Following a debate in another thread, do you prefer new houses/apartments or older houses (pre-WW2 max)? Personally I prefer old houses because:
- I think they look nicer because new builds look so gaudy
- New houses have open plan gardens with no borders
- Old houses have well stocked, mature, private gardens with clearly defined borders
- Old houses have bigger room proportions (apart from kitchens), especially in the room height department
- New houses feel flimsy and built at the lowest possible cost, e.g. interior walls are plasterboard, windows are smaller, etc
- New apartment blocks are ugly and crass

That's just my opinion anyway. Discuss....

What a fatuous poll.

How about you include 1930's slum tenement blocks alongside the 1930's houses you admire in Fulwood?

How about you include now demolished back to back squalid courtyards, rife with cholera and child mortality?

How about you include any of the superb modern developments?

How about you have poll in 100 years time to see if people "prefer that lovely old West 1 to those horrible modern monstrosities"?

How about you consider changes in technology, labour patterns, manufacturing techniques, huge reductions in construction deaths, increased property ownership, reduced fossil fuel consumption, sustainable material use, massive increases in households, desire to protect green space, reuse of previously used land, etc, etc, etc, etc.

You fail to understand that your argument has been repeated over the centuries by people who prefer things that they are comfortable with.

It is pointless to compare apples with oranges. They are different.

... get the picture?

No, I don't have an argument or an agenda (unlike yourself, with whom it's becoming increasingly clear that your professional field is within the architecture/construction field, as I thought from the other thread). I'm merely expressing my opinion, and others are free to do so too. It's not really an argument. You can't argue with someone just for having a different taste.

PS. I doubt buildings like West One will still be around in 100 years time for people to write about anyway.

Originally posted by Tony

It is pointless to compare apples with oranges. They are different.

... get the picture?

But people could create a poll: "do you prefer apples or oranges?". Like I said, it's an opinion - individual tastes differ. No need to get on the defensive about it. ;)

From what I've seen and heard about new houses compared to older ones, it seems that most people prefer brick walls and don't like living in 'cardboard boxes'.

My other half was upstairs at her sister's the other day and they bought a new house a while ago in Beighton. Her sis went downstairs and Angel heard a CRASH and then a shout from her sis. The radiator in both the kitchen and living room had fallen off the wall and water was gushing everywhere as the pipes had snapped. The radiator was attached to a plasterboard wall with standard plasterboard screws, and this was a big rad so it should've been secured with stronger and more suitable screws. This was cheap and fast plumbing done at the lowest cost. Apparently there have been similar problems with other houses in the estate. Roof tiles coming off in the wind, plumbing or structural shortcuts etc. Not good!

A friend of mine over in Norton Lees was talking to me the other day and he's selling his house to move to Dronfield with his wife and baby. He says he won't buy a house that wasn't built before 1970 because of the shoddy quality of new houses. They may look nice but watch out for the big bad wolf. He'll blow your house down. ;)

Originally posted by t020
No, I don't have an argument or an agenda (unlike yourself, with whom it's becoming increasingly clear that your professional field is within the architecture/construction field, as I thought from the other thread).

Cripes, I thought that had been clear for ages - it's hardly an agenda - more a matter of speaking from knowledge and experience. Incidently, I'm experienced in both new and old buildings, of both high and low quality.

Originally posted by t020
I doubt buildings like West One will still be around in 100 years time for people to write about anyway.
At which point do you think the 400 owners will decide to demolish it all then?

Originally posted by Tony

At which point do you think the 400 owners will decide to demolish it all then?

I meant it will not be standing because of shoddy build quality.

PS. See my "apples and oranges" post above - this thread is just a bit of fun to gauge opinion on new Vs old residential architecture. Please don't turn it into something it isn't, i.e. an argument.

In 100 years our kids/grandkids will all be living in West Ones in Space anyway probably.

Originally posted by Pauly
The radiator was attached to a plasterboard wall with standard plasterboard screws, and this was a big rad so it should've been secured with stronger and more suitable screws. This was cheap and fast plumbing done at the lowest cost. Apparently there have been similar problems with other houses in the estate. Roof tiles coming off in the wind, plumbing or structural shortcuts etc.
I think it's more a case of older houses having had their original jerry build problems repaired over the years :)

I have a 1930's house, and I rather suspect that I have a wall tie failure issue raising its head in the next year or two. Over the years there is virtually nothing left of the original house.

