You must log in or register to comment.

Buck_Thorn t1_jbqspl6 wrote

God, I wish that would happen here in the U.S. once in a while.


lyfe_is_a_nyghtmare t1_jbqsxgr wrote

But muh gentrified apartment buildings!


Buck_Thorn t1_jbqtavr wrote

I fully realize that 170 year old building is nothing in much of the world, but here it is the beginning of our history. Sad. At least they are preserving the building, but it just isn't the same when the context has changed. And for what? Hamburgers. Hamburgers and beer.


hatersaurusrex t1_jbr71z6 wrote

Since Nashville exploded recently, developers have been falling over themselves trying to build Tall&Skinnies on every square inch of space they can.

A few years back, they started demolishing historic studios on Music Row to build apartment buildings, and it took a concerted historical preservation effort to keep them from basically levelling the place and building apartments on its corpse - which then ironically would be marketed as 'Historic Music Row Apartments'


1337duck t1_jbrt0n1 wrote

> Tall&Skinnies

That seems to be the name of the game everywhere. Those townhouses look like shit.


aLittleQueer t1_jbs4873 wrote

Their floor-plans are shit, too. Plenty of square-footage, but no actual floor space b/c that footage is divided between 3 levels and full of stairwells. ie - 1200 sq/ft with no room for furniture. But hey, at least they have the curb appeal of medieval tenements. Who wouldn't want in on that?^/s


1337duck t1_jbs4j8p wrote

Also, stairs count for sqft for 2 floors! So you actually have less space than you even thought!


danielv123 t1_jbuichc wrote

Wait what? That makes no sense! If anything, they shouldn't count for either floor!


1337duck t1_jbujorn wrote

That's what multiple real estate agents told me.

It's possible they are all lying.

According to google search of "does stairs count to sqft"

> Stairs: Runs/treads and landings both count in square footage totals. They are measured as a part of the floor “from which they descend,” so are generally counted twice in a typical two-story home with a basement.


jimicus t1_jbtodyb wrote

My wife fell for that one in our house right now. The open plan layout downstairs means we have plenty of square footage, but the living room is also a corridor to the kitchen and we have little wall space to put furniture against or hang pictures.


aLittleQueer t1_jbu4aat wrote

I'm so sorry. My ex almost pulled me into one of those, as well...until I asked him, "Okay, so where do we put the piano?" I play professionally, so it's non-negotiable. Even with literally the smallest acoustic spinet piano ever built, smaller than an average buffet side-board, there still was no place to put it. Where are you supposed to put a sofa or a table & chairs in a space like that??

Oh also, similar to what you have, in the one he wanted the "kitchen" was a corridor to the living room. Literally - front door/main entrance fed into the kitchen. Like it was designed by someone who's never spent time in a house before. In fact, that kitchen had definite afterthought vibes. ("Is it a pantry or a coat closet?" Realtor: "Y-yes?") The one thing that property did have going for it was plenty of gallery walls, since it was three levels and all vertical space. Perfect for an art collector who isn't going to actually live there. Smh.


jimicus t1_jbudhv2 wrote

The really aggravating thing is, we've lived in a house where a room doubled up as a corridor before. We knew damn well it didn't work.

But there aren't a great many houses in this town and they're almost all built to one of a couple of designs, all of which have this problem.


firebat45 t1_jbu7ow9 wrote

Skinny homes are just mobile homes cut in half and stacked. With the added benefit of losing floorspace to stairs.


Buck_Thorn t1_jbrc0x6 wrote

That's sad. Lots of fame and lots of failures came out of those buildings!


Siege40k t1_jbths1j wrote

I work with the company who does most of this preservation work. They’re trying to stop unfettered development destroying historical buildings.

I will say. The parks service in the us does not mess about if you destroy a federally registered building.


Sophisticated_T-Rex t1_jbrtpit wrote

You should tell them congratulations!

Their NIMBY-ing successfully prevented new housing units from being constructed and entering the market, further exacerbating the housing crisis!


hatersaurusrex t1_jbruo63 wrote

Yes, let's all weep over the sore lack of available 500sqft $2M condos in a city full of 500sqft $2M condos


Sophisticated_T-Rex t1_jbrvd4p wrote

"New housing shouldn't be built because it won't cater to me!"

