"They don't build them like they used to" .... insulating new/old houses.

27cool

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

It's getting late & i need to head to bed as i'm up early so can't comment on some of the things i was going to.

Just to the chap who has worked on a few old houses...

Like i said, my mothers was built in 1805. The walls are thick & i mean THICK. Big solid lumps of stone.
What's your view of those houses in comparison?


The only issue i ever really had with my mothers house was the damp. It was terrible for it. Really bad. But 200 years on, it's still standing perfectly fine.

The thickness of the walls is irrelevant. You have answered your own question. If the house is damp, it can't be said to be well built. The thick walls may help prevent it from falling down. But they obviously contribute nothing to the comfort of the occupants.

Chanes

We had a Victoria Terrace house and you could hear the neighbours through the walls when they argued, moreover, when we had work done on it, they found that an entire supporting wall built on top of a wooden plank. I could run a list of the horrors in that old house.

We moved to a newish build detached and never looked back, even our heating bills halved. Curiously, the rebuild estimate for the new build detached was half the rebuild of the old Victorian terrace (surveyor reports)! I would buy a new build detached over an old terrace - Georgian/Victoria or Edwardian!

And yes, it's a preference we find from experience I guess. There are sound-proofing companies who can help you out I am sure.

JP08

Chanes wrote: »

We had a Victoria Terrace house and you could hear the neighbours through the walls when they argued

Indeed - my last house was a Victorian Terrace (actually technically Edwardian as 1906 but bog standard Victorian two up-two down design. Single brick wall between the houses (approx. 6" thick including plaster - we measured internally and externally between the front doors of mine and the neighbor's. If I sneezed, next door would say "Bless you !"

Furts

Chanes wrote: »

We had a Victoria Terrace house and you could hear the neighbours through the walls when they argued, moreover, when we had work done on it, they found that an entire supporting wall built on top of a wooden plank. I could run a list of the horrors in that old house.

We moved to a newish build detached and never looked back, even our heating bills halved. Curiously, the rebuild estimate for the new build detached was half the rebuild of the old Victorian terrace (surveyor reports)! I would buy a new build detached over an old terrace - Georgian/Victoria or Edwardian!

JP08 wrote: »

Indeed - my last house was a Victorian Terrace (actually technically Edwardian as 1906 but bog standard Victorian two up-two down design. Single brick wall between the houses (approx. 6" thick including plaster - we measured internally and externally between the front doors of mine and the neighbor's. If I sneezed, next door would say "Bless you !"

Which is why Buildings Regulations and Technical Standards were introduced.

It is debatable, if not a controversial view, but I always maintain UK house building reached a zenith in the 1980-90s. (It varies from one developer to another, and is regional). Thereafter it is a mixed bag, but with significant deterioration in many areas. Indeed, I would think long and hard about buying any new home being built by a volume house builder today.

Davesnave

27cool wrote: »

The thickness of the walls is irrelevant. You have answered your own question. If the house is damp, it can't be said to be well built. The thick walls may help prevent it from falling down. But they obviously contribute nothing to the comfort of the occupants.

If only it were that simple.

200 year old houses have been subject to many changes, particularly in the latter part of the 20th century.

These houses were meant to breathe, so they don't respond well to modern impervious finishes, double glazing and central heating. Other changes, such as alterations to garden levels, can also play a part.

I've known many old properties where damp wasn't an issue and I have many located close to where I live now. Problems arise when people don't understand them.

lstar337

Davesnave wrote: »

If only it were that simple.

200 year old houses have been subject to many changes, particularly in the latter part of the 20th century.

These houses were meant to breathe, so they don't respond well to modern impervious finishes, double glazing and central heating. Other changes, such as alterations to garden levels, can also play a part.

I've known many old properties where damp wasn't an issue and I have many located close to where I live now. Problems arise when people don't understand them.

That's all very true, however we live in a different age. People cannot afford to ventilate (let all the heat out of) these buildings anymore, and even if they can they are constantly being told not to and to fit double glazing and such. Unfortunately the blanket energy saving advice being trumpeted by virtually everyone (government, media, salesmen, etc.) doesn't help people in these type buildings.

I lived in a 150+ year old building that had been (poorly) converted into flats for a couple of years, and I would not go back. Even though the rent was cheap, heating the place near bankrupted me, and my family's health suffered from the damp and mould. I now live in a 2 year old new build, and love it. It wasn't built by a volume builder though, so I cant comment on that.

Davesnave

lstar337 wrote: »

That's all very true, however we live in a different age. People cannot afford to ventilate (let all the heat out of) these buildings anymore, and even if they can they are constantly being told not to and to fit double glazing and such..

I agree. I didn't say I live in one now, because I'd rather have the lower bills associated with a more modern property, but many of my friends & acquaintances have no problem with finding the funds for heating (and thatching!) these old houses. Lucky them!

Lifestyle also plays a part somewhere too. When we moved to this 1974 property, we noted that the previous owners had installed extra ventilation in every room. Knowing them, it wasn't for fun, but whatever issues they'd had, we've never had them. The extra vents are now all gone and we have no mould. We run a wood burner in winter, though, which may help.

lstar337

Davesnave wrote: »

I agree. I didn't say I live in one now, because I'd rather have the lower bills associated with a more modern property, but many of my friends & acquaintances have no problem with finding the funds for heating (and thatching!) these old houses. Lucky them!

Lucky indeed. Older buildings with stone walls and thatched roofs are something to marvel at, and wonderful if you can afford them. I may never afford a house at all, but while I am renting I will always opt for modern and insulated.

Davesnave wrote: »

Lifestyle also plays a part somewhere too. When we moved to this 1974 property, we noted that the previous owners had installed extra ventilation in every room. Knowing them, it wasn't for fun, but whatever issues they'd had, we've never had them. The extra vents are now all gone and we have no mould. We run a wood burner in winter, though, which may help.

We keep trickle vents open all year round and we have a Velux with a vent that we leave open too. Our house doesn't need the ventilation for moisture issues, but we do like to keep the air fresh.

It's a shame that people in this older buildings are not better informed. I knew nothing about the kinds of issues old buildings present when I moved into that flat, and when I realised how much all electric heating cost, I went straight to sealing up all the gaps! It wasn't until it was too late that I realised a whole different approach was needed. In the end moving was the best option.