# Grand Designs in Brixton, Channel 4



## mrsfran (Sep 26, 2012)

On Channel 4 right now. Pair of utter twats building a minimalist house in Brixton.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2012)

grand designs thread here

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/grand-designs.259734/page-6#post-11552368

why do you say "utter twats" (I missed first five mins)?


----------



## mrsfran (Sep 26, 2012)

Because they were going on about the house being a "shining beacon of light". And they're clearly twats.


----------



## mrsfran (Sep 26, 2012)

Also, look at the last house they built. It's hideous. HIDEOUS.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2012)

The Norfolk barn place? Looks pretty nice to me


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 26, 2012)

Rich bastards bashing our trees


----------



## qosno1 (Sep 26, 2012)

He just caller the location 'gritty'. wanker


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 26, 2012)

The other house is awful


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 26, 2012)

Is this the glass box type house next to the pretty, shapely woodeny bits house?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

I like the eco idea of the house, low energy, lots of light etc - could be good.

Their budget is a "ridiculously small" £300,000.


----------



## mrsfran (Sep 26, 2012)

Oh my god I want to punch her in her face. JUST DO SOME DECORATING AND BUY A DOG.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Is this the glass box type house next to the pretty, shapely woodeny bits house?


Lyham Road, between Mauleverer Road and Margate Road.


----------



## editor (Sep 26, 2012)

I wish I could afford to jet off to Latvia to go shopping for fancy windows.


----------



## qosno1 (Sep 26, 2012)

Was horrified when they started redrilling the base for the steel frame. Hope they at least did a back of the fag packet calc before they went with that. The crane v tree was terrible too. Where was the banksman. I'd have shut that site down.

Also, the guy looks like George Galloway


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 26, 2012)

It is the one I thought.  Saw it the other week. Not the inside like.  I like the neighbouring one best.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 26, 2012)

editor said:


> I wish I could afford to jet off to Latvia to go shopping for fancy windows.


 
I was speaking to a Latvian the same day I saw this house.  He gets plenty of cheap flights to see his family.


----------



## editor (Sep 26, 2012)

Does he buy expensive windows when he's there?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> It is the one I thought. Saw it the other week. Not the inside like. I like the neighbouring one best.


this one?


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 26, 2012)

Only if he can't get the same cheaper here.


----------



## Firky (Sep 26, 2012)

I'd love to see a Grand Designs where the pressure of the build and financial strain is all too much and the house is repossessed by the bank. This tears the smug couple apart, ruining their superficial relationship and catapulting one of them into alcoholism, and eventually losing their job and falling down the ladder into a damp council flat in a 'gritty' part of city. 

OK maybe that's a bit extreme but the people on GD's are like the people in Country Life magazine - on a total fucking different planet to the majority of the populace.

I like architecture (it's what I wrote my dissertation on) but I *really* can't stand some of the materialistic, shallow, ostentatious cnuts that appear on that show.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2012)

editor said:


> Does he buy expensive windows when he's there?


I wonder how much he spends on his camera lenses.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 26, 2012)

Mothership my arse

More like cargo container


----------



## magneze (Sep 26, 2012)

Shame how it's ended up like a load of containers badly stacked together. For £300K.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 26, 2012)

firky said:


> I'd love to see a Grand Designs where the pressure of the build and financial strain is all too much and the house is repossessed by the bank. This tears the smug couple apart, ruining their superficial relationship and catapulting one of them into alcoholism, and eventually losing their job and falling down the ladder into a damp council flat in a 'gritty' part of city.
> 
> OK maybe that's a bit extreme but the people on GD's are like the people in Country Life magazine - on a total fucking different planet to the majority of the populace.
> 
> I like architecture (it's what I wrote my dissertation on) but I *really* can't stand some of the materialistic, shallow, ostentatious cnuts that appear on that show.


They don't show those ones.


----------



## mrsfran (Sep 26, 2012)

Oh god. It's horrible.


----------



## qosno1 (Sep 26, 2012)

I love the big fuck of security gate.


----------



## qosno1 (Sep 26, 2012)

It's so bloody soulless. Looks like it'd be great for people who don't live. People who clean the whole bathroom every time they take a shit.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Sep 26, 2012)

magneze said:


> Shame how it's ended up like a load of containers badly stacked together. For £300K.


 
Indeed. Horrible anal interior too.


----------



## editor (Sep 26, 2012)

teuchter said:


> I wonder how much he spends on his camera lenses.


Who me? A lot, lot, lot less than those fancy windows and flights, And a bespoke house, of course.
HTH.


----------



## editor (Sep 26, 2012)

qosno1 said:


> I love the big fuck of security gate.


Sets the tone.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 26, 2012)

You can't be in a house like this and close the community off?

Yeah right


----------



## mrsfran (Sep 26, 2012)

She looks like she's never actually enjoyed herself in her life.


----------



## Firky (Sep 26, 2012)

It has a very clinical look to it, I wonder what it 'feels' like inside.


----------



## ricbake (Sep 26, 2012)

£550,000 - they deserve it!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

magneze said:


> Shame how it's ended up like a load of containers badly stacked together. For £300K.


plus they had to sell their other house


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 26, 2012)

Doesn't look warm and comfortable and inviting to me


----------



## editor (Sep 26, 2012)

Looks like an industrial unit.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Sep 26, 2012)

come up the hill to Crystal Palace - we do nuclear bunkers better up here


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 26, 2012)

It doesn't fit in with the current road at all, how did they get planning permission?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 26, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> It doesn't fit in with the current road at all, how did they get planning permission?


 
It's Lambeth Council


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 26, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> come up the hill to Crystal Palace - we do nuclear bunkers better up here



I know someone who used to live in there. Nice flat with a lovely view, not remotely like living in a gated wank bunker.


----------



## ricbake (Sep 26, 2012)

Pear Tree House is actually Lambeth Council's emergency bunker - but they rent it out these days


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 26, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> It doesn't fit in with the current road at all, how did they get planning permission?


 
Not all the houses on the road are victorian terraces.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Not all the houses on the road are victorian terraces.


 
True enough, there's industrial units which means it fits right in really


----------



## Firky (Sep 26, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> It doesn't fit in with the current road at all, how did they get planning permission?


 
Good! I hate this misconception in this country that everything has to look the same, that's why we end up with boring flat pack style designs repeated across estates all over the country. Oh look, a Barrat home that looks exactly like a Barrat home 300 miles away.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Not all the houses on the road are victorian terraces.





firky said:


> Good! I hate this misconception in this country that everything has to look the same, that's why we end up with boring flat pack style designs repeated across estates all over the country. Oh look, a Barrat home that looks exactly like a Barrat home 300 miles away.


 
I didn't say look the same, I said fit in, else you just end up with a mismash of buildings. I don't actually dislike the house but it looks out of place.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2012)

firky said:


> Good! I hate this misconception in this country that everything has to look the same, that's why we end up with boring flat pack style designs repeated across estates all over the country. Oh look, a Barrat home that looks exactly like a Barrat home 300 miles away.


 
Exactly, 99% of the time planning officers pander to the simplistic approach that looking like everything else around (or alternatively looking vaguely like a badly cobbled together representation of some semi-fictional historic style) is what should determine what people are allowed to build, but now and again one slips through the net and we get something interesting to look at, something that's actually required a bit of intelligence and imagination to concieve.

If 90% of the population of Brixton don't like this house, then that's just tough luck because the other 10% of us have to put up with the awful crap built to pacify you lot, and which makes up the majority of new building that dominates our everyday environment. There, I've said it.

Think of this house as a stealthy Kraftwerk track inserted into a mix of James Blunt, Coldplay and lift music.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 26, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I didn't say look the same, I said fit in, else you just end up with a mismash of buildings. I don't actually dislike the house but it looks out of place.


 
I expect it's like having a house full of eclectic mismatching clutter.  3 bits of eclectic mismatching clutter look a bit odd but once it's full of lots of eclectic mismatching clutter it works. 

Sort of.  Sometimes.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I didn't say look the same, I said fit in


 
What exactly do you mean by "fit in" though, if you stop and think about it? What are your criteria for whether a building "fits in"? 

And what about this specific site...what is the particular nature of the site this house is built on, and what would you say would "fit in" on there?


----------



## Firky (Sep 26, 2012)

Fitting in ould mean building a house in 2012 that looked like it was built in 1812. Where's the sense in that, did the Edwardians or Victorians build houses that looked like previous generations or did they nick bits of styles from all over and make it their own?

Just look at some of the amazing architecture you see in Barcelona for example, why can't we be like that? Why does everything have to 'fit in'?


----------



## Firky (Sep 26, 2012)

Maybe we should start a new thread, I feel a bit out of place in here since I no longer live in South London


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 26, 2012)

teuchter said:


> What exactly do you mean by "fit in" though, if you stop and think about it? What are your criteria for whether a building "fits in"?
> 
> And what about this specific site...what is the particular nature of the site this house is built on, and what would you say would "fit in" on there?


Have a look at the surrounding houses, it sticks out like a sore thumb. It's not the same materials, height, colour as the other buildings


http://goo.gl/maps/01qVA

http://goo.gl/maps/nuPCd


----------



## Firky (Sep 26, 2012)

See, sleater, I don't see that as a bad thing


----------



## Manter (Sep 26, 2012)

it's also really badly finished.  (meow)


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 26, 2012)

firky said:


> See, sleater, I don't see that as a bad thing


That's ok firky, you're mostly wrong anyway.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I didn't say look the same, I said fit in,





sleaterkinney said:


> Have a look at the surrounding houses, it sticks out like a sore thumb. It's not the same materials, height, colour as the other buildings


 
So, when you say "fit in" you _do_ mean "look the same".


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 26, 2012)

teuchter said:


> So, when you say "fit in" you _do_ mean "look the same".


No, for me look the same means the same design of building.


----------



## Firky (Sep 26, 2012)

I think the worst thing about is the great big bloody wall and security gate.


----------



## clicker (Sep 26, 2012)

Well we've had mock tudor, now do we have to put up with mock edwardian to 'fit in'....or mock victorian to keep the 'place naice'.

I liked it, I will shoot myself later, wouldnt want to live in it, but appreciate that others do and it's their dream and they've made it real. Rows and rows of identical houses with nothing to differentiate from each other , apart from the state of their nets or the colour of their doors kind of sucks the creative out of the neighbourhood, but chuck a swerve ball like this into the mix and it becomes an interesting street.

Personally I'm all up for a heap of nick nacks and bottles of bubble bath , and a couple of kids pushing each other around on the wheely office would have added to it's charm for me, but the commitment to their ideal was imo worthy of a trophy that would no doubt be consigned to a plywood drawer never to be seen again.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2012)

Colour and materials of surrounding buildings:
Red brick, london stock brick, white render, glass, PVC window frames, wooden window frames, stone, slate roofs, clay tile roofs, orange painted garage doors, grey metal garage doors, metal roofs, blue doors, green doors, painted brick, grey metal windows, timber cladding, rusty metalwork gates, etc etc etc

Materials of new building:
White render, glass, white painted windows, metal trim.

The "similar materials" thing may make sense in a street where the buildings are very uniform and attractive, and where something incongruous might spoil that effect, but it's hardly the case here. That bit of Lyham Rd (well most of Lyham Road) is a hotpotch of stuff anyway, and in terms of colour and material the new building is pretty restrained and hardly adding much extra confusion. I'd say it's a welcome distraction from the unremarkable and ugly terrace of PVC-d houses just up the road from it.

As for size, well, you could argue it looks a "bit bigger" but then again it doesn't look like it's higher than the gable of the house on the street corner opposite, or the church.


----------



## Manter (Sep 26, 2012)

I think it is horrible- ugly, austere and cold.  And they are quite slappable, aren't they?  Irrelevant, but isn't helping me warm to the house

_*However*_, I'd rather this than some kind of Barratt home house out of a box, could be anywhere owned by anyone... at least it's interesting and is generating debate


----------



## fjydj (Sep 27, 2012)

I've only seen that building from the junction of Madrell Road and thought it was a scaffold wrap while they fixed the roof!!! 

funny to see inside, dont know why people ever agree to do these shows, they never come across well


----------



## fortyplus (Sep 27, 2012)

Don't have a problem with it, architecturally in its environment. There's not enough bold  domestic architecture in London - why should the exciting stuff always be offices and stadia?

But:
- energy conservation my arse. Did he do the embodied-energy calculations for all that concrete, glass and steel? How long will his PV panels take to recoup that?
- that front gate. 
- and minimalism is just another way of saying cupboards full of crap.


----------



## jn2c (Sep 27, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> But:
> - energy conservation my arse. Did he do the embodied-energy calculations for all that concrete, glass and steel? How long will his PV panels take to recoup that?
> - that front gate.
> - and minimalism is just another way of saying cupboards full of crap.


 
I visited during the open house and chatted with some of the architects about what they had done for energy conservation.  I was impressed at how much they had studied and achieved with the building in terms of energy.  I also liked the solution for getting light downstairs.  The building looked a lot nicer on the inside than the outside, and although it certainly didn't have a lived-in look to it there was so much light in the place it felt warmer than it should with all that concrete.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 27, 2012)

Yes the tall front sliding gate says it all keep out, although the couple soon realised they had to engage with the community everytime they stepped out the door coz everyone had an opinion. 

I don't have a problem with the actual building really but seems slightly too tall for the exisiting terrace. Mind you as Firky say this lot live in another universe.


----------



## Winot (Sep 27, 2012)

The pattern matching on the plywood was extraordinary.


----------



## ChrisD (Sep 27, 2012)

jn2c said:


> I visited during the open house and chatted with some of the architects about what they had done for energy conservation. I was impressed at how much they had studied and achieved with the building in terms of energy. I also liked the solution for getting light downstairs. The building looked a lot nicer on the inside than the outside, and although it certainly didn't have a lived-in look to it there was so much light in the place it felt warmer than it should with all that concrete.


 
I'd be interested to know what it "sounds" like?  Modernist interiors often feel very echo-y through lack of soft furnishings. I think I'd find that unsettling to live in.  TV programmes don't convey the aural qualities of buildings...


----------



## Winot (Sep 27, 2012)

ChrisD said:


> I'd be interested to know what it "sounds" like? Modernist interiors often feel very echo-y through lack of soft furnishings. I think I'd find that unsettling to live in. TV programmes don't convey the aural qualities of buildings...


 
I visited too during Open House and didn't notice it being particularly noisy (and it was full of people).

I think it's a great building (inside and out).  Not one that would suit my lifestyle, but what's that got to do with anything.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 27, 2012)

jn2c said:


> I visited during the open house and chatted with some of the architects about what they had done for energy conservation. I was impressed at how much they had studied and achieved with the building in terms of energy. I also liked the solution for getting light downstairs. The building looked a lot nicer on the inside than the outside, and although it certainly didn't have a lived-in look to it there was so much light in the place it felt warmer than it should with all that concrete.


 
I went too and had a long chat with the architect after wandering about. Having seen only a brief trailer of the Grand Designs episode I thought he might be terribly pretentious but I liked him. He wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs but was open and honest about what was proven and what was experimental and he was very passionate about what he had done in an understated way. Most architects long to work on commissions like this but such projects are few and far between, so I admire him for having the balls to make it happen for himself.

There was quite a lot of tech info left out in the show (although I was watching it after I got home from the pub so could easily have missed bits). One of the most interesting installations was the ground source heat system. One of the problems of GSHP is that in urban areas where there is not much opportunity for the ground to be warmed by the Sun the system can actually cool the ground below the building, reducing efficacy and in some cities where this technology is more common this has created permanent permafrost. His system has been designed so that when heat is not being extracted, it is being collected by the panels and returned to the ground and stored for when it is needed. The solution is simple but clever.

A lot of his costs came from fixtures and fittings and I didn't agree with some of his rationale for using Vola taps, for instance. I'm sure they are better quality than most brass ware but I just don't agree that at £500-600 for a basin mixer they will come close to paying for themselves during their lifetime.

As for the design, I thought it was great. I didn't think there was much that was ground breaking apart from perhaps the use of glass cladding - but it is a fine example of what it is and there isn't anything like it locally. The attention to detail (or lack of detail) is fantastic. It didn't feel cold to me but I am a fan of well executed concrete architecture, which is very unforgiving to work with. Interior wise, it is quite modest in size bearing in mind that the entire ground floor is the office for him an his team. Upstairs there are two bedrooms, two bathrooms and a decent but not enormous open plan kitchen and living area.

I've enjoyed watching it go up, enjoy seeing it when I run past and would very happily live in it. Although, if I did, it would be permanently untidy!

I feel a pretty uncomfortable with some of the carping and slagging going on above. Have we still not managed to get beyond the knee jerk reaction of attacking anything and anyone who is unfamiliar in our community. WTF?


----------



## lefteri (Sep 27, 2012)

I didn't see the prog or know it was on til today but by coincidence walked past the building yesterday for the first time on the way to fulham timber - it's simply a modernist building, the idea that people are still shocked or think it's ugly over a hundred years after the start of the movement is either a testament to the avant-garde of the early twentieth century or to the continuing conservatism of this island, I'm not sure which


----------



## Kanda (Sep 27, 2012)

Surely that end of Lyham Rd is Clapham???


----------



## lefteri (Sep 27, 2012)

well according to the timber yard it's fulham


----------



## Rushy (Sep 27, 2012)

lefteri said:


> I didn't see the prog or know it was on til today but by coincidence walked past the building yesterday for the first time on the way to fulham timber - it's simply a modernist building, the idea that people are still shocked or think it's ugly over a hundred years after the start of the movement is either a testament to the avant-garde of the early twentieth century or to the continuing conservatism of this island, I'm not sure which


 
Won't be long until someone buys it and makes 'improvements' with pebble dash or some classy stone cladding.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 27, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> - energy conservation my arse. Did he do the embodied-energy calculations for all that concrete, glass and steel? How long will his PV panels take to recoup that?


 
That's a bit nitpicky. Have you done the calculations? Not that embodied energy is insignificant but what's really important is to insulate well and they seem to have done that pretty thoroughly, going well beyond what building regs call for and well beyond what's done with most new build houses. He claims it's a Code 5 for sustainable homes which is the second highest, so I think he should be given his dues.

Also, I find it really encouraging to see someone making a genuine effort at energy efficiency without doing a building that is shouting "eco" at everyone. Really good to demonstrate that you can have a sharp, modern building that just does the energy efficiency stuff quietly in the background and it doesn't have to look like a hobbit house.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 27, 2012)

teuchter said:


> That's a bit nitpicky. Have you done the calculations? Not that embodied energy is insignificant but what's really important is to insulate well and they seem to have done that pretty thoroughly, going well beyond what building regs call for and well beyond what's done with most new build houses. He claims it's a Code 5 for sustainable homes which is the second highest, so I think he should be given his dues.


 
He clarified this during my visit. Some of the technology he is using has not been taken into account by the grading system - I think it was the energy dump for the GSHP but could be mistaken - because the technology is so new it has not been rated for the grading system.

As well as being insulated, the house is airtight. During winter ventilation only occurs through heat exchange vents which remove stale air and allow fresh (well - it's London, so fresh-ish) air in. In order to prevent the incoming air from cooling down the house it passes through a heat exchanger with the warm stale air and 97% of the heat is transferred from the outgoing air to the incoming air preventing the house from cooling down. This is excellent technology and I don't think it will be long before all new build homes have it.

In any case, having a dig because he has only achieved grade 5 is like calling a sprinter shit for only getting a silver medal. Especially when the sprinter is not even banging on about his sprinting credentials.


----------



## lefteri (Sep 27, 2012)

I'd much rather live in a mass produced house built by a shady developer from a pattern book in the 19th century if I had half a million quid


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

Rushy said:


> I feel a pretty uncomfortable with some of the carping and slagging going on above. Have we still not managed to get beyond the knee jerk reaction of attacking anything and anyone who is unfamiliar in our community. WTF?


If you make a grand, gated architectural statement in an area where many people are struggling to find decent housing and go on TV to tell the world about your 'vision', then you can hardly complain if people express an opinion on the matter.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> If you make a grand, gated architectural statement in an area where many people are struggling to find decent housing and go on TV to tell the world about your 'vision', then you can hardly complain if people express an opinion on the matter.


I'm not complaining that people expressed their opinions. In fact I'm glad that they did as it is always good to know what people are thinking. I was, however, expressing discomfort at the alarmist, conservative (small c) and downright aggressive nature of the some of the expressions of opinion.

The four Brixton Housing Coop flats in my street recently installed electronic controls on the communal front garden gate. Should I complain that they are wrecking our community as I can no longer wander freely in their front garden?


