Crap House of the Week

[Michael Mcneil]

So which is best; having a new build every 100 years or so or as dick head suggests, keeping a crew of repairmen in work for 200 years?

[Sam Nelson]

Given the rate at which new houses are being built at present, and the number of new houses needed (because apparently hardly anyone can stand to share any more) every house built today needs to last at least 400 years just to support the replacement rate.

[IMM]

I suppose you like Mock Victorian then? How pathetic. No style no vision, no nothing a Philistine This house is brilliant.

[IMM]

standards are far higher now than the 1930s. Cloud8 is fully insulated, which more than the 1930s gem.

[PoP]

There's a flaw in the logic somewhere......

If people aren't sharing then the likelihood is that there will be less people coming forward in the years ahead to require a new house.

Unless you are suggesting that these "non-sharing" individuals get up to hanky-panky with "non-sharing" friends! ;)

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't guaranteed to reach me.

[Bob Mannix]

I think "brilliant" is a little OTT but it's your view, so fair enough. To quote from the web site:

'One neighbour had said "well, it's not my cup of tea but I have nothing to object to." The same person very kindly wrote a letter of unconditional support to the Council.'

I think I would put myself in that camp.

It is true (IMHO) that 90% of modern home design is unimaginative and adds little to the visual environment and that there should be space (within proper planning controls) for houses of an innovative nature that challenge the normal design conventions in a civilized society (even if they get it wrong). This is such a house. From the owner's point of view it has clearly turned out to be economic madness, but it's his money.

[IMM]

I think "brilliant" is a little OTT but it's your view, so fair enough. To quote from the web site:

'One neighbour had said "well, it's not my cup of tea but I have nothing to object to." The same person very kindly wrote a letter of unconditional support to the Council.'

I think I would put myself in that camp.

It is true (IMHO) that 90% of modern home design is unimaginative and adds little to the visual environment and that there should be space (within proper planning controls) for houses of an innovative nature that challenge the normal design conventions in a civilized society (even if they get it wrong).

This is such a house. From the owner's point of view it has clearly turned out to be economic madness, but it's his money.

He could have done for a fraction by using other methods. Huf is one, and I can't underrated why he rejected Huf. Maybe he thought they were stock basic plan houses. They are very flexible. But it is his money, and I'm sure he will not loose on the deal. Individual houses like these command a high premium.

[Tony Bryer]

Uh no. They share, produce kids then get divorced (if married in the first place). So whilst you once spent your entire adult life in 0.5 of a dwelling you now have a fair chance of spending 50% of it on your own. IOW 100 people = 50 couples, now 100 people = 30 couples + 40 single person with/without child(ren) households - same population, 40% more homes needed.

[Bob Mannix]

Had I said anything was wrong it would have been subjective. There was the word "if" in there and it was in a paragraph making a general point about innovative house building, not specific points about the Cloud8 house, which I had finished making. It is in the nature of innovation and progress that people get things wrong occasionally and that should be tolerated and learned from.

[PoP]

it was the Beadle's house I thought "not him again".

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't guaranteed to reach me.

[No-one]

A pity he couldn't have provided links to much larger pictures.

[IMM]

Ask him to do it.

[Huge]

That's OK. Just so long as it outlives you.

[Huge]

Please post in plain ASCII text.

[Huge]

I'm suprised he has time for a webiste at all.

[No-one]

He's had plenty of time to fill-in when he sent stuff back and waited for replacements :-))

[Owain]

"IMM" wrote | But it is his money, and I'm sure he will not loose on | the deal. Individual houses like these command a | high premium.

Well, it will when(?) it's finished. However when the programme ended the insurers were still unwilling to provide the 10-year cover, so the house was unmortgageable.

And of course there's always the risk that 200 Barratts or Persimmons will be built in the fields surrounding, and those glass windows won't have such a nice view.

Owain

[Toby]

It's in an 'area of outstanding natural beauty' so that shouldn't be a problem.

[IMM]

Here is what the builder wrote, and spot on too:

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.

[Adrian Simpson]

Not too sure about that.

I'm told that the fields at the end of the road I live on are part of a AONB, and yet the council want to put 110 houses on it. If the council approve of it, who is going to stop it, that nice Mr Prescott ?

Adrian