*
I’ve got a 99 yo home with Plaster Walls and Ceilings. The plaster is over lath and there is cellulose insulation behind the lath. I want to replace the plaster with drywall, but I don’t want to remove the lath since it is holding the blown in insulation in place. I have a simple question:
What is the easiest way to remove the existing plaster and leave the lath intact assuming that I have 2-3 sets of hands, limited tools, access to a tool rental shop, but limited finances (I’d rather use a little elbow grease than a ton of money)?
Thanks,
Scot
Replies
*
What is so wrong with your plaster that you want to remove all of it?
Will it be worth it to demolish the original fabric of your historic home, and therefore degrade its value?
Brian Ewing
CraftsmenSquare
*
After a few wacks with the hammer the plaster falls right off of the lath. Then with a straight edge shovel, or scraper or wonderbar slide down the lath and the plaster pops off. Re-hammer all the lath nails in before fastening drywall. Use "Abuse Resistant" drywall, it is much harder and stiffer than drywall for an upcharge of 20 cents per square foot. Why are you doing this anyway?
-Rob
*
I've worked on lotsa historic homes, including my own.
If you are removing the entire ceiling, I score an area about 1' square with either a razor knife or carbide cutter. I have also used a light weight circular saw, or a cordless variety, with the blade set less than 1/2". Then either wack with a light hammer or pry it off with a wonder bar, and it will pop right off, into your trash can which you have strategically placed under the score. The scoring gets the stuff off in nice size chunks which will fit in a trash can, and not hundreds of small odd sized pieces that crumble and end up on your floor.
Remember to put some painters canvas or drop cloths on the floor and perhaps over the door casings to minimize dust.
I then apply 1/2" drywall joist to joist.
I love plaster, as I think it is harder and a better insulator, but it is a real pain to work with, in mounting electrical boxes and hanging paintings. Drywall was one of the best inventions of the 20th century.
Good Luck, Rob.
*
I presume you're talking about wood lath. Wire or rock lath won't separate from the plaster in that manner. If it's wood lath (which wasn't made to very strict dimensions, since it would be mudded over), how will the drywall be given a dimensionally consistent backing if the drywall is installed over the lath? It's tough enough doing this over old studs after the lath is removed.
Barry
*
You guys are sending me into fits of shear terror!
Why are you encouraging people to rip out their plaster when it is well known that it is such an extremely better material?
Not to even mention the ethics of historic restoration and the standards that should be followed when repairing historic buildings.
This house is 100 years old.....It should have its dignity restored not stripped.
Most people would think that it's an honor to own a historic home. How much more pride would there be in it if it were gutted and retrofitted with inferior materials?
Brian
*
I agree with Brian. Keep the plaster! If it is all shitty looking you can restore it to museum quality with your limited budget and elbow grease one section at a time if necessary. I am no master plasterer but I do know that this can be done and should be. If you open the can of worms you are proposing with the drywall you will regret it. I am not going to say how I would do the repair as it would probably be all wrong and I don't know the situation anyway. Good Luck-
*GO BRIANAnytime you have a chance to save your plaster do it.
*
If you have thick, square-edged casings and baseboards you can install 1/4" drywall directly over the old plaster. Make sure you hit the studs with the drywall screws. The ceilings should get 1/2" drywall.
*
So how do those of you who propose that Scot determine if the existing plaster is slavageable?
I live in the land of 3 decker/family horse hair plaster over wood lath homes. Many of my great uncles made a living mixing and spreading plaster. I'd like to get their take on the discussion but they're long gone.
I've rarely had good luck repairing the old stuff. The fiberglass mesh and skim coat method proved too costly and sucess was limited.
One alternative that splits the difference between plaster and drywall is veneer plaster. Super hard surface and any sloppy plasterer or beginner can get the soft undulations of a 2 or 3 coat plaster job.
Is veneer plaster acceptable to pureists?
*
Scott,
My first recomendation is to repair the plaster if possible. See Mario Rodriguez' article in FHB #103 for some ideas.
If you are determined to put up drywall I would recommend strapping the ceiling with 1x3 (perpendicular to the joists and fastened to them). This will make it easier to fasten the board, and you won't have to worry about annoying bulges and blow-outs from small pieces of plaster getting trapped between the board and the lath.
*
Let's not lose our minds. The house is 99 years old. This is not 300 y.o. We don't even know if the plasterers were even good. Would you want someone 70 years from now saving Drywall from the mid 70's because it is old. It may have been a mess when it was put up. It maybe that this plaster is a mess and really needs replacing. If we are not talking major historical significance, why not go for drywall. I want to know why he wants to save the insulation? it is cheap enough and other than the mess of removing the old, new is a chance to know that you have done it right. If you want the mass of plaster, go at least 5/8" drywall or double the 1/2".
