Kierby hotel sold

[GetIntoEm]

As I've said, we should budget for stone.

How many people would want live in a plastic clad house instead of a stone one simply "because it's cheaper"? Very few.

Same goes for towns. Who wants Burnley to be packed for if cheap plastic clad buildings?

Nobody does really, truth be told. But if defeatism and negativity win the day then that's what we'll end up with.

theres a difference between being negative and being realistic. I dont for one second believe that the "plans" touted in the press will ever happen, Burnley isnt a big enough place or has enough tourism to support such a venture. Certainly spending a few 100m building something of that size out of stone is never going to return on investment, its literally bonkers.

might as well build a monorail round Burnley.

i'd love a house made out of solid gold, but its never gonna happen. (my house is made of stone by the way)

[Rowls]

If you are going to keep using this strange burnley footballer analogy then please find out how to spell his name correctly.

Or is that the Victorian spelling ?

It's not "strange", it's very easy to understand.

If you have a defeatist and negative mindset you won't get anywhere.

When I started following Burnley in the mid 90s when times were tough, especially after 1995, I regularly heard the opinion that, "We have to face facts: we're a lower league side now and that's that."

People who disagreed were labelled "dreamers" who were being "unrealistic".

People like Barry Kilby, Stan and Dyche have blown those negative assumptions out of the water.

The same problem of mindset applies to many people when it comes to the town as it did with the football club.

Stone is more expensive than plastic cladding therefore we HAVE to accept plastic cladding.

It's no more logical than,

Ian Wright is more expensive than Ian helliwell therefore we HAVE to accept Heliwell.

PS: You'll have to excuse my spelling, I'm typing on my phone.

[Rowls]

skysports-burnley-turf-moor_5598182.jpg

You really dont want to try and articulate why a stone building is somehow "impossible", do you?

[Rowls]

theres a difference between being negative and being realistic. I dont for one second believe that the "plans" touted in the press will ever happen, Burnley isnt a big enough place or has enough tourism to support such a venture. Certainly spending a few 100m building something of that size out of stone is never going to return on investment, its literally bonkers.

might as well build a monorail round Burnley.

i'd love a house made out of solid gold, but its never gonna happen. (my house is made of stone by the way)

True that there is a difference between realism and negativity but the difference is subjective. It's a sliding scale.

However, given that stone was the standard building material in victorian times, I politely suggest the idea that it is "unrealistic" to building in stone ever again veers a long way towards negativity, and well past "realism".

The truth is that Burnley deserves a landmark stone building.

[helmclaret]

Stone was cheap back then in relative terms.

I work with developers and architects. There are loads of options when it comes materials used in modern contemporary designs.

I’m getting ‘snow’ and ‘BLM’ vibes from this conversation.

[Rowls]

And all this talk about "monorails", "castles in the sky" and such nonsense shows how shallow the arguments against a stone building are.

They have to fight against strawmen in order to make their negativity try to look like "realism".

[Rowls]

Duplicate post

[ChrisG]

As I've said, we should budget for stone.

How many people would want live in a plastic clad house instead of a stone one simply "because it's cheaper"? Very few.

Same goes for towns. Who wants Burnley to be packed for if cheap plastic clad buildings?

Nobody does really, truth be told. But if defeatism and negativity win the day then that's what we'll end up with.

You can build it out of gold plated granite if you want, and have the money. However, nobody is going to lend the money on it as there is no return on investment in the short to medium term.

Buildings are paid for by investors, and they will expect a return on their investment. This is generally forecast on local market rental rates. It makes no sense building something at 6k/m2 if they can build something at 2k/m2 and get a more immediate return. Particularly as rental rates in Burnley are naturally much lower than other parts of the country.

The other main issue with stone, is the time it takes to build. Again, this can affect whether a development stacks up as the longer the construction duration, the longer it takes to get a return on that investment.

It would be ace to have some stone buildings in the town, but financially it just doesn't stack up.

[helmclaret]

It's not "strange", it's very easy to understand.

If you have a defeatist and negative mindset you won't get anywhere.

When I started following Burnley in the mid 90s when times were tough, especially after 1995, I regularly heard the opinion that, "We have to face facts: we're a lower league side now and that's that."

People who disagreed were labelled "dreamers" who were being "unrealistic".

People like Barry Kilby, Stan and Dyche have blown those negative assumptions out of the water.

The same problem of mindset applies to many people when it comes to the town as it did with the football club.

Stone is more expensive than plastic cladding therefore we HAVE to accept plastic cladding.

