old or new repairs

[MikeG]

....... Is there really anyone here who doesn't believe that this would have looked better if the front walls had lined up........

Yep. Me. Those extensions are all subservient to the original, are just fine in terms of massing, scale, location etc, and the set-backs are excellent. I would quibble with some of the details and the materials, and the nasty 1st-floor-on-a-prop on the right hand end, but the breaks in the wall line and roof lines are spot on.

and the roof had been thatched?

There is no reason in planning terms why the new rooves couldn't have been thatched*. However, there may have been Building Regs reasons (distances from adjacent properties is the standard one, but there are others). I personally would have preferred to see thatch. I built a new thatched house some 20 years ago, the first in a century in Essex, apparently.

*Some local authorities have never dealt with applications for new build/ extensions with thatch rooves, and have no policy on the matter. This means you might have to work harder to persuade them, but reference to those authorities who do allow it, and in particular to what is known as "The Dorset Model", will usually win the day unless there is an actual planning policy against thatch (which there might well be in dense urban settings, for instance).

 

[MikeG]

........ "rules" had changed and he was forced (yes Mike, forced) to take deliberate steps to ensure the additional part was obviously an extension......

When I said that no-one is forced to do any such thing, it was in response to your original claim that householders were forced to build out of character extensions. There is a very great deal of a difference between "out-of-character" and "subservient to the original". Extensions are required to be subservient, but that doesn't in any way make them out of character. If you study vernacular building, you'll see that almost all extensions were subservient to the original building, so the requirement of planning policy that we do that these days is simply to remain in line with tradition, a tradition we gave up on for a few decades at the end of the 20th century. As owners of and enthusiasts for old buildings, you/ we should be encouraging this, rather than denigrating it.

Oh, and no-one is forced to set a wall line back 18" simply for the sake of compliance with the subservience requirement. There was likely another reason for such a huge set-back (if indeed it was 18"). I use between 75mm and 225mm, typically 100mm.

 

[Mickey]

MikeG have a word with my CO would you, I have been asked (forced, it's listed) to reroof in Delabole slate, when there is very little Delabole slate on the roof but the listing said, rightly or wrongly, who knows it was 1985, that the roof was Delabole. I can't afford to reroof in Delabole, the most readily available Delabole is reclaimed and often not in that good condition the only other suggestion was Argentinian River slate which is pretty much just as expensive!

 

[MikeG]

That has nothing to do with the points I have been making. Of course LB can require owners of Listed buildings to do certain things in certain ways. That's the whole essence of the Listing system. That however is nothing to do with the claim that people could be forced to build out-of-keeping extensions to their houses, which, if you read the thread, you would know to be the original claim I was refuting.

 

[Mickey]

Indeed but the discussion then wandered into repairs in wood, stone, slate, clay tiles being done better in new than reclaimed did it not? I was also forced to replace a non original wooden double glazed window with a wooden single glazed window, I was fine with the wooden bit but now enjoy looking at the black condensation track mark down my limewashed wall, I like the courage of your convictions but there are sometimes arguments of merit on both sides it's quite handy to be able to acknowledge this, life is not black and white...except when it's listed!

 

[MikeG]

You're missing the point entirely.

The claim was that the design of extensions was "forced" to be out of keeping. That is not the case. Nothing to do with the materials, single glazing/ double glazing.........just out-of-keeping extensions. The point was backed up with a ridiculous collage of the Gherkin on top of Bury St Edmunds cathedral. Please understand what I am rejecting before this devolves into an unnecessary argument where we are each talking about different subjects.

 

[Mickey]

the point you are missing in my last post is that I am not arguing, this is a discussion is it not? Forums are for discussion not argument, we are all adults as far as I am aware, it seems if someone has the audacity to challenge or give a differing point of view to the one you may hold then your default is to have an argument with them. Strange and not terribly productive but I am sure you are right since you are an architect and I am not.

 

[Flyfisher]

Isn't the root of the problem that "in keeping" is in the eye of the beholder and therefore subjective?

I'm sure the Gherkin/Cathedral collage was an extreme exaggeration to make a point and one that (I hope!) we'd all agree was not "in keeping" but as extensions become more and more subtle isn't it inevitable that a design will stray into the grey area of what is acceptable to some but not to others? At which point who decides? Sure, there are policy guidelines and that must be helpful to the people who hold authority over what property owners are permitted to do (itself a contentious topic), but a set of arbitrary guidelines does not mean the end result is acceptable to everyone.

Here's a topical example of an abomination that was presumably deemed to be 'in keeping' when it was designed by (presumably) architectural experts and forced on the surrounding neighbourhood.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47819137

Not only is it as ugly as sin but it is reportedly structurally unsound after a mere 40 years and a likely candidate for demolition, which is a bit of luck if you ask me :lol:
But of course it, and other monstrosities like it, will also have its own fan base . . . which is the problem with subjective matters. :wink:

 

[george2019]

Here's a topical example of an abomination that was presumably deemed to be 'in keeping' when it was designed by (presumably) architectural experts and forced on the surrounding neighbourhood.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47819137

Not only is it as ugly as sin but it is reportedly structurally unsound after a mere 40 years and a likely candidate for demolition, which is a bit of luck if you ask me :lol:
But of course it, and other monstrosities like it, will also have its own fan base . . . which is the problem with subjective matters. :wink:

Any abandoned building won't last long, especially in the more extreme conditions of North Africa. Had it remained occupied, with constant internal temperatures and maintained it would probably last a very long time.

I also think the rather stuffy dislike of Brutalist architecture is an echo of those who were keen to demolish Victorian buildings in the 'name of progress' in the 1950s and 60s.

I will be sad when the Brutalist structures - the vision with which they were built will never be replicated now the accountants are in charge - are gone, in the 'name of progress'.

 

[plasticpigeon]

I also think the rather stuffy dislike of Brutalist architecture is an echo of those who were keen to demolish Victorian buildings in the 'name of progress' in the 1950s and 60s.

I've heard that many times before, I couldn't agree less.

 

[MikeG]

the point you are missing in my last post is that I am not arguing, this is a discussion is it not? Forums are for discussion not argument, we are all adults as far as I am aware, it seems if someone has the audacity to challenge or give a differing point of view to the one you may hold then your default is to have an argument with them. Strange and not terribly productive but I am sure you are right since you are an architect and I am not.

No, it's neither a discussion nor an argument if you are talking about one thing, and I am talking about another. I am talking about in-keeping extensions, and the claim that we are forced to build extensions which are not in-keeping. You aren't. I am not saying you are wrong in what you are saying (you probably aren't).........I'm just saying that we're in different conversations. It is easy for the internet to make it look like we are falling out. We aren't.

 

[MikeG]

..........I also think the rather stuffy dislike of Brutalist architecture is an echo of those who were keen to demolish Victorian buildings in the 'name of progress' in the 1950s and 60s.

I will be sad when the Brutalist structures - the vision with which they were built will never be replicated now the accountants are in charge - are gone, in the 'name of progress'.

There's a small but enthusiastic group who speak up for Brutalist architecture. Fair enough. I can't stand it myself, with no sense of human scale, nor craft, no reference to local traditions or materials, and seeming more like a fortress or a wall than an inclusive part of a neighbourhood. It's like architects forgot there were humans around on the outside as they were so intent on building a "machine for living" and "designing from within". I can't wait for them to be gone, and they can take many a steel-and-glass post-modern box with them. However, I I do like the fact that people stick up for them, and I do like the way they forced architecture out of the dead-end of copying old Greek/ Roman styles endlessly.

 

[Flyfisher]

There's a small but enthusiastic group who speak up for Brutalist architecture. Fair enough. I can't stand it myself, with no sense of human scale, nor craft, no reference to local traditions or materials, and seeming more like a fortress or a wall than an inclusive part of a neighbourhood. It's like architects forgot there were humans around on the outside as they were so intent on building a "machine for living" and "designing from within". I can't wait for them to be gone, and they can take many a steel-and-glass post-modern box with them.

I agree with all of that . . .

However, I I do like the fact that people stick up for them, and I do like the way they forced architecture out of the dead-end of copying old Greek/ Roman styles endlessly.

. . . except that last sentence, which seems to be supporting change for change’s sake even if the end result is a disaster. I know what you mean by ‘dead end copying’ but if the ‘dead end’ in question is actually better then all the alternatives then why not? Seems that Joni Mitchell got it right all those years ago!

 

[Flyfisher]

I will be sad when the Brutalist structures - the vision with which they were built will never be replicated now the accountants are in charge - are gone, in the 'name of progress'.

Wasn’t a big part of the problem precisely that the accountants WERE in charge, or at least had a huge influence? We can debate the merits of the basic architectural design but the issue of poor quality construction would seem to be somewhat more definitive.

Progress is only worthwhile if it is an improvement on what went before. I’ve no doubt the intentions were good but the reality proved to be disastrous. Yet another failed 20th century experiment that will hopefully be consigned to the dustbin of history. A bit like communism really.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29082338

 

[Gareth Hughes]

And yet, when properly managed (The Economist building in St James', up to a point the Barbican and, somewhat to my surprise the National Theatre) they work extremely well.
The problem is basically, on a larger scale because of the larger scale of the buildings, the one that dogs a great many Georgian and Victorian buildings, especially speculatively built houses - that as someone once remarked, 'the English will go to any expense to get something cheap'.
Building properly isn't cheap. Cheap isn't the same as economical. We still don't understand that.

 

[Flyfisher]

And yet, when properly managed (The Economist building in St James', up to a point the Barbican and, somewhat to my surprise the National Theatre) they work extremely well.

Hmm, the Barbican up to a point - that point, perhaps, being actually living there? I suspect we tend to view commercial and domestic properties from different perspectives, thus the Barbican is an interesting place to visit but I certainly wouldn't want to live there. Similarly the NT; dreary and ugly from the outside but a quite pleasant place inside that, as you say, works extremely well. But from a functional perspective the Royal Albert Hall also works extremely well, suggesting that function and form are not necessarily incompatible - so why not aim for excellence in both?

All IMO of course.

