Kierby hotel sold

[aggi]

It’s fine arguing that a new development should be an architectural masterpiece using local materials such as the town hall but that ignores future obsolescence of the use . Go inside the offices in the town hall as I have and you see how impractical and unsuitable they are as modern office space. To create a building as some people advocate that will last 100+ years is utterly pointless as it will be obsolete within 50 as time and technology move on so developers look at getting a return on their money within the expected timescale of the buildings use usually 25-50 years max and probably less now. Almost anything will be better than the keirby and what replaces it won’t be there for ever so don’t get too hung up on it. Also re it being a brand hotel , any brand specifies with millimetre detail how the internal room spaces are to be laid out and that tends to determine the external shell design

A few years back I spent a couple of weeks working in the Flat Iron building in Manhattan.



Obviously an iconic building but as a modern office it was terrible. Loads of dingy rooms with barely any natural light, wiring in trunking, not enough lifts, etc

[ChrisG]

Have you ever been to Budapest Rowls?

A lot of new builds and refurbs in a beautiful, traditional style befitting the city and its heritage - after 40 years of communist crap and 20 years of cheapo 'western' glass office buildings.

It really can be done.

It can be done and it would be ace if it was, but Budapest isn't Burnley, and as we've done to death above, the investment return for constructing in stone just isn't there.

[bfcjg]

That's just tall Duke of York

[Goliath]

It can be done and it would be ace if it was, but Budapest isn't Burnley, and as we've done to death above, the investment return for constructing in stone just isn't there.

Therein lies the problem with a lot of things today. Everything is done in a way which gives the best ROI.
It's a bigger argument about capitalist society really.

The implication is basically that the posters suggesting it can be done are naive and living in a dreamworld. Where in all honesty they aren't far off the mark, the long term benefits far outweigh some accountants tunnel visioned view of there not being any numerical cost benefit. But that's not how decisions are made.

[Big Vinny K]

Therein lies the problem with a lot of things today. Everything is done in a way which gives the best ROI.
It's a bigger argument about capitalist society really.

The implication is basically that the posters suggesting it can be done are naive and living in a dreamworld. Where in all honesty they aren't far off the mark, the long term benefits far outweigh some accountants tunnel visioned view of there not being any numerical cost benefit. But that's not how decisions are made.

And how do you suggest we change that ?
There is nothing in the policies and manifestos of any political party in the UK that will change it.
Local governments and councils are skint and will be for the foreseeable future irrespective of who is in power.

So that leaves which option ? Private investment - and of course that will invariably be based on ROI.
Yes there is a very small chance that we could get a local philanthropist prepared to put £30m plus into a beautiful stone building in the middle of a grubby town centre next to a main road across from 6 charity shops and 2 bookies…..but we are very much in dreamland territory.

Don’t fall into the trap of other posters on here pretending that anybody is arguing that such a beautiful building is not something any of us want. Nobody is arguing that it 100% cannot be done either - of course it is potentially possible

But neither you or Rowls or anybody on this thread have put forward a realistic scenario of how it could be done. When people are talking about Victorian times or ending capitalism then that’s a rather large clue that they have no idea how it could be achieved either.

[Goliath]

And how do you suggest we change that ?
There is nothing in the policies and manifestos of any political party in the UK that will change it.
Local governments and councils are skint and will be for the foreseeable future irrespective of who is in power.

So that leaves which option ? Private investment - and of course that will invariably be based on ROI.
Yes there is a very small chance that we could get a local philanthropist prepared to put £30m plus into a beautiful stone building in the middle of a grubby town centre next to a main road across from 6 charity shops and 2 bookies…..but we are very much in dreamland territory.

Don’t fall into the trap of other posters on here pretending that anybody is arguing that such a beautiful building is not something any of us want. Nobody is arguing that it 100% cannot be done either - of course it is potentially possible

But neither you or Rowls or anybody on this thread have put forward a realistic scenario of how it could be done. When people are talking about Victorian times or ending capitalism then that’s a rather large clue that they have no idea how it could be achieved either.

