Shawbury rd - Grand Designs tonight

[MissWiggy]

Mark, I totally agree with you. It wasn't the difference in opinion I was picking up on. Of course we're all entitled to say whether or not we like something, that doesn't equal negativity.

It was more the focus on VAT, mention of "vandalism" and "poisoning of the children". My feeling was that some of the comments were quite snide.

This site was for sale on the open market for a while. This couple chose to buy it and preserve some of the original as far as it was feasible - the metal roof at the front, the ceiling joists in the kitchen / living room and the American barn roof upstairs (sorry can't remember the proper name). I suppose that is maybe why they have 2 bedrooms and not more.

Alternatively, as others have mentioned, it could have been purchased by MYN or similar and it would have been demolished and replaced by a block of flats which would have meant nothing at all was left of the industrial architectural heritage.

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> MissWiggy Wrote:

> >

> > Such negativity on the forum but I don't know

> why

> > that surprises me any more!

>

> A couple of people saying they don't like

> it/having a different opinion to yours doesn't

> mean the whole forum's negative about it. It's

> like saying you found a bruised apple in your bag

> and so the veg shop's got to pot.

[Mick Mac]

MissWiggy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mark, I totally agree with you. It wasn't the

> difference in opinion I was picking up on. Of

> course we're all entitled to say whether or not we

> like something, that doesn't equal negativity.

>

> It was more the focus on VAT, mention of

> "vandalism" and "poisoning of the children". My

> feeling was that some of the comments were quite

> snide.

>

Indeed. Good point.

[benfaulkner]

hammerman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not interested in the building at all but

> wondering why the OP is apologising for their

> Daily Mail link?

I assume this is a genuine question so I'll do my best to answer - many people (myself included)try to avoid reading/publicising the paper for a variety of reasons (clickbait, false reporting, homo/xenophobia etc. please see the links below). It just happened that in this case they were one of the few places to pick up on the episode in detail, and they had a lot of good images :)

https://stopfundinghate.org.uk/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

[Loz]

benfaulkner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> hammerman Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Not interested in the building at all but

> > wondering why the OP is apologising for their

> > Daily Mail link?

>

> I assume this is a genuine question so I'll do my

> best to answer - many people (myself included)try

> to avoid reading/publicising the paper for a

> variety of reasons (clickbait, false reporting,

> homo/xenophobia etc. please see the links below).

> It just happened that in this case they were one

> of the few places to pick up on the episode in

> detail, and they had a lot of good images :)

>

> https://stopfundinghate.org.uk/

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08

> /wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-fo

> r-website

It always amuses me that the Guardian loves bagging the Mail, since it seems to get most of its stories from it.

[snowy]

Or more likely they both use a press service to source a lot of their content?

[PeckhamRose]

Can the OP change the title? It's not tonight anymore... Meanwhile I LOVED what they did. Just could not believe that plot of land cost nearly ?1m!

[Jacqui5254]

Stunning property. Well done.

Jealous!

[edhistory]

> Just could not believe that plot of land cost nearly ?1m!

The Land Registry record should be available.

I'm tempted to spend the ?3.

[spider69]

Why should it be different to what they said on camera and reported in the media?

[rendelharris]

Given the number of crappy overpriced flats that could have been built on that footprint I'm quite surprised they got it for under seven figures.

[almost peckham]

And there, in a nutshell, is one of the reasons I have to travel to Woolwich to be able to carry on my work and in the process contribute to the pollution problem. Any light industrial property, or anything potentially usable by a small business is worth more as a residential development. I used to be able to work within walking/cycling distance of home. Now I can't, I drive. I'm not really moaning (well, I am actually) but anyone who doubts that London would benefit from some sort of zoning that enables all sorts of trades and professions to operate within its bounds (not just those most able to pay) should go and stand on Blackheath at 07.30 any weekday and watch the thousands of vans and trucks clogging up and smogging up the A2/A20 corridor on their way into London. Some of them most likely on their way to 'doing up' an industrial building.

[tallulah71]

SE25...it's where it's at :)

[alex_b]

edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Just could not believe that plot of land cost

> nearly ?1m!

>

> The Land Registry record should be available.

>

> I'm tempted to spend the ?3.

Zoopla doesn't have a sale listed (if it's the place I'm thinking of) and has transactions as recently as August 2017. I must be doing something wrong.

[Mark]

I assume if it was an industrial/commercial property Zoopla won't list its sale price as it only lists residential property sales.

[Ladharrbeinn]

?290k (or ?272) seems an amazing deal for what they had done - that bespoke cabinetry throughout must have cost a fortune, plus ?28k on the doors, oak parquet, plus rebuild of the whole house, asbestos removal, replumb, rewire, all those plants, kitchen, brass handles...

Maybe they don't include decoration etc in the figures?

We spent ?180 on a loft and side return!!

[Reg Smeeton]

How many Grand Designs houses are there in East Dulwich now? I make it at least three: this one, the timber & glass houses tucked in behind Landells Road, and as I recall, a corrugated roof one somewhere around Bawdale Road. There's also that very long thin house in Peckham. Any others?

[Jennys]

I think Re Smeeton has located all the East Dulwich ones but I think there are others not very far away such as the one on the edge of Brockwell Park

[herne hilly]

wow, we almost have enough places to do a Grand Designs walking tour ;)

[yeknomyeknom]

I love it but would have foregone the private garage for more garden or another room.

[rendelharris]

Ladharrbeinn Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We spent ?180 on a loft and side return!!

Blimey, can I have the name of your builder? ;-)

[jimbo1964]

I like it.. Although it is a bit small. Much nicer than crappy flats.

[NewWave]

I only saw the episode last night. I must confess I was underwhelmed as I felt so many compromises were made due to the stringent building regs that the only 'honest' and 'industrial' bits left (aside from the ceiling which once painted with fire retardant paint became invisible)were the wall in the back yard and the ironwork over the courtyard.

Personally-I felt it was too much money for a 2bed with shower-rooms, but then again they weren't doing it for me so what do I know?

I just felt the interior terribly bland and tbh Ive been in and seen much better industrial convesrions which still retain so much more of the character that the homeowner originally said she wanted to keep.

If I'd brought the plot I would have put a glass roof over the front courtyard and had that as a massive open-plan living area,

with bedroom accommodation housed in the building at the back, perhaps with a central smaller internal courtyard between the two buildings.

I think they'll recoup their money by selling the place as a plot with prior planning permission for flats.

I doubt they'll make any money on the actual building as they've done it as you can get somewhere amazing and with more living space for the kind of money they'd need to market it for.

[ED Light]

Was this necessary?

It was clearly a dream of theirs, they love it, let them enjoy it.

[Mick Mac]

NewWave Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I only saw the episode last night. I must confess

> I was underwhelmed as I felt so many compromises

> were made due to the stringent building regs that

> the only 'honest' and 'industrial' bits left

> (aside from the ceiling which once painted with

> fire retardant paint became invisible)were the

> wall in the back yard and the ironwork over the

> courtyard.

> Personally-I felt it was too much money for a 2bed

> with shower-rooms, but then again they weren't

> doing it for me so what do I know?

> I just felt the interior terribly bland and tbh

> I think they'll recoup their money by selling the

> place as a plot with prior planning permission for

> flats.

Couldn't agree more - all that space and a 2 bed with no bath - Kevin Mcwhatever couldn't have hinted any more strongly.

Agree they may get their money back if its sold for flats - but its the fact that it had potential for flats that forced the price of the shell up to ?950k in the first place. after that it was a loss making venture.

and as for the 280k - I always wonder if Grand Designs somehow get them trade prices - although they did have to do some work themselves to meet budget - it was I think a case of massive overspend on the plot and underspend on the design/build.

its nothing like what they said they intended it to be in terms of a Parisian off road hidden gem. The back right hand space where they knocked out the roof and left an exposed wall was one of the only remaining original industrial features - and many a ED side return has a similar carve out space.

The corrugated iron doors at the front - what on earth were they thinking.

of course overall very brave - I couldn't risk it myself - but disappointing. I want really convinced they were happy in the end.

[NewWave]

ED Light Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Was this necessary?

>

> It was clearly a dream of theirs, they love it,

> let them enjoy it.

I was just giving my opinion.

I have respect for anyone brave enough to do what they did.

However I personally felt that they through necessity didn't stay true to the original concept and therefore I found the 'reveal' somewhat underwhelming.

With respect anyone putting their personal project on a national tv program can expect mixed opinions.

I do hope they love it.

Only I didn't.