Craster wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
A sash window looks fantastic though, as compared to some shit uPVC "DGU". I'm an engineer, but even I will be the first to say that there are aesthetic/architectural considerations to be made. To think purely along (often supposed) functional lines is folly IMO.
Oh, I don't disagree - but I think some things are given overmuch aesthetic credit by virtue of just being old. I think sash windows look awful and don't work terribly well. But then again, I'm something of an ascetic fascist when it comes to architecture.
The phrase 'period features' makes my skin crawl, and I've been known to advocate a rolling program of flattening and rebuilding from scratch all housing in the UK every 30 years or so.
I can see where you're coming from to an extent, apart from the 'rebuilding every 30 years' bit, obviously!
'Period features' can certainly be problematic, I agree. When we bought Cavey Manor, the interior was all brass fittings & horse brasses, antique furniture and picture lamps, with red swirl Paisley carpets - it looked like an expensively furnished village pub - a cliche. We ripped all of this out and replaced with very contemporary decor and furnishings; lighting is always a problem with such low ceilings and small windows (especially as the house is bounded by massive trees on two elevations), but I'm personally very pleased with the end result. Just because something is old, it doesn't mean it can't be brought up to date, albeit the basic building fabric/envelope is the same. (Someone once unkindly remarked 'blimey, looks like Henry VIII has been to Ikea', which I thought was a pretty shitty thing to say - he was a tosser who lived in a crappy 1930s semi - but the interior
is unexpected, after seeing the house exterior and grounds).
Quote:
I only know one person with a several hundred year old house, and that's Mr Kissyfur. The end fell off it.
Poor sod. Bet that didn't come cheap; when things do go majorly wrong with these very old houses, they are fecking expensive to put right. Mind you, I guess the house had been OK for a few centuries by this time, so on the other hand it's not necessarily a bad reflection on the original design/build quality? Nothing's forever, afterall.
_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...
Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but
interestingly wrong