nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Would you live in a Church?

Sky King

I saw an old one for sale on daft with planning permission for conversion into a residential dwelling and I happened to be driving past it the other day and wandered in for a look.

It's a lovely site with great views of the surrounding countryside. The only thing is that it comes with a graveyard, and that in itself raises questions, because that is effectively your garden. How do you deal with that? Do you bulldoze the headstones for your flowerbeds and risk being haunted forever? Do you tend to and maintain them - making a feature out of them? Or segregate them from the rest of the garden to keep the pets and kids out. Would you have living relatives of deceased people visiting your garden for years to pay respects to its inhabitants!! There are graves there from the 1950's! Would you see the dead people as your friends and talk to them every day like tom hanks with the spalding basketball in Castaway?

Would you mind living alone in an old church where tens of thousands people have prayed, been christened, married and had their funerals for 250 years?

I personally think it would be a really cool and unique house, interested to hear what other people would think though.Anyone else i mentioned it to thinks its creepy and weird.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ozmo

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Even if the graveyard land was part of the sale (which I think usually isn't) moving a graveyard would be an absolutely insane amount of work and would have to assume red tape. I doubt it would be worth it, if you're buying a church you just need to accept you will have a graveyard beside you.

They moved the headstones up against the wall in several churches in dublin - eg. the Church Pub in Mary street... that seems like a good option if available.

The offlay one looks brilliant though - with the organ, the extra building and half the work done.

clairefontaine

No. Too expensive to heat.

Novella

That is so cool! I would love to live in it!

Franticfrank

It looks like there's a massive amount of work to go into it but the concept is great! Maastricht is an example of how old churches can be put to good use. There's a church there that was converted into a hotel and it's amazing. Then there's another that's a bookshop/cafe. You can drink a coffee on the altar.

o1s1n

Those Harry Clarke stained glass windows would be worth a fair chunk of change.

Citroen2cv

Also they would be protestant zombies, I think they would be very polite.

Wibbs

I'd be more into this castle type place myself.. The fact it's now going for a couple of hundred grand less than my boring semi D gaff was "valued" at the highest of the boom says much about that period of crazy ass madness.

martinedwards

very expensive to convert and a pig to heat, and the issues wth the graveyard & being listed would be a deal breaker for me.

but the idea of living in a church building has always appealed to me because of the decades of faithful prayer there.

and the stained glass & arched windows are great!

melekalikimaka

from my understanding you can build over a graveyard provided it hasnt been used in a certain time frame, like a new grave hasnt been placed. its something like 80yrs I think maybe a little longer...

JonSnuuu

CianRyan wrote: »

Wilson was a hand ball.

Wilson was a Volleyball!

[Deleted User]

You would have a lot of room downstairs,
where the pews used to be in,
and Havin' all that room,
seein' as how you would take out all the pews,
you could decide that you don't
have to take out your garbage,
for a long time.

Dolbert

One of our neighbours back home bought and renovated the old village COI church about 20 years ago, he got it for a song too. I always thought it was the coolest thing ever. I remember saying to my mother how creepy it'd be to have a graveyard in your back garden, and she promptly reminded me that our house used to be an old RIC barracks and for all we knew there were bodies buried all over the yard. To think that she wonders where I get it from.

Merch

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Even if the graveyard land was part of the sale (which I think usually isn't) moving a graveyard would be an absolutely insane amount of work and would have to assume red tape. I doubt it would be worth it, if you're buying a church you just need to accept you will have a graveyard beside you.

Be a handy security feature, plenty of people would be concerned about crossing a graveyard

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be more into this castle type place myself.. The fact it's now going for a couple of hundred grand less than my boring semi D gaff was "valued" at the highest of the boom says much about that period of crazy ass madness.

that is nice, wonde rhow much it'd cost to heat though

melekalikimaka wrote: »

from my understanding you can build over a graveyard provided it hasnt been used in a certain time frame, like a new grave hasnt been placed. its something like 80yrs I think maybe a little longer...

Haven't you seen the film poltergeist?

Nemeses

You could do a lot with a church.

People complain about heating it... Anyone heard of insulation? Derp!

Also with this church I can begin my new religion..... I think I have found a base.

Shame its in offaly..

CianRyan

JonSnuuu wrote: »

Wilson was a Volleyball!

You know nothing, JonSnuuu.

dang.

FouxDaFaFa

I'd love to live somewhere with a bit of history and character to it. I like graveyards, I think they're interesting.

That particular church though, looks like it would be a lot of hassle to renovate and maintain.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Not a hope. I'd probably burst into a ball of flames upon walking in the door lol

kylith

I would absolutely live in an ex-church. AFAIK when they de-consecrate everything they have to disinter any remains and either remove them to a charnel house or re-inter them elsewhere because you can't have the bones of the faithful resting in unconsecrated ground.

Even if they didn't take the corpses I wouldn't mind. I'd just have to remember to not dig an overly deep pond. The dead don't bother me.

DEFTLEFTHAND

CianRyan wrote: »

Wilson was a hand ball.

Volleyball? And he was a Wilson make not Spalding. The clue is in his name. :pac:

Mr. CooL ICE

Franticfrank wrote: »

Maastricht is an example of how old churches can be put to good use. There's a church there that was converted into a hotel and it's amazing.

