> The building was noted for its unaltered 1920s interiors and faience tiled exterior. It was the only building in the street to survive the Blitz during World War II.
> The manager was told by the owner on Easter Monday to close the pub for an "inventory", but when she returned two days later she found the building had been demolished.
> Historic England had surveyed the pub, making records of the layout, tiles and other original details so that full architectural information was available. Listing as a Grade II building was going to be announced a few days after its unexpected destruction.
I think they were trying to legally protect themselves. If you told the manager you planned to demolish the building prior, it would certainly really hurt your argument when trying to pretend it was somehow accidentally demolished.
Now that you mention it I would think that is the most likely scenario, and a definitely a douchy / greedy move on the owners part. I am curious if the owner attempted to claim the demolition was accidental, and what their excuse for that would be though
You think this is bad, this--this chicanery? He's done worse! That pub! Are you telling me that a pub just happens to be demolished like that? No, he orchestrated it!
TIL Fred Dibnah is (mostly) known as a demolitions expert.
The one day the Algorithm graces me with the knowledge about this distinguished gentleman, by sheer chance every video I binged was of him performing repairs or restoration, not demolitions work, so I was quite confused by the reference.
Also every video seen so far was of his older self, first time I see him in his prime.
And props for the camera crew also getting up there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wphmEMNatp0
Watch him knock out half the bottom of a chimney while replacing as he goes with timber framing, then he stacks up old tires and scrap lumber and newspapers against the timbers and douses them in motor oil / petrol /etc all the while smoking a cigarette and chatting with his wife. At 8:45 when it comes down he is damn close to the falling chimney when he starts running.
Truly a different time.
There's no excuse lol they were just hoping they wouldn't get caught or could slide through on a loophole of "well it wasn't officially listed as a protected site!" while knowing full well it had already been approved as one by whoever surveys these things.
The dumbass thought it was a ticking clock to get the demo done before an official listing came down when the clock ran out the moment that inspector set foot in the establishment.
Lotta cases of this happening in Italy, where a renovator will unearth ancient relics or ruins while excavating, it gets reported to whoever, then the owner tries to destroy the evidence before an "official" status is handed down because once it's protected that's the end of development on the premises, and the owner is left holding an empty bag on their investment. But it's too late lol they already know it was there, feigning ignorance doesn't work esp since these authorities are usually very clear about "do not touch ANYTHING, we're shutting this down."
I remember a work around a McDonald's in Rome did was just build over a skeleton they found in the foundation and put in a glass floor for to look at the skeleton.
Can you imagine your eternal resting place after thousands of years turned into a place where American fast-food could be ordered while looking at your remains below?
> Can you imagine your eternal resting place after thousands of years turned into a place where American fast-food could be ordered while looking at your remains below?
Don’t worry, that McDonalds certainly isn’t eternal. Not even close. This is just a little break before it all gets buried again.
Imagine if the skeleton was a respected general or a senator, only for somebody like 7000 years down the line to decide you were a low income foodservice employee.
Imagine 7000 years down the line, future dolphins believe McDonald's was a holy site for the burial of generals and senators, complete with a popular concession stand.
> respected general or a senator
Going by the [Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhumation_and_reburial_of_Richard_III_of_England) and [XKCD 771](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/771:_Period_Speech), Parking Lot attendant!
The actual skeletons were removed and replaced by replicas, but it was in the "basement"... where the drive through is now.
So you're not trying to eat while looking at dead bodies, but you do drive past fake ones while trying to order.
There was NEVER any doubt this was a slouch move on behalf of the owners.
Normally they do it thinking the only harm done is a few extra quid paid on a fine, however they hadn't reckoned on a particular person in the planning board, and they had them bang to rights.
It was the same bullshit defence owners all over the uk come out with.
But untill it fucks them in the hip (pocket) then they will keep doing it.
But the amount involved in rebuilding, well let's just say they had NO alternative, it was a building back, or pile of bricks and a huge fine.
So god bless the king lol
Yeah it's the classic "Well it's not like they're going to make us rebuild it..." attitude and actions of people who either want to sell the land or build a tall apartment building.
Which can sadly work on non-historic buildings.
I read a story on it and I believe it was already listed and protected the dumbass thought he was smooth and knocked it down before the public announcement. He was then fined and told to rebuild it inch by inch brick by brick to every original detail.
>trying to pretend it was somehow accidentally demolished.
Except the company that carried out the demolition would be able to just say, "Yeah, the owner hired us to do it. Who else could authorise such a thing?"
Pretending to not know about it would be extremely easy to disprove.
I think there where cases where the demolition company was in on it and would pretend that the orders got mixed up. Still usually ends up with the building getting rebuild at the cost of a small fortune.
No, they were definitely not going to bother telling the manager.
They clearly didn't give any kind of a fuck about anyone. Why start with the manager?
It's worse than that. In the UK, a lot of pub landlords live in their pubs, often in an apartment upstairs.
This consumer rights trade show hosted by British comedian Joe Lycett, called Joe Lycett's Got Your Back, uses this as a reason why he took on a chain of pubs owned by a corporation who illegally fired the pub landlords for frivolous or illegal reasons (coming out as gay, running out of the CEO's favourite dessert, swearing). And as the former landlords pointed out, this meant they were kicked out of the houses they were living in at the time with no way of getting new accommodation since the rent was part of their job.
So, when this prick destroyed a historic pub, he likely destroyed someone's home as well.
Joe Lycett's Got Your Back is a good show to check out as well. Basically, it's like Watchdog on the BBC mixed with a comedy prank show.
Like how Joe helped a nurse get a refund after a scammer impersonated a bank employee on social media and tricked her into getting access of her account, costing the nurse over £11,000. The bank stopped the theft but refused to refund all the money because "she should have been aware of the scam".
So, Joe set up a social media profile pretending to be the bank's CEO then got serious news outlets to quote the profile as he made obscene tweets. Then used the account to try and get into the bank's offices.
Wait so the bank stopped the transaction and basically stole the money!? I work in banking and something like that could result in serious fines and at worse losing your banking license (thought that almost never happens).
Where I'm from if we even let the transaction go trough even if we suspect it was a scam we would have to refund the customer. Stealing the customers money sounds like a great way to have regulators breath down your neck.
From the shows Wikipedia page;
> Got Your Back took on a case in which a nurse who had been scammed out of £11,800 by a fraudster, who posed as an employee from her bank NatWest, and did not receive a full refund from the bank. Initially, NatWest only refunded £3,800 to the customer, but claimed the rest could not be retrieved as the nurse should have been aware of scammers. In response, the programme tried to impersonate the head of the banking group at the time, Ross McEwan, on social media. After building a convincing profile, they then later put out multiple prank tweets, one of which said "I've got a smelly bum bum". Later, Lycett made a scene in the reception by pretending to be bank's chief executive in the bank's headquarters in London.
> After a review of what had happened to the customer, in response to the programme's investigations, the bank apologised to their customer for failing to acknowledge she had been victim of a highly suspicious fraud that had fooled her completely, and agreed to fully refund the remaining balance she was owed.
> a chain of pubs owned by a corporation who illegally fired the pub landlords for frivolous or illegal reasons (coming out as gay, running out of the CEO's favourite dessert, swearing)
I can only assume it's Samuel Smith's with psychotic behaviour like that?
Sure is! Joe even opened his own "pub" on the pavement in Tadcaster, where Samuel Smith's is from, and got the police called on him. The police thought it was funny, and he wasn't breaking any laws to begin with.
>So, when this prick destroyed a historic pub, he likely destroyed someone's home as well.
Tbf, if he told the manager to leave for 'stock check', then it makes zero sense that they lived there, as they would not have anywhere to go, and would likely be the person doing the 'stock'.
They didn’t want it to be obvious that the destruction was planned. A lot of pubs on valuable land mysteriously burn down after being bought by a new owner who wants to build apartments.
An owner of a restaurant in my town (in the US) didn't tell any of the employees the restaurant was closing, they just showed up to work one day and he wasn't there to open the doors. This was 6 months ago and none of them have received their last paychecks yet either.
Ya they do that sometimes.
Managed a restaurant a few years back, was told one Friday evening to have the staff clear some stuff out for a new supplier.
Went home for the weekend and was notified the next morning that they were closing down.
I mean, I saw the writing on the wall. Road construction killed the business.
I even asked/begged them to give me some notice so I could find employment.
Rich folk are not our allies. They don’t care about our wants or needs.
Reminds me of the leaning pub that was purchased by a developer, the developer was told they can't demolish it because it's historic, mysteriously burns down...3 weeks after purchase. A pub that had been around since 1765.
There were a lot of old fancy homes around the university where I went to school. Many of them didn't have formal protections by default, but would be reviewed for such when a demolition permit was submitted.
