Forum
« Condos on 15th st? Artist Space Needed (Raw Space or Bldg 4000+sqft) »
January 14, 2008
A rant about replacing historic wooden windows in the name of energy efficiency
Why is it that one of the first pieces of advice given to homeowners who are trying to make their homes more energy efficient is to replace their historic wooden windows with double paned ones?
Here are some problems I see with this:
1. New double paned windows are often compared to poorly maintained wooden windows when energy eficiency comparisons are made, not to restored and well maintained ones.
2.Wooden windows could be made more energy efficient and workable if storms were added, and failed putty/ glazing was replaced, broken sash cords replaced with chain, sash weights were reattached, several layers of paint stripped down to reduce sticking, etc., etc. All relatively easy DIY tasks.
3. Wooden windows with a storm are actually supposed to be better insulators than double paned windows. Counterintuitive, but seems to be true.
4. The new windows often do not maintain the lite/ pane patterns of the old ones. And they look different, even if they are reproductions.
4. Old windows (and the same applies for cast-iron radiators, but that is a separate rant) end up in the landfill (how green is that?)
Anyways, I just wanted to vent.
My neighbor recently threw out all her windows and got white vinyl replacements. How is that supposed to be an improvement?
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief09.htm
Comments
Some counterpoints:
- Not all "old" wooden windows are so old. Mine turned out to be mid-20th century replacements, so I didn't feel so bad about replacing them. Not every "old" window is old-growth wood and original wavy glass.
- Most storm windows are really ugly, especially if they are aluminum, as is often the case.
- There are good replacement windows out there. I have all-wood (inside and out) Marvins, which are awesome: modern convenience in all wood. But expensive, yes.
- Most cast-iron radiators end up at metal recyclers, not landfills. I sold my decorative ones on craigslist and hauled the later, plain ones to a recycler. And my old window sashes were given away free on craigslist to someone building a DIY treehouse.
But I'm with you 100% that white vinyl sucks.
Posted by: guest at January 14, 2008 4:28 PM
Sorry, that should read DIY "greenhouse" not "treehouse".
Posted by: guest at January 14, 2008 4:31 PM
Not everyone can afford all-wood custom windows.
Bizarre to actually have to point that out to people.
Posted by: guest at January 14, 2008 4:37 PM
Yes, per 4:37, price is very much an issue. My co-op apt. has the building's original 1840s wooden windows. While they look nice from a distance, up close they are in pretty crummy shape, fit badly and are very drafty. Since my building is landmarked, if I wanted to replace them I'd be required to do so with quite expensive, which is just not in my budget. Not that I'd want to replace them with ugly cheap-o vinyl ones (I'd probably still just opt to live with the draftiness), but it bugs me that Landmarks is allowed to control a pretty fundamental quality-of-life issue like this...
Posted by: guest at January 14, 2008 4:43 PM
i wish i had the time to worry about other peoples' windows.
Posted by: guest at January 14, 2008 4:45 PM
The OP is talking about keeping your original windows, not replacing them with expensive new ones. There are plenty of options out there for homeowners who want to do this, including storm windows.
http://reclaimedhome.com/?p=815
Posted by: rh at January 14, 2008 5:15 PM
If you can't afford to buy new windows that Landmarks requires, maybe you shouldn't own your apartment/home.
And if you have no taste whatsoever and buy vinyl windows, shame on you.
Get a clue and think about things before you buy them (like your house!).
Posted by: guest at January 14, 2008 9:06 PM
9:06, many (MOST actually) brownstone owners have owned their home for decades. In other words, they bought the houses at a time they were more affordable, instead of being copycat lemmings running in to buy houses at top dollar only after other people pioneered and gentrified the neighborhood. These people not only deserve to be there as much as you do, but MORE so because they were there first. They don't need to submit their income statement to you for your snooty approval.
Do you have any idea how smug, elitist, judgemental and awful you sound?
Posted by: guest at January 14, 2008 9:36 PM
"If you can't afford to buy new windows that Landmarks requires, maybe you shouldn't own your apartment/home."
STFU. you are a pompous jerkoff.
Posted by: guest at January 14, 2008 9:44 PM
Great post rh. Those who cannot afford new windows that landmarks requires, just try and fix the old ones. You don't and shouldn't have to live with drafty windows, but my point is that this doesn't mean you have to chuck the old windows and get new ones. Repair not discard. It's amazing how much life some of these windows have left in them, even though they may look like crap with peeling paint and rattling panes right now. Of course, there are windows that are not salvageable due to years of neglect, I don't deny that.
I think a more fundamental issue for me is really disturbing the historic fabric of the house, of which the windows and the facade form a very important part.
Posted by: ohiise at January 15, 2008 1:43 AM
I would like to respond to your 5 points.
1) Even restored and well maintained single paned windows do not compare to the energy efficiency of an average quality modern double pane window.
2) Yes, you are correct that the energy efficiency of old single glazed windows can be improved by adding storm windows and resealing loose panes. However replacing broken sashes with chains and counter weights will not improve energy efficiency. In fact, the holes in the window frames where the sash or chain go is one of the biggest offenders of leaking cold air in to your home. To improve energy efficiency you should remove the chain or sash along with the counter weight and seal off the top and bottom of this hole.
3) The idea that if you add a storm window it could be more energy efficient than a new double glazed window is correct in theory because the insulating gap of air between the storm window and the old window is much larger than the insulating gap between the panes of glass of a modern double glazed window. However, in order for that theory to be true both the storm window and the old window need to be completely air tight, which is never the case. The fact is that most people add storm windows because they do not want to go through the trouble of fixing the air leaks in all their old window. And even for those who do have their old windows shored up, it still does not compare to the air tight seal of a new window. Even more so when you take into account that the insulating layer in modern windows is often filled with argon gas and the glass is Low-E.
4) Yes, this is true, but some reproductions are not too bad and if you have the money you can get some very accurate and expensive reproductions. In the end you have to ask yourself whether architectural preservation really trumps environmental preservation.
5) As previously pointed out, radiators are melted down and glass can be recycled as well.
Posted by: Left Hook at January 15, 2008 11:24 AM
This is a good topic. The leadership in the landmarked communities should be providing this info to people.
Discussion about windows comes up a lot. Because windows are obviously a big problem for landmarked blocks, the Landmarks board should take the initiative to research these kinds of affordable options to provide to residents. Most people especially elderly homeowners who have lived in a house forever, and aren't a mister moneybags like ole 9:06 there, have no clue where to start this research.
Landmarks (and their preservationist supporters) should behave like a nonprofit service organization as part of their mission. Not just sit back in nasty judgement of their neighbors. They could provide a handbook about renovating old woodframed windows. They could offer suggestions of new windows that do work well with the facades.
Community associations in landmarked neighborhoods should be doing things like this too.
Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 11:58 AM
I am renovating a 120 year old brownstone and Landmarks is requesting that we replace all the 1980's cheap aluminum windows with expensive replicas, taking it back to "its original grandeur". In fact one window has a peaked top and instead of replacing it with a regular window and replacing the wood frame that mimics the peak, we have to have two custom peaked windows built.
In my case we did not have the old windows to debate over just new cheapies that are wrecked. I hope the new windows look as expensive as they are. :)
In any case, windows have a life span, that's just the way it is. And when I bought the place, I bought all its issues.... including Landmarks.
Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 12:56 PM
Someone posted recently about reusing window panes for indoor decorative purposes like cabinetry. I think thats a nice green idea for windows that are too old to repair.
Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 12:59 PM
Left hook and others thanks for contributing.
If you do a heat loss calculation for your home with some of the available software, the heat loss is higher for doublepaned windows than for single paned windows with storms. (The cool thing about this software, is that you can play about with various virtual improvements and see the effect it has on the heat-loss of your house.)
'Invisible storms' and nicer looking storms are available.
I was not talking about, although it may have seemed that way, single paned windows by themselves being superior to double paned.
I was talking about replacing sash cords and removing extra layers of paint as a way to make old windows more workable, since one of the reasons I've heard most often for replacing windows is 'They stick! I need new windows.'
Old windows can be made quite weather tight, since most of them do not have any weather stripping to start with. I have done this with most of the old windows in my house. I have to admit, some may not be perfect, since the sashes do not fit together so well, but the minor drafts are minimized by the use of insulating drapes and curtains. I will concede your point about the weight pockets, but do we really know how much this contributes to heat loss from the house envelope?
A friend recently replaced wooden windows in fairly good shape on his extension, but did not consider that the heat loss was probably from the three walls without insulation that were exposed to the great outdoors. Do we get energy audits (NYSERDA has a program) before we decide that replacing the windows is the thing to do to stem the loss of heat from our houses? And if you want to look at the heat loss culprits, how about brownstone top floor ceilings which are often uninsulated? And the huge and inefficient, oversized for the theoretical coldest day of the year and more, energy guzzling boilers in the basement that send upto 40% of your fuel up the chimney. How many people do a heat-loss calculation when replacing their boiler to see if they actually need a truck engine sitting in their basement? An argument could be made in this regard, that the more one makes ones house energy efficient, the more ones boiler gets oversized in relation to the house, and therefore the less efficient it is (more energy goes in operating the boiler, heating the flue, residual wasted heat, etc. than in heating the house, since the boiler bangs-on and bangs-off all the time instead of staying steadily on, a problem referred to as 'short-cycling').
And for radiators, I have never understood why people opt for inefficient 'scorched air' systems as opposed to the gentle heat of a hot water system, or even a steam system. Melting down radiators is not energy-free either. I don't know about yours, but my radiators are very decorative with scrollwork and I want them to stay with the house.
Why is it that most people equate making the heating system more efficient to replacing it with a forced air system?
And seriously, we should consider all issues when it comes to environmental preservation. What about the environmental costs of manufacturing new windows, the environmental cost of their transportation, the cost of dumping wood in the landfill (unless it can be creatively recycled like in the greenhouse example above), etc. etc.
Does NYC recyle glass (except in bottles)? Isn't the greenest thing to do, often to consume less during home improvment?
There is an article in this months Old House Journal too, about the most cost eefective home improvements for old houses in terms of energy efficiency and they echo some of what I am talking about.
I sometimes wonder if the window manufacturing industry has some hand in the spread of some of these knee-jerk reactions to replace old windows. Not a winter goes by that I don't receive stuff from the utility companies about tightening up the house by replacing windows. At the greening your brownstone forum of the 'Anatomy of a Brownstone' series, again, the Keyspan people talked about replacing windows, not a word about opting for high-efficiency boiler when your boiler died. And they're in the gas business.
Anyways, I've ranted enough...
Posted by: ohiise at January 15, 2008 1:49 PM
Thanks, Left Hook, my thoughts exactly.
If someone like ohiise wants to restore thier old windows, add storms, and use curtains for drafts, more power to them. I like homes with restored windows. But I've always found the older windows to be draftier than the better new double-paned ones.
ohiise makes some good points about adding insulation to walls, roofs, etc., and efficiency of boilers, but I think these are issues that need to be considered whatever type of windows one has. And I suspect that software ohiise refers to isn't calculating about 1890's style homes and windows, but something a bit more modern, like mid-century.
That said, I totally agree with ohiise on the superiority of radiator heat. People do dumb stuff because they don't take the time to do any research, even in this age of easier access to info via the internet.
Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 3:56 PM
Ohlise, it sounds like you are thinking a lot about these things and working towards making your home as energy efficient as possible so you are already way ahead of the curve even if your windows are not.
Posted by: Left Hook at January 15, 2008 6:32 PM
One more comment on the addition of storm windows: Since the inside window is almost never air tight, the storms can wind up with condensation on the inside that occurs when the warm humid air from the house leaks into the space between the two sets of windows. Then to get rid of it you have to a) make the original windows airtight or b) crack open the storms, defeating their purpose.
I'm in favor of double glazed windows with a sealed cavity, but their not cheap.
Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 7:13 PM
Left Hook, leave my old windows alone!!
:-)
Posted by: ohiise at January 16, 2008 7:41 AM
Here is my favorite story on this subject:
Economics, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation Introduction
by Jerry Spinks Historic preservation is more than the pleasures of a wooden swing on an open porch, restored hardwood floors or finding a critical house part that no one makes anymore. To local proponents and skeptics, historic preservation is seen primarily in the context of historic districts design standards and economic incentives for rebuilding downtown. Historic preservation is central to these local standards and incentives. However, historic preservation is also important to Jacksonville’s efforts to address its environmental, economic, cultural and social responsibilities. Historic preservation in this larger context is discussed in the first of a three-part reprint of a keynote speech given at the 2006 national conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation entitled “Economics, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation.” The speaker, Donovan D. Rypkema, is a principal in PlaceEconomics, a Washington D.C. real estate consulting firm. A perspective of Rypkema’s view of historic preservation is that, although he is often introduced as a preservationist, he is really an economic development consultant whose top priorities are in creating jobs and increasing local household income. In this first installment Rypkema presents his premises of the larger context of historic preservation and its relationship with the environment. The second part will address historic preservation and economic issues. The series will wrap up with historic preservation as a tool in cultural and social issues. I recommend your consideration of Rypkema’s ideas that followthey give an important purpose to our local historic preservation efforts. Jerry Spinks is the former Chair of Riverside Avondale Preservation and the Jacksonville Historical Commission. He is President Elect of the Jacksonville Historical Society. By Donovan D. Rypkema Much of the world has begun to recognize the interrelationship and the interdependency between sustainable development and heritage conservation. Much of the world, but much less so in the United States. With one notable exception, I’m not so sure we’ve really connected the dots. Too many advocates too narrowly define what constitutes sustainable development. Let me give you an example. Over a year ago in Boulder, Colo., a homeowner in a local historic district applied to paint his window sash and trim, and approval was given the same day. Two weeks later the landmarks commission learned that the historic windows had all been removed—a clear violation of the local ordinance—and had been replaced with new windows. This was done by a contractor who claims to specialize in “ecologically sound methods” and bills himself as “Boulder’s greenest contractor.” The landmarks commission sent a letter directing that the original windows be retained and their condition documented. The contractor responded saying that the greater energy efficiency of the new windows should outweigh the regulations that apply to houses within the historic district. A subsequent commission hearing upheld the staff position and a city council hearing supported the commission’s ruling. Here’s the next chapter—a reporter for the local alternative newspaper decided to take matters into his own hands. He went to the house, picked up the historic windows, took a sledgehammer to them, hauled them to the dump, and arranged to have a bulldozer run over them. Sort of a 10-yearold’s version of civil disobedience. Now I want to stop the story for just a minute. I’m not necessarily sure that the landmark commission’s decision was right. But I’m telling you the story to demonstrate our ignorance about what sustainable development really is. First from an environmental perspective:
1. The vast majority of heat loss in homes is through the attic or uninsulated walls, not windows.
2. Adding just three and one-half inches of fiberglass insulation in the attic has three times the R factor impact as replacing a single pane window with no storm window with the most energy efficient window.
3. Properly repaired historic windows have an R factor nearly indistinguishable from new, so-called “weatherized” windows.
4. Regardless of the manufacturers’“lifetime warranties,” 30 percent of the windows being replaced each year are less than 10 years old.
5. One Indiana study showed that the payback period through energy savings by replacing historic wood windows is 400 years.
6. The Boulder house was built more than a hundred years ago, meaning those windows were built from hardwood timber from old growth forests. Environmentalists go nuts about cutting trees in old growth forests, but what’s the difference? Destroying those windows represents the destruction of the same scarce resource.
7. Finally, the diesel fuel to power the bulldozer consumed more fossil fuel than would be saved over the lifetime of the replacement windows. The point is this—sustainable development is about, but not only about, environmental sustainability.
• Repairing and rebuilding the historic windows would have meant the dollars were spent locally instead of at a distant manufacturing plant. That’s economic sustainability, also part of sustainable development.
• Maintaining the original fabric is maintaining the character of the historic neighborhood. That’s cultural sustainability, also part of sustainable development.
"You’re a fool or a fraud if you claim to be an environmentalist and yet you throw away historic buildings and their components."
OP - good for you for struggling with this issue. You are not the first.
-Ameraleed
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 12:54 PM
Just because people question things sometimes, which is in their right as citizens of the U.S., doesn't mean they want to dismantle the LPC. Everybody appreciates LPC. Everybody understands what preservation contributes. Everybody here is already pouring tons of money into renovating historic structures and the majority do it in the most responsible way they can. Sometimes this doesn't seem very appreciated in the tone around here.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:56 PM
That is an interesting story Ameraleed, accept that it makes your opposition sound like complete fanatical lunatics. But, as we all know there are certainly as many fanatical historic preservation lunatics out there who have on occasion displayed equally puerile behavior. I think the current administration has demonstrated that making your opponents out to be villainous does little to solve problems.
