Dorman Long Tower - Listed Building Status

Ex pfc wintergreen

Well-known member
I'm not. It just upsets me. We know politicians are corrupt, they always have been. There is a new level of corruption happening here and it's being allowed by people like you supporting it.
I believedthe tower should be demolished, it has been. The tower was listed and delisted in a week, I’ve said if the decision making needs investigating let those who have access to all material do it,not leave it to message board conjecture. Your stance is if you’re not with us your against us. Ask yourself who’s viewpoint is the most balanced.
 

tripleheader

Well-known member
The point is the money will go elsewhere in the country instead of us having a grade 2 listed monument. Having something is better than not having something.. I’ve tried explained it every other way.
Well I can think of a couple of pubs close to the Riverside and waste ground that could do with some investment which may or maybe not listed.
 

SmallTown

Well-known member
Your delightful trust of those in power is quite enchantingly naïve.

"Leave it to my betters"

What could possibly go wrong?
TBF I don't think it is touchingly naïve. It's hypocritical. I imagine if it hadn't been Tory politicians behaving in that way his sanguine and laissez faire attitude towards rampant corruption wouldn't have been as evident
 

tripleheader

Well-known member
Thats not the point. I think we've said that its a split on whether the tower should have been knocked down. The issue is how quickly the culture war secretary acted, and how its because the mayor stands to profit. That's the issue
You can argue as much as you like, decisions were made for I believe the right reasons and you can believe in what you like. It's done.
 

Ex pfc wintergreen

Well-known member
TBF I don't think it is touchingly naïve. It's hypocritical. I imagine if it hadn't been Tory politicians behaving in that way his sanguine and laissez faire attitude towards rampant corruption wouldn't have been as evident
You're beyond help, from Maggie Thatcher to Geuvara is quite a volte face, 😆
 

newyddion

Well-known member
What Ben Houchen said isn't relevant to the point I asked you to address and have now completely ignored. I am talking about the independent full inspection report carried out by Atkins in August.

I've addressed it time and time again and it's like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. You're not interest, you don't care and I'm completely wasting my time even engaging with you.
 

MFP

Well-known member
I've addressed it time and time again and it's like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. You're not interest, you don't care and I'm completely wasting my time even engaging with you.
Not once have you addressed the statement in the Atkins report that, even with the needs to repair and maintain the building, that it would need pulling down in 15-20 years anyway. You've also twice stated that the reported funds needed for this are exaggerated and wrong, yet made zero effort to support this with any evidence or report to counter Atkins' claims.

I think the reason you're banging your head because you're too emotionally invested in this to argue with any logic and reason, which is one reason you've resorted to repeating malicious and untrue claims about posters on here who have challenged you.

So I will put it another way; what reason was there in committing great costs to a tower that has no use nor purpose, when it inevitably would be demolished with two decades and done so at a price greater price than today?
 

Ex pfc wintergreen

Well-known member
I've addressed it time and time again and it's like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. You're not interest, you don't care and I'm completely wasting my time even engaging with you.
The whole thread has turned out like that,anyhoo furnace next,.😆
( As far as I can remember the chimneys for the pellet and sinter plant are precast concrete rather than the traditional steel or brick,bit of brutalist architecture for you there, very expensive because the council demanded they be white to blend in on the skyline,but they had to e ringed at the top with steel anyway which defeated the point. Close up they are not smooth but have flutes down them.)
 

newyddion

Well-known member
Not once have you addressed the statement in the Atkins report that, even with the needs to repair and maintain the building, that it would need pulling down in 15-20 years anyway. You've also twice stated that the reported funds needed for this are exaggerated and wrong, yet made zero effort to support this with any evidence or report to counter Atkins' claims.

I think the reason you're banging your head because you're too emotionally invested in this to argue with any logic and reason, which is one reason you've resorted to repeating malicious and untrue claims about posters on here who have challenged you.

So I will put it another way; what reason was there in committing great costs to a tower that has no use nor purpose, when it inevitably would be demolished with two decades and done so at a price greater price than today?

