Show us your real estate pawn (vol 3)

[DKL]

I'm in the no camp. However well executed the extension is it just doesn't fit with the house. I know this is what planners and conservation want but if I'd wanted a new house I'd buy a new house.
The kitchen is nice. It may be an older extension or a conversion but it fits with the period feel of the house.

[Escort3500]

DKL said:

I'm in the no camp. However well executed the extension is it just doesn't fit with the house. I know this is what planners and conservation want but if I'd wanted a new house I'd buy a new house.
The kitchen is nice. It may be an older extension or a conversion but it fits with the period feel of the house.

I understand your dislike, but remember that many period houses have changed over the decades, even centuries, with alterations and additions that reflect architecture, style and sometimes owners’ whims tha prevailed at the time. They therefore chart the evolution of the building, and there’s no reason to slavishly imitate an earlier period simply to ‘fit in’ with the existing house. The example above follows this tradition sympathetically with a stand-alone addition that represents another phase in the property’s evolution.

[Bonefish Blues]

Escort3500 said:

DKL said:

I'm in the no camp. However well executed the extension is it just doesn't fit with the house. I know this is what planners and conservation want but if I'd wanted a new house I'd buy a new house.
The kitchen is nice. It may be an older extension or a conversion but it fits with the period feel of the house.

I understand your dislike, but remember that many period houses have changed over the decades, even centuries, with alterations and additions that reflect architecture, style and sometimes owners’ whims tha prevailed at the time. They therefore chart the evolution of the building, and there’s no reason to slavishly imitate an earlier period simply to ‘fit in’ with the existing house. The example above follows this tradition sympathetically with a stand-alone addition that represents another phase in the property’s evolution.

I agree. I even liked the "tube station" one with the neon lights that we discussed last year (IIRC), which was a nice piece of work, which had been lit and furnished rather badly.

What I do have a problem with is the insistence, even if an extension is in the same style, materials etc, to have a clear differentiation between old and new in newer builds. It usually ends up with something that simply looks rubbish. We have several in our village where the roofline just looks foolish.

Stick the plans in and judge them on their merits, but be very harsh on the obviously faux on a building of merit.

[DKL]

Escort3500 said:

I understand your dislike, but remember that many period houses have changed over the decades, even centuries, with alterations and additions that reflect architecture, style and sometimes owners’ whims tha prevailed at the time. They therefore chart the evolution of the building, and there’s no reason to slavishly imitate an earlier period simply to ‘fit in’ with the existing house. The example above follows this tradition sympathetically with a stand-alone addition that represents another phase in the property’s evolution.

I appreciate what you are saying and obviously for "old" houses that still exist they have gone through a variety of architecural styles during their lifetime but I'd argue the time line theory is current opinion on what should be there not what the home owner would really have chosen. Its a personal opinion granted but I can't really believe that that was really what the home owner had in their mind when they decided to build. The "assistance" of an architect suggesting what the planners would accept isn't quite the same thing.

We live in a grade 2 listed thatched long house so I have come up against these requirements imposed by conservation. I don't like contempory building design hence why I live where I do but being "forced" to build a contemporary extension would be utterly unacceptable to me. I'd rather not build. I appreciate others do like the glass box style of design but surely they wouldn't buy a period property in the first place.

I'm not saying that all old style extensions are nice and/or appropriate. A 60s/70s extension or a victorian addition to a thatched building could be as inappropriate as a contemporary one and they "date" differently to the bulk of the building hence I feel they can look out of place. Prior to modern planning restrictions homeowners had more freedom to build what they wanted and I'm sure some of those were in the style of the building and we are now far less aware of these as they blend with the vernacular of the building.

As an example this is lovely:


but this isn't


yet the 2 are part of the same building. Its a business premises but all the same. You may say its a poor example but to my mind they are virtually the same, equally unsuitable.

If I were seriously looking at these houses the extensions would be a deal breaker and I'd be really disappointed.

Edited by DKL on Sunday 7th October 13:25

[The Moose]

ben5575 said:

TartanPaint said:

p1stonhead said:

Some rendering companies do insane work these days. These would have cost a fortune though at this quality.

Edited by p1stonhead on Friday 28th September 12:19

Yeah, I had no idea it was economic to do one-offs like that. I mean, I know the quality is possible. i.e. the entire IKEA catalogue is rendered, but they have a good reason and a big budget and a limited set of objects to render. But rendering a one-off house? As you say, that must have cost a fortune.

Lots of very convincing tricks in there too... fake depth of field. Fake blown highlights (fake limited dynamic range). The textures are amazing, but they do fall short up close (pic 7 wood texture in the foreground). Overall though, staggering. Simply amazing.

Sorry to sidetrack the thread. Very interesting diversion for me though.

We have them done for our developments. Depending on quantity, they're around £1k each for say four or five. Drops a bit if you're doing more images. Costs more if you're placing them in actual photographs (mainly for the photographer!).

We had some done a while back (2 years ago I’d guess) for a project. They weren’t that expensive, but also not quite as good as that. They did use photos for the background.

Amazes me how these things come along - those ones are stunning.

[minimoog]

CPWilliams said:

Featured in today's Saturday Telegraph:

https://www.onthemarket.com/details/5201419/

One of the few examples of a modern extension to a period building that doesn't look totally incongruous.

Where do I sign.

[bob-lad]

minimoog said:

CPWilliams said:

Featured in today's Saturday Telegraph:

https://www.onthemarket.com/details/5201419/

One of the few examples of a modern extension to a period building that doesn't look totally incongruous.

Where do I sign.

At the bottom of the page.
Your new Audi will be with you in a couple of months.

[louiebaby]

CPWilliams said:

Featured in today's Saturday Telegraph:

https://www.onthemarket.com/details/5201419/

One of the few examples of a modern extension to a period building that doesn't look totally incongruous.

I don't get it. Did they go to all that effort for a fishtank sitting room?

Won't it be boiling in the summer and freezing in the winter?

[m3sye]

https://www.facebook.com/BradleyHallCharteredSurve...

lovely

[dmsims]

m3sye said:

https://www.facebook.com/BradleyHallCharteredSurve...

lovely

My eyes, why does it look like a Travelodge (inside) and those banisters

[Blackpuddin]

Would be a lot cheaper to join David Lloyd and spend most of your time there.

[FourWheelDrift]

I click on the photo of the exterior and it looks like a small 3 bed house inside to me.

I don't have a Facebook account and never want one.

[bob-lad]

A more useful link would have been https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prop... but you'd still only see something tacky and inspired by Liberace.

[Gameface]

Tacky decor. Tiny plot. And right next to a railway line.

[louiebaby]

I'm not enamoured with the pink in the kitchen, but that is an easy fix...







Yours for £1.25m...

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-732...

[Harry Flashman]

Escort3500 said:

Nick_MSM said:

CPWilliams said:

Featured in today's Saturday Telegraph:

https://www.onthemarket.com/details/5201419/

One of the few examples of a modern extension to a period building that doesn't look totally incongruous.

Really like that extension, giving me food for thought!

Excellent. Looks like they’ve hired a skilled architect to come up with a well-crafted addition that shows with skill you can merge contemporary with traditional.

Apart from the grey bathroom, that is a stunner.

[RichB]

m3sye said:

https://www.facebook.com/BradleyHallCharteredSurve...

lovely

As everyone has said, that's hideous. For a large house the dining room is far too small, the interior is dreadful, it's got awful TV screens perched up on the wall, boxed in with what looks like bedroom wardrobes and above all, despite the blurb, it's only got a single garage. Oh and a railway at the bottom of the garden!

[dmsims]

louiebaby said:

I'm not enamoured with the pink in the kitchen, but that is an easy fix...

Yours for £1.25m...

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-732...

Shared driveway

Neigbours right on top of you (some "clever" photography)

No thanks

[louiebaby]

dmsims said:

Shared driveway

Neigbours right on top of you (some "clever" photography)

No thanks

Note to self: Satellite View.

[Escort3500]

Gameface said:

Tacky decor. Tiny plot. And right next to a railway line.

And not forgetting the awful mix of architectural styles and influences.