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

[JoceAndChris]

End of life is not set in stone either. I think that's where many of the problems lie. I've seen some really shocking examples of misjudging something as finished on here, and having been guilty of it myself, I know how it happens.

In days gone by people knew their place. In general terms, decisions about house design were made by people far better qualified to decide on what was right and appropriate than your average builder, or restorer, today.

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, I'd agree with your first point, Joce. It sometimes seems that 'end-of-life' means a window in need of painting.

But your second point is deliberately controversial - isn't it?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

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?

Yes, and there's a thread on it here:
http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11581&hilit=Grand+Designs

 

[JoceAndChris]

No, I really, passionately believe what I wrote. Why would a local oik, who will most probably buy my house when I die, be better qualified, or as well qualified to make changes and additions to my house as the original architect, who studied the Classics, who knew all about architectural history?

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Aren't most of our houses not designed by architects? Aren't the majority of our old houses more vernacular than high?

I doubt an architect ever really had much to do with this place - and as a result it is much more local and a part of the landscape from which it was (almost literally) hewn.

That said - I get the point you're making Joce. As I jokingly said up thread "We're not worthy!"

 

[JohnB]

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?

It's not that simple! The downstairs of one house and the modern kitchen extension is all that's habitable at the moment. The rest is part done. So it's not two houses, but it's not really one either! It's got two entrances, and one currently accesses the downstairs of the unfinished house and the whole upstairs! The aim is to make back into two. I haven't been able to start yet, due to the land problem that's still dragging on. Until that's sorted, I don't know if I'll be able to do what I want, or will have to do something different. If I ever get this problem sorted, I'll explain it all!

I haven't got an exact date, but the earliest date I've found so far is 1856, so I suspect it's a few years earlier.

 

[Flyfisher]

No, I really, passionately believe what I wrote. Why would a local oik, who will most probably buy my house when I die, be better qualified, or as well qualified to make changes and additions to my house as the original architect, who studied the Classics, who knew all about architectural history?

Yes, I see your point Joce, but for the vast majority of buildings isn't FW right about the vernacular nature of things?

Or, perhaps more controversially, even if a local oik did make changes or additions to a property that the original architect would have abhored, wouldn't those changes form part of the history of the house and be just as historically relevant/important?

Perhaps it's just a matter of timescale?

Some 'oik' vandalised our Elizabethan house and gave it a completely unsympathetic Georgian makeover, destroying some of the historic fabric of the original house in the process. Fast-forward a few hundred years and we think it's all a wonderful part of its history, showing how the house has been changed and adapted by the previous generations of occupants.

If exactly the same thing was done today (if it could get LBC!) it would be regarded as vandalism and ruination. But what would the folk of 2210 think of it all?

 

[Pford75]

As FF and FW say, not all buildings were architect designed. Our home was built by the 'nouveau riche' of their time who had come into money through trade and marriage. The house certainly wasn't architect designed and was built as a fashion statement....someone doing the same today would be roundly condemned here for pandering to fashion.

I understand your point Joce, but It sounds dangerously close to "the rich and educated should be trusted to do what they want, whereas the plebs need to be controlled by the state". I'm sure that's not what you meant, but some might construe it that way.

BTW - architects and classically trained folks create aberrations as well. Wasn't Norfolk County Council 'County Hall' designed by the supposed experts?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

As FF and FW say, not all buildings were architect designed. Our home was built by the 'nouveau riche' of their time who had come into money through trade and marriage. The house certainly wasn't architect designed and was built as a fashion statement....someone doing the same today would be roundly condemned here for pandering to fashion.

I understand your point Joce, but It sounds dangerously close to "the rich and educated should be trusted to do what they want, whereas the plebs need to be controlled by the state". I'm sure that's not what you meant, but some might construe it that way.

BTW - architects and classically trained folks create aberrations as well. Wasn't Norfolk County Council 'County Hall' designed by the supposed experts?

County Hall is better than it looks at first glance (though inside is better than outside, the ceremonial rooms have a very definite James Bond 1960s quality - and I do mean quality - it's not to my taste, but I can understand why it would be worth a closer look than just driving past and thinking "what a carbuncle"). By the New Zealand-born architect Reginald Uren, whose first solo building was the also very good Art Deco Hornsey Town Hall, won in competition some 35 years earlier. Laver's Law of Fashion applies almost equally to buildings:

The same costume will be:

- Indecent: 10 years before its time
- Shameless: 5 years before its time
- Outré (daring): 1 year before its time
- Smart- Dowdy: 1 year after its time
- Hideous: 10 years after its time
- Ridiculous: 20 years after its time
- Amusing: 30 years after its time
- Quaint: 50 years after its time
- Charming: 70 years after its time
- Romantic: 100 years after its time
- Beautiful: 150 years after its time

 

[robgil]

No, I really, passionately believe what I wrote. Why would a local oik, who will most probably buy my house when I die, be better qualified, or as well qualified to make changes and additions to my house as the original architect, who studied the Classics, who knew all about architectural history?

