Can someone please explain how I've ruined my house?

[FamilyWiggs]

and put that multi room in wall fish tank into the wall between my living and dining room. :shock:

No no no - rip out that old window you found - put the fish tank in there so you can sit in the bath and watch the fishies!

 

[Lime]

anyhow , ive got to run , ive got to kick in a few daub panels so i can get my washing machine in and put that multi room in wall fish tank into the wall between my living and dining room. :shock:

Not to mention making dozens of holes through plaster and lath ceilings for downlights.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

So if we were to sum up the "golden rules" for period property projects, they'd be something like:

1) Exercise caution and research at all stages;
2) Changes should be "honest" and clear to later generations;
3) Changes may be utterly modern in concept, purpose, design and material but must be sympathetic to the fabric of the building (eg maintain breathability)
3) Changes should be cautiously planned in proportion to the significance and irreversibilty of the proposed changes; Destruction is permanent.
4) Seek advice at all stages - PPUK, COs, neighbours, former owners, SPAB, etc
5) Be prepared to justify any changes you make to the building to your conscience, your peers, future custodians of the building, the letter of the law and the spirit of the building I'm sure we all feel in our own homes/projects (or am I the only one who feels this? :?: . If you can't do this, you're probably not doing right by the building.
6) lemon butter cookies are delicious.

Is that it? Any others?

Yes, the most important:

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

 

[Tom]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Talk about ignoring things. Just to put the record straight, the stone that WAS the mullions had spent so long in the ground with the weight of a chimney stack on them, they were unusable for mullions again in our house. However, I do intend do botch some new ones in where appropriate when we get round to doing the windows :roll:

 

[Gervase]

So if we were to sum up the "golden rules" for period property projects, they'd be something like:

1) Exercise caution and research at all stages;
2) Changes should be "honest" and clear to later generations;
3) Changes may be utterly modern in concept, purpose, design and material but must be sympathetic to the fabric of the building (eg maintain breathability)
3) Changes should be cautiously planned in proportion to the significance and irreversibilty of the proposed changes; Destruction is permanent.
4) Seek advice at all stages - PPUK, COs, neighbours, former owners, SPAB, etc
5) Be prepared to justify any changes you make to the building to your conscience, your peers, future custodians of the building, the letter of the law and the spirit of the building I'm sure we all feel in our own homes/projects (or am I the only one who feels this? :?: . If you can't do this, you're probably not doing right by the building.
6) lemon butter cookies are delicious.

Is that it? Any others?

I can't really argue with those.
Not having seen the house in question, I can't say whether or not it has been ruined, but it certainly does seem to have had an awful lot of work done to it; work that I would have counselled against. And I have to say that the bizarre disco pictures do make it seem like the lair of Dr Demento and his Crypt-Kicker Five. Certainly certainly the chaps who built the place would be turning in their crypts at the half-finished walls.
For me one of the most important rules of conservation is 'don't do anything which can't be later undone'. I do wonder how that maxim would apply to the house in question.
Sorry - momentarily stepped out from lurking; will now go back to lurking!

 

[Feltwell]

Sorry - momentarily stepped out from lurking; will now go back to lurking!

Lurkio, lurkio, wherefore art thou Lurkio?

Don't lurk Gervase, contribute! Please?

And yes, I know it was spelt Lurcio, before the PPUK pedantry police pounce.

 

[Tom]

Not having seen the house in question, I can't say whether or not it has been ruined, but it certainly does seem to have had an awful lot of work done to it; work that I would have counselled against.

What would you have objected to, and why?

And I have to say that the bizarre disco pictures do make it seem like the lair of Dr Demento and his Crypt-Kicker Five.

But those are so easily removed and, as I've said, in reality look nothing like the pictures anyway.

For me one of the most important rules of conservation is 'don't do anything which can't be later undone'. I do wonder how that maxim would apply to the house in question.

