City of York Council to debate future of Stonebow House plot

Stonebow House 'may be demolished'

Stonebow House

The view of St Saviourgate and the Minster which was lost when Stonebow House was built

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author Exclusive by , Political Reporter

THE collapse of a huge property portfolio could allow one of York’s least-loved buildings to be redeveloped at a knockdown price – with demolition among the options.

City of York Council’s cabinet will tonight decide whether to spend £62,250 on taking sole control of the land where Stonebow House stands with the ultimate aim of redeveloping all or part of the site, built almost 50 years ago but now regarded by many as York’s worst eyesore.

Council leader James Alexander has said all options for its future will be considered.

The authority plans to buy North Yorkshire County Council’s share of the site’s freehold – the long-term ownership of the land and building, retained by both councils since Stonebow House was built – to ease any future redevelopment.

Detailed plans have yet to emerge, but demolition of the site has not been ruled out.

A developer was given a 100-year leasehold, expiring in 2067, on the Stonebow House office block when it was built, with the building later becoming part of the Tawny property portfolio bought by F&C REIT Asset Management from Evans of Leeds in 2007.

However, property services company DTZ were appointed as receivers for this portfolio – which includes other commercial sites in York – last October, after its value plummeted over a six-year period.

The city council said the leasehold, whose owners Brightsea UK Ltd recently appointed administrators, is likely to eventually come up for sale, and single ownership of the freehold would simplify any development proposals. It is in talks with the administrator over the leasehold’s future, with different parts of the site having been sublet to various companies.

The current value of the freehold is £124,500, and the city council would pay the county council 50 per cent of any proceeds above this sum if it is sold on within ten years of its purchase. Coun Alexander said: “All options are open, no decision has been taken and anything else is just speculation at this point.”

A report by the council’s head of asset management, Phillip Callow, said that if the purchase goes ahead: “City of York Council will control the freehold of the whole site and so can have meaningful discussions with the long leaseholder about future options, with the objective of improving the appearance and development of this area on the edge of the city centre.”

It said that, if the freehold remained in joint ownership, any talks over the site would have to include the county council, “which could cause delay and possible conflicting ideas”.

Stonebow House – which is not listed – was built in the mid-1960s by Wells, Hickman and Partners, about a decade after Stonebow was created through York’s slum clearance programme, and was described by national architecture critics at the time as “hideous” and “sheer visual misery”.

Its construction blocked off the view of historic buildings in St Saviourgate, such as the Central Methodist Church, from Hungate and Stonebow.

The Tawny portfolio includes 26 industrial and office sites in the north, the Midlands and Scotland, among them Clifton Moor Industrial Estate, York Business Park and office blocks at Piccadilly Court. F&C REIT bought it for £380 million in 2007, at the UK commercial property market’s peak, but by last autumn its value was believed to have dropped to about £220 million.

DTZ and corporate finance advisory firm Hudson Advisors are now expected to carry out a “value add” programme on these properties to increase their market attractiveness before they are sold on.


Public must have say on any redevelopment

YORK conservationist Alison Sinclair said the public must be consulted on any future plans for Stonebow House’s redevelopment.

“Stonebow House is a typical example of the architecture of its time and has added significance, as it is symbolic of the creation of a modern street in the medieval city,” she said.

“But it is far too dominating in its location and certainly doesn’t fit in with surrounding historic streets. Since it seems to have become difficult to find tenants for its offices, it might be better to redevelop the site, though it would depend on what is proposed.

“It is to be hoped the council do not prescribe what will replace it. For the Stonebow site, they should ask the public what they would like to see in its place.”

Philip Crowe of York Environment Forum said: “My personal view is that Stonebow House has not stood the test of time, not necessarily from a stylistic point of view, but because it was not very well-built.

“One particular problem is the dreadful facade of its ground level, which is a disgrace to the city. If the building was developed in a sensitive way, it could still retain a presence, but I would not necessarily be against demolishing it as long as a scheme was in place, rather than knocking it down and then letting developers try to get a scheme going.

"I also think the idea of redeveloping part of the lower level as public open space, while retaining the office block, has a lot of merit as it would open up views towards St Saviourgate.”

Comments (73)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:13am Tue 7 Jan 14

Dave Ruddock says...

can someone make their mind up , is it a preserved building or open to demolishm change use, wrecking ball practise.//?/
can someone make their mind up , is it a preserved building or open to demolishm change use, wrecking ball practise.//?/ Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -7

11:19am Tue 7 Jan 14

matroom says...

What about existing businesses ???
What about existing businesses ??? matroom
  • Score: 7

11:29am Tue 7 Jan 14

Zetkin says...

Mine's a NO vote unless and until suitable alternative arrangements are made for existing businesses, particularly The Duchess and Fibbers.

The culture of York is more than chocolate-box vistas and the Theatre Royal panto.
Mine's a NO vote unless and until suitable alternative arrangements are made for existing businesses, particularly The Duchess and Fibbers. The culture of York is more than chocolate-box vistas and the Theatre Royal panto. Zetkin
  • Score: 50

12:10pm Tue 7 Jan 14

ouseswimmer says...

As long as this Poulson building remains allegations of bribery will always circulate in York as to how it was built in the first place.
As long as this Poulson building remains allegations of bribery will always circulate in York as to how it was built in the first place. ouseswimmer
  • Score: 18

12:20pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

NOOOOO! If they knock down Stonebow House we'll all have to start looking at the Telephone Exchange - and that really IS an eyesore. (Why doesn't anyone ever complain about that?).
NOOOOO! If they knock down Stonebow House we'll all have to start looking at the Telephone Exchange - and that really IS an eyesore. (Why doesn't anyone ever complain about that?). Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 18

12:35pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Grey Lady says...

If the Stonebow building was badly built in the first place and will not stand the test of time (bearing in mind that it's already 50 years old) then it should be demolished and replaced with something better.
If demolition is to go ahead then maybe existing businesses could be given a deal whereby they are given temporary accommodation elsewhere with the option to return to Stonebow into purpose built units (for Fibbers and The Duchess).
If the Stonebow building was badly built in the first place and will not stand the test of time (bearing in mind that it's already 50 years old) then it should be demolished and replaced with something better. If demolition is to go ahead then maybe existing businesses could be given a deal whereby they are given temporary accommodation elsewhere with the option to return to Stonebow into purpose built units (for Fibbers and The Duchess). Grey Lady
  • Score: 48

12:38pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Platform9 says...

I hope someone has thought of the druggies and wineo's? Where are they going to congregate when this has gone?
I hope someone has thought of the druggies and wineo's? Where are they going to congregate when this has gone? Platform9
  • Score: 13

12:41pm Tue 7 Jan 14

TCJYork says...

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
NOOOOO! If they knock down Stonebow House we'll all have to start looking at the Telephone Exchange - and that really IS an eyesore. (Why doesn't anyone ever complain about that?).
It is, but it is a hell of a lot harder to do anything about. There are thousands of miles of wires and cables inside, that would cost such a fortune to re-route that BT has wisely (from an economic POV) decided to leave it well alone. Until the value of the land is worth significantly more than the cost of re-routing it will be left as is.

However, the gentrification of this are *might* just lead to that.
[quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: NOOOOO! If they knock down Stonebow House we'll all have to start looking at the Telephone Exchange - and that really IS an eyesore. (Why doesn't anyone ever complain about that?).[/p][/quote]It is, but it is a hell of a lot harder to do anything about. There are thousands of miles of wires and cables inside, that would cost such a fortune to re-route that BT has wisely (from an economic POV) decided to leave it well alone. Until the value of the land is worth significantly more than the cost of re-routing it will be left as is. However, the gentrification of this are *might* just lead to that. TCJYork
  • Score: 29

12:50pm Tue 7 Jan 14

BL2 says...

Kill it kill it kill it!! :-)
Kill it kill it kill it!! :-) BL2
  • Score: 35

12:53pm Tue 7 Jan 14

SteveSCA says...

Dave Ruddock wrote:
can someone make their mind up , is it a preserved building or open to demolishm change use, wrecking ball practise.//?/
It is NOT a listed building, though it's a popular myth that it is:

http://yorkstories.c
o.uk/the-stonebow-is
-a-listed-building-m
yth/

So there is nothing (from this point of view) preventing it from being demolished.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: can someone make their mind up , is it a preserved building or open to demolishm change use, wrecking ball practise.//?/[/p][/quote]It is NOT a listed building, though it's a popular myth that it is: http://yorkstories.c o.uk/the-stonebow-is -a-listed-building-m yth/ So there is nothing (from this point of view) preventing it from being demolished. SteveSCA
  • Score: 34

1:16pm Tue 7 Jan 14

the original Homer says...

Is it just me, or does that freehold value look ridiculously low to anyone else? £124500 for a large plot in the cIty??
Is it just me, or does that freehold value look ridiculously low to anyone else? £124500 for a large plot in the cIty?? the original Homer
  • Score: 8

1:20pm Tue 7 Jan 14

whitehorse says...

About **** time
About **** time whitehorse
  • Score: 24

1:39pm Tue 7 Jan 14

osbaldwicklane says...

the original Homer wrote:
Is it just me, or does that freehold value look ridiculously low to anyone else? £124500 for a large plot in the cIty??
Yes it does seem cheap , but then the council maybe going to sell it to the
Jo Ro Trust like Derwenthorpe .
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: Is it just me, or does that freehold value look ridiculously low to anyone else? £124500 for a large plot in the cIty??[/p][/quote]Yes it does seem cheap , but then the council maybe going to sell it to the Jo Ro Trust like Derwenthorpe . osbaldwicklane
  • Score: 5

2:01pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Now it might be demolished I'm worried we might miss it. Not.
Now it might be demolished I'm worried we might miss it. Not. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 14

2:20pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Big Bad Wolf says...

