Printer-friendly version Send by email PDF version

New infill: how not to do it (2)

Printer-friendly version Send by email PDF version
New infill: how not to do it (2)
Contributor's name: 
Clyde

This is marginally better.  At least the windows are more or less correctly proportioned but there is no disguising the fact that it is a different type of building from its Victorian neighbours.  The bays are clumsily proportioned, the walls are cavity brickwork and therefore stretcher bonded and of course there are no chimneys.  It just doesn't look right.

Comments

New infill: how not to do it (2)

I agree that this development isn’t quite right. It went through at least three planning applications, after residents’ objections, to get the development into a more realistic and bearable density and better design. It is a lot better than the first one. But it just shows how hard it is to get it right when all we residents see are artistic impressions and two dimensional diagrams. But surely the professional Planners should be able to see how out of proportion such things are and get the designs better?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Javascript is required to view this map.