this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2026
243 points (99.6% liked)

Facepalm

3645 readers
21 users here now

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cawifre@lemmy.world 72 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I heard it was a legal thing where the building is historic and they need to be able to cleanly remove the modern addition without confusing what is new with the old.

Still hideous.

[–] cogitase@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A lot of the Grade 1 listed buildings repurposed into homes have glass and metal additions that clearly delineate between old and new for this reason. They can be incredibly expensive jobs though due to all the permitting and oversight. This looks like someone on a budget or who ran out of money and couldn’t afford a more aesthetically pleasing addition. If it’s being lived in though, they will stop it from deteriorating and it will help to preserve it, which is the only reason it’s allowed in the first place.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

stop it from deteriorating

It seems that constant maintenance and repair is the effort, here.

But while we all can agree plumbing in some modern power and modern plumbing and modern non-lead water pipes is probably verboten, where's the line between repair and addition? Are residents allowed to rebuild damaged portions as per the old appearance using new stone and the old methods? Or must they maintain "the South wall, near collapse from damage with those other people, kept in its teetering state for the sake of preservation as it was on this arbitrary date" or something equally bonkers? What's the arbitrary target they are to repair and maintain towards?

[–] cogitase@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

There's a show that was on the BBC called The Restoration Man where they showcase people repurposing listed buildings into homes that gets into a lot of the permitting and permission detail. Some people have to fund archeological digs before they can even get started.

[–] kopasz7@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Here's the story of how this happened: https://youtu.be/hNyfcWPbzfA

TL;DW: this was the only approved plan after many rounds to get the permits.

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

n00b minecraft quality.

[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 34 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I don't hate it, but I mainly don't like how the new portion isn't as defendable. You could hide from projectiles when you've got a solid stone wall protecting you, but you can't do the same with this wall paneling.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, but the new part is more comfortable. Living in a castle sounds great, until you do it.

[–] RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This shit was good enough for KINGS back in the day. Maybe our standards are just too high.

[–] farmgineer@nord.pub 1 points 1 day ago

You don't live in the tower, you retreat to the tower. Still perfectly reasonable.

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 day ago

It's freestanding, UK listed building rules are you cannot build extensions to the highest level listed buildings, but you can put up freestanding structures.

It's effectively a shed that happens to be touching the castle but isn't in any way attached to it

When you run out of Legos in the color you were using.

[–] negativenull@piefed.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] egrets@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

!badrealestate@feddit.uk

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 7 points 1 day ago

Better than an imitation repair.

[–] HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't understand this at all. Why add anything if you're going to add this? The shortest space is shorter than the entry door, so it can't be being used for anything. Just remake the interior to be a really awesome small space. Looks like it's gone to shit too.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Looks like a staircase to me and those requirements are very specific.

[–] HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Oh yeah, I see it now here in OPs video. So it's not just the lap siding upper portion that was built, the entire lower portion is new also, that's even more terrible. Why isn't it all masonry, they must not have had enough money. I still think I would have left the original stairs and just focused on the interior.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Iirc the law there says additions must be distinctly different so it's not seen as original. Old stairs might not meet the rise/run requirements now, or many other things. Stairs are serious business, they are used for emergency egress and emergency access.

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah, so I'm from Jersey (New), and historic standards around here generally dictate the same thing, that new structures attached to or around historic structures should be distinct from the structure. The idea is to leave the past there and not try to emulate it, so that it stands out, kinda.

And yeah, I'm sure those old stairs were a death trap for some elderly visitors. But that's half the excitement.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

What? Grandma needed a chair lift... So we could lock her in the keep.

[–] BetaBlake@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Okay but can it keep out the scots?

[–] Darthcapi@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

I was scrolling quickly and thought this was a Minecraft build of a real structure side by side. This is infinitely worse.

[–] reader@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

I'd live there

[–] BallShapedMan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That would work, because it's made of wood.