Thursday, 18 September 2014

Unfortunately, my house is the one in the "before" picture, not the "after".

In reply to Dinero's question about the upper storey, I envisage a mansard-cum-gambrel roof/window arrangement with vertical side walls to maximise internal space, a bit like this, but the top bit will be at a flatter angle as our house is twice as deep as it is wide:


Bayard said...

That's wierd. Why did they bother to rebuild the front door and the window over?

Bayard said...

Sorry, just noticed it's a photoshop job.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, why? Because, having added the extra storey, there is no good reason for the smaller window to be smaller and the doorway would look too small.

And no, it's not Photoshop, it's a good old fashioned scalpel and Prittstick job.

Dinero said...

Go for it, more accomodation space in london is good for everyone , all else being equal that is.

Why is your gaff smaller than the others anyway.

Or are your planning to chop the top third off.

Lola said...

Is that really what you bought for £600? If so, cripes. I am bloody glad I live where I do. And please understand, I am not being insulting about your home. Just about its ludicrous price.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Din, why is it smaller? Firstly it's not, the house is far larger than it looks (steep hill makes house on the right of the photo seem bigger), and secondly that was how it was built.

L, it looks like crap but actually it's quite nice and in a 'good location'. That's what you pay for.

Dinero said...

I suggest the same colour for the 3 floors, as the ground and 1st are there, and not sloping sides but vertical for the top one. But I am not a professional architect.

Steven_L said...

That's so last century, all the best people in London are building down now.

Golf still going strong I see!

Mark Wadsworth said...

Din, I have appended a footnote.

SL, sure, in the £billion areas, they have to dig down because they have already gone up as far as planning and listing regulations allow them.

But going down costs about five times as much as going up, and the lighting isn't very good.

TheFatBigot said...

£600k for that in London is a bargain.

I know houses of that type. They are solidly built, have a good sized bay window for a show-off Christmas tree, a proper fire place and an excellent balance of room sizes.

The only suggestion I'd make is to lose the pink render. Nice clean white can be substituted when the upward extension is created.

Oh there is one more. As the lower picture shows the whole facade is improved substantially by finding something other than a black down pipe to carry rainwater from the roof over the bay window.

On paper you've made at least £50k since you bought it. Presumably you'll be sending Mr Osborne a cheque to assuage your guilt.

Mark Wadsworth said...

TFB: "a good sized bay window for a show-off Christmas tree"

I think my neighbours cheat and put their trees on a small table to make it look bigger. Well, that's what I'm doing this year.

"lose the pink render" It's pale yellow actually.

Glad you agree on the down pipe.


Do you really not know that? You once did a critique of LVT, how can you criticise something if you don't even know what it is?

I'd be delighted if we shifted to LVT. If we did it properly I would be paying slightly less tax than I do now anyway, so maybe Mr Osborne can send a f-ing cheque?

DBC Reed said...

The half mansard half roof terrace
system is the solution to some problems, such as nude sun bathing;falling out of bed and having a drink in the sunshine; and needing to feel the lord of all you survey first -off.
Don't suppose an astronomical telescope would work in The Smoke, though you could peer in your neighbours' windows.

Bayard said...

"but the top bit will be at a flatter angle as our house is twice as deep as it is wide"

You probably wouldn't be able to use slates or tiles on the roof as the pitch would be too low. You'd probably best go for a three-pitch roof: near vertical, 30 degrees and "flat" in the middle.

Mark Wadsworth said...

DBC, I'll have the mini terrace along the back, that's a nicer view.

B, it's a maths problem.

Let's say the flatter part of the roof is 25 deg and it has to span 32 feet front to back, two lots of 16 foot. That means the middle ridge is 7.5 foot higher than the edge above the window.

Given how much higher the two neighbouring buildings are, that is just about do-able.

DBC Reed said...

Roof terraces facing streetwards seem a bit of a wasted opportunity
for engaging in casual forms of behaviour. BUT I did have trouble with a half mansard/ half roof set -up in Norfolk while on holiday. This pretentious git in a shortie!! dressing-gown used to emerge from the sliding doors on the mansard every morning, pushing a drinks trolley WITH A SMALL DECORATIVE UMBRELLA rigged up on it!More than flesh and blood could stand! He used to look down on me ,literally and contemptuously, and pour some poncy drink like Campari and orange juice while I walked up the road to get a paper like a proper English gentleman.
So I suppose there may be some advantages to facing the street, come to think of it.And I do like Campari and orange juice myself. Not shortie dressing gowns though.

DP said...

Dear D B C Reed

"Don't suppose an astronomical telescope would work in The Smoke, though you could peer in your neighbours' windows."

20 September 2014 08:56

Mr Wadsworth would have to hang upside down* to view the inverted image, or invest in a marine telescope.



* Or use a mirror

Mark Wadsworth said...

DBC, well yes, but

a) that sounds a bit homophobic

b) tell us more, was he across the street, next door, on a facing back garden, higher or lower than where you were etc?

DP, that's not the issue, the issue is 'light pollution'. I've been thinking about this, maybe having a Mansard roof with a flat top and a roof hatch (like the one across the road from me) is the way forward.

Then I can get myself above the street lights and crap and do a bit of star gazing, taking care not to plunge over the edge.

DBC Reed said...

He was on the third storey looking down, actually, at right angles to the road I walked up.He was in a much bigger holiday house than mine, which did n't help.
I am not being homophobic although I do have issues with dressing gowns which I find acceptable only in very narrow limits .( I am even fussier with slippers: only Turkish embroidered ones will do.But embroidery will not do on dressing gowns. Except in the Boxers' style with name and slogan but these are very expensive.)
Tell you the truth, the pretentious git's half mansard half roof terrace arrangement was what I was consciously describing earlier.
Whatsisname from the Bonzo Dogg Doodah band used to sleep within two foot of a huge roof window so he could look at stars before nodding off.He died young though.
( I cannot understand DP's point about astronomical telescopes in The Smoke.)

TheFatBigot said...

Oh Mr W, you miss my point.

One justification you put forward for LVT is that unearned gains achieved purely by having bought the right house in the right place at the right time are an affront and LVT would prevent them arising.

Whatever the present system of taxation may be, if you hold that view you must believe that the "capital" gain you have made since you bought your house is dirty money from which you have no right to benefit.

Regardless of the income tax you pay the gain you have made on your house is tainted, it is ideologically impure. I don't understand how you can even think of being in a position to realise it in the future. Pay it now ... or perhaps you think it better to roll it over to be paid on your death.

You should hand it to Mr Osborne so that he and his colleagues can spend it on climate change managers, five-a-day advisers, smoking cessation counselors and coaches for lesbian gay and tranny football teams.

Mark Wadsworth said...

TFB, you miss my point.

LVT is on the site premium/rental income, not on the capital gain. House prices might fall in which case I suffer a paper capital loss, but I am still enjoying the rental value.
Also, you are adopted two typical feeble Homey rhetorical KLNs:

1. Go for the man, not the ball.

When I was a tenant campaigning for LVT you said I'm a hypocrite and I'm only saying it because I want prices to come down.

Now I'm an owner-occupier still campaigning for LVT you say I'm a hypocrite for not paying it.

And while my unearned rental income (income, mind, not capital gain) is indeed tainted and I'm perfectly happy to pay it over, I'd like a refund of all the bad taxes I pay each year as well.

All LVTers want LVT to replace other taxes, not to fund extra government spending, it's as simple as that.

Now, seeing as the bad taxes I pay are greatly in excess of the unearned rental income I enjoy, I am actually entitled to a refund.

Perhaps get back to me when I am in your position and the amount of bad taxes I pay are less than the unearned rental income I enjoy.
2. You then deliberately jumble the two quite separate topics of

a) what governments should be doing and how they should spend money


b) how that money should be raised.

I suspect we'd be in agreement on a) but that does not answer the question of b).

DP said...

Dear Mr Wadsworth

@ 20 September 2014 17:12

@ DBC Reed 20 September 2014 18:48

My point was the switch from stargazing to neighbourgazing, with the possibility of a little third party navelgazing.

Astronomical telescopes generally produce an inverted image.

I thought everyone knew that.


Mark Wadsworth said...

DP, I didn't realise the inverted image bit, that was an excellent bit of pedantry on your part.

So outflanked on the "knowledge of telescopes" front, I returned to the main topic of designing my new roof.