Replacing plaster with drywall is one of the least intrusive ways to screw up an old house. Besides, I have seen many a plaster finished with drywall veneer to hide mistakes or damage, not to mention drywall repairs butting up to plaster walls.
*I will tell you that it was not an easy decision to remove the plaster from our house. It is not historically significant, but it is 130 years old. In my case, the two closets were done by someone that never batched the plaster right in the first place It looked like sand held up with wallpaper. Then by the time you cut in electrical outlets, light switches, light fixtures, phone jacks, and new windows you are left with about 50 square feet of untouched plaster. This doesn't even consider the plaster that needed repair in the first place. Quite literally in an extra fifteen minutes you now have it all removed and you can now stiffen or re-frame walls, insulate, add a vapor barrier, or add a foil faced ISO board over the lath or planks before the drywall. After the first room I was told that a mud and plaster finish coat would cost $12-$18 psf! Since this would have doubled a budget that included new framing, insulation, plumbing, and electrical I decided the mud coat method was no longer for me. The next two rooms had regular drywall, 5/8 with fg in the walls for sound. This is O.K. but dents easy. So now for room number three I looked into other systems and found veneer coat will cost me $2-$4 psf. This is not bad, I could live with that. Then I found this abuse resistant drywall called fiberock by USG. You can't even dent it with a closed-fisted punch! Finish the seams with gold-bond and as far as I am concerned this is just as good as plaster, only now the whole house has been upgraded for longevity, and a good replacment for plaster is being used.I am all for historical preservation but $18 psf for an interior finish is difficult to justify when you can improve all other building systems for $5-$7 psf.-Rob
*
Thanks for all the responses! I didn't realize that this would start up a small crisis :), but let me explain why I'm doing it.
1) The house is not historically significant. It is a small house with an identical house on each side of it.
2) This is not going to be our long-term home and it is in a "transitional" neighborhood, so the buyers will probably just be looking for a house, not a masterpiece.
3) The plaster is cracking and falling apart in a lot of places.
4) The last owner (I wish I could ring his neck for some of his brilliant ideas) painted the walls and ceilings of the 2nd floor with a textured paint. I want to remove this finish so that I can wallpaper, etc. I know there are other ways to remove the finish, but since there is so much cracking, etc., from the house settling, I just WANT to start over.
5) I want to redo a lot of electrical wiring and it is ten times easier if I remove the plaster.
6) I don't intend to do the whole house, just the 2nd floor.
Again, I appreciate the help and the concern.
Scot
*
Rob is right and that was my point. I've seen plaster that was held up by wall paper. We ended up drywalling over it for the cheapest solution.(people wanted to sell house asap). two little problems with tearing out plaster are the DUST and weight. I tore out an 8 by 12 kitchen and if memory is correct hauled 4000 #'s to the dump. Whether that is exact or not, it was really heavy stuff. As for the dust, the lady claimed J. D. stood for Just Dust. I even tried to contain it.
One plus to tear out, we found water pipes uninsulated laying on the exterior block wall behind the meager insulation. We fixed that and that winter was a real cold one. Murphy's Law would probably had me dismantling the kitchen (tile counters and backsplash) and fixing it right that winter. Anyway I did sleep better and no call backs in six years.
*
Thanks for all who have brought to light many of the strenths and weaknesses of plaster versus drywall.
It is my opinion that old plaster if undamaged should be left in place. If it aint broke, don't fix it. If on the other hand, the plaster has separated from its keys (the wooden lathe), it should be replaced. While the wall is open, the homeowner should consider adding electrical circuits, phone lines, RJ-45 cable, and insulation and vapor barriers in exterior walls. The next question is what to replace it with.
I for one, feel that 1/2" drywall is a superior product. While it does not have as good insulation quality, when combined with fiberglass bats and a vapor barrier, it is superior. Both electical subs and the homeowner will do less damage to it in the future, because it is easier to nail into, patch, wallpaper, and to paint. It is also about 1/2 the price.
It does not sound like this particular home has any hisoric value (it is not on the historic registry or in an historical preservation overlay zone), and no one will be able to tell the difference.
As a contractor this is what I would recommend to a homeowner. If he or she really likes the look of plaster, I then would recommend a veneer coat. As a last resort, I would recommend a full plaster job, but with the caveat that it is bear to take care of.
Ultimately it is the homeowner's decision, and there are pros and cons of plaster. There is no
one correct answer for all buildings, homeowners, and neighborhoods.
*Let me submit this:A 100 or 130 years old house IS a historic house. I may not be historic in the sociology view point (as in who lived there, who built it, etc.) however, it is historical in many other areas. It is historical in the craftsmenshipship and design, it's historic in the patinas or textures involved in it's manufacture and it's historical just because it is still standing.You guys might think I'm a purest in my thoughts on historic restoration...well let me say this.Yes. I am to a certain extent. However I have my reasons to be this way. Valid reasons I believe.How many old, and sometimes highly ornate, homes and buildings have each of you been in or worked on? I can't count the times that I have looked at an old historic home to find that perfectly good, or even slightly damaged, original fabric has been completely removed or repaired in/with substandard methods or materials. Scagliola dodoes that have been painted over, columns that have been removed and replaced with fiberglass that is the farthest thing from the original (in design), even frescoes and stenciling that have been painted over....all to save a buck. If these people can't afford to fix their historic property correctly, then what are they living in it for?Too many people will look at a material in a historic building that has been damaged, and believe that because it is old that there is only one way to fix it.....tear it down! If for no other reason then because they read it in a magazine. As if, because they did read it in a magazine, that the article they read is somehow authoritative.All the major magazines are now espousing this theory. That it is ok, historically, to replace original fabric with something newer, even if it's substandard or inappropriate.Old House Journal has become one of them. They were the pre-eminent magazine for the retoration expert. Their articles were insightfull and respected. They have sold out, however. They are now intended as a form of entertainment rather then information.This Old House magazine was the forerunner of this movement.If you really know how to do a certain trade I invite you to buy on of these magazines and read it yourself. You'll see what I mean. In the interest of making a buck and pleasing advertisers and stock holders they have substituted content for ad space.And the loser in this is information, because there is no way you can pick up one of these magazines and do-it-yourself. Because they have left out some of the most important details for a successful project.....in the interest of "saving space".For these reasons myself, John Leeke and others are starting a brand new magazine for those that are interested in the correct methods and techniques in retoration. One that will fill the void left by the sell out of Old House Journal. One that will be respected for its attention to detail.... one that can actually be used...one that will be read in someone's library, not their bathroom.I also submit to you that just because your historic plaster is damaged, or even falling loose from its lath, does not mean that it is time to tear it out. It means it is time to do a little homework to see just how it can be fixed correctly.This is not to say that there is never a time to remove your plaster. It means that until all avenues have been explored to restore it it should be left alone. If it is then determined, through your research, that it cannot be saved then remove the portions that cannot be saved and restore the rest. The house, and its historic value, deserves it.If the plaster is loose from its lath, use plaster washers. If there are cracks in the plaster; find its cause, mitigate it and then repair the cracks in a manner that best suits the situation. Remembering that after you do fix the crack, or any other problem with your house, that the problem may return and you'll need to repair it in a way that cen be easily return to its original state or easily fixed agin.....fiberglass over your cracks are a case in point, when/if the cracks return you then have to mess with the fiberglass to restore the crack.To my knowledge, replacing plaster with drywall has never been an idea that those knowledgable in restoration would do or attempt to do. It serves no purpose but to save a buck now and ruin the value and integrity of the historic property in the future.Brian EwingCraftsmen Square
*
I have noticed This Old House shift from a technical perspective to a nearly useless narrative focus. All the contributors write about bungling contractors, crazy previous owners, the down to earth feeling from gardeneing and cooking. The sad fact is that these contributors are the same people that buy the $650,000 house to spend $450,000 to renovate it. Then they televise it and write about it to pay for it and then we buy it. I find it stunning that a "real estate developer" can't spot water or termite damage in a house he will spend a million on so that they can entertain their other "social cover couple" friends.
Unfortunately TOH changed format right after I renewed for three years.
-Rob
*
Mike! I also have had very little luck trying to repair plaster over wood lath walls and ceilings. Often I have found that the surface will be "spongey" because the lathe has lossend form the framing or the plaster has loosend from the lath. This will also be caused and/or made worse durring the renovation process. I now have a house with poured concrete with plaster exterior walls and plaster on wood interior walls and ceilings. All surfaces now have a fan texture. I'm going to be opening new and closing up old openings in walls and ceilings. I will be removing most of the trim to strip it. I don't want to laminate 1/4" sheetrock everywhere. I'm looking for a surfacing solution. Is there a fabric like material that can be adhered to the existing surfaces and then skim coated with a plaster like material?
Thanks, Bill.