Maybe the hideous office block on Piccadilly could go as well?
Maybe the hideous office block on Piccadilly could go as well? Big Bad Wolf
  • Score: 30

2:39pm Tue 7 Jan 14

greenmonkey says...

Grey Lady wrote:
If the Stonebow building was badly built in the first place and will not stand the test of time (bearing in mind that it's already 50 years old) then it should be demolished and replaced with something better. If demolition is to go ahead then maybe existing businesses could be given a deal whereby they are given temporary accommodation elsewhere with the option to return to Stonebow into purpose built units (for Fibbers and The Duchess).
Bet that Monks Cross and Clifton Moor shopping Centres wont be still standing in 50 years time! If Stonebow is demolished Fibbers and The Duchess will have to find somewhere else relatively cheap as rents in a new building would be too high. Perhaps they could move into one or two floors of Rydale House stood empty on Piccadilly?
[quote][p][bold]Grey Lady[/bold] wrote: If the Stonebow building was badly built in the first place and will not stand the test of time (bearing in mind that it's already 50 years old) then it should be demolished and replaced with something better. If demolition is to go ahead then maybe existing businesses could be given a deal whereby they are given temporary accommodation elsewhere with the option to return to Stonebow into purpose built units (for Fibbers and The Duchess).[/p][/quote]Bet that Monks Cross and Clifton Moor shopping Centres wont be still standing in 50 years time! If Stonebow is demolished Fibbers and The Duchess will have to find somewhere else relatively cheap as rents in a new building would be too high. Perhaps they could move into one or two floors of Rydale House stood empty on Piccadilly? greenmonkey
  • Score: 12

2:42pm Tue 7 Jan 14

greenmonkey says...

Grey Lady wrote:
If the Stonebow building was badly built in the first place and will not stand the test of time (bearing in mind that it's already 50 years old) then it should be demolished and replaced with something better. If demolition is to go ahead then maybe existing businesses could be given a deal whereby they are given temporary accommodation elsewhere with the option to return to Stonebow into purpose built units (for Fibbers and The Duchess).
They could move to Rydale House on Piccadilly perhaps, but probably wouldnt be able to afford to move back into a new building. I best the new John Lewis on Monks Cross wont be still there in 50 years time!
[quote][p][bold]Grey Lady[/bold] wrote: If the Stonebow building was badly built in the first place and will not stand the test of time (bearing in mind that it's already 50 years old) then it should be demolished and replaced with something better. If demolition is to go ahead then maybe existing businesses could be given a deal whereby they are given temporary accommodation elsewhere with the option to return to Stonebow into purpose built units (for Fibbers and The Duchess).[/p][/quote]They could move to Rydale House on Piccadilly perhaps, but probably wouldnt be able to afford to move back into a new building. I best the new John Lewis on Monks Cross wont be still there in 50 years time! greenmonkey
  • Score: -7

3:01pm Tue 7 Jan 14

WhyEver says...

the original Homer wrote:
Is it just me, or does that freehold value look ridiculously low to anyone else? £124500 for a large plot in the cIty??
It's a plot which you can't do anything with, though - it's got a big building on it with a 53-year lease!

The important thing missing from this story is the cost of buying the building. I'm guessing £2-3 million plus payouts for the exisiting leaseholders. Would that be a good use of council money?
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: Is it just me, or does that freehold value look ridiculously low to anyone else? £124500 for a large plot in the cIty??[/p][/quote]It's a plot which you can't do anything with, though - it's got a big building on it with a 53-year lease! The important thing missing from this story is the cost of buying the building. I'm guessing £2-3 million plus payouts for the exisiting leaseholders. Would that be a good use of council money? WhyEver
  • Score: -3

3:32pm Tue 7 Jan 14

long distance depressive says...

I presume Mr Alexander will be voting for new offices or another boutique hotel.
I presume Mr Alexander will be voting for new offices or another boutique hotel. long distance depressive
  • Score: -5

3:50pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Anotherslownewsday says...

The only 2 decent venues in York demolished in one fell swoop. And replaced with high end shops and a hotel no doubt. It may be ugly but it atleast serves a purpose.
The only 2 decent venues in York demolished in one fell swoop. And replaced with high end shops and a hotel no doubt. It may be ugly but it atleast serves a purpose. Anotherslownewsday
  • Score: -2

4:02pm Tue 7 Jan 14

jmumof3 says...

Dave Ruddock wrote:
can someone make their mind up , is it a preserved building or open to demolishm change use, wrecking ball practise.//?/
Its not a preserved building thank goodness
[quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: can someone make their mind up , is it a preserved building or open to demolishm change use, wrecking ball practise.//?/[/p][/quote]Its not a preserved building thank goodness jmumof3
  • Score: 18

4:03pm Tue 7 Jan 14

jmumof3 says...

Grey Lady wrote:
If the Stonebow building was badly built in the first place and will not stand the test of time (bearing in mind that it's already 50 years old) then it should be demolished and replaced with something better.
If demolition is to go ahead then maybe existing businesses could be given a deal whereby they are given temporary accommodation elsewhere with the option to return to Stonebow into purpose built units (for Fibbers and The Duchess).
Well said, the businessness would simply change their premises. This demolition will regenerate York and generate a lot of jobs. its an excellent idea.
[quote][p][bold]Grey Lady[/bold] wrote: If the Stonebow building was badly built in the first place and will not stand the test of time (bearing in mind that it's already 50 years old) then it should be demolished and replaced with something better. If demolition is to go ahead then maybe existing businesses could be given a deal whereby they are given temporary accommodation elsewhere with the option to return to Stonebow into purpose built units (for Fibbers and The Duchess).[/p][/quote]Well said, the businessness would simply change their premises. This demolition will regenerate York and generate a lot of jobs. its an excellent idea. jmumof3
  • Score: 19

4:28pm Tue 7 Jan 14

MarkyMarkMark says...

Why not build an underground venue(s) to replace Duchess/Fibbers, landscape/ over the top and everyone will be happy?

What do you mean it will cost money.......?
Why not build an underground venue(s) to replace Duchess/Fibbers, landscape/ over the top and everyone will be happy? What do you mean it will cost money.......? MarkyMarkMark
  • Score: 10

4:29pm Tue 7 Jan 14

heworth.28 says...

22 comments in and no mention of the loss of a car park, you lot are slipping...
Flippancy aside, I'm wondering what NCP and the 'character' who owns the Duchess will make of this, doubt either of them would give up their leases without some serious compensation.
Also I'm worried that should the Duchess or Fibbers have to relocate they would struggle to find suitable premises, given the problem Fibbers have had with noise complaints/general opposition in the past despite being located in a relatively unpopulated area.
22 comments in and no mention of the loss of a car park, you lot are slipping... Flippancy aside, I'm wondering what NCP and the 'character' who owns the Duchess will make of this, doubt either of them would give up their leases without some serious compensation. Also I'm worried that should the Duchess or Fibbers have to relocate they would struggle to find suitable premises, given the problem Fibbers have had with noise complaints/general opposition in the past despite being located in a relatively unpopulated area. heworth.28
  • Score: 6

4:35pm Tue 7 Jan 14

powerwatt says...

So the council are going to buy the Freehold, the building owner I would imagine is rubbing his hands right now. Depending on when his leasehold runs out that is.
So the council are going to buy the Freehold, the building owner I would imagine is rubbing his hands right now. Depending on when his leasehold runs out that is. powerwatt
  • Score: 1

4:47pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Guthred says...

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
NOOOOO! If they knock down Stonebow House we'll all have to start looking at the Telephone Exchange - and that really IS an eyesore. (Why doesn't anyone ever complain about that?).
At the time it was built York Civic Trust called it "the first modern building of exceptional importance and merit in the city".
[quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: NOOOOO! If they knock down Stonebow House we'll all have to start looking at the Telephone Exchange - and that really IS an eyesore. (Why doesn't anyone ever complain about that?).[/p][/quote]At the time it was built York Civic Trust called it "the first modern building of exceptional importance and merit in the city". Guthred
  • Score: 3

5:01pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Woody G Mellor says...

Smash it to pieces!

But first. Find The Duchess and Fibbers other alternative city centre venues of similar capacity and atmosphere. We must not lose these fantastic small gig dens.
Smash it to pieces! But first. Find The Duchess and Fibbers other alternative city centre venues of similar capacity and atmosphere. We must not lose these fantastic small gig dens. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 22

5:13pm Tue 7 Jan 14

SteveGYork says...

The eyesore is perhaps more the tower block than the "basement". If it was feasible and practical to retain Fibbers etc might that solve the main issue?
The eyesore is perhaps more the tower block than the "basement". If it was feasible and practical to retain Fibbers etc might that solve the main issue? SteveGYork
  • Score: 8

5:17pm Tue 7 Jan 14

AnotherPointofView says...

greenmonkey wrote:
Grey Lady wrote:
If the Stonebow building was badly built in the first place and will not stand the test of time (bearing in mind that it's already 50 years old) then it should be demolished and replaced with something better. If demolition is to go ahead then maybe existing businesses could be given a deal whereby they are given temporary accommodation elsewhere with the option to return to Stonebow into purpose built units (for Fibbers and The Duchess).
They could move to Rydale House on Piccadilly perhaps, but probably wouldnt be able to afford to move back into a new building. I best the new John Lewis on Monks Cross wont be still there in 50 years time!
No, not the Ryedale building!