Clearly there are arguments for both sides of the window argument, some which contradict each other. In the end, the truth of sustainable renovation is complicated and it is too difficult to quantify all the variables. For now, I think it would be safe to say that anyone who is weighing all sides of the argument this carefully is doing a pretty good job with sustainable renovation of their home. The fear your story raises in me is that people tend to look for those things which support their argument without digging deeper into the those that contradict what they want to believe.
Posted by: Left Hook at January 16, 2008 11:12 PM
Thanks Ameraleed, for the story and the facts about window replacement. Extremely enlightening.
I for one feel I have learned a lot from my rant here and from the comments of the posters, and have begun to see much on both sides of the issue.
For example, I see that my windows never really can be fully shown with their muntin patterns and divided lights because of the storms (with their inevitable condensation build up in the colder months) that are so necessary to prevent air infiltration and heat loss through them. And that does take away from the original historical look of my facade (the windows originally did not have storms). Would I be better served then by faithful reproductions? Or almost invisible airtight storms? Or more historic wooden storm windows? Or some other option?
At the same time, if the roof loses much more heat than the difference between old and new windows with or without storms, and none of the newer windows are likely to last as long as the originals did, thereby adding much to the consumption of resources and the landfill, is it really more energy efficient for my house and the environment to replace the windows?
Most of all, however, I feel it can be easy to get stuck on one side of the issue. Or then to get out of that position and fall into the relativistic and nihilistic trap of believing that we will never know which decision is better.
Therefore, I feel it is all the more crucial to be truly very careful and thoughtful in an ongoing way about renovations when charged with the stewardship of the historic properties (and this world) that we proudly inhabit.
Posted by: ohiise at January 17, 2008 11:56 AM
The roof only looses heat if it is not well insulated, which can be solved by insulating it. And this mostly effects one floor of a 3 or 4 story brownstone.
There is no reason a well made modern window (not vinyl) can't last as long as the original windows. The glass will eventually have to be replaced, but this is relatively inexpensive fix.
You also have to consider that in the summer time modern windows have glass that reflects sunlight and keeps the house cool, so unless you are going to be a vampire and keep your curtains closed all day, you are going to spend more on air conditioning.
Regarding your argument that insulating your home will lead to your furnace short cycling is a ridiculous one that almost seems designed to make people fall into the nihilistic position you speak of. Sizing your furnace when it is time to be replaced and insulating your home can be coordinated.
Posted by: guest at January 17, 2008 1:08 PM
I'm convinced! I want to keep my original old drafty windows. Who do you recommend to repair them?
Posted by: keep at January 17, 2008 2:09 PM
Marvin
Posted by: guest at January 17, 2008 2:48 PM
Yeah, so focus on insulating your roof first before you start throwing out your old windows.
The spring mechanism in new style windows is prone to fail after about 20 years (that's why you see so many newer windows where the upper sash has to be propped up or it slides down, since the spring is worn out by always being streched unless the window is fully open in the summer). And in that case it's often quite expensive to replace. The weight, pulley and cord or chain mechanism of old windows is much more easily repaired. And double pane sealed glass units are easier to fix than single pane?
As for the boiler argument: I said, 'An argument could be made..' to illustrate that there are many other sources of energy loss in the house that one should be more concerned about, and that sometimes a short-sighted move to 'save energy' could worsen the problem of energy loss. Yes, boilers can be sized to the current heat loss of the house and not automatically the same size as the old boiler. But, I see more people focussing on new windows and fewer on appropriate boiler sizing, which is why I mentioned it. Now what's ridiculous and nihilistic about this argument?
Anyways, I was trying to be nice, but sometimes it can be so difficult. Vampire? Really? That's what I am if I keep the curtains drawn on hot summer days?
Posted by: ohiise at January 17, 2008 3:45 PM
Keep: A lot of it is DIY, or you could hire a good handyman. I suppose if there were enough demand for it, there would be more people who would fix them, just like there are so many new window installers now.
