Reclaimed historical b/materials

[middi]

There is a confusing and contradictory school of thought as to wether reclaimed historical building materials should be used for repairs or rebuild.

The conundrum is:

1) do we use old beams, peg tiles, slates, flagstones, etc..etc..

2) do we use all the above but new, or hand made as existing.

If we use reclaimed materials it will be historically incorrect and will confuse future historians, most of all it will encourage theft and " accidental" demolition of old buildings. On the other hand it would be silly to waste more energy to produce new materials.


What say you, period building lovers.

 

[skier-hughes]

I've just started discussing this with Flyfisher.

My opinion is that you need to evaluate each repair on its own merits.

Some will benefit from using old materials for reason Fly gave.

Some will benefit from new.

And as each house is different then the same repair in a different house may call for a different tack.

I'm in favour of using recycled materials.
I don't think it will cause large amounts of theft.
I don't think it will be historically incorrect as it was what was done historically.
Accidental demolision will take place whether there is a demand for raw materials or not, for many other reasons.

It does as you say save on new materials, who's to say your new oak is ethically sourced.

Graham

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, just to clarify my original question, I appreciate it's very difficult to generalise but if we consider, say, a 400 year-old timber frame building, is it best for the building to make a repair with new, green oak or old, highly stable, oak?

To my completely non-expert mind, I would guess that it would be better for the building to use old oak.

That guess is based on the fact that the building timbers are already 400 years old and completely stable (assuming they're in good condition) so it might be best to avoid structural repairs with new oak because the new oak will inevitably move and may cause 'bad' stresses to an existing stable structure.

But it is just a guess (and that's all quite apart from any ethical or historical considerations).

 

[Penners]

I can appreciate your argument, FF, in terms of what's best for the building. However, I contend that - even if you use old oak - you're still going to see movement in the frame as the new(old) piece of timber settles in and the whole structure finds a new equilibrium.

So, structurally, I lean slightly in your direction, but only just.

As regards the history of the building, I'm strongly in favour of using new oak, in order to create a clear picture of the history of the structure.

 

[skier-hughes]

But couldn't that clear history be given in pictures, video and written statement?

 

[Moo]

Wouldn't it be possible, when using old wood, to carve the date in some discreet place?

 

[skier-hughes]

Moo woz ere
2008

 

[Moo]

Yeah. Summik like that.

 

[middi]

If the correct dimensions of "old" oak could be sourced to carry out a structural repair, it would be ideal from a "repair" point of view. If this is not available then a well seasoned piece of new oak will also be fine and the prefered choise from a conservation viewpoint.

There is no hard and fast rules. I certainly have used old oak, usually recicled from the same building which I was restoring.
Also I cannot deny that I have made trips to reclamation yards for odds and ends.

 

[middi]

I favour Moo,s idea if old oak has to be used. JUst date the repair, It will go someway to clear future confusion.

One more practical reason for not using old oak is because it damages tools at an alarming rate. Hardness, nails, mortar etc.

 

[Flyfisher]

I can appreciate your argument, FF, in terms of what's best for the building. However, I contend that - even if you use old oak - you're still going to see movement in the frame as the new(old) piece of timber settles in and the whole structure finds a new equilibrium.

Fair point; I guess it depends on the amount of movement.

Or perhaps it doesn't really matter? Perhaps for an isolated repair the strength of the rest of the frame is so great that any movement in new bit of oak - even an A-frame - wouldn't be able to do any harm anyway?

I do agree though about somehow distinguishing the new work from the original build - whatever age of oak is used. Of course, future historians will have the pleasure of rummaging though all the LBC paperwork in the county archives to help uncover the history of a property.

But for sheer simplicity I'd go with Moo's idea of carving the date into the new work. Preferably also with the name of the person responsible. I'm sure we've all looked old properties and tried to imagine the person who actually cut a particular joint or laid a particular course of bricks, but to see their name carved into the work itself would give such a greater sense of connection. Maybe I should have left a memory card full of photos somewhere among my roof repairs!

 

[Pford75]

It's a difficult and intriguing question - I think the answer also depends on the type of repair/alteration.

For something structural or safety related, I would always lean towards new material rather than reclaimed (eg. new pvc wiring, not rubberised wiring)...but then i've not had to replace ceiling timbers or the like.

But for me (and it's only a personal opinion)...aesthetics are also important.....and the reality is that reclaimed brick looks nicer than new....reclaimed boards have a patina etc.

