Our house

[FamilyWiggs]

Jill,

Has your "after" photo been doctored in any way? I only ask because some of the thread is a little confusing, and that white mark on the pic looks a bit like the "eraser" tool from a program like Photoshop.

Just wondering - if so, which bits?

 

[Penners]

that white mark on the pic looks a bit like the "eraser" tool from a program like Photoshop.

Wouldn't the eraser tool have left rounded edges, rather than square?

But it could certainly be the result of a polygonal lasso selection.

 

[Flyfisher]

I assumed the white mark was to erase the the road name sign on the house.

 

[Cloudscape]

It's been done to remove the street name that is attached to the house (even though it is still visible in the 'before' pic).

Can we cut this person some slack? There might be some disagreement about what's best for a house, but I wouldn't like to think that straying onto PPUK was like walking into the lions' den.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Sorry, I can't keep quiet. Re: "walking into the lions den", I just wish the before photo had been posted with an "any ideas what we could / might do with this?" question, before the work was done, rather than posting the before and after shots with the subtext "haven't we done a splendid job?"

 

[Penners]

I assumed the white mark was to erase the the road name sign on the house.

Of course - that's what it is.

Cloudscape is right, and I feel that I owe Jill an apology. I, too, got the initial impression that this post was a spoof, and responded accordingly. This was harsh, and I'm sorry.

 

[Matt Green]

Alright, one thing i'll say about the house to get a bit of positive discussion going:

I like the consolidated roof structure. The tiles are stark and something more regionally appropriate and coeval with the original structure would doubtless have looked better, but the change in the overall roof structure has a couple of positives.

From a water ingress point of view (niche? moi?) it's going to cause fewer problems than the original arrangement and should see the building remain in pretty good condition for long time. Downpipes in better locations, no roof joins, junctions or pitch changes. The hopper boxes are rundundant, prone to block and look rubbish and so does white weatherboard, but they are going to move rainwater from the roof pretty effectively, which is all good. The gable is a bit of a monster, but the house was extended anyway and to my eye it looks like a more 'logical' structure.

M

 

[FamilyWiggs]

It's been done to remove the street name that is attached to the house

Of course - silly me!

 

[Jill]

As i enter the lions den again - don't worry i've been reading posts on here for long enough to know that what we are doing would be open to alot of criticism. My first pictures were merely to see whether I could post them or not, didn't realise that people would start ripping it to pieces so quickly. Thanks to the lady who has emailed me privately to say how she prefers the house afterwards - isn't it a shame that a few people are so critical of others that some don't feel able to voice their opinions in public. Not everyone has a house that is full of character that can be retained ie oak beams that can be lovingly restored, lime mortar on walls that is allowing the property to breath, oak windows, original quarry tiled floors. Instead some of us live in a house that has had several owners each of which has added their own mark - some good some bad, some people do not have the knowledge, time or money to do things in a sympathetic way. My partner bought one property twenty odd years ago when he was in his early twenties, it was in a bad state then, for what ever reason he decided to raise the roof line, which at the time was even lower than the one that we have just raised. I don't know what state the conditon of the wood was in at the time but he wanted to retain the original long window openings but was not allowed to do so, I expect as the adjoining one already had the size openings as in the picture I posted. The bow window was put in to be in keeping with others in the area. It was always his dream, and later it became mine for us to buy the house next door and to convert it back into one property as it had been at some time in its past.

I did originally come on this site a couple of years back and made some postings, learning from others before we embarked on the work, until we started we didn't know what horrors we were going to uncover - the answer to somebodies question is yes it was concrete that was poured on the wooden floor, one inch at the edge of the room, about 6 inches in the middle, whoever poured it on was putting so much weight on the beams below it was a relief to have it removed once we discovered it was up their. I may come back and post some more, but then again i may just leave you all wondering what other horrors did they discover and what have they done to try and make this property last for another couple of hundred years. Got to go Murderland is on the telly.

 

[hoppy]

As i enter the lions den again - don't worry i've been reading posts on here for long enough to know that what we are doing would be open to alot of criticism.
quote]

Jill, fear not..we are not all Lions who visit this forum, i too have been bitten a few times on here for expressing an opinion.For what its worth i think as long as you are happy with the outcome of your hard labour, what does it matter what others think?? you're the one thats going to be living there.

