Ugly House Thread

[shedfish]

this beauty in Stoke is something to aspire to

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-28121350.html

[Snow Birds]

Erm the pictures posted are not so much homes as nasty pre-cast concrete monstrosities that are as ugly as when they were thrown up.

I'm all for cheap housing but cheap doesn't mean nasty windowless box.

Somebody lives in that nasty precast, concrete, monstrosity with no windows. If they call it home and can afford it and they are happy, what sort of asshole are you to make fun of 'em. Leave 'em alone, go find your own home and crawl down off of your lofty perch. You must be low indeed to get a rise out of people poorer than you. Done any fox hunting lately or do you only prefer ripping poor people to shreds?

[Snow Birds]

In an abstract, apersonal moral sense: good point.

In a comedy sense: A lofty perch indeed.

Lofty perches do exist. You just ain't on one.

[Quicken]

This one stands out from the crowd in Oxford right now:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-11728617.html

Actually, most of the houses on Waynflete Road look pretty special. Take a google streetview tour if you're interested.

Q

[wealthy]

I've got a great idea

1. Buy it cheap when no-one wants the ugly duckling

2. Get some pebble dashing on for about 10% of the property cost

3. Advertise it in its new splendor for double the original price, throw in a few key words about coffee shops, river walks, and schools

4. Sell it

5. Find the next ugly ducking, rinse and repeat

And thus a legion of property developers are born out of cosmetic, nice to look at, but ultimately pointless, property improvements

Wait a minute, wheres that forum about house prices being too high?

[Quicken]

Elsewhere in Oxford, a cool £600k gets you this beauty:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-21701908.html

Bargain!

Q

[ccc]

Somebody lives in that nasty precast, concrete, monstrosity with no windows. If they call it home and can afford it and they are happy, what sort of asshole are you to make fun of 'em. Leave 'em alone, go find your own home and crawl down off of your lofty perch. You must be low indeed to get a rise out of people poorer than you. Done any fox hunting lately or do you only prefer ripping poor people to shreds?

Ok let's call them 'ugly homes' then.

They are ugly - end of story. Someone may be happy in them but they are still ugly. And if they are content in their ugly house ? Then good luck to them. I may possibly get myself an ugly house one day if it is much better value than a 'pretty' one.

So I have nothing against ugly houses - however I think it is well within my rights to point out when one such ugly house exists.

In case you had not noticed - we are ripping the house looks to shreds - not the people inside. In fact not even the house itself.

[AThirdWay]

All you posters on this thread should be ashamed of yourselves. This toffee nosed arrogant attitude is exactly what caused the ridiculous house prices in the first place. You say that a house should be a home and not an investment and yet you declare perfectly good homes as "ugly". If it is dry and warm and big enough just who do you think you are to call it ugly? One poster is even making fun of a color ffs. He likes green! Get over yourself!

This thread should be moved to Mumsnet where it would fit in perfectly. You guys are not any kind of solution to the problem. You ARE the problem.

Calm down dear, we're ripping the pi55 out of the properties, not the owners. Having said that, the one I posted has all the hallmarks of a Beeny wannabe trying to make a quick buck. One of the drivers behind high prices.....

Perhaps you don't understand the forces brought into play when one looks for a home? The reasonable requirement that it should at least look acceptable, never mind attractive, is very near the top of the list. Some of these things aren't fit for keeping livestock (one of them seems to have NO WINDOWS ffs!)never mind human beings.

Are you not AMAZED that somebody thought it would be a good idea to build some of these horrors?

BTW, the one-bed semi in post #4 is way more expensive than my 2-bed waterfront flat. Nothing to do with toffee-noses or price snobbery.

[Snow Birds]

Ok let's call them 'ugly homes' then.

They are ugly - end of story. Someone may be happy in them but they are still ugly. And if they are content in their ugly house ? Then good luck to them. I may possibly get myself an ugly house one day if it is much better value than a 'pretty' one.

So I have nothing against ugly houses - however I think it is well within my rights to point out when one such ugly house exists.

In case you had not noticed - we are ripping the house looks to shreds - not the people inside. In fact not even the house itself.

"Ugly" is a totally subjective concept. There is no such thing as intrinsically ugly. Exactly as there is no such thing as intrinsically "pretty". Comments about both are an attempt to raise your own status at the expense of someone else. We used to call it "one upmanship" at best and total snobbery at worst. It is the driving force of fashion and house prices. Ever wonder why "prettier" is synonymous with "expensive" and "ugly" is always cheap? Coincidence it ain't. Yes you have every right to be a snob and I have every right to point it out. You cannot criticise a house without criticizing the people who live in it. You fool nobody with your defensive tactic.

Why can't you have preferences of your own without dissing everyone and everything else? Others are not wrong or ugly they are just different. Vive la difference.

[Snow Birds]

Another lofty perch indeed.

Lofty perches are a good thing. If you try hard enough, even you, could sit on one. I see things with great clarity from up here.

