Colchester water tower Jumbo up for sale

Essex County Standard: George Braithwaite on the top of Jumbo George Braithwaite on the top of Jumbo

COLCHESTER'S iconic water tower is to be sold.

Developer George Braithwaite today said he had had enough of opposition to his plans to convert Jumbo into luxury flats and offices as well as a restaurant and museum.

After nearly a decade, he revealed he is to put the Grade II listed building back up for sale.

It will be listed for auction next month. He blamed Colchester MP Sir Bob Russell for standing in the way of the development.

He said: "I can't fight that MP. He has ruined it for Colchester, for the country and for the building."

See today's Essex County Standard and Gazette for more on this story.

Comments (64)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:30am Fri 25 Apr 14

seikothrill says...

A tactical fire would be handy
A tactical fire would be handy seikothrill
  • Score: 16

9:32am Fri 25 Apr 14

Say It As It Is OK? says...

Strong words from Mr Braithwaite, who can blame him for cutting his losses. Now perhaps Bob Russell and The Balkerne Gate Trust who were against his plans for Jumbo will come up with the money to buy the building!

Somehow though I suspect they won't bother. Will we see the structure gradually deteriorate even further until it is either demolished or is struck by a mysterious fire?
Strong words from Mr Braithwaite, who can blame him for cutting his losses. Now perhaps Bob Russell and The Balkerne Gate Trust who were against his plans for Jumbo will come up with the money to buy the building! Somehow though I suspect they won't bother. Will we see the structure gradually deteriorate even further until it is either demolished or is struck by a mysterious fire? Say It As It Is OK?
  • Score: 38

10:03am Fri 25 Apr 14

Colonel Kurtz says...

Anything would be better than a empty gutted shell. What a wasted opportunity. Another 5 years of planning and nothing awaits. Who would want to buy something that could not be converted?
Anything would be better than a empty gutted shell. What a wasted opportunity. Another 5 years of planning and nothing awaits. Who would want to buy something that could not be converted? Colonel Kurtz
  • Score: 31

10:15am Fri 25 Apr 14

Boris says...

George Braithwaite's comments have almost certainly improved Bob Russell's chances of getting re-elected next year.
Provided there is no reserve price set, the auction should be the opportunity for Jumbo to be sold for a realistic price to those who will genuinely take care of the building and preserve it for future generations.
George Braithwaite's comments have almost certainly improved Bob Russell's chances of getting re-elected next year. Provided there is no reserve price set, the auction should be the opportunity for Jumbo to be sold for a realistic price to those who will genuinely take care of the building and preserve it for future generations. Boris
  • Score: -23

10:36am Fri 25 Apr 14

The Gazette says...

Boris wrote:
George Braithwaite's comments have almost certainly improved Bob Russell's chances of getting re-elected next year.
Provided there is no reserve price set, the auction should be the opportunity for Jumbo to be sold for a realistic price to those who will genuinely take care of the building and preserve it for future generations.
Here here
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: George Braithwaite's comments have almost certainly improved Bob Russell's chances of getting re-elected next year. Provided there is no reserve price set, the auction should be the opportunity for Jumbo to be sold for a realistic price to those who will genuinely take care of the building and preserve it for future generations.[/p][/quote]Here here The Gazette
  • Score: -24

11:26am Fri 25 Apr 14

greenbroker says...

I would buy up the properties between Jumbo and the High street. Make it a public area including a statue of Sir Bob, complete with underground shopping and a museum. The money earned could be used to preserve Jumbo as a national monument.
I would buy up the properties between Jumbo and the High street. Make it a public area including a statue of Sir Bob, complete with underground shopping and a museum. The money earned could be used to preserve Jumbo as a national monument. greenbroker
  • Score: -14

11:35am Fri 25 Apr 14

Jess Jephcott says...

As the whole planning thing was decided on the basis of the political parties, the best thing to bring change would be a change in leadership in the town hall. It shouldn't be that way but conversion as proposed by Mr Braithwaite is the only thing that will preserve this wonderful building. What sickens me is the fact that politics has anything to do with this. We voted for the shower that governs us so we only have ourselves to blame. Unless, of course, the Balkerne Trust can find enough money to buy the building and to preserve it in aspic, as they clearly want to do. I will put £5000 towards that option. Any other offers?
As the whole planning thing was decided on the basis of the political parties, the best thing to bring change would be a change in leadership in the town hall. It shouldn't be that way but conversion as proposed by Mr Braithwaite is the only thing that will preserve this wonderful building. What sickens me is the fact that politics has anything to do with this. We voted for the shower that governs us so we only have ourselves to blame. Unless, of course, the Balkerne Trust can find enough money to buy the building and to preserve it in aspic, as they clearly want to do. I will put £5000 towards that option. Any other offers? Jess Jephcott
  • Score: 7

11:38am Fri 25 Apr 14

HARRY438 says...

Jumbo-Bob -perrenial white elephant.
Jumbo-Bob -perrenial white elephant. HARRY438
  • Score: 9

11:48am Fri 25 Apr 14

Bert_Stimpson says...

Such a shame so much public money has been wasted on the firsts*ite white elephant at the other end of the High Street.

Just imagine if a portion of that £28m had been used to buy Jumbo and convert it into a viewing platform, restaurant, gallery and function space.

Something that would earn its keep, attract a significant number of visitors and be a real attraction that Colcestrians could be proud of.

We can but dream.
Such a shame so much public money has been wasted on the firsts*ite white elephant at the other end of the High Street. Just imagine if a portion of that £28m had been used to buy Jumbo and convert it into a viewing platform, restaurant, gallery and function space. Something that would earn its keep, attract a significant number of visitors and be a real attraction that Colcestrians could be proud of. We can but dream. Bert_Stimpson
  • Score: 48

1:04pm Fri 25 Apr 14

DL1970 says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
As the whole planning thing was decided on the basis of the political parties, the best thing to bring change would be a change in leadership in the town hall. It shouldn't be that way but conversion as proposed by Mr Braithwaite is the only thing that will preserve this wonderful building. What sickens me is the fact that politics has anything to do with this. We voted for the shower that governs us so we only have ourselves to blame. Unless, of course, the Balkerne Trust can find enough money to buy the building and to preserve it in aspic, as they clearly want to do. I will put £5000 towards that option. Any other offers?
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: As the whole planning thing was decided on the basis of the political parties, the best thing to bring change would be a change in leadership in the town hall. It shouldn't be that way but conversion as proposed by Mr Braithwaite is the only thing that will preserve this wonderful building. What sickens me is the fact that politics has anything to do with this. We voted for the shower that governs us so we only have ourselves to blame. Unless, of course, the Balkerne Trust can find enough money to buy the building and to preserve it in aspic, as they clearly want to do. I will put £5000 towards that option. Any other offers?[/p][/quote]Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. DL1970
  • Score: 7

1:16pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Scoot says...

Perhaps the Planning and highways departments in CBC should buy it and convert it into their own offices. That way they'd be able to spot any available green spaces to allow developers to build houses on as well as see the disaster of a traffic system thanks to the bus lane 'virus' spreading through the town and then no doubt look with glee at the 'To Let' signs multiplying on the high street..
Perhaps the Planning and highways departments in CBC should buy it and convert it into their own offices. That way they'd be able to spot any available green spaces to allow developers to build houses on as well as see the disaster of a traffic system thanks to the bus lane 'virus' spreading through the town and then no doubt look with glee at the 'To Let' signs multiplying on the high street.. Scoot
  • Score: 28

1:30pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Reginald47 says...

What good news. Jumbo is part of the town's history, not a money-making exercise for a Tory property developer.
What good news. Jumbo is part of the town's history, not a money-making exercise for a Tory property developer. Reginald47
  • Score: -24

1:37pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Male Chauvinist Person says...

I did not know Alan Sugar was trying to commit suicide???

Jumbo we have all been stabbed in the back on Jumbo.
I did not know Alan Sugar was trying to commit suicide??? Jumbo we have all been stabbed in the back on Jumbo. Male Chauvinist Person
  • Score: -6

2:28pm Fri 25 Apr 14

The Gazette says...

Reginald47 wrote:
What good news. Jumbo is part of the town's history, not a money-making exercise for a Tory property developer.
here here
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: What good news. Jumbo is part of the town's history, not a money-making exercise for a Tory property developer.[/p][/quote]here here The Gazette
  • Score: -11

2:33pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Jess Jephcott says...

Perhaps Reg should buy it as he is clearly of a philanthropic nature, thinking, as he seems to, that property developers should not make money out of Jumbo. Get real Reg. Why not join me Reg and offer some money to help the BTT to buy Jumbo?
Perhaps Reg should buy it as he is clearly of a philanthropic nature, thinking, as he seems to, that property developers should not make money out of Jumbo. Get real Reg. Why not join me Reg and offer some money to help the BTT to buy Jumbo? Jess Jephcott
  • Score: 4

2:37pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Bert_Stimpson says...

The Gazette wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
What good news. Jumbo is part of the town's history, not a money-making exercise for a Tory property developer.
here here
Hear, hear (usually with a comma and set apart as a self-contained sentence) is the conventional spelling of the colloquial exclamation used to express approval for a speaker or sentiment. It’s essentially short for hear him, hear him or hear this, hear this, where these phrases are a sort of cheer.

Here, here is widely regarded as a misspelling, although it is a common one, and there are ways to logically justify its use. But for what it’s worth, hear, hear is the original form (the Oxford English Dictionary cites examples going back to the 17th century) and is the one listed in dictionaries. English reference books mention here, here only to note that it’s wrong.
[quote][p][bold]The Gazette[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: What good news. Jumbo is part of the town's history, not a money-making exercise for a Tory property developer.[/p][/quote]here here[/p][/quote]Hear, hear (usually with a comma and set apart as a self-contained sentence) is the conventional spelling of the colloquial exclamation used to express approval for a speaker or sentiment. It’s essentially short for hear him, hear him or hear this, hear this, where these phrases are a sort of cheer. Here, here is widely regarded as a misspelling, although it is a common one, and there are ways to logically justify its use. But for what it’s worth, hear, hear is the original form (the Oxford English Dictionary cites examples going back to the 17th century) and is the one listed in dictionaries. English reference books mention here, here only to note that it’s wrong. Bert_Stimpson
  • Score: -10

4:07pm Fri 25 Apr 14

mirokou says...

