Well seeing I started a small mess on Twitter… Earlier this week, I caught some of the conversation between the players listed below, regarding DER or Deep Energy Retrofits and “Historic” homes. After piecing together as much as I could, I mentioned that maybe we should all cover our takes on it via our respective blogs as there are so many takes on what is not only involved but the different stances. Thinking about it further, I changed the suggestion to possibly letting Leah Thayer @ Daily 5 Remodel having a go with it via a round table discussion & posting it.
The Main Players:
- John D. Poole (aka @BirminghamPoint / Uber preservationist / sustainability expert / squirrel king)
- Peter Troast (aka @EnergyCircle / Energy Performance Evangelist / still tweaked about losing out on a ski trip/ my AlaGBS website provider…)
- John Nicholas (aka @EESavers / Energy Rater / can tell the difference between a deer & elk via infrared)
- Chris Laumer Giddens (aka @claumergiddens / Architect & HVAC design guru with Energy Vanguard /cyclist)
- Allison Bailes (aka @EnergyVanguard / psychic or is that physicist : ) / Building Science Trainer / juggler)
- Carl Seville (aka @GreenCurmudgeon / Ex-Builder / LEED Rater / comedian)
Then of course there is me, 20+ years in the trades, aka chief trouble maker & glad to not only know all these guys, but also able to consider them all friends.
The Rest of the Story:
Apparently, this conversation has been ongoing for a few months (mainly between the main players) and revolves around the Mallet Home Project (or maybe just the concept) and the loss of historical details. Yesterday it popped up again when Chris mentioned a superinsulation project & John stated (with slight edits made for readability) –
Let me clarify my position here… I would concede that an interior “double-walled” approach 2 super insulating, where durability is ensured, original material is retained in place, and new construction is documented & in principal is reversible/re-treatable, is not necessarily contrary to historic preservation. But the term “DER” very often connotes superinsulation from the exterior and loss of original cladding, trim, windows, roof system, etc… The claim that the destructive, exterior form of superinsulation is a valid strategy for what traditionally is called historic preservation is the crux of my complaint.
As John also pointed out to Peter, “I don’t think we can establish the playing field for this debate, in 140 character missives. I think we’re both making assumptions about what the other guy is thinking or intending that might not be accurate.” Apparently they are definitely planning on having a phone conversation & have considered writing up an article about their two takes which I was not aware of at the time.
With that said:
The debate on DER’s is pretty multi-faceted with a lot of different takes, so the question simply becomes; with all our varied backgrounds do we care to all share our takes & perspectives and if so do we want to collaborate via a blog off style or maybe via a few round tables? I know Chris jumped on the blog idea yesterday while it appears John Nichols, Matthew Cooper (new player who jumped in the conversation), and Leah Thayer appear interested more in a round table discussion. Personally I think a round table discussion via a set of questions via email might be a good start, followed up either another round &/or maybe a conference call.Anyone else care to jump in, feel like sounding off, or have a question – if so feel free to add it in the comment section below or via Twitter (for now).
Updates & Related Pieces:
- John Nicholas looks into what does the R really stand for, could it be for other things? The Conversation Continues
- My turn to answer some of the questions posed – The Conversation
- Allison “the first rule of Building Science Fight Club” Bailes has joined in the conversation – Historic Preservation and Deep Energy Retrofits — Natural Enemies?
- John Nicholas has a follow up post now in reply to the comments left here & John Poole’s article – Moving Along Part 2
- Birmingham Point: If you thought John Poole’s comment below was great, he modified & extended it into a new post on his site – Deep Energy Retrofits & Historic Preservation, the beginning of a new dialouge
- John Nicholas has also added to the convo on his site: http://www.efficientenergysavers.com/energysaversblog/deep-energy-retrofits-a-twitter-conversation/ (Interesting conversation also started there – now if his program would just notify of us new comments…)
- One other reason this was top of my mind was a follow up piece on Martin’s Musing on the cost of DER’s: http://www.greengoddess-vidaverde.com/2012/04/batcave-aint-cheap.html
- Energy Circle: What is a Deep Energy Retrofit (NESEA Confrence)
- Birmingham Point: Historical Home Performance – Manifesto
This is going to be good!
Hmmm..I can see Sean isn’t the only trouble maker here! 😉
Well, you are indeed a trouble maker, Mr. Lintow! 🙂
Not sure though, if it was a convo, as much as a few fractured interchanges of late-night missives by folks who should’ve turned-in early, instead. I know I was quite tired and cranky when I fired that first volley, but what’s done is done. And I’m likewise glad to know everyone involved, and also count all as good friends. So maybe setting up a central forum or online “white board” is a good idea, Sean. And if I’m the Squirrel King, you might very well become known from this point forward as The Cat Herder In Chief.