I've worked on more Victorian pieces of property junk than I care to imagine, and quite a few Georgian, Elizebethan, Arts & Crafts, and a couple of Tudor ones too (my they ARE bad!). They are all just fine now though ;)

Originally posted by Tony

I've worked on more Victorian pieces of junk than I care to imagine! They are just fine now though ;)

And they all have nice large room proportions and front gardens with borders, and don't look like a collection of houses in toytown. ;)

And they weren't built when land was over a million pound an acre with a national shortage of 400,000 homes with a planning assumption of no greenfield development before greenbelts and national parks.

Originally posted by Tony
And they weren't built when land was over a million pound an acre with a national shortage of 400,000 homes with a planning assumption of no greenfield development before greenbelts and national parks.

No, but then again bordered front gardens and higher ceilings don't take up any extra land.

Are you saying that modern buildings don't have front gardens? I think you will find that the average 'mass produced house' of today compares very favourably with garden / amenity space of the average 'mass produced house' of the past. For a start, the door of your average semi doesn't open from the street to your lounge like your average terrace eh?

As for ceilings, well yes, higher ceilings in well proportioned rooms DO take up more land.

you only know the true cost of living in an old property when you have to pick up the bills on repairs and maintenance. sadly not all those houses gifted with large bordered gardens and high ceilings are in particularly good state of repair, and many have wall tie problems, moreover those built with black ash mortar. However, the wall tie problem was often because they were insufficient in number, incorrectly installed or not the right spec.

Older properties are great to look at (and live in) so long as they are modernised with the essentials such as insulation, heating systems etc. The new houses being built are not all of plasterboard, but the reason that is done is not always cost, but to reduce environmental impact aswell.

Hey, how about rammed earth buildings :) the Huf Haus of the future!

Originally posted by Tony
Are you saying that modern buildings don't have front gardens? I think you will find that the average 'mass produced house' of today compares very favourably with garden / amenity space of the average 'mass produced house' of the past. For a start, the door of your average semi doesn't open from the street to your lounge like your average terrace eh?

As for ceilings, well yes, higher ceilings in well proportioned rooms DO take up more land.


No that wasn't what I was saying, I said BORDERED front gardens. I don't understand why all new developments I've seen have no borders around the front gardens - what happened to privacy? Older houses have stone walls or hedgerow to clearly define the borders. Also, higher ceilings on their own do NOT take up any extra land at all.

Originally posted by Tony
What a fatuous poll.

How about you include 1930's slum tenement blocks alongside the 1930's houses you admire in Fulwood?

How about you include now demolished back to back squalid courtyards, rife with cholera and child mortality?

How about you include any of the superb modern developments?

How about you have poll in 100 years time to see if people "prefer that lovely old West 1 to those horrible modern monstrosities"?

How about you consider changes in technology, labour patterns, manufacturing techniques, huge reductions in construction deaths, increased property ownership, reduced fossil fuel consumption, sustainable material use, massive increases in households, desire to protect green space, reuse of previously used land, etc, etc, etc, etc.

You fail to understand that your argument has been repeated over the centuries by people who prefer things that they are comfortable with.

It is pointless to compare apples with oranges. They are different.

... get the picture?

Is there some history between the two of you, because IMO thats abit harsh and to be honest you come accross VERY defensive - maybe I'm missing something?


Anyway, I think there is no utopian ideal - All old houses arent the way T020 describes them and I agree with Tony that *some* of the pre 20's houses were terrible - you just have to look at how many of these the Council has demolished in the last 10 years.

On the whole though, Old Houses do have far more attractive qaulties than newer ones as per T020s arguments.

My house is 3years and 1 week old. We moved here from a 1910 end terrace.

I prefer new. The only major problem we've had was the plumbing from the ensuite to the sewer wasnt connected. Meant the drive had to be dug up but since then no probs at all apart from the expected plaster cracks.

Plus we now have a front garden which the old one DIDNT and a bigger back garden. T020, take a trip outside S10 and look at Victorian houses in S6. Not many front gardens there mate.