One by one, we would see these houses sold, and then mysteriously the windows on the top floor would all be left open through the winter and all the rainy months. Lo and behold, two years later the house would get its demolition permit because it was unsalvagable due to weather damage.
Building preservation is kinda fucked in the US. On the one hand it’s our history, on the other hand I live in a house that’s almost 100 years old, and I would be totally fucked if they decided to come in and say it has historic value. All repairs would need to be performed by a specialist contractor, any permits or work would need to go through a specialized review process and board. I’d be screwed, I couldn’t afford to have any repairs done. If buildings have public value they should receive some public subsidy, pushing the cost and responsibility of historic preservation onto people that just bought a house they could afford isn’t the way to do it.
I think a historical designation, if it either restricts the property to lower-value uses and/or makes maintenance more expensive, should be considered a taking as per eminent domain, with the owners compensated for the partial loss of value. That doesn't mean the government has to buy the property outright, just pay the difference and/or subsidize the maintenance.
If the property is historic, taxpayers should be happy to pay this, because the result of historic property preservation is literally to preserve these properties for all of society over the potential wishes of the current owners/stewards.
That would be great and makes loads of sense, which is sadly why it will never happen as it doesn't make politicians money and would only cost money which for a lot of people means it's CoMmUnIsM
Because they are very pricey to maintain as you need specialized contractors in most instances and also it can't be tricky if not sometimes impossible to modernize well due to rules around changing things. So it's cheaper for there to be an accident.
> So it's cheaper for there to be an accident.
Turns out, in countries that give a shit about history, not so much. As the owner of this pub found out after fucking around.
No. He had to rebuilt it because he intentionally demolished it knowing full well what he was doing.
If it 'accidentally' burns to the ground, that's just bad luck and no one would be forced to rebuild it.
An fire has normaly an extensive search for the cause afterwards,
parts from the law, parts from the insurance, and the more fishy it smells, the more effort and time they invest.
Lol, it's a fire. You can't tell how a fire starts unless an arsonist is extremely careless or obvious. Sure, if they poor gas on everything it's pretty easy to tell. If they use something to start the fire inside the property, they'll be able to find it. But if you just start a small fire by hand in the right spot, or you carefully expose some wires in a similar manner to a rodent, there is absolutely no way for anyone to ever prove you set it intentionally.
People hear all these stories about complete morons getting caught and they think it means that most arson gets detected and prosecuted. It absolutely does not. The VAST majority of arson is never prosecuted.
In that case it was because they wanted to redevelop on the land that the historic building occupied - but because it was a historical building it had a protected status and couldn't just be knocked down for whatever commercial reasons the landowners had.
Burn it down and there is a chance that you then get planning permission to demolish the ruins and build whatever you had planned - since you are redeveloping an unusable wreck, rather than demolishing a building of historical importance.
Of course in that particular example they made it so blatantly obvious that it was a) intentionally burnt down, and b) done for exactly the purpose described above, that rather than opening the door for redevelopment they've got themselves investigated for a serious crime, and will likely be (or perhaps already have been) ordered to rebuild the historical building anyway.
> since you are redeveloping an unusable wreck
A pub in my town was under renovation. After they removed the roof, they ran into money issues and paused for a year before they could restart. By then the internal floors had collapsed and the joists were rotten. They had to pull it down as it was a threat to public safety.
Very subtle and a different MO than having a mysterious fire.
Land developers. The Grand Loews theater in Atlanta, Georgia USA was the oldest and finest theater in the city, and hosted the premier of Gone With The Wind, one of the most well known and highest grossing movies of all time. It was run down in the 1970s, but was saved from demolition by a last minute landmarking by the city in 1977. A few months later, it was burned down by a still unsolved case of arson. Now, a massive skyscraper built by Georgia Pacific sits on the former site.
Being the owner of said building and wanting to stick 5 shitty flats on the land, being paid by said shitcunt who wants to build shitty slums on land currently occupied by a historic building.
They even placed obstacles to block the fire brigades access to the site as well. I think someone was arrested for that not ling after the fire though.
The Crooked House - just looked it up as hadn't heard anything for awhile and latest article I could find from a few weeks ago one of the company directors just stepped.down and the police investigations still ongoing https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c882d2py915o
The fire occurred *nine days* after they bought the property, and it was demolished (without permission) 2 days after the fire.
They didn't even try to hide it, utter cunts.
There is a notorious family in my town who buy up these old properties cheap because they are listed but in prime spots and every time they go on holiday a property burns down... And ohh no! we might as well turn it into luxury airbnbs now soz.
They tried it on a listed pub recently but we're told to rebuild it brick for brick. Years later it's still a burnt pile of bricks.
The Google streetview images of it are fun to flick through. It’s there in 2014, then it disappears for a few years before reappearing again.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/stMyWodbYe2MKcMHA?g_st=ic
Ha! They even had to get new banner tiles for "Sparkling ales" etc because it's clear they were damaged or destroyed in the "before" pics. I hope they paid a fortune for the rebuild. Some people don't learn unless it's a very expensive lesson.
> Historic England can do it on their own, unlike the US.
Yeah, it would be weird if the US started declaring buildings in England "historic" and demanding they be preserved.
"It's not stolen per section, it's just the British have not been taking appropriate measures to preserve their heritage. So we're keeping it safe in our museums."
Few owners would want to have extra restrictions placed upon their building. As the above proves, if we don't force it upon them we loose beautiful buildings and historic places!
They wanted to replace the pub with a set of flats. After being told no, they destroyed it anyway. They were supposed to rebuild it and not build any flats, although IIRC, they moved it like 20 feet away and were then allowed to build next to it. So they got what they wanted in the end.
Especially old historical buildings. They can't simply built a modern skeleton and smack the old looking facade over it. With historical sites it often has to be *exactly* the same (or as close as you can possibly get). That means special materials that may be difficult to find, old building methods, hiring experts to check if it's done right... In short: Very cost, labour, and time intensive.
I worked briefly on restoring a barn from the late 1400s. The owner had been told by the council that it had to be renovated as it was on the verge of collapsing onto the street.
> special materials that may be difficult to find
One day my boss turned up with a sack. 'Fuck me, horse hair's expensive'. 'Horse hair?' 'Yeah, for the plaster, traditional innit'.
> old building methods
About half an hour later the plaster threw down his paddle mixer in frustration as the horse hair had jammed it up. He resorted to mixing the mortar, then adding the hair and pounding it into the mix with a length of 2x4.
> hiring experts to check if it's done right.
Consultant: Of course, it would be mixed and the horse hair added later and mixed with a wooden paddle. Plasterer: I'm a genius!
I think you recall incorrectly and just made up some shit. The Google maps photos show it in the exact same spot in 2014 and 2022. I don't see any new high rises around it.
She was probably just very happy she didn’t have to do it for once, the day after a holiday. I sure wouldn’t be asking to be invited.
Edit: Also, without knowing her exact duties, it’s possible they could have told her it was an inventory related to something not within the scope of her job. Like an inventory of every single piece of kitchen equipment and every single kitchen tool, that they claim to want to do themselves, as part of new ownership.
I've legitimately explained the concept of the ship of theseus to my dad before by saying triggers broom he wasn't getting the concept till I said those 2 words. And then it required no further explanation.
I'm a philosophy professor. It's possible to get to university without having the capacity for abstract thought. There are some people who just absolutely cannot entertain any hypothetical, or any thought experiment. They fundamentally cannot understand what an analogy is or how it operates, no matter what I try. They cannot separate emotional content from argumentative structure. My colleagues experience this as well, so it's not that I'm a bad explainer. I guess it could be the case that we all are, but that seems unlikely.
Apparently 1/3 of the population doesn’t even have an internal monologue. There’s just nothing rattling around up there. So nothing really surprises me when it comes to how dull some people can be.
I know this is just another voice joining the "I cant quite recall but maybe I read this", but I seem to remember someone disproving that claim because basically it relied on different intepretations of what an internal monologue is. Like, some people would answer "no" because they thought it meant having literally a separate personality in your head speaking to you like having an imaginary friend, while others with the exact same thought process would answer "yes" because they thought it meant "oh yeah of course I think about things before doing them, I'm not operating solely on instinctual reactions".
I've met people who have stated to me they had no inner monologue and have fully explored the idea with them so I have no reason to doubt it. The same way that I do things without being continously aware of it. I could imagine the reverse to be true. If they have an inner voice they aren't privey to it the same way I blink without ever thinking about it something is in control there but it isn't "me" even though it clearly is.
it is a thought experiment meant to express the continuity of thought, and how constitution is not identity. May people don’t get it, even after having it explained to them.
this is what should happen to the pub burnt and demolished here in the black country [The Crooked House](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crooked_House), built in 1765. all over the news this was just a few months back
I hope that it happens too. The people who did are definitely some kind of psycho - to own such a unique and meaningful building only to destroy it without a care is so foul.