Calm down. We aren't all looking for an argument. It is possible that both arguments are correct and I think this is one of the scenarios.
It does seem like real short term thinking that we just put these crap buildings up that don't last and do nothing for the town.

Our country is bloody ugly in comparison to the majority of Europe. It clearly needs some joined up thinking and investment from government and councils to slowly try to improve it. But the idea that it's unfixable and we should just continue to do stuff on the cheap isn't particularly inspiring.

[Big Vinny K]

Calm down. We aren't all looking for an argument. It is possible that both arguments are correct and I think this is one of the scenarios.
It does seem like real short term thinking that we just put these crap buildings up that don't last and do nothing for the town.

Our country is bloody ugly in comparison to the majority of Europe. It clearly needs some joined up thinking and investment from government and councils to slowly try to improve it. But the idea that it's unfixable and we should just continue to do stuff on the cheap isn't particularly inspiring.

Calm down ?
I’m not looking for an argument at all - I’m saying the opposite that nobody on this thread is saying that they would not love a beautiful building to replace The Keirby.

I’m not sure it’s even about short term thinking - ugly buildings will still last 50 or 100 years which may only be short term in architecture terms but it’s a lifetime for a developer or a local government / political party.

A hotel is a business - if its a cheap ugly building but the owners think they can fill it then it still brings new employment to the town, rates income to the council and increased corporation and income tax revenues to the government.

No it’s not particularly inspiring but it’s better than what sits there now and a lot more realistic than expecting governments and councils to enter into some long term thinking (which whatever way you look at it equates to putting tax payer money that they do not have into the project)

[ChrisG]

Therein lies the problem with a lot of things today. Everything is done in a way which gives the best ROI.
It's a bigger argument about capitalist society really.

The implication is basically that the posters suggesting it can be done are naive and living in a dreamworld. Where in all honesty they aren't far off the mark, the long term benefits far outweigh some accountants tunnel visioned view of there not being any numerical cost benefit. But that's not how decisions are made.

The thing is, in the private sector that's exactly how decisions are made. I carry out feasibility studies on an almost weekly basis for clients, and if the €/m2 doesn't work, things either don't get built, or the design gets changed.

In the public sector, then you have other budgetary constraints with the public purse.

I do agree that the funding model is flawed, but that's a bigger debate.

[ŽižkovClaret]

I'd love a 3sum with Holly Willoughby and Christina Hendricks, but it aint happening is it?

Calm down ?
I’m not looking for an argument at all - I’m saying the opposite that nobody on this thread is saying that they would not love a beautiful building to replace The Keirby.

I’m not sure it’s even about short term thinking - ugly buildings will still last 50 or 100 years which may only be short term in architecture terms but it’s a lifetime for a developer or a local government / political party.

A hotel is a business - if its a cheap ugly building but the owners think they can fill it then it still brings new employment to the town, rates income to the council and increased corporation and income tax revenues to the government.

No it’s not particularly inspiring but it’s better than what sits there now and a lot more realistic than expecting governments and councils to enter into some long term thinking (which whatever way you look at it equates to putting tax payer money that they do not have into the project)

[dsr]

It’s fine arguing that a new development should be an architectural masterpiece using local materials such as the town hall but that ignores future obsolescence of the use . Go inside the offices in the town hall as I have and you see how impractical and unsuitable they are as modern office space. To create a building as some people advocate that will last 100+ years is utterly pointless as it will be obsolete within 50 as time and technology move on so developers look at getting a return on their money within the expected timescale of the buildings use usually 25-50 years max and probably less now. Almost anything will be better than the keirby and what replaces it won’t be there for ever so don’t get too hung up on it. Also re it being a brand hotel , any brand specifies with millimetre detail how the internal room spaces are to be laid out and that tends to determine the external shell design

Out of interest, what is impractical and unsuitable about the rooms in the Town Hall as modern offices? Surely an office is just a room, a box with walls, so how does it become obselete?

[BurnleyFC]

Out of interest, what is impractical and unsuitable about the rooms in the Town Hall as modern offices? Surely an office is just a room, a box with walls, so how does it become obselete?