Stonebow House, The Ryedale Building, BT building and Hilary House on St Saviourgate ALL need to go.

They are all examples of the awful architecture from the 60's.

If a volunteer is needed to press the plunger to blow these places up, I'm throwing my hat in the ring.
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grey Lady[/bold] wrote: If the Stonebow building was badly built in the first place and will not stand the test of time (bearing in mind that it's already 50 years old) then it should be demolished and replaced with something better. If demolition is to go ahead then maybe existing businesses could be given a deal whereby they are given temporary accommodation elsewhere with the option to return to Stonebow into purpose built units (for Fibbers and The Duchess).[/p][/quote]They could move to Rydale House on Piccadilly perhaps, but probably wouldnt be able to afford to move back into a new building. I best the new John Lewis on Monks Cross wont be still there in 50 years time![/p][/quote]No, not the Ryedale building! Stonebow House, The Ryedale Building, BT building and Hilary House on St Saviourgate ALL need to go. They are all examples of the awful architecture from the 60's. If a volunteer is needed to press the plunger to blow these places up, I'm throwing my hat in the ring. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 27

5:30pm Tue 7 Jan 14

bloodaxe says...

It is just possible to see this as a representative building from the sixties. Representative of poverty stricken planning ideas, pseudo-modernism, system-brutalism and a total subservience to half digested ideas about regeneration. However, notwithstanding that there may well be structural problems which make a centenary birthday very unlikely, this is not the Euston Propylaea, it isn't the St Pancras Hotel, it isn't even Denys Lasdun's South Bank complex. It looks cheap, it looks dirty, it clearly doesn't attract any decent tenants and the office space is untaken despite refurbishment. It has nothing which relates it to the mediaeval centre except proximity and it hides St Saviour's, wonderful St Saviourgate and the elegant chapel on St Saviourgate. It has been slated by every worthwhile architectural critic. The one feature which goes closest to redemption is the curved site - which will still be there. As for the Civic Trust's endorsement, I suppose that was also a sign of the times, in the same way that Leeds was branded as "Motorway City of the 70s". York deserves better than this. Best advice ? Go to the Netherlands or Germany and look at the way they regenerate.
It is just possible to see this as a representative building from the sixties. Representative of poverty stricken planning ideas, pseudo-modernism, system-brutalism and a total subservience to half digested ideas about regeneration. However, notwithstanding that there may well be structural problems which make a centenary birthday very unlikely, this is not the Euston Propylaea, it isn't the St Pancras Hotel, it isn't even Denys Lasdun's South Bank complex. It looks cheap, it looks dirty, it clearly doesn't attract any decent tenants and the office space is untaken despite refurbishment. It has nothing which relates it to the mediaeval centre except proximity and it hides St Saviour's, wonderful St Saviourgate and the elegant chapel on St Saviourgate. It has been slated by every worthwhile architectural critic. The one feature which goes closest to redemption is the curved site - which will still be there. As for the Civic Trust's endorsement, I suppose that was also a sign of the times, in the same way that Leeds was branded as "Motorway City of the 70s". York deserves better than this. Best advice ? Go to the Netherlands or Germany and look at the way they regenerate. bloodaxe
  • Score: 27

5:31pm Tue 7 Jan 14

cityofyork@msn.com says...

What a marvellous opportunity!! Get the wrecking ball in asap!
What a marvellous opportunity!! Get the wrecking ball in asap! cityofyork@msn.com
  • Score: 26

5:39pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Alf Garnett says...

Stonebow House is a typical example of the architecture of its time and has added significance, as it is symbolic of the creation of a modern street in the medieval city,” she said.

“But it is far too dominating in its location and certainly doesn’t fit in with surrounding historic streets. Since it seems to have become difficult to find tenants for its offices, it might be better to redevelop the site, though it would depend on what is proposed.

Being symbolic doesn't of itself attribute value. The second sentence negates the first quite neatly and offers three good reasons for getting shot of it. If the freehold value really is £124,500 then this could be York's best opportunity for years to do something really significant to enhance the centre. With this and Piccadilly now looking likely to revive, 2014 could be a good year.
Stonebow House is a typical example of the architecture of its time and has added significance, as it is symbolic of the creation of a modern street in the medieval city,” she said. “But it is far too dominating in its location and certainly doesn’t fit in with surrounding historic streets. Since it seems to have become difficult to find tenants for its offices, it might be better to redevelop the site, though it would depend on what is proposed. Being symbolic doesn't of itself attribute value. The second sentence negates the first quite neatly and offers three good reasons for getting shot of it. If the freehold value really is £124,500 then this could be York's best opportunity for years to do something really significant to enhance the centre. With this and Piccadilly now looking likely to revive, 2014 could be a good year. Alf Garnett
  • Score: 15

6:12pm Tue 7 Jan 14

JoeR says...

The history of York is the history of England. Like it or loathe it, this kind o building, the post-war dream, is part of that history. If other generations had knocked down buildings because they'd gone out of fashion, York would look very different now.
The history of York is the history of England. Like it or loathe it, this kind o building, the post-war dream, is part of that history. If other generations had knocked down buildings because they'd gone out of fashion, York would look very different now. JoeR
  • Score: -6

6:12pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Seadog says...

Good, balanced and objective comment from Bloodaxe.

Yes, the curved frontage is quite graceful. My advice? Demolish the cube which perches on top but retain the lower stages. Clad (or replace) the ghastly pebble-dash with a more locally sympathetic material such as magnesian limestone (even if only reconstituted sheets as in Daveygate!) or brick. That way we keep the music venues and most of the other businesses. The whole shebang could could be topped off with a sumptuous roof-garden from which we could enjoy uninterrupted views of St Saviour's Church, Central Methodist and - er - Hilary House and (yes!) the telephone exchange.
Good, balanced and objective comment from Bloodaxe. Yes, the curved frontage is quite graceful. My advice? Demolish the cube which perches on top but retain the lower stages. Clad (or replace) the ghastly pebble-dash with a more locally sympathetic material such as magnesian limestone (even if only reconstituted sheets as in Daveygate!) or brick. That way we keep the music venues and most of the other businesses. The whole shebang could could be topped off with a sumptuous roof-garden from which we could enjoy uninterrupted views of St Saviour's Church, Central Methodist and - er - Hilary House and (yes!) the telephone exchange. Seadog
  • Score: 8

6:15pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Dave Ruddock says...

I do stand corrected and thankyou, wricking ball then
I do stand corrected and thankyou, wricking ball then Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -3

6:33pm Tue 7 Jan 14

brummiebob says...

Knock it down noooooooooooooooow!
Knock it down noooooooooooooooow! brummiebob
  • Score: 20

8:21pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Just thinking practically, would it be possible to demolish Stonebow house but not the buildings underneath it? Then relocate them as and when practical?
Just thinking practically, would it be possible to demolish Stonebow house but not the buildings underneath it? Then relocate them as and when practical? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -9

8:23pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Woody G Mellor wrote:
Smash it to pieces!

But first. Find The Duchess and Fibbers other alternative city centre venues of similar capacity and atmosphere. We must not lose these fantastic small gig dens.
Somebody once said there used to be a nightclub under the White Swan...what about that?
[quote][p][bold]Woody G Mellor[/bold] wrote: Smash it to pieces! But first. Find The Duchess and Fibbers other alternative city centre venues of similar capacity and atmosphere. We must not lose these fantastic small gig dens.[/p][/quote]Somebody once said there used to be a nightclub under the White Swan...what about that? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 3

8:36pm Tue 7 Jan 14

baldiebiker says...

I worked on this building about 10 years ago, the roof/car park drains run inside the building and leak every time there's heavy rain, there's no easy access to them, so pull it down, I always knew it as "THE CONCRETE BEND"
I worked on this building about 10 years ago, the roof/car park drains run inside the building and leak every time there's heavy rain, there's no easy access to them, so pull it down, I always knew it as "THE CONCRETE BEND" baldiebiker
  • Score: 16

9:52pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Oyy you says...

Flatten it and grass the area over.........
Flatten it and grass the area over......... Oyy you
  • Score: 15

9:56pm Tue 7 Jan 14

MouseHouse says...

Keep it. Who are we to foretell the future? It may be ugly to the current inhabitants of York but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Given the choice I'd demolish a number of religious buildings (i find all religions offensive and all their buildings eyesores), so I am sure we can find room in York for one example of this style to retain. Keep it.

It does need to put to another use though, plenty of better easier accessed office space. The downside of my argument is I have no idea what they could be used for!
Keep it. Who are we to foretell the future? It may be ugly to the current inhabitants of York but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Given the choice I'd demolish a number of religious buildings (i find all religions offensive and all their buildings eyesores), so I am sure we can find room in York for one example of this style to retain. Keep it. It does need to put to another use though, plenty of better easier accessed office space. The downside of my argument is I have no idea what they could be used for! MouseHouse
  • Score: -17

11:08pm Tue 7 Jan 14

jake777 says...

