Discussion
Tuna said:
The one thing that struck me, having been through the process, was that the main achievement was getting the damn things built in the first place. Every one of those houses would have been rejected out of hand by our local planning department and then rejected again by our parish council. Being a well regarded (and well financed) architect/client carries disproportionate weight in these matters.
I also wonder about that. Knowing almost nothing about planning makes me plenty qualified to talk about it on the internet, so here goes. I imagine when I have enough money to build my own place, obtaining permission will be very difficult. However, you barely seem to be able to move at the moment without seeing one of the standard developers chucking up orange boxes, separated by a few inches from next door, usually with no attempt to blend the haemorrhage into the surroundings. How is this OK, but I suspect the majority of 'one off' builders would struggle? Near to me there are two new developments, both built on what used to be farm land. The village is made of a light-coloured stone, so these new developments have been built to match - or so you'd think if you were partially sighted. Only the properties that face the main road have been built with nice stone and slate and the accompanying colour schemed facias etc. The rest of the houses are orange brick with stark white windows and doors. How could a planning department think people would be so stupid as to not notice how s
t this looks?Badly-informed whinge over.
The current planning system is built around the idea of preventing you from doing 'bad things'. The list of 'bad things' grows longer every year - from where the builders park whilst they're building, to which plants you're going to put in your flower bed. Unfortunately, you can't quantify 'good design' in an easy to follow set of guidelines and planners are not allowed to encourage particular solutions for fear of showing favouritism to particular suppliers. At the same time, large scale developers have the money and staff to push through stuff that individuals cannot. As a one off builder, you're regarded with suspicion (unless you are a superstar architect or have a lot of money, funnily enough).
The end result is that conservative designs built down to a spec are inherently favoured over bold, unusual or experimental designs. I don't believe this approach has benefited our street scenes or general housing stock and the experiment of intrusive planning control (over simple building standards control) has not improved architecture in the UK.
Which makes it all the more frustrating when occasional success stories are treated as though they're the result of anything but sheer force of will on the part of the owner.
The end result is that conservative designs built down to a spec are inherently favoured over bold, unusual or experimental designs. I don't believe this approach has benefited our street scenes or general housing stock and the experiment of intrusive planning control (over simple building standards control) has not improved architecture in the UK.
Which makes it all the more frustrating when occasional success stories are treated as though they're the result of anything but sheer force of will on the part of the owner.
loughran said:
Well we certainly have a rich heritage of houses that are both beautiful and have stood the test of time in this country. I make furniture and have always felt part of a tradition, there are times when I'm accutely aware of how skills that took 500 years to perfect have been forgotten and I can only imagine Louis the 14th's cabinet makers looking down from on high, rolling their eyes and shrugging their shoulders at what passes for good design today.
Do architects these days draw on their own heritage, the thousand years of design and good practice that have gone before ? It appears not... they like to make boxes, in glass and metal. Mies Van der Rohe did that in 1929 and nobody seems to have improved on it in 86 years, other than to perhaps make it airtight.
Things change and evolve over time; I bet there were master craftsmen in Louis the 14ths time saying it's all cr@p, no one has learnt anything, traditions established back in Louis the 2nds time have disappeared etc.Do architects these days draw on their own heritage, the thousand years of design and good practice that have gone before ? It appears not... they like to make boxes, in glass and metal. Mies Van der Rohe did that in 1929 and nobody seems to have improved on it in 86 years, other than to perhaps make it airtight.
Edited by loughran on Friday 6th November 18:34
You're in the bespoke furniture making business IIRC - we/you need clients like the ones who build these houses (and lets not forget it's not all the fault of the architects - it's clients money paying for these things). It's these people who are allowing niche, craftspeople to remain viable in these days of cheap Chinese imports and Oak Furniture landalikes on each street corner or virtual high street.
I'm certainly not a fan of everything put forward on that list or shown on Grand Designs but in the main I'm appreciative that there are people out there who don't think they're being brave by going for a red front door on their house in an identikit housing estate of 400 anodyne homes. People who are prepared to push it a bit and pay for something different, unique are essential to avoid a creeping stagnation and mediocrity in architecture and interior design in general.
We may find yet another larch clad, bifold door property boring but these are by a long stretch the exception not the rule - if you really want to criticise what's going on point the finger at Wimpey, Barrat etc and the people who buy into that faux VicGeorgeTudor aesthetic pulled from the collective (un)imagination of what is, sadly, the majority of people out "there". There's also a lack of ambition or imagination on display from planning departments which in many cases function as a stifling influence on the evolution of building. It's ironic that much of the character of those old, rich heritage, type buildings to which many refer are possesive of those qualities because they've evolved and adapted over the years to prevailing tastes and changes in the way people live.
I'm not sure (and this is not directed personally at you) I get the concept that this is all the architects fault; there's a theme across these GD threads that it's the poncy architects fault, are they designing with a mouse in one hand and a gun to a client's head in the other? Architects design for a client, a client chooses them based on a portfolio of work which presumably resonates with the client.
Damn those pesky clients with all that money and no imagination, dictating their mediore vision to those poor archtects.. 
Seriously, points well made. Perhaps as the series progresses we'll {I'll) be be inspired and my lack of faith in modern domestic architecture will be confounded.
