Old houses, modern sensibilities and 'fashion'

[alice]

I've slogged through a lot of Morris's writings and while his philosophy is admirable, he was also a man of his times. He was a socialist who had a comfortable private income and servants. He admired the medieval...but didn't live as one. He lived as modern a life as the rest of his contemporaries. In his workshops, in which he tried to avoid modern manufacturing machinery, still had modern (for the times) heating and lighting.

I don't want to belittle his accomplishments. He was an idealist and hugely influential. Personally, I admire his artistic side the most, but probably the most important contribution was his founding of SPAB because he institutionalized the idea that architecture belonged to the community, not just individuals to do with as they will. But, idealist or not, Morris also recognized the difference between adding quality changes that don't overwhelm the basic structure of a building and wiping out all of it's character with complete renovations, which is what I think this thread is about.

alice

 

[Penners]

William Morris....didn't throw his slops out the window.

Me neither. Add my name to the history books.

 

[Nigel Watts]

William Morris's manifesto for the SPAB (it can be found on their website) should be compulsory reading, whether one ends up agreeing with it or not.

He was keen that new work should be honest, of its time and clearly distinguishable from the old. This is a point of view I have considerable sympathy with.

My approach, which I have been using in my current house, is to use good modern designs and materials for aspects of the house which simply could not have existed when it was built in 1840 (kitchen, bathrooms, etc), and for the modest side and rear extensions). This allows them to be clearly be read as additions, as well as being interesting in their own right. By contrast, pastiche or attempts to make them look as if they were built at the same time of the house are more likely to dilute the original and confuse (or be dishonest if one wants to bring morality into it).

In restoring the original fabric however, I have taken the view that one should respect it as far as possible.

The difficult choices came when the two aspects overlap. For example we have a very modern room in our rear extension leading off the original hall. Should we use an old panelled door or a modern flush one? In both cases it will be "right" on one side and "wrong" on the other. We chose to use a modern door.

The other difficulty is knowing when to blend in materials used in repairs and when to allow them to look new (Morris was keen on the latter). I have taken the view that it depends on how much needs to be replaced. Some floorboards needed replacing in my living room. I used new pine, but had it stained and beeswaxed to matched the old work, but when the entire staircase leading to the basement had to be remade (half was missing the other half was rotten) I had it rebuilt in the original style and materials but left the pine unstained before having it sealed with a modern semi gloss non slip varnish.

I guess there is no right answer to these matters and one has to find one's own way, within the constraints imposed by listing rules etc (ours is Grade II).

 

[Penners]

He was keen that new work should be honest, of its time and clearly distinguishable from the old. This is a point of view I have considerable sympathy with.

Me too. Not only does this clearly distinguish between the original structure and new work (very important), but it's also extremely satisfying for the person who does it.

To stand back and look at your own clearly identifiable contribution to the building is the best moment of the whole project.

 

[piper]

He was keen that new work should be honest, of its time and clearly distinguishable from the old. This is a point of view I have considerable sympathy with.

Me too. Not only does this clearly distinguish between the original structure and new work (very important), but it's also extremely satisfying for the person who does it.

Absolutely agree. Right on, Penners. Nigel's philosophy with regard to blending old & new, and his approach to the repair of the old fabric also seems completely right to me.
Of course, we are all quite confident we have "good taste" - which has always changed with the centuries. But for inspiration look at somewhere like Kettle's Yard in Cambridge, the old part of which (also going back to my earlier post about plain white, "Protestant" taste in a mediaeval church) was also one of the earliest manifestations of the modern taste in Period House decoration.

The extension we are planning will be modern in style, at least internally and also at the back of the house, though the front elevation blends with the rest of the house. The door between the two will, I hope, be uncompromisingly modern and interesting in its own right.

 

[NT]

I guess there is no right answer to these matters and one has to find one's own way, within the constraints imposed by listing rules etc (ours is Grade II).

Exactly. Let all options coexist, each in its own appropriate place.

