contact Landmark Sevices
 

Subscribe by Email

Your email:

Welcome to the Landmark Services Old House Renovation Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Energy retrofitting and historic preservation. At odds?

Yesterday Landmark Services co-sponsored a symposium called "The Greenest Building is Already Built".  It was meant to explore the relationship- good or bad- between sustainability and historic preservation.  Five panelists provided wonderful presentations exploring the issues from divergent points of view.

Not surprisingly, there was almost universal agreement that preservation of historic buildings is "green" in that it: a) reduces the amount of debris tossed into landfills and b) it captures the embodied energy that it took to make, transport, and install the materials of which these buildings are made.  Many pointed out, too, that present day designers could benefit by studying some of the features found in historic buildings, such as large overhangs to keep out the summer sun.  

There was significant disagreement, however, between the preservationists in the room and those who advocate for "deep energy retrofits".  A deep energy retrofit typically includes replacing the existing windows, and removing siding and exterior trim in order to install a layer or two of rigid foam insulation over the sheathing.  Advocates pointed to the large energy savings (often 50%) and the potential for other benefits such as increased comfort and better indoor air quality.  But preservationists decried the wholesale removal of original building fabric and did not like the impact that such a retrofit has on the exterior appearance.

My own view is somewhere in the middle.  As a historic preservation contractor, I am obviously favor preserving original building material. However, I am also painfully aware that most existing housing stock is woefully under-insulated and this cannot be ignored as the availability and cost of fossil fuels becomes more unpredictable.

Would I advocate replacing original windows?  No I usually would not.  The arguments against window replacement are pretty clear. Restoring your original windows and adding a good quality storm window makes more sense financially, aesthetically, and environmentally.

Would I advocate for the removal of siding or roofing and installing rigid foam over the sheathing? Under certain conditions I probably would. If the siding and roofing were going to replaced anyway this approach might make sense if the new exterior siding and trim were detailed in such a way as to maintain the building's original appearance. The difficulty is that by adding 3-6" of foam on top of your roof, and 2-4" to your walls, you need to make the trim boards that much wider. It's tough to do this without creating an eyesore.

But for me it all depends on the significance of the building. I can see taking this approach on a straightforward 1930s Colonial, for example, but it almost certainly would be a mistake for most 18th and 19th century homes because a) these homes are fewer in number and therefore more significant and b) it would be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the subtle architectural details that give these homes their beauty. 

Our approach, here at Landmark Services, depends, of course, on the overall scope of the project and , more importantly, the goals of the clients.  If a house is getting gutted anyway, it makes sense to insulate it as well as you can.  We use either spray foam or dense packed cellulose because both methods stop most of the air movement through a wall or roof cavity.  However on many of our projects we are opening up the walls in selected areas only, such as the kitchen or the bathrooms.  In these houses we often just insulate those areas and the attic and leave the rest of the walls untouched unless one of the clients' goals is to reduce energy consumption as much as possible. Frankly, when it comes to old house renovations that is usually not the goal. Our clients want to reduce the energy efficiency and comfort, yes, but they want to maintain the look and character of their house as well.

For a more detailed look at my thoughts on insulating old houses download the paper that I wrote on the topic here.

By the way, the other co-sponsor of yesterday's symposium was a company called Terrene. They are a terrific resource for sustainable building materials such as cabinetry, counters, and flooring. 

 

Comments? Questions? Snide remarks? All are welcome! We'd love to hear from you so please comment on our posts.

Mark Landry is the President of Landmark Services, Inc, one of the premier old house renovation contracting firms in Massachusetts. He loves old houses and would welcome the opportunity to discuss your renovation, restoration, or addition.

Comments

I'd imagine folks whose priority is efficient heating and cooling don't end up owning a classic structures. We lived in a 150-year-old house in Texas. It was tough to heat and cool. It was gorgeous, full of character. 
 
I'll put on a sweater or turn on a fan if I have to ;)
Posted @ Sunday, October 17, 2010 1:32 PM by Joel D Canfield
Right Joel. If you love old houses you put up with their imperfections (i.e. character). Although there comes a point when enough is enough. When our dog's water bowl froze solid in the kitchen one winter we knew we had to address the draftiness of the old place!
Posted @ Sunday, October 17, 2010 2:10 PM by Mark Landry
Yeah, I'd say freezing temps in the kitchen would fall outside the original architectural specs.
Posted @ Sunday, October 17, 2010 3:44 PM by Joel D Canfield
Thanks for the summary of the conference--I wish I'd known about it!  
This is a debate worth pursuing. I've attended a number of building science conferences on improving energy efficiency of old buildings, and the implicit conflicts between historic preservation are rarely fully addressed, except for the window replacement question. Yes, I doubt many of the building performance specialists live in historic houses, except maybe Larry Harmon. It's interesting, meanwhile, to note that the building science experts always say that windows are the LEAST important factor in a home's energy efficiency. Yet because of all the marketing (see today's Globe, p. A5) consumers believe that before anything else, they should replace their old windows. This discrepancy was pointed out at this month's ACI New England conference--too bad more homeowners don't know this.  
 
Regarding the conflicting perspective of historic preservationists and that of building science experts, a comment made recently on an NESEA online forum comes to mind. The commenter noted that contemporary builders/energy efficiency engineers see houses as a form of clothing, whereas old houses were seen by their builders and residents as shelter. The difference, I think, lies in the concept of comfort. We expect comfort from our buildings today (at least American consumers), whereas in the past, people only expected shelter. From my amateur point of view, I don't think that American houses were comfortable until about 1880. Beautiful, yes, comfortable, no. If we try to make pre-1880 houses comfortable, then we are likely to alter major original features, whether by changing the outer facade, as well as ripping open interior walls, floors, and ceilings, and perhaps replacing windows.  
 
The fact that deep retrofits often call for such radical alterations and loss of original features makes me wonder if renewable energy sources aren't MORE important for saving old houses more or less intact. While organizations such as ACI and Efficiency First prioritize improving the building envelope on old structures, perhaps historic preservationists need to investigate the sensitive use of renewable energy technology (geothermal, wind, and solar panels--installed on ground mounts) to reduce the carbon footprint of old buildings. Also, we need more skilled window restoration workers---not just more energy auditors.
Posted @ Monday, October 18, 2010 11:18 AM by Nancy Jones
Thanks for the thoughtful comment Nancy. I quite agree that renewable energy sources can fit quite well within historic renovation projects. We've incorporated geothermal and photovoltaic systems on some of our projects.  
 
I like the clothing/shelter analogy. It seems to me that there is a happy medium between doing next to nothing - as some preservationists would advise- and the deep energy retrofits that remove so much original material. We're big proponents of insulating the roof slopes and basement rim beam as two relatively easy-to-do methods that provide a big return in terms of energy savings, increased comfort and better indoor air quality.
Posted @ Monday, October 18, 2010 11:40 AM by Mark Landry
Ruth are you saying that historic commissions should be less rigid when approving or denying changes to the exteriors of historic houses?
Posted @ Monday, October 18, 2010 1:25 PM by Mark Landry
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics