Beneath this coffee ad is another ghost, which reads:
G LUMLEY'S GROCERY PROVISION WAREHOUSE

Turkey coffee? Perhaps it was Avian Flu.

I'm more concerned by the fact that the sign seems to have gone darker since the clean-up, and the whole scene has been ruined by those chunky new rooftops and white co-op.

Do the signs look darker to you?

Yes, and I too hate the modern intrusions.

Is it better than losing the building altogether? Our local councillor thought the frontage was worth saving, although the rest of it has been gutted, and I doubt she has the aesthetic sensitivity to realise that a poor job has been done.

Yes, it IS better, if the only alternative (in practical, financial terms) would have been demolition. The building might have been structurally unsound through subsidence (look at the deformation of the window to the left of the lower sign and the brickwork above and below it) and if so, no developer could have recovered the cost of rescuing and restoring the rest of it. But notwithstanding, permission should not have been given for the addition of that hideous modern top storey.

The building was left unoccupied for many years: a ploy often used by would-be developers, in the hope that it will eventually be deemed unsound and a demolition order granted.

The hideous top storey is yet more student accommodation, and for that you can blame Tony Blair, who was so keen for the youth of the nation to waste their time on frivolous degrees while the necessary workforce is imported from abroad.

The university loves modern out-of-place buildings and invariably gets its way with the planning committee. Once a precedent has been set, the council cannot refuse an application merely on the grounds of it being ugly, or they will have to foot the cost of inevitable appeals.