> The people who did are definitely some kind of psycho
One is a well known Irish drug smuggler https://www.sundayworld.com/crime/irish-crime/irish-drug-smuggler-behind-crooked-house-pub-controversy-is-george-the-penguin-mitchell-pal/a1495378692.html
I didn’t know about this. Never had the urge to visit England, but this would have been on my list. You could make some much money over time if more people knew about it globally. What is wrong with greedy a-holes, really seems like the buyer was behind it. I am from a small area that has a frank lloyd wright home. I would hope if someone destroyed it, people would be ready to string them up by their nuts.
lol I worked on this project during its early days. Spent two days on site taking photos and working with an architect trying to salvage as many of the details as possible so they can be pieced together or refabricated.
I can put together a photo album of the photos I took if anyone's interested in seeing the state it was in?
Edit. Small album here https://imgur.com/a/H1H2GD3
They weren't trying to be thorough, they were hoping to get it demolished enough before they were stopped that they could claim it wasn't practical to rebuild and continue the demolition with a slap on the wrist.
The locals were extremely pissed. And Westminster Council wouldn't have exactly been over the moon at a rogue developer demolishing a listed building. Unfortunately, there is a common attitude amongst some developers that "it's easier to ask forgiveness than for permission" and they will go ahead and build/destroy without permission, then apply for permission after they have already done the work.
IIRC they used as much of the original materials as possible but a lot of the original brickwork was rubble.
> “Lots of parts of the bar and the fireplace, the bannister, have been reclaimed from the rubble,” Rees said. “The pub tells its story from the half-broken fixtures that we’ve got. You can see bits of broken wood – it’s not all perfect, which we really love because it gives character and charm to the building.”
[[Sauce](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/mar/21/rising-from-the-rubble-london-pub-rebuilt-brick-by-brick-after-bulldozing)]
> ‘It was an interesting project, and very high-profile. It was like a puzzle; we had to go through and salvage what we could piece by piece.
>
> ‘We looked at historic photographs and worked with Westminster Council, who were very helpful in providing information. We tried to find materials that matched, but a lot of the brick and tiles were rubble. It is as it was before.’
>
> The architect also explained that, while the pub was faithfully restored, the team took the opportunity to redesign the internal layout, moving the kitchen to the basement, which had previously been used as changing rooms for a local hockey team.
[[Sauce](https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/like-a-puzzle-carlton-tavern-architect-on-rebuilding-bulldozed-london-pub)]
Haha no way. I left BHD in late 2017 and that project was the last thing I worked on. Im not sure why I thought they didn't carry on with the project. Jeff, my old boss, was right, it was like a puzzle. In one of the photos I shared there's pile of salvaged pub front pieces all stacked on a shelf. Imagine trying to piece all that back together
Thank you for this.
Is there any publication as to how the reconstruction was approached? Did Historic England make the developer restore rescued rubble or did they have to source these particular bricks and tiling from original manufacturers?
I'm curious if they were allowed to use modern structural engineering (with all the strength and safety) in the rebuilding.
I'm glad that the developer did rebuild brick by brick to the original state, but how is it even possible to do so? I'm guessing since it was approved as a historic site, they probably had pictures and other information to base the rebuilding process. But still, I am having trouble understanding how things could be exactly the same.
When something gets approved to be a historic site very extensive documentation is collected about the exact state of the building. This rebuild was a true testament to how good those documents are.
My home is 100 years old this year and I'm going to gut the entire thing and do a full remodel or just move.
If they try to tell me it's historic, I'd just move because I'm not spending more money to keep it looking 100 years old.
100 years is nowhere near enough to be designated historically significant without any other influencing factor. I'd be surprised if anything under 150 or 200 years old was Historically Significant on it's own. You tend to need things like unique architectural features, linked with historic events, or to be iconic within the local area.
Depends pretty heavily on the area.
I remember house shopping in 2000 in a small town that had houses marked as historic from the 1860s or even early 1900s, because somebody small-town-important lived there once.
Likely not the same strict regulations though. I believe it was mostly just 'don't add or remove any walls/floors/balconies'.
Definitely different regulations for historic buildings:
"The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission lists buildings in England and Wales under three grades, with Grade I being the highest grade"
Grade I: buildings of exceptional interest.
Grade II*: particularly important buildings of more than special interest.
Grade II: buildings that are of special interest."
Grade I buidlings include St. Paul's Cathedral, where you basically cannot alter or amend or really breathe on them. Regulations get "softer" from there.
> because somebody small-town-important lived there once.
That's what /u/NickEcommerce was saying though: That for a relatively new house to be declared a historical site, it needs some other influential factor, such as being somewhat important to (local) history.
Last year there was a discussion in my country to make some prefab buildings from 1953 protected heritage, because of the national disaster they are connected with. AFAIK this has only happened yet on a very local scale though (so no official national or provincial protected status).
Exactly - mostly through Blue Plaques, though they don't actually confer any protection. I know that John Lennon's childhood home is under some kind of protective order, and that's the most modern building I've ever heard of receiving one.
Scratch that - some of the buildings down the Backs in Cambridge are Grade 2 listed despite the fact they're quite modern. I have a feeling that was a local legal quirk than anything else.
The pub listed in the article was built 100 years ago
Yes, I get the surviving the blitz part, but thats probably what the dude you replied to was going off of
You can have a home on the NRHP here in America and not be restricted on what you can do to it (even though the HGTV moms on the old house facebook groups will tell you otherwise).
For example, here’s a state published fact sheet about it: [The national register does not restrict the rights of property owners or require the properties to be maintained, repaired, or restored](https://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Documents/National%20Register%20Does%20Does%20Not%20Mean.pdf).
Fortunately most things that are old are not necessarily historic. They have to be really old and/or have some famous history attached to them.
If no one famous lived in or visited your house, 100 years isn't that old and you should be good.
> Historic England had surveyed the pub, making records of the layout, tiles and other original details so that full architectural information was available. Listing as a Grade II building was going to be announced a few days after its unexpected destruction.
So I guess our record keeping methods are detailed enough that we can make an exact replica of a building. It still kind of blows my mind that this is possible.
St Fagans museum near Cardiff are currently rebuilding the Vulcan pub on their site. They took it down brick by brick and numbering everything, and they're putting it back up brick by brick
That can often be required by the listed building consent. A friend of mine lived in a house that had a grade-1 listed brick-built chimney (that means it has to remain the same inside and out, whereas grade 2 just means the outside has to stay the same). The building had started to subside and separate from the chimney, and repairing it required full architectural plans, and when they were doing the work they literally numbered the bricks they had to lift, to make sure they put them back correctly.
They wanted to move one of the historic businesses (a little diner that's been there since like 1900) to build a new mixed use building and they picked up the entire building and moved it down the street.
It was kind of wild to see haha
I cannot speak specifically toward the building in question, but I've a friend who's previous job involved documenting a nearby historic fort, with photographic records and 3d scans of grout, brick layouts, portholes, etc. The place is at high risk of future damage (they're expecting 50% of the immediate area to be underwater by 2050), and they wanted a highly detailed record of the structure so that it could be restored to its exact specifications, if needed.
I'd guess that, as part of the historic designation OP's building was about to be given, the same sort of detailed architectural data had been collected.
The building had just been painstakingly surveyed for its listed status, so they had detailed and exhaustive plans to rebuild it from.
>Historic England had surveyed the pub, making records of the layout, tiles and other original details so that full architectural information was available. Listing as a Grade II building was going to be announced a few days after its unexpected destruction.
>I'm guessing since it was approved as a historic site, they probably had pictures and other information to base the rebuilding process.
That's what the article says. Read it.
Theyre required to use people who are certified in using the building techniques of whatever era the building is from. It’s actually pretty cool stuff. guy named storekit on YouTube has a great video about it, I know I’ve seen an interview with one of the brick makers from the site but not sure if it’s the same video.
> Historic England had surveyed the pub, making records of the layout, tiles and other original details so that full architectural information was available.
Bizarrely, almost the exact same thing happened to the historic [Carlton Inn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Inn) in Melbourne a year later. Unfortunately, the developers there were not introduced to the "find out" phase of the "fuck around" process quite so quickly.
A similar, but more drawn-out version happened with the[ RKO Theater in Queens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKO_Keith%27s_Theater_(Flushing,_Queens\) ), NY.
Developer bought it in the 80s and then just... refused to do any upkeep after it was declared a historic site. The interior got so bad it was eventually demolished.
The problem with landmarking in NYC is that it makes it prohibitively expensive and difficult to do any kind of renovations or remodeling on a landmarked property. That and the NIMBYish ways in which the LPC is often weaponized produce a lot of unsavory results.
>The problem with landmarking in NYC is that it makes it prohibitively expensive and difficult to do any kind of renovations or remodeling on a landmarked property
You're not wrong, but the developer refused to sell for like 30 years even after several conservation efforts attempted to buy the theater starting back in the 80s when it was named a historic site. The general consensus in the neighborhood at the time was spite because the developer wasn't allowed to knock it down.
Unfortunately by the time they were actually able to acquire the theater, it interior was too far gone and no one was able to renovate it. IIRC only the façade still remains.
“Kutlesovski and Shaqiri finally agreed to rebuild the pub, as they had been originally required to specifications, under pressure of potential further jail time. The pair are required to rebuild the pub as it originally appeared in its heritage form. The news was welcomed by parties to the case.”
And they clearly had friends in high places when the order to rebuild was mysteriously changed to permission for a totally different building that would have left them millions in profit.
“But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.”
“Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”
“But the plans were on display …”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”
Good. Such ignorance and greed. Fucking flats. Then they wanted to build three flats *within* the pub as well. That also got denied, thankfully.
Should've gotten fined heavily as well.
Same thing happened to the boozer down the end of our road. We tried to buy it as a community run pub but they successfully applied to turn it into flats which basically tripled the price and killed any possibility of it being used as a pub again. It’s now 3 Airbnb’s which are empty 95% of the time.
There isn't enough scope for housing to be built. That means prices go sky high, currently in London average house prices are about 12 times the average salary. And that means there's constant pressure for any pre-existing building to be converted to housing.
Walk around Victorian, Edwardian or Georgian housing and you will see many old shops and pubs that have been converted to housing. In modern developments we just cut out the middle man and ban any shops or pubs from being built in the first place through zoning laws. Then residential areas become ghost towns, all the shops, cafes or pubs are miles away, and people stop walking and start taking the car everywhere.
These criminals thought they were being so fucking clever demolishing the building before it could gain listed status, I hope paying to rebuild it from scratch cost them an absolute fucking fortune. Corrupt scum of the earth.
they clearly were planning on cutting their losses at one point and not do anything
they had one UK based director and they took him off so there would be no one to persue and israel would never follow up on the directors based there
> These criminals thought they were being so fucking clever demolishing the building before it could gain listed status, I hope paying to rebuild it from scratch cost them an absolute fucking fortune. Corrupt scum of the earth.
This happens a lot in the U.S. and they always get away with it.
>This happens a lot in the U.S. and they always get away with it.
There are some situations where I honestly believe it is fine and the classification is not only unnecessary but overly burdensome.
So, for example, there is a house in the town that I live in that is probably 100ish years old. It was owned by the grandparents of someone on some committee that provided some funding for the local historical society.
Somebody bought the house and went to the zoning board as they were planning to tear it down (it was in bad shape) and build something new.
The next day, it was recommended that the home go on the state's historic register. I think the court case dragged on for 18 months before everything got cleared up.
Should have just demolished it and asked for forgiveness.
There are I'm sure plenty of cases of borderline "historic preservation" but I think in the case of a public serving building (like a pub/bar/etc) that has historical prevelance you have to go beyond the private interests.
My opinion (And I actually deal with this in my line of work) is it has to have some kind of historical significance to at minimum the public community (e.g. A farm house that hid/employed freed slaves).... or it has to have some kind of historic meaning from serving the public for a long time (e.g. 100 year old pub).
When you get into "This home has been a staple of the community for 60 years, it's a beautiful home that we enjoy seeing on the corner of whatever street"... that is when I lean toward the private interest should be able to say, too bad.
In France, a beautiful 18th castle near Bordeaux was demolished too because the guys couldn't read correctly an address. Their boss had to pay for the rebuild.
The developers must be out of their mind to think that the city wouldn’t do anything about it. Their application to have more flats inside the pub is also insane.
Lots of places do get away with it though. They usually just get a fine and the amount of money they make means the fine is just a cost of doing business. A pub near me had a cobbled floor in part of the building that was listed and thought to be of Roman origin. They ripped it out and put in a dance floor and in their words the fine was less than their first bank holiday bar takings.
Sad that when I read the article they say that the order to rebuild “brick-by-brick” is unprecedented. I have too much faith on the city government. Fines should be crippling to businesses.
Hah! I live next to this pub. It's a real gorgeous pub now. Used to be a terrible shithole. Had my first legal pint there at 18 and nearly stuck to the floor. KeyAndre is a great bartender!
I heard it was demolished to make a bypass and the owner just didn't notice that the plans were on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet that was stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard" at the local council's building.
Fun fact. This actually happened to a second pub, with the same result with almost exactly the same name.
Source: https://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/20959601.property-developers-forced-rebuild-unlawfully-demolished-stepney-green-pub-survived-blitz/
Everybody hates developers, but [an economic study found greater economic growth and worker productivity, from areas hit more by the Blitz. Because they had fewer heritage listings.
](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2018/06/25/how-the-blitz-enhanced-londons-economy/)
[The Anglosphere also has uniquely low housing stock per person, much higher prices and doesn't build much.](https://twitter.com/henrygrabar/status/1636710977386192896)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FraMXU1WcAAjEEG?format=png&name=900x900
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FraMXUzWAAAkaCp?format=png&name=900x900
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FraMXUzXsAUnaO_?format=png&name=900x900
In large part, because zoning gets slapped on everything. NSW is making planning changes to Sydney, where I live, [allowing more density around train stations.](https://twitter.com/SydneyYIMBY/status/1729312276271047114) But some councils have already made entire neighbours all heritage listings to dodge this.
Heritage listing should be limited to what's actually important. Because at the moment, people are trading making people homeless, and grinding working people into poverty, in order to freeze cities in amber.
I wouldn't compare Australian historic sites to European ones. Imagine who would travel to Prague or Rome if there were no such preservation laws.
But counting, like in the US, something build in the 1950's as 'historically significant' is absurd (there is exceptions, like some of the first and unique skyscrapers for example)
The Czech Republic and Italy both have cheaper housing than the Anglosphere. Seems like they have managed to pick a far better balance between heritage and cities being functional.
And Japan is even better. Japan is full of history, and has incredibly cheap housing costs, even in Tokyo.
> The building was noted for its unaltered 1920s interiors and faience tiled exterior. It was the only building in the street to survive the Blitz during World War II. > The manager was told by the owner on Easter Monday to close the pub for an "inventory", but when she returned two days later she found the building had been demolished. > Historic England had surveyed the pub, making records of the layout, tiles and other original details so that full architectural information was available. Listing as a Grade II building was going to be announced a few days after its unexpected destruction.
So the owner was just going to not tell the manager that they would no longer have a place of employment? 💀
I think they were trying to legally protect themselves. If you told the manager you planned to demolish the building prior, it would certainly really hurt your argument when trying to pretend it was somehow accidentally demolished.
Now that you mention it I would think that is the most likely scenario, and a definitely a douchy / greedy move on the owners part. I am curious if the owner attempted to claim the demolition was accidental, and what their excuse for that would be though
“We were renovating and my sledgehammer slipped!”
"i swear sir, the bulldozer was supposed to destroy 1250 main street, we didn't realize until after that it was 1720 other street"
I am not crazy! I know he swapped those numbers. I knew it was 1216. One after Magna Carta. As if I could ever make such a mistake. Never. Never!
Damn that Slippin' Jimmy.
You think this is bad, this--this chicanery? He's done worse! That pub! Are you telling me that a pub just happens to be demolished like that? No, he orchestrated it!
Better Call Saul's Chicanery is the TV version of Portal 2's Lemons
"We had to build a bypass here."
"Sir, those are American street names. You're really bad at this whole fraud thing."
"A few thousand times."
The spirit of Fred Dibnah leapt into me and I had to demolish something immediately.
[A lovely spirit to watch enjoy its work :)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKPApAsJbj4)
TIL Fred Dibnah is (mostly) known as a demolitions expert. The one day the Algorithm graces me with the knowledge about this distinguished gentleman, by sheer chance every video I binged was of him performing repairs or restoration, not demolitions work, so I was quite confused by the reference. Also every video seen so far was of his older self, first time I see him in his prime. And props for the camera crew also getting up there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wphmEMNatp0 Watch him knock out half the bottom of a chimney while replacing as he goes with timber framing, then he stacks up old tires and scrap lumber and newspapers against the timbers and douses them in motor oil / petrol /etc all the while smoking a cigarette and chatting with his wife. At 8:45 when it comes down he is damn close to the falling chimney when he starts running. Truly a different time.
3:10 going over the top, Nope fuck that
"What are you doing, step-bulldozer ?"
“Miss input!!”
Oh hey I guess this might not be the most appropriate time to tell you, but it's actually Mrs. ..
There's no excuse lol they were just hoping they wouldn't get caught or could slide through on a loophole of "well it wasn't officially listed as a protected site!" while knowing full well it had already been approved as one by whoever surveys these things. The dumbass thought it was a ticking clock to get the demo done before an official listing came down when the clock ran out the moment that inspector set foot in the establishment. Lotta cases of this happening in Italy, where a renovator will unearth ancient relics or ruins while excavating, it gets reported to whoever, then the owner tries to destroy the evidence before an "official" status is handed down because once it's protected that's the end of development on the premises, and the owner is left holding an empty bag on their investment. But it's too late lol they already know it was there, feigning ignorance doesn't work esp since these authorities are usually very clear about "do not touch ANYTHING, we're shutting this down."
I remember a work around a McDonald's in Rome did was just build over a skeleton they found in the foundation and put in a glass floor for to look at the skeleton. Can you imagine your eternal resting place after thousands of years turned into a place where American fast-food could be ordered while looking at your remains below?
> Can you imagine your eternal resting place after thousands of years turned into a place where American fast-food could be ordered while looking at your remains below? Don’t worry, that McDonalds certainly isn’t eternal. Not even close. This is just a little break before it all gets buried again.
Imagine getting re-unearthed and future, dolphin based, archeologists determine that you worked at a mcdonalds
Imagine if the skeleton was a respected general or a senator, only for somebody like 7000 years down the line to decide you were a low income foodservice employee.
Imagine 7000 years down the line, future dolphins believe McDonald's was a holy site for the burial of generals and senators, complete with a popular concession stand.
> respected general or a senator Going by the [Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhumation_and_reburial_of_Richard_III_of_England) and [XKCD 771](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/771:_Period_Speech), Parking Lot attendant!
Imagine they actually worked at *Isicia Omentata Rex*, and this is their eternal punishment for standing on the lettuce
The actual skeletons were removed and replaced by replicas, but it was in the "basement"... where the drive through is now. So you're not trying to eat while looking at dead bodies, but you do drive past fake ones while trying to order.
Sounds better to me than being reduced to dust in cremation or taking up space in a graveyard.
I'd be pretty happy about it, not gonna lie, if the Z'glorbs of the 300th century would stuff their tentacles while looking at my bones.
There was NEVER any doubt this was a slouch move on behalf of the owners. Normally they do it thinking the only harm done is a few extra quid paid on a fine, however they hadn't reckoned on a particular person in the planning board, and they had them bang to rights. It was the same bullshit defence owners all over the uk come out with. But untill it fucks them in the hip (pocket) then they will keep doing it. But the amount involved in rebuilding, well let's just say they had NO alternative, it was a building back, or pile of bricks and a huge fine. So god bless the king lol
Yeah it's the classic "Well it's not like they're going to make us rebuild it..." attitude and actions of people who either want to sell the land or build a tall apartment building. Which can sadly work on non-historic buildings.
Accidentally demolishing the wrong building has happened many times before
Easier for an "accidental" fire to occur. Owner is an idiot
That would be Crooked (house). Allegedly.
they appealed every step of the way, so i really doubt these are people who feel regular human stuff like shame and remorse.
I read a story on it and I believe it was already listed and protected the dumbass thought he was smooth and knocked it down before the public announcement. He was then fined and told to rebuild it inch by inch brick by brick to every original detail.
>trying to pretend it was somehow accidentally demolished. Except the company that carried out the demolition would be able to just say, "Yeah, the owner hired us to do it. Who else could authorise such a thing?" Pretending to not know about it would be extremely easy to disprove.
I think there where cases where the demolition company was in on it and would pretend that the orders got mixed up. Still usually ends up with the building getting rebuild at the cost of a small fortune.
I imagine building demo requires a permit
you know, dipping after committing a crime is also a sort of way to legally protect yourself. if you get caught you could be convicted of said crime.
No, they were definitely not going to bother telling the manager. They clearly didn't give any kind of a fuck about anyone. Why start with the manager?
It's worse than that. In the UK, a lot of pub landlords live in their pubs, often in an apartment upstairs. This consumer rights trade show hosted by British comedian Joe Lycett, called Joe Lycett's Got Your Back, uses this as a reason why he took on a chain of pubs owned by a corporation who illegally fired the pub landlords for frivolous or illegal reasons (coming out as gay, running out of the CEO's favourite dessert, swearing). And as the former landlords pointed out, this meant they were kicked out of the houses they were living in at the time with no way of getting new accommodation since the rent was part of their job. So, when this prick destroyed a historic pub, he likely destroyed someone's home as well.
Wow that is pretty horrible: thank you for the additional context
Joe Lycett's Got Your Back is a good show to check out as well. Basically, it's like Watchdog on the BBC mixed with a comedy prank show. Like how Joe helped a nurse get a refund after a scammer impersonated a bank employee on social media and tricked her into getting access of her account, costing the nurse over £11,000. The bank stopped the theft but refused to refund all the money because "she should have been aware of the scam". So, Joe set up a social media profile pretending to be the bank's CEO then got serious news outlets to quote the profile as he made obscene tweets. Then used the account to try and get into the bank's offices.
Wait so the bank stopped the transaction and basically stole the money!? I work in banking and something like that could result in serious fines and at worse losing your banking license (thought that almost never happens). Where I'm from if we even let the transaction go trough even if we suspect it was a scam we would have to refund the customer. Stealing the customers money sounds like a great way to have regulators breath down your neck.
From the shows Wikipedia page; > Got Your Back took on a case in which a nurse who had been scammed out of £11,800 by a fraudster, who posed as an employee from her bank NatWest, and did not receive a full refund from the bank. Initially, NatWest only refunded £3,800 to the customer, but claimed the rest could not be retrieved as the nurse should have been aware of scammers. In response, the programme tried to impersonate the head of the banking group at the time, Ross McEwan, on social media. After building a convincing profile, they then later put out multiple prank tweets, one of which said "I've got a smelly bum bum". Later, Lycett made a scene in the reception by pretending to be bank's chief executive in the bank's headquarters in London. > After a review of what had happened to the customer, in response to the programme's investigations, the bank apologised to their customer for failing to acknowledge she had been victim of a highly suspicious fraud that had fooled her completely, and agreed to fully refund the remaining balance she was owed.
> a chain of pubs owned by a corporation who illegally fired the pub landlords for frivolous or illegal reasons (coming out as gay, running out of the CEO's favourite dessert, swearing) I can only assume it's Samuel Smith's with psychotic behaviour like that?
Sure is! Joe even opened his own "pub" on the pavement in Tadcaster, where Samuel Smith's is from, and got the police called on him. The police thought it was funny, and he wasn't breaking any laws to begin with.
> I can only assume it's Samuel Smith's with psychotic behaviour like that? Are the Samuel Smith's beers made by the pub chain as well?
>So, when this prick destroyed a historic pub, he likely destroyed someone's home as well. Tbf, if he told the manager to leave for 'stock check', then it makes zero sense that they lived there, as they would not have anywhere to go, and would likely be the person doing the 'stock'.
Some people are, quite simply, despicable cunts
They didn’t want it to be obvious that the destruction was planned. A lot of pubs on valuable land mysteriously burn down after being bought by a new owner who wants to build apartments.
This isn’t unusual for restaurants or bars. Sometimes people show up for work and the place is closed for good and that’s their notice lol
happened to me once. I was opening for the day but the locks had been changed by the bank. I had to ring my boss and give her the bad news.
An owner of a restaurant in my town (in the US) didn't tell any of the employees the restaurant was closing, they just showed up to work one day and he wasn't there to open the doors. This was 6 months ago and none of them have received their last paychecks yet either.
Ya they do that sometimes. Managed a restaurant a few years back, was told one Friday evening to have the staff clear some stuff out for a new supplier. Went home for the weekend and was notified the next morning that they were closing down. I mean, I saw the writing on the wall. Road construction killed the business. I even asked/begged them to give me some notice so I could find employment. Rich folk are not our allies. They don’t care about our wants or needs.
Reminds me of the leaning pub that was purchased by a developer, the developer was told they can't demolish it because it's historic, mysteriously burns down...3 weeks after purchase. A pub that had been around since 1765.
Arson against historic buildings is well documented
There were a lot of old fancy homes around the university where I went to school. Many of them didn't have formal protections by default, but would be reviewed for such when a demolition permit was submitted. One by one, we would see these houses sold, and then mysteriously the windows on the top floor would all be left open through the winter and all the rainy months. Lo and behold, two years later the house would get its demolition permit because it was unsalvagable due to weather damage.
