Our house

[Gareth Hughes]

All properties are (potentially) period properties. We on the forum have no control over what gets listed on the "for sale" bits of the site, however the forum does have a broadly conservationist mindset - in other words contributors tend not to take a "renovate and make it better than new" approach.

Any property related subject might come up for discussion but it's niave in the extreme to assume that everyone will approve of everything that gets done, or to assume that not saying anything is the best way to deal with something you feel strongly about, just because the originator of a thread clearly holds a different view. That can sometimes mean being very critical of others' efforts.

I'm sorry you've been stung by some of the reaction you've had here, but others on this thread have explained why the reaction has been as it has.

 

[Jill]

I can't have been stung that badly or else i wouldn't still be here.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Good. So others are taking offence on your (unintended) behalf

 

[judrop]

It's probably such a difficult issue because there are two aspects to it. As a home-making exercise I don't think anyone has been particularly critical, indeed it was specifically mentioned that matters of taste are personal and not really open to debate. But as an historic property conservation issue then there are generally accepted guidelines of how to conserve such properties. Where such guidelines are not followed then the result is usually detrimental to the property in question and often irreversible; i.e. things of historic value are lost forever.

The problem, of course, is how to discuss 'bad conservation practice' without personalising things - especially difficult when the property in question is someone's home, which it usually is.

Saying nothing unless you can be pleasant is good advice in many circumstances but I'm not convinced it works in this context, because people come here specifically seeking advice, so surely it's right to point out when 'mistakes' are being made - 'mistakes' in the sense of best conservation practice, rather than a home owner's individual preference.

:( Hi Flyfisher Having read many of your posts since yesterday, I find that I agree with much of what you say on a number of topics, however, re the final para above, this (I understood, feel free to enlighten me if wrong ) site is about help and incouragement for, and from, like minded people, in this particular circumstance, it was too late to point out "mistakes", the deed having been done,( to the individuals preference,and it appears the planners)it could only give offence, given the circumstances, to ( in some cases ) almost ridicule a person is unkind to say the least.
I dont feel I have any more to offer on this topic ,I dont wish to keep adding fuel to the fire.
It does make me fearful of posting any pics or requesting ideas/info though. Ju

 

[yamin]

it was too late to point out "mistakes", the deed having been done,( to the individuals preference,and it appears the planners)it could only give offence, given the circumstances, to ( in some cases ) almost ridicule a person is unkind to say the least.

Judrop - this isn't strictly true, since Jill actually asked for reaction to the changes made to the house, I expect she was aware (hopefully) that not all reaction would necessarily be positive. The tone of delivery of the criticisms may have been more politic, I do agree with that. I do however defend, in my own insignificant way, all the posters right to make their opinion known, when it was asked for!

I think this site should make it clear that only certain types of properties are allowed ie those that are listed, have never had any modernisation done, the owners are going to live with what ever has been done in the past, whether they like it or not, that it all should be saved even if it is unsafe and is damaging to the structure.

I can see that after this experience you may feel this way, but actually, more of us post here with properties that have been modernised than any other!! I mean, most of the subject is about renovation, which in a large majority of cases includes undoing work done before! I think enough has been said in your defence regarding tone of criticism etc for you to feel able to re post if you want, and for other readers to feel they can dip a toe in. If you don't wish to post again, thats a real shame. As someone with a cottage completely 'done' (for which read 'done over'!) in the 80s, I have found this site both supportive and highly informative. Also funny and sometimes irreverent! :roll:

 

[judrop]

Good. So others are taking offence on your (unintended) behalf

Hi Gareth, Count me out of the above , not taking offence on anyones behalf, but it behoves me to comment on what I see as injustice,i come from from a long line of people who say it as they see it,at least I have that in common with others on here LOL Ju

 

[judrop]

it was too late to point out "mistakes", the deed having been done,( to the individuals preference,and it appears the planners)it could only give offence, given the circumstances, to ( in some cases ) almost ridicule a person is unkind to say the least.

