.
Comments(24)
mickrick
says...
1:58pm Sat 12 May 12
Malcolm
says...
3:52pm Sat 12 May 12
YorkToff
says...
4:55pm Sat 12 May 12
Mr Crabtree
says...
6:07pm Sat 12 May 12
Malcolm wrote:Before paying out £35,000 for an unworkable, unviable design where someone's imagination has been allowed to run riot, there is a need for realism.
If Mr Laverack fails "...to see how a future for the Guildhall complex can be secured by inviting international architects to come up with some grand design..." then I suggest that he lacks imagination.
Those behind this crackpot idea at York Council have an imagination that is unreal and surreal.
35 years as a chartered architect qualifies Matthew to make this criticism. What authority does Malcolm have to criticise Matthew - do tell us ?
mickrick
says...
6:40pm Sat 12 May 12
Malcolm wrote:At every given chance Malcolm uses it to have a GO at Mr Laverack.
If Mr Laverack fails "...to see how a future for the Guildhall complex can be secured by inviting international architects to come up with some grand design..." then I suggest that he lacks imagination.
What has this man ever done to you to make you so bitter and twisted.............
....pray tell.....were all waiting.
sperare e coraggio
says...
7:59pm Sat 12 May 12
Could it be that you are jealous of his success? Or his ability to write so many letters which the editor regards as worthy of publication?
Looking at the professional work and commercial success of Mr Laverack over the last thirty years your suggestion that he lacks imagination makes you a laughing stock.
Mr Laverack has again made a valid point. The future of the Guildhall lies in an inspirational idea for the proper use of the existing premises and not some architectural proposal to remodel the premises.
You don't appear to understand what he is saying. Or you don't want to! Just another excuse to have a go at him - yet again!
Jezreel
says...
10:05am Sun 13 May 12
Mr Crabtree
says...
12:58pm Sun 13 May 12
Jezreel wrote:It's a prize for a competition, not for the work itself. All you get is a winning concept, which may well be unbuildable. It's a great idea for multi-million pound landmark buildings or projects, but for the refurbishment of a medieval listed building, it's a joke. Much like your comment, actually !
£35,000 is a modest sum to spend on a project which might enhance the city for centuries to come. Aren't we worth it ?
Mr Crabtree
says...
1:05pm Sun 13 May 12
I bet the list of architects include some of his buddies. Usually Derek get's his policies approved by councillors because no one checks or questions the minutiae of his epic reports, or spots the misrepresented statistics that he uses to further his left wing ideologies. Some of us are however, onto this politicised officer, and he will lose the protection of Bill Woolley soon, so his opportunities to demolish York's future may be curtailed, or even ended.
Jezreel
says...
1:22pm Sun 13 May 12
You are entitled to have an obsession with the Planning department, I know they get in the way of speculators buy, er, planning. We hear it from you almost daily in all your online manifestations. Bit tiresome really
sperare e coraggio
says...
1:28pm Sun 13 May 12
It is not a modest sum. It is a wasted sum! Nothing will come of this ill-conceived competition by a council that complains it is so short of money it cannot afford to keep operating a waste facility west of the river.
If the council wish to run a competition for the future of the Guildhall it should not be an architectural competition for some grand composition that stands little chance of receiving approval and even less chance of being funded; it should be an ideas competition for proper utilisation of the existing buildings.
You are another one like MALCOM who deliberately misinterprets the point being made because of your antipathy to the letter writer?
Mr Crabtree
says...
1:46pm Sun 13 May 12
Jezreel wrote:How many more times, I'm not Matthew !
Dear Matthew, thanks for your explanation of the bleedin obvious in your 12.58 post. You are entitled to have an obsession with the Planning department, I know they get in the way of speculators buy, er, planning. We hear it from you almost daily in all your online manifestations. Bit tiresome really
If it's so 'bleedin obvious', why did you make your crass post about it being 'worth it' ?
It's the twaddle you come out with that is tiresome and irksome !