*I live in a twin built in 1898. Horsehair plaster, lath and dust. Priced restoration vs. sheetrock. Went with stripping off the plaster and lath. Placed strips of Cellutex insulating sheet foam over the rough cut studs to even out the dimensions and give me more fluff room for R-19 insulation + vapor barrier. Ran wiring conduit for computers and cable, phone wire, 8 more circuits, etc... The cellutex limits sound transmission and makes the interior quiet. The only major difficulty are the fire breaks between the studs to stop a "chimney effect" in case of fire. The rental of a right angle drill took care of that. I even put concrete back where the old, dried stuff was to protect the wooden fire break.I just didn't have 900K, a certified, historic restoration team that repaints faded details with brushes consisting of 2 hairs using paints that were formulated with a gas spectrometer utilizing rare earth minerals, etc.. I'm poor, in good health, and I don't mind sweat. I read this magazine at the library and copy out any articles that I want to peruse later, perhaps. It has saved my butt many times. So, don't feel guilty about modifying your environment. The original builders didn't. If you had historic architectural details, I would feel differently, but apparently you don't, so go for it.
*The method we have used in similar cirumstances is to apply the new sheetrock over the exisitng cracked plaster. This will eliminate the need for removal and is alot less mess. The caveat to this is the actual mechanical bond of the lath and plaster to the joists and or studs. Big gaps can cause problems later on. Screw all sheetrock to the framing members and not the lath. Good luck.
*Hey, can't say anything bad about plaster except when I want to hang pictures or work that crack that has developed over the years. But another thought beyond aesthetics is--ARGH!!! Asbestos. I work for a company doing restoration work for insurance co. and we have repeatedly had to cover damaged plaster walls with drywall so to encapsulate the asbestos strands in the mix. Might want to rethink the banging with a hammer or cutting with a saw. On the other side of the coin, many health officials feel that asbestos is dangerous most to those that had and have worked with it for years on a daily basis without protection. I like plaster and the "old" feeling it gives a home. Good luck.
*
Brewskie,
Have another and get with the program. We wish not to destroy old, nor do we wish to save crap because it is old. I have redone crumbling plaster from neglect and age, it sucks.
Cost wise it make sense to be economical adn do the drywall thing, saving that cost for more advanced restoration items.
I am not a hack, but I work mostly in newer housing and when blessed with the work love older housing. Your night mare in 25 years is ranch base being of historical value because it is old. I really went after this topic in detail last night, but, my post did not make the listing.
Working from your own Dime is one thing, working on someone else's dime is something else. It really makes you a pragmatist.
I love the idea of making a living at historic restoration, but, a majority of those I can help fall below this area.
*
J.D.
I didn't mean to say that you, or anyone in particular, was a hack. I appologise if that came through in my post. I was saying that, on the average, it is true for me, and speaking in general, that people don't understand historic restoration.
As for plaster removal and replacing with drywall. I would argue with you.
There are costs involved in the removal of plaster beyond just taking it off the wall.
You have not only the labor costs but also the hauling and dumping fees. This would also, sometimes depending on where you live, require demolition permits or bonds or whatever from the city/government.
Then you have the costs of furring the studs by a carpenter.
The costs go even higher, in most cases, of removing and re-installing the window casings, door frames and other areas that may need to be adjusted for the drywall installation.
Once all the added costs are taken into concideration then you'll see that restoration of original historic fabric, such as plaster, is cost effective. Though this is not saying that it is always cheaper.....however it is cheaper in most instances, depending on how the plaster is restored. Like repairing cracks or re-inforcing it or re-consolidating, rather then total removal.
This has nothing to do with whether I'm trying to spend someone elses dime or not......if anything I'm looking for ways to do things that will save the home owner a few bucks. That's why I've come up with these ways to restore historic plaster......to save a buck and do it right in the mean time.
I regards to being a pragmatist. yep I am .
Here is the definition of pragmatic as read in the Oxford American Dictionary:
pragmatic adj. treating things from a practical point of view, a pragmatic approach to the problem.
So, I guess I should say thank you for the compliment.
Brian Ewing
Craftsmen Square
*
I've got a 99 yo home with Plaster Walls and Ceilings. The plaster is over lath and there is cellulose insulation behind the lath. I want to replace the plaster with drywall, but I don't want to remove the lath since it is holding the blown in insulation in place. I have a simple question:
What is the easiest way to remove the existing plaster and leave the lath intact assuming that I have 2-3 sets of hands, limited tools, access to a tool rental shop, but limited finances (I'd rather use a little elbow grease than a ton of money)?
Thanks,
Scot