Grand Designs 11/2

[Mr MoJo]

Oakey said:

rufusruffcutt said:

51 37'31 N 2 53'27 W

Dated June 2004 on Google Earth. A lot more to the plot than shown on TV...

Is that the place? doesn't look the same to me

Same place

[FourWheelDrift]

Mr MoJo said:

rufusruffcutt said:

51 37'31 N 2 53'27 W

Dated June 2004 on Google Earth. A lot more to the plot than shown on TV...

No mention of the pool house, substantial stable blocks, equestrian menage/schooling area etc. Probably because work hasn't even started on these bits yet.

They filmed in 2007-2008. That above was 2004 and they mentioned the property had been lived in up to 4 years previously so that is the previous condition of the property either whilst still occupied. Only the tower was still there, all the others around it must have been demolished. We know the stable blocks were there because that's where the window repairs and stone cutting were done, but didn't see the tennis court.

[Oakey]

Mr MoJo said:

Oakey said:

rufusruffcutt said:

51 37'31 N 2 53'27 W

Dated June 2004 on Google Earth. A lot more to the plot than shown on TV...

Is that the place? doesn't look the same to me

Same place

Before or After? It looks completely different to what we were shown on TV.

[pdV6]

Oakey said:

Mr MoJo said:

Oakey said:

rufusruffcutt said:

51 37'31 N 2 53'27 W

Dated June 2004 on Google Earth. A lot more to the plot than shown on TV...

Is that the place? doesn't look the same to me

Same place

Before or After? It looks completely different to what we were shown on TV.

Considering the TV show was filmed 2007-2009 and the photo is dated 2004, which do you think?

[Mr MoJo]

Oakey said:

Mr MoJo said:

Oakey said:

rufusruffcutt said:

51 37'31 N 2 53'27 W

Dated June 2004 on Google Earth. A lot more to the plot than shown on TV...

Is that the place? doesn't look the same to me

Same place

Before or After? It looks completely different to what we were shown on TV.

I would assume either during or just before the start looking at the satelite pic, can't find the dates on Google Earth. How can you tell when the pics were taken ? The tennis courts are still there afaik as are the stable blocks, and swimming pool building.

eta, Cheers PDV6, if 2004 then before

Edited by Mr MoJo on Thursday 12th February 11:52

[Oakey]

pdV6 said:

Oakey said:

Mr MoJo said:

Oakey said:

rufusruffcutt said:

51 37'31 N 2 53'27 W

Dated June 2004 on Google Earth. A lot more to the plot than shown on TV...

Is that the place? doesn't look the same to me

Same place

Before or After? It looks completely different to what we were shown on TV.

Considering the TV show was filmed 2007-2009 and the photo is dated 2004, which do you think?

It merely says copyright 2009 to me so you'll have to excuse me for not being psychic. No need to be a tosser though really, is there?

[schmokin1]

B17NNS said:

Davel said:

I'd have tried to extend just at ground level and in a more balanced on either side of the castle, maybe even trying to match the existing finish of the castle, which was presumably a local stone anyway.

You then have the problem (if done well) of it not being clear what is old and what is new.

I liked it, the original was very obviously original and the additions contemporary.

I agree about the 2nd floor though.

this is where I always part company with planners/designers - why oh why is there a 'problem' with blending in a new addition to what is a fantastic old structure. I for one would rather live in a finished product that looked integrated and 'as one' than what appears to be a lovely old keep with a visitors' centre bolted on the side. It strikes me that 'new is good, traditional is bad' is an integral part of the planning/designing landscape these days, with an unholy alliance of 'progressive' or 'Nu' planners and designers acting as the taste police to force everyone into erecting steel and glass monstrosites if they want to live in a nice location.....

[FourWheelDrift]

Oakey said:

pdV6 said:

Oakey said:

Mr MoJo said:

Oakey said:

rufusruffcutt said:

51 37'31 N 2 53'27 W

Dated June 2004 on Google Earth. A lot more to the plot than shown on TV...

Is that the place? doesn't look the same to me

Same place

Before or After? It looks completely different to what we were shown on TV.

Considering the TV show was filmed 2007-2009 and the photo is dated 2004, which do you think?

It merely says copyright 2009 to me so you'll have to excuse me for not being psychic. No need to be a tosser though really, is there?

He wasn't but there's no need to start that.

I thought everyone knew that Google Earth is not up to date with it's aerial photography, seems quite obvious to me that it's not.

And if anyone still doesn't think that is the place look here under Monmouth, Sham Castle - http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&ge...

[Oakey]

FourWheelDrift said:

Oakey said:

pdV6 said:

Oakey said:

Mr MoJo said:

Oakey said:

rufusruffcutt said:

51 37'31 N 2 53'27 W

Dated June 2004 on Google Earth. A lot more to the plot than shown on TV...

Is that the place? doesn't look the same to me

Same place

Before or After? It looks completely different to what we were shown on TV.

Considering the TV show was filmed 2007-2009 and the photo is dated 2004, which do you think?

It merely says copyright 2009 to me so you'll have to excuse me for not being psychic. No need to be a tosser though really, is there?

He wasn't but there's no need to start that.

I thought everyone knew that Google Earth is not up to date with it's aerial photography, seems quite obvious to me that it's not.

And if anyone still doesn't think that is the place look here under Monmouth, Sham Castle - http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&ge...

I understand Google isn't up to date but I can't see anything that indicates a date. There's the copyright along the bottom and some very faded watermarks on the map that, to me, appears to say 2006.

He could have just said "2004, it says so bah blah blah".

[FourWheelDrift]

Oakey said:

I understand Google isn't up to date but I can't see anything that indicates a date. There's the copyright along the bottom and some very faded watermarks on the map that, to me, appears to say 2006.

He could have just said "2004, it says so bah blah blah".

There is an imagery date bottom left of Google Earth, perhaps you do not have the latest updates if it is not there.

Current Google Earth is V5.0.11337.1968 which inlcudes underwater topography.

[Oakey]

FourWheelDrift said:

Oakey said:

I understand Google isn't up to date but I can't see anything that indicates a date. There's the copyright along the bottom and some very faded watermarks on the map that, to me, appears to say 2006.

He could have just said "2004, it says so bah blah blah".

There is an imagery date bottom left of Google Earth, perhaps you do not have the latest updates if it is not there.

Current Google Earth is V5.0.11337.1968 which inlcudes underwater topography.

Well there you go then, I'm looking on Google maps.

[robinhood21]

Personally, I think the architect should be applauded. Applauded for drawing ones eye away from the doormat (did no one spot this) by cleverly designing the first-floor bathroom bump-out.

[AstonZagato]

Davel said:

So it's a listed building and they can't replace the windows etc with modern stuff, yet they got planning permission to stack what looks like a portacbin village, with a glass corridor, alongside the main building.

I think that they did a brilliant job of managing the project and admire them for retoring the original castle but I really just can't understand how they ever got the modern extension past the planning stage.

Personally, I'd have tried to extend just at ground level and in a more balanced on either side of the castle, maybe even trying to match the existing finish of the castle, which was presumably a local stone anyway.

And yes, she was quite fit!

Ah but this is the totally ridiculous thing about listed buildings. I live in a Grade II* listed building and the listed buildings officers drive me batty.

They will not let you change the current fabric at all (unless you are very lucky) even if it improves the building (mine is beautiful Georgian house with a rather ugly Victorian bit at the back that I wanted to remodel to look more in keeping - NO).

Nor will they let you add something that is in the same style - we were refused an "in keeping" orangery without any discussion.

But the listed buildings people LOVE things that look totally different - when the orangery was refused the architect suggested a "glass box" and the listed buildings officer thought it a brilliant idea (my wife didn't). The reason for this is that they have this bizarre idea that any addition must be firstly clear as to what is original and what is new and secondly contemporary.

When I saw the design for this GD, I had an immediate thought that the design was probably dictated by the listed building officer rather than the clients.

[bobfather]

She didn't fall pregnant part way through, I thought that was a prerequisite these days

[schmokin1]

AstonZagato said:

Davel said:

So it's a listed building and they can't replace the windows etc with modern stuff, yet they got planning permission to stack what looks like a portacbin village, with a glass corridor, alongside the main building.

I think that they did a brilliant job of managing the project and admire them for retoring the original castle but I really just can't understand how they ever got the modern extension past the planning stage.

Personally, I'd have tried to extend just at ground level and in a more balanced on either side of the castle, maybe even trying to match the existing finish of the castle, which was presumably a local stone anyway.

And yes, she was quite fit!

Ah but this is the totally ridiculous thing about listed buildings. I live in a Grade II* listed building and the listed buildings officers drive me batty.

They will not let you change the current fabric at all (unless you are very lucky) even if it improves the building (mine is beautiful Georgian house with a rather ugly Victorian bit at the back that I wanted to remodel to look more in keeping - NO).

Nor will they let you add something that is in the same style - we were refused an "in keeping" orangery without any discussion.

But the listed buildings people LOVE things that look totally different - when the orangery was refused the architect suggested a "glass box" and the listed buildings officer thought it a brilliant idea (my wife didn't). The reason for this is that they have this bizarre idea that any addition must be firstly clear as to what is original and what is new and secondly contemporary.

When I saw the design for this GD, I had an immediate thought that the design was probably dictated by the listed building officer rather than the clients.

exactly. If i want to live in a glass box devoid of soul i can go and buy one. someone has given all these prats a taste bypass....

[pdV6]

Oakey said:

FourWheelDrift said:

Oakey said:

pdV6 said:

Oakey said:

Mr MoJo said:

Oakey said:

rufusruffcutt said:

51 37'31 N 2 53'27 W

Dated June 2004 on Google Earth. A lot more to the plot than shown on TV...

Is that the place? doesn't look the same to me

Same place

Before or After? It looks completely different to what we were shown on TV.

Considering the TV show was filmed 2007-2009 and the photo is dated 2004, which do you think?

It merely says copyright 2009 to me so you'll have to excuse me for not being psychic. No need to be a tosser though really, is there?

He wasn't but there's no need to start that.

I thought everyone knew that Google Earth is not up to date with it's aerial photography, seems quite obvious to me that it's not.

And if anyone still doesn't think that is the place look here under Monmouth, Sham Castle - http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&ge...

I understand Google isn't up to date but I can't see anything that indicates a date. There's the copyright along the bottom and some very faded watermarks on the map that, to me, appears to say 2006.

He could have just said "2004, it says so bah blah blah".

Shall I help out for the hard of thinking? Clue's in the bold bits above.

[Tuna]

bobfather said:

She didn't fall pregnant part way through, I thought that was a prerequisite these days

Is Kevin loosing his touch?

[pdV6]

Tuna said:

bobfather said:

She didn't fall pregnant part way through, I thought that was a prerequisite these days

Is Kevin loosing his touch?

Nah, the 2 local lads were just fairly careful...

[SJobson]

ewenm said:

scotal said:

Oakey said:

SJobson said:

The restored windows and the cinema room were lovely - the latter particularly so because I couldn't see a screen.

I don't understand how they only managed to get 3 bedrooms into the body of the old folly, though - and that only with the dreadful first floor new build part. They said the extension was 270sq m - that's roughly 2,900 sq ft. Then they waste that with two ground floor guest suites. What are they going to do - rent them out to conference guests?

I have to agree, it seemed somewhat odd having 5 bedrooms for a family of three (with only two bedrooms being used) and going to the expense of furninshing said bedrooms. Surely those spare guest rooms will sit there gathering dust?

Didn't he say they were having lots of friends down from London at one point?

Although Londoners are great at saying they'll leave the security of the M25 for a weekend but less good at actually doing so

Maybe they do lots of entertaining, maybe they're planning more kids...

They won't want to put the kids miles away in the extension until they're teenagers, I'd have thought.

2,900 sq ft is twice the size of a basic 4-bed new-build detached house. Those two guest suites must be absolutely enormous to waste so much space.

[Beefmeister]

I thought he was batting way out his league with her - she was lovely.

Looked 10 x better at the end too with long blonde hair as opposed to the black bob she had at the start....