The only person willing to make the investment has been halted by a group of persons who are stagnated in nostalgia and no foresight. There are plenty examples in London of old integrating with new and still looking amazing , St Pancras station for one.. Such a shame . It will now sit by with 12 foot high weeds unkept and a group of persons holding their "we won placards" on the front of next weeks Evening Gazzette, but failing to do or achieve anything else.. big sigh

How about Wivenhoe's mini jumbo,in comparison,Looks great and no real
change
The only person willing to make the investment has been halted by a group of persons who are stagnated in nostalgia and no foresight. There are plenty examples in London of old integrating with new and still looking amazing , St Pancras station for one.. Such a shame . It will now sit by with 12 foot high weeds unkept and a group of persons holding their "we won placards" on the front of next weeks Evening Gazzette, but failing to do or achieve anything else.. big sigh How about Wivenhoe's mini jumbo,in comparison,Looks great and no real change mirokou
  • Score: 11

4:26pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Monkey1980 says...

The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?
The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage? Monkey1980
  • Score: -1

5:05pm Fri 25 Apr 14

wardyt says...

Perhpas Nob Russell should buy it, urn it in to his offices and then get the tax payer to pay for it. Whoops, he already does that with another property.

It will rot because of polictics.
Perhpas Nob Russell should buy it, urn it in to his offices and then get the tax payer to pay for it. Whoops, he already does that with another property. It will rot because of polictics. wardyt
  • Score: 9

5:11pm Fri 25 Apr 14

wardyt says...

wardyt wrote:
Perhpas Nob Russell should buy it, urn it in to his offices and then get the tax payer to pay for it. Whoops, he already does that with another property. It will rot because of polictics.
*turn

*politics
[quote][p][bold]wardyt[/bold] wrote: Perhpas Nob Russell should buy it, urn it in to his offices and then get the tax payer to pay for it. Whoops, he already does that with another property. It will rot because of polictics.[/p][/quote]*turn *politics wardyt
  • Score: -3

5:19pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Bert_Stimpson wrote:
The Gazette wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
What good news. Jumbo is part of the town's history, not a money-making exercise for a Tory property developer.
here here
Hear, hear (usually with a comma and set apart as a self-contained sentence) is the conventional spelling of the colloquial exclamation used to express approval for a speaker or sentiment. It’s essentially short for hear him, hear him or hear this, hear this, where these phrases are a sort of cheer.

Here, here is widely regarded as a misspelling, although it is a common one, and there are ways to logically justify its use. But for what it’s worth, hear, hear is the original form (the Oxford English Dictionary cites examples going back to the 17th century) and is the one listed in dictionaries. English reference books mention here, here only to note that it’s wrong.
Bert, you do really need to get out more.
[quote][p][bold]Bert_Stimpson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Gazette[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: What good news. Jumbo is part of the town's history, not a money-making exercise for a Tory property developer.[/p][/quote]here here[/p][/quote]Hear, hear (usually with a comma and set apart as a self-contained sentence) is the conventional spelling of the colloquial exclamation used to express approval for a speaker or sentiment. It’s essentially short for hear him, hear him or hear this, hear this, where these phrases are a sort of cheer. Here, here is widely regarded as a misspelling, although it is a common one, and there are ways to logically justify its use. But for what it’s worth, hear, hear is the original form (the Oxford English Dictionary cites examples going back to the 17th century) and is the one listed in dictionaries. English reference books mention here, here only to note that it’s wrong.[/p][/quote]Bert, you do really need to get out more. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 5

5:54pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Monkey1980 wrote:
The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?
"Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?"

My dear Monkey are you receiving treatment in the community, or have you escaped?

It's a f...ing water tower and a pretty boring one too. It's ugly and has dominated the skyline since it was built. Surely there must be something more worthy of our pride.

I say again, it's an ugly utilitarian water tower infested with flying rats. It performed a very useful function in its day. If it was a church or any type of interesting or innovative structure yes, I would agree let's preserve it, but it isn't - it's a boring ugly water tower.

Knock it down and sell the brick as mementos. And if the lib dem's want to lie down in front of the demolition machines - great, only as long as the booby with the yellow waste coat is first in line.
[quote][p][bold]Monkey1980[/bold] wrote: The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?[/p][/quote]"Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?" My dear Monkey are you receiving treatment in the community, or have you escaped? It's a f...ing water tower and a pretty boring one too. It's ugly and has dominated the skyline since it was built. Surely there must be something more worthy of our pride. I say again, it's an ugly utilitarian water tower infested with flying rats. It performed a very useful function in its day. If it was a church or any type of interesting or innovative structure yes, I would agree let's preserve it, but it isn't - it's a boring ugly water tower. Knock it down and sell the brick as mementos. And if the lib dem's want to lie down in front of the demolition machines - great, only as long as the booby with the yellow waste coat is first in line. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -6

6:05pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Boris says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Bert_Stimpson wrote:
The Gazette wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
What good news. Jumbo is part of the town's history, not a money-making exercise for a Tory property developer.
here here
Hear, hear (usually with a comma and set apart as a self-contained sentence) is the conventional spelling of the colloquial exclamation used to express approval for a speaker or sentiment. It’s essentially short for hear him, hear him or hear this, hear this, where these phrases are a sort of cheer.

Here, here is widely regarded as a misspelling, although it is a common one, and there are ways to logically justify its use. But for what it’s worth, hear, hear is the original form (the Oxford English Dictionary cites examples going back to the 17th century) and is the one listed in dictionaries. English reference books mention here, here only to note that it’s wrong.
Bert, you do really need to get out more.
Bert's comment was a valid one, except that he could have said it in one sentence rather than at such length.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bert_Stimpson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Gazette[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: What good news. Jumbo is part of the town's history, not a money-making exercise for a Tory property developer.[/p][/quote]here here[/p][/quote]Hear, hear (usually with a comma and set apart as a self-contained sentence) is the conventional spelling of the colloquial exclamation used to express approval for a speaker or sentiment. It’s essentially short for hear him, hear him or hear this, hear this, where these phrases are a sort of cheer. Here, here is widely regarded as a misspelling, although it is a common one, and there are ways to logically justify its use. But for what it’s worth, hear, hear is the original form (the Oxford English Dictionary cites examples going back to the 17th century) and is the one listed in dictionaries. English reference books mention here, here only to note that it’s wrong.[/p][/quote]Bert, you do really need to get out more.[/p][/quote]Bert's comment was a valid one, except that he could have said it in one sentence rather than at such length. Boris
  • Score: -3

6:07pm Fri 25 Apr 14

wardyt says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Monkey1980 wrote:
The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?
"Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?"

My dear Monkey are you receiving treatment in the community, or have you escaped?

It's a f...ing water tower and a pretty boring one too. It's ugly and has dominated the skyline since it was built. Surely there must be something more worthy of our pride.

I say again, it's an ugly utilitarian water tower infested with flying rats. It performed a very useful function in its day. If it was a church or any type of interesting or innovative structure yes, I would agree let's preserve it, but it isn't - it's a boring ugly water tower.

Knock it down and sell the brick as mementos. And if the lib dem's want to lie down in front of the demolition machines - great, only as long as the booby with the yellow waste coat is first in line.
It's neither boring nor ugly, It is an amazing building.

- Ignorant of Lexden
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monkey1980[/bold] wrote: The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?[/p][/quote]"Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?" My dear Monkey are you receiving treatment in the community, or have you escaped? It's a f...ing water tower and a pretty boring one too. It's ugly and has dominated the skyline since it was built. Surely there must be something more worthy of our pride. I say again, it's an ugly utilitarian water tower infested with flying rats. It performed a very useful function in its day. If it was a church or any type of interesting or innovative structure yes, I would agree let's preserve it, but it isn't - it's a boring ugly water tower. Knock it down and sell the brick as mementos. And if the lib dem's want to lie down in front of the demolition machines - great, only as long as the booby with the yellow waste coat is first in line.[/p][/quote]It's neither boring nor ugly, It is an amazing building. - Ignorant of Lexden wardyt
  • Score: 6

6:32pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

wardyt wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Monkey1980 wrote:
The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?
"Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?"

My dear Monkey are you receiving treatment in the community, or have you escaped?

It's a f...ing water tower and a pretty boring one too. It's ugly and has dominated the skyline since it was built. Surely there must be something more worthy of our pride.

I say again, it's an ugly utilitarian water tower infested with flying rats. It performed a very useful function in its day. If it was a church or any type of interesting or innovative structure yes, I would agree let's preserve it, but it isn't - it's a boring ugly water tower.

Knock it down and sell the brick as mementos. And if the lib dem's want to lie down in front of the demolition machines - great, only as long as the booby with the yellow waste coat is first in line.
It's neither boring nor ugly, It is an amazing building.

- Ignorant of Lexden
I'm sorry but you must please educate me - what is amazing about it? I can only think perhaps the number of bricks? How long it took to build? How much it weighs? How deep the foundations?

Surely Colchestrians can't limit their heritage to an ugly chunk of masonry with square bucket on top.

This town must have something else to be proud of. Or, why not build something new and really worthy of our civic pride in the vast gap when jumbo goes where all the other white elephants end up.

Our town hall is a great building - let's instruct a competition for British architects to offer plans for something equally useful, good to look at and available to all. Competition to be judged by a broad committee of non political Colchestrians.
[quote][p][bold]wardyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monkey1980[/bold] wrote: The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?[/p][/quote]"Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?" My dear Monkey are you receiving treatment in the community, or have you escaped? It's a f...ing water tower and a pretty boring one too. It's ugly and has dominated the skyline since it was built. Surely there must be something more worthy of our pride. I say again, it's an ugly utilitarian water tower infested with flying rats. It performed a very useful function in its day. If it was a church or any type of interesting or innovative structure yes, I would agree let's preserve it, but it isn't - it's a boring ugly water tower. Knock it down and sell the brick as mementos. And if the lib dem's want to lie down in front of the demolition machines - great, only as long as the booby with the yellow waste coat is first in line.[/p][/quote]It's neither boring nor ugly, It is an amazing building. - Ignorant of Lexden[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but you must please educate me - what is amazing about it? I can only think perhaps the number of bricks? How long it took to build? How much it weighs? How deep the foundations? Surely Colchestrians can't limit their heritage to an ugly chunk of masonry with square bucket on top. This town must have something else to be proud of. Or, why not build something new and really worthy of our civic pride in the vast gap when jumbo goes where all the other white elephants end up. Our town hall is a great building - let's instruct a competition for British architects to offer plans for something equally useful, good to look at and available to all. Competition to be judged by a broad committee of non political Colchestrians. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -7

6:37pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Boris wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Bert_Stimpson wrote:
The Gazette wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
What good news. Jumbo is part of the town's history, not a money-making exercise for a Tory property developer.
here here
Hear, hear (usually with a comma and set apart as a self-contained sentence) is the conventional spelling of the colloquial exclamation used to express approval for a speaker or sentiment. It’s essentially short for hear him, hear him or hear this, hear this, where these phrases are a sort of cheer.

Here, here is widely regarded as a misspelling, although it is a common one, and there are ways to logically justify its use. But for what it’s worth, hear, hear is the original form (the Oxford English Dictionary cites examples going back to the 17th century) and is the one listed in dictionaries. English reference books mention here, here only to note that it’s wrong.
Bert, you do really need to get out more.
Bert's comment was a valid one, except that he could have said it in one sentence rather than at such length.
My point exactly. He really does need to get at more often.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bert_Stimpson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Gazette[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: What good news. Jumbo is part of the town's history, not a money-making exercise for a Tory property developer.[/p][/quote]here here[/p][/quote]Hear, hear (usually with a comma and set apart as a self-contained sentence) is the conventional spelling of the colloquial exclamation used to express approval for a speaker or sentiment. It’s essentially short for hear him, hear him or hear this, hear this, where these phrases are a sort of cheer. Here, here is widely regarded as a misspelling, although it is a common one, and there are ways to logically justify its use. But for what it’s worth, hear, hear is the original form (the Oxford English Dictionary cites examples going back to the 17th century) and is the one listed in dictionaries. English reference books mention here, here only to note that it’s wrong.[/p][/quote]Bert, you do really need to get out more.[/p][/quote]Bert's comment was a valid one, except that he could have said it in one sentence rather than at such length.[/p][/quote]My point exactly. He really does need to get at more often. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -10

7:21pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Male Chauvinist Person says...

The Gazette wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
What good news. Jumbo is part of the town's history, not a money-making exercise for a Tory property developer.
here here
according to BORING BORIS from the International Academy Of Old F**ts
its hear hear.
[quote][p][bold]The Gazette[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: What good news. Jumbo is part of the town's history, not a money-making exercise for a Tory property developer.[/p][/quote]here here[/p][/quote]according to BORING BORIS from the International Academy Of Old F**ts its hear hear. Male Chauvinist Person
  • Score: 5

7:40pm Fri 25 Apr 14

tallbird says...

Can I just mention the arts Centre, a converted building still keeps it's looks , but is useful to the community. If we want to keep jumbo then it needs to be useful, otherwise, as someone mentioned above,it will rot till it falls down, or it will mysteriously burst into flames!!
Can I just mention the arts Centre, a converted building still keeps it's looks , but is useful to the community. If we want to keep jumbo then it needs to be useful, otherwise, as someone mentioned above,it will rot till it falls down, or it will mysteriously burst into flames!! tallbird
  • Score: 9

7:47pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Fnagster says...

If Mr. Braithwaite had proposed to convert it into a series of luxury apartments that would be given to expanding families with non working parent(s) at the tax payers expense then I am sure it would have been approved.

Now we're just going to have a large, useless, empty, ugly building at one end of the high street and Jumbo at the other!
If Mr. Braithwaite had proposed to convert it into a series of luxury apartments that would be given to expanding families with non working parent(s) at the tax payers expense then I am sure it would have been approved. Now we're just going to have a large, useless, empty, ugly building at one end of the high street and Jumbo at the other! Fnagster
  • Score: 4

8:30pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Count me in says...

I'm sure Jumbo could be a wonderful emblem for Colchester. Sadly it is destined to remain an eyesore until it either falls or burns down because the cost of improving and maintaining it is too high. The last set of plans for Jumbo would have changed the building but it would have survived. Now the future is uncertain and the tower is a hideous wreck welcoming Colchester's visitors. Put up, shut up or pull it down!
I'm sure Jumbo could be a wonderful emblem for Colchester. Sadly it is destined to remain an eyesore until it either falls or burns down because the cost of improving and maintaining it is too high. The last set of plans for Jumbo would have changed the building but it would have survived. Now the future is uncertain and the tower is a hideous wreck welcoming Colchester's visitors. Put up, shut up or pull it down! Count me in
  • Score: 2

8:30pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Fnagster wrote:
If Mr. Braithwaite had proposed to convert it into a series of luxury apartments that would be given to expanding families with non working parent(s) at the tax payers expense then I am sure it would have been approved. Now we're just going to have a large, useless, empty, ugly building at one end of the high street and Jumbo at the other!
Surely you mean that's ugly buildings at both ends of the town.
[quote][p][bold]Fnagster[/bold] wrote: If Mr. Braithwaite had proposed to convert it into a series of luxury apartments that would be given to expanding families with non working parent(s) at the tax payers expense then I am sure it would have been approved. Now we're just going to have a large, useless, empty, ugly building at one end of the high street and Jumbo at the other![/p][/quote]Surely you mean that's ugly buildings at both ends of the town. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -4

8:46pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

tallbird wrote:
Can I just mention the arts Centre, a converted building still keeps it's looks , but is useful to the community. If we want to keep jumbo then it needs to be useful, otherwise, as someone mentioned above,it will rot till it falls down, or it will mysteriously burst into flames!!
Tall bird, good point. Why not post a competition for British architects to offer a low cost conversion of Jumbo to a sustainable venue, maybe a few small studios for performing arts - young persons theatre - occasional markets for whatever - new visitor centre with high level viewing gallery - coffee shop. Could be quite an inspiring project. It would still be an ugly water tower but with a purpose for all to embrace.

Above all in its aims and ambitions only to be managed by local volunteers with no fat salaried carpet baggers.

Any takers?
[quote][p][bold]tallbird[/bold] wrote: Can I just mention the arts Centre, a converted building still keeps it's looks , but is useful to the community. If we want to keep jumbo then it needs to be useful, otherwise, as someone mentioned above,it will rot till it falls down, or it will mysteriously burst into flames!![/p][/quote]Tall bird, good point. Why not post a competition for British architects to offer a low cost conversion of Jumbo to a sustainable venue, maybe a few small studios for performing arts - young persons theatre - occasional markets for whatever - new visitor centre with high level viewing gallery - coffee shop. Could be quite an inspiring project. It would still be an ugly water tower but with a purpose for all to embrace. Above all in its aims and ambitions only to be managed by local volunteers with no fat salaried carpet baggers. Any takers? Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -5

9:04pm Fri 25 Apr 14

greenbroker says...

Angry of Lexden with your attitude there would be no Stonehenge. To you it's just a pile of stones.
Angry of Lexden with your attitude there would be no Stonehenge. To you it's just a pile of stones. greenbroker
  • Score: 3

10:32pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

greenbroker wrote:
Angry of Lexden with your attitude there would be no Stonehenge. To you it's just a pile of stones.
Gb, there is no comparison. One is an ancient monument steeped in the physical and mystical curiosity of why it's there, and how did the ancients raise such an amazing structure. And then the is Jumbo.

Gb will you be fighting soon to preserve the pre cast concrete eloquence that is the facade of W&G?. We could end up totally constipated, in the architectural sense, with no meeting of practical and commercial needs with some really hideous useless buildings.

I personally believe sometimes there is a time to make way for new architectural opportunity by knocking some of the old stuff down. That doesn't mean such old buildings have always been toot, but that their day use has passed.
[quote][p][bold]greenbroker[/bold] wrote: Angry of Lexden with your attitude there would be no Stonehenge. To you it's just a pile of stones.[/p][/quote]Gb, there is no comparison. One is an ancient monument steeped in the physical and mystical curiosity of why it's there, and how did the ancients raise such an amazing structure. And then the is Jumbo. Gb will you be fighting soon to preserve the pre cast concrete eloquence that is the facade of W&G?. We could end up totally constipated, in the architectural sense, with no meeting of practical and commercial needs with some really hideous useless buildings. I personally believe sometimes there is a time to make way for new architectural opportunity by knocking some of the old stuff down. That doesn't mean such old buildings have always been toot, but that their day use has passed. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -5

10:54pm Fri 25 Apr 14

DL1970 says...

mirokou wrote:
The only person willing to make the investment has been halted by a group of persons who are stagnated in nostalgia and no foresight. There are plenty examples in London of old integrating with new and still looking amazing , St Pancras station for one.. Such a shame . It will now sit by with 12 foot high weeds unkept and a group of persons holding their "we won placards" on the front of next weeks Evening Gazzette, but failing to do or achieve anything else.. big sigh

How about Wivenhoe's mini jumbo,in comparison,Looks great and no real
change
Wivenhoe water tower has had no real change? Aside from the replacement of the entire cast iron water tank with glass panels which are completely different in colour and appearance, the addition of a modern balcony constructed with modern 'I' beams, totally out of character for a building of 1901, and two huge windows cut in the rear elevation.
[quote][p][bold]mirokou[/bold] wrote: The only person willing to make the investment has been halted by a group of persons who are stagnated in nostalgia and no foresight. There are plenty examples in London of old integrating with new and still looking amazing , St Pancras station for one.. Such a shame . It will now sit by with 12 foot high weeds unkept and a group of persons holding their "we won placards" on the front of next weeks Evening Gazzette, but failing to do or achieve anything else.. big sigh How about Wivenhoe's mini jumbo,in comparison,Looks great and no real change[/p][/quote]Wivenhoe water tower has had no real change? Aside from the replacement of the entire cast iron water tank with glass panels which are completely different in colour and appearance, the addition of a modern balcony constructed with modern 'I' beams, totally out of character for a building of 1901, and two huge windows cut in the rear elevation. DL1970
  • Score: 4

11:15pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Count me in wrote:
I'm sure Jumbo could be a wonderful emblem for Colchester. Sadly it is destined to remain an eyesore until it either falls or burns down because the cost of improving and maintaining it is too high. The last set of plans for Jumbo would have changed the building but it would have survived. Now the future is uncertain and the tower is a hideous wreck welcoming Colchester's visitors. Put up, shut up or pull it down!
The latter please asap.
[quote][p][bold]Count me in[/bold] wrote: I'm sure Jumbo could be a wonderful emblem for Colchester. Sadly it is destined to remain an eyesore until it either falls or burns down because the cost of improving and maintaining it is too high. The last set of plans for Jumbo would have changed the building but it would have survived. Now the future is uncertain and the tower is a hideous wreck welcoming Colchester's visitors. Put up, shut up or pull it down![/p][/quote]The latter please asap. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -5

11:26pm Fri 25 Apr 14

wardyt says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
wardyt wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Monkey1980 wrote:
The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?
"Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?"

My dear Monkey are you receiving treatment in the community, or have you escaped?

It's a f...ing water tower and a pretty boring one too. It's ugly and has dominated the skyline since it was built. Surely there must be something more worthy of our pride.

I say again, it's an ugly utilitarian water tower infested with flying rats. It performed a very useful function in its day. If it was a church or any type of interesting or innovative structure yes, I would agree let's preserve it, but it isn't - it's a boring ugly water tower.

Knock it down and sell the brick as mementos. And if the lib dem's want to lie down in front of the demolition machines - great, only as long as the booby with the yellow waste coat is first in line.
It's neither boring nor ugly, It is an amazing building.

- Ignorant of Lexden
I'm sorry but you must please educate me - what is amazing about it? I can only think perhaps the number of bricks? How long it took to build? How much it weighs? How deep the foundations?

Surely Colchestrians can't limit their heritage to an ugly chunk of masonry with square bucket on top.

This town must have something else to be proud of. Or, why not build something new and really worthy of our civic pride in the vast gap when jumbo goes where all the other white elephants end up.

Our town hall is a great building - let's instruct a competition for British architects to offer plans for something equally useful, good to look at and available to all. Competition to be judged by a broad committee of non political Colchestrians.
I think it's iconic and a wonderful piece of Victorian architecture. I love the town hall too and First Site which is a beautiful building which the town hates. I massively dislike the BT building, which looks like a tower of portacabins.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wardyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monkey1980[/bold] wrote: The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?[/p][/quote]"Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?" My dear Monkey are you receiving treatment in the community, or have you escaped? It's a f...ing water tower and a pretty boring one too. It's ugly and has dominated the skyline since it was built. Surely there must be something more worthy of our pride. I say again, it's an ugly utilitarian water tower infested with flying rats. It performed a very useful function in its day. If it was a church or any type of interesting or innovative structure yes, I would agree let's preserve it, but it isn't - it's a boring ugly water tower. Knock it down and sell the brick as mementos. And if the lib dem's want to lie down in front of the demolition machines - great, only as long as the booby with the yellow waste coat is first in line.[/p][/quote]It's neither boring nor ugly, It is an amazing building. - Ignorant of Lexden[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but you must please educate me - what is amazing about it? I can only think perhaps the number of bricks? How long it took to build? How much it weighs? How deep the foundations? Surely Colchestrians can't limit their heritage to an ugly chunk of masonry with square bucket on top. This town must have something else to be proud of. Or, why not build something new and really worthy of our civic pride in the vast gap when jumbo goes where all the other white elephants end up. Our town hall is a great building - let's instruct a competition for British architects to offer plans for something equally useful, good to look at and available to all. Competition to be judged by a broad committee of non political Colchestrians.[/p][/quote]I think it's iconic and a wonderful piece of Victorian architecture. I love the town hall too and First Site which is a beautiful building which the town hates. I massively dislike the BT building, which looks like a tower of portacabins. wardyt
  • Score: 6

11:58pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

wardyt wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
wardyt wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Monkey1980 wrote:
The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?
"Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?"

My dear Monkey are you receiving treatment in the community, or have you escaped?

It's a f...ing water tower and a pretty boring one too. It's ugly and has dominated the skyline since it was built. Surely there must be something more worthy of our pride.

I say again, it's an ugly utilitarian water tower infested with flying rats. It performed a very useful function in its day. If it was a church or any type of interesting or innovative structure yes, I would agree let's preserve it, but it isn't - it's a boring ugly water tower.

Knock it down and sell the brick as mementos. And if the lib dem's want to lie down in front of the demolition machines - great, only as long as the booby with the yellow waste coat is first in line.
It's neither boring nor ugly, It is an amazing building.

- Ignorant of Lexden
I'm sorry but you must please educate me - what is amazing about it? I can only think perhaps the number of bricks? How long it took to build? How much it weighs? How deep the foundations?

Surely Colchestrians can't limit their heritage to an ugly chunk of masonry with square bucket on top.

This town must have something else to be proud of. Or, why not build something new and really worthy of our civic pride in the vast gap when jumbo goes where all the other white elephants end up.

Our town hall is a great building - let's instruct a competition for British architects to offer plans for something equally useful, good to look at and available to all. Competition to be judged by a broad committee of non political Colchestrians.
I think it's iconic and a wonderful piece of Victorian architecture. I love the town hall too and First Site which is a beautiful building which the town hates. I massively dislike the BT building, which looks like a tower of portacabins.
Agree with you on the BT pile - the citizens of Colchester let it happen by passive blinking - and we can't blame big bob on that occasion. I respect your opinion on jumbo, but disagree personally. At 66 I feel let down by so many interfering well expensed politicians who have been pushed about by self serving permanent salaried council officers over time. I'm more than confident to conclude Jumbo is a pile useless masonry.
[quote][p][bold]wardyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wardyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monkey1980[/bold] wrote: The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?[/p][/quote]"Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?" My dear Monkey are you receiving treatment in the community, or have you escaped? It's a f...ing water tower and a pretty boring one too. It's ugly and has dominated the skyline since it was built. Surely there must be something more worthy of our pride. I say again, it's an ugly utilitarian water tower infested with flying rats. It performed a very useful function in its day. If it was a church or any type of interesting or innovative structure yes, I would agree let's preserve it, but it isn't - it's a boring ugly water tower. Knock it down and sell the brick as mementos. And if the lib dem's want to lie down in front of the demolition machines - great, only as long as the booby with the yellow waste coat is first in line.[/p][/quote]It's neither boring nor ugly, It is an amazing building. - Ignorant of Lexden[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but you must please educate me - what is amazing about it? I can only think perhaps the number of bricks? How long it took to build? How much it weighs? How deep the foundations? Surely Colchestrians can't limit their heritage to an ugly chunk of masonry with square bucket on top. This town must have something else to be proud of. Or, why not build something new and really worthy of our civic pride in the vast gap when jumbo goes where all the other white elephants end up. Our town hall is a great building - let's instruct a competition for British architects to offer plans for something equally useful, good to look at and available to all. Competition to be judged by a broad committee of non political Colchestrians.[/p][/quote]I think it's iconic and a wonderful piece of Victorian architecture. I love the town hall too and First Site which is a beautiful building which the town hates. I massively dislike the BT building, which looks like a tower of portacabins.[/p][/quote]Agree with you on the BT pile - the citizens of Colchester let it happen by passive blinking - and we can't blame big bob on that occasion. I respect your opinion on jumbo, but disagree personally. At 66 I feel let down by so many interfering well expensed politicians who have been pushed about by self serving permanent salaried council officers over time. I'm more than confident to conclude Jumbo is a pile useless masonry. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -1

12:07am Sat 26 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
wardyt wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
wardyt wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Monkey1980 wrote:
The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?
"Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?"

My dear Monkey are you receiving treatment in the community, or have you escaped?

It's a f...ing water tower and a pretty boring one too. It's ugly and has dominated the skyline since it was built. Surely there must be something more worthy of our pride.

I say again, it's an ugly utilitarian water tower infested with flying rats. It performed a very useful function in its day. If it was a church or any type of interesting or innovative structure yes, I would agree let's preserve it, but it isn't - it's a boring ugly water tower.

Knock it down and sell the brick as mementos. And if the lib dem's want to lie down in front of the demolition machines - great, only as long as the booby with the yellow waste coat is first in line.
It's neither boring nor ugly, It is an amazing building.

- Ignorant of Lexden
I'm sorry but you must please educate me - what is amazing about it? I can only think perhaps the number of bricks? How long it took to build? How much it weighs? How deep the foundations?

Surely Colchestrians can't limit their heritage to an ugly chunk of masonry with square bucket on top.

This town must have something else to be proud of. Or, why not build something new and really worthy of our civic pride in the vast gap when jumbo goes where all the other white elephants end up.

Our town hall is a great building - let's instruct a competition for British architects to offer plans for something equally useful, good to look at and available to all. Competition to be judged by a broad committee of non political Colchestrians.
I think it's iconic and a wonderful piece of Victorian architecture. I love the town hall too and First Site which is a beautiful building which the town hates. I massively dislike the BT building, which looks like a tower of portacabins.
Agree with you on the BT pile - the citizens of Colchester let it happen by passive blinking - and we can't blame big bob on that occasion. I respect your opinion on jumbo, but disagree personally. At 66 I feel let down by so many interfering well expensed politicians who have been pushed about by self serving permanent salaried council officers over time. I'm more than confident to conclude Jumbo is a pile useless masonry.
Sorry, pushed the wrong button - was going on to say about Jumbo - in its practical use it was top technology of the time. But now it's best viewed as a post card in the local history section of the library, rather than a great pile of rotting masonry in the way of progress.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wardyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wardyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monkey1980[/bold] wrote: The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?[/p][/quote]"Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?" My dear Monkey are you receiving treatment in the community, or have you escaped? It's a f...ing water tower and a pretty boring one too. It's ugly and has dominated the skyline since it was built. Surely there must be something more worthy of our pride. I say again, it's an ugly utilitarian water tower infested with flying rats. It performed a very useful function in its day. If it was a church or any type of interesting or innovative structure yes, I would agree let's preserve it, but it isn't - it's a boring ugly water tower. Knock it down and sell the brick as mementos. And if the lib dem's want to lie down in front of the demolition machines - great, only as long as the booby with the yellow waste coat is first in line.[/p][/quote]It's neither boring nor ugly, It is an amazing building. - Ignorant of Lexden[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but you must please educate me - what is amazing about it? I can only think perhaps the number of bricks? How long it took to build? How much it weighs? How deep the foundations? Surely Colchestrians can't limit their heritage to an ugly chunk of masonry with square bucket on top. This town must have something else to be proud of. Or, why not build something new and really worthy of our civic pride in the vast gap when jumbo goes where all the other white elephants end up. Our town hall is a great building - let's instruct a competition for British architects to offer plans for something equally useful, good to look at and available to all. Competition to be judged by a broad committee of non political Colchestrians.[/p][/quote]I think it's iconic and a wonderful piece of Victorian architecture. I love the town hall too and First Site which is a beautiful building which the town hates. I massively dislike the BT building, which looks like a tower of portacabins.[/p][/quote]Agree with you on the BT pile - the citizens of Colchester let it happen by passive blinking - and we can't blame big bob on that occasion. I respect your opinion on jumbo, but disagree personally. At 66 I feel let down by so many interfering well expensed politicians who have been pushed about by self serving permanent salaried council officers over time. I'm more than confident to conclude Jumbo is a pile useless masonry.[/p][/quote]Sorry, pushed the wrong button - was going on to say about Jumbo - in its practical use it was top technology of the time. But now it's best viewed as a post card in the local history section of the library, rather than a great pile of rotting masonry in the way of progress. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -3

9:34am Sat 26 Apr 14

cynicalsubber says...

