Posted By: jamesingramon large council house estates uPVC look no different from poor quality wood or crittal , possible better
as they look a bit tidyer , less paint flacking off when poorly maintained etc.
enviromental , no there not a great product in the production/ end use side of things
but for draught proofing , reduced heatloss there a very affordable option.
poor quality and poorly maintained wooden window rot out quite quickly so may not last as long as upvc
I've uPVC in my home( 1950s utility build) 10 years old and as good as new , they cost £800 for 7 windows
yes I'd love Oak 3G windows but they were out of my price range at the time (and still are), and to be honest I'd think they'd look a bit out of place down my street
I just think uPVC do have a place, and I also think uPVC in place of sash on a period property should be a floggable offense

cheers Jim

I agree with all of that.

I also have upvc double glazing. Fitted 1998. Good as new.

Ev, I was hoping you would give me some examples of what you meant. EDIT - I see you've added tham above now - will take a look.

I agree that damaging solutions should not be forced on anyone. But Part L does not do that -there are exclusion clauses written into it.

Have to agree to disagree where the line is drawn.

Posted By: EvSadly, the 'exclusion clauses' are open to interpretation, by BCO's. And at times damaging solutions are both forced on owners and owners wish to carry out damaging solutions.

Can you say what you mean by 'damaging solutions' please.

Had a look at your links Ev. Very good and I cannot say I disagree with the recomendations. However, to take the window example, I do not think the recomendations on page 5 of your second link support your assertition that double glazing is not always worth the effort. The best measures are claimed to reduce the u-value of a typical single glazed window from 5.6W/m2K to around 1.6W/m2K. Some DG units go as low as 1.1W/m2K. Tripple down to 0.6W/m2K - so always worth it [since I don't see how the choice of window can damage a building, other than visually, which is subjective]

But if you then remove the existing window, whch may have been there for at least 200 years, to replace it with something which is probably very short term instead of upgrading it, with cheap and simple solutions, then isn't that really pointless? Actually yes I do think visually damaging counts. And so does Simon Thurley, thankfully, although it's all rather late in the day:

"Analysing the results it is clear the problems fall into two main areas: what owners do to their properties and what councils do or fail to do to the streets, pavements, parks and public spaces. So, we are asking for three things. First, we want councils to make more use of Article 4 Directions - only 13% of conservation areas currently have one - to protect small but important original details such as windows, doors and front gardens. Lose these and slowly but inevitably you lose the character and the history that made the area special in the first place."

(And buildings do need a few draughts. Being hermetically sealed in isn't good for buildings or inhabitants.)

All that factory building, all those materials used, all the transport costs, all the landfill...

I also know of people removing new timber doors and windows to fit uPVC, which is another lunacy. And those fitting their second and third sets of uPVC doors and windows as either they hadn't lasted or they wanted something more 'up to date'.

Barmy.

And yes, some other works will cause other problems. Ask any Conservation Officer, who will tell you of battles with BCO's.

Here's the EH bumph launched today.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.20516

There's even a movie (although there's a Simon Thurley looking sincere moment, which requires a public warning).

Posted By: Mike GeorgeAh well - had my say - you've had yours. Let's let someone else have a go

Most houses more than a century old are not listed. Mine's much older and not listed.

Plastic windows are crap. End of.

Thanks Biff. Succinctly put. I was trying to be polite, not my usual stance I appreciate.

Mine's not listed either... but I think worth not spoiling.

Nah. Biff's right. Crap, and environmentally there are better options.

I spent last week repairing poor quality wooden sash windows on a 15 year old mock georgian home
sils and mullion rotted out
next week i'll replace a uPVC door/light on a 1890s property with a second hand door to bring it back to how it was , matching in with the rest of the street .I'll sell the uPVC door to someone one on Ebay probably, no land fill
required

each situation is different

Unfortunately we seem to be living in a country(England) that's turning into a museum. The National Trust do a good job of preserving relics for posterity. The population should live in thermally efficient buildings. It seems a large number of people need dragging into the 21st century.

'Thermal efficiency' may come at wider environmental cost. But you know that. Some people do indeed need dragging into the 21st century, Pete. I have no doubt you'll get there in the end.

As for the door merry go round, where did the second hand door come from? What's wrong with leaving the door that's now there in place then?

Ev
I'm trying to get there by building a PassivHaus, but unfortunately the local planners are a bunch of dinosaurs. How can a rural house have triple glazed windows, it's got to have small panes like all the other houses (sarcasm). We have to perpetuate the same old types of buildings. The morons don't even recognise the importance of CSH. Aesthetics are all they are interested in, functionality is of no concern to them. I can't wait for 2016 to see how LPAs cope the those regulations.

Ev - the door merry go round , is to me, just a customers personal taste , no real reason to change it at all.
what I'm keen to try and do is find the best enviromental solution to their expressions of taste , which suits the budget.
I see my job as appeasing peoples house vanity whilst trying to reduce the enviromental effect of their choices.

Still interested what would be the best enviromental option for windows in a home thats
likely to be poorly maintained on a tight budget.
Sorry sticking with existing isn't an option as the customer will buy elsewhere, whether you or I like it or not.

cheers Jim

My dwelling has single glazing. It's been there a long time and I don't intend to rip it out, put it in landfill, and replace. That's crazy.

"The Victorians built a large number of houses and weren't worried about improving older houses such as Georgian properties, and now we are trying to preserve them all. They all need replacing as soon as is practicable. We should stop living in the past."


Well, thankfully we have some legislation which prevents the demolition of some buildings from the past.

Today it worked.



http://nemesisrepublic.blogspot.com/2009/06/lancaster-public-inquiry-chaos.html