Composite Windows ...?

[paulbandler]

Spent a long day at the NEC yesterday looking mostly at window suppliers.

Now the uPVC cf timber windows debate has had plenty of airing before - even on new builds or extensions, uPVC is frowned on due to profile, thickness of bars, carbon foot-print etc. And even though some high-end uPVC are hard to distinguish from wood with a hi-build finish, they're not allowed on anything controlled by planning permission...

So, how do these arguments stack up against the relatively new breed of (rather expensive) composite windows? These are either aluminium or vynl on the outside and wood on the inside. Due to the strength of the wood/aluminum they can achieve the similar fine lines of wooden frames and sash'es and glazing bars. While appreciating they wouldn't suit the character of many buildings, for contempory new build/extensions in conservation areas, would they not be a reasonable option?

Does anyone know of cases where they've been allowed in conservation areas?

 

[Nemesis]

Why?

 

[paulbandler]

Well, possibly because they could provide an asthetically pleasing window without needing painting so retaining their appearance more consistently with lower on-going maintenance costs...?

or did you mean why do I ask if anyone knows if they've been used in conservation areas? Well perhaps this isn't a proper question for this forum, if so, appologies.

 

[NT]

So these are just wooden windows with a plastic coating on?

NT

 

[biffvernon]

"...hard to distinguish from wood..."
"...can achieve the similar fine lines of wooden frames..."

That's as in cut glass is similar to diamond. OK for fun wear at a party but you might not choose it for your intended's engagement ring.

If you want a modern manufactured solution some of the Scandinavian derived composite windows are really rather good at keeping the outdoors out and the indoors in.

We've bought one or two bits of furniture from IKEA. Practical, but I doubt that they'll be regarded as antiques next century.

 

[Moo]

without needing painting so retaining their appearance more consistently

For how long?

with lower on-going maintenance costs

Because they can't be mended, and it's so much easier just to rip out and replace them?

 

[paulbandler]

Regarding NT's question, there seems to be a range of composite windows:-

- structurally wood with aluminum clip-on cladding (high end example is Marvin Architectural who distribute the US based Marvin range - big stand at NEC - looks better than it 'clip-on' might sound. Another mid-range recent UK entrant is Design 5 of AM Profiles - seems to be having some success with local authorities concerned with sustainable, low maintenance build - ok not exactly Period Properties, but... (http://www.interbuild.com/page.cfm/T=m/Action=Press/PressID=15/)

- structurally aluminum with internal wood cladding (can't recall the name of the company I saw at NEC right now)

- structurally wood with vynl cladding (US based Anderson windows - http://www.andersenwindows.com/).

I appreciate these aren't 'antique' solutions, but for those of us in non-listed buildings but subject to CO restrictions and who want something that looks reasonably sympathetic and will last well on exposed sites...

 

[plumbers mate]

These wonderful no maintenance uPVC windows -
There was a window cleaner in the street on saturday - his van read "window cleaning" and "uPVC window frame cleaning" --

 

[Nemesis]

Wood is a pretty good window material. Mine have lasted more than a few decades, with a lick of paint every now and again. Linseed oil paint is supposed to only need a recoat about every decade.

I've never seen a wood window look out of place in any sort of building.

It's also a renewable resource and in general rather more attractive in the manufacture than a uPVC factory.

Things with gaskets, clips etc etc - these thing eventually fail, and will be rather harder to source in future than a tub of putty and some wood to repair.

I think though they aren't actually meant to have a long life.

 

[SD]

A Upvc window salesman called at my door on Friday, obviously going for the last remaning timber windows in the street. Poor man got a lecture from me. I could have just knocked him back with 'sorry my building is listed, I can't change my windows', but I couldn't resist making the most of my opportunity to denounce his silly idea. Will they last 100 years?...second generation replacement already...why don't you sell secondary glazing?...blah...blah...blah. It was great!

 

[Nemesis]

I do recall the phone call from the person who told me that a 'survey' had been done of our area and stone cladding, it had been decided, was what was required to 'improve' our houses and add value.

I pointed out that 200 plus years ago my house was stone clad - it actually extends back about two feet also.

It is sad when you see nice terraces with good brick spoiled by a couple of stick on stone clad ones.

 

[SD]

Ah now, stone cladding, that's classy! I'm surprised you didn't jump at the chance to update the look of your house!

 

[paulbandler]

Shame - I was hoping for a balanced objective discussion or even some evidence of experience of this form of fenestration. Instead it seems the thread has been hijacked by off-topic repetition of the same old anti-uPVC dogma. Ho-hum, I must be in the wrong place

 

[SD]

But how can you beat wood?. If you've spent a fortune on your windows what is it to give them a lick of paint or linseed oil treatment every year even? A pleasure.

 

[Nemesis]

The old anti uPVC dogma - well yes then I think you are in the wrong place. They look bad, are short lived and rubbish environmentally.

http://www.sustainablehomes.co.uk/pdf/WINDOWS.pdf


And if you don't like a bit of digression then PPUK isn't the place to post frankly!

 

[paulbandler]

But how can you beat wood?. If you've spent a fortune on your windows what is it to give them a lick of paint or linseed oil treatment every year even? A pleasure.

I agree that provided one has the time and is physically able, it can be a pleasure. However some windows are inaccessible, or are either dangerous and/or expensive to access due to height and/or the proximity of overhead power lines. And as the years go by, as in other aspects of life, some pleasures are curtailed by physical necessity so the time expense is replace by monetary expense to employ others to have 'the pleasure'. So, should one not be allowed to make balanced choices based on individual need within a framework of public impact concern - not a dogmatic view that anything new or unproven should not be permitted - no?

 

[Nemesis]

In my long experience the latest fads frequently prove to be short lived. Many uPVC windows are now failing - if you think these things have a long life unsullied by any degradation of appearance, materials and performance and nothing will ever require maintaining that's up to you, but I think in the long term you will find it's not the case.

Repair is usually not possible, and replacement is expensive.

Wood requires some painting - not annually.

http://www.cat.org.uk/information/catinfo.tmpl?command=search&db=catinfo.db&eqSKUdatarq=InfoSheet_Glazing

 

[SD]

You've got to be able to live in a house you can maintain, either physically or financally, thats just pragmatic. Upvc is not unproven technology. THey have not proved themselves to be as good as timber in my opinion because of the reasons already posted. In other words they're are not all they're cracked up to be. I remember thinking they were great when they were used to replace the battered old windows in my council house. But even a couple of years later, they were jaded looking (the white plastic started to discolour) condensation was a problem and if it was my house and I had to replace them in 30 years I would have been annoyed. Now if your going to spend a fortune on the high spec. 'composite' windows, then you probably could afford frequent maintaince that timber windows would take anyway. I think its overworked technology.
Sorry have to depart for today my baby son is up and I have some painting to do!

 

[skier-hughes]

From what I've learnt since buying my old house.

Wood needs to breathe to last. So long as they can gurantee that the wether seal will NEVER be broken then it could be a good idea. But if it isn't 100% waterproof I can see that once some moisture is in it's going to start to rot the wood as not all of it will evaporate internally.

This rot will be hard to detect as it's covered by aluminium.

My logical thinking takes me to.
Make window from wood - cost = x
Make aluminium cladding - cost = y
fitting - cost = z
fit wooden window - cost = x + z
fit aluminium clad window - cost = x + y + z

You still need to by a good breathable paint for the internal wood so we can rule out an extra cost for painting outside if you do it yourself, but even if you paid soomeone I should imagine it would be marginal in comparison to cost z.



On checking out AM's site, they say that they expect the service life to be in excess of 40 years, but as it's new have no proof.
They say wood needs regualr maintainance, unlike aluminium, but surely the internal part of the clad window needs just as much as an all wood window - sneaky ommission.
"Underneath the cladding a well treated timber should not require any treatment" again what if it does.

So, my brain tells me, just use wood, pick a good quality timber and have it well made.

Graham

 

[skier-hughes]

PS,
The windows we are gradually replacing with timber frames are aluminium.

They don't appear to have weathered too badly, now about 30 years old. A couple of the D/G units have blown but all are still sealing/closing properly etc, more than can be said of the PCVu that my parents had fitted about 10 years ago.