Use existing derelict buildings instead of building new.

I take it that the Scottish Borders Council are responsible for the strange decision to construct a new building to house 'the' Tapestry at Teedbank? Why not use one of the existing, derelict, mill buildings such as the endangered Wilton Mill with its clocktower in Hawick. This would be a more appropriate setting (a mill building housing a tapestry seems 'right' to me), would bring trade to Hawick and would help to stop the indiscriminate demolition of important historical buildings. There is plenty of parking space (thanks to the fact that large parts of the building have already, sadly, been demolished). It is on a main bus route and is in a commanding position. If not this building, then one of the many others between Galashiels, Selkirk and Hawick.

Why the contribution is important

This may not save a large amount of money during construction but will earn more income than a new building at Tweedbank, due to its location and would save one important building. 

by pratt on November 06, 2015 at 08:26AM

Current Rating

4.7
Average score : 4.7
Based on : 10 votes

Comments

  • Posted by snecma November 06, 2015 at 20:46

    The Council tells us that a renovated derelict building would not have satisfied the tapestry trustees requirements, so in this case a new building is essential. However, in principal it is an excellent idea to bring the mill buildings into use and perhaps this suggestion could be broadened out and the Council could oblige developers to do feasability studies on bringing these buildings into use before granting permission for new-builds.
  • Posted by RaymondKerr November 12, 2015 at 19:42

    The council is obliged to consider existing buildings under the Scottish Governments "Town Centre First" initiative.
    I doubt that one single document exists to show that any other building was considered prior to the Tweedbank white elephant. The business case has been looked at independently and the numbers leave the tax payers with a considerable liability.
    Don't do it!!!!
  • Posted by BrawLass November 27, 2015 at 12:41

    Seems ridiculous to even consider constructing a new building in the middle of nowhere when there are so many good buildings standing empty.
  • Posted by ancrumcraig November 27, 2015 at 16:34

    Very good thinking to use Wilton Mill.
  • Posted by Bramble December 05, 2015 at 17:38

    Agree entirely. It is difficult to see why SBC have agreed to house someone else's tapestry at their own cost, and surely a refurbished site would have been better. But it might not have been in the Leader's constituency.
  • Posted by abell December 17, 2015 at 02:12

    I said exactly this in my objection to the demolision of the Wilton Mill and also to my objection to the newbuild in Tweedbank, but - 1) nobody in the Council seems to listen and - 2) not enough people object.

    Wilton Mills have been demolished this weekend, so we are too late, but there are still plenty empty buildings left in the Borders - don't let them demolish them all!
  • Posted by tubefly January 21, 2016 at 13:20

    If there is no way that we can cancel the "Tapestry directive" from SBC, then place it in one of the already empty buildings in our area. I think building a new purpose built unit in an industrial area is a non-starter.
  • Posted by tubefly January 21, 2016 at 14:11

    Why not place the tapestry, if we must have it, in the unused floor of the "Transport Interchange? Right in the town centre with café and toilets.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas