Empty cottages

MOSSAD · 30-09-2011 12:58am #1

I'm not sure if anyone has noticed the numbers of old empty farm cottages all over the country? The townland in which I live has 23 of these houses, with just two occupied. It's such a shame to see them decay-I realise that in many cases it's not economical to refurbish them and that there may often be problems with damp. etc. I just think it's sad to see an integral part of our landscape and heritage disappear.

Mahatma coat · 30-09-2011 11:48am

what part of the Country are you in???

I take it you are referring to Famin Era houses

Where I Live in wexford there were a lot of those a few years ago but most of them have ben knocked down, the problems with them were that most of them were mud and lime Walls, or cast concrete with Seagravel, neither of wich is very easy to rework, add to that the lack of sanitation and even water in most cases and you get an understainding as to why they were qbandoned in the first place.

AFAIK around here any that could be rescued have been rescued, but they're just pokey little things that are badly laid out. lots of the got Flat roof extensions in the 60's/70's

We own one that was built in 1863, its had Numerous extensons added on over its lifetime but the original shell is easily distinguished

BostonB · 30-09-2011 12:01pm

I assume he means post famine. Lots of early 1900 houses and cottages, that are disappearing. Replaced by very bland modern houses and cottages none of which have any cultural identity. Certainly the childhood image I had of Ireland on farms and farmyards, white washed walls, red roofed barns and all that is largely gone. At least in my family.

If you compared that to some of the Mediterranean countries where they made big efforts to keep a visual cultural identity. Even with 100% new builds.

I think thats what you mean.

Poor Uncle Tom · 01-10-2011 11:20am

The issues to consider are as diverse as the types of derelict houses dotting the countryside.

I think there is nothing as lonely looking as a large modern farm building and beside it, the remains of an old farm house dwelling with the whitewash faded to watermarked streaks, like the time hewn furrows etched on the wizzened faces of the once spritely figures who danced and played around the farm house door. The slates slipping, teetering over the eaves like the wisps showing from under an old mans flatcap. The windows darkened with time, reflecting a empty soleless interior. Weeds and grass poking through the hard ground at the half door, once the feeding hole of the home's lifeblood.

Although the reality is somewhat more stark, nobody wants to live so close to farm buildings and silage feeding and storage pits anymore. Most of the old structures lack damp proofing, radon barriers, any insulations in the floors, walls or roof, there's a lack of heating, condensation control and adequate ventilation. Also lacking are bathroom facilities and even the room sizes are no longer adequate for comfortable modern living or to cater for modern furniture.

So what you see as a house is actually a shell which is, in most cases, far more costly to adapt then it is to replace. In an equation of economics the old structure looses out every time.

However, if we approach the situation from another angle and realise that every farm needs an office, a medical supplies store, a canteen, an electrical meter house, or some other space that the old farm house can cater for without pumping a fortune into it. With a little bit of maintanance and a lick of whitewash, the building can smile on into another centuary.

I think there may even be grants available to do this.

BostonB · 01-10-2011 11:54am

The new builds in general, have no links visually to the old.

MOSSAD · 01-10-2011 4:31pm

Clare based here.
The houses I refer to are usually with a large kitchen, a room either side and a garret. I know the problems from dampness to reroofing, etc. It's a pity that there was not some sort of scheme to help alleviate the cost of renovating or of dealing with some of the problemsof refurbishment.
A friend married locally and she saidher option was to renovate the old cottage or build a new house for 5k more, to her specs with all insulation and comforts, which is what she did.
Perhaps I'm thinking of the people who I knew as a child, who lived in these places, and all the stories and knowledge that's passed with them.
Maybe outoffices could be their new role.

AMG86 · 02-10-2011 10:46pm

If anyone is thinking of renovating, refurbishing etc. an old house they should read the attached. http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Heritage/BuiltHeritagePolicy/FileDownLoad,24749,en.pdf. It gives some useful thoughts and advice

Mahatma coat · 02-10-2011 11:09pm

The Problem is that they are just not worth saving n most cases, Lke I said we have up the road its been extended and remodeled repeatedly, the only original bits of the building are the bits which are causing us trouble, the stairs is too steep, theceilings are too low upstairs, the walls are so thick that its impossible to do anything with them, at thesame time these massive walls are also too porous to be of any use as insulatorsthe floor is so uneve in themain room you would get seasick walkin across it, yet we ca do nothing about it as to re do it would involve digging so deep as to threaten the foundations of the structure. theres a good reason most of these houses get abandoned. its all well and good forsomeone passing along the road looking in at these placesto say they'd like to sesomething done with them but at the end of the day they're not the ones who are going to have to live with it,

Mountainsandh · 03-10-2011 12:19am

I (gently

) say "fiddledidee". I'm French, and over there houses crumble down too, and weather conditions are also challenging to an old building with not only damp but extreme heat or cold in cases. However the number of old buildings that have been or are in the process of being renovated is plain to see.
It's people's vision and interest that is lacking here, not funds.
With the funds used to build sprawling mansions of bungalows, people could have easily opted to renovate an old building, but that simply wasn't something people would have considered in a celtic tiger era.

Mr M and myself bought an old 1950s house in 2004, that had been empty for around 7 years (possibly more !) at that stage. This had been built by the government with this scheme whereby they gave families in need a plot and a house to start them off with a small farm. This house was pretty solid as made of concrete, there were 2 bedrooms and a parlour either side of a large "kitchen".We obviously had massive work to undertake though, and it's still ongoing.
But even allowing for the renovations (think strenghtening foundations, reroofing, radon, plumbing and electricity of which they were none, drainage, etc... etc...), and building an extension to it to bring it to a reasonable modern day living size, we ended up with a mortgage that is probably half of what people pay for having knocked down an old cottage and built a bungalow.

It's daunting to undertake the work, and you have to put in the effort to find the right contractors, and be sure that this is your home you are working on, not something you will be selling to live somewhere else in the near future. The surface available in the large modern houses is actually largely recouped with the outbuildings that often come with the old types of houses. One of ours is renovated too (still on the same very low mortgage), and another one the size of a small house is on the slow burner for when we have a few bobs to spend.

I see a lot of my type of houses (1950s, and actually a good number of 1970s really plain bungalows too !) abandonned around my part of the country.

edit : by the way I am from Lyon, and all around Lyon are areas where houses were made of pebbles and sand. These are lived in and gorgeously renovated. Check out this admittedly more modern one as an example (a lot are much older) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Maison_galets.JPG .

slowburner · 03-10-2011 9:51am

I suppose this is the old debate about bungalow blitz versus the Irish vernacular house.
Very often, those who argue against the construction of contemporary once off houses, tend not to be from those areas.
I have a problem with 'visionaries' from the city who would impose a building aesthetic on the countryside.
Don't get me wrong, I am very much in favour of conservation in all shapes and forms, indeed I am actively involved in conservation. But the reality of the challenges involved in making these vernacular houses habitable to modern standards, and the cost, and the time, and the fact that there is no state policy to maintain or support - well that's the reality of the choice people in the countryside must make. And if it doesn't comply with the view that urban dwellers would like to see on their day trips - tough.
I think it is fair to see the contemporary once off house as a natural progression from the Irish vernacular house. Maybe a century from now there will be a post on Boards lamenting the dereliction of 21st C bungalows.

BostonB · 03-10-2011 10:37am

Guess then no one not from Georgian Dublin should have a say in preserving that either.

Iwannahurl · 03-10-2011 10:50am

MOSSAD wrote: »

I'm not sure if anyone has noticed the numbers of old empty farm cottages all over the country? The townland in which I live has 23 of these houses, with just two occupied. It's such a shame to see them decay-I realise that in many cases it's not economical to refurbish them and that there may often be problems with damp. etc. I just think it's sad to see an integral part of our landscape and heritage disappear.

The draft National Landscape Strategy, mentioned by Michael Viney in his column in last Saturday's Irish Times, may have some relevance.

THE FLATTERING, enamelling light of autumn works its usual magic on the western landscape, waking the glow of curling bracken on the mountainsides and the sedges reddening in the bogs. A lower, sharper sun searches also into the raw orifices of small-town ghost estates and gleams on the gables of the myriad new second homes in so many wrong places in the countryside.

In the wake of the tiger, a draft national landscape strategy has at last crept into view. The European Landscape Convention, adopted in Florence in 2000 and later signed and ratified by Ireland, sat on a government desk until 2007, when the Green minister for the environment, John Gormley, launched a “broad consultative process”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/1001/1224305062670.html

slowburner · 03-10-2011 12:33pm

BostonB wrote: »

Guess then no one not from Georgian Dublin should have a say in preserving that either.

Fair point. But then again, Georgian Dublin is not evolving. Those buildings are protected unlike rural houses from the past 100 years.

BostonB · 03-10-2011 12:38pm

Perhaps some of them should be, and perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to just build anything. Driving around some parts of the country there's awful looking yokes, all over, and its not shortage of money that was the cause of it. Usually the exact opposite.

slowburner · 03-10-2011 2:04pm

BostonB wrote: »

Perhaps some of them should be, and perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to just build anything. Driving around some parts of the country there's awful looking yokes, all over, and its not shortage of money that was the cause of it. Usually the exact opposite.

For sure. Of course people shouldn't be allowed to build just anything and they can't - statement of the obvious really.
But we do need to question where the aesthetics for rural housing come from and how it is administered, even though this varies considerably from county to county.

Personally, if I was moving house, I would prefer to renovate an old property than build anew but I can imagine that once the figures were put on the table my preferences could change pretty quickly. That's the reality.

There is an old 19th C house near me which was vacant for the past couple of years. Passers by often remark how 'cute' it is and tourists photograph it. It was bought just recently by a young couple for a bargain price - I really fear them in what they are facing.
Every drop of foul water from the house pours straight into a pristine stream - how 'cute' is that?
The house is damp from top to bottom (but the stone work fits the character of the area).
The roof is a sieve (but the slates and ridge tiles are unique and must be preserved).
Chances are this young couple will be forced to live with the roof and its faults because of its 'character'. They won't be able to dry line the place because that would spoil the stone work. And they will have to fork out a fortune to comply with waste water treatment legislation.
So what is the best thing to do in this situation?
They won't be able to knock it down and build a new house - which is really what they should be allowed to do. So now they are well and truly stuck. This is the sort of thing that is going on country wide.

BostonB · 03-10-2011 4:59pm

I don't think the issue is simply renovating old houses, but the style of new builds. I don't have a problem with a new build. But once its sympathetic to the area its in. But the country side is loosing its character, which I assume will eventually have an impact on tourism. I would have though tourism would be an important industry. Other countries dictate the visual style of new buildings for this reason. Obviously they think tourism is an important enough reason.

Mountainsandh · 03-10-2011 6:25pm

There is an old 19th C house near me which was vacant for the past couple of years. Passers by often remark how 'cute' it is and tourists photograph it. It was bought just recently by a young couple for a bargain price - I really fear them in what they are facing.
Every drop of foul water from the house pours straight into a pristine stream - how 'cute' is that?
The house is damp from top to bottom (but the stone work fits the character of the area).
The roof is a sieve (but the slates and ridge tiles are unique and must be preserved).
Chances are this young couple will be forced to live with the roof and its faults because of its 'character'. They won't be able to dry line the place because that would spoil the stone work. And they will have to fork out a fortune to comply with waste water treatment legislation.
So what is the best thing to do in this situation?
They won't be able to knock it down and build a new house - which is really what they should be allowed to do. So now they are well and truly stuck. This is the sort of thing that is going on country wide.

When Mr M and I bought our vacant bungalow in the middle of very marshy ground, with the sheds (only buildings that had been in use) with cattle dirt halfway up the walls, floors that had rotted throughout the house with the dampness, and mushrooms growing on the walls, the crack between one side wall and the gable end to one side was so bad you could see the scenery through it.... There was no water supply, no electricity, first house about 1 km down the road at least, the road itself was in bits... most of our friends calling up to the site said : "Would you pull it down wouldn't you ? That's bound to cost you a fortune."

Thing is, it hasn't cost a fortune, and the site was so cheap to start with, even though it did cost some money, the money never came up to what we would have paid at that time for a fully functional bungalow. Contractors will tend to exaggerate the extent of works and opt for the easiest option for them... but if you pick well and push for the other, cheaper option, you can get the job done for still reasonable prices. We did, in 2004, 2005, 2006 ! Talk about the wrong time to be doing works to a place...

We have a cosy, plenty big, functional home, with more character than a modern bungalow, and our friends have forgotten they were suggesting to pull it down, and how mad they thought we were then.

That young couple you think are stuck may just invite you for a lovely cup of tea in their cosy, cleverly renovated home in a few years time.

Poor Uncle Tom · 03-10-2011 7:43pm

BostonB wrote: »

I don't think the issue is simply renovating old houses, but the style of new builds. I don't have a problem with a new build. But once its sympathetic to the area its in. But the country side is loosing its character, which I assume will eventually have an impact on tourism. I would have though tourism would be an important industry. Other countries dictate the visual style of new buildings for this reason. Obviously they think tourism is an important enough reason.

A bigger issue than tourism, I would have thought, would be a determination on what exactly constitutes the "rural character" of an area when considering building design. Would the local housing types form part of the cryteria? If so, at this stage there are more bungalows in the countryside than cottages or farmhouses.

Pre famine buildings? There are very few examples of those left in the countryside, Post famine cottages, renovated scalps or scalpeens? Farm houses, these are very varied structures and can incorporate some animal housing. Or the later Council cottages? Or a mixture of all the above.

Should a house that is accepted as being traditional in West Cork be the same as one in Kilkenny or Wicklow? Should a house be chosen for its "Irishness" or should it be regionally distinguishable?

There are far bigger issues to be dealt with, other than constructing twee Oirish boháns to stand outside to get our picture taken by the tourist.

I think, rather than impose a dictat on a designer, that a building should be judged on its own merits, how well it fits into the setting of its site, how well it is landscaped, how well its services blend with its use, how its scale and massing suits surrounding structures and how it blends with it's surrounding land features, or how the chosen materials of construction throw a question of time of construction into the mind of the onlooker, how well it suites the family it was designed for and how they actually use the building. And if that means it is a bungalow, so be it.

All this, I say, rather than the forced barged gables or small windows or tiny porches, ill concieved by the planners as being traditionally Irish.

slowburner · 03-10-2011 8:00pm

Mountainsandh wrote: »

When Mr M and I bought our vacant bungalow in the middle of very marshy ground, with the sheds (only buildings that had been in use) with cattle dirt halfway up the walls, floors that had rotted throughout the house with the dampness, and mushrooms growing on the walls, the crack between one side wall and the gable end to one side was so bad you could see the scenery through it.... There was no water supply, no electricity, first house about 1 km down the road at least, the road itself was in bits... most of our friends calling up to the site said : "Would you pull it down wouldn't you ? That's bound to cost you a fortune."

Thing is, it hasn't cost a fortune, and the site was so cheap to start with, even though it did cost some money, the money never came up to what we would have paid at that time for a fully functional bungalow. Contractors will tend to exaggerate the extent of works and opt for the easiest option for them... but if you pick well and push for the other, cheaper option, you can get the job done for still reasonable prices. We did, in 2004, 2005, 2006 ! Talk about the wrong time to be doing works to a place...

We have a cosy, plenty big, functional home, with more character than a modern bungalow, and our friends have forgotten they were suggesting to pull it down, and how mad they thought we were then.

That young couple you think are stuck may just invite you for a lovely cup of tea in their cosy, cleverly renovated home in a few years time.

I genuinely hope so and I'll give them all the help I can. Maybe I will get that cup of tea after all.
I just hope they have the drive and commitment that you had. For some, a project like yours would be just too costly - not just in financial terms.

slowburner · 03-10-2011 8:02pm

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

A bigger issue than tourism, I would have thought, would be a determination on what exactly constitutes the "rural character" of an area when considering building design. Would the local housing types form part of the cryteria? If so, at this stage there are more bungalows in the countryside than cottages or farmhouses.

Pre famine buildings? There are very few examples of those left in the countryside, Post famine cottages, renovated scalps or scalpeens? Farm houses, these are very varied structures and can incorporate some animal housing. Or the later Council cottages? Or a mixture of all the above.

Should a house that is accepted as being traditional in West Cork be the same as one in Kilkenny or Wicklow? Should a house be chosen for its "Irishness" or should it be regionally distinguishable?

There are far bigger issues to be dealt with, other than constructing twee Oirish boháns to stand outside to get our picture taken by the tourist.

I think, rather than impose a dictat on a designer, that a building should be judged on its own merits, how well it fits into the setting of its site, how well it is landscaped, how well its services blend with its use, how its scale and massing suits surrounding structures and how it blends with it's surrounding land features, or how the chosen materials of construction throw a question of time of construction into the mind of the onlooker, how well it suites the family it was designed for and how they actually use the building. And if that means it is a bungalow, so be it.

All this, I say, rather than the forced barged gables or small windows or tiny porches, ill concieved by the planners as being traditionally Irish.

This says it all really.

Cianos · 05-10-2011 5:31am

Problem is, most designers also go for the easy option. And only the best would make all of those considerations, which is going to cost. And priority for most homeowners is cost and functionality. Hence using traditional aesthetics as a basic point of reference is often a reliable approach where vision is lacking. If this was encouraged by policy, it'd do a lot to preserve the identity of the countryside and help stop it from being dominated by builds that are designed with little aesthetic environmental consideration.

Victor · 05-10-2011 6:26am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I take it you are referring to Famin Era houses

Realise that many people in the 1840s lived in very poor quality buildings that haven't survived at all. The single storey cottages that are now often used as sheds or barns were considered third class houses - perhaps 70% of people lived in fourth class housing.

slowburner · 05-10-2011 8:47am

Cianos wrote: »

Problem is, most designers also go for the easy option. And only the best would make all of those considerations, which is going to cost. And priority for most homeowners is cost and functionality. Hence using traditional aesthetics as a basic point of reference is often a reliable approach where vision is lacking. If this was encouraged by policy, it'd do a lot to preserve the identity of the countryside and help stop it from being dominated by builds that are designed with little aesthetic environmental consideration.

But where does this leave us in terms of innovative design?

Cianos · 05-10-2011 11:50am

slowburner wrote: »

But where does this leave us in terms of innovative design?

I'm all for innovative design, and I think those who are interested enough and are willing to pay for innovative design will commission it regardless and shouldn't be discouraged from doing so.

I'm more talking about a way to encourage traditional qualities in the design of the average family builds which can still serve all their needs and do more to fit in and complement the surroundings.

Poor Uncle Tom · 05-10-2011 1:00pm

Victor wrote: »

Realise that many people in the 1840s lived in very poor quality buildings that haven't survived at all. The single storey cottages that are now often used as sheds or barns were considered third class houses - perhaps 70% of people lived in fourth class housing.

I think an adequate term for the houses of the masses of that era would probably be Sheltering.

As a contrast to this the actual designed houses of that era on the irish landscape were commissioned, designed, built by and lived in by our countries occupying forces, varients of the traditional English Built houses of the time.

Our countries histories are so interwoven for so long that it is only natural and fitting that the emerging designs with any note of brilliance can't be identified by location alone. A worthy read is Classic Irish Houses of the Middle Size by Maurice Craig, it even has some nice pictures for those of us who get bored easily.. The housing shown by any standard are large houses built in the Irish Countryside, but could quite easily be sketched in the English dales.

Another good read is An introduction to the Architectural Heritage of County Waterford, brought out by the Department of The Environment (they have ones for other counties and areas as well, this one I happen to have in my posession) This scans a wide variety of house sizes, uses and moves between town housing to country living and pinpoints good examples of different building elements.

I think what all of this means is that when looking back and trying to figure out what is traditional building, there are quite a lot of different aspects to consider like the status of the housing, The era of the housing, the size of the buildings and the myriad of building features. Quite a lot of which doesn't apply today. The elemental features of buildings tend to be what the Local Authority Planners have latched onto in highlighting traditional building.

In one sense they are correct as it is easy to see, say a thatcher in Co. Cavan can finish his spired ridging with his own unique flair while the same house in Wexford can have a higher chimney and plain ridging, so it is possible to locate a house by observing elemental features.

But on the broader scale of development I think the planners are stiffleing designs by restricting window sizes or roof shapes in order that one can satisfy their notion of traditional building. Where in fact the traditional idea of providing shelter for ones family was to use whatever was accessible locally and could be used by the people doing the building. Regardless of the finished building very little has changes from that point.

BostonB · 05-10-2011 1:14pm

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

A bigger issue than tourism, I would have thought, would be a determination on what exactly constitutes the "rural character" of an area when considering building design. Would the local housing types form part of the cryteria? If so, at this stage there are more bungalows in the countryside than cottages or farmhouses.

Pre famine buildings? There are very few examples of those left in the countryside, Post famine cottages, renovated scalps or scalpeens? Farm houses, these are very varied structures and can incorporate some animal housing. Or the later Council cottages? Or a mixture of all the above.

Should a house that is accepted as being traditional in West Cork be the same as one in Kilkenny or Wicklow? Should a house be chosen for its "Irishness" or should it be regionally distinguishable?

There are far bigger issues to be dealt with, other than constructing twee Oirish boháns to stand outside to get our picture taken by the tourist.

I think, rather than impose a dictat on a designer, that a building should be judged on its own merits, how well it fits into the setting of its site, how well it is landscaped, how well its services blend with its use, how its scale and massing suits surrounding structures and how it blends with it's surrounding land features, or how the chosen materials of construction throw a question of time of construction into the mind of the onlooker, how well it suites the family it was designed for and how they actually use the building. And if that means it is a bungalow, so be it.

All this, I say, rather than the forced barged gables or small windows or tiny porches, ill concieved by the planners as being traditionally Irish.

Its a pretty limited viewpoint that can only see keeping a visual identity as twee Oirish "top o' the mornin' to yah laddie". Considering the country is awash with mini mansions, and bungalows in the footballer school of architecture.

Poor Uncle Tom · 05-10-2011 2:25pm

BostonB wrote: »

Its a pretty limited viewpoint that can only see keeping a visual identity as twee Oirish "top o' the mornin' to yah laddie". Considering the country is awash with mini mansions, and bungalows in the footballer school of architecture.

You are missing my point.

Before we decide to preserve out cultural identity as portrayed through architectural heritage we have to identify what that heritage actually is in terms of current building stock.

Also, there are many reasons to want to portray cultural identity through building, from advocating a sense of national value to carrying on a built tradition, but I would rate tourism very low on that list.

Or do you think that when it comes to our national heritage we should be influenced by outside forces?

BostonB · 05-10-2011 3:00pm

Tourism brings €5 billion into Ireland, and I'd assume its very important financially for rural economies. If that's not a good reason to preserve cultural identity I dunno what is. Not that we should need a reason. We should want to do it ourselves.

I don't see the reason for paranoia about learning from external experiences if they work better than our own. At the moment anything goes, resulting in barbie houses, Southfork ranches and every variation of everything. Its becoming an incoherent mess.

Poor Uncle Tom · 05-10-2011 3:46pm

BostonB wrote: »

Not that we should need a reason. We should want to do it ourselves.

yes, of course we should.

BostonB wrote: »

At the moment anything goes, resulting in barbie houses, Southfork ranches and every variation of everything. Its becoming an incoherent mess.

That is not just happening now, it's been happening with a very long time.

Not excusing that but, there are as many bungalows as cottages being knocked to make way for new housing, around my area anyway.

BostonB · 05-10-2011 4:00pm

Its a blight across the country.

Poor Uncle Tom · 05-10-2011 5:30pm

Just a thought,
Modern construction types are designed for a lifespan of between 50 and 70 years, so any building carried out in the last 20 odd years has a timeclock ticking on their longievity......:D

Empty cottages

Comments