Replacing modern bricks with 'old'... possible?

[xanthe]

The late 16th century cottage we are buying is timber-framed with brick infill. It's Grade II listed but also in a conservation area and in a road where every other property is either Grade I or Grade II* so there is no way of doing anything and it not being noticed!

Over the years, the infill panels at the front have been messed about. In the picture you can see the original bricks in the upper storey and then the complete mess at the bottom. The doorway and window didn't exist in a 1930's photo I found, but were put in in the 1950's and then removed in the 1960's (after the house was listed) and the current window put in. They've also been mortared and pointed with cement not lime - all the other cement is coming off and whole house is being repointed asap, but the offending bit can't be done without wrecking the brickwork.

The hideous bricks used to do the blocking up on the window and doorway really annoy me. I get the whole 'reading of the history of the building' but is there anything I can do about them, or am I being v irresponsible in even wanting to?

Given that recording is so good nowadays and there would therefore never be any confusion as to whether it was original or not) could I potentially get permission to replace them with something less ugly (or even rebuild that whole section of wall with old salvage or hand-made bricks)?

Or could I do a bit of toning in with a paintbrush (I'm an artist so could easily paint them to match the old ones :twisted: )?

Could they get massively wrecked and need rebuilding during cement removal...

Or do I just grit my teeth, shove a planter in front of them and be thankful that I will be living in the house and unable to see them instead of being irritated every time I look out of the window.

The local conservation chap is very nice, but I don't want to get on the wrong side by even asking given the amount of work we need to do and hence how much he needs to be my new best friend!

 

[xanthe]

The right-hand side of the upper storey has had the brick replaced at some point - probably when a larger window was put in, but the bricks are quite nice and it looks okay.

The ground storey has a mix of original, the more modern ones that are in the upper storey, the greyish ones and then these horrible red ones. It's only the red ones that I have a problem with.

 

[plasticpigeon]

The red bricks look very nice bricks but don't match and stick out like a sore thumb, and I would want to rebuild that area too. I rebuilt the base of my bay window in a much more humble property for exactly the same reasons you want this bit rebuilt. I can't help with your question about permissions, but this is the place where you will find people who can help for sure.

 

[xanthe]

Here's a view of the whole front brickwork - don't want to post a full house pic until it's 100% mine.

Am I being overly picky given it's not the only chunk that isn't 'original' (was initially wattle & daub).

 

[xanthe]

plasticpigeon, did you just do it and hope no-one realises or did something happen that made it possible to do?

I know that a damp-proof thing was laid near the front wall and the whole inside has been done with modern plaster not lime so that will need to be dealt with at some point.

 

[plasticpigeon]

My house isn't listed, and nobody cares about anything where I live, so I just went ahead and did it. That probably isn't that attitude to take on a listed property, although knowing how listed properties area treated in my area, I would be confident of doing a better job than any CO in my area would ask for or expect.

 

[billybuntus]

I've not personally used this product but I've seen some excellent results with it.

http://www.dyebrick.co.uk/

Certainly worth a try.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

.

Am I being overly picky given it's not the only chunk that isn't 'original' (was initially wattle & daub).

Personally, I think you are - the changes are part of the house's history and make that change easy to read without being unduly unsightly, and it's not as if it's been done in breeze block.

 

[xanthe]

Crumbs - that paint dye looks like scary stuff! I probably need the bleaching variety!

Yes, you are right, at least it hasn't been done in breeze block (unlike some bits inside which the LBO has said I can replace)!

Annoyingly, it was done a good 18 years after the building was listed - at the same time as a lot of other very badly done things like a badly built and unsympathetic dormer window.

I've been told they won't take action over the window, but want to be involved if and when it needs replacing (which they would like to happen). Seems odd that they would be happy - indeed encourage - the replacement of a window, but probably not the brickwork that also doesn't have consent. Or at any rate, there was no mention of it being an issue!

I'm probably over-obsessing having spent the last 8 weeks going over every inch of the place before spending all our pennies for the foreseeable!

 

[plasticpigeon]

Gareth, I'm always rather disappointed by the philosophy that a building's history should be able to be read from a visual inspection. When repairing other antique items, be they cars, musical instruments, antique furniture or indeed anything other than buildings, the desire of the owner and craftsperson is to make the object look as if no repair or alteration has taken place. Imagine a Stradivarius with a piece of plywood grafted in over a sound post crack! Ridiculous. Why is this not the case with buildings?

It would have been possible to have had the area on Xanthe's house rebuilt more skillfully so that it was indistinguishable from the rest of the brickwork on the house. The history would have been less easy to read, but it would look more attractive and in keeping and that is of far more importance to me. I also think that skillful construction should be encouraged which means that sloppy construction should not be embraced. Do you know why one philosophy has been chosen over another please?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Gareth, I'm always rather disappointed by the philosophy that a building's history should be able to be read from a visual inspection. When repairing other antique items, be they cars, musical instruments, antique furniture or indeed anything other than buildings, the desire of the owner and craftsperson is to make the object look as if no repair or alteration has taken place. Imagine a Stradivarius with a piece of plywood grafted in over a sound post crack! Ridiculous. Why is this not the case with buildings?

It would have been possible to have had the area on Xanthe's house rebuilt more skillfully so that it was indistinguishable from the rest of the brickwork on the house. The history would have been less easy to read, but it would look more attractive and in keeping and that is of far more importance to me. I also think that skillful construction should be encouraged which means that sloppy construction should not be embraced. Do you know why one philosophy has been chosen over another please?

because the natural end result (there are many in-between stages, of which Xanthe's house is a middling example) of such an attitude would be to have the spire removed from this, since it's not original.

 

[Lime]

Could've, would've, should've!
The brickwork has been done like that and as it stands doesn't look bad to me.
Annoying perhaps but then many alterations are often so.
This work hasn't been done badly just obviously.
Old houses were often altered like this.
Now many old houses appear to my eye twee and "done up" so much so their look is a pastiche of what the owner wishes their house to be with all "unsavoury" aspects and reminders of past use hidden or removed and mod cons sometimes carefully but forcefully introduced into the structure.
In days gone by anything went as ok as long as it didn't fall down and stood the test of time.
Unfortunately many old houses have gone the same way as antiques in fancy shops that look as if they were made yesterday because they have been cleaned and fussed over so much so their history has disappeared into oblivion.

 

[Flyfisher]

because the natural end result (there are many in-between stages, of which Xanthe's house is a middling example) of such an attitude would be to have the spire removed from this, since it's not original.

I don't think that's a very good analogy because that spire has been built from matching materials, which is not the case with xanthe's house and seems to be the main issue. A better example would be an addition in a different colour stone.

If that cathedral required repair, would it be a requirement that a different stone be used so that in 100 years the repairs could be easily identified?

 

[Flyfisher]

In days gone by anything went as ok as long as it didn't fall down and stood the test of time.

Indeed, so what's the problem with xanthe wanting to change the bricks to ones than are a better match.

Surely it's no different to the modern fashion of stripping painted beams back to the bare wood?

 

[plasticpigeon]

Gareth that's not what I mean. Your picture to my eyes show a spire designed and constructed so well that I wouldn't know it was an addition, even if you would because of your greater knowledge of architecture and period buildings. I was talking about very obvious very modern additions such as glass and steel extensions or link passages, or tile repairs to stonework, or as in this case brickwork repairs that while not awful could have been better. I can't understand why it should be embraced in the name of making the history readable.

 

[CliffordPope]

When repairing other antique items, be they cars, musical instruments, antique furniture or indeed anything other than buildings, the desire of the owner and craftsperson is to make the object look as if no repair or alteration has taken place. Imagine a Stradivarius with a piece of plywood grafted in over a sound post crack! Ridiculous. Why is this not the case with buildings?

You could say, imagine a 16th century house that had had glass inserted in the windows instead of the shutters, or modern plumbing and sanitation added.
To look at one of your examples, cars are altered to reflect later inovations or construction changes - servo brakes added, radial tyres replace the "genuine" crossply, lights upgraded, etc.

Another example is restoring old pottery. Reconstructed vases or statues from antiquity have missing pieces left out, or for structural reasons replaced with black or blank sections to demonstrate the essence of the piece without resorting to fake.

 

[Keithj]

Been there, suffered from that.
Our house had been very badly mistreated and was rotting away at a scary rate. We set out to repair it as well as possible.

No, we were told, you can't use kiln-dried or seasoned oak: you must use green oak. So we did.

Green oak shrinks, warps, and splits. So more labour is needed every year to fill the shrinkage gaps and limewash, etc; to fill the cracks (sawdust and araldite are my favourite), and to fix door frames where the doors no longer close because of the warping.

Why could we not use kiln-dried or seasoned oak? Because it's not original...

 

[plasticpigeon]

Gosh, I can't believe I've been so misinterpreted. I am talking about repairs that stick out like a saw thumb but are then embraced because they show the history. A historic bad repair is as bad as a recent one isn't it? I also don't understand why modern additions are usually ultra modern in style or links between old and new parts of buildings are glass and steel even when nothing else is, which to my eyes makes for a very jarring mixture of styles (or juxtaposition if you are inclined to use that sort of language). I think it is good to embrace the best of modern technology, but it shouldn't be at the expense of aesthetics. If Norwich cathedral had a very badly designed or constructed spire, or one in a material that was not in keeping such as red brick, glass and steel, or pvc, I think there would be a good argument to remove it. As it stands I wouldn't have a clue that it was not part of the original construction as it fits in so well, and i believe that is the kind of repair and addition that people should strive for.

 

[xanthe]

From what I have seen in the area of London I live in (where I was also vice-chair on the planning committee for 4 years), and my parent's 'projects' over most of my life, the rules seem very arbitrary. I was forever reporting things to the Conservation Officer and they never took action - beautiful row of Georgian cottages where someone decided to take the front window and half the front wall out and put in a huge bay window with stain-glass and stick-on lead strips. If ever there was a case for prosecution and enforcement it was that - conservation area, every other property in the row with the original windows etc, and they did not lift a finger.

Then you hear of situations like a woman who had to go to court to be able to rip out a 1960's cheap monstrosity of a fireplace to expose the beautiful and original ingle-nook behind it.

A lot of it I do understand and agree with. Generally, a new extension to a 16th century property will look much better if it's done to a very high-standard with quality materials but in a contemporary style rather than an attempt at pastiche which tends to look too 'perfect' because it hasn't evolved over the years.

I can also understand things like not removing a 19th century window from a 16th century house - but do think that UPVC horrors should be ripped out at the earliest opportunity (the dodgy dormer is one of these). Also, if you are patching a roof then no-one would want you to use different tiles to show that it had been patched.

With the bricks, I just wish they had colour-matched a bit better and above all had used lime mortar like the rest not cement when they built that bit of wall especially since the floor-level is a fair bit below street-level and there's a massive - and very damp - cellar underneath.

 

[agbagb]

I think a little assistance to "ageing" and "patination" would help to take the eyes away from it without hiding the alterations altogether. A thin lime wash soaked in the brick surface with excess mopped off followed by a bit of muck and soot could be all it needs.