A new solution to cement render damp problems.......

[Feltwell]

Seems a tad extreme, but I'm presuming in this case the house was built with cement-based render which they wish to preserve

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-42242372/giant-box-to-save-rotting-mackintosh-house

 

[JBean]

The BBC article says it was built in 1902 in Portland cement - not clear if it's just a render or rather more structural.

I like the temporary glass cage, which is rather beautiful in its own right, and will apparently have walkways to allow new views of the building. But at £4m, it's not something many owners of listed buildings could afford, while they plan more permanent solutions!

 

[fernicarry]

My wife works there so she is now as well-versed in the dangers of impervious materials as I!

I can't imagine what sort of permanent solution they are looking for that doesn't involve hacking it all off and redoing it with something breathable...

 

[noj]

"Built from local sandstone and rough-cast rendered, the house bears the image of Scottish baronial traditions."
Jackie Cooper, ed. Mackintosh Architecture, the Complete Buildings and Selected Projects. New York: Rizzoli Press, 1980, p. 40.

Needs lime...

 

[Flyfisher]

I think this story raises an interesting issue about the inherent design problems with most of our buildings, ie being severely compromised by not being inherently weatherproof.

Much (most/all?) of the work I've had to do on our house has been related to failings in the roof and walls because of basic weathering. OK, slipped tiles and lack of waterproof sarking was mostly the root cause but when the roof had failed it resulted in rainwater seeping into the fabric of the building, especially the tops of walls and then percolating down - a situation further exacerbated by cement render etc, etc.

How much more resilient our houses would be if they had 'Swiss Chalet' style roofs to provide an effective, 'wide-brimmed' roof that would not only provide a waterproof roof but also protect the actual walls from rainwater and also reduce/eliminate problems of damp ground around the base of walls as well.

Yes, the integrity of the roof would still be of vital importance but this should not be a demanding problem with modern materials and the consequences of gutter failure would be minimal or non-existent. Indeed, perhaps guttering would not even be necessary at all if the run off from the roof falls 6, 10, or more feet from the walls.

This is pretty much exactly what they have done to protect this Macintosh building. They've effectively fixed the inherent design flaws in the original building.

Of course, such a radical design change would be completely unacceptable to our wide range of architectural styles, but it does suggest that our wonderful architectural heritage is the result of prioritising form over function, leaving us with a stock of lovely looking but difficult to maintain period properties.

 

[bobby spray]

As a Scot I find Macintosh design to be stark and unattractive (totally subjective of course). The construction of this building is typical of those that are still produced in Scotland today. ‘waterproof’ cement render, often coated with pebbles to give an unappealing roughcast appearance. Typically the render cracks over the years and traps the water which, more often than not, gets inside the house. IMHO this construction technique should be banned.

 

[MikeG]

I think this story raises an interesting issue about the inherent design problems with most of our buildings, ie being severely compromised by not being inherently weatherproof.........

I think the more interesting problem it raises is the notion of preserving listed buildings in an original condition which had major inherent problems.

We all know that the best solution for the building would be to haul the concrete off and re-render in lime, with some concession to the pebble-dash aesthetic (Pebble dashing was quite a high status treatment at some time in the past.......it's a trap to see it through modern eyes). However, what's best for the building is at odds with the historicity of the fabric. They'll no doubt consider re-rendering in cement, but with expansion joints hidden behind downpipes etc. I'll be intrigued to see what the compromise is here ultimately......despite it being a building and an interior that does nothing for me at all.

 

[Flyfisher]

I think the more interesting problem it raises is the notion of preserving listed buildings in an original condition which had major inherent problems.

If the original building is inherently compromised then perhaps the only way to preserve it in its original condition is to do what they've done. It makes it something of a 'museum piece' but what other purpose is there in preserving an inherently compromised building? If it's not really fit for purpose it can at least be used to help inform future architects how to avoid similar mistakes.

 

[MikeG]

Well this is only a temporary solution to dry the place out whilst they come up with a plan. If it were to become a permanent solution, I wanna enter the competition to design that shelter!! :lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

I confess to a slight smile when I read that the proposed structure will only be temporary, especially as they've gone to all that trouble to include walkways :wink:

If they really want a temporary solution why not just erect a simple steel sheet roof over the whole thing with sufficient overlap to the house footprint that wind-blown rain wouldn't reach the house walls? No need for walls, glass (why do architects so love large sheets of glass? :lol: ) or otherwise, at all. Total weather protection with maximum ventilation at minimum cost - a bit like those huge 'DIY sheds' thrown up on industrial estates all over the country but without the sides. Any agricultural buildings company should be able to do the job within a couple of months - just an open barn really :lol:

I'll waive my usual consultancy fee. You're welcome. :wink:

 

[noj]

My guess is that it'll be just as temporary as the Eiffel Tower and the London Eye...

 

[wobs]

My guess is that it'll be just as temporary as the Eiffel Tower and the London Eye...

And if its of architectural merit, it may one day need protecting with a new structure.......

 

[Anonymous]

This does make me laugh and I think it does bear out the inherent contradiction. So you want to preserve a building by covering it up ? Well why don't we all just cover our listed buildings with giant plastic sheets then ? How is it possible to get permission to build this monstrous structure over and around a building ("to preserver it") desecrating the landscape and yet I can't get permission for 3 roof lights in a 1960's extension ? :roll:

I know its horses for different courses... but I think if you're going to these extreme lengths to preserve something then it really shouldn't be preserved and is just frankly ridiculous.

I think the best solution to preserve this building would be to arrange for a crane to fall on it demolishing it and then rebuild it properly.

I mean what is the point of preserving these things? What are we preserving it for? So we can look at it and say "oooh there's a great example of what not to do with a building" utter pompous twaddle.
Pull it down.

Great post though...

 

[Flyfisher]

How is it possible to get permission to build this monstrous structure over and around a building ("to preserver it") desecrating the landscape and yet I can't get permission for 3 roof lights in a 1960's extension ? :roll:

Perhaps try saying that the rooflights are only temporary? :wink:

 

[MatthewC]

My guess is that it'll be just as temporary as the Eiffel Tower and the London Eye...

Yes, a year after erection I bet they will be applying for permission to keep it permanently. Would that then make the new structure also listed, being a permanent part of a listed building?

 

[Flyfisher]

Surely they needed Listed Building Consent even for such an overwhelming structure as it has clearly had a huge impact to the character and setting of the listed building it envelopes? If so, then the structure will already be part of the listing.

Unless the rules are different in Scotland?