Anyway, I would think one of the first things that needs to be established and agreed upon for such a dialog is: what exactly does the term Deep Energy Retrofit mean? A simple definition that often gets cited is a reduction of overall energy consumption by some percentage (e.g., 50%, or 70%) over the energy consumption of a “comparable structure” built to current code. But I think it also needs to be stated that that reduction must also satisfy the safety, durability, indoor air quality, ventilation, moisture control, etc., etc., requirements that we normally consider to a part of home performance, generally.
A key point here is that if everyone agrees to a simple, generic definition like the one above, and a retrofit meets or beats that criteria, then that retrofit is a DER. It could’ve been accomplished using any of a number of different possible treatments, strategies, etc. But it seems like the term “DER” unfortunately gets conflated with the specific techniques and strategies being used in some of the more visible projects, or being advocated by the more well known practitioners. So, for many, the term “DER” has become almost synonymous with super-air-sealing and super-insulating, with the insulation step having very different sets of implications depending on whether its installed to the interior, or exterior, of the original wall sheathing.
And this is why the term “DER” freaks preservation people out. Because the publicized techniques of super-insulation, whether insulating in, or insulating out, either way, ultimately impact some part of the pre-existing structure. And preservationists, of course, are obsessed with preserving as much of the original architecture and material as is possible, because they believe there is a certain intrinsic value to these old things that transcends the immediate concerns of the current moment.
But another concern of preservationists is the more subtle impact that energy improvements might have on older structures, even if original fabric is not being significantly impacted or destroyed. The reason for this is that the goals and techniques that went into building very old homes were quite different from the goals and techniques we employ today. A very old home, when viewed as a system, behaves very differently from a modern home. So there is considerable concern (and frankly, good reason for it) amongst preservationists about how the application of non-traditional treatments might affect traditional structures.
Now, interestingly enough, and by way of a sheer coincidence, John Leeke of Historic Homeworks happened to post a highly relevant comment on an older blog post of mine, much earlier this very afternoon. Here’s part of what John said:
“…there are fundamental differences between traditional building
technology and modern building technology. Whenever (with very very few
exceptions) modern technology is introduced into an early building,
sooner or later it generates a conflict that results in significant
damage to the building. This idea is based on my own 45 years of working on older buildings as a
tradesman, contractor, owner and consultant. I did many things to many
older and historic buildings during the 1970s “energy crunch” that I,
and in some cases, the building owners later regretted. These are
important lessons to learn and pass along. This is not to say that we should not do new things to old buildings,
but we should be very careful and thoughtful about it, to realize what
damage will be done and how significant it might become. I will admit
that I am a “traditionalist”, but hope that I am not a “stuck in the
mud” traditionalist. You may want to check out my own Old-House Mechanics Manifesto:
http://historichomeworks.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=858”
Now, John is not some genteel, delicate member of your local historical society who spends his afternoons sipping tea and attending lectures. He’s the guy who’s been there and done all that, so to speak. His concerns (shared by a great many hands-on preservationist folks with equally impressive backgrounds) are based on a long history of things that have actually gone wrong, not fearful hypotheticals dreamed up by cowering preservationist church mice. [Of course, many of you are aware of how Joe Lstiburek himself, more building scientist than preservationist tradesman, also flaunts his long history of screwing things up back in the 1970s, and realizing now what he didn’t know back then, in a manner that’s very eerily similar to John’s account].
So, this acknowledged concern by preservationists about retrofitting historic and very old homes for improved performance, is quite well-founded, and is driven by many past incidences of unforeseen effects caused by incongruous treatments. As a result of all this, many preservationists now call for the use of “reversible” or “re-treatable” methods of energy retrofitting, and even blended with traditional building techniques, wherever possible. In my own case, not only do I support this, but I also advocate establishing post-retrofit protocols for regularly monitoring homes (I’m not talking about energy-use monitoring here; rather, active building health monitoring, datalogging, and reporting, so that potential durability problems can be detected as early as possible).
This was why, in one of the recent Twitter exchanges (as Sean replicated above), I painted a scenario of interior super-insulation, applied in a manner that’s durable, reversible, and doesn’t destroy (much) historic material, as a form of super-insulating that wouldn’t be at odds with the goals of historic preservation. I’m first to admit, however, that that illustration was decidedly unfair — it’s not anything that can be achieved. At least, I don’t think it can be fully achieved. But what I’d neglected to say on Twitter (though I was leading up to it, until I got tired and tuned out) is that performance retrofitting methods that do satisfy the requirements of durability and reversibility/re-treatability, and are based on techniques that are more in keeping with the original building methods and materials, and satisfy the other requirements for home performance and deep energy efficiency, need to be researched and developed and made known to practitioners working on historic properties. And on another level, these methods need to become what one would normally think of whenever the term “DER” is applied in the context of an historic building.
On final point: Preservationists are not opposed to energy efficiency, as is sometimes charged. Most preservationists these days readily acknowledge that home performance is a critical part of preservation. Durability is what will keep a building alive for a few more centuries. So are comfort and lowered operational costs, because these are among the things that will keep dedicated homeowners living in them. But I believe that, at least within the context of historic and very old homes, preservationists need to take owner ship of this problem and develop preservation-centric home performance treatments and strategies that are right for historic buildings. Preservationists need to become energy guys, rather than sitting idly and allowing non-preservationist energy guys, no matter how well intentioned, to take over the wheel and drive for them.
~ John
AMEN & very well stated – the biggest problem I see is that “most” groups are not talking & simply assuming as you alluded to in the conversation with Peter. Not only does this cloud up the issues but makes everyone become defensive resulting in blanket statements which ties people’s hands unnecessarily.
Just a few quick points – yes a lot of harm has been done in the past & still
continues with people not understanding why these structures have stood so long (yeah I am looking primarily at some of WX groups out there). The flip side is that limiting the items one can use to accomplish the work properly because it isn’t easily reversible is shortsighted in many cases.
I know you love the exteriors & major props to how you are going to do work on the Mansfield house, but in many cases that simply is not doable due to the damage already there. Along those lines, in some cases working from the outside in is the lesser of two evils if work needs to be done
Dang, John. You’re getting as wordy as Martin Holladay. When am I ever going to have time to read your blog on this topic if your comment in someone else’s blog is the length of a novella?!
Allison, I am incapable of writing anything non-lengthy. I mean, haven’t you seen those articles I’ve published on Building Moxie? They go on forever! 🙂
So I figured, if I’m going to write a novella, I might as well insert here in the mainline. But I might also slightly modify my comment here and use it as my blog post response to this, as well. Plus, I have much more to write on this topic on my own blog. Much more. Just need to get disciplined enough to get it all out there!
I submit to you that it takes more discipline NOT to get it all out there. Revise. Edit. And, as Stephen King says, kill your darlings. Keep it short and more people will read it.
All good advice, Allison. I believe it was Oscar Wilde who said “well, I could’ve made it shorter, had only I had the time.” Now mustering up much discipline…. 🙂
Wouldn’t this comment actually count as a post? Or a white paper? Or a curmudgeon left unsupervised for a few hours too long?
Yes, Alexandra. It’s all three, in fact. Though actually technically a “guest post”, rather than a “post”. But yeah… 🙂
This is Fun! thanks for bringing me up to speed and I’ll watch how this plays out!
So how come you left me out of this mess? I was involved, if only peripherally in the twitter discussions.
No one intentionally excluded you Carl. You were definitely involved in earlier tweets with me and Peter. But the big exchange Sean is describing occurred later that night (or maybe it was the next night … it’s all a blur to me now). And that’s what some other folks had picked up on.
Feel free to contribute. Maybe your Minnesotan buddy will eventually chime in, too, assuming he finds his way back out of the wilderness! 🙂
Sorry Carl, but being on the outside looking in doesn’t get you a mention… With that said I think we would love for you to also chimein along with your partner in crime.
Based on John’s comment below I am adding you up top. Looking forward to your thoughts & maybe what all members of the Green Police have to say
I will chime in over the weekend. Thanks to Sean for providing the forum.
I, too, am going to fail Allison’s brevity test.
This is a holy war. Just as the right has unified in its hatred of health care reform, the preservation community has chosen an equally strident and disciplined opposition to energy retrofits that impact the envelopes of buildings of historic significance. Here in Freeport, ME, at the Mallett House retrofit, we sought to do it right–to renovate a building that would respect the history of its first 125 years of existence and prepare it for the next 125. The project is nearly complete, awaiting only the exterior paint and, of course, real operational results. The team was able to accomplish remarkable air tightness (261 cfm50/.68 ach50) that bodes well for achieving the modeled 61% reduction in energy usage. Equally rewarding is the outpouring of thanks from a community grateful that a treasured building, previously a substantial eyesore on a visible street in town, has been stabilized and, to the layman’s eye at least, beautifully restored. But to the preservation community, which fought the project at every turn, the Mallett House at 57 Depot Street is an unwanted child.For all of my efforts to understand and empathize with the preservationist perspective, I come away from this experience continuing to believe that this lockstep opposition to deep retrofits is a disservice to the cause of preservation as well as the cause of lowering the energy use of the built environment. Overreaching preservationists have become deep energy reduction antagonists, sowing misinformation about costs, how building envelopes work, and practicing pseudo building science. (I do not, by the way, include John Poole in this camp, but for the sake of a lively discussion here, I’m calling it like I see it.)Here’s what I’ve learned/observed during the battle for this project:The “Fabric” argument. The historic “fabric” of buildings is the primary reason preservationists fear envelope improvements. At the Mallett house, this fabric was decrepit and rotting–warped and missing clapboards, dilapidated trim, a severely compromised kraft paper vapor barrier. In the adjacent Mallett house restorations completed 6 years ago (which won preservation awards), 100% of the fabric went in a dumpster because of lead paint. Insert the concept of deep energy retrofit and apparently the standards change. More significantly, though, is that the encapsulation of the original building fabric, which is what the preservationists wanted us to do, would have been irresponsible to this building. It would have perpetuated a building enclosure severely compromised in durability, energy efficiency, moisture control and air leakage. 4 inches is unnoticable. Preservationists alleged that a 4” exterior insulation plan would render this the Michelin Man of Mallett Houses–noticeably fatter than the others it sits adjacent to. We spent considerable time, effort and money modeling the building relative to the others to disprove this concern. Ultimately, we compromised (to what end I’m not sure, as the preservationists wouldn’t yield under any circumstance) such that there was no exterior insulation on the front facade, and 2” on the sides. In its finished state, the slightly larger dimensions of the building are indistinguishable. The public doesn’t understand purist preservationism. While I have come to appreciate the preservationist stance, I think it is important for the historic community to come to terms with how disconnected their position is from the real world. The people of Freeport are uniformly ecstatic that this decrepit eyesore has been restored. Even those close to the details applaud us for the care with which trim was restored, clapboards reused, chimneys (non functional btw) perfectly repointed. No one outside of the preservation community can understand why the project was delayed for so long given the craftsmanship that is evident in the finished building.In vs out. Whose historic values? In many cases, but not all, achieving a deep reduction of 50% or more requires increasing the building envelope to improve its R value. So, you ask, why not insulate in instead of out? We looked hard at this and concluded that the impact on the building would have been greater than insulating out. The inward approach would have rendered all stairways out of code, and resulted in a cascading series of partition changes that would have effectively gutted the interior. As it is, having insulated to the exterior, much of the historic plaster and trim remains intact. This raises the question of whose historic values. The owners who will occupy it, Freeport Community Services, care most about the inside. One of the most vocal opponents repeatedly told me: “Peter, we don’t care about the inside.” I’m not sure there is a right or wrong here, but the intrusion of a third party’s values on someone’s private property is another interesting wrinkle in this debate. Isolation vs Cooperation. The preservation community chose to fight the project rather than cooperate in the plan for its restoration. Consequently, they had very little say in how the work got done. It this case, thanks to a committed owner, contractor and project champion (me), I believe we did right by the details. We exactingly repointed chimneys, repaired and reused much of the siding, reassembled trim details, accepted a doubling of window costs, and agonized over proportionality. In another circumstance, would a typical owner go to these ends given a complete lack of participation by preservationists?Limiting energy reductions is bad for old buildings. Above all, I believe that the preservationist stance against deep reductions of historic buildings is ultimately counter to the cause of saving old buildings. Given the energy reality that our world will surely face in the coming years, poor energy performance will not serve the cause of preservation. Disallowing deep energy reductions means that an already challenging swath of our housing stock is relegated to a limited level of energy performance. That, in my view, will ultimately be a bad thing for nice old buildings.
First – just so there is no misunderstandings, the moderation above was only to add paragraph breaks. (What can I say, it’s a macintrash issue)
Second, thanks for the great reply Peter & explaining the issues numerous issues many contractors, designers, etc… have with some “hysterical” commities.
In case anyone has missed this project & you are on facebook – http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mallett-Deep-Energy-Retrofit-57-Depot-St-Freeport-ME/279990911845 Other articles can be found on Energy Circles blog
It’s not an hysterical committee unless I’m on it. And then, it’s “hysterical ha-ha”, not “hysterical panic-panic”… 😛
Peter,
It’s been a long Sunday afternoon, and I might be far too tired right now to offer a well thought-out response to your comment, for which I apologize. But I will try. So here’s a few points that come to mind:
1) I don’t think there’s anything objectionable about the Mallett House Project at all. I think it’s a fine example of doing things right. For example, if existing fabric was so badly compromised, then of course encapsulating it would’ve made no sense and only potentially undermine things. And it sounds like the decision to preserve the interior plaster, paneling, dimensions, etc., was the right one to make, given the external deterioration, and yes, it is indeed ultimately up to the owners to decide these things.
2) Regarding the holy war analogy, while I can understand why you’ve choosen to cast it in those terms, I can also easily see why the preservation community might feel that it’s the energy guys who are the Crusaders invading a Jerusalem that they (the preservationists) have already been living in for 1000 years. Preservationists have been caring for and maintaining these old structures for decades or even centuries. Suddenly, a group of newbies shows up and says “You guys don’t know what you’re doing, and we’re now going to show you how to do this right,” beginning with what looks to the preservationist like a partial tear-down. While I certainly don’t view what you’re doing in that light, I can understand why others easily could.
3) I realize there are many preservationists out there who don’t know crap about energy (in fact, don’t even know crap about preserving buildings — I just very recently rescued a building from one such group, but don’t tell any one I said that), the leading, most progressive, experienced preservationists have already been acknowledging for some time now that energy efficiency and general home performance are essential to the ongoing preservation of existing historic structures.
4) Many of the above mentioned, pro- home performance preservationists have had projects underway now for some time to come up with alternative means of achieving DER levels of performance, using more traditional methods of work and materials. (Photos from one such project were posted on my most recent blog posting related to this DER convo). These projects are slow going, because they are research projects, essentially (just as DERs were more like research projects some years ago). A number of these projects were initiated prior to the Mallett House project, and are still in progress. But many are showing promising results so far.
5) If a strategy for performance retrofitting based on traditional methods and materials that preserved most existing building fabric (or relied on replace-in-kind repair wherever fabric was severely compromised) could generally be demonstrated to produce results comparable to DER targets based largely on super-insulation and the incorporation of synthetics and replacement windows, etc., would you concede that such a strategy might be a more preservation-appropriate form of DER, and perhaps better suited for historic buildings than DERs strategies as we currently conceive them now?
OK. Maybe I did manage to squeak out the reply I’d wanted. Whew! That’s it for me for tonight though, anyway. And Peter, I very much do appreciate your getting our your response on what was a holiday weekend for many. Thanks very much again, and I look forward to catching up again with everyone the early part of the week….
~John
May I humbly suggest a Google + hangout.. It would be perfect for this application!
Now THAT’s a great idea! THANK YOU! Maybe for upcoming rounds….
I’m diving into this a bit late and from a different angle, but here goes.
I was pulled into a retrofit of a circa 1900 ranch-style home outside Cleveland Ohio. The house was really, really wet. Mold everywhere and a dirt crawl/basement. The local Habitat for Humanity affiliate had bought it for a very different set of reasons than I look at homes, but a very valid set of reasons.
When I arrived, the house was gutted, no drywall or plaster anywhere, plus all wiring had been cut.
As far as historic preservation, it wasn’t all that high on the list. This needed to be an inexpensive remodel in the Habitat “simple, decent homes” paradigm. My main thing was drying out the house so no one got sick.
I’ll throw my hat in the ring behind Linda Wigington’s definition of a DER (deep energy REDUCTION, not retrofit) of 70+%. Get there any way you can, solar/wind is totally cool. We don’t have before utility use on the house, so the energy model is limited, but it was showing 70+% from our reasonable usage assumptions (IIRC 1000 therms and 6000 kWh.)
For John Poole, normally I have a pretty heavy preservationist streak in me, I want houses to LOOK the same when I’m done. My hope was to take this cute little ranch and put a front porch on it that looks like a New Orleans shotgun house. I was overruled, it’s getting a mudroom. While part of me is sad, this house is about function over form, so I’m OK with it. The key point is this house is going to live another 100 years because of what’s being done, and I think there’s something to be said for that. =)
The Journal of Light Construction has picked up my series on it, feel free to share and comment!
http://bit.ly/HabitatJLC1
Shoot never to late to join in & here, here for another 100 years. Shoot bud, you never know, maybe they will add a porch on it later. Glad to see you team up with Habitat, great organization & mission – plus it is a lot of fun with good food thrown in
This is going to be good!
Hmmm..I can see Sean isn’t the only trouble maker here! 😉
So how come you left me out of this mess? I was involved, if only peripherally in the twitter discussions.
Based on John’s comment below I am adding you up top. Looking forward to your thoughts & maybe what all members of the Green Police have to say
Sorry Carl, but being on the outside looking in doesn’t get you a mention… With that said I think we would love for you to also chimein along with your partner in crime.
No one intentionally excluded you Carl. You were definitely involved in earlier tweets with me and Peter. But the big exchange Sean is describing occurred later that night (or maybe it was the next night … it’s all a blur to me now). And that’s what some other folks had picked up on.
Feel free to contribute. Maybe your Minnesotan buddy will eventually chime in, too, assuming he finds his way back out of the wilderness! 🙂
This is Fun! thanks for bringing me up to speed and I’ll watch how this plays out!
Well, you are indeed a trouble maker, Mr. Lintow! 🙂
Not sure though, if it was a convo, as much as a few fractured interchanges of late-night missives by folks who should’ve turned-in early, instead. I know I was quite tired and cranky when I fired that first volley, but what’s done is done. And I’m likewise glad to know everyone involved, and also count all as good friends. So maybe setting up a central forum or online “white board” is a good idea, Sean. And if I’m the Squirrel King, you might very well become known from this point forward as The Cat Herder In Chief.
Anyway, I would think one of the first things that needs to be established and agreed upon for such a dialog is: what exactly does the term Deep Energy Retrofit mean? A simple definition that often gets cited is a reduction of overall energy consumption by some percentage (e.g., 50%, or 70%) over the energy consumption of a “comparable structure” built to current code. But I think it also needs to be stated that that reduction must also satisfy the safety, durability, indoor air quality, ventilation, moisture control, etc., etc., requirements that we normally consider to a part of home performance, generally.
A key point here is that if everyone agrees to a simple, generic definition like the one above, and a retrofit meets or beats that criteria, then that retrofit is a DER. It could’ve been accomplished using any of a number of different possible treatments, strategies, etc. But it seems like the term “DER” unfortunately gets conflated with the specific techniques and strategies being used in some of the more visible projects, or being advocated by the more well known practitioners. So, for many, the term “DER” has become almost synonymous with super-air-sealing and super-insulating, with the insulation step having very different sets of implications depending on whether its installed to the interior, or exterior, of the original wall sheathing.
