5 ms·

The UK is absolutely full of Victorian buildings which we go to great lengths to preserve. It's, I think, a reaction to the sixties when we were going to great

The UK is absolutely full of Victorian buildings which we go to great lengths to preserve. It's, I think, a reaction to the sixties when we were going to great lengths to pull them down. The problem is that you end up living in an architectural monoculture. There's literally millions of Victorian terraced houses in the UK now and endless endless rows of drab 30s semi-detached houses. It's a shame that there's less of a drive to build new things. Yes, you end up with failures and architectural mistakes, but you also end up with gems and truly interesting buildings. I don't know exactly what the answer is, but I think empowering more local small scale development, even if it means we lose a small percentage of Victorian terraces or semis, would be a start.

jessriedel 8y ago
Just to be clear: In the case described in the article, the justification was preservation for historical notability, not merely as a way to maintain architectural style (even if that was a non-official motivation for some people).
surfmike 8y ago
Architectural monoculture isn't necessarily a bad thing, compared to a post-modern collection of different styles. Some of the most beautiful cities/town in the world (think places like Italian coastal towns, Austrian mountain villages, or French countryside towns) have a consistent style.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
At least Victorian "monoculture" varied by region, city and often each estate or build. Style, architecture, features, layout, colour and grade of brick or stone and slate would all identify where in the country you were. Even trivia like windows, mullions, ridge tiles and so on were of the region, and sometimes even more local. This continued until maybe the 1950s. New build use the same standard, shite, boxes across the whole country. 5 sizes and styles of shitty box per estate. If you live in a National Park or similar your standard shitty box will be clad in local stone tiles. Trouble with losing the Victorian build is they were built to last much longer than those 1960s on. Current build are to a price (lowest possible). I agree we should go back to regional and small scale development, and for planning regs to require regional sympathy once again. I don't agree Victorian buildings are drab. I'd far rather live in one of those than anything post 1970 as they tend to be much more solidly built. Sure they have a few issues stemming from being 120 years old - the roof might be due its first replacement by now (if slate) etc
- Joeri 8y ago
  Trouble with losing the Victorian build is they were built to last much longer than those 1960s on. I’m highly skeptical the average house built then outlived the average house built today, due to survivorship bias. The houses that remain are the ones built to last.
  - Retric 8y ago
    It's more obvious with larger structures. Reinforced concrete has a finite and relatively short lifetime. 300 years sounds like a very long time, but a significant fraction of 300 year old buildings are still around, we have such a large fraction of newer structures in large part because the worlds population is vastly larger today. At the smaller scale you see things like complex roof lines that are very hard to maintain.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    Have you ever lived in an older city? My first apartment in my city was built in 1910, and it was one of the newer buildings in that neighborhood. Even cheap railroad flats controlled by slumlords for 50 years are in better shape than the crap built in the early 90s. The fatal flaw of older frame houses is balloon frames, which burned many down. Growing up in the country, 100-150 year old farmhouses were common. I’m personally acquainted with 1 house and 3 barns built in the Dutch colonial period. IMO, most things built now except for custom homes and some commercial structures will be a pile of junk in 100 years. The wood sucks, the vinyl sucks and the foundations are weak. Scaled up developments are built to maximize tax benefits, period.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Sure there is some survivorship bias, but the cheap mass housing of the Victorian or Edwardian eras are often still around. Not just from the famous Victorian philanthropist industrialists (Cadbury, Lever brothers, Rowntree, Titus Salt etc) with their model villages for workers, but even the cheap stuff built for the collieries and mills, or early social housing. The social housing of the 1930s have, thanks to their sell off, often become the desirable estates of today. Of course there's also been a fair amount of German bombing and slum clearing that's thinned out the older stock. There's some key differences in how things are built that mean there will be precious few 1970s and 2010s homes surviving for 300 years. Victorian: Single or rarely double skin brick for most internal walls. Until the 70s or 80s breeze block was an acceptable cheaper alternative. Resiliant against a dozen generations hanging pictures, making adjustments to rooms and features, hanging flat screen tvs etc. Adds significant natural sound proofing. Roofs built with large scale carpentry and joints. Remove every nail and bolt and the roof will still be gale and rain proof. My current house doesn't seem to ever have had any nails or bolts in the roof space. The 30s house I used to have seemed to have just a few token ones. Slate and small tile (shingles in the US?) should last around a century and be an easy replacement. Some of the cast iron gutters and rain goods will be shot after a century, but plastic often needs replacing after 30. Crucially the foundations are built, often providing a handy cellar, rather than being a weak pour of a foot or two of concrete. Sometimes comes with a downside. One house, in Manchester, was built with engineering brick. Even the internal walls. So damn tough it took time to get a drill or angle grinder into it let alone bang a nail in for a picture. :) New: Internal frame and plasterboard walls, sometimes between houses meaning limited hanging of tvs and pictures, and adjustments even for the first generation of occupants. 300 years of home improvements and decoration will not work here. Listen in on the neighbours with ease, even when you'd rather not. Roofs built from pre-assembled trusses. Lose the ironwork from age or rust and the whole roof will be on the brink of collapse as the steel joints are structural. Not amenable to loft extensions, storage or even surviving the decay that frequently affects the eaves (You can't replace the rotted part as easily as they're now part of the structure). The modern style of large tile and truss means roofs are much shorter lived (I'm told around 40 years). Now, if only there were some houses being built using pre-war methods and strength of materials with current levels of insulation, renewables and electricals we'd be golden for the future. :)

jessriedel 8y ago

Just to be clear: In the case described in the article, the justification was preservation for historical notability, not merely as a way to maintain architectural style (even if that was a non-official motivation for some people).