Knock it down and build a bus station in its place.
Knock it down and build a bus station in its place. jake777
  • Score: -8

12:44am Wed 8 Jan 14

iweston says...

heworth.28 wrote:
22 comments in and no mention of the loss of a car park, you lot are slipping...
Flippancy aside, I'm wondering what NCP and the 'character' who owns the Duchess will make of this, doubt either of them would give up their leases without some serious compensation.
Also I'm worried that should the Duchess or Fibbers have to relocate they would struggle to find suitable premises, given the problem Fibbers have had with noise complaints/general opposition in the past despite being located in a relatively unpopulated area.
Where do you get the idea it's relatively unpopulated? There are loads of residents here and Fibbers has been causing huge amounts of noise nuisance since the refurbishment a couple of years ago. Good riddance to 'em I say and to the eyesore of a building.
That said, the chances of it being demolished are pretty slim as it would be a nightmare to try to uild on that site. Look at the complete chaos that ensued when they simply replaced the gas mains at the end of last year.
[quote][p][bold]heworth.28[/bold] wrote: 22 comments in and no mention of the loss of a car park, you lot are slipping... Flippancy aside, I'm wondering what NCP and the 'character' who owns the Duchess will make of this, doubt either of them would give up their leases without some serious compensation. Also I'm worried that should the Duchess or Fibbers have to relocate they would struggle to find suitable premises, given the problem Fibbers have had with noise complaints/general opposition in the past despite being located in a relatively unpopulated area.[/p][/quote]Where do you get the idea it's relatively unpopulated? There are loads of residents here and Fibbers has been causing huge amounts of noise nuisance since the refurbishment a couple of years ago. Good riddance to 'em I say and to the eyesore of a building. That said, the chances of it being demolished are pretty slim as it would be a nightmare to try to uild on that site. Look at the complete chaos that ensued when they simply replaced the gas mains at the end of last year. iweston
  • Score: 4

12:47am Wed 8 Jan 14

iweston says...

AnotherPointofView wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
Grey Lady wrote:
If the Stonebow building was badly built in the first place and will not stand the test of time (bearing in mind that it's already 50 years old) then it should be demolished and replaced with something better. If demolition is to go ahead then maybe existing businesses could be given a deal whereby they are given temporary accommodation elsewhere with the option to return to Stonebow into purpose built units (for Fibbers and The Duchess).
They could move to Rydale House on Piccadilly perhaps, but probably wouldnt be able to afford to move back into a new building. I best the new John Lewis on Monks Cross wont be still there in 50 years time!
No, not the Ryedale building!

Stonebow House, The Ryedale Building, BT building and Hilary House on St Saviourgate ALL need to go.

They are all examples of the awful architecture from the 60's.

If a volunteer is needed to press the plunger to blow these places up, I'm throwing my hat in the ring.
Hilary House has just had consent to convert to a cosmetic surgery clinic and a load of flats. They plan to build another storey on top, so no chance of getting rid of that one.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grey Lady[/bold] wrote: If the Stonebow building was badly built in the first place and will not stand the test of time (bearing in mind that it's already 50 years old) then it should be demolished and replaced with something better. If demolition is to go ahead then maybe existing businesses could be given a deal whereby they are given temporary accommodation elsewhere with the option to return to Stonebow into purpose built units (for Fibbers and The Duchess).[/p][/quote]They could move to Rydale House on Piccadilly perhaps, but probably wouldnt be able to afford to move back into a new building. I best the new John Lewis on Monks Cross wont be still there in 50 years time![/p][/quote]No, not the Ryedale building! Stonebow House, The Ryedale Building, BT building and Hilary House on St Saviourgate ALL need to go. They are all examples of the awful architecture from the 60's. If a volunteer is needed to press the plunger to blow these places up, I'm throwing my hat in the ring.[/p][/quote]Hilary House has just had consent to convert to a cosmetic surgery clinic and a load of flats. They plan to build another storey on top, so no chance of getting rid of that one. iweston
  • Score: 2

3:11am Wed 8 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

the original Homer wrote:
Is it just me, or does that freehold value look ridiculously low to anyone else? £124500 for a large plot in the cIty??
If that price means you take ownership of the entire building, somebody could buy it and possibly make it into a rather large and unusual house right in the city centre!!
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: Is it just me, or does that freehold value look ridiculously low to anyone else? £124500 for a large plot in the cIty??[/p][/quote]If that price means you take ownership of the entire building, somebody could buy it and possibly make it into a rather large and unusual house right in the city centre!! Magicman!
  • Score: 0

3:14am Wed 8 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

Anotherslownewsday wrote:
The only 2 decent venues in York demolished in one fell swoop. And replaced with high end shops and a hotel no doubt. It may be ugly but it atleast serves a purpose.
The only thing that would be worse than the current building is a new one built to the modern wave of bland generic unmemorable buildings that are glass-fronted with random wood panels and house some upmarket shop or buisness that locals on average wages cannot use.
Think about this - which of these two buildings are more memorable: stonebow house, or the row of new-ish shops on Spurriergate....?
[quote][p][bold]Anotherslownewsday[/bold] wrote: The only 2 decent venues in York demolished in one fell swoop. And replaced with high end shops and a hotel no doubt. It may be ugly but it atleast serves a purpose.[/p][/quote]The only thing that would be worse than the current building is a new one built to the modern wave of bland generic unmemorable buildings that are glass-fronted with random wood panels and house some upmarket shop or buisness that locals on average wages cannot use. Think about this - which of these two buildings are more memorable: stonebow house, or the row of new-ish shops on Spurriergate....? Magicman!
  • Score: -5

3:23am Wed 8 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

MouseHouse wrote:
Keep it. Who are we to foretell the future? It may be ugly to the current inhabitants of York but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Given the choice I'd demolish a number of religious buildings (i find all religions offensive and all their buildings eyesores), so I am sure we can find room in York for one example of this style to retain. Keep it.

It does need to put to another use though, plenty of better easier accessed office space. The downside of my argument is I have no idea what they could be used for!
Get rid of the jobcentre and move it to George Hudson Street, get shot of the bookies too - those simple moves would take away the collection of intimidating chavs that congregate there. Ideally move the Transdev offices to a nearby site (Merchantgate's ground floor perhaps - needs to be central for driver swaps)... you'd be left with a significant amount of floor space that could be opened up and create an indoor market for local independant traders - and they'd get buisness because it's right by the bus stops and near to a well-used car park.
[quote][p][bold]MouseHouse[/bold] wrote: Keep it. Who are we to foretell the future? It may be ugly to the current inhabitants of York but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Given the choice I'd demolish a number of religious buildings (i find all religions offensive and all their buildings eyesores), so I am sure we can find room in York for one example of this style to retain. Keep it. It does need to put to another use though, plenty of better easier accessed office space. The downside of my argument is I have no idea what they could be used for![/p][/quote]Get rid of the jobcentre and move it to George Hudson Street, get shot of the bookies too - those simple moves would take away the collection of intimidating chavs that congregate there. Ideally move the Transdev offices to a nearby site (Merchantgate's ground floor perhaps - needs to be central for driver swaps)... you'd be left with a significant amount of floor space that could be opened up and create an indoor market for local independant traders - and they'd get buisness because it's right by the bus stops and near to a well-used car park. Magicman!
  • Score: 4

3:32am Wed 8 Jan 14

York1900 says...

If it is to be demolished better get on with it quick before someone applies for listed building status for ugly building
If it is to be demolished better get on with it quick before someone applies for listed building status for ugly building York1900
  • Score: 11

5:19am Wed 8 Jan 14

sniper 9964 says...

So like I said before CyC will buy this for a few K then demolish it. And sell the land for 100'000s of K making a massive profit how ever what about the businesses that are there. The owners of such and employees.CyC forcing unemployment !!!!!
So like I said before CyC will buy this for a few K then demolish it. And sell the land for 100'000s of K making a massive profit how ever what about the businesses that are there. The owners of such and employees.CyC forcing unemployment !!!!! sniper 9964
  • Score: -5

5:31am Wed 8 Jan 14

Guy Fawkes says...

...it isn't the St Pancras Hotel, it isn't even Denys Lasdun's South Bank complex.


I worked at the South Bank Complex in the 1980s, and the standing joke among the staff there at the time was that it was the one major London landmark that the IRA didn't try to blow up, because they knew that the city would be more miserable if it still existed. The only people who had anything positive to say about it were the poncy architecture critics who did not have to work at the place or live within sight of it. The fabric of the buildings was permanently damp, all the walkways around them were dark (there were several late-night assaults and rapes in them every month), and the whole place was basically an eastern European style hellhole.

I'd grudgingly concede that one or two examples of that sort of architecture should be kept as an example of the mistake to learn from (the University of East Anglia maybe? At least there is some pretty countryside around it), but the others should all be terminated with extreme prejudice. Assuming that a new home can be found for the nightclubs, the opportunity to see Stonebow House meet a Blaster Bates-style demise would be the biggest tourist draw York has seen for ages.
[quote] ...it isn't the St Pancras Hotel, it isn't even Denys Lasdun's South Bank complex.[/quote] I worked at the South Bank Complex in the 1980s, and the standing joke among the staff there at the time was that it was the one major London landmark that the IRA didn't try to blow up, because they knew that the city would be more miserable if it still existed. The only people who had anything positive to say about it were the poncy architecture critics who did not have to work at the place or live within sight of it. The fabric of the buildings was permanently damp, all the walkways around them were dark (there were several late-night assaults and rapes in them every month), and the whole place was basically an eastern European style hellhole. I'd grudgingly concede that one or two examples of that sort of architecture should be kept as an example of the mistake to learn from (the University of East Anglia maybe? At least there is some pretty countryside around it), but the others should all be terminated with extreme prejudice. Assuming that a new home can be found for the nightclubs, the opportunity to see Stonebow House meet a Blaster Bates-style demise would be the biggest tourist draw York has seen for ages. Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 13

11:00am Wed 8 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

sniper 9964 wrote:
So like I said before CyC will buy this for a few K then demolish it. And sell the land for 100'000s of K making a massive profit how ever what about the businesses that are there. The owners of such and employees.CyC forcing unemployment !!!!!
"So like I said before CyC will buy this for a few K then demolish it."
That would be the first smart thing they have ever done.
" And sell the land for 100'000s of K making a massive profit "
That would be the second smart thing they have ever done.
[quote][p][bold]sniper 9964[/bold] wrote: So like I said before CyC will buy this for a few K then demolish it. And sell the land for 100'000s of K making a massive profit how ever what about the businesses that are there. The owners of such and employees.CyC forcing unemployment !!!!![/p][/quote]"So like I said before CyC will buy this for a few K then demolish it." That would be the first smart thing they have ever done. " And sell the land for 100'000s of K making a massive profit " That would be the second smart thing they have ever done. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 4

12:30pm Wed 8 Jan 14

brownsoundz says...

should be listed. -
should be listed. - brownsoundz
  • Score: -11

12:53pm Wed 8 Jan 14

JoeTopps says...

Those that complain of noise from the nightclubs when they chose to live in a city centre are a bit daft surely? Fibbers and Duchess are crucial venues if York is to retain any music culture and the demographic they attract are generally a lot more friendly and fun than those that visit the likes of Salvation or Tokyo. The building is terribly ugly but it would be a huge loss to the culture of York and the fun loving young people if those venues are lost. Unless these are successfully relocated or it is possible for them to stay then it shouldn't be demolished.
Those that complain of noise from the nightclubs when they chose to live in a city centre are a bit daft surely? Fibbers and Duchess are crucial venues if York is to retain any music culture and the demographic they attract are generally a lot more friendly and fun than those that visit the likes of Salvation or Tokyo. The building is terribly ugly but it would be a huge loss to the culture of York and the fun loving young people if those venues are lost. Unless these are successfully relocated or it is possible for them to stay then it shouldn't be demolished. JoeTopps
  • Score: 4

3:47pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

JoeTopps wrote:
Those that complain of noise from the nightclubs when they chose to live in a city centre are a bit daft surely? Fibbers and Duchess are crucial venues if York is to retain any music culture and the demographic they attract are generally a lot more friendly and fun than those that visit the likes of Salvation or Tokyo. The building is terribly ugly but it would be a huge loss to the culture of York and the fun loving young people if those venues are lost. Unless these are successfully relocated or it is possible for them to stay then it shouldn't be demolished.
So what you are saying is that the requirements of live music venues override the lives of anybody who "chooses to live nearby"? In other words anyone who chooses to live within earshot of them should sign a disclaimer?
And that live music venues are entitled to make as much noise as they like without reference to anyone else?
[quote][p][bold]JoeTopps[/bold] wrote: Those that complain of noise from the nightclubs when they chose to live in a city centre are a bit daft surely? Fibbers and Duchess are crucial venues if York is to retain any music culture and the demographic they attract are generally a lot more friendly and fun than those that visit the likes of Salvation or Tokyo. The building is terribly ugly but it would be a huge loss to the culture of York and the fun loving young people if those venues are lost. Unless these are successfully relocated or it is possible for them to stay then it shouldn't be demolished.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that the requirements of live music venues override the lives of anybody who "chooses to live nearby"? In other words anyone who chooses to live within earshot of them should sign a disclaimer? And that live music venues are entitled to make as much noise as they like without reference to anyone else? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 4

5:28pm Wed 8 Jan 14

lifes2 says...

Surely if the current debate on saving the shack around the corner ( the aviation garage), has anything to go by the Stonebow should be saved and listed as a building of historic significance?
Surely if the current debate on saving the shack around the corner ( the aviation garage), has anything to go by the Stonebow should be saved and listed as a building of historic significance? lifes2
  • Score: -7

5:43pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Guy Fawkes says...

So what you are saying is that the requirements of live music venues override the lives of anybody who "chooses to live nearby"? In other words anyone who chooses to live within earshot of them should sign a disclaimer?


I think he's suggesting that by choosing to live right in the centre of a major city, you have in effect signed an implicit disclaimer.

There's no easy answer to this. On the one hand, encouraging people to live in the city centre is a good thing: there is lots of potential housing space above shops that would otherwise be empty, crime is lower in areas that have people living in them and you're within walking distance of more jobs. However, any form of transport other than walking is more difficult (especially parking) and you do have to accept that the noise level will be higher and go on later into the night.

And that live music venues are entitled to make as much noise as they like without reference to anyone else?


If not in the city centre, where should these clubs go? I seem to remember that someone tried running a massive one at Clifton Moor and laid on buses taking people to and from it, which eventually had to close because of noise complaints from residents.

Better soundproofing of buildings could certainly be looked at as part of any relocation of these clubs, but I don't think it's fair or proportionate simply to ban nightclubs from York outright, which is what some appear to be advocating.
[quote]So what you are saying is that the requirements of live music venues override the lives of anybody who "chooses to live nearby"? In other words anyone who chooses to live within earshot of them should sign a disclaimer?[/quote] I think he's suggesting that by choosing to live right in the centre of a major city, you have in effect signed an implicit disclaimer. There's no easy answer to this. On the one hand, encouraging people to live in the city centre is a good thing: there is lots of potential housing space above shops that would otherwise be empty, crime is lower in areas that have people living in them and you're within walking distance of more jobs. However, any form of transport other than walking is more difficult (especially parking) and you do have to accept that the noise level will be higher and go on later into the night. [quote]And that live music venues are entitled to make as much noise as they like without reference to anyone else?[/quote] If not in the city centre, where should these clubs go? I seem to remember that someone tried running a massive one at Clifton Moor and laid on buses taking people to and from it, which eventually had to close because of noise complaints from residents. Better soundproofing of buildings could certainly be looked at as part of any relocation of these clubs, but I don't think it's fair or proportionate simply to ban nightclubs from York outright, which is what some appear to be advocating. Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 4

5:44pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Kandro says...

Im still in the state of mind if its not broke don't fix it. We are as a country in a lot of financial danger. Look at the new statements from the government about the economy over the coming year. They are spreading out the cuts to make them more acceptable but if they are cutting and raising money from single mothers and pensioners for vanity projects they need voting out. We need to do vanity projects when our finances are healthy not atm no way
Im still in the state of mind if its not broke don't fix it. We are as a country in a lot of financial danger. Look at the new statements from the government about the economy over the coming year. They are spreading out the cuts to make them more acceptable but if they are cutting and raising money from single mothers and pensioners for vanity projects they need voting out. We need to do vanity projects when our finances are healthy not atm no way Kandro
  • Score: -8

8:12pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Guy Fawkes wrote:
So what you are saying is that the requirements of live music venues override the lives of anybody who "chooses to live nearby"? In other words anyone who chooses to live within earshot of them should sign a disclaimer?


I think he's suggesting that by choosing to live right in the centre of a major city, you have in effect signed an implicit disclaimer.

There's no easy answer to this. On the one hand, encouraging people to live in the city centre is a good thing: there is lots of potential housing space above shops that would otherwise be empty, crime is lower in areas that have people living in them and you're within walking distance of more jobs. However, any form of transport other than walking is more difficult (especially parking) and you do have to accept that the noise level will be higher and go on later into the night.

And that live music venues are entitled to make as much noise as they like without reference to anyone else?


If not in the city centre, where should these clubs go? I seem to remember that someone tried running a massive one at Clifton Moor and laid on buses taking people to and from it, which eventually had to close because of noise complaints from residents.

Better soundproofing of buildings could certainly be looked at as part of any relocation of these clubs, but I don't think it's fair or proportionate simply to ban nightclubs from York outright, which is what some appear to be advocating.
"I think he's suggesting that by choosing to live right in the centre of a major city, you have in effect signed an implicit disclaimer.