It doesn’t have an in-house Starbucks or vegan restaurant for the cool, city types.

[quoonbeatz]

I'd love a 3sum with Holly Willoughby and Christina Hendricks, but it aint happening is it?

Defeatist attitude imo.

[Goliath]

The thing is, in the private sector that's exactly how decisions are made. I carry out feasibility studies on an almost weekly basis for clients, and if the €/m2 doesn't work, things either don't get built, or the design gets changed.

In the public sector, then you have other budgetary constraints with the public purse.

I do agree that the funding model is flawed, but that's a bigger debate.

Exactly, we end up in a country designed by accountants. No wonder creativity is stifled. And no I don't have a resolution for it apart from investing more money for a longer term benefit of a country we can proud of.

In terms of Burnley the actual benefit can't really be analysed from a financial standing. There's huge potential for it to become an attractive commuter town on a bigger scale than Rawtenstall and Ramsbottom etc. but to do that it needs to shake off the tag of being a dump, the buildings are a big part of that. I actually think the town centre looks a lot better since the big investment there and the Town 2 turf scheme will be a big improvement as well.
We then might see further benefits with better shops, restaurants, hotels etc. It's all immeasurable so doesn't get accounted for in any cost benefit analysis as far as I'm aware.

[Rileybobs]

Out of interest, what is impractical and unsuitable about the rooms in the Town Hall as modern offices? Surely an office is just a room, a box with walls, so how does it become obselete?

Surely you don't actually think that an office is just a box with walls though? I don't know about Burnley Town Hall, but old buildings usually don't make the most suitable buildings for modern offices. There are a number of factors which could be an issue;

- Natural light levels
- Floor plan shape, lack of potential for open-plan floor plates
- Comfort levels (heating/cooling/ventilation)
- Floor to ceiling heights
- Accessibility
- Toilet/kitchen facilities
- Technology/comms (purpose built offices have raised access floors)

That's not to say that the building is obsolete, but I think the argument is that building something in a traditional style purely for aesthetic purposes is not a good idea, as buildings should primarily be functional spaces. I'm personally not a fan of pastiche, and would prefer modern buildings to look like modern buildings, whilst being respectful of the context and history of the site.

[ŽižkovClaret]

Surely you don't actually think that an office is just a box with walls though? I don't know about Burnley Town Hall, but old buildings usually don't make the most suitable buildings for modern offices. There are a number of factors which could be an issue;

- Natural light levels
- Floor plan shape, lack of potential for open-plan floor plates
- Comfort levels (heating/cooling/ventilation)
- Floor to ceiling heights
- Accessibility
- Toilet/kitchen facilities
- Technology/comms (purpose built offices have raised access floors)

That's not to say that the building is obsolete, but I think the argument is that building something in a traditional style purely for aesthetic purposes is not a good idea, as buildings should primarily be functional spaces. I'm personally not a fan of pastiche, and would prefer modern buildings to look like modern buildings, whilst being respectful of the context and history of the site.

Blue sky thinking time:

Let's make a new modern Town Hall building replacing the Keirby, and hand over the nice Stone Town Hall building to be turned into a large new Hotel

[Big Vinny K]

Out of interest, what is impractical and unsuitable about the rooms in the Town Hall as modern offices? Surely an office is just a room, a box with walls, so how does it become obselete?

Not sure whether you have been in the Town Hall recently but I was there for a meeting last year and it was quite an eye opener.
You are right that an office is basically a room / box with walls. But if for example as many companies do you would want a large open plan office where you can put a number of staff with several work stations and meeting rooms all with the relevant IT cabling etc into each section then one visit to the Town Hall you would see how expensive and difficult this would be.

The Town Hall is a maze of corridors, and rooms with very large ceilings, big thick walls, pillars, staircases etc. it’s dark corridors and. rooms with very little natural light. It’s a historic old building for sure - but it’s a bit like the old school buildings needing constant work on repairs and just not fit for a modern working environment without spending several million and even then I doubt you could make the structural changes you would need to assuming it’s a listed building.

