"Restored to within an inch of its life"

[Anonymous]

Conservation exam question:
The biggest threat to historic buildings is money. Not a lack of it, but an excess. Discuss, with particular reference to tonight's instalment of BBC2's "Restored to Glory"

 

[Anonymous]

Gareth - maybe we actually agree?

Maybe it's lack of cash which makes many of us take years to do the work.

Maybe it's no bad thing really.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, and for what it's worth, I don't think the CO's attitude was entirely unreasonable - what was important about that particular house was, ultimately, the aesthetic aspects of its design, rather than the individual structural components that made it up. Pity there was no proper investigation beforehand though, because that wallpainting certainly wasn't confined to the arch, or even to that one room.

 

[Anonymous]

It's at times like now I so much miss Peter Mailtland Hood, who could get so worked up about historic fabric and its importance. He understood.

If that house was put forward now for listing it would not be!

 

[Anonymous]

Of course we agree, for Heaven's sake, just because I sometimes act like the grit in the oyster in hopes that you might produce a pearl or two.

So, just to be gritty again for a moment, apropos the thread you've just started about restored to buggery, most of our mediaeval cathedrals are (externally at least) nineteenth century copies of themselves, but they're still listed as mediaeval. Should we de-list them as well.

When we first saw tonight's victim, I did think it looked a very borderline case for listing, and it sounded as if it was spotlisted very recently when under possible threat of demolition, mainly because of the architect rather than any particular intrinsic merit. I don't feel quite the same about it now, of course.

 

[Anonymous]

Gareth - producing a pearl or two at times on this site takes me away at times from seriosuly important stuff. Yes that may sound bizarre but it's true. I'm just hoping that a week of being an irritating piece of grit may produce a small misshapen pearl in the national press tomorrow, but you never know. I'll wait up until midnight to find out.

 

[Anonymous]

Hit the Nail on the head.

If the person last night had less money then the structure would have faired better.

I like many here was screaming at the TV last night seeing the fabric go into the skip.

Absolutely p***d off with the attitude. No attempt made to salavage.

The womans comments about taking advice from her team is a fair defence if you know s*d all. How does the message get to the architects and builders that it is better to reuse than rip out.

The excess of money being spent on the house and short timescales meant that it was deemed easier to start afresh. What a bloody loss.

<IMG SRC="http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/discussing/smileys/frown.gif" BORDER=0 ALT="">

MJ

 

[Anonymous]

I didn't see the programme. Lack of taste, commitment and sensitivity are the main threats to historic buildings, not money per se.

To restore an historic building with real care and sensitivity is almost always an expensive business, either in money terms (if professionals are hired) or in terms of one's own time.

People who want quick results and more for their money will tend to overlook details and hire builders who cut corners and dont care.

The best chance we have of preserving historically interesting habitable buildings is to have a housing market that places a premium on authenticity and a discount on unsympathetic over-restoration. That requires a reasonably well educated public.

Historically, of course, many of our best buildings were put up by newly enriched plutocrats, often following the demolition of important older structures. Lack of money in the pockets of their descendants often resulted in their subsequent destruction.

 

[Anonymous]

Discussion homework.
Done. See my submission higher up the thread.
It was done in rather a hurry, sir, and please excuse the rough edges - the hamster got hold of it.

 

[Anonymous]

In the middle of typing a reply to a different thread, I seem to have closed Internet Explorer so goodness knows where the message went.
I was wondering whether the fact that someone has, say for sake of arguement, £1.5million to spend on one house. (a Lottery Win amount to most of us) That must influence the Local Whoevers as it's a lot of money going into the local economy on materials, tradesmen's wages, equipment etc
I didn't see this particular prog so have no idea how much was spent here therefore I am NOT suggesting that this could be the case here.
The bits I caught glimpses of appalled me and comment should have been made at the end about it's correctness or otherwise.

 

[Anonymous]

The three 'experts' expressed surprise, shock and horror throughout and at the end too - but the owner couldn't have cared less, She had got what she wanted, which I suspect she was used to in all areas of her life. Money, as you say, talks.

I have no doubt she could afford to hire 'historic buildings consultants' to argue the case for the destruction of so much...

 

[Anonymous]

correction - the programme planners.

I wonder whose bright idea it was to have those three delightful and erudite people on tap, but prevent them from examining the houses in the series until after the work had started.
As they said during this latest, sad, episode; they discovered the bit of wall-painting round the arch, so there may well have been other treasures that would have been found if only they'd got there sooner.
And they could have given Lady F so much good advice. I don't know about anybody else on the forum, but I'd have given my eye-teeth to have had that trio on hand before we began work on our house.

 

[Anonymous]

I very much doubt she would have taken any notice at all of the experts - she wanted what she got, and wasn't going to be deterred! She knew best!

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, I agree that she was irredemiably vulgar and would only listen to people who said what she wanted to hear. But what about all the other people in the series? It would be interesting to hear Gervase's opinion.