I work primarily on historic homes, and try to be mindful that any non-historic alterations should be reversible. Also, I try to remove/destroy as little original fabric as possible.
Do you share these goals, and if so, are there general techniques you use to achieve reversibility without sacrificing strength or quality? Nails versus screws? Avoiding glue? Using a minimum number of fasteners?
I undo a lot of previous remuddling work, and though crappy and ugly, much of it seems to be built “for the ages.” Does luan plywood really need 100 staples per square foot (into a chestnut floor)?
Allen
Replies
Hi Allen,
I don't work on historic homes yet, but only because I'm on my second and haven't found a good classic to start working on yet.
I'm used to doing significant renovations in a variety of areas -- flooring, electrical, plumbing, etc...
I DON'T worry about someone un- or re-doing my work as I focus on getting it right the first time. My goal is to make my work as good or better than a mid-grade contractor. And if I can't, I'll hire it out. I'm certainly not as good or efficient as the top of the line guys, but a lot of my work has received compliments from folks who have seen the range of 'work' out there.
So what's "right"? I shoot for designs / updates that should last a few decades and don't scream trendy. Historical accuracy is considered "right" now, and there is a growing trend of making the house blend with it's past and updates. To me, doing it right means paying appropriate respect the quality of the existing materials and choosing materials that complement or improve.
If I did have to cover over century-old, gorgeous chestnut floor then I would do it in as minimally damaging way as possible. Perhaps some 30# felt, t&g ply for a floating floor and then the new surface.
Glen
"I focus on getting it right the first time"
Glen, yes, I do too. And when doing a structural repair, my intent is to make it last as long as the house. Same when re-creating previously lost or detroyed architectural components. Or any true "restoration" work.
My dilema arises when I am making non-historically accurate changes. A simple recent example was the replacement of a basswood floor that had been destroyed by powder post beetles.
The homeowner's budget allowed only for installation of additional joists and plywood, to be carpeted. There are no "subfloors" in the house, so if in the future, a basswood floor is reinstalled, the plywood would have to be removed (to keep the floor height correct in relation to neighboring rooms, woodwork etc.).
So, for attaching the plywood to the joists, I considered using screws only. But, fearful of squeaks, I decided to use adhesive as well.
"If I did have to cover over century-old, gorgeous chestnut floor then I would do it in as minimally damaging way as possible."
Actually I was referring to some someone else's remuddling that I recently undid. Spending two days on my knees pulling staples (and half of them broke off and had to be countersunk into the chestnut) made me wish the installer had considered the concept of "reversibility." Wish they had done as you suggested regarding the floating floor!
Allen
Edited 7/9/2007 5:52 pm ET by WNYguy
Hey Allen,I feel your pain on that one. When I ripped the carpets out of the current place, there were tons of staples and gouges in the floor. Beautiful, tight-grained oak no less. <sigh> Like you, I had more than a few choice words for the carpet installers. I'm looking forward to when I can get them sanded down and re-finished. However, I think I'm going to wait until the kids are past the toddler stage.I think you did the right thing with the plywood in your example. Yes, it will be annoying to rip it out later, but that's a big IF in my opinion. Between now and then, the HO will be grateful that the new flooring doesn't squeak. My impression is that the majority of home-buyers aren't willing / capable / in favor of doing a significant renovation. So there are a lot of projects that could be done, and were set up to be done (aka reversibility) and will never end up getting done.Glen
"My impression is that the majority of home-buyers aren't willing / capable / in favor of doing a significant renovation"
Glen, I'm afraid that's true.
I work hard every day, however, to enlighten homeowners to how the beauty of our shared architectural history enriches our daily lives. And uplifts the soul. And memorializes the toils and artistry of our ancestors, and humanity in general.
Allen
I've seen some of your photos. You do nice work, on nice old houses.
Kate, I always appreciate your input. BTW, have you posted photos of your 300-year-old house?
Allen
I don't have photo capability at present...but I'm keeping it in mind for the future.