----------



## lefteri (Sep 27, 2012)

Rushy said:


> The four Brixton Housing Coop flats in my street recently installed electronic controls on the communal front garden gate. Should I complaint that they are wrecking our community as I can no longer wander freely in their front garden?


 
wouldn't be a bad idea - locked gates are locked gates, doesn't matter who installs them in my opinion - front gardens ought to be visible and in order to be so they shouldn't have tall fences and locked gates


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

Rushy said:


> The four Brixton Housing Coop flats in my street recently installed electronic controls on the communal front garden gate. Should I complain that they are wrecking our community as I can no longer wander freely in their front garden?


I could be wrong, but I'd wager they look a lot less daunting than the arrangement on the 'Zen retreat.'


----------



## teuchter (Sep 27, 2012)

Rushy said:


> As well as being insulated, the house is airtight.


 
Above a certain level of insulation, it _has_ to be airtight. Otherwise the insulation is simply bypassed. Building regs do now call for a certain level of airtightness in new housing, although this one will probably exceed those levels.

Whether newbuild housing that passes the airtightness tests now will still be airtight in 10 or 20 years time is another matter seeing as it tends largely to be achieved with sticky tape and/or construction layers that can be punctured when the occupants install a new socket box or whatever.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 27, 2012)

Not sure what I think about the gates. Because it's part of a row of garages with locked doors onto the street it doesn't seem as over-defensive as if it were in the middle of a row of houses with front gardens. Lots of houses have a (locked) front door straight onto the street... what's the significant difference?


----------



## Rushy (Sep 27, 2012)

lefteri said:


> wouldn't be a bad idea - locked gates are locked gates, doesn't matter who installs them in my opinion - front gardens ought to be visible and in order to be so they shouldn't have tall fences and locked gates


It's visible. Just not accessible. And I understand their reason for doing it. Too many other members of the community using their front garden as a toilet, dealing, shooting up, fucking, etc.. I have a gate outside. Last time it was left open I was woken at 5am by police arresting someone shooting up in the lightwell of the basement flat below. I agree with the general idea that it would be preferable not to have gates everywhere. But given the practicalities of urban living I think it's a bit simple to automatically discredit the people who have them.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Not sure what I think about the gates. Because it's part of a row of garages with locked doors onto the street it doesn't seem as over-defensive as if it were in the middle of a row of houses with front gardens. Lots of houses have a (locked) front door straight onto the street... what's the significant difference?


Because it's not a garage and they had the space and resources to make something less Stalag-like?


----------



## Manter (Sep 27, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Above a certain level of insulation, it _has_ to be airtight. Otherwise the insulation is simply bypassed. Building regs do now call for a certain level of airtightness in new housing, although this one will probably exceed those levels.
> 
> Whether newbuild housing that passes the airtightness tests now will still be airtight in 10 or 20 years time is another matter seeing as it tends largely to be achieved with sticky tape and/or construction layers that can be punctured when the occupants install a new socket box or whatever.


 
Slightly off topic, my parents are building a cat 5 house in Shropshire (and they turned down Grand Designs ) They had to have it wrapped in white plastic and filled with coloured gas to check its airtighness- it was great fun to watch.  For cat 5 you have to have various levels of fail safes- so if you accidentally drill through a wall it has to not collapse the whole system etc- especially if you are using ground source heating and water recovery and such technical gubbins.  Plus there are all sorts of rules you don't think about but are in fact pretty obvious (eg you can't have a letter box)- really interesting area.


----------



## Manter (Sep 27, 2012)

Rushy said:


> It's visible. Just not accessible. And I understand their reason for doing it. Too many other members of the community using their front garden as a toilet, dealing, shooting up, fucking, etc.. I have a gate outside. Last time it was left open I was woken at 5am by police arresting someone shooting up in the lightwell of the basement flat below. I agree with the general idea that it would be preferable not to have gates everywhere. But given the practicalities of urban living I think it's a bit simple to automatically discredit the people who have them.


 I understand- my last place we had all sorts of nutjobs using the garden.  We gated off the parking, which discouraged the hookers, but loads of peopl used the front garden as a toilet (finding human shit when you are planting your annuals is not especially lovely) so as I sold it there was a very heated discussion going on about gating the front or not.  We were all instinctively uncomfortable, but pretty sick of the rubbish we stepped in...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 27, 2012)

fjydj said:


> I've only seen that building from the junction of Madrell Road and thought it was a scaffold wrap while they fixed the roof!!!
> 
> funny to see inside, dont know why people ever agree to do these shows, they never come across well


I suspect they get paid a fair bit of money for being filmed. They are always running over budget on these schemes.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

Rushy said:


> . But given the practicalities of urban living I think it's a bit simple to automatically discredit the people who have them.


Of course, but surely you would agree that there are equally effective options that don't look quite so unfriendly as this daunting construction?


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I suspect they get paid a fair bit of money for being filmed.


I don't think they do.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 27, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I suspect they get paid a fair bit of money for being filmed. They are always running over budget on these schemes.





editor said:


> I don't think they do.


 
No, they don't.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Of course, but surely you would agree that there are equally effective options that don't look quite so unfriendly as this daunting construction?


 
Just because it might not satisfy your conservative tastes, doesn't mean that you can expect everyone else to find it Stalag-like or unfriendly.

The gate is partly see-through, anyway.










Have you actually gone and looked at it yourself since it was finished?


----------



## Rushy (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Of course, but surely you would agree that there are equally effective options that don't look quite so unfriendly as this daunting construction?


I find it difficult to marry your enthusiasm for the iconic landmark nature of the barrier block (your home) with your dismissal of this one of being unfriendly, daunting and stalag-like. I guess it is just a matter of familiarity.

I don't think that what they have done is inappropriate for the building. I like that the carport has gaps between the panes of glass to allow sightlines in and out. I understand the general uneasiness about everything being gated but also understand from experience why people do it around here. Bear in mind that during the build his brother had £6K of tools stolen from a locked shipping container on site (of which, incredibly, he got about 2/3 back apparently) and the ground floor will be an architect studio pack with high end Macs.

As for closing people out, they have just spent two days allowing anyone who wants to the opportunity to wander about their house by themselves.


----------



## Manter (Sep 27, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I suspect they get paid a fair bit of money for being filmed. They are always running over budget on these schemes.


Nope, they don't offer money and you have to sign a release saying they can talk to your builder,srchitect, neighbours etc, have free access ot the site and can use what they like.  Mugs the lot of them


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

Rushy said:


> I find it difficult to marry your enthusiasm for the iconic landmark nature of the barrier block (your home) with your dismissal of this one of being unfriendly, daunting and stalag-like. I guess it is just a matter of familiarity.


I actually also describe the Barrier Block as 'Statag'-like and unfriendly, but it's a bit of a ridiculous comparison anyway. The Barrier Block wasn't constructed to be a trendy minimalist Zen retreat: it was built to bounce back the noise and pollution from the proposed elevated motorway that was going to stand directly in front of it.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 27, 2012)

It's not just a "trend zen retreat", there will be a working office on the ground floor. If they had left the frontage open to the street then they would have had to have some kind of rolldown shutter on the shopfront which is probably less friendly than a translucent gate which you can look through which will likely be open during the day anyway.

So have you actually gone to look at it editor or is it just ill-informed bluster?


----------



## gaijingirl (Sep 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> Nope, they don't offer money and you have to sign a release saying they can talk to your builder,srchitect, neighbours etc, have free access ot the site and can use what they like. Mugs the lot of them


 
but in this case he was the architect..... pretty good publicity there for him.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 27, 2012)

gaijingirl said:


> but in this case he was the architect..... pretty good publicity there for him.


 
Not necessarily, depends what spin they decide to put on things. In this case he seems to have come out OK though.


----------



## gaijingirl (Sep 27, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Not necessarily, depends what spin they decide to put on things. In this case he seems to have come out OK though.


 
yes I was talking about "in this case"...


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

teuchter said:


> It's not just a "trend zen retreat", there will be a working office on the ground floor.


I was quoting directly from the Grand Designs website: 


> In Brixton in south London design-mad couple Mary Martin and Carl Turner want to build a home that resembles a giant stack of glass cubes that's a Zen retreat from the noise and chaos of the capital.
> 
> http://www.channel4.com/programmes/grand-designs/episode-guide/series-8/episode-7


----------



## Winot (Sep 27, 2012)

The 'slipped' top level reminds me a bit of Will Alsop's Palestra building opposite Southwark tube.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> I was quoting directly from the Grand Designs website:


You could quote the Architect's Journal:



> Designed by Carl Turner Architects as a prototype for adaptable terraced housing, Slip House sits on one of four empty plots within a row of Victorian terrace houses in Brixton.
> The house, which is the architect’s own house and office, occupies the entire width of the site and will become one element in a row of modern houses, as surrounding empty plots are developed.
> The building’s sculptural form is created by three ‘slipped’ boxes that step forward towards the street from the rear of the site. The boxes have been placed to maximise both internal light and views from within the house while not intruding on the neighbour’s outlook.
> The street and rear facades, and the entire first floor, of the house are clad in milky, translucent glass planks, which rise to create a roof terrace that stretches the entire length of the house. The translucent nature of this enclosure allows the house to avoid the overlooking issues.
> Designed to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5, the house features ‘energy piles’ that utilise a solar assisted ground source heat pump creating a thermal store beneath the building, as well as, photovoltaics, a wildflower roof, rain water harvesting, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery and massive levels of insulation.


Or the architect's own view from the Architect's Journal:



> Designing and building your own home is both a privilege and an immense challenge. First and foremost it has to be home, then maybe, an inspiring piece of urban design. We also wanted it to be sustainable both ecologically and financially.
> We set out with a simple sculptural form of three cantilevered (or slipped) boxes, the uppermost sheathed by a translucent glass screen. This upper box houses our living space and connects to a ‘sky garden’. The middle box houses sleeping and bathing, with the ground box given over to a multi-purpose space, currently housing our studio. This arrangement allows flexibility for future adaptation and uses.


Or you could quote the dumbed down for the telly chatter of a junior meedja intern.
Whichever works best for you.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

Rushy said:


> Or you could quote the dumbed down for the telly chatter of a junior meedja intern.
> Whichever works best for you.


As I recall, the phrase "Zen Retreat" was spoken by the woman herself, who was describing her own house. 