It's no more logical than,

Ian Wright is more expensive than Ian helliwell therefore we HAVE to accept Heliwell.

PS: You'll have to excuse my spelling, I'm typing on my phone.

Who said it has to be ‘plastic cladding?’

Arguing with yourself again.

[Rowls]

Stone was cheap back then in relative terms.

I work with developers and architects. There are loads of options when it comes materials used in modern contemporary designs.

I’m getting ‘snow’ and ‘BLM’ vibes from this conversation.

So because plastic is cheaper, we have to build with it? Is that your argument?

There are differences of opinions in architects but modern materials (plastic cladding, glass, concrete) will not reflect Burnley's history or heritage.

They look cheap and they mostly are cheap. What's at stake isn't just some accounting spreadsheet somewhere, it's a site that is the gateway to the town.

A bad building, be it ugly or cheap, will condemn Burnley like the Keirby did. A good building that is beautiful and built to last will elevate the town.

This something obvious to most people but something a lot in architecture are seemingly oblivious to.

You can get whatever 'snow' vibes or BLM 'vibes' you like. When you try and make it personal like this, you reveal the sparsity if your argument. I can take personal stuff all day long. I'm also willing to tell you why you're getting the same vibes, it's because of my personal values. All of these things listed transgressed my values.

If you have conviction in your beliefs and values you'll understand. If you're like a leaf in the wind going along with the whatever the modern day things, be it plastic cladding or BLM etc, and living a life without conviction you might not understand.

[ChrisG]

So because plastic is cheaper, we have to build with it? Is that your argument?

There are differences of opinions in architects but modern materials (plastic cladding, glass, concrete) will not reflect Burnley's history or heritage.

They look cheap and they mostly are cheap. What's at stake isn't just some accounting spreadsheet somewhere, it's a site that is the gateway to the town.

A bad building, be it ugly or cheap, will condemn Burnley like the Keirby did. A good building that is beautiful and built to last will elevate the town.

This something obvious to most people but something a lot in architecture are seemingly oblivious to.

You can get whatever 'snow' vibes or BLM 'vibes' you like. When you try and make it personal like this, you reveal the sparsity if your argument. I can take personal stuff all day long. I'm also willing to tell you why you're getting the same vibes, it's because of my personal values. All of these things listed transgressed my values.

If you have conviction in your beliefs and values you'll understand. If you're like a leaf in the wind going along with the whatever the modern day things, be it plastic cladding or BLM etc, and living a life without conviction you might not understand.

It's not the architects, they work to the client's brief, and if that brief is functional building for X million, then that is what the architect will design.

If a benefactor wants to build a legacy building, made from stone that is befitting the area, then there is nothing stopping them. It is purely a financial decision.

[Rowls]

Who said it has to be ‘plastic cladding?’

Arguing with yourself again.

You've only got to look around to see this is a likely option if budget dictates the build. The St. Peters centre is the perfect example.

You're willing to tell everyone how in with the architects you are but then act all naive when it comes to materials.

A stone building would, by far, be the best material to sit within Burnley. It's what the town is built of.

A concrete building would be incongruous and ugly. A glass panneled building would be incongruous and ever so slightly less ugly.

How about this, putting aside budget constraints, can you accept that a stone building would be best for the town?

[aggi]

Then the budget needs to match it.

Or find very similar stone that's cheaper.

Answer me this.

If the Victorians could do it, why can't we?

I'm surprised by your view here. I'd have thought you'd be all about the market dictating.

You live and learn.

[Rowls]

It's not the architects, they work to the client's brief, and if that brief is functional building for X million, then that is what the architect will design.

If a benefactor wants to build a legacy building, made from stone that is befitting the area, then there is nothing stopping them. It is purely a financial decision.

There's a good deal of truth in the "architects are only working on clients briefs" but it's not the whole story, particularly when it comes to publicly funded buildings. You're right that the client takes ultimate responsibility but architects, collectively, hold a powerful sway.

Anyway, here's hoping for a great stone building that inspires pride in the town.

[Clovius Boofus]

You really dont want to try and articulate why a stone building is somehow "impossible", do you?

Ok, I'll indulge you once more and that will be it. Thing is, I cannot get over that you believe it's finically viable to build a new hotel in Burnley out of locally quarried stone. Yeah, the Victorians did it, however, we are no longer a boomtown at the height of the Industrial Revolution where labour is cheap, including skilled labour. I could go on, but I won't, because I'd rather feed the ducks in the park than some shut-in who has form when in it comes to banging on about rubbish for days on end.

[Rowls]

I'm surprised by your view here. I'd have thought you'd be all about the market dictating.

