# Grand Designs



## stavros (Jan 17, 2008)

I love this show, which started a new series last night. It really does find some unique projects to look at, and they seem to be totally different from week to week. Last night's was pretty good, with them digging a trench in their back garden for their new house, and not employing an architect at all. Kevin did his usual trick of rampant pessimism throughout the show only for it all to come together again at the end. 

Anyone else watch it?


----------



## zenie (Jan 17, 2008)

yep I saw it. I didn't get to find out if they sold their existing house in the end, did they?


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jan 17, 2008)

No....but my boss is on it on the 30th Jan


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 17, 2008)

I saw it. Hope they have some good drains in that sunken garden bit between the living room and the family room.  

Zenie - they did sell the house for £70K less than they were asking.


----------



## oneflewover (Jan 17, 2008)

Georgian houses all around and a concrete box in the middle. Quite appalling.


----------



## Looby (Jan 17, 2008)

oneflewover said:
			
		

> Georgian houses all around and a concrete box in the middle. Quite appalling.



I thought that, and the attitude they had towards the complaints from neighbours was shit. I certainly wouldn't want to live there after I had pissed all my neighbours off.

That bloke really got on my tits too, all his fucking loud shirts to show us how 'wacky' he is.  

I wanted to hate the cooker hoods but they were lovely. 

Sorry, rant over.


----------



## Tank Girl (Jan 17, 2008)

the couple were often colour co-ordinated with the backgrounds they were filming in.


----------



## Looby (Jan 17, 2008)

Tank Girl said:
			
		

> the couple were often colour co-ordinated with the backgrounds they were filming.



Wankers.


----------



## Tank Girl (Jan 17, 2008)

yes!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2008)

sparklefish said:
			
		

> I thought that, and the attitude they had towards the complaints from neighbours was shit. I certainly wouldn't want to live there after I had pissed all my neighbours off.
> 
> That bloke really got on my tits too, all his fucking loud shirts to show us how 'wacky' he is.



That couple was my choice in the 'who's first against the wall' thread. Everything about them made me want to reach into the TV and break their scrawny yuppie necks  

90 objections? You've got to be a special kind of twat to shrug that off...


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 17, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:
			
		

> 90 objections? You've got to be a special kind of twat to shrug that off...


People can object for all sorts of reasons. Depends what they were.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 17, 2008)

90 of them though. For a single house?

At work, we got planning permission for a modernist extension to a grade 2* listed building in mayfair, and had less than 20 objections.


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 17, 2008)

Crispy said:
			
		

> 90 of them though. For a single house?


They did have a lot of neighbours.

Depends how you count objections as well.


----------



## MikeMcc (Jan 17, 2008)

sparklefish said:
			
		

> I thought that, and the attitude they had towards the complaints from neighbours was shit. I certainly wouldn't want to live there after I had pissed all my neighbours off.
> 
> That bloke really got on my tits too, all his fucking loud shirts to show us how 'wacky' he is.
> 
> ...


Wait till they get covered in grease!


----------



## moose (Jan 17, 2008)

People are going to object to anything which isn't built in the style of more than 100 years ago, in this country. 

Cracking start to the new series, after the last one was a bit disappointing IMO, and completely blighted by that fucking hideous Art Deco pastiche. Let's have more people sticking their architectural necks out in a domestic setting.


----------



## Reno (Jan 17, 2008)

^^^ so true

I thought it ended up being a beautiful building, thought their interior design ended up a bit bland. Love the playroom across the patio. Every family house should have one like it.


----------



## MikeMcc (Jan 17, 2008)

Reno said:
			
		

> ^^^ so true
> 
> I thought it ended up being a beautiful building, thought their interior design ended up a bit bland. Love the playroom across the patio. Every family house should have one like it.


Interiors on these houses usually seem bland because so many of them go for the white / off-white open plan sterile type plan.  

It was one of the things that made the self-made wood place at the end of the last series so different was that the interior was so charming and detailed.


----------



## madzone (Jan 18, 2008)

Whether you disliked the style of the house or the people building it surely how they got round the objections to building above ground were pretty innovative? I think it's quite an exciting possibility of solving the housing crisis in some areas. They still had a garden area but lived underneath it - surely it's a win win?


----------



## Wookey (Jan 18, 2008)

I'd certainly let that Kevin Whatsischops loose on my hard decking.


----------



## madzone (Jan 18, 2008)

Wookey said:
			
		

> I'd certainly let that Kevin Whatsischops loose on my hard decking.


----------



## oneflewover (Jan 18, 2008)

moose said:
			
		

> People are going to object to anything which isn't built in the style of more than 100 years ago, in this country.
> 
> Cracking start to the new series, after the last one was a bit disappointing IMO, and completely blighted by that fucking hideous Art Deco pastiche. Let's have more people sticking their architectural necks out in a domestic setting.



It's not the building per se, but its location. This picture shows it well.






Saying that, it's a very scruffy set of the rear of these houses.

Town houses should possess a symmetry with their neighbours, a flow and a balance. The design should not carry on street after after street, this would build in blandness. Changes in height, width and colour could assist this.






In area that has room for detached or semi-detached housing by all means let the design run unhindered.


----------



## rover07 (Jan 18, 2008)

Basically they jammed a basement flat into their back garden. Hated it.


----------



## dodgepot (Jan 18, 2008)

i thought it was a great house. and i don't think that a new hosue should necessarily try and be designed to fit in with the style of the houses around it. there's a couple of grand design houses near why i live, just down the road from my brother, actually, that aren't like the buildings around them but seem to work - it's actually very difficult to see them. and there's one more from a few series ago about a mile or so away which doesn't look like the houses it's in with, that works very well too.


----------



## Sweet FA (Jan 18, 2008)

It was OK but the above ground bit was a bit pokey. I bet they get bored pretty quickly of the kids dashing across from the playroom in the piss down with rain, putting wet footprints on the white carpet in the front room.

Their old house was fucking gorgeous though.


----------



## Reno (Jan 18, 2008)

MikeMcc said:
			
		

> Interiors on these houses usually seem bland because so many of them go for the white / off-white open plan sterile type plan.
> 
> It was one of the things that made the self-made wood place at the end of the last series so different was that the interior was so charming and detailed.



True, many people seem to believe that modernism always means minimalism, which doesn't have to be the case. Charles and Ray Eames for instance used all sorts of different textures, colours and materials for their interiors, which looked both modern and cozy.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 18, 2008)

I hate it as I have to go to the shows every year for work 'research' 
Miserable day out for rich housewives, design students and the press (and me)!


----------



## zenie (Jan 18, 2008)

oneflewover said:
			
		

> In area that has room for detached or semi-detached housing by all means let the design run unhindered.


 
My friend lives in Bedzed!  

I have to say the minimal thing on Grand Designs does get a bit boring, if only because I live in one of these 'soulless' type of places myself...they ONLY suit modern/modernist furnishings and I'm a bit of a traditionalist


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 18, 2008)

MikeMcc said:
			
		

> Wait till they get covered in grease!


did you not see trade secrets last week the mentioned that the average cost of a posh kitchen like that is about £30,000  and that they never get used as most of the time the owners eat out...


----------



## Reno (Jan 18, 2008)

zenie said:
			
		

> I have to say the minimal thing on Grand Designs does get a bit boring, if only because I live in one of these 'soulless' type of places myself...they ONLY suit modern/modernist furnishings and I'm a bit of a traditionalist



I don't think that's true. It is perfectly possible to mix up different styles in a modernist flat. Just decking out a modernist flat in mid-20th century design classics and neutral furniture is unimaginative and makes the place look like a museum. It's really up to the occupant of how much of their personality and "soul" they put into the place.

I live in a 70's modernist building and it's much nicer and has more soul to me than the cramped Victorian conversions I lived in before.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 18, 2008)

dodgepot said:
			
		

> i thought it was a great house. and i don't think that a new hosue should necessarily try and be designed to fit in with the style of the houses around it. there's a couple of grand design houses near why i live, just down the road from my brother, actually, that aren't like the buildings around them but seem to work - it's actually very difficult to see them. and there's one more from a few series ago about a mile or so away which doesn't look like the houses it's in with, that works very well too.


i think it's basically because there are two schools of conservation runnign paralle with each other one is that you should do everythign you can to make your alterations non impact and in keeping with the area which was certainly ture up til about 10 years ago. 

however now theres a feeling that the new builds alterations should reflect the history and changes of the area.

I personally preffer the later unless it means destroying some smashing old architecture from another age.  

Times change, things move on so this should be refelcted.


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 18, 2008)

Sweet FA said:
			
		

> I bet they get bored pretty quickly of the kids dashing across from the playroom in the piss down with rain, putting wet footprints on the white carpet in the front room.


I thought that as well. Daft idea.

Either an enclosed corridor between the 2 or a big skylight over the 'indoor' garden would have been a lot better.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jan 18, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> i think it's basically because there are two schools of conservation runnign paralle with each other one is that you should do everythign you can to make your alterations non impact and in keeping with the area which was certainly ture up til about 10 years ago.
> 
> however now theres a feeling that the new builds alterations should reflect the history and changes of the area.
> 
> ...


couldnt agree more.  it would be pretty bland if in say a hundred years time no one could see the impact that our built form had on an area because it was trying to mimic what was there before.  i think the pastiche approach is awful.  Contrasting the old georgina terrace with a modern structure was great as it showed off how great the gerogian building was and  contrasted it massively with the new build.  Spookyfrank and others seem to have a downer on the couple that built the house for some reason, but i think thats more of a personal thing per say as opposed to anything about the design of the property.

i only wish that they hadnt quite run out of money so that they  could have introduced more glass into the building as the glass they did put in worked really wells.  just a shame there wasnt more of it.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jan 18, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:
			
		

> 90 objections? You've got to be a special kind of twat to shrug that off...


or believe in what you are trying to do and have the balls to carry out regardless.  clearly the objections were unfounded as planning permission was granted.  anyone can object for the sake of it, but it doesnt mean that the objections are founded in any way.  90 objections was probably a petition signed by a few neighbours and their kids and any friends they could get to sign it.


----------



## Idaho (Jan 18, 2008)

Didn't like the house, and thought the couple were complete twits.

3 ovens... and the only time that woman cooks is when she was posing for the camera stiring a tin of soup 

The patio/playroom/living room on the same level was stupid. That cream carpet is going to get pretty manky pretty quickly. And I think building out of polystyrene and concrete is about as unsustainable as it is possible to build.


----------



## Fuzzy (Jan 18, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:
			
		

> 90 objections? You've got to be a special kind of twat to shrug that off...



it still got through though i take it. got to love the planning system.


----------



## Fuzzy (Jan 18, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> or believe in what you are trying to do and have the balls to carry out regardless.  clearly the objections were unfounded as planning permission was granted.  anyone can object for the sake of it, but it doesnt mean that the objections are founded in any way.  90 objections was probably a petition signed by a few neighbours and their kids and any friends they could get to sign it.



quite were they were all complaining about the loss of a view and the impact of the new house on the value of their house. people do not like change and get very protective/agressive when faced with it.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jan 18, 2008)

Fuzzy said:
			
		

> it still got through though i take it. got to love the planning system.


anyone can object. to have a valid objection is another matter.  be pretty sad if things were turned down soley because of objections.  we'd all still be living in caves.


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 18, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> did you not see trade secrets last week the mentioned that the average cost of a posh kitchen like that is about £30,000  and that they never get used as most of the time the owners eat out...




These kitchens, especially the stainless steel professional style ones that got fashionable a few years back are called Marie Antoinette kitchens, on account of her having a dairy farm built at Versailles so she could play at being a dairy maid once in a while.


----------



## Fuzzy (Jan 18, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> to have a valid objection is another matter.



precisely. see my next post. as you rightly pointed out an objection is an objection in planning speak it has to be legitimate planning reason for it to have any substance. obviously in this case 90 objections werent enough to convince the planners to refuse it. it must have been a shit letter of objection.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 18, 2008)

Papingo said:
			
		

> These kitchens, especially the stainless steel professional style ones that got fashionable a few years back are called Marie Antoinette kitchens, on account of her having a dairy farm built at Versailles so she could play at being a dairy maid once in a while.


whilst it's a good story that's all it is in reality she only ever have 12 cottages and a windmill of a model village built.  Based on the model village from the Prince de Condé his however did have several windmills and a dariyhouse/parlour... 

I take the point though.


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 18, 2008)

Fuzzy said:
			
		

> quite were they were all complaining about the loss of a view.


What view? The backs of the houses in the next street.  

My neighbour applied for an extension. The other neighbour objected on the grounds that the new landing window would look into one of their bedrooms only 5 foot away. This was got round by changing the design to a high narrow window to provide natural light but being impossible to see out of.


----------



## stavros (Jan 18, 2008)

> 3 ovens... and the only time that woman cooks is when she was posing for the camera stiring a tin of soup


Two stoves as well, what the fuck was that all about? It seemed like an interior design vanity thing that. And what was going on with their cushions? They had a nice enough black and white decor and then put horrible orange and green cushions on the white sofa.


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 18, 2008)

stavros said:
			
		

> Two stoves as well, what the fuck was that all about? It seemed like an interior design vanity thing that.


Art. To make the kitchen look symetrical was their excuse.  

Where was the second sink eh?


----------



## Looby (Jan 23, 2008)

*bumpety bump*

I feel a bit mixed about tonights project. I think the interior is amazing. 
The finish is incredible and it is extremely luxurious with all the gadgets but the exterior is hideous.
It looks like the social services day centre my mum used to work in, it's just awful.
I like the roof but I hate the rest. 
The only saving grace is the wall is so huge you can't see the house from the street.


----------



## moomoo (Jan 23, 2008)

I only saw the last bit of this but the interior did look lovely.


----------



## Chz (Jan 24, 2008)

I disagree. I liked the _building_ on the interior, but that guy's taste in furnishings was horrific.


----------



## stavros (Jan 24, 2008)

He seemed like a total nut job to me, with a bit too much money to spend. There weren't the usual frettings about costs. I did however really like the design, although fuck knows what he's going to with all that space.


----------



## dlx1 (Jan 25, 2008)

was looking like a bond set. living room most


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jan 30, 2008)

My Boss is on tonight- Martin Pease..............


he is having a big party at his house tonight and i bet they are popping champagne right now!!!!


----------



## moose (Jan 30, 2008)

ooh! Looks like we might get something which doesn't hark back to a bygone age tonight! 

On the other hand, it may all turn out to be neo-tudor bollocks.


----------



## la ressistance (Jan 30, 2008)

that house was stunning!


----------



## moose (Jan 30, 2008)

Gorgeous! I'd like to play with those glass walls


----------



## madzone (Jan 30, 2008)

Horrible. Soulless. Who's going to clean all that glass? 

For that money they could've even bought something really nice down here


----------



## moomoo (Jan 30, 2008)

moose said:


> Gorgeous! I'd like to play with those glass walls



They were amazing!  I loved that house but I couldn't live in it, looked like it would need a fair big of cleaning.


----------



## art of fact (Jan 30, 2008)

yeah well in two minds about that house, dunno if i could live there but elements were very cool indeed.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 30, 2008)

First of the new ones I've seen.

Shit house for kids really. £1k for a tap! worth it my arse. 

The glass was cool but the fireplace was the the bit I really liked.


----------



## moose (Jan 30, 2008)

madzone said:


> Horrible. Soulless. Who's going to clean all that glass?



It's probably Pilkington Activ, so it doesn't really get dirty.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jan 31, 2008)

Part2 said:


> The glass was cool but the fireplace was the the bit I really liked.



yeah that was amazing


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 31, 2008)

That was a horrible house. Among many things that annoyed me about it were the fact they only had three poky little bedrooms and yet a vast amount of empty space hanging above the 'lounge' (although how anyone can lounge about in right-angled furniture is beyond me). Then there's the near total absence of any colour or form whatsoever. I pity the two little kids having to grow up in a flawless, lifeless non-space like that tbh.

The trade secrets program afterwards was good because it showed that 'minimalist' doesn't have to mean no colour, no curves and no warmth.


----------



## madzone (Jan 31, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> That was a horrible house. Among many things that annoyed me about it were the fact they only had three poky little bedrooms and yet a vast amount of empty space hanging above the 'lounge' (although how anyone can lounge about in right-angled furniture is beyond me). Then there's the near total absence of any colour or form whatsoever. I pity the two little kids having to grow up in a flawless, lifeless non-space like that tbh.
> 
> The trade secrets program afterwards was good because it showed that 'minimalist' doesn't have to mean no colour, no curves and no warmth.


 
The echoes every time they spoke would've been enough to do my head in. Maybe they've got a couple of stepford kids who don't make any noise though


----------



## dlx1 (Jan 31, 2008)

Sweaty Betty said:


> My Boss is on tonight- Martin Pease..............
> 
> 
> he is having a big party at his house tonight and i bet they are popping champagne right now!!!!




 you not invited then.

hardly homely, was plan boring were the character. cold looking


----------



## May Kasahara (Jan 31, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> I pity the two little kids having to grow up in a flawless, lifeless non-space like that tbh.



I wouldn't pity them too much, not only did they look like happy and well adjusted kids as they ran around their new home, but the family are clearly so rich you could turn them into pate.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jan 31, 2008)

thedyslexic1 said:


> you not invited then.
> 
> hardly homely, was plan boring were the character. cold looking




nah not for the party, but a few of us are going over there next week for a function- i cant wait to go sliding on them floors


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jan 31, 2008)

May Kasahara said:


> I wouldn't pity them too much, not only did they look like happy and well adjusted kids as they ran around their new home, but the family are clearly so rich you could turn them into pate.



The kids are indeed lovely, however the dogs are a pain and would make much better pate than the kids


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jan 31, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> That was a horrible house. Among many things that annoyed me about it were the fact they only had three poky little bedrooms and yet a vast amount of empty space hanging above the 'lounge' (although how anyone can lounge about in right-angled furniture is beyond me). Then there's the near total absence of any colour or form whatsoever. I pity the two little kids having to grow up in a flawless, lifeless non-space like that tbh.
> 
> The trade secrets program afterwards was good because it showed that 'minimalist' doesn't have to mean no colour, no curves and no warmth.



frank - you dont much like people who are fortunate enough to have the money to build their own home do you? 

you are like a one man crusade.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 31, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> frank - you dont much like people who are fortunate enough to have the money to build their own home do you?
> 
> you are like a one man crusade.



I normally really like Grand Designs, even though I disapprove of rich people in general it's nice to see people realise their own ideas. This current series is a bit of a bust where interesting designs are concerned though; the one last night was just endless right angles and flat white surfaces- no real individuality anywhere that I could see.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jan 31, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> I normally really like Grand Designs, even though I disapprove of rich people in general it's nice to see people realise their own ideas. This current series is a bit of a bust where interesting designs are concerned though; the one last night was just endless right angles and flat white surfaces- no real individuality anywhere that I could see.



yeah - because you see those houses all over the place these days dont you? 
i cant get to work in the morning without seeing at least a few dozen that look like that.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> frank - you dont much like people who are fortunate enough to have the money to build their own home do you?
> 
> you are like a one man crusade.



you are a one man spittle crusade defending the well off against the unwashed of urban, catch a grip man!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 31, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> yeah - because you see those houses all over the place these days dont you?
> i cant get to work in the morning without seeing at least a few dozen that look like that.



'Unique' is not the same as 'personal' you know. Perhaps the reason few people build houses like that is because few people wish to live in what is effectively a mini office block. Their 'living room' looked like it should have a big curvy desk in it with some blond girl with a bluetooth headset asking people if they'll hold.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jan 31, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Unique' is not the same as 'personal' you know. Perhaps the reason few people build houses like that is because few people wish to live in what is effectively a mini office block. Their 'living room' looked like it should have a big curvy desk in it with some blond girl with a bluetooth headset asking people if they'll hold.



it was what they wanted.  therefore it would be personal to them.  do you really think they would spend all that time and money building something that was not 'personal' to them?! - we all have different tastes frank.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jan 31, 2008)

ddraig said:


> you are a one man spittle crusade defending the well off against the unwashed of urban, catch a grip man!



get back in your hole. how many times are you going to follow me on the boards. if you have nothing relevant to say then dont say anyhting please. or pm me so i can ignore you.