Living up to your name, hatersaurusrex


hatersaurusrex t1_jbrvkzt wrote

Won't somebody please think of the millionaires?


Sophisticated_T-Rex t1_jbrw4h4 wrote

Hey genius, guess what:

The cost of housing is based off of supply and demand. Right now there's an assload of demand and no supply. You know what will happen if you let them continue building their 500sqft condos instead of kicking and cryinf about new development like a five year old? Eventually, the supply will grow to a point where it equalizes with demand and gasp prices will drop!


Takenabe t1_jbrxj7t wrote

Fellas, please. This dino on dino violence has to end.


TwentySevenNihilists t1_jbsfz7g wrote

You're higoddamnlarious. Housing costs are never going to significantly drop in a US metro area unless the city is abandoned.

Everyone's answer to the housing crisis is to build more housing, but I don't hear a lot about where that housing is going to go. Try to put it in any city's historic district, and your are not going to get affordable housing for normal people.

You want affordable housing where I live, you have to move way the fuck out of the city (or start collecting roommates). Once you find affordable rent, your transportation costs have sky-rocketed.

The old "supply and demand" mantra isn't holding up so well after 2.5 centuries. They didn't have Airbnb, Berkshire Hathaway, or rent optimizing algorithms in 1776.


Mikeavelli t1_jbrq2c4 wrote

On the other hand, sometimes these laws are used for ridiculous or corrupt reasons.


Gingeraffe42 t1_jbtscj1 wrote

Yeah literally all of CA is in a housing crisis because of old rich folks abusing housing laws to the fullest extent possible


Zambito t1_jbtq9xk wrote

Well that was an infuriating read. "We want the real estate this historic building is on, also we want the historic building as a second home down the road. Oh, and the city should help pay for this. We're such gracious conservators!"


j-trinity t1_jbtnvle wrote

This is honestly insane considering here in the UK in my literal back garden is a 16th century “wall” that we’re not allowed to get rid of. It’s nothing much at all and isn’t even a full wall, just a foot long bunch of rocks packed together. It’s not even in a part of the UK that’s known for tourism from history fans.


MustLoveAllCats t1_jbreczd wrote

It's just an old house. I can fully appreciate many historical landmarks, but when it's just an old house like this? Eh. Not sad at all to me.


Buck_Thorn t1_jbreo3h wrote

It is the oldest house still standing. It is a touchstone to our past. Maybe you can't appreciate it, but some of us do.


Lendyman t1_jbrn6oc wrote

Especially since Minneapolis has destroyed many of her historic buildings already.


Cayfish t1_jbui6w4 wrote

Apartment buildings are necessary, they are especially useful in the housing crisis. However, if you're going to demolish a historic building for it, make sure the old building is in disrepair and consider whether its historic value if enough to warrant keeping it.


MyDudeNak t1_jbud55i wrote

> stands in contrast to a 2015 city evaluation that deemed it wasn't a "historical resource."

Honestly a dude buying a house and then getting fucked over by flip flopping bureaucrats doesn't feel as good as property developers trying to skirt around the law and getting their just desserts.


vpi6 t1_jbrt7sx wrote

Lol what? Are you living under a rock? It happens all the time here. Historical preservation is out of control in the US. Parking lots have been put under historic preservation lists. My county tried to make a dilapidated dry cleaner a historic building. It was barely 50 years old. All in the name of stopping development at any cost.

I have relatives who live in a “historic district” and it’s just an HOA but worse. Because they’ll fine you for anything and you don’t even get amenities.


aLittleQueer t1_jbs4axi wrote

This is the kind of thing that is very location-dependent.


Important_Collar_36 t1_jbs8qf2 wrote

Not in every part of the US. They're tearing down over half of the 200 year old main street in a town near me. It's near collapse because no one took care of it, and now it's too expensive to repair so the town has to tear it down. People tried for years to get historic recognition for the individual properties but because the buildings were originally built as a complex and not as single structures they wouldn't grant it because parts of the complex of structures had been modified and modernized.


french_sheppard t1_jbtcpn1 wrote

You live in Toronto I'm assuming? This city loves its heritage dry cleaners as much as it loathes new housing


velvetshark t1_jbt1gnf wrote

Your comment is a little disengenuous, if this is the structure you're referring to. It's not just a "dry cleaner", it's a great and preserved example of a type.of architecture. This is "not in the name of stopping development". You may not agree with the reason, but it's not to "stop development at any cost".


vpi6 t1_jbt6u57 wrote

No it wasn’t. It had exactly one notable feature of the architectural style. A ‘floating roof’ aesthetic that was ruined by an addition put in when the building wasn’t even a decade old. The only reason it was a “great example” was because all the better buildings in that style were demolished. But even it is was, the building would not have been worth preserving.

It was built in the 60’s for Christ’s sake and was built to attract car-faring customers. Silver Spring has since grown to be one of the largest places in Maryland. The Silver Spring master plan calls to make the community a more walkable community, especially with a Purple Line station being built close by.

A small one-story building close to downtown and transit was not serving the needs of the community. In case you’re not a local, rents have gone up 20% in Montgomery County and our children are being forced to move away. Think about that before you say you want to preserve an old (but actually fairly new) building whose purpose is out of step with the rest of the community.

It was a good day when the planning board denied the preservation application. Which was imposed by busybodies in the county against the family that owned the building after the dry cleaner failed.


dew22 t1_jbumtvy wrote

It’s a 60 year old building that’s a great example of googie architecture which has been disappearing for decades. Again just because you fail to see historical significance of a building doesn’t mean there is not any historical or architectural significance


vpi6 t1_jbupoyv wrote

Don’t be absurd. That building is completely worthless as an historical place. My county’s own planning board denied the application. Had it gone through, it would have imposed significant and costly restrictions on the unwilling owners and been a net negative for the surrounding community. Turns out preserving debatably pretty looking building don’t help people.

It’s absolutely sickening people valued that building over housing people of my generation. I do not trust the values or basic morals of anyone who thinks that.


dew22 t1_jbuthbb wrote

This isn’t even a debate about the plot being used for housing, it’s about the hideous paint job the new tenants put on the building. Just because the planning board denies it being put on a registry doesn’t mean it’s not worth saving.


vpi6 t1_jbuw5qr wrote

100% wrong. The vote last month was about whether to add the dry cleaner building to the historic register - a process that was already in the works when the new tenants did the paint job. The county took no action about the paint job because it legally could do nothing about it. The family that owned the site and a restaurant next door were hoping to develop the site into something that very likely would have been housing. Something that would have been impossible with the completely unwarranted historical designation forced onto them by stupid people who think it’s their inalienable right to look at old buildings no matter the cost.

If you’re in love with the dry cleaner so much then BUY IT. Don’t use the to coercive powers of the government to maintain it at someone else’s expense. That’s morally reprehensible.


JamesTiberiusCrunk t1_jbtg80j wrote

This building doesn't matter at all. It's 100% pointless to keep it. Housing prices are out of control because we haven't built enough housing for everyone and people like you want to keep ridiculous bullshit like this instead of building places for people to live.


velvetshark t1_jc25uuw wrote

So what housing will be placed where the dry cleaner was?


JamesTiberiusCrunk t1_jc28wnj wrote

Well the people who bought it and now can't tear it down said they wanted to build a mid rise apartment building there. So, a bunch of apartments. Did you think this was some kind of trick question?


velvetshark t1_jc29er5 wrote, it was a genuine question. The only thing I found out about the dry cleaner was that it was an example of a particular type of architecture and there was controversy about preserving it. Do you have a link to the article talking about apartments?


velvetshark t1_jc29lhx wrote

Also, the dry cleaner lost it's conservation battle, from what I last read (article from 2022), so why can't they tear it down?


IncognitoBombadillo t1_jbtpu5y wrote

I'm glad that I grew up around an area that had historic buildings to tour. There's one that you can still visit and tour that was the site of a massacre in the revolution.


Barnezhilton t1_jbtcbc4 wrote

The US has 500 year old pubs!?


intdev t1_jbr2skj wrote

You’d need some proper history first ;)


Buck_Thorn t1_jbrc3z9 wrote

Your history is as old as you are, our history is as old as we are. Its all relative.


Richinaru t1_jbrs8ii wrote

I think theyre more speaking to the whole centuries of genocide, dishonoring treaties with natives, systemic inequity baked into the constitution...


Important_Collar_36 t1_jbs8st6 wrote

Oh yes, because Merry Old England never did anything like that at all.


Richinaru t1_jbtr9lx wrote

You presume i don't think English history is similarly trash. At least they have something that precedes the genocidal empire. Americas entire history is genocidal conquest and violence. So much so that we've been at war for the majority of our existences since 1776


taptapper t1_jbrt6sc wrote

Now, now, no need for that. We appreciate the age of your shit. I went to some weekly markets in Europe that have been going on since before boats landed at Plymouth. It was amazing.


hiddeninplainsight23 t1_jbs24nb wrote


Hotbacchus123 t1_jbsoix4 wrote

The rebuilt Carlton Tavern is so lovely, architecturally so and otherwise. It's always packed in there!


Taffuardo t1_jbu9ncb wrote

It really is! Great live music there as well ☺️


Embarrassed_Fix9713 t1_jby83m5 wrote

sometimes these laws are used for ridiculous or corrupt reasons.


SpambotSwatter t1_jc1gjwh wrote

/u/Embarrassed_Fix9713 is a scammer! Do not click any links they share or reply to. Please downvote their comment and click the report button, selecting Spam then Harmful bots.

With enough reports, the reddit algorithm will suspend this scammer.

>!^(If this message seems out of context, it may be because Embarrassed_Fix9713 is copying content to farm karma, and deletes their scam activity when called out - Read the pins on my profile for more information.)!<


Sonyguyus t1_jbrd6y9 wrote

That’s one of the most amazing things I’ve read. It’s unheard of here in America. Usually the developer would either bribe the judge or just pay a fine and continue with the new project. “Brick by brick” that’s freaking awesome.


taptapper t1_jbrt02e wrote

Yeah. There was a lovely historic theater on 42nd street that they wanted to replace. The facade was landmarked (art deco) so they couldn't touch it. The developwers removed the WHOLE fucking building and dug a 3 story deep pit. That beautiful 5 or 6 story stone front was perched on the edge of the pit. I went past it on the bus every day and I couldn't believe that was stable. Guess what? it wasn't. It fell into the pit and the assholes got to build their eyesore unimpeded.


GetlostMaps t1_jbrj2jw wrote

Good. Not oniony. Should have to be done with original parts recycled from historic buildings, all by hand.


hiddeninplainsight23 t1_jbs2950 wrote

The original parts are going to be reused


GetlostMaps t1_jbs8rcn wrote

Some of them. If they demolished it most of it will have been destroyed


RealLongwayround t1_jbsfq1l wrote

Did you read the article?


UnacceptableUse t1_jbskq3q wrote

Did you?

> They must go through the rubble of the pub with experts to see which materials might be salvageable and submit this to the council before rebuilding.

> Any materials that are missing will need to be sourced and approved by the council.


uxbridge3000 t1_jbsrcx9 wrote

This comment reminds me of why I dislike most other humans. It's one degree separated from nutjobs claiming originalism to the US Constitution while regulating women from their healthcare choices. People should be free to do what they want and how they want, and in particular with their personal property.


daren5393 t1_jbt8i53 wrote

Dude these people broke the law, that's the issue. The problem isnt that they tore down an old pub per say, it's that so often developers like this just willfully ignore the law, take a slap on the wrist fine, and do whatever they were gonna do anyway. For once, in a different country, a company breaking the law actually had the consequence of them not getting what they wanted out of it. It's refreshing.


uxbridge3000 t1_jbtd6s3 wrote

The laws and beaurocracy of the small-minded to bend the will of others to submission. Because after all, what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too.


MrBlackadder t1_jbtigt7 wrote

The issue, however, is that while they own the pub right now, the history which it represents does not belong to them, it belongs to the nation and that is what the system is there to protect, our national heritage.


uxbridge3000 t1_jbtlt71 wrote

If people were so concerned about national heritage, they would employ the government through their hard-earned tax dollars to purchase the property at a fair rate and conserve that pub to whatever utopian ideal is in their blessed hearts. But no logical government would ever divert its funds to that inane and pointless task, and good for them... Instead, they foist stupid laws upon the property-owners as a surrogate for theft. And that's all this is.


starm4nn t1_jbug4co wrote

Explain why they bought the pub if it was covered under this law.

Or do you think bad businesses should be rewarded?


marrangutang t1_jbt0mi1 wrote

Demolishing without permission is such a naive way of dealing with this sort of situation… round here any historic buildings that are in the way of development mysteriously catch fire


PeterDTown t1_jbujw74 wrote

Any chance you’re in Toronto? It’s like a bad running joke at this point.


TheStupendusMan t1_jbv7otn wrote

Just do what Ford did and take all the heritage pages offline! That'll work!


Kaiserhawk t1_jbt3ex4 wrote

listed buildings are a giant pain in the ass, and the only people who care are fetishists who get off to the idea of "muh heritage" and never actually go and visit the buildings they'll ardently defend online.


windyorbits t1_jbujn92 wrote

I do agree that these building are a giant pain in the butt but I don’t agree with anything else you said.

Now I’m in the USA, so obviously way different circumstances. But many of the older/protected/historically buildings here fall into this weird catch-22. You can purchase these buildings BUT there are so many rules about what you can and can’t not do is so extensive it becomes nearly impossible to renovate/remodel.

For example, not too far from me is this beautiful historical “mansion” that’s been up for sale for 30 years almost. Buyers come to check it out but once they find out what they can’t do they don’t think it’s worth it. I was able to go inside one time and the 1st and 2nd floor combined have about 15 of these teeny tiny little rooms. Which was normal 100+ years ago but not now. There just enough room for a small bed and that’s it.

Pretty much every buyer is like “no problem, we’ll just knock a few walls down to make bigger rooms” but they cant because it’s historically protected. No insulation, no ac/heating, no washer/dryer hookups and none of that can be added. So it just sits there, decade after decade, falling apart.


TheManB1992 t1_jbt5weq wrote

We have Grade II listed council estates and high rises. It's a joke.


taptapper t1_jbru1rf wrote

>the family would face high costs after the order to rebuild the pub and that this could be taken into account in the fine. “Given the defendants have to rebuild the building, we understand they will have financial burdens in that effect.

Fuck that. they should be bankrupted. What's the point of forgiving the fine because they have to pay for their asshole actions?


nolo_me t1_jbs4v73 wrote

You don't think the £1.5m it'll cost will teach them enough of a lesson?


jimicus t1_jbtorcv wrote

Probably not, because builders in the UK have a long and proud history of phoenixing to avoid any legal repercussions.


UnacceptableUse t1_jbsksfw wrote

If they're bankrupted then who is going to rebuild the pub


taptapper t1_jbtd3hi wrote

They weren't going to rebuild the pub, they were going to replace it. The order of fines is: pay to rebuild the pub, then pay the fine. Same as the way everyone does it.


Vesalii t1_jbsjpek wrote

Not sure why this is on this sub. This seems like a fair ruling. They should be glad they didn't even have to pay a fine. Just court costs. I hope this rebuilding takes them to the brim of going bankrupt, but not quite.


Duracted t1_jbyadoe wrote

The 70.000£ included a fine, but the court basically ruled that the rebuilding costing 1.5 million doesn‘t need a big fine on top.


Vesalii t1_jbymn6e wrote

Oh right, I must have misunderstood. Tha ks for clearing thst up.


bocboc11 t1_jbr5ty8 wrote

This sub sucks, how is this oniony


humbalo t1_jbs3vp6 wrote

The American way would be for an oil tycoon to buy the rubble of the English pub and have it rebuilt somewhere in Arizona.


lattermike t1_jbscput wrote

My favourite genre of news story


popsielulur t1_jbtbzlb wrote

My dad points the pile of rubble where it once stood every time we drive past, and as someone who lives there, this is very very funny


Mackhasarack t1_jbto0w6 wrote

I work in heritage conservation and everything has to be taken apart piece by piece, cleaned and labeled accordingly so it goes back together as it was before. This is gonna be a headache and a half for the construction company having just demolished it


Top_Opposites t1_jbsps12 wrote

Yeah rebuild it into a block of flats


hamanger t1_jbtn9k4 wrote

The pub of theseus


ablokeinpf t1_jbtvyfi wrote

I've got no sympathy for them. They knew the planning rules and deliberately chose to ignore them. There's a reason that Britain has some really beautiful buildings and it's not because they've been torn down to build something hideous.


CaptainChaos74 t1_jbs9yvg wrote

Is this old news or did it happen again? I swear I heard this a year ago or more.


CaptainChaos74 t1_jbsgub6 wrote

What a weird thing to keep happening.


