It was interesting that in the 2010 debates the 'worm' following the immediate approval/disapproval reaction of audiences when Cameron was talking in the dates was highest when he was talking about inheritance tax.
However, it didn't win him a majority.
If I'm honest I would have said what would be considerably more useful certainly in the medium term than inheritance tax cuts is sorting out the positively labyrinthine system of probate. It's better than it was but it's still a mess and needs to be knocked down and started again from scratch.
But - there aren't many headlines in that.
My view is that the Probate Service is much worse than five years ago. Back then, you got Grants in 3-6 weeks, typically. Now, it’s more like 12-16 weeks.
This follows the replacement of paper applications with online ones. This was meant to speed up the process.
Nothing really works in this country any more, hence the desire for a change from the politicians that ran it down while pursuing their hobby horses.
I’ve also got a bit of Khmer belly. Rumblings below
These are not ideal circumstances in which to eat an entire roasted dog. I just hope it’s small
Even big dogs don't seem to have that much meat on them. Rather stringy creatures, so not very appealing.
A friend is looking for a new dog. Don't ask me why - they must be mad and doesn't help with glogal warming. Have been offered dogs "rescued from the China dog meat trade" Are we really importing dogs from the far east?
Barking up the Wong tree?
There is an appalling video doing the TwiX rounds of some poor dog being roasted alive - for flavour purposes - in China
I don’t like pet dogs, in principle. Dogs in general kinda bore me - I love wild animals not domestic toys. I’m not overly sentimental about animals in toto (tho killing wildlife can set me off)
But Jesus Christ. This video. I obvs won’t link - it will make you rage with fury. The pure unthinking cruelty
I remember being in China in 1991 and seeing small animals alive in cages outside gourmet restaurants, a bit like you might see a tank of live lobsters at a seafood restaurant. Prospective customers would poke them with a stick for entertainment and also to see how lively they were.
Apparently the gourmets like the animal to be both fresh and terrified as the hormonal changes of pain and fear add to the flavour.
Not my cup of tea at all.
Yes, I’ve seen that - indeed in that notorious market in Guangdong, in about 1995, which was so scandalous even the Chinese closed it down
I saw people eating live scorpions. Live hearts freshly pulled from quivering snakes. I saw people choosing a live owl or cat to be boiled - alive - in front of them
I have to confess it was quite compelling. Such an alien attitude to animal welfare, or no concept at all of animal welfare
It also had aspects of a nightmare; I can picture it vividly now
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
The problem is the prevailing idea that wealth should not be taxed, or taxed very lightly - in contrast to income from employment, which is taxed heavily. This is a major driver of inequality.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
It was interesting that in the 2010 debates the 'worm' following the immediate approval/disapproval reaction of audiences when Cameron was talking in the dates was highest when he was talking about inheritance tax.
However, it didn't win him a majority.
If I'm honest I would have said what would be considerably more useful certainly in the medium term than inheritance tax cuts is sorting out the positively labyrinthine system of probate. It's better than it was but it's still a mess and needs to be knocked down and started again from scratch.
But - there aren't many headlines in that.
My view is that the Probate Service is much worse than five years ago. Back then, you got Grants in 3-6 weeks, typically. Now, it’s more like 12-16 weeks.
This follows the replacement of paper applications with online ones. This was meant to speed up the process.
Nothing really works in this country any more, hence the desire for a change from the politicians that ran it down while pursuing their hobby horses.
Things like DVLA, the Passport Service, Stamp Duty Land Tax, the High Court, work extremely efficiently online. The Probate Service, County Courts, and Land Registry do not. What I don’t understand is why the IT that works as intended can’t just be used across the board.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
Quite so. All the places people really want to live are beautiful historic towns and cities, hence the premium price you have to pay for them
King Charles was right. Stop resisting this - build what the people want (and use nice stone)
I’m not sure old Tbilisi is “mostly fake”. I lived in it for 3 weeks. It’s mostly real and authentically ramshackle
What they ARE doing is insisting that any new builds copy this gorgeous Persian-Georgian style - good for them
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
The curse is not to do with architectural style but with over-regulation of building in general and value engineering. I have a "pastiche" development at the bottom of my street in a Conservation Area that took 10 years to go through planning and design and in my view it has been destroyed by cheap render, lack of window reveals, PVC windows. These £2k/sqm buildings (build cost) will deteriorate fast and blight the area in 10 years time in contrast to the 150 year old stucco faced buildings that surround it. All the paperwork and box ticking means nothing.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
I find Georgian and Edwardian architecture the most pleasing to the eye. Not as fussy as Victorian, and with well proportioned rooms of a size for modern living. Building standards and materials were better in Edwardian times as properly trained artisans did much of the work, at least in the properties that still exist. Proper damp courses and carpentry etc.
Mrs Foxy's grandfather was a small scale builder and said that in the building boom of the 1930s and 1950's to 1960's any idiot could get a site job and often did.
On the other hand, I live in a 2002 built house, and while it has less soul or character, it is much warmer than previous houses, and the first one that I have owned where the roof never leaks!
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
Coincidentally just before reading your post I saw the below pictures. The original building in Budapest had a modernist facade which has been removed to show the original and there is no contest which looks better.
If the original building was a pastiche replacing the modern shell then I think most people would prefer the pastiche. Luckily the original was still there hidden.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
The problem is the prevailing idea that wealth should not be taxed, or taxed very lightly - in contrast to income from employment, which is taxed heavily. This is a major driver of inequality.
Death duties on estates, coupled with the high mortality of young aristocrats in the trenches etc were major drivers of redistribution of wealth.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
The problem is the prevailing idea that wealth should not be taxed, or taxed very lightly - in contrast to income from employment, which is taxed heavily. This is a major driver of inequality.
And aspiration. Therefore productivity, and economic output.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
Coincidentally just before reading your post I saw the below pictures. The original building in Budapest had a modernist facade which has been removed to show the original and there is no contest which looks better.
If the original building was a pastiche replacing the modern shell then I think most people would prefer the pastiche. Luckily the original was still there hidden.
This is primarily largely a quality of materials issue. You can achieve successful modernist buildings and neo classical buildings if you invest heavily in materials.
A lot of British Architecture in the 2000's is described by Owen Hatherley as 'pseudo modernism'. There are all sorts of compromises that make the straight lines fail and then you have the crap materials, the render and the cladding. It all now looks like an embarrassment, these buildings are blighting the area already. In the 2010's there was a move to brick outer shell in London at least which has longevity, and an aversion to render, but the basic cheapness prevails, like it is an english pathology.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
Coincidentally just before reading your post I saw the below pictures. The original building in Budapest had a modernist facade which has been removed to show the original and there is no contest which looks better.
If the original building was a pastiche replacing the modern shell then I think most people would prefer the pastiche. Luckily the original was still there hidden.
This is primarily largely a quality of materials issue. You can achieve successful modernist buildings and neo classical buildings if you invest heavily in materials.
A lot of British Architecture in the 2000's is described by Owen Hatherley as 'pseudo modernism'. There are all sorts of compromises that make the straight lines fail and then you have the crap materials, the render and the cladding. It all now looks like an embarrassment, these buildings are blighting the area already. In the 2010's there was a move to brick outer shell in London at least which has longevity, and an aversion to render, but the basic cheapness prevails, like it is an english pathology.
The “new London vernacular” gives me some hope. Nice biscuity coloured London bricks. A fairly uniform but not deadening style. They should age pretty well and they look ok in grey and rain (unlike concrete) and they look posher and less depressing than redbrick Barratt homes
I’d prefer the full Poundbury or Nansledan but it’s a start. I believe Boris had a role in pushing this default style through
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
I find Georgian and Edwardian architecture the most pleasing to the eye. Not as fussy as Victorian, and with well proportioned rooms of a size for modern living. Building standards and materials were better in Edwardian times as properly trained artisans did much of the work, at least in the properties that still exist. Proper damp courses and carpentry etc.
Mrs Foxy's grandfather was a small scale builder and said that in the building boom of the 1930s and 1950's to 1960's any idiot could get a site job and often did.
On the other hand, I live in a 2002 built house, and while it has less soul or character, it is much warmer than previous houses, and the first one that I have owned where the roof never leaks!
'Kerb appeal' is nice but it's the inside that counts. That's where you spend your time.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
I find Georgian and Edwardian architecture the most pleasing to the eye. Not as fussy as Victorian, and with well proportioned rooms of a size for modern living. Building standards and materials were better in Edwardian times as properly trained artisans did much of the work, at least in the properties that still exist. Proper damp courses and carpentry etc.
