- Thread starter TheSpid
- Start date
88v8
Member
- Messages
- 3,131
- Location
- Glorious Gloucs
Ooer.
So, it's sitting on concrete/brick... but there might be a bottom beam? If so, will probably be very rotten.
The good news is that if it's wobbly, it's not holding up anything.
So you can take it out and repair it. Or slash-cut the bottom to scarf in a new piece. Well, not 'new' of course, salvage yard trip required.
Whether you bother to reinstate the bottom beam, if there was one, given that it has no further structural function that is largely a cosmetic decision, up to you.
You could just fasten the upright to the wall with a big through-fixing, having started the hole with a Jennings bit so you can then glue in a plug to conceal the fixing.
Ivor
So, it's sitting on concrete/brick... but there might be a bottom beam? If so, will probably be very rotten.
The good news is that if it's wobbly, it's not holding up anything.
So you can take it out and repair it. Or slash-cut the bottom to scarf in a new piece. Well, not 'new' of course, salvage yard trip required.
Whether you bother to reinstate the bottom beam, if there was one, given that it has no further structural function that is largely a cosmetic decision, up to you.
You could just fasten the upright to the wall with a big through-fixing, having started the hole with a Jennings bit so you can then glue in a plug to conceal the fixing.
Ivor
That's not a beam! Beams are horizontal.
Scarf in a new piece. And I mean new, not a piece of old timber. Repairs should be identifiable. The scarf should be taller than it is wide, so I suggest you make it something like this:
Sit it on a piece of DPC or slate.
Scarf in a new piece. And I mean new, not a piece of old timber. Repairs should be identifiable. The scarf should be taller than it is wide, so I suggest you make it something like this:
Sit it on a piece of DPC or slate.
MikeG said:That's not a beam! Beams are horizontal.
Scarf in a new piece. And I mean new, not a piece of old timber. Repairs should be identifiable. The scarf should be taller than it is wide, so I suggest you make it something like this:
Sit it on a piece of DPC or slate.
Opps, sorry about the wayward terminology Mike.
I was intending new so as to make the repair identifiable.
Fabulous, thank you.
88v8
Member
- Messages
- 3,131
- Location
- Glorious Gloucs
Nice scarf.
I like things to blend in. Look at Me! repairs don't cut it for me. After all, if you repair render or repoint, do you not match the existing, if one repairs moulded wood does one not match it and then paint it in matching colour? Brickwork, new used if old is available? Roof tiles new if old can be found ? If you darn your socks, same colour wool ?
Why treat bare wood any differently.
Repairs aren't supposed to be an academic exercise, a period house is an aesthetic thing.
That's a nice scarf, but if it were on show I'd want it done in old wood.
Ivor
I like things to blend in. Look at Me! repairs don't cut it for me. After all, if you repair render or repoint, do you not match the existing, if one repairs moulded wood does one not match it and then paint it in matching colour? Brickwork, new used if old is available? Roof tiles new if old can be found ? If you darn your socks, same colour wool ?
Why treat bare wood any differently.
Repairs aren't supposed to be an academic exercise, a period house is an aesthetic thing.
That's a nice scarf, but if it were on show I'd want it done in old wood.
Ivor
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,168
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
What about all the roof tiles, bricks, timber etc from buildings being legitimately demolished? Should it all be sent to landfill?
Gothichome
Member
- Messages
- 382
Repairs and additions should be identifiable. That’s an on going debate amongst old home folks here in NA. There are some who advocate near invisible repairs using like materials usually recycled from tear downs and the such. Others like you Mike advocate for very visible repairs as an ode the the evelotion of of a home. The split between the two varies either side of even I think.MikeG said:That's not a beam! Beams are horizontal.
Scarf in a new piece. And I mean new, not a piece of old timber. Repairs should be identifiable. The scarf should be taller than it is wide, so I suggest you make it something like this:
Sit it on a piece of DPC or slate.
This is a topic for another thread, don’t want to hijack Spids thread.
Abi Cott
Member
- Messages
- 561
- Location
- West Yorkshire
Restoration vs Conservation. It's been a hot topic for a very long time, it certainly predates my student days in Archaeology.