Well, don't just wonder. Why don't you ask? Most of what I've done can be undone.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Right, let's go back to basics. Forget everything that's been said already (not that you've taken any of it in anyway), and let's start again, with a simple question that deserves a simple answer.
Why did you remove every last scrap of internal wall covering?

 

[Tom]

Right, let's go back to basics. Forget everything that's been said already (not that you've taken any of it in anyway), and let's start again, with a simple question that deserves a simple answer.
Why did you remove every last scrap of internal wall covering?

I'm happy to go one question at a time. It gives me a chance to give precise and in-depth answers.

Answer: Because it was all cement render (yes, inside!) and it wasn't allowing the walls to breathe. In fact, because the cement render had failed outside (there were cracks everywhere) the rain was getting in and then couldn't get back out (inwards or outwards) and was then freezing and blowing the stone. When the render was removed, there was water literally running down the walls and the smell was awful.

Under the cement render (again, inside and out) there was absolutely nothing else. Not a trace that there had ever been anything else there.

Next

 

[rebeccac]

Did anyone see the Grand Designs episode wher a couple bought a barn and cow shed then found the cow shed was a Medieval Guildhall? Kevin was not very impressed on the approach take to 'restore' the Guildhall losing much of the later plaster and other features in order to return it to what the owners percieved of as a Medieval building - and one they could live in.

I actually had lots of sympathy for them but very little of the conservation officers who dictated that the barn must be clad in black boarding.Kevin pointed out that the farmers used a cheap source of tar from an about 1850 to preserve the boards but before this tar was available the barns were painted in all sorts of shades ,derived from earth pigments often.The same officers insisted that he put new clay roof tiles on when surely a medieval building would be thatched???

Anyway I think most of us here a trying really hard, often with very little help or advice to do the very best for our antique buildings.Everywhere I go in Cornwall I see whole villages of 'ruined' cottages - bought up for a few thousand in the 1970's and hacked about and improved by people with no knowledge or respect for history.Now its impossible to buy an 'unimproved' cottage in Cornwall and our hertiage has been lost forever.

So we should give ourselves a pat on the back for what we are doing at great expense and wear and tear (to our aging bodies) - ordoes that sound smug?

www.myabruzzohome.com

 

[Tom]

I don't think it sounds smug at all. We did as much research as we could on our house before we did anything and tried to get as much advice about it, too. We even got in touch the local CO's, even though our house isn't listed. A huge amount of my current knowledge has come from this forum, without which I wouldn't have had the courage, or belief in what I was doing, to have done anything at all. In fact, without this forum, I think we would have given up many years ago believing that this project was well beyond our capabilities. As it is, I learned about houses needing to breathe, the importance of using the correct materials and how quickly a 'non-standard' house can drain your bank balance!! So if that's being smug....I'm guilty

 

[Flyfisher]

FF's house too, in my opinion is a glorious combination of Elizabethan (am I right?) and Georgian. Imagine if he were to pick off the Georgian bits to return to Elizabethan purity of form, how silly it would be, they're so lovely, and part of the valuable history of the house.

It's an interesting point that our house only exists in its current form as a result of some quite shocking and inappropriate modifications. Large parts of the close-studded oak frame (believed to date to 1550) were cut out and generally hacked about in order to install completely out-of-character Georgian windows and most of the original, smaller Elizabethan windows were removed and filled in. The inside was then 'dry-lined' with new lath & lime-plaster walls built on a sub-frame of rough timbers nailed to the original oak frame to square things up and create as much symmetry as possible.

Imagine proudly posting photos of all that, no doubt very expensive and well-meaning, work on the 17/18th century version of PPUK. The owners would have been pilloried for the ruination of a fine Elizabethan house. Today it is deemed worth of being Grade II* listed and the thought of stripping it back to the original would be, well, unthinkable. So, the house has evolved over time and is a very real product of its own history and of the people who have lived in it.

