In article ,
"IMM" writes:

"Sam Nelson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"IMM" writes:
I see very liitle advantages in an old house. No insulation, damp etc.

Two-foot-thick stone walls;

Aart frpom sound insulation, I see no benefit.

Thermal inertia.

Eh? I drive past nasty Lego developments

Lego? Don't be silly!!

Sigh. I meant `might as well have been built out of red and white Lego, to
look at them'. All plug-ugly, critically cramped, spacewise, and built with
no thought for the accessibility of any particular service from them other
than by car.

being thrown up out of wood-frame
with brick cladding every flippin' day all

Timber frame. A far better, and more eco, method of construction.
Fabulous!

How long do you supposed they'll last? On R4's PM recently, it was pointed
out that with house-building going at the rate it's going at the moment, each
house built now needs to last 4000 years. No-one need care about what happens
after they're dead, though, eh?

---and they tend to be thrown up
fairly frequently on flood plain land.

Planning depts again for allowing it. Those *******s should be shot.

I don't see responsible, reliable builders in the business for the long term
turning down the opportunity. Surely a responsible builder that knows the
area would decline the opportunity to build in such places.
--
SAm.