there will be lots & lots of money involved with all this though

it’s sad that the journo just reported the councillor’s point of view though – they may have done reports on the pros & cons befre in the paper.

This generally points to a poor standard of journalism & editorial direction within the paper (at best). Symptomatic laziess where they might as well be reporting on the ‘village fete/town show*’, “Mrs Migins on the cake stall said” sort of thing…

Ah well – cultural entropy & greed/power loves a vacuum

(*ah, but if it were Tackleford..) -

If it turns out to be no more than a mismatched refurb of an existing space, then it’s ludicrous and feels like a sly handshake to those who will profit from this – and I’ll be duly put in my place for sounding off earlier; on the other hand, if there’s the need to expand the current space then that horrible question of NHS expenditure comes into play. Following the last 20 months or so of the NHS funding plight/ fiasco under the spotlight, if the design is based on cost rather than aesthetic it may well leave a bitter taste, but how could they justify the additional expense of a sympathetic rebuild/expansion at the cost of the taxpayers without a public uproar? Would additional external funding and resources be made available to make this work? Would be good if it could…..

I guess alot of my questions could have been answered if the journo hadn’t just laid down and taken the councillor’s side and had looked into the basics behind the story and asked the trickier questions.

I think the reason is it’s easier to get rid of the people who go “um, hang on, have you really thought this through” than to actually think it through. And so as a side effect of lazy or rushed work (depending on the workload of the councilor in question) we get this sort of playground level debate in public.

For the record I’m no big supporter of the Victorian Society but given how much of Birmingham’s architectural history was needlessly smurshed to rubble in the 60s I do think we should be a little more careful these days.

why is this?

yes, there would be a greater benefit to the community for treatment to be had the presumably is not available elsewhere (is it available anywhere in the district at present?)

why push for this design against the wishes of a presumably moderate group of moderate conservative (small ‘c’) conservationists? They may well be swayed with a modest redisign – they might be pushed aside by need in any case (so their protestations are but nothing)

local polotician trying to talk his reputation up (& hopefully that is all – investigative journalism would look into matters of releations with all involved)

I hate to use the phrase ‘stuck in the past’, but I do wonder about the demographics of the members and whether this could be a factor in their seemingly self-centred view…..

Grrrr…

Sad thing is the paper printed it (with context?*) therefore he’s won

with or without ‘context’ there are people who will take this at face value & beleive that these damn aesthetes want to kill people.

…not that The Victorian Society are aesthetically aesthetes, but that’s another debate