Mrs Foxy's grandfather was a small scale builder and said that in the building boom of the 1930s and 1950's to 1960's any idiot could get a site job and often did.
On the other hand, I live in a 2002 built house, and while it has less soul or character, it is much warmer than previous houses, and the first one that I have owned where the roof never leaks!
'Kerb appeal' is nice but it's the inside that counts. That's where you spend your time.
Is that perhaps one of the problems of modern Britain in 2 sentences?
For thousands of years humans have spent most of their time outside, in and amongst the community. This locking away indoors thing is a pretty recent phenomenon.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
I find Georgian and Edwardian architecture the most pleasing to the eye. Not as fussy as Victorian, and with well proportioned rooms of a size for modern living. Building standards and materials were better in Edwardian times as properly trained artisans did much of the work, at least in the properties that still exist. Proper damp courses and carpentry etc.
Mrs Foxy's grandfather was a small scale builder and said that in the building boom of the 1930s and 1950's to 1960's any idiot could get a site job and often did.
On the other hand, I live in a 2002 built house, and while it has less soul or character, it is much warmer than previous houses, and the first one that I have owned where the roof never leaks!
'Kerb appeal' is nice but it's the inside that counts. That's where you spend your time.
Is that perhaps one of the problems of modern Britain in 2 sentences?
For thousands of years humans have spent most of their time outside, in and amongst the community. This locking away indoors thing is a pretty recent phenomenon.
I think it’s fairly unique to @kinabalu who has only traveled as far as Bruges. Once
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
Coincidentally just before reading your post I saw the below pictures. The original building in Budapest had a modernist facade which has been removed to show the original and there is no contest which looks better.
If the original building was a pastiche replacing the modern shell then I think most people would prefer the pastiche. Luckily the original was still there hidden.
This is primarily largely a quality of materials issue. You can achieve successful modernist buildings and neo classical buildings if you invest heavily in materials.
A lot of British Architecture in the 2000's is described by Owen Hatherley as 'pseudo modernism'. There are all sorts of compromises that make the straight lines fail and then you have the crap materials, the render and the cladding. It all now looks like an embarrassment, these buildings are blighting the area already. In the 2010's there was a move to brick outer shell in London at least which has longevity, and an aversion to render, but the basic cheapness prevails, like it is an english pathology.
The “new London vernacular” gives me some hope. Nice biscuity coloured London bricks. A fairly uniform but not deadening style. They should age pretty well and they look ok in grey and rain (unlike concrete) and they look posher and less depressing than redbrick Barratt homes
I’d prefer the full Poundbury or Nansledan but it’s a start. I believe Boris had a role in pushing this default style through
I would agree, it is a start. If you go and look at Barking Riverside it is quite impressive and should weather ok in contrast to the greying render of Thamesmead and Woolwich. But that development is essentially state capitalism, where design is heavily regulated as a condition of land acquisition. It is really exhausting and a massive battle just to drag developers to this point - it requires the intervention of strong regional government (unique to London) and a constant war against the philistine tendencies of value engineering. This is a war. You need to put in architect retention clauses in legal agreements and tie developers up in extensive conditions that cost everyone disproportionate amounts of time and money and delay projects because otherwise sadly the forces of the free market post 2000 just churn out shit.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustains extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty as I age!
My view is that inheritance tax should be set at 100% and income tax/NI should be set at 0%. Earn your own money you lazy barstewards. A reasonable position of which I am sure we can all agree. 😃
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
I find Georgian and Edwardian architecture the most pleasing to the eye. Not as fussy as Victorian, and with well proportioned rooms of a size for modern living. Building standards and materials were better in Edwardian times as properly trained artisans did much of the work, at least in the properties that still exist. Proper damp courses and carpentry etc.
Mrs Foxy's grandfather was a small scale builder and said that in the building boom of the 1930s and 1950's to 1960's any idiot could get a site job and often did.
On the other hand, I live in a 2002 built house, and while it has less soul or character, it is much warmer than previous houses, and the first one that I have owned where the roof never leaks!
'Kerb appeal' is nice but it's the inside that counts. That's where you spend your time.
Is that perhaps one of the problems of modern Britain in 2 sentences?
For thousands of years humans have spent most of their time outside, in and amongst the community. This locking away indoors thing is a pretty recent phenomenon.
Also, the private:public space thing is heavily tilted by the time we spend at home asleep. Most days, I probably spend more time awake in a public space than in my house.
And we have been letting our public/third spaces rot for decades.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
Coincidentally just before reading your post I saw the below pictures. The original building in Budapest had a modernist facade which has been removed to show the original and there is no contest which looks better.
If the original building was a pastiche replacing the modern shell then I think most people would prefer the pastiche. Luckily the original was still there hidden.
This is primarily largely a quality of materials issue. You can achieve successful modernist buildings and neo classical buildings if you invest heavily in materials.
A lot of British Architecture in the 2000's is described by Owen Hatherley as 'pseudo modernism'. There are all sorts of compromises that make the straight lines fail and then you have the crap materials, the render and the cladding. It all now looks like an embarrassment, these buildings are blighting the area already. In the 2010's there was a move to brick outer shell in London at least which has longevity, and an aversion to render, but the basic cheapness prevails, like it is an english pathology.
The “new London vernacular” gives me some hope. Nice biscuity coloured London bricks. A fairly uniform but not deadening style. They should age pretty well and they look ok in grey and rain (unlike concrete) and they look posher and less depressing than redbrick Barratt homes
I’d prefer the full Poundbury or Nansledan but it’s a start. I believe Boris had a role in pushing this default style through
The Barratt clones could be vastly improved if:
A) they didn't level the development area so as to give it some natural undulation and depth
Loads of trees to cover the monotony up
C) Give up on the silly front gardens (and perhaps even the back gardens, with are miniscule) and use that space for parks, ponds, allotments
D) Ensure lots of passages through the estate so you don't have to walk miles to get anywhere. This is a side-effect of the LTN approach, which developers are applying to pedestrians too (thereby completely missing the point).
Er, has he not BEEN to working class Dublin? They may not collect cash for the provos any more, but “British leaning”???
Superb
Dublin’s unusual, for a modern capital city, in having rough areas right in the city centre.
The rioters, if they vote at all, vote Sinn Fein or People Before Profit. I suspect Sinn Fein will end up doing one of their 180 degree u-turns over immigration, or else, lose this part of their voter base.
Individual policies can be popular, even most of a party's individual policies might be, yet still not help them be popular. That's politics for you.
Corbyn was the classic case for this. His supporters online would constantly post polling that showed majorities for his policies but the public distrust of Corbyn's competence meant it was irrelevant.
Not exactly. The right-wing press highlighted the policies, thinking they'd alienate people, and they generated a lot of real enthusiasm which produced the near-win in 2017. I don't remember ever encountering more people on the doorstep saying "I didn't vote Labour last time but I really like [policy X]". It was much more that than a reflection of the "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" rallies, which older people thought somewhere between endearing and silly. But suspicion of Corbyn and Labour generally persisted just enough for the Tories to squeak home.
Whether it's possible to have lots of exciting policies without triggering the "too much of a risk" reflex is an interesting question which Starmer has evidently decided not to try. "We will improve things gradually by incremental change too boring to read" doesn't rule out some quite interesting things (e.g. on housing and the environment) but only really works if you're running against a party that people are tired of.
It’s been a great season if you ignored the race for the lead, and just watched everything behind MV.
This weekend’s story is an epic fight between Mercedes and Ferrari for 2nd in the Constructors’ Championship, only four points apart going into the last race and with tens of millions in prize money at stake.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
Coincidentally just before reading your post I saw the below pictures. The original building in Budapest had a modernist facade which has been removed to show the original and there is no contest which looks better.
If the original building was a pastiche replacing the modern shell then I think most people would prefer the pastiche. Luckily the original was still there hidden.
This is primarily largely a quality of materials issue. You can achieve successful modernist buildings and neo classical buildings if you invest heavily in materials.
A lot of British Architecture in the 2000's is described by Owen Hatherley as 'pseudo modernism'. There are all sorts of compromises that make the straight lines fail and then you have the crap materials, the render and the cladding. It all now looks like an embarrassment, these buildings are blighting the area already. In the 2010's there was a move to brick outer shell in London at least which has longevity, and an aversion to render, but the basic cheapness prevails, like it is an english pathology.