I understand the arguments about theft from historic buildings....but if you buy everything from a supplier who subscribes to the SALVO code, then the risk of this is minimal.

 

[Pford75]

It's a difficult and intriguing question - I think the answer also depends on the type of repair/alteration.

For something structural or safety related, I would always lean towards new material rather than reclaimed (eg. new pvc wiring, not rubberised wiring)...but then i've not had to replace ceiling timbers or the like.

But for me (and it's only a personal opinion)...aesthetics are also important.....and the reality is that reclaimed brick looks nicer than new....reclaimed boards have a patina etc.

I understand the arguments about theft from historic buildings....but if you buy everything from a supplier who subscribes to the SALVO code, then the risk of this is minimal.

 

[Matt Green]

But couldn't that clear history be given in pictures, video and written statement?

Have you ever worked on a church?

Assume that anything that can be lost will be by the time the building changes hands. Churches are the worst: we find all manner of work that the current wardens didn't know existed or had no record of. I dread to think how often some of them have been sprayed for the same furniture beetle damage because the records have been lost when the wardens or architects change.

Reclaimed material is at its best when replacing a feature that has obviously been partially or totally removed (flagstone floors, wide floor boards, doors etc). When used to repair damage that has occurred due to maintenance or building faults or mearly installing for aestetics from a surveying point of view it's both confusing and irritating. Especially as you only usually find out what happening half way through the survey and have to cover the ground again with it in mind.

Case in point: Irish building last week has a Victorian softwood block floor in the basement. We needed a trial pit dug to work out if the cement tanking is tied into the floor structure in some way, so we get a section opened up. An inch-thick layer of poured bitumen is revealed.

Looking original so far, right?

Something still wasn't quite true about the data we were getting and the damage profile: the floor should have been wetter round the edge but it was bone dry. The tanking was failing on the internal wall though. We go through the bitumen to find:

50mm concrete slab on
90mm concrete slab painted with something
Plastic DPM #1
Sand
120mm concrete slab
Plastic DPM #2
Sand
90mm granite slabs
500mm Victorian brick drainage culvert half silted up.

ah-haaa

If the floor had been modern, the resulting pattern of damage would have been much, much easier to diagnose.


Matt.

 

[biffvernon]

Made it an interesting day then, Matt :wink:

There may be a conflict between the benefit to the building and the benefit to future historians, in which case I'd vote in favour of the building and let future historians lump it.

There's a little church near me that is very confused. It was built in the mid 19th century, but mostly out of material salvaged form a medieval church that used to stand the other end of the graveyard. It is mostly made of stone that comes from somewhere up the Rhine, brought over as ballast in returning ships on the wool export trade.

It has a very fine elm staircase, built by the bloke who converted into a restaurant.

Repair, reuse, recycle, as they say.

 

[Flyfisher]

There may be a conflict between the benefit to the building and the benefit to future historians, in which case I'd vote in favour of the building and let future historians lump it.

Yes, that's my instinct too - especially as it would be fairly easy to mark any new work with the date anyway.

 

[Cloudscape]

I was thinking of a fairly large tiled area of wall in my kitchen. I'm drawn to the idea of old tiles. If I used (for instance) Victorian tiles, could this be seen as altering the time-line? Or are tiles more about decorating, and less about the fabric of the building?

 

[Penners]

One more practical reason for not using old oak is because it damages tools at an alarming rate.

It damages the tool operative, too. I still bear the elbow pains of having to rip a 12in square 15th century oak corner post upwards, in situ, to scarf in a new piece of oak, because the bottom 2 feet had rotted away. The rip cut alone took me an entire day. This was in 1977.

Come to think of it, I did carve the date into the new piece of oak - my initials too, purely out of vanity.

Perhaps for an isolated repair the strength of the rest of the frame is so great that any movement in new bit of oak - even an A-frame - wouldn't be able to do any harm anyway?

I'm sure that's true. Over the centuries old oak frame buildings move, twist, lean - sometimes to an alarming degree - but their design and strength just accommodates this without problems.

 

[biffvernon]

Why hasn't that house got a chimney?

 

[andrew gayton]

I would say to use new green oak. easier to work. helps to sustain the industry. easily readable. also, the movement in the new section, together with off set pegging, will tighten up the joint. using old timber will encourage robbing out and the loss of buildings due to the non-salvo members of the reclaim industry. old timber can be a breeding ground which you don't want to introduce to another building. etc. just my tupenny worth.