• VinceUnderReview
    link
    fedilink
    1542 months ago

    Everytime I start to really disagree with things like heritage zoning I see something like this.

    • @MethodicalSpark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      2002 months ago

      This has been floating around the internet for some time.

      The funny part is that heritage zoning is the reason the addition looks the way it does. The upper floor was inaccessible and stairs needed to be added. Local regulations state that any additions must be visually distinct from the original structure so this monstrosity was the result.

      Look up Caldwell Tower in Scotland for more information.

        • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝
          link
          fedilink
          English
          812 months ago

          Here is the episode of The Restoration Man that documented the project - they go into the planning side of this in-depth because it’s really a head-scratcher. The owner tried many times to get planning for more subtle alternations but they kept getting knocked back because it has to be distinctive enough that it’s clear what is the old building and what are the new additions. What you see is the result of that messy process.

          • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            302 months ago

            That’s dumb as fuck, literally even if it was brick you’d be able to tell from the weathering of the original stone. NIMBYs are fucking idiots.

          • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            22 months ago

            I’m going to go with the idea they didn’t want anyone living in the tower in the first place. So they decided to refuse anything until it was too obvious to deny.

            • @SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              392 months ago

              I work in stone conservation and for the body that dictates these regulations, even if it was built out of stone it would be required to be visually distinct. The only exception is if it were reinstatement of an original feature that had been demolished or decayed to the point that it had to be removed and fully rebuilt. In that case every effort should be made to source the stone from the same quarry, and the same mortar mix should be used.

              • @BakerBagel@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                122 months ago

                An easy way to do that is make the addition not flush, or use a different kind if masonry. The linked documentary includes an interview with the local planning council who recommended finding a local architect with expirience to do it.

                Instead the chrap English bastard just used the cheapest options he could find in Essex and wore the council down to approve this monstrosity.

            • @Successful_Try543@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              23
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Maybe, in case the next renovation is due, you know for sure which parts are to be preserved and which can be removed. However, some craftsman or architect doing that should be able to tell the difference between modern boards and windows and ancient ones without relying on the help of white plastics or baby blue paint.

      • @LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        252 months ago

        Local regulations: “any additions must be visually distinct from the original structure.”

        Castle owner: “ok. So we’ll glue my grandma’s blue-siding house to the castle.”

        Local regulations: " No, not like THAAAAT"

        • @Successful_Try543@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          6
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I know.

          However, if you own a cultural heritage building, the c.h. office has a lot of saying about each and every modification done, especially on the outside, so I doubt it’s due to financial issues.

          • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝
            link
            fedilink
            English
            132 months ago

            This mess is because the planning authorities rejected more subtle additions and insisted on something that is distinct from the original building, which is what they got.

      • @apis@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 months ago

        Because though uPVC windows lack the myriad advantages of wood or stone frames, sometimes it is better for the ongoing fabric of a building to just get it weatherproof until someone comes along who can afford to put in more suitable replacements.

        Then white uPVC frames are much cheaper than coloured versions.

        Can’t speak for the baby blue.

  • @cerement@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    532 months ago

    only plus I can see is that the renovation is visibly distinguishable – they’re not trying to pass it off as a “restoration” …

  • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝
    link
    fedilink
    English
    44
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I remember when this hit the news and do hope it’s been redone since.

    edit: no updates on the Scottish Castle Association since 2012 and TripAdvisor photos show it unchanged other than some weathering.

    edit2: Here is the episode of The Restoration Man that focused on the tower and it explains the planning process that led to this monstrosity.

  • @Kethal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    32
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It would have been nice if they pointed out which part was renovated so I didn’t need to scour the picture to find it.

  • TWeaK
    link
    fedilink
    English
    232 months ago

    This makes me want to sing the Tetris theme.

  • @tjsauce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    162 months ago

    Looks weird, but if they added a 3rd aesthetic, like Japanese wooden housing, or Russian brutalism, then we’d be talking.

  • @isyasad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    132 months ago

    People are such perfectionists when it comes to buildings. I love this image; the patchwork aesthetic needs less hate. Yeah it looks silly, but why should it look serious? I wouldn’t be upset if a building built today were to have an awkward attachment added in 500 years that was built to the design standards of that time period.
    Somebody showed me recently the rebuild of the Augusteum building of the University of Leipzig which had a hyper-modern redesign like 180 years after it was first built (look it up, it’s pretty cool). And the building in this post is like a lower-effort, more earnest version of that idea. Is it bad real estate? Sure. But it’s good architecture. “Authenticity” be damned.

    • @trafficnab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      72 months ago

      Basically, do you want an abandoned ruin rotting away in a field, or do you want a building that people will continue to live in and take care of into the future?