 |
|
|
 | | |  |
Noah's Boathouse hits troubled waters |
 |
© English Heritage
|
The boathouse was experimental both in its use of curved forms and in the technology used to construct it.
In their list description, English Heritage highlight its importance as a pioneering example of Modern Movement architecture in Britain, but not everyone agrees with this view.
Is it worth it?
Its current owners commented that they think the data quoted by English Heritage, 'overstates the historical significance because it was provided to them by a group which campaigns to preserve '30s buildings'.
The owners had initially intended to demolish the boathouse, which was built on dry land, and replace it with a new wet boathouse. When they made enquiries about this after buying the house, however, the boathouse was quickly listed by English Heritage. This imposed new responsibilities and restrictions upon them, including an obligation to maintain and renovate the building.
© English Heritage
|
It has been estimated that it could cost as much as £50, 000 to restore the boathouse, which, even then, may be worth just half of that. Only half the costs would be covered by an English Heritage grant, and even if it was renovated, the owners dispute that it would be of use because it is a dry boathouse. They say that it is difficult for 'owners to justify expenditure on a building with no purpose'.
The main concern of the owners, however, is: 'that there is no system in place to fund the enormous one time cost to renovate buildings that are listed after an owner has occupied them'. They say they would be happy to maintain the building for the Nation's Heritage after it has been restored, but think 'restoration should be at the nation's expense!'
So who do you think should be responsible for Britain's architectural heritage? Have your say on our .
|
 Print this page |
|
Interact is your section. Join in the community - send in your own articles, chat, and tell us what the word 'heritage' means in your part of the country.
Go To Interact > |
| | |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| The 麻豆社 is not responsible for the content of external Web sites. |
| | | |
| | |
| |
|