There's no easy answer to this."
Yes there is. There's a simple principle in life that your freedom to swing your arm ends just short of someone else's nose, regardless of where you live. That's why the council has a noise abatement team and why the police have powers to seize musical equipment if it causes a nuisance to other people.
"you do have to accept that the noise level will be higher and go on later into the night."
No you don't.
"If not in the city centre, where should these clubs go?"
They should stay in the city if they wish, and behave in such a way that they don't upset nearby residents. If they can't do that they should move somewhere near to the centre but with no nearby residents.
"Better soundproofing of buildings could certainly be looked at as part of any relocation of these clubs"
You have answered your own question. Why can't the existing soundproofing be improved?
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: [quote]So what you are saying is that the requirements of live music venues override the lives of anybody who "chooses to live nearby"? In other words anyone who chooses to live within earshot of them should sign a disclaimer?[/quote] I think he's suggesting that by choosing to live right in the centre of a major city, you have in effect signed an implicit disclaimer. There's no easy answer to this. On the one hand, encouraging people to live in the city centre is a good thing: there is lots of potential housing space above shops that would otherwise be empty, crime is lower in areas that have people living in them and you're within walking distance of more jobs. However, any form of transport other than walking is more difficult (especially parking) and you do have to accept that the noise level will be higher and go on later into the night. [quote]And that live music venues are entitled to make as much noise as they like without reference to anyone else?[/quote] If not in the city centre, where should these clubs go? I seem to remember that someone tried running a massive one at Clifton Moor and laid on buses taking people to and from it, which eventually had to close because of noise complaints from residents. Better soundproofing of buildings could certainly be looked at as part of any relocation of these clubs, but I don't think it's fair or proportionate simply to ban nightclubs from York outright, which is what some appear to be advocating.[/p][/quote]"I think he's suggesting that by choosing to live right in the centre of a major city, you have in effect signed an implicit disclaimer. There's no easy answer to this." Yes there is. There's a simple principle in life that your freedom to swing your arm ends just short of someone else's nose, regardless of where you live. That's why the council has a noise abatement team and why the police have powers to seize musical equipment if it causes a nuisance to other people. "you do have to accept that the noise level will be higher and go on later into the night." No you don't. "If not in the city centre, where should these clubs go?" They should stay in the city if they wish, and behave in such a way that they don't upset nearby residents. If they can't do that they should move somewhere near to the centre but with no nearby residents. "Better soundproofing of buildings could certainly be looked at as part of any relocation of these clubs" You have answered your own question. Why can't the existing soundproofing be improved? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 1

8:28pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Guy Fawkes says...

There's a simple principle in life that your freedom to swing your arm ends just short of someone else's nose, regardless of where you live.


To extend your analogy, if I choose to put my nose right up against your face, your arm is more likely to hit it than if I stand six feet away from you. It is my choice where I choose to stand.

"I have my rights" is a naive and oversimplistic position. For every right you claim, you impose a responsibility on other people. An extreme example: if you claim the right not to be murdered, you impose a responsibility on the rest of society not to murder you (a widely accepted balance, hence the reason there's a law against murder). But there are greyer areas. If you demand the right to "free" healthcare, you should accept the responsibility to pay your fair share of the level of taxation necessary to support it (the fact that so many people won't is part of the reason why the country has such a huge national debt). However, the definition of your fair share is the subject of widespread disagreement and debate.

I don't like nightclubs any more than you do: the last time I ventured inside one was as an undergraduate student, decades ago. My memory of them is of music so loud I got a splitting headache, overpriced and poor quality drinks and being crammed into close proximity with aggressive, antisocial drunks. But I have to accept that a significant proportion of the population do like them. They probably don't like the classical music that I prefer to listen to, but their taxes subsidise the orchestras and concerts that I like to go to. Therefore, I'd argue that it's perfectly reasonable for a city the size of York to have enough of these clubs to meet the size of their market. Furthermore, unlike the ones on Gillygate, I hardly ever heard any reports of serious disturbances or criminal activity associated with Fibbers and the Duchess.

Therefore, rehousing them to a nearby and equivalent location as part of redeveloping the Stonebow House site strikes me as a reasonable priority. And yes, if you choose to live in the middle of a large city centre, your neighbourhood is going to be noisier than if you buy a cottage in the middle of the North York Moors. And the planning system and other regulatory mechanisms will keep it that way.
[quote]There's a simple principle in life that your freedom to swing your arm ends just short of someone else's nose, regardless of where you live.[/quote] To extend your analogy, if I choose to put my nose right up against your face, your arm is more likely to hit it than if I stand six feet away from you. It is my choice where I choose to stand. "I have my rights" is a naive and oversimplistic position. For every right you claim, you impose a responsibility on other people. An extreme example: if you claim the right not to be murdered, you impose a responsibility on the rest of society not to murder you (a widely accepted balance, hence the reason there's a law against murder). But there are greyer areas. If you demand the right to "free" healthcare, you should accept the responsibility to pay your fair share of the level of taxation necessary to support it (the fact that so many people won't is part of the reason why the country has such a huge national debt). However, the definition of your fair share is the subject of widespread disagreement and debate. I don't like nightclubs any more than you do: the last time I ventured inside one was as an undergraduate student, decades ago. My memory of them is of music so loud I got a splitting headache, overpriced and poor quality drinks and being crammed into close proximity with aggressive, antisocial drunks. But I have to accept that a significant proportion of the population do like them. They probably don't like the classical music that I prefer to listen to, but their taxes subsidise the orchestras and concerts that I like to go to. Therefore, I'd argue that it's perfectly reasonable for a city the size of York to have enough of these clubs to meet the size of their market. Furthermore, unlike the ones on Gillygate, I hardly ever heard any reports of serious disturbances or criminal activity associated with Fibbers and the Duchess. Therefore, rehousing them to a nearby and equivalent location as part of redeveloping the Stonebow House site strikes me as a reasonable priority. And yes, if you choose to live in the middle of a large city centre, your neighbourhood is going to be noisier than if you buy a cottage in the middle of the North York Moors. And the planning system and other regulatory mechanisms will keep it that way. Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 0

9:11pm Wed 8 Jan 14

long distance depressive says...

greenmonkey wrote:
Grey Lady wrote:
If the Stonebow building was badly built in the first place and will not stand the test of time (bearing in mind that it's already 50 years old) then it should be demolished and replaced with something better. If demolition is to go ahead then maybe existing businesses could be given a deal whereby they are given temporary accommodation elsewhere with the option to return to Stonebow into purpose built units (for Fibbers and The Duchess).
They could move to Rydale House on Piccadilly perhaps, but probably wouldnt be able to afford to move back into a new building. I best the new John Lewis on Monks Cross wont be still there in 50 years time!
At this rate the new stadium won't be at Monks Cross in 50 years time!
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grey Lady[/bold] wrote: If the Stonebow building was badly built in the first place and will not stand the test of time (bearing in mind that it's already 50 years old) then it should be demolished and replaced with something better. If demolition is to go ahead then maybe existing businesses could be given a deal whereby they are given temporary accommodation elsewhere with the option to return to Stonebow into purpose built units (for Fibbers and The Duchess).[/p][/quote]They could move to Rydale House on Piccadilly perhaps, but probably wouldnt be able to afford to move back into a new building. I best the new John Lewis on Monks Cross wont be still there in 50 years time![/p][/quote]At this rate the new stadium won't be at Monks Cross in 50 years time! long distance depressive
  • Score: -1

9:39pm Wed 8 Jan 14

yorklaidtorights says...

As somebody above has already stated there is a long lease in place so the freehold is virtually worthless because (unless agreement is reached prior) the Council will have to wait 46 years before they can do anything with it!!

Given the chance I would demolish it for several reasons but the two most important are:

> putting something more attractive in its place to create a 'gateway' to that part of the City.
> As Baldie Biker posts above there are significant issues with the building (which is why we took the opportunity to include it in the portfolio in the first place) so I'd much rather it came down as a result of demolition than of its own accord on to the people below.
As somebody above has already stated there is a long lease in place so the freehold is virtually worthless because (unless agreement is reached prior) the Council will have to wait 46 years before they can do anything with it!! Given the chance I would demolish it for several reasons but the two most important are: > putting something more attractive in its place to create a 'gateway' to that part of the City. > As Baldie Biker posts above there are significant issues with the building (which is why we took the opportunity to include it in the portfolio in the first place) so I'd much rather it came down as a result of demolition than of its own accord on to the people below. yorklaidtorights
  • Score: 2

3:07am Thu 9 Jan 14

anistasia says...

It needs to go and not replaced with cafes or hotels the businesses there should get relocated and the rent the same price.same terms on bus routes etc.it's an eyesore from the 60s very near the shambles.it's out of place.if it is
Going the public should have a chance to go to the top of the building for the views.
It needs to go and not replaced with cafes or hotels the businesses there should get relocated and the rent the same price.same terms on bus routes etc.it's an eyesore from the 60s very near the shambles.it's out of place.if it is Going the public should have a chance to go to the top of the building for the views. anistasia
  • Score: 3

9:20am Thu 9 Jan 14

again says...

Kandro wrote:
Im still in the state of mind if its not broke don't fix it. We are as a country in a lot of financial danger. Look at the new statements from the government about the economy over the coming year. They are spreading out the cuts to make them more acceptable but if they are cutting and raising money from single mothers and pensioners for vanity projects they need voting out. We need to do vanity projects when our finances are healthy not atm no way
The best form of economic growth is to make things or make things better.

At the moment it simply seems to be going shopping, probably for stuff made in China, that probably you don't need, probably with money borrowed from a bank .

Let's knock down an eyesore and build something better (if we are still capable). That would be something future generations might actually thank us for.
[quote][p][bold]Kandro[/bold] wrote: Im still in the state of mind if its not broke don't fix it. We are as a country in a lot of financial danger. Look at the new statements from the government about the economy over the coming year. They are spreading out the cuts to make them more acceptable but if they are cutting and raising money from single mothers and pensioners for vanity projects they need voting out. We need to do vanity projects when our finances are healthy not atm no way[/p][/quote]The best form of economic growth is to make things or make things better. At the moment it simply seems to be going shopping, probably for stuff made in China, that probably you don't need, probably with money borrowed from a bank . Let's knock down an eyesore and build something better (if we are still capable). That would be something future generations might actually thank us for. again
  • Score: 2

11:54am Thu 9 Jan 14

sniper 9964 says...

Far too many tory boys are commenting on this issue
Far too many tory boys are commenting on this issue sniper 9964
  • Score: -2

12:19pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Guy Fawkes wrote:
There's a simple principle in life that your freedom to swing your arm ends just short of someone else's nose, regardless of where you live.