1632250669839.png
Rev 01 Draft 09/08/2021
Rev 02 Draft Final for Client 13/08/2021
Rev 03 FINAL 27/08/2021 - Created using Foxit PhantomPDF Printer Version 10.1.4.3543 - 27/08/2021 at 13:02:46

Revision No.3 of the document shows (bearing in mind this has been prepared by a the company paid by the guy wanting to demolish the structure)

1632250773061.png

TITLE - 15 to 20 Year Life, No public access

Initial cost of an all singing all dancing repair, renovation, fixing up et etc £4.7m

Then a inspection repair allowance has been included of £325k every five years
(its stood for 65 years untouched and it in solid condition)
2026 - £325k
2029 - £325k
2034 - £325k
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
£975,000* allowing for inflation this has been bumped up to £2m
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL £6.7m (£335k per year over 20 years) arts council funding had already been secured for a project on the site and heritage funding would have no doubt followed. NOT NHS MONEY AS CLAIMED

It's interesting that there is a separate column which reads 3 cycles of maintenance to extend the life by 15-20 years so on top of the all singing all dancing repair & renovation and on top of the inspection and repair allowance.. there has been a separate column which is somewhat redundant. I wouldn't be surprised to see in an earlier revision this showing the estimated costs of extending the life of the tower another 45-60 years.

PROJECTED End Cost for Demolition £2.5m allowing for inflation this cannot be included in a cost to save a protected grade 2 listed building


TOTAL £6.7m over 20 years

It COULD cost not would cost. Bearing in mind that £1m of tax payers money was spent on destroying our heritage asset 60 hours after the delisting.

There was no cost to keep the tower how it was at that moment in time saying the listing would have cost over £9m was misleading, no reference has been made to the value of the heritage asset i.e. how much it would cost to build a structure and what it's worth would have been to the local economy over a period of 20 years or even 45-60 years.

I personally think that £6.7m is on the steep end for the works that need to be carried out and other professionals have intimated the same. But lets have a look at the cost of some public works of art and have a guess at how long they are going to be arounds for..

The Vessel by Thomas Heatherwick (New York, New York) final cost is estimated at $200 million

ArcelorMittal Orbit by Anish Kapoor (London, England) $36 million

Cloud Gate by Anish Kapoor (Chicago, Illinois) $25 million

Balloon Flower (Red) by Jeff Koons (New York, New York) $25 million

Roden Crater by James Turrell (near Flagstaff, Arizona) between $15 million and $25 million

Maman by Louise Bourgeois (Bilbao, Spain) $10 million
 

newyddion

Well-known member
The whole thread has turned out like that,anyhoo furnace next,.😆
( As far as I can remember the chimneys for the pellet and sinter plant are precast concrete rather than the traditional steel or brick,bit of brutalist architecture for you there, very expensive because the council demanded they be white to blend in on the skyline,but they had to e ringed at the top with steel anyway which defeated the point. Close up they are not smooth but have flutes down them.)
Brutalist architecture is an architectural style it's not just anything made of concrete. Thanks for your input I appreciate your take on things and your opinion of the structure. I'm going to leave it at that I don't think there any more to say on the subject, the facts are the facts and to quote a very wise man.

"it is what it is"
 

Ex pfc wintergreen

Well-known member
Brutalist architecture is an architectural style it's not just anything made of concrete. Thanks for your input I appreciate your take on things and your opinion of the structure. I'm going to leave it at that I don't think there any more to say on the subject, the facts are the facts and to quote a very wise man.

"it is what it is"
The ridges down its length instead n being smooth faced is the Unusual feature for a ultilarian item. And the sheer unfeasible economics of the tower was my main objection to it, quite liked it's design from certain angles. My sister showed me a picture of the Cleveland lackenby skyline from the top of whalehill bank ( where we lived) from the early seventies. Clay lane furnaces, coke ovens, quenching tower, all in the picture. I intend to take a picture as a comparison soon.
 

MFP

Well-known member
I really don't think you can just insert your own unqualified opinion and conjecture into this topic and present it as objective truth.
"its stood for 65 years untouched and it in solid condition"
"I wouldn't be surprised to see in an earlier revision this showing the estimated costs of extending the life of the tower another 45-60 years."