You live and learn.

What is "the market" in terms of public buildings?

To me, that would be the local.people having a say. I'd be delighted if local people had the chance to vote for either a glass, plastic, concrete or traditional stone building.

I fancy it would be a landslide and I'd be very much in favour of a proper public vote for local residents.

There was similar for a new sports centre (Sneinton baths if you're interested) in Nottingham but guess what? They were all crappy designs and all clad in glass.

Give the people the choice! Let them decide!

100% all for it!

[GetIntoEm]

What is "the market" in terms of public buildings?

To me, that would be the local.people having a say. I'd be delighted if local people had the chance to vote for either a glass, plastic, concrete or traditional stone building.

I fancy it would be a landslide and I'd be very much in favour of a proper public vote for local residents.

There was similar for a new sports centre (Sneinton baths if you're interested) in Nottingham but guess what? They were all crappy designs and all clad in glass.

Give the people the choice! Let them decide!

100% all for it!

why would the public have a say in what a private investor did with their money? we have no say in it, a hotel is not a public building.

to answer your previous question we would all prefer a stone building done in a victorian style, built by victorian cosplayers, but its just not reality. it would make no sense to finance such a project.

[NewClaret]

Hmmm. An aquatic centre. Hmmm.

An aquatic centre might work. But more likely, it would be a gimmick that doesn’t work.

Burnley isn’t in need of an aquatic centre, or any gimmicks.

What we need is these ugly buildings tearing down as quickly as possible and replacements made in traditional styles.

We need buildings that reflect the history of the town, built with pride and built to last - from local stone.

Conversation seems to have moved on but logged in to like this as completely agree with it all.

In my mind there’s a way to build in stone and I’d personally mandate it in these locations.

There are cladding options that are basically stone tiles that are obviously a fraction of the price and while I’d prefer traditional builds I think there’s ways you can integrate modern stone buildings alongside the traditional- but it should be stone.

The aquatics part did worry me. Undermines the whole plan by making it sound pie in the sky. As did the point that they’d not appointed architects yet. I’d have expected some concepts to be drawn up by now if truly serious. But a positive development nevertheless.

FWIW, this is exactly what I think should be happening in Burnley town centre - a shift from retail to entertainment. Town centres meet to reinvent themselves with a focus on entertainment and some limited commercial too, for balance.

[Rowls]

Ok, I'll indulge you once more and that will be it. Thing is, I cannot get over that you believe it's finically viable to build a new hotel in Burnley out of locally quarried stone. Yeah, the Victorians did it, however, we are no longer a boomtown at the height of the Industrial Revolution where labour is cheap, including skilled labour. I could go on, but I won't, because I'd rather feed the ducks in the park than some shut-in who has form when in it comes to banging on about rubbish for days on end.

Then bring in stone that is viable!

The idea that it is "impossible" is what I take great issue with here.

A town that prioritises it's architecture is looking after it's people. A town that doesn't is neglecting it's people.

It is well established that bad architecture brings a multitude of sins with it: crime, squalor, anti social behaviour, despondency, poor mental health.

But good architecture achieves the opposite.

We've only got to look at the Keirby and the town hall to understand this intuitively.

Look at Keirby and you'll feel a sadness in the pit if your stomach. It makes you feel angry, despondent, depressed and hopeless.

But look at the town hall and youll feel a sense of awe, wonder, gratitude, happiness and -above all else - a sense of pride in Burnley and the town.

None of this will appear on a spreadsheet comparing the price of stone against plastic cladding.

The people of Burnley deserve buildings that are of the character of the town hall.

[aggi]

What is "the market" in terms of public buildings?

To me, that would be the local.people having a say. I'd be delighted if local people had the chance to vote for either a glass, plastic, concrete or traditional stone building.

I fancy it would be a landslide and I'd be very much in favour of a proper public vote for local residents.

There was similar for a new sports centre (Sneinton baths if you're interested) in Nottingham but guess what? They were all crappy designs and all clad in glass.

Give the people the choice! Let them decide!

100% all for it!

Is the Keirby a public building or have I missed something?

Although even if it was, given the financial pressures that councils are currently under it's sadly unlikely to value aesthetics over cost to such a degree.

[ŽižkovClaret]

I'm not convinced that anyone is choosing a spa by Haffner's and Home Bargains over the one at Crow Wood. The new owner might want to consider his business model's feasibility there

[Rowls]

why would the public have a say in what a private investor did with their money? we have no say in it, a hotel is not a public building.

to answer your previous question we would all prefer a stone building done in a victorian style, built by victorian cosplayers, but its just not reality. it would make no sense to finance such a project.