The “new London vernacular” gives me some hope. Nice biscuity coloured London bricks. A fairly uniform but not deadening style. They should age pretty well and they look ok in grey and rain (unlike concrete) and they look posher and less depressing than redbrick Barratt homes
I’d prefer the full Poundbury or Nansledan but it’s a start. I believe Boris had a role in pushing this default style through
The Barratt clones could be vastly improved if:
A) they didn't level the development area so as to give it some natural undulation and depth
Loads of trees to cover the monotony up
C) Give up on the silly front gardens (and perhaps even the back gardens, with are miniscule) and use that space for parks, ponds, allotments
D) Ensure lots of passages through the estate so you don't have to walk miles to get anywhere. This is a side-effect of the LTN approach, which developers are applying to pedestrians too (thereby completely missing the point).
If you type the letter "B" and the symbol ")" next to each other, then Vanilla will translate it to a glasses emoji. If you are doing an A,B,C,D... list then put a space between the "B" and the ")". It will look odd but will make sense.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
I find Georgian and Edwardian architecture the most pleasing to the eye. Not as fussy as Victorian, and with well proportioned rooms of a size for modern living. Building standards and materials were better in Edwardian times as properly trained artisans did much of the work, at least in the properties that still exist. Proper damp courses and carpentry etc.
Mrs Foxy's grandfather was a small scale builder and said that in the building boom of the 1930s and 1950's to 1960's any idiot could get a site job and often did.
On the other hand, I live in a 2002 built house, and while it has less soul or character, it is much warmer than previous houses, and the first one that I have owned where the roof never leaks!
'Kerb appeal' is nice but it's the inside that counts. That's where you spend your time.
IMO that depends if you are building a house, selling a house, buying a house or living in a house. Houses are generally sold by area & local facilities (in general and as first cut - 'I'm not living in Penge') and kerb appeal, kitchen, and bathroom (as the second cut - 'I want that house'),
And on your self-perceived tastes.
Consider that it has taken 25 years for Energy Performance numbers to become an even semi-serious consideration in relative house prices.
Individual policies can be popular, even most of a party's individual policies might be, yet still not help them be popular. That's politics for you.
Corbyn was the classic case for this. His supporters online would constantly post polling that showed majorities for his policies but the public distrust of Corbyn's competence meant it was irrelevant.
Not exactly. The right-wing press highlighted the policies, thinking they'd alienate people, and they generated a lot of real enthusiasm which produced the near-win in 2017. I don't remember ever encountering more people on the doorstep saying "I didn't vote Labour last time but I really like [policy X]". It was much more that than a reflection of the "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" rallies, which older people thought somewhere between endearing and silly. But suspicion of Corbyn and Labour generally persisted just enough for the Tories to squeak home.
Whether it's possible to have lots of exciting policies without triggering the "too much of a risk" reflex is an interesting question which Starmer has evidently decided not to try. "We will improve things gradually by incremental change too boring to read" doesn't rule out some quite interesting things (e.g. on housing and the environment) but only really works if you're running against a party that people are tired of.
Just 28% of Labour's voters in 2017 (so c 12% of the electorate) voted primarily because they liked Labour's policies.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
i) can you PM me your article please? ii) I am convinced that the white/magnolia pale walls and wooden strip floors of the 90's was a direct result of the limits on computer graphics of the day. You could leave the CGI walls bare, slap a wooden texture on the CGI floor, call it Scandi and job done, client happy.
Are not the survey findings in the header bollocks, illustrating the sawdust in the brains of the interviewed?
42% say that tax has been paid so iHT is double taxation.
Yet much of most estates and UK wealth held by everyday people is in property appreciation, which appreciation has NOT been taxed because main dwellings are explicitly exempt from Capital Gains Tax.
Dur.
Transfer CGT liability to the recipient and tax it as income at their marginal rate. Simples.
Are not the survey findings in the header bollocks, illustrating the sawdust in the brains of the interviewed?
42% say that tax has been paid so iHT is double taxation.
Yet much of most estates and UK wealth held by everyday people is in property appreciation, which appreciation has NOT been taxed because main dwellings are explicitly exempt from Capital Gains Tax.
Dur.
Transfer CGT liability to the recipient and tax it as income at their marginal rate. Simples.
TBF, a large chunk of the value of a primary residence is exempt from IHT as well.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
I find Georgian and Edwardian architecture the most pleasing to the eye. Not as fussy as Victorian, and with well proportioned rooms of a size for modern living. Building standards and materials were better in Edwardian times as properly trained artisans did much of the work, at least in the properties that still exist. Proper damp courses and carpentry etc.
Mrs Foxy's grandfather was a small scale builder and said that in the building boom of the 1930s and 1950's to 1960's any idiot could get a site job and often did.
On the other hand, I live in a 2002 built house, and while it has less soul or character, it is much warmer than previous houses, and the first one that I have owned where the roof never leaks!
Yes, I think Georgian is a sweet spot. I say that as someone who loves Victorian housing for its spaciousness, its general aesthetic and the fact it is seriously built to last - but it’s not practical for everyone/as a modern style. You can make it really work - but it requires effort and for your circumstances to match it, and a lot of people’s don’t.
Whilst we're talking about new-builds, an interesting and (to me) weird thing occasionally goes on. Our plumber told me he has a good trade in ripping out bathrooms and putting new ones in brand-new new-build houses. Not in grand houses, but in the sort of new-build house you get around here. People struggling to get the deposits, with massive mortgages, then spend four or five grand taking out a perfectly serviceable bathroom to replace it with something that is *them*.
The same thing apparently happens with kitchens, including, in a few cases, knocking out walls to make rooms more open-plan. You get skips outside brand-new houses.
The plumber and his mates then sell all the brand-new, unused or little-used stuff on other jobs.
I don't think this is the fault of the builder; the bathrooms and kitchens are serviceable. It just seems so incredibly wasteful.
Things like DVLA, the Passport Service, Stamp Duty Land Tax, the High Court, work extremely efficiently online. The Probate Service, County Courts, and Land Registry do not. What I don’t understand is why the IT that works as intended can’t just be used across the board.
One of the things that gets you IT that works as intended is keeping the scope constrained, so you build "a website that works for the DVLA" (a manageable task) and not "a comprehensive framework that will solve the online requirements of a dozen different government departments simultaneously" (a mammoth endeavour that is likely to produce bad results very late at great expense).
Whilst we're talking about new-builds, an interesting and (to me) weird thing occasionally goes on. Our plumber told me he has a good trade in ripping out bathrooms and putting new ones in brand-new new-build houses. Not in grand houses, but in the sort of new-build house you get around here. People struggling to get the deposits, with massive mortgages, then spend four or five grand taking out a perfectly serviceable bathroom to replace it with something that is *them*.
The same thing apparently happens with kitchens, including, in a few cases, knocking out walls to make rooms more open-plan. You get skips outside brand-new houses.
The plumber and his mates then sell all the brand-new, unused or little-used stuff on other jobs.
I don't think this is the fault of the builder; the bathrooms and kitchens are serviceable. It just seems so incredibly wasteful.
I was executor for an elderly relative earlier this year - bathroom was shot, bidet didn't match, handbasin cracked, bathroom piping perished in places. Our tame plumber just patched up the immediate leak and told us not to bother doing anything more - the buyer would want to implement a new bathroom to their own tastes anyway, and he'd lost count of the number of times he'd installed a new bathroom only to see it binned within months by the house buyer.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
The problem is the prevailing idea that wealth should not be taxed, or taxed very lightly - in contrast to income from employment, which is taxed heavily. This is a major driver of inequality.
And aspiration. Therefore productivity, and economic output.
Aspiration has to be matched by achievement. We've achieved a world where the best access to wealth is by inheriting it or marrying it. This is not good, it is bad.
Are not the survey findings in the header bollocks, illustrating the sawdust in the brains of the interviewed?
42% say that tax has been paid so iHT is double taxation.
Yet much of most estates and UK wealth held by everyday people is in property appreciation, which appreciation has NOT been taxed because main dwellings are explicitly exempt from Capital Gains Tax.
Dur.
Transfer CGT liability to the recipient and tax it as income at their marginal rate. Simples.
It's completely "dur". As someone who has long been interested in how stupid people justify themselves, I wonder how the 42% (of those who think IHT is unfair) would answer the objection. Probably only a few would say that NO tax was paid on the increase in value during the lifetime of the deceased person, and that therefore NO tax should be paid when it's inherited. Perhaps most would say that the person paid a lot of tax on their income during their lifetime, and now the wicked taxman wants a chunk of what they spent it on, which increased in value because they looked after it.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
The problem is the prevailing idea that wealth should not be taxed, or taxed very lightly - in contrast to income from employment, which is taxed heavily. This is a major driver of inequality.
And aspiration. Therefore productivity, and economic output.
Aspiration has to be matched by achievement. We've achieved a world where the best access to wealth is by inheriting it or marrying it. This is not good, it is bad.
Quite. Just look at what our Village Tory is always emphasising. Those two methods.
Whilst we're talking about new-builds, an interesting and (to me) weird thing occasionally goes on. Our plumber told me he has a good trade in ripping out bathrooms and putting new ones in brand-new new-build houses. Not in grand houses, but in the sort of new-build house you get around here. People struggling to get the deposits, with massive mortgages, then spend four or five grand taking out a perfectly serviceable bathroom to replace it with something that is *them*.
The same thing apparently happens with kitchens, including, in a few cases, knocking out walls to make rooms more open-plan. You get skips outside brand-new houses.
The plumber and his mates then sell all the brand-new, unused or little-used stuff on other jobs.
I don't think this is the fault of the builder; the bathrooms and kitchens are serviceable. It just seems so incredibly wasteful.
I was executor for an elderly relative earlier this year - bathroom was shot, bidet didn't match, handbasin cracked, bathroom piping perished in places. Our tame plumber just patched up the immediate leak and told us not to bother doing anything more - the buyer would want to implement a new bathroom to their own tastes anyway, and he'd lost count of the number of times he'd installed a new bathroom only to see it binned within months.
Yeah, you either leave everything as it is, or you totally gut the place and do the whole house from scratch.
Interestingly, as I may have said on here before we bought a large apartment in Ukraine a few years ago, which was eventually handed over only a few months ago because of everything that’s going on there. The handover was of what might be called shell & core; we now need to do the kitchen, bathrooms, wardrobes, flooring, lighting etc. ourselves.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Outside a big city centre, you have to work around the fact that everyone has a car, or possibly two - and increasingly need somewhere to park it where it can be charged overnight.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
The problem is the prevailing idea that wealth should not be taxed, or taxed very lightly - in contrast to income from employment, which is taxed heavily. This is a major driver of inequality.
And aspiration. Therefore productivity, and economic output.
Aspiration has to be matched by achievement. We've achieved a world where the best access to wealth is by inheriting it or marrying it. This is not good, it is bad.
Either you inherit, in which case you're sorted, or you don't, in which case the odds against getting sorted are poor enough not to bother.
If the middle gets closed off (and it's a narrow path now), we're collectively stuffed.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
Coincidentally just before reading your post I saw the below pictures. The original building in Budapest had a modernist facade which has been removed to show the original and there is no contest which looks better.
If the original building was a pastiche replacing the modern shell then I think most people would prefer the pastiche. Luckily the original was still there hidden.
This is primarily largely a quality of materials issue. You can achieve successful modernist buildings and neo classical buildings if you invest heavily in materials.
A lot of British Architecture in the 2000's is described by Owen Hatherley as 'pseudo modernism'. There are all sorts of compromises that make the straight lines fail and then you have the crap materials, the render and the cladding. It all now looks like an embarrassment, these buildings are blighting the area already. In the 2010's there was a move to brick outer shell in London at least which has longevity, and an aversion to render, but the basic cheapness prevails, like it is an english pathology.
The “new London vernacular” gives me some hope. Nice biscuity coloured London bricks. A fairly uniform but not deadening style. They should age pretty well and they look ok in grey and rain (unlike concrete) and they look posher and less depressing than redbrick Barratt homes
I’d prefer the full Poundbury or Nansledan but it’s a start. I believe Boris had a role in pushing this default style through
The Barratt clones could be vastly improved if:
A) they didn't level the development area so as to give it some natural undulation and depth
Loads of trees to cover the monotony up
C) Give up on the silly front gardens (and perhaps even the back gardens, with are miniscule) and use that space for parks, ponds, allotments
D) Ensure lots of passages through the estate so you don't have to walk miles to get anywhere. This is a side-effect of the LTN approach, which developers are applying to pedestrians too (thereby completely missing the point).
If you type the letter "B" and the symbol ")" next to each other, then Vanilla will translate it to a glasses emoji. If you are doing an A,B,C,D... list then put a space between the "B" and the ")". It will look odd but will make sense.
Or you could choose either a numbered or bulleted list from the Vanilla menu.
Whilst we're talking about new-builds, an interesting and (to me) weird thing occasionally goes on. Our plumber told me he has a good trade in ripping out bathrooms and putting new ones in brand-new new-build houses. Not in grand houses, but in the sort of new-build house you get around here. People struggling to get the deposits, with massive mortgages, then spend four or five grand taking out a perfectly serviceable bathroom to replace it with something that is *them*.
The same thing apparently happens with kitchens, including, in a few cases, knocking out walls to make rooms more open-plan. You get skips outside brand-new houses.
The plumber and his mates then sell all the brand-new, unused or little-used stuff on other jobs.
I don't think this is the fault of the builder; the bathrooms and kitchens are serviceable. It just seems so incredibly wasteful.
I was executor for an elderly relative earlier this year - bathroom was shot, bidet didn't match, handbasin cracked, bathroom piping perished in places. Our tame plumber just patched up the immediate leak and told us not to bother doing anything more - the buyer would want to implement a new bathroom to their own tastes anyway, and he'd lost count of the number of times he'd installed a new bathroom only to see it binned within months.
Yeah, you either leave everything as it is, or you totally gut the place and do the whole house from scratch.
Interestingly, as I may have said on here before we bought a large apartment in Ukraine a few years ago, which was eventually handed over only a few months ago because of everything that’s going on there. The handover was of what might be called shell & core; we now need to do the kitchen, bathrooms, wardrobes, flooring, lighting etc. ourselves.
Indeed. The relative's house needed a new kitchen and new carpets/lino etc throughout, at least, as well as some refurbsihment to the exterior woodwork and a repaint passim. Not second guessing the buyer with the new bogs meant also we could sell at an even more moderate price for a remarkably fast sale - just before the crash, as I've remarked on here (and guided in considerable part by the wisdom of PB).
In the end the walls next the bathroom got knocked down to make a huge one, kitchen moved to another room, and so on and so forth ...
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Outside a big city centre, you have to work around the fact that everyone has a car, or possibly two - and increasingly need somewhere to park it where it can be charged overnight.
Camden seems to manage it. Lots of beautiful and desirable period houses. On street parking. No, you won’t get a garage
Things like DVLA, the Passport Service, Stamp Duty Land Tax, the High Court, work extremely efficiently online. The Probate Service, County Courts, and Land Registry do not. What I don’t understand is why the IT that works as intended can’t just be used across the board.
One of the things that gets you IT that works as intended is keeping the scope constrained, so you build "a website that works for the DVLA" (a manageable task) and not "a comprehensive framework that will solve the online requirements of a dozen different government departments simultaneously" (a mammoth endeavour that is likely to produce bad results very late at great expense).
The other thing is, instead of spending years trying to agree a universal format for storing information (on health, for instance, or books or houses) and then struggling to retrofit new developments and edge cases, simply define a standard for passing information between systems.
Fine Gael are of course the inheritors of the Blueshirts’ fine legacy.
The ones who used to Duffy up their opponents Eoin to their belief in military?
That said, they're also the inheritors of Cosgrave, who always seems to me a much underrated politician. Ireland was the only new state in Europe that emerged after WW1 to remain a democracy from that day to this, and given the situation he inherited to everyone's surprise including his own in 1922 that was a very remarkable achievement.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Outside a big city centre, you have to work around the fact that everyone has a car, or possibly two - and increasingly need somewhere to park it where it can be charged overnight.
That's a bit of a vicious circle, though. The only way to provide for cars is to allocate them a lot of land and priority, which makes the layout of where people live work and do their business more spread out and full of cars, which makes neighborhood businesses and public transport less viable, so more people need more cars and so on and so forth.
My take is that cars are excellent servants but lousy masters, and they have gone from one to the other.
(How long until Jeeves and Wooster go out of copyright? I want a dark remake of the stories, where the Machiavellian aspect of Jeeves is turned up to eleven and used for evil, rather than to save a rich nitwit from himself.)
Yes, places where you can live well without a car are currently expensive, but that says "supply and demand" to me, and that's fixable.
Halving the IHT rate, removing the automatic CGT step up in business assets on death, and reintroducing retirement relief for ages from 60-70 would be eminently sensible and I expect would bring in more revenue than now.
All that aside though, looking at the treasury numbers from the Autumn Statement the spending cliff edge Hunt used to pay for his measures (post election of course) is both frightening and unrealistic. That’s the biggest scam in the whole thing- they bagged the revenue benefit of inflation through fiscal drag, but pretend inflation doesn’t exist in public sector spending.
Labour are walking into a fiscal disaster made by their predecessors and Reeves appears paralysed by this and unwilling to challenge it.
Starmer is on the front of The Times today ordering Reeves to further scale back the £28 billion "green propserity fund". There is no money left...
Only question is whether it is months or weeks into Starmer's term as PM before the question gets asked: "What is Labour for?"
There is no scope for materially different ways of governing Britain without requiring the State to take chunks of wealth away from people. Labour can't do that, certainly not in it's Manifesto - ask Theresa May how many dozen prospective MPs you lose by talking about the unacceptable.
We are left with two options: Labour is going to do nothing very different to 13 yers of Tory rule, other than shrug its shoulders and say "What else can we do?". Or it is lying now, knowing it is going to be the very radical government it feels it will need to be - but can never admit.
The problem being that most of Labour's voting base thinks there's been 'austerity' and expects the money taps to be turned on.
And most of the Conservative voting base think that taxes are unacceptably high and expect tax cuts upon tax cuts.
We're in La La Land fiscally, but it's in nobody's interest to be the first to say it out loud.
The point is too that for lots of people - who do tend to vote Labour - we had austerity due to the nature of the approach of the Cameron government and to some extent its successors - which was to protect growing spending in areas seen as politically sensitive areas while cutting back hugely in ones that weren't to its voters or central government isn't blamed for (hence local government being in such trouble) - but the dysfunction in those creates other problems that costs money.
The result is that some areas of the public sphere do desperately need investment and 'the taps turned on', or can't be cut back much more, while others that were spared the axe and therefore a government desperate to reduce spending should look to, it's politically very difficult to squeeze.
If you buy a house for £100k and it is worth £2 million when you die, you have neither earned it nor been taxed on it already.
But if the government gets 40% of that gain, what incentive do they have to make housing more affordable?
See also increasing rates of stamp duty in the last couple of decades.
The financial incentives for government need to be aligned towards building more houses, not towards inflating the nominal value of the current asset stock.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Underground parking, like the French
Moreover "underground parking" in most European cities is nowhere near as expensive as UK councils seem to assume it is, because they simply get the diggers in to clear out a couple of acres of land in the same way as you would digging foundations, then fill it with parking spaces on a couple of levels and cover the whole areas over again with concrete or grass.
There's underground parking in a lot of the developments down by the river in Deptford - I use one of them when I'm shopping at the supermarket there - and they're great. Dry, secure, plentiful parking, and invisible.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Outside a big city centre, you have to work around the fact that everyone has a car, or possibly two - and increasingly need somewhere to park it where it can be charged overnight.
That's a bit of a vicious circle, though. The only way to provide for cars is to allocate them a lot of land and priority, which makes the layout of where people live work and do their business more spread out and full of cars, which makes neighborhood businesses and public transport less viable, so more people need more cars and so on and so forth.
My take is that cars are excellent servants but lousy masters, and they have gone from one to the other.
(How long until Jeeves and Wooster go out of copyright? I want a dark remake of the stories, where the Machiavellian aspect of Jeeves is turned up to eleven and used for evil, rather than to save a rich nitwit from himself.)
Yes, places where you can live well without a car are currently expensive, but that says "supply and demand" to me, and that's fixable.
2045, if the 70 year rule since the death (if after publication) is still operating. I get very confused though by the changes in copyright law. So someone may know better.
Though I can't see how the Pooh'n'Piglet slasher could have been made as Milne died in 1956?
Edit: should have realised there's a (part of) a webpage all about that. Yep, 2045, but exceptions ....
Some hyperbole in there, but also the sense that Kyiv has run out of road. The only way it can win now is by super weapons aimed at Russia directly. America, Britain and Germany won’t supply those = WW3
Russia is similarly exhausted, so it will end up as a frozen war like Korea
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Underground parking, like the French
Moreover "underground parking" in most European cities is nowhere near as expensive as UK councils seem to assume it is, because they simply get the diggers in to clear out a couple of acres of land in the same way as you would digging foundations, then fill it with parking spaces on a couple of levels and cover the whole areas over again with concrete or grass.
There's underground parking in a lot of the developments down by the river in Deptford - I use one of them when I'm shopping at the supermarket there - and they're great. Dry, secure, plentiful parking, and invisible.
It really depends on the ground. Building underground can be a real pain in the backside, particularly if the water table is relatively high. Having a good, suitable spot could well reduce the cost of a long-lasting structure by a half or a third over a poor location. Building above ground can be so much easier and cheaper. If you do it properly, that is...
If you buy a house for £100k and it is worth £2 million when you die, you have neither earned it nor been taxed on it already.
But if the government gets 40% of that gain, what incentive do they have to make housing more affordable?
See also increasing rates of stamp duty in the last couple of decades.
The financial incentives for government need to be aligned towards building more houses, not towards inflating the nominal value of the current asset stock.
Average effective tax rate for inheritance, for eligible estates, actually charged is about 13% not 40%.
Stations are moving from DAB to DAB+ so put a new wireless on your Christmas list.
Why are they messing about with DAB. It is a technology that is shortly destined for the bin (it was only ever a stop gap technology). At home you can use your own internet connection to listen to any "radio" station, when 5G roll out is complete, the near term future is internet will be everywhere and unlimited.
We are already seeing this with tv, FreeView will have an internet only version, Sky is pushing all its customers to go the internet route, etc.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Underground parking, like the French
Moreover "underground parking" in most European cities is nowhere near as expensive as UK councils seem to assume it is, because they simply get the diggers in to clear out a couple of acres of land in the same way as you would digging foundations, then fill it with parking spaces on a couple of levels and cover the whole areas over again with concrete or grass.
There's underground parking in a lot of the developments down by the river in Deptford - I use one of them when I'm shopping at the supermarket there - and they're great. Dry, secure, plentiful parking, and invisible.
Re the cost element of underground parking is there perhaps a self-fulfilling/vicious cycle that stops them being built in the UK?
My experience living in Geneva was that the two villages by me both had underground parking, one for visitors as it was called the “Beverly Hills of Switzerland so they didn’t want it ruined by visible car parks, and in the other they had built a couple of shopping centres and both had to put in underground parking. The city itself was full of underground car parks to the point I cannot ever remember using an above ground one in all my years there.
I imagine therefore that as it’s normal to build, and often legally have to build, underground parking the Swiss building companies have on-tap engineers with all the experience and a production line of future ones, they have all the kit, the plans, the experience of how to fit them into a development and how to fit them into the timescale of a development.
Maybe in the uk any specialist teams, engineers and kit are fewer and far between and so if a council says to a building co “we have to have a two storey underground car park for the development” the builders suck their teeth and quote a huge amount more as they will have to buy in the expertise and might not have the in-house know how ultimately making the additional cost too unattractive and so easier to remove the underground parking element.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Outside a big city centre, you have to work around the fact that everyone has a car, or possibly two - and increasingly need somewhere to park it where it can be charged overnight.
That's a bit of a vicious circle, though. The only way to provide for cars is to allocate them a lot of land and priority, which makes the layout of where people live work and do their business more spread out and full of cars, which makes neighborhood businesses and public transport less viable, so more people need more cars and so on and so forth.
My take is that cars are excellent servants but lousy masters, and they have gone from one to the other.
(How long until Jeeves and Wooster go out of copyright? I want a dark remake of the stories, where the Machiavellian aspect of Jeeves is turned up to eleven and used for evil, rather than to save a rich nitwit from himself.)
Yes, places where you can live well without a car are currently expensive, but that says "supply and demand" to me, and that's fixable.
But if I live in Town A and work in Town A, and my wife works in Town B, and I get offered a new job in Town C, then we either move or have two cars. Given that it costs five figures in cash to actually move these days, trying to get rid of cars only decreases mobility of labour and makes towns (as opposed to large cities) even less attractive for employers.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Underground parking, like the French
Moreover "underground parking" in most European cities is nowhere near as expensive as UK councils seem to assume it is, because they simply get the diggers in to clear out a couple of acres of land in the same way as you would digging foundations, then fill it with parking spaces on a couple of levels and cover the whole areas over again with concrete or grass.
There's underground parking in a lot of the developments down by the river in Deptford - I use one of them when I'm shopping at the supermarket there - and they're great. Dry, secure, plentiful parking, and invisible.
It really depends on the ground. Building underground can be a real pain in the backside, particularly if the water table is relatively high. Having a good, suitable spot could well reduce the cost of a long-lasting structure by a half or a third over a poor location. Building above ground can be so much easier and cheaper. If you do it properly, that is...
Yes I can see the water table issue but is that not an issue for any new building given the need for foundations? A single level car park is no different from a basement or underground gym.
All the buildings in places like Canary Wharf have large underground spaces, many of which are car parks, and those are on the same level as flooded docks.
It’s been a great season if you ignored the race for the lead, and just watched everything behind MV.
This weekend’s story is an epic fight between Mercedes and Ferrari for 2nd in the Constructors’ Championship, only four points apart going into the last race and with tens of millions in prize money at stake.
McLaren's resurgence has been great too. Hopefully they'll be able to push hard over the winter with the new aero direction and challenge for race wins next season along with Ferrari and hopefully Mercedes.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Outside a big city centre, you have to work around the fact that everyone has a car, or possibly two - and increasingly need somewhere to park it where it can be charged overnight.
If a "verncular" is imposed beyond a local area, it is no longer vernacular - which is about local distinctiveness by definition.
Stations are moving from DAB to DAB+ so put a new wireless on your Christmas list.
Why are they messing about with DAB. It is a technology that is shortly destined for the bin (it was only ever a stop gap technology). At home you can use your own internet connection to listen to any "radio" station, when 5G roll out is complete, the near term future is internet will be everywhere and unlimited.
We are already seeing this with tv, FreeView will have an internet only version, Sky is pushing all its customers to go the internet route, etc.
Does Sky Glass suffer from the same time lag as other internet TV apps and online telly have? It’s a fatal flaw when watching sport, as the action is often two minutes behind real time and someone in the pub etc knows about the goals before you see them on the screen. Completely ruins the experience.
On IHT, I think it may be "popular" superficially but I think the government would do well to avoid it as it will also be seen as the wrong priority when the NHS waiting list is so long and personal taxes have been dragged up to such high levels.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
Coincidentally just before reading your post I saw the below pictures. The original building in Budapest had a modernist facade which has been removed to show the original and there is no contest which looks better.
If the original building was a pastiche replacing the modern shell then I think most people would prefer the pastiche. Luckily the original was still there hidden.
This is primarily largely a quality of materials issue. You can achieve successful modernist buildings and neo classical buildings if you invest heavily in materials.
A lot of British Architecture in the 2000's is described by Owen Hatherley as 'pseudo modernism'. There are all sorts of compromises that make the straight lines fail and then you have the crap materials, the render and the cladding. It all now looks like an embarrassment, these buildings are blighting the area already. In the 2010's there was a move to brick outer shell in London at least which has longevity, and an aversion to render, but the basic cheapness prevails, like it is an english pathology.
Basingstoke is the archetype. Hugely overdeveloped and the buildings near the station (for a mile or so out) are awful. We can't even do roofs. Everything there is stained and awful.
If IHT is tinkered with I think the furthest the government will go is potentially increasing the primary homes allowance from £500k to £600k which would cover a pretty big increment of the blue wall oldies at £1.2m per couple and blue wall boomers who want to inherit. Reducing the headline rate or increasing the non-housing allowance seem completely out of the question.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Underground parking, like the French
Moreover "underground parking" in most European cities is nowhere near as expensive as UK councils seem to assume it is, because they simply get the diggers in to clear out a couple of acres of land in the same way as you would digging foundations, then fill it with parking spaces on a couple of levels and cover the whole areas over again with concrete or grass.
There's underground parking in a lot of the developments down by the river in Deptford - I use one of them when I'm shopping at the supermarket there - and they're great. Dry, secure, plentiful parking, and invisible.
It really depends on the ground. Building underground can be a real pain in the backside, particularly if the water table is relatively high. Having a good, suitable spot could well reduce the cost of a long-lasting structure by a half or a third over a poor location. Building above ground can be so much easier and cheaper. If you do it properly, that is...
Yes I can see the water table issue but is that not an issue for any new building given the need for foundations? A single level car park is no different from a basement or underground gym.
All the buildings in places like Canary Wharf have large underground spaces, many of which are car parks, and those are on the same level as flooded docks.
Also in Berlin which has a water table not far below ground level. Floods are avoided by controlling the rivers and canals and some overspill areas. Almost all newly built buildings have underground car parks.
Whilst we're talking about new-builds, an interesting and (to me) weird thing occasionally goes on. Our plumber told me he has a good trade in ripping out bathrooms and putting new ones in brand-new new-build houses. Not in grand houses, but in the sort of new-build house you get around here. People struggling to get the deposits, with massive mortgages, then spend four or five grand taking out a perfectly serviceable bathroom to replace it with something that is *them*.
The same thing apparently happens with kitchens, including, in a few cases, knocking out walls to make rooms more open-plan. You get skips outside brand-new houses.
The plumber and his mates then sell all the brand-new, unused or little-used stuff on other jobs.
I don't think this is the fault of the builder; the bathrooms and kitchens are serviceable. It just seems so incredibly wasteful.
I was executor for an elderly relative earlier this year - bathroom was shot, bidet didn't match, handbasin cracked, bathroom piping perished in places. Our tame plumber just patched up the immediate leak and told us not to bother doing anything more - the buyer would want to implement a new bathroom to their own tastes anyway, and he'd lost count of the number of times he'd installed a new bathroom only to see it binned within months.
Yeah, you either leave everything as it is, or you totally gut the place and do the whole house from scratch.
Interestingly, as I may have said on here before we bought a large apartment in Ukraine a few years ago, which was eventually handed over only a few months ago because of everything that’s going on there. The handover was of what might be called shell & core; we now need to do the kitchen, bathrooms, wardrobes, flooring, lighting etc. ourselves.
Indeed. The relative's house needed a new kitchen and new carpets/lino etc throughout, at least, as well as some refurbsihment to the exterior woodwork and a repaint passim. Not second guessing the buyer with the new bogs meant also we could sell at an even more moderate price for a remarkably fast sale - just before the crash, as I've remarked on here (and guided in considerable part by the wisdom of PB).
In the end the walls next the bathroom got knocked down to make a huge one, kitchen moved to another room, and so on and so forth ...
You work with the estate agent on cost/benefit for each possible improvement, and may do a couple of things - especially if they address things than will scare some buyers off. Risk management and cost-benefit.
When we sold out listed family house we had a full structural survey done as part of the marketing package, to calm the horses. But did nothing else because it was due a refresh on which a likely buyer would be likely to spend £250k. Viewers were local business people, rich public sector types (Doctors, Dentists etc) and some wildcards.
Stations are moving from DAB to DAB+ so put a new wireless on your Christmas list.
Why are they messing about with DAB. It is a technology that is shortly destined for the bin (it was only ever a stop gap technology). At home you can use your own internet connection to listen to any "radio" station, when 5G roll out is complete, the near term future is internet will be everywhere and unlimited.
We are already seeing this with tv, FreeView will have an internet only version, Sky is pushing all its customers to go the internet route, etc.
Does Sky Glass suffer from the same time lag as other internet TV apps and online telly have? It’s a fatal flaw when watching sport, as the action is often two minutes behind real time and someone in the pub etc knows about the goals before you see them on the screen. Completely ruins the experience.
The official F1 app can’t even get their own radio commentary to sync with the timing screen, it’s usually about 30s behind because the timing data feed goes to the commentators (in London, wherever the race happens to be) and then back out to the internet. The delay on internet vs satellite TV can be a couple of minutes for Sky.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Underground parking, like the French
And high density housing and decent public transport, like the French.
Some hyperbole in there, but also the sense that Kyiv has run out of road. The only way it can win now is by super weapons aimed at Russia directly. America, Britain and Germany won’t supply those = WW3
Russia is similarly exhausted, so it will end up as a frozen war like Korea
The US are probably going to have to engineer regime change as Zelensky looks like he's intent on going down with the ship. Maybe Zaluzhny who will faithfully push the Pentagon's line at all times.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Outside a big city centre, you have to work around the fact that everyone has a car, or possibly two - and increasingly need somewhere to park it where it can be charged overnight.
If a "verncular" is imposed beyond a local area, it is no longer vernacular - which is about local distinctiveness by definition.
Semantics. Haussmann imposed a new building style on Paris. Beautiful tall terraces built with limestone with cast iron balconies and mansard roofs
A kind of invented urban vernacular - and a total triumph
It’s been a great season if you ignored the race for the lead, and just watched everything behind MV.
This weekend’s story is an epic fight between Mercedes and Ferrari for 2nd in the Constructors’ Championship, only four points apart going into the last race and with tens of millions in prize money at stake.
McLaren's resurgence has been great too. Hopefully they'll be able to push hard over the winter with the new aero direction and challenge for race wins next season along with Ferrari and hopefully Mercedes.
Next season is either going to be a repeat of this season, or it’s going to be an epic four-way fight. Aston Martin could even get in the mix to make it a five-way fight, which would mean nine drivers in line for the win every weekend (sorry Lance).
Some hyperbole in there, but also the sense that Kyiv has run out of road. The only way it can win now is by super weapons aimed at Russia directly. America, Britain and Germany won’t supply those = WW3
Russia is similarly exhausted, so it will end up as a frozen war like Korea
The US are probably going to have to engineer regime change as Zelensky looks like he's intent on going down with the ship. Maybe Zaluzhny who will faithfully push the Pentagon's line at all times.
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
I am in full agreement, however, what we really need is, I feel, an understanding by architects of the immutable qualities of beauty in architecture, and to plan and build within guidelines inspired by those qualities. Some could be pastiche, some modern.
That link is interesting, but imo it is a set of talking points about what a thing LOOKS LIKE, and does not consider how a place works or is socially organised. If you like, imo it is almost a decorator talking about architecture, and quite postmodern that it talks about surfaces and facades.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
I do not believe we have ever done better than the Georgian square. And you can build the houses quite high - because of the airy space at the heart
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
It may happen, if Starmerhomes gets off the ground. Something between Poundbury and New London Vernacular. We could do a lot worse.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Underground parking, like the French
And high density housing and decent public transport, like the French.
As long as we don't actually have to like the French.
Some hyperbole in there, but also the sense that Kyiv has run out of road. The only way it can win now is by super weapons aimed at Russia directly. America, Britain and Germany won’t supply those = WW3
Russia is similarly exhausted, so it will end up as a frozen war like Korea
The US are probably going to have to engineer regime change as Zelensky looks like he's intent on going down with the ship. Maybe Zaluzhny who will faithfully push the Pentagon's line at all times.
I feel sorry for Zekensky. A genuinely inspiring leader but the brutal facts of war are now against him
Over the winter the Russians will renew their hideous pounding of Ukrainian cities and infra. Grinding away the will to fight
And then, come the spring? What can Zelenskyy do? He hasn’t the troops to force any kind of new offensive and victory, Russia is still entrenched behind six billion landmines. It’s a tragic stalemate
On topic, I have been on a rather complicated journey with my views on IHT. My basic reaction for many years was to fundamentally disagree with the concept. I have gradually warmed to it over the years.
My current view is that the current way our society is structured makes for a tax on inherited wealth to be sensible. Most of our money is tied up in property, and as we live longer we are all putting more demands on the state re health and care costs. It seems to me more preferable that this is taken from you after your death than while you are alive. Additionally, while I fully understand and agree with the concept of being able to do something for your children after you have gone, if that creates and sustained extreme (note: extreme) wealth disparities that again are just going to get tied up in property assets at a time of a severe housing shortage that doesn’t feel particularly equitable to me.
Maybe I’m just doing the reverse of most people and becoming more of a lefty in my old age.
You’re not alone. On this issue I’ve moved left
We need some way of levelling the playing field for people who don’t inherit. The state taking a hefty chunk of estates worth more than £500,000 seems fair (and all the loopholes should be closed). But that money should then be ploughed into housebuilding (nice Georgian terraces, not redbrick horror boxes)
And I’m on a journey on architecture too. I used to hate the idea of pastiche buildings rather than embracing the future with nice clean lines and so on. Saw pastiche architecture as reactionary, unimaginative. I think like most in my generation I was conditioned by the awful mock this and that of the 1980s and the ugly neo-neo-classical wrecks that sprung up in Southern Europe.
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
I find Georgian and Edwardian architecture the most pleasing to the eye. Not as fussy as Victorian, and with well proportioned rooms of a size for modern living. Building standards and materials were better in Edwardian times as properly trained artisans did much of the work, at least in the properties that still exist. Proper damp courses and carpentry etc.
Mrs Foxy's grandfather was a small scale builder and said that in the building boom of the 1930s and 1950's to 1960's any idiot could get a site job and often did.
On the other hand, I live in a 2002 built house, and while it has less soul or character, it is much warmer than previous houses, and the first one that I have owned where the roof never leaks!
'Kerb appeal' is nice but it's the inside that counts. That's where you spend your time.
Is that perhaps one of the problems of modern Britain in 2 sentences?
For thousands of years humans have spent most of their time outside, in and amongst the community. This locking away indoors thing is a pretty recent phenomenon.
True. But even if you spend a lot of time outdoors it's probably not right outside your own house looking at it. What you're seeing when out and about (if you're urban or suburban) are public buildings and other people's houses. So it's more important they look nice externally than that your place does. This would be the Thatcherite small state 'individual trumps community' point of view anyway.
Comments
Back to 60 was never going to happen. They were deluding themselves and PHSO only found maladministration in a couple of instances.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pensions/state-pensions/pension-waspi-women-brink-of-defeat-after-eight-year-battle/
I saw people eating live scorpions. Live hearts freshly pulled from quivering snakes. I saw people choosing a live owl or cat to be boiled - alive - in front of them
I have to confess it was quite compelling. Such an alien attitude to animal welfare, or no concept at all of animal welfare
It also had aspects of a nightmare; I can picture it vividly now
However I now realise two things. First, that people like old styles of building and traditional street layouts, so why piss them off by building stuff they don’t want? And secondly, pastiche can be very good and effective if done properly. The key is done properly. Absolutely authentic to the original style not skimping with small windows or double garages on the side. Travelling in Europe for the last couple of decades I’ve come to realise how much of the pretty pretty mediaeval city centres were actually reconstructed post-war.
Old Tbilisi is a good example. Total 2000s Disney-Sakashvili pastiche in most places but very pretty.
Here's some AI doom* for Leon instead.
https://twitter.com/NateGenX/status/1728121786854736304
*he's right to be worried, btw
(Though 'in our lifetimes' has a slightly different meaning for developers in their 30s, and old geezers like us.)
King Charles was right. Stop resisting this - build what the people want (and use nice stone)
I’m not sure old Tbilisi is “mostly fake”. I lived in it for 3 weeks. It’s mostly real and authentically ramshackle
What they ARE doing is insisting that any new builds copy this gorgeous Persian-Georgian style - good for them
Mrs Foxy's grandfather was a small scale builder and said that in the building boom of the 1930s and 1950's to 1960's any idiot could get a site job and often did.
On the other hand, I live in a 2002 built house, and while it has less soul or character, it is much warmer than previous houses, and the first one that I have owned where the roof never leaks!
If the original building was a pastiche replacing the modern shell then I think most people would prefer the pastiche. Luckily the original was still there hidden.
“It wasn’t migrants making our streets unsafe last night. It was British leaning far right racists.”
https://x.com/reunify32/status/1728057366531223600?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Er, has he not BEEN to working class Dublin? They may not collect cash for the provos any more, but “British leaning”???
Superb
A lot of British Architecture in the 2000's is described by Owen Hatherley as 'pseudo modernism'. There are all sorts of compromises that make the straight lines fail and then you have the crap materials, the render and the cladding. It all now looks like an embarrassment, these buildings are blighting the area already. In the 2010's there was a move to brick outer shell in London at least which has longevity, and an aversion to render, but the basic cheapness prevails, like it is an english pathology.
I’d prefer the full Poundbury or Nansledan but it’s a start. I believe Boris had a role in pushing this default style through
https://theaestheticcity.com/resources/youtube/what-makes-buildings-beautiful-and-why-beauty-does-matter/
For thousands of years humans have spent most of their time outside, in and amongst the community. This locking away indoors thing is a pretty recent phenomenon.
Its not perfect but its a vast improvement on most postwar dreck
F1: final practice of the year underway.
And we have been letting our public/third spaces rot for decades.
