Exposed wooden lintel in bathroom - good idea?

[Spoilt Victorian Child]

I've started taking all the panelling and tiling off our bathroom walls, and was hoping to leave one wall (the exterior wall) as exposed brick, once I've chipped off the lime plaster.

However, I've discovered a wooden lintel above the window. On the outside there's a stone lintel. I assumed it went all the way back into the 2 courses of brick, but no.

Am I creating a future problem if I leave the wooden lintel exposed, in a room that has exess moisture twice a day from showers, etc...

Or could it be sealed/protected in some way?

Here's some pics to give an idea.

 

[formerly known as]

I can't see your picture for some reason, but I would suggest that removing lime plaster to expose the underlying fabric is not an appropriate thing to do.

 

[Zebra]

I can see your pics, but still agree with FKA. A Victorian house would not have originally been intended to have exposed timber or brickwork, so those would not be authentic period features. Nor would they be terribly practical in a bathroom - perhaps tending to drop dust, tending to absorb moisture, and not easy to clean.

 

[mims&pip]

Your pics are showing fine for me, but I'm afraid I agree with Zebra and fka in that I don't think a wall of exposed brick in a domestic building of this era would look correct. The fact that it's a bathroom is a further good reason not to imho.

The PO of our last home - a reasonably grand 2500 sq ft Georgian ashlar stone fronted thatched village house - had exposed virtually all the internal rubble stone walls during his ownership, including those in the family bathroom. Whilst not brick, the effect was similar - it not only looked awful but as Zebra says, it was difficult to clean, absorbed the moisture that was unavoidable in such a space and occasionally dropped particles into the bath etc. In addition the nooks and crevices harboured all sorts of nasty creepy crawlies

As part of the major works we carried out we replastered the exposed stone walls throughout the house as these were never meant to be visible.

Otoh, our neighbours' much smaller terraced cottage (a tiny, one bedroom 'hovel' of only 300 sq ft) had exposed stone walls throughout. These had originally been lime-washed, but our neighbours had given them a coat of modern emulsion, along with other *improvements* such as white UPVC windows :roll:

Mims x

 

[skier-hughes]

Looks like a soft wood late addition to me, fitted with cement pointing? I'd also plaster everything, including brick.

 

[88v8]

Indeed, it was never meant to be visible, so I'd replaster.
Think about wall lights while you have the chance. They can create great ambience for long soaks in the bath.

And I bet there should be a picture rail. The first-fixings for it may be visible when the plaster is off.

In the meantime, I'd be more concerned to get rid of that horrible plastic window.

Ivor

 

[malcolm]

Another vote for bad idea. I reckon a warm, moisture ridden room needs some covering over the woodwork to disperse the water. last thing you want is water running down relatively impermeable bricks onto a timber lintel then soaking through until it finds it's dew point and meets it's mushroom and beetle friends. Lime plaster, tiles or horrid modern paint, and mechanical extraction would seem more suitable for a bathroom.

 

[Spoilt Victorian Child]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I know the 'look' of exposed bricks won't be inkeeping with tradition and have some people on here running to the hills, but please try and overlook that side of things. It's something I wanted to do at my last place but the brickwork there was far too shoddy once I got the plaster off. :-/ Oh, and this is why I was asking about appropriate breathable sealer for bricks in another thread.

Regarding the window - yes, I hate it too but it's the least of my worries at the moment! I can sort all windows at a later date.

...Which made me think... if I did replace the uPVC window with a wooden sash, then that would be exposed to the exact same moisture and humidity as the wooden lintel? Could I not therefore treat the lintel in the same way as I will treat a new wooden window frame?

BTW, extractor fan will be going in, don't worry.

 

[bennoa1]

If its that damp then you've got bigger problems. I've exposed wood in our bathroom which was previously covered with plaster board and foam and at least it can now breath, but its mostly oak. We've got an opening window (hand made glass in iron with an oak frame ) which is slightly better than the Magnet 1970's window which was in, and have an extractor fan. Not got the bath plumbed up yet but extractor will be on and the rest of the house will be heated. Also got one exposed wall but the smallest one by the door - took all the cement out and repointed in buff lime - looks great. All much drier and breathable which it wasn't previously so at least it will last.

 

[skier-hughes]

If you made your windows out of the same cheaper wood that lintel appears to be you'd have the same problems with them rotting, but mostly from the outside. Replace the lintel with a nice piece of Oak and it will last quite some time.

 

[TheRoost]

What would you do with the modern wood frame (that I assume has been added to make the original window opening conform to a standard upvc size) though? it will look odd sticking out from a bare brick wall. Can I see some modern brickwork added to the sides of the window opening as well?

The timber lintel *might* be the original softwood item, it looks very similar in colour to the joists and rafters in our Victorian place, which appear untreated but have turned quite dark with age. I can't see how you can realistically protect it, with bare bricks above it with condensation dripping down them.

The walls are going to get a lot colder and condensation prone without the layer of plaster/grout/tiling that you previously had.