Grand Designs 11/2
Discussion
schmokin1 said:
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.
In fairness you have probably seen many buildings where this has been done to the best of the owner's ability and the result is just a f
k up. It may also detract from the overall form of the previous building. Furthermore, looking back, your Conservation Planners like to be able to 'read' the history of the building and its extensions. An accepted technique for this type of project has arisen, and I think the most famous early exponent of it was an Italian architect called Carlo Scarpa. What you do is to repair the fabric of the old building as carefully as possible using as original materials as possible, and where you use new materials, such as stone, you don't age it artificially, but leave it so it can be seen as a repair. Then anything new inside, on top of or around, you build in a totally modern style and in such a way that, ideally, it hardly touches the old. Old and new exist side by side, and contrast. It can look pretty good and there have been some good examples on GD. It's what you do if you want to be sure of getting consent.
However, it doesn't always work and it isn't always right. People have been persuaded to lime render various old buildings recently at considerable cost and the fujcking stuff just falls off. If you are careful about it you can persuade Planners to go along with you. The Yorkshire architect with the castle in the last series managed that pretty successfully, despite the fact he was a knob. But you have to treat the Planners, English Heritage and anyone else involved, not to mention the building, with due respect. Maybe the best example recently was Windsor castle after the fire. Various architectural dignitaries tried to persuade the Royals to make 'a contemporary statement', fortunately they are in a position to tell the Planners and anyone else to shove it spiky end first up their back passage. In addition, the architects (Donald Insall I think, who are probably the best known in UK for conservation)persuaded the Planners to allow them to 'improve' the design of destroyed Gothic Interiors designed by Jeffrey Wyatville in the 1830's. The result was very very good indeed. Another one up for Prince Chuck, I think. Quinlan Terry on the other hand is just a prick, not because he goes round designing buildings with columns, or because he is awfully awfully earnest, but because he just isn't that good at it and they are dull as cold soup. If you want to do classicism you need to be up there with Vanbrugh and Lutyens, imho. If you know Hopetoun House outside Edinburgh, big classical house, listed to buggery, but when it was built they omitted the portico at the front entrance, without which it looks stupid, and someone ought to build it.
There is also the fact that all these white interiors that everyone does these days are a. boring b. like Art Galleries c. Uncomfortable. But by God it's fashionable so everyone does it anyway.
Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 12th February 13:52
cardigankid said:
Quinlan Terry on the other hand is just a prick, not because he goes round designing buildings with columns, or because he is awfully awfully earnest, but because he just isn't that good at it and they are dull as cold soup.
I don't like most of his work either, but Classicism is not fashionable at the moment in any case - anything remotely grand, impressive or imperious, or which fits a set of rules, is anathema to the the modern, inclusive, feeling architect. Zeitgeist, innit.cardigankid said:
If you want to do classicism you need to be up there with Vanbrugh and Lutyens, imho.
Strange choices.Edited by Trommel on Thursday 12th February 14:03
monthefish said:
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? 
Is this bringing the tone down after the educated architectural references?
bobfather said:
She didn't fall pregnant part way through, I thought that was a prerequisite these days
Exactly what we said as we were watching itpdV6 said:
Nah, the 2 local lads were just fairly careful...
The younger, larger lad was quite obviously bending her over a scaffold pole on a regular basis. Well, in his dreams, anyway.Pork said:
Do they ever discuss the full cost of the project on GD? They said the plot was a cool mil., what about the rest? £200k? £500k?
the guy said "I can't remember..."Which either means;
a) I'm a banker and in this current climate I'd rather not say as I don't want to be lynched
or
b) I'm a banker and i've got so much f
king money I can't remember how much we spent on the house in between all the coke and wes I paid for whilst it was being builtSeriously, you wouldn't really forget, would you?
C8PPO said:
The younger, larger lad was quite obviously bending her over a scaffold pole on a regular basis. Well, in his dreams, anyway.
That's what I said to my OH. It was the "She's been working really, really hard, sometimes till one in the morning" that made me chirp up 'I bet she has, what are you still doing there at 1am' 
Edited by Oakey on Thursday 12th February 15:20
Oakey said:
stuff and....
That's what I said to my OH. It was the "She's been working really, really hard, sometimes till one in the morning" that made me chirp up 'I bet she has, what are you still doing there at 1am'
haha...it crossed my mind too!That's what I said to my OH. It was the "She's been working really, really hard, sometimes till one in the morning" that made me chirp up 'I bet she has, what are you still doing there at 1am'
I also thought '1am...and?'
Re the banker, I thought he said he's not totted it up? Must have been a few quid though...
FourWheelDrift said:
SJobson said:
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.
Really, can you fit 4 bedrooms into 1,450sq/ft?
1450sq ft is 725 sq ft per storey for a 2 floor house. Say 12ft square rooms - 144 x 4 is 576 sq ft, so a bit left for a couple of bathrooms and a landing.OK, that would be a bit pokey for a spacious castle, but they created a space equivalent to four single floors of an average Bryant new build.
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 meDated June 2004 on Google Earth. A lot more to the plot than shown on TV...
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...
Trommel said:
cardigankid said:
If you want to do classicism you need to be up there with Vanbrugh and Lutyens, imho.
Strange choices.cardigankid said:
Why do you think that? Apart from Wren and Hawksmoor they are about the only choices if you want something with a bit of panache. The trouble with most of the Palladian stuff is once you have seen it done once it is entirely predictable, that's the trouble with Adam. V & L had some originality, and that's what Terry doesn't get. If it's not in Palladio it's wrong.
I agree about the lack of originality and don't like Terry's work, but Palladianism isn't pure classicism/neoclassicism and classicism/neoclassicism isn't all about panache and originality (have you read Vitruvius?). Vanbrugh was English baroque, and Lutyens never did strictly neoclassical work (inventing his own orders etc.).
I would have said Jones, Wren, Chambers, Stuart (and Adam) were more typical, even if you don't think they're all original.
Actually, I think I'm agreeing with you.
Whilst I appreciate there is some form of Designer/Architect ideology behind adding a modern side to an old building, I don't think I'd ever, ever, ever like it. I've not seen one to date that I would like. It's a taste thing, and it offends my taste.
If you consider the building the two artists made in Tuscany where they reclaimed loads of stone and made the building look roman, that was stunning (to include the mosaic that they made themselves as well) (one of my favorite GDs, pipped only by the Castle)).
Can you imagine if that castle had a modern "wing" attached to it, that would be an abomination IMHO.
If you consider the building the two artists made in Tuscany where they reclaimed loads of stone and made the building look roman, that was stunning (to include the mosaic that they made themselves as well) (one of my favorite GDs, pipped only by the Castle)).
Can you imagine if that castle had a modern "wing" attached to it, that would be an abomination IMHO.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff