Musings 02

[electricaldave]

Things we would consider quite dodgy were pretty normal in the Vicotrian time.For instance, many of the city fathers had commercial interests where nowadays the same type of people would declare their conflict and recuse themselces form particular committees.Look at the Leeds gas committee, several of its members also owned pits, in particular in East Leeds and they were also making decisions about the quality of the coal being used, and how much it would cost, alon with awarding contracts.You could look at the situation with building the seven arches aqueduct where various contractors protested and held up the delivery of clean water into Leeds for several years, simply because those builders didn't get the contract.It's a similar situation when it comes to electricity, the gas suplliers certainly didnt want competition even from electricity in its infancy, and those setting the arrangements for the electrical supply on the committee had contracts connected with the gas industry.The arrival of electricity in Leeds was quite a soap opera with all sorts of obstacles to overcome, not least the vested interests of various industrial patricians.It was often the case that the Leeds businessmen worked very closely with each other too, ensuring more favourable conditions among themselves, you only have to look at the connections between coal, pottery, brickmaking and gas.You often find the same people or their families tying up with each other to keep others out.Nowadays we expect our councillors to have some independance from industry, indeed of certain levels of council officials is such that they really cannot run a sizeable business and also take a leading role in the council, they just do not have the time.The Poulson scandal was not just about the bribery, it was also about the fact that councils paid good money out for shoddy work, if we had got good quality buildings for a good price, maybe the whole matter would not have been so closely scrutinised.You need only look at some of those 'signature' building projects at the time and see how well those buildings produced by them to see what I mean.The Olympic pool was poor, but when you look at some of the system built housing that never even made 20 years - no wonder folk looked at the same mistakes being made time after time and wondered why the same people got the contracts despite producing such shoddy goods.

[munki]

Very well put, electricaldave - exactly what my mind was completely incapable of coming up with on a Sunday!

[chameleon]

This is a difficult one you pose for us now Munki and one which provokes some thought - I wonder if any of us have actually ever thought in any depth why we treasure these older structures and features so dearly.It could be as simple as familiarity which links to comments made earlier here - familiarity in this sense is largely linked to longevity as in turn longevity is linked to quality in the construction and the choice of materials. Some would say that longevity is also associated with a structure continuing to be fit for purpose but I don't think this is valid - it is self evident that if the desire exists to preserve a structure, it can and will be altered or upgraded to make it fit for a different purpose. I have come to realise with some surprise if not consternation that buildings constructed within my lifetime are already disappearing - a stark contrast to many of those we hold dear and which remain standing even in disrepair. Is it significant that many of these were of an era where cheaper (almost) massed production techniques were used for speed and to offer cost savings, and the abundent use of simple in-situ concrete forms? Both have fallen to the rigors of time and a shortage of timeous and costly maintenance, with few standing long enough to become notable as being from the past. A better return from rebuilding to give an even more 'modern' and demanded appearance. Satisfying the fickle perhaps but also maximising return upon outlay. Fickle,yes - it is rumoured that there could even be a change in the post code areas of town to bring parts of LS11 into the more prestigeous (and easier to sell) LS1 designation!And yes - probably no more than a modern-day equivalent of that which pervaded 100 years ago, but with different results upon that which will remain as our future heritage.

[The Parksider]

roundhegian wrote: [It is fashionable within a vociferous minority to decry the Victorian industrialists who developed Leeds A desire to make money , personal pride and undoubtedly a wish for self-aggrandisment played a part but so did civic pride . These people were proud of being part of a very important industrial city and wished to enhance the perception of that city .I am proud of their achievements whilst acknowledging their faults . Today I would condemn many of these people for a lack of philanthropy. If they had the intelligence and insight to do what they did in terms of business and industry then they cannot have missed the abject misert, poverty and suffering.Perhaps the mindset was different then. Perhaps they felt God created poverty and that people had a place and would receive their rewards in heaven.Perhaps I have enough money to give some to a poor family and don't?But we aren't morally agonising, we are taking a recreational interest in the highs and lows of our cities history......

