Can someone please explain how I've ruined my house?

[Tom]

Before anyone starts, I am NOT asking the following for any other reason than a desire to learn.

Following the accusation that I've ruined my house, my request (and those from others) for an explanation has not yet been answered. Can someone, anyone, please give an explanation, so that I and others can learn? I'm genuinely interested in the answer and would like to avoid any future mistakes, even though most of what I've done so far to my house has followed advice from this forum. The gist of the requests for an explanation went along these lines.....

Despite the inevitable differences of opinions among PPUKers I'm sure we're all basically here to learn.

Well, I certainly am and I'd be interested to learn just how I've ruined my house? Gareth has yet to explain that one. Joce had a go on his behalf but only mentioned the fact that I haven't lime plastered the walls where there was no previous evidence of them being done anyway..

I'd be very interested in an explanation of why it is "ruined" - so that we can learn and judge better for ourselves. To my uneducated eye it looks a far far better place than when it was covered in concrete and destined for demolition....

And I concur with your concurring.

Regarding render on properties. In the town where I live in North Lincolnshire there are many stone houses that have never been rendered. My house being one of them that dates back to the early 1700's. Likewise with many properties in Yorkshire and the Cotswolds. I would imagine that rendering is very much a regional thing - like suffolk pink houses. Also in what part of the town/village your property lies, whether it were considered to be in the wealthy area or a simple workers cottage.

I'd even settle for an explanation of why I've ruined my house, so that I and others (who've requested an explanation) can learn about the mistakes, but the two people who made the accusation have yet to come forward..

 

[JoceAndChris]

I can see you're applying your characteristic tenacity to this question Jaqy, so I'd better say something, even though I'm loathe to get drawn into it again, and have, really, said too much already.

I don't think you've ruined your house. I don't know whether Gareth does either - I think he posted in anger. But I doubt you'll bully him back by these means, and he's a person who likes peace and everyone getting on, generally, and not one to prolong an argument.

You made some choices with your house, such as the stripping and exposing of stone on inside and outside, that I, personally, wouldn't have. I also wonder if, when you removed all the interior walls, you made any note of the original layout and positioning of rooms?


But it's your house and if you like it that's just fine. I'm sure our taste is very different, opposite in fact, and how boring it would be if we were all the same.

I hear what you're saying about the stone being originally exposed, but you can't deny that as it stands it doesn't present a uniform appearance with all the new stone patched in, and the ugly breezeblock extension, that really ought to be rendered. You have said in the other thread that the force necessary to rip concrete from the walls has spoilt the interior plaster. You told me, after your generous offer to help remove the render from my house, that I would be foolish to decorate the inside as the force used on the outside would most likely cause the interior plaster to fall off. Erm, I have 200 year old lime plaster. Where we used the Makita on the outside of my dining room a section of cornice has fallen off.

You didn't have any such interior features to lose, but I hope you can understand my reluctance to let you loose on my house?

Renders have been applied through history to cover the scarring of alterations, and to unify separate elements of a building when they are composed of different materials. For that reason, just because it wasn't renderedin in 1700 doesnt in my opinion mean it shouldn't be rendered now. You had to put in an awful lot of stone after your dismantling, and you admitted to me that you couldn't sleep at night because you were worried the house would fall down! I don't think that's necessarily justifies the accusation of "ruining your house", but personally speaking
it's a lot further than I'd be prepared to go to get rid of cement - you're a brave lady!

There are cases where leaving the cement in is the best thing, and my feeling is that that should be ascertained by a professional company specialised in such things.

Now can we please drop it?

 

[Tom]

Joce, I'm so glad you replied because it means that, at the very least, we're on some level of 'speaking' terms. However, I certainly wasn't aiming to 'bully' anyone back.

The concrete render had to be removed from the outside because it had failed all over the place and was allowing water in, which was blowing the face of the stone off when it froze.

None of the interior walls were original and, had they been left, we would have been left with most of the fireplace in the lounge in a downstairs 'lobby' area just 6' x 4'. The way the room had been split had left a long, narrow and dark lounge leading through to a small, what was called 'dining room'. The lounge also led to the 'lobby' area, which in turn led to a downstairs toilet.

I'm not sure what you mean 'all the new stone patched in'. Are you referring to the Ancaster stone on the front of the house? If so, downstairs, that was there when we bought the house and is where the original windows were, before they were altered to the tall, narrow ones they are today. I'm not sure why it's where it is upstairs.

The ugly extension is going to be rendered, although if I remain here long enough, it will be pulled down because the original well is underneath it and I would love to bring that back into use.

