The philosophy of repairing previous repairs.

[mardinor]

On an unlisted building I would do whatever my clients wanted - it's their choice.if an architect started talking about honesty I would kick him out.

I believe in the freedom of the owners to decide whether to consider 'what's best for the building' or 'architectural honesty'. If society deems architectural merit to outweigh the opinion of the owner then that's what listing is for, in my view. I say this as someone who owns an unlisted period property and has spent 15 years preserving as much of the historical fabric as possible. But I do it because I value that aesthetic. It is entirely emotional (as you suggest in the other thread) and that's OK in my book. For example,I enjoy my 120 year old sash windows every day - because they are beautiful and because they rekindle the pride of having restored them all. I do feel a sense of guardianship of the building for future generations but make my own choices. It makes my blood boil when neighbours replace similar windows with plastic double glazing, but I respect their right to do so (and selfishly wish market forces would dissuade them).

Personally, in this example I would not convert Like others here I am not a fan of barn conversions, in my case because I hate open plan living which commonly follows (anything described as a 'space' rather than a room I despise!).

If this were a wall in an existing cottage then I would replace the brick infill with flint and aim to make it blend in as much as possible. This is purely an aesthetic choice, for reasons given above. It looks a mess, in my view.

I believe 'architectural honesty' is hogwash. Why should you need to 'read a building' in future generations,and why by this method only and not google? In the lintel thread I would repair if unobtrusive or replace with a reclaimed oak lintel that looked as similar as possible to its current condition. Yes, because it looks 'cute' and that's OK.

What about the roof? It's at least half the visual impact and yet would you keep that? And where's the honesty in converting from a barn to a house? Why is it OK to add windows and garden landscaping and not replace a brick with a flint?

It's all selective hypocrisy propagated by architectural doctrine groupthink.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Totally agree with FF and mardinor. Architectural honesty is hogwash. I hate it when you get glass links between seriously old buildings because SPAB think somehow, bizarrely, it's "honest". I'm with Prince Charles, and also with the people of Dresden who replicated their beautiful city after it was destroyed by bombs, and even with the Russians who made faithful replicas of their extraordinary palaces!

In centuries gone by thought and care and classical rules went into design. Things weren't just thrown up on the cheap as they are now. My brick ha ha, for example, is a lovely thing in my view. If I had a spare few tens of thousands I would carefully source the exact same bricks and get it restored to be exactly as it was in 1810. If I had a few more tens of thousands I would have the Victorian brick lean to on the North side knocked down ( though it is rather charming, it its way) and I'd have the wrought iron Regency verandah, that I believe was there, replicated.

If that building must become a dwelling then I agree it's a mess and the flint should go back. The roof is way way more important though! And the windows.

 

[Pennyviz]

which came first btw, the brick/flint or the barn (wondering if the barn was build against an existing wall?)

Penny

 

[malcolm]

I'm expecting this thread to be a trick question - we'll all post our opinions on what is a subjective matter, then MikeG can ridicule us all for being wrong like the lintel thread.

As the thread title is about philosophy I'll add that it's funny how strongly and subconsciously social norms and trends can influence us. There would have been a different answer to this question 50 years ago, and there is no reason why the answer will not change in another 50 years. Calling people wrong because they have a different opinion to you is at best rude.

The current trends do seem more planning led than based on aesthetics, engineering or functionality. My pet hate is slightly subservient extensions where just a few more bricks would have made the extension match the line of the house.

 

[MikeG]

I'm expecting this thread to be a trick question - we'll all post our opinions on what is a subjective matter, then MikeG can ridicule us all for being wrong like the lintel thread.

Not only is that not what is going on here, it isn't what happened in the Lintel thread. I dissected someone's statements of "fact" and showed them to be statements of personal opinion. This thread is showing exactly the same thing: there are no facts in these circumstances. There is no trap intended here, no "gotcha" moment from me. I am the first to admit that my preferred solution (leaving the brick patches exactly as they are) is also just a matter of taste.

The current trends do seem more planning led than based on aesthetics, engineering or functionality. My pet hate is slightly subservient extensions where just a few more bricks would have made the extension match the line of the house.