(Or Zen something or another)


----------



## leanderman (Sep 27, 2012)

It's horrible.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> As I recall, the phrase "Zen Retreat" was spoken by the woman herself, who was describing her own house.
> 
> (Or Zen something or another)


I can only conclude that you must feel pretty strongly about it as it is not like you to pick up on a casual comment, or even word, which may or may not have been uttered and, ignoring any evidence to the contrary such as a comprehensive written statement of intention, turn it into a cast iron evidence of the pointlessness and imbecility of others, and then repeat ad nauseam.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

I like some of Carl Turner's other projects though. Stealth barn is very pleasing.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

Rushy said:


> I can only conclude that you must feel pretty strongly about it as it is not like you to pick up on a casual comment, or even word, which may or may not have been uttered and, ignoring any evidence to the contrary such as a comprehensive written statement of intention, turn it into a cast iron evidence of the pointlessness and imbecility of others, and then repeat ad nauseam.


You can conclude whatever you like, but I'm really not that bothered at all - I was just reporting what was said and what was widely written. Not sure why you're getting your knickers in such a twist for either, to be honest.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> You can conclude whatever you like, but I'm really not that bothered at all - I was just reporting what was said and what was widely written. Not sure why you're getting your knickers in such a twist for either, to be honest.


You were reporting a word and turning it into a character assasination. You're right though. I shouldn't let it bother me. Carry on and I'll say nothing more.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> I was quoting directly from the Grand Designs website:


 
so are we to conclude that your opinions are based on pictures and Grand Designs website info rather than from actually having looked at the thing for yourself?


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

teuchter said:


> so are we to conclude that your opinions are based on pictures and Grand Designs website info rather than from actually having looked at the thing for yourself?


I watched the program, and have looked at the photos on the architect's site and read the articles linked from this thread. I believe that entitles me to an opinion, or are you going to rather tragically insist that everyone's opinion is invalid unless they've physically stood outside for a while like you?


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

Rushy said:


> You were reporting a word and turning it into a character assasination. You're right though. I shouldn't let it bother me. Carry on and I'll say nothing more.


Exactly where have I used it as a " character assasination" please? It was their own description, not mine.  

Thanks.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 27, 2012)

I went to have a look at it today as I cycled past. It's ok. I'm not a massive fan of the design but I think it's fine and I'd happily live in it. It doesn't matter that it doesn't "fit" with the rest of the street IMO, though my one gripe is that the front of the house does not line up with the fronts of the other houses (it projects out further) which makes it look a little untidy. The effect therefore is to make the house stand out more than it needed to.

It was grey and overcast when I when past, so the building looked quite dull. Though as you can see from the photos above, it obviously looks better in bright sunlight.


----------



## gaijingirl (Sep 27, 2012)

It's absolutely not my cup of tea but I do appreciate having different kinds of building and architecture about.  It makes thing much more interesting.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> I watched the program, and have looked at the photos on the architect's site and read the articles linked from this thread. I believe that entitles me to an opinion, or are you going to rather tragically insist that everyone's opinion is invalid unless they've physically stood outside for a while like you?


 
I am going to insist that an opinion about how a building "feels" from the street is more valid if it's based on the actual experience of seeing the physical object which is the building, in its context. I also insist that an opinion is more valid if it's based on a proper understanding of what the building's function is (ie. not just a home but a working architects' office) especially if it relates to particulars such as the gate and how it relates to the street.

Anyway, I didn't say anything about your opinion being "invalid" - just observed that you twice avoided answering the question of whether you'd actually gone and had a look at it yourself.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 28, 2012)

Is this Brixton's 'gate gate' ??


----------



## IC3D (Sep 28, 2012)

Has anyone noticed the gate is just built into an already existing wall, I like it.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 28, 2012)

IC3D said:


> Has anyone noticed the gate is just built into an already existing wall, I like it.


Good point - their front gate used to be the back garden wall and garage. The gate follows the line and height of what was there and what still exists next door.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 28, 2012)

EDIT: Actually I'll stay out of this one.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2012)

IC3D said:


> Has anyone noticed the gate is just built into an already existing wall, I like it.


 
yes



teuchter said:


> it's part of a row of garages with locked doors onto the street


----------



## leanderman (Sep 29, 2012)

By their account, some idiot sold them the house behind, not realising it had a garden big enough to split and create a 'free' building plot


----------



## leanderman (Sep 29, 2012)

And their budget is 'tiny' only because they want to avoid having a mortgage like most 'plebs'


----------



## leanderman (Sep 29, 2012)

And, horror of horrors, pain etched on their faces, they have had to sell their existing house to create the new one.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 29, 2012)

Why are you watching? Do you like being annoyed?


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 29, 2012)




----------



## leanderman (Sep 29, 2012)

Coz it's nearby. But I gave up programme at 22.33mins. Will route my run there tomorrow to see


----------



## Badgers (Sep 29, 2012)

leanderman said:
			
		

> Coz it's nearby. But I gave up programme at 22.33mins. Will route my run there tomorrow to see



Good on ya


----------



## Greebo (Sep 30, 2012)

Watched it on repeat.  Absolutely hated the house they built.  Even the place they sold in Norfolk must have felt a bit too maximalist for that woman.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2012)

I didn't notice them using the word 'plebs'.


----------



## billythefish (Oct 1, 2012)

It's a fridge.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 1, 2012)

billythefish said:


> It's a fridge.


I'm not having that - a plain white fridge would look far more appealing than that.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 1, 2012)

Checked it out this morning: It's not quite as horrible as I had hoped.

However, there is something bullying about the way it dominates the vicinity.

I presume the 'slip' offset top floor is to gain vital school catchment inches.


----------



## Winot (Oct 1, 2012)

leanderman said:


> I presume the 'slip' offset top floor is to gain vital school catchment inches.


 
Perhaps they'll rent it out...


----------



## lefteri (Oct 2, 2012)

I think the slip offset floor is the real bullying culprit here - you can see the ground floor didn't want to be part of the trouble, it was subject to pier pressure


----------



## Crispy (Oct 2, 2012)




----------



## Kanda (Oct 2, 2012)

surely it was tier pressure...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 2, 2012)

The tiers of a clown.


----------



## catriona (Oct 5, 2012)

I watched the prog and have cycled past the house.  I like that they built their own home and made it how they wanted it.  It took energy and skill, as well as the money which was not an obscene amount. 
The Ritzy recently showed a documentary about some really excessive housebuilding: www.picturehouses.co.uk/film/queen_of_versailles


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2012)

catriona said:


> The Ritzy recently showed a documentary about some really excessive housebuilding: www.picturehouses.co.uk/film/queen_of_versailles


 
Quite a judgemental synopsis on the picturehouse website there


----------



## editor (Oct 5, 2012)

catriona said:


> I like that they built their own home and made it how they wanted it.


If only everyone else had that opportunity, eh?


----------



## ringo (Oct 5, 2012)

editor said:


> If only everyone else had that opportunity, eh?


 
Thats just sour grapes. So do we now encourage people to better themsleves and be successful but then pillory them if they make some money? I have no idea if they earned/inherited/won/stole their cash, but it seems pointless to hate themn for having the wedge to do it.


----------



## editor (Oct 5, 2012)

ringo said:


> Thats just sour grapes. So do we now encourage people to better themsleves and be successful but then pillory them if they make some money? I have no idea if they earned/inherited/won/stole their cash, but it seems pointless to hate themn for having the wedge to do it.


How is wishing that everyone had the opportunity to build the house of their dreams "sour grapes"?


----------



## ringo (Oct 5, 2012)

Surely you can see your post was a tad curmudgeonly? Certainly came across that way, but if not don't worry about it


----------



## leanderman (Oct 5, 2012)

ringo said:


> Surely you can see your post was a tad curmudgeonly? Certainly came across that way, but if not don't worry about it


 
fact they did not have children would have boosted their spending power, notes this father of three


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2012)

leanderman said:


> \notes this father of three


 
If only everyone else had that opportunity, eh?

etc


----------



## editor (Oct 5, 2012)

teuchter said:


> If only everyone else had that opportunity, eh?
> 
> etc


What, to go on TV and talk about your kids?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2012)

editor said:


> What, to go on TV and talk about your kids?


I though this was about the fact that they had the opportunity to build their own house, rather than that they had the opportunity to talk about it on TV. Is the going on TV bit objectionable?


----------



## editor (Oct 5, 2012)

teuchter said:


> I though this was about the fact that they had the opportunity to build their own house, rather than that they had the opportunity to talk about it on TV. Is the going on TV bit objectionable?


Awfully sorry, but I'm afraid I won't be clapping along to another of your deadly dull whinge-alongs.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 5, 2012)

Going on TV reveals a degree of vanity, as does the construction.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 5, 2012)

teuchter said:


> If only everyone else had that opportunity, eh?
> 
> etc


 
not sure what you mean but number of children and wealth hardly seem positively correlated

although there may be a recent trend for rich people to have bigger families.

especially the obnoxious types such as Toby Young and Boris Johnson (at least four each)


----------



## nagapie (Oct 5, 2012)

Boris Johnson has kids, urgh!


----------



## Greebo (Oct 5, 2012)

nagapie said:


> Boris Johnson has kids, urgh!


Not only that, at least 2 other women were sufficiently lacking in taste to shag him - pass the mind bleach!


----------



## simonSW2 (Jun 22, 2013)

Good news boppers, reports of a dream home were wrong, all wrong...

A few months on and the minimal house is now on sale with your local community Foxtons:

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/29416642?search_identifier=6d6e263b85c7c251354728961d4067da

Much ado about nowt.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 22, 2013)

simonSW2 said:


> Good news boppers, reports of a dream home were wrong, all wrong...
> 
> A few months on and the minimal house is now on sale with your local community Foxtons<snip>


 
I'd be interested to hear why that happened.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 22, 2013)

Greebo said:


> I'd be interested to hear why that happened.


 
Iirc from the show, it nearly financially crippled the guy to build it and he had to take out massive loans. I guess he couldn't pay them.

Ah sorry, I didn't click the link and didn't realise it's a different house (posted that on my phone).  No idea about this one.


----------



## simonSW2 (Jun 22, 2013)

Greebo said:


> I'd be interested to hear why that happened.


 
We can speculate! :: either, the dream became a nightmare and it's all a bit of a sorry mess, or they realised they could make a bundle of cash and build another, bigger sensory deprivation tank somewhere else.


----------



## Manter (Jun 22, 2013)

Hmmm, it appears to have moved to Clapham....


----------



## editor (Jun 22, 2013)

Manter said:


> Hmmm, it appears to have moved to Clapham....


 
Maybe that helps justify the £1.5m price tag.


----------



## Manter (Jun 22, 2013)

editor said:


> Maybe that helps justify the £1.5m price tag.


Exactly what I was wondering. £1.5m for a 2 bed....!


----------



## leanderman (Jun 23, 2013)

Manter said:


> Exactly what I was wondering. £1.5m for a 2 bed....!


 

Astonishing.

They bought the site with a house for £500k or so.

Sold off the house for £500k or so but kept the back garden which they developed at a cost of £500k or so.

That's a potential £1million gain. 

People who sold to them initially have missed a trick here.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 23, 2013)

Firky said:


> I'd love to see a Grand Designs where the pressure of the build and financial strain is all too much and the house is repossessed by the bank. This tears the smug couple apart, ruining their superficial relationship and catapulting one of them into alcoholism, and eventually losing their job and falling down the ladder into a damp council flat in a 'gritty' part of city.
> 
> OK maybe that's a bit extreme but the people on GD's are like the people in Country Life magazine - on a total fucking different planet to the majority of the populace.
> 
> I like architecture (it's what I wrote my dissertation on) but I *really* can't stand some of the materialistic, shallow, ostentatious cnuts that appear on that show.


 
Pitch it to C4 - that would be must watch schadenfreude TV.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 23, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> It's Lambeth Council


 
liberally stick the word eco and sustainable in every other paragraph.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 23, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> Pitch it to C4 - that would be must watch schadenfreude TV.


 

You wait until the Brockwell Park rectory house appears on Grand Designs.

Going to be Smugsville Central


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 23, 2013)

simonSW2 said:


> Good news boppers, reports of a dream home were wrong, all wrong...
> 
> A few months on and the minimal house is now on sale with your local community Foxtons:
> 
> ...


 
If you use Foxton's then you get all you deserve.


simonSW2 said:


> Good news boppers, reports of a dream home were wrong, all wrong...
> 
> A few months on and the minimal house is now on sale with your local community Foxtons:
> 
> ...


 
Turns out the cynics were right all along - if you use Foxton's then you're cunts IMHO.


----------



## Firky (Jun 24, 2013)

I was wondering why I was getting likes.

Cnuts would have apple macs init (so have I but YKWIM)


----------



## shygirl (Jun 24, 2013)

It's souless, as a home, imo.


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2013)

shygirl said:


> It's souless, as a home, imo.


 
It's a horrible place to live if you're paying out that kind of money.


----------



## billythefish (Jun 24, 2013)

I'd like someone to buy it and then clad it in crazy paving and put a thatched roof on it.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 24, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> If you use Foxton's then you get all you deserve.


Unusually there's no Foxton's board up at the property - which is MASSIVE.
It's just across the road from King's Acre Church & the Mauleverer Road mural.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 25, 2013)

Manter said:


> Exactly what I was wondering. £1.5m for a 2 bed....!


 
Of all the places coming on at crazy prices I think his is one of the least outrageous. The design is unique, the standard of build is outstanding, the energy saving credentials and technology are top end. It is not everyone's cup of tea but if you like that kind of design you are going to be pushed to find a better example on the market anywhere vaguely nearby. It has even been listed by RIBA for this year's Stirling Prize.

I reckon you'd be pushed to find a plot and build this for similar money. Not sure how much it cost but the price was kept down by the architect designing for himself and building with his brother (I think).


----------



## Manter (Jun 25, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Of all the places coming on at crazy prices I think his is one of the least outrageous. The design is unique, the standard of build is outstanding, the energy saving credentials and technology are top end. It is not everyone's cup of tea but if you like that kind of design you are going to be pushed to find a better example on the market anywhere vaguely nearby. It has even been listed by RIBA for this year's Stirling Prize.
> 
> I reckon you'd be pushed to find a plot and build this for similar money. Not sure how much it cost but the price was kept down by the architect designing for himself and building with his brother (I think).


i'd have thought (not being a property expert) it was more difficult to get that price because its so unique.  A 5 bed victorian done up well have loads of people after it- for that place you are looking for the one person who falls for it.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 25, 2013)

Manter said:


> i'd have thought (not being a property expert) it was more difficult to get that price because its so unique. A 5 bed victorian done up well have loads of people after it- for that place you are looking for the one person who falls for it.


 
I don't think it will be just one person. And there is nothing else else like it available. This isn't just a modern house - the attention to every bit of detail makes it an artwork of sorts. It really is in a class of its own.


----------



## Firky (Jun 25, 2013)

Rushy said:


> It really is in a class of its own.


 

It certainly is that but not work £1.5 million in a month of Sundays.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 25, 2013)

Firky said:


> It certainly is that but not work £1.5 million in a month of Sundays.


 
So commercially (rather than ideologically) speaking, what's it worth?


----------



## Firky (Jun 25, 2013)

Probably get a few grand for the scrap metal.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 25, 2013)

Rushy said:


> So commercially (rather than ideologically) speaking, what's it worth?


That may depend on whether any wealthy Art lovers are looking to downsize for some reason, a messy divorce is one that comes to mind.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 25, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Of all the places coming on at crazy prices I think his is one of the least outrageous. The design is unique, the standard of build is outstanding, the energy saving credentials and technology are top end. It is not everyone's cup of tea but if you like that kind of design you are going to be pushed to find a better example on the market anywhere vaguely nearby. It has even been listed by RIBA for this year's Stirling Prize.
> 
> I reckon you'd be pushed to find a plot and build this for similar money. Not sure how much it cost but the price was kept down by the architect designing for himself and building with his brother (I think).


 

But, according to my memory of the programme (see post #158), they got the plot for free.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 25, 2013)

leanderman said:


> But, according to my memory of the programme (see post #158), they got the plot for free.


 
? It was their own garden.

I'm saying that if you wanted to replicate it I doubt you would have a healthy amount of change out of £1,500,000 after finding a plot, getting planning, appointing an architect who will work to that level of detail on largely experimental designs and finding a specialist enough builder.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 25, 2013)

Rushy said:


> ? It was their own garden.
> 
> I'm saying that if you wanted to replicate it I doubt you would have a healthy amount of change out of £1,500,000 after finding a plot, getting planning, appointing an architect who will work to that level of detail on largely experimental designs and finding a specialist enough builder.


 

I am sure you are right.

But, in this case, someone gave them a massive leg-up.

It was never really their garden. It was always, literally, a plot:

That being to buy the house, halve the garden, and sell the house.

The seller must feel sick.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 25, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I am sure you are right.
> 
> But, in this case, someone gave them a massive leg-up.
> 
> ...


 
Why would they care other than wishing that they'd done it themselves?


----------



## leanderman (Jun 25, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Why would they care other than wishing that they'd done it themselves?


 

Until the end of my days, I'd consider myself an idiot - thus aligning my opinion of myself with everyone else's!


----------



## Rushy (Jun 25, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Until the end of my days, I'd consider myself an idiot - thus aligning my opinion of myself with everyone else's!


 
Fair enough!

In their case it should not have been a surprise though. The "Tree House" next door was given planning permission and built quite a bit before - maybe 10yrs? That was an "end of garden" development in exactly the same way.

There is an application in at the moment for a new house in he garden to the side of the Tree House. That used to be the rear garden of 45 Kings avenue. The rear neighbours who sold them the end of their own garden, seem to say they did so believing it would be used as garden for the Tree House (which it was for a few years). The new application is to build on that plot. It was a bit naive of them as they could have easily conditioned the sale to protect the space (knowing that the buyer had already developed a plot), or not sold it to them at all. They are clearly unhappy though.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 25, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Fair enough!
> 
> In their case it should not have been a surprise though. The "Tree House" next door was given planning permission and built quite a bit before - maybe 10yrs? That was an "end of garden" development in exactly the same way.
> 
> There is an application in at the moment for a new house in he garden to the side of the Tree House. That used to be the rear garden of 45 Kings avenue. The rear neighbours who sold them the end of their own garden, seem to say they did so believing it would be used as garden for the Tree House (which it was for a few years). The new application is to build on that plot. It was a bit naive of them as they could have easily conditioned the sale to protect the space (knowing that the buyer had already developed a plot), or not sold it to them at all. They are clearly unhappy though.


 

With a back garden that backs on to a road the opportunities should be obvious!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2013)

Manter said:


> Exactly what I was wondering. £1.5m for a 2 bed....!


It's not just a "2 bed" though - the ground floor is designed such that it can be used as an flat independent from the main bit of the house, or as an office/studio space.


----------



## TheBrixtonBoy (Jul 3, 2013)

They will struggle to sell it imo. It needs a cash buyer for a start, and no disrespect (as i have lived on Lyham Road), i would not pay £1.5m to live on that street no matter what the house.

It looks cold to me, and i suspect that the reality of living in the house has forced them to try and sell. There is a reason that these types of houses are never built!


----------



## Rushy (Jul 3, 2013)

TheBrixtonBoy said:


> They will struggle to sell it imo. It needs a cash buyer for a start,


Why's that? Valuation problems?



> It looks cold to me, and i suspect that the reality of living in the house has forced them to try and sell.


 
I rather suspect that's not the causal factor but we can only speculate.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 3, 2013)

TheBrixtonBoy said:


> It looks cold to me, and i suspect that the reality of living in the house has forced them to try and sell.


 

I very much doubt it. They knew what kind of house they were designing and building and based on their previous projects it's unlikely they'd have been naive enough not to understand the "reality" of living in it.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 3, 2013)

They have turned a £500,000 investment into, potentially, £1.5million in just 3 years. They pay off their mortgage of, say, £250,000. And live mortgage-free with a fat bank account in another £1m house in a 'smarter' area. They may even go back to rural Essex, which is where I think they came from.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 3, 2013)

Where's this figure of £500,000 build cost come from, exactly?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 3, 2013)

Pretty sure they bought a house and massive garden for around £500k. And soon sold house for same figure, while keeping the back end of the garden to build their dream for £500k.

They were most miffed at having to sell their previous house to finance the project when they had wanted to keep it and have both.


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2013)

So it's a win all around for the cash-comfortable owner as he gets to build his smartypants house and show off his skills on TV, and then he gets to make an absolute mint out of flogging it off afterwards. Hooray!


----------



## bosie (Jul 3, 2013)

editor said:


> So it's a win all around for the cash-comfortable owner as he gets to build his smartypants house and show off his skills on TV, and then he gets to make an absolute mint out of flogging it off afterwards. Hooray!


 
And it's shortlisted for a RIBA Stirling prize, so imagine all the extra business that his architects practice has got from that and being mentioned on Grand Designs.