Gareth Hughes
Member
- Messages
- 2,741
- Location
- In the wilds of East Anglia
Second hand materials not only encourage the demolition of old building (and give a get-out "oh, we can salvage the materials so that makes it all OK"), but also look awful (reclaimed bricks never look old when used in a new building, just a spotty mess), and put firms making good quality new materials out of business, with the consequent loss of all the associated manufacturing skills.
plasticpigeon
Member
- Messages
- 2,462
- Location
- Birmingham
Not sure that stuff gets knocked down using the excuse that the materials can be recycled. Surely it's usually that the land can be more lucratively used for another purpose. The reclaims I used on my bay window look just like the bricks on the rest of the house. I'm sure new ones would have been good too, but the end result has a lot to do with the care of the builder.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,168
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
plasticpigeon said:
You’re probably right about the reasoning. I doubt that many old buildings are demolished purely for their materials, but when they are demolished why not recycle the materials? Otherwise, what should be done with all those demolished building materials? Sent to landfill? Crushed up for hardcore? Doesn’t seem very eco-friendly!
philpjuk100
Member
- Messages
- 1,140
- Location
- newark nottinghamshire
The chap next door (also listed) wished to "wall in" an open outbuilding,I had a pile of similar bricks from a row of demolished "thunder boxes" which I donated to the project but the conservation officer would only allow new bricks so as not to create a "fake". After further negotiation he has done this in wood,a good compromise.
Gothichome said:
I'm fine with identifiable, but not this current obsession we have in this country with completely out of character additions just to make sure people can tell the difference.
.
.
.
.
And so why are we being forced to do it to our houses?
I do understand the arguments both for and against using recycled materials, but adding to a building in a style that is completely out of character to the existing is just wrong these days.
I know that around this area there are plenty of old timber framed houses that had their exteriors remodelled in Georgian or Victorian times in the style of that time, and that is now what we all usually refer to as character.
And I accept that it is contradictory that I don't mind those Georgian or Victorian changes, but I do object the the modern ones now, ... but I don't care. That is my view and I'm sticking to it!
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,168
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
philpjuk100 said:
A good use of quote marks for “fake” there because it seems to generate widely different opinions.
Part of our house is built around an ‘elaborately carved beam’ that almost certainly pre-dates the building itself and is thought to have originally sourced from a local priory, so that is presumably “fake”. As is the Georgian makeover of the original Tudor timber-framed house itself. More “fake”? Then there are unlisted buildings in “conservation areas” where any changes are rigidly policed to ensure the appearance of the area remains unchanged. Imagine attempting to re-roof such a building with brand new roof tiles :wink:
I suspect this subject has been hotly debated over the centuries and won’t be settled any time soon, though I have a sneaking suspicion that builders of old would not have passed over the opportunity to re-use any available building materials they could get their hands on, so what does that say about our stock of period properties? Perhaps a “fake” is ok as long as it is old?
Gareth Hughes
Member
- Messages
- 2,741
- Location
- In the wilds of East Anglia
Me! said:
Ahem! your first photo does not show Bury St Edmunds Cathedral "as it was for hundreds of years" - everything in the left hand half of the photo, and the cloister at ground level on the right, post-date 1960. That's just how it was during the 45 years that the project was stalled. It's a pity the Lottery were only prepared to fund such a dull tower though, the architect's original design, though still gothic, was much more distinctive.
Nothing wrong with building in period styles, equally nothing wrong with building in modern ones - what matters is that it should be done in a way that respects what's already there, doesn't involve destroying interesting things that already exist, and (as with Bury) is readily understood as more recent than whatever the original is.
As for (someone else's post) using brand new tiles in conservation areas - yes, that's the way to go. Brand new clay pantiles, not second hand ones (which rarely fit properly and there's often a reason why they've become available - they were reaching the end of their lives). And not brand new concrete tiles either.
plasticpigeon
Member
- Messages
- 2,462
- Location
- Birmingham
Flyfisher said:
I totally agree!