surfmike 8y ago

Architectural monoculture isn't necessarily a bad thing, compared to a post-modern collection of different styles. Some of the most beautiful cities/town in the world (think places like Italian coastal towns, Austrian mountain villages, or French countryside towns) have a consistent style.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

At least Victorian "monoculture" varied by region, city and often each estate or build. Style, architecture, features, layout, colour and grade of brick or stone and slate would all identify where in the country you were. Even trivia like windows, mullions, ridge tiles and so on were of the region, and sometimes even more local. This continued until maybe the 1950s. New build use the same standard, shite, boxes across the whole country. 5 sizes and styles of shitty box per estate. If you live in a National Park or similar your standard shitty box will be clad in local stone tiles. Trouble with losing the Victorian build is they were built to last much longer than those 1960s on. Current build are to a price (lowest possible). I agree we should go back to regional and small scale development, and for planning regs to require regional sympathy once again. I don't agree Victorian buildings are drab. I'd far rather live in one of those than anything post 1970 as they tend to be much more solidly built. Sure they have a few issues stemming from being 120 years old - the roof might be due its first replacement by now (if slate) etc

Joeri 8y ago
Trouble with losing the Victorian build is they were built to last much longer than those 1960s on. I’m highly skeptical the average house built then outlived the average house built today, due to survivorship bias. The houses that remain are the ones built to last.
- Retric 8y ago
  It's more obvious with larger structures. Reinforced concrete has a finite and relatively short lifetime. 300 years sounds like a very long time, but a significant fraction of 300 year old buildings are still around, we have such a large fraction of newer structures in large part because the worlds population is vastly larger today. At the smaller scale you see things like complex roof lines that are very hard to maintain.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Have you ever lived in an older city? My first apartment in my city was built in 1910, and it was one of the newer buildings in that neighborhood. Even cheap railroad flats controlled by slumlords for 50 years are in better shape than the crap built in the early 90s. The fatal flaw of older frame houses is balloon frames, which burned many down. Growing up in the country, 100-150 year old farmhouses were common. I’m personally acquainted with 1 house and 3 barns built in the Dutch colonial period. IMO, most things built now except for custom homes and some commercial structures will be a pile of junk in 100 years. The wood sucks, the vinyl sucks and the foundations are weak. Scaled up developments are built to maximize tax benefits, period.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Sure there is some survivorship bias, but the cheap mass housing of the Victorian or Edwardian eras are often still around. Not just from the famous Victorian philanthropist industrialists (Cadbury, Lever brothers, Rowntree, Titus Salt etc) with their model villages for workers, but even the cheap stuff built for the collieries and mills, or early social housing. The social housing of the 1930s have, thanks to their sell off, often become the desirable estates of today. Of course there's also been a fair amount of German bombing and slum clearing that's thinned out the older stock. There's some key differences in how things are built that mean there will be precious few 1970s and 2010s homes surviving for 300 years. Victorian: Single or rarely double skin brick for most internal walls. Until the 70s or 80s breeze block was an acceptable cheaper alternative. Resiliant against a dozen generations hanging pictures, making adjustments to rooms and features, hanging flat screen tvs etc. Adds significant natural sound proofing. Roofs built with large scale carpentry and joints. Remove every nail and bolt and the roof will still be gale and rain proof. My current house doesn't seem to ever have had any nails or bolts in the roof space. The 30s house I used to have seemed to have just a few token ones. Slate and small tile (shingles in the US?) should last around a century and be an easy replacement. Some of the cast iron gutters and rain goods will be shot after a century, but plastic often needs replacing after 30. Crucially the foundations are built, often providing a handy cellar, rather than being a weak pour of a foot or two of concrete. Sometimes comes with a downside. One house, in Manchester, was built with engineering brick. Even the internal walls. So damn tough it took time to get a drill or angle grinder into it let alone bang a nail in for a picture. :) New: Internal frame and plasterboard walls, sometimes between houses meaning limited hanging of tvs and pictures, and adjustments even for the first generation of occupants. 300 years of home improvements and decoration will not work here. Listen in on the neighbours with ease, even when you'd rather not. Roofs built from pre-assembled trusses. Lose the ironwork from age or rust and the whole roof will be on the brink of collapse as the steel joints are structural. Not amenable to loft extensions, storage or even surviving the decay that frequently affects the eaves (You can't replace the rotted part as easily as they're now part of the structure). The modern style of large tile and truss means roofs are much shorter lived (I'm told around 40 years). Now, if only there were some houses being built using pre-war methods and strength of materials with current levels of insulation, renewables and electricals we'd be golden for the future. :)