And as I've said many times, the damage waterproof rendering causes is now known. Thats basically the definiton of 'wrong'. Whats news here? If you have a proposed method you think prevents the damage it causes, either to brickwork, stone or timber frame, I'm all ears. I've a feeling you don't though.
really, no. Attempts to control damp that cause expensive damage to the fabric of a building are all too familiar.
Another popular myth. Damp doesn't 'get in', the net flow of damp in all houses is from interior to exterior. Think about it: we cook, we breathe, we shower; if the net flow of damp werent from interior to exterior the house would flood.
Assuming the house is maintained and water isn't pouring in somewhere, then problems result when the outflow of damp is insufficient.
Why don't you go find out how it damages buildings.
of course. Houses that do move do need soft mortar. People do sometimes spend unreasonable amounts of money on underpinning without good cause.
yes quite - I wish today's BR took that and more into account. Its not so hard to do either.
Why houses are gone is another topic, mainly down to higher density redevelopment as population has increased. A house has to be in a hell of a state before rebuild is cheaper than repair.
They are mostly in a bad way with damp because inappropriate repairs and maintenance approaches have been used. The idea that century old buildings were faultily designed is just a persistent myth. Faulty designs are rare.
quite. Several times as long.
Really no. Look in any estate agent's window.
I dont think barn conversions tell us much about the ability of old houses to meet modern needs. They're old barns, not old houses.
yup :)
There are rather more sensible methods than that. You propose a straw man there.
Just insulation and draughtproofing works pretty well. If you want to take it further HRV is far from expensive.
I'm unclear if youre describing interior, exterior or cavity insulation. All 3 work fine on old houses, if done right. The large number of all 3 in satisfactory use demonstrates that.
There is just no basis for such a claim. Obviously at some point they got heating and electricity, just as a new build does on day 1.
I've seen quite a lot of old houses, and very rarely do they need redesign. I don't know why you think they do.
Are you going to claim all old construction is like that? Every era has its failed bodges, the old ones are usually long gone. That's one of the plusses of old properties: regardless of modern build regs, a century or more has proved their ability to work satisfactorily in almost all cases. The level of complete failures on modern properties will likely be higher than on the remaining stock of century old builds.
... all of which is easily achievable in either an old house or a new build.
So you're one of those people who'd rather spend 6 figures per house rebuilding than 3-4 figures insulating. The crass foolishness of such a blanket policy has been seen before. There are always some cases where it makes sense due to other factors, but as a blanket policy its just foolish and destructive.
And fwiw, the vast majority of developers either don't have imagination and flair, or more often arent willing to spend the extra to achieve it. And of course BR and planning heavily restrict attempts to make houses nicer or better featured. We have to live with the reality of these issues rather than a dream.
ditto new builds - so what
I'd say that viewpoint is well cobbled.
If you look at the market value of old versus new buildings you'll notice your view is massively outvoted.
Challenging your illogic doesn't mean I like hovels. Thats just more illogic.
Populations occasionally leave an area, and what remains isnt worth investing in... I dont know what you think that proves.
About 20 million Brits live in such old houses, and most of them work fine. Their market value reflects that fact.
Yes, we upgrade houses at times. Showers, internet, insulation... Just because your old house was a complete mess doesnt mean all others are.
NT