Building properly isn't cheap. Cheap isn't the same as economical. We still don't understand that.

Absolutely, but it's a consequence of our short term thinking, or perhaps a lack of civic pride. I'm sure that every local planning authority charged with demolishing or renovating 30/40 year old sink estates knows only too well the financial folly of building cheap (buy cheap, buy twice!), but they likely have little choice due to fiscal constraints by politicians who only look as far ahead as their next election.

What has always amazed me is Victorian industrial architecture. Even basic functional buildings such as pumping stations were often designed and built with totally unnecessary 'frills' that added nothing to the function but transformed their appearance into a thing of joy in many cases. Bazalgette's Crossness pumping station is a prime example of this, to the extent of it now being Grade 1 listed, and rightly so. It was already a technological masterpiece of its time yet they went to all that additional trouble (= time and cost) to create an architectural masterpiece as well. Today, we routinely install equivalent technological marvels inside the blandest of buildings with apparently little thought or care about aesthetics. Such a change in outlook and approach these days and not, I fear, a change for the better.

 

[george2019]

I also think the rather stuffy dislike of Brutalist architecture is an echo of those who were keen to demolish Victorian buildings in the 'name of progress' in the 1950s and 60s.

I've heard that many times before, I couldn't agree less.

Why not? 60 years after the Victorian building became uneconomic to construct and maintain there's a great clamour to demolish them for the next generation of buildings and highways.

Now, 120 years later there's great regret at those decisions.

Also now, 60 years after the Brutalist architecture has become uneconomic to construct and maintain there's a great clamour to demolish them for the next generation of buildings and highways.

Even if you don't like Brutalism, surely you see the echo of the past repeating itself?

 

[MikeG]

........60 years after the Brutalist architecture has become uneconomic to construct and maintain there's a great clamour to demolish them.........

That's not the reason people want rid of them. It is the sheer ugliness that the populace generally dislikes. The public (generally) hold them in contempt because of the way the buildings hold their non-users in contempt. There can't be a building style which is more disliked, and it is for that reason, and nothing to do with their maintenance, that there is a clamour to demolish them. I think it highly encouraging that aesthetics are so important to Britons. Further, solid concrete buildings are extraordinarily difficult to bring to the necessary levels of energy efficiency without covering the exterior with cladding, and therefore these buildings are hated not just for their ugliness, disdain of locality, and disregard for the local environment, but also for their gas-gazzling wastefulness of energy and their commensurate carbon dioxide emissions. You're drawing parallels which simply aren't there, and if the 60 year thing has any evidence in support of it, it is simply coincidence.

 

[TheForge]

I quite like some brutalist architecture, not all of it but some reflects a time, a society in transition and the expression of socialist principals. It stands as testament to the exploration of the limits and capabilities of new materials, processes and techniques. Much municipal building of this period hasn’t stood the test of time but this is often the result of poorly designed urban planning and not the philosophy of the ‘movement’. Is Le Corbusier’s work devoid of merit? Or that of Van der Rohe? Were they ‘Brutalists’ or the influence for what came after? Was Preston Bus Station a masterpiece or an eyesore?

In the same way I don’t like all Victorian or Vernacular architecture in general, much is great but equally much has little merit beyond its age.

Concrete buildings may be difficult to heat and maintain, but so are buildings made with many vernacular materials. Indeed Brutalism was far more than just concrete but embraced steel, glass and brick (the Pompidou Centre as an example, if one agrees that 1970s hi tech architecture was rooted in Brutalism).

 

[george2019]

........60 years after the Brutalist architecture has become uneconomic to construct and maintain there's a great clamour to demolish them.........

That's not the reason people want rid of them. It is the sheer ugliness that the populace generally dislikes. The public (generally) hold them in contempt because of the way the buildings hold their non-users in contempt. There can't be a building style which is more disliked, and it is for that reason, and nothing to do with their maintenance, that there is a clamour to demolish them. I think it highly encouraging that aesthetics are so important to Britons. Further, solid concrete buildings are extraordinarily difficult to bring to the necessary levels of energy efficiency without covering the exterior with cladding, and therefore these buildings are hated not just for their ugliness, disdain of locality, and disregard for the local environment, but also for their gas-gazzling wastefulness of energy and their commensurate carbon dioxide emissions. You're drawing parallels which simply aren't there, and if the 60 year thing has any evidence in support of it, it is simply coincidence.

Wonky old Victorians buildings are/were also extraordinarily difficult to bring to the necessary levels of energy efficiency. Lots of city councils disliked the narrow streets and wonky buildings as they held back the local economy. At the time, there were so many Victorian buildings left and such a driving force to reinvigorate the economy, few stopped to pause about what they were doing.

In the same way, the Brutalist Birmingham library was knocked down without a second thought, because they figure they have lots of them. And that was a great building - upside down terraces!

As for 'dislike' of styles, that is fashion. It was fashionable to demolish Victorian centres and build large concrete structures. It's fashionable to knock down large concrete buildings and put in glass and steel. There will be another fashion in the future. What I am saying is that fashion is transient and we should learn from the mistakes of the past. Don't be a victim of fashion!