Show us your vintage home!

[Big Man]

I finished plowing the garden at my place today. I remember when my Grandmother had her garden in this same spot, and for a long time had a man with a mule come and plow it for her. Eventually, the man with the mule passed away and she had to resort to having someone with "one of those tractors" plow her garden. While my Grandmother had the garden plowed, she always broke it up by hand with a hoe. She made a garden all the way up till she was 99 years old.

 

[dh66]

I finished plowing the garden at my place today. I remember when my Grandmother had her garden in this same spot, and for a long time had a man with a mule come and plow it for her. Eventually, the man with the mule passed away and she had to resort to having someone with "one of those tractors" plow her garden. While my Grandmother had the garden plowed, she always broke it up by hand with a hoe. She made a garden all the way up till she was 99 years old.

Excellent!!!

I am looking forward to planting a garden this year. Last year we were busy moving and I didn't get the chance, but I've got plenty of room now.

 

[jamespowers]

I finished plowing the garden at my place today. I remember when my Grandmother had her garden in this same spot, and for a long time had a man with a mule come and plow it for her. Eventually, the man with the mule passed away and she had to resort to having someone with "one of those tractors" plow her garden. While my Grandmother had the garden plowed, she always broke it up by hand with a hoe. She made a garden all the way up till she was 99 years old.

99 years old?! Wow! Now that was one tough woman. You come from some seriously strong stock.
What are you planning on planting?
I like the black contrasting sash on the house too.

 

[Big Man]

99 years old?! Wow! Now that was one tough woman. You come from some seriously strong stock. ...

This is me with my "Maw" in her garden in 1974. She was 92 when this photo was made.

When my Maw was 99, she suddenly came down with pneumonia. The day she fell sick, she had just finished picking, stringing, breaking, and canning two runs of green beans. As the EMS guys were loading her in the back of the ambulance to take her to the hospital, she sent me inside to get a jar of beans for "those nice boys that are trying to help me."

Maw recovered from pneumonia, and went to live with my Dad and Mom. She lived to 101, but never fully regained her strength. Ironically, my Grandfather died from pneumonia in 1932 at the age of 55.

 

[Big Man]

... What are you planning on planting? ...

Peas, beans, corn, potatoes, squash, tomatoes, okra, lettuce, cabbage, etc. Just the good, old basic garden foods. I like to plant the same varieties that my Maw used to plant, when I can find them.

 

[Big Man]

... I like the black contrasting sash on the house too.

When I started re-glazing the windows a couple years ago, I discovered the original color of the sashes was black. From old photos, the color was still black into the late 1940s. By the late 1950's they were changed to white. I've been trying my best to keep the old place as it was in the early days, which isn't too hard because not much at all appears to have been changed.

 

[sheeplady]

The problem is not so much dead air space as it is the lack of a proper vapor barrier and the sharp temperature gradient at the outer surface of the wall. Foam works rather well as both a vapor barrier and as an insulator. it will be less problematic than Fiberglas or cellulose insulation when retrofitted in an old house. That said, the walls are responsible for a rather low proportion of heat loss in. Oat well-built homes, on the order of 13%. It makes much more sense to concentrate one's sffort on the attic insulation and ventilation and on the proper weatherstripping of windows and doors, along with the maintenance of the caulking on all cracks in the structure.

The sharp temperature gradient at the surface is due to not enough insulation. With enough insulation, there isn't such a drastic gradient, particularly rigid foam. You are correct about a vapor barrier, but a vapor barrier is not going to give you 100% resistance to moisture build up- and most people don't install these properly. (The worse being in the wrong direction, the less worse being not sealing it, which is kind of like wearing an open raincoat.) You need to have both a vapor barrier and insulation. If you have enough insulation, of the right type, you can probably get away with a poorly installed vapor barrier because the moisture will dissipate into the insulation and slowly dry; but most people aren't padding their walls with 3 feet of dense packed cellulose. (I have heard of 2 feet.)

The problem with spray foam is that it acts entirely as a vapor barrier, which in the northeast, you shouldn't have on the outside. The vapor barrier needs to be on the inside of the house (hence the growing popularity of the air tight drywall method), not the outside. You want to keep the moisture in; away from the wall. I don't think we'll ever agree on putting the vapor barrier directly against the clapboards or the roof deck without ventilation, as is the case with spray foam.

I strongly disagree about wall loss; because I don't see it as walls versus attic, but more about air sealing. If you air seal your house, particularly in the basement, sills, and attic, you significantly decrease air changes. If you can get your house around 3 air changes per hour, you have a very comfortable house. How you do that has to do with what you have access to and what you have for cash. It is extremely doable to get an old house near to 3 or less air changes per hour, but that will mean more than air sealing, foam insulating the basement, and attic insulation. You need to take care of the windows, as you say, and also air seal and insulate the walls. But that is a really efficient house.

I would say, if you had limited money, I would: blow cellulose in the attic (big bang for bucks), cover your attic hatch, air seal the entire house (but especially around the attic, sill, and windows), and rigid foam the basement walls.

An order of 3 air changes an hour makes for a very comfortable house, but most houses today don't make that scale. They are too drafty- I think I read something like 7 air changes per hour is the typical house. I think 7 air changes is way too much, and really indicates that most builders don't care/ don't know enough to get this down to a comfort level. Pushing it down too close to 2 or less is not cost effective, unless we are talking a passive house. (I am not too keen on the passive house movement, I prefer the net zero concept; I make no apologies for thinking passive houses in the upper states is a little daft since they can't provide passive only heat and don't make themselves net zero.)

That said, I do take back my spray foam comment in part. Spray foam is excellent in air sealing (much better than chalk) and is a good application when sprayed against properly vented roofs and in crawl spaces. Otherwise the expense doesn't match the results, and it is much more temperamental to install and therefore more likely to be incorrect.

But even with appropriate air sealing, vapor barrier, and insulation thickness, I believe that clapboards should be vented. Especially in cases where the clapboards are direct mount on the studs.

 

[Stearmen]

How long were you in for?

Not so loud, they don't know I'm out!

 

[vitanola]

The sharp temperature gradient at the surface is due to not enough insulation. With enough insulation, there isn't such a drastic gradient, particularly rigid foam. You are correct about a vapor barrier, but a vapor barrier is not going to give you 100% resistance to moisture build up- and most people don't install these properly. (The worse being in the wrong direction, the less worse being not sealing it, which is kind of like wearing an open raincoat.) You need to have both a vapor barrier and insulation. If you have enough insulation, of the right type, you can probably get away with a poorly installed vapor barrier because the moisture will dissipate into the insulation and slowly dry; but most people aren't padding their walls with 3 feet of dense packed cellulose. (I have heard of 2 feet.)

The problem with spray foam is that it acts entirely as a vapor barrier, which in the northeast, you shouldn't have on the outside. The vapor barrier needs to be on the inside of the house (hence the growing popularity of the air tight drywall method), not the outside. You want to keep the moisture in; away from the wall. I don't think we'll ever agree on putting the vapor barrier directly against the clapboards or the roof deck without ventilation, as is the case with spray foam.

I strongly disagree about wall loss; because I don't see it as walls versus attic, but more about air sealing. If you air seal your house, particularly in the basement, sills, and attic, you significantly decrease air changes. If you can get your house around 3 air changes per hour, you have a very comfortable house. How you do that has to do with what you have access to and what you have for cash. It is extremely doable to get an old house near to 3 or less air changes per hour, but that will mean more than air sealing, foam insulating the basement, and attic insulation. You need to take care of the windows, as you say, and also air seal and insulate the walls. But that is a really efficient house.

I would say, if you had limited money, I would: blow cellulose in the attic (big bang for bucks), cover your attic hatch, air seal the entire house (but especially around the attic, sill, and windows), and rigid foam the basement walls.

An order of 3 air changes an hour makes for a very comfortable house, but most houses today don't make that scale. They are too drafty- I think I read something like 7 air changes per hour is the typical house. I think 7 air changes is way too much, and really indicates that most builders don't care/ don't know enough to get this down to a comfort level. Pushing it down too close to 2 or less is not cost effective, unless we are talking a passive house. (I am not too keen on the passive house movement, I prefer the net zero concept; I make no apologies for thinking passive houses in the upper states is a little daft since they can't provide passive only heat and don't make themselves net zero.)

That said, I do take back my spray foam comment in part. Spray foam is excellent in air sealing (much better than chalk) and is a good application when sprayed against properly vented roofs and in crawl spaces. Otherwise the expense doesn't match the results, and it is much more temperamental to install and therefore more likely to be incorrect.

