To reveal timber or not to reveal timber

[Zebra]

Hi all

Would like any opinions on a point of conservation ethics! Where you have timber beams etc in a building, which used to have laths attached, therefore were meant to be covered and were never meant to be exposed - is it better to reinstate the lath and plaster as it was, rather than to lath and plaster between them, revealing the beams?

I want to do the latter because I think it will look nice, and I'd like to keep the timber on show, but the question is whether the current fashion for revealing timbers is inauthentic and somehow dishonest, and would just be me imposing my own ideas on how the building should look?

I'm thinking of internal walls and ceilings, so structural and thermal considerations are not relevant. The building is not listed, so the Conservation Officer would have no say.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

The timbers weren't originally intended to be shown, and generally (as in your case) were concealed. This then would be the most "authentic" approach" for you to follow.

However, it is your house, and if you like the current trend to show the structural elements of your property, then so be it (subject to compling with regulatory issues like LBC where relevant (not in your case)).

The general rule is to try and avoid someone coming along later and not being able to reverse any changes you may make.

FWIW, we have lots of exposed beams here - because we love the look of them. And indeed we have some original limewashed haired plaster on laths attached to the underneath of some floorboards (ie between the joists) which was subsequently lathed over at a later date. So concrete evidence that before the beams were covered, they were exposed!

Some pic are always welcome! :wink:

 

[Zebra]

Well, this is the area I'm talking about. The brilliant wibbly wobbly timbers under the stairs I'd like to reveal, by putting laths in between on battens and applying lime plaster. (I went on a lime plastering course today, and I've come back with ideas and products to try!). Also I want to do the same thing with the ceiling you can see, i.e. batten, lath and plaster between the joists. All would have lath holes which would show that they were covered before, but it would certainly not be irreversible.



However, there is another area, upstairs in the bedroom, where I have decided not to reveal the timber frame other than the main ring beams, because of the difficulty of installing insulation.

 

[robgil]

Before seeing the pictures I was going to ask you how old your home was, sometimes timbers were originally exposed and then covered over at a later date.

From a conservation point of view you are still conserving what is left of the wall whatever you decide to do providing you do not take any of it away or damage it in any way.

From a ''restoration'' point of view put it back the way it should be.

From an aesthetic point of view do whatever you like best (see point about conservation).

If you are worried about the house not being like it was originally then you will have to strip out all the electrics and plumbing if your home didnt haver this already, flooring , windows, washing machine...

Its a tough call to make sometimes with a period home, I have faced this dilemma on numerous occasions but at the end of the day a home should live with its inhabitants just as much as its inhabitants should live with it, if this means putting in additions that were not there originally then why not, providing you do not take anything away. Houses evolve through time and will continue to evolve long after we have stopped.

In this case it will be easy to see there was lath there at some point, this could still prove confusing to future historians but I am sure they will be able to work it out if you use modern materials or leave some tell tale signs.

 

[robgil]

Looking at the photo , you could do a 50/50 , if a young child could not squeeze through the studs you could leave the top as it is and cover over the bottom to conceal the room under the stairs.

This would bring light into the room and stairs as well as making the room look bigger.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

The brilliant wibbly wobbly timbers under the stairs I'd like to reveal, by putting laths in between on battens and applying lime plaster.

This will look great, and is what I would do.

 

[Zebra]

Oh thank you everyone! This forum's great.

Robgil, I have no idea how old the house is, somewhere between 250 and 400 years.Your analysis of the difference between the "conservation", "restoration" and "aesthetic" approaches is very clear and useful. Any future historians will be able to tell this is a modern alteration, since I will be using screws and battens to attach the laths.

If a young child could not squeeze through the studs you could leave the top as it is and cover over the bottom to conceal the room under the stairs.

Yes, this is exactly what I wanted to do. A very young child could squeeze through, but there aren't any of those around here. Would it matter therefore? Presumably if Building Control aren't involved in anything to do with the stairs but come here to see other things, they couldn't enforce some sort of safety rules could they? I hope not.

 

[Zebra]

If you are worried about the house not being like it was originally then you will have to strip out all the electrics and plumbing if your home didnt haver this already, flooring , windows, washing machine...

I have a period washing machine anyway - a bucket.

 

[mivec]

Wouldn't wattle and daub be a better way to go to if you wanted to expose the beams?

 

[robgil]

Wouldn't wattle and daub be a better way to go to if you wanted to expose the beams?

Wattle and daub is a nice idea however it's not very practical, it's soft , requires maintenance and might confuse people in the future. It's messy and a bit hit and miss if you have never done it before.
I usually only use wattle and daub if it is already there in the first place.

 

[Penners]

If you're committed to absolute authenticity, then of course you should reinstate the laths face-nailed to the studs and lime plaster over the whole lot.

You should also avoid electric wiring and lighting, mains water, central heating, bathrooms.... etc. :wink:

It's your house. You should do whatever you want to do, so long as you don't destroy original fabric (which I'm sure you wouldn't want to do). I can see no harm whatsoever in leaving the studs exposed.

 

[Flyfisher]

If a young child could not squeeze through the studs you could leave the top as it is and cover over the bottom to conceal the room under the stairs.

Yes, this is exactly what I wanted to do. A very young child could squeeze through, but there aren't any of those around here. Would it matter therefore?

I don't think the fact that you may not have small children to squeeze through the studs make much difference to how BC will treat such things. Their position will be that the house itself must meet the relevant regulations, and the regulation take no account of the present occupants. This seems fair enough as, hopefully, the house will outlive any current incumbents and who knows who will be the next occupants.

Presumably if Building Control aren't involved in anything to do with the stairs but come here to see other things, they couldn't enforce some sort of safety rules could they? I hope not.

I'm not sure of the retrospective powers of BCOs concerning things they just happen to notice, but my experience, gained in a previous house where I installed a spiral staircase, is that they can be quite strict regarding staircase matters.

 

[Zebra]

I'm not sure of the retrospective powers of BCOs concerning things they just happen to notice, but my experience, gained in a previous house where I installed a spiral staircase, is that they can be quite strict regarding staircase matters.

Oh well, I suppose I'll wait and see, cross that bridge when I come to it. Already the stairs don't comply, in terms of headroom and steepness, but surely if it's not a new staircase then BC have fewer powers to enforce retrospective alterations.

 

[AMc]

If it were mine I would infill between the studs and leave them exposed.
If you leave the top exposed then you increase the area available for heat to go up the stairs and noise too. I appreciate that unless there is a door to go at the bottom that will happen anyway but minimising the area will help.
There is also potentially a modesty issue with leaving the upper part open depending on how often you come down stairs wearing only your dressing gown and have guests sitting in that room
If you really wanted the open upper area then you could template them in ply and get glass cut to shape and toughened. My pal who does barn conversions routinely puts sealed units between studs to partition rooms without blocking light or covering the original structure - it looks very good in a conversion but might look odd in a restoration of a residence?

Regarding Building Control mine was a very reasonable bloke when it came to the difficulties of applying the rules in period properties but I would avoid any obvious safety issues.

 

[robgil]

R.E. Building control , what if this alteration was made 200 years ago? Unless they ask they just wouldnt know would they?

 

[Zebra]

Thanks guys. I'm hoping that heat will go up the stairs, and not much bothered about noise or privacy anyway. There's only one bedroom at the top, and no door top or bottom. It's a bit open plan and I like it that way. I like your thinking Robgil!

 

[JoceAndChris]

I think it will look nice Zebra.

I think revealing timber can make certain decorative ideas a bit impossible (like, for example, hanging tapestries), and it isn't right for most Georgian buildings, where there's a whole staus thing going on. For example, our attic bedrooom here has exposed timbers and unpainted pine staircase. I'm sure this has always been the case. But it indicates the lowliness of the room where a maid would have slept - and if you've bought a house with those sorts of interesting distinctions then I think it's not very conservationist to make changes.

In this case though, I can't see a problem. Good luck!

 

[robgil]

Thanks guys. I'm hoping that heat will go up the stairs, and not much bothered about noise or privacy anyway. There's only one bedroom at the top, and no door top or bottom. It's a bit open plan and I like it that way. I like your thinking Robgil!

I have a friend who did this on a very old farmhouse. It was a huge building though and a complete renovation.
Building control were constantly on his case as were the listed building people.
He wanted an open plan type interior just leaving the studs in like yours.
Because of this building control insisted he fit a sprinkler system, at huge expense. Even though the walls were basically studs with nothing else to begin with and the house was 400 odd years old and hadn't burned down once in all that time.

 

[Zebra]

That's a bit of a worry. I've heard of a case like that before, on another forum, a thread to do with installing fire doors and taking them out again once BC have gone away. I wonder if it's the same person.

 

[Penners]

Presumably if Building Control aren't involved in anything to do with the stairs but come here to see other things, they couldn't enforce some sort of safety rules could they? I hope not.

BC can apply all the appropriate regulations to your staircase if you are modifying or renewing it. But so far as I'm aware, they can't make any demands where it's an old, existing staircase.