And what of its future. Do we now suddenly decide that enough is enough and no further works should be allowed? Or only 'sensitive' works - whatever that really means? After all, there was nothing 'sensitive' about the historical works that the house has suffered in its lifetime. What is the real objection to adding a uPVC conservatory (don't panic - this is only for example, I have no such plans!!)? Such an addition would be 'of its time', it would not damage the house or result in any loss of historic fabric, it would be completely removeable . . . so what are the grounds for objection?

After all, the house has had modern wiring added, modern plumbing added, television aerials added - all of which have resulted in fairly significant visual intrusions, yet have had little or no impact on the actual physical structure and historic fabric of the house. So why are these additions generally acceptable whereas a uPVC conservatory would generally not be? Does it really just come down to personal taste and fashion? How can the history of the house continue to evolve and incorporate changes over the next 450 years of its lifetime? Or will the inhabitants of 2410 be explaining to interested parties how it is a fine example of a house that was evolving very nicely until the conservation movement of the 20th century decided that such properties should become stagnant museum pieces instead of being allowed to collect and thus preserve little architectural mementoes throughout its entire lifetime and thus truly reflect the lives of its transient occupants.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

FF - extremely eloquently put. It is lucky we live in an age where we have insight into this - pity the poor buggers in the past who were just doing up their houses.

However - there is a sense that we seem to feel what is right and what not, and where the boundary lies. Putting in uPVC double glazing in place of your Georgian windows would be an evolution of your house (and indeed, historians in 2410 may marvel at our lovely plastic-and-glass-and-argon-filled fenestrations!). However, I think we would all agree that we "feel" that this would involve destroying evidence of previous historical fabric.

That this boundary is subjective and not objective, is why we disagree on here about some houses. I think we all need to see some pics of Jon Maine's efforts again - that is what we should be aspiring to!

 

[Merlin]

Now windows create an issue. Do I:

0) Retain the lovely 1980's aluminium double glazing as they are part of the evolution of the house?
1) Replace them with wooden single glazing - returning the house to its former "look and feel"?
2) Replace them with wooden double glazing - going for the feel, but obviously not the original look?

OK, I want to get rid of the aluminium DG. Building regs would ban me from single glazing, as we are not listed, thus wooden DG seems the best answer. But is it best for the house? (or should I stick with aluminium?)

Do I aim to replicate what the neighbours have with their original windows, and have DG units made to the same style? Or do I go for something obviously different to show that they are not original windows and that the house has evolved, but evolved carefully, by someone who has thought about the impact of their actions?

More questions than answers. Can't we stop evolution?

 

[vicky whitworth]

My neighbour has put two old photos of her cottage in the early 1900s facing outwards on a windowsill so that passers by can see them. All nicely framed up. Alongside she has written a note that says, "this is what my cottage used to look like." My husband refused to let me add..."before I surrounded it with two large extensions and replaced all the window frames in plastic." I hate it. She loves it. Perhaps all we can do is what we think is right for our property. Maybe I'm mellowing!
Vicky

 

[Flyfisher]

However - there is a sense that we seem to feel what is right and what not, and where the boundary lies. Putting in uPVC double glazing in place of your Georgian windows would be an evolution of your house (and indeed, historians in 2410 may marvel at our lovely plastic-and-glass-and-argon-filled fenestrations!). However, I think we would all agree that we "feel" that this would involve destroying evidence of previous historical fabric.

That this boundary is subjective and not objective, is why we disagree on here about some houses.

Yes, I'd agree with all that - but it's an example of replacing something, such as windows in this case. I'd say it shouldn't be done on the basis that it would be destroying original fabric - nothing subjective about that. Where such a feature is clearly end-of-life (as some of ours are) then I've gone with a like-for-like replacement. But could there, perhaps, be some wiggle-room on this since the original fabric has already been lost?