Do you ever make a sensible point, or are you really as blinkered and prejudiced as you come across ?
Even AndyD
says...
3:12pm Sun 13 May 12
Anyway - its a wonderful building, the Guildhall, I take my class round there sometimes. Good staff too - nothing too much trouble. Couldn't it see more use as a tourist attraction with charging on the door?
Oh and please don't insult me, misquote me, or attack me. I've nothing against ML, never knowingly met the man - am just puzzled.
sperare e coraggio
says...
4:38pm Sun 13 May 12
Things involving Mr Laverack end up as a slanging match because the likes of MALCOM and JEZREEL just can't help but post negative blogs against him; and because his supporters are sick and tired of the character assassination which invariably follows whenever his name appears. In the past it used to be ignored but not any more. The slanging matches will stop when those responsible for starting it give up their persistent hate campaign. Mr Laverack himself is perfectly capable of defending himself in the pages of the press which he does openly.
Your comments on the Guildhall itself are exactly what is being called for - positive ideas as to how the building might be made to work. A Tourism based use is probably the best way forward.
If we can stick to the point at issue and not use this blog as a platform to debate the character of Mr Laverack we might make some progress.
Buzz Light-year
says...
7:18pm Sun 13 May 12
Just because ML has a group of supporters willing to post post post post post doesn't make his word The Word.
If someone has an opinion that differs to yours or to Mr Laverack's *It's Not Character Assassination Or Denigration*
It's opinion. On a facility for sharing opinion.
There are thousands of opinions posted about our football team from plenty of folk who probably have two left feet. Similarly, you don't need years of architectural experience to have an opinion on the Guildhall. And you don't deserve abuse for sharing it.
I've lost count of the times I've posted my thoughts and then been wrongly accused of "hating ML" and all manner of falsehoods and I'm still waiting for my apology and retraction - you know who you are.
That is simply unfair. And you wonder why people say what they do about you. About you. Not ML.
I find myself once again seeing the sense in Even AndyD's words.
In fact, if ML would sign up here and join the debate properly to speak for himself it would look a lot less creepy and I imagine proceedings might be a little more civilised.
Like Even AndyD says, please don't insult me, misquote me, or attack me. I've nothing against ML or any of you, I'm observing and I too am puzzled.
Mr Crabtree
says...
9:56pm Sun 13 May 12
Buzz Light-year wrote:AndyD & Buzz LY
If folk were actually allowed to have their own opinion on any subject that ML brings up without incurring the full volley of shouting down and abuse from the fervent team of disciples then these things might not become slanging matches. I suggest it's that fervency that turns things nasty.
Just because ML has a group of supporters willing to post post post post post doesn't make his word The Word.
If someone has an opinion that differs to yours or to Mr Laverack's *It's Not Character Assassination Or Denigration*
It's opinion. On a facility for sharing opinion.
There are thousands of opinions posted about our football team from plenty of folk who probably have two left feet. Similarly, you don't need years of architectural experience to have an opinion on the Guildhall. And you don't deserve abuse for sharing it.
I've lost count of the times I've posted my thoughts and then been wrongly accused of "hating ML" and all manner of falsehoods and I'm still waiting for my apology and retraction - you know who you are.
That is simply unfair. And you wonder why people say what they do about you. About you. Not ML.
I find myself once again seeing the sense in Even AndyD's words.
In fact, if ML would sign up here and join the debate properly to speak for himself it would look a lot less creepy and I imagine proceedings might be a little more civilised.
Like Even AndyD says, please don't insult me, misquote me, or attack me. I've nothing against ML or any of you, I'm observing and I too am puzzled.
It seems that any letter by Matthew Laverack, no matter what the subject is, attracts certain posters who always disagree with his point of view and attack both him and those who share his views.
Both of you make your initial posts on this thread criticising those who are agreeing with Matthew.It would help if you didn't drag up what has happened on other threads and just joined in the debate in question, ie, the Guildhall competition prize.
sperare e coraggio
says...