CaptainChaos74 t1_jbsj8lm wrote

"If I had a nickel for every time someone was ordered to rebuild a pub they illegally tore down I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice."


Medcait t1_jbsm1ig wrote

This happened so long ago…wait, it happened again?


MeanGreanHare t1_jbugqbw wrote

There was a story in the US a while back about someone who bought a historic house. The house was infested with termites and rot. They calculated the costs and found that it would be considerably more expensive to restore it, than to demolish it and build an identical house. The city council wouldn't have it so they're stuck with it unless a mysterious fire happens.


vpi6 t1_jbrs02k wrote

Why cry over an old building that isn’t even being used for anything anymore? The building was unremarkable when it was first put up and will be unremarkable when it gets rebuilt.


dew22 t1_jbrsyvf wrote

Some people care about their history and buildings associated with it. This isn’t the first time this has happened in the UK and if you allow one property owner to neglect their property into becoming a hazard, it opens the door for others. This is a problem in some areas of the US, property owners buy properties and let them rot into nothing.


vpi6 t1_jbrub18 wrote

“Some people”

I don’t give a flying fucking shit about preserving buildings that have outlived their usefulness. The government cared so much then they should’ve bought the building and restored it. But they didn’t because that costs too much and nobody actually cares enough to pay it. So they just imposed the will of a limited number of people on a property and never allowed the land to be used for people who are actually living there.

You should see the abuse of historical preservation lists. Half of it back door NIMBYism that is driving my rents up and pushing me out of there place I grew up. But sure “history”‘is SO much more important.


dew22 t1_jbs0gdu wrote

Last I checked, some people isn’t all inclusive so I was never implying it was you.

Just because you fail to see the value in historical buildings doesn’t mean there is not value there, but ultimately that’s not what this case was about. This was about setting a precedent about building owners neglecting their buildings to get around historical designations and demoing buildings without permits and permission.


RainbowDissent t1_jbs7b5l wrote

Luckily our councils don't give a flying fuck about the opinion of some random yank about the preservation of our historic buildings older than your entire country ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


nolo_me t1_jbs65as wrote

Great. Nobody gives a flying fucking shit about your ignorant attitude to historical preservation either.

If you cared so much about living in the place you grew up in you should have paid the rent there.

> allow the land to be used for people who are actually living there

What we do over here, because we have more history than a Happy Meal, is preserve significant historic buildings so future generations get the chance to experience them. That's how we go on having more history than a Happy Meal.


vpi6 t1_jbsxuy1 wrote

> If you cared so much about living in the place you grew up in you should have paid the rent there.

That’s a fucked up thing to say to someone.


nolo_me t1_jbsyg8j wrote

> The government cared so much then they should’ve bought the building and restored it

Just turning things you said around on you. If you don't like your own words, maybe you shouldn't have said them in the first place?


vpi6 t1_jbt3cfp wrote

That’s not as clever as you think it is.

In one useless building is demolished.

In the other, a person, a living human being, is forced out of his hometown.

Do you really think my statement comes anywhere close to being as offensive and callous as yours? Explain it to me slowly.


nolo_me t1_jbt56ja wrote

You weren't forced out. You could have just plucked money from the same magic money tree you were expecting the government to use.

Were you forced into some sort of warzone, natural disaster or humanitarian crisis, or did you just have to move to a different town?


TheManB1992 t1_jbt6i30 wrote

Nah, Your not getting it mate. They're saying that history matters, just not yours.


Icy-Letterhead-2837 t1_jbrt0s7 wrote

Wrong. It has historical significance, and NOW it has more. Imagine having to go through and rebuild it with the pile you left there...poetic.


taptapper t1_jbru530 wrote

Because they were told no. If you burn down an abandoned building you still get charged with arson


vpi6 t1_jbruvxb wrote

Sure, but that building should never have been landmarked or whatever the British equivalent is to begin with. Why do people care so much about old buildings that were never meant to last forever. It’s frankly weird.


[deleted] t1_jbr13pl wrote



RainbowDissent t1_jbs72cf wrote

We tend to believe that preserving historic buildings older than your entire country is more valuable than preserving the freedom of cowboy property developers to destroy them without permission.


nolo_me t1_jbs4ysc wrote

Not even remotely. If it's not a listed historic building you can do what you like with it.