4 ms·

I wonder how much the difficulty in bringing these building up to modern standards plays into these decisions. Over the years these building would have been fit

I wonder how much the difficulty in bringing these building up to modern standards plays into these decisions. Over the years these building would have been fitted with a variety of different heating systems; perhaps starting with open hearth fires when they were built with large brick chimney stacks to provide thermal mass. Over the years they probably got coal gas put in, or perhaps a back boiler hot water system operating on a thermal syphon, eventually being replaced by an early gas or oil boiler central boiler. Each of these steps leaves another complex layer of hacks, fixes and dead pipes behind making it a long and challenging job to strip out and replace. Similarly, when built it probably had no electrical supply at all, eventually being attached to the grid and wired with mineral insulated cable and re-wirable fuses. Over the years electricians have probably updated bits of this leaving old wires in place behind walls and ceilings. Then you have the walls which would initially be lath and lime based plasters, with horse hair for strength and arsenic to stop the rats eating it. As these buildings got more sealed up, windows improved and fireplaces boarded up the condition of the plaster deteriorated. In places the plaster is patched with modern gypsum based plasters which aren't really compatible with the naturally porous building materials. Even if all that is fixed and updated there is little or no insulation in the construction of the building. Adding it internally can cause issues with condensation buildup in the fabric of the building and is all but impossible to achieve without fairly large cold bridges due to the existing construction. Adding it externally can't be done without significantly altering the appearance of the building. If that is all dealt with you probably have accessibility issues with steps and narrow door ways. Possibly fire safety issues etc.

CalRobert 7y ago
Thank you for a well-informed comment that points out that old buildings are at best a labrynthine nightmare of hacks and at worst a potential death trap. Too few people moaning about what's happening to these buildings are willing to pony up the cash to actually pay for it. Tell me, if _you_ had the choice between paying 500k for a new, insulated, safe, building or 500k + much higher insurance for an old, cold, dirty, impossible to work on building, which would you pick? The former, of course, which is why "protecting" a building is basically stealing a home from its owners (and why old listed structures can be a dirt cheap adventure if you like a challenge) I own and live in a protected structure (thatched cottage in Ireland). Here's some of the issues. 1) The previous owner had "protection" foisted on them against their will. This made their house and its land (aka "curtilage" basically worthless. I paid next to nothing for it. 2) It's massively inefficient, and I need (difficult to get) planning permission to upgrade the heating system. Imagine needing planning permission to replace your boiler with a heat pump!!! I may be able to do a wood pellet stove, but would really prefer heat pump (0 carbon). Right now it's an ancient POS oil stove (looks neat, though I've grown to loathe it) - bit like http://www.handfenterprises.ie/products/details/wellstood-two-oven/28 http://www.handfenterprises.ie/products/details/wellstood-tw... . I also am forbidden from using double-glazed windows, etc. 3) In the most technical, literal reading of the law, I literally cannot hang a picture on the wall without planning permission (using a nail or drilling a hole alters the original material, after all!) - of course nobody does this, so instead everybody just has to guess what their council's particular heritage officer cares about (some are damn-near gestapo like) and hope they don't find themselves on their bad side. 3) I am not allowed to add windows or make them bigger. This is a problem because only one of the windows is big enough to crawl out of, and there is one door. In a fire we may well die 4) Not ONLY do I have to keep a "plaything for the rich" thatched roof, I have to keep it _specifically_ in oaten straw, a material that decays quickly. It's about 20k for a roof on this tiny, ~550 square foot house that will last, oh, 10 or 15 years. Thatch offers literally no advantage whatsoever over a modern roof. At one time, it was what you used if you were poor and couldn't afford anything else, because straw was a waste material, but now with combine harvesters instead of traditional threshing and short-straw oat varieties you can't use straw from normal oats, so you specifically grow oats to make straw for roofs. In the UK I understand water reed is more commonly allowed, and it can last several decades, but Ireland forbids it (in the midlands at lest). 5) House insurance is about 5X as expensive as it would be. I knew all of these things before I bought the house, which is how I have a place on a few acres a 15 minute bike ride through a nature preserve from a train station rthat has commuter service to Dublin for under €70,000, but the ONLY way this place makes sense is because I have an assumed resale value of 0 and can pretty much toss it in the bin and still come out ahead compared to paying rent. For the previous owner, "protection" was a complete disaster. Sadly the only reason it got protected was because the last owner was too poor to upgrade it before the law changed, and they could've benefited most of all from increasing home values.
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  My house was built in the 1870s so I'm quite familiar with most of the things I mentioned above! Thankfully it's not in a conservation area though. I certainly think there needs to be a balance between the needs of modern occupants of a building and the desire to preserve the heritage of traditional buildings. If there isn't an acknowledgement of the need to modernise these buildings they fall into near museum status. I don't think that is good for modern day occupants or for those who would wish the home to be maintained into the future.
  - CalRobert 7y ago
    It definitely isn't - protection is often the first step to a building falling in to decay. That way you can get it delisted, hopefully. This dilapidated mill was in horrible shape in street view 8 years ago, and since then has rotted even further. It's dangerous and hideous, but it's "protected" so it remains a huge burden on the town. It's illegal to tear it down. You'd be a moron to put any money in to instead of just building something else. But the heritage fetishists won't delist it so it remains, an eyesore and attractive nuisance, which does wonders for liability insurance no doubt. https://goo.gl/maps/r2STVqbRMLmbhDY3A https://goo.gl/maps/r2STVqbRMLmbhDY3A Hell, imagine if we had protected status for codebases. "You could rewrite this from scratch but dammit you're going to keep this in jQuery because that's our heritage!
- acomjean 7y ago
  I’m in a historic district too (mid Cambridge). I feel for you, as having sat through hearings to get my windows upgraded (in a non descript 40s brick building).. Someone literally said after someone’s small addition was approved (on the second month asking for approval) the “ even though the building change wasn’t visible from the street, the fact they knew it would be there bothered him” Helps explain why we just elected a more building friendly city council. Here’s hoping..
icebraining 7y ago
Yeah, in the cases of refurbishing very old buildings I've heard (is Lisbon), they often tear everything down - including the floors - except the structural brick walls, then rebuild from those. From that to full rebuild is just a small step. That said, they generally integrate the facade with the building, not just leave it as a screen in front!
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I dealt with all this back when I worked construction (in the Northeast US). You tear it all out and leave the base structure, ensure the outside is weather-tight, install new windows, run new electrical and plumbing to modern standards and slap modern insulation and drywall up. Accessibility except in the most extreme cases can generally screw off unless it's a commercial building or going to be occupied by tenants in which case widening door ways and moving staircases really isn't a big deal when the place is gutted. In practice this means that most inspectors will not bust out the tape measure for a single family dwelling unless things are obviously pushing the limits of reasonableness or it is a totally new structure. This approach is usually cheaper than new construction since you don't need to construct a new structure (if your roof/siding/windows are good you can also save money by keeping those). This approach also can side step a lot of permitting requirements since your keeping the original structure. A full rebuild tends to not make financial sense when the property is going to be commercial (and the existing structure is not sufficient) or rental in which case knocking down and building as much square footage as you can justify is the way to go. For a single family home or commercial structure already of adequate form factor a full rebuild often makes sense. Like anything else you've gotta run the numbers for your specific situation. The pitfalls you are mentioning are only of consequence when you have particularly micro-managerial regulation specifying you must retain outdated materials and interior systems (as the guy from Ireland describes in a different comment).

CalRobert 7y ago

Thank you for a well-informed comment that points out that old buildings are at best a labrynthine nightmare of hacks and at worst a potential death trap. Too few people moaning about what's happening to these buildings are willing to pony up the cash to actually pay for it. Tell me, if _you_ had the choice between paying 500k for a new, insulated, safe, building or 500k + much higher insurance for an old, cold, dirty, impossible to work on building, which would you pick? The former, of course, which is why "protecting" a building is basically stealing a home from its owners (and why old listed structures can be a dirt cheap adventure if you like a challenge) I own and live in a protected structure (thatched cottage in Ireland). Here's some of the issues. 1) The previous owner had "protection" foisted on them against their will. This made their house and its land (aka "curtilage" basically worthless. I paid next to nothing for it. 2) It's massively inefficient, and I need (difficult to get) planning permission to upgrade the heating system. Imagine needing planning permission to replace your boiler with a heat pump!!! I may be able to do a wood pellet stove, but would really prefer heat pump (0 carbon). Right now it's an ancient POS oil stove (looks neat, though I've grown to loathe it) - bit like http://www.handfenterprises.ie/products/details/wellstood-two-oven/28 http://www.handfenterprises.ie/products/details/wellstood-tw... . I also am forbidden from using double-glazed windows, etc. 3) In the most technical, literal reading of the law, I literally cannot hang a picture on the wall without planning permission (using a nail or drilling a hole alters the original material, after all!) - of course nobody does this, so instead everybody just has to guess what their council's particular heritage officer cares about (some are damn-near gestapo like) and hope they don't find themselves on their bad side. 3) I am not allowed to add windows or make them bigger. This is a problem because only one of the windows is big enough to crawl out of, and there is one door. In a fire we may well die 4) Not ONLY do I have to keep a "plaything for the rich" thatched roof, I have to keep it _specifically_ in oaten straw, a material that decays quickly. It's about 20k for a roof on this tiny, ~550 square foot house that will last, oh, 10 or 15 years. Thatch offers literally no advantage whatsoever over a modern roof. At one time, it was what you used if you were poor and couldn't afford anything else, because straw was a waste material, but now with combine harvesters instead of traditional threshing and short-straw oat varieties you can't use straw from normal oats, so you specifically grow oats to make straw for roofs. In the UK I understand water reed is more commonly allowed, and it can last several decades, but Ireland forbids it (in the midlands at lest). 5) House insurance is about 5X as expensive as it would be. I knew all of these things before I bought the house, which is how I have a place on a few acres a 15 minute bike ride through a nature preserve from a train station rthat has commuter service to Dublin for under €70,000, but the ONLY way this place makes sense is because I have an assumed resale value of 0 and can pretty much toss it in the bin and still come out ahead compared to paying rent. For the previous owner, "protection" was a complete disaster. Sadly the only reason it got protected was because the last owner was too poor to upgrade it before the law changed, and they could've benefited most of all from increasing home values.

VBprogrammer 7y ago
My house was built in the 1870s so I'm quite familiar with most of the things I mentioned above! Thankfully it's not in a conservation area though. I certainly think there needs to be a balance between the needs of modern occupants of a building and the desire to preserve the heritage of traditional buildings. If there isn't an acknowledgement of the need to modernise these buildings they fall into near museum status. I don't think that is good for modern day occupants or for those who would wish the home to be maintained into the future.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  It definitely isn't - protection is often the first step to a building falling in to decay. That way you can get it delisted, hopefully. This dilapidated mill was in horrible shape in street view 8 years ago, and since then has rotted even further. It's dangerous and hideous, but it's "protected" so it remains a huge burden on the town. It's illegal to tear it down. You'd be a moron to put any money in to instead of just building something else. But the heritage fetishists won't delist it so it remains, an eyesore and attractive nuisance, which does wonders for liability insurance no doubt. https://goo.gl/maps/r2STVqbRMLmbhDY3A https://goo.gl/maps/r2STVqbRMLmbhDY3A Hell, imagine if we had protected status for codebases. "You could rewrite this from scratch but dammit you're going to keep this in jQuery because that's our heritage!
acomjean 7y ago
I’m in a historic district too (mid Cambridge). I feel for you, as having sat through hearings to get my windows upgraded (in a non descript 40s brick building).. Someone literally said after someone’s small addition was approved (on the second month asking for approval) the “ even though the building change wasn’t visible from the street, the fact they knew it would be there bothered him” Helps explain why we just elected a more building friendly city council. Here’s hoping..

icebraining 7y ago

Yeah, in the cases of refurbishing very old buildings I've heard (is Lisbon), they often tear everything down - including the floors - except the structural brick walls, then rebuild from those. From that to full rebuild is just a small step. That said, they generally integrate the facade with the building, not just leave it as a screen in front!

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

I dealt with all this back when I worked construction (in the Northeast US). You tear it all out and leave the base structure, ensure the outside is weather-tight, install new windows, run new electrical and plumbing to modern standards and slap modern insulation and drywall up. Accessibility except in the most extreme cases can generally screw off unless it's a commercial building or going to be occupied by tenants in which case widening door ways and moving staircases really isn't a big deal when the place is gutted. In practice this means that most inspectors will not bust out the tape measure for a single family dwelling unless things are obviously pushing the limits of reasonableness or it is a totally new structure. This approach is usually cheaper than new construction since you don't need to construct a new structure (if your roof/siding/windows are good you can also save money by keeping those). This approach also can side step a lot of permitting requirements since your keeping the original structure. A full rebuild tends to not make financial sense when the property is going to be commercial (and the existing structure is not sufficient) or rental in which case knocking down and building as much square footage as you can justify is the way to go. For a single family home or commercial structure already of adequate form factor a full rebuild often makes sense. Like anything else you've gotta run the numbers for your specific situation. The pitfalls you are mentioning are only of consequence when you have particularly micro-managerial regulation specifying you must retain outdated materials and interior systems (as the guy from Ireland describes in a different comment).