but you dont have to be better qualified , isnt the whole point about living in a home comfortably actually making your home comfortable for you to live in? if its down to individual taste then i believe there is no such thing as bad taste , just personal taste. surely from a conservation point of view if your house is listed any future owners wont be allowed to do anything out of place with it?
i do know where you are coming from though , i was chatting to an estate agent about this place just to keep my finger on the pulse and he said that houses like this are in high demand , one down the road recently sold for the asking price , anyhow i told him it wasnt listed and he said it would sell really quickly because people would be able to do what ever they wanted with it. :shock: even the thought of some conservation ignorant people walking around the cottage discussing pulling down walls and the like made me really cringe.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I know just how you feel Rob. Some of the ideas I've heard proposed for this place - by friends, family, people who considered buying it, just make me despair- for example, remove the roof and create a second storey, knock all the walls down on the ground floor and create open plan living with a massive modern kitchen, putting the bedrooms in the undercroft, knock out the polygonal bay in the drawing room and replace it with a giant glass conservatory... I think how can I even be friendly with you when you've just said that and want to give them a punch in the face for the total ignorance of the architectural vandalism they propose. And then you have to start all the explaining, and explaining some more, and it really can be quite agonisingly tiresome.

I do see the essential contradiction in celebrating the houses which are characterised by a mix of styles but not wanting that mix of styles to include much of 2010. The way the cottage is now is just so much nicer , to me, than some of the arbitrary proposed changes I mention above.

I also wonder just how many period properties will be swept away by a need for high rise living in 200 years' time, and wonder how much opportunity the inhabitants of the future will have to admire the conservation practices and mix of building styles of 2010. Should this whimsical speculation of will they hate us for removing avocado loos alter how we go about fixing up our houses, or Robin's Golden Rules post - no, I don't think so. My house is characterised by symmetry, harmony of proportion and classical references that conveys ( I think beautifully) what masters of taste the Georgians were. So I'm very very defensive about that, and don't want any modern additions to the building thank you, in terms of its structure. That this approach is not right for every building, of course I can see that.

But I do think that the Georgian additions to FF's house are not comparable to , say, 1920s additions - though I love the 1920s. They're infinitely more valuable, because it was an era in which even common people had a sense of good taste, beauty, refined elegance, and exquisite design. Unlike today.

 

[JoceAndChris]

As FF and FW say, not all buildings were architect designed. Our home was built by the 'nouveau riche' of their time who had come into money through trade and marriage. The house certainly wasn't architect designed and was built as a fashion statement....someone doing the same today would be roundly condemned here for pandering to fashion.

I understand your point Joce, but It sounds dangerously close to "the rich and educated should be trusted to do what they want, whereas the plebs need to be controlled by the state". I'm sure that's not what you meant, but some might construe it that way.

Nice fashion statement - very - which takes me back to my last point of the post above. Is it really true that it was built without an overall design, thought of by an architect? Surely every building on the scale of yours needed architectural drawings?

The plebs controlled by the state? It's an attractive idea, if it didn't lead to dictatorship and mass bloodshed.

But I do wish people would either a) educate themselves a bit more on history and architecture before wading in and gutting a place or b) accept their lack of qualification to redesign a house and entrust the process to conservation architects.

And I wish there was more in place legally, to protect our built heritage, and a better system of punishments in general.

 

[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

Gareth, what is your response to my answer? Do you think I was wrong to remove all the cement render?

 

[Gervase]

I'm sure Gareth can explain for himself, but my view is that you were right to remove the cement render, but left the job unfinished. Hasing those bare stones is like leaving your grandmother shivering in the parlour in her underwear. Those walls would and should have been plastered. Bare stone is a modern affectation and - de gustibus non est disputandum be b*ggered - it looks ugly and 'wrong'.
Externally there is something to be said for unrendered stone - hard stones may have been left bare, but the likelehood is that all stonework was limewashed at the very least. Render is debatable - in the West of the UK render was the norm on exposed faces, but lime was not always a cheap or accessible commodity, so some renders were clay-based with a limewash protective coat and deep eaves to protect them. Brickwork is another matter; much brick was laid to be seen (hence the banding and fancy bonds one sometimes sees).
Internally, however, bare stone is a mistake.

 

[Tom]

Gervase, the reason we didn't re-render with Lime is that there was absolutely no trace of evidence that there ever was anything other than the cement render on this house. Also, there are many, many other period houses in this area and around the whole of Lincolnshire that are not rendered. Given the above, on what basis would you render?

 

[robgil]

Gervase, the reason we didn't re-render with Lime is that there was absolutely no trace of evidence that there ever was anything other than the cement render on this house. Also, there are many, many other period houses in this area and around the whole of Lincolnshire that are not rendered. Given the above, on what basis would you render?

protection? usually if the house isnt listed they will strip old lime render totally to replace it with cement. personally i think if its not doing the original fabric of your house any harm then you havent really done anything wrong except exercise your personal taste , the only problem i can see resulting from this is future confusion as to how your walls were finished so perhaps to avoid this you should render/plaster parts of the house in traditional materials and methods to at least hint to future owners as to what it might have been like historically?