To extend your analogy, if I choose to put my nose right up against your face, your arm is more likely to hit it than if I stand six feet away from you. It is my choice where I choose to stand.

"I have my rights" is a naive and oversimplistic position. For every right you claim, you impose a responsibility on other people. An extreme example: if you claim the right not to be murdered, you impose a responsibility on the rest of society not to murder you (a widely accepted balance, hence the reason there's a law against murder). But there are greyer areas. If you demand the right to "free" healthcare, you should accept the responsibility to pay your fair share of the level of taxation necessary to support it (the fact that so many people won't is part of the reason why the country has such a huge national debt). However, the definition of your fair share is the subject of widespread disagreement and debate.

I don't like nightclubs any more than you do: the last time I ventured inside one was as an undergraduate student, decades ago. My memory of them is of music so loud I got a splitting headache, overpriced and poor quality drinks and being crammed into close proximity with aggressive, antisocial drunks. But I have to accept that a significant proportion of the population do like them. They probably don't like the classical music that I prefer to listen to, but their taxes subsidise the orchestras and concerts that I like to go to. Therefore, I'd argue that it's perfectly reasonable for a city the size of York to have enough of these clubs to meet the size of their market. Furthermore, unlike the ones on Gillygate, I hardly ever heard any reports of serious disturbances or criminal activity associated with Fibbers and the Duchess.

Therefore, rehousing them to a nearby and equivalent location as part of redeveloping the Stonebow House site strikes me as a reasonable priority. And yes, if you choose to live in the middle of a large city centre, your neighbourhood is going to be noisier than if you buy a cottage in the middle of the North York Moors. And the planning system and other regulatory mechanisms will keep it that way.
"To extend your analogy, if I choose to put my nose right up against your face, your arm is more likely to hit it than if I stand six feet away from you. It is my choice where I choose to stand."
"Sigh" - nice bit of Argumentum Ad Absurdum. It is entirely your choice where you stand, that's my point. You (the equivalent of the local resident) are still entitled not to be hit by my arm.
" "I have my rights" is a naive and oversimplistic position."
I never said "I have my rights" - thanks for strawmanning me - but I am entitled to protection by the law. That is a reasonable expectation, not naïve.
" For every right you claim, you impose a responsibility on other people."
I obey the law, and I expect other people to - don't you, or do you just do whatever you feel like doing?
"An extreme example,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,disagreement and debate."
I am sorry to sound rude but that is all waffle.
" And yes, if you choose to live in the middle of a large city centre, your neighbourhood is going to be noisier."
Sure it will. But the law says that I am entitled to protection from noise nuisance and I agree with the law. If you don't then the law has a nice quiet place for you.
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: [quote]There's a simple principle in life that your freedom to swing your arm ends just short of someone else's nose, regardless of where you live.[/quote] To extend your analogy, if I choose to put my nose right up against your face, your arm is more likely to hit it than if I stand six feet away from you. It is my choice where I choose to stand. "I have my rights" is a naive and oversimplistic position. For every right you claim, you impose a responsibility on other people. An extreme example: if you claim the right not to be murdered, you impose a responsibility on the rest of society not to murder you (a widely accepted balance, hence the reason there's a law against murder). But there are greyer areas. If you demand the right to "free" healthcare, you should accept the responsibility to pay your fair share of the level of taxation necessary to support it (the fact that so many people won't is part of the reason why the country has such a huge national debt). However, the definition of your fair share is the subject of widespread disagreement and debate. I don't like nightclubs any more than you do: the last time I ventured inside one was as an undergraduate student, decades ago. My memory of them is of music so loud I got a splitting headache, overpriced and poor quality drinks and being crammed into close proximity with aggressive, antisocial drunks. But I have to accept that a significant proportion of the population do like them. They probably don't like the classical music that I prefer to listen to, but their taxes subsidise the orchestras and concerts that I like to go to. Therefore, I'd argue that it's perfectly reasonable for a city the size of York to have enough of these clubs to meet the size of their market. Furthermore, unlike the ones on Gillygate, I hardly ever heard any reports of serious disturbances or criminal activity associated with Fibbers and the Duchess. Therefore, rehousing them to a nearby and equivalent location as part of redeveloping the Stonebow House site strikes me as a reasonable priority. And yes, if you choose to live in the middle of a large city centre, your neighbourhood is going to be noisier than if you buy a cottage in the middle of the North York Moors. And the planning system and other regulatory mechanisms will keep it that way.[/p][/quote]"To extend your analogy, if I choose to put my nose right up against your face, your arm is more likely to hit it than if I stand six feet away from you. It is my choice where I choose to stand." "Sigh" - nice bit of Argumentum Ad Absurdum. It is entirely your choice where you stand, that's my point. You (the equivalent of the local resident) are still entitled not to be hit by my arm. " "I have my rights" is a naive and oversimplistic position." I never said "I have my rights" - thanks for strawmanning me - but I am entitled to protection by the law. That is a reasonable expectation, not naïve. " For every right you claim, you impose a responsibility on other people." I obey the law, and I expect other people to - don't you, or do you just do whatever you feel like doing? "An extreme example,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,disagreement and debate." I am sorry to sound rude but that is all waffle. " And yes, if you choose to live in the middle of a large city centre, your neighbourhood is going to be noisier." Sure it will. But the law says that I am entitled to protection from noise nuisance and I agree with the law. If you don't then the law has a nice quiet place for you. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Guy Fawkes says...

But the law says that I am entitled to protection from noise nuisance...


The problem is that you clearly believe that the legal definition of a noise nuisance is a noise that you don't like, when and where you don't like it. The law does not exist to massage your ego: it exists to draw the boundary between what most people find acceptable and not, most of the time. If you've got a problem hearing music and people talking from the window of your home right in the middle of a major tourist city at 1am on a Saturday morning, good luck persuading the authorities, or a majority of your fellow citizens who elect them, that this constitutes a noise nuisance. That is why I would never choose to live anywhere near Stonebow House. In Poppleton or Acomb it would be another story: anyone making that sort of noise would not be tolerated.
[quote]But the law says that I am entitled to protection from noise nuisance...[/quote] The problem is that you clearly believe that the legal definition of a noise nuisance is a noise that you don't like, when and where you don't like it. The law does not exist to massage your ego: it exists to draw the boundary between what most people find acceptable and not, most of the time. If you've got a problem hearing music and people talking from the window of your home right in the middle of a major tourist city at 1am on a Saturday morning, good luck persuading the authorities, or a majority of your fellow citizens who elect them, that this constitutes a noise nuisance. That is why I would never choose to live anywhere near Stonebow House. In Poppleton or Acomb it would be another story: anyone making that sort of noise would not be tolerated. Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 1

5:32pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Guy Fawkes wrote:
But the law says that I am entitled to protection from noise nuisance...


The problem is that you clearly believe that the legal definition of a noise nuisance is a noise that you don't like, when and where you don't like it. The law does not exist to massage your ego: it exists to draw the boundary between what most people find acceptable and not, most of the time. If you've got a problem hearing music and people talking from the window of your home right in the middle of a major tourist city at 1am on a Saturday morning, good luck persuading the authorities, or a majority of your fellow citizens who elect them, that this constitutes a noise nuisance. That is why I would never choose to live anywhere near Stonebow House. In Poppleton or Acomb it would be another story: anyone making that sort of noise would not be tolerated.
"The problem is that you clearly believe that the legal definition of a noise nuisance is a noise that you don't like".
Another strawman. Ho hum.
The legal definition of a noise nuisance is as it is defined by the law as measured in Decibels.
"The law does not exist to massage your ego: it exists to draw the boundary between what most people find acceptable and not, most of the time."
My ego? Ha ha ha! The law exists to set defined limits as to what people can and cannot do; if I lived next to you and played heavy metal on my 500 watt computer speakers I think you might be less tolerant.
"That is why I would never choose to live anywhere near Stonebow House. In Poppleton or Acomb it would be another story: anyone making that sort of noise would not be tolerated."
That's the definition of a NIMBY. Well done.
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: [quote]But the law says that I am entitled to protection from noise nuisance...[/quote] The problem is that you clearly believe that the legal definition of a noise nuisance is a noise that you don't like, when and where you don't like it. The law does not exist to massage your ego: it exists to draw the boundary between what most people find acceptable and not, most of the time. If you've got a problem hearing music and people talking from the window of your home right in the middle of a major tourist city at 1am on a Saturday morning, good luck persuading the authorities, or a majority of your fellow citizens who elect them, that this constitutes a noise nuisance. That is why I would never choose to live anywhere near Stonebow House. In Poppleton or Acomb it would be another story: anyone making that sort of noise would not be tolerated.[/p][/quote]"The problem is that you clearly believe that the legal definition of a noise nuisance is a noise that you don't like". Another strawman. Ho hum. The legal definition of a noise nuisance is as it is defined by the law as measured in Decibels. "The law does not exist to massage your ego: it exists to draw the boundary between what most people find acceptable and not, most of the time." My ego? Ha ha ha! The law exists to set defined limits as to what people can and cannot do; if I lived next to you and played heavy metal on my 500 watt computer speakers I think you might be less tolerant. "That is why I would never choose to live anywhere near Stonebow House. In Poppleton or Acomb it would be another story: anyone making that sort of noise would not be tolerated." That's the definition of a NIMBY. Well done. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Guy Fawkes says...

The legal definition of a noise nuisance is as it is defined by the law as measured in Decibels.


That is quite simply untrue, as even a cursory Google search would reveal. The test is subjective (see, for example, http://www.environme
ntlaw.org.uk/rte.asp
?id=76). If you can't be bothered even to check the basic facts on which your assertions depend for their credibility, no-one is going to take you seriously. Quote from the page linked above:

The law defines a nuisance as "an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or of some right over, or in connection, with it." The process of determining what level of noise constitutes a nuisance can be quite subjective. For instance, the level of noise, its length and timing may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether a nuisance has actually occurred.


And incidentally, the decibel, as well as being irrelevant to this discussion, is a common noun and therefore does not have a leading capital.
[quote]The legal definition of a noise nuisance is as it is defined by the law as measured in Decibels.[/quote] That is quite simply untrue, as even a cursory Google search would reveal. The test is subjective (see, for example, http://www.environme ntlaw.org.uk/rte.asp ?id=76). If you can't be bothered even to check the basic facts on which your assertions depend for their credibility, no-one is going to take you seriously. Quote from the page linked above: [quote]The law defines a nuisance as "an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or of some right over, or in connection, with it." The process of determining what level of noise constitutes a nuisance can be quite subjective. For instance, the level of noise, its length and timing may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether a nuisance has actually occurred. [/quote] And incidentally, the decibel, as well as being irrelevant to this discussion, is a common noun and therefore does not have a leading capital. Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 0

8:50pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Guy Fawkes wrote:
The legal definition of a noise nuisance is as it is defined by the law as measured in Decibels.


That is quite simply untrue, as even a cursory Google search would reveal. The test is subjective (see, for example, http://www.environme

ntlaw.org.uk/rte.asp

?id=76). If you can't be bothered even to check the basic facts on which your assertions depend for their credibility, no-one is going to take you seriously. Quote from the page linked above:

The law defines a nuisance as "an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or of some right over, or in connection, with it." The process of determining what level of noise constitutes a nuisance can be quite subjective. For instance, the level of noise, its length and timing may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether a nuisance has actually occurred.


And incidentally, the decibel, as well as being irrelevant to this discussion, is a common noun and therefore does not have a leading capital.
"That is quite simply untrue, as even a cursory Google search would reveal. The test is subjective (see, for example, http://www.environme ntlaw.org.uk/rte.asp ?id=76). If you can't be bothered even to check the basic facts on which your assertions depend for their credibility, no-one is going to take you seriously."
The link doesn't work. If you can't post links which work, no-one is going to take you seriously.
"The law defines a nuisance as "an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or of some right over, or in connection, with it."
As with living in a city centre (land) and not being able to enjoy a good nights sleep.
"And incidentally, the decibel, as well as being irrelevant to this discussion, is a common noun and therefore does not have a leading capital."
And the word "oversimplistic" as used in your post at 8:28pm Wed 8 Jan 14
should be "over-simplistic" according to the Oxford dictionary
http://www.oxforddic
tionaries.com/defini
tion/english/over-si
mplistic?q=oversimpl
istic but then you have your own version of the law so I suppose you can have your own versions of words?
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: [quote]The legal definition of a noise nuisance is as it is defined by the law as measured in Decibels.[/quote] That is quite simply untrue, as even a cursory Google search would reveal. The test is subjective (see, for example, http://www.environme ntlaw.org.uk/rte.asp ?id=76). If you can't be bothered even to check the basic facts on which your assertions depend for their credibility, no-one is going to take you seriously. Quote from the page linked above: [quote]The law defines a nuisance as "an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or of some right over, or in connection, with it." The process of determining what level of noise constitutes a nuisance can be quite subjective. For instance, the level of noise, its length and timing may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether a nuisance has actually occurred. [/quote] And incidentally, the decibel, as well as being irrelevant to this discussion, is a common noun and therefore does not have a leading capital.[/p][/quote]"That is quite simply untrue, as even a cursory Google search would reveal. The test is subjective (see, for example, http://www.environme ntlaw.org.uk/rte.asp ?id=76). If you can't be bothered even to check the basic facts on which your assertions depend for their credibility, no-one is going to take you seriously." The link doesn't work. If you can't post links which work, no-one is going to take you seriously. "The law defines a nuisance as "an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or of some right over, or in connection, with it." As with living in a city centre (land) and not being able to enjoy a good nights sleep. "And incidentally, the decibel, as well as being irrelevant to this discussion, is a common noun and therefore does not have a leading capital." And the word "oversimplistic" as used in your post at 8:28pm Wed 8 Jan 14 should be "over-simplistic" according to the Oxford dictionary http://www.oxforddic tionaries.com/defini tion/english/over-si mplistic?q=oversimpl istic but then you have your own version of the law so I suppose you can have your own versions of words? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -2

1:43am Fri 10 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
JoeTopps wrote:
Those that complain of noise from the nightclubs when they chose to live in a city centre are a bit daft surely? Fibbers and Duchess are crucial venues if York is to retain any music culture and the demographic they attract are generally a lot more friendly and fun than those that visit the likes of Salvation or Tokyo. The building is terribly ugly but it would be a huge loss to the culture of York and the fun loving young people if those venues are lost. Unless these are successfully relocated or it is possible for them to stay then it shouldn't be demolished.
So what you are saying is that the requirements of live music venues override the lives of anybody who "chooses to live nearby"? In other words anyone who chooses to live within earshot of them should sign a disclaimer?
And that live music venues are entitled to make as much noise as they like without reference to anyone else?
Would you buy a house next door to an airport and then demand the planes stop flying after 9pm because they make a bit of noise?
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JoeTopps[/bold] wrote: Those that complain of noise from the nightclubs when they chose to live in a city centre are a bit daft surely? Fibbers and Duchess are crucial venues if York is to retain any music culture and the demographic they attract are generally a lot more friendly and fun than those that visit the likes of Salvation or Tokyo. The building is terribly ugly but it would be a huge loss to the culture of York and the fun loving young people if those venues are lost. Unless these are successfully relocated or it is possible for them to stay then it shouldn't be demolished.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that the requirements of live music venues override the lives of anybody who "chooses to live nearby"? In other words anyone who chooses to live within earshot of them should sign a disclaimer? And that live music venues are entitled to make as much noise as they like without reference to anyone else?[/p][/quote]Would you buy a house next door to an airport and then demand the planes stop flying after 9pm because they make a bit of noise? Magicman!
  • Score: -1

1:46am Fri 10 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

anistasia wrote:
It needs to go and not replaced with cafes or hotels the businesses there should get relocated and the rent the same price.same terms on bus routes etc.it's an eyesore from the 60s very near the shambles.it's out of place.if it is
Going the public should have a chance to go to the top of the building for the views.
It does have a great view of the Minster. I worked on the 4th floor for a short while, it wasn't the very top floor but the views were impressive. Also fun to fly paper planes from!!
[quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: It needs to go and not replaced with cafes or hotels the businesses there should get relocated and the rent the same price.same terms on bus routes etc.it's an eyesore from the 60s very near the shambles.it's out of place.if it is Going the public should have a chance to go to the top of the building for the views.[/p][/quote]It does have a great view of the Minster. I worked on the 4th floor for a short while, it wasn't the very top floor but the views were impressive. Also fun to fly paper planes from!! Magicman!
  • Score: 2

10:34am Fri 10 Jan 14

Stuart Jones says...

Shame. Just as I was about to launch my 'brutalist York' blog.
Shame. Just as I was about to launch my 'brutalist York' blog. Stuart Jones
  • Score: 1

11:18pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Magicman! wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
JoeTopps wrote:
Those that complain of noise from the nightclubs when they chose to live in a city centre are a bit daft surely? Fibbers and Duchess are crucial venues if York is to retain any music culture and the demographic they attract are generally a lot more friendly and fun than those that visit the likes of Salvation or Tokyo. The building is terribly ugly but it would be a huge loss to the culture of York and the fun loving young people if those venues are lost. Unless these are successfully relocated or it is possible for them to stay then it shouldn't be demolished.
So what you are saying is that the requirements of live music venues override the lives of anybody who "chooses to live nearby"? In other words anyone who chooses to live within earshot of them should sign a disclaimer?
And that live music venues are entitled to make as much noise as they like without reference to anyone else?
Would you buy a house next door to an airport and then demand the planes stop flying after 9pm because they make a bit of noise?
You have posted some quite sensible comments on this site recently so I will assume this one is either an aberration or a joke.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JoeTopps[/bold] wrote: Those that complain of noise from the nightclubs when they chose to live in a city centre are a bit daft surely? Fibbers and Duchess are crucial venues if York is to retain any music culture and the demographic they attract are generally a lot more friendly and fun than those that visit the likes of Salvation or Tokyo. The building is terribly ugly but it would be a huge loss to the culture of York and the fun loving young people if those venues are lost. Unless these are successfully relocated or it is possible for them to stay then it shouldn't be demolished.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that the requirements of live music venues override the lives of anybody who "chooses to live nearby"? In other words anyone who chooses to live within earshot of them should sign a disclaimer? And that live music venues are entitled to make as much noise as they like without reference to anyone else?[/p][/quote]Would you buy a house next door to an airport and then demand the planes stop flying after 9pm because they make a bit of noise?[/p][/quote]You have posted some quite sensible comments on this site recently so I will assume this one is either an aberration or a joke. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree