Trying not to like exposed brick and stone

[JoceAndChris]

I've been thinking a lot about this, about my house, about Robin's house, and looking about me at all the naked houses in the area. Conservationists and experts seem to be in agreement that houses do better to be lime rendered, if they originally were, and that stripping off plaster on the interior to reveal original brick and stone is folly in the highest proportion.

I enjoyed this thread very much, where both views on the question were so eloquently expressed by our dear Messrs Penners and Hughes. I wonder if either have moved on in their position?

http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8666&hilit=wainscot

I would just like to point out that my friends are astonished to hear this argument exists, and those friends are well educated and well read people who generally love old properties and either live in one or long to. From that I conclude that lime in all its many forms has pretty much slipped into obscurity -apart from here- and that public consciousness of what an old house should be is rooted firmly in the false belief that exposed brick and stone must characterise it.

I am trying very hard to find lime render as attractive as stone, and would appreciate some pointers as to how I can further appreciate the beauty of the finish. Please look at this website http://www.lime-services.com/ and the pictures of the farmhouse in Rimington, Clitheroe. (just scroll down the page o the bottom) The first picture shows a very pretty exposed stone farmhouse. In the last one face is lime rendered and washed, and I think looks the worse for it.

Can anyone get me out of this I like pubs mindset please.

 

[Nigel Watts]

If you have a Period Property you should not just think "what do I like best" but also "how was it built and what was it intended to look like". Of course there are often no decisive answers to the latter question, so there is usually considerable scope for the exercise of personal taste, but within set limits.

Unpainted or limewashed stucco was often used in the early 19th Century as a cheap imitation of dressed stone. Unfortunately it doesn't weather gracefully in the English climate so repainting has usually been resorted to.

An example I know well which illustrates this is Trinity College Cambridge's New Court, by Willkins (1830s?). The front facing the backs is in lovely honey coloured stone like the Wren Library:

However thhe Master and Fellows were cheapskates when it came to the court on the other side and the whole thing was done in stucco, which must look as dreary now as it did in the late seventies (the window of my old 2nd floor room can just be seen behind the tree on the far left)

 

[JoceAndChris]

It's just such a jaw dropppingly beautiful building it's hard to see a flaw- so you say the second picture is a completely stuccoed front? Yet you can see the lines of stone blocks in the middle section.

How great to be there as a student! Hilda's was a lot less pretty and definitely didn't educate me on limewash or stucco!

If you have a Period Property you should not just think "what do I like best" but also "how was it built and what was it intended to look like".

I don't think that occurs to the majority, but I agree it should do.

 

[Nigel Watts]

It's just such a jaw dropppingly beautiful building it's hard to see a flaw

It's a flattering photo. In the flesh you notice it as you come through from Neville's Court, or through the gateway from the backs - the stucco is so much flatter and drearier than the real stone.

- so you say the second picture is a completely stuccoed front? Yet you can see the lines of stone blocks in the middle section.

These lines were frequently scored into the stucco to imitate ashlar joints. My house has them, although rather obscured now by the Sandtex.

 

[Moo]

The picture (below) shows the lime render being spray applied to the limestone built farm house. The lime render is quicker to apply and overall a better job if it is sprayed. The lime render was quickly worked and sheeted with hessian and plastic sheets to slow the drying time.

I didn't know that lime render could be sprayed. Any comments from the experts?

 

[Penners]

Wow! I'd forgotten that old thread. It was rather fun, wasn't it?

I will overlook the fact that you appear to be trying to equip Gareth and me with fascinae, hastae and pompeiani, and release us into the Colosseum. However, for what very little it’s worth, and at no small risk to my personal safety, I will restate my 'umble opinion.

First, let’s just get the matter of a listed building out of the way. If the building is listed, then the CO's word is what matters. Personal taste must be subjugated to that. The CO’s first duty is to the character and integrity of the building, and yours is to the CO.

Let's also bear in mind that the old thread to which you linked was concerned with the interior walls of a Cotswold house. My attitude is different for interior and exterior walls.

In the case of a non-listed building, then I believe that the homeowner has the right to treat the interior aesthetics of the building pretty much as they wish. If they like Ponderosa-style fake stone chimney breast cladding, hardboard flush doors and Artex ceilings, that's their business, however ghastly you and I might find their taste. The only obvious rule is that they mustn’t compromise the structure, and that’s nothing to do with taste.

On the exterior, however, there are planning rules to be observed. But assuming that this is done, then I believe that people also have a responsibility to their neighbourhood. And that responsibility falls broadly into the same sphere as the old Hippocratic exhortation: "First, do no harm". Your treatment of the exterior of your building will affect other people and the quality of your neighbourhood. You therefore have a responsibility to observe certain aesthetic rules.
This, of course, is where the whole matter gets very muddy, because one has to ask "what rules?" and "whose aesthetic judgement?". I don't pretend to be able to answer those questions (yup - I'm unashamedly copping out), but the best that any of us can do is to ask ourselves a couple of further questions:-

1. Will the planned modification to my house sit easily and comfortably with the visual style of my neighbourhood?

2. Do I believe that, after my work is finished, passers-by will either not notice my house (the implication being that it satisfies question 1.), or will look at my house and think, "That's pleasant"?

I realise that these two criteria are fairly anodyne, but we're talking here about the art of the possible. I realise also that the answers to these questions will vary enormously according to personal taste. To that problem there is no solution.

Finally, please bear in mind that that this gladiatorial struggle is not a contest of equals – far from it. Gareth is a professional with training and experience in this field. I’m an opinionated bloke with neither. So if you’re looking for genuinely valuable advice, you know which of us to heed.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Thank you for that lucid clarification of your sensible views. I do hope that this can be discussed without resorting to blows, and I believe that yourself and Gareth are such wonderful chaps that even if you might disagree a little you would both be splendidly stoic about it.

It is a very important issue for me and one which I must settle in my mind before serious work takes place on this unlisted house. Brick has been exposed downstairs in great quantities, by sand blasting, and I'm starting to think the kindest thing for those poor old bricks is to cover them up again, much as I have enjoyed their prettiness in their naked state. It would be a big job, it's several rooms of raking out cement pointing, re pointing in lime, then lime plastering and lime washing. I'd do it myself.

It does appear to be a very unfortunate craze, one that has done an awful lot of damage here.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Re-reading your original post I realise I probably got the wrong end of the stick - I thought you were talking about the exterior rather than the interior.

I dont have a very clear mental map of your cottage but I do recall seeing pictures of some amazing brick vaulting in your basement. It it this you are talking about? If it were me I would be very reluctant to plaster over it, even if it had originally been plastered, becasue it is so interesting and so beautifully executed.

Do you know if it was plastered originally or what the original function of the basement was? If it or part of it had been used for storage it may not all have been plastered originally. Even if there is clear evidence that it had been plastered at some time this is not necessarily proof that it was originally - its function could had changed.

 

[Tom]

If leaving stone exposed is folly and pub-like, I'd better start pulling the pints!!

However, I think we're back to the same old argument; it's you who has to live there and you should finish it to your own taste......within reason, of course!!!

 

[MdB]

Inside we had to expose the stone as it was covered in multiple (at least 8) layers of cement, bituminous gunk, paint and plaster to a depth of more than 150mm in places and was very damp. Now it has all been removed, the wall has dried out. Originally it would have been lime plastered and if that was still there, I would have considered leaving it however it isn't there now and I see no need to replace it. Instead we have lime pointed the stone and very nice it looks too. If someone comes along in the future and wants to replace the lime plaster then they can. In the meantime nothing has been lost (apart from the cement and damp) which hasn't been lost already.

Outside, one wall is cement rendered and the other is painted bare stone. We intend to remove the render and paint and repoint in lime at some point in the future again as this is the finish we like. Near to us there are houses both bare stone and rendered so either would fit in and we have an old picture showing our house unrendered historically.

 

[Penners]

Brick has been exposed downstairs in great quantities, by sand blasting, and I'm starting to think the kindest thing for those poor old bricks is to cover them up again, much as I have enjoyed their prettiness in their naked state.

Well, once we start talking about your particular, rather than the general, there's another factor to be considered. That is the importance, or otherwise, to you of historical accuracy.

Judging by the photos of your beautiful house that you have posted from time to time, you appear to be trying to recreate a largely Georgian interior. If that is the case, then you have really made the decision already. No self-respecting Georgian house would have had bare brick walls.

Just to pick up on Nigel's point, the cellar could, I believe, be an exception to this (if that's where the naked bricks are). My parents used to own a Georgian house in Leamington Spa and, to the best of my recollection, the cellar walls were unplastered - and looked as though they had always been so.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Nigel - you didn't misunderstand me - I am talking about the whole issue - bare stone and brick in general, inside and outside, and also in my own specific case. It is very helpful to have these thoughts out loud with experienced people who have thought carefully about these issues too, as most people seem to have an unblinking, unquestioning acceptance that exposed stone and brick is a desirable Period Feature, when it might not be.

MdB and DWB, I wouldn't dream of criticising your approach to your own houses -I hope you both realise that. You are in the process of creating really beautiful homes, that, because of others' unfortunate concreting actions, have come a long way from what they originally were, and to save them, has necessitated a lot of new building. Jaqy's house is incredibly old in places and has moved with the times - she can't recreate it as it was. If new building is taking place, why not new tastes too?

But in the case of this house, it's very hard to decide what to do, especially as it isn't listed and I have no one to help me except you guys. There are so many decisions to make regarding the inappropriate cement inside and out, and what's best for the building has to come uppermost. Deciding what's best for the building is hard and I wish it didn't have to be done by me.

Well, once we start talking about your particular, rather than the general, there's another factor to be considered. That is the importance, or otherwise, to you of historical accuracy.
you appear to be trying to recreate a largely Georgian interior. If that is the case, then you have really made the decision already. No self-respecting Georgian house would have had bare brick walls.

That is the case, and I'm trying to find out for certain how it would have looked originally. Jaqy did not think there was evidence of original lime plaster on the exterior, or in the fragments of cement render we removed. That may become clearer when the render's completely off. From everything Gareth's said and pointed me towards, it seems definite that it would have been rendered originally. Likewise the vaulted and exposed bricks downstairs give me no definite answers. They have been rendered, but whether or not I see evidence of the original finish is hard to know.

There is an identical vaulted basement in a shop in town. I spend a lot of time there, just gazing at it, and wondering if it was built by the same people who did mine, as they're so similar, and from the same period. That one's very thickly rendered and painted.

 

[JoceAndChris]

This should clarify the layout Nigel - a quick whistlestop tour

You're standing outside the back door looking at the strange lean to construction:

You come down the stairs into the scullery: don't trip over the cat! In this photo you can just see a square of wood in the floor on the left, that's the well.

The scullery's in a bad state

On the other side of these scullery walls where the lime, and modern paint, is falling off, is the underground rainwater tank - another old vaulted structure:

Anyway, go through the door on your right and you'll come into the main kitchen. Close the door behind you:

Here's the old meat storage area(???)

A little skylight to the ground floor outside

The more modern part of the kitchen, which needs picking apart and cement and tanking removing

Then go through the door to the breakfast room

where the Rayburn is:

and all the exposed vaulting

And then leave the breakfast room through the door that leads into a passageway that I've never photographed, but the wine cellar is on your right:

then you'll get to the scary spiral steps:

when you get to the top of those you'll see the hallway floor

In the hall you'll see the front doors

which will take you to the porch of many puzzles:

and out onto the old path. Phew!

and I'm sorry we skipped out the ground floor and the attic but that's quite enough for one tour! :lol:

 

[Wren]

The big problem with an exposed stone wall is that pretty quickly it manages to acquire its own fan base. If you want to plaster over it at some later date then you will have to answer to an angry group of friends and relations (they are not really your friends any more they are friends of the wall). This is not good. The only answer is to get it plastered quick and show that wall who's boss....

 

[Nigel Watts]

Thanks Joce - I have a much better mental picture now.

Meanwhile I've been putting my thinking cap on. Lord X the big landowner builds a gamekeeper's cottage on his estate. He can see it as he rides around, so it has to look good on the outside. It's worth spending money here. Inside lives one of his servants, the Gamekeper, and his family - quite high in the pecking order of servants perhaps, but a servant nevertheless. No point spending much money on the inside then.

So why the expensive brick vault - much more expensive to construct than a timber ceiling?

Perhaps it has a valuable function to fulfil. Here is a description of a holiday let which may give a clue:

"White Edge Lodge, Longshaw, Derbyshire

Originally a gamekeeper's cottage on the Duke of Rutland's Longshaw Estate, the cottage has many original features, and the former game cellar has been turned into a sleek kitchen. You can walk to the pub, and the surrounding expanses of heather moorland are perfect for long rambles and letting the kids run wild. Sleeps five."

Is this what justified the expensive vaulting then? How would it have been ventilated? Does this give clues about the blocked up windows? Would a game cellar have been plastered? - I know you want answers rather than questions, but I think some further lines of enquiry need to be pursued first.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The big problem with an exposed stone wall is that pretty quickly it manages to acquire its own fan base. If you want to plaster over it at some later date then you will have to answer to an angry group of friends and relations (they are not really your friends any more they are friends of the wall). This is not good. The only answer is to get it plastered quick and show that wall who's boss....

That remains my firm view.

I'm well aware that Joce is picking the scab off an old wound and offering salt around purely to engineer a spat over a Sunday dinner table in Norwich that she'll be able to hear over her dry bread and water in Lincolnshire, but that's just her naughty way... .
However, she is well aware:
1. That she's going to a lovely place tomorrow and I'm not , and
2. There's a fantastic product with a French name that solves all one's render / bare stone dilemmas by being both at the same time... :twisted:

 

[JoceAndChris]

Oh, Gareth. :lol: :lol: :lol: What are we to do with you?

Thank you for your valuable detective work Nigel, and to Wren too for your thoughts on the lure of bare brick!

I was rather shocked when I went to see the doctor for the first time and he said "Ah, yes, your game cellar - very interesting - I've been all round that, that's where they hung the deer for the hall" :shock: :lol: He was much more interested in my house than my asthma!

So others have thought it a game cellar. Cooking took place in exactly the same spot the Rayburn is, there's a large old chimney. Meals must have been carried up to the dining room on the ground floor.

That breakfast room where cooking happened must have been very light and sunny with all three windows open.

In the other room, the room where my blue kitchen is, there are the remains of some ancient device for washing clothes. That may be Victorian, rather than Georgian, however. There's a chimney there too, that's where my hob is currently.

I agree, lots more puzzles to solve before decisions can happen.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I am very excited about tomorrow (though very sad Mr Hughes won't be there). If you can't immediately spot me Nigel, I have chosen the green wool cape and white wool beret with a 1940s handbag.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

We all want a full report when you get back, including details of Nigel's costume (wearing a carnation and carrying a copy of the Telegraph, of course, but all the rest)

 

[Louis Henry]

I seem to be having my cake and eating it: the old part of the interior of the cottage is wonky lime plastered (by me after removing skiploads of cement render), the new extension is smooth flat gypsum plastered, and where they join the old external wall, now an internal wall, is left bare stone. This means it is perfectly clear what is old and what is new and I get the pleasure of seeing the old limestone, complete with fossils, by my dining table. The only fly in the ointment, to mix my metaphors, is that the builder pointed it with arrowhead pointing which I will have to redo at some stage.