You had to put in an awful lot of stone after your dismantling, and you admitted to me that you couldn't sleep at night because you were worried the house would fall down!

We've hardly put any new stone in. I don't know what you mean! And the time when we were worried about it falling down was when the company doing the repairs on all the beams and joists were here. They had to remove stone from around the carriage beams where they entered the walls, to allow access, and the whole lot was held up on Acro props over a particularly windy weekend. They were worried because the house had lost its lateral support but there was no other way of doing it. And that had nothing to do with getting rid of cement. It was about repairing years of damage by Death Watch Beetles. Fortunately, the £90,000 bill was paid by an insurance policy, so wasn't down to us at all.

Much of the work done here has been in conjunction with architects, structural engineers, the local planning department and the conservation officer (even though we're not listed).

I'm glad that you don't think I've ruined my house. It seems we'll just agree to disagree on how it should looks. And, yes, we can drop it.

Does this mean you're still interested in helping me choose the colour for my living room?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I hadn't replied earlier because I was interested to see how this played out. Here is a particular take on how to deal with most (there will always be exceptions, and different degrees of appropriate intervention) historic buildings. It's one written 133 years ago, but from my own experience it remains truer than most, listed or not; "my personal taste" or not - it is a plea for honesty, and for careful thought before raising a finger (or a chisel):


The manifesto of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings was written by William Morris and other founder members and issued in 1877. Although produced in response to the conservation problems of the 19th century (principally church restorations), the manifesto extends protection to "all times and styles" and remains to this day the philosophical basis for the Society's work. It's worth a read, for anyone interested in how we should treat those few of our historic buildings that we happen to have inherited from past ages.

"A society coming before the public with such a name as that above written must needs explain how, and why, it proposes to protect those ancient buildings which, to most people doubtless, seem to have so many and such excellent protectors. This, then, is the explanation we offer.

No doubt within the last fifty years a new interest, almost like another sense, has arisen in these ancient monuments of art; and they have become the subject of one of the most interesting of studies, and of an enthusiasm, religious, historical, artistic, which is one of the undoubted gains of our time; yet we think that if the present treatment of them be continued, our descendants will find them useless for study and chilling to enthusiasm. We think that those last fifty years of knowledge and attention have done more for their destruction than all the foregoing centuries of revolution, violence and contempt.

For Architecture, long decaying, died out, as a popular art at least, just as the knowledge of mediaeval art was born. So that the civilised world of the nineteenth century has no style of its own amidst its wide knowledge of the styles of other centuries. From this lack and this gain arose in men’s minds the strange idea of the Restoration of ancient buildings; and a strange and most fatal idea, which by its very name implies that it is possible to strip from a building this, that, and the other part of its history - of its life that is - and then to stay the hand at some arbitrary point, and leave it still historical, living, and even as it once was.

In early times this kind of forgery was impossible, because knowledge failed the builders, or perhaps because instinct held them back. If repairs were needed, if ambition or piety pricked on to change, that change was of necessity wrought in the unmistakable fashion of the time; a church of the eleventh century might be added to or altered in the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, or even the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries; but every change, whatever history it destroyed, left history in the gap, and was alive with the spirit of the deeds done midst its fashioning. The result of all this was often a building in which the many changes, though harsh and visible enough, were, by their very contrast, interesting and instructive and could by no possibility mislead. But those who make the changes wrought in our day under the name of Restoration, while professing to bring back a building to the best time of its history, have no guide but each his own individual whim to point out to them what is admirable and what contemptible; while the very nature of their task compels them to destroy something and to supply the gap by imagining what the earlier builders should or might have done. Moreover, in the course of this double process of destruction and addition, the whole surface of the building is necessarily tampered with; so that the appearance of antiquity is taken away from such old parts of the fabric as are left, and there is no laying to rest in the spectator the suspicion of what may have been lost; and in short, a feeble and lifeless forgery is the final result of all the wasted labour. It is sad to say, that in this manner most of the bigger Minsters, and a vast number of more humble buildings, both in England and on the Continent, have been dealt with by men of talent often, and worthy of better employment, but deaf to the claims of poetry and history in the highest sense of the words.

For what is left we plead before our architects themselves, before the official guardians of buildings, and before the public generally, and we pray them to remember how much is gone of the religion, thought and manners of time past, never by almost universal consent, to be Restored; and to consider whether it be possible to Restore those buildings, the living spirit of which, it cannot be too often repeated, was an inseparable part of that religion and thought, and those past manners. For our part we assure them fearlessly, that of all the Restorations yet undertaken, the worst have meant the reckless stripping a building of some of its most interesting material features; whilst the best have their exact analogy in the Restoration of an old picture, where the partly-perished work of the ancient craftsmaster has been made neat and smooth by the tricky hand of some unoriginal and thoughtless hack of today. If, for the rest, it be asked us to specify what kind of amount of art, style, or other interest in a building makes it worth protecting, we answer, anything which can be looked on as artistic, picturesque, historical, antique, or substantial: any work, in short, over which educated, artistic people would think it worth while to argue at all.

It is for all these buildings, therefore, of all times and styles, that we plead, and call upon those who have to deal with them, to put Protection in the place of Restoration, to stave off decay by daily care, to prop a perilous wall or mend a leaky roof by such means as are obviously meant for support or covering, and show no pretence of other art, and otherwise to resist all tampering with either the fabric or ornament of the building as it stands; if it has become inconvenient for its present use, to raise another building rather than alter or enlarge the old one; in fine to treat our ancient buildings as monuments of a bygone art, created by bygone manners, that modern art cannot meddle with without destroying.

Thus, and thus only, shall we escape the reproach of our learning being turned into a snare to us; thus, and thus only can we protect our ancient buildings, and hand them down instructive and venerable to those that come after us."

 

[Pford75]

Gareth - I agree with much of this, but the last para doesn't always ring true.

It is for all these buildings, therefore, of all times and styles, that we plead, and call upon those who have to deal with them, to put Protection in the place of Restoration, to stave off decay by daily care, to prop a perilous wall or mend a leaky roof by such means as are obviously meant for support or covering, and show no pretence of other art, and otherwise to resist all tampering with either the fabric or ornament of the building as it stands; if it has become inconvenient for its present use, to raise another building rather than alter or enlarge the old one; in fine to treat our ancient buildings as monuments of a bygone art, created by bygone manners, that modern art cannot meddle with without destroying.

"all times and styles" - so a 1970s hardboard treatment of a Georgian paneled door has the same value as the Regency cornice? I simply don't agree that all changes to a building in it's life are of equal merit. We removed asbestos floor tiles to reveal the original wood floor.....was that wrong? We removed a 1930s portico which was completely out of scale and cut Cross the Georgian fanlight...was that wrong?

Following the argument of abandoning buildings which are no longer practical is fine in theory...but not every family can afford to sell and move home when their family grows or perhaps more ridiculously, "raise another building" Do you believe that there should never be extensions to period properties? The reAlity is that there are 000's every year.

Almost everyone here on PPUK has either extended or altered some part of a period property (if all changes in it's life are to be considered of equal merit).

Finally....and this is a personal view and one which may not be shared by the majority, I find the idea of eliminating any pretense of art absolutely abhorrent. Sure, it always needs to remain in keeping with the building and it's surroundings, but art is one of lifes joys. What will be the historic buildings and craftwork of the 2000's if we only allow mass produced boxes and functional additions? I don't want this art to try and look Georgian...but the wooden bath or the walnut doors make me smile every time I see them...and isn't that part of the purpose of art?

Perhaps we have all wrecked our houses?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

We probably have, but as I said, in something you chose not to acknowledge:

there will always be exceptions, and different degrees of appropriate intervention

That (together with the lack of concern about finding out what was, and wasn't, actually of interest before ripping it apart), I believe, is where the case that prompted this thread falls down.

The SPAB Manifesto is a very hard-line and purist view, but it at least sets a standard either to aim at, or at least to compare results with in the circumstances prevailing at the time. Given that owners of historic buildings frequently complain that they ask a question about what they can and can't / should and shouldn't do, and only get the response "well, it depends" (because every case is different), it is a starting point.

 

[LadyArowana]

I hadn't replied earlier because I was interested to see how this played out. Here is a particular take on how to deal with most (there will always be exceptions, and different degrees of appropriate intervention) historic buildings. It's one written 133 years ago, but from my own experience it remains truer than most, listed or not; "my personal taste" or not - it is a plea for honesty, and for careful thought before raising a finger (or a chisel):

Of course there are notable exceptions to those views. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/architecture/dont-mention-the-restoration-prince-quits-heritage-body-in-censorship-row-1743348.html

"The Prince felt the issue of "honesty" in conservation – using design and materials of your own time, to which the society is committed – had been used too often to justify unsatisfactory alterations and ugly additions."

 

[JoceAndChris]

That manifesto is a marvellous piece of writing and a glorious source of inspiration.

I wish I could post a pic of Bury St Edmund's abbey. The knocking down of the lovely Tudor and Georgian buildings nestling within the ancient structure of the abbey, is sometimes proposed, by lunatics, who want to go back to the boring old ruin beneath. That's such a whimsical piece of architecture, a really happy marriage of the best of centuries.

