soft red bricks

[danb]

Hi,

We have just moved into a late(ish) victorian terraced house in bristol.

It would appear that some of the old plaster in our under stairs cupboard is just crumbling away and some of the (very red) bricks behind it appear extremely soft....

how serious is this? - ie is the wall liable to fall down???? :shock:

if not - whats the best course of action - just replaster with lime plaster???

for illustration here are a couple of pics

here


and here:



TIA,

Dan

 

[Ian Bond]

Hi

What's on the other side of the wall(s) - next door neighbour, another room, or the great outdoors?

An internal wall in my house has very soft and crumbly red bricks - nothing to worry about in my case, they are just made that way, and haven't deteriorated due to excessive damp or anything.

I'd repair that with lime plaster, and try and keep as much of the original stuff as possible in place. Save on work, mess, expense and keep as much of the historic plaster as possible.

 

[danb]

cheers,

the cupboard itself was slightly damp - think i will let it dry out a bit first before plastering.

the wall borders our kitchen to the left of the pic and at the back is onto our neighbours wall.

 

[BMcD]

I don't imagine all that hardboard has helped any so first thing is to get rid of that and from the ceiling too.
Personally wouldn't worry overly about saving the existing plaster since the under stairs cupboard of a late Victorian mid-terrace is unlikely to be of any great historic significance (time will tell) but I do agree that if it's in fair condition and well adhered then don't make work for yourself unless of coarse what's left is throwing your wall out so much you end up using 2x as much plaster to come level with it than you would of had you started afresh.
Make sure you brush the brickwork down with a stiff brush to remove all the loose before applying new plaster.
From the pictures it looks as though what's there is 2 coat work.
This is where 1 layer of coarse stuff (1:3 lime:sharp sand) is applied arond 15mm thick to dampend brick work. It is then ruled off with a feather/staight edge (this removes any high spots and shows up hollows which can then be filled and ruled off again until the whole wall is flat) once this has stiffend up it is the scoured with a float and then keyed with a devil float (a float with nails in each corner protruding through the face of the float a couple of mm) or even a stiff broom.
When this has set it is then dampened down before a layer of setting stuff (2:1 lime:silver sand) is applied a couple to 3mm thick. This is then scoured with a fine grained sponge (groating) float then troweled off (a little water is used to wet the trowel or the wall just before each pass of the trowel to provide lubrication and close up the surface). Finally it is brushed over with a damp (not wet) paint brush (5").

 

[Ian Bond]

Removing everything to make repairs easier is over-restoration. That way lies creating a brand new, contemporary interior. Albeit with traditional materials.

It's the old wobbly bits (even in cupboards and under stairs) that give an historic building it's character, and charm!

That's just my opinion

 

[BMcD]

It's a very valid opinion and I dare say our opposing opinions could be up for much debate (I expect yours will win over). But I concede the point removing the old for the sake of it dose go against the grain, however keeping shonkey plasterwork just because it's old does seem a bit unnecessary when it's stuck away in the cupboard under the stairs of a Victorian terrace. It's the sort of area you let your apprentice loose on first before trusting them on more important work. Also I'm sure there would have been some attempt to get it plumb and square so can it not be argued that by replacing with new work plumbed and squared you are then restoring the original feel of the building.
This is my opinion and I await the firing squad

 

[Gervase]

It's a difficult call. If you left all the 'wobbly bits' that have materialised in the average pre-1900 house, the original tradesmen would be turning in their graves in moritification.

As BMcD says, the authentic way to replaster is to replicate the way it was done originally, which is two-coat work either simply ruled with a feather edge or dot-and-screeded with a derby.

Unfortunately you'll get a truly authentic finish, in that it doesn't have the undulations and imprefections so beloved of many period property owners but which were anathema to the original builders.

In the range of buildings I've studied and worked on, nearly every one built post-1790 would appear to have been plastered 'professionally' insofaras care was taken to get the plaster level and even, even in the cupboards under the stairs. OK some later repairs weren't done to the same standard, but the original work, where it survives, is of a surprisingly high standard.

Earlier buildings are another matter, but even then - given the constraints imposed by the lack of straight, machine sawn timber, mass-produced bricks and cheap lime, considerable care and pride was taken to get a good finish.

OK, barns, workshops and animal housing would have a rougher finish, applied with something akin to a gauging trowel, but domestic interiors would have the best finish available. Aspirations and yearnings for grandeur are nothing new!

That said, I'm loath to remove old plaster if at all possible, and I don't mind having a visible demarcation between the old and the new.

 

[Gervase]

Ah, cross-posted there. I'll not be pulling the trigger!

In fact, at the risk of chucking several moggies in among the pigeons, could it be that many of us are so tolerant of wonky surfaces is because they're the easiest to achieve. We put up with sub-standard work because that's all we can do.

I've learned through a lot of trowel and error how much is involved in getting a properly plumb and level surface. That took the shifting of many tonnes of plaster and a couple of years of almost daily work.

As a result, however, I've now hacked off and replastered some of the walls in my own place that I did as a beginner. They looked too bloody rustic and squint, and I could feel the shades of the original plasterers glaring at me in disgust.

 

[BMcD]

Gervase wrote:

That said, I'm loath to remove old plaster if at all possible, and I don't mind having a visible demarcation between the old and the new.

I agree up to a point. If the work is of historic importance or in a fair condtion then saving it is desirable and the visable demarcation shows the progression of the building over the years. It can often be harder work keeping old plaster than not and if it's of no importance historically then personally I'd go for square and plumb or at least in keeping with the building

 

[danb]

to be honest the only plaster i took off was stuff that literally came away in my hands.

i think i will take off what comes off easily, leaving anything that is still decent and then replaster with lime.

thanks for the advice guys - i doubt this will be my last question....

 

[Penners]

Danb - one other small thought. I agree with your plan to let the cupboard dry out as much as possible. I would also try to introduce as much ventilation in there as possible, too. This should help to keep the damp at bay in the future. A couple of ventilation grilles - if possible providing crossflow of air - should help.

 

[Penners]

could it be that many of us are so tolerant of wonky surfaces is because they're the easiest to achieve.

How well you know me, Gervase!

 

[biffvernon]

if it's of no importance historically then personally I'd go for square and plumb

There are two reasons why we like to look after old buildings. There's the history and the beauty. Sometimes we look after old buildings that are ugly, but mostly we appreciate old buildings because we like the way they look. With public buildings and high status houses, straight lines, square corners and flat surfaces are features of the architecural style and craftsmanship that is appreciated. In vernacular building, however, it is the human scale and the marks of handwork on natural materials, crudely yet carefully executed, that result in the uneven texture that we feel so at home with.

Modern building construction, with its laser levels and concrete foundations, has entirely lost the ability to create houses that have these attributes. In a couple of hundred years time, will folk value the typical early 21st century house in the way that we value an 18th century house? I don't see many Barretts homes featured on chocolate boxes.

 

[Gervase]

I agree, but it's a question of degree. I do fear that some restorers overdo the crudity of finish to an extent that would appal the original craftsmen.
My own house was remodelled in its current form around 1850, and all the plastering, although only two-coat, is plumb and flat - no mean feat on such undulating rubble-stone walls. I'd feel I was letting the place down if I did the restored walls any other way (A bit like sending the old girl out in a cheap nylon shell-suit!).
Nevertheless, there is a huge difference between that plaster and the modern skim in nearby bungalows. It's hard to define, but it's down to a softness of texture and to such things as the staff beads being twice the thickness of modern wooden ones (if anyone actually uses them any more, rather than the metal angles). And vive la difference.

 

[BMcD]

Biff you're right in what you're saying and I do go on to say if not square and plumb then at least in keeping with the building and as Gervase says "It is a question of degree".
I think wha I'm trying to say is that it comes down to aesthetics and what looks and feels right for the building. A fine Georgian town house would look wrong with undulating walls just as a tumble down timber frame would look wrong with square and plumb. Maybe it's just horses for courses

 

[Penners]

I don't see many Barretts homes featured on chocolate boxes.

 

[Moo]

Marvellous what can be done with Photoshop, isn't it?

 

[Penners]

And Google image search!

Actually it's a very lazy Photoshop job - "quick and dirty" I think they call it.

 

[Moo]

I must confess that for a moment or two I was taken in (thought it might have been a promotional bribe).

 

[Ian Bond]

Nice one Penners!