----------



## Firky (Jan 31, 2008)

Just started watching the giant sugar cube with glass walls... don't think I'd like to live there. Looks like a bar not a home.


----------



## Firky (Jan 31, 2008)

firky said:


> Just started watching the giant sugar cube with glass walls... don't think I'd like to live there. Looks like a bar not a home.



Looks like the set of a colgate advert, that woman is a div. The garden is ace, the kitchen is shite, the tap is arse, and the upstairs reminds me of the red light area in amsterdam. Load of arse. More money than sense.


----------



## Teepee (Jan 31, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> even though I disapprove of rich people in general



whaat


----------



## stavros (Jan 31, 2008)

Well, the dog shit will certainly show up nicely.


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 31, 2008)

If they had used the same paint on the inside of the house any muck would just fall off.


----------



## Cid (Jan 31, 2008)

It wasn't bad, I wouldn't live there as I don't go in for pure minimalism but it was clearly what they wanted and was an excellent example of how to manage your own build... Look at many of the previous programmes, they go over budget because the owners completely fail to think through the build (and often have far too much confidence in their own abilities). Sure, they spent £1k on a tap, but they saved about £30k by knowing what they were doing. Given the amount of absolutely top end features and the quality of the construction and finish the cost was pretty low. Still, when the kids grow up they're gonna kick themselves in the teeth for having that open wall on the master bedroom.

Modernism meaning minimalism is a bit of a fallacy that has came to itself in the late C20th, modernist buildings often appear minimal simply because they are entirely geared around function. if you build a block of flats for 400 people you can't say to yourself 'well so-and-so will live here, they like this, so I'll do that' so you create a clean, functional, well-lit space that people can then occupy and call their own. Of course there are a hell of a lot of staggeringly bad builds that are kind of by the numbers modernism; the sort of brutalist mass-housing that sprung up in the 60s and 70s but these are that way because they were built on the cheap with very little thought for the occupants. In fact there are also some extremely well thought out buildings from that period too; if you walk down Gospel oak road for example you see some fairly blank looking modernist terraces, slit windows and a lower brick (or possibly tile) portion... Go round the back though and you see that they also have outdoor spaces, go inside and they have large, open rooms which are well lit from above and behind, the street view is minimal (the slit widows), but then why would you want to see that?

Sorry, going off on one a bit - basically I'm pointing out that modernism is about a space that does exactly what it is supposed to do; and this is the key, a blank, white crisp house is not necessarily fulfilling that role. To do away with ornamentation and create something that is easy to organise and keep clear of clutter is one thing, but it is far too easy to push that too far and create something sterile. This is where critical regionalism comes in, the idea that modernism can draw on elements of the past, or the materials and traditions of the area to inform a build. It is about creating a modern space but one which responds to its environment, rather than simply being inserted into it. Tactility is important, materials should help inform the experience. It is most certainly not about using directly from the past, rather it is about using key elements, often in a manner that would not be associated with that technique/material etc. Note that it should not be confused with regionalism.

Critical regionlism is post-modern (which is a very misleading term, not postmodern style, simply a response to modernism), but there are elements of it in many of the works of the great modernists, particularly in dwelling spaces. Although not always expressly drawn from the area the qualities of the tactile, the sensory are often there.

Anyway, to get to the point, minimal modernism is a bit of an odd path to walk in a home (although it may be entirely appropriate for flats and offices), it is entirely possible to create a clutter-free, light, modern and spacious building that also brings in some natural qualities and that uses the tactile and the intriguing... At the end of this week's episode they talked about bringing the house outside, but at the same time one should consider bringing the outside in.


----------



## Firky (Jan 31, 2008)

Be nice if Class War turned up and decorated their walls.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jan 31, 2008)

Teepee said:


> whaat



i know.  i think this sums up franks posts quite nicely. no hidden agenda at all?!


----------



## Cid (Feb 6, 2008)

Well that was er... shit.


----------



## Idaho (Feb 7, 2008)

I didn't like the house particularly - and thought they went about it strangely. But I approve of people expressing themselves and their own ideas. Kevin is such a design snob that he doesn't really approve of people going it alone.

Anyone else bored of his "but will it all go wrong" narration on _every_ project?


----------



## zenie (Feb 7, 2008)

I loved the house and the fact it wasn't finished! 

The couple knew what they wanted and it was refreshing to see something different....I want a spooky house.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 7, 2008)

I thought that house was fantastic, particularly considering it was designed by someone who had no idea what she was doing. Mind you, I worked at an architect's firm for all of a week and even I know that the plans she was using weren't accurate enough to build from


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 7, 2008)

Idaho said:


> Anyone else bored of his "but will it all go wrong" narration on _every_ project?



hypercritically yes.

the knob is a felcher of Architecture and tbff I think the programme is now anchronistic, redundant & envirimentally reductionist and ignorant.

on a par with _Grange Hill_ in fact. 

but good tellypr0n for the aspirational nu_nouveau riche wannabies mind...thank fkk C4 still caters for minorities eh?


----------



## g force (Feb 7, 2008)

I didn't like it but thank fuck they showed something that wasn't a minimalist wank fest for Audi-driving, polo neck wearing design snobs. Im sick of white walls and glass fronts on GD...show us something different*.

*or am I crediting people with too much originality to _not_ build a white/glass box


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 7, 2008)

it was a mess and an example of what happens when you give someone with no taste money to spend.  why create an old gothic feeling house? just buy one and renovate it and then you get the real deal.  you cant create history.  what a totally pointless thing to do. spending money on new building should be about pushing boundaries and moving architectural styles forward not creating some pastiche of a jumble of different eras.


----------



## zenie (Feb 7, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> it was a mess and an example of what happens when you give someone with no taste money to spend. why create an old gothic feeling house? just buy one and renovate it and then you get the real deal. you cant create history. what a totally pointless thing to do. spending money on new building should be about pushing boundaries and moving architectural styles forward not creating some pastiche of a jumble of different eras.


 
Who are you to say what people spend their money on? Some kind of architectural fascist?


----------



## g force (Feb 7, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> spending money on new building should be about pushing boundaries and moving architectural styles forward not creating some pastiche of a jumble of different eras.



No it doesn't - because you end up with the usual glass fronted crap GD has on most weeks. The best examples of new builds i've seen have been the flat packed buildings people have imported that don't push things forward but are sympathetic to the surrounding environment.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 7, 2008)

I didnt like it at all, but that women is worthy of admiration for her efforts.


----------



## zenie (Feb 7, 2008)

Sweaty Betty said:


> I didnt like it at all, but that women is worthy of admiration for her efforts.


 
Yeh she failed at many many things (Those plans!! ) but you have to admire her dedication throughout the project.

They also didn't have loads and loads and loads of money like some of the others, there's hope for us yet! (maybe!)


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 7, 2008)

zenie said:


> Yeh she failed at many many things (Those plans!! ) but you have to admire her dedication throughout the project.
> 
> They also didn't have loads and loads and loads of money like some of the others, there's hope for us yet! (maybe!)



Yep she was amazing what with being a mum as well!


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 7, 2008)

They went way over and if they didnt have that much money, maybe if they has got some proff help in the first place that would not have happened to such  an extent!!

Anyway... my boss came in at bang on the money, but there was no proof that that was indeed correct.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 7, 2008)

zenie said:


> Who are you to say what people spend their money on? Some kind of architectural fascist?



no but building pastiche developments is pointless.  there are plenty of old buildings that Require restoration around the country. So why not restore them instead of building an over engineered modern building that is made to look old.  Totally pointless and tasteless.  It hardly makes a mark on the landscape to indicate how man has progressed or moved forward over the ages does it?! Personally I love the Victorian era of architecture, but that doesn’t mean id want to build a new house to be made to look like a mock Victorian.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 7, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> no but building pastiche developments is pointless.  there are plenty of old buildings that Require restoration around the country. So why not restore them instead of building an over engineered modern building that is made to look old.  Totally pointless and tasteless.  It hardly makes a mark on the landscape to indicate how man has progressed or moved forward over the ages does it?! Personally I love the Victorian era of architecture, but that doesn’t mean id want to build a new house to be made to look like a mock Victorian.



Yep agree, but there are not many gothic type buildings available as she said..


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 7, 2008)

g force said:


> No it doesn't - because you end up with the usual glass fronted crap GD has on most weeks. The best examples of new builds i've seen have been the flat packed buildings people have imported that don't push things forward but are sympathetic to the surrounding environment.



how was that building sympathetic to the surrounds? it was huge and ugly.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 7, 2008)

and certainly not in there budget


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 7, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> it was a mess and an example of what happens when you give someone with no taste money to spend.  why create an old gothic feeling house? just buy one and renovate it and then you get the real deal.  you cant create history.  what a totally pointless thing to do. spending money on new building should be about pushing boundaries and moving architectural styles forward not creating some pastiche of a jumble of different eras.



As Kevin McCloud pointed out in the programme, there have been loads of gothic revivals in the past. Who is to say what is 'authentic' gothic and what isn't? It's a very versatile style of architecture and I think these people did well to capture some of the intricacy of older gothic buildings as well as creating a unique and quirky layout to match. And just like everyone told me when I was moaning about the minimalist one form last week, it's their house and it's what they wanted. At least this one was interesting and displayed a little imgination.


----------



## WouldBe (Feb 7, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> At least this one was interesting and displayed a little imgination.



I'd much rather have something like that that an oversized goldfish bowl.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 7, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> As Kevin McCloud pointed out in the programme, there have been loads of gothic revivals in the past. Who is to say what is 'authentic' gothic and what isn't? It's a very versatile style of architecture and I think these people did well to capture some of the intricacy of older gothic buildings as well as creating a unique and quirky layout to match. And just like everyone told me when I was moaning about the minimalist one form last week, it's their house and it's what they wanted. At least this one was interesting and displayed a little imgination.



loads of imagination.  like wooden internal columns made to look like support columns - that werent actually supporting anything - they were just there for show.  how imaginitive! or stained glass windows to make it look like it used to be a church to give it added character. it was never a church!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 7, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> loads of imagination.  like wodden internal columsn made to look like support columns - that werent actually supporting anything - they were just there for show.  how imaginitive! or stained glass windows to make it look like it used to be a church to give it added character. it was never a church!



I'll admit that the fake oak beams were a little daft, but they looked good


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 7, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> I'd much rather have something like that that an oversized goldfish bowl.



Quite, at least it was designed as a place to be lived in and not just to be gawped at by fellow audi-driving twats.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 7, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> Quite, at least it was designed as a place to be lived in and not just to be gawped at by fellow audi-driving twats.


whats wrong with audi's? and the glass buildings usually have the glass facing their gardens thereby not being open for anyone to gawp in at you. You can gawp over your big garden, but people cant gawp at you.


----------



## Reno (Feb 7, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> Quite, at least it was designed as a place to be lived in....




...by trolls and vampires.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 7, 2008)

Reno said:


> ...by trolls and vampires.



yeah, and what were the gargoyles all about? a gargoyle with a laptop? chavtastic!

eta - the craftsmanship of the gargoyles was brilliant - but the design was awful imo.


----------



## Idaho (Feb 7, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> loads of imagination.  like wooden internal columns made to look like support columns - that werent actually supporting anything - they were just there for show.  how imaginitive! or stained glass windows to make it look like it used to be a church to give it added character. it was never a church!



I agree that the faux beams were silly - why not use them in the actual structure? - however the rest of what you say is nonsense. You seem to think that people building houses have some duty to your ethic of progressive modernist architecture. Also that buildings, and more importantly homes, can't be idiosyncratic, fun, and full of personal taste.

It is often said that it is better to have bad taste than no taste, and you seem to be coming from the latter side. Where you read up in advance and defer to experts about what you should like.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 7, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> whats wrong with audi's?



For that remark you are no longer permitted to voice an opinon on any design-related topic ever again as long as you live.


----------



## zenie (Feb 7, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> chavtastic!


----------



## WouldBe (Feb 7, 2008)

Idaho said:


> I agree that the faux beams were silly - why not use them in the actual structure?


Beams or columns?

The faux beams actually covered softwood structural beams. This way would be cheaper and lighter.


----------



## Cid (Feb 7, 2008)

I don't think it was shit because their hearts were in the wrong place or anything, it was shit because they didn't have a clue what they were doing. I'd love to design and build my own gothic house (I wouldn't actually do it ofc, would rather design a house along my own ideas, but if I had vast amounts of cash and a lot of free time...) but this was the worst end of pastiche. They'd taken elements that made them think gothic and dumped them inside a shell, there was no cohesion; bloody great plasma screen next to a beautiful fireplace (oh, it's ok, we'll put a frieze round it ), kitchen bog standard 'country' style etc. Don't get me wrong, some superb craftsmanship went into that place, but it only managed to hit the ideas at about 2/10... There's so much you could do with the Addam's family vibe, but they just didn't. Very poorly thought out.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 8, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> As Kevin McCloud pointed out in the programme, there have been loads of gothic revivals in the past. Who is to say what is 'authentic' gothic and what isn't?


Exactly. "Authentic" Gothic houses, being Victorian Revival, are technically pastiches. Demanding that buildings reject the past is a peculiarly 20th century/Modernist prejudice. 

Which has nothing particuarly to do with the quality of the house, which was a bizarre spooky pub/Pugin mish-mash. (Liked the staircase mind.)


----------



## Idaho (Feb 8, 2008)

Cid said:


> bloody great plasma screen next to a beautiful fireplace (oh, it's ok, we'll put a frieze round it ),



Oh how uncouth! A television! Next they'll be phoning up for delivery pizza


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 8, 2008)

Azrael said:


> Demanding that buildings reject the past is a peculiarly 20th century/Modernist prejudice.