The best use of Jumbo would be to convert it into a museum of our industrial heritage. That would acknowledge its former purpose while making it relevant to today.
The best use of Jumbo would be to convert it into a museum of our industrial heritage. That would acknowledge its former purpose while making it relevant to today. cynicalsubber
  • Score: 10

9:40am Sat 26 Apr 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
wardyt wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
wardyt wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Monkey1980 wrote:
The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?
"Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?"

My dear Monkey are you receiving treatment in the community, or have you escaped?

It's a f...ing water tower and a pretty boring one too. It's ugly and has dominated the skyline since it was built. Surely there must be something more worthy of our pride.

I say again, it's an ugly utilitarian water tower infested with flying rats. It performed a very useful function in its day. If it was a church or any type of interesting or innovative structure yes, I would agree let's preserve it, but it isn't - it's a boring ugly water tower.

Knock it down and sell the brick as mementos. And if the lib dem's want to lie down in front of the demolition machines - great, only as long as the booby with the yellow waste coat is first in line.
It's neither boring nor ugly, It is an amazing building.

- Ignorant of Lexden
I'm sorry but you must please educate me - what is amazing about it? I can only think perhaps the number of bricks? How long it took to build? How much it weighs? How deep the foundations?

Surely Colchestrians can't limit their heritage to an ugly chunk of masonry with square bucket on top.

This town must have something else to be proud of. Or, why not build something new and really worthy of our civic pride in the vast gap when jumbo goes where all the other white elephants end up.

Our town hall is a great building - let's instruct a competition for British architects to offer plans for something equally useful, good to look at and available to all. Competition to be judged by a broad committee of non political Colchestrians.
I think it's iconic and a wonderful piece of Victorian architecture. I love the town hall too and First Site which is a beautiful building which the town hates. I massively dislike the BT building, which looks like a tower of portacabins.
Agree with you on the BT pile - the citizens of Colchester let it happen by passive blinking - and we can't blame big bob on that occasion. I respect your opinion on jumbo, but disagree personally. At 66 I feel let down by so many interfering well expensed politicians who have been pushed about by self serving permanent salaried council officers over time. I'm more than confident to conclude Jumbo is a pile useless masonry.
Sorry, pushed the wrong button - was going on to say about Jumbo - in its practical use it was top technology of the time. But now it's best viewed as a post card in the local history section of the library, rather than a great pile of rotting masonry in the way of progress.
Angry Of Lexden, you have obviously become very disillusioned with Colchester and its historic 'rotting piles of bricks' getting in the way of modern progress. After all, not only do we have a useless pile of bricks supporting a load of scrap cast iron, we also have a load of useless Roman masonry surrounding the town with an old gate near the useless pile of bricks which would be excellent hardcore for any modern patio. Add to that the pile of old stones stuck in the park. We could get shot of that and put all the exhibits in the modern 'First' site. We could then build a modern Premier Inn and restaurant in the new 'Non-Castle Park'. Godspeed Sir, Harlow awaits you! Your eyes can have an 'all you can eat' feast on all the modern architecture. If you find Harlow to be not quite as 'Ultra Moderne' as you would like, Milton Keynes is not too far.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wardyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wardyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monkey1980[/bold] wrote: The general consensus on this page seems to be, that Jumbo should be either demolished or left to rot?! Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?[/p][/quote]"Where is your pride in this old piece of our towns heritage?" My dear Monkey are you receiving treatment in the community, or have you escaped? It's a f...ing water tower and a pretty boring one too. It's ugly and has dominated the skyline since it was built. Surely there must be something more worthy of our pride. I say again, it's an ugly utilitarian water tower infested with flying rats. It performed a very useful function in its day. If it was a church or any type of interesting or innovative structure yes, I would agree let's preserve it, but it isn't - it's a boring ugly water tower. Knock it down and sell the brick as mementos. And if the lib dem's want to lie down in front of the demolition machines - great, only as long as the booby with the yellow waste coat is first in line.[/p][/quote]It's neither boring nor ugly, It is an amazing building. - Ignorant of Lexden[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but you must please educate me - what is amazing about it? I can only think perhaps the number of bricks? How long it took to build? How much it weighs? How deep the foundations? Surely Colchestrians can't limit their heritage to an ugly chunk of masonry with square bucket on top. This town must have something else to be proud of. Or, why not build something new and really worthy of our civic pride in the vast gap when jumbo goes where all the other white elephants end up. Our town hall is a great building - let's instruct a competition for British architects to offer plans for something equally useful, good to look at and available to all. Competition to be judged by a broad committee of non political Colchestrians.[/p][/quote]I think it's iconic and a wonderful piece of Victorian architecture. I love the town hall too and First Site which is a beautiful building which the town hates. I massively dislike the BT building, which looks like a tower of portacabins.[/p][/quote]Agree with you on the BT pile - the citizens of Colchester let it happen by passive blinking - and we can't blame big bob on that occasion. I respect your opinion on jumbo, but disagree personally. At 66 I feel let down by so many interfering well expensed politicians who have been pushed about by self serving permanent salaried council officers over time. I'm more than confident to conclude Jumbo is a pile useless masonry.[/p][/quote]Sorry, pushed the wrong button - was going on to say about Jumbo - in its practical use it was top technology of the time. But now it's best viewed as a post card in the local history section of the library, rather than a great pile of rotting masonry in the way of progress.[/p][/quote]Angry Of Lexden, you have obviously become very disillusioned with Colchester and its historic 'rotting piles of bricks' getting in the way of modern progress. After all, not only do we have a useless pile of bricks supporting a load of scrap cast iron, we also have a load of useless Roman masonry surrounding the town with an old gate near the useless pile of bricks which would be excellent hardcore for any modern patio. Add to that the pile of old stones stuck in the park. We could get shot of that and put all the exhibits in the modern 'First' site. We could then build a modern Premier Inn and restaurant in the new 'Non-Castle Park'. Godspeed Sir, Harlow awaits you! Your eyes can have an 'all you can eat' feast on all the modern architecture. If you find Harlow to be not quite as 'Ultra Moderne' as you would like, Milton Keynes is not too far. DL1970
  • Score: 4

10:58am Sat 26 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL - you seem to chosen to, or missed my point. Of course Colchester has exquisite examples of antiquity in terms of buildings which must be preserved at any cost. But there are buildings which don't make that grade, and in my personal opinion Jumbo is not worth preserving at any cost. I would support Incorporating Jumbo in a new facility for the community, say a general venue for young people at a sensible conversion. The problem Colchester has are the dinosaurs amongst the all powerful town fathers who don't have the sense to grasp the synergy of compromise - keep the bones of Jumbo within a new development. The lib dem's seem to want it preserved as a water tank at any cost - how can we justify, or find the funds to do that?
DL - you seem to chosen to, or missed my point. Of course Colchester has exquisite examples of antiquity in terms of buildings which must be preserved at any cost. But there are buildings which don't make that grade, and in my personal opinion Jumbo is not worth preserving at any cost. I would support Incorporating Jumbo in a new facility for the community, say a general venue for young people at a sensible conversion. The problem Colchester has are the dinosaurs amongst the all powerful town fathers who don't have the sense to grasp the synergy of compromise - keep the bones of Jumbo within a new development. The lib dem's seem to want it preserved as a water tank at any cost - how can we justify, or find the funds to do that? Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 0

11:21am Sat 26 Apr 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL - you seem to chosen to, or missed my point. Of course Colchester has exquisite examples of antiquity in terms of buildings which must be preserved at any cost. But there are buildings which don't make that grade, and in my personal opinion Jumbo is not worth preserving at any cost. I would support Incorporating Jumbo in a new facility for the community, say a general venue for young people at a sensible conversion. The problem Colchester has are the dinosaurs amongst the all powerful town fathers who don't have the sense to grasp the synergy of compromise - keep the bones of Jumbo within a new development. The lib dem's seem to want it preserved as a water tank at any cost - how can we justify, or find the funds to do that?
You totally overlook the fact that Jumbo is a grade 2* listed building, and the law has to be taken into account when any decision is made regarding Jumbo's future. It cannot be demolished as you so strongly advocate because of its listed building status. The fact that jumbo is in the top 9% of all buildings of historical and architectural importance in England somewhat destroys you argument that is an ugly useless pile of bricks only worthy of demolition.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: DL - you seem to chosen to, or missed my point. Of course Colchester has exquisite examples of antiquity in terms of buildings which must be preserved at any cost. But there are buildings which don't make that grade, and in my personal opinion Jumbo is not worth preserving at any cost. I would support Incorporating Jumbo in a new facility for the community, say a general venue for young people at a sensible conversion. The problem Colchester has are the dinosaurs amongst the all powerful town fathers who don't have the sense to grasp the synergy of compromise - keep the bones of Jumbo within a new development. The lib dem's seem to want it preserved as a water tank at any cost - how can we justify, or find the funds to do that?[/p][/quote]You totally overlook the fact that Jumbo is a grade 2* listed building, and the law has to be taken into account when any decision is made regarding Jumbo's future. It cannot be demolished as you so strongly advocate because of its listed building status. The fact that jumbo is in the top 9% of all buildings of historical and architectural importance in England somewhat destroys you argument that is an ugly useless pile of bricks only worthy of demolition. DL1970
  • Score: 4

12:21pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL - you seem to chosen to, or missed my point. Of course Colchester has exquisite examples of antiquity in terms of buildings which must be preserved at any cost. But there are buildings which don't make that grade, and in my personal opinion Jumbo is not worth preserving at any cost. I would support Incorporating Jumbo in a new facility for the community, say a general venue for young people at a sensible conversion. The problem Colchester has are the dinosaurs amongst the all powerful town fathers who don't have the sense to grasp the synergy of compromise - keep the bones of Jumbo within a new development. The lib dem's seem to want it preserved as a water tank at any cost - how can we justify, or find the funds to do that?
You totally overlook the fact that Jumbo is a grade 2* listed building, and the law has to be taken into account when any decision is made regarding Jumbo's future. It cannot be demolished as you so strongly advocate because of its listed building status. The fact that jumbo is in the top 9% of all buildings of historical and architectural importance in England somewhat destroys you argument that is an ugly useless pile of bricks only worthy of demolition.
DL, you still miss my point - I repeat, and this time I will be asking questions, - "it is my personal opinion........."

Hope in the land of bob I am still permitted an opinion!

I reserve the right to challenge people's sometimes blind almost dogmatic pursuit of regulation. It is my personal opinion on this matter that regulation is strangling opportunity. You will know more about it than me but I would hope that somewhere in the great book of regulation - God bless it - there is a section to enable de-classification, to make better use of what otherwise has proved to be a problematic structure.

Perhaps we can screw some cash out the other great God of lib dem regulation, the E.U.
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: DL - you seem to chosen to, or missed my point. Of course Colchester has exquisite examples of antiquity in terms of buildings which must be preserved at any cost. But there are buildings which don't make that grade, and in my personal opinion Jumbo is not worth preserving at any cost. I would support Incorporating Jumbo in a new facility for the community, say a general venue for young people at a sensible conversion. The problem Colchester has are the dinosaurs amongst the all powerful town fathers who don't have the sense to grasp the synergy of compromise - keep the bones of Jumbo within a new development. The lib dem's seem to want it preserved as a water tank at any cost - how can we justify, or find the funds to do that?[/p][/quote]You totally overlook the fact that Jumbo is a grade 2* listed building, and the law has to be taken into account when any decision is made regarding Jumbo's future. It cannot be demolished as you so strongly advocate because of its listed building status. The fact that jumbo is in the top 9% of all buildings of historical and architectural importance in England somewhat destroys you argument that is an ugly useless pile of bricks only worthy of demolition.[/p][/quote]DL, you still miss my point - I repeat, and this time I will be asking questions, - "it is my personal opinion........." Hope in the land of bob I am still permitted an opinion! I reserve the right to challenge people's sometimes blind almost dogmatic pursuit of regulation. It is my personal opinion on this matter that regulation is strangling opportunity. You will know more about it than me but I would hope that somewhere in the great book of regulation - God bless it - there is a section to enable de-classification, to make better use of what otherwise has proved to be a problematic structure. Perhaps we can screw some cash out the other great God of lib dem regulation, the E.U. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Sat 26 Apr 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL - you seem to chosen to, or missed my point. Of course Colchester has exquisite examples of antiquity in terms of buildings which must be preserved at any cost. But there are buildings which don't make that grade, and in my personal opinion Jumbo is not worth preserving at any cost. I would support Incorporating Jumbo in a new facility for the community, say a general venue for young people at a sensible conversion. The problem Colchester has are the dinosaurs amongst the all powerful town fathers who don't have the sense to grasp the synergy of compromise - keep the bones of Jumbo within a new development. The lib dem's seem to want it preserved as a water tank at any cost - how can we justify, or find the funds to do that?
You totally overlook the fact that Jumbo is a grade 2* listed building, and the law has to be taken into account when any decision is made regarding Jumbo's future. It cannot be demolished as you so strongly advocate because of its listed building status. The fact that jumbo is in the top 9% of all buildings of historical and architectural importance in England somewhat destroys you argument that is an ugly useless pile of bricks only worthy of demolition.
DL, you still miss my point - I repeat, and this time I will be asking questions, - "it is my personal opinion........."

Hope in the land of bob I am still permitted an opinion!

I reserve the right to challenge people's sometimes blind almost dogmatic pursuit of regulation. It is my personal opinion on this matter that regulation is strangling opportunity. You will know more about it than me but I would hope that somewhere in the great book of regulation - God bless it - there is a section to enable de-classification, to make better use of what otherwise has proved to be a problematic structure.

Perhaps we can screw some cash out the other great God of lib dem regulation, the E.U.
Have you actually studied Jumbo up close and looked at the amazing brickwork with all the arches and buttresses? Have you taken the time to appreciate the stone masonry and the sheer engineering prowess which went into its design and construction? Have you been up the tower and seen the wonderful cast iron staircase at the top or the massive gate valve arrays beneath the tank? Maybe you'd see more than a useless pile of bricks not worthy of preservation.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: DL - you seem to chosen to, or missed my point. Of course Colchester has exquisite examples of antiquity in terms of buildings which must be preserved at any cost. But there are buildings which don't make that grade, and in my personal opinion Jumbo is not worth preserving at any cost. I would support Incorporating Jumbo in a new facility for the community, say a general venue for young people at a sensible conversion. The problem Colchester has are the dinosaurs amongst the all powerful town fathers who don't have the sense to grasp the synergy of compromise - keep the bones of Jumbo within a new development. The lib dem's seem to want it preserved as a water tank at any cost - how can we justify, or find the funds to do that?[/p][/quote]You totally overlook the fact that Jumbo is a grade 2* listed building, and the law has to be taken into account when any decision is made regarding Jumbo's future. It cannot be demolished as you so strongly advocate because of its listed building status. The fact that jumbo is in the top 9% of all buildings of historical and architectural importance in England somewhat destroys you argument that is an ugly useless pile of bricks only worthy of demolition.[/p][/quote]DL, you still miss my point - I repeat, and this time I will be asking questions, - "it is my personal opinion........." Hope in the land of bob I am still permitted an opinion! I reserve the right to challenge people's sometimes blind almost dogmatic pursuit of regulation. It is my personal opinion on this matter that regulation is strangling opportunity. You will know more about it than me but I would hope that somewhere in the great book of regulation - God bless it - there is a section to enable de-classification, to make better use of what otherwise has proved to be a problematic structure. Perhaps we can screw some cash out the other great God of lib dem regulation, the E.U.[/p][/quote]Have you actually studied Jumbo up close and looked at the amazing brickwork with all the arches and buttresses? Have you taken the time to appreciate the stone masonry and the sheer engineering prowess which went into its design and construction? Have you been up the tower and seen the wonderful cast iron staircase at the top or the massive gate valve arrays beneath the tank? Maybe you'd see more than a useless pile of bricks not worthy of preservation. DL1970
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL - you seem to chosen to, or missed my point. Of course Colchester has exquisite examples of antiquity in terms of buildings which must be preserved at any cost. But there are buildings which don't make that grade, and in my personal opinion Jumbo is not worth preserving at any cost. I would support Incorporating Jumbo in a new facility for the community, say a general venue for young people at a sensible conversion. The problem Colchester has are the dinosaurs amongst the all powerful town fathers who don't have the sense to grasp the synergy of compromise - keep the bones of Jumbo within a new development. The lib dem's seem to want it preserved as a water tank at any cost - how can we justify, or find the funds to do that?
You totally overlook the fact that Jumbo is a grade 2* listed building, and the law has to be taken into account when any decision is made regarding Jumbo's future. It cannot be demolished as you so strongly advocate because of its listed building status. The fact that jumbo is in the top 9% of all buildings of historical and architectural importance in England somewhat destroys you argument that is an ugly useless pile of bricks only worthy of demolition.
DL, you still miss my point - I repeat, and this time I will be asking questions, - "it is my personal opinion........."

Hope in the land of bob I am still permitted an opinion!

I reserve the right to challenge people's sometimes blind almost dogmatic pursuit of regulation. It is my personal opinion on this matter that regulation is strangling opportunity. You will know more about it than me but I would hope that somewhere in the great book of regulation - God bless it - there is a section to enable de-classification, to make better use of what otherwise has proved to be a problematic structure.

Perhaps we can screw some cash out the other great God of lib dem regulation, the E.U.
Have you actually studied Jumbo up close and looked at the amazing brickwork with all the arches and buttresses? Have you taken the time to appreciate the stone masonry and the sheer engineering prowess which went into its design and construction? Have you been up the tower and seen the wonderful cast iron staircase at the top or the massive gate valve arrays beneath the tank? Maybe you'd see more than a useless pile of bricks not worthy of preservation.
Always been involved with engineering and buildings. When I first visited Colchester in 1969 I used to sit by the castle, jumbo, town hall and eat my sandwiches each lunchtime. I moved to Colchester in 78 and used to book customers into the George. I would proudly give them the sixpenny tour of the great stuff nearby including the castle and jumbo, and they were impressed. So yes I do appreciate the detail in a structure new or old. I've been directly involved in renovation and maintenance of many high street buildings in the UK and as you can understand at least half are "old" and listed. What I really enjoy is working on one building and discovering it spans four and five hundred years. The materials may vary on one site from roof timbers reclaimed from a vessel broken up in ipswich boat yards 350 years ago, to oak framed with infill of wattle daub and/or brick. It's also been a great experience to source and use the original materials. The thing is, I personally believe buildings should be allowed to evolve by change of use and the introduction of new materials eg oak framed infill changed from W&D to brick - and maybe with Jumbo enclose the lower structure with some modern intelligent glazing to convert it into a useful venue for the community. It would give jumbo a new use and further span of life.

Sorry but I can't agree it's useful to spend tax payers hard earned money to preserve a redundant water tower that is only a couple of hundred years old.
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: DL - you seem to chosen to, or missed my point. Of course Colchester has exquisite examples of antiquity in terms of buildings which must be preserved at any cost. But there are buildings which don't make that grade, and in my personal opinion Jumbo is not worth preserving at any cost. I would support Incorporating Jumbo in a new facility for the community, say a general venue for young people at a sensible conversion. The problem Colchester has are the dinosaurs amongst the all powerful town fathers who don't have the sense to grasp the synergy of compromise - keep the bones of Jumbo within a new development. The lib dem's seem to want it preserved as a water tank at any cost - how can we justify, or find the funds to do that?[/p][/quote]You totally overlook the fact that Jumbo is a grade 2* listed building, and the law has to be taken into account when any decision is made regarding Jumbo's future. It cannot be demolished as you so strongly advocate because of its listed building status. The fact that jumbo is in the top 9% of all buildings of historical and architectural importance in England somewhat destroys you argument that is an ugly useless pile of bricks only worthy of demolition.[/p][/quote]DL, you still miss my point - I repeat, and this time I will be asking questions, - "it is my personal opinion........." Hope in the land of bob I am still permitted an opinion! I reserve the right to challenge people's sometimes blind almost dogmatic pursuit of regulation. It is my personal opinion on this matter that regulation is strangling opportunity. You will know more about it than me but I would hope that somewhere in the great book of regulation - God bless it - there is a section to enable de-classification, to make better use of what otherwise has proved to be a problematic structure. Perhaps we can screw some cash out the other great God of lib dem regulation, the E.U.[/p][/quote]Have you actually studied Jumbo up close and looked at the amazing brickwork with all the arches and buttresses? Have you taken the time to appreciate the stone masonry and the sheer engineering prowess which went into its design and construction? Have you been up the tower and seen the wonderful cast iron staircase at the top or the massive gate valve arrays beneath the tank? Maybe you'd see more than a useless pile of bricks not worthy of preservation.[/p][/quote]Always been involved with engineering and buildings. When I first visited Colchester in 1969 I used to sit by the castle, jumbo, town hall and eat my sandwiches each lunchtime. I moved to Colchester in 78 and used to book customers into the George. I would proudly give them the sixpenny tour of the great stuff nearby including the castle and jumbo, and they were impressed. So yes I do appreciate the detail in a structure new or old. I've been directly involved in renovation and maintenance of many high street buildings in the UK and as you can understand at least half are "old" and listed. What I really enjoy is working on one building and discovering it spans four and five hundred years. The materials may vary on one site from roof timbers reclaimed from a vessel broken up in ipswich boat yards 350 years ago, to oak framed with infill of wattle daub and/or brick. It's also been a great experience to source and use the original materials. The thing is, I personally believe buildings should be allowed to evolve by change of use and the introduction of new materials eg oak framed infill changed from W&D to brick - and maybe with Jumbo enclose the lower structure with some modern intelligent glazing to convert it into a useful venue for the community. It would give jumbo a new use and further span of life. Sorry but I can't agree it's useful to spend tax payers hard earned money to preserve a redundant water tower that is only a couple of hundred years old. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 5

11:38pm Sat 26 Apr 14

RU Sirius says...

If Mr Braithwaite thought his plans for Jumbo were good and were turned down unfairly by the council, why didn't he use his his opportunity to appeal the decision either time? Or might the Planning Inspectorate upholding the decision completely destroy the claim from him and his Tory mates that it was a political decision?
If Mr Braithwaite thought his plans for Jumbo were good and were turned down unfairly by the council, why didn't he use his his opportunity to appeal the decision either time? Or might the Planning Inspectorate upholding the decision completely destroy the claim from him and his Tory mates that it was a political decision? RU Sirius
  • Score: 4

12:31am Sun 27 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

RU Sirius wrote:
If Mr Braithwaite thought his plans for Jumbo were good and were turned down unfairly by the council, why didn't he use his his opportunity to appeal the decision either time? Or might the Planning Inspectorate upholding the decision completely destroy the claim from him and his Tory mates that it was a political decision?
RU hello again,
I really don't know anything much about Mr. B. other than I guess he is in business at some level with share holders or partners who need a return to justify their investment or input. Two years is too long a period for no progress in the property business - in my experience investors in business development expect a sensible return and move to profit by the third year - watch Tesco/Sainsbury/ Virgin... two years without progress is too long. Maybe Mr.B misjudged the complexity of the Jumbo project from the start. But also possibly did those who dogmatically opposed every aspect of the project, and apparently without the offer of consideration or of negotiation. What ever the cause Colchestrians have lost an opportunity to retain and develop Jumbo - no one should be seen to celebrate over this fiasco.
[quote][p][bold]RU Sirius[/bold] wrote: If Mr Braithwaite thought his plans for Jumbo were good and were turned down unfairly by the council, why didn't he use his his opportunity to appeal the decision either time? Or might the Planning Inspectorate upholding the decision completely destroy the claim from him and his Tory mates that it was a political decision?[/p][/quote]RU hello again, I really don't know anything much about Mr. B. other than I guess he is in business at some level with share holders or partners who need a return to justify their investment or input. Two years is too long a period for no progress in the property business - in my experience investors in business development expect a sensible return and move to profit by the third year - watch Tesco/Sainsbury/ Virgin... two years without progress is too long. Maybe Mr.B misjudged the complexity of the Jumbo project from the start. But also possibly did those who dogmatically opposed every aspect of the project, and apparently without the offer of consideration or of negotiation. What ever the cause Colchestrians have lost an opportunity to retain and develop Jumbo - no one should be seen to celebrate over this fiasco. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -1

6:30pm Sun 27 Apr 14

stevedawson says...

There is nothing unique about our old water tower the victorians design can be found in many places around the country.in colchester this water tower has taken on a veritable local treasure status.unbelievable the man that comes up with a plan that would have allowed the edifice to be shared by the people has been thwarted in his plan by the man that represents colchester in our parliament.boris might vote for him l wont.
There is nothing unique about our old water tower the victorians design can be found in many places around the country.in colchester this water tower has taken on a veritable local treasure status.unbelievable the man that comes up with a plan that would have allowed the edifice to be shared by the people has been thwarted in his plan by the man that represents colchester in our parliament.boris might vote for him l wont. stevedawson
  • Score: -1

10:11pm Sun 27 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Steve,
Good point. Think on, if the folk in Bob town had stood up to him and his gang, we could just about be starting a project to develop Jumbo into whatever - see my notes above.

And that would have provided the opportunity for additional work in the town.
Steve, Good point. Think on, if the folk in Bob town had stood up to him and his gang, we could just about be starting a project to develop Jumbo into whatever - see my notes above. And that would have provided the opportunity for additional work in the town. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 0

11:57pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Hamiltonandy says...

Interesting to read so many varied views. A concern with the present owners plans were that it would only be partially and also poorly done. I did contact the agent to see if the present owner was willing to sell. I got no response and said as much in a Gazette letter. That was also ignored by the present owner.
.
If the owner has genuinely put Jumbo up for auction without a reserve I hope we do not get another greedy speculator overbidding because he thinks he can make a huge profit on another grotty scheme. It would be best if a charitable group owned Jumbo as they could access funding to restore this unique building.
.
Interesting to read so many varied views. A concern with the present owners plans were that it would only be partially and also poorly done. I did contact the agent to see if the present owner was willing to sell. I got no response and said as much in a Gazette letter. That was also ignored by the present owner. . If the owner has genuinely put Jumbo up for auction without a reserve I hope we do not get another greedy speculator overbidding because he thinks he can make a huge profit on another grotty scheme. It would be best if a charitable group owned Jumbo as they could access funding to restore this unique building. . Hamiltonandy
  • Score: 4

12:23am Wed 30 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Andy, and others concerned,
Is there any way CBC could get funding from an EU pot to buy and convert Jumbo for community use?

I would only support such a project on the condition that there would be a change of use to something we can all benefit from in Colchester. In other words I see no point in the on going cost to Colchestrians of preserving jumbo as a redundant water tower.

My company does have good relationship with a structural engineer who sorted some horrible problems with another problematic Colchester building.
Andy, and others concerned, Is there any way CBC could get funding from an EU pot to buy and convert Jumbo for community use? I would only support such a project on the condition that there would be a change of use to something we can all benefit from in Colchester. In other words I see no point in the on going cost to Colchestrians of preserving jumbo as a redundant water tower. My company does have good relationship with a structural engineer who sorted some horrible problems with another problematic Colchester building. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -3

12:59am Wed 30 Apr 14

Hamiltonandy says...

Once a listed building is owned by a charity there are a variety of government sources for grants. I doubt the EU would be of help as they are more interested in funding commercial enterprises. The letter in Mondays Gazette suggesting we should engage in discussion rather than pointless bickering was better than anything I could have written.
.
Jumbo has to earn some money and tourists viewing the town will not be sufficient. So yes, there would have to be some changes to add to the revenue potential. Any changes would require more investment/borrowing
.
.
All I can think about at the moment is to get Jumbo owned by a charitable group. Public access could be arranged with volunteers. Volunteers could do some work such as painting steelwork and pointing brickwork. However funding for a small lift may be a priority.
Once a listed building is owned by a charity there are a variety of government sources for grants. I doubt the EU would be of help as they are more interested in funding commercial enterprises. The letter in Mondays Gazette suggesting we should engage in discussion rather than pointless bickering was better than anything I could have written. . Jumbo has to earn some money and tourists viewing the town will not be sufficient. So yes, there would have to be some changes to add to the revenue potential. Any changes would require more investment/borrowing . . All I can think about at the moment is to get Jumbo owned by a charitable group. Public access could be arranged with volunteers. Volunteers could do some work such as painting steelwork and pointing brickwork. However funding for a small lift may be a priority. Hamiltonandy
  • Score: 4

1:12am Wed 30 Apr 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Andy, just seen your mail and thanks. Can't think it through now - 2nd senior visit for a pee tonight but I will try to make time for research tomorrow. There must be a way.
Andy, just seen your mail and thanks. Can't think it through now - 2nd senior visit for a pee tonight but I will try to make time for research tomorrow. There must be a way. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 0

1:32am Wed 30 Apr 14

Hamiltonandy says...

I really wonder if the auction is just another way the owner wants to demonstrate no one wants Jumbo. Then he can pressurise the planning dept to approve whatever scheme he proposes. No doubt the money will be borrowed so it will be done on the cheap or not completed. Either way public access will be limited.
.
I have suggested the savejumbo charity have a public meeting to see who will lend money so an offer can be made for Jumbo. Unlikely anyone would offer £330,000 except another deluded greedy speculator. Who would waste years on more planning applications whilst refusing public access.
I really wonder if the auction is just another way the owner wants to demonstrate no one wants Jumbo. Then he can pressurise the planning dept to approve whatever scheme he proposes. No doubt the money will be borrowed so it will be done on the cheap or not completed. Either way public access will be limited. . I have suggested the savejumbo charity have a public meeting to see who will lend money so an offer can be made for Jumbo. Unlikely anyone would offer £330,000 except another deluded greedy speculator. Who would waste years on more planning applications whilst refusing public access. Hamiltonandy
  • Score: 3

4:50pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Jess Jephcott says...

The answer to all this is obvious. Why doesn't Mr Braithwaite simply hang a banner from Jumbo imploring people to vote LibDem? Cheap and easy.
The answer to all this is obvious. Why doesn't Mr Braithwaite simply hang a banner from Jumbo imploring people to vote LibDem? Cheap and easy. Jess Jephcott
  • Score: -3

8:44pm Wed 30 Apr 14

DL1970 says...

As has been mentioned already, if the owner was right and the council was wrong he would have appealed. The truth of the matter is, the council had a solid case for refusal and its highly likely he would have lost. Mr Braithwaite knows this only too well. I seem to recall reading that he said he'd rather give £100,000 to charity than spend it on an appeal. A very wise decision.
As has been mentioned already, if the owner was right and the council was wrong he would have appealed. The truth of the matter is, the council had a solid case for refusal and its highly likely he would have lost. Mr Braithwaite knows this only too well. I seem to recall reading that he said he'd rather give £100,000 to charity than spend it on an appeal. A very wise decision. DL1970
  • Score: 3

12:40am Thu 1 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Andy, just seen your mail and thanks. Can't think it through now - 2nd senior visit for a pee tonight but I will try to make time for research tomorrow. There must be a way.
Been a really difficult day. Still haven't had time to digest your point. Will try again tomorrow.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: Andy, just seen your mail and thanks. Can't think it through now - 2nd senior visit for a pee tonight but I will try to make time for research tomorrow. There must be a way.[/p][/quote]Been a really difficult day. Still haven't had time to digest your point. Will try again tomorrow. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -1

10:28pm Thu 1 May 14

Assimilation says...

