Edwardian terrazzo floor and other 1909 mysteries

[Alfietinker]

Evening all!

I posted last year about restoring quarry tiles we uncovered in our kitchen. We spent weeks doing everything we could, from laboriously removing the previous concrete-type screed through to finally sealing them with linseed. We have poured sweat, tears, elbow grease and occasional blood in an attempt to keep an original period feature.

Unfortunately, they have never looked very nice, with most of the surfaces badly damaged and despite best imagination and rose-tinted glasses, they just look, well, ugly. Nothing like the lovely patina/character pictures on here. :-(

So, we have decided we need to replace them with something - but what? And that has led us onto realising how little we actually know about the structure of our house. This is where we are hoping you may be able to help, which will help us make the right decision. It's all about breathability ..... or not.

The house: A 1909 Edwardian semi (date is taken from the deeds, but we have nothing much else to go on), brick built and rough cast rendered. (With ugly PVC doors/windows, but that will be tackled in a few years). We have no history, but beautiful (if heartbreakingly massacred) cornicing and very high ceilings in most rooms, so we wonder if it was a fairly 'posh' house in it's day.



We always assumed the walls are solid, but they vary in thickness from 6 inches (the bay), through to a good 12 inches on the side walls. The slightly earlier house next door is built with stretcher bond, so we wonder if in fact our house has cavity walls? How could we tell?

The house did have damp problems which were 'rectified' with a 'chemical damp course by the previous owner. We have now traced the 'damp' to numerous issues, mostly involving dodgy guttering/flashing, broken downpipes/hoppers, leaky porches, too-high paving slabs and a distinct lack of ventilation with those 'lovely' PVC windows and blocked chimneys. We have addressed everything except the windows, but leaving them open a crack has made a huge difference.

The floors downstairs are a mixture of suspended floorboards, a terrazzo hallway, quarry-tiled kitchen, and solid concrete utility room/loo. And this is where we are stumped. We have always believed the quarry tiles must have been laid without a damp-membrane, and therefore without digging out the floor (not an option), must be left to breathe to avoid damp travelling up the walls. We haven't wanted to lift any, for fear of damaging the tiles further.

However, we've realised both the utility room and hallway both have solid, impermeable flooring. I don't know if the utility floor is original, but the terrazzo in the hallway definitely is - the adjoining house is identical, and a feature of many of the victorian public buildings here. There is no issue with damp in either room that we can tell. So, could we be wrong about the quarry tiles too? Could they in fact be covered up with something impermeable with no ill effects? Could the floor have some kind of damp proof membrane, from 1909ish? Or am I completely wrong, and the terrazzo is breathable, with the utility lime-based instead of concrete?

The quarry tiles were originally covered in lino, on top of a really hard screed. The lino was mouldy underneath, which we assumed was trapped moisture coming up from the tiles, but thinking about it, the walls were fine.

It makes a huge difference between what we do with the kitchen. Ideally, I would like to keep them in situ, for posterity, and cover them up with something on a 'floating' base. Like a really good engineered wood floor. But, if the floor does indeed need to wick moisture, I know this will cause problems with the walls and ruin the wood.

Digging the floor out is not an option, as we can't remove the kitchen units without ruining a lot of work.

I know this is a long and rambling post, but any thoughts would be much appreciated!

 

[Cubist]

Hi Alfie(?),

It's always tough having to admit defeat with something that you set out to save and tried damned hard to do so. My personal opinion, for what its worth, is that you might simply get some good quality quarry tiles of the same size from a reclamation yard and use these to replace the old ones. That is, if you're still in love to some extent with the vision you had of the old ones. Alternatively, you may want to consider some of the beautiful patterned tiles typically used in the foyer of houses of that period but you would need to consider whether this would be appropriate, or even possible depending on the visible area.

Cheers,
Cubist

 

[Feltwell]

Sounds like you've done some very sensible work to improve the damp issues. Cavity walls? Unusual in 1909, but not unknown. How to tell? If brick bond cannot be seen then a drill is the only way I reckon!

If your kitchen floor was previously covered with lino that was mouldy underneath, I think that should be telling you very clearly not to cover it with anything. If the original quarries really have had it, i.e. all the faces have gone, then I'd take them up and lay "new" reclaimed quarries personally, as the person above suggests. They are readily available. Any kind of timber laid over a damp floor will have problems eventually I think.

I also have a mix of solid floors and suspended in my 1899 house:-

Lounge and dining room - conventional suspended wooden floors over a large void
Hallway - original tiles on an original concrete floor over the top of the cellar.
Downstairs loo - solid floor, horrible modern floor tiles that I think are either laid on quarries or on self-levelling compound where quarries used to be. Definitely damp, will be dealt with at some point

Kitchen - solid floor, original quarries, no sign of any damp proof membrane and no damp evident - but go under the kitchen units, where some tiles are loose, take them up and it feels damp underneath. Not causing any problems though.

Scullery - reclaimed quarries laid not very well (not by me) over what is I suspect a modern concrete floor. Given the standard on workmanship I'd be surprised if there was much in the way of a damp proof membrane - but there is no damp evident.

Is your Terrazzo definitely on a "solid to earth" floor? You'd swear my hallway floor was, until you walk down into the cellar! Could it be over a void?

Damp is a funny old beast though - even if the Terrazzo is impermeable and is on a solid floor down to earth, it doesn't necessarily mean the walls will be damp.

 

[plasticpigeon]

I think around that time houses were changing. I would bet that your kitchen floor is quarries on earth, or quarries on thin screed, probably lime. However your house almost certainly has a damp proof coarse, probably of slate or slate and bitumen, or slate and cement or similar, so the walls probably wont get too damp. My house from 1903 is a very humble terrace, but has a slate damp proof coarse. Your house may even have used cement mortar in its construction, and I wonder what the roughcast has as binder? However covering the floor will mean that the floor will get wet and whatever goes over it will also get wet and rot, especially if it is wood. The other issue that might occur is if you have any brick internal walls that don't have a damp proof coarse as they may get damp if the floor is covered with something impermeable. I agree with the suggestion that the easiest route could be to get nice new or reclaimed quarries the right size and replace the ones that are visible and offending you, perhaps by digging out and inch or 2 and bedding them in lime mortar. Hopefully the ones half under cupboards and the like will fad into insignificance ones most of them look nice!

 

[Alfietinker]

Thank you all for your help (and patience in reading my ramblings!). I've realised I was fantasising that we in fact had some kind of Edwardian futuristic eco-house - that just hadn't been discovered yet!

So we've had another chat and have decided against covering over the tiles. We don't want to cause irreparable problems, or ruining any laminate etc, so now we need to decide what to do next. Other than adding more rugs, but with 3 extremely messy boys, rugs don't look nice for long.

I suppose one of the conundrums is that we don't really like quarry tiles that much, and would never choose them otherwise. One of the main dislikes is the room is very dark, with little natural light, and the dark floor seems to absorb light, rather than reflect. Honestly, it's so dark that the lights need to be on 90% of the time, which is just depressing. We have light walls, units and furniture, but a very dark floor. There is that element of guilt, that they are original to the house, and therefore we should embrace them.

Would it be possible to replace with something other than quarries? Something permeable, in keeping, but much lighter? We can't take the kitchen units out without major disruption, so could only remove tiles in the middle of the room. Although, there is only one run of fixed units, so there would only be a few tiles left in situ.

Or, and this may be a complete no-no, hubby is wondering about painting them :shock: (I think this is a bad idea, but can't dismiss without a reason why). My radical option is to put french doors into the lovely bright room next door, but hubby is just as opposed to that as I am to the painting idea!

Regarding the terrazzo, that's really interesting. I had just assumed solid was solid, but now I'm intrigued. Sadly we have no cellar, but the terrazzo does continue onto the front step outside, if that could be any clue?

Plasticpigeon mentioned the render - It has started to blow in a couple of places, (which we traced back to splashback from too high paving, and leaky downpipe) and looks very grey underneath the paint as if it is cement based. But I had assumed that section must have been repaired at some point.

The walls do intrigue me though, how much they vary in thickness. The side walls are a good 12 inches, with 8 inches front and back, 6 inches on the bottom bay window, and only 4 on the top part...

 

[Abi Cott]

Have you considered adding lighting under the wall units or in the kickboards? It's more usual to do this with modern kitchens. But there are a few discreet options using leds that would be cheap to run and provide a subtle background light.

 

[Feltwell]

Or, and this may be a complete no-no, hubby is wondering about painting them :shock: (I think this is a bad idea, but can't dismiss without a reason why).

It's not a bad idea, it's a very very bad idea!

- If the floor is at all damp the paint won't stick properly
- You'll kill any breathability between the tiles
- When it starts to wear (which won't take long) it will look as tatty as anything. The high spots of the tiles near the doors will wear through rapidly. Then you will find yourself either forever repainting, or with the world's most horrible paint stripping job to do.

I'd like to get hold of the person who painted my soft sandstone door steps and shake them warmly by the throat for that particular decision!

If the tiles have had it and you really can't live with the colour, you can always retile with a reclaimed, paler tile. Most quarries were red but other colours were made, buff being the palest I've seen.

Here's some examples:-


https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/quarry-tiles/323402036270?hash=item4b4c43742e:g:HJkAAOSwqu9U40ZH

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=b...UICygC&biw=1440&bih=778#imgrc=kVBrt7deOb51BM:

 

[Cubist]

Feltwell is absolutely right; never, ever paint quarry tiles. Tell your other half if he's determined to do this he should buy the paint stripper at the same time because he'll need it sooner than he thinks.

Many traditional quarry tile manufacturers in the Potteries began developing new methods in the 1950s so that they could offer more sophisticated tile shapes in a variety of colours without using glazes. Those new products were typically of the same dimensions as the old lines, if sometimes a little thinner, and you could find a range of light colours - some very near white. You may be able to find examples in some of the Reclamation Yards on line or near to your home.

Regarding your puzzling over the thickness of the walls of the house. Inconsistent thickness of walls in any house is common and typically due to the load bearing demands that will be placed upon them. External walls are/were typically in the order of 12 inches thick and depending on period may be solid or have a cavity. Internal brick walls would typically be single brick width unless they carried some load for the floor above in which case these too may be 12 inches. The thickness of the walls in the bay are also due to the load bearing needs with a thicker wall at the ground level and sometimes, as in your house, a single brick width for the first floor.

Hopefully that clears up one mystery for you. The second mystery concerning how anyone might think that painting a quarry tile floor is a good idea is one with which, sadly, I can be of little further assistance.

 

[MikeG]

.........Internal brick walls would typically be single brick width unless they carried some load for the floor above in which case these too may be 12 inches........

I've never come across a 12" wall internally, other than a party wall between semis, or terraced houses. 9" (a single brick) is commonplace, and 4" (a half brick) is typical. To have an internal wall with a cavity, which is what you'd need to get to 12" thickness, seems just a bit odd, but old houses do have their oddities, as we all know.

 

[steveb]

Sorry for the poor picture - builder can't seem to get the idea of holding the phone steady whilst taking a pic..

This is the wall between what was the front and back rooms in our 1900s terrace - seems to be a brick and half at least (you can see the frame of the dividing door next to at least one whole brick) . Looks like that was possibly an original opening since the brick faces are "clean" - if there was originally a solid wall there and an opening subsequently put in I would have expected to see cut brick faces



comment from the builder was "Series of bad plastering n rendering over bad plaster n render ... Anybody's guess why "

 

[Alfietinker]

Sorry it's taken a while to reply.

Thank you all for your replies. Thankfully hubby is persuaded not to paint the tiles, so that's something!

So, I think it's going to come down to eventually replacing with something permeable - ie more quarry tiles. But if we do go that route, then we may take the opportunity to go for lighter buff coloured ones instead. Unfortunately, there have been some potential changes of circumstances with finances, so anything like that will have to go on the back burner for a while. Back to the rugs in the meantime! :lol:

However, we did wonder about one thing. If the floor were to be covered with something solid, sending damp to the internal walls, would that only be a problem if they were gypsum plastered? If the walls were lime plastered, would the damp just dissipate out without issue in the same was as the floor had previously?

This is all hypothetical as the walls are gypsum, so just out of curiosity really.

Again, thanks for all your comments. We've learnt a bit more about the possible construction of our house and am curious to some other aspects.