Housing estate design of the last 20yrs - why so bad?
Discussion
EarlofDrift said:
bigpriest said:
Why are windows so tiny in these houses? We seem to see every other modern design using 90% glass.
All to do with cost. It's largely about getting it thrown up as cheaply as possible using the cheapest design and materials you can get away with.It's to do with the latest energy efficiency elements of the Building Regulations.
On the one hand, when it's cold/dark/north facing, windows lose more heat than the equivalent area of wall by roughly a factor of 10.
On the other hand, with the level of wall, roof and floor insulation now required, if you have a lot of south facing glazing, the solar gain is horrendous and the occupants will die of heat stroke.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's a problem for 'properly expensive' builds, too... just that the design of those is driven by the client, who generally knows f
k all about thermal design.If the client wants big windows/bifold doors, then that's usually what they get. You give them fair warning, but if they still insist (which they frequently do), you simply have to do the best you can with the rest of the design, and leave them to suffer from the solar gain... it's their funeral, so to speak.
Certainly, on the (many, many) 'standard' developer housetypes I've designed personally, cost has never been a consideration for me, and I've never had feedback from the QS's to say that it was an issue... the amount of glazing on my designs has always been driven solely by considerations of thermal design.
Andeh1 said:
What era of generally affordable housing are we comparing the "modern monstrositys" to then?
What generation did it right with parking, gardens, space & affordability?
Genuine question, seeing as the modern stuff seems to be near universally despised on pistonheads.
We live in a 1970s bungalow on a square of 30 houses - we have block built walls internally, cavity wall insulation, large, window openings and a decent plot. On top of that, they were built in a square cul-de-sac around an acre or so of grass so the children have somewhere safe to play and there's no through traffic.What generation did it right with parking, gardens, space & affordability?
Genuine question, seeing as the modern stuff seems to be near universally despised on pistonheads.
The houses on our square look old-fashioned but they have parking, either a double garage or a single and a car port and are set back from the road.
Today the only way the plot would be viable is to add another 20 houses into the centre and build smaller 2 or 3 storey houses instead of bunglaows, then there are the restrictions mentioned by Equus and others above.
In fact, another development has been given approval recently in the village which has a similar number of houses in half the area.
Equus said:
Not even slightly to do with cost.
It's to do with the latest energy efficiency elements of the Building Regulations.
On the one hand, when it's cold/dark/north facing, windows lose more heat than the equivalent area of wall by roughly a factor of 10.
On the other hand, with the level of wall, roof and floor insulation now required, if you have a lot of south facing glazing, the solar gain is horrendous and the occupants will die of heat stroke.
This was my understanding too. It's to do with the latest energy efficiency elements of the Building Regulations.
On the one hand, when it's cold/dark/north facing, windows lose more heat than the equivalent area of wall by roughly a factor of 10.
On the other hand, with the level of wall, roof and floor insulation now required, if you have a lot of south facing glazing, the solar gain is horrendous and the occupants will die of heat stroke.
Modern houses are far better insulated than our 1930s bay-windowed house would have been when built, and still far better than it is now, having been extended, tastefully
, twice, with loft, under floor, wall cavity/skeiling/bay insulation added, draught-proofed, double-glazed for a second time etc. Ours is nice and light, though. And not stuffy.
The very large Victorian "villas" in the road behind us must be eye-wateringly expensive to heat....
My parents have an early 1970s semi and it is reasonably well built, good sized rooms, a large attic and a reasonable garden, albeit overlooked by neighbouring houses. It is part of a very large, sprawling development on what was farmland, though.
Edited by MC Bodge on Wednesday 10th July 12:12
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Thats why HRH Prince of Wales pushed for Poundbury to try and recreate that quaint crammed in feeling, it was then picked up as a good idea by planners and organisations like CABE.But as anyone who has ever tried living in a 2 up 2 down cottage with low ceilings etc will tell you - its a long way from ideal
MC Bodge said:
blueg33 said:
Thats why HRH Prince of Wales pushed for Poundbury to try and recreate that quaint crammed in feeling, it was then picked up as a good idea by planners and organisations like CABE.
A man who lives in a series of palaces ??Andeh1 said:
What generation did it right with parking, gardens, space & affordability?
Genuine question, seeing as the modern stuff seems to be near universally despised on pistonheads.
I'd say 1930s suburban development myself - still had the Victorian build quality and space, high ceilings, attractive design etc, but with parking and driveways with the increasing popularity of the car. Genuine question, seeing as the modern stuff seems to be near universally despised on pistonheads.
But you'd never get a new build estate with that much space now, so cramming in as many as possible to maximise profit must be a strong factor.
Equus said:
It's a problem for 'properly expensive' builds, too... just that the design of those is driven by the client, who generally knows fk all about thermal design.
If the client wants big windows/bifold doors, then that's usually what they get. You give them fair warning, but if they still insist (which they frequently do), you simply have to do the best you can with the rest of the design, and leave them to suffer from the solar gain... it's their funeral, so to speak.
I "re designed" my house, HUGE windows as "light, bright and airy" is my mantrak all about thermal design.If the client wants big windows/bifold doors, then that's usually what they get. You give them fair warning, but if they still insist (which they frequently do), you simply have to do the best you can with the rest of the design, and leave them to suffer from the solar gain... it's their funeral, so to speak.
Yes they may cost a few extra pounds in heating, yes on the few really sunny days we get we may have to open them or draw the curtains (when we aren't in the rooms) but 90% of the time they are fantastic.
I think this goes back more than 20 years - our first house was on an estate built in 1979 and it was pretty similar to what the OP is describing.
Our current house was built in 1967 as part of a large estate that was dropped on a very old village. Good sized family homes, proper gardens and wide roads.
What seems weird to us is that when a new estate was tacked on to the village a few years ago, people bought houses there in preference to the established property in the village, and the prices were (relatively) bonkers. Maybe this is Help-to-Buy, or just that people want shiny things?
Our current house was built in 1967 as part of a large estate that was dropped on a very old village. Good sized family homes, proper gardens and wide roads.
What seems weird to us is that when a new estate was tacked on to the village a few years ago, people bought houses there in preference to the established property in the village, and the prices were (relatively) bonkers. Maybe this is Help-to-Buy, or just that people want shiny things?
KTF said:
Town houses with a bedroom on the first floor next to the living room are equally stupid. No wonder so many of them are for sale near me and not selling.
We have a townhouse with a bedroom on the first floor next to the living room and it works perfectly for us. It has an en suite shower and makes an ideal guest room when family stay, allowing us to disappear upstairs to our own space where we have a further two bedrooms and two bathrooms. 2004 Persimmon Homes!They might not suit all buyers, but the layout of our home is perfect for us.
Town house designs are always frustrating, I am yet to come across the perfect one although we got close with some 1900sqft ones in Birmingham a few years ago, but in general they waste floor area in circulation space.
I have just (in the last 5 minutes) been looking over plans of our new social housing product. The space is pretty good, well balanced rooms etc 3 bed unit is 1000 sqft, designed as a 3 bed 5 person house over 2 floors. We have added factors in doing the design as we are using offsite manufacture, so the dimensions need to be compatible with the factory and shipping containers.
I have just (in the last 5 minutes) been looking over plans of our new social housing product. The space is pretty good, well balanced rooms etc 3 bed unit is 1000 sqft, designed as a 3 bed 5 person house over 2 floors. We have added factors in doing the design as we are using offsite manufacture, so the dimensions need to be compatible with the factory and shipping containers.
V8RX7 said:
I "re designed" my house, HUGE windows as "light, bright and airy" is my mantra
As I'm sure you're aware, and as discussed above, 're designed' is very different from a new build. With alterations to an existing house, the Regulations apply a much lower standard, and you're allowed to squander energy, if you want to. With a new build, you're not.
Munter said:
EarlofDrift said:
.
I just don't understand why anyone even a first time buyer would want to buy one of those tiny window houses with little of no front or back garden,
Why do people say this? The smaller the gardens the better. Hardly any first time buyers want to be fafing about with a garden. Parking for 2 cars, and garden that can be maintained in 10 minutes every couple of weeks. That'd be ideal.I just don't understand why anyone even a first time buyer would want to buy one of those tiny window houses with little of no front or back garden,
As for being overlooked, they really aren't that bad. The mixed up layout means you don't have massive rows of houses all in a line so there is limits to how far someone can actually see anyway. No idea whether it's an intentional part of the process or just design by accident, but around here it seems to work quite well.
Equus said:
It's a problem for 'properly expensive' builds, too... just that the design of those is driven by the client, who generally knows fk all about thermal design.
In my limited experience it was the architect proposing the large glazed area. In fairness he may have been initially assuming that's what most self builders want.k all about thermal design.Full height glazing has little appeal when you have a couple of springer spaniels and muddy fields.
Equus said:
As I'm sure you're aware, and as discussed above, 're designed' is very different from a new build.
With alterations to an existing house, the Regulations apply a much lower standard, and you're allowed to squander energy, if you want to. With a new build, you're not.
In theory... I did a new build, no one checks the declared spec / calcsWith alterations to an existing house, the Regulations apply a much lower standard, and you're allowed to squander energy, if you want to. With a new build, you're not.
My point was that though you maybe technically correct - that it's a bad idea - personally I think it's worth it.
Zetec-S said:
Munter said:
EarlofDrift said:
.
I just don't understand why anyone even a first time buyer would want to buy one of those tiny window houses with little of no front or back garden,
Why do people say this? The smaller the gardens the better. Hardly any first time buyers want to be fafing about with a garden. Parking for 2 cars, and garden that can be maintained in 10 minutes every couple of weeks. That'd be ideal.I just don't understand why anyone even a first time buyer would want to buy one of those tiny window houses with little of no front or back garden,
As for being overlooked, they really aren't that bad. The mixed up layout means you don't have massive rows of houses all in a line so there is limits to how far someone can actually see anyway. No idea whether it's an intentional part of the process or just design by accident, but around here it seems to work quite well.
But I do think that most modern estates do not provide gardens big enough for kids to play in properly and I think they miss out as a consequence. A LEAP or LAP is no substitute for private safe play space. (Sorry - LEAP is a Local Equipped Area of Play. Think springy chickens and a small climbing frame. LAP - Local area of play. Think small area of grass surrounded by a low fence).
The fundamental problem is that developers are encouraged by the planning system to pack em in, even if you don't pack em in, when buying the land you will be out bid by another developer that is plotting at a higher density. I would like to see external space standards set and enforced through planning. This will hurt the landowner (shame £1.7 per acre rather than £2m), and mean that we need to develop more greenfield sites which pisses of CPRE and environmental do gooders.
blueg33 said:
Thats why HRH Prince of Wales pushed for Poundbury to try and recreate that quaint crammed in feeling, it was then picked up as a good idea by planners and organisations like CABE.
Has anyone been to Poundbury?fake and contrived in my eyes, especially the fire station. HRH may call it quaint...
SydneyBridge said:
blueg33 said:
Thats why HRH Prince of Wales pushed for Poundbury to try and recreate that quaint crammed in feeling, it was then picked up as a good idea by planners and organisations like CABE.
Has anyone been to Poundbury?fake and contrived in my eyes, especially the fire station. HRH may call it quaint...
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff