Curiosity

[Maxx]

Is it just me, or do other members (especially armchair followers who appreciate the explores of others) ever wonder why so many fantastic structures that must have been expensive feats of engineering to construct are simply abandoned and not regenerated for other uses? All these tunnels and WW2 infrastructure, surely could be used for storage or agriculture? Not only that I really can't imagine these days that most would even be constructed at all due to cost. For all the talk about sustainability, why are existing things not put to use so saving the impact of new builds?
Similarly, all these abandoned buildings, especially churches and grand houses, why aren't the fixtures and fittings repurposed - I'm not talking about wilful architectural theft, but surely something could be organised when demolition becomes the choice or only option?
Still I suppose if everything was properly valued and used there would be fewer opportunities for Urbex.

 

[Exploring with Andy]

I think a few factors are at play, but it mainly comes down to money. It costs a hell of a lot to renovate places, far more than it costs to build new. This is the reason why they usually build lots of new houses within the grounds of old grand buildings that are being renovated and repurposed - they fund the redevelopment.
There's also modern building regulations to take into account, which again vastly adds to the cost to bring buildings up to standard, if it's even possible at all.
It's the same reason why a lot of places become abandoned in the first place, just the cost of maintenance alone can be astronomical for older buildings, often forcing the owners to have to give up on them.
As for agricultural use, they sometimes do get repurposed for that, but only when they are in a convenient location.

 

[Mikeymutt]

Lots of former World War Two airfields are situated on farmland. They were basically taken from the farmer, but I am sure with compensation with the promise they would be returned. After the war ended most were returned. Many of these had the old buildings that were meant to be temporary, and many of these were repurposed by the farmers. I think nearly ever original World War Two site I have been, the buildings show signs of agricultural use. Nearly all of these are now laying derelict, even with these simple structures they cost to do up, prob had asbestos in them as well. Some places have done the old infrastructure up and still in use, not bad for temporary structures over eighty years old. You get many people on the military groups saying it’s a crime the farmers are letting them go like this. But it’s the farmers land, land that was taken from them and built on. Who is going to fund all these restorations, the people shouting on the groups most certainly won’t. This is just World War Two structure, when you get all the other buildings it can get a bit of an impossible mission.

 

[Ryhs]

Simple terms, Sometimes they are too expensive to run, They are too old/dangerous for use, They cant/wont be demolished so are left to rot or a general neglect from the owners

 

[mookster]

In the case of the NHS and their myriad of assorted derelict buildings all over the country, they simply cannot afford to demolish everything that isn't sold to a developer. People forget it costs a lot of money to demolish something especially on a large scale, as everything now has to be stripped beforehand, asbestos removal undertaken (extremely expensive), etc etc. The contractors who undertake the demolition jobs obviously won't do it for free, so charge for the job and make money off the scrap/salvage afterwards. I heard it from the horses mouth a couple of years back after bumping into an extremely friendly NHS middle manager type guy whilst poking around the grounds of a hospital near London that they simply can't afford to demolish a lot of stuff, hence why it sits unused for years.