Q2 - Which was inside, which was outside?

[charlieboy]

My house is partly stone and partly brick but in between the two is some timber framing that seems to be a remnant of an earlier building. I don’t know if that timber framed building was where the stone now is, or was it where the brick now is. I first thought that the timber frame was replaced by brick but I think I may be wrong.

There is a wall between two rooms where the same timber can be seen from both sides. Some of the timbers are of different sizes (e.g. some are 8” by 5” thick and some about 6” by 4” thick). On one side of the frame the difference in thickness is not obvious as all the timbers are level ( i.e. in the same vertical plane) but on the other side some of the timbers seem to be set back compared to others.

My question is this. Which side would be likely to be on the outside of the building when it was first built?

 

[Zebra]

First let me say I'm no authority, but in my timber frame (I don't know how old, 17th - 18th century) it is more flush on the outside than on the inside.

 

[essexbearhunter]

You know what we are going to ask:

"Can we see some pictures please?"

 

[livias]

It depends

If it was a rough and ready construction perhaps with reclaimed timbers ... which sounds possible ... then maybe neither was meant to be seen

If it was meant for show then it could be either too. In Suffolk, timber frames were visible on the outside of houses in the south of the county, but only on the inside in the north

Not very helpful I know!

Anna

 

[Penners]

In Suffolk, timber frames were visible on the outside of houses in the south of the county, but only on the inside in the north

I'm not quite sure where that information was sourced but - although I claim no specialist knowledge - it sounds a bit of a generalisation to me.

To the best of my amateur knowledge, the intended external display of the timber frame was broadly dependent on the designer's and owner's wish for the house to be high status and showy-offy. The majority of ordinary, vernacular, timber-frame houses were not built with the intention that their frames should be externally exposed, while a more high-grade minority of buildings were clearly designed to have their high quality frame seen and admired by passers-by. Since the owners of such buildings would have been wealthy, they could afford to have the highest-quality timber used for the frame, and for it to be regularly lime-washed, so these buildings have generally not suffered much deterioration of the frame. One of the best examples of this, in my opinion, is the Guildhall at Lavenham - a gem of a high status timber-frame building.

By contrast, modest, vernacular houses would almost certainly have been built on a tight budget, thus the highest-grade timber would not have been used for the frame. So complete external rendering protected the frame from the weather.

This broad picture was considerably muddied by the Victorians, who made the "chocolate box cottage look" fashionable, resulting in the external exposure of many timber frames that were never originally intended to be so exposed. In a significant proportion of cases, this has done the building no favours, and has resulted in deterioration of the frame.

The above is, of course, just as much of a generalisation as livias' earlier comment, but received wisdom suggests to me that it may be somewhat closer to the actual picture. However, I'm quite prepared to be shot down by anyone with greater specialist knowledge (GH - are you there?!).

 

[livias]

My source was a fascinating talk I want to by the highly respected building historian Philip Aitkins, all about "The Gipping Divide".

In summary, the Gipping river (which is approx the same route as the A14) has been a divide over many millennia eg Lordship of Eye v Lordship of Clare, Iceni v Trigovantes, different building styles etc. The reason? It turns out to be how wiggly (and so how well drained - or not) the land is