I think its easier explained with the fact that we are not really owners of these propertys , we are simply care takers and our job is to make sure we hand them on to the next owners without or with as little confusion as possible as to their original state.
so its not just the original fabric of the house that we are responsible for , its also the houses history that we must pass on and we cannot do this properly by adding confusion to this history. its easy to use photos and notes to do this but photos and notes can get lost in time so the best way to pass on unconfused history is to let the house tell the story by itself.
not only will this help historians with the history of your house but it may also help them unravel the history of other houses in the area.

 

[robgil]

I think how can I even be friendly with you when you've just said that and want to give them a punch in the face for the total ignorance of the architectural vandalism they propose. And then you have to start all the explaining, and explaining some more, and it really can be quite agonisingly tiresome.

.

ha ha i know exactly what you mean , i am sick and tired explaining to people about breath-ability , why dpm's and cement plaster/render caused the sill plates in the house to rot , why upvc windows are stupid horrid things that have no place in old houses etc etc, over and over again.
this is usually met with disbelief and sometimes annoying comments brought on by lack of knowledge on their part.
one instance was me explaining how my daub infils historically would never have been plastered and being told ''but this is the 21st century not the 1600's''. this came from someone whose house is a lovely yellow london brick house that has been badly pointed and plastered in cement , cement floors with dpm's and god knows what else and has now got damp problems and blowing brick faces.

 

[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?

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

Gareth, what is your response to my answer? Do you think I was wrong to remove all the cement render?

Gervase has said it all. And I simply don't believe that there was never anything other than relatively modern cement render on the inside of the house.

 

[Gervase]

Gervase, the reason we didn't re-render with Lime is that there was absolutely no trace of evidence that there ever was anything other than the cement render on this house. Also, there are many, many other period houses in this area and around the whole of Lincolnshire that are not rendered. Given the above, on what basis would you render?

If the stone is sound, well-pointed and weathertight and there is no historical precendent, then I wouldn't render. If you read my comments, I'm talking about the interior. I find it hard to believe that most houses in your part of Lincolnshire have bare stone walls inside.

 

[Tom]

...the only problem i can see resulting from this is future confusion as to how your walls were finished...

But how do we know that it ever was rendered? There's no physical evidence, other houses in Lincolnshire are the same and, as I've said on another thread, there's a drawing of the house from 1706 showing it unrendered, as well as two later oil paintings showing the same.

...so perhaps to avoid this you should render/plaster parts of the house in traditional materials and methods to at least hint to future owners as to what it might have been like historically?

You see, to me, that causes more confusion..."showing what it might have been like"...because it might also not have been like that. As it is, we have Lime plastered some of the internal walls. In the places where large amounts of stone are missing (either where someone deliberately removed it (but why?) and when it fell away when it was semi-derelict) it has been filled in with brick (not by me), and quite badly. So, we Lime plastered those parts. So, actually, there is some Lime plaster in every room...some more than others.

...I think its easier explained with the fact that we are not really owners of these propertys , we are simply care takers and our job is to make sure we hand them on to the next owners without or with as little confusion as possible as to their original state.

But, as far as I possibly can, this is what I've done. OK, I've added UFH, new electrics, new plumbing etc. but as for the original fabric, there's little been taken away. The walls that had been put in that divided the main living room had to come out because it made the house unworkable and extremely dark and would have left the fireplace unusable, in a pokey little 'lobby' area.

...so its not just the original fabric of the house that we are responsible for , its also the houses history that we must pass on and we cannot do this properly by adding confusion to this history...

But where have I added confusion? I keep going round and round and round with this one but I really can't see what else I could have done :?

...its easy to use photos and notes to do this but photos and notes can get lost in time so the best way to pass on unconfused history is to let the house tell the story by itself. not only will this help historians with the history of your house but it may also help them unravel the history of other houses in the area.

I think the house does show its history. Nothing we've done is hidden away. Here's an example. We had to replace a number of wooden window lintels; the originals were rotten due to DeathWatch Beetles. Because of the construction of the house (rubble infill), there are two (sometimes three) lintels to each window. On one, for example, we had to replace just the middle one. All have been replaced with Oak but, obviously, it doesn't match the original pieces. It was suggested to me that we "cloak the lot in the same Oak, so it matches". I said no, that we should be able to see the repair for what it is. Is that something else I've done wrong?

On another window, there are 7 pieces of pine used as lintels. It looks like someone broke a pallet up and used that!! Again, it was suggested that we cloak it all in Oak and I said no. It's not hurting the house and it's part of the history. Surely that's not something else I've done wrong?

Where does this assumption come from; that I've ruined my house, taken no interest in its history and done things deliberately to p*ss people off?