Also, I do most of my posting from work, so it might be awkward...
"I do most of my posting from work"
Ahhh, been there ... done that! Looking forward to seeing some photos eventually. How much of the house (structure and details) date from the early 18th century? (Or earlier?)
Allen
My poor old house was jacked up around 1895 & rolled down the hill about 2 blocks, & put on a high Victorian basement, & gutted & made into a duplex.
What's left is the frame, the subfloor (made from beautiful feather-edged boards, batten doors, scrap lumber...), and a little split chestnut lath.
It was replastered on sawn lath with the very coarse, 2-coat plaster meant to be wallpapered. It was also given ornate neo-colonial door & window trim that acted as a very fine rainwater funnel. Replacing the front doors meant replacing the sill, the bottoms of the studs, the sheathing, & the claps - just your typical old house!
It also got inappropriate Victorian interior trim grafted onto the plain, beautiful woodwork - the silk-purse-out-of-a-sow's-ear treatment.
I'm recovering the old sow...
Do you do anything to the staple holes when going back to a chestnut floor as with what you mentioned?
-Thoreau's Walden
"Do you do anything to the staple holes when going back to a chestnut floor as with what you mentioned?"
Rez, the two little holes from each staple pretty much disappeared when the floor was sanded and finished. Overall, the floor retains a fairly rustic look, so those small imperfections were deemed OK.
Allen
I did some reconstructive work on old homes in NY State, about forty years ago. At that time there weren't nearly as many people interested in preserving history nor as many historical societies available to consult.
I remember being called in to repair a big Victorian farmhouse which had been unoccupied for ten years or more. The most glaring problem was a bad leak in the metal roof which had occured directly over the grand foyer. Water had damaged about half of the high ceiling including a large plaster cornice which beautifully defined the formal space.
The homeowner had called upon every local resource, trying to find someone, anywhere, who could duplicate the cornice so that it could be saved. They had made further inquiries in NY City where they also given little hope of finding the original plaster casts.
As their aims for the house were more practical than historical, I suggested that we remove the old cornice and save what was left until some future date when it might be possible to duplicate it more economically.
That's one option to consider, for people who are pressed by practical constraints. Remove old pieces of historical significance, make drawings to indicate their original location, catalog and save them with care.
Then you can remodel to their heart's content, knowing that the original edifice can be recreated with relative ease, at a future time when it suits the owner.
Edited 7/9/2007 1:26 pm ET by Hudson Valley Carpenter
"Remove old pieces of historical significance, make drawings to indicate their original location, catalog and save them with care. "
That's an excellent thought. For my own house, I've had to recreate quite a bit of woodwork, but I keep and label every "document" piece that I copy. I also sign and date all new work (usually on the backside).
I haven't been quite as thorough when working for clients, unless they specifically ask. In the future, though, I'm going to add those considerations to the "product" I'm offering historic house owners.
Allen
Using nails when screws are better......using screws when nails are better.... avoiding glue when it would make a better joint....... minimum number of fasteners.....
Sound like a list of things to do in order to prevent a house from becoming "historic".
As for me, when I change something in a house, I try to make my changes so that they will last longer than the rest of the house. (Unless the HO specifically requests "temporary" work.)
Politics is the antithesis of problem solving.
Sound like a list of things to do in order to prevent a house from becoming "historic".
When doing structural repairs, or true "restoration," my goal is to make my work more longlasting than the original.
But there are times when I am asked to make changes that a later, true restoration would require to be undone. So, I am constantly considering how a future restorer would deconstruct any of my "unhistorical" work, without damaging original fabric.
Allen
I wrestle with that question all the time. I'm not a pro but I own a 200 year old home. (We've corresponded here before and you helped me with advice on my rotted sills and skirt boards.)
I am not always as aware as I ought to be about reversibility but I think I'm a darn sight better than my predecessor. Case in point - he removed and threw away all the old window sash and replaced them with vinyl replacement windows. The installers hacked up the plank frames mercilessly too. I had reproduction sash made (though it pained me mightily in the wallet) and I spent about 500 hours repairing the frames with epoxy and making 5 new plank frames. But I used western red cedar for the frames (not exactly original materials) and compromised on storm windows by having interior storms made because I hate struggling with a large window on a high ladder. The result is a visible modification of the interior jambs. The guy who made my windows did a beautiful job and makes some very nice interior storms with a narrow frame around the glass so the visual impact is minimized. I fashioned additions to the jambs to hold the storm sash. I guess the storm jambs are reversible, come to think of it. They are screwed in place and could be taken out but would leave more holes in their wake.
Other areas where I've probably messed up the reversibility equation involve spray foam insulation (Icynene in a ceiling and plenty of cans of polyurethane foam around the house - not sure how reversible that stuff is), polyurethane glue, holes for electrical outlets, etc. This week I'm replacing a section of wainscot board with some salvaged wood I bought. There was only 1 section of original wainscot in the room. It is a single board about 21" wide running horizontally below a plain chair rail. I managed to find some 16' lengths of antique white pine 22" wide at a salvage warehouse and I've been installing that to replace the #2 pine 1x12s that were drywall screwed in place and heavily Minwaxed. In most places I was able to relocate electrical outlets down into the baseboard so that I don't have to hack holes in those impressive boards. But there are a couple of outlets I couldn't move without a lot of rewiring so I gritted my teeth and cut the holes. It felt like sacrilege but I know the limits of my patience.
I also moved an interior partition upstairs to make a larger master bath which may be reversible in theory but not so much in practice. I demo'ed the plaster but saved the split laths and moved the whole wall without taking it apart. It was quite a scene, I'm sure, because I did it alone. I managed to use the old holes in the floors and walls for plumbing and didn't have to cut new ones. I couldn't find a plasterer who wanted to plaster over the wood lath so we installed blueboard over it and plastered that.
In general I sweat over the modernizations a lot less than I used to. Having seen what the previous owner did to this house and knowing that I'm putting at least some of it back closer to original condition I don't feel too bad about my lapses. I'm using Azek outside, modern appliances inside, etc. I love old houses and hand-planed wood surfaces but I want my comforts and conveniences these days and I don't want to wait another 20 years to get them. I rationalize - I tell myself that it's all part of the aging process for the house. It's clear that every generation has done their thing over the centuries and if I can do it at least a wee bit more conscientiously than the previous folks else I tell myself at least I'm not the worst thing that's ever happened to the house.
You wrote the reply for me, too, except that parts of my house are more than 300 years old, instead of a measly 200! (Nyah, nyah, nanyah, my house is older than your house...)
Seriously, sounds as though you are doing a good job. I always explain to people that it's a house, not a museum, & has to evolve as our expectations for our dwellings have evolved. I try to preserve as much of the flavor of an old house as possible while making it livable for the 21st century.
I do tend to use screws rather than nails - old plaster & glass do not like to be hammered on. My chestnut frame & floor are not nailable, but will accept respectful drilling & screwing.
I've changed the floor plan in places, but in the direction of more, rather than less, authenticity.
I've come to forgive myself a lot, because if I had not rescued this house, it would have been torched or torn down. It had been abandoned for about 10 years, & no other crazy old women with tools were on the horizon.
I document things as I go along, & plan to leave a copy of the document with the house. My stepson will inherit it, & he wants to do more restoration after I die. I don't know who he will leave it to, but I don't have to worry about that!
I bow in respect to anyone who takes the time and energy to save an old house.
be the before and after eave shot on the original cover of George Nash' 'Restoring Old HousesThe dead and for the most part unmerchantable wood behind my house, and the driftwood from the pond, have supplied the remainder of my fuel. I was obliged to hire a team and a man for the plowing, though I held the plow myself. My farm outgoes for the first season were, for implements, seed, work, etc., $14.72½. -Thoreau's Walden
Well, thanks!
Time, energy, & money - we got the house from the city, for $2000., plus all our time, energy, & money for the rest of our lives...
Not that I'm complaining...if I didn't have an old house, I'd have to get a hobby!
Wow! 300 years old is a rare thing. Congratulations, and may I also say, thank you for saving it!
Thanks. I regularly ask myself if I'm nuts, & the answer is always yes - but I have to confess that I (mostly) enjoy it. Living in a new, finished house would be so boring...
Bob, good to hear from you. I appreciate your thoughts, and really appreciate the work you've done to maintain the historical integrity of your home.
"I rationalize - I tell myself that it's all part of the aging process for the house"
I do a lot of that, myself. My original goal with my own house was to painstakingly take it back, as accurately as possible, to its first decade of existence. Every bit of visible material was to be exactly as it was in the 1830s. Kitchen included.
My feelings were that any alterations during the intervening years have created a false historical record of 1830s home building and home decoration.
The flip side of that argument is that all the alterations are a record of those 170 years of history, of technological advances, of lives lived within these same walls.
I still prefer the first sentiment, but have increasingly adopted the latter!
Allen
I admire any efforts to take a house back in time, particularly because I admire the methods and the workmanship that were used in construction in times past. Reproducing those methods and that level of craftsmanship preserves more than the fabric of the building - it preserves the attitude and ethic of the time. It's an act of cultural preservation in my eyes. Today's construction is often truly excellent too, thanks to science, technology and our fascination and identification with our dwellings. There's also a modern advantage in the size and scale of our economy that allows so many people to invest so much money into houses and so many talented craftspeople to participate. 100 years ago there may have been a handful of mansions around, built by highly skilled housewrights and many more very pedestrian buildings built by impecunious homeowners and itinerant joiners. The one I'm working on now was an ordinary farmhouse and not everything in it was built to last the ages. Probably most of the modifications and a lot of the original construction were done by folks who were just filling their families needs and had to get it done and get back to farming asap. I'm sure there were times in its history when the house wasn't yet old enough to impress anyone on that score, and certainly wasn't fancy enough, so it might have easily been demolished for one reason or another. But it survived. Along the way it suffered many indignities (and I'm sure it enjoyed a lot of TLC too). But because I admire the attitude and the skills that go into the old methods as well as the aesthetics of the old work I choose to try to reproduce the old features whenever I can afford it and make my modern additions the same way. Unfortunately, I'm not so skilled that everything turns our great and I have to recognize that someday another owner may very well rip out my painstakingly hand-planed boards and replace them with PVC or something. Oh well. At least I tried. And I pleased myself for a while. (And I hire a pro when I know I'm out of my depth and if I can afford it.) But I realize that I can't stop time and can't control anything much, really.I admire you and Kate and the others on this forum and anybody that tries to produce something so imbued with a sense of craftsmanship and design that people who come along later will enjoy it so much that they won't *want* to muck it up! That's the only REAL control. I try not to go overboard about the historical accuracy if the work has that sense AND respects the *spirit* of the original construction.
" ... many more very pedestrian buildings built by impecunious homeowners and itinerant joiners."
What I especially appreciate is the beauty of those very simple buildings, and the attention paid to aesthetic details ... things like the addition of a bead or moulding where a simple square board would suffice.
The raking light of the setting sun catching the slight scallops of a hand-planed door panel is also a beautiful thing. But in a different way than applied mouldings. Its inherent beauty lies in the evidence of hand labor and human craftsmanship. The very lack of perfection is key to its loveliness.
If you've ever measured the exposure of original 18th or 19th century clapboards, you'll note that they vary quite a lot. The overall look is very ordered, but that individual irregularity imparts a charm and richness that is lost when each board is exactly the same (think of vinyl siding).
Bob, I applaud your willingess to have your original sash recreated. My own house had 11 windows replaced before my purchase. I'm in the process of making my own sash ... have milled all the muntins and some of the stiles and rails, and have blanks ready to mill for the rest. And I've collected enough antique glass to complete the project. Just need the time, now.
Oh yeah, then there's all those missing shutters to recreate.
Allen
Nice. Making the sash seems like a great project. From 1830 are they 2 over 2? Do you have an example of the muntin profile to work from? What material will you use? The guy who made my windows used mahogany. Not exactly authentic for the period but more rot resistant than the pine that's available today. In a more practical answer to your original question I did use screws on my exterior trim board repairs where I would normally have used galvanized box nails. The reason is that I noticed the mudsills have been replaced with non-pressure treated softwood in many places and in other places are original chestnut. While I hope that my trim repairs, addition of a copper ledger cap over the top of the skirt boards, and improvements to the rain gutters will make it unnecessary, I would not be too surprised if someone is replacing pieces of the sills again someday. Also I admit that I felt a little self-conscious about using Azek trim boards. To be honest, I don't know if the screws will make removing that trim easier. They're stainless steel so they shouldn't rust badly but I've found SS to be rather soft and it's surprisingly easy to twist them off or strip out the heads (even though they are square drive) especially when driving into or out of very old hardwood.
"To be honest, I don't know if the screws will make removing that trim easier."
That part of my original question. There's no doubt that oftentimes it's easier to pry out a nailed piece of trim, compared to trying to remove a soft, brittle or painted-in screw.
But I almost always use deck screws when assembling things like interior partitions (for the hidden, structural part). It's much kinder than trying to pound nails with old plaster nearby. And the square-drive screws are easy to undo.
"The guy who made my windows used mahogany"
I tend to be a purist, but for painted components, I agree you should just choose the best wood available for the particular application.
For my new sash, I found some beautiful straight-grain, slow-growth heartwood pine amongst the 2 x 4s at Home Depot. I used the best of it for the lower sash, particularly the rail and two styles that set on the sill.
My windows are 6-over-6 and 9-over-6. Panes for the four sizes of windows are 9 x 13, 9 x 10, 8 x 10 and 6 x 9 inches. Nine original windows (17 sash) were intact when I bought my house, so there was no guesswork when recreating the muntin profile. I ground my own knives to use on a table saw moulding head.
A good friend of mine is also building sash for her 1830 house nearby. She was able to locate an old plane with exactly the profile she needed. She found the plane in Southern California, though it was originally from New York State (as is her house!).
Allen
Edited 7/10/2007 9:41 pm ET by WNYguy
> But I almost always use deck screws when assembling things like interior partitions (for the hidden, structural part). It's much kinder than trying to pound nails with old plaster nearby. And the square-drive screws are easy to undo.Yes, I do that too. I wasn't sure it was an accepted practice so I'm glad to know you do this.> tend to be a purist, but for painted components, I agree you should just choose the best wood available for the particular application.Then I'm sure you would hate my PVC trim boards. :^) I guess I used to consider myself a bit of a purist too but this house has moved me farther away from that. When I started this project I probably wouldn't have considered Azek trim but after undoing so much extensive remuddling maybe I've become desensitized. >For my new sash, I found some beautiful straight-grain, slow-growth heartwood pine amongst the 2 x 4s at Home Depot. What a surprising place for a good find like that! That's great. Your friend's find of the molding plane is pretty amazing too.What's the total number of sash that you are making? I briefly considered doing that myself but it took me so long to complete the plank frames that I realized I'd do nothing else for a long time if I undertook to make the sash. Have you estimated how long it will take you to complete them? Are you doing them all at once or bit by bit over a long period?
Bob, I'm making 18 sash (9 windows). Two windows are done: constructed, glazed with antique glass, painted and installed. They've been in place for about five years.
I thought I'd have the rest done by now, especially since I had finished most of the millwork years ago. But other projects have taken priority, in the meantime. They're just about next on my list now, though.
Still, it will likely be a few more years before I complete them all. I'll probably do two windows soon, then another two later on, and so on. Room by room.
