• SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I work in stone conservation and for the body that dictates these regulations, even if it was built out of stone it would be required to be visually distinct. The only exception is if it were reinstatement of an original feature that had been demolished or decayed to the point that it had to be removed and fully rebuilt. In that case every effort should be made to source the stone from the same quarry, and the same mortar mix should be used.

    • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Here is the episode of The Restoration Man that documented the project - they go into the planning side of this in-depth because it’s really a head-scratcher. The owner tried many times to get planning for more subtle alternations but they kept getting knocked back because it has to be distinctive enough that it’s clear what is the old building and what are the new additions. What you see is the result of that messy process.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s dumb as fuck, literally even if it was brick you’d be able to tell from the weathering of the original stone. NIMBYs are fucking idiots.

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          if it’s so important that we must be able to tell when it was built, just fucking carve the date into each brick lmao