Which era to be true to?

[beka]

edited to remove information due to location/ security risks

 

[Nemesis]

Think we've discussed this before?
Isn't it listed?

But - rip out everything without any thought to the history of the building and you may as well have bought a Barret box.

 

[chuckey]

But these were the Barret houses of their day. The reason that some old stuff is nice is simply the level of craftsmanship and art in their design. Not all properties are like the Medicine house, most were 1/2 bedroom hovels, thrown up as quickly and as cheaply as possible, whose original structure has now been modified. Does this make them works of art or an example of good craftsmanship? How many Victorian houses show wood carving to the level of Grinling Gibbons?
Frank

 

[Nemesis]

But this is an old and rather stale 'argument', and in the end what is approved is what the CO agrees with, and that may not be ripping all changes out. Which isn't to say that buildings cannot be updated with sensitivity.

But posting a yah boo sucks type of thread really seems a bit pointless, and this building has been discussed before.

But buildings are listed for many reasons, not all because they are great works of art, but because they are good examples of a type.

 

[Penners]

Firstly, if - as Nemesis suggests - the building is listed, then our opinions are not really worth much. It's the CO you have to talk to, seek advice from and gain acceptance from.

But if it's not listed, then the decisions on how you develop the place will largely be up to you (building regs being a different discussion). The following comments assume non-listed status.

It seems to me that the extent to which you change the building will depend on your judgement as to what is, and is not, worth keeping. A Victorian grate in a divided-up Georgian building is an honest development of the building, but by that argument a 21st century fireplace would also be honest. And if you genuinely set about improving the building, then who's to say you've done wrong by it? It is, after all, your house.

I can only say that, if I were approaching the task, I would do my utmost to retain as many of the existing period features as possible, and to incorporate them into my 21st century plan. That way you are conserving the history of the building, while adding your own layer of it. Can your plan not allow for this? Things like electric light and a shower are, of course, essential in 21st century terms but, as an example of what I mean, if the flagstones are all broken, why not lay new ones on top of your UFH?

Conserving the history of the building is not just a moral question. It's also a hard-nosed commercial matter. It's a fact that old buildings rich in period detail command a higher price on the market than those whose historical character has been torn out.

 

[Nemesis]

It is indeed a listed building.

http://periodproperty.co.uk/forum/search.php?author_id=2752&sr=posts

 

[Penners]

In which case see my first paragraph. If you buy a listed building, you abide by the listed building regulations.

 

[yamin]

I can only say that, if I were approaching the task, I would do my utmost to retain as many of the existing period features as possible, and to incorporate them into my 21st century plan. That way you are conserving the history of the building, while adding your own layer of it. Can your plan not allow for this? Things like electric light and a shower are, of course, essential in 21st century terms but, as an example of what I mean, if the flagstones are all broken, why not lay new ones on top of your UFH?

Think Penners has hit the nail on the head here. As its listed though, its all irrelavent I guess!

 

[ljn]

I can't imagine anyone taking comments on a forum as something that overrules planning law.
Of course the local CO will decide what can and can't be done, but that doesn't say what is decided is necessarily right or that there is no use talking about the subject.
If one followed the rules without debate and no one expressed opinions that go against the generally accepted stance or the rule of law, we'd still have the death penalty, women wouldn't vote and there would be no such thing as listed buildings.

Without getting into the ins and outs of the individual project, of which there are no photos or drawings to go by, I find the "What period to go back to" question when renovating a period building is very interesting and I don't think anyone can have a definitive answer to what is the right approach. I think opinions are very useful. It's through people expressing their opinions that the prevailing attitudes, followed by the COs, have been formed.
Attitudes to this question are in evolution and even at present, within organisations like the Spitalfields trust and English Heritage there are contradictory views.
I wrote my architecture dissertation on the subject this summer.

I agree with Beka that historical alterations of poor design and materials can be detrimental to the structure and the appreciation of a building.

"Buildings are listed for many reasons, not all because they are great works of art, but because they are good examples of a type", It is also true that some buildings were listed without even looking inside. In some cases the passage of history is more important than the original building, in others its just crap developer plasterboard.

Leaving the pants that cover the volgarities of Michelangelo's "Descent from the Cross" was a well pondered decision, in which the quality of Daniele da Volterr's pants were a determining factor that added to the "leaving the traces of history". http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Descentfromthecross.jpg if they had been pants, they would have been removed. In the current restored state, the appreciation of Michelangelo's work suffers. It could be that in future, the pants will be removed, marking another change in taste.

 

[Nemesis]

I think though that we have had some discussion re this building before. I would suggest that in general it's not a good idea to buy a listed building with the intention of ripping out everything, and imposing your own ideas on it, as that could be a problem, and that way disappointment lies.

All this is really best discussed beforehand with the CO, and I'd also suggest that some knowledge of conservation is gained too, before planning too much.

SPAB courses are a good start.

 

[middi]

good, since we are invited to discuss what we think, I think that a large number of people living in listed buildings only like the " listed " title on the deeds not it's historical significance.

 

[Penners]

good, since we are invited to discuss what we think, I think that a large number of people living in listed buildings only like the " listed " title on the deeds not it's historical significance.

I think middi is absolutely right. To some folk, there's a cachet to living in a listed building, until the day comes that they want to make alterations. Then the listing becomes a blasted nuisance. But riding roughshod over the regulations is an unforgiveable (and criminal - literally) act.

I've mentioned before that, in my limited experience, the approach to such problems is to talk informally to the CO. Firmly stating your intentions is not the way to go. Ask for advice, explain your needs from the building and seek guidance on how those needs can be achieved without destruction of historic fabric, and to the satisfaction of the CO. Nine times out of ten you'll find the CO helpful and co-operative, provided you have the right attitude to the building.