[Big Vinny K]

Blue sky thinking time:

Let's make a new modern Town Hall building replacing the Keirby, and hand over the nice Stone Town Hall building to be turned into a large new Hotel

That is actually the first decent idea on this thread !!

[Rileybobs]

Blue sky thinking time:

Let's make a new modern Town Hall building replacing the Keirby, and hand over the nice Stone Town Hall building to be turned into a large new Hotel

I doubt a hotel operator would touch Burnley Town Hall.

[dsr]

Surely you don't actually think that an office is just a box with walls though? I don't know about Burnley Town Hall, but old buildings usually don't make the most suitable buildings for modern offices. There are a number of factors which could be an issue;

- Natural light levels
- Floor plan shape, lack of potential for open-plan floor plates
- Comfort levels (heating/cooling/ventilation)
- Floor to ceiling heights
- Accessibility
- Toilet/kitchen facilities
- Technology/comms (purpose built offices have raised access floors)

That's not to say that the building is obsolete, but I think the argument is that building something in a traditional style purely for aesthetic purposes is not a good idea, as buildings should primarily be functional spaces. I'm personally not a fan of pastiche, and would prefer modern buildings to look like modern buildings, whilst being respectful of the context and history of the site.

Accessibility is the biggie, I suppose. Older buildings weren't designed for that sort of thing.

Most of the others are red herrings. Older offices tend to be more comfortable for the staff, simply because they have more choice. If I want the window open and the fire off, I can have it. If the person in the next room wants the window closed and the fire on, she can have it. Air conditioning is (for virtually all year) just another way to waste fuel!

Stuff like kitchen and toilet facilities are easily upgraded. My house is 200 years old but the kitchen and toilets are modern standard, no problem. So's the technology and wiring.

[dsr]

Not sure whether you have been in the Town Hall recently but I was there for a meeting last year and it was quite an eye opener.
You are right that an office is basically a room / box with walls. But if for example as many companies do you would want a large open plan office where you can put a number of staff with several work stations and meeting rooms all with the relevant IT cabling etc into each section then one visit to the Town Hall you would see how expensive and difficult this would be.

The Town Hall is a maze of corridors, and rooms with very large ceilings, big thick walls, pillars, staircases etc. it’s dark corridors and. rooms with very little natural light. It’s a historic old building for sure - but it’s a bit like the old school buildings needing constant work on repairs and just not fit for a modern working environment without spending several million and even then I doubt you could make the structural changes you would need to assuming it’s a listed building.

I see the point about the corridors and rooms, but surely large open plan offices also have little natural light, at least in the middle. (Unless they have a glass roof.)

Incidentally, my niece spent the first few months in her new job teaching from home, simply because her school wasn't in an old building. It was one of those closed by the crumbling concrete issue!

[Clovius Boofus]

Anyhow, even a cost-effective artificial stone clad hotel might be not be so cost-effective if we don't bounce back into the EPL. We already have hotels to suit all budgets, from Crow Wood through to Premier Inn, and I would guess there will be less demand if we were to kick around the Championship for a few seasons, or worse.

[Big Vinny K]

I see the point about the corridors and rooms, but surely large open plan offices also have little natural light, at least in the middle. (Unless they have a glass roof.)

Incidentally, my niece spent the first few months in her new job teaching from home, simply because her school wasn't in an old building. It was one of those closed by the crumbling concrete issue!

That doesn’t make the old school buildings fantastic just because they used dodgy concrete for some newer ones. But I agree that new buildings are not without their problems. Look at the Building Schools for the Future programme in Burnley and you will struggle to find anyone who can work out the heating systems they fit in all the new schools - it’s bonkers !!

I worked in the Pyramid building in Stockport for around 5 years - lots of natural light in that one for sure !!

I don’t disagree that you can still do amazing things with lots of buildings - new or old. But I was genuinely surprised at the state of the Town Hall. I cannot imagine how much that building costs to run. It also seemed to be like the worst kind of building to work in - honestly it was like going back 50 years. After I eventually found the meeting room I was going too it was a huge old room with a massive board table - I was meeting one other person. My directions were to go through the back door in the Mechanics car park and as I was walking through the maze of corridors and passing loads of rooms with doors closed the one thing that struck me is that it took me ages before I saw anybody at all - I have no idea where they all the staff were. It was the middle of the afternoon - I don’t know if half the building is just empty or they all work silently in their own big offices.