So long as you don't insist that yours is the right taste in these matters, I've got no problem with you view on this. Of course, you will bump into Planning issues with this notion, but that isn't what we're talking about.

 

[MikeG]

which came first btw, the brick/flint or the barn (wondering if the barn was build against an existing wall?)......

Exactly that Penny. The brick & flint wall was there first, and there is evidence on old maps of it extending off to form a courtyard/ farmyard with some long-gone outbuildings. The other three sides and a roof were added later, along with the extra length to the wall.

 

[MikeG]

Totally agree with FF and mardinor. Architectural honesty is hogwash. I hate it when you get glass links between seriously old buildings because SPAB think somehow, bizarrely, it's "honest"..........

"Honesty" doesn't require glass (and I completely agree with you on some of the horrible glass links you see). It just requires not pretending to be doing one thing when you are doing another. It is a concept against which to test and judge, rather than an absolute. As we've seen in this thread, with the simplest example one could ever come across, there are no absolutes in building design. Architectural honesty isn't hogwash per se, but plenty of its (mis-)uses are.

 

[MikeG]

......But can you really disregard the use of the building when 'doing your best' for it?

The reality here is that the building will be converted, whether or not you or I think it the best thing for the building. This is for all sorts of societal, economic, and planning reasons. Given the fact of a conversion to residential, my starting point is to do the best I can for the original building.

As an agricultural building the brick patches seem perfectly well suited for its use but as a (probably very expensive) house not so much.

I agree absolutely. As I said above, unless there was a very good reason to remove them and replace with flint I would be loath to touch it. One very good reason may be that one half of my client couple hates the patches. It rather complicates things that the other half loves them, as I do.

And what do you mean by 'architectural honesty' anyway? To me, it doesn't seem entirely 'honest' to convert a ramshackle but perfectly suited agricultural building into a luxuriously appointed modern domestic dwelling in the first place, so I'd say that particular aim is already compromised.

Within the context of accepting that conversion will happen anyway, whether I am involved in the project or not, honesty means not pretending that this was never a barn, not pretending that this isn't a scruffy old agricultural building being converted to residential, not pretending it is a new house or still an old barn. It means leaving as much of the simple building as simple and untouched as is possible, but where there are any changes, not pretending that the changes forced by the change of use happened back in the 19th century. As I said, "honesty" is only a question you ask yourself as you are doing something....."is this the right thing to do?.........am I trying to fool anyone?"

My bet is that the owners would rather bulldoze the site and build a new house from scratch, rather than mess about making a silk purse out of a pig's ear.

One of them would, one of them wouldn't. As always with architecture, the buildings are the easy part. The people are the complication we aren't trained for.

It's a barn. It was built as a barn, used as a barn and maintained as a barn - for which it all looks eminently suited and charming in its own way. Conversion into a domestic house will require a gazillion new things to be inflicted upon its 'architectural integrity' that I really don't think tidying up the few remaining visible parts makes much difference either way.

Whilst that's all true, with so little left of any historic merit, wouldn't you want to keep as much of it intact as you could? That's what I am aiming for. The.......erm...........conversation between my clients will determine how successful I am.

I assume all the interior walls will become invisible anyway when plastered, so where's the 'honesty' in leaving the exterior walls untouched?

The scourge of sand & cement render was inflicted on this building internally decades ago. The interior is a complete lost cause. There are no internal walls, no features, no extant timbers.........nothing. Just a rendered shell with an asbestos roof. The honesty in leaving the exterior as much alone as possible is to retain the look of the building in the landscape in which is has sat for more than a couple of centuries, and to retain (as much as possible) authentic period workmanship in its original setting.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Totally agree with FF and mardinor. Architectural honesty is hogwash. I hate it when you get glass links between seriously old buildings because SPAB think somehow, bizarrely, it's "honest"..........

"Honesty" doesn't require glass (and I completely agree with you on some of the horrible glass links you see). It just requires not pretending to be doing one thing when you are doing another. It is a concept against which to test and judge, rather than an absolute. As we've seen in this thread, with the simplest example one could ever come across, there are no absolutes in building design. Architectural honesty isn't hogwash per se, but plenty of its (mis-)uses are.