Being a grade II listed building I should imagine it will go for price of a box of matches and gallon of petrol. Seems to be the "in thing" at the moment. Or even a rouge squirrel.
Being a grade II listed building I should imagine it will go for price of a box of matches and gallon of petrol. Seems to be the "in thing" at the moment. Or even a rouge squirrel. Assimilation
  • Score: 3

12:32am Sat 3 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Hi you Jumbo fans,
Been a challenging week - we all have them. Haven't had time to take on board the multitude of pro/anti views on the options.

Going to take my youngest lads tomorrow to look at it again and see the reaction from them. I maybe to wound up by my reaction to the power of bob of bob of town, and as consequence be wrong in my conviction that it's a pile of irrelevant rotten masonry with an iron bucket on top.

Wish me luck in my quest for truth. I will try to be balanced in my reaction.
Hi you Jumbo fans, Been a challenging week - we all have them. Haven't had time to take on board the multitude of pro/anti views on the options. Going to take my youngest lads tomorrow to look at it again and see the reaction from them. I maybe to wound up by my reaction to the power of bob of bob of town, and as consequence be wrong in my conviction that it's a pile of irrelevant rotten masonry with an iron bucket on top. Wish me luck in my quest for truth. I will try to be balanced in my reaction. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 0

1:01am Sat 3 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

It's no good - sleep Is not possible. I can't believe we should allow bob of bob town and his gang to make us agree to spend more of our taxed income to preserve a redundant victorian heap of low tech uninteresting water supply plumbing.
The only way forward for me, is to develop jumbo in the same way Colchester castle was evolved, from roman temple, to ruin, to castle and now to Tim Young homage. - I don't really mean the last bit re timo.
That would he a valuable and sustainable way of keeping jumbo, and adding to the assets of the town- ie not a museum piece of yesteryear clogging the town's progress, but a project which combines the best of our history with a sensible and practical use of the historical assets available.

Good night fans, xxx
It's no good - sleep Is not possible. I can't believe we should allow bob of bob town and his gang to make us agree to spend more of our taxed income to preserve a redundant victorian heap of low tech uninteresting water supply plumbing. The only way forward for me, is to develop jumbo in the same way Colchester castle was evolved, from roman temple, to ruin, to castle and now to Tim Young homage. - I don't really mean the last bit re timo. That would he a valuable and sustainable way of keeping jumbo, and adding to the assets of the town- ie not a museum piece of yesteryear clogging the town's progress, but a project which combines the best of our history with a sensible and practical use of the historical assets available. Good night fans, xxx Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -1

1:09am Sat 3 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Assimilation wrote:
Being a grade II listed building I should imagine it will go for price of a box of matches and gallon of petrol. Seems to be the "in thing" at the moment. Or even a rouge squirrel.
Hi ****,
Already considered the torch option, but there is no flammable substrate. We would need a really big impact, and right on target. There's a chap I know who seems to get away with quite a bit of violent stuff at the moment. - I'll ask Vlad if he can spare an I.C.B.M.

Love you all xxx
[quote][p][bold]Assimilation[/bold] wrote: Being a grade II listed building I should imagine it will go for price of a box of matches and gallon of petrol. Seems to be the "in thing" at the moment. Or even a rouge squirrel.[/p][/quote]Hi ****, Already considered the torch option, but there is no flammable substrate. We would need a really big impact, and right on target. There's a chap I know who seems to get away with quite a bit of violent stuff at the moment. - I'll ask Vlad if he can spare an I.C.B.M. Love you all xxx Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -1

8:03pm Sat 3 May 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
It's no good - sleep Is not possible. I can't believe we should allow bob of bob town and his gang to make us agree to spend more of our taxed income to preserve a redundant victorian heap of low tech uninteresting water supply plumbing.
The only way forward for me, is to develop jumbo in the same way Colchester castle was evolved, from roman temple, to ruin, to castle and now to Tim Young homage. - I don't really mean the last bit re timo.
That would he a valuable and sustainable way of keeping jumbo, and adding to the assets of the town- ie not a museum piece of yesteryear clogging the town's progress, but a project which combines the best of our history with a sensible and practical use of the historical assets available.

Good night fans, xxx
Why should Jumbo cost the taxpayers a penny? If Jumbo gets taken on by the BTT it will be run by public donations, not the taxpayers' money. If you don't like it don't donate, simple as that. You say it should be demolished. Really? I take it this option would be used to save the 'taxpayer' the burden of restoration costs. You seem to have hoisted your own petard somewhat because the cost to demolish Jumbo would be more than the cost of repairs. It would have to be taken down brick by brick. The feasability study by Purcell Miller Tritton took this into account.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: It's no good - sleep Is not possible. I can't believe we should allow bob of bob town and his gang to make us agree to spend more of our taxed income to preserve a redundant victorian heap of low tech uninteresting water supply plumbing. The only way forward for me, is to develop jumbo in the same way Colchester castle was evolved, from roman temple, to ruin, to castle and now to Tim Young homage. - I don't really mean the last bit re timo. That would he a valuable and sustainable way of keeping jumbo, and adding to the assets of the town- ie not a museum piece of yesteryear clogging the town's progress, but a project which combines the best of our history with a sensible and practical use of the historical assets available. Good night fans, xxx[/p][/quote]Why should Jumbo cost the taxpayers a penny? If Jumbo gets taken on by the BTT it will be run by public donations, not the taxpayers' money. If you don't like it don't donate, simple as that. You say it should be demolished. Really? I take it this option would be used to save the 'taxpayer' the burden of restoration costs. You seem to have hoisted your own petard somewhat because the cost to demolish Jumbo would be more than the cost of repairs. It would have to be taken down brick by brick. The feasability study by Purcell Miller Tritton took this into account. DL1970
  • Score: 1

12:37am Sun 4 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Well DL,
I genuinely bow to your greater knowledge and apologise if I've got it wrong. I know I've got a bee in my bonnet about preserving the thing simply as a water tower - spent a lot of time working on high Street buildings many of which are "old" and listed. The part I enjoy is tracing the way structures have evolved over years to be useful over a span of time. One building I worked on has roof timbers which came from a ship broken up in Ipswich in the early 1700's - the oaks were saplings maybe 100 years plus before that. The external walls vary from timber frame with wattle and daub, to rendered brick cavity. The current function is food production, retail with a residential flat. Any repairs are made with materials sympathetic to the immediate area concerned - could be lime mortar and lime wash, or modern fibre cement slates. The building provides a work place, comfortable dwelling and generates an income for the landlord.

I walked to jumbo this morning and took a further look. From what I could see it needs substantial immediate work and a a hefty preventative maintenance budget. In my experience once work starts on a structure of this age, and in such a poor state, other unexpected major cost items maybe discovered.

My preference would be to encourage jumbo to evolve and become a really useful as a practical working structure and not a water storage museum to satisfy a minority interest. Fill the voids using the very best current technology, did Jumbo at one time, to provide accommodation for community interests and some commerce. Jumbo would get a new lease of life and with careful design the original detail and function could be seen and admired.

CBC could be really adventurous, take control, and invite say three asset management companies to bid for a town retail/commercial/ar
ts development centred on jumbo/ mercury/ St. Mary's, spanning Balkerne Hill to the car park.

We should he able to profit from thinking outside the box - problem is the town "fathers" just make bigger boxes.

Suggest a mission of salaried and elected officers sent to view Castle Mall Norwich, Staines Shopping Centre, and the Ilford Exchange - in my experience these towns all had the same challenges of access, historic piles, and minority interests, but they now thrive.

On the cost of demolition, I'm certainly not convinced this would exceed the cost of renovation. I have asked a demo co who have done major work in the town to give a "drive by" budget cost.

Colchester has more history and breadth of resource to offer than Ilford and Norwich, but Staines! - well did Magna Carta shake the tree?
I'm really tired now, and it's sleepy boo boos time. I have more to be big thinks tomorrow.

I believe there is a development project which could be centred on Jumbo, but there has to be sensible compromise on all sides, with no politics or silly yellow waistcoats involved. X
Well DL, I genuinely bow to your greater knowledge and apologise if I've got it wrong. I know I've got a bee in my bonnet about preserving the thing simply as a water tower - spent a lot of time working on high Street buildings many of which are "old" and listed. The part I enjoy is tracing the way structures have evolved over years to be useful over a span of time. One building I worked on has roof timbers which came from a ship broken up in Ipswich in the early 1700's - the oaks were saplings maybe 100 years plus before that. The external walls vary from timber frame with wattle and daub, to rendered brick cavity. The current function is food production, retail with a residential flat. Any repairs are made with materials sympathetic to the immediate area concerned - could be lime mortar and lime wash, or modern fibre cement slates. The building provides a work place, comfortable dwelling and generates an income for the landlord. I walked to jumbo this morning and took a further look. From what I could see it needs substantial immediate work and a a hefty preventative maintenance budget. In my experience once work starts on a structure of this age, and in such a poor state, other unexpected major cost items maybe discovered. My preference would be to encourage jumbo to evolve and become a really useful as a practical working structure and not a water storage museum to satisfy a minority interest. Fill the voids using the very best current technology, did Jumbo at one time, to provide accommodation for community interests and some commerce. Jumbo would get a new lease of life and with careful design the original detail and function could be seen and admired. CBC could be really adventurous, take control, and invite say three asset management companies to bid for a town retail/commercial/ar ts development centred on jumbo/ mercury/ St. Mary's, spanning Balkerne Hill to the car park. We should he able to profit from thinking outside the box - problem is the town "fathers" just make bigger boxes. Suggest a mission of salaried and elected officers sent to view Castle Mall Norwich, Staines Shopping Centre, and the Ilford Exchange - in my experience these towns all had the same challenges of access, historic piles, and minority interests, but they now thrive. On the cost of demolition, I'm certainly not convinced this would exceed the cost of renovation. I have asked a demo co who have done major work in the town to give a "drive by" budget cost. Colchester has more history and breadth of resource to offer than Ilford and Norwich, but Staines! - well did Magna Carta shake the tree? I'm really tired now, and it's sleepy boo boos time. I have more to be big thinks tomorrow. I believe there is a development project which could be centred on Jumbo, but there has to be sensible compromise on all sides, with no politics or silly yellow waistcoats involved. X Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree