Don't forget that all the crappy, badly built, poorly designed Victorian houses have either been pulled down or fallen down - we're just left with the better ones now
Some in the right areas of Bristol have had vast amounts of money spent on them to keep them standing and bring them up to standard. Many don't seem to have any proper foundations at all.
But I assume you'd still rather live in a Victorian home than in a mass-developed new one?
Not really. Vic does nothing for me and I think that some aspects of their design are out of date with the way people live now. Think downstairs bathroom tacked onto the back of the kitchen, dark passageways, small windows, etc, etc. Then, if it's listed, you're restricted to what you can do.
I don't mind mass-developed as long as it's done well with quality materials and skilled tradesmen. Not far from me is a suburb that was developed in the 30s. There are hundreds of houses all built about the same time, but they are built properly when good materials were more affordable.
They're mostly semis or detached, but most differ from each other in a way that makes them loosely similar, but individual enough not to look like boring ranks of what the Yanks would call 'cookie-cutter' houses. They have bays, garages, large high roofs and good sized gardens. They are rock solid, with brick internal walls and are versatile enough for extensions and loft conversions to be possible.
For me, 30s homes are the best in terms of style and quality, but you probably couldn't afford to build houses like this these days in big numbers without them being unaffordable. So, instead we get crap that people can just about afford.
I live in a 60s box, because it's a good trade off between quality, space, big garden and affordability. People knock them for being characterless, and yes they may be compared to period places. But character costs - so a house with character but the same sq. footage as mine would cost a lot more.