Originally posted by t020
No that wasn't what I was saying, I said BORDERED front gardens. I don't understand why all new developments I've seen have no borders around the front gardens - what happened to privacy? Older houses have stone walls or hedgerow to clearly define the borders.
Well apart from the minimum 21m distance between overlooking habitable windows that is now used, and the minimum 8m back gardens (which you get in S6 as well as S10 ;))? ...

1. Planning departments generally discourage walls and hedges (which incidentally take a few years to grow if you happen to plant them).
2. Police crime safety Officers actively discourage them.
3. People don't want to pay for them.

Originally posted by t020
Also, higher ceilings on their own do NOT take up any extra land at all.
In a well proportioned room (your phrase BTW) they most certainly do. Have a think about it while I grab a bite to eat ;)

Originally posted by Tony
Well apart from the minimum 21m distance between overlooking habitable windows that is now used, and the minimum 8m back gardens (which you get in S6 as well as S10 ;))? ...

1. Planning departments generally discourage walls and hedges (which incidentally take a few years to grow if you happen to plant them).
2. Police crime safety Officers actively discourage them.
3. People don't want to pay for them.

1 - why? They help define borders to prevent disputes, as well as ensuring privacy.
2 - why? They make things more difficult for burglars.
3 - They shouldn't have to, they should be built with the house (although I realise that will cost a few extra pounds for the developers).

Originally posted by Tony

In a well proportioned room (your phrase BTW) they most certainly do. Have a think about it while I grab a bite to eat ;)

High ceilings can still be used in smaller rooms too, though. They help make a smaller room feel more spacious, and don't take up any extra land.

How high do you need them? How tall are you?

Smaller ceilings make it easier to change light bulbs. I can change my current ones standing on my tiptoes. Plus its also easier to dust cobwebs away.

I grew up in an old house and hated it. It was cold, damp and the bloody thing was sinking into the ground!.
The house I'm in now was finished in Nov 2001. It is nice and warm, no damp, everything works fine and i don't have to have bawdy wallpaper everywhere. No....nice painted walls for me!.

my experience so far leads me to prefer middle aged houses.

I've been in several new builds, and I get the general feeling that if I tripped and fell against an interior wall i'd probably go through it.

My current house is pre wwI, it has the black ash plaster and lathe stuff which is horrible and makes a real mess when you replace it. And nothing in it is square because it's all moved.
The electrics are clearly something fitted later in it's life and could have been done better.

My parents house, circa 60's is solid, well build, no problems like the older house, no problems like the newer house.
The only thing I prefer about mine is that the ceilings are 9 foot, rather than 7. But I see what Tony is getting at, make a small room with a high ceiling and it'll look odd, you need to make the ceiling height proportional to the rest of the room size.

I'm sort of sitting on the fence on this one for one or two reasons:

I agree with t020 on the room sizes on older houses but only up to a point. I moved from a terraced house 3 years ago which had enormous bedrooms but a small living room. We now live in a 60's house which has a large living room and small bedrooms!

We now have ceilings I can actually reach on a step ladder to decorate I couldn't do this before although the height of the ceiling can give a small room a lighter appearance. Sorry cyclone but small rooms do sometimes have high ceilings and they don't look odd it really helps the appearance I should know we had 9ft high ceilings before.

I love the look of the outside of most new houses (Coopster especially the type you live in because I very nearly bought one but the location was a problem for us). Not all old houses look as nice outside, however I miss some of the features you get with old houses like alcoves and a chimney breast! They are so useful for positioning shelves and cupboards in!

I can see your point about the bordered gardens though t020 I hate the open gardens myself you get all the "stray" dogs (not necessarily homeless though if you know what I mean) on the front of your house not the mention any litter that seems to be around especially if you live near a school like me. I much prefer a distinct boundary.

I'm not even voting in the poll because, quite frankly, I think it is ridiculous. That is my opinion - you just can not generalise so much.

It's a complete generalisation. As Tony pointed out, all the slums and other 'bad' older buildings have been demolished. Mass production can lead to loss of quality, but this is not a new problem.

As far as new houses go, then yes, many newer developments by the likes of Berkley homes are of a low standard. But obviously not all new builds are like that. With the market as it is, then developers will try and get away with whatever they can - if people buy it they will make it.

In terms of size and proportion, don't forget that generally family sizes have decreased, and the number of people not living with their family has shot up. If you were to pick up a copy of, say, Home Building and Renovating magazine, you would realize that your sweeping generalisation is wrong. It is perfectly possible to build a thoughtfully designed and layed out home, that has proportions that are more suitable for todays needs, and is of a very high standard AND has plenty of warmth and character. You seem to have a very limited experience of new build homes.

If you have a problem with your garden boundaries, why not build a wall? Dig and plant your own borders wherever you like? Many people do not want large gardens now, they can not afford to pay a gardener and have neither the time or inclination to do it themselves.

beckyaa

You are not generally allowed to build walls around the gardens of new houses that's why not the mention that fact that when you can it is ridiculously expense because it has to be done to building regulations etc which when someone has just paid out a lot of money to buy a house they can't always afford that and it certainly comes low down their priority list of things to do.

If we are comparing similar size houses then I much prefer older houses. The newer ones these days have much smaller rooms and workmanship is not of the same quality. City and Guilds isn't enough.

Originally posted by wendy
beckyaa

You are not generally allowed to build walls around the gardens of new houses that's why not the mention that fact that when you can it is ridiculously expense because it has to be done to building regulations etc which when someone has just paid out a lot of money to buy a house they can't always afford that and it certainly comes low down their priority list of things to do.

Garden Walls do not require building regs approval. They may require planning permission, especially if they are over 2m high.
If it low on the list of priorities I don't think it can be that important.

Originally posted by beckyaa
Garden Walls do not require building regs approval. They may require planning permission, especially if they are over 2m high.
If it low on the list of priorities I don't think it can be that important.

Are you sure on that beckyaa because if they border onto a public pathway they may need building regs checks. I'm basing this on something my husband said a while ago - he is in the building trade! It's to do with ensuring that it is safe and won't fall down on someone walking past.

As for priorities if you just paid over 100k on a house you have to be realistic. Have you every bought a house? Because if not you have no idea how many other expenses there are besides the purchase especailly if you are also selling. :(

Anyhow this is off topic - I'm still on the fence on it I like both!

Originally posted by wendy
Are you sure on that beckyaa because if they border onto a public pathway they may need building regs checks. I'm basing this on something my husband said a while ago - he is in the building trade! It's to do with ensuring that it is safe and won't fall down on someone walking past.

As for priorities if you just paid over 100k on a house you have to be realistic. Have you every bought a house? Because if not you have no idea how many other expenses there are besides the purchase especailly if you are also selling. :(

Anyhow this is off topic - I'm still on the fence on it I like both!

I am completely positive. Check out the explanatory notes on the Building Regs from the ODPM http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_breg_609257.pdf But if someone knows otherwise, I apologise.
I am also in the building trade, and whilst I have submitted planning applications for garden walls (and had one turned down on the basis of the garden wall), I have never included a garden wall in the building regs submission. I agree, it is important that it is safe, especially on a public route, and there are guidelines on damp proofing, construction and width in NBS specification writer for example, as well as numerous other publications.

Yes, I have bought a flat, 6 months ago.

Ok I stand corrected on the building regs, but I know for a fact that many new developments don't allow you to build a wall round the front gardens.

We have looked at some on more than one occasion and we were told by the developers that they wanted to keep the look of the estate consistant and that it was written into the deeds (when we objected - we looked elsewhere as a result though many don't). Btw this is really only meant to be a lighthearted poll you know just to ask people's opinions! Why be so serious or aren't we allowed to generalise and state opinions and preferences now.

That's a shame, because I agree, generally garden walls do look smarter. Could you put up a fence and/or a nice thick hedge?! It's a shame more people aren't as conscientious as your husband, but as I'm sure you're aware, often they just don't care!

I think you are probably best off away from an estate like that one anyway Wendy, I hope you have found a home and are very happy there :thumbsup:

Edit - Sorry everyone if my first post on this topic sounded a bit overly argumentative and accusational, it wasn't supposed to, I just feel very strongly about this subject, so sorry. Must read post through more thoroughly beforehand.

