Joined: 21 Mar 2005 Posts: 2400 Location: Milton Keynes
Posted: Tue May 17, 05 11:07 am Post subject: Knock down or renovate?
Did anyone see Trevor MacDonald Tonight, last night (Mon16th May 20:00 � 20:30, ITV1)? The discussion was about whether it was better to knock old terrace homes down (18K) and then build new homes (120K or so); or to renovate the old terraces (cost, judging by the trailer for part 2 this coming Friday between 18 and 25K). Apparently, the plans are for about 200,000 homes in the North to be demolished and rebuilt.
I would have thought that from an environmental point of view, the renovation was certainly the way to go. Are there other factors which might influence the decision?
But new builds are horrid - absolutely souless!
The old terraced houses are bigger, brighter and and on the whole better built.
Now I'm thinking of Victorian terraces versus ghastly new builds.
It's not always the case that replacement dwellings have a greater impact than refurbs, in most cases the new dwellings will be much better insulated and therefore efficient than the dwelling replaced.
Refurbs can also involve almost as much waste as replacement, in most cases most plastered surfaces are taken back to bare brick and in really old buildings both walls and ceilings will be replaced with plasterboard and skimmed, windows, floors, plumbing and electrics are also replaced. There's a lot of waste in all of that
Bernie66
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 13967 Location: Eastoft
Posted: Tue May 17, 05 11:23 am Post subject:
At least with old houses you can't hear your neighbours stand up and walk across the room all the time. Or listen to soaps every night because they are!
What really does p*ss me off is the ludicrous tax situation where refurbs incur VAT and new builds do not.
There's another green issue to consider as well - cement manufacture accounts for 10 per cent of CO2 production on this planet, so if possible refurbish rather than build anew (and use lime-based mortars to be even greener). And that's to say nothing of the designed life-span of new builds. A decade ago the average builder quoted a 60 yar lifespan on the building; today in some areas it's down to 40 years!
Reduce, reuse and recycle, even with buildings!
(And join in the lobby to get VAT removed from renovations - go here https://www.writetothem.com/ and badger your MP)
It's not always the case that replacement dwellings have a greater impact than refurbs, in most cases the new dwellings will be much better insulated and therefore efficient than the dwelling replaced.
Refurbs can also involve almost as much waste as replacement, in most cases most plastered surfaces are taken back to bare brick and in really old buildings both walls and ceilings will be replaced with plasterboard and skimmed, windows, floors, plumbing and electrics are also replaced. There's a lot of waste in all of that
True, but you will still only be replacing parts, you will be wasting everything if you knock it all down and replace.
Joined: 17 Feb 2005 Posts: 4520 Location: carms in wales
Posted: Tue May 17, 05 11:54 am Post subject: knock down or renovate
you don't think the trend to build new is anything to do with the fact that they can cram more houses in the same space in some cases then....................
i'm all for renovating myself if at all possible...give me the period features and keep the unique corner bath and modern low maintainence courtyard setting (barthroom too small and only a yard).............i know there are back to backs etc but even so i don't rate a lot of modern houseing estate houses..........
as you say there is now planned obsolecence even in the house building industry.
The main reason that most developers prefer to "new build" is that they get significant kick backs for site clearance and then others to help with construction costs and as Gervase pointed out there's the vat issue to.
Financially there's much more profit in new builds.
View Latest Posts