reed boards as in sulating.

[JoceAndChris]

Oh, I see. That sounds very sensible for your situation, snug and cosy. I'm struggling with light fitting decisions. I think high-ish ceilings look wrong without light fittings, but I'm the first person to think that here. But then there wasn't even electricity here until the previous owner dug a trench down to town!

Have you finished your cottage then? Is there a place we can see more photos?

 

[Flyfisher]

Interesting range of views. The thing that interests me is why traditional methods are often regarded as so much 'better' than more modern methods - isn't it all just a matter of personal taste and the fashions of the period?

I'm sure builders of old would not have bothered with reeds or lath and plaster if plasterboard had been available. As Moo says, it's not impossible to create highly finished, perfectly flat walls without the benefit of modern materials, but it was probably quite expensive, so 'wobbly' walls were the order of the day. Today, perfectly flat walls can be built quickly, easily and cheaply, yet we seem to value wobbly walls for their 'character' - perhaps just because it's different? Same with glass. Optically pure glass was simply not available in days of old; 'wobbly' glass was not chosen for its 'traditional character', it was all that was available. From a functional perspective, modern glass is a far superior solution and I'd bet it would have been enthusiastically used hundreds of years ago if it had been available, but it wasn't. I'm sure there are many other examples.

I've described before how the C16 part of our house was given a 'Georgian' makeover some few hundred years ago. By the standards of today, such work was serious vandalism - indeed, it would almost certainly not have been granted LBC! Original oak mullion windows were taken out or rendered over and replaced by 'modern' large sash windows (with wobbly glass!), with parts of the original timber frame being cut out to accommodate them and many original wattle and daub panels being damaged/removed and replaced with brick. Other parts of the frame were cut out to install a large Adam-esque marble fireplace - very 16th century!

And all that's before modern plumbing, sanitation, electricity and central heating are considered.

None of which is an argument for not valuing historic houses with all their foibles and eccentricities. Indeed, for me, it's the very thought of the people that previously lived in our house, entertained friends, sat around the fire on a cold winter's evening, gave birth or died in its bedrooms and planned and implemented decorative works, alterations and additions that makes the house so special and gives it a presence that transcends the lives of its occupants. But all the alterations throughout its history were done with 'modern' materials so it seems odd that today we can regard plasterboard as 'bad' while central heating is perfectly acceptable - although perhaps only if 'period' radiators are used!

Therefore, I'm not convinced that it matters a great deal if I partition a room with a stud/plasterboard wall instead of lath and plaster; the end result is much the same, it doesn't harm the existing fabric and it's unashamedly of its time. In that respect, I'm only following in the footsteps of the previous occupants, without whose changes the house wouldn't actually exist in the present form that warrants a G2* listing.

 

[JoceAndChris]

A sound and sensible perspective, but the end of that is that you will accept a visual hotch potch of differing styles, whereas I don't want to. (I've said before that I think a big house gets away with it more than a little one).

It all depends on the specific job and house in question and perhaps generalisation is best avoided.

A lot of it is to do with the visible demonstration of love we'd like to show to our poor old abused houses. You know when you buy a hand made jumper and there's a little label that says "All flaws in this garment are not flaws, but signs and signifiers that it's been hand made by a sweet little old lady called Maud in a cottage in Pembrokeshire" -well I think reconstructing lath and plaster is an equivalent, it's saying "look at the time and care that went into these materials and the use of them, it's not just a mass-produced slapped up article, it's hand crafted with love and care, because that's what it deserves, and because I love it".

Using lath and plaster and reed is an emotional response to our built heritage and our sorrow at its abuses.

 

[Ian Bond]

Personally I don't value the wobbly walls just for their character, but I do value the lime render for its durability and other qualities that have been discussed in depth and at length previously.

In my house, the plaster follows the natural contours of the rubble walls, and to repair or replace sections with plasterboard or even flat plaster would look odd, as would a dead flat partition or ceiling.

Appreciating the benefits of traditional materials does not mean discarding everything modern, but rather exercising good judgement in its use. A good example would be rejecting uPVC double glazing in favour of repairing an existing timber window, perhaps with the introduction of modern draughtproofing. Or maybe pointing with lime mortar rather than cement, so that the pointing is the sacrificial element as intended, and not the masonry.

I am reminded of something Hugh Lander wrote, in "House and Cottage Restoration". It struck a chord with me at the time, and helped redirect my approach to the subject.

New work should settle in with a creak and a sigh, so that opening the door of an empty room at the end of the day, you catch it wearing that benign expression which signals success.
This is not a mere fancy, and those who have worked with their own hands upon old buildings will know what I mean.