Fair enough point. Though I don't think your example simple at all actually - it's a minefield - especially as the couple disagree! I do think the half of the couple that wants to smarten it up with putting flint back right though. Houses call for a more formal architecture and less of a hotch-potch look, I really think those people who strip back render on the outside to reveal a mish mash of brick and stone need their heads examining, I hope it's a fashion that's dying now. If they knew how beautiful lime render and limewash is I don't think they'd do it. Anyway, I digress.

I think by the time that this is done it will be hard to see it was an agricultural building no matter your efforts Mike. So you are over worrying, but it is an interesting discussion.

I also think that in the other thread where the question of taste arises and no one person's taste being right, that isn't really completely true. I've always maintained that in questions of taste people agree far more than they disagree, hence the increased value of things like period properties, jewels, designer clothes, holidays in the Maldives etc etc. If half the population thought they were a waste of time they would not have their market value.

There is a rightness to things that most people agree on. There are also many commonly accepted ideas that make up what we think of as beauty, charm, artistic merit, historic interest, quality, fitness, harmony. And I think many would be in agreement over what constitutes the appeal of a particular building, be it that it reveals styles and features and additions from different centuries, like FF's house, or that it is characterised by classical Georgian symmetry, like mine. What FF can get away with and it look lovely would never work here. Each repair has to be judged on a case by case basis.

 

[parkview094]

I actually have no objection to Barn conversions although have yet to see one I'd actually want to live in.

If it was my decision, I'd keep the brick infill. If it's not broken, why fix it? A barn conversion is exactly that, something that was a barn that has been converted. To my mind, the brick infill forms part of the story of the building. If you're going to make it look purpose built (or 'new'), why not demolish the whole thing and just start again? If the brick was structurally unsound or causing some other problem, that's a whole different question. Like the roof. It would be a bold developer to keep a corrugated roof..

 

[Flyfisher]

The roof is an interesting point. We've largely focused on the state of the wall, but what about that roof? If it's 'honest' to retain the wall as is stands, wouldn't it also be 'honest' to retain the roof as it stands?

 

[MikeG]

.......I don't think your example simple at all actually - it's a minefield .......

Exactly. But it's a binary choice over a single element, so in principle is as simple as it gets. Yet look at the range of views on offer.

Nice post, by the way. Thanks for taking the trouble.

 

[LadyArowana]

Should the treatment of repairs be dependent on how many of them there are?

There are some (3) arrow-slit windows going in in the flint wall above the string course, and a French window is going into the solid brick panel to the left of the flintwork.

To me if it was one small patch in an otherwise perfect flint wall repaired with say 5 bricks then that's a rather sloppy repair, where they have spoiled the look of a whole wall for want of a bit of extra effort, and taking it away and making the wall perfect again is just fixing a poor job. This wall is already a bit of a dogs breakfast with it's mix of materials and design and so the big patches don't seem out of character.

To use a clothing analogy a small rip in a formal garment I would invisibly mend, and if it was a vintage piece badly repaired I would remove and replace so it wasn't noticeable. Work clothes that had been patched I would keep repairs because the repair wasn't "badly" done it was appropriately done to the purpose of the garment.

Oh and sympathies on having to deal with your clients, rarely possible to successfully serve two masters, get them in the ring and winner has final choice!

 

[MikeG]

The roof is an interesting point. We've largely focused on the state of the wall, but what about that roof? If it's 'honest' to retain the wall as is stands, wouldn't it also be 'honest' to retain the roof as it stands?

Luckily, the question doesn't arise. The roof structure is unsound almost to the point of collapse, and the covering is asbestos. We can't fix the structure without disturbing the asbestos sheets, so they couldn't be re-used even if we wanted to. Therefore it's a new roof.

Tell you what, rather than me say what we are going to do, I'll see what suggestions people come up with. What would you do for a new roof here? If it helps, the roof pitch is 36.9 degrees (9 inch rise in 12), so obviously it has never been thatched. I'll add another photo, from the other side, showing a cute little mono-pitched outshot. The wall in the previous photo is around to the left in this one. By the way, if anyone happens to know the location of this building, please don't reveal it. Thanks.

 

[MikeG]

......To use a clothing analogy a small rip in a formal garment I would invisibly mend, and if it was a vintage piece badly repaired I would remove and replace so it wasn't noticeable. Work clothes that had been patched I would keep repairs because the repair wasn't "badly" done it was appropriately done to the purpose of the garment.

