The philosophy of repairing previous repairs.

[MikeG]

Whilst we're arguing the philosophy of repairing or replacing features in old buildings ...

http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15912

......here's another real-life example to chew over. Below is a photo of an agricultural outbuilding I have obtained permission for my clients to convert to residential. What would you do with the brick repairs in the flint panels? More importantly, why?

 

[Flyfisher]

That looks like an example of a 'hard working' utility building where function has been of greater important than appearance, which I suspect is not uncommon, in contrast to a residential property where appearance is a lot more important and those flint panels would, almost certainly, have been repaired with flint rather than anything that happened to be lying around the farmyard.

What would I do with the flint panels? Well, given it's going to be a residential property, I would probably replace the brick infills with flint, though that might depend on what else is being done to the wall in terms of doors and windows.

It's an interesting conundrum though, and one might even question whether rough agricultural buildings should be converted for residential use or simply demolished to make way for a new residential property. It might be heresy to even as this question, but what, exactly, is the 'heritage value' of the building in question? It might be old but is that alone enough to mark it out as being worthy of preservation?

This could be an interesting topic

 

[MikeG]

Thanks FF. Interesting.

In correctly noting that it was a utility building where function was more important than appearance, in contrast to its future use as a house which normally includes an emphasis on appearance, I'm interested in how you arrived at the conclusion that the final aesthetic should match its second use, rather than its former use.

 

[plasticpigeon]

I have no idea, it's not a building I would be particularly interested in converting. I'd probably try and make it look as nice as possible to me, whatever that was. Was it a wall that was then integrated into a barn?

 

[MikeG]

Yes, it was.

 

[Flyfisher]

. . . I'm interested in how you arrived at the conclusion that the final aesthetic should match its second use, rather than its former use.

Simply because I think the wall as it stands looks a bit of a mess, which is curious in a way because it wouldn't bother me in the slightest as a farm building.

But I'm probably not the best person to judge as I'm not a big fan of barn conversions (at least not the ones I've seen or been in), though I am a big fan of barns and outbuildings in general. We're fortunate to have some fairly extensive outbuildings and I'd be lost without them for their utility value. Of course I'd also have a lot less clutter and 'stuff' I could probably do without'! :lol:

 

[MikeG]

Thanks.

You'll note that I'm avoiding giving my opinion on this, and will simply nudge the conversation along for a while.

 

[a twig]

I'd flatten the whole lot and build two 3 bed semis... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

 

[MikeG]

Flatten that building and you'd get a bigger arable field, and no semis. This is a Permitted Development conversion of an agricultural outbuilding, on agricultural land. PD rights include the requirement that the building must be structurally sound enough for conversion, and that its last use was agricultural. Push it over and those rights disappear, (as does 200+ years of history, but some people seem more attached to their history when the buildings are cute).

 

[LadyArowana]

Barn conversions aren't really my thing, because they usually still look a bit like a barn afterwards. Having said that I think there's enough of the random repairs to be a "look" as it were. If it was one small patch in an otherwise very neatly organised design of wall then I would probably err on the side of removal and repairing with flint, but even taking away the strange brick repairs it is going to be rather a long way from perfect. If window/ door placement is going to be such that most of those patches disappear then that could change my mind.

 

[a twig]

Flatten that building and you'd get a bigger arable field, and no semis. This is a Permitted Development conversion of an agricultural outbuilding, on agricultural land. PD rights include the requirement that the building must be structurally sound enough for conversion, and that its last use was agricultural. Push it over and those rights disappear, (as does 200+ years of history, but some people seem more attached to their history when the buildings are cute).

I'd hoped that the use of the :twisted: :twisted: indicated I wasn't being entirely serious... Apparently not...

Anyhoo...

Back to the original question, I would repair each section like for like, i.e. brick in the brick bits and flint in the flint bits. Then when the wife inevitably decides that she really hates it, I would lime render the whole thing

But then I'm the sort of person that repairs my trousers with bits of other old pairs of trousers that are a complete mismatch in colour, so I'm pretty sure I'm not the main stream...

 

[LadyArowana]

But then I'm the sort of person that repairs my trousers with bits of other old pairs of trousers that are a complete mismatch in colour, so I'm pretty sure I'm not the main stream...

Bang on trend I would say!

 

[MikeG]

Flatten that building and you'd get a bigger arable field, and no semis. This is a Permitted Development conversion of an agricultural outbuilding, on agricultural land. PD rights include the requirement that the building must be structurally sound enough for conversion, and that its last use was agricultural. Push it over and those rights disappear, (as does 200+ years of history, but some people seem more attached to their history when the buildings are cute).

I'd hoped that the use of the :twisted: :twisted: indicated I wasn't being entirely serious... Apparently not.........

No I got that, but there was a valid point to be made for the sake of others, so I ploughed on anyway. Sorry......

 

[MikeG]

Barn conversions aren't really my thing, because they usually still look a bit like a barn afterwards.

My criticism of them is that they generally have been too domesticated, and now look like neither one thing nor the other.

Having said that I think there's enough of the random repairs to be a "look" as it were.

I think that a fair point. However........

If it was one small patch in an otherwise very neatly organised design of wall then I would probably err on the side of removal and repairing with flint, but even taking away the strange brick repairs it is going to be rather a long way from perfect. If window/ door placement is going to be such that most of those patches disappear then that could change my mind.

Should the treatment of repairs be dependent on how many of them there are?

There are some (3) arrow-slit windows going in in the flint wall above the string course, and a French window is going into the solid brick panel to the left of the flintwork.

 

[Andys]

I'd leave it alone as much as possible. Scruffy old things seem to lose a bit of charm if they're tidied up too much.
Might be tempted to re-do any obviously recent ugly patches in the original style but some of those look like they were done a long time ago and have their own interest.

 

[JoceAndChris]

It's an interesting discussion.

I dislike shades of grey, and am always all or nothing. In my opinion then if you're going to convert a charming old wreck of an agricultural ruin then you have already broken all the rules and are off the Christmas card list. I love a crumbling ruin and hate barn conversions. So to me it doesn't matter what you use, brick or flint, glass or steel, it's not going to be aesthetically pleasing to me no matter what.

However if you are repairing an old floorboard or piece of furniture and there's a charming old repair, a neat patch in wood, then it's important to keep that historic repair if possible. Old materials should be carefully protected and re used - I cried to lose our early 19th century floorboard nails and the new ones upset me immensely! If something has historic and cultural significance - as in a listed building - then every historic and culturally significant part of it warrants preservation.

Where masonry is so repaired that original design is lost - ie a stone wall patched in with brick - then in my opinion render is preferable. Lime renders and washes are underused and undervalued.

 

[MikeG]

......some of those look like they were done a long time ago......

Absolutely. I reckon some of those repairs are well over a hundred years old.

 

[MikeG]

........So to me it doesn't matter what you use, brick or flint, glass or steel, it's not going to be aesthetically pleasing to me no matter what........

Aesthetics are only one element of the conversation about the alteration or repair of an old building, in my view, as I have made clear in the "ex Lintel" thread. Architectural honesty is something I also value.

One could have this discussion about this building if it were being retained for agricultural useage. Would that make a difference to what you would choose to do with those brick patches in the flintwork, assuming money played no part in the equation? You want to do your best for that building, regardless of its use, so what do you do about the brick patches?

 

[mims&pip]

I'm another that isn't a fan of barn conversions, perhaps because so many I've encountered have had the feel of a *Barratt home* internally with new, six panel doors, brown windows and plasterboard walls :x

Pip has previously had customers in very high-end barn conversions - most likely done in the 1980s/90s - that have been worth an arm and a leg, but wouldn't feature on my radar as a purchase if money were no object.

I, too, love a crumbling ruin and hate it when any old building is restored to within an inch of its life. However, in our desperation to find a suitable new home with some land, we wouldn't rule an agricultural building out as long as we caught it pre-conversion and knew we could do the work as sympathetically as possible without the place losing its integrity.

Close to us, on the Staffs/Shropshire border (we're originally from Hampshire and have only been up here a couple of years), there are still quite a few gorgeous, unrestored old agricultural buildings that I admit could make amazing homes, in the right hands. Round here they have not all been snapped up and altered beyond all recognition......perhaps they aren't appreciated as residential material here, who knows? Probably for the best, tbh :roll:

Regarding the building in question though, I quite like the historical honesty of leaving the brick infill patches in the flint as they do, indeed, look as though they've been there a good few years and any attempt to replace might jar.....

Mims x

 

[Flyfisher]

Aesthetics are only one element of the conversation about the alteration or repair of an old building . . . Architectural honesty is something I also value . . . You want to do your best for that building, regardless of its use, so what do you do about the brick patches?

But can you really disregard the use of the building when 'doing your best' for it? As an agricultural building the brick patches seem perfectly well suited for its use but as a (probably very expensive) house not so much.

And what do you mean by 'architectural honesty' anyway? To me, it doesn't seem entirely 'honest' to convert a ramshackle but perfectly suited agricultural building into a luxuriously appointed modern domestic dwelling in the first place, so I'd say that particular aim is already compromised.

Besides, as you no doubt rightly pointed out, the proposed project sounds less to do with architectural honesty and more to do with the vagaries of planning laws. My bet is that the owners would rather bulldoze the site and build a new house from scratch, rather than mess about making a silk purse out of a pig's ear.

It's a barn. It was built as a barn, used as a barn and maintained as a barn - for which it all looks eminently suited and charming in its own way. Conversion into a domestic house will require a gazillion new things to be inflicted upon its 'architectural integrity' that I really don't think tidying up the few remaining visible parts makes much difference either way. I assume all the interior walls will become invisible anyway when plastered, so where's the 'honesty' in leaving the exterior walls untouched?