But I was really thinking about completely new additions in my previous example. I agree there's a general sense of right and wrong within PPUK but, let's be honest, we're a self-selected sub-set of the general population. There seems to be no lack of enthusiasm for uPVC windows in the general population, so perhaps it's all just a matter of taste? What is the objective objection for avoiding uPVC windows in an extension to a listed building - or anything else that would be 'of its time', non-destructive and totally reversible?

 

[Tom]

Yes, I'd agree with all that - but it's an example of replacing something, such as windows in this case. I'd say it shouldn't be done on the basis that it would be destroying original fabric - nothing subjective about that. Where such a feature is clearly end-of-life (as some of ours are) then I've gone with a like-for-like replacement. But could there, perhaps, be some wiggle-room on this since the original fabric has already been lost?

FF, are you talking about the windows on my house? If so, the windows that were in when we moved here were wooden ones, totally rotten, with aluminium secondary glazing. We had them replaced with same-design uPVC before we knew anything of the house's history. I HATE them. In fairness to them, they've done a good job at keeping out the weather over the years but as soon as time and money allows they will all be replaced with Oak.

I haven't altered the design, shape or size of the windows (apart from 2 of them; one slightly higher and one returned to its original size after we found the stone surround under the cement render) and neither have I taken any stone or original fabric away.....only the rotten previous windows and secondary glazing was removed.

 

[JohnB]

I think I've found one of my original windows
View attachment 2
View attachment 1
It's in the garage, now used as a log shed, half hidden from outside by the oil tank, and I've only just looked at it closely.
This is what replaced them in the late 60s. I've got an aerial view from 1967 that appears to show one window missing, so I assume it was taken while they were being fitted.

The previous owner replaced them with the nasty uPVC I've got now.

I haven't measured the sash window to see if it fits yet, but it would seem logical that it's one of the originals. I'm afraid the plastic windows are likely to stay, unless I can afford to replace them with high performance triple glazing or something . I really don't want it to look like a pair of 50s council houses for much longer though! Part of me would love to restore it to early condition, but my aim is to make it fit for the future, in a way that's far more sympathetic to the past than what has been done by previous owners.

 

[Jill]

I really don't want it to look like a pair of 50s council houses for much longer though! Part of me would love to restore it to early condition, but my aim is to make it fit for the future, in a way that's far more sympathetic to the past than what has been done by previous owners.

Is it still two houses? or have you already started on the process? Lots of work involved in converting two into one - I know from experience. Do you know what date it originates from?

 

[Flyfisher]

FF, are you talking about the windows on my house?

Not really. I was trying to be a bit more general. Trying to better understand the objective and subjective when dealing with period properties. I was using my house as an example where features that make it worthy of being GII* listed today are a result of destructive and inappropriate alterations a few hundred years ago. Are we really so superior or more sophisticated today that we really know better, or are we just frightened of change and feel the urge to preserve everything as it is?

I suspect we'd all agree that destroying any historical fabric is a bad thing.

I suspect we'd mostly agree that when something has come to the end of its useful life then it should be replaced like-for-like. Although the door of subjectivity could be nudged open a little when defining like-with-like. For example, the use of reclaimed materials in such works might be cause for some debate.

I suspect we'd mostly agree that if a period property is extended then the new addition should be sympathetic to the main property. However, this is where the door of subjectivity might be flung wide open. How do we define 'sympathetic'? Should the new work be 'of its time' or pastiche? Use obviously new materials or reclaimed materials to disguise the age of the work?

And where do plastic windows fit into all this? It seems to me that on a number of objective levels, they ought to be acceptable (for additions, not replacements). They are clearly 'of their time', they would be non-destructive to the historic structure and they could be removed without causing any damage. As such, they would seem to meet many of the objective guidelines for additions to period properties.

Whether they are sympathetic or not would seem to be an entirely subjective opinion.

Personally, I think they are as ugly as sin and I'd condemn them as the work of the devil. But that's just my opinion and doesn't really count as an objective judgement or guideline for how to look after our period properties.

It's almost as tricky as religion!