[Rileybobs]

Accessibility is the biggie, I suppose. Older buildings weren't designed for that sort of thing.

Most of the others are red herrings. Older offices tend to be more comfortable for the staff, simply because they have more choice. If I want the window open and the fire off, I can have it. If the person in the next room wants the window closed and the fire on, she can have it. Air conditioning is (for virtually all year) just another way to waste fuel!

Stuff like kitchen and toilet facilities are easily upgraded. My house is 200 years old but the kitchen and toilets are modern standard, no problem. So's the technology and wiring.

I don’t think any of the others are red herrings at all. They are all things that will be considered by office tenants and by their current or prospective employees. They might not be important to you, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t to other people.

By toilets, I was referring to achieving accessibility standards and separate male/female toilets, number of toilets required etc not just upgrading the sanitary ware. Comparing using the Town Hall as an office with you using your 200 year old house as a house is a little disingenuous don’t you think?

And to say that an old building that has been repurposed as an office space is more comfortable than a new purpose built office is just incorrect.

[dsr]

I don’t think any of the others are red herrings at all. They are all things that will be considered by office tenants and by their current or prospective employees. They might not be important to you, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t to other people.

By toilets, I was referring to achieving accessibility standards and separate male/female toilets, number of toilets required etc not just upgrading the sanitary ware. Comparing using the Town Hall as an office with you using your 200 year old house as a house is a little disingenuous don’t you think?

And to say that an old building that has been repurposed as an office space is more comfortable than a new purpose built office is just incorrect.

Big Vinny K has answered my question about the Town Hall, which is what I was asking. As for the rest of it, some old offices are better / more convenient / more comfortable than new ones, and some are less so. Let's leave it at that. It's too far off topic.

[Goliath]

I don’t think any of the others are red herrings at all. They are all things that will be considered by office tenants and by their current or prospective employees. They might not be important to you, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t to other people.

By toilets, I was referring to achieving accessibility standards and separate male/female toilets, number of toilets required etc not just upgrading the sanitary ware. Comparing using the Town Hall as an office with you using your 200 year old house as a house is a little disingenuous don’t you think?

And to say that an old building that has been repurposed as an office space is more comfortable than a new purpose built office is just incorrect.

As I mentioned previously. 'The landmark' seems to have been repurposed very successfully.


www.burnleyexpress.net/business/burnley ... uk-3531448

[Rileybobs]

As I mentioned previously. 'The landmark' seems to have been repurposed very successfully.


www.burnleyexpress.net/business/burnley ... uk-3531448

Looks great, and glad to see that it's been successfully repurposed, I don't think this detracts from my point though?

[CoolClaret]

Surely you don't actually think that an office is just a box with walls though? I don't know about Burnley Town Hall, but old buildings usually don't make the most suitable buildings for modern offices. There are a number of factors which could be an issue;

- Natural light levels
- Floor plan shape, lack of potential for open-plan floor plates
- Comfort levels (heating/cooling/ventilation)
- Floor to ceiling heights
- Accessibility
- Toilet/kitchen facilities
- Technology/comms (purpose built offices have raised access floors)

That's not to say that the building is obsolete, but I think the argument is that building something in a traditional style purely for aesthetic purposes is not a good idea, as buildings should primarily be functional spaces. I'm personally not a fan of pastiche, and would prefer modern buildings to look like modern buildings, whilst being respectful of the context and history of the site.

Has character though. You'd prefer going into work at a building like that everyday than a soulless glass box, at least I would anyway.

[Goliath]

Looks great, and glad to see that it's been successfully repurposed, I don't think this detracts from my point though?

It seems to contradict your below statement.

'And to say that an old building that has been repurposed as an office space is more comfortable than a new purpose built office is just incorrect'

I was mainly just pointing out that it can be done well and there is living proof of it in the town which seems to be getting overlooked.

