Re: Re: Room to Remove
Peter – people buy what they can afford. If they aspire to extend then good on them. Nothing wrong with an extension – without them the AAI would have no awards to give out.
Extending or aspiring to extend your home is not the issue, how you could take that from my original comment is bizarre.
My simple point was that I do not understand the logic of buying a period residence, only to completely gut the interior, and further, I don’t think home owners should be allowed to entirely erase the inside of a period dwelling unless the place has been officially condemned as beyond saving.
If it has been condemned, replica’s should obviously be true to the original, and whatever can be saved, like perfectly sound shutter boxes, should be.
The decision to flatten the place in this instance seemed to be hatched between the builder & QS on the basis that it was quicker, cheaper, sure it’s tiny, and now we’ll have a free run through with the wheelbarra.
DB arrived back after a week to see the result, claiming he should have been informed, and he should in fairness.
You’d like to think however, that the value of the existing structure should be the basis for architect/client discussion from the outset, obviously it wasn’t & Dermot didn’t seem to be long getting over the shock of the demolition either.
But don’t be so arrogant to think that someone who has bought a house can’t knock the arse out of the back of it.
The arse was knocked out of the entire house, that is the issue. Home owners have every right to extend from the rear, but with this type of residence, at least make an effort to work with what you have.