The Cellar - July 13, 2008: Kelburn Castle

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Image of the Day (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=10)

- - July 13, 2008: Kelburn Castle (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=17698)

Yes, deed covenants (read restrictions), are quite common in tracts put up by a single contractor/builder. We also have "historic" areas that have all kinds of rules, some quite severe.

Sorry - I was referring to the deed covenants and certainly not impying you had no history to maintain. I know you weren't correcting me, but just in case it came across that way to anyone else.

There is a time lapse video of the artists painting the castle somewhere on the internet. Im sure someone with a little bit of time could easily find it on you tube.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl (Post 468817)

Which in itself raises an interesting point. Not re the moon, as no-one owns that. But how much you can treat something of (potentially) public value as a private commodity. And if it is of public value, how much the public should be responsible for its upkeep.

This is a private house. It is in fact of note because it is a private house. To protest - albeit in a subdued way - about how the owners choose to treat that house, especially if they are doing so to prvide funds for its upkeep is surely unreasonable.

However, if everyone with Roman remains on their land decided to build swimming pools/ extensions/ new houses/ supermarkets on them, then where would the rest of us look for heritage?

But then should the rest of the world have to support countries with many items of historical/ architectural interest like Egypt, as they do not have as developed an economy...?

To my mind there should be some national intervention (we have the horribly ineffective & political and bribe-suspected English Heritage). But then we're spoiled by a wealth of history and know we can happily bulldoze plenty without many people being any the wiser. What we got rid of in the 60s! Woooo-eeeee! Progress? Nope. It all had to be rebuilt in the 90s anyway.

I ended up falling in love with the biggest eyesore in my home town. I'd join any campaign to keep it if they suggested pulling it down now. Let it serve as a warning. But if they decided to paint it like Kelburn Castle? Yay! You'd need a few more buckets of paint though.

I think it is not unreasonable private or no to mantain the integrity of an castle for future generations and for all time. It is cultural property and when I went google snooping I found a very interesting article. It states it is an 'International standard' regarding the preservation of cultrual property. It may not include Scotland but I am sure Scotland follows the same bylaws.

That said. It is just an opinion. I know it isn't permanent which is part of the reason the petition to paint it was accepted otherwise I guarantee it would have been denied. The Earl and his ms have every responsibility to maintain the integrity of the original structure.

There is a difference between progress preserving heritage. I guess it's just a musty ole building to some. Better buldoze it for progress sake? Maybe that's not what you are saying SG. Either way I am done talking about it.

Cheers!

Recommendation concerning the Preservation of Cultural Property Endangered by Public or Private works
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-U...CTION=201.html

Sky I was simply raising a point following on from your post - I wasn't attacking your POV.

I love my country and the UK and the British Isles. I love the fact you can barely spit without hitting a piece of history. I am very much for preserving things for the country/ continent/ world. Especially as we can afford to.

I honestly meant that as an aside, it raised a genuine interest of mine. Where do we draw the line between looking after people and looking after buildings? I'm not suggesting for a second this is the case in the UK. But there are almost definitely parts of the world where money goes to maintaining monuments while healthcare and education are neglected.

lol @ can barely spit without hitting a peice of history.
:lol2:

and then I had this image of a british Obama telling people they are bitter clinging to their castles....and ....? ( insert whatever else europeans hang onto )

If you don't get that, you see Obama was caught saying the people in the midwest were bitter clinging to their guns and religion.

You see we don't have any castles to cling to. I did see on the street of dreams show this am a 2.5 million dollar house with 2 kitchens, and indoor pool and a wine cellar AND a secret media center. Probably for watching bootleg porn. It still isn't a castle.

I know this sounds silly that's because I am sweating in the heat. I am cooling down with a nice cool glass of ice tea and I hope you have a wonderful rest of the day too.

* hugs*

[edit]
ps. The government(s) will always find a way to siphon money away from healthcare and education anyway. I think that's a universal fact. Be proud in your historical landmarks. We secretly envy them. We our proud of our natural landmarks because that's all we have. I am pretty sure we arn't proud of mount rushmore. now if anyone wants to come and paint that thing I wouldn't mind :P

Quote:

Kelburn is supposedly the oldest castle in Scotland to have been continuously inhabited by the same family,

OK, so your granddaddy builds a unique house, and it gets handed down through the family to you. It's a big old place, difficult and expensive to maintain. You decide it would be in the interest of your comfort and pocketbook to make changes to the old place.

Now what if the neighborhood says, they don't care about your comfort or bank account, they don't want anything changed?

What if the local government says so?

What if the national government says so?

Who in hell are they, to tell you what you can do with property that's always been in your family?

Quote:

Originally Posted by skysidhe (Post 468867)

We our proud of our natural landmarks because that's all we have.

Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Atlanta, St Augustine, Miami, etc, would argue that point. Hell, remember the Alamo.

Quote:

I am pretty sure we arn't proud of mount rushmore. now if anyone wants to come and paint that thing I wouldn't mind :P

Speak for yourself. :headshake

*speaking for self *

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 468870)

Bruce, I don't know what property rights they have in Scotland, or any other country except the U.S. We have the right to do what we want with our property here, but there are beaurocrats that can take those rights from you. For example, tax collectors, zoning enforcers, codes enforcers et al. I think it's wrong and unconstitutional, but as long as there are busybodies in government, and greedy citizens who use said busybodies for their own enrichment, it will continue.
Having said that, I still say that castle is butt-ugly after the paint job, but it's their property, and I hope no one fines them, or makes them remove it before they're ready.

No, they won't be penalized. They went through proper channels and got the blessing of the government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 468915)

No, they won't be penalized. They went through proper channels and got the blessing of the government.

Doesn't mean a thing here in NY. The Bureaucracy doesn't have to follow its own rules.

That castle paint job is horrid. What the hell were they thinking?

Everyone has a right to be hideously stupid, I guess.

Hmmm...didn't know that mural art was "ghetto". I hope this is only temporary, which I think made that point in the original article, but, while out of place, I think these images would look fantastic in the right venue...