But even with appropriate air sealing, vapor barrier, and insulation thickness, I believe that clapboards should be vented. Especially in cases where the clapboards are direct mount on the studs.

Now, since the late Eighteeth Century a "well-built house" has had matched sheathing or at least wattle and daub behind the clapboards. Since the Gay Ninties "well-built" has further included builders paper over the sheathing. Of course in some parts of the country these refinements have long been conspicuous by their absence.

 

[Big Man]

Now, since the late Eighteeth Century a "well-built house" has had matched sheathing or at least wattle and daub behind the clapboards. Since the Gay Ninties "well-built" has further included builders paper over the sheathing. Of course in some parts of the country these refinements have long been conspicuous by their absence.

My house, built in 1907, has clapboard siding only (no sheathing). The interior walls in all the downstairs rooms, excepting the kitchen, are plaster. The upstairs rooms (and kitchen) have tong and grove boards covering the interior walls. There is nothing except the wall studs between the clapboard siding and the interior walls. This is typical construction in this area for just about every house I've ever seen that is around the same age.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think a lot has to do with climate. Up here, a house with no sheathing wouldn't last a winter. My place, built in 1911, has rough board sheathing with tar paper over it, and then the clapboards. And thick lath-and-plaster walls on the inside. Mine wasn't an expensive house, either -- it was typical New England working-class housing of the early twentieth century.

Nowadays the sheathing is flakeboard or plywood, and they use plastic instead of tar paper, but the principle is the same.

 

[jamespowers]

This is me with my "Maw" in her garden in 1974. She was 92 when this photo was made.

When my Maw was 99, she suddenly came down with pneumonia. The day she fell sick, she had just finished picking, stringing, breaking, and canning two runs of green beans. As the EMS guys were loading her in the back of the ambulance to take her to the hospital, she sent me inside to get a jar of beans for "those nice boys that are trying to help me."

Maw recovered from pneumonia, and went to live with my Dad and Mom. She lived to 101, but never fully regained her strength. Ironically, my Grandfather died from pneumonia in 1932 at the age of 55.

101?! That was quite a long life. I suppose my grandmother was right when she said that hard work never killed anybody. She was 93.
When you plant the garden don't forget that gladiolus in front of your grandmother there.

 

[jamespowers]

Peas, beans, corn, potatoes, squash, tomatoes, okra, lettuce, cabbage, etc. Just the good, old basic garden foods. I like to plant the same varieties that my Maw used to plant, when I can find them.

That will be quite the garden. You are going to have to start canning as well.

 

[Big Man]

That will be quite the garden. You are going to have to start canning as well.

Already can a lot of foods. And do it the "vintage way" with my Grandmother's big old pot and on her old stove.

 

[jamespowers]

Already can a lot of foods. And do it the "vintage way" with my Grandmother's big old pot and on her old stove.

That is the way to do it.

 

[Stearmen]

I think a lot has to do with climate. Up here, a house with no sheathing wouldn't last a winter. My place, built in 1911, has rough board sheathing with tar paper over it, and then the clapboards. And thick lath-and-plaster walls on the inside. Mine wasn't an expensive house, either -- it was typical New England working-class housing of the early twentieth century.

Nowadays the sheathing is flakeboard or plywood, and they use plastic instead of tar paper, but the principle is the same.

That's the way my 1888 is constructed! It is warm inside, but expensive to heat! Yes, I have the thermostat down as low as it will go. Now lets talk electrical wiring! Take your pick, from knob and tube to romex. You can see the whole history of electricity in this house!

 

[sheeplady]

Now, since the late Eighteeth Century a "well-built house" has had matched sheathing or at least wattle and daub behind the clapboards. Since the Gay Ninties "well-built" has further included builders paper over the sheathing. Of course in some parts of the country these refinements have long been conspicuous by their absence.

Well, I am of two minds here, which aren't in conflict. First, I don't believe in tearing a house apart for the sake of energy efficiency. It is NOT cost effective.

Second, I strongly believe that if you do tear an old house apart (gut from either direction) you owe it to the house to update it to the best of current building science while preserving the historical character. If you rehab a house but it sucks to live in it because the wind blows your candles out with doors and windows shut, then you have done the house a great disservice. Most modern people don't want to live in drafty or cold houses; and a restoration that thinks only of historical accuracy and not the inhabitants dooms a house to remuddling by future owners.

