In Defense of Plastere

[JoceAndChris]

Or, Ye Olde Beames are a Modern Fashun

This, by the incomparable Osbert Lancaster in 1949, tickles me a lot. He's speaking of his fictional town Drayneflete, which he describes and draws with characteristic acerbic wit undergoing its transformations through the ages. The seventeenth century public, he writes, were

"unaware of the true beauty of their own buildings; thus many of the fine half-timbered houses erected during this period were covered by a flat wash of common plaster. Fortunately, more enlightened ideas prevail today and the Council has been at great pains to strip off this outer covering on such houses of that date as have now survived, thus revealing for the first time the full beauty of the glorious old oak beams"

I would guess that very few people in the UK today imagine the exposed wood to be anything other than historically authentic, and how the building has always looked.

The same is true of the inside of rooms.

Maybe the rooms and exteriors are prettier with the stripey look, that's hard to say as limewash and pargeting are also highly attractive. But there should at least be awareness that this style of architecture is modern!! And personally, I'd like to see a real resurgence in lime plastering and limewashing, which is why I'm posting this.

I bet the first person to strip off the old plaster in the 1920s and consider the job done would be absolutely astonished at how endemic the fashion's become.

 

[Penners]

I agree in part, Joce.

Certainly a huge number of vernacular timber frames have nowadays been exposed when this was never the original intention of the builder. Internally, this doesn't seem like too much of a problem - the timber gets a chance to breathe without being exposed to the deleterious effects of weather.

Externally, however, I believe that timber frames are being needlessly exposed to deterioration purely because of "chocolate box" fashion. Not only is the frame deteriorating from weather exposure, but the intrinsic difficulty of sealing the infill reliably to the beams means that damp and draught penetration also become problems.

It must be said, though, that some high status frames were clearly made to be exposed. The careful and beautiful moulding of beams would never have been carried out only for those beams then to be covered over with plaster. A significant number of buildings have beautifully moulded internal beams, and perhaps a smaller number have highly decorative external mouldings, too.

Thank goodness for the durability of oak!

 

[JoceAndChris]

That's a very thoughtful, and thought provoking response, Mr P, and some wonderful pics. I think the exposure can't be a good thing, and when you think of how much moisture is produced within, and how unpopular it is to attribute damp to condensation, and how popular it is to seal up the house a bit more with UPVC and the like, then you have to conclude that timbers without and within are being needlesdly exposed to moisture for the sake of fashion.

Indeed, my own brick walls are crumbling away on the inside and need a good lime plastering to consolidate.

I wonder if the building in your bottom pic is the same era as Liberty's, a building I've always liked, despite being "fake".

 

[philpjuk100]

Is not the bottom one a pub in chester?

 

[Flyfisher]

Yep, judging from the photo url "http://www.cheshirenow.co.uk/images_3/falcon.jpg", I'd guess it was the Falcon pub in Chester.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falcon,_Chester

 

[Keith Bowman]

I think most East Anglian 'close studding' (where the gaps between the studs are almost equal to the width of the studs) was meant to be seen and, with wattle and daub filling between the studs rather than over them, presumably meant to be seen from both sides. It was partly a statement of wealth - 'look how much oak I can afford' and a bit pointless if only you and the builder knew about it.

 

[philpjuk100]

Yep, judging from the photo url "http://www.cheshirenow.co.uk/images_3/falcon.jpg", I'd guess it was the Falcon pub in Chester.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falcon,_Chester[/quote
Thought so! I had a flat pint and a stale cheese cob there 8/10 years ago ( strange how you remember these things!) much prefered "the albion" and "the boot" being a mancunian used to drink there friday nights and shop there saturdays(with a hangover!) I am older and far more sober now. phil.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Reading the architectural history of the Falcon pub makes you realsie how complex the whole business of authentic appearance is! The building has altered and altered since 1200, and now owes its current appearance to the late 19th C.

I'm prepared to accept that some mediaeval, Tudor, Elizabethan, and Jacobean buildings had beautiful exposed timbers designed to wow. I've found Little Morton Hall in Cheshire:

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/little-moreton-hall/

and the gatehouse at Stokesay Castle as examples.

I think most East Anglian 'close studding' (where the gaps between the studs are almost equal to the width of the studs) was meant to be seen and, with wattle and daub filling between the studs rather than over them, presumably meant to be seen from both sides. It was partly a statement of wealth - 'look how much oak I can afford' and a bit pointless if only you and the builder knew about it.

This I find harder to accept as well researched architectural history - what's your source? My current reading "Your House. the Outside View" by John Prizeman asserts that in mediaeval times:

"Oak...was more difficult to fell and harder work than other timber. Oak was therefore reserved for important buildings and ordinary houses were built from willow, hornbean elm and chestnut. Since none of these timbers has the lasting quality of oak , the houses built with the other timbers have rarely survived. This fact, together with the increasing wealth of Britain since the 16th Century which enabled ordinary people to afford oak, has given the false impression that all timber houses were built of this wood."

He also asserts that Henry II had the whole of London painted white to be like Paris, and speaks of the perceived fire risk of exposed timber:

"Cladding...reduced the risk of fire, particularly in towns, by covering the frame with fireproof clay tiles, slates, brick,or rendering, which had been used since the 13th century. The third, important reason was to protect the timber frame, which became necessary when imported softwoods were used in place of oak from the 18th century"

Then speaking of the exposed, ornamented timber frame he writes:

"Sometimes the wood was painted too, especially when the timbers were uneven, giving a more homogenous effect"

Which would be like the buildings in the middle of Lavenham, http://www.beenthere-donethat.org.uk/lavenham21big.html as oil paint in mediaeval and Elizabethan times was too expensive for the exterior of vernacular buildings.

So, to conclude, it seems highly unlikely that black and white stripey or even brown and white stripey was ever prevalent until the 20th C.

 

[Flyfisher]

"Oak...was more difficult to fell and harder work than other timber. Oak was therefore reserved for important buildings and ordinary houses were built from willow, hornbean elm and chestnut. Since none of these timbers has the lasting quality of oak , the houses built with the other timbers have rarely survived.

A very good point and one that often raises a wry smile when people point out how 'they don't build things like they used to'. By definition, it's only the extremely well-built, well-maintained and durable houses that have lasted a few centuries, so they are something of a self-selected sample and so not, perhaps, entirely representative.

Imagine if people were building houses in the 1500s as they often do now; softwood timber frames, a single brick skin and a design life of about 80 years. There will probably be no surviving examples in a few hundred years. Same with concrete tower blocks. At least the historical records of our times will almost certainly be more detailed in the future, but the survival of actual contemporary buildings may be in more doubt.

Also, fashions have changed many times over the centuries, even without the benefit of 'Changing Rooms' on the TV. The timber-framed part of our house is close-studded using large oak timbers. Clearly, someone had lot's of money to spend in 1550. But, from the front, very little is visible as it was rendered over at some stage - probably, we believe, during a 'Georgian makeover' in which large parts of the oak framing was cut away to enable the installation of large sash windows, but it could have been earlier. Internally, the main rooms were lined with an internal frame to 'square up' all the walls, presumably striving for the sort of symmetry that the Georgians seemed to love. Curiously, the rear of the house does have exposed timbers, though the ground floor timbers show clear evidence of once having laths nailed across them and so were presumably once rendered over as well, though we only know for sure that they were exposed after 1908, which is the earliest photo we have.

House detection is certainly a fascinating business and it's a lot of fun to speculate on all the changes they have endured, but it's important to separate speculation from incontrovertible evidence.

So, even if an old house has exposed timbers today, it's not a definite indication that it represents how it was originally built, or how it lived most of its life

 

[Flyfisher]

Incidentally, I first read this topic title as 'In Defence of Pleasure' and was curious why it would need a defence.

But then the full horror of the title really hit me. As Penners has not yet arrived on the crime scene, I'm assuming he's still under sedation recovering from the shock. :lol:

 

[JoceAndChris]

Interesting as always FF. I was wondering about your lovely, grand house, and curious as to whether it was designed to have exposed timbers, it sounds like it was, though later occupants wanted to either tidy them away or protect them, or both. Fascinating.

I wonder if it's really the case that today's buildings won't last? How about the Gherkin, or the Shard, or the expensive modern neoclassical stone-builts around Stamford, constructed to match what's there?

I think you're right to separate speculation from incontrovertible evidence. I'm going to have to go back to the National Gallery and have a good look at those paintings of 1300, 1400, and 1500 to see a street scene - most paintings from the period have an unhelpful religious theme though - I wish I could go back in time and see how Grantham and Stamford and Ely and Oxford looked.

