Who should design our new houses?

Not necessarily a bad idea Granny23 but there are a numbers of issues to be addressed -cost of moving, access to sites, appropriateness for each new location etc. If you had wanted to explore such an idea when you first needed the extra space an architect could have helped you weigh it all up and decide whether to develop your idea or design a more permanent extension.

www.architecture.com/working-with-an-architect/why-use-an-architect

I have long had this idea of the movable extension i.e. an extra prefabricated room which could be bought, installed and used until no longer needed. Then it could be removed and sold on to another householder who needed more space.

This would mean that people could have a lifetime home, which would suit the family as it expanded or allow downsizing when the extra space was no longer needed. This would allow people to avoid all the hassle and expense of moving house as needs change.

In our case we could have added an extra bedroom with en suite when the DDs became to old and argumentative to share a bedroom. We would have kept it until they had finished Uni, started families of their own and bought their own houses. Then the extension could have been removed or (in our case) passed on to DD1 who had to build a 1 bed + shower room and toilet extension to her 2 bed house because she had a boy and a girl who could no longer share a room. The solution would also work for a family taking an aged relative to live with them, knowing that in a few years the extra space would no longer be needed.

Is this a good idea? or am I mad to think of it?

Sorry NotSpaghetti I hadn't read your highlighted article. That is exactly what I think we should be concentrating on. [Tue 18-May-21 09:44:09]

Instead of imposing types of building from the top, i.e., government, why are they not setting planet-saving rules and then allowing those with the knowledge be they builders or architects, to build. I would have thought every house needed an architect at some point even if it was to produce a standard building that could be used over and over again - as the large building companies seem to do.

More importantly - to me - is why have we not been using more of the modern, modular, eco-friendly homes that are available. They have long since moved from the reputation for shoddiness (not always justified in the first place) that was held by the old post-war prefabs. They often now outstrip bricks and mortar in their superiority when retaining heat, etc.

I just can't see how Parliament is justified in putting this idea forward without taking climate change and the economy of running a home into account first.

What a waste of peoples time on something where only large building companies and their donor recipients seem to have anything to gain. I doubt it will mean more people are housed in eco-friendly homes any time soon.

My late husband and I ran a successful building company and over the years had contact with many architects. Some were very good - others shouldn't have been allowed out without a minder!

One of the experience was when we were on site with a client and his architect. The architect was explaining some sort of feature he had in mind - my DH just said it couldn't be done, the architect then went into great detail explaining how his vision could be achieved, all the time talking to my DH as if he was lacking brainpower.

After the long explanation my DH very quietly said - it can't be done because it is against Building Regs. Collapse and departure of self important architect.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/mar/06/eco-homes-become-hot-property-in-uks-zero-carbon-paradigm-shift

Here's an article on (mainly) social housing.
Plenty of people would choose to buy homes like these I think.

But there are plenty of examples of low carbon eco homes that are affordable.

We just won't make it compulsory here.

NotSpaghetti

Katie59 ^ If the house is built correctly it will be fine^

I don’t think “fine” is enough when we are facing catastrophic climate change.

It’s quite possible to build the perfect house - at a price, there is always going to be a affordability issue, modern houses are vastly more climate friendly than those built 50 yrs ago.

There is no point building houses no one can afford

Katie59 ^ If the house is built correctly it will be fine^

I don’t think “fine” is enough when we are facing catastrophic climate change.

Residential housing is designed on a computer these days with structural calculations already built in, every element has a size, an insulation value and a cost. If the house is built correctly it will be fine, cutting corners and poor supervision on site can cause lots of problems as it’s built.

There was a big house near me, £2m plus, was built with faulty walls - they cracked, it was demolished. Mistakes do happen, dry expensive ones in this case.

The point I was trying to make (badly) is that new builds should be as close as carbon neutral as possible to both build and run.

And a NEW building is easiest to make "green" - anyone who has tried to retrofit these measure into an old house will know!

Given how many disastrous buildings architects design. ones that leak, that have roofs that cannot be repaired, or only at an eye watering cost. usually because they are great at design but frequently rubbish structural engineers, I am left wondering what their 7 year training does prepare them for?