Judrop - this isn't strictly true, since Jill actually asked for reaction to the changes made to the house, I expect she was aware (hopefully) that not all reaction would necessarily be positive. The tone of delivery of the criticisms may have been more politic, I do agree with that. I do however defend, in my own insignificant way, all the posters right to make their opinion known, when it was asked for!
Hi Yamin,
I do understand what you say , but am still amazed , as I said above not going to put another log on the fire, just think it very sad all round really.Ju

I think this site should make it clear that only certain types of properties are allowed ie those that are listed, have never had any modernisation done, the owners are going to live with what ever has been done in the past, whether they like it or not, that it all should be saved even if it is unsafe and is damaging to the structure.

I can see that after this experience you may feel this way, but actually, more of us post here with properties that have been modernised than any other!! I mean, most of the subject is about renovation, which in a large majority of cases includes undoing work done before! I think enough has been said in your defence regarding tone of criticism etc for you to feel able to re post if you want, and for other readers to feel they can dip a toe in. If you don't wish to post again, thats a real shame. As someone with a cottage completely 'done' (for which read 'done over'!) in the 80s, I have found this site both supportive and highly informative. Also funny and sometimes irreverent! :roll:

 

[JoceAndChris]

It does make me fearful of posting any pics or requesting ideas/info though. Ju[/color]

We love looking at pics and sharing ideas, and I'll try very hard in future to hold my tongue if I disagree and be positive at all times! If you have issues with your house, there will be many experienced and kind people on here who'll put a good deal of thought (and charm) into how best to advise.

In general, though, the ethos of this forum is restoration and repair rather than renovation and replacement. If you have very little to restore or repair in your old house then support and interest is always shown towards sympathetic development and recreation- for example, many here have had to put in new floors/walls/ rooves and that is always interesting and often inspiring. These houses do move forward and get born again, nothing lasts forever.

A blithe disregard for the original, historic fabric of the building or historic development of the property is almost guaranteed to upset. And if you wonder where the cut off point is, for the sake of argument I would say it's 1949. (many will disagree here but, honestly, how much good press does the work of the 50s or 60s get here - and the unsympathetic work of the 70s 80s or 90s is generally derided).

 

[Flyfisher]

Hi Ju. You're right that, in this particular circumstance, work to the property had already been completed and, for that property, it was too late to point out 'mistakes'. But surely there is some value in still pointing out those 'mistakes' as an example to other people seeking to advice on how to conserve an historic property? Yes it can be tough on the owner of the property in question but it's difficult to know how this could be avoided unless, as suggested, no comment is made, in which case a wider audience is denied a point of view. It's tricky stuff.

But please don't be fearful of posting pics and/or requesting advice or info. At the very least you can ignore everything. :wink:

I think this site should make it clear that only certain types of properties are allowed ie those that are listed, have never had any modernisation done, the owners are going to live with what ever has been done in the past, whether they like it or not, that it all should be saved even if it is unsafe and is damaging to the structure.

I doubt there is a listed property in the entire country that has not been modernised to some degree (OK, Gareth will now prove me wrong!) because most have electricity and modern plumbing and many have modern heating systems and fancy kitchens. But these things don't usually require the basic structure and fabric of the property to be altered beyond its original design and construction. Also, when parts of a listed property really do come to the end of their life there is no problem (in my experience) in replacing them and I can't imagine there are any examples where things are retained if they are unsafe or damaging to the structure.

I have certainly 'modernised' our roof by fitting a modern, breathable waterproof membrane under the original pantiles, but it didn't involve the loss of any original timbers (except the ones rotted to a pulp due to the previously leaking roof) and where only partially damaged the original timbers were augmented with new ones, thus maintaining the strength of the roof while leaving the original construction clearly visible. Additionally, the original roof line was maintained, even the uneven ridge. Believe me, there were times when I thought it would be easier to just rebuild the entire roof!

 

[Penners]

I think this site should make it clear that only certain types of properties are allowed ie those that are listed, have never had any modernisation done, the owners are going to live with what ever has been done in the past, whether they like it or not, that it all should be saved even if it is unsafe and is damaging to the structure.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. I think the "newest" property that I remember being discussed in some considerable detail dated from the 1950's.