Oh and sympathies on having to deal with your clients, rarely possible to successfully serve two masters, get them in the ring and winner has final choice!

I think that's a rather apt analogy. I'll stretch it further: any attempt to turn a pair of old workman's jeans into a piece of formal attire to wear to a smart dinner party with a jacket is doomed to failure. Rather keep the jeans going as long as you can, and actually even enjoy them for the history and character they show.

My clients are OK. One of them is a craftsman, and one an artist. They'll make this place great. It's just a matter of managing expectations, and drawing decisions out of them at the appropriate time. Some of those decisions need quite a lot of guidance from me, and some need me to sort from 25 different ideas. The great thing is that they are enthusiastic.

 

[Flyfisher]

The roof is an interesting point. We've largely focused on the state of the wall, but what about that roof? If it's 'honest' to retain the wall as is stands, wouldn't it also be 'honest' to retain the roof as it stands?

Luckily, the question doesn't arise. The roof structure is unsound almost to the point of collapse, and the covering is asbestos. We can't fix the structure without disturbing the asbestos sheets, so they couldn't be re-used even if we wanted to. Therefore it's a new roof.

OK, so it's a new roof, but wouldn't an 'honest' approach be to rebuild with the same materials? After all, that seemed to be the consensus in the lintel topic. Sure, there were mixed views about using reclaimed or new wood, but the consensus was wood of some sort.

I'm guessing that corrugated asbestos sheeting is no longer legal but there are certainly alternative materials that look almost identical, so the essential look of the roof could be retained if 'honesty' was really deemed important.

 

[MikeG]

All fair points.

The question of honesty, I guess, asks more "are we trying to deceive anyone into thinking something other than the actuality?" rather than "does this look sort-of the same as something we've taken away?". Also, what time period are we referring to? I assume that 50 or 70 years ago there would have been a very different roof on the building, possibly the original one. Might we think of this modern roof as just a temporary repair?

 

[JoceAndChris]

lol to this thread!  :lol: And good luck to the craftsman and the artist, they are brave!!!

Chris says that what's needed is to build a house within a house, so the inside is modern and functioning and watertight, and the outside looks EXACTLY as it is even with the broken pane and dangerous roof :lol:


I'm really glad he didn't propose any such thing for here :shock:

In all seriousness, I do agree a pair of formal trousers is that and a pair of jeans is something else. No good treating them the same. I wouldn't waste fine slate or lead or thatch on this. I'd just go for the orange pantiles or something plain but reasonably smart:

https://www.marleyeternit.co.uk/Roofing/Clay-Tiles/Ashdowne-Handcrafted-Clay-Plain-Tile.aspx

 

[Feltwell]

What would you do for a new roof here? If it helps, the roof pitch is 36.9 degrees (9 inch rise in 12), so obviously it has never been thatched.

I'd see what's common on local humble buildings and go with that personally. Plain 9" clay tiles or perhaps pantiles. Nothing fancy, just plain & simple. Handmade rather than machine made, or older reclaimed machine made - Victorian machine made wasn't as well QC controlled as todays's stuff and tended to vary a bit in size and curvature - would help give a bit of character. New machine made plain tiles would be very uniform in appearance.

 

[plasticpigeon]

I don't think it matters much. I like the look of slate with red brick, but that could be because it is the most common combination on period properties where I live so it is familiar to me. However I do live in an area that is urban and mainly Edwardian and Victorian, but with very little from before, and it is nice to go with the local vernacular in my opinion, whatever that is. I bet it will have solar panels though! I like Lady A's analogy to work clothes and totally agree. In my view, I'm happier with an obvious repair if it's done well, for example if the brick repairs in flint are well laid. If it is a scrappy repair all wonky, no bond, mortar over the faces etc, it is just an embarassing poor repair, a bit like wearing trousers with a broken zip on the fly to carry on the analogy. I doubt if Mike is worrying about this, he seems to be enjoying it, and probably enjoying seeing all the different suggestions we come up with. I remember asking people to comment on my living room as I started to paint and furnish it. Between everyone who commented I found out nothing was right with it, but I'm happy with it!