On our new house, remuddled in the 1960s, we gutted from the inside. The clapboards on studs are historical, so we are leaving those. But the house will be well insulated, with extruded sheet foam behind the clapboards, dense packed cellulose, and air tight drywall. The house deserves it and we would be poor stewards of its future to not make it the best house to live in, cheap to heat and cool. We would be dooming it to a tear down otherwise in the area it's in. No one wants to spend $10,000 a year to heat a house to drafty, and they won't. Our heating and cooling bills will be about $1,500 to $2,000 a year thanks to our improvements, and that $8,000 makes a huge difference in keeping that house standing in an area where most houses are allowed to rot into the ground, in favor of single wides which are cheap to heat with a small woodstove.

 

[Big Man]

Well, I am of two minds here, which aren't in conflict. First, I don't believe in tearing a house apart for the sake of energy efficiency. It is NOT cost effective.

Second, I strongly believe that if you do tear an old house apart (gut from either direction) you owe it to the house to update it to the best of current building science while preserving the historical character. ...

You make some excellent points. If I were going to restore/remodel an old house, I'd do everything possible to retain the original look and feel while "modernizing" the infrastructure/utilities. However ...

My old house is drafty. It still has the same old windows that are held open with a window stick. When the wind blows, the curtains flutter. In the winter, we heat only three rooms: the kitchen, the living room, and the bathroom. The bedrooms get a bit cold. Several times this winter it has been in the teens in the bedroom. We just pile on more old quilts, and that seems to work. To get to the bathroom you have to go outside across the back porch.

I can still see my Grandmother sitting by the fire, wool stockings on her feet and wearing a flannel dress and a wool housecoat, trying to stay warm. She lived like this through her 99th year. I remember as a child taking a bath in the old cast iron tub with the room heated by a little, black kerosene heater (we still have it, but don't dare use it anymore). I remember liking to splash water on that little heater and hearing it sizzle. I remember taking a hot water bottle to bed so my feet would stay warm. I remember at night the sound of the windows rattling when the wind blew hard (and also when a freight train passed by).

There are so many good memories associated with this old, drafty, cold in the winter, hot in the summer, house that I just can't bring myself to "modernize" it in any way. I know it would be more comfortable if I did a lot of remodeling, but it's home to me the way it is.

 

[vitanola]

You make some excellent points. If I were going to restore/remodel an old house, I'd do everything possible to retain the original look and feel while "modernizing" the infrastructure/utilities. However ...

My old house is drafty. It still has the same old windows that are held open with a window stick. When the wind blows, the curtains flutter. In the winter, we heat only three rooms: the kitchen, the living room, and the bathroom. The bedrooms get a bit cold. Several times this winter it has been in the teens in the bedroom. We just pile on more old quilts, and that seems to work. To get to the bathroom you have to go outside across the back porch.

I can still see my Grandmother sitting by the fire, wool stockings on her feet and wearing a flannel dress and a wool housecoat, trying to stay warm. She lived like this through her 99th year. I remember as a child taking a bath in the old cast iron tub with the room heated by a little, black kerosene heater (we still have it, but don't dare use it anymore). I remember liking to splash water on that little heater and hearing it sizzle. I remember taking a hot water bottle to bed so my feet would stay warm. I remember at night the sound of the windows rattling when the wind blew hard (and also when a freight train passed by).

There are so many good memories associated with this old, drafty, cold in the winter, hot in the summer, house that I just can't bring myself to "modernize" it in any way. I know it would be more comfortable if I did a lot of remodeling, but it's home to me the way it is.

The old wood windows are surprisingly efficient when they are properly maintained, particularly when covered with well maintained wood storm windows. The pockets where the sash weights run are a terrible,source for drafts, and the sash tend to be a bit loose in their frames, but that can be easily corrected with a product called "Jamb Liners", engineered plastic extrusions which seal the moving joints and provide friction support for the sash, allowing the weight pockets to be sealed and insulated. A window fitted with a storm and these jamb liners will have an R value approaching R-2.5, rather better than many modern plastic insulated glass units.

 

[Big Man]

... The pockets where the sash weights run ...

The windows in my house do not have sash weights. You simply raise the window and put a stick under it to hold it up. For this house, double-hung windows with sash weights would be something "modern."