Everytime I start to really disagree with things like heritage zoning I see something like this.
This has been floating around the internet for some time.
The funny part is that heritage zoning is the reason the addition looks the way it does. The upper floor was inaccessible and stairs needed to be added. Local regulations state that any additions must be visually distinct from the original structure so this monstrosity was the result.
Look up Caldwell Tower in Scotland for more information.
Why the fuck would additions need to be visually distinct?
Here is the episode of The Restoration Man that documented the project - they go into the planning side of this in-depth because it’s really a head-scratcher. The owner tried many times to get planning for more subtle alternations but they kept getting knocked back because it has to be distinctive enough that it’s clear what is the old building and what are the new additions. What you see is the result of that messy process.
That’s dumb as fuck, literally even if it was brick you’d be able to tell from the weathering of the original stone. NIMBYs are fucking idiots.
if it’s so important that we must be able to tell when it was built, just fucking carve the date into each brick lmao
Feels like the owner had enemies in the local administration
I’m going to go with the idea they didn’t want anyone living in the tower in the first place. So they decided to refuse anything until it was too obvious to deny.
Maybe to not be misleading about what is original and what is new
I think you could tell when it goes from stone to plastic.
I work in stone conservation and for the body that dictates these regulations, even if it was built out of stone it would be required to be visually distinct. The only exception is if it were reinstatement of an original feature that had been demolished or decayed to the point that it had to be removed and fully rebuilt. In that case every effort should be made to source the stone from the same quarry, and the same mortar mix should be used.
An easy way to do that is make the addition not flush, or use a different kind if masonry. The linked documentary includes an interview with the local planning council who recommended finding a local architect with expirience to do it.
Instead the chrap English bastard just used the cheapest options he could find in Essex and wore the council down to approve this monstrosity.
I’d call this ‘malicious compliance’.
That’s not what I meant.
Then…what did you mean?
If it’s privately owned, who cares?
I cant understand why that would be a bad thing
Local regulations: “any additions must be visually distinct from the original structure.”
Castle owner: “ok. So we’ll glue my grandma’s blue-siding house to the castle.”
Local regulations: " No, not like THAAAAT"
Why on earth white plastic windows and baby blue paint?
Budgeting? White PVC windows are cheapest, you pay extra for colors.
I know.
However, if you own a cultural heritage building, the c.h. office has a lot of saying about each and every modification done, especially on the outside, so I doubt it’s due to financial issues.
This mess is because the planning authorities rejected more subtle additions and insisted on something that is distinct from the original building, which is what they got.
Because though uPVC windows lack the myriad advantages of wood or stone frames, sometimes it is better for the ongoing fabric of a building to just get it weatherproof until someone comes along who can afford to put in more suitable replacements.
Then white uPVC frames are much cheaper than coloured versions.
Can’t speak for the baby blue.
only plus I can see is that the renovation is visibly distinguishable – they’re not trying to pass it off as a “restoration” …
Another comment ITT claims that that’s exactly why they did it this way-- Regulations say it must have that property.
I remember when this hit the news and do hope it’s been redone since.
edit: no updates on the Scottish Castle Association since 2012 and TripAdvisor photos show it unchanged other than some weathering.
edit2: Here is the episode of The Restoration Man that focused on the tower and it explains the planning process that led to this monstrosity.
Looks like something from Monty Python and Holy Grail
Well it was filmed in the Scottish Lowlands not a million miles away (48 miles from Doune Castle).
It would have been nice if they pointed out which part was renovated so I didn’t need to scour the picture to find it.
I need a useless red circle to find it
Sorry, I will write a detailed alt next time
This makes me want to sing the Tetris theme.
Where the President of the HOA lives
I was thinking: whichever ‘lord’ owns the tower - that’s where his mother-in-law lives.
I don’t hate it.
Well maybe you should
No worries, I hate it enough for both
I’m kinda with you. I hate that we’ve done this to what is basically a large historical artifact, but if this was all new construction… I could be into this.
But would you want to live there?
Well duh, have you seen the awesome medieval tower next to it?
Yeah it’s awesome! But have you seen the blue-siding shack attached to the side of it?
Prime location, good bones.
“what’s next, renovation?”
“AND COVER UP THESE BONES?”
I believe that’s what they call “postmodern architecture”
Looks weird, but if they added a 3rd aesthetic, like Japanese wooden housing, or Russian brutalism, then we’d be talking.
Is that a news crew huddling at the foot of it?
It was featured in S1E4 of The Restoration Man, so I presume George Clarke is somewhere in that picture.
edit: and they return to it in S2E5 which is on YouTube.
People are such perfectionists when it comes to buildings. I love this image; the patchwork aesthetic needs less hate. Yeah it looks silly, but why should it look serious? I wouldn’t be upset if a building built today were to have an awkward attachment added in 500 years that was built to the design standards of that time period.
Somebody showed me recently the rebuild of the Augusteum building of the University of Leipzig which had a hyper-modern redesign like 180 years after it was first built (look it up, it’s pretty cool). And the building in this post is like a lower-effort, more earnest version of that idea. Is it bad real estate? Sure. But it’s good architecture. “Authenticity” be damned.Basically, do you want an abandoned ruin rotting away in a field, or do you want a building that people will continue to live in and take care of into the future?
This comment made me partially re-evaluate my opinion of this building
Gentrification is getting out of hand.
