This is fully me just ranting about an ignorant person writing an ignorant article that also happens to be factually incorrect as well - topic is historical buildings in my city
so a bit niche and nerdy I'm afraid!
In case you don't know much about the Premier League, here's the context for this post:
So Newcastle United and their fans are having massive problems with extreme oversubscription for tickets to games. As a result they're wanting to expand their stadium (and have done for years), but this has taken off even more so since the club was bought by the Saudi Arabian government. Partly because they now have extreme amounts of money, so they can afford basically anything, and also because the number of people trying to get tickets has increased since the Saudi take over.
However, there's been some stumbling blocks in terms of getting the stadium expanded. One is that there's a row of grade I listed (occupied) houses running behind one of the stands, and the other stand is built on top of a metro station.
SO that brings us to today. I read an article that said that the gorgeous listed houses should be knocked down to make way for the stadium - in spite of the fact that people live there, I may add. The author's reason for this is that St. James Park was built in 1880, so therefore, it should take priority given it's a historical site, and we don't have many things that are older, and nobody would notice or care that they're gone.
The first problem - for Newcastle (and the entire county), a building built in 1880 is VERY YOUNG. Here's a very short and incomplete list of things we have that are older:
Cathedral (within walking distance of the stadium) - founded in 1090
Castle (again within walking distance) - 1080
Hadrians wall (a 12 mins metro ride away) - started in 122AD
Bessie Surtees House (within walking distance) - 16th century
We literally have buildings that are 1902 years old. So yes, we have plenty of older buildings than St James Park.
Secondly, none of the original stadium from 1880 is left. St James is built on the same plot of land, sure, but the building we use wasn't built in 1880.
Thirdly, and maybe most importantly - the houses he wants to knock down were built in 1830 - a full 50 years before the stadium. So he says he wants to knock down houses to save the stadium given we don't have much that's older - but the exact thing he's wanting to knock down is older than the stadium??
And that's before we get to the fact the houses are still lived in, and the impact and value they add to the city 

