Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
Knock down or renovate?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects
Author 
 Message
Blue Peter



Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 2400
Location: Milton Keynes
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 05 11:07 am    Post subject: Knock down or renovate? Reply with quote
    

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?


Peter.

Daydreaming



Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 291

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 05 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

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.

tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45389
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 05 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

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
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 05 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

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!

tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45389
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 05 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

That's a different issue

Gervase



Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 8655

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 05 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

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)

Andy B



Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 3920
Location: Brum
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 05 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

tahir wrote:
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.

tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45389
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 05 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

I'm sure that in most cases there's a definite benefit in refurbing but that in others there's a case for replacement.

sean
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 42207
Location: North Devon
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 05 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

tahir wrote:
I'm sure that in most cases there's a definite benefit in refurbing but that in others there's a case for replacement.


You want an excuse to build a house though.

tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45389
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 05 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Sshh!

Nanny



Joined: 17 Feb 2005
Posts: 4520
Location: carms in wales
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 05 11:54 am    Post subject: knock down or renovate Reply with quote
    

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.

tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45389
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 05 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

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.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright © 2004 marsjupiter.com