different ceiling heights... whats that about?

[Sal]

curiousity really but in my new house - the ceiling heights are pretty low downstairs - and yet over 8 ft upstairs. does this indicate that upstairs was built later ?

 

[Me!]

Or that the whole house is sinking into the ground :shock:

 

[Mark]

has the floor been raised ? Part of ours has had a wooden suspended floor put in which is about 2 feet higher (going by the doorway&chimney that Ive uncovered) than the original floor. In our case it was probably done when two cottages were knocked into one.

might have been done because of outside floor level or for damp?

 

[Sal]

nope - ground floor is solid - and lower than street outside.. and yes damp, but no - no room to put in a suspended floor!

 

[BMcD]

Is it possible the hight of the roof has been raised? or perhaps the ground floor was originally used to shelter live stock whilst the farmers lived above?

 

[middi]

Sorry Sal, but how old is your "new" house.

 

[NT]

I've seen this before, but why I've little idea. Minds being changed?

NT

 

[Sal]

Sorry Sal, but how old is your "new" house.

350-400 years old. however it is not all that.
its clear to me the oldest part is at the front of the house, and i suspected it was originally a 2 up 2 down , which seemed to be confirmed when we found whats left of the original roof inside our current roof. From my investigations.. and looking at what was built on what.. it would seem the front 2 rooms, with those above, were first.. then a kitchen extension on the back.. then the last back 2 storey extention which has a bathroom in it making it a square house again.

But even the latest bits have exposed and clearly very old oak (im pretty sure its oak) beams and whatever you call the upright bits of wood.... and croaked walls and lintels etc. The construction seems to be river stones.. so smooth boulders of various types... a large proportion is granite.

I spose it could be the animal underneath thing - but the house faces the street in the centre of a village.. woudl they still have done that? I think it highly likely that the house was a farm or farm cottage for some time as the surrounding houses are either modern (ie only 100 years old) or are converted barns. our land at the back is in the form of strip farming... hence CA.

 

[middi]

Right Sal, on a building of that age the conundrum to solve first is to try and decifre for which purpose was the original part erected.

This is not easy, even to the expert eye, and assumption are easily made to justify any explanations someone is willing to put forward.

At times it is quite simple to see the additions and alterations and the different uses for which it was intended , at other times it will require a forensic type approach which in many cases is beyond the scope of the owner.

It has to be remembered that what we consider to be a cramped pigstay now, 3 or 4 hundred years ago would have been a luxury to quite a number of the population.

Progression and adaptation of very humble buildings still exist to this day in reasonable numbers and most of these are found on land owned by big estates which formed the basis to shelter the workforce.

It is exactly in these type of " updated" buildings where one is likely to find inserted floors, with the animal stock supplying the heating (and the smell!!) for the poor workers on a make shift floor on the upper section.

Normally they would have looked at the height of a cow, a pig, a goat or a sheep and inserted the ceiling height to suit these.

The nice lofty space above was for the humans, until they decided to have fifteen children and that is when they got stuck with low ceiling living accomodation after they had turfed the animals in some other cheap shelter.

I am not implying that this applies in your case, but it may give you food for thought.

 

[Sal]

it is food for thought - thanks . I have no objection to living in former animal accomodation i have pondered many an answer to its original state (though of course original is probably the bare earth with someone considering building a hovel on that patch)
Some parts of the on going construction are clear - and others are not - like when you see the outide of an opening in the stonework, now filled in... but cannot fathom what it was etc.

I do have the old deeds and paperwork dating back to turn of the century, but prior to that it was owned by the church. Perhaps i will approach them and see if more can be found out.

 

[middi]

A very good idea, the parish church or the local conservation group is a good place to start.

Do not be too disappointed if you reach a dead end, if the original building was part of a big estate, you will have to diversify you research approach.

Research the estate at your local records office and if you are lucky in that they recorded the build of you particular property, they may specify what it was for and for which tenant, if any.

Records ofiices can be a bundle of fun, if you have the time, not so funny when the records have to been written in latin ad require translating.

Good luck

 

[Johneds]

middi beat me to it. If it's a humble building it is likely that the ground floor was built for animals.

 

[Sal]

thanks alot. You are right of course - I wont find all the answers - but some things might be clearer. I find it endlessly fascinating, considering all that this house - and some of the big oak trees out back, have 'witnessed' (for want of a better word).

from the wording of the document when the church sold the house, it would hint that the 'estate' you suggest is all glebelands. which could be handy as I suspect the church are one of the better record keepers.

time consuming, but hope to have an investigate some time.

thanks for the advice

 

[Lime]

Or that the whole house is sinking into the ground :shock:

Not so much sinking, more like 400 years of rising ground level taking it's toll.
After all, the roman settlement of London is now found 40 feet plus below present day ground level.
400 years is a long old time for man and the earthworm to make their mark.

 

[David Q]

Interesting. My mother in laws house is now a two bedroom cottage and small at that. However when built (1860ish) it was two seperate cottages back to back. Each had ladder access to the upstairs - and the ceiling is low downstairs and high (10 ft) upstairs. My guess based on talking to older village inhabitants is that with ladder access you had to have low headroom downstairs, but that upstairs you were able to have two layers for beds. (2 and a half floors?)

 

[Penners]

Not so much sinking, more like 400 years of rising ground level taking it's toll.
After all, the roman settlement of London is now found 40 feet plus below present day ground level.

Pretty well anywhere in the world, if you want to find the remnants of ancient buildings, you dig down into the ground.

So presumably our entire planet is slowly getting bigger. :shock:

 

[worms]

Ah yes, but with sea-level rising and the South of England sinking, perhaps ground level aint what it used to be either!

 

[Johneds]

Well, for years mount Everest was 29,028 feet high. But when it was recently checked they found it is now 29,035 feet high. So what's going on there then. Did the tide go out or something?

 

[Penners]

I understand that all the extra height is made up of rubbish dumped by climbers.

 

[Lime]

Well, for years mount Everest was 29,028 feet high. But when it was recently checked they found it is now 29,035 feet high. So what's going on there then. Did the tide go out or something?

Proof that plate tectonics and continental drift exist?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tectonics.html