[Snow Birds]

Calm down dear, we're ripping the pi55 out of the properties, not the owners. Having said that, the one I posted has all the hallmarks of a Beeny wannabe trying to make a quick buck. One of the drivers behind high prices.....

See my previous post you cannot seriously separate houses and owners. Nice try though!

Perhaps you don't understand the forces brought into play when one looks for a home? The reasonable requirement that it should at least look acceptable, never mind attractive, is very near the top of the list. Some of these things aren't fit for keeping livestock (one of them seems to have NO WINDOWS ffs!)never mind human beings.

What you are really saying is that your standards are higher than someone else's. Isn't that the definition of snobbery?

Are you not AMAZED that somebody thought it would be a good idea to build some of these horrors?

No. Other people's ideas of "nice" is totally their business. I know what I like and I don't care what anybody else likes.

BTW, the one-bed semi in post #4 is way more expensive than my 2-bed waterfront flat. Nothing to do with toffee-noses or price snobbery.

So why did you have to tell us you live in a 2-bed waterfront flat? You are rating your priorities on cost. You are also rating your priorities as supreme.

[Rigsby]

This ones got a swimmin' pool and everyfink

IT'S IN BARNSLEY FER CHRISTSAKE

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-31754705.html

[ccc]

Ever wonder why "prettier" is synonymous with "expensive" and "ugly" is always cheap? Coincidence it ain't. Yes you have every right to be a snob and I have every right to point it out.

I may possibly get myself an ugly house one day if it is much better value than a 'pretty' one.

So I have nothing against ugly houses

Try actually reading what I posted.

"Ugly" is a totally subjective concept. There is no such thing as intrinsically ugly. Exactly as there is no such thing as intrinsically "pretty". Comments about both are an attempt to raise your own status at the expense of someone else. We used to call it "one upmanship" at best and total snobbery at worst.

Ok - in my opinion they are all ugly. Is that ok with you ?

You cannot criticise a house without criticizing the people who live in it. You fool nobody with your defensive tactic.

You have very strange thoughts - in my opinion. I can criticise a house perfectly reasonably without criticising the people who live in it. If you cannot then that is your problem - not mine.

Why can't you have preferences of your own without dissing everyone and everything else? Others are not wrong or ugly they are just different. Vive la difference.

Yes they are. And as I have already said, if you actually read what I posted previously, I agree with what you state above. As I may well be buying one of these 'ugly' houses myself in the future. You would know this if you had read my original post.

[blobloblob]

Picture 9 isn't as bad as the one they have in the auction catalogue though

http://pdf.pugh-auctions.com/cat/dec10.pdf

page 118 if you fancy a look.

I love the "feature window" in lot 123.

[lulu]

All you posters on this thread should be ashamed of yourselves. This toffee nosed arrogant attitude is exactly what caused the ridiculous house prices in the first place. You say that a house should be a home and not an investment and yet you declare perfectly good homes as "ugly". If it is dry and warm and big enough just who do you think you are to call it ugly? One poster is even making fun of a color ffs. He likes green! Get over yourself!

This thread should be moved to Mumsnet where it would fit in perfectly. You guys are not any kind of solution to the problem. You ARE the problem.

It is the prices of some of these hovels that makes the whole thing so ridiculous not the houses themselves.

Give shithole a premium price tag and it becomes something to poke fun at, a shithole that is affordable is not half as ridiculous.

[Harry Monk]

This ones got a swimmin' pool and everyfink

IT'S IN BARNSLEY FER CHRISTSAKE

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-31754705.html

Who in their right mind would replace their back garden with a swimming pool? As well as the (guess) £30,000 it cost to install, it has probably knocked the same amount off of the value of the house.

We have all been on holiday somewhere exotic, tasted the most delicious drink imaginable, brought a bottle home and discovered the disappointment of finding out that on a rainy day in Blighty that it tastes vile. The vendors have done the same with the pool they had outside their villa when they went on holiday, brought it home and then found out it doesn't travel.

[Giordano Bruno]

This is my current favourite 'selfbuild' Look at all the pictures. What were they thinking?

That looks vaguely like a shark about to bite my head off.

[ccc]

That looks vaguely like a shark about to bite my head off.

Looks like something has already taken a bite out of it.

[Giordano Bruno]

"Ugly" is a totally subjective concept. There is no such thing as intrinsically ugly. Exactly as there is no such thing as intrinsically "pretty".

An idea which might seem at first to be 'self-evident', but which I believe to be false. To some extent beauty is subjective, I believe. But as one who studies art, hoping to be an artist someday, I know that there are guidelines, principles, or even rules which when obeyed help towards beauty. I believe architects are taught these principles when learning to be architects. So why did they apparently abandon these principles?

That's my opinion, anyhow.

You are, of course, entitled to your different opinion.

[Diver Dan]

So why did they apparently abandon these principles?

For the same reason anyone abandons their principles. Filthy Lucre

Most of the houses posted on this forum look to be shoddily built with little in the way of either objective or subjective beauty. Furthermore they are largely advertised with exhorbitant prices; my own example looked to be a converted lock-up garage advertised for £95,000.