FF's house too, in my opinion is a glorious combination of Elizabethan (am I right?) and Georgian. Imagine if he were to pick off the Georgian bits to return to Elizabethan purity of form, how silly it would be, they're so lovely, and part of the valuable history of the house.

In my own, much smaller, case, to knock down the highly sympathetic 30s extension here - a useful room with some delightful features too, in order to return to Georgian purity, would also be daft. But if, like with Pford's porch, it's a carbuncle and everyone says so, then there's no issue with getting rid. It's a case of applying common sense, carefully researched understanding of the house and its history, and, hopefully, expert guidance. We who have unlisted buildings can be desperately short on expert guidance ( though not me, as I have lovely Gareth, and this excellent forum - otherwise I'd have been likely to do some shocking things).

 

[LadyArowana]

I wish I could post a pic of Bury St Edmund's abbey.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Thanks, LadyA! That's it.

The above, wot I wrote, reads a bit smugly. I think every one of us has the capacity for adding carbuncles, or destroying something of value in the house, including me. We should all have the courage to say "I have the potential to ruin this house", none are infallible. I've already done things here that I know future owners will curse me for, things I wouldn't do now.

That's why the light touch - the do nothing approach is appealing.

I don't include necessary repair in that statement.

Oh God - even all that reads smugly - sorry.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Gareth - thank you for that. Quite thought-provoking, if a little purist in approach. Clearly "we're not worthy" from a SPAB perspective. :wink: (except dear smug Jose 8) )

I was rather struck by the line "So that the civilised world of the nineteenth century has no style of its own amidst its wide knowledge of the styles of other centuries."

This is somewhat at odds to the many Victorian and late Georgian buildings we are trying to conserve, protect or :shock: restore!

It seems from this that we are not the only generation to judge our current building styles and methods as modern and without merit, only to see "high value" in those of previous generations. Nor are we the only ones to perceive our own treatment of historic buildings as destructive, but that those of earlier workmen (no matter how destructive) were OK because they "left history in the gap" of what they removed.

How ironic, that SPAB founders would have deplored the contemporary removal of previous historic fabric and its replacement by, for example, a Victorian lath and plaster wall. Whereas now, we would view that as worthy history. I'm so glad we're the ones blessed with enlightened insight and not those 14th or 17thC chaps! :wink:

Two conclusions spring to mind. Firstly, we shouldn't be so quick to remove avocado bathroom suites and woodchip wallpaper - our great, great grandkids in 2160 will curse our cultural vandalism (if they're still above sea-level that is 8) )

Secondly, should we only be repairing our houses with the most modern of materials and methods (that are of course, consistent with the breathable nature of the building) - in order that we only add worthy historical material? All that lime plaster or laths from an earlier age that folks have been putting in is not what our forebears would have done - they'd have used the most modern materials and methods available to them.

 

[MatthewC]

Two conclusions spring to mind. Firstly, we shouldn't be so quick to remove avocado bathroom suites and woodchip wallpaper - our great, great grandkids in 2160 will curse our cultural vandalism (if they're still above sea-level that is 8) )

Secondly, should we only be repairing our houses with the most modern of materials and methods (that are of course, consistent with the breathable nature of the building) - in order that we only add worthy historical material? All that lime plaster or laths from an earlier age that folks have been putting in is not what our forebears would have done - they'd have used the most modern materials and methods available to them.

But these are contradictory. If the Victorians were using the most modern materials, then they would have ripped out the equivalent of avocado bathroom suites and put in Victorian items instead. You could argue that, for a house built in 1970s/1980s, avocado and woodchip ARE the right materials and so your first conclusion is correct. But, if they were added to some older building, then they, in their turn, now deserve to be replaced with the latest modern stuff.

 

[Moo]

... to stave off decay by daily care, to prop a perilous wall or mend a leaky roof by such means as are obviously meant for support or covering, ... and otherwise to resist all tampering with either the fabric or ornament of the building as it stands;

... if it has become inconvenient for its present use, to raise another building rather than alter or enlarge the old one;...

- which, to me, sounds a counsel of perfection that, however devoutly to be wished, is quite beyond the means of most people. How many of us have the means (or even the land) to "raise another building" as well as to carry out the "daily care" necessary to stave off the collapse of an uninhabitable ancient house?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

OK, a slightly different tack - it is generally better (or at least, less worse) to add to a building than to remove from it - the additions can always be taken away again, the removals are permanent. If things are going to be removed, then the decision to do so shold be taken on the basis of as thorough as can be managed an understanding of their relative significance.