Money goes to money goes to money goes to money.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Pretty sure they bought a house and massive garden for around £500k. And soon sold house for same figure, while keeping the back end of the garden to build their dream for £500k.
> 
> They were most miffed at having to sell their previous house to finance the project when they had wanted to keep it and have both.


 
Again, where does your build cost figure come from?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 3, 2013)

From watching the programme. But I may have misremembered.


----------



## Manter (Jul 3, 2013)

pretty sure that's correct- if you go back in the thread when people were commenting while watching the programme, I think that;s what they said (though as Leanderman said its all couched in the 'we went over our budget of y and so had to sell our house worth x)


----------



## teuchter (Jul 3, 2013)

Clearly they have (had?) cash. And are lucky to be able to do what they have done, which would be beyond the means of most, etc etc. However, I suspect that their "profit" from this project may not quite be of the magnitude some here assume. They have't even sold it yet, it may go for quite a bit less than the asking price, and we don't even seem to have a concrete idea of what the actual, real building cost was (which includes all the time put in by his practice, and his brother's building firm).

My guess is that the build costs were quite a bit higher than they imagined, they probably have all sorts of debts (formal or otherwise) to pay off and are reluctantly having to sell up for financial reasons, rather than having planned it all as a money-making excercise from the beginning. If that were the intention they would have built something they knew would easily sell, to the minimum standards of energy efficiency required by building regs, and without the various energy systems whose costs to install aren't likely to be recovered in increased resale price.

Clearly they've used it as an advert for their architectural practice. I don't see what's wrong with that. Maybe folk would have been happier if Barrats had used the plot to build a bog standard imitation-victorian mansion, to the lowest standards they could get away with?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 3, 2013)

Since they got the site for free, their profit will be the selling price (potentially £1.5m) minus build cost (£0.5m est).


----------



## leanderman (Jul 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Clearly they have (had?) cash. And are lucky to be able to do what they have done, which would be beyond the means of most, etc etc. However, I suspect that their "profit" from this project may not quite be of the magnitude some here assume ...



Yep. They may clear much less than a million.


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2013)

bosie said:


> And it's shortlisted for a RIBA Stirling prize, so imagine all the extra business that his architects practice has got from that and being mentioned on Grand Designs.
> 
> Money goes to money goes to money goes to money.


----------



## Manter (Jul 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Clearly they have (had?) cash. And are lucky to be able to do what they have done, which would be beyond the means of most, etc etc. However, I suspect that their "profit" from this project may not quite be of the magnitude some here assume. They have't even sold it yet, it may go for quite a bit less than the asking price, and we don't even seem to have a concrete idea of what the actual, real building cost was (which includes all the time put in by his practice, and his brother's building firm).
> 
> My guess is that the build costs were quite a bit higher than they imagined, they probably have all sorts of debts (formal or otherwise) to pay off and are reluctantly having to sell up for financial reasons, rather than having planned it all as a money-making excercise from the beginning. If that were the intention they would have built something they knew would easily sell, to the minimum standards of energy efficiency required by building regs, and without the various energy systems whose costs to install aren't likely to be recovered in increased resale price.
> 
> Clearly they've used it as an advert for their architectural practice. I don't see what's wrong with that. Maybe folk would have been happier if Barrats had used the plot to build a bog standard imitation-victorian mansion, to the lowest standards they could get away with?


I think its wondering (and a bit envious) headshaking in amazement at the money to be made and so quickly, not a desire for more Barratt homes!


----------



## Winot (Jul 3, 2013)

Manter said:


> I think its wondering (and a bit envious) headshaking in amazement at the money to be made and so quickly, not a desire for more Barratt homes!



With perhaps a soupçon of the British scepticism of modernism + success.


----------



## Manter (Jul 3, 2013)

Winot said:


> With perhaps a soupçon of the British scepticism of modernism + success.


are you accusing me of being a Poundbury type?


----------



## Winot (Jul 3, 2013)

Manter said:


> are you accusing me of being a Poundbury type?



The thread reaction in general, honest guv!


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2013)

Winot said:


> With perhaps a soupçon of the British scepticism of modernism + success.


 
I like quite a lot of the modernist _ouevre._


----------



## leanderman (Jul 3, 2013)

Manter said:


> are you accusing me of being a Poundbury type?



Drove thru Poundbury t'other day. Like an Austro-Hungarian garrison town - and not a soul on the streets.


----------



## Manter (Jul 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Drove thru Poundbury t'other day. Like an Austro-Hungarian garrison town - and not a soul on the streets.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...village-of-Poundbury-into-Ugly-Buildings.html


----------



## teuchter (Jul 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Since they got the site for free, their profit will be the selling price (potentially £1.5m) minus build cost (£0.5m est).


Their profit or loss will be the difference between two figures we don't know.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 3, 2013)

Manter said:


> I think its wondering (and a bit envious) headshaking in amazement at the money to be made and so quickly, not a desire for more Barratt homes!


I think it's a desire to have a go at them using whatever justification comes to hand. If they make a profit, then have a go at them for using their imagination and design skills to build something that people will pay a premium for, on a plot that they foresaw had potential. If they make a loss, have a go at them for building a house that cost too much and no-one wants to live in. If they break even...think up some other reason to hate them.


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I think it's a desire to have a go at them using whatever justification comes to hand.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I think it's a desire to have a go at them using whatever justification comes to hand. If they make a profit, then have a go at them for using their imagination and design skills to build something that people will pay a premium for, on a plot that they foresaw had potential. If they make a loss, have a go at them for building a house that cost too much and no-one wants to live in. If they break even...think up some other reason to hate them.



Guilty as charged. 

But, in mitigation, they came across very, very badly on TV - just as the start of this thread suggests.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Oct 16, 2013)

Anyone watching Grand Designs tonight?  Not the same one in Brixton, but close enough.  Definitely not worth a Pogo-baiting new thread.

An ultra-modern 3 box design, sandwiched between a beautiful old church and Brockwell Park.  Budget well north of a mil (he's chief exec of a media company, she's a marketing consultant), a single glass wall costing more than 60 grand and a massively arrogant approach to the planning process.  Ordered £15k worth of fancy Staffordshire Blue bricks before materials had been approved - on refusal threatened to repeatedly appeal and complain until they got their way, LA gave up at the first go (probably because they can't afford to go through too many appeals against money).

I guiltily like the design of the house, even though it doesn't fit its surroundings.  Don't like the couple though, they're MASSIVE TWATS.  Don't like Kevin today either - "even though the budget is tight, they've allowed themselves one extravagance, a 4m long kitchen island".  Tight budget, snort.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 16, 2013)

See Manter


----------



## Manter (Oct 16, 2013)

Oh well, I like it and I like her. Haven't seen enough of him to comment. 

And I've never been a massive fan of stuff "fitting" its surroundings- you end up with Barratt homes and poundbury 

I do wonder why people do grand designs though- as every hissy temper tantrum is recorded for people to pick over and judge.  I'm sure I have said stuff about Lambeth planning and our builders that would get me ostracised from polite society, and we were only doing minor roof stuff- thank god there weren't cameras running


----------



## Rushy (Oct 16, 2013)

I have not watched this yet. Going to now (so I can skip the ads).

I actually assumed the blue grey cladding was intended to appease planning by tying into the church roof - which it does very well - but is a bit boring. Have received loads of texts from mates watching who think it the build is great so looking forward to seeing it. 

I drew up a plan for this place when it was on the market. Gutted not to get to work on it.


----------



## Manter (Oct 16, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I have not watched this yet. Going to now (so I can skip the ads).
> 
> I actually assumed the blue grey cladding was intended to appease planning by tying into the church roof - which it does very well - but is a bit boring. Have received loads of texts from mates watching who think it the build is great so looking forward to seeing it.
> 
> I drew up a plan for this place when it was on the market. Gutted not to get to work on it.


I'd love to 'rescue' a building like that. But few would have such an amazing location.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Oct 16, 2013)

The cladding didn't work for me.  Viewed from the park it looked like it was supposed to run into the church roof but it didn't look quite right.

In the end it looked a bit "contemporary by numbers" for me, nothing particularly innovative.  Ooh hang on, the cantilever over the entrance was a nice touch.

Didn't like the people though.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 16, 2013)

Manter said:


> I'd love to 'rescue' a building like that. But few would have such an amazing location.



Plot should have been returned to OUR park. It juts out into it.


----------



## Manter (Oct 16, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> The cladding didn't work for me.  Viewed from the park it looked like it was supposed to run into the church roof but it didn't look quite right.
> 
> In the end it looked a bit "contemporary by numbers" for me, nothing particularly innovative.  Ooh hang on, the cantilever over the entrance was a nice touch.
> 
> Didn't like the people though.


I liked the cladding, especially the wood on the side. And the lack of full on innovation made it kind of more accessible. In my middle of the road opinion


----------



## buscador (Oct 16, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Plot should have been returned to OUR park. It just out into it.



And yet Kevin, in his increasingly pompous and ponderous commentary, tells us that it's "improved the park".


----------



## Biddlybee (Oct 16, 2013)

Not watched it yet, but it is annoying the way it juts out into the park.

I did almost run over Kevin with my buggy the other week


----------



## Manter (Oct 16, 2013)

buscador said:


> And yet Kevin, in his increasingly pompous and ponderous commentary, tells us that it's "improved the park".


That's a bit of an odd statement (Kevin's, I mean). It just is, not sure how it being improves the park?!


----------



## Thora (Oct 16, 2013)

Such a boring building.  If you had that much money to spend, why would you build something that looks exactly like every other "contemporary" house on GD?


----------



## Manter (Oct 16, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Plot should have been returned to OUR park. It juts out into it.


I missed the first 10 minutes- why does the plot stick out? Is it historical?


----------



## Manter (Oct 16, 2013)

Biddlybee said:


> Not watched it yet, but it is annoying the way it juts out into the park.
> 
> I did almost run over Kevin with my buggy the other week


Liked for running over KMcC. 

A friend of mine confessed to fancying him today.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Oct 16, 2013)

Manter said:


> I missed the first 10 minutes- why does the plot stick out? Is it historical?



It was the plot the vicarage sat on.  Replaced with a 50s brick rectangle for reasons unknown...


----------



## Manter (Oct 16, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> It was the plot the vicarage sat on.  Replaced with a 50s brick rectangle for reasons unknown...


So CofE land?


----------



## leanderman (Oct 16, 2013)

Someone will know. 

Owner loves private gate access on to the park, according to my wife who sees her jogging. 