A) they didn't level the development area so as to give it some natural undulation and depth
C) Give up on the silly front gardens (and perhaps even the back gardens, with are miniscule) and use that space for parks, ponds, allotments
D) Ensure lots of passages through the estate so you don't have to walk miles to get anywhere. This is a side-effect of the LTN approach, which developers are applying to pedestrians too (thereby completely missing the point).
The rioters, if they vote at all, vote Sinn Fein or People Before Profit. I suspect Sinn Fein will end up doing one of their 180 degree u-turns over immigration, or else, lose this part of their voter base.
Whether it's possible to have lots of exciting policies without triggering the "too much of a risk" reflex is an interesting question which Starmer has evidently decided not to try. "We will improve things gradually by incremental change too boring to read" doesn't rule out some quite interesting things (e.g. on housing and the environment) but only really works if you're running against a party that people are tired of.
This weekend’s story is an epic fight between Mercedes and Ferrari for 2nd in the Constructors’ Championship, only four points apart going into the last race and with tens of millions in prize money at stake.
I think the Scruton Report recently for Boris Johnson's Govt on Living with Beauty is worth a read:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e3191a9ed915d0938933263/Living_with_beauty_BBBBC_report.pdf
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. Oft-repeated, but true.
It's not so long since Georgian architecture was cheap, nasty, old fashioned and ripe for demolition. Now some won't hear a word against it. IMO that's just another turn of fashion.
Beauty is also a matter of fashion - for that you can just look at human fashion; in a fairly short time we have gone from lissom to bodacious as the 'approved' female look. Driven at least in part by a shift to a more screen-based culture, imo.
A similar trend can be seen in interior design even, where Stripped Out Scandi (roughly 'Ikea') has been replaced by Modern Hipster - all textures, colours and intricate bits. The latter also photos far more attractively to be displayed.
My most abstruse example of an industry revolving practice is perhaps junction boxes in electrical wiring - whether they are viewed as "to standard" or not. Every generation or so the position reverses (afaics), and more lovely work for the next lot of electricians.
About 6 years ago my lettings agent told me that if I had 2 student house interiors fairly modestly redesigned / redecorated from Stripped out Scandi to Modern Hipster, he could get me a 25% rent increase the next year. And it worked - he achieved more than that. That is by matching desired perception.
If anyone wants I can PM you an article I wrote about the new design.
There's also a need for those in the industry to find ways to create a living - that is by changing the taste so they get more work. Chintz and Gingham Checks will be back in due course; it's interesting how eg Kilner have turned the latter into a brand identifier on their jars.
And on your self-perceived tastes.
Consider that it has taken 25 years for Energy Performance numbers to become an even semi-serious consideration in relative house prices.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/18588-why-people-voted-labour-or-conservative-2017-gener?redirect_from=/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/07/11/why-people-voted-labour-or-conservative-2017-gener
That seems to me a very low percentage compared to your anecdote.
Can I ask where you were canvassing?
ii) I am convinced that the white/magnolia pale walls and wooden strip floors of the 90's was a direct result of the limits on computer graphics of the day. You could leave the CGI walls bare, slap a wooden texture on the CGI floor, call it Scandi and job done, client happy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Party_(Ireland,_2016)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Freedom_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Blighe
Are not the survey findings in the header bollocks, illustrating the sawdust in the brains of the interviewed?
42% say that tax has been paid so iHT is double taxation.
Yet much of most estates and UK wealth held by everyday people is in property appreciation, which appreciation has NOT been taxed because main dwellings are explicitly exempt from Capital Gains Tax.
Dur.
Transfer CGT liability to the recipient and tax it as income at their marginal rate. Simples.
Obviously not a solution for mass housing, but it should be an inspiration
Gentle density as the saying goes. You can pack people quite tightly together if you give them trees, greenery, beauty, a door on the road (ideally), public transport, shops and pubs and cafes within 5-10 minutes walk
We learned all this in the 18th century then somehow deliberately forgot post 1945
And tear down every single post war city centre and rebuild them exactly as they were in 1910. Make it a national crusade. The beautification of Britain
Why not? Starmer needs something inspiring not just drab management. That would inspire
The same thing apparently happens with kitchens, including, in a few cases, knocking out walls to make rooms more open-plan. You get skips outside brand-new houses.
The plumber and his mates then sell all the brand-new, unused or little-used stuff on other jobs.
I don't think this is the fault of the builder; the bathrooms and kitchens are serviceable. It just seems so incredibly wasteful.
The challenge is what to do about cars. They just take up so much land, and force all the nice stuff so far apart.
(What's that Skippy? You can hear howls of dissent from the Warrington area?)
Interestingly, as I may have said on here before we bought a large apartment in Ukraine a few years ago, which was eventually handed over only a few months ago because of everything that’s going on there. The handover was of what might be called shell & core; we now need to do the kitchen, bathrooms, wardrobes, flooring, lighting etc. ourselves.
If the middle gets closed off (and it's a narrow path now), we're collectively stuffed.
In the end the walls next the bathroom got knocked down to make a huge one, kitchen moved to another room, and so on and so forth ...
That said, they're also the inheritors of Cosgrave, who always seems to me a much underrated politician. Ireland was the only new state in Europe that emerged after WW1 to remain a democracy from that day to this, and given the situation he inherited to everyone's surprise including his own in 1922 that was a very remarkable achievement.
My take is that cars are excellent servants but lousy masters, and they have gone from one to the other.
(How long until Jeeves and Wooster go out of copyright? I want a dark remake of the stories, where the Machiavellian aspect of Jeeves is turned up to eleven and used for evil, rather than to save a rich nitwit from himself.)
Yes, places where you can live well without a car are currently expensive, but that says "supply and demand" to me, and that's fixable.
The result is that some areas of the public sphere do desperately need investment and 'the taps turned on', or can't be cut back much more, while others that were spared the axe and therefore a government desperate to reduce spending should look to, it's politically very difficult to squeeze.
See also increasing rates of stamp duty in the last couple of decades.
The financial incentives for government need to be aligned towards building more houses, not towards inflating the nominal value of the current asset stock.
There's underground parking in a lot of the developments down by the river in Deptford - I use one of them when I'm shopping at the supermarket there - and they're great. Dry, secure, plentiful parking, and invisible.
Though I can't see how the Pooh'n'Piglet slasher could have been made as Milne died in 1956?
Edit: should have realised there's a (part of) a webpage all about that. Yep, 2045, but exceptions ....
https://www.pgwodehousesociety.org.uk/introduction-and-contents
https://unherd.com/2023/11/israel-could-collapse-the-american-empire/
Some hyperbole in there, but also the sense that Kyiv has run out of road. The only way it can win now is by super weapons aimed at Russia directly. America, Britain and Germany won’t supply those =
WW3
Russia is similarly exhausted, so it will end up as a frozen war like Korea
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary
We are already seeing this with tv, FreeView will have an internet only version, Sky is pushing all its customers to go the internet route, etc.
My experience living in Geneva was that the two villages by me both had underground parking, one for visitors as it was called the “Beverly Hills of Switzerland so they didn’t want it ruined by visible car parks, and in the other they had built a couple of shopping centres and both had to put in underground parking. The city itself was full of underground car parks to the point I cannot ever remember using an above ground one in all my years there.
I imagine therefore that as it’s normal to build, and often legally have to build, underground parking the Swiss building companies have on-tap engineers with all the experience and a production line of future ones, they have all the kit, the plans, the experience of how to fit them into a development and how to fit them into the timescale of a development.
Maybe in the uk any specialist teams, engineers and kit are fewer and far between and so if a council says to a building co “we have to have a two storey underground car park for the development” the builders suck their teeth and quote a huge amount more as they will have to buy in the expertise and might not have the in-house know how ultimately making the additional cost too unattractive and so easier to remove the underground parking element.
All the buildings in places like Canary Wharf have large underground spaces, many of which are car parks, and those are on the same level as flooded docks.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/11/abu-dhabi-pre-qualifying-2023.html
When we sold out listed family house we had a full structural survey done as part of the marketing package, to calm the horses. But did nothing else because it was due a refresh on which a likely buyer would be likely to spend £250k. Viewers were local business people, rich public sector types (Doctors, Dentists etc) and some wildcards.
A kind of invented urban vernacular - and a total triumph
Over the winter the Russians will renew their hideous pounding of Ukrainian cities and infra. Grinding away the will to fight
And then, come the spring? What can Zelenskyy do? He hasn’t the troops to force any kind of new offensive and victory, Russia is still entrenched behind six billion landmines. It’s a tragic stalemate