 

[JoceAndChris]

For now. Maybe if people spent less time watching Murderland on the telly and more time reading and learning about period properties they'd have more of a clue what to do.

 

[Jon Maine]

Forgive me for being ignorant but whats murderland? If I had watched it could it have affected the result at the Merchants House? Or would that have to be murder house? :lol:

 

[robgil]

is murderland a night in with corrie , eastenders , holly oaks , sex in the city and E.R.?
its blumin murder for me anyways , every day.
and then there is the sunday omnibus... :evil:

 

[Schoolmarm]

For now. Maybe if people spent less time watching Murderland on the telly and more time reading and learning about period properties they'd have more of a clue what to do.

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

 

[Penners]

Got to go Murderland is on the telly.

Why would I want to watch sex and violence on the TV? I get quite enough of that at home, thank you very much.

what does it matter what others think?? you're the one thats going to be living there.

Well said!

 

[Gareth Hughes]

what does it matter what others think?? you're the one thats going to be living there.

Well said!

(GH Ignores previous promise not to comment, again)

As long as you and Hoppy are content never to object when your neighbours put up monstrous extensions etc, that's fine. The problem with living in a house is that it's all the rest of us who generally have to cope with the harm done to the wider visual environment by poorly considered external alterations, without any of the benefits of the great new interior. The "guilty party" can close the door and, being inside, doesn't have to look at it.

The work done to the cottage has involved the removal, externally at least, of most of the surviving evidence for its historic development, a good deal of its charm, and the substitution of an overbearing and bulky gable end of proportions which are decidedly at odds with traditional practice, together with an all-over roof at the (arguably) less historically correct of the two levels. Just because a building has been spoilt by bad alterations in the past does not, in my view, excuse continuing those bad alterations over the bits of the building that had survived so far.

If the intention was to create a modern house in a vaguely traditional style but with little understanding of traditional materials and details, then the result is a success. If the intention was to conserve, repair, and sympathetically adapt and improve an abused historic cottage (and posting on a forum about period properties suggests it was), then the result is an abject failure.

Sorry, but there it is. No amount of "we weren't allowed to keep the sashes or the tiles" (neither of which I can believe) excuses an end result where all that's left of any interest is a bit of the front and side wall.

 

[Cloudscape]

I agree with you, actually. I've been trying to work out what has been conserved, and what the end result is. It reminds me of barns I have seen that were 'renovated', when in fact they were completely rebuilt. To be honest, as hard as I try to see something different, I see a new house built with old materials. The gable window is a little "we did it because we can" and doesn't seem to have been done with any reference to the original building. Sorry, Jill. This is just my opinion.

I don't know quite how the original gable could have been 'helped'. The brick top looked a bit messy.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

It's not uncommon to find brick gables on top of stone walls in that area. Not sure of the reason why it was done, historically. The "messiness" of old buildings is only a problem if you have a fanatical obsession with respectable "tidiness". In which case you should go for a tidy new Barratt or Wimpey house on a tidy new estate where you can be like everyone else.

Unfortunately, in this case it's another example of how a feature which was quite typical and locally distinctive has been lost in favour of something that's neither nowt nor summat.

 

[Penners]

The "guilty party" can close the door and, being inside, doesn't have to look at it.

From your perspective, and given your professional background, I can understand your comments.

But I cannot believe that anyone undertaking modifications to their house would do so without approving of, even loving perhaps, the exterior appearance of the building. Their taste may differ from others (and "there is no point in arguing on matters of taste"), but it is, after all, their building.

I don't believe that the average passer-by would look at Jill's house and shudder. As an unsympathetic treatment of a historic structure, this is surely at the mild end of the scale, involving some technical "sins" that would be unrecognised by the great majority of folk.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The "guilty party" can close the door and, being inside, doesn't have to look at it.

From your perspective, and given your professional background, I can understand your comments.

But I cannot believe that anyone undertaking modifications to their house would do so without approving of, even loving perhaps, the exterior appearance of the building. Their taste may differ from others (and "there is no point in arguing on matters of taste"), but it is, after all, their building.

Well, that explains this then :roll:

It would, of course, be quite wrong of me to presume to criticise the person who did this, or indeed to criticise anyone for anything.