And one which led to the creation of countless hideous buildings thrown up with no reference to the surrounding architecture


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 8, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> For that remark you are no longer permitted to voice an opinon on any design-related topic ever again as long as you live.



cant afford an audi or something frank?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 8, 2008)

zenie said:


>



how else would you describe a gargoyle with a smiley face and using a laptop? perhaps i should have said shit or tasteless? - i think chavtastic sums it up best.


----------



## zenie (Feb 8, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> how else would you describe a gargoyle with a smiley face and using a laptop? perhaps i should have said shit or tasteless? - i think chavtastic sums it up best.


 
Quite cute and individual actually....

I don't sneer at chavs or compare one group in society as being shit and tasteless.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 8, 2008)

Idaho said:


> Oh how uncouth! A television! Next they'll be phoning up for delivery pizza



but why spend the money on creating a great fireplace as a central focus point in the room and then dwarf it with a massive plasma tv??! at least it was to the side and not hung above the fireplace. small mercies.


----------



## Idaho (Feb 8, 2008)

Why come on a bulletin board and talk shit? Presumably you feel like it, and who are we to say otherwise


----------



## WouldBe (Feb 8, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> how else would you describe a gargoyle with a smiley face and using a laptop?



A modern twist on a classic.


----------



## Reno (Feb 8, 2008)

I'm with waterloowelshy, that gothic house was a fucking monstrosity and the only place where it would fit is a theme park. I also don't believe that what we should behind for future generations is a tacky reproduction of the past. We have so many new ways and materials to built new houses that fit the way we live now.

Sure, these halfwits can do what they want with their money but I wouldn't want to live in a place that looks like a ghost train on Blackpool Pier or live next to one and I'll take the liberty to point and laugh at anybody who does.


----------



## Idaho (Feb 8, 2008)

Yeah but you have shown yourself to be quite high on the no taste/snob spectrum a number of times Reno.


----------



## Cid (Feb 8, 2008)

Idaho said:


> Oh how uncouth! A television! Next they'll be phoning up for delivery pizza



Er... I have nothing against TVs (or ordering pizza for that matter. Well, provided it's from that little Polish chap who pops over to Pizza Express for us.) but that went against any iota of common sense. The fireplace is the focal point of the room right? It draws the eye instinctively, as does a plasma screen. Two focal points next to each other is going to feel _weird_ like trying to watch two things at the same time... Adding a frieze will do nothing except cheapen the effect. People can do what they want with their homes for all I care, and I quite like the idea of a rambling gothic build (ever since I first watched the Addams family), they just failed to pull it off imo. 

Incidentally the better parts of the Gothic revival worked because they had _vast_ sums of cash poured into them. The weaker parts are as cheap and tawdry as contemporary pastiches.


----------



## Cid (Feb 8, 2008)

As a couple of examples, look at the Foster conversion of the British museum and the Venturi Scott Brown Sainsbury wing of the national. Both of these take extensive influence from the past but get rid of unnecessary elements and use contemporary ideas (e.g. use of glass elements to give extensive natural light). You don't have to build in one style or the other, you can pick and chose and - if you do go all out on one style - you'd better have the cash, design skills and drive to make it work or it will just look... tacky.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 8, 2008)

Idaho said:


> Yeah but you have shown yourself to be quite high on the no taste/snob spectrum a number of times Reno.



you like the gothic pastiche and you are accusing someone of having no taste?


----------



## Azrael (Feb 8, 2008)

Cid said:


> Incidentally the better parts of the Gothic revival worked because they had _vast_ sums of cash poured into them. The weaker parts are as cheap and tawdry as contemporary pastiches.


Ironically Gothic and Modernism share this trait. What else are all those nasty council tower blocks but half-arsed pastiches of Le Corbusier and co.

I thought the Art Deco house from a few series back did a much better job of reviving a historic style, in that it wasn't a copy but a reinterpretation. Ie, the massive and ornate kitchen imagined how Thirties architects would have responded to today's technology. 

The post-Modernist drones on the subsequent _Trade Secrets_ hated it, which is often a good sign.


----------



## zenie (Feb 8, 2008)

Cid said:


> Incidentally the better parts of the Gothic revival worked because they had _vast_ sums of cash poured into them. The weaker parts are as cheap and tawdry as contemporary pastiches.


 
But, as they said it's a work in progress, I wonder what it'll look like and how many extras they'll have added in a few years.

I think it's lovely to have an evolving house.


----------



## Idaho (Feb 8, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> you like the gothic pastiche and you are accusing someone of having no taste?



Actually I don't like it. But liking gothic pastiche would arguably be bad taste, not no taste. 

No taste is the kind of running-scared-to-say-what-you-like in case some other ponce outsnobs you. Deferring what pleases you to professionals and noted writers. Seeing your taste as a badge of style, rather than being brave enough to actually like something.


----------



## Idaho (Feb 8, 2008)

Azrael said:


> The post-Modernist drones on the subsequent _Trade Secrets_ hated it, which is often a good sign.



I couldn't bear to watch that because I knew they would hate it. What could be more galling to professional style gurus than people who completely ignore them and just do what they feel like.


----------



## Reno (Feb 8, 2008)

Idaho said:


> Yeah but you have shown yourself to be quite high on the no taste/snob spectrum a number of times Reno.



I just have opinions which happen to oppose yours. Why am I a snob ?


----------



## Azrael (Feb 8, 2008)

Idaho said:


> I couldn't bear to watch that because I knew they would hate it. What could be more galling to professional style gurus than people who completely ignore them and just do what they feel like.


I was interested to see their strategy of attack, given that it wasn't a tacky copy. They were reduced to complaining that it wasn't "authentic" (because it incorporated contemporary minimalist elements, much as the original Art Deco did) before, paradoxically, rejecting _any_ revival of Art Deco. 

Showing that historical styles can be adapted to and made relevant for the present attacks the core doctrine of Modernism: reject the past. No wonder Kevin's peons hated the thing. (The man himself seemed to quite like it.)


----------



## Idaho (Feb 8, 2008)

Reno said:


> I just have opinions which happen to oppose yours. Why am I a snob ?



Because your opinions specifically preclude other's opinions.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 8, 2008)

Idaho said:


> Because your opinions specifically preclude other's opinions.



and yours dont?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 8, 2008)

Idaho said:


> Actually I don't like it. But liking gothic pastiche would arguably be bad taste, not no taste.
> 
> No taste is the kind of running-scared-to-say-what-you-like in case some other ponce outsnobs you. Deferring what pleases you to professionals and noted writers. Seeing your taste as a badge of style, rather than being brave enough to actually like something.



you would have to be stupid, not brave, to have liked that piece of shit.  i dont agree with professionals and didnt know there was a show after it where they slagged it off. i thought it was awful and really bad taste.  does that make me a snobby proffesional then?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 8, 2008)

zenie said:


> But, as they said it's a work in progress, I wonder what it'll look like and how many extras they'll have added in a few years.
> 
> I think it's lovely to have an evolving house.



no doubt there will be expensively carved gargoyles ardorning every room


----------



## zenie (Feb 8, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> no doubt there will be expensively carved gargoyles ardorning every room



I trust they'll put whatever *they* like in *their own* house


----------



## WouldBe (Feb 8, 2008)

zenie said:


> I trust they'll put whatever *they* like in *their own* house



I'd like to see the 'hidden door' to the kids bedroom when they get round to doing it.


----------



## Idaho (Feb 8, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> and yours dont?



I don't tolerate your intolerance, but I'll tolerate anything else about your opinions.


----------



## Cid (Feb 9, 2008)

Azrael said:


> Ironically Gothic and Modernism share this trait. What else are all those nasty council tower blocks but half-arsed pastiches of Le Corbusier and co.



This isn't pastiche, they're not intended as homages or resurrections... Rather they are their own distinct 'style'; they use the cheapest, fastest techniques available and that's all that defines them. Pastiche implies direct imitation of a previous style, low-end British high-rise are, if anything, brutalism drawn to an extreme conclusion.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 13, 2008)

The grand designs tonight (on the industrial site in Scotland) was just amazing.  got to be one of the best they have show cased on there. Just goes to show what can be built with a bit of thought.


----------



## moomoo (Feb 13, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> The grand designs tonight (on the industrial site in Scotland) was just amazing.  got to be one of the best they have show cased on there. Just goes to show what can be built with a bit of thought.




It was gorgeous!  

I want to be like that lady as well when I get a bit older, she was stunning.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 14, 2008)

shit i missed it!

bloody men!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Cid (Feb 14, 2008)

Yep, it was a good example of how a modern build can draw on elements from the area around it and the people living in it and yet remain fundamentally um... modern. I did think the double height facade was a bit imposing but I imagine that this will improve when the landscaping has been finished.


----------



## Limejuice (Feb 14, 2008)

Cid said:


> Yep, it was a good example of how a modern build can draw on elements from the area around it and the people living in it and yet remain fundamentally um... modern. I did think the double height facade was a bit imposing but I imagine that this will improve when the landscaping has been finished.


Good episode. Great building. Loved the larch 'planking' on the facade.

A huge amount of the appeal of the building, for me, was in the view over the fields and that wonderful landscape. Then a nagging doubt came in my mind. Supposing the local farmer got arsey and decided to plant a row of leylandii in full view. Or a great big barn. Leaving aside my ignorance of the planning laws, it struck me that here was a dream home whose owners were hostages to fortune. 

Maybe that's just my southern English worry that every field is a potential building site.


----------



## sir.clip (Feb 14, 2008)

Was the kid really disabled..
He had definatly been dodging the salads..

i think he was stressed... Lounging around in the snug... Also that future responsibility of looking after the house & a crackpot mum.. 

Nice shingle cladding though.. Frontside was a monster..not very softning to the landscape. 

is it me are all the Buildings beginning to look the same.. Big glass fronts & floaty staircases. Fitted kitchens & rural landscapes..


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 14, 2008)

moomoo said:


> It was gorgeous!
> 
> I want to be like that lady as well when I get a bit older, she was stunning.



she was very shrewd and funny. my wife said exactly the same thing.  you kind of wanted them to succeed just because of how they came across. and to see that they succeeded was great.  would love to see it with the lanscaping finished to see how it has bedded down.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 14, 2008)

sir.clip said:


> is it me are all the Buildings beginning to look the same.. Big glass fronts & floaty staircases. Fitted kitchens & rural landscapes..



They are a bit, but I did like that one last night more than most of the modernist boxes you get on the show. Mostly because of the woman going around explaining why everything had been designed the way it was and how important it was to have a house that's designed to be lived rather than as an 'architectural mausoleum' like that godawful white cube from a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## johnnymarrsbars (Feb 14, 2008)

i really REALLY liked that house from yesterday. the couple seemed really cool too.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 14, 2008)

i liked the library bit, and the grassy roof, not sure if it blended into the landscape as they said it would do, think that might take a few years


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 14, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> They are a bit, but I did like that one last night more than most of the modernist boxes you get on the show. Mostly because of the woman going around explaining why everything had been designed the way it was and how important it was to have a house that's designed to be lived rather than as an 'architectural mausoleum' like that godawful white cube from a couple of weeks ago.



yeah - and a lot of it was down to how they had furnished it as well.  it  was a modern building, which i thought was great, but the decoration and interior was in no way minimal. the reading room with the big window was amazing. no wonder he had stopped watching television.  no tv allowed in that room - makes a nice change to the muppets last week with their tv next to the fireplace.


----------



## johnnymarrsbars (Feb 14, 2008)

waterloowelshy said:


> yeah - and a lot of it was down to how they had furnished it as well.  it  was a modern building, which i thought was great, but the decoration and interior was in no way minimal. the reading room with the big window was amazing. no wonder he had stopped watching television.  no tv allowed in that room - makes a nice change to the muppets last week with their tv next to the fireplace.



the fake medieval thing? ha yeah, that couple just screamed "lottery winners with bad taste" to me.

it was funny though, you could see kevin cringing all the way through the show


----------



## sir.clip (Feb 14, 2008)

marty21 said:


> i liked the library bit,
> not sure if it blended into the landscape as they said it would do, think that might take a few years



The library was lovely. 
But it will take a few big trees to blend that into the scenery... 

Still worried about the kid though.. tucked in his snug alone watching T.V.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 14, 2008)

johnnymarrsbars said:


> the fake medieval thing? ha yeah, that couple just screamed "lottery winners with bad taste" to me.
> 
> it was funny though, you could see kevin cringing all the way through the show



you and me both.  read back through this post though - and you will find that there must be a fair few people with bad taste following the reaction i got for daring to suggest that the mock medievel house was awful.  ill stand by it though. it was awful and this weeks was great.


----------



## stavros (Feb 14, 2008)

That one last night didn't really wow me or appall me. They didn't seem that limited as a lot of them are and so nothing really went hugely wrong. Even Kevin seemed relatively upbeat last night (I say relatively). What the fuck was the bloke wearing at the end? Tartan trousers with tape measure braces.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 14, 2008)

sir.clip said:


> The library was lovely.
> But it will take a few big trees to blend that into the scenery...
> 
> Still worried about the kid though.. tucked in his snug alone watching T.V.



he'll be fine, they were going to give him the cottage next door, that they also own


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 21, 2008)

I wish I had 300000 pounds to spend on playing with some mud.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 21, 2008)

I got so fed up with the crappy houses in this series I sat down and designed my own. Took me the better part of two days using some crummy freeware 3D drawing software but it looks lovely. I've even built in a secret tunnel leading from the cellar out to the garden shed 

I'd post some screenshots of it but it's on a different PC


----------



## El Sueno (Feb 22, 2008)

I still can't stop smirking at the image of Kevin, casually chopping herbs in that burlesque-looking red apron. I love the way he ptches in like that.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 22, 2008)

God what an odious women she was- so off hand and blase about the obscene amount of money she had at her disposal, UNTILL she brought down her neighbours wall and garden along with it- then she didnt have enuff money

And why be so coy about the amount she spent at the end, when she had spent the whole programme telling us how loaded she was......