Only downside for me is the risk of a De Niro/Peck Cape Fear nutter.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 16, 2013)

Manter said:


> So CofE land?


I guess when the land was granted to London by Brockwell Hall owner, his forebears had already gifted away the rectory site.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> a massively arrogant approach to the planning process.  Ordered £15k worth of fancy Staffordshire Blue bricks before materials had been approved - on refusal threatened to repeatedly appeal and complain until they got their way, LA gave up at the first go (probably because they can't afford to go through too many appeals against money).



I dunno, Lambeth's objection seemed pretty stupid (surprise surprise) so I think they were right to fight for it. They weren't even wanting to do anything particularly controversial.

This comment may or may not have been influenced by having to deal with idiot planners from Lambeth in the last 48 hours.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 16, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Someone will know.
> 
> Owner loves private gate access on to the park, according to my wife who sees her jogging.
> 
> Only downside for me is the risk of a De Niro/Peck Cape Fear nutter.



I would also like this.  I'd have to appropriate quite a lot of land between brixton hill and the park to get it, mind. 

I thought it was more sympathetic to the surrounds than the original house, certainly not less so.  It seemed quite nice.  Very much standard modern minimalist but I like that.  Couldn't live it but I like it.  I only buzzed through the programme.  I can't be bothered with the trials and personality assassinations. I just like the end product.  I like the grey slate brick.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 16, 2013)

Architecturally not a patch on Slip House and not blown away by the outside even though I really like the materials. But a great space. And what a place to live!

Bothering to keep any of the old house was a mistake, I reckon. Not sure keeping it will have had much environmental benefit and probably hampered the design.

Not that they will be bothered about that now it's done. Not one little bit!


----------



## leanderman (Oct 16, 2013)

I'm not watching it because I will develop an instant antipathy toward the couple based largely on jealousy.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 16, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I dunno, Lambeth's objection seemed pretty stupid (surprise surprise) so I think they were right to fight for it. They weren't even wanting to do anything particularly controversial.
> 
> This comment may or may not have been influenced by having to deal with idiot planners from Lambeth in the last 48 hours.



Have they turned down your disney turret again?


----------



## Rushy (Oct 16, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I dunno, Lambeth's objection seemed pretty stupid (surprise surprise) so I think they were right to fight for it. They weren't even wanting to do anything particularly controversial.
> 
> This comment may or may not have been influenced by having to deal with idiot planners from Lambeth in the last 48 hours.


Agree. Seemed like an ill considered objection and not surprised it was withdrawn.


----------



## editor (Oct 17, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Anyone watching Grand Designs tonight?  Not the same one in Brixton, but close enough.  Definitely not worth a Pogo-baiting new thread.


I only caught the last ten seconds but immediately recognised the woman - I used to work with her and I went to their wedding! Looks like they've done rather well for themselves since I last saw them.

I always found them lovely people so maybe it's best I don't watch the program.


----------



## Tankus (Oct 17, 2013)

How expensive is a thrown brick going to be?  £10 k ?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Architecturally not a patch on Slip House


Absolutely, although Slip House would not be the right architectural solution for most people.

With this one by the way I was a bit sad to see what they had done to the garden at the end...during the process there was footage of the kids climbing the trees and picking bluebells and what have you... then it looks like they just laid turf everywhere and turned it into a sterile lawn.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2013)

editor said:


> I only caught the last ten seconds but immediately recognised the woman - I used to work with her and I went to their wedding! Looks like they've done rather well for themselves since I last saw them.
> 
> I always found them lovely people so maybe it's best I don't watch the program.


Do you suspect they have been corrupted by wealth?


----------



## Manter (Oct 17, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Absolutely, although Slip House would not be the right architectural solution for most people.
> 
> With this one by the way I was a bit sad to see what they had done to the garden at the end...during the process there was footage of the kids climbing the trees and picking bluebells and what have you... then it looks like they just laid turf everywhere and turned it into a sterile lawn.


I suspect that was just the temporary 'covering up builders crap' garden- most new builds have one of those for a bit...


----------



## Manter (Oct 17, 2013)

editor said:


> I only caught the last ten seconds but immediately recognised the woman - I used to work with her and I went to their wedding! Looks like they've done rather well for themselves since I last saw them.
> 
> I always found them lovely people so maybe it's best I don't watch the program.


As I've said, I thought she was funny. (As in amusingly wry)... And they laid their own turf roof, so still have some hard work left in them


----------



## editor (Oct 17, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Do you suspect they have been corrupted by wealth?


Like I said, I didn't see the show so I have no opinion past the fact that I always found them to be very pleasant people.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Like I said, I didn't see the show so I have no opinion past the fact that I always found them to be very pleasant people.


I was wondering why you were fearful of watching the show.


----------



## Manter (Oct 17, 2013)

Is there not another local ish house featured later in the series? Or have I dreamt that?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2013)

Manter said:


> I suspect that was just the temporary 'covering up builders crap' garden- most new builds have one of those for a bit...



It's not really "temporary" if it destroys a load of ecosystem that's had decades to form though.


----------



## Manter (Oct 17, 2013)

teuchter said:


> It's not really "temporary" if it destroys a load of ecosystem that's had decades to form though.


I have only seen my parents' build close up, but doesn't the build process bugger the local ecosystem? They had to put padded fences round trees to protect them from diggers etc, but they also had a much bigger site- this one I guess just storing building materials would squash quite a lot


----------



## story (Oct 17, 2013)

Manter said:


> I have only seen my parents' build close up, but doesn't the build process bugger the local ecosystem? They had to put padded fences round trees to protect them from diggers etc, but they also had a much bigger site- this one I guess just storing building materials would squash quite a lot



The trees and other larger part of the ecosystem are not necessarily the most significant parts of the story. The mycelium layer in the soil, the seeds that lie dormant, the bluebell bulbs, the pupae and egg sacs and beetles in the the leaf litter: all that will have disappeared when they shovelled out the top soil to lay that turf. And the turf itself will have come from some turf farm, and so be lacking in species variety; or if it was stripped from some other environment, may bring in seeds etc. that are not local.

Compacting the soil during the build will have a detrimental effect, but if the fungi and earthworms were still there, the soil would recover if left alone for a year. From what I could see, the far end of the garden - where the children were playing in the dingly dell and picking bluebells - was pretty much intact for the whole build, and then they went and tidied it up with that turf. Turf like that is a monculture, and comparatively dead in ecological terms. Hopefully, some of what remains on the park side of the fence will recolonise the garden in time. Maybe we can all chuck handfuls of seeds over as we pass by.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 17, 2013)

story said:


> Maybe we can all chuck handfuls of seeds over as we pass by.



Inter alia


----------



## story (Oct 17, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Inter alia


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2013)

story said:


> The trees and other larger part of the ecosystem are not necessarily the most significant parts of the story. The mycelium layer in the soil, the seeds that lie dormant, the bluebell bulbs, the pupae and egg sacs and beetles in the the leaf litter: all that will have disappeared when they shovelled out the top soil to lay that turf. And the turf itself will have come from some turf farm, and so be lacking in species variety; or if it was stripped from some other environment, may bring in seeds etc. that are not local.
> 
> Compacting the soil during the build will have a detrimental effect, but if the fungi and earthworms were still there, the soil would recover if left alone for a year. From what I could see, the far end of the garden - where the children were playing in the dingly dell and picking bluebells - was pretty much intact for the whole build, and then they went and tidied it up with that turf. Turf like that is a monculture, and comparatively dead in ecological terms. Hopefully, some of what remains on the park side of the fence will recolonise the garden in time. Maybe we can all chuck handfuls of seeds over as we pass by.


^this.


----------



## BigMoaner (Oct 17, 2013)

when you hear poshers say ur area is "gritty", u know the game is up


----------



## Rushy (Oct 17, 2013)

story said:


> The trees and other larger part of the ecosystem are not necessarily the most significant parts of the story. The mycelium layer in the soil, the seeds that lie dormant, the bluebell bulbs, the pupae and egg sacs and beetles in the the leaf litter: all that will have disappeared when they shovelled out the top soil to lay that turf. And the turf itself will have come from some turf farm, and so be lacking in species variety; or if it was stripped from some other environment, may bring in seeds etc. that are not local.
> 
> Compacting the soil during the build will have a detrimental effect, but if the fungi and earthworms were still there, the soil would recover if left alone for a year. From what I could see, the far end of the garden - where the children were playing in the dingly dell and picking bluebells - was pretty much intact for the whole build, and then they went and tidied it up with that turf. Turf like that is a monculture, and comparatively dead in ecological terms. Hopefully, some of what remains on the park side of the fence will recolonise the garden in time. Maybe we can all chuck handfuls of seeds over as we pass by.


I met some park committee members busily furtling around the boundary of the house whilst I was somewhat desperately trying to use some of the fitness trail equipment.  They said they were establishing a planting plan. Think it was native hedging as they have done elsewhere around the park. That's probably the best solution for reestablishing habitat. I don't remember what was there being particulalry established when I viewed the place.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 19, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Plot should have been returned to OUR park. It juts out into it.





Zapp Brannigan said:


> It was the plot the vicarage sat on.  Replaced with a 50s brick rectangle for reasons unknown...





Manter said:


> So CofE land?





leanderman said:


> I guess when the land was granted to London by Brockwell Hall owner, his forebears had already gifted away the rectory site.



I think lang rabbie may know some of the history to this?


----------



## lang rabbie (Oct 19, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I think lang rabbie may know some of the history to this?



I suspect I may have misled people in a post of almost a decade ago, as I thought the gardens of the ofher houses on Dulwich Road only got incorporated into the park post-war, but in fact, the vicarage site has been an anomaly since the Brockwell Park extension was opened in 1902 

However, I do definitely recall a plan being presented by Friends of Brockwell Park somewhere around the millennium (before the vicarage was sold off by CoE ) to incorporate the vicarage site into the Park.

I recall with less certainty (anecdote from someone in a pub) that Lambeth was given first refusal on the former vicarage site - can't now remember if this was when CoE sold up or a subsequent sale) at a price that would now seem ridiculously cheap but turned it down.

