they're a bit blue blood
castles aren't handy for living though.

Why would you want to destroy a great building for shitty apartments though?
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 19:51, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

Ignoring the massive financial gain out of a property that is unusable for residential means....
... would it really be destroying it? I love conversions like that. If you're thinking of the great history involved, the history is in the memories, and rather than delapitation, you would be creating something where people can grow their families.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 19:54, Reply)

There are loads of great church conversions
I lived in one briefly, and my friend lived in one in Worcester. They're so much nicer than chocolate-block apartments, you know, where it's the same on every floor, stacked 10 high.
(berk, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 19:57, Reply)

Yup, deffo, they have so much character. Have you heard of "Property Gardians" (Monty, listen up to this one).
They get unused comercial property, normally stuff that's tied up in litigation, and rent it out to someone for a nominal fee (I've seen entire churchs in central london going for like £40/week inc bills). The idea is that you live there and vandals/squaters are discuridged. The downside is that normally it has a very short notice, a couple of weeks or soo.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 20:02, Reply)

History isn't about memories though
history is more than just the last eighty years. There's plenty of other places to build, why would you destroy something beautiful?
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 19:58, Reply)

History is all about the memories, and the stories. Without them it would be pure hard facts, and turning it so clinical would not do it justest.
It wouldn't destroy it at all, there are laws in place to make sure of that, it would bring it up to modern living standards (and beyond), create a life out of the building where otherwise they'd just be falling apart out of non-use.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 20:08, Reply)

Turning it into luxury apartments
is not keeping the spirit of the place alive. Restoring is different from turning it into rich people's pads.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 20:13, Reply)

Surely it's better to preserve a disused or poorly maintained historical building
by turning it in to apartments, and keeping some of the character and history, than it is to just let it moulder and decay?
(berk, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 20:16, Reply)

Definitely not
turning it into apartments means basically trying to make as much money as possible. Developers will do anything possible and find every loophole to cut costs and ensure they make maximum profit.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 20:20, Reply)

But nobody is going to restore it without an invested interest of some sort.
That interest could be that they are in love with the castle and would see it's restoration as the person's hobby/leggacy/whatever, and then the funding for the upkeep of it once the restoration has happened. The sort of finances involved could be crippling.

And also, castles were made for the rich/well-to-do, it's exactly in keeping.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 20:20, Reply)

Their interest is money
do you think developers give a shit about keeping history intact? It's possible to restore and develop things into more functional usage and still keep features/history, but it's not cheap and so it doesn't happen
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 20:22, Reply)

Yes, definatly, to maximise profit.
You're right, history is a secondry consideration, but it still is one; why buy a castle, knock it down, and build appartments when you can just buy a field and do the same? The history (well, more so, the architecture), is a unique selling point that makes it a financially good thing... it's a possative catch-22.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 20:25, Reply)