Blimey! thats a bargain,but to build a home in the middle of a housing
estate? I don't think sooooo.

In article ,
"George" wrote:

Blimey! thats a bargain,but to build a home in the middle of a housing
estate? I don't think sooooo.



So just to clarify, is it a bargain or isn't it?

In article ,
George wrote:
Blimey! thats a bargain,but to build a home in the middle of a housing
estate? I don't think sooooo.

I really hand it to the guys - Dean and his wife - for the effort
involved. True not all of it was ideal - but then if an architect had been
involved they simply couldn't have afforded it.

If only the swimming pool had been sunken...

The follow up on 4 plus included the usual snotty types looking down their
noses - but being used to spending vast sums of other's money makes that
easy.

--
*Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to?

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

On 04/04/2007 23:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If only the swimming pool had been sunken...

I think they weren't allowed to touch the original floor tiles.

I wonder what shape that preserved mahogany balcony will be in when it
next sees the light of day?

"George" wrote

Blimey! thats a bargain,but to build a home in the middle of a housing
estate? I don't think sooooo.


I was more concerned by the less lively residents closer at hand - in the
grave yard.
Definitely a strong argument for some elevated decking!
Don't think that aspect even got a mention

Phil

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
On 04/04/2007 23:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If only the swimming pool had been sunken...

I think they weren't allowed to touch the original floor tiles.

Yes - that had to be the reason.

I wonder what shape that preserved mahogany balcony will be in when it
next sees the light of day?

Should be ok if properly ventilated? But it did seem strange to require it
to be kept but completely 'boxed in' Although how you could incorporate it
in a dwelling I'm not sure - and neither were the 'experts' on the
following prog, although it was implied there were ways.

The one thing that wasn't touched on was how the hell do you heat such a
place? ;-)

--
*A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory *

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

In article ,
TheScullster wrote:

"George" wrote

Blimey! thats a bargain,but to build a home in the middle of a housing
estate? I don't think sooooo.

I was more concerned by the less lively residents closer at hand - in
the grave yard. Definitely a strong argument for some elevated decking!
Don't think that aspect even got a mention

The later prog sort of implied public access to the graves is a
requirement on these sort of things, so you don't end up with a private
garden.

--
*One nice thing about egotists: they don't talk about other people.

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

On 5 Apr, 09:54, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:

On 04/04/2007 23:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
If only the swimming pool had been sunken...
I think they weren't allowed to touch the original floor tiles.

Yes - that had to be the reason.

I wonder what shape that preserved mahogany balcony will be in when it
next sees the light of day?

Should be ok if properly ventilated? But it did seem strange to require it
to be kept but completely 'boxed in' Although how you could incorporate it
in a dwelling I'm not sure - and neither were the 'experts' on the
following prog, although it was implied there were ways.

The one thing that wasn't touched on was how the hell do you heat such a
place? ;-)

There were a few radiators dotted around, but surely not enough.
It is annoying when these type of issues are not mentioned. I have not
seen the more4 program, but would hope it would cover these type of
issues, not just have architects waffling about how they could have
done it better on 10x the budget.
Simon.

On 2007-04-05 09:54:36 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
On 04/04/2007 23:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If only the swimming pool had been sunken...

I think they weren't allowed to touch the original floor tiles.

Yes - that had to be the reason.

I wonder what shape that preserved mahogany balcony will be in when it
next sees the light of day?

Should be ok if properly ventilated? But it did seem strange to require it
to be kept but completely 'boxed in' Although how you could incorporate it
in a dwelling I'm not sure - and neither were the 'experts' on the
following prog, although it was implied there were ways.

The one thing that wasn't touched on was how the hell do you heat such a
place? ;-)

You have a heating fund and charity suppers.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The one thing that wasn't touched on was how the hell do you heat such a
place? ;-)

He had some rather large piles of celotex of similar laying about the
place during the build, so I guess he had thought of that. There was
also the main fireplace, and also an Aga type beastie in the kitchen
IIRC. Can't remember seeing a boiler flue though.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Huge wrote:

On 2007-04-05, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-04-05 09:54:36 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
On 04/04/2007 23:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If only the swimming pool had been sunken...

I think they weren't allowed to touch the original floor tiles.

Yes - that had to be the reason.

I wonder what shape that preserved mahogany balcony will be in when it
next sees the light of day?

Should be ok if properly ventilated? But it did seem strange to require
it to be kept but completely 'boxed in' Although how you could
incorporate it in a dwelling I'm not sure - and neither were the
'experts' on the following prog, although it was implied there were
ways.

The one thing that wasn't touched on was how the hell do you heat such a
place? ;-)

You have a heating fund and charity suppers.

Actually, the heating question often crosses my mind in these makeover
programmes, given the modern propensity for open plan. That, and the whole
house reeking of curry, and sitting in one's hi-tech open-plan living
room on some deeply uncomfortable slab of Scandinavian leather looking at
the washing up.

I'll take rooms, thanks very much. With doors.



Didn't see that programme. However, the one chapel conversion I saw done
locally, the owners put in an extra floor, so the top became living space.
Albeit it had a high pitched ceiling it wasn't *that* high, so heating was
practical, plus the kitchen was open plan onto the living space, so the
waste heat from cooking became immediately useful. The ground-level floor
housed bedrooms which worked very well, as there was plenty of light
upstairs from velux windows and a large end window; The bedrooms got less
light, but noone cared.

Cheers

Tim

On 2007-04-05 11:07:33 +0100, Huge said:

On 2007-04-05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
TheScullster wrote:

"George" wrote

Blimey! thats a bargain,but to build a home in the middle of a housing
estate? I don't think sooooo.

I was more concerned by the less lively residents closer at hand - in
the grave yard. Definitely a strong argument for some elevated decking!
Don't think that aspect even got a mention

The later prog sort of implied public access to the graves is a
requirement on these sort of things, so you don't end up with a private
garden.

Interesting. The only church - house conversion I know of, the headstones
were moved to the perimeter wall, so the actual location of the graves
was no longer known. The presence of buried bodies wouldn't bother
me (don't dig a swimming pool!) but grieving relatives wandering about
might.

That goes away once they've discovered that there is little or no
inheritance or they've spent it.

Huge wrote:

On 2007-04-05, Tim wrote:


practical, plus the kitchen was open plan onto the living space, so the

... cooking smells permeated the whole house ...



Fortunately, the cook was good and the smells were excellent

Good point though.

Don't know about the new owner - heh.

Tim

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:56:09 +0100, Owain
wrote:



I think the architects on the Trade Secrets afterwards were a bit snooty
- could they do any better building a 5-bed house for under £100k
including plot?

They showed a complete lack of understanding that he worked to a very
limited budget. Of course he used standard door frames - he couldn't
afford not to.

For someone with no architectural experience he did
rather well, I thought -

I agree.

"Peter Johnson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:56:09 +0100, Owain
wrote:



I think the architects on the Trade Secrets afterwards were a bit
snooty
- could they do any better building a 5-bed house for under £100k
including plot?

They showed a complete lack of understanding that he worked to a
very
limited budget. Of course he used standard door frames - he couldn't
afford not to.

For someone with no architectural experience he did
rather well, I thought -

I agree.

There is a big danger with architects that they want to build
something to be remembered by rather than to meet the clients needs
within budget. Too much or the arty side and not enough of the
practical artisan doing what they are asked to do.

AWEM

I'm in the midst of a similar chapel conversion(entirely self-built),
and thought Dean had done brilliantly. The only money I've wasted on
mine has been on architects (2 - useless) and surveyors (1 -
criminal). I paid a lot more for the building, but it's a much easier
one to convert, had services on and is in a nice village.

However I'm right with Dean in using mainstream and available building
materials and having spent only about £12K myself so far. Like him,
I've done a massive amount of recycling, given most of my waste to
very happy recipients and made much use of the same (through Freecycle
and ebay) - and that's REAL eco-building. I personally like the
traditional stuff - all timber windows, oak doors, lime mortar etc -
and I consider that money well spent - both ecologically and
aesthetically. I was beginning to loose respect for Grand Designs that
are simply chequebook exercises in excessive consumption. All new
everything, massive amounts of travel and transportation of building
materials around the world, massive cost overuns and a final result
that's a monument to the ostentantion of all involved.

In my opinion much of the pragmatic working man's approach (durable
quality, easy to build design, no flights of fancy) IS a valid
approach to heritage buildings - you can be damn sure a few hundred
years ago the person paying the bills wouldn't finance too many
penpushers trying to set about unbounded spending. Provided you avoid
excessive use of wholly inappropriate materials or wholesale
destruction of the original character (and I'll forgive him the upvc
dome - may he can afford to change it one day) - then his approach is
sound in my book. As they say - the building would probably have been
lost without his Herculean effort.

Oh - and if you'd like a look at what I'm doing with my chapel, some
rather old photos here (under "projects") http://www.gglz.com

sm_jamieson wrote:
There were a few radiators dotted around, but surely not enough.
It is annoying when these type of issues are not mentioned. I have not
seen the more4 program, but would hope it would cover these type of
issues,

It doesn't. In fact it probably has less technical content than the main
programme.....

not just have architects waffling about how they could have
done it better on 10x the budget.

Thought you said you hadn't seen it? )

Alan