And this is why the term “DER” freaks preservation people out. Because the publicized techniques of super-insulation, whether insulating in, or insulating out, either way, ultimately impact some part of the pre-existing structure. And preservationists, of course, are obsessed with preserving as much of the original architecture and material as is possible, because they believe there is a certain intrinsic value to these old things that transcends the immediate concerns of the current moment.
But another concern of preservationists is the more subtle impact that energy improvements might have on older structures, even if original fabric is not being significantly impacted or destroyed. The reason for this is that the goals and techniques that went into building very old homes were quite different from the goals and techniques we employ today. A very old home, when viewed as a system, behaves very differently from a modern home. So there is considerable concern (and frankly, good reason for it) amongst preservationists about how the application of non-traditional treatments might affect traditional structures.
Now, interestingly enough, and by way of a sheer coincidence, John Leeke of Historic Homeworks happened to post a highly relevant comment on an older blog post of mine, much earlier this very afternoon. Here’s part of what John said:
“…there are fundamental differences between traditional building
technology and modern building technology. Whenever (with very very few
exceptions) modern technology is introduced into an early building,
sooner or later it generates a conflict that results in significant
damage to the building. This idea is based on my own 45 years of working on older buildings as a
tradesman, contractor, owner and consultant. I did many things to many
older and historic buildings during the 1970s “energy crunch” that I,
and in some cases, the building owners later regretted. These are
important lessons to learn and pass along. This is not to say that we should not do new things to old buildings,
but we should be very careful and thoughtful about it, to realize what
damage will be done and how significant it might become. I will admit
that I am a “traditionalist”, but hope that I am not a “stuck in the
mud” traditionalist. You may want to check out my own Old-House Mechanics Manifesto:
http://historichomeworks.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=858”
Now, John is not some genteel, delicate member of your local historical society who spends his afternoons sipping tea and attending lectures. He’s the guy who’s been there and done all that, so to speak. His concerns (shared by a great many hands-on preservationist folks with equally impressive backgrounds) are based on a long history of things that have actually gone wrong, not fearful hypotheticals dreamed up by cowering preservationist church mice. [Of course, many of you are aware of how Joe Lstiburek himself, more building scientist than preservationist tradesman, also flaunts his long history of screwing things up back in the 1970s, and realizing now what he didn’t know back then, in a manner that’s very eerily similar to John’s account].
So, this acknowledged concern by preservationists about retrofitting historic and very old homes for improved performance, is quite well-founded, and is driven by many past incidences of unforeseen effects caused by incongruous treatments. As a result of all this, many preservationists now call for the use of “reversible” or “re-treatable” methods of energy retrofitting, and even blended with traditional building techniques, wherever possible. In my own case, not only do I support this, but I also advocate establishing post-retrofit protocols for regularly monitoring homes (I’m not talking about energy-use monitoring here; rather, active building health monitoring, datalogging, and reporting, so that potential durability problems can be detected as early as possible).
This was why, in one of the recent Twitter exchanges (as Sean replicated above), I painted a scenario of interior super-insulation, applied in a manner that’s durable, reversible, and doesn’t destroy (much) historic material, as a form of super-insulating that wouldn’t be at odds with the goals of historic preservation. I’m first to admit, however, that that illustration was decidedly unfair — it’s not anything that can be achieved. At least, I don’t think it can be fully achieved. But what I’d neglected to say on Twitter (though I was leading up to it, until I got tired and tuned out) is that performance retrofitting methods that do satisfy the requirements of durability and reversibility/re-treatability, and are based on techniques that are more in keeping with the original building methods and materials, and satisfy the other requirements for home performance and deep energy efficiency, need to be researched and developed and made known to practitioners working on historic properties. And on another level, these methods need to become what one would normally think of whenever the term “DER” is applied in the context of an historic building.
On final point: Preservationists are not opposed to energy efficiency, as is sometimes charged. Most preservationists these days readily acknowledge that home performance is a critical part of preservation. Durability is what will keep a building alive for a few more centuries. So are comfort and lowered operational costs, because these are among the things that will keep dedicated homeowners living in them. But I believe that, at least within the context of historic and very old homes, preservationists need to take owner ship of this problem and develop preservation-centric home performance treatments and strategies that are right for historic buildings. Preservationists need to become energy guys, rather than sitting idly and allowing non-preservationist energy guys, no matter how well intentioned, to take over the wheel and drive for them.
~ John
AMEN & very well stated – the biggest problem I see is that “most” groups are not talking & simply assuming as you alluded to in the conversation with Peter. Not only does this cloud up the issues but makes everyone become defensive resulting in blanket statements which ties people’s hands unnecessarily.
Just a few quick points – yes a lot of harm has been done in the past & still
continues with people not understanding why these structures have stood so long (yeah I am looking primarily at some of WX groups out there). The flip side is that limiting the items one can use to accomplish the work properly because it isn’t easily reversible is shortsighted in many cases.
