Why do developers not build in historical styles?

Vectis

I do agree with the OP, not so much about general housing but certainly with regard to public buildings.

Look back at some of the ornate Town Halls, churches, market buildings, even railway stations and the standard of architecture was far, far better. The buildings were just so much more interesting to look at, and still are today.

I know people say it's down to cost, but how did the Victorians, for instance, manage to build so much better than we do today?

Keezing

Vectis wrote: »

I know people say it's down to cost, but how did the Victorians, for instance, manage to build so much better than we do today?

I think it's generally accepted that they didn't.

The Victorians built in such vast quantities that it stands to reason that the houses that have lasted to today are the good quality ones.

I agree with you, though.

Here's an example of a new build done in a period style:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-65590670.html

Far more appealing than a Taylor Wimpey cube.

Conrad

AFF8879 wrote: »

I personally wouldn't have been concerned if I was doing the underwriting, "affordable rent" in London simply means you have the junior analysts / associates of the multinational investment banks as opposed to the Vice Presidents / Directors

Yes I'm hoping another lender will take this view!


It was Virgin that declined the property.
Sorry to muscle in on this thread btw. I thought it might be of interest to know that Developers being required to turn some stock over to Affordable rent can be problematic. I am going to fight Virgin on this btw

BobQ

AFF8879 wrote: »

I'll admit my perspective is going to be biased from a London perspective, but I'm sure this can apply to other cities and regions all across the U.K.

Around the world, Britain is renowned for its architecture. Cities like Oxford and Cambridge dominate the traditional postcard images in tourist shops and here in London, a flat in a converted Georgian townhouse would command a huge premium over a "modern" purpose built flat in the same area of exactly the same proportions.

From a developer perspective, surely this premium would outweigh any additional costs especially given technological advances / abilities to substitute cheaper materials that still give the same look/effect.

From a social perspective, such grand buildings are pleasing to the eye and could definitely improve the feel of an area.

I just think it would be lovely to be surrounded by such elegant buildings as opposed to the glass and steel magnolia boxes / towers that are popping up everywhere :T

Throughout history we have built quality buildings that coexist with the rubbish builds. The low quality are knocked down some years after and nobody misses them. The quality lives on. This has always happened.

We build rubbish today for the same reasons we always did, to make it affordable to those that pay for it. The difference today is that we have sophisticated marketing people who convince the less discerning to buy these steel and magnolia boxes on the basis they are quality buildings. In reality, most discerning people know that if you plan to live in a property for several years its better to buy an older property that has been well maintained.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUoXtddNPAM

BobQ

stator wrote: »

Most Victorian houses have smaller gardens than that and seem to sell at a premium

Most Victorian houses were owned by wealthy landlords who enjoyed much better accommodation. This sort of housing was mostly rental.

westernpromise

The real reason is probably that most architects would consider it demeaning to build something that simply and mindlessly knocked off an obsolete style. Look at the the derision that mock Tudor gets, and rightly so. What they are after is creating the classics of the future.

The British Library is a good case in point. To you or me it looks like a hideous brutalist piece of junk, but it's Grade I listed already:
https://www.bl.uk/press-releases/2015/july/british-library-receives-highest-listed-building-status

The ideas of the architects were quite interesting though. The colour of the brickwork and the tiling were designed to refer to the adjoining railway station building, as were several of its features.

Concrete is another interesting one. Concrete on the exterior of a building is horrible and rapidly discolours and looks damp, but as an interior material it's actually quite warm and welcoming.
https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2013/12/Seaside-House-by-Ultra-Architects_dezeen_1.jpg

When neoclassical architecture was a thing 200 years ago I am pretty sure there were people then who thought it was ghastly. It may take us 200 years to work out what was best about early 21st century architecture.

It's unlikely to be Barratt bedsits.

TrickyTree83

Take a look around Eastern European housing estates. The example I have first hand experience of would be Ukraine. Stalinka's are not so bad but the Khrushchyovka's are awful. You think these London pad's are rabbit hutches? Think again. You think that you have to travel for your amenities? Think again. The people who live here have very little space, often have a family of 4 to a 1 bed Khrushchyovka apartment, siblings share beds and the living room is also the only bedroom, in the same room as the parents. The nearest Apteka (chemist) is a Marshrutka (bus/transit van) ride away, etc...

Having housing built that looks like a mock Tudor home is like a utopian vision by comparison. Even if it's a new build and not built out of blocks of granite, our housing is immeasurably better than these Khrushchyovka and Stalinka buildings. Even our terraced housing which was used for our workers rates better than the Khrushchyovka's. The Stalinka's are generally larger and more "ornate" if you can class them as such, generally these were reserved for the wealthier clientele of the Soviet Union. For example my wife's grandfather was a general in charge of the military in the oblast (county). Quite an important fellow and therefore was granted (not purchased) a Stalinka near to the river.

BobQ

westernpromise wrote: »

Concrete is another interesting one. Concrete on the exterior of a building is horrible and rapidly discolours and looks damp, but as an interior material it's actually quite warm and welcoming.
https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2013/12/Seaside-House-by-Ultra-Architects_dezeen_1.jpg

Concrete on the outside ........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricorn_Centre

Need I say more.....

zagubov

Do architects not have access to a body of data about all previous structure styles and their strengths and benefits as well as their defects and deficiencies, so they can access information about problems with structural materials and design flaws?

Or are they always doomed to repeat the same mistakes again and again like groundhog day.

wotsthat

zagubov wrote: »

Do architects not have access to a body of data about all previous structure styles and their strengths and benefits as well as their defects and deficiencies, so they can access information about problems with structural materials and design flaws?

Or are they always doomed to repeat the same mistakes again and again like groundhog day.

The consumer decides. Maybe developers are simply meeting the demand for poorly built rabbit hutches.