House design is a collaborative effort. They need to talk to ordinary people living in the houses to find what they want in a house and what is practical, structural engineers to ensure the property is soundly designed and that there are no inherent design faults that lead to leaking roofs and windows. they need to work with building service engineers to make sure the houses they design are thermally efficient and have heating and domestic servicees designed to be energy efficient. Housing estates need to be laid out to make suake solar systems and also solar gain.

An architects role is to make sure the resulting building is pleasing on the eye.

Ed Davey, now leader of the Liberal Democrats, was very successful in promoting green policies when he was Minister for Energy and Climate Change in the coalition government, but in 2015 the Tories chose to reverse much of the
progress that had been made, whilst continuing to claim credit for those LibDem policies which they had not reversed.

"Nine green policies killed off by the Tory government
Onshore wind, solar, green homes ... we round up the measures that have gone under the knife in what some are calling the worst period for UK environmental policy in 30 years"

www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/24/the-9-green-policies-killed-off-by-tory-government

No need to apologise Jax I'm just fed up that there's no forward movement on the green agenda. Some individual places (Nottingham springs to mind) are definitely trying but why if we want to "build back better" aren't we starting with buildings!

NotSpaghetti apologies, I left my job within a planning department in March 2016, missed that.

Why has this discussion got so "hot" I wonder?

Surely all of us would like homes designed by architects to suit the client and the position?
You can have architect-designed one-offs (expensive) or small developments (a bit less expensive) or you can just go on building by volume using "standard house types". There is nothing much for the masses.

I'm sorry if you feel I've gone off-piste Lin52 but I think in any discussion about house-building these days we should be looking at "greener" alternatives.

The "code for sustainable homes" was last updated in 2015 as far as I'm aware. If so, it's way out of date.
Lifetime Homes standards were replaced by an optional "accessible and adaptable dwellings" standard, also in 2015 JaxJacky.

Nothing positive seens to be coming forward. So sad.

I'm glad that the companies you worked for did employ architects Jaxjacky Sadly they are among a small minority of volume developers.

I really don’t care, just get them built!!!!

I have worked with two large building companies, they employ architects for design. They’d companies give the architects their remit, the architects design for the people who pay their wages. So they conform to current planning rules, including lifetime homes/code for sustainable homes etc so all boxes are ticked. After that’s done it’s ‘best bang for their buck’ design, they design to their employers requirement.

No Pamela you migbt have meant this as a joke but it is often said quite seriohsly.

If you have been to school and your children have been to school you obviously know all there is to know about education - as much or more as someone who did four years of teacher training.

If you have been a victim of crime, once spoke to a bobby on the beat, had a part time job in a prison and served on a jury then you know enough to become a judge- you don't need to study law for five years.

If you have had two children, Stuck on plasters when they scraped their knees and you have had your appendix out and given your elderly relative her pills then you know all about medicine and don't need six years at medical school to become a doctor.

No, I've never heard such nonsense either. So why do folk believe that anyone who has lived in a house can design a building without bothering to study building design for seven years?

Varian did you notice the??
Obviously not.
That’s it I think for me. I’ll keep my humour for Real life.

Architects also have lived in houses, flats, and possibly bungalows, shared houses, cottages, semis, barn conversions and many other types of homes. Architects are humans, not robots. But the difference between architects and others is the seven year training in building design. Pamela

If you were to commission an architect to design a house for your family she would work with you to achieve the best possible design for your house on your site. It would not be a case of you saying "this is what I want please draw it" nor would it be a case of your architect telling you what to have. It is a team effort.

Sadly very few people in the UK ever have the opportunity to design their own home with an architect. Most live in second hand homes, or new homes built by large developers, so surely it is all the more important that developers should not be able to plonk down standard house types like a potato prints, but should be obliged to employ qualified professional architects to optimise the potential of a site and design sustainable beautiful homes which can accommodate a wide variety of people and lifestyles?

new estates often offer financial incentives, mortgage advice, contribution to <whatever> too

They need me?
No design experience at all but I have lived in houses, flats and bungalows throughout my life and I think, like a lot of you must, that I could do it better.
We would downsize if we could find a two bed bungalow that has decent size rooms, a utility and a study with a small but private garden. There aren’t any round here so we will stay put for a few more years.
Perhaps the planning rules don’t allow builders to do anything but fit as many homes into a space as possible?

Katie59 People need home so they buy what they can afford and what is available, often making big compromises in the process.

They also tailor what thay want to what they know is available to them in their price range.

Buying what you want is only for the very well heeled.