A Property is Considered Period when.....

[Flyfisher]

To be fair, I could have posted a pictures of Stevenage (though not those round things) and I'm sure others could do similar for other towns, so Basildon is not unique.

Hmm, that's not very reassuring is it?

 

[Feltwell]

By way of contrast, I wonder if this would be considered a period property, should it ever be completed?

http://www.ajbrowne.com/html/hx.html#

I remember that place, a triumph of wealth over taste if I remember rightly. Nicholas van Hoogstraten was one of the most notorious slum landlords in this country, and now lives in Zimbabwe where the political regime suits his ways of working.

http://www.theguardian.com/g2/story/0,3604,365743,00.html

Much as it pains me to link to the Mail.......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...as-Van-Hoogstratens-astonishing-new-life.html

 

[Flyfisher]

Yep, I wasn't going to stray into the history of the place but now you mention it he sounds like a pretty nasty piece of work. Everything I'd read about it suggests it'll never be finished, though I wonder if it wouldn't suit some Russian oligarchy chappie. :lol:

As for linking to a piece in the Daily Mail, why not? If it's in such an august publication it must be true:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

 

[DJH]

Sorry chaps...this one takes first place...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEmGARzttsE

Nice r/water heads and pipes there...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/27/brecqhou-barclay-brothers-getaway-island

Doug

 

[Gareth Hughes]

...the financial and emotional cost of putting it into a condition that 99% of the population would consider usable is approximately twice its eventual value, but you do it anyway.

 

[plasticpigeon]

Looks like the trafford centre.

 

[DJH]

What does PP? :?

 

[plasticpigeon]

Hoogstraten's unfinished mansion.

 

[Flyfisher]

Sorry chaps...this one takes first place...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEmGARzttsE

Nice r/water heads and pipes there...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/27/brecqhou-barclay-brothers-getaway-island

Only TWO years to build all of that, including bringing everything by sea? :shock:

 

[LadyArowana]

Sorry chaps...this one takes first place...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEmGARzttsE

Nice r/water heads and pipes there...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/27/brecqhou-barclay-brothers-getaway-island

Only TWO years to build all of that, including bringing everything by sea? :shock:

Large quantities of money make many problems go away.

 

[philpjuk100]

I purchased a new house in 1971,it had a blue bath,woodchip,artex and a kitchen hatch,if the current owners have kept all these features I would consider it "period".

 

[Penners]

I'll have refer to ours as a 'mongrel' property rather than a period one - which doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

May I presume to suggest that, in place of the word 'mongrel' you should substitute the phrase 'one with hybrid vigour'? :wink:

Actually, I think the OP's question has no definitive answer. As others have observed, things become 'period' or 'antique' on a rolling basis, as time passes. So even a house built in the 1950s or '60s could be regarded as period, if it is still an authentic example of its age.

Now that I come to think of it, I'm fairly 'period' myself...

 

[MatthewC]

The Haynes book of Period Property (much better than it sounds) defines period property as having solid wall construction made from natural materials such as brick, wood or stone. They are making the definition for maintenance purposes but sounds as fair as any other definition.

Well, my house is featured in that book, so I reckon that means that my house is certainly period!

However, I think in the generally accepted sense, modern buildings are not what most of us would think of as "period". Yes, they represent their period but that's not the point, is it?

(dons tin hat and takes cover)

 

[Zebra]

...the financial and emotional cost of putting it into a condition that 99% of the population would consider usable is approximately twice its eventual value, but you do it anyway.

:lol: :lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, very good Gareth, a lot of truth there I feel, especially if the property in question is 'the' house and one has no intention of ever moving again. In such circumstances, future value becomes much less important.

 

[Penners]

I have renovated several period properties, all of them purely as my own home. I have never used the cold-blooded "will the value of the property increase by the amount that I'm spending?" calculation. And yet, when the time has come to move elsewhere (always for work or family reasons) I have never been disappointed with the value of the property that I'm selling, nor lost money on what I have spent on it.

I would never advocate a "blank cheque" policy in house renovation, but I also think that you are more likely than not to see a proportionate and satisfactory increase in the value of the property for any sensible improvements work that you carry out.

 

[DJH]

Sorry chaps...this one takes first place...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEmGARzttsE

Nice r/water heads and pipes there...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/27/brecqhou-barclay-brothers-getaway-island

Only TWO years to build all of that, including bringing everything by sea? :shock:

Yea...construction at it's very best.

Doug

 

[plasticpigeon]

did you work on that project Doug? Also can i trouble you for some advice on lead work please??

 

[Penners]

Here's an interesting thought (well, I think so anyway!):

You might consider that a period property is one that is rich in period features. By that definition, this place certainly qualifies:-

http://hearstcastle.org/history-behind-hearst-castle/

William Randolph Hearst constructed the "castle" by buying a plethora of period structures and features that had been stripped out of their original period buildings, mostly in Europe. He and his architect, Julia Morgan, gathered these together into a huge, extraordinary, idiosyncratic "mansion" on the Californian coast. It is, of course, entirely fake and unutterably vulgar, and yet most people who have been there (myself included) will tell you that it is actually a magical place and, despite everything, rather beautiful.

Julia Morgan must have had the patience of a saint. During the construction of the place, Hearst would frequently send her enormous "features" that he had just purchased - a panelled room, for example - and tell her to include it in the building. Then, some months later when this work had been carried out, he would decide that he didn't like it after all, and have it stripped out again. So she was never able to create and follow an overall plan. The building simply grew, like Topsy, bit-by-bit.

I do recommend it, as a fascinating place to visit.

 

[DJH]

Yes I did PP. If I can help in any way by all means.

Doug