Period Extensions: Traditional or Contemporary?

[Woody3]

If you were to extend a period property, would you:

1) Want it to match the design and materials of the existing building?

OR

2) Would you prefer something modern looking?

Please give your reasons...

The reason I ask, is that we have a large, poorly 1970's built, rendered, single storey extension to the rear of our property which we want to demolish and rebuild...I'd like to match it in to the existing fabric, so it won't look dated in 10 years time. I have a sneaky suspicion the L.A. wants something modern, so you can see the difference between the new and the old...

What are your thoughts...?

 

[robgil]

I would go with old, it would 'fit in' with the existing, it would be easier to graft onto an old building and to be fair if the LA want something new tell them to stop watching grand designs and be a bit more realistic, it's your house at the end of the day , not theirs and what you want is not being unreasonable, a modern extention however , is.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I like what Rob's just said and largely agree. Whilst buildings that have been added to over centuries look very interesting, with their medieval bits and Jacobean bits and Georgian bits etc, I've got no confidence that people are going to like glass and chrome in 150 years, or even that glass and chrome and concrete buildings will still be standing. I think there's a very deep instinct in us to build with materials that we perceive to be long-lived, ie stone. And another instinct to like materials that come from the natural world around us - slate, and wood, and reed, and grass. Those things have an intrinsic beauty that I don't think is matched by modern materials.

Having said all that the people who like the glass links between old building and new extension, and who argue that design should be of its time and not pastiche, generally make a good case for themselves.

Good luck with arguing your point.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Well, there's modern and there's modern, without wanting to be too technical :wink: .
Some of the worst extensions I've seen have been the ones that try, anf just fail, to "match" the "original", many of the best may use similar, or the same, materials (or materials which are similar in tone or colour) but without trying to match.

 

[AMc]

A big fat "depends" I'm afraid. There are certain circumstances where blending in is the right thing to do, matching or mirroring the existing building makes the whole thing look well balanced and harmonious.
However I've seen plenty of "in keeping" extensions that look ghastly as the window sizes, roof lines etc. look wrong. My pet hate is building modern extensions with reclaimed bricks without paying any attention to the bond or mortar lines so the thing looks like Noddy built it.

On the other hand there are some truly beautiful modern extensions to old buildings which make a point of being new and don't shout at their older neighbours.

It also depends on what the extension is for - a tudor style indoor swimming pool is just plain silly - likewise an open plan kitchen/diner/living space in faux period style can clash horribly with lots of period styles and would be better executed in an honest, modern way.

On our house we rebuilt a decayed glasshouse with reference to the original design and within the same envelope, but I stopped short of making the window panes 12" wide for "authenticity" as the room was never originally supposed to have a big sofa and TV in it, let alone lead into a modern fitted kitchen. The rafter profiles and casement sizes are the same but it is obviously a modern structure not a fake plastic "Victorian" conservatory covered in twiddles.

A look through the local authority planning site may give you an idea of their thoughts on the subject before you make any firm plans. Pictures of what you have now would probably help us to give you better opinions on your particular circumstances.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Gareth's pic is nice.

 

[tobydog]

Personally I prefer a hybrid. The picture below is what we have now. Before we had a Victorian extension that had no foundations and was falling over. We didn't want to attach the new structure completely to the old building because it wouldn't look right so we linked it and made sure it attached in exactly the same position the Victorian extension came out so no further damage to the old structure. It's clear to distinguish new from old. There is no trying to pretend that the extension has been there for 100's of years because personally I don't think that ever looks right and never will. You often hear people say that the oak frame will twist and it will soon blend in. The trouble is that your new part will not subside, floors, roofs and walls won't sag or collapse, etc. Many of the reasons we like our wobbly houses.

What we like about old houses is how they develop over the years. My parents had a house that was originally Tudor. Attached at the back was an early Victorian extension and attached to that was an Edwardian extension. It just looked right. If someone had attached a fully comtemporary or pretend old style extension it would just look wrong. Personal opinion of course.