It takes me a couple days to do all the joinery for each window, then another day of glass-cutting/cleaning and glazing. The meeting rails are dovetailed, and the top and bottom rails are straight tenons.
BTW, your PVC trim is fine by me, especially if it's not too visible and the dimensions are true to the original. And as long as it's reversible. :)
Allen
"I also moved an interior partition upstairs to make a larger master bath which may be reversible in theory but not so much in practice. I demo'ed the plaster but saved the split laths and moved the whole wall without taking it apart. "
That's wonderful. Reminds me of when I installed an upstairs bathroom in my house. I retained an original partition, in its original location and used it as the wall to the shower. A doorway had been cut through it in the 1870s, and that became the shower entry.
The wall was slightly tipped, and it would have conserved space and saved time to take it out and frame up a whole new wall. But I furred out for new drywall on one side, and cementboard on the other in order to save it (vertical plank with split lath and original lime plaster) .... even though it will probably never be seen again.
Allen
I have added new partition walls in Victorian homes that are now rentals. I leave the old baseboards and other moldings in place, rather than hacking them out of the way, then scribe the drywall to fit the profiles.
The new stuff could come back out with minimal damage to the original.
Thanks, basswood. That's the sort of technique I'm asking about.
Allen
Here is an entry where a dining room was enclosed to make a rental bedroom. All moldings in the way of the new framing and cheesy paneling were hacked out of the way.The house is now owner-occupied and being resored. I added back in the new wood in this photo (ridiculous really):
"I added back in the new wood in this photo (ridiculous really)"
Why do you say "ridiculous"? Looks like you've done a very nice job with it.
Allen
I just meant that the original stuff should never have been torn out...covered over maybe...never butchered.I thought you would like what I was attempting to do in the photo. I came as close as I could to the original profiles with stock moldings.
I see. And, yes, you did a great job with the stock mouldings. Very nice!
Allen
I think it goes deeper than building to last. In a world of diminishing resources it seems unethical to do things that are plannned for less than the life expectancy of the materials used. I think the real issue lies in the design and decision making process. In my opinion stapling Luan to a century old chestnut floor seems like a poor design decision and doesn't account for the intrinsic value of the material. I think their needs to be a greater consciousness of builders and the public in general that owning and maintaining a house or property is not only a right but a responsibility and with that people need to be aware of the environmental impacts of their decisions.
In my opinion stapling Luan to a century old chestnut floor seems like a poor design decision and doesn't account for the intrinsic value of the material.
In my opinion, we don't have enough information to make that statement. Although the flooring is 100 years old, and is made from a now-extinct wood, we don't know what its condition was prior to it being covered up.
How many times had it been sanded and refinished?
How thick was the remaining wood after any sanding/refinishing?
How thick would it have been if it had been sanded one more time?
Were the nailheads already visible? Would they have been uncovered if sanded?
Like many posters in this thread, I love historic buildings, and I am in awe of the ones that somehow survive intact after more than a hundred years. But if the floors get scratched enough, they need to be sanded and refinished -- its that simple.
And if they get sanded and refinished enough, they need to be replaced or just covered up.
Politics is the antithesis of problem solving.
Yeah you're right. I guess what I was getting at was folks making design decisions without analyzing what they have and what the impact of there actions will be over the long term.
Ted, I understood what you were saying, and that you meant it in general terms. But, in fact, in the specific case I mentioned, your assumptions were accurate.
That particular chestnut floor had never been "finished," let alone refinished, in its 170-year history. Early in its life, it most likely was simply left bare, or covered, wall-to-wall, with wool ingrain carpeting (popular in the 1830s through 1860s).
In the late 19th century, the perimeter was faux-painted in a whimsical wood-grain design, with an area rug covering the rest of the floor, which remained bare wood.
By the 1980s, the faux painting had worn quite a bit, and the floor boards had gapped and cupped somewhat. The luan was stapled down, tack strips were nailed around the perimeter, and a beige-and-brown wall-to-wall carpet was installed.
Allen