• Cawifre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    2 days ago

    I heard it was a legal thing where the building is historic and they need to be able to cleanly remove the modern addition without confusing what is new with the old.

    Still hideous.

    • cogitase@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      2 days ago

      A lot of the Grade 1 listed buildings repurposed into homes have glass and metal additions that clearly delineate between old and new for this reason. They can be incredibly expensive jobs though due to all the permitting and oversight. This looks like someone on a budget or who ran out of money and couldn’t afford a more aesthetically pleasing addition. If it’s being lived in though, they will stop it from deteriorating and it will help to preserve it, which is the only reason it’s allowed in the first place.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        stop it from deteriorating

        It seems that constant maintenance and repair is the effort, here.

        But while we all can agree plumbing in some modern power and modern plumbing and modern non-lead water pipes is probably verboten, where’s the line between repair and addition? Are residents allowed to rebuild damaged portions as per the old appearance using new stone and the old methods? Or must they maintain “the South wall, near collapse from damage with those other people, kept in its teetering state for the sake of preservation as it was on this arbitrary date” or something equally bonkers? What’s the arbitrary target they are to repair and maintain towards?

        • cogitase@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          There’s a show that was on the BBC called The Restoration Man where they showcase people repurposing listed buildings into homes that gets into a lot of the permitting and permission detail. Some people have to fund archeological digs before they can even get started.

          • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 hour ago

            While I can see the twisted chain of logic that gets us to where Dave and Betty are funding archaelogical digs, that’s just not viable for most of us. It’s insane!

            I see a lot of “buy this remote villa in scotland that dates back to the 1800s” and I just know there’s some heritage envelope of pain over the whole thing.

  • Gork@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t hate it, but I mainly don’t like how the new portion isn’t as defendable. You could hide from projectiles when you’ve got a solid stone wall protecting you, but you can’t do the same with this wall paneling.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yes, but the new part is more comfortable. Living in a castle sounds great, until you do it.

    • farmgineer@nord.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      You don’t live in the tower, you retreat to the tower. Still perfectly reasonable.

  • gwl [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s freestanding, UK listed building rules are you cannot build extensions to the highest level listed buildings, but you can put up freestanding structures.

    It’s effectively a shed that happens to be touching the castle but isn’t in any way attached to it

  • HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t understand this at all. Why add anything if you’re going to add this? The shortest space is shorter than the entry door, so it can’t be being used for anything. Just remake the interior to be a really awesome small space. Looks like it’s gone to shit too.

      • HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Oh yeah, I see it now here in OPs video. So it’s not just the lap siding upper portion that was built, the entire lower portion is new also, that’s even more terrible. Why isn’t it all masonry, they must not have had enough money. I still think I would have left the original stairs and just focused on the interior.

        • someguy3@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Iirc the law there says additions must be distinctly different so it’s not seen as original. Old stairs might not meet the rise/run requirements now, or many other things. Stairs are serious business, they are used for emergency egress and emergency access.

          • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Yeah, so I’m from Jersey (New), and historic standards around here generally dictate the same thing, that new structures attached to or around historic structures should be distinct from the structure. The idea is to leave the past there and not try to emulate it, so that it stands out, kinda.

            And yeah, I’m sure those old stairs were a death trap for some elderly visitors. But that’s half the excitement.

  • Darthcapi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I was scrolling quickly and thought this was a Minecraft build of a real structure side by side. This is infinitely worse.