There are some things that change every day (the washing up [I wish...]), some that change every few years (wallpaper, paint, carpets), some that change every few decades (kitchen and bathroom fittings, layouts of non-structural partitions), some that change perhaps once in a century (windows and doors, significant room layouts). As a rough rule of thumb, the thought that goes into making permanent changes to these different classes of changeable items should be proportionate to the permanence of the change.

But if I'd dug up of sixteenth or seventeenth century window mullions and was in the process of remaking the windows of my house, I'd probably not turn those historic elements into unrecognisable patch repairs to other parts of the building.

 

[robgil]

i couldnt agree more with the add layers and take nothing away except the same layers however where do you stand on layers that were added centuries ago?do you remove them to reveal the older layers beneath?
its a tough cookie to crumble this one but i guess every cookie is different. chocolate chip for instance crumbles a lot different from a chocolate digestive and my own personal favourite the lemon butter cookie from tescos rarely gets a chance to crumble at all. And how do you crumble a cookie thats been dunked already?

 

[Lime]

"The Prince felt the issue of "honesty" in conservation – using design and materials of your own time, to which the society is committed – had been used too often to justify unsatisfactory alterations and ugly additions."

Good for the Prince.
Although how it is possible NOT to use materials "of your own time" has me beaten unless the owner of a time machine.
Lime is a material of today just as much as yesterday.
Appropriate available materials rather than just the most modern, whether they are appropriate or not, is surely better for the building's long-term life?

Also a question keeps running around in my head.
What is the difference between ruin and gut?

And how do you crumble a cookie thats been dunked already?

Ventilation and time are required.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

i couldnt agree more with the add layers and take nothing away except the same layers however where do you stand on layers that were added centuries ago?do you remove them to reveal the older layers beneath?

If curiousity about what lies beneath is killing you, and you're going to be doing some work anyway, then you have a very small poke around to see what's there, and then come to an informed decision about what goes and what stays - and whether you're going to be able to make good, repair and live with what you uncover. Half a wall painting can be a disappointment...

What you don't do is blast away regardless until you have a bare shell, and then wonder what you're going to put in it.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

So if we were to sum up the "golden rules" for period property projects, they'd be something like:

1) Exercise caution and research at all stages;
2) Changes should be "honest" and clear to later generations;
3) Changes may be utterly modern in concept, purpose, design and material but must be sympathetic to the fabric of the building (eg maintain breathability)
3) Changes should be cautiously planned in proportion to the significance and irreversibilty of the proposed changes; Destruction is permanent.
4) Seek advice at all stages - PPUK, COs, neighbours, former owners, SPAB, etc
5) Be prepared to justify any changes you make to the building to your conscience, your peers, future custodians of the building, the letter of the law and the spirit of the building I'm sure we all feel in our own homes/projects (or am I the only one who feels this? :?: . If you can't do this, you're probably not doing right by the building.
6) lemon butter cookies are delicious.

Is that it? Any others?

 

[robgil]

I wouldnt be taking things away purely through curiosity , that would in my view be quite wrong , but if you had to say remove some old lime plaster and lath in order to do repairs to the wall behind or the roof for instance , or if you just couldnt live with those lovely old 1920's doors but wanted to put in a (more appropriate?) oak ledge door into the old frame that is beneath the 1920's doors. w2here do you draw the line at importance of layers , obviously each layers importance would be classed differently but are there any hard and fast rules?

i had to remove a cement covering from an old original wall to do repairs to the timber frame , what i found beneath was the original wall with daub infills (or at least a Georgian wall) , i chose to try and repair the old wall and leave it exposed.
w2as this the right decision or was it more appropriate to rebuild the cement render (with lime) and hide the old wall away again thus preserving it in an untouched state?

i believe that we (and every one after us) should be able to enjoy old houses if we can and not hide them away so repair should at least be considered in most cases above concealment.

saying that there are some very very old beautiful houses around the corner from me on the causeway but when you look inside they are very victorian , i wouldn't dream of taking them back to their original state as the victorian additions are very well preserved so i guess each circumstance will be different.

also i believe that we have the opportunity in this day and age to record everything with pho9tos and descriptions both on paper and digitally that people didnt have in ye olde days so if it is absolutely necessary to make changes at least we can thoroughly record it.
anyhow , ive got to run , ive got to kick in a few daub panels so i can get my washing machine in and put that multi room in wall fish tank into the wall between my living and dining room. :shock:

 

[robgil]

another option of course is to stop adding layers.