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

Nothing new there.

Thats my view. :-P

--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

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!

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

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

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

"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

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.

"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

"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...

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

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

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 ..

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.

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

"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

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.

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!

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.

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.

Was it just me, or did anyone watch last night's project (involving the
conversion of a concrete water tower) whilst thinking that demolition,
preferably using explosives, would have been a better starting point?
They got a futuristic house with a hideous concrete lump in the middle
of it.

What is the obsession with converting the most unsuitable barn, shed,
tank, pig-pen, etc., into accomodation? Has anyone converted a gas
holder yet?

Aidan wrote:
Was it just me, or did anyone watch last night's project (involving the
conversion of a concrete water tower) whilst thinking that demolition,
preferably using explosives, would have been a better starting point?
They got a futuristic house with a hideous concrete lump in the middle
of it.

What is the obsession with converting the most unsuitable barn, shed,
tank, pig-pen, etc., into accomodation? Has anyone converted a gas
holder yet?

Gas holder - brilliant idea! You could raise the roof - literally...

"Phil" wrote in message
oups.com...

Aidan wrote:
Was it just me, or did anyone watch last night's project (involving the
conversion of a concrete water tower) whilst thinking that demolition,
preferably using explosives, would have been a better starting point?
They got a futuristic house with a hideous concrete lump in the middle
of it.

What is the obsession with converting the most unsuitable barn, shed,
tank, pig-pen, etc., into accomodation? Has anyone converted a gas
holder yet?

Gas holder - brilliant idea! You could raise the roof - literally...

I know a gasholder that's been converted into a diving practice
area.

tim

In article .com,
Aidan wrote:
Was it just me, or did anyone watch last night's project (involving the
conversion of a concrete water tower) whilst thinking that demolition,
preferably using explosives, would have been a better starting point?
They got a futuristic house with a hideous concrete lump in the middle
of it.

I rather liked the end result and can't see anything wrong in wanting to
live in an unusual house.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity -- I'm a carrier

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

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

I rather liked the end result and can't see anything wrong in wanting to
live in an unusual house.

I've always wanted a house cut into a steep chalk-slope. Sloping glass
windows onto a slight patio overlooking the Darenth valley, rest of the
house cut into the hillside with access from above via stairs/lift.

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

In article ,
Guy King wrote:
I've always wanted a house cut into a steep chalk-slope. Sloping glass
windows onto a slight patio overlooking the Darenth valley, rest of the
house cut into the hillside with access from above via stairs/lift.

Ever been to Perthshire and seen the follies scattered along the side of
the Tay near Aberfeldy? They're mainly on the front of hills and as a kid
I thought it would be nice to cut into the hill and make them real houses.

--
*You can't teach an old mouse new clicks *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I rather liked the end result and can't see anything wrong in wanting to
live in an unusual house.

Nor me. I think they'd have had a nicer unusual house if they'd removed
the concrete monstrosity first.

I'd missed the start & I'd imagine the reasons were explained then. I'd
imagine it was listed, &/or the PP to demolish & rebuild was more
problematic than PP to convert &/or the costs to demolish and remove
were excessive.

Aidan wrote:

What is the obsession with converting the most unsuitable barn, shed,
tank, pig-pen, etc., into accomodation? Has anyone converted a gas
holder yet?

I don't think it was the case here but my understanding is that it is
often possible to get planning permission to convert a disused building
where it would not be possible to get planning permission to knock it
down and build something new. Even on last night's programme I doubt the
planners would have given approval for replacement with a four-storey
building so they would not have had quite the views over the Kent
countryside that they ended up with.

Andrew

Andrew May wrote:

I don't think it was the case here but my understanding is that it is
often possible to get planning permission to convert a disused building
where it would not be possible to get planning permission to knock it
down and build something new. Even on last night's programme I doubt the
planners would have given approval for replacement with a four-storey
building so they would not have had quite the views over the Kent
countryside that they ended up with.

Sounds quite likely.

I looked on Channel 4's site, but no reasons there.

http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/...A/ashford.html

They said Lutyens designed it, which I think is a slur on the man.
Lutyens designed the estate it served and probably got the tank done by
some civil engineering consultant. They probably stuck it on the
highest ground available to get the most pressure.

On 27 Apr 2006 01:45:56 -0700, Aidan wrote:

Was it just me, or did anyone watch last night's project (involving the
conversion of a concrete water tower) whilst thinking that demolition,
preferably using explosives, would have been a better starting point?
They got a futuristic house with a hideous concrete lump in the middle
of it.

What is the obsession with converting the most unsuitable barn, shed,
tank, pig-pen, etc., into accomodation? Has anyone converted a gas
holder yet?

I ended up getting angrier and angrier through that, I'm afraid. The
structure was after all designed by Lutyens and what was being done to it
seemed butchery. I was particularly miffed when they found remnants of the
roof in the tank. I'm astounded that the structure wasn't listed, more
astounded that the peopel converting it rattled on about respect and care
for the structure then bollocked it up.

FWIW, I put in a bid on a water tower a few decades ago, but didn't want to
pay as much as the architect who got her hands on it.

http://www.arcaid.captureweb.co.uk/f...sp?JobNo=4944-

I think she did about the best conversion on a water tower that I've seen,
and I'm not sure that what we had planned would be as good. OTOH I think
she was mad, paid about £95k for the tower, no land to speak of, then spent
the best part of half a million on the conversion.

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

Was it just me, or did anyone watch last night's project (involving the
conversion of a concrete water tower) whilst thinking that demolition,
preferably using explosives, would have been a better starting point?
They got a futuristic house with a hideous concrete lump in the middle
of it.

They got an ugly, pretentious piece of **** for their money, imo.

I'd have built up and filled in the base with red brick, with a red
brick extension to the side and covered the tower in black shiplap like
the windmill shown. The only good thing about the design was the use
made of the water tank and the new roof.
--

Dave