Beware the smug technicians of the old buildings circuit who know everything and feel nothing. This is by no means to denigrate scholarship and research. They are essential, but must
never become a refuge from the awkward necessity for exercising personal taste or judgement.

Do not be persuaded that because an extension carried out in some fashionable modern idiom is "honest" it will therefore necessarily be successful.

Beauty may owe much to artifice, but your objectives should be aesthetic rather than moral ones. The work should triumph or fail on that basis.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I must read that book.

Beauty may owe much to artifice, but your objectives should be aesthetic rather than moral ones. The work should triumph or fail on that basis.

That is very well put, and I agree- but a hugely contentious issue nonetheless.

 

[Flyfisher]

Well, we've certainly got a hotch potch of differing styles, no doubt a combination of age and the various additions, so no real chance of purity.

It all depends on the specific job and house in question and perhaps generalisation is best avoided.

.
So true. I also agree with your point about emotional responses, just as long as we recognise this for what it is rather than assume we're doing the 'best' thing for the house itself. It's a thin line between heritage and pastiche. Having said that, I'd normally go for pastiche over most modern buildings, but that's just riding the personal taste merry-go-round.

Just a couple of small points in my defence of plasterboard; first, it has plenty of precedence, particularly in the C18 part of the house and, secondly, by the time I've finished skimming it, it won't be nearly as flat and featureless! :wink:

Ian is, of course, quite right about the inherent properties of traditional materials that can make them actually superior to modern materials in certain applications; lime render on timber frames being a classic example. I'm certainly not advocating modern materials over traditional where there are clear technical reasons against their use.

Beauty may owe much to artifice, but your objectives should be aesthetic rather than moral ones. The work should triumph or fail on that basis.

That would seem to be the basis on which someone hacked about our originally Tudor/Elizabethan house to create a 'modern' Georgian edifice.

 

[Ian Bond]

In reply to Joce's earlier post - very much a work-in-progress with only one room anywhere near finished hence no beautifully finished interiors to show. I just tend to posts pics if they help illustrate how I repaired something.

Mr Lander's books are well worth reading, particularly English Cottage Interiors.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1841881481/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

(other booksellers are available)

Some of his advice is slightly out of date, and would cause a certain amount of consternation nowadays - guaging lime mortar with cement was accepted practice at the time. However, it would be a pity to reject everything he says just because of that, and his forthright style, which no doubt will put some people off.

 

[Ian Bond]

Beauty may owe much to artifice, but your objectives should be aesthetic rather than moral ones. The work should triumph or fail on that basis.

That would seem to be the basis on which someone hacked about our originally Tudor/Elizabethan house to create a 'modern' Georgian edifice.

Indeed, and your house is not alone.

14th through to the 18th century - spot the Georgian bit.

Nice panelled jamb added to the stone mullion window.

 

[JoceAndChris]

FF, as you well know there is a world of difference between being charmed by the different, historic styles of your beautiful house and me living with the current appearance of previous owner's nasty plasterboard ceiling. If you wish to use plasterboard for stud walls that is completely up to you, and I'm sure will look very nice indeed in the context of your house. Mr Hughes clarified it so helpfully 3 pages of threads ago when he said:

"I think that when what you've been given (or bought) to work with is characterised by a degree of messy informality, and carries evidence of various alterations though its life, such that the "original" form is essentially irrecoverable (and its recovery would involve the destruction of much of what gives the building its interest or charm), then the aim should be to conserve that messy informality.

Where you have a splendid Georgian house that is characterised by its tidy formality, tidy formality is the result one should expect from any works, unless a later alteration that would have to be undone to achieve that is of sufficient interest in its own right to merit preservation, at which point there has to be a careful balancing act."

Ian - keep going with the lovely work, and thanks again for the recommendation.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I'd also like to draw our attention to the derogatory way the word "pastiche" is used on this forum. It's worth going to its true definition, which is complex. It can mean hodge podge (the very thing that is often defended in these discussions) "a work is called pastiche if it is cobbled together in imitation of several original works" and it can mean imitation "a literary technique employing a generally light-hearted tongue-in-cheek imitation of another's style; although jocular, it is usually respectful."

In the context of discussions that take place on this forum the word pastiche is often used in a contemptuous manner to refer to ignorant building techniques that result in an assimilation of period features that never would have been found together in any historic property. I have also seen the word pastiche used here as a means of naysaying any attempt to recreate the style and manner of a period. I would argue that the art of reproduction and recreation is far more valuable and complex than this word "pastiche" conveys. I would urge again that more people style their houses and cottages to provide a window to the past, and a glimpse of methods and manners now fallen from favour. At this point I need good old Prince Charles to come in and back me up.

Also, no-one should ever think they are doing anything new. Everything has been done before, so everything is an imitation of something past.