[electricaldave]

I think that the Victorians especially were in it for the long haul.Historically inflation was very low, the money markets as such were very small, and wealth was based around goods and land, not around increases in the value of capital and shares.It was not easy to make money out of absloutely nothing except a promise, which is what much of our re-insurance industry does today.Making yourself wealthy back then meant making things, and it was a long term operation, many of you will rember parents and ancestors who expected to work for the same outfit for 20 years and often very much longer.This surely leads to a differant view of the world, where you build once, and build properly - the construction techniques didn't allow for such flexible buildings as we have today - stuff was essentially permanent.Many, indeed most companies do not own the land they occupy, - often they do not own the buildings either - but things were hugely differant back then, its asset-stripping of the old industrial freehold that partly fuelled the 1980's 'economic miracle'. I have to say that Vickers was absolutely notorious for this - buying out a company, running it down, selling off the patents to the highest bidder, flattening the old works and wating until the value of land increased before selling on the lease to make money out of doing nothing.What we have are companies occupying buildings with little regard for the longer term future, most of those companies do not manufacture and do not have that mindset of creation and craft and this seems to me to be reflected in the increasingly short useful life of modern industrial buildings.Housing for the masses has generally been of relatively short life, most of it was not built to last long but even the shoddy Victorian stuff turned out to be better than system built properties such as Airey homes, Hunslet Grange, White City or the Bridlepath estate at Killingbeck.The housing that tends to last is the middle and upper classes but quite often the aspect of the area changes so much that such housing is not really apporpriate for the needs of the more recent inhabitants.I wonder if there has been any recent - in the last 20 years or so - public housing built that does have a look of permanence about it, I cannot imagine the Holt Park Estate will be there in 50 years. The only things that spring to mind are the conversions and revamps around Woodhouse of much older housing, and these side almost side by side with more modern ones that are already well on their way to being the next generation of slums.

[munki]

It's worth pointing out, of course, that not everything that the Victorians put up, stayed up. & I'm sure that some of it was pulled down in the lifetime of its constructors...Perhaps we have a slightly false impression that Victorians built things to last, simply because the Victorian things that we see around us, obviously have lasted!!!

[cnosni]

Perhaps 200 years down the line Leeds may be regarded for its Victorian/Edwardina buildings as the same way York is viewed for its Medieaval structures.I think the long and the short of it is that when i look at the remaining Vitorian/Edwardian buildings i see detail,craftsmenship and pride.I dont see the poor living standards that the people who built it lived in,and being a family historian i certainly do appreciate how wretched conditions were for the lower classses at this time.This is the same when you see the Colloseum,The Pyramids or the Taj Mahal.I see the grandeur and scale,and yes,the sense of longevity that they possess.I sincerely hope that the buildings we have sprouting up today,such as lumiere,will also have a similar effect on our future Loiners.

[chameleon]

munki wrote: It's worth pointing out, of course, that not everything that the Victorians put up, stayed up. & I'm sure that some of it was pulled down in the lifetime of its constructors...Perhaps we have a slightly false impression that Victorians built things to last, simply because the Victorian things that we see around us, obviously have lasted!!! You're right of course munki - but it does seem that many 'landmark' (hate that term!) buildings which appear with a blaze of glory, do seem to have a short life expectancy.Some of course come to the end of the life, albeit prematurely in some instances, but equally many are torn down in the name of progress and betterment.

[Trojan]

cnosni wrote: Perhaps 200 years down the line Leeds may beI dont see the poor living standards that the people who built it lived in,and being a family historian i certainly do appreciate how wretched conditions were for the lower classses at this time. That's exactly right - and not just in the nineteenth century - well into the twentieth. The results of rickets - k legs, bow legs were very common sights in the older generation when I was a kid in the fifties. Malnutrition was rife - not enough to eat basically. My mother's sister died from the measles before she was nine. My father was dead at fifty one, his younger sister and elder brother didn't see 65. The two elder siblings lived to ripe old ages - one to 85 and the other to 93. Why? Well at a guess when they were small children there was plenty of good food to go around - as the family grew there was less and less wholesome food to eat. Presumably they didn't develop the constitution needed for a long life. (only guesswork of course)