A challenge for old house lovers

[IMM]

Southampton FC, Leicester City FC and Wembley stadium will probably give you better figures. Wembley is costing more than all the stadia built by Portugal for Euro 2004. Use that figure.

[Christian McArdle]

I'm not sure how the costs of building Wembley are relevent to the cost of building a 2 storey residential house, even if done on the centre circle.

Christian.

[Andy Hall]

Really? We just saw an example of what can go badly wrong when people who are supposed to either have been skilled or trained (it doesn't matter which) use the technology.

That is all it is - a selling point. The reality differs.

Great for structural integrity.......

First of all, how would you know whether or not there have been any product defects? For there to have been none is implausible.

Secondly, the point was about the technology as a whole - i.e. the product and the installation. For a successful outcome, all elements have to be in place and work correctly.

Clearly it is possible to have a bad outcome if there are installation problems.

It is possible for an installation problem to result in a rotting structure.

This is not plain sailing.

Really? I can drive around and see several hundred in an hour without any obvious problems.

Oh I see. Does the American accent of U.S. rodents make them more voracious?

Yes, and this is all part of the end result. Materials and installation have to be taken into account.

Already covered at length.

Fine. So it is incorrect that SIPs should be sold on the basis of being idiotproof. They are subject to a bad outcome just like anything else in the event of installation problems.

You're contradicting yourself.

Either you need skilled and trained people or you don't .

That was from a cursory glance. Undoubtedly there are plenty more examples.

Clearly problems can still happen, so the assertion that unskilled people can be quickly trained is somewhat exaggerated.

They may be for you.

It seems to me that there can be all sorts of problems with quite horrendous outcomes.

All the manufacturer web sites seem to agree with you as well.

I think that if I were selfbuilding a house, I would want to take more pride in it than implementing a strandboard and foam prefab.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Andy Hall]

No shit, Sherlock.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[John Rumm]

Do you get paid for "ad words" like google? Find some dumb phrase for the month, and see how often you can repeat it.

Or is just that English is your second language? Perhaps you are a recent migrant to this country?

[Andy Hall]

The technology *includes* the implementation.

Otherwise one could dream up all kinds of complicated materials that require a lot of skill to use them, and when they fail say that it was the workmanship.

For a technology to be successful, it does have to be easily implemented or the outcome will be a failure.

I haven't said that SIPs can't be useful or successful, nor have I disputed their popularity.

However, demonstrably, poor execution can lead to a poor outcome, so they are not the panacea that you claim. Some level of ability and supervision is still required.

I think we've covered that.

I think that really is the pot calling the kettle black.

You are the one who has tried to portray this technology as perfect. Demonstrably, it is not.

No doubt it is possible to use the technology successfully, but it is not perfect and is subject to problems in certain circumstances.

Those are the objective facts. It may be that the failure rate in properties is 1% or even 0.1%, but that still represents a failure, and the consumer should not be so naive as to believe your claims that the technology is simple to use when clearly problems can happen.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Andy Hall]

It's just a new phase and goes along with the heating system of the month.

He'll get bored and find another phrase that he doesn't understand to overuse soon.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Clive Summerfield]

Agreed. I somehow doubt that he knows the meaning of the word in the first place.

Cheers Clive

[Mary Fisher]

Yes, it's all relative ...

Mary

[Mike Mitchell]

Short and sweet! Thanks, Peter.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

And I'm happy enough with it! That is not to say I don't welcome all the other prices given, as I know that costs will vary greatly depending on many factors. The reason I asked was that if the underpinning turns out to have been botched, or it needs (will need) underpinning again in five or ten years, or the house is damp or because of a host of other reasons it is not a viable property long term, it may be worth pulling it down and rebuilding, given that the plot size is fairly generous.

MM

[The Natural Philosopher]

Thats not very very old. Thats not evn old.

the house across thwa ment9ned in teh domesday book is very old.

Skara brae is very very old.

I

Depends. Irs stood for 150 years already...

Cure.

About 60 quid a square foot for basic shell. Budget double that by the time its habitable the way you want it. YMMV. A lot depends on hwo interesting you want it to be.

I'm talking ball-park here.

Not necessarily. If its timber and teh rot has set in, its gone already.

[The Natural Philosopher]

You may not, but the BCO will.

Nice cavity insulated rendered basic concrete block house with decent tiles on eh?

Do put in underfloor heating tho.

and amins preessure hot water system, not one of those fashionable religious icons - combis.

And chinmeys and a real fire place.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I agree. 60 a sq ft is about £600 a sq meter, which I found close for a basic shell. You can easily double that in the fitout tho.

Yes. Its amazing how close this price per sq foot actually is. Almost iorrespective of anything - since most of te cost is labout it realytes to basically how much time it takes to erect a certain square footage, wire it plumb it plaster it paint it put windows in it and heat it.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No you don't. But then you haven't built a house: I have.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Joyn doesn't live in this country. He lives in Fairyland.

[The Natural Philosopher]

In general its slightly cheaper to underpin a shell if the roof is moderately intact rather than star again unless access or machinery is serverely restricted: If the whole structure is rotten, derelict, unlovely and needs underpinning then demolish and rebuild is not a bad option.

However when you rebuild two things are worth considering

(i) Its a new house, and subject to the most up to date and stringent building control. This you may regard as a blessing or a curse.

(ii) you get VAT back on materials only once the completion certificate is signed.

[G&M]

Not none, just very shallow. Our house was extended four times (at least) from 1600 to the present day so we can see the trend quite well.

Just make sure the whole property was done or it could make things worse.

£80k sounds right.

Far longer than you'll be anyway. Note that you won't get permission to demolish it if that is what you are thinking. First hint of an application and it will be spot-listed.

[IMM]

How big is this ballpark?

[Capitol]

At this time. The Americans did not used to have fire ants, Hobo spiders and a number of other pests, but they now do. I believed the uk didn't have dangerous spiders, until my wife was bitten by a Hobo spider a few weeks ago. Not recommended. I would expect my local ant population to infest this type of construction within 20 years and excavate some very large holes.

Regards Capitol