----------



## stavros (Feb 22, 2008)

Kev's apron had me pissing myself too. 

I did like the house this week, although that purple wall was feckin' hideous. It looked so out of place as did the purpley kitchen top.


----------



## la ressistance (Feb 22, 2008)

Sweaty Betty said:


> God what an odious women she was- so off hand and blase about the obscene amount of money she had at her disposal, UNTILL she brought down her neighbours wall and garden along with it- then she didnt have enuff money
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> i thought she was great.very chipper woman


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 22, 2008)

la ressistance;7148253][QUOTE=Sweaty Betty said:


> God what an odious women she was- so off hand and blase about the obscene amount of money she had at her disposal, UNTILL she brought down her neighbours wall and garden along with it- then she didnt have enuff money
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> i thought she was great.very chipper woman



It was her off hand manner with cash that irked me and lets not forget 200 lorry loads for one foundation and a road closuure to put the ruddy house together...it was when she mentioned nearly crying when she saw her crane towering above the land as she drove home in her car that did it for me


----------



## Firky (Feb 22, 2008)

I Like this show because I like architecture however I rarely like the people on it. The couple from Bath were horrible. He was a fucking cock and she was so pretentious it made me hurl. Nice house from the outside but horrible on the inside.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 22, 2008)

firky said:


> I Like this show because I like architecture however I rarely like the people on it. The couple from Bath were horrible. He was a fucking cock and she was so pretentious it made me hurl. Nice house from the outside but horrible on the inside.



The best one i seen so far is that dude from the last series that made that oak staircase out of an 800 year old piece of recaimed wood

He built the whole fucking house by himself with his diddy wife that looked like  a happier yoko ono

At zero cost to the environment in comparison to this ass of a couple

When she refused to say how much they spent i nearly kicked the TV


----------



## Firky (Feb 22, 2008)

If I won the lottery I'd buy myself a small plot of land in Hampshire or Somerset (about an acre) build a little house as greenly as I could (with crustychick's advice) and be install a big fuck off soundsystem, a lush kitchen garden and buy a good laptop. Couldn't give a shit about bespoke taps and door knobs. Wankers.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 22, 2008)

firky said:


> If I won the lottery I'd buy myself a small plot of land in Hampshire or Somerset (about an acre) build a little house as greenly as I could (with crustychick's advice) and be install a big fuck off soundsystem, a lush kitchen garden and buy a good laptop. Couldn't give a shit about bespoke taps and door knobs. Wankers.



Yep although that tap my boss had was groovey his settee however was shit and so was his kitchen
I hope he dont surf here


----------



## Firky (Feb 23, 2008)

A Bloke / mate I used to work with about someyears ago ran an IT company. He had fuck all qualifications just uber clever, helped the government build robotic systems and do AI research. Anyway to cut a long story short he floated his company on the stock market when the dot com boom was on, he got MILLIONS for it. The thing started up as a bunch of mates doing pissing about doing contracts for Whitehall. With the money he made he bought a derelict church, not a small chapel or a church but a BIG FUCKING CHURCH! He turned it into his house and made the bell tower his bedroom, it was in the middle of nowhere of northumberland. The roof of his bedroom was glass suspended with fuck all! Lie on the bed and see the stars and the moon. Amazing house. He sold it a few years ago as he felt guilty for living in such a place and made more money off it than he spent on converting it. Now he lives with his beautiful wife and step daughter in a little cottage doing SWFA.

Some people have all the luck / money.

I don't like money, hate the fucking thing, it turns people into wankers. But if you never had money then get it... then I think it makes you alright. It certainly would make my life so much easier if I didnt' have to worry about how I can afford the bus to work.


----------



## WouldBe (Feb 23, 2008)

Sweaty Betty said:


> Yep although that tap my boss had was groovey his settee however was shit and so was his kitchen
> I hope he dont surf here



I've seen a tap very similar to that one in B&Q or somewhere for a tenth of the price they paid for theirs.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 23, 2008)

firky said:


> I Like this show because I like architecture however I rarely like the people on it. The couple from Bath were horrible. He was a fucking cock and she was so pretentious it made me hurl. Nice house from the outside but horrible on the inside.



i'm going to have to watch this now - i might know them


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 23, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> I've seen a tap very similar to that one in B&Q or somewhere for a tenth of the price they paid for theirs.



maybe i should mention it to him next time he comes into the office


----------



## Reno (Feb 23, 2008)

Sweaty Betty said:


> God what an odious women she was- so off hand and blase about the obscene amount of money she had at her disposal, UNTILL she brought down her neighbours wall and garden along with it- then she didnt have enuff money
> 
> And why be so coy about the amount she spent at the end, when she had spent the whole programme telling us how loaded she was......







Sweaty Betty  said:


> It was her off hand manner with cash that irked me and lets not forget 200 lorry loads for one foundation and a road closuure to put the ruddy house together...it was when she mentioned nearly crying when she saw her crane towering above the land as she drove home in her car that did it for me




This just strikes me as self sanctimonious griping. I just watched the programme and absolutely nowhere was she "blase about the obscene amount of money she had at her disposal". The neighbours wall falling down was ude to subsidence and heavy rain and completely unforeseeable. Even though that's what insurance is there for, I suppose you believe she should have paid it herself anyway. She was far from off hand IMO and they really didn't strike me as people who has limitless resources. She put on a brave face for the camera while admitting that they completely overspent due to various disasters and that she didn't sleep at night with worry. 

Why shouldn't she be crying with pride and relief when after all they went through after their house finally goes up ? In the end I thought the building was merely OK, but I admired her spirit in seeing it through.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 24, 2008)

i didn't know her, quite liked the building, not sure about the pink internal scheme, view was great, i know people who live on that hill (bathwick hill) and it  does have a great view...ended up not getting that annoyed at the woman, thought i would end up hating her, but despite the obscene amount of money they spent, quite liked the building, might run into her one day when i go to waitrose with my mum


----------



## grace_p143 (Mar 18, 2016)

Chip Barm said:


> First of the new ones I've seen.
> 
> Shit house for kids really. £1k for a tap! worth it my arse.
> 
> The glass was cool but the fireplace was the the bit I really liked.


 Actually I kind of liked living in it.


----------



## stavros (Jan 6, 2021)

New series tonight.


----------



## stavros (Jan 8, 2021)

Oh dear. I can forgive him being born into landed gentry, but scraping round for money whilst sending your son to a private boarding school?

The house looked pretty good from the outside, but was way to indulgent inside.


----------

