Skip to main content

Clegg Hall revisited

A while ago I blogged about Clegg Hall near Littleborough, where I grew up. All my lifetime it has been a ruin, a sad remnant of what it once was. When I was young I fantasized about making my fortune and one day coming back to restore it. The 'before' photo to the right here is what it looked like in 1999.

Thanks to Nick Pickvance for sending me photos including the one below of the hall in its shiny new 2009 state - remarkably, someone really has restored a building that has been abandoned for decades. It does look rather splendid, though it has lost a couple of its best architectural features - and there still seems to be a row of weavers' cottages right next to it - though given the history of the area, this isn't inappropriate.


So I raise a virtual glass in honour of whoever undertook this remarkable effort.

You can find more about Clegg Hall, its history and its boggart in this article.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Anonymous23 February 2009 at 22:25

    Although I have not lived in the area for many years, from childhood walks I remember Clegg Hall as an eerie ruin: what a wonderful restoration this appears to be!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown12 July 2015 at 19:54

    Hi, I completely rebuilt clegghall between 2005 and 2008 at accost of 1 million, due to the recession I realised less than half that!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I also saved Healeyhall in Rochdale between 2000 and 2004.again a loss of half a million pounds, !!!!! Both restorations are on Healeyhalldevelopments.co.uk or listedbuildingsrestoration.co.uk
    I am currently looking for another project??? if any body knows of ahall that needs saving!!!!!! I prefer a stately home this time.
    regards Jason Stead

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more