Weirdest place to have sex. Ever.

eyescreamcone

Sky King wrote: »

I saw an old one for sale on daft with planning permission for conversion into a residential dwelling and I happened to be driving past it the other day and wandered in for a look.

It's a lovely site with great views of the surrounding countryside. The only thing is that it comes with a graveyard, and that in itself raises questions, because that is effectively your garden. How do you deal with that? Do you bulldoze the headstones for your flowerbeds and risk being haunted forever? Do you tend to and maintain them - making a feature out of them? Or segregate them from the rest of the garden to keep the pets and kids out. Would you have living relatives of deceased people visiting your garden for years to pay respects to its inhabitants!! There are graves there from the 1950's! Would you see the dead people as your friends and talk to them every day like tom hanks with the spalding basketball in Castaway?

Would you mind living alone in an old church where tens of thousands people have prayed, been christened, married and had their funerals for 250 years?

I personally think it would be a really cool and unique house, interested to hear what other people would think though.Anyone else i mentioned it to thinks its creepy and weird.

With a BER Rating of Z1 I'd imagine it would be cool alright.

AgileMyth

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Volleyball? And he was a Wilson make not Spalding. The clue is in his name. :pac:

Finally someone with the answers. Its a good thing it wasn't a Spalding ball. Wilson is a much nicer name.

the_syco

Sky King wrote: »

No Syco that's not it, here

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8523/8578314508_73acc6f4bd_z.jpg

100k is an expensive 2 bed! Also, I'm not sure if it's actually renovated yet.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be more into this castle type place myself.. The fact it's now going for a couple of hundred grand less than my boring semi D gaff was "valued" at the highest of the boom says much about that period of crazy ass madness.

Was looking at that one myself. If anywhere near a motorway, it'd be nice.

=-=

If I had the money, I'd buy a nice shell, and put my own stamp on it. Otherwise you may as well just buy a normal house!

Christ the Redeemer

Depends. The fact that is a church is meaningless. It's just another building.

ScumLord

Converting a church would be cool but having talked to people about refurbishing tiny cottage I'd say it would be a huge hassle.

Stone buildings like these are pretty awful places to live. It would make you wonder why the aliens that built all those ancient cities didn't use more modern building techniques instead of getting a load of illiterate apes to build crappy stone buildings. That's ancient aliens for you I suppose.

wil

Deleted User wrote: »

Was it repossessed?

No. Possessed. Hence Sale

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

Stone buildings like these are pretty awful places to live. It would make you wonder why the aliens that built all those ancient cities didn't use more modern building techniques instead of getting a load of illiterate apes to build crappy stone buildings.

Because if they had used modern building techniques those ancient buildings would have long crumbled to dust. Stone, especially of the igneous variety is about the most resilient building material there is and will last the longest.

Plus depending on the design of the dwelling it can be more insulated than many modern gaffs. A rellie of mine bought a Norman "castle/keep" for buttons back in the 80's. Rebuilt it, though most of the fabric was there. He had to remove insulation he'd added as it held onto heat remarkably easily. 3 foot thick stone walls(hitting near 8 foot at the base) with tiny windows make for a lot of insulation. It took longer to heat than a modern gaff of course but once it was warmed up it stayed that way, even during the coldest periods. Went the other way too, so on warm sweaty days like today it was always cool inside. That said there wasn't much natural light, so if you were into modernist open glass from tail to tit type design then it would defo not suit. The stairs kept you fit too. I thought it was bloody brilliant though.

There are some spectacular old gaffs on offer in Europe, often at daftly low prices. A few years back I saw a 16th century monastery type place in north Spain, with central courtyard and unreal valley views up for sale for around 150,000 quid and it was ready to rock. You see similar gorgeous places in Portugal, France and Italy(so long as you avoid the Costa del Tan/English bloke once wrote a book about here type areas). Various places in eastern Europe have amazing places for sale.

McDermotX

kylith wrote: »

I would absolutely live in an ex-church. AFAIK when they de-consecrate everything they have to disinter any remains and either remove them to a charnel house or re-inter them elsewhere because you can't have the bones of the faithful resting in unconsecrated ground.

Even if they didn't take the corpses I wouldn't mind. I'd just have to remember to not dig an overly deep pond. The dead don't bother me.

Said various horror film characters put on screen. Usually among the first to go as well.

phasers

If I were rich I'd buy it just for Halloween parties

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

Because if they had used modern building techniques those ancient buildings would have long crumbled to dust. Stone, especially of the igneous variety is about the most resilient building material there is and will last the longest.

Modern buildings can last a long time too, they just require more maintenance.

Plus depending on the design of the dwelling it can be more insulated than many modern gaffs.

I think the stone is retaining heat more than providing insulation. By that I mean insulation forms a barrier to heat rather than holding onto heat for release.

The big problem with stone is it's porous and lets in damp, the building can be treated for that but it's time consuming and expensive. I was told that I shouldn't waste my time by someone who did up a stone cottage, he reckoned they were more trouble than they're worth. It's very difficult to get them sealed properly.

The aliens should have known that though, they should have had better techniques is what I'm saying, in the time it took them to build one stone building they could have homed most the people in an average sized city of the time.

I'd still love to do up the old cottage I have in mind, it's basically a one room so I would assume it shouldn't be that hard to seal, but I want to expose the stone work.