Edited: Dulwich Road not Effra Road


----------



## Rushy (Oct 19, 2013)

I


lang rabbie said:


> I suspect I may have misled people in a post of almost a decade ago, as I thought the gardens of the ofher houses on Effra Rd only got incorporated into the park post-war, but in fact, the vicarage site has been an anomaly since the Brockwell Park extension was opened in 1902
> 
> However, I do definitely recall a plan being presented by Friends of Brockwell Park somewhere around the millennium (before the vicarage was sold off by CoE ) to incorporate the vicarage site into the Park.
> 
> I recall with less certainty (anecdote from someone in a pub) that Lambeth was given first refusal on the former vicarage site - can't now remember if this was when CoE sold up or a subsequent sale) at a price that would now seem ridiculously cheap but turned it down.


The property remained in the hand of the Diocese of Southwark until the recent sale.  I don't think there was any right of first refusal given as this would have been  communicated to prospective purchasers.


----------



## lang rabbie (Oct 19, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I
> 
> The property remained in the hand of the Diocese of Southwark until the recent sale.  I don't think there was any right of first refusal given as this would have been  communicated to prospective purchasers.



I think the "right of first refusal"  was no more than a discussion at around the merger of St Jude's parish with St Matthew's in 2002?  It certainly wouldn't have resulted in any covenants etc. This also roughly coincided with the last time that the diocese were looking at juggling their holdings of residential accommodation - they had a spate of selling off old vicarages and trying to fit new ones into other church owned premises about ten years ago.   

So when exactly did it cease to be used for housing clergy?


----------



## Rushy (Oct 19, 2013)

lang rabbie said:


> I think the "right of first refusal"  was no more than a discussion at around the merger of St Jude's parish with St Matthew's in 2002?  It certainly wouldn't have resulted in any covenants etc. This also roughly coincided with the last time that the diocese were looking at juggling their holdings of residential accommodation - they had a spate of selling off old vicarages and trying to fit new ones into other church owned premises about ten years ago.
> 
> So when exactly did it cease to be used for housing clergy?


Not sure. Article you linked to seems to suggest 1991? They sold off a past vicarage to St Matthews in 2000 although held on to part of the land and applied to build a new one on it. This was turned down due to Rush Common legislation. The vicarage had moved a couple of doors up in the 70s or 80s. It is still there and occupies the best part of two regency houses knocked together.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 19, 2013)

The buyers of these vicarages have done very well. 

Not just the Brockwell park family. 

The one in my otherwise crap home village is now a sprawling wedding venue worth millions. 

And our old friend Thomasina Miers's parents live in the no doubt spectacular vicarage at Guiting Power.


----------



## wiskey (Oct 19, 2013)

Watched this earlier, can't say I was particularly taken by either the people or their house tbh. Nice view across the park for them though. 

and they may have put the plants on their own roof but she thought a pale yellow top was the right thing to wear to do it which struck me as a bit odd.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 27, 2014)

So I see they're selling the granny flat / annexe.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 27, 2014)

Link?


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 27, 2014)

Just a massive for sale sign on their drive way and Snowette had seen it on line somewhere. I'll check.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 27, 2014)

You mean the Brockwell Park house? Just walked past and no signs.
snowy_again


----------



## teuchter (Mar 27, 2014)

The Slip House I think, original subject of this thread.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 27, 2014)

teuchter said:


> The Slip House I think, original subject of this thread.


Oh. That's been for sale for months. Was 1.5 million, then reduced to £1.35 and seems to be under offer.

ETA: obviously not £1.35


----------



## teuchter (Mar 27, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Oh. That's been for sale for months. Was 1.5 million, then reduced to £1.35 and seems to be under offer.
> 
> ETA: obviously not £1.35


That's the main house though - I think snowy_again was talking about the independent flat on the ground floor.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 27, 2014)

teuchter said:


> That's the main house though - I think snowy_again was talking about the independent flat on the ground floor.


Eh? Ground floor is architect studio. Sale is of the whole building (according to the plans).


----------



## teuchter (Mar 27, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Eh? Ground floor is architect studio. Sale is of the whole building (according to the plans).


Ah ok. The ground floor was designed so it could be used as an independent flat instead of architect studio, thoughT that was the "granny flat" being referred to but yes it seems the sale is for the whole building.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 27, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Ah ok. The ground floor was designed so it could be used as an independent flat instead of architect studio, though that was the "granny flat" being referred to but yes it seems the sale is for the whole building.


When I visited it was set up as an architects studio for about six people - how very versatile!


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 27, 2014)

teuchter said:


> That's the main house though - I think snowy_again was talking about the independent flat on the ground floor.



Nope it's me being 40% correct again - I mean the Dulwich Road Vicarage, not the SW2 Brixton one.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 27, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> Nope it's me being 40% correct again - I mean the Dulwich Road Vicarage, not the SW2 Brixton one.


That's the one I was saying I could not see a board on this afternoon


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 27, 2014)




----------



## leanderman (Mar 27, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> Nope it's me being 40% correct again - I mean the Dulwich Road Vicarage, not the SW2 Brixton one.


 
Not for sale too?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 29, 2014)

The architect didn't live in for very long if they've sold it already.


----------



## Winot (Sep 13, 2014)

Lots of building work happening on both sides of the Slip House - was cycling past and didn't stop to see what was going on.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 25, 2019)

Firky said:


> I'd love to see a Grand Designs where the pressure of the build and financial strain is all too much and the house is repossessed by the bank. This tears the smug couple apart, ruining their superficial relationship and catapulting one of them into alcoholism, and eventually losing their job and falling down the ladder into a damp council flat in a 'gritty' part of city.
> 
> OK maybe that's a bit extreme but the people on GD's are like the people in Country Life magazine - on a total fucking different planet to the majority of the populace.
> 
> I like architecture (it's what I wrote my dissertation on) but I *really* can't stand some of the materialistic, shallow, ostentatious cnuts that appear on that show.



*'Tragic' and 'saddest ever' Grand Designs episode sees married couple split with £4 million in debt and lighthouse dream unfinished*

https://www.housebeautiful.com/uk/lifestyle/property/a29424781/grand-designs-lighthouse-north-devon/


----------



## pbsmooth (May 24, 2020)

is it illegal to revisit such as old thread?! just seen the Brockwell Park house episode (big glass modernist one) and curious if that family are still there? watching it now it seems unbelievable they got that plot so 'cheap'


----------



## editor (May 24, 2020)

crojoe said:


> is it illegal to revisit such as old thread?! just seen the Brockwell Park house episode (big glass modernist one) and curious if that family are still there? watching it now it seems unbelievable they got that plot so 'cheap'


There's been two on that show - this one which was put together by Karl Turner who then went on to completely fuck over Grow/Pop Brixton,,,








And the Brockwell one which is on AirBnB 














						Grand Designs House in Park - Houses for Rent in London, United Kingdom
					

Entire home in London, United Kingdom. Our very own 'Grand Designs' house in the park, a modernist family home with heated concrete floors, huge glass walls, and a unique location - in a...




					www.airbnb.co.uk


----------



## quimcunx (May 24, 2020)

It has an extension now. This is from a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2020)

^ that's not the Brockwell Park one.


----------



## editor (May 24, 2020)

quimcunx said:


> It has an extension now. This is from a couple of weeks ago. View attachment 214419


Looks like some kind of industrial extraction facility.


----------



## Rushy (May 25, 2020)

quimcunx said:


> It has an extension now. This is from a couple of weeks ago. View attachment 214419



It's a separate house. Designed by the same architect. Largely built by the hand of its owners.


----------



## editor (May 25, 2020)

I sometimes find there's a certain arrogance when a LOOK AT ME I'M A TOP ARCHITECT type rocks up into a traditional street to make their big AREN'T I CREATIVE statement that doesn't match anything in the street and seems more interested in bolstering their arty business portfolio than contributing to the streetscape.


----------



## quimcunx (May 25, 2020)

Rushy said:


> It's a separate house. Designed by the same architect. Largely built by the hand of its owners.


 
There appears to be a glass corridor between them.


----------



## Rushy (May 25, 2020)

quimcunx said:


> There appears to be a glass corridor between them.


It's a light well.


----------



## djdando (May 27, 2020)

editor said:


> I sometimes find there's a certain arrogance when a LOOK AT ME I'M A TOP ARCHITECT type rocks up into a traditional street to make their big AREN'T I CREATIVE statement that doesn't match anything in the street and seems more interested in bolstering their arty business portfolio than contributing to the streetscape.



Have you walked up Lyham Road before? I'd love you to tell me what matches? It's a complete mix of styles.


----------



## editor (May 27, 2020)

djdando said:


> Have you walked up Lyham Road before? I'd love you to tell me what matches? It's a complete mix of styles.


Of course I have, and nothing looks remotely like this indulgent 'statement.'


----------



## teuchter (May 27, 2020)

djdando said:


> Have you walked up Lyham Road before? I'd love you to tell me what matches? It's a complete mix of styles.


Certainly on that stretch! Next door to the contentious one are these two...


----------



## Rushy (May 27, 2020)

The Victorian terraces didn't match the fields they replaced. The Edwardian terraces next door to them didn't match the Victorian ones. The rabble of garages in the small gap between the two were  not architecturally considered. The timber frame Eco house which replaced one of the garages was certainly incongruous in its looks. The Slip House which followed it was only carrying on the tapestry. Four architecturally unique and considered properties by three architects in a row. And all with an element of self-build about them. Not many places you get that in London. I really like that little corner.


----------



## pbsmooth (May 28, 2020)

editor said:


> There's been two on that show - this one which was put together by Karl Turner who then went on to completely fuck over Grow/Pop Brixton,,,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Two Airbnb reviews from 2015! Didn't go that well then. Family presumably still live there rest of time still


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 9, 2020)

Firky said:


> I'd love to see a Grand Designs where the pressure of the build and financial strain is all too much and the house is repossessed by the bank. This tears the smug couple apart, ruining their superficial relationship and catapulting one of them into alcoholism, and eventually losing their job and falling down the ladder into a damp council flat in a 'gritty' part of city.



Little did Firky know that his dream show had already started filming way back in 2012....



Rushy said:


> *'Tragic' and 'saddest ever' Grand Designs episode sees married couple split with £4 million in debt and lighthouse dream unfinished*
> 'Saddest ever' Grand Designs ep: £4m in debt, collapsed marriage & an unfinished build


----------



## technical (Jul 27, 2021)

Lyham Road grand designs house is up for sale at £1.65m

3 bed detached house for sale in Clapham Park Terrace, Lyham Road, London SW2 - Zoopla


----------



## pbsmooth (Jul 27, 2021)

doesn't exactly look comfortable...


----------



## BusLanes (Jul 27, 2021)

I walk passed there quite often. Looks slightly better irl.

Happy to move into it if anyone wants to gift me some money


----------

