K6 Telephone Boxes/Listed Buildings Rejected

I feel as though of all my rejections this is the most "slam dunk" acceptable nomination I've had rejected but maybe I'm missing something...

I felt as though to the historical value of these old telephone boxes (evidenced by their listed status) would have convinced reviewers that this spot is an interesting location to explore. Are K6 telephone boxes only acceptable if they've been converted into something like a free library, something actually "usable"?

I know rejection reasons are something you should basically just ignore because most wayfarers seems to just choose random rejection reasons to avoid cooldowns or something but location inappropriate and private property when the street view clearly shows that these telephone boxes are on a public pavement outside two shops? Come on...


Comments

  • ElwynGreygoose-INGElwynGreygoose-ING Posts: 244 ✭✭✭✭

    Which of the criteria do you think they meet?

    Clearly reviewers consider phone boxes as generic mass-produced piece of street furniture... which is what they are.

  • Angeljho-PGOAngeljho-PGO Posts: 82 ✭✭✭
    edited June 13

    Did you even look at my screenshots? I clearly put "great place to explore" in the supporting information.

    It was my impression that K6 telephone boxes specifically are acceptable as a great place to explore for their historical value like old postboxes, with modern postboxes (Elizabethan ones) and modern telephone boxes being considered unacceptable due to them being much more numerous. K6 telephone boxes were once mass produced but most were scrapped and preserved ones like these are rarer (hence the listed status to protect them).

    Also I don't understand how it's "clear" at all that reviewers think that the telephone boxes are generic/mass produced since there's absolutely 0 indication of that in the rejection reasons.

    My three rejection reasons are location inappropriate, prp and pedestrian access which are all... Roughly similar rejection reasons. So my first thought was that reviewers got placed inside a photosphere for a local shop or something and were too lazy to even look around on the nearby Streetview to confirm the location. Not that they were actually rejected for "generic mass produced".

  • ElwynGreygoose-INGElwynGreygoose-ING Posts: 244 ✭✭✭✭

    Well I was deliberately taking the stance of the harshest possible reviewers. So what I typed would be their response. They won't even have read the supporting information.

    I personally don't think they're eligible, though. I see them everywhere. There are quite a few that I just know of in this area. So grade 2 listing does not automatically make something worth exploring for. Round here there are just ordinary walls and railings etc that are grade 2 listed, for example.

    Some reviewers used to accept the K6, but I think the days of accepting phone boxes, stink pipes and post boxes are probably gone. But like on everything discussed here, you will find opinions vary.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 1,881 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I thought that it is a pair still together along with listing made it more unusual. They are clearly becoming rarer.

    I wondered if having the house number made some people reach for the PRP reason?

    lets keep postboxes out of this 😂😂

  • Angeljho-PGOAngeljho-PGO Posts: 82 ✭✭✭
    edited June 13

    I do lurk in these forums quite a bit and I have observed a movement especially for postboxes from the Georgian era to no longer be acceptable.

    These telephone boxes are also from the same era and are the same style. But whilst the Georgian postboxes are still standing today the K6 Georgian telephone boxes are not and most of them were destroyed.

    Hence you see listed status' on a lot of these remaining K6 telephone boxes out in public but not on the postboxes. They are rarer. Though I think there is a higher concentration of preserved K6 telephone boxes around London.

    But I imagine a lot of reviewers will not know this. So maybe this has been caught up in reviewers in general being more skeptical of this kind of street furniture.

    Regarding me including part of the address in the description... I was wondering that too. Especially since a lot of these preserved K6 telephone boxes are in private collections.

    Sorry for bringing up postboxes again! 😂

  • HankWolfman-PGOHankWolfman-PGO Posts: 2,174 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I can't find it right now, but I do believe that once upon a time Casey clarified that K6 phoneboxes weren't normally eligible. Whether the fact that these two are listed should overcome that is another matter entirely though.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,366 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree that location rejections point to something puzzling. Best I can come up with is that maybe your pin is a little south and borders that white building (I thought it was a residence but signs say it’s a storage business), or street view might be misaligned and showing your pin too far south. I’m not super-certain what to do about either of those, or even how to confirm them.

    Minor tweak that it might be helpful to point out in your text that number 85 is a business? Modify from “…located in front of number 85 on Swan Road.” to “…located in front of Tangles Hair Boutique on Swan Road.” But if there’s a map issue that probably won’t do anything.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 1,862 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Interesting post - thank you.

    My guess: With the broken glass, and missing "Telephone" sign above the door of one... they look derelict, and maybe dangerous to go inside. Maybe that led to the "location inappropriate" rejection.

  • Angeljho-PGOAngeljho-PGO Posts: 82 ✭✭✭

    I would need to double-check this but I don't believe these telephone boxes actually have usable telephones inside. I don't think they're here for people to go inside, they're just decorative.

    --

    Thank you for the insights everyone. I knew as soon as I posted this that this nomination wouldn't be as slam dunk as I thought and I now have some ideas as to the concerns that reviewers likely had when viewing this nomination and how to address them.

Sign In or Register to comment.