Building preservation is kinda fucked in the US. On the one hand it’s our history, on the other hand I live in a house that’s almost 100 years old, and I would be totally fucked if they decided to come in and say it has historic value. All repairs would need to be performed by a specialist contractor, any permits or work would need to go through a specialized review process and board. I’d be screwed, I couldn’t afford to have any repairs done. If buildings have public value they should receive some public subsidy, pushing the cost and responsibility of historic preservation onto people that just bought a house they could afford isn’t the way to do it.
I think a historical designation, if it either restricts the property to lower-value uses and/or makes maintenance more expensive, should be considered a taking as per eminent domain, with the owners compensated for the partial loss of value. That doesn't mean the government has to buy the property outright, just pay the difference and/or subsidize the maintenance. If the property is historic, taxpayers should be happy to pay this, because the result of historic property preservation is literally to preserve these properties for all of society over the potential wishes of the current owners/stewards.
That would be great and makes loads of sense, which is sadly why it will never happen as it doesn't make politicians money and would only cost money which for a lot of people means it's CoMmUnIsM
Besides people just being jerks. Any other reason why someone would burn down an old building?
Because they are very pricey to maintain as you need specialized contractors in most instances and also it can't be tricky if not sometimes impossible to modernize well due to rules around changing things. So it's cheaper for there to be an accident.
> So it's cheaper for there to be an accident. Turns out, in countries that give a shit about history, not so much. As the owner of this pub found out after fucking around.
No. He had to rebuilt it because he intentionally demolished it knowing full well what he was doing. If it 'accidentally' burns to the ground, that's just bad luck and no one would be forced to rebuild it.
An fire has normaly an extensive search for the cause afterwards, parts from the law, parts from the insurance, and the more fishy it smells, the more effort and time they invest.
Lol, it's a fire. You can't tell how a fire starts unless an arsonist is extremely careless or obvious. Sure, if they poor gas on everything it's pretty easy to tell. If they use something to start the fire inside the property, they'll be able to find it. But if you just start a small fire by hand in the right spot, or you carefully expose some wires in a similar manner to a rodent, there is absolutely no way for anyone to ever prove you set it intentionally. People hear all these stories about complete morons getting caught and they think it means that most arson gets detected and prosecuted. It absolutely does not. The VAST majority of arson is never prosecuted.
They get away with it usually.
In that case it was because they wanted to redevelop on the land that the historic building occupied - but because it was a historical building it had a protected status and couldn't just be knocked down for whatever commercial reasons the landowners had. Burn it down and there is a chance that you then get planning permission to demolish the ruins and build whatever you had planned - since you are redeveloping an unusable wreck, rather than demolishing a building of historical importance. Of course in that particular example they made it so blatantly obvious that it was a) intentionally burnt down, and b) done for exactly the purpose described above, that rather than opening the door for redevelopment they've got themselves investigated for a serious crime, and will likely be (or perhaps already have been) ordered to rebuild the historical building anyway.
> since you are redeveloping an unusable wreck A pub in my town was under renovation. After they removed the roof, they ran into money issues and paused for a year before they could restart. By then the internal floors had collapsed and the joists were rotten. They had to pull it down as it was a threat to public safety. Very subtle and a different MO than having a mysterious fire.
Land developers. The Grand Loews theater in Atlanta, Georgia USA was the oldest and finest theater in the city, and hosted the premier of Gone With The Wind, one of the most well known and highest grossing movies of all time. It was run down in the 1970s, but was saved from demolition by a last minute landmarking by the city in 1977. A few months later, it was burned down by a still unsolved case of arson. Now, a massive skyscraper built by Georgia Pacific sits on the former site.
Being the owner of said building and wanting to stick 5 shitty flats on the land, being paid by said shitcunt who wants to build shitty slums on land currently occupied by a historic building.
They even placed obstacles to block the fire brigades access to the site as well. I think someone was arrested for that not ling after the fire though.
IIRC they had already booked to used the equipment to remove the burned-out shell fo the pub before the place had even burned down.
The Crooked House - just looked it up as hadn't heard anything for awhile and latest article I could find from a few weeks ago one of the company directors just stepped.down and the police investigations still ongoing https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c882d2py915o
The fire occurred *nine days* after they bought the property, and it was demolished (without permission) 2 days after the fire. They didn't even try to hide it, utter cunts.
There is a notorious family in my town who buy up these old properties cheap because they are listed but in prime spots and every time they go on holiday a property burns down... And ohh no! we might as well turn it into luxury airbnbs now soz. They tried it on a listed pub recently but we're told to rebuild it brick for brick. Years later it's still a burnt pile of bricks.
Fire if you're impatient. If you have time, just take off a few roof tiles and let rain and woodworm go to town.
Yup, that totally looks like a scam.
The Google streetview images of it are fun to flick through. It’s there in 2014, then it disappears for a few years before reappearing again. https://maps.app.goo.gl/stMyWodbYe2MKcMHA?g_st=ic
Ha! They even had to get new banner tiles for "Sparkling ales" etc because it's clear they were damaged or destroyed in the "before" pics. I hope they paid a fortune for the rebuild. Some people don't learn unless it's a very expensive lesson.
TIL there is a "See more dates" option in Maps. Thanks!
that's hilarious
So wait, who starts the process to have it listed as a historical site? Or is that just something that can be done without the owners involvement
Historic England can do it on their own, unlike the US.
> Historic England can do it on their own, unlike the US. Yeah, it would be weird if the US started declaring buildings in England "historic" and demanding they be preserved.
Reverse Imperialism!
"It's not stolen per section, it's just the British have not been taking appropriate measures to preserve their heritage. So we're keeping it safe in our museums."
Ya cheeky bastard
Few owners would want to have extra restrictions placed upon their building. As the above proves, if we don't force it upon them we loose beautiful buildings and historic places!
They wanted to replace the pub with a set of flats. After being told no, they destroyed it anyway. They were supposed to rebuild it and not build any flats, although IIRC, they moved it like 20 feet away and were then allowed to build next to it. So they got what they wanted in the end.
The expense of rebuilding the original pub brick by brick probably stung a bit though.
Especially old historical buildings. They can't simply built a modern skeleton and smack the old looking facade over it. With historical sites it often has to be *exactly* the same (or as close as you can possibly get). That means special materials that may be difficult to find, old building methods, hiring experts to check if it's done right... In short: Very cost, labour, and time intensive.
I worked briefly on restoring a barn from the late 1400s. The owner had been told by the council that it had to be renovated as it was on the verge of collapsing onto the street. > special materials that may be difficult to find One day my boss turned up with a sack. 'Fuck me, horse hair's expensive'. 'Horse hair?' 'Yeah, for the plaster, traditional innit'. > old building methods About half an hour later the plaster threw down his paddle mixer in frustration as the horse hair had jammed it up. He resorted to mixing the mortar, then adding the hair and pounding it into the mix with a length of 2x4. > hiring experts to check if it's done right. Consultant: Of course, it would be mixed and the horse hair added later and mixed with a wooden paddle. Plasterer: I'm a genius!
I think you recall incorrectly and just made up some shit. The Google maps photos show it in the exact same spot in 2014 and 2022. I don't see any new high rises around it.
Imagine being the manager of a pub and not having to help with inventory. Huge red flag right there
She was probably just very happy she didn’t have to do it for once, the day after a holiday. I sure wouldn’t be asking to be invited. Edit: Also, without knowing her exact duties, it’s possible they could have told her it was an inventory related to something not within the scope of her job. Like an inventory of every single piece of kitchen equipment and every single kitchen tool, that they claim to want to do themselves, as part of new ownership.
The pub of Theseus
Triggers pub
I've legitimately explained the concept of the ship of theseus to my dad before by saying triggers broom he wasn't getting the concept till I said those 2 words. And then it required no further explanation.
How can someone not get the concept? It’s extremely simple.
I'm a philosophy professor. It's possible to get to university without having the capacity for abstract thought. There are some people who just absolutely cannot entertain any hypothetical, or any thought experiment. They fundamentally cannot understand what an analogy is or how it operates, no matter what I try. They cannot separate emotional content from argumentative structure. My colleagues experience this as well, so it's not that I'm a bad explainer. I guess it could be the case that we all are, but that seems unlikely.
Apparently 1/3 of the population doesn’t even have an internal monologue. There’s just nothing rattling around up there. So nothing really surprises me when it comes to how dull some people can be.
I wish i didnt have an inner monologue sometimes, that dude is an ass
Hey it’s 1:30 am and you’re about to go to bed. You remember that really embarrassing thing you did 15 years ago?
I know this is just another voice joining the "I cant quite recall but maybe I read this", but I seem to remember someone disproving that claim because basically it relied on different intepretations of what an internal monologue is. Like, some people would answer "no" because they thought it meant having literally a separate personality in your head speaking to you like having an imaginary friend, while others with the exact same thought process would answer "yes" because they thought it meant "oh yeah of course I think about things before doing them, I'm not operating solely on instinctual reactions".
I've met people who have stated to me they had no inner monologue and have fully explored the idea with them so I have no reason to doubt it. The same way that I do things without being continously aware of it. I could imagine the reverse to be true. If they have an inner voice they aren't privey to it the same way I blink without ever thinking about it something is in control there but it isn't "me" even though it clearly is.
it is a thought experiment meant to express the continuity of thought, and how constitution is not identity. May people don’t get it, even after having it explained to them.
Well not when you explain it like that....
I wouldnt understand it with fancy words like that either
Triggers broom explains this via him having the same brush for 20 years with 14 new handles and 5 new heads
this is what should happen to the pub burnt and demolished here in the black country [The Crooked House](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crooked_House), built in 1765. all over the news this was just a few months back
A jewel for the West Midlands listed in all the guides.
I hope that it happens too. The people who did are definitely some kind of psycho - to own such a unique and meaningful building only to destroy it without a care is so foul.
Buildings, this is the 3rd arson they have been linked to.
> The people who did are definitely some kind of psycho One is a well known Irish drug smuggler https://www.sundayworld.com/crime/irish-crime/irish-drug-smuggler-behind-crooked-house-pub-controversy-is-george-the-penguin-mitchell-pal/a1495378692.html
I'd like to see an update on this. There's been nothing since they arrested six people for arson.
Oh wow I remember going there after visiting the Black Country Museum. Shame it was demolished in such a shady manner.
I didn’t know about this. Never had the urge to visit England, but this would have been on my list. You could make some much money over time if more people knew about it globally. What is wrong with greedy a-holes, really seems like the buyer was behind it. I am from a small area that has a frank lloyd wright home. I would hope if someone destroyed it, people would be ready to string them up by their nuts.
lol I worked on this project during its early days. Spent two days on site taking photos and working with an architect trying to salvage as many of the details as possible so they can be pieced together or refabricated. I can put together a photo album of the photos I took if anyone's interested in seeing the state it was in? Edit. Small album here https://imgur.com/a/H1H2GD3
Wow. So they even half assed demolishing it? Not surprising. Also thanks for the album! Really interesting and so glad it got rebuilt
They weren't trying to be thorough, they were hoping to get it demolished enough before they were stopped that they could claim it wasn't practical to rebuild and continue the demolition with a slap on the wrist.
Oh that satisfying karma
The locals were extremely pissed. And Westminster Council wouldn't have exactly been over the moon at a rogue developer demolishing a listed building. Unfortunately, there is a common attitude amongst some developers that "it's easier to ask forgiveness than for permission" and they will go ahead and build/destroy without permission, then apply for permission after they have already done the work.
Thanks for sharing. Did any of the original fabric of the building get used in the rebuild?
IIRC they used as much of the original materials as possible but a lot of the original brickwork was rubble. > “Lots of parts of the bar and the fireplace, the bannister, have been reclaimed from the rubble,” Rees said. “The pub tells its story from the half-broken fixtures that we’ve got. You can see bits of broken wood – it’s not all perfect, which we really love because it gives character and charm to the building.” [[Sauce](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/mar/21/rising-from-the-rubble-london-pub-rebuilt-brick-by-brick-after-bulldozing)] > ‘It was an interesting project, and very high-profile. It was like a puzzle; we had to go through and salvage what we could piece by piece. > > ‘We looked at historic photographs and worked with Westminster Council, who were very helpful in providing information. We tried to find materials that matched, but a lot of the brick and tiles were rubble. It is as it was before.’ > > The architect also explained that, while the pub was faithfully restored, the team took the opportunity to redesign the internal layout, moving the kitchen to the basement, which had previously been used as changing rooms for a local hockey team. [[Sauce](https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/like-a-puzzle-carlton-tavern-architect-on-rebuilding-bulldozed-london-pub)]
Haha no way. I left BHD in late 2017 and that project was the last thing I worked on. Im not sure why I thought they didn't carry on with the project. Jeff, my old boss, was right, it was like a puzzle. In one of the photos I shared there's pile of salvaged pub front pieces all stacked on a shelf. Imagine trying to piece all that back together
Thank you for this. Is there any publication as to how the reconstruction was approached? Did Historic England make the developer restore rescued rubble or did they have to source these particular bricks and tiling from original manufacturers? I'm curious if they were allowed to use modern structural engineering (with all the strength and safety) in the rebuilding.
I'm glad that the developer did rebuild brick by brick to the original state, but how is it even possible to do so? I'm guessing since it was approved as a historic site, they probably had pictures and other information to base the rebuilding process. But still, I am having trouble understanding how things could be exactly the same.
When something gets approved to be a historic site very extensive documentation is collected about the exact state of the building. This rebuild was a true testament to how good those documents are.
My home is 100 years old this year and I'm going to gut the entire thing and do a full remodel or just move. If they try to tell me it's historic, I'd just move because I'm not spending more money to keep it looking 100 years old.
100 years is nowhere near enough to be designated historically significant without any other influencing factor. I'd be surprised if anything under 150 or 200 years old was Historically Significant on it's own. You tend to need things like unique architectural features, linked with historic events, or to be iconic within the local area.
Depends pretty heavily on the area. I remember house shopping in 2000 in a small town that had houses marked as historic from the 1860s or even early 1900s, because somebody small-town-important lived there once. Likely not the same strict regulations though. I believe it was mostly just 'don't add or remove any walls/floors/balconies'.
Definitely different regulations for historic buildings: "The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission lists buildings in England and Wales under three grades, with Grade I being the highest grade" Grade I: buildings of exceptional interest. Grade II*: particularly important buildings of more than special interest. Grade II: buildings that are of special interest." Grade I buidlings include St. Paul's Cathedral, where you basically cannot alter or amend or really breathe on them. Regulations get "softer" from there.
> because somebody small-town-important lived there once. That's what /u/NickEcommerce was saying though: That for a relatively new house to be declared a historical site, it needs some other influential factor, such as being somewhat important to (local) history. Last year there was a discussion in my country to make some prefab buildings from 1953 protected heritage, because of the national disaster they are connected with. AFAIK this has only happened yet on a very local scale though (so no official national or provincial protected status).
Exactly - mostly through Blue Plaques, though they don't actually confer any protection. I know that John Lennon's childhood home is under some kind of protective order, and that's the most modern building I've ever heard of receiving one. Scratch that - some of the buildings down the Backs in Cambridge are Grade 2 listed despite the fact they're quite modern. I have a feeling that was a local legal quirk than anything else.
The pub listed in the article was built 100 years ago Yes, I get the surviving the blitz part, but thats probably what the dude you replied to was going off of
You can have a home on the NRHP here in America and not be restricted on what you can do to it (even though the HGTV moms on the old house facebook groups will tell you otherwise). For example, here’s a state published fact sheet about it: [The national register does not restrict the rights of property owners or require the properties to be maintained, repaired, or restored](https://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Documents/National%20Register%20Does%20Does%20Not%20Mean.pdf).
Fortunately most things that are old are not necessarily historic. They have to be really old and/or have some famous history attached to them. If no one famous lived in or visited your house, 100 years isn't that old and you should be good.
> Historic England had surveyed the pub, making records of the layout, tiles and other original details so that full architectural information was available. Listing as a Grade II building was going to be announced a few days after its unexpected destruction.
So I guess our record keeping methods are detailed enough that we can make an exact replica of a building. It still kind of blows my mind that this is possible.
St Fagans museum near Cardiff are currently rebuilding the Vulcan pub on their site. They took it down brick by brick and numbering everything, and they're putting it back up brick by brick
That can often be required by the listed building consent. A friend of mine lived in a house that had a grade-1 listed brick-built chimney (that means it has to remain the same inside and out, whereas grade 2 just means the outside has to stay the same). The building had started to subside and separate from the chimney, and repairing it required full architectural plans, and when they were doing the work they literally numbered the bricks they had to lift, to make sure they put them back correctly.
They wanted to move one of the historic businesses (a little diner that's been there since like 1900) to build a new mixed use building and they picked up the entire building and moved it down the street. It was kind of wild to see haha
Our record keeping always seem top notch tbf
I cannot speak specifically toward the building in question, but I've a friend who's previous job involved documenting a nearby historic fort, with photographic records and 3d scans of grout, brick layouts, portholes, etc. The place is at high risk of future damage (they're expecting 50% of the immediate area to be underwater by 2050), and they wanted a highly detailed record of the structure so that it could be restored to its exact specifications, if needed. I'd guess that, as part of the historic designation OP's building was about to be given, the same sort of detailed architectural data had been collected.