But even paintings aren't to be trusted, I have a romantic etching of Grantham in the early 1800s, showing my house, I think, but it's impossible to be sure and there are rivers and extra hills added in and moved about for effect. The tiny, picturesque group of buildings makes a fine aesthetic whole, but did it really exist like that?

 

[JoceAndChris]

Incidentally, I first read this topic title as 'In Defence of Pleasure' and was curious why it would need a defence.

But then the full horror of the title really hit me. As Penners has not yet arrived on the crime scene, I'm assuming he's still under sedation recovering from the shock. :lol:

I'm sure Mr P can't object to a bit of olde-worlde spellynge, and the title is a parody of Sir Philip Sydney's "Defense of Poesie", which I sincerely hope nobody else living but me has ever had to get through.

 

[Keith Bowman]

I think most East Anglian 'close studding' (where the gaps between the studs are almost equal to the width of the studs) was meant to be seen and, with wattle and daub filling between the studs rather than over them, presumably meant to be seen from both sides. It was partly a statement of wealth - 'look how much oak I can afford' and a bit pointless if only you and the builder knew about it.

This I find harder to accept as well researched architectural history - what's your source? My current reading "Your House. the Outside View" by John Prizeman asserts that in mediaeval times:

"Oak...was more difficult to fell and harder work than other timber. Oak was therefore reserved for important buildings

Sorry - I have no source other than observation of our own house, built sometime between 1450 and 1550, with a jetty and close oak studding, and other local properties such as the guildhall at Lavenham. The studs in the older part of our house average some 5-6" wide and they are fixed at approx 12" centres. The original infilling appears to have been wattle and daub between the studs. Structurally, there is no need for such profligate use of oak and it just seems to me to be more likely that it was done for show. Pure speculation! It is possible that they were originally covered over but that would raise the question of why the wattle and daub was put in as well. I shall be fascinated to hear what you manage to uncover with better research - please keep us posted. In the case of our house, the whole lot had been rendered over with cement mortar in more recent times, presumably in an attempt to keep the rain out.

 

[Keith Bowman]

Not sure why only part of the quote is in a box - my reply starts with the word "sorry"!

 

[JoceAndChris]

Oh, don't worry. That happens. Well, I've now read the John Prizeman. It seems that high status mediaeval buildings with highly decorative finishes might well have been as stripey as they appear today:

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/192471
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2193935

But in 1300 - 1550 the more run of the mill timber frames would be given a colour wash, probably white, which was easy and cheap and protecting, as we see the Guildhall in Lavenham now. Or like this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/majorclanger/6128532266/

The finish, as we know, is short-lived and so some buildings would very likely have appeared with whitened panels in between the silvered timber.

So Keith, your original occupants might well have been able to show off their oak through a thin covering of limewash, or it might have been left bare. But either way the structure indicates it wasn't an ordinary man's house, but belonged to someone reasonably well orf.

Shortly after this period it became more and more common to build the higher status buildings in stone. The appalling roads of the Middle Ages had made the moving around of stone very difficult, though stone had been imported across the sea for the most important buildings, and of course in Britain dates back to Roman times. If your house was near a quarry then stone is more likely to have been the material - hence all the old stone cottages in Lincs. Which would have been, most likely, lime rendered or limewashed unless constructed of smart, expensive, formal, ashlar, which was designed to be left on show.

There are 17th C plastered timber framed houses, and it's the stripping of these back to timber that Osbert Lancaster laughs at in my opening quotation. This is pure speculation, but if the rich merchant next door has got a stone house, and yours is timber framed, then in 1670 it might be unfashionable to seem dated and so plastering over the timber frame and painting in a local stone colour a good option. Plus by then everyone was edgy about fire risk,and in fact in London it was illegal to build in wood and thatch though it appears this law was ignored over for over a century, and the great fire of London in 1666 rampaged through new buildings as well as old ones!

So, there's no simple answer to the whole matter, and the Victorians aping the diamond, lozenge and quatrefoil timber embellishments of the 16th C, followed by the Tudorbethan style of the early 20th C, makes the whole thing a very hard thing to unravel indeed.

 

[Flyfisher]

Structurally, there is no need for such profligate use of oak and it just seems to me to be more likely that it was done for show. Pure speculation! It is possible that they were originally covered over but that would raise the question of why the wattle and daub was put in as well.

While I entirely agree about the over-engineering of close-studded oak frames, I've often wondered if this was well understood or whether the artisans of the time just wanted to build something that looked as though it wouldn't fall down. I know that whenever I build something in the absence of structural expertise I tend to over engineer it as well. However, this may be doing those old craftsmen a disservice. But if close studding really was a status thing, wouldn't we expect some houses to have been built from solid oak? Why fill the gaps with wattle & daub when they could be filled with more oak? Pure speculation as well!

So, instead of close-studding becoming rarer because of lack of oak, perhaps it was because people realised that less was actually needed? After all, if it really was a status thing, there would always have been many people rich enough to still pay through the nose for oak. Or perhaps it became socially unacceptable to be so profligate with oak when our maritime strength was becoming so important and many more ships were needed?

As for why use wattle & daub, if the frame was covered over, wouldn't that be for insulation? I don't know, but it's an interesting point and our timber frame has some wattle & daub, so perhaps it was built with exposed timbers and covered later. Parts of the frame are filled with brick though, and not particularly decorative-looking brick, so perhaps these were repairs when some wattle & daub panels decayed and then everything was rendered over to hide the mess? Certainly, when the frame was disrupted to install the sash windows, all the surrounding voids were filled with brick.

All interesting stuff.

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm sure Mr P can't object to a bit of olde-worlde spellynge, and the title is a parody of Sir Philip Sydney's "Defense of Poesie", which I sincerely hope nobody else living but me has ever had to get through.

Touché.
Once again you have exposed my literary ignorance when I thought it was just a bit of American spelling and a typo. :lol:
I really should have known better than to doubt you. :wink:

 

[middi]

I think most East Anglian 'close studding' (where the gaps between the studs are almost equal to the width of the studs) was meant to be seen and, with wattle and daub filling between the studs rather than over them, presumably meant to be seen from both sides. It was partly a statement of wealth - 'look how much oak I can afford' and a bit pointless if only you and the builder knew about it.

In most instances the facade which was hidden from public view, or an inner wall of a cross wing, the studs were spaced well apart. I presume " keeping up appearances" was the order of the day for the pretentious middle class ( no change here then :wink: )

Middi

 

[Gareth Hughes]

As for why use wattle & daub, if the frame was covered over, wouldn't that be for insulation? I don't know, but it's an interesting point and our timber frame has some wattle & daub, so perhaps it was built with exposed timbers and covered later. Parts of the frame are filled with brick though, and not particularly decorative-looking brick, so perhaps these were repairs when some wattle & daub panels decayed and then everything was rendered over to hide the mess? Certainly, when the frame was disrupted to install the sash windows, all the surrounding voids were filled with brick.

All interesting stuff.

Indeed, and the problems start when someone starts picking off the most recent surface finish and then gets into an aesthetic mess by believing that what's currently visible underneath was always meant to be on show, at the expense of architectural sense.

Two examples:
Norwich
The dormers are typical of Norwich in that they ignore the layout of the facade anyway, but below that the (heavily restored) timber framing shouts down the attempt at classical order and regularity that the 18th century window openings and doorcase would have if the building had been left in its last rendered state.

Lincoln
A stone example which was patched in brick before being rendered (as its neighbour still is) - when I worked in Lincoln there was an application to replace the brick patching with stone because it looked "messy" - which it does, because although it may have started life as bare stone about 1500, it had always been rendered after the current window arrangement was inserted about 1800, until someone came along in the 1970s to "reveal the natural beauty of the building" (a phrase that was used to support a fortunately unsuccessful application to pick the render off the house next door)

 

[Keith Bowman]

I think most East Anglian 'close studding' (where the gaps between the studs are almost equal to the width of the studs) was meant to be seen and, with wattle and daub filling between the studs rather than over them, presumably meant to be seen from both sides. It was partly a statement of wealth - 'look how much oak I can afford' and a bit pointless if only you and the builder knew about it.

In most instances the facade which was hidden from public view, or an inner wall of a cross wing, the studs were spaced well apart. I presume " keeping up appearances" was the order of the day for the pretentious middle class ( no change here then :wink: )

Middi

The odd thing is that, in our case, the gable end with the poncy jetty faces away from the road! :? And away from another house of similar age on the opposite side of the road. (That one had a moat but no jetty.) Oh if only they had had to get planning consent and the papers had been preserved.