I know you love the exteriors & major props to how you are going to do work on the Mansfield house, but in many cases that simply is not doable due to the damage already there. Along those lines, in some cases working from the outside in is the lesser of two evils if work needs to be done
Dang, John. You’re getting as wordy as Martin Holladay. When am I ever going to have time to read your blog on this topic if your comment in someone else’s blog is the length of a novella?!
Allison, I am incapable of writing anything non-lengthy. I mean, haven’t you seen those articles I’ve published on Building Moxie? They go on forever! 🙂
So I figured, if I’m going to write a novella, I might as well insert here in the mainline. But I might also slightly modify my comment here and use it as my blog post response to this, as well. Plus, I have much more to write on this topic on my own blog. Much more. Just need to get disciplined enough to get it all out there!
I submit to you that it takes more discipline NOT to get it all out there. Revise. Edit. And, as Stephen King says, kill your darlings. Keep it short and more people will read it.
All good advice, Allison. I believe it was Oscar Wilde who said “well, I could’ve made it shorter, had only I had the time.” Now mustering up much discipline…. 🙂
Allison, I am incapable of writing anything non-lengthy. I mean, haven’t you seen those articles I’ve published on Building Moxie? They go on forever! 🙂
So I figured, if I’m going to write a novella, I might as well insert here in the mainline. But I might also slightly modify my comment here and use it as my blog post response to this, as well. Plus, I have much more to write on this topic on my own blog. Much more. Just need to get disciplined enough to get it all out there!
Wouldn’t this comment actually count as a post? Or a white paper? Or a curmudgeon left unsupervised for a few hours too long?
Yes, Alexandra. It’s all three, in fact. Though actually technically a “guest post”, rather than a “post”. But yeah… 🙂
I will chime in over the weekend. Thanks to Sean for providing the forum.
I, too, am going to fail Allison’s brevity test.
This is a holy war. Just as the right has unified in its hatred of health care reform, the preservation community has chosen an equally strident and disciplined opposition to energy retrofits that impact the envelopes of buildings of historic significance. Here in Freeport, ME, at the Mallett House retrofit, we sought to do it right–to renovate a building that would respect the history of its first 125 years of existence and prepare it for the next 125. The project is nearly complete, awaiting only the exterior paint and, of course, real operational results. The team was able to accomplish remarkable air tightness (261 cfm50/.68 ach50) that bodes well for achieving the modeled 61% reduction in energy usage. Equally rewarding is the outpouring of thanks from a community grateful that a treasured building, previously a substantial eyesore on a visible street in town, has been stabilized and, to the layman’s eye at least, beautifully restored. But to the preservation community, which fought the project at every turn, the Mallett House at 57 Depot Street is an unwanted child.For all of my efforts to understand and empathize with the preservationist perspective, I come away from this experience continuing to believe that this lockstep opposition to deep retrofits is a disservice to the cause of preservation as well as the cause of lowering the energy use of the built environment. Overreaching preservationists have become deep energy reduction antagonists, sowing misinformation about costs, how building envelopes work, and practicing pseudo building science. (I do not, by the way, include John Poole in this camp, but for the sake of a lively discussion here, I’m calling it like I see it.)Here’s what I’ve learned/observed during the battle for this project:The “Fabric” argument. The historic “fabric” of buildings is the primary reason preservationists fear envelope improvements. At the Mallett house, this fabric was decrepit and rotting–warped and missing clapboards, dilapidated trim, a severely compromised kraft paper vapor barrier. In the adjacent Mallett house restorations completed 6 years ago (which won preservation awards), 100% of the fabric went in a dumpster because of lead paint. Insert the concept of deep energy retrofit and apparently the standards change. More significantly, though, is that the encapsulation of the original building fabric, which is what the preservationists wanted us to do, would have been irresponsible to this building. It would have perpetuated a building enclosure severely compromised in durability, energy efficiency, moisture control and air leakage. 4 inches is unnoticable. Preservationists alleged that a 4″ exterior insulation plan would render this the Michelin Man of Mallett Houses–noticeably fatter than the others it sits adjacent to. We spent considerable time, effort and money modeling the building relative to the others to disprove this concern. Ultimately, we compromised (to what end I’m not sure, as the preservationists wouldn’t yield under any circumstance) such that there was no exterior insulation on the front facade, and 2″ on the sides. In its finished state, the slightly larger dimensions of the building are indistinguishable. The public doesn’t understand purist preservationism. While I have come to appreciate the preservationist stance, I think it is important for the historic community to come to terms with how disconnected their position is from the real world. The people of Freeport are uniformly ecstatic that this decrepit eyesore has been restored. Even those close to the details applaud us for the care with which trim was restored, clapboards reused, chimneys (non functional btw) perfectly repointed. No one outside of the preservation community can understand why the project was delayed for so long given the craftsmanship that is evident in the finished building.In vs out. Whose historic values? In many cases, but not all, achieving a deep reduction of 50% or more requires increasing the building envelope to improve its R value. So, you ask, why not insulate in instead of out? We looked hard at