The addition of good quality, sympathetic 21st century fabric to the building will generally be viewed favourably, provided it's not to the detriment of the historic structure.

Of course the local CO will decide what can and can't be done, but that doesn't say what is decided is necessarily right

In this matter, there can never be such a thing as "right" or "wrong". It's all subjective. But the CO is charged with making that subjective judgement, and the law says that his/her decision (or that of the committee acting on his/her recommendations) must be complied with. If you buy a listed building, you do so in that knowledge. You cannot later decide that the law doesn't suit you.

 

[Moo]

Ask for advice, explain your needs from the building and seek guidance on how those needs can be achieved without destruction of historic fabric, and to the satisfaction of the CO. Nine times out of ten you'll find the CO helpful and co-operative, provided you have the right attitude to the building.

I'd like to second that. Our CO was enormously helpful and actually came up with some excellent ideas about shoehorning in bits of the 20th century that, left to our own devices, we'd never have thought of.

 

[Lime]

So I'm sticking my head above the parapet to say we're going to try and
install double glazing
Take up old flagstones
put down UFH
take out internal walls
remove chimney breasts
move kitchen from draughty lean to at back of house
put in a shower
have electric light
remove old extension and add a glass sunroom instead

and you knwo what - I think we'll have a nicer looking building at the end of it - plus we wont' be freezing to death by gaslights!

First I wish to clear up an historical inaccuracy, freezing to death by gaslights was unlikely as in the summer months sitting in the dark was preferable to being too hot.
Gas lamps throw out a lot of heat.
.......
Several decades ago I lived in a small block of cottages, all much the same.
While living there, one of the nextdoor cottages was completely stripped out, floors, ceilings, chimney breast, windows, everything removed by a young builder neighbour.
It was modernised.
The other day I was looking at house sale prices that are available on the web.
The type you put an address in the search box and all the house sales in the street are listed for the last 10 years.
(google earth makes it much more interesting)

I looked at all my old homes dotted all over and lastly looked at my old cottage.
All the cottages had been sold during the last decade, most for £80,000-£100,000.
The one exception?
The builders house, sold in the last year for £45,000.
The young builder thought his house looked good too.

 

[Flyfisher]

Ask for advice, explain your needs from the building and seek guidance on how those needs can be achieved without destruction of historic fabric, and to the satisfaction of the CO. Nine times out of ten you'll find the CO helpful and co-operative, provided you have the right attitude to the building.

I'd like to second that. Our CO was enormously helpful and actually came up with some excellent ideas about shoehorning in bits of the 20th century that, left to our own devices, we'd never have thought of.

I can 'third' that from personal experience as well. Ours also came up with some great ideas that we hadn't thought about. The importance of talking with your CO really cannot be emphasised enough.

 

[Carol]

I think Beka's original question is a fascinating one and while I agree that the CO has to be the first port of call in these things it is often a real dilemma as to what is the 'true' era for a building restoration. Our place began life as a cloth merchant's house and was then a high status building with presumably all mod-cons of medieval life. But since then it has been repeatedly 'done-up' by successive generations and allowed to decline by others leaving us with a marvellous hotch-potch of windows, doors and walls. It would be a travesty of planning and conservation if owners were obliged to keep later additions which are neither historical or aesthetically correct, but I would defy anyone who insisted I remove my one Tudor ceiling, a lovely elm floor, an Edwardian kitchen cupboard or any of the various Victorian fireplaces put in by predecessors to return the house to an open-to-the-roof, hall house with no plumbing, little heating and one bedroom for all!

Talk to your CO, ours is rigorous but sympathetic, his job is to make our houses habitable in the 21st C and keep them as lasting items beyond this. We are only passing through in the lives of these properties.

 

[Nemesis]

It would be a travesty of planning and conservation if owners were obliged to keep later additions which are neither historical or aesthetically correct, but I would defy anyone who insisted I remove my one Tudor ceiling, a lovely elm floor, an Edwardian kitchen cupboard or any of the various Victorian fireplaces put in by predecessors to return the house to an open-to-the-roof, hall house with no plumbing, little heating and one bedroom for all!

Quite.

However after reading some comments on this site it seems that there is a bit of a belief that old is good no matter what its condition, historic appropriateness or practicality.

And I would say that is nonsense.

 

[Penners]

it is often a real dilemma as to what is the 'true' era for a building restoration.

My own view is that there is no such thing as a "true" era for a house that has metamorphosed through the centuries. If it is 300 years old, then its true era is 300 years long.

In most cases, the approach of taking out all detail that is not original to the day that the construction of the house was completed does the building no favours. A great part of the charm, interest and architectural significance of many period properties lies in their development over their long and varied lives.

So I suggest that the right approach is to try and conserve the best historic fabric - no matter what period it belongs to. Of course there will always be eyesores, cowboy additions, bad DIY and so on - I'm not suggesting a blind acceptance of everything. But - as a theoretical example - I believe that a sympathetically installed Victorian fireplace is just as valid in a Georgian house as was the (for the sake of argument) original Georgian one, that perhaps was removed a hundred years ago because it was damaged.

In rare cases where a house is a pure, unsullied example of a single architectural period, then of course it should be treasured as such. But among period properties this is very much the exception.

But, as is so often repeated on this forum, in the case of listed buildings the CO must be the arbiter.

 

[Penners]

We are only passing through in the lives of these properties.

Yes - like the wind, we are just passing. :wink:

 

[middi]

I will save the ink, won't repeat Penners very accurate lines