-
In words instead then... Victorian homes - or at least, a great many of them - were not just built as quickly and cheaply as possible. If they were, they wouldn't have large windows, bays, ornamentation etc. All of which would have cost money back in day just like they do now.
lemonade-
Agreed, things hadn't been as value engineered back then and other things like ethics and religion featured more highly as it was pioneering single individuals who were the developers in those days, not corporations whose key concerns are their shareholders. I live in a Victorian estate built by a philanthropist Quaker for example who was tightly governed by his ethics and beliefs - the houses are very high quality.
Although I guess this may be different in other places that were dominated by heavy industries- like workers cottages in the valleys owned by coal mines.
-
I can see an argument for either tbh, barrat may be shonky but are saved by modern tech
-
.
-
If you look at a positively selected sample of Victorian building (i.e. what people thought was worth keeping / repairing post the Luftwaffe) it will show in a good light.
I live in a pretty standard Victorian railway worker’s house that has none of the features you mention - because it was built for the working classes, just like the example newbuild you selected.
-
ornamentation
Literally a crime. Read the whole architecture thread as penance.
Jameo
apc
Sheppz
NickCJ
Hefty
I don’t know how you can draw any meaningful conclusions about anything from those two pictures.