SkyscraperCity Forum banner
1 - 20 of 122 Posts

·
E = MC²
Joined
·
5,627 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
In this thread, I think it would be fun to show gif pictures of parts of sheffield which have changed dramatically due to construction.

Rules are as follows.
Make a .gif which slowly animates between two or more shots many years apart.

I'll start off with a few examples of Kelvin Flats.
First pics were taken in spring 1995 and the later pics were taken in May 2007 by me.


From the front of entrance of the mecca bingo we look
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,619 Posts
Yes, Rachael. The Kelvin may be gone, but that's another eyesore not too far away that has surprisingly escaped demolition. And it's looking tattier by the day. In fact, the whole area around Hillsborough is starting to resemble a huge pig sty.

Great GIFS. I'd love to see more from other parts of town. In the first Infirmary Road pic, it looks like one of the flats has the same satellite dish up in both photos.
 

·
E = MC²
Joined
·
5,627 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Roneys,
of course you are correct, especially in retrospect whan you look at photos of them years on. It is easy to have that view of some building when you are not in the context of the time, remembering them as hated structure with nobody wanting to live there.
 

·
Non!
Joined
·
2,166 Posts
True, but there are many examples of buildings that were considered beyond hope being saved by refurbishment. Maybe I'm weird, but I'd rather have refurbished Kelvin flats on the site than those twee Barratt style houses that are there now.
 

·
E = MC²
Joined
·
5,627 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Soupcon,
what you would rather do with failing local public housing schemes is just your personal aspirations. If you were in local government and were personally involved with the fact that a building is worth much more demolished than in situ, and all the facts of the finances involved then you might probably have to make the same decision as the people you are now critical of.
 

·
I'm in your woods
Joined
·
8,112 Posts
True, but there are many examples of buildings that were considered beyond hope being saved by refurbishment. Maybe I'm weird, but I'd rather have refurbished Kelvin flats on the site than those twee Barratt style houses that are there now.
But which would you rather live in?
 

·
Non!
Joined
·
2,166 Posts
I don't think I've criticised the people who made the decision to knock the flats down. I'm sure there wasn't a choice at the time. It just seems a waste of energy etc. to knock lots of apartments down and then build new ones just down the road a decade later. The economy is incomparable in the years between, but the environmental impact of the decision must have been very significant.

I thought the Kelvin Flats were pretty much the same as Park Hill. If Park Hill is economically viable to refurbish then wouldn't Kelvin be as well if they were still standing? Infirmary Road shops have gone to pot since the flats went and the disruption from Supertram as well. They are only recently showing signs of recovery.

I'm not sure whether I'd prefer to live in a refurbished flat on the site or the new houses. It would depend on the size and price of the property. I welcome the amount of new apartments being built in our city centre, but I don't think I would choose to buy one. At least not at the current prices anyway.
 

·
The Real Robin Hood
Joined
·
549 Posts
I thought the Kelvin Flats were pretty much the same as Park Hill. If Park Hill is economically viable to refurbish then wouldn't Kelvin be as well if they were still standing? Infirmary Road shops have gone to pot since the flats went and the disruption from Supertram as well. They are only recently showing signs of recovery.
Park Hill is right next to the city centre/train station Kelvin was a couple of miles away from the centre, where that kind of density was no longer needed. ie. as a general rule a flat in a city centre is more expensive than a flat on the out skirts.
 

·
Non!
Joined
·
2,166 Posts
True enough, but I wonder what kind of density is needed / wanted. We need more dwellings throughout the UK; I'd rather no greenfield land was used in Sheffield. I wonder what the longer term targets should be in Sheffield. At the moment we seem to knock down large areas of the city and rebuild them as local demographics change. This can't be a sustainable option. Maybe we need buildings that are built to last for a long time, but can be remodelled internally to provide differing sized properties to meet the changing demands of the market. Any ideas?
 

·
Wise fwom your gwave
Joined
·
440 Posts
It's all to do with tax (VATmaybe?) isn't it? I read something once about there being less or no tax on building new rather than refurbishing old housing stock, so that it works out cheaper to simply demolish and start again. Dunno
 

·
The Real Robin Hood
Joined
·
549 Posts
If the density Kelvin flats provided was wanted they would still be there. These type of tower blocks have been replaced with city centre appartments for students and young proffesionals who want to live in the city centre as its fashionable. Kelvin flats and the others were not built because they were particually wanted they were just a cheap option for slum clearance. Now there are nice houses where they were giving people the oppertunity to live in a house with a garden and not on the 10th floor, I love what thet are doing with Park Hill because it IS Sheffield but I think one is enough there is no need to get to attached to them they were fit for purpose then but not any more. Anyway with an aging population there will be loads of room to live once all the oldies are put in Nursing homes haha
 
1 - 20 of 122 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top