12:04am Mon 14 May 12
Of course people can have their own opinion on any topic but that is not what causes things to turn nasty is it? The unpleasantness is caused when Malcom, Jezreel, and others start making personal derogatory (and sometimes defamatory) remarks about Mr Laverack himself. It happens time and time again. Mr Laverack raises a legitimate issue. The same old purveyors of hate and bile then post blogs, not on the subject raised, but on the character of Mr Laverack.
There is nothing puzzling about that. It is abusive and malicious comment which has no place on this forum.
Even AndyD
says...
7:41am Mon 14 May 12
If I were ML, I would genuinely be reining in my 'supporters' as at times I think they make him look rather absurd. Like some sort of faux prophet against whom no dissent is allowed.
As for not sticking to the topic raised, again there are no forum rules about that, but if there were, surely turning many threads into a debate about affordable housing would count as a repeated example? Something MLs supporters often do. Although as I say, I personally think its fine.
When doing teacher training I was taught to never to be critical of the student, only his work. Similarly here, object to someone's opinion, without making it personal. We all get heated at times, me included, but its tedious for everyone to read post after post of insults! Its also disconcerting to feel the need to pause over one's keyboard wondering what abuse is going to be hurled back.
Even AndyD
says...
7:46am Mon 14 May 12
Mr Crabtree
says...
7:53pm Mon 14 May 12
Even AndyD wrote:If anyone needs 'reigning in' it's messrs Jezreel and YorkToff.
As an independent observer, who has no stake in the whole ML/AH debate, I don't see much bile or vitriol aimed at him. I see more that those who question his stance are shot down in a rather OTT manner. Surely these forums are all about opinion and we cannot all agree on everything?
If I were ML, I would genuinely be reining in my 'supporters' as at times I think they make him look rather absurd. Like some sort of faux prophet against whom no dissent is allowed.
As for not sticking to the topic raised, again there are no forum rules about that, but if there were, surely turning many threads into a debate about affordable housing would count as a repeated example? Something MLs supporters often do. Although as I say, I personally think its fine.
When doing teacher training I was taught to never to be critical of the student, only his work. Similarly here, object to someone's opinion, without making it personal. We all get heated at times, me included, but its tedious for everyone to read post after post of insults! Its also disconcerting to feel the need to pause over one's keyboard wondering what abuse is going to be hurled back.
Instead of accepting that these two are guilty of the wrongs that S&C alleges, you go on the attack against myself, mickrick, S&C and others, with criticisms that have nothing to do with the allegations S&C makes - this moving of the goalposts, is a distraction that lets Jez' and 'Toff off the hook
What about the posts from Jezreel and YorkToff on the 'Is there a Plot' thread ? You have been posting on that one, but, do not acknowledge exactly the behaviour S&C alludes to by these two. Some of the posts have been removed, but I have quoted them in my posts on this thread.
This is not 'hurling back' any 'abuse', it's pointing out the facts that you conveniently overlook, in what seems to be an attempt to put all the blame at our door. Please stop the spin.
Even AndyD
says...
9:08pm Mon 14 May 12
Mr Crabtree
says...
10:18pm Mon 14 May 12
It would be nice however, if others would reciprocate, instead of making groundless accusations, sarcastic patronising comments, and contributing nothing to the debate. Basically, some people just disagree for the sake of disagreeing, because they have no #campaigns# of their own, thinking they are the centre of attention in their own little universe !
I'll now stand back from my keyboard in anticipation of the next lecture.
sperare e coraggio
says...
7:35am Tue 15 May 12
"Some people entered this conflict in the belief that they were going to blog everyone else but that no one was going to blog them. At Bootham Crescent, Beckfield Lane, Hugh Bayley's Wallet and half a hundred other places they put that rather naive theory into practice. Well they have sowed the wind and now they shall reap the whirlwind"
Apologies to the late Arthur Harris and not the "Head of Bomber Command" who occasionally posts comments on here
Mr Crabtree says...
12:18pm Sat 12 May 12