There may well have been others built more recently.

The age of the property is not the issue - it's the sympathy with which the property is viewed and treated.

I really think this whole matter has been blown up completely out of proportion. It's of course a fact that "nobody likes to be told that their baby is ugly", but if you pass around photos of the child, sooner or later someone will hold that view.

Which is the ruder - he who says "I don't like your house", or he who says "you're a rude person for saying that"?

I find little difference. And neither view warrants the angst that has been generated here.

 

[Penners]

I'll try very hard in future to hold my tongue if I disagree and be positive at all times

Don't you dare! This forum is mercifully free from censorship, self- or otherwise. Frank discussion should not be muzzled by misplaced sensitivities.


(Hey - that's rather good! I might use that phrase again! )

 

[JoceAndChris]

We can only sigh in wonder at the greatness of your eloquence, Mr P. Flyfisher too. 8)

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I see my job (in working life, not neccessarily here) as being to help people live in their interesting old houses. (Protected or not - if approached, I don't differntiate, I'd like a good job regardless)

Sometimes that means saying "go ahead" even with what seem to be drastic alterations - I've recently seen wisteria retained (NOT at my insistence) by lying it down on the floor while a whole wall of a listed Regency house was demolished and rebuilt with completely new fenestration behind it. The wing was a bit of a sow's ear and the owner has made a silk purse of it, thanks to an excellent builder. Inside, every room - all tatted (sic) up in the 50s, losing almost every bit of original fabric - was destroyed and a new interior created, some of it period reconstruction based on documentary evidence, some of it strikingly modern. I put it in for our council's award scheme and it won, quite rightly in my opinion. I still have doubts about their swimming pool and home cinema, but it seems a small price to pay.

Sometimes it means making suggestions that will achieve all or most of the owners' ambitions but which they haven't considered, saving much more of the building than they had perhaps originally wanted to, telling them stories about witch marks and how much nicer that fireplace would look if they just painted the walls a different colour and so on. I think that in every case where this has happened (and it's the majority of them by far), I've had some sort of positive feedback at the end of the process, even though it's sometimes been fraught at the beginning.

And sometimes (alas, the examples that seem to get reported more than the rest), it means saying, "no, you idiots, why have you bought an old house when you so clearly need an new one?" This is doubly infuriating because the money spent wrecking something that someone else would have treated with love and care could and should have been spent creating a great new building and thus contributing to what future generations will hopefully value as some of the best of early 21st century design.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Penners - well said, sir!

 

[Jill]

Good. So others are taking offence on your (unintended) behalf

Yes

 

[Jill]

I think this site should make it clear that only certain types of properties are allowed ie those that are listed, have never had any modernisation done, the owners are going to live with what ever has been done in the past, whether they like it or not, that it all should be saved even if it is unsafe and is damaging to the structure.

Penners - Sorry, but that's nonsense. I think the "newest" property that I remember being discussed in some considerable detail dated from the 1950's.

Jill - Good we agree, I don't believe what I said above either but that is the impression that I am getting from some.

Penners - I really think this whole matter has been blown up completely out of proportion.

Jill - I agree again

 

[Moo]

Yes - well said, Penners (so what's new?) and - well said Gareth as well. If only you'd been our CO when we were 'doing' our house!

 

[philpjuk100]

Our house is a very, very fine house
With two cats in the yard
Life used to be so hard
Now everything is easy
'Cause of you
And our la,la,la, la,la, la, la, la, la, la, la
Our house-Crosby Stills,Nash,
But thinking about this thread remember the other version MADNESS!
phil.

 

[hoppy]

[
As long as you and Hoppy are content never to object when your neighbours put up monstrous extensions etc, that's fine.

many off my neighbours have hiddiuos extenstions, none off wich i would like for myself, however i do have the option of closing my curtains and tuning on the tv. ( its a bit like complaining to the watchdogs... when we all have an "off" button)

 

[starworld]

Our house is an individual house surrounded by garden in one side and pond in another. No interference of neighbor is there and I am very happy in that.