Comment 16482

By statius (registered) | Posted December 31, 2007 at 18:47:49

Righto. The old "they sure don't build 'em like they used to" argument.

In truth, to say that the Lister "is so structurally sound that if we were to tear it down and build a new building, that new building would run it's course and need major retrofitting before a refurbished Lister" is simply untrue. This depends obviously on the quality of the structural engineering which would go into the new building. We can, quite simply, build stronger, longer lasting buildings today than could have been built in 1924. It's all a question of how much money you want to put into design and construction.

Now, considering that this is Hamilton, it is unlikely that such an investment will ever be made in the core again (at least within the near future) so your point is well taken that it is more practical to refurbish the Lister than to build anew (especially given the extraordinarily low architectural value of all of the published proposals for the site). I am basically just lamenting the fact that such investment probably will not be made. But if it were to be made, I just don't think the Lister should be allowed to stand in its place.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds