Grand designs
 

Swedish architecture on the outside...1930's Art deco appearence on the
inside.

Nothing new there.

Thats my view. :-P

--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

Grand designs
 

The3rd Earl Of Derby wrote:
Swedish architecture on the outside...1930's Art deco appearence on the
inside.

Nothing new there.

Thats my view. :-P

what a **** that boke is who presents it, all you need is that ****
coming in and taking the **** when your project has gone tits up!

i would love his job!

Grand designs
 

Gav" ""gavbriggs\"@[cut the spam]blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
The3rd Earl Of Derby wrote:
Swedish architecture on the outside...1930's Art deco appearence on
the inside.

Nothing new there.

Thats my view. :-P

what a **** that boke is who presents it, all you need is that ****
coming in and taking the **** when your project has gone tits up!

i would love his job!

well, you seem to be half way there. all you need is the huge pay
packet the smug grin and some natty clothing and you're IN LOL

Grand designs
 

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:02:00 GMT, "The3rd Earl Of Derby" wrote:

Swedish architecture on the outside...1930's Art deco appearence on the
inside.

Nothing new there.

Thats my view. :-P
And what a basic mistake not taking account of the Building Regs in the part of
the country the house is to be built in ..
Did you also notice when the windaes did arrive that the logo on the guys T
shirt was blurred out ...wonder what it said ..

Stuart

Grand designs
 

Did you also notice when the windaes did arrive that the logo on the guys T
shirt was blurred out ...wonder what it said ..

Stuart

Maybe what Gav posted......

Dave

Grand designs
 

"Stuart" wrote

And what a basic mistake not taking account of the Building Regs in the
part of
the country the house is to be built in ..

Yes - Not sure why the architect wasn't held accountable there!
The window requirements etc should be clearly stated on drawings, not the
fault of either contractor IMO.

Phil

Grand designs
 

TheScullster wrote:

Yes - Not sure why the architect wasn't held accountable there!

More slip shod reportage that is typical of a programme that should be
named "It's a cock-up" or "Bad designs" certainly nothing grand.

I saw it was about another box and switched over at the first break,
never to return.

There must be a market out there for a serious programme on building.
But the problem is that the media is controlled by hairdressers, tits
and monkeys.

Before long that blonde genius, Chantelle will be head of the BBC. (If
someone just like her isn't already. Dickhead Macall looks like she's
getting her feet under the table.)

I think that Kevin typifies all that is wrong in the trade; money is
the bottom line. And that seems to be all he is concernd with. Which,
though pivotal tends to be rather boring after a while. But there are
lots of people with no more idea about entertainment than the producers
of Big Brother.

What annoys me is that people actually take it all seriously. Sad
losers.

Grand designs
 

"Weatherlawyer" wrote

More slip shod reportage that is typical of a programme that should be
named "It's a cock-up" or "Bad designs" certainly nothing grand.

I saw it was about another box and switched over at the first break,
never to return.

............snip..........

Either my perceptions of this program have changed, or the delivery has
become diluted.
It seems that Kevin now has to close for each advert break with ever more
dramatic cliff hanging rhetoric (sp):
"Do they know what they have taken on here? I'm really not sure!"
Or "The program they have set themselves just doesn't seem realistic" etc
etc

To my mind this is typical dumming down to dovetail with all the
disfunctional family garbage shows about Nannies and what your kids will
look like if they continue to eat 5000000 bags of crisps a day.

I guess the bottom line is that if you want genuine technical content you
need a dedicated channel rather than the please-all ex-terrestrial
offerings.
Not sure if such a channel exists (I don't subscribe to Sky just catch the
free stuff).

Phil

Grand designs
 

On 20 Apr 2006 00:53:07 -0700, "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:


TheScullster wrote:

Yes - Not sure why the architect wasn't held accountable there!

More slip shod reportage that is typical of a programme that should be
named "It's a cock-up" or "Bad designs" certainly nothing grand.

I saw it was about another box and switched over at the first break,
never to return.



It looked not bad inside but outside I thought the house was just plain 'orrible

Stuart ..

Grand designs
 

In article ,
The3rd Earl Of Derby wrote:
Swedish architecture on the outside...1930's Art deco appearence on the
inside.

Nothing new there.

Noticed they didn't give the over spend from the original 350k budget. 50k?

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Grand designs
 

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...

TheScullster wrote:

Yes - Not sure why the architect wasn't held accountable there!

More slip shod reportage that is typical of a programme that should be
named "It's a cock-up" or "Bad designs" certainly nothing grand.

I saw it was about another box and switched over at the first break,
never to return.

There must be a market out there for a serious programme on building.
But the problem is that the media is controlled by hairdressers, tits
and monkeys.

Before long that blonde genius, Chantelle will be head of the BBC. (If
someone just like her isn't already. Dickhead Macall looks like she's
getting her feet under the table.)

I think that Kevin typifies all that is wrong in the trade; money is
the bottom line. And that seems to be all he is concernd with. Which,
though pivotal tends to be rather boring after a while. But there are
lots of people with no more idea about entertainment than the producers
of Big Brother.

What annoys me is that people actually take it all seriously. Sad
losers.

Agreed except perhaps last sentence - what people are you refering to?

As I have stated previously with regard to this programme it was not a Grand
Design. As an aside 350K+ and it was quite small I would want more for that
money

PhilC

Grand designs
 

Weatherlawyer wrote:
TheScullster wrote:

Yes - Not sure why the architect wasn't held accountable there!


More slip shod reportage that is typical of a programme that should be
named "It's a cock-up" or "Bad designs" certainly nothing grand.

I saw it was about another box and switched over at the first break,
never to return.

There must be a market out there for a serious programme on building.
But the problem is that the media is controlled by hairdressers, tits
and monkeys.

Before long that blonde genius, Chantelle will be head of the BBC. (If
someone just like her isn't already. Dickhead Macall looks like she's
getting her feet under the table.)

I think that Kevin typifies all that is wrong in the trade; money is
the bottom line. And that seems to be all he is concernd with. Which,
though pivotal tends to be rather boring after a while. But there are
lots of people with no more idea about entertainment than the producers
of Big Brother.

What annoys me is that people actually take it all seriously. Sad
losers.


I find it irritating that Kev. constantly uses the programme as a
soapbox to rant about the planning regulations (something that he says
should be abolished).

"Greenbelt ? Nah, f*ck it, put a house up anyway."

The house built in the lake the other week was a perfect example. When
they'd finished the only place left in that area with a view of unsploit
countryside was the house they'd thrown up. How it got planning
permission is a complete mystery.

Zoinks!

Grand designs
 

Stuart wrote:
On 20 Apr 2006 00:53:07 -0700, "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:

TheScullster wrote:
Yes - Not sure why the architect wasn't held accountable there!

More slip shod reportage that is typical of a programme that should be
named "It's a cock-up" or "Bad designs" certainly nothing grand.

I saw it was about another box and switched over at the first break,
never to return.



It looked not bad inside but outside I thought the house was just plain 'orrible

Inside it was the same as every otehr project they have done. Acres of
beige, and why does every house they show need to be built with an upper
floor that doesn't reach as far as the wall?

I suppose they think they are being "different" by choosing something
the same as everyone else. The house was a horror, cheap allotment shed
on the outside, standard middle-class ticky-tacky box on the inside.

Grand designs
 

"TheScullster" wrote in message
Either my perceptions of this program have changed, or the delivery has
become diluted.
It seems that Kevin now has to close for each advert break with ever more
dramatic cliff hanging rhetoric (sp):
"Do they know what they have taken on here? I'm really not sure!"
Or "The program they have set themselves just doesn't seem realistic" etc
etc

To my mind this is typical dumming down to dovetail with all the
disfunctional family garbage shows about Nannies and what your kids will
look like if they continue to eat 5000000 bags of crisps a day.

Presumably they're catering for those who watch it...

Grand designs
 

Zoinks wrote:
[snip]
I find it irritating that Kev. constantly uses the programme as a
soapbox to rant about the planning regulations (something that he says
should be abolished).

"Greenbelt ? Nah, f*ck it, put a house up anyway."

The house built in the lake the other week was a perfect example. When
they'd finished the only place left in that area with a view of unsploit
countryside was the house they'd thrown up. How it got planning
permission is a complete mystery.

He has a valid point. The planning process made damn sure that the house
would look like a pile of crap, and it did. I've been through the same
with my own home and have just about given up. If I want to rip the guts
out of the house and build everything to current building regs I will
get permission. The end result will be a hideous series of boxes and a
construction unsympathetic to the architecture of the village and this
house in particular.


The village was built entirely without planning restrictions and as a
consequence it is human scaled, very attractive and brings in people
from miles around just to ogle at the massed prettiness.

Why shouldn't current development follow suit? Why are we forced (for
example) to fit doorways that are different in proportion to the
original for any new build. Why are we forbidden to develop the building
using the same techniques and materials used to build it originally? And
why do politicians, most of whom have council-house tastes, get to
dictate to others how they can live the minute detail of their lives?

IMO "planning" results in more eyesores than the development that was
occuring before "planning" was thought of.

Look at Prescott's attempts to lay waste to communities in order to
build cheap "system" houses.

Grand designs
 

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:07:45 +0100, TheScullster wrote:

"Weatherlawyer" wrote

More slip shod reportage that is typical of a programme that should be
named "It's a cock-up" or "Bad designs" certainly nothing grand.

I saw it was about another box and switched over at the first break,
never to return.

...........snip..........

Either my perceptions of this program have changed, or the delivery has
become diluted.
It seems that Kevin now has to close for each advert break with ever more
dramatic cliff hanging rhetoric (sp):
"Do they know what they have taken on here? I'm really not sure!"
Or "The program they have set themselves just doesn't seem realistic" etc
etc

I seem to recollect reading somewhere that the programme's producers want
him to spread doom and gloom throughout, coz they want to hold (the
unthinking part of) their audience with 'will they, won't they fall flat on
their faces'. Having said that, he *always* come up with an anodyne comment
at the end of every prog. " Well, despite not having enough money, despite
not having a clue about project management, despite trying cutting edge
technology, despite resorting to medieval technology, despite this, despite
that, they've managed to come up with a home that is .....[1]"

The programme ain't about cutting edge designs, it's merely another type of
reality TV programme. I've largely given up watching, the only one that
rang my bell was the guy who built his own home in the middle of his own
woodland. Unfortunately, in the follow up prog, he had acquired a partner
and sprog and she was busy imprinting her influence on what had been a
superb home.

[1] Enter whatever description suits your opinion, I tend to favour 'crap'.

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

Grand designs
 

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:03:25 +0100, The Wanderer
wrote:

.. I've largely given up watching, the only one that
rang my bell was the guy who built his own home in the middle of his own
woodland. Unfortunately, in the follow up prog, he had acquired a partner
and sprog and she was busy imprinting her influence on what had been a
superb home.

I think the guy was a genuine person, he had no wealth, diddled the
planners and related to his immediate environment like no other person
on the show. This appealed to viewers like me.

Also, it was fascinating to watch someone *create* a house out of a
few ideas. The chances of it being demolished are zero as it has
attracted so much acclaim. It will probably end up in a heritage park,
next to the saxon house.

Grand designs
 

PhilC wrote:

As I have stated previously with regard to this programme it was not a Grand
Design. As an aside 350K+ and it was quite small I would want more for that
money

Like one or two previous designs, there was a lot of space used
for double height rooms, and then tiny kids bedrooms. If I was
going through the trauma of such a build, I would want it to be
big enough for my needs for a very long time.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

Grand designs
 

The message
from Chris J Dixon contains these words:

Like one or two previous designs, there was a lot of space used
for double height rooms, and then tiny kids bedrooms. If I was
going through the trauma of such a build, I would want it to be
big enough for my needs for a very long time.

Sounds like a lot of swanky houses - all about showing off rather than
being useable and nice to live in.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Grand designs
 

EricP wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:03:25 +0100, The Wanderer
wrote:

. I've largely given up watching, the only one that
rang my bell was the guy who built his own home in the middle of his own
woodland. Unfortunately, in the follow up prog, he had acquired a partner
and sprog and she was busy imprinting her influence on what had been a
superb home.

I think the guy was a genuine person, he had no wealth, diddled the
planners and related to his immediate environment like no other person
on the show. This appealed to viewers like me.

Also, it was fascinating to watch someone *create* a house out of a
few ideas. The chances of it being demolished are zero as it has
attracted so much acclaim. It will probably end up in a heritage park,
next to the saxon house.

The only reason I started watching Wodin's day's programme was because
their false advertising lead me to believe there would be a touch of
the diy about it.

If I want to see the latest tech I'd buy a building magazine, get a
trade brochure or go to see the ideal home insipidion. Bytte whych
manne canne tyrne ye clocke backe.

There is another (daytime) programme that follows people buying homes
abroad. Much the same sort of style but at least the punters get a free
hand with their dosh and sooo much cheaper to buy in ex iron-curtain
states.

I think GD is milking the prime time slot and wouldn't survive there
long if the other channels started showing entertainment. At least I
never sponsored their slot by watching any commercials.

Grand designs
 

EricP wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:03:25 +0100, The Wanderer
wrote:

. I've largely given up watching, the only one that
rang my bell was the guy who built his own home in the middle of his own
woodland. Unfortunately, in the follow up prog, he had acquired a partner
and sprog and she was busy imprinting her influence on what had been a
superb home.

I think the guy was a genuine person, he had no wealth, diddled the
planners and related to his immediate environment like no other person
on the show. This appealed to viewers like me.

I agree with most of what you said but in what way did he diddle the
planners? It took him about a decade of negotiations whilst living in
a temporary tree house before they agreed didn't it? And there is a
covenant that if he leaves it has to be pulled down. Presumably it can
only be passed on to an heir if they continue the same type of work as
well....

--
Steve F

Grand designs
 

Steve Firth wrote:
Stuart wrote:

It looked not bad inside but outside I thought the house was just plain 'orrible

Inside it was the same as every otehr project they have done. Acres of
beige, and why does every house they show need to be built with an upper
floor that doesn't reach as far as the wall?

They? Who is they? The interior was specified by the owners and we've
never seen anything they have done before... The Grand Designs
production team havn't 'done' any projects before they just report on
the progress of others. The fact that fashions have influenced a set
of people causing them to arrive at a common interior decorating style
is remarkably unsurprising as to be almost not worth commenting on.

--
Steve F

Grand designs
 

Guy King wrote:
The message
from Chris J Dixon contains these words:

Like one or two previous designs, there was a lot of space used
for double height rooms, and then tiny kids bedrooms. If I was
going through the trauma of such a build, I would want it to be
big enough for my needs for a very long time.

Sounds like a lot of swanky houses - all about showing off rather than
being useable and nice to live in.

LOL show us some photos of your house, go on.

Grand designs
 

Fitz wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Stuart wrote:
It looked not bad inside but outside I thought the house was just plain 'orrible
Inside it was the same as every otehr project they have done. Acres of
beige, and why does every house they show need to be built with an upper
floor that doesn't reach as far as the wall?

They? Who is they?

The program producers. The people who show identical, dull, houses each
week.

The interior was specified by the owners and we've
never seen anything they have done before... The Grand Designs
production team havn't 'done' any projects before

I didn't say they had. You appear to have remarkably low reading skills.

they just report on the progress of others.

Then they could start by trying to report on something mroe interesting.
If I want to watch beige on my TV I'll set up a camera pointing at the
inside of a paint tin.

The fact that fashions have influenced a set of people causing them
to arrive at a common interior decorating style

It's not just "a common interior decorating style" it's a uniform bland
approach to design and interior construction.

is remarkably unsurprising as to be almost not worth commenting on.

Which bit of "**** off knobhead" are you going to find difficult to
understand?

Grand designs
 

"Huge" wrote in message
...


The house built in the lake the other week was a perfect example. When
they'd finished the only place left in that area with a view of unsploit
countryside

What "unspoiled countryside"? Every single square metre visible from that
house was man-made. Because every single square metre of the entire
country,
with the exception of the Caledonian Forest, is man-made.

Man-made isn't always spoiled. Much of it is sheep-made, without them it
would be spoiled, in my opinion.

Mary

Grand designs
 

On 20 Apr 2006 09:11:20 -0700, "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:

I think the guy was a genuine person, he had no wealth, diddled the
planners and related to his immediate environment like no other person
on the show. This appealed to viewers like me.

Also, it was fascinating to watch someone *create* a house out of a
few ideas. The chances of it being demolished are zero as it has
attracted so much acclaim. It will probably end up in a heritage park,
next to the saxon house.

The only reason I started watching Wodin's day's programme was because
their false advertising lead me to believe there would be a touch of
the diy about it.

If I want to see the latest tech I'd buy a building magazine, get a
trade brochure or go to see the ideal home insipidion. Bytte whych
manne canne tyrne ye clocke backe.

There is another (daytime) programme that follows people buying homes
abroad. Much the same sort of style but at least the punters get a free
hand with their dosh and sooo much cheaper to buy in ex iron-curtain
states.

I think GD is milking the prime time slot and wouldn't survive there
long if the other channels started showing entertainment. At least I
never sponsored their slot by watching any commercials.

I agree, all I want is a show that *shows* me how to actually do
things.

I mean they are so formulaic. You have presenters Caustic Clown and
Dolly Bigtits, showing how they are going to renovate this interesting
old house. Dolly says "and now, Andy Chippy has a difficult job laying
some flooring", with a 30 second shot of Andy picking up his saw, and
then back to Dolly showing her tits to the plasterers. "Now Fred
Plasterer has to plaster those walls in the lounge", and after he
makes one stroke with the float, we are with Caustic, having banter
with the lads about getting plastered down the pub at lunch time.

And ad infinitum. The only thing you are sure of is that Caustic will
get plastered later and Dolly will get rogered by the plasterers, and
the plumbers, and anybody else passing, but not by Charlie Sparks,
cos he's gay and upset because Andy Chippy is into Dolly.

It's all good stuff really.

Grand designs
 

On 20 Apr 2006 09:34:34 -0700, "Fitz"
wrote:


EricP wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:03:25 +0100, The Wanderer
wrote:

. I've largely given up watching, the only one that
rang my bell was the guy who built his own home in the middle of his own
woodland. Unfortunately, in the follow up prog, he had acquired a partner
and sprog and she was busy imprinting her influence on what had been a
superb home.

I think the guy was a genuine person, he had no wealth, diddled the
planners and related to his immediate environment like no other person
on the show. This appealed to viewers like me.

I agree with most of what you said but in what way did he diddle the
planners? It took him about a decade of negotiations whilst living in
a temporary tree house before they agreed didn't it? And there is a
covenant that if he leaves it has to be pulled down. Presumably it can
only be passed on to an heir if they continue the same type of work as
well....

Yes fair point, but I meant from the viewers point of view. He simply
appeared to obtain the impossible.

Grand designs
 

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:38:13 GMT, "Jim Alexander"
wrote:


"EricP" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:03:25 +0100, The Wanderer
wrote:

. I've largely given up watching, the only one that
rang my bell was the guy who built his own home in the middle of his own
woodland. Unfortunately, in the follow up prog, he had acquired a partner
and sprog and she was busy imprinting her influence on what had been a
superb home.

I think the guy was a genuine person, he had no wealth, diddled the
planners

did I miss that?

Apparently.

Grand designs
 

EricP wrote:

I agree, all I want is a show that *shows* me how to actually do
things.


You have freeview MrP?

Daily there is a program on called...UK Bright Ideas...sometimes quite
informative.

--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

Grand designs
 

"EricP" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:03:25 +0100, The Wanderer
wrote:

. I've largely given up watching, the only one that
rang my bell was the guy who built his own home in the middle of his own
woodland. Unfortunately, in the follow up prog, he had acquired a partner
and sprog and she was busy imprinting her influence on what had been a
superb home.

I think the guy was a genuine person, he had no wealth, diddled the
planners

did I miss that? The house was on a gap site in a residential area, it
repected the building line and didn't overdevelop the site, there appeared
to be unexceptional buildings either side, and woods behind. What grounds
would there be for refusal?

Jim A

Grand designs
 

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:36:50 GMT, "The3rd Earl Of Derby"
wrote:

EricP wrote:

I agree, all I want is a show that *shows* me how to actually do
things.


You have freeview MrP?

Daily there is a program on called...UK Bright Ideas...sometimes quite
informative.

Never watched it George. i will have a look now you have pointed it
out. :))

Grand designs
 

Steve Firth wrote:
Zoinks wrote:
[snip]

I find it irritating that Kev. constantly uses the programme as a
soapbox to rant about the planning regulations (something that he says
should be abolished).

"Greenbelt ? Nah, f*ck it, put a house up anyway."

The house built in the lake the other week was a perfect example. When
they'd finished the only place left in that area with a view of
unsploit countryside was the house they'd thrown up. How it got
planning permission is a complete mystery.


He has a valid point. The planning process made damn sure that the house
would look like a pile of crap, and it did. I've been through the same
with my own home and have just about given up. If I want to rip the guts
out of the house and build everything to current building regs I will
get permission. The end result will be a hideous series of boxes and a
construction unsympathetic to the architecture of the village and this
house in particular.


Zoinks is on about the house in the lake here, what are you on about ?
It was a right old mess, really ugly.

It's true that he shouldn't soapbox his own views on TV though. If he
was ranting about liberalizing some other aspect of the law (drugs,
incest) every week you'd sure complain - well maybe not, I don't know.


The village was built entirely without planning restrictions and as a
consequence it is human scaled, very attractive and brings in people
from miles around just to ogle at the massed prettiness.


Then how would you feel if someone pulled down half of it and stuck up a
WalMart. Get rid of planning and that's *exactly* what will happen.
Most of the posts wrt bad neighbours on this NG would be much worse if
they could just do whatever the hell they wanted.

Why shouldn't current development follow suit?

Because you'd have millions of idiots building fortresses all over the
place and enclosing as much possible volume at the lowest possible cost,
eating up every square inch of landmass. The lowest common denominator
would make your life hell. Imagine for one second that your moron
next-door neightbour wanted to build an extension that had a window
looking right into your bedroom, and on and on and on it goes...


Why are we forced (for
example) to fit doorways that are different in proportion to the
original for any new build. Why are we forbidden to develop the building
using the same techniques and materials used to build it originally?

The problem with the image of planning is that only people who mess up
on their applications (for whatever reason) rant on and on about it. The
law is not set out by the planners, it's set by the Government. The
decisions are not made by the planners, they're made by the Councillors
at the planning committee.
Planners are generally trying to help you get the application through -
the only power they have is to advise.

And
why do politicians, most of whom have council-house tastes, get to
dictate to others how they can live the minute detail of their lives?


Council house tastes ! What does that mean ! Sorry, can't hear you
through the window of your 4x4 (c:

IMO "planning" results in more eyesores than the development that was
occuring before "planning" was thought of.


Really ? Planning started just after the Second World War to help deal
with the development chaos that ensued. Without it you'd sure be a lot
worse off, under the control of every insane developer with an eye for a
profit (and that's all of them).

Look at Prescott's attempts to lay waste to communities in order to
build cheap "system" houses.

And look at Tesco and ADSA's wish to build cheap "system" supermarkets.
Which would you prefer on your doorstep ?

All that said, there's just too many of us, that's the real problem. And
as the density increases we all just hope that no major sh*te gets built
next-door.

Chips.

--
-----------
Chips'll make it better.
-----------

Grand designs
 

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"TheScullster" wrote in message
Either my perceptions of this program have changed, or the delivery has
become diluted.

To my mind this is typical dumming down to dovetail with all the
disfunctional family garbage shows about Nannies and what your kids will
look like if they continue to eat 5000000 bags of crisps a day.

Presumably they're catering for those who watch it...



I watch it, it doesn't cater to my needs. If I took part in a survey, I
would rip it to pieces.
Why watch it then? I filter out all the crap and take on board the 30secs of
inspiration it gives to fuel my project. I'm time rich!

--
Mike W

Grand designs
 

The message
from "." contains these words:

Sounds like a lot of swanky houses - all about showing off rather than
being useable and nice to live in.

LOL show us some photos of your house, go on.

It's a 70s council terrace - nothing to write home about. It's the
cost/benefit that gets me - this place cost 28k five years ago and has
proved to be adequate for bringing up two kids and so on. For twenty
times the price you don't get anything approaching twenty times the
utility.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Grand designs
 

Guy King wrote:
The message
from "." contains these words:

Sounds like a lot of swanky houses - all about showing off rather
than being useable and nice to live in.

LOL show us some photos of your house, go on.

It's a 70s council terrace - nothing to write home about. It's the
cost/benefit that gets me - this place cost 28k five years ago and has
proved to be adequate for bringing up two kids and so on. For twenty
times the price you don't get anything approaching twenty times the
utility.

I suppose it's all relative, and you'll never know how wrong you are.
I hope you're happy but do take the time to look up, occasionaly ;-)

Grand designs
 

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from "." contains these words:

Sounds like a lot of swanky houses - all about showing off rather than
being useable and nice to live in.

LOL show us some photos of your house, go on.

It's a 70s council terrace - nothing to write home about. It's the
cost/benefit that gets me - this place cost 28k five years ago and has
proved to be adequate for bringing up two kids and so on. For twenty
times the price you don't get anything approaching twenty times the
utility.

That's very true.

This house cost £2,400 in 1964. They're now selling for £160,000 +.

So what?

Mary

Grand designs
 

Chips wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Zoinks wrote:
[snip]

I find it irritating that Kev. constantly uses the programme as a
soapbox to rant about the planning regulations (something that he
says should be abolished).

"Greenbelt ? Nah, f*ck it, put a house up anyway."

The house built in the lake the other week was a perfect example.
When they'd finished the only place left in that area with a view of
unsploit countryside was the house they'd thrown up. How it got
planning permission is a complete mystery.


He has a valid point. The planning process made damn sure that the
house would look like a pile of crap, and it did. I've been through
the same with my own home and have just about given up. If I want to
rip the guts out of the house and build everything to current building
regs I will get permission. The end result will be a hideous series of
boxes and a construction unsympathetic to the architecture of the
village and this house in particular.


Zoinks is on about the house in the lake here, what are you on about ?

The same house.

It was a right old mess, really ugly.

Yes, it was like that because the planners insisted that was what it had
to look like. The fact that the planners seemed to think 1940s council
house was the epitome of style had rather cramped the design.

It's true that he shouldn't soapbox his own views on TV though. If he
was ranting about liberalizing some other aspect of the law (drugs,
incest) every week you'd sure complain - well maybe not, I don't know.

Utter ********. If ****e planning restrictions are making the buildings
of Britain ugly then it needs to be mentioned.

The village was built entirely without planning restrictions and as a
consequence it is human scaled, very attractive and brings in people
from miles around just to ogle at the massed prettiness.


Then how would you feel if someone pulled down half of it and stuck up a
WalMart.

Surprised, I think as the owner I have the right to stop them.

Get rid of planning and that's *exactly* what will happen.

Utter **** again, the planners permit the monstrosities to be built nad
have condoned the siting of these in stupdi places (such as at motorway
junctions). Locally to me, the city planners have permitted a giant
hotel and a satellite dish farm to be built in an AONB (now a national
park). This decision was against the wishes of every single local
resident. The decision was IMO corrupt because the deal was that the
developers could do what they liked *if* they provided the land for the
council's pet project a pointless vanity building that is supposed to be
a "high tech learning centre" but which has ended up as an eyesore.

Most of the posts wrt bad neighbours on this NG would be much worse if
they could just do whatever the hell they wanted.

I doubt it.

Why shouldn't current development follow suit?

Because you'd have millions of idiots building fortresses all over the
place and enclosing as much possible volume at the lowest possible cost,
eating up every square inch of landmass. The lowest common denominator
would make your life hell. Imagine for one second that your moron
next-door neightbour wanted to build an extension that had a window
looking right into your bedroom, and on and on and on it goes...

I own enough land that it would not be a problem.

Why are we forced (for example) to fit doorways that are different in
proportion to the original for any new build. Why are we forbidden to
develop the building using the same techniques and materials used to
build it originally?

The problem with the image of planning is that only people who mess up
on their applications (for whatever reason) rant on and on about it.

Errm no, you will find it is also people who have spent considerable
effort on creating a plan that is sympathetic to the character of the
building and been told that they can build what they like provided they
compeletely redesign the work to match the prejudices of the planner.

For example:

My uncle, submitted plans for a new barn, told to roof it in red tile
rather than the recycled stone flags he had intended to use "because red
tile is the vernacular". Every house in the village and his farm roofed
in stone. So he built it as he was told he would have to.

A few months later his neighbour also applied for a new barn, he was
told to roof it in stone, despite his house and all the other buildings
on site being roofed in slate. What is that if not capricious stupidity?

Or my case, applied for permission for a barn. Refused, on the basis
that the barn was too large. So I applied for permission for a garage,
same size and construction as the barn. I was visited by a planning
officer who said that they thought it was an excellent design. Spent
several hours talking about the terrible "gentrification" of the region
and said it was nice to see a sensible design for a building. Called me
back after 24 hours to say the garage would be approved if I put in a
clock tower. What is that if not gentrification? I got the building
approved on appeal, so now I have a barn^W garage.

Current plans I've given up on, because to implement what the planners
would let me build would ruin the house. They insist that the floor to
ceiling heights and doorways have to match modern standards, which would
means the new build dominating the existing structure.

No doubt when I sell or die someone will build the monstrosity that the
planners will permit, but I can't do that to the building.

The law is not set out by the planners, it's set by the Government.

Oh look, it's no one's fault that planning law is a mess. The planners
are only "following orders" and the Government are shiny clean saviours
of the people.

The decisions are not made by the planners, they're made by the
Councillors at the planning committee.

Who are advised by the planners and who tend in the main to slavishly
follow the advice given.

Planners are generally trying to help you get the application through -
the only power they have is to advise.


And why do politicians, most of whom have council-house tastes, get to
dictate to others how they can live the minute detail of their lives?


Council house tastes ! What does that mean ! Sorry, can't hear you
through the window of your 4x4 (c:

IMO "planning" results in more eyesores than the development that was
occuring before "planning" was thought of.


Really ? Planning started just after the Second World War to help deal
with the development chaos that ensued. Without it you'd sure be a lot
worse off, under the control of every insane developer with an eye for a
profit (and that's all of them).

So why do they get to do as they like under the current system which is
biased towards favouring nasty build quality? You appear to have missed
the fact that the developers have bribed, coerced, corrupted, funded,
donated and loaned their way into getting the rule book written to
favour them.

And with startling nonsense like Part P, the rest of us are even
excluded from undertaking work that we are eminently qualified to do.


You are aware aren't you that modern houses perform less well than older
houses for energy efficiency? Isn't that a startling indictment of
planning law? All of the changes are forcing the development of poor
quality, inefficient housing.

Look at Prescott's attempts to lay waste to communities in order to
build cheap "system" houses.

And look at Tesco and ADSA's wish to build cheap "system" supermarkets.
Which would you prefer on your doorstep ?

The supermarket, it has a lower chav count.

All that said, there's just too many of us, that's the real problem. And
as the density increases we all just hope that no major sh*te gets built
next-door.


I agree, the density of a lot of you is increasing.

Admit it you work for the council don't you?

Grand designs
 

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "TheScullster"
saying something like:

I guess the bottom line is that if you want genuine technical content you
need a dedicated channel rather than the please-all ex-terrestrial
offerings.
Not sure if such a channel exists (I don't subscribe to Sky just catch the
free stuff).

When I had Sky I was glued to Bob Vila's programme and others. Most of
it not directly applicable here, but certainly informative and sometimes
eyebrow-raising about what the Merkins considered acceptable.
--

Dave

Grand designs
 

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Stuart
saying something like:

I saw it was about another box and switched over at the first break,
never to return.



It looked not bad inside but outside I thought the house was just plain 'orrible

Another box, I thought, but inside it was vaguely interesting.

What made me hoot, though, was the choice of outside paint colours.

The Blue and the Red.

Which were nothing more exotic than Battleship Grey and Red Lead in
colour.
--

Dave

Grand designs
 

Steve Firth wrote:

Acres of beige, and why does every house they show need to be built with an upper
floor that doesn't reach as far as the wall?

If they just had the wit to make the box pent- or hexagonal or
somesuch, they could double their vista in each room.

As for the acres of beige. All houses need time to dry and until then
it is best to use trade magnolia or whatever. The paint is cheap and
acts as a size for the good stuff later on.