Number of downlighters recommended

[ban-all-sheds]

Candles don't work well when inverted.

 

[Alarm]

Bless my 10 footers then

I like my 6 foot sixers and even lower doors in my cottage. People 400 years ago must have been much shorter or enjoyed head banging.

At least they did not have downlighters.

Think they were shorter then.
Reminds me doing the fire and intruder in a G2 listed cottage. Was with the "boss" and he is a bit shorter than me, so didnt mention the beam at the back leading to a staircase. Heard a big bang and he was wandering about half concious..................laugh................

I believe Winston Churchill used this place as a holiday home during the war as it is about 1 hour from London.

 

[bernardgreen]

Heard a big bang and he was wandering about half concious..................laugh.................

Sore point there, Sunday I bent down to pick up a consumer unit that was in the inglenook, looking at the floor I forgot about the low beam that formed the ingle nook.

 

[JohnW2]

I like my 6 foot sixers and even lower doors in my cottage. People 400 years ago must have been much shorter or enjoyed head banging.

Think they were shorter then.

Not only that, but in many 400 year-old cottages the ground floor has risen appreciably over the years as layers of flagstones/tiles have been put on top of the preceding layer. In my daughter's (G2 listed) cottage, about 350 years old, the ground floor has 4 such layers (which have been preserved), amounting to 6-8 inches of 'lost headroom'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I've often wondered, with listed buildings which are several hundred years old, at what point in time is the specification frozen?

When you look, for example, at the massive changes that Robert Adam made to what were then old buildings, what kind of architectural ignorance/arrogance/blindness leads today's "experts" to say that the way a building is today is the only version of "architectural integrity" they are prepared to accept?

For example, no matter how fine an example of an 18th century stucco ceiling a building may have, if it had a different ceiling when it was built why should the later one be protected in law from being removed?

If it's all about preserving "heritage", heritage is what you have as a result of changes through history, so is the aim of listed building status to put an end to heritage for future generations? When your daughter's cottage is 450 years old are the inhabitants of the 22nd century to be denied an evolving architectural narrative?

 

[JohnW2]

I've often wondered, with listed buildings which are several hundred years old, at what point in time is the specification frozen? .... For example, no matter how fine an example of an 18th century stucco ceiling a building may have, if it had a different ceiling when it was built why should the later one be protected in law from being removed? .... If it's all about preserving "heritage", heritage is what you have as a result of changes through history, so is the aim of listed building status to put an end to heritage for future generations? When your daughter's cottage is 450 years old are the inhabitants of the 22nd century to be denied an evolving architectural narrative?

Dealing with the 'Listed Building people' when my daughter first acquired the cottage and had extensive work done on it was an interesting experience. It obviously can be different if there are specific features of particular historical interest which need to be 'preserved for posterity' but, that aside, they were repeatedly falling over themselves to point out that they were not generally in the business of 'creating time capsules' and that they very much embraced the concept of a building evolving over the years. One of their greatest concerns seemed to be that, when changes/ restorations/ 'modernisations' were undertaken that it was apparent that such changes had been made (rather than completely 'covering up old with the new'). For example, when structural timbers needed to be repaired/restored, they were happier if it were done in such a manner (which some would call 'less-than'-perfect') that the repairs were 'obvious', rather than being done so well that it 'looked original', at least to the untrained eye.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Imagine a brand new building. As time passes, at what point are the owners supposed to stop making repairs which are done to the highest standards they can afford, and to start doing them deliberately badly?

 

[seasickstevie]

...at what point are the owners supposed to stop making repairs which are done to the highest standards they can afford, and to start doing them deliberately badly?

Some start quite soon

 

[ban-all-sheds]

 

[JohnW2]

Imagine a brand new building. As time passes, at what point are the owners supposed to stop making repairs which are done to the highest standards they can afford, and to start doing them deliberately badly?

It's not so much a question of doing them badly - but, rather, of not going out of one's way to make repairs 'invisible' if they are undertaken in different eras, using different materials and methods. If one could actually get hold of, say, 18th century timbers, and work them as would have been done in C18, without any 20th/21st century twists, then I'm sure they would be happy with repairs being done that way. What they don't want to see is, for example, a 'totally invisible' fibreglass repair to a 300-year-ild timber - since, if one starts going down that route, one is at risk of ending up with something which is merely a facsimile of the original - 'the same to the eyes', admittedly, but that's clearly not within the general spirit of how the historians think!

But, in an attempt to answer your question more directly, I got the impression that the would not get too concerned about the materials/methods used for a repair on aspects of the building less than 100 or so years old, probably appreciably more. Most 'ordinary' residential buildings which are Listed are at least 200 years old.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So let's start with a building put up this year.

Between now-ish and 2211, it gets continually modified and repaired, using contemporary tools, techniques and materials.

And in 2212 it gets listed.

At which point any future repairs have to be done in a way which look as if they were done using non-contemporary tools/techniques/materials?

Returning to an old building today - what if, before it had been listed, the owners had replaced the Georgian sash windows with Everest's finest 1970s vintage PVC, these are now getting a bit tatty, and the current owner wants to replace them.

What will he be told to replace them with?

 

[JohnW2]

So let's start with a building put up this year....

You really shouldn't be trying to use me as a spokesman for the Listed Buildings system. The best I can do is report the impressions I got, a number of years ago, from the other side of the fence! Bernard may be able to give you some more up-to-date insights.

Between now-ish and 2211, it gets continually modified and repaired, using contemporary tools, techniques and materials. And in 2212 it gets listed. At which point any future repairs have to be done in a way which look as if they were done using non-contemporary tools/techniques/materials?

Goodness knows. I suppose not surprisingly, they seem to be more interested in 'original features' than subsequent modifications/repairs (even if they, themselves, are old), so perhaps their clocks onl start with 'original' and never get reset. I think there are few, if any, hard rules - a lot depends upon the discretion of the individual 'officer'.

Returning to an old building today - what if, before it had been listed, the owners had replaced the Georgian sash windows with Everest's finest 1970s vintage PVC, these are now getting a bit tatty, and the current owner wants to replace them. What will he be told to replace them with?

I suspect that would not have got listed in the first place. If features of the building other than the PVC windows were so important as to warrant listing, then details of the 'listed features' (which obvioulsy would not include the windows!) would probably be present in the documentation - and they then might not care too much what one replaced the windows with, probably provided that it was not something designed to 'fraudulently' appear to be original Georgian.

If you're really interested in this stuff, there's an awful lot on-line you could look at.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Alarm]

I did the security systems for a Arab sheik. He had leased a building from the Duke of Westminster estate, Grade 2 again. He insisted on bullet proof windows, they said no.
He again asked and promised to make good everything afterwards. which he did.
All the original was removed and stored, then replaced when the bullet proof was removed.

Lease, 5 years 15 milliion quid, plus making good.

At the time I fitted a TS2500 panel, apart from the Galaxy 502 was the best on the market at the time.


Another G2 building, fire brigade insted on door closers. Heritage said no, so we fitted perko matics..............the door architrave was inlaid plaster, some fell out!
Had a clause in case this happened and had a restorer refit the small sections.


Hate working on listed buildings!

 

[DominicJ]

BAS makes a very good point.

Great Houses were ripped down and rebuilt every couple of generations in many cases. Or new wings were added, and old ones modified to fit the new fashion.
The designers and builders had no expectations for their houses to remain forever unchanged.


The entire listed building concept is a bad joke.
Worse than that, because we lose many archetectural treasures to neglect, people cant afford the "correct" upkeep, so just leave the house to collapse.