Sydney Building burns

sepi said :

I think the Phoenix is still locked up.

Don’t worry, it will rise from the ashes.

From Kristen Lawson’s piece today for Canberra Times:

“Mr McCabe was still trying to establish who owns the Sydney Building, because of multiple title owners and no definitive list.”

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/civic-businesses-suffers-as-race-on-to-open-east-row-20140219-331dl.html#ixzz2toQkikvz

Well there’s your problem.

Antagonist said :

I never said the buildings had no heritage value. I said they are an eyesore. They’re butt-ugly. P!ss troughs for the local drug addicts. Nearly every single commenter that thinks they are good examples of architecture had to qualify their contributions by agreeing that these buildings look bl–dy awful! For example:

c_c™ said :

…But the Sydney building has been totally messed up by those planning decisions. Different owners aren’t required to maintain the building collectively, meaning you have the individual segments that make up the building being different colours and different levels of cleanliness.

Gungahlin Al said :

… with some care they could again become highly valuable centres of Canberra social life.

Seriously, take a good look at them from different angles and be honest with yourself. From street level they are filthy and ugly. From other nearby office buildings overlooking them, they are even uglier and dirtier. From the alleyways behind the shopfronts, they are REALLY ugly. Then go inside the buildings and the story is exactly the same – uglier than a bin full of a__holes.

Observing said :

You may disagree with what is a good example, but the fact is, the majority do think it is nice to look at, as proven by the fact it was broadcast on Sydney news and highlighted as a heritage building.

Observing: The fact that the buildings were featured in the Sydney news does not ‘prove’ people think the buildings are nice to look at. It means they thought Sydney viewers might think it is a newsworthy item.

troll-sniffer said :

You’re obviously an idiot. You probably consider the Belconnen Mall to be far more aesthetic and a far better use of scarce prime land. Either way your statement is fatuous, groundless and pointless.

The only fatuous, groundless and pointless statement is your (non)contribution. I rather like buildings such as the Shine Dome (Academy of Science), National Library, Church of St Andrew and a whole bunch more. But I am glad you were here to let me know I am obviously an idiot for thinking (as many others do) that these buildings are butt ugly. I might never have known if you had not been here to tell me with your insightful contribution.

This post does in fact prove that troll-sniffer is in fact – the idiot.

The Sydney and Melbourne Buildings are beautiful, but they look terribly run down. It’s an absolute disgrace that some of the oldest most heritagey buildings in this young city, at the top of the main road into town, and originally built by individual owners to a common design, are now in such varying states of mostly poor condition while the meddlesome government, which makes a fuss about things like people wanting to build front fences or remove trees, seems to have no interest or influence over such a significant and potential wonderful location!

c_c™ said :

… Sydney and Melbourne [buildings] … have vital heritage value and have a wonderful amount of potential…

I HATE heritage arguments. The “heritage value” of these buildings is due to the amount of time they’ve stood there, nothing more. The trees and rocks they displaced were there longer, and the architecture is reminiscent of some cheap taco-themed restaurant. Viva Corona!

As for the “potential”, these prime blocks could be 6-10 story office complexes and shopping malls with childcare centres for all the people working in the city, or apartment complexes with 20% social housing, or multi-story carparks to address the shortage of parking spots. But nup, let’s keep ’em coz [very few] people think they’re pretty.

When people talk about “heritage” what they really mean is “let’s freeze Canberra in 1956, force people into soulless satellites like Crace and Gungahlin, worsen commuting times coz we won’t make the city core ultra-high-density… coz I like how it looks and I don’t want ANYTHING to change IN ANY WAY coz I’m comfy.”

That’s a very long bow to draw, particularly when so many apartments are being built in the city, inner north and inner south.

I like the Sydney and Melbourne Buildings. That doesn’t mean I am forcing people to live in Crace.

Without the Melbourne and Sydney buildings civic would look like an Ikea city.

I never said the buildings had no heritage value. I said they are an eyesore. They’re butt-ugly. P!ss troughs for the local drug addicts. Nearly every single commenter that thinks they are good examples of architecture had to qualify their contributions by agreeing that these buildings look bl–dy awful! For example:

c_c™ said :

…But the Sydney building has been totally messed up by those planning decisions. Different owners aren’t required to maintain the building collectively, meaning you have the individual segments that make up the building being different colours and different levels of cleanliness.

Gungahlin Al said :

… with some care they could again become highly valuable centres of Canberra social life.

Seriously, take a good look at them from different angles and be honest with yourself. From street level they are filthy and ugly. From other nearby office buildings overlooking them, they are even uglier and dirtier. From the alleyways behind the shopfronts, they are REALLY ugly. Then go inside the buildings and the story is exactly the same – uglier than a bin full of a__holes.

Observing said :

You may disagree with what is a good example, but the fact is, the majority do think it is nice to look at, as proven by the fact it was broadcast on Sydney news and highlighted as a heritage building.

Observing: The fact that the buildings were featured in the Sydney news does not ‘prove’ people think the buildings are nice to look at. It means they thought Sydney viewers might think it is a newsworthy item.

troll-sniffer said :

You’re obviously an idiot. You probably consider the Belconnen Mall to be far more aesthetic and a far better use of scarce prime land. Either way your statement is fatuous, groundless and pointless.

The only fatuous, groundless and pointless statement is your (non)contribution. I rather like buildings such as the Shine Dome (Academy of Science), National Library, Church of St Andrew and a whole bunch more. But I am glad you were here to let me know I am obviously an idiot for thinking (as many others do) that these buildings are butt ugly. I might never have known if you had not been here to tell me with your insightful contribution.

Funky1 said :

c_c™ said :

… Sydney and Melbourne [buildings] … have vital heritage value and have a wonderful amount of potential…

As for the “potential”, these prime blocks could be 6-10 story office complexes and shopping malls with childcare centres for all the people working in the city, or apartment complexes with 20% social housing, or multi-story carparks to address the shortage of parking spots. But nup, let’s keep ’em coz [very few] people think they’re pretty.

“

You mean like New Acton, where they started with a clean slate of mainly gravel carparks?? Please point out to me the shopping malls, childcare centres, social housing or multi-level carparks they build in that prime location.

… or maybe the notoriously fast-tracked Lego buildings which were put up in Civic between 1985 and ’88. I worked in one of them – Customs House – in mid 1989 and even then it was already falling apart.

Heritage my a$& .. There’s almost zero consideration given to aesthetics or heritage when it comes to houses and streetscapes in the inner north/south so why should the crack house that is the Sydney building be any different.

I agree, the Melbourne building is in much better condition, but the Sydney has been occupied by nothing but street pissing bums and sleezy clubs for ages. Do something to improve it or just get rid of it.

c_c™ said :

… Sydney and Melbourne [buildings] … have vital heritage value and have a wonderful amount of potential…

As for the “potential”, these prime blocks could be 6-10 story office complexes and shopping malls with childcare centres for all the people working in the city, or apartment complexes with 20% social housing, or multi-story carparks to address the shortage of parking spots. But nup, let’s keep ’em coz [very few] people think they’re pretty.

“

You mean like New Acton, where they started with a clean slate of mainly gravel carparks?? Please point out to me the shopping malls, childcare centres, social housing or multi-level carparks they build in that prime location.