Glad to know we agree that a stone building would be best.

What we disagree on is, is it possible? Burnley is still 90% built of stone. I think the idea that building with stone is "impossible" is defeatism. It reminds me of the attitude among many fans in the 90s that "We're a lower league club now and that's that!" Talk that we could get back to the top tier was 'castles in the sky', so to speak.

I'm happy to disagree with those sentiments but the issue with negativity is that it spreads like a virus. People who catch negativity spread it on and become rude.

Because they no longer see how much better things can be, they'll start to try and mock those who do see or they will flatly refuse to believe in life getting better.

"Burnley sign Ian Wright? Itll never happen!"
"Burnley back in the Premier League? You must off your rocker!"
"Building out of stone? It's impossible!"

Nobody wants to defend bad buildings or cheap and ugly architecture. But given that we actually all appear to at least want beautiful and traditional stone buildings, I say we should be going about working out how to achieve this instead of claiming that building out of stone is "impossible", which is clearly nonsense.

[GetIntoEm]

lets hope they build a mental health unit instead.

[Big Vinny K]

“Burnley is built 90% out of stone”

Is it ?
Or have you just completely made that up ?

[Rowls]

Is the Keirby a public building or have I missed something?

Although even if it was, given the financial pressures that councils are currently under it's sadly unlikely to value aesthetics over cost to such a degree.

Not a public building to my knowledge but planning laws mean that a public body will have the power to veto anything and it dictate the style of the building.

What you say about budgets and local authorities us true, but it shows a lack of understanding about how ugly and cheap building actually destroy social fabric and damage mental health. These costs need to be taken into account.

[Rowls]

“Burnley is built 90% out of stone”

Is it ?
Or have you just completely made that up ?

Are we talking about the same Burnley? The one in east Lancashire?

The one with row upon row of stone terraced houses?

Ok, the 90% figure is rhetorical but of course you knew that.

[quoonbeatz]

A stone aquarium would be ridiculous, how you gonna see the fishies?

[Rowls]

lets hope they build a mental health unit instead.

If they build something as inspiring as the town hall, they won't need to. That's the point.

[helmclaret]

Ah this is a wind up

[Rowls]

A stone aquarium would be ridiculous, how you gonna see the fishies?

Exactly! Burnley needs a fish tank like a bicycle needs a woman.

[Rowls]

A stone aquarium would be ridiculous, how you gonna see the fishies?

Exactly! Burnley needs a fish tank like a bicycle needs a woman.

[Rowls]

Duplicate

[Rileybobs]

Glad to know we agree that a stone building would be best.

What we disagree on is, is it possible? Burnley is still 90% built of stone. I think the idea that building with stone is "impossible" is defeatism. It reminds me of the attitude among many fans in the 90s that "We're a lower league club now and that's that!" Talk that we could get back to the top tier was 'castles in the sky', so to speak.

I'm happy to disagree with those sentiments but the issue with negativity is that it spreads like a virus. People who catch negativity spread it on and become rude.

Because they no longer see how much better things can be, they'll start to try and mock those who do see or they will flatly refuse to believe in life getting better.

"Burnley sign Ian Wright? Itll never happen!"
"Burnley back in the Premier League? You must off your rocker!"
"Building out of stone? It's impossible!"

Nobody wants to defend bad buildings or cheap and ugly architecture. But given that we actually all appear to at least want beautiful and traditional stone buildings, I say we should be going about working out how to achieve this instead of claiming that building out of stone is "impossible", which is clearly nonsense.

Rowls, you're out of your depth...again. Nobody is saying that building out of natural stone is impossible, just that it is not economically viable. Guess what would happen if the local council dictated that a new building had to be constructed of natural stone... nobody would ever redevelop the site. This isn't defeatist thinking, it's just reality.

[Big Vinny K]

Are we talking about the same Burnley? The one in east Lancashire?

The one with row upon row of stone terraced houses?

Ok, the 90% figure is rhetorical but of course you knew that.

There are a lot of brick built houses in Burnley.
There’s also a lot of houses built out of breeze block and then covered with pebble dash and / or cheap rendering.

Have you the first clue how much a building you are describing would cost to build ? And who did you say again is going to pay for it ?

[Rowls]

Rowls, you're out of your depth...again. Nobody is saying that building out of natural stone is impossible, just that it is not economically viable. Guess what would happen if the local council dictated that a new building had to be constructed of natural stone... nobody would ever redevelop the site. This isn't defeatist thinking, it's just reality.

If something isn't economically viable then it's not really all that possible, is it?

In fact, 'possible' and 'viable' are close synonyms.

If it was economically viable for the Victorians, it can be done again today. It's a matter of finding the courage and the will to make it happen.

[helmclaret]

You can’t be serious posting this stuff.

[Rowls]

There are a lot of brick built houses in Burnley.
There’s also a lot of houses built out of breeze block and then covered with pebble dash and / or cheap rendering.

Have you the first clue how much a building you are describing would cost to build ? And who did you say again is going to pay for it ?

Yes. And I don't care who pays for it. I only care that it happens.

[Rileybobs]

If something isn't economically viable then it's not really all that possible, is it?

In fact, 'possible' and 'viable' are close synonyms.

If it was economically viable for the Victorians, it can be done again today. It's a matter of finding the courage and the will to make it happen.

Yes it is, it is possible whilst also economically unviable.

You're talking absolute nonesense, it has nothing to do with finding courage and will. If a private developer was to build a building of expensive materials whilst knowingly never being able to recoup the cost of that building, thus leading them to go out of business, that would not be courageous, it would be stupid.

[Rileybobs]

Yes. And I don't care who pays for it. I only care that it happens.

Why don't you pay for it? Be courageous.

[Rowls]

You can’t be serious posting this stuff.

As I keep saying: you can try and make it personal all you like.

You can try and tell people "stone isn't viable anymore" or "building with stone is impossible now". You can try and imply people who say the opposite are "crazy" all you like.

But people can see with their own eyes the beautiful traditional stone buildings that weren't knocked down. And they understand what you apparently don't: that it's perfectly possible to build beautiful buildings that convey a sense of pride and reflect the local.style.

So feel free to keep on trying to make it personal and trying to make it about me if you like.

It's all about what the people of Burnley deserve and we deserve to have far better architecture and far better buildings in the town centre.

[Rowls]

Why don't you pay for it? Be courageous.

As soon as I can afford to, I definitely will.

[Rowls]

Yes it is, it is possible whilst also economically unviable.

You're talking absolute nonesense, it has nothing to do with finding courage and will. If a private developer was to build a building of expensive materials whilst knowingly never being able to recoup the cost of that building, thus leading them to go out of business, that would not be courageous, it would be stupid.

But if we followed your argument, we would be doomed to suffer cheap and ugly buildings because they're cheaper.

If the new owner can only afford a cheap and ugly building then the council need to decline and refuse their plans.

If the new owner can only afford a cheap and ugly building then they should sell on to somebody who can afford to build something fitting for the town.

[quoonbeatz]

I'd be wary of Rowls after what happened with the stone building he 'funded' in North Haverbrook

[Rileybobs]

But if we followed your argument, we would be doomed to suffer cheap and ugly buildings because they're cheaper.

If the new owner can only afford a cheap and ugly building then the council need to decline and refuse their plans.

If the new owner can only afford a cheap and ugly building then they should sell on to somebody who can afford to build something fitting for the town.

There are lots of examples of beautiful buildings that aren't constructed of natural stone.

[Rowls]

I'd be wary of Rowls after what happened with the stone building he 'funded' in Shelbyville.

The stone aquarium quip was very funny. Should've quit there.

[Rowls]

There are lots of examples of beautiful buildings that aren't constructed of natural stone.

Sure there are. Agreed.

But stone is the material the would best reflect Burnley's heritage.

[quoonbeatz]

Winners don't quit rowls, you know that

[helmclaret]

As I keep saying: you can try and make it personal all you like.

You can try and tell people "stone isn't viable anymore" or "building with stone is impossible now". You can try and imply people who say the opposite are "crazy" all you like.

But people can see with their own eyes the beautiful traditional stone buildings that weren't knocked down. And they understand what you apparently don't: that it's perfectly possible to build beautiful buildings that convey a sense of pride and reflect the local.style.

So feel free to keep on trying to make it personal and trying to make it about me if you like.

It's all about what the people of Burnley deserve and we deserve to have far better architecture and far better buildings in the town centre.

Where have I made it ‘personal?’

And where have I said any of those things? I said it would cost too much. We don’t live in Victorian times.

[Rowls]

Winners don't quit rowls, you know that

That's more like it.

I'll choose to remember you for the aquarium quip quoonbeatz.

[Clovius Boofus]

You can’t be serious posting this stuff.

He's not. There are loads of examples on this forum of him coming out with utter balderdash, and then spending way too much time repeating himself over and over again. Best not to get sucked in, or else you'll be replying to him for days on end.