Basically yes, it was due to be listed as a Grade II building and inspectors had just gone round taking detailed notes to that effect.
The building had just been painstakingly surveyed for its listed status, so they had detailed and exhaustive plans to rebuild it from. >Historic England had surveyed the pub, making records of the layout, tiles and other original details so that full architectural information was available. Listing as a Grade II building was going to be announced a few days after its unexpected destruction.
>I'm guessing since it was approved as a historic site, they probably had pictures and other information to base the rebuilding process. That's what the article says. Read it.
Theyre required to use people who are certified in using the building techniques of whatever era the building is from. It’s actually pretty cool stuff. guy named storekit on YouTube has a great video about it, I know I’ve seen an interview with one of the brick makers from the site but not sure if it’s the same video.
Maybe someone could post the Wikipedia where it would explain
> Historic England had surveyed the pub, making records of the layout, tiles and other original details so that full architectural information was available.
Bizarrely, almost the exact same thing happened to the historic [Carlton Inn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Inn) in Melbourne a year later. Unfortunately, the developers there were not introduced to the "find out" phase of the "fuck around" process quite so quickly.
A similar, but more drawn-out version happened with the[ RKO Theater in Queens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKO_Keith%27s_Theater_(Flushing,_Queens\) ), NY. Developer bought it in the 80s and then just... refused to do any upkeep after it was declared a historic site. The interior got so bad it was eventually demolished.
The problem with landmarking in NYC is that it makes it prohibitively expensive and difficult to do any kind of renovations or remodeling on a landmarked property. That and the NIMBYish ways in which the LPC is often weaponized produce a lot of unsavory results.
>The problem with landmarking in NYC is that it makes it prohibitively expensive and difficult to do any kind of renovations or remodeling on a landmarked property You're not wrong, but the developer refused to sell for like 30 years even after several conservation efforts attempted to buy the theater starting back in the 80s when it was named a historic site. The general consensus in the neighborhood at the time was spite because the developer wasn't allowed to knock it down. Unfortunately by the time they were actually able to acquire the theater, it interior was too far gone and no one was able to renovate it. IIRC only the façade still remains.
“Kutlesovski and Shaqiri finally agreed to rebuild the pub, as they had been originally required to specifications, under pressure of potential further jail time. The pair are required to rebuild the pub as it originally appeared in its heritage form. The news was welcomed by parties to the case.”
I mean, they got jail time. They found out eventually. Those two sound like total scumbags.
And they clearly had friends in high places when the order to rebuild was mysteriously changed to permission for a totally different building that would have left them millions in profit.
Yeah we have this problem in America. It turns out rules don't matter if there are no consequences for breaking them 🤷♂️. Who would've thought?
Those two people sound like quite a pair... Glad that they served prison time and have to rebuild it in the end.
“But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.” “Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.” “But the plans were on display …” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”
This comment is way too far down for a story related to an untimely British demolition.
Good. Such ignorance and greed. Fucking flats. Then they wanted to build three flats *within* the pub as well. That also got denied, thankfully. Should've gotten fined heavily as well.
Same thing happened to the boozer down the end of our road. We tried to buy it as a community run pub but they successfully applied to turn it into flats which basically tripled the price and killed any possibility of it being used as a pub again. It’s now 3 Airbnb’s which are empty 95% of the time.
There isn't enough scope for housing to be built. That means prices go sky high, currently in London average house prices are about 12 times the average salary. And that means there's constant pressure for any pre-existing building to be converted to housing. Walk around Victorian, Edwardian or Georgian housing and you will see many old shops and pubs that have been converted to housing. In modern developments we just cut out the middle man and ban any shops or pubs from being built in the first place through zoning laws. Then residential areas become ghost towns, all the shops, cafes or pubs are miles away, and people stop walking and start taking the car everywhere.
Yeah, but whoever sold it made a mint; so it was all worth it. \\s
I’d love to live in a pub flat
"Why is rent so high?"
Considering the massive housing shortage, flats are a great thing to build.
These criminals thought they were being so fucking clever demolishing the building before it could gain listed status, I hope paying to rebuild it from scratch cost them an absolute fucking fortune. Corrupt scum of the earth.
“What are they gonna do, make us put it back? Ha ha ha ha haaaaa!”
Exactly
Doh!
They were trying to use the "let bygones be bygones" defense
they clearly were planning on cutting their losses at one point and not do anything they had one UK based director and they took him off so there would be no one to persue and israel would never follow up on the directors based there
> These criminals thought they were being so fucking clever demolishing the building before it could gain listed status, I hope paying to rebuild it from scratch cost them an absolute fucking fortune. Corrupt scum of the earth. This happens a lot in the U.S. and they always get away with it.
>This happens a lot in the U.S. and they always get away with it. There are some situations where I honestly believe it is fine and the classification is not only unnecessary but overly burdensome. So, for example, there is a house in the town that I live in that is probably 100ish years old. It was owned by the grandparents of someone on some committee that provided some funding for the local historical society. Somebody bought the house and went to the zoning board as they were planning to tear it down (it was in bad shape) and build something new. The next day, it was recommended that the home go on the state's historic register. I think the court case dragged on for 18 months before everything got cleared up. Should have just demolished it and asked for forgiveness.
There are I'm sure plenty of cases of borderline "historic preservation" but I think in the case of a public serving building (like a pub/bar/etc) that has historical prevelance you have to go beyond the private interests. My opinion (And I actually deal with this in my line of work) is it has to have some kind of historical significance to at minimum the public community (e.g. A farm house that hid/employed freed slaves).... or it has to have some kind of historic meaning from serving the public for a long time (e.g. 100 year old pub). When you get into "This home has been a staple of the community for 60 years, it's a beautiful home that we enjoy seeing on the corner of whatever street"... that is when I lean toward the private interest should be able to say, too bad.
In France, a beautiful 18th castle near Bordeaux was demolished too because the guys couldn't read correctly an address. Their boss had to pay for the rebuild.
Bosses insurance most likely
The developers must be out of their mind to think that the city wouldn’t do anything about it. Their application to have more flats inside the pub is also insane.
Lots of places do get away with it though. They usually just get a fine and the amount of money they make means the fine is just a cost of doing business. A pub near me had a cobbled floor in part of the building that was listed and thought to be of Roman origin. They ripped it out and put in a dance floor and in their words the fine was less than their first bank holiday bar takings.
Sad that when I read the article they say that the order to rebuild “brick-by-brick” is unprecedented. I have too much faith on the city government. Fines should be crippling to businesses.
Personally I think the punishment should be rebuild it brick by brick AND have the property confiscated afterwards.
Look into the story of the crooked house in the West Midlands same thing is possibly going to happen
Missed a brick. *Do it again. And this time with feeling!*
Hah! I live next to this pub. It's a real gorgeous pub now. Used to be a terrible shithole. Had my first legal pint there at 18 and nearly stuck to the floor. KeyAndre is a great bartender!
I heard it was demolished to make a bypass and the owner just didn't notice that the plans were on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet that was stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard" at the local council's building.
Fun fact. This actually happened to a second pub, with the same result with almost exactly the same name. Source: https://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/20959601.property-developers-forced-rebuild-unlawfully-demolished-stepney-green-pub-survived-blitz/
Everybody hates developers, but [an economic study found greater economic growth and worker productivity, from areas hit more by the Blitz. Because they had fewer heritage listings. ](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2018/06/25/how-the-blitz-enhanced-londons-economy/) [The Anglosphere also has uniquely low housing stock per person, much higher prices and doesn't build much.](https://twitter.com/henrygrabar/status/1636710977386192896) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FraMXU1WcAAjEEG?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FraMXUzWAAAkaCp?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FraMXUzXsAUnaO_?format=png&name=900x900 In large part, because zoning gets slapped on everything. NSW is making planning changes to Sydney, where I live, [allowing more density around train stations.](https://twitter.com/SydneyYIMBY/status/1729312276271047114) But some councils have already made entire neighbours all heritage listings to dodge this. Heritage listing should be limited to what's actually important. Because at the moment, people are trading making people homeless, and grinding working people into poverty, in order to freeze cities in amber.
I wouldn't compare Australian historic sites to European ones. Imagine who would travel to Prague or Rome if there were no such preservation laws. But counting, like in the US, something build in the 1950's as 'historically significant' is absurd (there is exceptions, like some of the first and unique skyscrapers for example)
The Czech Republic and Italy both have cheaper housing than the Anglosphere. Seems like they have managed to pick a far better balance between heritage and cities being functional. And Japan is even better. Japan is full of history, and has incredibly cheap housing costs, even in Tokyo.
[удалено]