In article , Huge wrote:
Not as bad as "link detached" (which are joined by the garage)
and are, in my book, called "terraced".

In London in the late 1930's Wates built thousands of link detached
chalet houses, flank walls about 3' apart with a linking arch across
the front. I was told that at the time for rating purposes they had
to be classed as s/d as they were unarguably joined to another house,
but in terms of noise etc they were detached.

See typical picture at
http://www.findaproperty.co.uk/cgi-b...rop&pid=198534


--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Huge wrote:
Not as bad as "link detached" (which are joined by the garage)
and are, in my book, called "terraced".

In London in the late 1930's Wates built thousands of link detached
chalet houses, flank walls about 3' apart with a linking arch across
the front. I was told that at the time for rating purposes they had
to be classed as s/d as they were unarguably joined to another house,
but in terms of noise etc they were detached.

See typical picture at

http://www.findaproperty.co.uk/cgi-b...pt=prop&pid=19
8534

Typical of London. All the front gardens are being stripped out, paved and
car parks made of them, giving hideous appearance. In Chiswick, etc, the
gardens in front of the terraced houses have virtually all gone, giving the
streets an appalling appearance of car butted up to the front windows.
Making car parks of front gardens should be stopped. And those converted
turned back to gardens. The more you encourage people to have and park cars
the worse it gets, where the car takes over our lives. The more obstacles
you put in the way the less people will use cars. In London few people
really need a car.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:57:11 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Huge wrote:
Not as bad as "link detached" (which are joined by the garage)
and are, in my book, called "terraced".

In London in the late 1930's Wates built thousands of link detached
chalet houses, flank walls about 3' apart with a linking arch across
the front. I was told that at the time for rating purposes they had
to be classed as s/d as they were unarguably joined to another house,
but in terms of noise etc they were detached.

See typical picture at

http://www.findaproperty.co.uk/cgi-b...pt=prop&pid=19
8534

Typical of London. All the front gardens are being stripped out, paved and
car parks made of them, giving hideous appearance. In Chiswick, etc, the
gardens in front of the terraced houses have virtually all gone, giving the
streets an appalling appearance of car butted up to the front windows.
Making car parks of front gardens should be stopped. And those converted
turned back to gardens. The more you encourage people to have and park cars
the worse it gets, where the car takes over our lives. The more obstacles
you put in the way the less people will use cars. In London few people
really need a car.

If public transport were cheaper, I'd say you have a point. But it's
not cheap, is it?

MM

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:30:47 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Poorly designed houses that cost a fortune to heat and collectively
contribute vast amounts of CO2 to global warming should be demolished. The
current new houses should get 100 years. But if far superior newer, no
heating houses are common in 30, 40, 50 years, it is easy to dispose of the
current crop.

Making poor technology to last is silly.

For the sake of three hundred pounds' worth of insulation? Do you
*know* how many council houses there are in the UK?!! It would cost a
hell of a lot more to replace them all with modern rabbit hutches.

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:57:11 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Huge wrote:
Not as bad as "link detached" (which are joined by the garage)
and are, in my book, called "terraced".

In London in the late 1930's Wates built thousands of link detached
chalet houses, flank walls about 3' apart with a linking arch across
the front. I was told that at the time for rating purposes they had
to be classed as s/d as they were unarguably joined to another house,
but in terms of noise etc they were detached.

See typical picture at


http://www.findaproperty.co.uk/cgi-b...opt=prop&pid=1
9
8534

Typical of London. All the front gardens are being stripped out, paved
and
car parks made of them, giving hideous appearance. In Chiswick, etc, the
gardens in front of the terraced houses have virtually all gone, giving
the
streets an appalling appearance of car butted up to the front windows.
Making car parks of front gardens should be stopped. And those converted
turned back to gardens. The more you encourage people to have and park
cars
the worse it gets, where the car takes over our lives. The more
obstacles
you put in the way the less people will use cars. In London few people
really need a car.

If public transport were cheaper, I'd say you have a point. But it's
not cheap, is it?

Cheaper than a car which will only sit in traffic jam. the point is the
looks: gardens are disappearing, and pollution cars bring.

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:30:47 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Poorly designed houses that cost a fortune to heat and collectively
contribute vast amounts of CO2 to global warming should be demolished.
The
current new houses should get 100 years. But if far superior newer, no
heating houses are common in 30, 40, 50 years, it is easy to dispose of
the
current crop.

Making poor technology to last is silly.

For the sake of three hundred pounds' worth of insulation? Do you
*know* how many council houses there are in the UK?!! It would cost a
hell of a lot more to replace them all with modern rabbit hutches.

More misconceived ********. Modern house are not hutches. Many inter-war
house are hutches

IMM wrote in message ...
Modern house are not hutches.

Agreed.
They are actually up market garden sheds, with a similar life expectancy.

Regards
Capitol

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote in message ...
Modern house are not hutches.

snip drivel

IMM wrote in message ...
snip drivel.
LOL
Capitol

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:30:47 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Poorly designed houses that cost a fortune to heat and collectively
contribute vast amounts of CO2 to global warming should be demolished.
The
current new houses should get 100 years. But if far superior newer, no
heating houses are common in 30, 40, 50 years, it is easy to dispose of
the
current crop.

Making poor technology to last is silly.

For the sake of three hundred pounds' worth of insulation? Do you
*know* how many council houses there are in the UK?!! It would cost a
hell of a lot more to replace them all with modern rabbit hutches.

MM

Not to mention the waste in terms of energy and materials to replace all
those perfectly good houses. Concrete production is responsible for a large
chunk of CO2 emissions.

Then there is the track record of modern day planners and architects to
consider. To up themselves for our own good, IMO. I'd hate to live in a
town where every building was treated as art and made to be "challenging" to
the viewer, rather than just suffering the occasional hideous construction
you get now.

Mal

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:30:47 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Poorly designed houses that cost a
fortune to heat and collectively
contribute vast amounts of CO2 to
global warming should be demolished.
The current new houses should get
100 years. But if far superior newer, no
heating houses are common in 30, 40,
50 years, it is easy to dispose of the
current crop.

Making poor technology to last is silly.

For the sake of three hundred pounds'
worth of insulation?

£300 to insulate an uninsulated house properly to currenbt building regs,
never mind the 2007 regs? Get real!

Not to mention the waste in terms of
energy and materials to replace all
those perfectly good houses.

They are NOT good. Most are fit for purpose. No insulation whatsoever, too
small, designed for time with different values and lifestyles. Most are
only fit for demolition. It usually costs more to just to get them to
current building regs (which is being seriously ramped up in insulation and
air-tightness soon) than to pull down and start again.

Concrete production is responsible for a large
chunk of CO2 emissions.

Then we have to use timber, which using planned forests absorbs CO2 as it
grows. Timber houses are equally as good, if not better, than brick. A
forest looks better than a brick works.

Then there is the track record of modern day planners and architects to
consider. To up themselves for our own good, IMO. I'd hate to live in a
town where every building was treated as art and made to be "challenging"
to
the viewer, rather than just suffering the occasional hideous construction
you get now.

Occasionally! The place is full of appalling pastiche retros.

Q: What is the difference between new house design in Banff, Bognor,
Basingstoke, Bangor, or Beaconsfield? – A: None

No – I’m not an architect; I am a dangerous amateur. Isn’t it telling that
one has to make this admission before you write further. I have deep
concerns about the built environment in the Chilterns and the architectural
vomit that is thrown up in all senses by house developers in the region.
Every day I see new examples of Tudorbethan, Vicwardian, neo-Georgian
confused by developers as a mixture of deep south Colonial and 'Gone with
the Wind' (I wish they had) blighting the Chilterns.

No one has responsibility for arresting this avalanche of design free
structures, so developers go on erecting them - and the visually illiterate
amongst others go on buying them. There is no choice after all. Developers
are then convinced 'this is what they (buyers) want' and around we go again
to the next wave of blighted applications that result in the homogenous
Mocky Horror (“MH”) nightmare we see nationwide.

The CDC Planning Committee have to give good reason to refuse these
applications and are to an extent between a rock and a hard place - but most
members embrace these appalling offerings seemingly happy that the Chilterns
looks the same as Banff, Bognor, Basingstoke, or Bangor.

The making of a MH are the additions (fake post and beam - or planks to you
and me, flint swatches, colonnades and so on) applied to a cheaply erected
brick lump. These are aptly known in the building trade as "Gob Ons."

An example of a MH that would benefit from the attentions of a bulldozer
exists in Long Bottom Lane, Beaconsfield. 'The Thing’ has been for sale for
sometime. At a recent planning meeting a boisterous member of the committee
complained about the 'adverse impact' a semi-contemporary application would
have on the street scene in the same road. This latter application was well
designed and located 75 yards from the road behind evergreens. Where was the
Councillor when so needed to stop the cloyingly twee, in your face; Rhett
Butler colonial eyesore that remains unsold at the time of writing. ‘The
Thing’ received approval because presumably - in the opinion of the
committee it's appropriate; doesn't adversely impact the street scene; is at
ease with its site. HA! Seemingly the Councillor (and others) possess vision
of scientific interest to stop considered design - but can't see what is
clearly in front of them when it comes to 'pastiche retro.' Letting these
proposals through planning blights the land on which they are erected, and
contributes nothing to the built environment. I can probably show you at
least 20 other versions of the same junk within 1760 yards radius so why do
we need more?

If properties have to be the same as the one next door ("in keeping") we are
going to end up living in a foul environment. All the Committee need do is
look at Amersham Old Town, Edwardian; Victorian; Georgian; Tudor; juxtapose
with each other and communicate comfortably. Different roof heights,
pitches, materials: fenestration and finishes; it all works. What we need
now are a couple of contemporary applications to keep things going - but if
such a submission were made the Committee would likely have a collective
seizure and end up in Amersham Hospital with its applied flint tokenism.

Regional building styles have disappeared because among other reasons we
largely controlled by developers, who offer template solutions that are
unacquainted with the pen of an architect. I checked, we are in the 21st
Century. Domestic architecture in the countryside remains in yestercentury.
There are wonderful new materials, methods, and design ideas. Of course
there will always be a demand for MH’s, but if we do not progress in design
and demonstrate that The Chilterns built environment is "different" we will
be the same as everywhere else. What a travesty.

Gerrards Cross has been wrecked - the same blight has spread to
Beaconsfield, and now it is happening in Great Missenden. We sit and watch
the spread of this homogenous nightmare and do nothing. Is it only in
housing that a counterfeit product is serially purchased by the public?

Follow the Chiltern Planning Design Guide to which the Chiltern Society
contributes, and whilst rightly encouraging preservation of that which
exists, it nullifies progress. It is therefore a promotional document for
the visually and developmentally inert. Aspic country.

If we wish the Chilterns Built Environment to be identifiable from elsewhere
a policy needs to be developed that promotes variety. Developers need to be
convinced there is a market, and proactively encouraged to experiment. The
buyers are there – but why should developers change when they can get
approvals easily and sell the junk they build?

© Tom Perry
13 October 2002.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:30:47 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Poorly designed houses that cost a
fortune to heat and collectively
contribute vast amounts of CO2 to
global warming should be demolished.
The current new houses should get
100 years. But if far superior newer, no
heating houses are common in 30, 40,
50 years, it is easy to dispose of the
current crop.

Making poor technology to last is silly.

For the sake of three hundred pounds'
worth of insulation?

£300 to insulate an uninsulated house properly to currenbt building regs,
never mind the 2007 regs? Get real!

Not to mention the waste in terms of
energy and materials to replace all
those perfectly good houses.

They are NOT good. Most are fit for purpose. No insulation whatsoever,
too
small, designed for time with different values and lifestyles. Most are
only fit for demolition. It usually costs more to just to get them to
current building regs (which is being seriously ramped up in insulation
and
air-tightness soon) than to pull down and start again.


There is no need to keep everything up to the current regs. Time will
gradually result in replacement of buildings. Artificially accelerating the
process is wasteful. If they last an extraordinary amount of time, that
says more for their fittness for purpose than any paper argument.

You already know my feelings on air tightness etc.

BTW, where do you propose to find the army of builders required to construct
all these replacement houses, and if you do get them, what will they all do
once they have finished?


Concrete production is responsible for a large
chunk of CO2 emissions.

Then we have to use timber, which using planned forests absorbs CO2 as it
grows. Timber houses are equally as good, if not better, than brick. A
forest looks better than a brick works.

I have no problem with that, although I wonder about the longevity of such
buildings in our windy and damp environment. I know they have a lot of
wooden buildings in the US, and it certainly rains there, but is it quite as
damp as Britain? And as windy? Mind you, I quite like traditional American
style wooden house, but it would be hard to build one here because everyone
would say it was out of character (after what you have posted, you couldn't
use that argument without being hypocritical, but you would still object,
probably on the grounds that it is "old" ).


Then there is the track record of modern day planners and architects to
consider. To up themselves for our own good, IMO. I'd hate to live in
a
town where every building was treated as art and made to be
"challenging"
to
the viewer, rather than just suffering the occasional hideous
construction
you get now.

Occasionally! The place is full of appalling pastiche retros.


True, but then practically all buildings are a pastiche of what has gone
before.


Q: What is the difference between new house design in Banff, Bognor,
Basingstoke, Bangor, or Beaconsfield? - A: None


So? There isn't going to be a local style these days. If you were to build
a house from scratch, how could you make it recognisable as a house from a
particular part of the country. Any new design that you would favour is
going to be distinct from it's neighbours, and therefore not localised.


snip rest of cut-and-paste rant.

Mal

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:30:47 -0000, "IMM"
wrote:

Poorly designed houses that cost a
fortune to heat and collectively
contribute vast amounts of CO2 to
global warming should be demolished.
The current new houses should get
100 years. But if far superior newer, no
heating houses are common in 30, 40,
50 years, it is easy to dispose of the
current crop.

Making poor technology to last is silly.

For the sake of three hundred pounds'
worth of insulation?

£300 to insulate an uninsulated house
properly to currenbt building regs,
never mind the 2007 regs? Get real!

Not to mention the waste in terms of
energy and materials to replace all
those perfectly good houses.

They are NOT good. Most are NOT fit for purpose.
No insulation whatsoever, too small, designed for
time with different values and lifestyles. Most are
only fit for demolition. It usually costs more to just
to get them to current building regs (which is being
seriously ramped up in insulation and
air-tightness soon) than to pull down and start again.

There is no need to keep everything
up to the current regs. Time will
gradually result in replacement of buildings.

Not in this daft country they will not.

Artificially accelerating the
process is wasteful.

I repeat they are NOT fit for pupose. They are designed for a time with
different values and lifestyles.

If they last an extraordinary amount of time, that
says more for their fittness for purpose than
any paper argument.

They have lasted because of circumstances, not because they were though good
or valued in some perverse way.

You already know my feelings on air tightness etc.

You mean you haven't a clue about it or controlled ventilation.

BTW, where do you propose to find the army
of builders required to construct
all these replacement houses, and if you do
get them, what will they all do
once they have finished?

The older buildings the start to come down. One of the basic cores of the
economies of the USA and Germany is the construction business. In Germany
and the USA they don't think it is anti-eco to build fine spacious homes on
green field sites, despite both having larger green movements than the UK,
especially Germany. Well they don't have the vested interests of large
landowners having green propaganda fronts, like Friends of The Earth, to
brainwash people to leave the countryside alone and live all bunched up on
top of each other in small super expensive boxes. No one converts barns in
Germany. They think it a silly idea .

In 2001 the UK only built twice as many new homes as Ireland. UK = 60 to 62
million; Ireland 3.3 million. An absolute disgrace!!! No wonder Prescott
is threatening with his left hook. I hope he uses it.

Concrete production is responsible for a large
chunk of CO2 emissions.

Then we have to use timber, which using planned forests absorbs CO2 as
it
grows. Timber houses are equally as good, if not better, than brick. A
forest looks better than a brick works.

I have no problem with that, although I wonder about the longevity of such
buildings in our windy and damp environment.

The oldest timber building is an Church in Essex from the 1200s. Whole town
centres in places like Ludlow and Shrewsbury are timber houses.

I know they have a lot of wooden buildings in the
US, and it certainly rains there, but is it quite as
damp as Britain? And as windy?

Yes. Seattle has a higher rainfall than Manchester, and a very UK climate.

Mind you, I quite like traditional American
style wooden house, but it would be hard
to build one here because everyone
would say it was out of character (after
what you have posted, you couldn't
use that argument without being hypocritical,
but you would still object,
probably on the grounds that it is "old" ).

If someone wants to build a US style house, let them. If someone wants a
pastiche piece of junk, let them.

Then there is the track record of modern
day planners and architects to
consider. To up themselves for our own
good, IMO. I'd hate to live in a
town where every building was treated as
art and made to be "challenging" to
the viewer, rather than just suffering the occasional
hideous construction you get now.

Occasionally! The place is full of appalling pastiche retros.

True, but then practically all buildings are a pastiche of what has gone
before.

That is the problem. We have this forced down out throats.

Q: What is the difference between new house design in Banff, Bognor,
Basingstoke, Bangor, or Beaconsfield? - A: None

So? There isn't going to be a local style these days.
If you were to build a house from scratch, how could
you make it recognisable as a house from a
particular part of the country.

The big brother style police planners, should not be involved in style. Not
their business. In designated areas like the York's Dales yes, elsewhere,
they should mind their own business.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:33:56 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:57:11 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Huge wrote:
Not as bad as "link detached" (which are joined by the garage)
and are, in my book, called "terraced".

In London in the late 1930's Wates built thousands of link detached
chalet houses, flank walls about 3' apart with a linking arch across
the front. I was told that at the time for rating purposes they had
to be classed as s/d as they were unarguably joined to another house,
but in terms of noise etc they were detached.

See typical picture at


http://www.findaproperty.co.uk/cgi-b...opt=prop&pid=1
9
8534

Typical of London. All the front gardens are being stripped out, paved
and
car parks made of them, giving hideous appearance. In Chiswick, etc, the
gardens in front of the terraced houses have virtually all gone, giving
the
streets an appalling appearance of car butted up to the front windows.
Making car parks of front gardens should be stopped. And those converted
turned back to gardens. The more you encourage people to have and park
cars
the worse it gets, where the car takes over our lives. The more
obstacles
you put in the way the less people will use cars. In London few people
really need a car.

If public transport were cheaper, I'd say you have a point. But it's
not cheap, is it?

Cheaper than a car which will only sit in traffic jam. the point is the
looks: gardens are disappearing, and pollution cars bring.

But it is obviously not cheap enough. Belgium is in the process of
making all commuting journeys by train totally free. This is what I
call a really far-sighted move.

MM

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:35:55 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

More misconceived ********. Modern house are not hutches. Many inter-war
house are hutches

Does a modern house have more, or less, living space than houses built
in earlier decades? Are the ceilings lower or higher in modern houses?
Are modern houses always structurally sound? Do modern houses offer
large gardens? Are modern houses never built close to railway lines,
motorways, or supermarkets? Do modern houses have character?

MM

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:53:22 -0000, "Capitol"
wrote:


IMM wrote in message ...
snip drivel.
LOL
Capitol

Do not be surprised! It is IMM's standard response when he is at loss
for words.

MM

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:03:18 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

£300 to insulate an uninsulated house properly to currenbt building regs,
never mind the 2007 regs? Get real!

How much then?

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:33:56 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:57:11 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Huge wrote:
Not as bad as "link detached" (which are joined by the garage)
and are, in my book, called "terraced".

In London in the late 1930's Wates built thousands of link detached
chalet houses, flank walls about 3' apart with a linking arch across
the front. I was told that at the time for rating purposes they had
to be classed as s/d as they were unarguably joined to another
house,
but in terms of noise etc they were detached.

See typical picture at



http://www.findaproperty.co.uk/cgi-b...&opt=prop&pid=
1
9
8534

Typical of London. All the front gardens are being stripped out, paved
and
car parks made of them, giving hideous appearance. In Chiswick, etc,
the
gardens in front of the terraced houses have virtually all gone,
giving
the
streets an appalling appearance of car butted up to the front windows.
Making car parks of front gardens should be stopped. And those
converted
turned back to gardens. The more you encourage people to have and
park
cars
the worse it gets, where the car takes over our lives. The more
obstacles
you put in the way the less people will use cars. In London few
people
really need a car.

If public transport were cheaper, I'd say you have a point. But it's
not cheap, is it?

Cheaper than a car which will only sit in traffic jam. the point is the
looks: gardens are disappearing, and pollution cars bring.

But it is obviously not cheap enough. Belgium is in the process of
making all commuting journeys by train totally free. This is what I
call a really far-sighted move.

MM

That is a stupid idea. All it will do is encourage even more commuting into
a city centre. If you did that here, commuter and tube trains would be even
more overcrowded than now.

Commuting needs to be discouraged, not encouraged. It's the only way to
stop London sucking up the entire UK economy.

Mal

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:35:55 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

More misconceived ********. Modern house are not hutches. Many inter-war
house are hutches

Does a modern house have more, or less, living space than houses built
in earlier decades? Are the ceilings lower or higher in modern houses?
Are modern houses always structurally sound? Do modern houses offer
large gardens? Are modern houses never built close to railway lines,
motorways, or supermarkets? Do modern houses have character?

MM

There must have been a sweet-spot for good housing. Go back centuries and
you're in the realm of the hovel for most people.

Nowadays ceilings are low, rooms are too small to fit adult-size furniture,
build quality is poor, gardens are the size of postage stamps and estates
get built right next to sources of noise and pollution (I told an estate
agent that I wanted a quiet location. Looking over the back fence revealed
the A1!)

Somewhere inbetween, in age terms, are the houses most people prefer - and
that IMM would have torn down.

Mal

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:35:55 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

More misconceived ********. Modern house are not hutches. Many inter-war
house are hutches

Does a modern house have more, or less,
living space than houses built
in earlier decades?

yes.

Are the ceilings lower or higher in modern houses?

Not an issue as ceilings needed to be higher for gas lights. Insert
electric lights can be fitted into ceilings.

Are modern houses always structurally sound?

Yes. Foundations are far superior as is the concrete and cement. Bricks
are far less porous than older bricks.

Do modern houses offer
large gardens?

Some do. Some don't, some are average.

Are modern houses never built close to railway lines,
motorways, or supermarkets?

Not really. Older house were butted right up to factories, rail lines, etc.
I was reading about football stadia the other day. Everton FC in 1906 built
a double decker stand around the corner of an end gable of terraced houses.
There was a distinct triangle intrusion into the stands seats. Try doing
that today.

Do modern houses
have character?

They look the same as older houses.

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:53:22 -0000, "Capitol"
wrote:


IMM wrote in message ...
snip drivel.
LOL
Capitol

Do not be surprised! It is IMM's standard response when he is at loss
for words.

No.when confronted with drivel.

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:03:18 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

£300 to insulate an uninsulated house properly to currenbt building regs,
never mind the 2007 regs? Get real!

How much then?

Get the loft to at least 250mm and have an insulated sealed hatch door.
Have sealed double glazing and insulated exterior doors. Fill the cavities
with insulation. Dig up the floor and insulate under and then relay. That
is just to get it to today's standards.

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:33:56 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:57:11 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Huge wrote:
Not as bad as "link detached" (which are joined by the garage)
and are, in my book, called "terraced".

In London in the late 1930's Wates built thousands of link
detached
chalet houses, flank walls about 3' apart with a linking arch
across
the front. I was told that at the time for rating purposes they
had
to be classed as s/d as they were unarguably joined to another
house,
but in terms of noise etc they were detached.

See typical picture at




http://www.findaproperty.co.uk/cgi-b...&opt=prop&pid=
1
9
8534

Typical of London. All the front gardens are being stripped out,
paved
and
car parks made of them, giving hideous appearance. In Chiswick, etc,
the
gardens in front of the terraced houses have virtually all gone,
giving
the
streets an appalling appearance of car butted up to the front
windows.
Making car parks of front gardens should be stopped. And those
converted
turned back to gardens. The more you encourage people to have and
park
cars
the worse it gets, where the car takes over our lives. The more
obstacles
you put in the way the less people will use cars. In London few
people
really need a car.

If public transport were cheaper, I'd say you have a point. But it's
not cheap, is it?

Cheaper than a car which will only sit in traffic jam. the point is the
looks: gardens are disappearing, and pollution cars bring.

But it is obviously not cheap enough. Belgium is in the process of
making all commuting journeys by train totally free. This is what I
call a really far-sighted move.

That is a stupid idea. All it will do is encourage even more commuting
into
a city centre. If you did that here, commuter and tube trains would be
even
more overcrowded than now.

Ken Livingstone in the 1980s did Fares Fair. He dropped the prices, the
west end stores did amazing business, and the tubes were full during
thenday. Arsehole Thatcher scrapped it as it was working. Public owned
organisations in her mind could not work. If they did she would make sure
they didn't.

Commuting needs to be discouraged, not encouraged. It's the only way to
stop London sucking up the entire UK economy.

Commuting by public transports needs to be encouraged. Centering everything
around London is what should be stopped.

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:35:55 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

More misconceived ********. Modern house are not hutches. Many
inter-war
house are hutches

Does a modern house have more, or less, living space than houses built
in earlier decades? Are the ceilings lower or higher in modern houses?
Are modern houses always structurally sound? Do modern houses offer
large gardens? Are modern houses never built close to railway lines,
motorways, or supermarkets? Do modern houses have character?

MM

There must have been a sweet-spot for good housing. Go back centuries and
you're in the realm of the hovel for most people.

Nowadays ceilings are low, rooms are too small to fit adult-size
furniture,
build quality is poor, gardens are the size of postage stamps and estates
get built right next to sources of noise and pollution (I told an estate
agent that I wanted a quiet location. Looking over the back fence
revealed
the A1!)

Somewhere inbetween, in age terms, are the houses most people prefer - and
that IMM would have torn down.

Most people,don't prefer those awful, small, cold, damp houses.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:30:47 -0000, "IMM"
wrote:

Poorly designed houses that cost a
fortune to heat and collectively
contribute vast amounts of CO2 to
global warming should be demolished.
The current new houses should get
100 years. But if far superior newer, no
heating houses are common in 30, 40,
50 years, it is easy to dispose of the
current crop.

Making poor technology to last is silly.

For the sake of three hundred pounds'
worth of insulation?

£300 to insulate an uninsulated house
properly to currenbt building regs,
never mind the 2007 regs? Get real!

Not to mention the waste in terms of
energy and materials to replace all
those perfectly good houses.

They are NOT good. Most are NOT fit for purpose.
No insulation whatsoever, too small, designed for
time with different values and lifestyles. Most are
only fit for demolition. It usually costs more to just
to get them to current building regs (which is being
seriously ramped up in insulation and
air-tightness soon) than to pull down and start again.

There is no need to keep everything
up to the current regs. Time will
gradually result in replacement of buildings.

Not in this daft country they will not.

Artificially accelerating the
process is wasteful.

I repeat they are NOT fit for pupose. They are designed for a time with
different values and lifestyles.


Well they're doing a damn fine job for something that you think is unfit.

If they last an extraordinary amount of time, that
says more for their fittness for purpose than
any paper argument.

They have lasted because of circumstances, not because they were though
good
or valued in some perverse way.


They have lasted because they are well built. The bad ones have been or are
being demolished anyway.

You already know my feelings on air tightness etc.

You mean you haven't a clue about it or controlled ventilation.


What is the point of putting all that effort into sealing a room, only to
then spend more money blowing air into it? That's the peverse logic of the
eco-retard.

Energy conservation is a red herring. All the fossil fuel will be burnt in
the end. Even if we cut consumption to 25% of the current level, it will
just be burnt over the next 200 years instead of the next 50. All that CO2
is going into the atmosphere eventually - doing it slightly slower won't
help the climate.
In fact, it would be better to burn it all now, so we can have done with
these stupid arguments, and shortsighted single-issue dumbasses supporting
regulations that mean everyone is supposed to live in an airtight shoebox.


BTW, where do you propose to find the army
of builders required to construct
all these replacement houses, and if you do
get them, what will they all do
once they have finished?

The older buildings the start to come down. One of the basic cores of the
economies of the USA and Germany is the construction business. In Germany
and the USA they don't think it is anti-eco to build fine spacious homes
on
green field sites, despite both having larger green movements than the UK,
especially Germany. Well they don't have the vested interests of large
landowners having green propaganda fronts, like Friends of The Earth, to
brainwash people to leave the countryside alone and live all bunched up on
top of each other in small super expensive boxes. No one converts barns
in
Germany. They think it a silly idea .

In 2001 the UK only built twice as many new homes as Ireland. UK = 60 to
62
million; Ireland 3.3 million. An absolute disgrace!!! No wonder Prescott
is threatening with his left hook. I hope he uses it.

Concrete production is responsible for a large
chunk of CO2 emissions.

Then we have to use timber, which using planned forests absorbs CO2 as
it
grows. Timber houses are equally as good, if not better, than brick.
A
forest looks better than a brick works.

I have no problem with that, although I wonder about the longevity of
such
buildings in our windy and damp environment.

The oldest timber building is an Church in Essex from the 1200s. Whole
town
centres in places like Ludlow and Shrewsbury are timber houses.

I know they have a lot of wooden buildings in the
US, and it certainly rains there, but is it quite as
damp as Britain? And as windy?

Yes. Seattle has a higher rainfall than Manchester, and a very UK
climate.

Mind you, I quite like traditional American
style wooden house, but it would be hard
to build one here because everyone
would say it was out of character (after
what you have posted, you couldn't
use that argument without being hypocritical,
but you would still object,
probably on the grounds that it is "old" ).

If someone wants to build a US style house, let them. If someone wants a
pastiche piece of junk, let them.

Then there is the track record of modern
day planners and architects to
consider. To up themselves for our own
good, IMO. I'd hate to live in a
town where every building was treated as
art and made to be "challenging" to
the viewer, rather than just suffering the occasional
hideous construction you get now.

Occasionally! The place is full of appalling pastiche retros.

True, but then practically all buildings are a pastiche of what has gone
before.

That is the problem. We have this forced down out throats.

Q: What is the difference between new house design in Banff, Bognor,
Basingstoke, Bangor, or Beaconsfield? - A: None

So? There isn't going to be a local style these days.
If you were to build a house from scratch, how could
you make it recognisable as a house from a
particular part of the country.

The big brother style police planners, should not be involved in style.
Not
their business. In designated areas like the York's Dales yes, elsewhere,
they should mind their own business.


Why should the Dales be protected any more than another part of the country?
Because it fits *your* personal aesthetic? Everyone else can just shut up
and suffer the local modernist eyesore, I take it.

Mal

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:35:55 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

More misconceived ********. Modern house are not hutches. Many
inter-war
house are hutches

Does a modern house have more, or less, living space than houses built
in earlier decades? Are the ceilings lower or higher in modern houses?
Are modern houses always structurally sound? Do modern houses offer
large gardens? Are modern houses never built close to railway lines,
motorways, or supermarkets? Do modern houses have character?

MM

There must have been a sweet-spot for good housing. Go back centuries
and
you're in the realm of the hovel for most people.

Nowadays ceilings are low, rooms are too small to fit adult-size
furniture,
build quality is poor, gardens are the size of postage stamps and
estates
get built right next to sources of noise and pollution (I told an estate
agent that I wanted a quiet location. Looking over the back fence
revealed
the A1!)

Somewhere inbetween, in age terms, are the houses most people prefer -
and
that IMM would have torn down.

Most people,don't prefer those awful, small, cold, damp houses.


I agree, most people don't prefer awful, small, cold damp houses, so it's
just as well that the houses we're talking about are none of those things.

Like any house, they get damp if not maintained (leaking gutters, damaged
tiles etc). They get cold only if you don't heat them (and my nice big coal
fires heat the rooms much better than a poxy radiator, and don't leave the
air bone dry). They are also not small - not compared to the modern
equivalent anyway.

Mal

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:33:56 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:57:11 -0000, "IMM"
wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Huge wrote:
Not as bad as "link detached" (which are joined by the garage)
and are, in my book, called "terraced".

In London in the late 1930's Wates built thousands of link
detached
chalet houses, flank walls about 3' apart with a linking arch
across
the front. I was told that at the time for rating purposes they
had
to be classed as s/d as they were unarguably joined to another
house,
but in terms of noise etc they were detached.

See typical picture at





http://www.findaproperty.co.uk/cgi-b...&opt=prop&pid=
1
9
8534

Typical of London. All the front gardens are being stripped out,
paved
and
car parks made of them, giving hideous appearance. In Chiswick,
etc,
the
gardens in front of the terraced houses have virtually all gone,
giving
the
streets an appalling appearance of car butted up to the front
windows.
Making car parks of front gardens should be stopped. And those
converted
turned back to gardens. The more you encourage people to have and
park
cars
the worse it gets, where the car takes over our lives. The more
obstacles
you put in the way the less people will use cars. In London few
people
really need a car.

If public transport were cheaper, I'd say you have a point. But
it's
not cheap, is it?

Cheaper than a car which will only sit in traffic jam. the point is
the
looks: gardens are disappearing, and pollution cars bring.

But it is obviously not cheap enough. Belgium is in the process of
making all commuting journeys by train totally free. This is what I
call a really far-sighted move.

That is a stupid idea. All it will do is encourage even more commuting
into
a city centre. If you did that here, commuter and tube trains would be
even
more overcrowded than now.

Ken Livingstone in the 1980s did Fares Fair. He dropped the prices, the
west end stores did amazing business, and the tubes were full during
thenday. Arsehole Thatcher scrapped it as it was working. Public owned
organisations in her mind could not work. If they did she would make sure
they didn't.

Commuting needs to be discouraged, not encouraged. It's the only way to
stop London sucking up the entire UK economy.

Commuting by public transports needs to be encouraged. Centering
everything
around London is what should be stopped.


You people can be so thick sometimes. If you commuting by public transport
by making it free you will encourage commuting in general, do you really
think that's going to do anything to stop everything being London centric?
Of course not. It's just going to make it worse!

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:35:55 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

More misconceived ********. Modern house are not hutches. Many
inter-war
house are hutches

Does a modern house have more, or less,
living space than houses built
in earlier decades?

yes.

Yes they have less living space? I agree.


Are the ceilings lower or higher in modern houses?

Not an issue as ceilings needed to be higher for gas lights. Insert
electric lights can be fitted into ceilings.


It is an issue, since rooms with high ceilings are more pleasant to live in.

Are modern houses always structurally sound?

Yes. Foundations are far superior as is the concrete and cement. Bricks
are far less porous than older bricks.

Do modern houses offer
large gardens?

Some do. Some don't, some are average.


Most are tiny.

Are modern houses never built close to railway lines,
motorways, or supermarkets?

Not really. Older house were butted right up to factories, rail lines,
etc.
I was reading about football stadia the other day. Everton FC in 1906
built
a double decker stand around the corner of an end gable of terraced
houses.
There was a distinct triangle intrusion into the stands seats. Try doing
that today.


It works the other way round these days.
Now they would build houses right up to a stadium that previously stood in
an empty field.


Do modern houses
have character?

They look the same as older houses.


Ha Ha - they might try, but they fail dismally.

In article , Mal
wrote:
There must have been a sweet-spot for good housing. Go back
centuries and you're in the realm of the hovel for most people.

In my old BCO patch 1950's Council-built houses were probably the
best.

Nowadays ceilings are low, rooms are too small to fit adult-size
furniture, build quality is poor, gardens are the size of postage
stamps and estates get built right next to sources of noise and
pollution

The fact is that most people do not have children in the 3-13 age
bracket and regard larger gardens as as much as a liability than an
asset. A house with a larger garden than its neighbour may be more
sellable but is unlikely to fetch more money.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:30:47 -0000, "IMM"
wrote:

Poorly designed houses that cost a
fortune to heat and collectively
contribute vast amounts of CO2 to
global warming should be demolished.
The current new houses should get
100 years. But if far superior newer, no
heating houses are common in 30, 40,
50 years, it is easy to dispose of the
current crop.

Making poor technology to last is silly.

For the sake of three hundred pounds'
worth of insulation?

£300 to insulate an uninsulated house
properly to currenbt building regs,
never mind the 2007 regs? Get real!

Not to mention the waste in terms of
energy and materials to replace all
those perfectly good houses.

They are NOT good. Most are NOT fit for purpose.
No insulation whatsoever, too small, designed for
time with different values and lifestyles. Most are
only fit for demolition. It usually costs more to just
to get them to current building regs (which is being
seriously ramped up in insulation and
air-tightness soon) than to pull down and start again.

There is no need to keep everything
up to the current regs. Time will
gradually result in replacement of buildings.

Not in this daft country they will not.

Artificially accelerating the
process is wasteful.

I repeat they are NOT fit for pupose. They are designed for a time with
different values and lifestyles.


Well they're doing a damn fine job for something that you think is unfit.

If they last an extraordinary amount of time, that
says more for their fittness for purpose than
any paper argument.

They have lasted because of circumstances, not because they were though
good
or valued in some perverse way.


They have lasted because they are well built. The bad ones have been or
are
being demolished anyway.

You already know my feelings on air tightness etc.

You mean you haven't a clue about it or controlled ventilation.


What is the point of putting all that effort into sealing a room, only to
then spend more money blowing air into it? That's the peverse logic of
the
eco-retard.

Energy conservation is a red herring. All the fossil fuel will be burnt
in
the end. Even if we cut consumption to 25% of the current level, it will
just be burnt over the next 200 years instead of the next 50. All that
CO2
is going into the atmosphere eventually - doing it slightly slower won't
help the climate.
In fact, it would be better to burn it all now, so we can have done with
these stupid arguments, and shortsighted single-issue dumbasses supporting
regulations that mean everyone is supposed to live in an airtight shoebox.


BTW, where do you propose to find the army
of builders required to construct
all these replacement houses, and if you do
get them, what will they all do
once they have finished?

The older buildings the start to come down. One of the basic cores of
the
economies of the USA and Germany is the construction business. In
Germany
and the USA they don't think it is anti-eco to build fine spacious homes
on
green field sites, despite both having larger green movements than the
UK,
especially Germany. Well they don't have the vested interests of large
landowners having green propaganda fronts, like Friends of The Earth, to
brainwash people to leave the countryside alone and live all bunched up
on
top of each other in small super expensive boxes. No one converts barns
in
Germany. They think it a silly idea .

In 2001 the UK only built twice as many new homes as Ireland. UK = 60
to
62
million; Ireland 3.3 million. An absolute disgrace!!! No wonder
Prescott
is threatening with his left hook. I hope he uses it.

Concrete production is responsible for a large
chunk of CO2 emissions.

Then we have to use timber, which using planned forests absorbs CO2
as
it
grows. Timber houses are equally as good, if not better, than brick.
A
forest looks better than a brick works.

I have no problem with that, although I wonder about the longevity of
such
buildings in our windy and damp environment.

The oldest timber building is an Church in Essex from the 1200s. Whole
town
centres in places like Ludlow and Shrewsbury are timber houses.

I know they have a lot of wooden buildings in the
US, and it certainly rains there, but is it quite as
damp as Britain? And as windy?

Yes. Seattle has a higher rainfall than Manchester, and a very UK
climate.

Mind you, I quite like traditional American
style wooden house, but it would be hard
to build one here because everyone
would say it was out of character (after
what you have posted, you couldn't
use that argument without being hypocritical,
but you would still object,
probably on the grounds that it is "old" ).

If someone wants to build a US style house, let them. If someone wants
a
pastiche piece of junk, let them.

Then there is the track record of modern
day planners and architects to
consider. To up themselves for our own
good, IMO. I'd hate to live in a
town where every building was treated as
art and made to be "challenging" to
the viewer, rather than just suffering the occasional
hideous construction you get now.

Occasionally! The place is full of appalling pastiche retros.

True, but then practically all buildings are a pastiche of what has
gone
before.

That is the problem. We have this forced down out throats.

Q: What is the difference between new house design in Banff, Bognor,
Basingstoke, Bangor, or Beaconsfield? - A: None

So? There isn't going to be a local style these days.
If you were to build a house from scratch, how could
you make it recognisable as a house from a
particular part of the country.

The big brother style police planners, should not be involved in style.
Not
their business. In designated areas like the York's Dales yes,
elsewhere,
they should mind their own business.


Why should the Dales be protected any more than another part of the
country?
Because it fits *your* personal aesthetic?

The whole area is homogeneous in vernacular, and if people like it that way,
fine by me.

Everyone else can just shut up
and suffer the local modernist eyesore, I take it.

Modernist eyesore? What crap! We don;t have modern architecture in this
country. The T&C planning act abolished it.

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:35:55 -0000, "IMM"
wrote:

More misconceived ********. Modern house are not hutches. Many
inter-war
house are hutches

Does a modern house have more, or less, living space than houses
built
in earlier decades? Are the ceilings lower or higher in modern
houses?
Are modern houses always structurally sound? Do modern houses offer
large gardens? Are modern houses never built close to railway lines,
motorways, or supermarkets? Do modern houses have character?

MM

There must have been a sweet-spot for good housing. Go back centuries
and
you're in the realm of the hovel for most people.

Nowadays ceilings are low, rooms are too small to fit adult-size
furniture,
build quality is poor, gardens are the size of postage stamps and
estates
get built right next to sources of noise and pollution (I told an
estate
agent that I wanted a quiet location. Looking over the back fence
revealed
the A1!)

Somewhere inbetween, in age terms, are the houses most people prefer -
and
that IMM would have torn down.

Most people,don't prefer those awful, small, cold, damp houses.


I agree, most people don't prefer awful, small, cold damp houses, so it's
just as well that the houses we're talking about are none of those things.

Like any house, they get damp if not maintained (leaking gutters, damaged
tiles etc). They get cold only if you don't heat them (and my nice big
coal
fires heat the rooms much better than a poxy radiator, and don't leave the
air bone dry). They are also not small - not compared to the modern
equivalent anyway.

You haven't got a clue.

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:35:55 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

More misconceived ********. Modern house are not hutches. Many
inter-war
house are hutches

Does a modern house have more, or less,
living space than houses built
in earlier decades?

yes.

Yes they have less living space?

They have more living space.

Are the ceilings lower or higher in modern houses?

Not an issue as ceilings needed to be higher for gas lights. Insert
electric lights can be fitted into ceilings.

It is an issue, since rooms with high ceilings are more pleasant to live
in.

Having the "impression" of higher ceilings is what matters.

Are modern houses always structurally sound?

Yes. Foundations are far superior as is the concrete and cement.
Bricks
are far less porous than older bricks.

Do modern houses offer
large gardens?

Some do. Some don't, some are average.

Most are tiny.

Nonsense! most are bigger.

Are modern houses never built close to railway lines,
motorways, or supermarkets?

Not really. Older house were butted right up to factories, rail lines,
etc.
I was reading about football stadia the other day. Everton FC in 1906
built
a double decker stand around the corner of an end gable of terraced
houses.
There was a distinct triangle intrusion into the stands seats. Try
doing
that today.

It works the other way round these days.
Now they would build houses right up to a stadium that previously stood in
an empty field.

They would not.

Do modern houses
have character?

They look the same as older houses.

Ha Ha - they might try, but they fail dismally.

Have you ever seen a modern house.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:35:55 -0000, "IMM"
wrote:

More misconceived ********. Modern house are not hutches. Many
inter-war
house are hutches

Does a modern house have more, or less,
living space than houses built
in earlier decades?

yes.

Yes they have less living space?

They have more living space.

You are wrong (but then I don't think you actually care that you are wrong).
You have obviously not been inside many modern houses of the kind that the
majority of the population is condemed to live in.


Are the ceilings lower or higher in modern houses?

Not an issue as ceilings needed to be higher for gas lights. Insert
electric lights can be fitted into ceilings.

It is an issue, since rooms with high ceilings are more pleasant to live
in.

Having the "impression" of higher ceilings is what matters.

No. Reality matters. Illusions are for the simple minded.


Are modern houses always structurally sound?

Yes. Foundations are far superior as is the concrete and cement.
Bricks
are far less porous than older bricks.

Do modern houses offer
large gardens?

Some do. Some don't, some are average.

Most are tiny.

Nonsense! most are bigger.

You have obviously not visited any modern houses of the kind that the
majority of the population is condemed to live in, and seen their excuses
for gardens


Are modern houses never built close to railway lines,
motorways, or supermarkets?

Not really. Older house were butted right up to factories, rail
lines,
etc.
I was reading about football stadia the other day. Everton FC in 1906
built
a double decker stand around the corner of an end gable of terraced
houses.
There was a distinct triangle intrusion into the stands seats. Try
doing
that today.

It works the other way round these days.
Now they would build houses right up to a stadium that previously stood
in
an empty field.

They would not.


Using the excuse of "integrated community" they pack in as many houses as
possible next to all sorts of noise and pollution sources.

Do modern houses
have character?

They look the same as older houses.

Ha Ha - they might try, but they fail dismally.

Have you ever seen a modern house.


I've seen loads. Last time I was looking for a house, I looked at around
50. The 1970s era hoses were the worst, closely followed by the brand new
ones. The best houses (most living space, arranged in usefully sized and
shaped rooms, decent sized kitchens and gardens - i.e. the things that
actually matter) were Victorian or Edwardian.

Mike Mitchell wrote in message

Belgium is in the process of
making all commuting journeys by train totally free. This is what I
call a really far-sighted move.


NO! You mean "paid for", by taxing the population who do not use public
transport. There is no such thing as "free transport", apart perhaps from
walking!

Regards
Capitol

IMM wrote in message ...

"Mal" wrote in message
...


Like any house, they get damp if not maintained (leaking gutters, damaged
tiles etc). They get cold only if you don't heat them (and my nice big
coal
fires heat the rooms much better than a poxy radiator, and don't leave
the
air bone dry). They are also not small - not compared to the modern
equivalent anyway.

You haven't got a clue.


Praise indeed!!

Regards
Capitol

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:29:56 -0000, "Capitol"
wrote:


Mike Mitchell wrote in message

Belgium is in the process of
making all commuting journeys by train totally free. This is what I
call a really far-sighted move.


NO! You mean "paid for", by taxing the population who do not use public
transport. There is no such thing as "free transport", apart perhaps from
walking!

Er, my council tax pays for schools. I don't have any children. Go
figure!

MM

Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:29:56 -0000, "Capitol"
wrote:


Mike Mitchell wrote in message

Belgium is in the process of
making all commuting journeys by train totally free. This is what I
call a really far-sighted move.


NO! You mean "paid for", by taxing the population who do not use public
transport. There is no such thing as "free transport", apart perhaps
from
walking!

Er, my council tax pays for schools. I don't have any children. Go
figure!


Those children will pay your pension and healthcare costs when you are old!
( If you're fortunate enough to survive that long.)
Regards
Capitol

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:19:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mal" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:35:55 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

More misconceived ********. Modern house are not hutches. Many
inter-war
house are hutches

Does a modern house have more, or less,
living space than houses built
in earlier decades?

yes.

Yes they have less living space?

They have more living space.

This cannot possibly be the case. Check your figures, please. They are
wrong.

Are the ceilings lower or higher in modern houses?

Not an issue as ceilings needed to be higher for gas lights. Insert
electric lights can be fitted into ceilings.

It is an issue, since rooms with high ceilings are more pleasant to live
in.

Having the "impression" of higher ceilings is what matters.

I suppose one could paint an impression of the sky on the ceiling to
make it seem further away...

....just like your grip on reality!


Are modern houses always structurally sound?

Yes. Foundations are far superior as is the concrete and cement.
Bricks
are far less porous than older bricks.

How is it that so many houses fail their "medical" with the NHBC then?
On average a new house has 106 snags.


Do modern houses offer
large gardens?

Some do. Some don't, some are average.

None has a large garden anymore - unless you're paying over a million
for an executive "home". Most of the council houses where I live have
massive back gardens and quite respectably sized front gardens, too.


Most are tiny.

Nonsense! most are bigger.

Only if you are comparing 4-bed houses of today with 3-bed houses of a
few decades ago. You got a funny ruler, or something? (I don't mean
Tony Blair.)

Are modern houses never built close to railway lines,
motorways, or supermarkets?

Not really. Older house were butted right up to factories, rail lines,
etc.
I was reading about football stadia the other day. Everton FC in 1906
built
a double decker stand around the corner of an end gable of terraced
houses.
There was a distinct triangle intrusion into the stands seats. Try
doing
that today.

It works the other way round these days.
Now they would build houses right up to a stadium that previously stood in
an empty field.

They would not.

Do modern houses
have character?

They look the same as older houses.

They do not look as *solid* as older houses. Also, when we had the
gales in 1987, as I drove home from work and had to make numerous
detours because of fallen trees, I passed many modern houses with half
the roofs gone. My 1950s ex-council house, right on top of a ridge,
was missing a few tiles only. Cost me all of forty quid the next day
to get a roofer up there. How much did the newer builds cost the
insurance companies?

Ha Ha - they might try, but they fail dismally.

Have you ever seen a modern house.

Well, one has to be quick! What with global warming and frequent gales
they can be gone in a flash. Whoosh!

MM

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:05:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:03:18 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

£300 to insulate an uninsulated house properly to currenbt building regs,
never mind the 2007 regs? Get real!

How much then?

Get the loft to at least 250mm and have an insulated sealed hatch door.
Have sealed double glazing and insulated exterior doors. Fill the cavities
with insulation. Dig up the floor and insulate under and then relay. That
is just to get it to today's standards.

How much then?

MM

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:39:02 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

Er, my council tax pays for schools. I don't have any children. Go
figure!

Presumably you accept that the taxes you pay also contribute to
hospitals, which you rarely use? As far as I'm concerned if one of my
family is in need of urgent attention then I'm happy to pay a
contribution to ensure that an ambulance turns up.

As for children, these are tomorrows wage earners and tax payers.
Later on in life you will most likely benefit from them paying their
taxes.

There is also the small issue of these people having to buy things to
eat and survive, cars, other adornments, etc. This emerging generation
are tomorrows customers for your business (and for some businesses are
the actual customer).

PoP

-----

My published email address probably won't work. If
you need to contact me please submit your comments
via the web form at http://www.anyoldtripe.co.uk

I apologise for the additional effort, however the
level of unsolicited email I receive makes it
impossible to advertise my real email address!