[Rowls]

It can be done and it would be ace if it was, but Budapest isn't Burnley, and as we've done to death above, the investment return for constructing in stone just isn't there.

This is a vicious circle. Investors are more reticent because the town looks awful and because the town looks awful we can't afford beautiful buildings so investors are more reticent because the town looks awful ...

It’s fine arguing that a new development should be an architectural masterpiece using local materials such as the town hall but that ignores future obsolescence of the use . Go inside the offices in the town hall as I have and you see how impractical and unsuitable they are as modern office space. To create a building as some people advocate that will last 100+ years is utterly pointless as it will be obsolete within 50 as time and technology move on so developers look at getting a return on their money within the expected timescale of the buildings use usually 25-50 years max and probably less now. Almost anything will be better than the keirby and what replaces it won’t be there for ever so don’t get too hung up on it. Also re it being a brand hotel , any brand specifies with millimetre detail how the internal room spaces are to be laid out and that tends to determine the external shell design

Depends which way you look at it. If you build with long term in mind, you'll build something that can (and might) last 1000 years. Buildings like the townhall adhere to this principle.

Or you build cheap. With, as you put it, an "expected timescale of the buildings use usually 25-50 years max" and we end up with a latter Keirby Hotel plonked back on the site. Back to square one. THIS is what future obsolescence really looks like.

On the other hand, build something beautiful and people will want to keep it, so it will be adapted for future use. THIS makes it obsolescence proof. See for example, the Parthenon. No longer used to worship Greek gods! Does anyone suggest knocking it down to build an office block that will last "25-50 years max"?

BTW It's not beyond us to build beautifully facaded buildings that can serve as modern day offices on the inside.

Can we please leave this argument well alone. We did it to death upthread. Every time there is new a post on here I open the thread in the hope that there's an update regarding the hotel, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I won't post again because of this Clovius. We're all hoping for some positive developments and news.

[CoolClaret]

I agree with Rowls here tbh. Some element of realism has to be taken but if it's just a question of economics and margins then it's a race to the bottom.

If you've ever spent time in middle America and seen some of the god awful strip malls and random, aggressive advertising on billboards you'd agree - stuff like that undoubtedly has a knock on effect on the populace.

Though I would say that with the Keirby, more or less anything is better than what we have now.

[dsr]

On the other hand, build something beautiful and people will want to keep it, so it will be adapted for future use. THIS makes it obsolescence proof. See for example, the Parthenon. No longer used to worship Greek gods! Does anyone suggest knocking it down to build an office block that will last "25-50 years max"?

The unfortunate thing about the Parthenon is that it was repurposed as an ammunition store, which is why it blew up in 1687 when a Venetian bomb hit it. Until then it was basically intact.

I wonder if the Keirby could be repurposed as an ammunition store?

[Rileybobs]

Has character though. You'd prefer going into work at a building like that everyday than a soulless glass box, at least I would anyway.

Absolutely, our company has recently moved into a listed building for the character (and also more favourable £/sq.ft), but I wouldn't claim that it's more comfortable or more fit-for-purpose than a modern purpose-built office building.

I've been in a number of various local authority offices located in old buildings and have had the same experience as Big Vinny K in that they're often very grim places and not somewhere I would like to work - which is why in Leeds, where I'm based, the council are moving into purpose-built office spaces which are fit for modern use.

That's not in any way to say that historic buildings don't have a place and can't be repurposed.

[Rileybobs]

It seems to contradict your below statement.

'And to say that an old building that has been repurposed as an office space is more comfortable than a new purpose built office is just incorrect'

I was mainly just pointing out that it can be done well and there is living proof of it in the town which seems to be getting overlooked.

It doesn't contradict it though, you've given an example of a successful conversion which is great, but that doesn't make it a more comfortable office space than a purpose-built equivalent.

[Big Vinny K]

Has character though. You'd prefer going into work at a building like that everyday than a soulless glass box, at least I would anyway.

I take it you have never been in the Town Hall ?

I worked in a glass box - actually it was a glass pyramid ! It was a great place to work - though it did help that I had an office on the top floor so the view was great and obviously the further down the building you went the bigger the floors and that’s where we had a couple of the call centres. However, given that most of the staff had relocated from our Skelmersdale offices working in the pyramid was like the Taj Mahal compared to Skem !

I could not think of a worse or grimmer place to work than the Town Hall in Burnley - I’ve worked in many many offices and visited even more and that has to be up there with the worst I have ever seen.

[Tw@]

Has anybody noticed yet that I’ve spelt Keirby incorrectly?

[claretonthecoast1882]

Has anybody noticed yet that I’ve spelt Keirby incorrectly?

Looks right to me

[GetIntoEm]

As I mentioned previously. 'The landmark' seems to have been repurposed very successfully.


www.burnleyexpress.net/business/burnley ... uk-3531448

That's quite an old link. Have you been recently? With so much potential but not used very much it looks very tatty. Not sure it's been a success.

[sykeclaret]

I believe Petty's have bought the Kierby Hotel and it will be demolished and re-built

[dougcollins]

I imagine there'll be a crowd of cheering people as it collapses.

[mikeS]

Facebook photos from today show that work has started on demolishing the Kierby.

Screenshot 2024-07-13 at 20.53.48.png (735.1 KiB) Viewed 2335 times

[Leon_C]

Facebook photos from today show that work has started on demolishing the Kierby.

Screenshot 2024-07-13 at 20.53.48.png

I'd be surprised if current works constitute its demolition. That may end up happening eventually, but I'd probably expect to see a planning application for its replacement before works to flatten the site begin.

[Dark Cloud]

That guy is going to demolish the Kierby all on his own??? Well fair play to him, but he's going to be busy for the next 15/20 years!

[Rileybobs]

I'd be surprised if current works constitute its demolition. That may end up happening eventually, but I'd probably expect to see a planning application for its replacement before works to flatten the site begin.

I’d expect to see a planning application to demolish the building.

[Leon_C]

That guy is going to demolish the Kierby all on his own??? Well fair play to him, but he's going to be busy for the next 15/20 years!

He does look like he's single-handedly cutting off the 5G signal for half of Burnley...

[NewClaret]

I’d expect to see a planning application to demolish the building.

Yes, they’d need a planning app unfortunately.

And demolition costs a lot of money. I’d be shocked if that happened before it’d been agreed what would replace it.

[clerkenwell.claret]

A few random observations.

It’s important not to build in a retro style: without progress, surely we’d all still be living in caves.

Yes, the UK is the ugliest place to live, apart from almost everywhere else on the planet.

The beauty and greatness of the best bits of our built environment is substantially due to the pleasing contrast (or pulsating juxtaposition in architectural speak) between the buildings and styles from various periods.

Would it not be best to retain the structure of the Keirby and reclad it (if the structure is serviceable). After all, the building represents a significant investment in carbon and to demolish it and rebuild is an affront to sustainability.

It is possible to achieve beautiful, functional , robust and long-lived buildings on a low budget. The race to the bottom that has been mentioned previously is in design team fees which typically represent only some 10 to 15% of a project cost. Cut-price fees result in not enough thinking time which results in poor quality buildings: the slums and the eyesores of tomorrow.

[gawthorpe_view]

He does look like he's single-handedly cutting off the 5G signal for half of Burnley...

It won't affect the signal at the Turf, it's bloody crap anyway.

[THEWELLERNUT70]

I could see the Keirby Hotel's structure remaining the same but having a massive renovation job done on it, similar to what happened to The Viking hotel in York which is now The Park Inn

[Rowls]

It’s important not to build in a retro style: without progress, surely we’d all still be living in caves.

Beauty is not subjective. Ugly buildings don't represent "progress"; they are a regression.

It is essential to build beautiful buildings for many reasons: increased esteem, pride, aesthetic value, better mental health, better for business and economy.

[ClaretTony]

He does look like he's single-handedly cutting off the 5G signal for half of Burnley...

That will bring everyone on a par with me then - I've no signal anywhere near the town centre now at any time even though my phone says I've got 4G. Is there any 5G in Burnley at all, definitely isn't on my network.