Well true in a way. The disvantages with preserving heritage, is that it can sometimes cost a lot of money. But oh well.... There's still some who like heritage and want to live in heritage houses, so unfortunately it just is what it is. Some people think heritage is useless, no denying that. Fixing and renovating the old historic house is also something that they would do if it was cheaper and not going to cost so much, or if building a new modern house just wasn't necessary.
@@Lotr2987 if they really wanted to do it they would fork out their own money. No tax payer should have to pay for someone else's passion project. I'm not saying no one should be able to preserve heritage properties, just no one should do it off of the back of my dime. I also find it ridiculous that in a country as young as our own we would have heritage properties. I'd sooner believe it is an attempt to inflate neighborhood property values by constraining new developments than to actually protect anything.
@@John34645 Yeah yeah I get what you mean. Fair enough. Some people have actually paid for projects like this themselves. And yes there actually needs to be some new development. That is true. But nah just simply can't do much with the ones who still want to preserve at least some heritage buildings, I do actually like heritage anyway, so basically I do agree there needs to be lots of new developments, I like modern developments, but also I like to see heritage buildings preserved, well just some of them. Apart from inflammation and stuff like that, like I said before other reasons why they might just renovate and fix the old historic house is if they just don't need to build a new house, e.g. the house already suits the needs of a one or two story house, doesn't need too much work, or building new houses is crazy expensive
@@JohnSmith-sh1cu we aren't exactly an old nation. And more often than not heritage properties are but a means of artificially inflating housing price's. I have no issue with people buying a heritage House and maintaining it themselves. That's fine. The issue is when I am not only forced to pay for it through my taxes, but it is then also done to maintain that inflated cost of housing. I am not denying the value of history as an absolute I am denying this history and the purpose of it's maintenance.
![ถ้าพี่วุ้นท้อง แป้งจะท้องไปด้วยกัน !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FeyEnVMwitA/mqdefault.jpg)
You two are rarer than the buildings themselves. True restorers who understand history, are passionate and an asset to Ballarat and Victoria.
Congratulations, what a wondeful job !!;
Tremendous job. Congratulations
Wendouree is the best suburb in the city of Ballarat
best suburb for carjackings
@@kavindaaa really? What do you mean?
😊
What a waste of money.
Well true in a way.
The disvantages with preserving heritage, is that it can sometimes cost a lot of money.
But oh well....
There's still some who like heritage and want to live in heritage houses, so unfortunately it just is what it is. Some people think heritage is useless, no denying that.
Fixing and renovating the old historic house is also something that they would do if it was cheaper and not going to cost so much, or if building a new modern house just wasn't necessary.
@@Lotr2987 if they really wanted to do it they would fork out their own money. No tax payer should have to pay for someone else's passion project. I'm not saying no one should be able to preserve heritage properties, just no one should do it off of the back of my dime.
I also find it ridiculous that in a country as young as our own we would have heritage properties. I'd sooner believe it is an attempt to inflate neighborhood property values by constraining new developments than to actually protect anything.
@@John34645 Yeah yeah I get what you mean. Fair enough.
Some people have actually paid for projects like this themselves.
And yes there actually needs to be some new development. That is true.
But nah just simply can't do much with the ones who still want to preserve at least some heritage buildings, I do actually like heritage anyway, so basically I do agree there needs to be lots of new developments, I like modern developments, but also I like to see heritage buildings preserved, well just some of them.
Apart from inflammation and stuff like that, like I said before other reasons why they might just renovate and fix the old historic house is if they just don't need to build a new house, e.g. the house already suits the needs of a one or two story house, doesn't need too much work, or building new houses is crazy expensive
Ridiculous that Australia has heritage properties? If you think that then you don't understand the concept and value of heritage and history.
@@JohnSmith-sh1cu we aren't exactly an old nation. And more often than not heritage properties are but a means of artificially inflating housing price's. I have no issue with people buying a heritage House and maintaining it themselves. That's fine. The issue is when I am not only forced to pay for it through my taxes, but it is then also done to maintain that inflated cost of housing. I am not denying the value of history as an absolute I am denying this history and the purpose of it's maintenance.