There's no 'I like good examples of either' so I'm not voting t020.

And 'Homebuilding and Renovating' is a top mag :thumbsup:

Originally posted by t020
1 - why? They help define borders to prevent disputes, as well as ensuring privacy.
2 - why? They make things more difficult for burglars.
3 - They shouldn't have to, they should be built with the house (although I realise that will cost a few extra pounds for the developers).
1. The Land Registry is there to prevent disputes, and modern houses have their boundary quite clearly defined both on site and on plan. A wall is just a wall and the last thing it does legally is to define ownership. It can however imply ownership where none exists.

2. The Police run a scheme called 'Secured by Design'. Most modern developments are designed to comply with this to reduce and eliminate crime. The essentials include no dark corners, no places to hide, no dark passages between houses and most importantly passive security amongst nearby houses. Your version of privacy with walls and hedges is actually what increases the risk of burglary and personal attack!

3. If people wanted huge walls they would be asking for them. Larger, plusher houses often do have walls. They also have additional security measures like fully secured boundaries, locking gates, garages, etc.

Most people live in average houses in average places. It's intersting to hear peoples opinions above.

Originally posted by t020
High ceilings can still be used in smaller rooms too, though. They help make a smaller room feel more spacious, and don't take up any extra land.
I'll give up on that one - you're not going to understand. :|
However, if you want to look at the cost angle, each extra course of brickwork will put hundred on the price of a house for an extra 3 and a bit inches of room height, so an extra 10 inches of height in a normal semi might cost a few of thousand pounds.

Aesthetically speaking I tend to prefer older houses - Victorian terraced villas and the like.

I live in a modern house (5 years old), and one of the main reasons I bought it, after looking at some older properties, was the fact that is has off street parking for 2 cars.

Sadly this is something you don't often get with older houses, unless you can afford to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds.

So I'll stick to my modern box with garage and drive for now!

I agree that older type properties are more interesting visually and structually more robust but I opted for new build the last time I moved.

There was nobody elses bodged handywork to put right, no tasteless paint/paper to remove, no dirt and grime from the previous occupants just a clean and fresh canvass for me to imprint my own style.

For me I think that it will always be new build.

Originally posted by t020
2 - why? They make things more difficult for burglars.


They don't though, they provide a convenient screen to hide behind while you try to break in.

part of the reason that new properties have no "borders" is that the older properties have had a hundred years or more for the gardens to mature.

Even the older council estates such as Arbourthorne and Southey Green etc, didn't have their dense privet or hawthorn hedges when they were first built, seventy or eighty years ago...

Tenants planted them and they matured. (okay, sometimes they matured to cover most of the footpaths lol j/k)

My house is only ten years old. I have only lived in this property just shy of two years.

The land is reclaimed, and redeveloped from some victorian semi-industrial buildings that were demolished in about 1990.

I cannot manage the garden physically, so I have a gardener come, and keep my borders clear, and to mow the lawn. I have plans to develop the garden, but it all depends what time the chap has free to do the work. the garden has not had much done to it, TBH, but, given time, and the ideas I hav ein my head, once they are translated to the ground... it'll mature, over time, and look nice. it just needs the time.

The architecture of my home is not fancy, it's quite plain. But the window proportions etc have been planned, in order that they are in sympathy with the victorian buildings around, which I like. it's a bright, airy little house. The size of the windows is generous, and my garden is not too big, but, OTOH, it's not too small, either.

I must admit that when it comes to building design, I much prefer the neo-gothic buildings around the bottom of fargate/ the cathedral. I think they are more interesting, and have more character than the soulless glass-and-concrete carbuncles that pass for office blocks and shops in more recent builds.

I love the victorian villas that surround us, in the area that I live in. again, they have character.

In another thread, I have described how, If i ever came into a substantial amount of money, I would buy one of the villas nearby. (I like the area, and would not want to move far from it)

PT

I agree with t020. I would in the main choose an old property over a new build. Of course, t020 is referring to an idealtypical house, not slums made for steelworkers in Attercliffe in 1901. But then again, they are no longer standing.

Older houses generally have a "character".

What gives houses character? I would say it is a clear sense of space and proportion. Old houses that are still standing, generally Victorian or Edwardian villas and town houses, have these properties, I expect because of the high ceilings and boundaries. However, if you look at 1970s housing, you can also find a sense of space, especially if there are elements such as galleries and open stairs. Many new builds have fallen victim to the dictat of economy and make battery chickens out of humans.

If we are true Brits, by the way, we will always subscribe to the ideal of the pittoresque. It's just a shame many of us fail utterly in our ghastly hackneyed attempt to achieve the ideal (fake stucco in 2.5m high rooms, ugh!).

Originally posted by Tony
1. The Land Registry is there to prevent disputes, and modern houses have their boundary quite clearly defined both on site and on plan. A wall is just a wall and the last thing it does legally is to define ownership. It can however imply ownership where none exists.

It can also serve to provide a definite, physical boundary to prevent disputes, assuming it adheres to the plans.

Originally posted by Tony

2. The Police run a scheme called 'Secured by Design'. Most modern developments are designed to comply with this to reduce and eliminate crime. The essentials include no dark corners, no places to hide, no dark passages between houses and most importantly passive security amongst nearby houses. Your version of privacy with walls and hedges is actually what increases the risk of burglary and personal attack!

I'm talking about 3ft - 4ft stone walls here, not creating complete hide aways for burglars. I think walls and hedges as boundaries are not only aesthetically pleasing, but also reduce the chances of incidents such as late night drunks coming home from the pub and walking across your garden. Also they make postmen and milkmen do more work for their money and not trample flowerbeds. :D


Originally posted by Tony

3. If people wanted huge walls they would be asking for them. Larger, plusher houses often do have walls. They also have additional security measures like fully secured boundaries, locking gates, garages, etc.


No-ones talking about huge walls, and as this poll indicates, the vast majority of people prefer the old style of housing to the new. Your last point seems to entirely contradict your earlier point too.

Originally posted by Tony

Most people live in average houses in average places. It's intersting to hear peoples opinions above.

Isn't just, especially when most are opposing to yours. ;)


Originally posted by Tony

I'll give up on that one - you're not going to understand. :|
However, if you want to look at the cost angle, each extra course of brickwork will put hundred on the price of a house for an extra 3 and a bit inches of room height, so an extra 10 inches of height in a normal semi might cost a few of thousand pounds.

I understand perfectly - new houses are built on the cheap, you've made that perfectly clear. This is why I will always prefer older houses - I hate the claustrophic feel of low ceilings (in a large or small room).

Originally posted by Plain Talker
part of the reason that new properties have no "borders" is that the older properties have had a hundred years or more for the gardens to mature.



No it isn't. I'm not talking about over grown, neglected bushes in run down estates, I'm talking about proper defined borders with neat stone walls and hedges. Stone walls don't mature. The reason new builds don't have borders is because, for some reason, developers think that people want to live with their front garden as an extension to the pavement with no privacy (probably because this is the cheaper method).

I live in woodseats in a 100++ year old house which would fail modern building regulations, but the walls and bricks are so dense that you can have a Thrash Metal Concert in the front lounge while getting a good night's sleep in the back bedroom.

God bless my great grandpa's generation. who really didn't mess about when they built a house.

Having a preference is one thing, being able to afford what you prefer is another.

I'd prefer a Merc but I don't have enough money, so make do with a Ford instead.

But I can't imagine anyone who has sufficient dosh to consider a 'character' property with high ceilings, large rooms and so-called original features would choose instead a smaller-proportioned new build.

Originally posted by dishwasher
But I can't imagine anyone who has sufficient dosh to consider a 'character' property with high ceilings, large rooms and so-called original features would choose instead a smaller-proportioned new build.

I was brought-up in a large stone-built house in between Crooks and Walkley which had loads of "character". It also had loads of draughts, dodgy plumbing and wiring, lead filled paint, a cellar that flooded every winter, slugs, mice, rats, and spiders the size of your hand, it was always cold, the coal fire was a pain in the arse, tiles kept falling of the roof, the sash windows didn't work sometimes if it was too hot or humid. I'm convinced that house gave me asthma.

I was so glad when my parents sold it and we moved to somewhere modern.