An example of a building with objective beauty but which is subjectively ugly would be the former German Aviation Ministry building in Berlin.

[Britney's Piers]

Erm the pictures posted are not so much homes as nasty pre-cast concrete monstrosities that are as ugly as when they were thrown up.

I'm all for cheap housing but cheap doesn't mean nasty windowless box.

They'll have the last laugh when the Window Tax is brought back.

[Redcellar]

Who in their right mind would replace their back garden with a swimming pool? As well as the (guess) £30,000 it cost to install, it has probably knocked the same amount off of the value of the house.

We have all been on holiday somewhere exotic, tasted the most delicious drink imaginable, brought a bottle home and discovered the disappointment of finding out that on a rainy day in Blighty that it tastes vile. The vendors have done the same with the pool they had outside their villa when they went on holiday, brought it home and then found out it doesn't travel.

If they put walls and a roof on it, I would like it. I love to swim. But it doesn't and its in Barnsley so its pretty darned weird. You have a very limited audience to sell to, and the house doesn't match up to the pool.

[Redcellar]

Somebody lives in that nasty precast, concrete, monstrosity with no windows. If they call it home and can afford it and they are happy, what sort of asshole are you to make fun of 'em. Leave 'em alone, go find your own home and crawl down off of your lofty perch. You must be low indeed to get a rise out of people poorer than you. Done any fox hunting lately or do you only prefer ripping poor people to shreds?

Snow Bird. Some interesting points you raise in your thread but this thread is titled Ugly House. It is OK for people to criticise architecture, it is done all the time by the designers themselves called Architects. They even have annual awards for glamorous buildings.

I've travelled the world and I love to see architecture and look at the good, the bad and the downright ugly. Sure its subjective, but to deny me the opportunity to admire the good and critique the bad is remiss. Is it OK for art lovers to admire incredible paintings and criticise the shoddy work I would produce, or should I have equal applaud as to the great artists of the past, I am a completely talentless artist.

I agree that tasteless decorating internally should perhaps be held as an internal comment, as the owners did not invite critique as to thier artistic, or lack of artistic talent. But the externals are fair game as they are the core architecture.

[Snow Birds]

An idea which might seem at first to be 'self-evident', but which I believe to be false. To some extent beauty is subjective, I believe. But as one who studies art, hoping to be an artist someday, I know that there are guidelines, principles, or even rules which when obeyed help towards beauty. I believe architects are taught these principles when learning to be architects. So why did they apparently abandon these principles?

That's my opinion, anyhow.

You are, of course, entitled to your different opinion.

As one who actually works in the field of art I can tell you that there are no rules. One man's art is another man's piece of garbage. It is so with all things. I have learned to keep my peace if I think something is ugly. It is, after all, of no benefit to insult another person's taste, whether in art or women or houses. It is actually an insult to their person to insult their taste. The point of my comments is really that there is no honour in insulting someone else and it displays an offensive arrogance. If you don't like something you don't have to say so. Do you tell every ugly woman that she is ugly? Why would you tell someone that their choice of house is ugly. Like I said, someone lived in or lives in the house you call ugly or a house very similar. Why do these posters feel the need to put these owners down. Are they really so insecure, or just plain bloody minded? If you don't like the style or the price just walk away and keep your peace . . . please!

[Tiger Woods?]

"Ugly" is a totally subjective concept. There is no such thing as intrinsically ugly. Exactly as there is no such thing as intrinsically "pretty". Comments about both are an attempt to raise your own status at the expense of someone else. We used to call it "one upmanship" at best and total snobbery at worst. It is the driving force of fashion and house prices. Ever wonder why "prettier" is synonymous with "expensive" and "ugly" is always cheap? Coincidence it ain't. Yes you have every right to be a snob and I have every right to point it out. You cannot criticise a house without criticizing the people who live in it. You fool nobody with your defensive tactic.

Why can't you have preferences of your own without dissing everyone and everything else? Others are not wrong or ugly they are just different. Vive la difference.

You'd better go back to school and read the scientific literature on this point. Ugly is real. Even babies, when they can first see, have a sense of beauty, gazing longer at those who are deemed good looking by society than those who are not. The sad thing is that if you are ugly, even your children will not love you as much...

Turning back to the topic of this thread, there is no reason for some of these monstrosities to exist. Some of them have scarce few windows and so forth. Similarly for the rabbit hutches that are today's new builds. Living in them does nothing for people's sense of well being, and must surely lead to social problems for the inhabitants and those around them. Ugly and dysfunctional is a needless pox on humanity when there is no need for it. (Or do you think the 60s tower blocks in London were good for the soul of those who lived in them?) Moreover, have you noticed the prices on some of these tips? If they were £10k, one could understand...but the sellers want exhorbitant amounts. I doubt anyone would chose to live in these monstrosities, except that they have no other option. The lack of those options is a damning condemnation of society as most of HPI is driven by land price inflation, which could have been avoided or ameliorated.