this and concluded that the impact on the building would have been greater than insulating out. The inward approach would have rendered all stairways out of code, and resulted in a cascading series of partition changes that would have effectively gutted the interior. As it is, having insulated to the exterior, much of the historic plaster and trim remains intact. This raises the question of whose historic values. The owners who will occupy it, Freeport Community Services, care most about the inside. One of the most vocal opponents repeatedly told me: “Peter, we don’t care about the inside.” I’m not sure there is a right or wrong here, but the intrusion of a third party’s values on someone’s private property is another interesting wrinkle in this debate. Isolation vs Cooperation. The preservation community chose to fight the project rather than cooperate in the plan for its restoration. Consequently, they had very little say in how the work got done. It this case, thanks to a committed owner, contractor and project champion (me), I believe we did right by the details. We exactingly repointed chimneys, repaired and reused much of the siding, reassembled trim details, accepted a doubling of window costs, and agonized over proportionality. In another circumstance, would a typical owner go to these ends given a complete lack of participation by preservationists?Limiting energy reductions is bad for old buildings. Above all, I believe that the preservationist stance against deep reductions of historic buildings is ultimately counter to the cause of saving old buildings. Given the energy reality that our world will surely face in the coming years, poor energy performance will not serve the cause of preservation. Disallowing deep energy reductions means that an already challenging swath of our housing stock is relegated to a limited level of energy performance. That, in my view, will ultimately be a bad thing for nice old buildings.
Peter,
It’s been a long Sunday afternoon, and I might be far too tired right now to offer a well thought-out response to your comment, for which I apologize. But I will try. So here’s a few points that come to mind:
1) I don’t think there’s anything objectionable about the Mallett House Project at all. I think it’s a fine example of doing things right. For example, if existing fabric was so badly compromised, then of course encapsulating it would’ve made no sense and only potentially undermine things. And it sounds like the decision to preserve the interior plaster, paneling, dimensions, etc., was the right one to make, given the external deterioration, and yes, it is indeed ultimately up to the owners to decide these things.
2) Regarding the holy war analogy, while I can understand why you’ve choosen to cast it in those terms, I can also easily see why the preservation community might feel that it’s the energy guys who are the Crusaders invading a Jerusalem that they (the preservationists) have already been living in for 1000 years. Preservationists have been caring for and maintaining these old structures for decades or even centuries. Suddenly, a group of newbies shows up and says “You guys don’t know what you’re doing, and we’re now going to show you how to do this right,” beginning with what looks to the preservationist like a partial tear-down. While I certainly don’t view what you’re doing in that light, I can understand why others easily could.
3) I realize there are many preservationists out there who don’t know crap about energy (in fact, don’t even know crap about preserving buildings — I just very recently rescued a building from one such group, but don’t tell any one I said that), the leading, most progressive, experienced preservationists have already been acknowledging for some time now that energy efficiency and general home performance are essential to the ongoing preservation of existing historic structures.
4) Many of the above mentioned, pro- home performance preservationists have had projects underway now for some time to come up with alternative means of achieving DER levels of performance, using more traditional methods of work and materials. (Photos from one such project were posted on my most recent blog posting related to this DER convo). These projects are slow going, because they are research projects, essentially (just as DERs were more like research projects some years ago). A number of these projects were initiated prior to the Mallett House project, and are still in progress. But many are showing promising results so far.
5) If a strategy for performance retrofitting based on traditional methods and materials that preserved most existing building fabric (or relied on replace-in-kind repair wherever fabric was severely compromised) could generally be demonstrated to produce results comparable to DER targets based largely on super-insulation and the incorporation of synthetics and replacement windows, etc., would you concede that such a strategy might be a more preservation-appropriate form of DER, and perhaps better suited for historic buildings than DERs strategies as we currently conceive them now?
OK. Maybe I did manage to squeak out the reply I’d wanted. Whew! That’s it for me for tonight though, anyway. And Peter, I very much do appreciate your getting our your response on what was a holiday weekend for many. Thanks very much again, and I look forward to catching up again with everyone the early part of the week….
~John
First – just so there is no misunderstandings, the moderation above was only to add paragraph breaks. (What can I say, it’s a macintrash issue)
Second, thanks for the great reply Peter & explaining the issues numerous issues many contractors, designers, etc… have with some “hysterical” commities.
In case anyone has missed this project & you are on facebook – http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mallett-Deep-Energy-Retrofit-57-Depot-St-Freeport-ME/279990911845 Other articles can be found on Energy Circles blog
It’s not an hysterical committee unless I’m on it. And then, it’s “hysterical ha-ha”, not “hysterical panic-panic”… 😛
May I humbly suggest a Google + hangout.. It would be perfect for this application!
Now THAT’s a great idea! THANK YOU! Maybe for upcoming rounds….