old or new repairs

[MikeG]

.........I still think the new tower is better than no tower though, and much better than having a gherkin-like structure grafted on top!
.

Classic straw man. In fact, that goes straight to the straw man hall of fame. No-one has suggested a gherkin like tower, and there is no analogy in that suggestion that relates to what we are discussing. You'll notice that all of the repairs to the post have been suggested as being scarfed in with traditional jointing in traditional materials. No-one suggested sticking in a piece of stainless steel or casting it in coloured resin. The proper way of making the argument you just made would be to suggest building the tower using reclaimed stone instead of new stone. Doing things in the way the original craftsman would have done if he were alive today is entirely appropriate, and if you'd offered the reincarnated original carpenter the choice of repairing that post with a new piece of wood or an old piece of wood, he'd probably have chosen new.....and that's without any argument about being able to "read" alterations decades later. If you offered the reincarnated original roofers the option of re-roofing in new tiles or old tiles (both hand made clay tiles) in the other example we discussed, then with absolute certainty they would have chosen new ones.

Oh, and "forced to do it with our houses"? We're not. Really, absolutely, we are not forced to do any such thing.

 

[TheSpid]

No-one suggested . . . casting it in coloured resin.

Strangely I think that could be rather snazzy [don't worry I won't do it]

 

[Gothichome]

Gezzzz, didn’t know my comment would bring out such strong views, surely there is a middle were we all could agree. I am of the opinion that areas of minor refurbishment could be done with a leaning toward invisible restoration. Major repairs though do to practical considerations will require new materials and being so will be visible.
Saying that I do intend on sourcing used brick for a chimney repair to make it visually blend in. Same with my eaves, I have several rotted out corners currently hidden by aluminum. The tongue one grove boards are 1 1/2 inches thick and most definitely not standard millwork. Fortunately there are plenty of tear downs to source these materials.

As far as additions, I do not like the thought or look of modernism deign being added to old homes. It just looks to far out of place and in my view detracts from the original structure. I will concede though, as an example, a Victorian addition being tagged onto a Georgian home, or a Georgian upgrade to a Tudor structure. These in my view show an evelotuion and a continuity of time and styles within the time frame of of a couple of generations. Tagging a completely modern structure five or six newer in style to the original structure just looks off and often ugly.

As Abi Cott suggests, this will be a source of debate for many years into the future.

 

[Flyfisher]

I wonder how much of this debate is polarised along professional vs amateur lines?

PPUK is probably not representative of the country as a whole but it’s interesting that two of our noted professionals seem to favour the use of new materials over reclaims contrary to the prevailing views of the amateurs among us who would seem to prefer a more seamless, blended result for repairs and additions.

In many disciplines it would usually be the professionals’ role to give definitive answers but given that this particular debate is based on aesthetics this is somewhat problematic, especially coming from professionals that gave the world ‘brutalist’ concrete architecture and the now discredited and widely despised ‘high-rise’ housing estates.

 

[plasticpigeon]

For violins, furniture, jewellery, cars, paintings, watches and many other precious historic items, the better the repair the less obvious the repair is. The best repair is one that you don't know was ever performed. When it comes to buildings there is this idea that a repair or addition must intuitively be able to be read by a layperson. I know there are examples to the contrary but it does seem convention. I don't understand why. Perhaps lack of decent tradespeople or informed sympathetic architects necessitates this approach and it is simply the tail wagging the dog. Perhaps it is elitist dogma. perhaps someone could explain. I think that record keeping can be so comprehensive these days that it is not necessary to be able to read the repair for the historic integrity of the building to be maintained. I also don't believe the approach of reading the building is accepted the world over. I get the impression that in Italy for example the opposite is true, with plently of faux old to maintain continuity with what is already in existence, though the last point I admit I have only very sketchy knowlege of.

 

[88v8]

....there is this idea that a repair or addition must intuitively be able to be read by a layperson.

Yes, and I think it a fatuous idea. Anyone who knows old buildings will be able to sort new from old, as to the man on the Clapham omnibus, he neither knows nor cares.

Here is an example, for sale a few miles away, which has been extended and altered in a manner 'of its time';
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-80607629.html

Wonderful, innit ?? A thing of beauty, a joy for never.

Ivor

 

[MikeG]

I've just been to York for a long weekend. Wonderful. I noticed a couple of things whilst there pertinent to this thread. Firstly, the main door to York Minster was repaired a few years ago. It was done with new oak. You have to really know what you're looking at, and be within a couple of feet, to tell the difference between the new stuff and the old. Round the back of the Minster, there is a stonemason's yard where they are making new bits for the stuff that has eroded away or fallen off over the years. You can't make replacement gargoyles out of old stone and have them look old. As soon as you work the surface to make the stone fit, you expose new stone. What would you people who are into trying to make repairs out of old stuff suggest that the masons do? Then explain why it should be different for masons as compared to carpenters.

 

[plasticpigeon]

Glad that the new repairs fit in. All stones are millions of years old whether previously cut or not.

 

[Flyfisher]

I've just been to York for a long weekend. Wonderful. I noticed a couple of things whilst there pertinent to this thread. Firstly, the main door to York Minster was repaired a few years ago. It was done with new oak. You have to really know what you're looking at, and be within a couple of feet, to tell the difference between the new stuff and the old. Round the back of the Minster, there is a stonemason's yard where they are making new bits for the stuff that has eroded away or fallen off over the years. You can't make replacement gargoyles out of old stone and have them look old. As soon as you work the surface to make the stone fit, you expose new stone. What would you people who are into trying to make repairs out of old stuff suggest that the masons do? Then explain why it should be different for masons as compared to carpenters.

If the masons cannot do anything but expose new stone then the aesthetic argument doesn’t apply so it’s an irrelevant example. I thought we were discussing reclaimed building materials, such as bricks and roof tiles, where the difference between old and new materials would be clearly visible and therefore have an aesthetic impact and, more importantly, for which there is a clear choice. I don’t understand why the limited choices of stonemasons should have to be applied to other trades where there is a choice.

 

[mardinor]

Mike, glad to see your own straw man is made from brand new straw and not ‘classic’ like Me!s.
Certainly stands out to the reader of your argument.

 

[88v8]

Agree with the comments about creating a market for old materials.
In some cases. Stone tiles for instance. But not clays, nor bricks. Perhaps flags if outdoors. Fireplaces in empty buildings.
But no one is going to steal old oak beams.

And another thing with new oak, unless kiln dried, it shrinks.
Not relevant to the OP's repair as it's longitudinal, but very relevant if one is repairing a frame and then rendering up to it, for instance.

Mind you, old oak dunnarf blunt one's tools.

Ivor

 

[MikeG]

Glad that the new repairs fit in. All stones are millions of years old whether previously cut or not.

Well, OK, but all wood is hundreds of years old.........

And yes, the new repairs in new materials do fit in. They look new for a while, then they weather down nicely, as do new roof tiles, new pieces of oak, new lead, new bricks, and so on. And I go back every time to the question of what the original craftsmen would use if they were magicked into the present and offered new materials or old with which to affect a repair.

 

[MikeG]

Mike, glad to see your own straw man is made from brand new straw and not ‘classic’ like Me!s.
Certainly stands out to the reader of your argument.

Help me by pointing out the straw man. I have no idea what you are taking exception to.

 

[MikeG]

duplicate

 

[MikeG]

Agree with the comments about creating a market for old materials. In some cases. Stone tiles for instance. But not clays, nor bricks.........

Blimey, no, Ivor. Clay tiles are ripped off old farm buildings around here at the drop of a hat. They're highly sought after. Second hand bricks fetch £1 each. Slates and pan tiles too. They all are stolen regularly.

 

[Abi Cott]

My favourite locally is men that turn up in yellow vests and dig up the pavements removing the original stone slabs. They have barricades and vests and everything you would expect and they steal the yorkstone slabs from the bloody streets.

I still slightly disagree with Mike, because yorkstone will never reach the same hue by natural weathering that it did then there were 5 smoke emiting mills in the area. You just don't get the same shade of black without massive air pollution, but he is totally right that scumbags will strip stone that's saleable at every possible avenue.

 

[plasticpigeon]

My house is hardly craftsman built, but it is 120 years old and still standing so not as jerry built as some perhaps. Anyway the plaster in my house was awful. Much of it was contained at the bottom of the wall by the wallpaperthat was so well caulked to the skirting. Most of the house went back to brick. The inside bricks were not so pretty, and quite a few had soot stains. I bet they came from demolished buildings in the area. Why not, it saves on materials and money, so it seems there is a precedent for re use.
using new materials is good if they are the right materials and will weather in, so is old stuff if not hot. Deliberately making a repair stand out seems odd though, isn't that what most people don't like.

 

[Flyfisher]

My favourite locally is men that turn up in yellow vests and dig up the pavements removing the original stone slabs. They have barricades and vests and everything you would expect and they steal the yorkstone slabs from the bloody streets.

I still slightly disagree with Mike, because yorkstone will never reach the same hue by natural weathering that it did then there were 5 smoke emiting mills in the area. You just don't get the same shade of black without massive air pollution, but he is totally right that scumbags will strip stone that's saleable at every possible avenue.

Scumbags will steal anything. If reclaimed tiles were banned and there were only new tiles available, the scumbags would just strip roofs of the new tiles and sell those on instead. Meanwhile, all those reclaimed materials from genuine demolitions would be sent to landfill or crushed up for hardcore. Peculiar priorities. Better, surely, to demonise the scumbags rather than the property owners for ‘encouraging’ them?

 

[Me!]

Deliberately making a repair stand out seems odd though, isn't that what most people don't like.

Exactly!

I regularly use both reclaimed old, and brand new materials in repairs. When I replace a pantile or two then I use some old ones that I have. When I repair a rotten soleplate then I use new seasoned oak. When I repair my walls I use new lime plaster. But, if I was to re-tile my entire roof or even one whole face of it then I would hope to use new clay pantiles.

However, my last house was a 1906 semi detached. I built a large two-story extension using completely modern materials on the end of it, and by the time I had finished nobody walking past would be able to see the join. Approximately ten to fifteen years later my neighbour in the other half of the semi decided he would like a similar extension and so borrowed my old plans and submitted a mirror-image version. But in those years, "rules" had changed and he was forced (yes Mike, forced) to take deliberate steps to ensure the additional part was obviously an extension and not part of the original building. I don't remember all the details but the most obvious and jarring one to me was that the line of the new front wall had to be stepped back by about 18" from the original to make a clear join. Why???

I also have a friend who owned a beautiful thatched house with and extremely ugly flat-roofed 1960's extension. He applied for permission to put a thatched roof on the extension to improve the appearance, ... nope, permission refused.

Or, I've no idea of who wanted to do what or when to this house, but I often drive past it. Is there really anyone here who doesn't believe that this would have looked better if the front walls had lined up and the roof had been thatched?

 

[MikeG]

.........Deliberately making a repair stand out seems odd though, isn't that what most people don't like.

I challenge you to go and stand in front of the main doors of York Minster and find the new pieces they've added in the last 10 years. New pieces in new wood.