 

[philpjuk100]

Is the property listed? if so you will need the CO to give it the OK,on a listed house near me it had to be obvious what was new,only new bricks,no recycled ones,I used the recycled he intended to use to build my BBQ! now it is finished it looks better than I thought it would,phil.

 

[JohnB]

You could also ask if you'd change your old house to look like your modern extension! Some people didn't realise I had an old house, as it had been rendered to match the 60s extension, and all the window openings were moved and enlarged, so it didn't look like it used to have sash windows.

 

[Pford75]

I'd say it depends as well....but since that's not very helpful, i'll offer a slightly trite view.

Budget is a big factor. Modern extensions require substantial cash to be done well (although expensive doesn't guarantee good...just that cheap will mostly look naff and plasticky)...if budget is tight, you are more likely (though not guaranteed) to be successful with a traditional style.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I'd say it depends as well....but since that's not very helpful, i'll offer a slightly trite view.

Budget is a big factor. Modern extensions require substantial cash to be done well (although expensive doesn't guarantee good...just that cheap will mostly look naff and plasticky)...if budget is tight, you are more likely (though not guaranteed) to be successful with a traditional style.

I have to say I disagree very strongly with that. Cheap traditional extensions look cheap and nasty too.
Unfortunately in architecture you can only ever have two of three things - good, inexpensive, on time

 

[Lime]

It depends for me too.
To my eye, it is often the proportions of modern extensions to old houses that is wrong no matter if they have attempted to match or go modern.

 

[MatthewC]

Is the property listed? if so you will need the CO to give it the OK,on a listed house near me it had to be obvious what was new,only new bricks,no recycled ones,I used the recycled he intended to use to build my BBQ! now it is finished it looks better than I thought it would,phil.

One really would expect that there would be some sort of consistency about this sort of thing. When I rebuilt our Victorian brick extension, the CO insisted that we use recycled bricks, contrary to Phil's CO above (NB I was very happy to re-use the old bricks at the price they are!). Also, the CO wanted the new extension to be in lime so that it looked old, but was not in favour of my original application to build a stone extension because that would pretend to be older than it actually was. Confused or what?

The CO also (perhaps understandably) refused to let us do something modern on this listed house

We ended up rebuilding the entire thing with new concrete foundations, Thermalite blocks on the inside of a cavity wall, and a cement/hydrated lime mix.

 

[Woody3]

Thanks for all of the responses! Some lovely and impressive extensions as well!

Our property is listed (G.II), not sure how or why, because all of the original features were removed by the previous owners.

I'd love to put a photo up of the existing elevation, however, as I've only just started the consultation period with our Architect and the LA/CO, I want to keep my cards close to my chest (don't know who's watching), if that makes sense. Maybe I'm being too cautious, who knows?

I've become a lot more open minded though in terms of ideas. Lets see what the LA says; maybe they'll want to keep it as is :shock:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Gareth's pic is nice.

That's what you get for a Oxford English Degree?

"nice"?

:wink:

On topic, I like Gareth's point - using traditional materials but not necessarily in the same way as the original construction. Thus slate, oak and lime can be "visually harmonious with the original, but architecturally distinct"*

* Nottingham University, science!

 

[88v8]

If you have a gothic house, matching it may be prohibitive. However, if it's possible then I think an extension should look as if it's always been there, and not only the exterior. Our previous house wan't listed, but I treated it as if it were. My design, only partially my execution.

Ivor

 

[stuart45]

Looks really good. I prefer an extension to look in keeping with the original. I'm extending a 70's flat roofed extension and putting a slate pitched roof over.
The main house is thatch.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Loving the piccies above - they're really nice.

(FW - :twisted: )

88v8, I love what you did and wish more would just go for it like that! A real celebration of a period prop, excellent.

Here's my extension, put on in the 30s, I give it 10/10 - I admit I'm biased but EH liked it too ( and we won't say anything about the faux mouldings in this thread ).

 

[robgil]

Thats a massive piano you are playing there Joce , even the stool is huge. :shock:

 

[LadyArowana]

Thats a massive piano you are playing there Joce , even the stool is huge. :shock:

Joce has been nibbling the shrinking side of the magic mushroom!