When I couldnt find any example of a certain electronic item I wanted, I made one from scratch using historic methods. Some would call it a fake, but I cant truthfully see it that way. Its physically the same item as a historic one, but with a very different history/story to it. It was the only way to get one, as the originals were not durable enough to survive, and were rare even in their day.

Its an interesting and characterful piece, and this is just as true for those that know its story and those that dont (who assume wrongly).

Imho fakes are inferior copies that are passed off as original, this is not so passed off, and importantly, unlike some copies, is not devalued by its (hi)story.

The difficult choices came when the two aspects overlap. For example we have a very modern room in our rear extension leading off the original hall. Should we use an old panelled door or a modern flush one? In both cases it will be "right" on one side and "wrong" on the other. We chose to use a modern door.

FWLIW you could have had both, flush one side panelled the other... then the door would look very odd!

Seriously, all options have their place imho, making it a bit debateable to start bedecking the options with moral qualities.


NT

 

[piper]

Of course, I in no way meant to be purist or to take any "moral" stance. I too have been "guilty" (by some standards of "honesty") of pastiche in recreating mouldings and all sorts of things. As you say NT, it's just a modern artefact in a style which happens to have been used before. We are not trying to gain anything by deceiving anybody, so it's not "fake".
I believe though (with Morris, Ruskin et al) that anything done should be done to the highest standard possible, if one can afford it (or do it oneself). If you can't afford good quality, perhaps it may be better to do nothing?
For plain modern "good taste" in a period setting, see Andrew Bodenham's stircase on the skirting board thread.

 

[biffvernon]

When I built a wall from reclaimed 18th century bricks I make the bottom course out of modern bricks. It looks like a nice old wall but won't confuse someone who looks closely.

 

[Penners]

Probably would me. Most things confuse me these days.

Have I had me tea yet?

 

[nickc]

Flyfisher, I agree that make-overs have a long history. Our 1590 timber frame farmhouse was completed re-fronted in brick c. 1700 or 1790 (depending which author you believe) and so we have the benefit of 2 types of house in the same property. I prefer the timber framed aspect; my wife prefers the symmetry of the brick, so it was the perfect house for us and is 2*.

But if anyone tried to do anything so drastic today there'd be hung drawn and quartered. Interestingly we have a copy of a report by the reknowned Freddie Charles in 1968 in which he suggests removing the brick front to expose the wooden frame, if it is there. Again, I doubt that would be allowed post-listing.

 

[Nemesis]

Well - his expertise was in timber framing...

Sir John Summerson was once nasty at a Public Inquiry about Dublin.

'Simply acres of Georgian rubbish...'

 

[Nemesis]

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=427&storycode=3097239&c=2&encCode=00000000013ba6ae

 

[Flyfisher]

It would be interesting to know if the new brickwork was just a cosmetic makeover or was required to prop-up/replace some failing framework. But I agree you'd probably not be allowed to remove it all now it's listed, especially G2*.

 

[Nemesis]

I think our ideas re conservation have moved on, too.

But if anyone can argue the case re LBC, well, that's up to them.

 

[Penners]

I'm not sure why anyone would want to remove a well-made, historic brick facade from a timberframe building. And given that it's part of the character of the building, I can't see it being allowed.

Anyway, as Flyfisher says, who knows whether the facade was built as, or has become, structurally supportive of the timberframe.

 

[Nemesis]

And quality additions over time should be respected.

 

[alice]

And quality additions over time should be respected.

Exactly, and that's what Wm. Morris said, too. But when does "over time" end? Do quality additions from 2007 count? I think they do because the history of a buidling isn't frozen at some arbitrary moment in time.

I suppose it comes to a judgement call (by the preservation office and the owners) as to what is "quality" and what "changes the historic fabric".

 

[NT]

It gets more complex... at times I've seen some dreadful quality work that has really added character, and that would be a real shame to remove.


NT

 

[Penners]

Do quality additions from 2007 count?

Of course they do. Provided they carry the appropriate consents.