Renovation program tonight, Sunday 5th June.

[alittlebitfrench]

@ Andy4

I was going to agree with most of what you said then I had a little think.

Whilst it is not a building of 'substance' as you put it and certainly not really that historic compared to other such places but in another 50-200 years time it will be.

Turning it into a hotel (or whatever they are doing) is a fruitless task/financial disaster to be fair and by doing so you will be causing unnecessary damage to the core of the building by cutting in pipe work/cable/heating ect. Also they seem to be doing it on a budget which means shortcuts will be taken of which most can cannot be undone.

I said earlier in the thread that it is OK buying such a place but the problem will always be what to do with it. Tourism ???? I think not. Well, not to make money. But once you have gone down that route then it is finished. You can't go back. The building is destroyed.

If you are going to do this just renovate one of the barns/other houses on the property and live there. Then renovate the chateaux back to its former glory. You can still use it as a venue. Creating 45 room accommodation is silly.

These types of places are being destroyed for a short term gain that will never materialise.

Just my point.

[Patf]

There are so many abandonned chateaux in France, round here nearly all small villages have one, they're almost worthless.

The chateau in our village dates back (in parts) to 1764, according to a date carved on an arch. But it's falling down, held together with brambles and ivy . You couldn't give it away. The land around it is still farmed though.

[EuroTrash]

I love heritage but I do agree that not every old building can be preserved. They were built to be grand homes incorporating the best building techniques and materials that were available at the time. If the original owners had lived today, rather than 400 years ago, they would have specified something very different so I don't think either the owner or the artisans would turn in their graves to see it being modernised, as long as it's done well - they'd probably have done it themselves if they'd lived long enough, and would be glad to see it being given a new lease of life. I agree that we should preserve a certain number of examples as heritage in as near original condition as possible but I see that more as the state's job than the individual's, and in fact I think France has done and is doing this job well, there are a lot of beautiful well preserved old buildings that have been classed as national monuments and are safe for the future and can be visited.

However I do think it's a shame to cut corners and spoil beautiful things because as someone else has said, once you've trashed something beautiful it's gone for ever.

[alittlebitfrench]

I agree with what you say EUROTRASH but an abandoned chateaux or whatever can be as equally or more beautiful than one renovated.

http://www.boreally.org/patrimoine-abandon/

I personally would prefer to visit an abandoned chateaux where there are things to discover than one artificially renovated.

[Chancer]

Having taken on a place that had been abandoned for 20 odd years I can tell you that that place was anything but abandoned let alone for 50 years, unlived in maybe but only max 2 décades judging by the electrical installation in the sous sol, the last place inhabited.

Then there are the immaculately manicured grounds, did you see how neat all the bordering line of trees were? They dont grow like that and only regular trimming a couple of times a year will maintain them like that, ditto the lawns.

No the place had been well maintained considering that it was a Financial millstone not bringing in any revenue and costing loads just to keep it saleable, the sellers would probably have been better off today had they abandoned it 20 years ago.

I had a forest where only 20 years ago there was a paved back yard, places that were ornamental and market gardens go wild 100 times faster as witnesssed by the lost gardens of Heligan.

They are not renovating per se, just an amenagment d'intérieur of pièces that havn't been lived in for a very long time, if you look carefully at the final program I bet you can see off camera where the grounds have become overgrown, just recall when the father in law (who looks younger and fitter) cut a swathe through the grass to access the orangerie, it was like a bowling green in the first episode. 

[EuroTrash]

Absolutely, ALBF - but an abandonned chateau that nobody is ever going to invest in, will eventually disintegrate to the point where it is nothing more than a heap of stones that is of no interest to anyone any more. And once it's gone beyond a certain stage of dilapidation, its fate is sealed. So we can visit it, and maybe our kids and grandkids and even great grandkids will be able to visit it, but eventually it will become history, as they say.

[alittlebitfrench]

But only if you allow it to which is why I keep banging on about the point that they only need to 'maintain it' and make sure it stays around for another generation.

All that money spent turning it it an 'another' hotel/B&B/touristy type thing is money down the drain and at the same time destroying any soul left in the building. If you want a chateaux hotel type thing they are ten a penny for sale on websites across France and much cheaper than a project like this.

I would just renovate one of the barns on the grounds into a house that has a view over the chateaux and potter about with the chateaux as a hobby. That is living the dream.

[EuroTrash]

I thought you were talking about abandoned chateaux. If they're abandonned then who is going to maintain them. And who is going to buy one and pour money into it, just to maintain it for future generations. Apart from you ;-)

[Chancer]

I spoke about the abandonment being ficticious for the TV soundbites, nowhere is that more obvious than the superb condition of the roof in all its grandeur and complexity, loads of money have been spent on that and the zinc guttering over the last few décades.

Once the roof and guttering degrades the rest of the building quickly degrades beyond the point of no (economic) return.

[PaulT]

Preservation is a fine thing but within limits. Just think if our ancient forefathers had decided 'we must preserve our mud huts' who now would want to live in a mud hut. Similarly it is surely impractical to preserve all these large buildings that once would have been owned by rich owners with servants of all differing kinds that they paid a pittance.

Energy efficiency 0 and hence a fortune to heat especially the drafty single glazed windows nicely chilling the place.

I like steam locomotives and it is nice to see those that have been preserved that are only a small fraction of the ones in use when steam ended. Would we really have wanted all steam locomotives to have been preserved and still providing the motive power on our railways? If not then surely the same applies to chateaux etc. In the UK the various national trusts are gifted large buildings because the owners cannot afford to maintain them thus becoming museums.