These aren't facts supported by anything of substance. They certainly are not the findings of the independent experts who carried out this review. They are merely your inventions that contradict the report done by experts because you don't want to accept their findings.
It wasn't in a solid condition (endemic concrete carbonation causing reinforcement corrosion and concrete ‘spalling’ – described as ongoing and not reversible) and there's no evidence it could have stood for another 45-60 years (they literally explain why in the executive summary). You want this to be true to qualify your position that demolishing it was wrong, but the evidence points to it being doomed before any decision was actually made to bring it down.
 

newyddion

Well-known member
I really don't think you can just insert your own unqualified opinion and conjecture into this topic and present it as objective truth.
"its stood for 65 years untouched and it in solid condition"
"I wouldn't be surprised to see in an earlier revision this showing the estimated costs of extending the life of the tower another 45-60 years."

These aren't facts supported by anything of substance. They certainly are not the findings of the independent experts who carried out this review. They are merely your inventions that contradict the report done by experts because you don't want to accept their findings.
It wasn't in a solid condition (endemic concrete carbonation causing reinforcement corrosion and concrete ‘spalling’ – described as ongoing and not reversible) and there's no evidence it could have stood for another 45-60 years (they literally explain why in the executive summary). You want this to be true to qualify your position that demolishing it was wrong, but the evidence points to it being doomed before any decision was actually made to bring it down.
The report was threadbare failing to carry out the technical investigate work necessary to reach the conclusions regarding its deterioration. The absence of carbonation testing that is used to assess corrosion in steel reinforcement is missing. Instead we got a visual inspection which cannot state that deterioration is detrimental. This bit of the report reaches a conclusion without the necessary evidence.
The report notes there were no imminent risk of collapse suggesting no safety reasons for the rapid demolition (the key reason given for the rush) Instead Ben Houchen and Jacob Young continued up until the last moment that it was unsafe. A statement that is categorically untue. The claim that any work carried out would only expand the lifespan by 20yrs were false. What the report says that after the initial 20yr period it would require more work. All buildings require regular maintenance. This one is old and has had no work carried out on it for +50yrs. The report concludes that it is in a state of disrepair (due to the age), but also that it could have been saved with the will to do so. With regards to the £8m to save it, there is no evidence of this calculation in the report and it appears to be a unqualified ball park figure, rather than one costed and qualified. A guess - that's it. This wasn't a good outcome for Teesside and its loss is the direct fault of the Mayor's Teesworks team. The listing granted the opportunity to gain access to millions, and instead the Mayor chose to spend money on demolition - £1m as stated in the report. The saving of £1m spent on demolition, and with the £1.5m overspend on the Mayors new gateway building at the Teesworks site alone would have created a £2.5m budget. That would have been match funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund. Giving a £5m budget to repair and save it. Much more than even the £4.7m the Akins report said was needed to repair & renovate to a high standard. We'll never know if supporters would have been able to raise the further £1.1m that would have turned the Dorman Long Tower into a high class visitors centre.. judging by the worldwide interest in the building and given it's huge architectural interest I would say it was most defiantly within the realms of possibility. The craziest thing of all is that for all the work that would have gone on from campaigners and heritage organisations Ben Houchen himself would have been credited with the successful saving and restoration along with Jacob Young.
 
Last edited:

MFP

Well-known member
What are your expertise in this matter that you're so assured the independent report from Atkins is wrong? You seem content dismissing literally everything in their analysis, going as far to outright lie about the content, doing so without anything to support it other than you own opinion, and I don't know why you would think that is acceptable.
You state both Young and Houchen claimed the building was unsafe, but then ironically use the findings of the report to point out that, because they say there is no immediate risk of collapse, this contradicts them, yet the very same report does say the building is unsafe, not only to enter, but with falling debris externally, so they're not wrong are they claiming it is unsafe?

Untitled.jpg

The claim that any work carried out would only expand the lifespan by 20yrs were false. What the report says that after the initial 20yr period it would require more work.
False because you say so, or false because you have independent analysis from qualified, experienced structural engineers that categorically states so?

Also, the report doesn't says after 20 years it would require more work. It makes it very clear that this isn't possible and is repeated throughout, so either you haven't read the report, or thought you could get away lying about it. Either way, whilst I get you have an emotional connection to the tower, you really are resorting to some desperate measures here.

Untitled2.jpg
 

zzzzz

Well-known member
Love the blast furnace outline at Redcar. Iconic. Historical. Cultural. Etched into the very fabric of our heritage.

Nah. A complete derelict eyesore. Just the same as the Dorman Long Tower.

My point being how far do you go? Is every piece of scrap with an historical link to the area to be saved?
 
Top
X