Bye the bye, I was inspired by your adventures, timber framing in Shropshire. I would love to spend time cutting large section green oak. I might just do that.
Seriously, points well made. Perhaps as the series progresses we'll {I'll) be be inspired and my lack of faith in modern domestic architecture will be confounded.
Bye the bye, I was inspired by your adventures, timber framing in Shropshire. I would love to spend time cutting large section green oak. I might just do that.
loughran said:
Damn those pesky clients with all that money and no imagination, dictating their mediore vision to those poor archtects..
Seriously, points well made. Perhaps as the series progresses we'll {I'll) be be inspired and my lack of faith in modern domestic architecture will be confounded.
Bye the bye, I was inspired by your adventures, timber framing in Shropshire. I would love to spend time cutting large section green oak. I might just do that.
Thanks! - The OakHeath course was very, very good - I really liked their pragmatic approach to it and would not hesitate to recommend it.Seriously, points well made. Perhaps as the series progresses we'll {I'll) be be inspired and my lack of faith in modern domestic architecture will be confounded.
Bye the bye, I was inspired by your adventures, timber framing in Shropshire. I would love to spend time cutting large section green oak. I might just do that.
loughran said:
Well we certainly have a rich heritage of houses that are both beautiful and have stood the test of time in this country. I make furniture and have always felt part of a tradition, there are times when I'm accutely aware of how skills that took 500 years to perfect have been forgotten and I can only imagine Louis the 14th's cabinet makers looking down from on high, rolling their eyes and shrugging their shoulders at what passes for good design today.
Do architects these days draw on their own heritage, the thousand years of design and good practice that have gone before ? It appears not... they like to make boxes, in glass and metal. Mies Van der Rohe did that in 1929 and nobody seems to have improved on it in 86 years, other than to perhaps make it airtight.
Here's another box...
Frank Lloyd Wright built Falling Water in 1935 and architect have struggling to catch up ever since.
Here's the RIBA long list showing some of the houses that have yet to be presented in the competion on the telly. There seems to be a common (boxy) theme going on.
https://www.architecture.com/StirlingPrize/Awards2...
The flip side of drawing on heritage is the sea of mock-historic buildings that look like a cheap pastiche on what's gone before. Houses should reflect the period in which they are built and draw on the expertise and technology available at the time. I certainly don't see the need for a moat and drawbridge at the front of my house....Do architects these days draw on their own heritage, the thousand years of design and good practice that have gone before ? It appears not... they like to make boxes, in glass and metal. Mies Van der Rohe did that in 1929 and nobody seems to have improved on it in 86 years, other than to perhaps make it airtight.
Here's another box...
Frank Lloyd Wright built Falling Water in 1935 and architect have struggling to catch up ever since.
Here's the RIBA long list showing some of the houses that have yet to be presented in the competion on the telly. There seems to be a common (boxy) theme going on.
https://www.architecture.com/StirlingPrize/Awards2...
Edited by loughran on Friday 6th November 18:34
stanwan said:
The flip side of drawing on heritage is the sea of mock-historic buildings that look like a cheap pastiche on what's gone before. Houses should reflect the period in which they are built and draw on the expertise and technology available at the time. I certainly don't see the need for a moat and drawbridge at the front of my house....
Does your house reflect the period in which is was built ?loughran said:
Does your house reflect the period in which is was built ?
Nope it's a mock tudor box. The local planning authority love them round here.......The whole ethos of having homes that are "in-keeping" with their surroundings is responsible for the row upon row of identikit housing that is beloved of volume developers. A scheme has just completed around the corner - a whole bunch of new hi spec homes complete with authentic (painted on) tudor beams and painted brick fake render with period sash windows. It's design at its most cynical.....
bah!!
Edited by stanwan on Wednesday 11th November 23:27
marksx said:
Only really liked the first house. The others had nothing going for them to me. My first thought was oh yay a rusty box, but after a couple of minutes I had completely swung.
Oh and the judge amazed that the each skylight was placed over a specific area. Really?
First one was good. The cut outs in the Corten were a really nice trick and it was interesting to see how they created the random patterns of them.Oh and the judge amazed that the each skylight was placed over a specific area. Really?
The judge was not doing a good job of articulating what was impressive; it wasn't the glass elements alone but the fact that the entire roof structure consisted of "odd" geometric elements, capped with glass - each element's external geometry matched the geometry of the zone underneath. If you were to look directly down from above at the roof you'd see the floor plan of the floor immediately below defined by the various geometric elements.
ajprice said:
My votes would be the Courtyard 1st, then the first one shown if it wasn't rusty. I don't get why you would want to make your house look rusty.
It sounded as if the decision to use Corten was a both an aesthetic one and a way of meeting planning requirements; it gave them a way to create a modern home with modern external surfaces by sort of matching the colour and texture of homes around it - they did actually mention it was more textured than normal.Bonefish Blues said:
A bunker that you can't see out of?
Can't call the winner, not enamoured of any tbh
Looked like a fancy prison I don't care how fancy the roof was it wasn't a nice house oh look from this angle you can see a tree! I guess in London that's a big deal personally I like Windows you can see out of without a stepladder. Can't call the winner, not enamoured of any tbh
Edited by Bonefish Blues on Wednesday 11th November 21:56
Courtyard one for me as well I thought that was a better use of the space.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff