Jump to content

ebuild is sad to announce its closure - it has become too time and resource intensive to develop, manage and maintain.

However, ebuild will remain on-line in archive mode (ie no posting facilties) for several weeks so that users can use it as an information resource.

Well, there are statistics, there are lies, and there are ly

  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 joiner


    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 25 October 2009 - 01:50 PM

No wonder people are confused...


My personal view coincides with...


In the last year I've replaced two housefuls of upvc windows with wooden sashes or casements, with another in the pipeline. All of those jobs were/are for young couples wanting to restore their houses to their original look, although the one in the pipeline will be double-glazed, but still built in the traditional way. And they all say the same thing, that they consider they're putting the value back into their investment because buyers are looking for period features.

Sorry, guys, if this sounds like spam, but as a few of you may remember I've turned down offers of work from this forum (and others), I don't need it. But it would be good to hear the views of others on this contentious subject.

(Message edited by Joiner on October 25, 2009)

#2 joiner


    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 09 September 2012 - 08:30 AM

Curious to find this thread re-posted here following the forum shake-up, I am here revisiting it and finding myself, frankly, suprised (to say the least) at just how far my thinking has changed in the intervening three years.

Whilst still holding true to the belief that historic character is fundamental to any old building's character and an essential ingredient in the sometimes indefinable something that makes a street "attractive", I've gradually come round to accepting and even advocating that as much should be done to improve an old building's energy efficiency as possible whilst maintaining its historic character.


Double-glazing can be achieved with minimal-to-negligible impact on historic character, so why are (most) Conservation Officers so dead set against it?

On a certain other forum I provided detailed drawings showing how triple-glazing could be introduced into the stone, mullioned windows of an old Yorkshire farmhouse. Nothing would be noticed of the spacer bars and to all intents and purposes the units would appear to have been secured in place with a lime mortar fillet around their edges, just 2 - 3mm of the lead that formed the surround of the unit being visible at the edge of the mortar, as it would be if the original glazing had been of leaded lights. The CO wouldn't allow it. Why? Because the units were actually fixed into place with a 5mm wide sealing/fixing run of low-expansion foam to protect the units against the expansion and contraction of the surrounding stonework. She objected to the use of expanding foam.

OK, this hasn't much to do with the actual form of glazing, but it does have to do with a refusal to accept two things: that achieving efficiency in the way we use energy is important and accepting that once something enters the marketplace it is stupid to ignore any benefits that new technology brings.

It's only the clock on the mantlepiece that can be turned back, but even that's no more than a symbolic gesture. We can't afford symbolic gestures nowadays.

Edited by joiner, 09 September 2012 - 09:15 AM.