Property Ladder

[Pford75]

I agree that the mindless destruction of period features is sad....but at the same time, all buildings change. Many of this forum have spoken of 'dodgy 70's artex' or 'boarding of panelled doors'. My point being that these too are 'period features', just from a more recent period and perhaps currently less 'fashionable' than Regency cornice. Our house was built in 1780 on the site of an earlier building, it has late-georgian, victorian and edwardian features....some of which obviously required the removal of 'earlier' features.

I think it's slightly uncharitable and incorrect to suggest that Sarah B advocates the wholesale removal of period features. If you read the book which accompanies the first series, she is very clear...

1. uPVC windows are bad...keep and repair the original timber windows
2. Period features are desireable and will add to the value of the house when you sell it
3. Don't attempt to develop a Listed Building unless you are prepared to spend time and money doing things the right way

All pretty clear to me....and points which everyone on this forum would support.....some of the resistance to PL smacks of 'snobbishness'....Grand Designs has it's own share of 'horrors' as well

 

[shelli]

some of the resistance to PL smacks of 'snobbishness'....Grand Designs has it's own share of 'horrors' as well

Sorry I didn't know about prevailing attitude to PL as never saw it until this week - was open minded at first - then couldn't believe the Genghis Khan type slaughter of the house in question and Sarah Beeny didn't have anything to say about it at all. - I may pick up the book - it sounds like she did herself a disservice on this particular episode.

and yes Grand Designs has horrors - but they're not usually destroying something to create it.

 

[Nemesis]

Removal in the past - well, I had hoped we had a little bit of an idea about conservation these days, doesn't stop all development but should try to respect the past too.

And if trying to prevent destruction of our built heritage is snobbish - mea culpa. I'm trying to stop the CoL demolishing Smithfield (see BD thread) and putting up a crappy glass and steel office block, courtesy of Thornfield PLC (purveyors of clone towns). I don't feel remotely guilty about it.

 

[Flyfisher]

Can't see the point in buying somewhere with period features then ripping them out. Why not buy a bland box in the first place is my view.

Millions of people do this, of course. But I suspect that many people buy a period property for the location, which is generally the one thing that can't be changed. Then, if they don't like the interior . . . .

It's a fashion thing - soon it will be fashionable to be re-installing them again.

Quite possibly. Personally, I prefer tudor to georgian but presumably georgian was the fashion when our house was given its makeover. But today, the listing precludes the 'makeover' features being removed so it remains a bit of a stylistic mess.

 

[MdB]

I agree that the mindless destruction of period features is sad....but at the same time, all buildings change. Many of this forum have spoken of 'dodgy 70's artex' or 'boarding of panelled doors'. My point being that these too are 'period features',

I must admit I did have second thoughts about the removal of large amounts of wood chip, hardboard and cement render from my house. It is part of the history of the place.

But then again this thought only lasted for a very short time as what I was removing was awful and/or bad for the building. Off it all comes...

 

[Nemesis]

Marcus in BD:

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=719&storycode=3086595

 

[Pford75]

And if trying to prevent destruction of our built heritage is snobbish - mea culpa. I'm trying to stop the CoL demolishing Smithfield (see BD thread) and putting up a crappy glass and steel office block, courtesy of Thornfield PLC (purveyors of clone towns). I don't feel remotely guilty about it

Nem - I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm all in favour of protecting our heritage and admire the efforts of people such as yourself on issues such as Smithfield. My gripe is that i've heard the comments re: Property Ladder before (and also happen to have an indirect connection to people related to the show)....people should by all means criticise some of the developers....but Sarah B has made her views very clear on the subject of conservation.

As others have said, I don't believe that conservation and making money are diametrically opposed....in fact, I think that it is critical to link the two. When people realise that repairing and conserving that detailed plasterwork, or repointing in lime as opposed to cement have a positive impact on the sale price, the conservation story becomes stronger.

The recent PL episode featuring a listed building focused extensively on what that means and how it restricts development.....if will have put some of the 'renovation merchants' off and hopefully encouraged others to ensure they do things the right way.....I see this as a good thing.

 

[Nemesis]

I'm in hungover mode today I'm afraid and taking no prisoners. I'm not being my usual sweet and charming self...

In fact I recall Ms Beeny taking part in this discussion:

http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/grand-designs/gd_live/gdlive_timetable.html

and I doubt she would have been invited had she not had some sympathies with historic buildings.

Her job as a TV presenter (as indeed with Kevin M, who I know is a member of conservation organisations) is to present - maybe she doesn't always agree with what's going on.

I do hope though that there will be an end to these property progs soon. Shame Restoration has been scrapped!

I see from my local paper that Phil of Relocation has been in the area making a programme. Says he's incredibly impressed etc.

No doubt that will add zillions to property values here then.

 

[Pford75]

Posted: Fri 11th May, 2007 12:33 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm in hungover mode today I'm afraid and taking no prisoners

You weren't at the same Village Quiz night as me last night were you?
I think perhaps I set the wrong tone...when others turned up with Doritos and Fairy Cakes and I took a bottle of whisky ;-)

Strangely, our teams scores started well in the first few rounds....but our judgement waned as the evening progressed.....can't think why

 

[Nemesis]

No I was trying to blot out the memory of those trousers arriving in my Inbox unannounced (see BD Mag thread...)

The owner and I had a long and rambling telephone conversation, fuelled at both ends by rather too much wine. Hmmmm.

Not a fairy cake in sight sadly.

 

[plumbers mate]

They can come and give me a hand making my crumbling victorian, gorgeous, old lady into a gorgeous but uncrumbling victorian old lady that someone will buy in a couple of years and think - this is a gorgeous old lady and I don't want to change her.
(I'll be leaving the area and hope to do so in ignorance of the horrors they will perpetrate on my poor old lady .)
It's the logistics of getting things done surrounded by 25 years of non-minimalist "stuff" which is the worst worrying bit :-(

 

[Craig]

Ten when you sell, do as the Spitalfield's trust does - the title deeds to its much restored freeholds are changed so that the buildings cannot be altered without their consent and must be kept in repair. They retain a right to enter the buildings and carry out repairs and remove alterations and then bill you.

 

[Nemesis]

Blimey. I must ask if anyone on the Trust has ever done that...

 

[Craig]

I know - quite an approach, but I guess they spent the money to save them. A work colleague just bought one - he spent quite a long time trying to work out if they actually could do what it said...

 

[Nemesis]

Well I must enquire further...

 

[Flyfisher]

Enduring covenants allow you put whatever conditions you like on a property before you sell it. Whether it affects the value and saleability is another matter of course.

 

[Penners]

I was trying to blot out the memory of those trousers arriving in my Inbox unannounced.

:shock:

Lucky girl!

 

[Nemesis]

I gather that the pics were taken on two separate days, hence the change of nether garments.

I did suggest that possibly the mag had a stylist and this was considered 'doughty conservationist and historian' garb but that was treated with some scorn...

 

[Penners]

I'm always a bit suspicious of people who wear eccentric clothes. It's all a bit too studied if you ask me.

 

[Nemesis]

Not in this case I assure you! Totally unstudied ...