Posted by: ohiise at January 17, 2008 3:58 PM
Ohiise, I'm still with ya! For those who didn't look at the link I posted somewhere up there...days ago...If your old windows are in bad disrepair and need full restoration, you're looking at $1000 per window ala Park Slope Glass. So, it's a DIY job. Time consuming, but not rocket science. We went with Allied Storm, the "invisible" storm and they look fine. Our windows have wavy glass, great wood patina and original hardware. That's one house.
On our brownstone, the windows were probably replaced in the 80's. They are drafty vinyl shite. We haven't replaced them yet due to cost, but we had to do some major insulation work as the previous owners took out the weights,etc and left gaping holes. They didn't even caulk the exterior.
Posted by: rh at January 17, 2008 4:16 PM
One thing not often considered about double glass insulated windows is that they have a very limited lifetime. The seals between the layers of glass last five to ten years or maybe a little more, and then become permanently clouded with condensation. Most people don't figure in the cost of frequent replacement.
An old weight balanced sash window should last about 100 years before the chain needs replacement. Our company has repaired many windows that are over 250 years old, that will outlast any double insulated glass window existing today.
The longevity of the old wood windows is due in part to superior rot resistance of old growth pine (compared to any other wood used commercially in windows today). The world was a much colder place 100 years ago, and the pine trees took 30 - 40 years to grow an inch in diameter. Today, even in northern Canada, pine grows an inch in six to ten years, and possesses little resistance to rotting, even with preservative treatment. Homeowners who buy the expensive Marvin or Pella windows will discover these lessons too soon. Better woods to use in windows, if you are replicating old windows, are Spanish cedar or quarter sawn white oak.
The other aspect of old wood windows superiority to double insulated windows is that the weight balance system has a lifetime counted in centuries, with changes of sash chain or cord when needed. The sash springs in double insulated windows lose their tension in anywhere from a year or two, to maybe five years, and are then extremely difficult to operate. A weight balanced window is as easy to open (if not painted shut) in 100 years as the day it was put in.
If you would like to look into restoring your old windows or having them replicated, contact:
Olek Lejbzon & Co., see www.oleklejbzon.com
lejbzon@verizon.net
Peter Triestman
973-615-1257
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 10:22 PM
Please note that Federal law does not require you to comply with the provisions of maintaining a historically accurate house unless you are receiving federal money.
Compliance is honorary.
Most state laws duplicate the federal law stating that unless state money is being used on the project, you are allowed to do as you wish.
The problem occurs at the local level when people don't understand this concept. If the local government is not providing any sort of economic compensation for you to surrender your rights on how you should repair your house, you do not have to comply with these provisions. However, be warned--you will have to fight a large amount of ignorant and very arrogant people.
As for historical windows being better, here is a very simple test. Take a propane torch and raise the temperature of a new double pane argon gas filled window to about 150 degrees. Then take a CO2 cartridge (most computer air dusters) and freeze the opposite window pane till it frosts. You will notice that the frost DOES NOT MELT from the heated glass less than a half inch away. The frost will dissipate from room temperature. Then I dare you to try this experiment with a historical window.
It is very important to keep the balance of being a historical preservationist and environmentalist in check. Right now, there is a very severe energy problem in the United States. From what I have seen in Indiana, it is more important to waste natural resources to preserve dilapidated interesting, but not historical homes. You can't be a bunny hugger is you kill all the bunnies as a result of excess greenhouse gas emissions to heat the house.
I agree with the other authors insulating your house is something you should be doing regardless of the type of window you have. If you are trying to be historically accurate, you would be using sawdust, shredded newspapers, socks, etc, as opposed to fiberglass as insulation.
Posted by: guest at January 25, 2008 2:03 AM
Some thoughts on Replacement Windows:
________________________________________
Barbara Campagna, Director of Architecture for the National Trust’s 29 historic sites, wrote in Preservation Nation, the news letter for the National Trust For Historic Preservation , a ‘tirade’ (her words) on Vinyl Replacement Windows. I suggest anyone contemplating an historic window replacement read the article.
http://blogs.nationaltrust.org/preservationnation/?p=233#comment-1504
Of particular interest is a comment in the article by Mike Jackson (Chief Architect of the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office); in which he characterizes replacement windows touting no maintenance as “No Maintenance required” really means “can’t be repaired” - so they end up in the landfill much sooner than say a wood window which can be repaired and repaired and repaired, or recycled.
First of all: consider this disclaimer to my point of view. I’m not a disinterested party. As President and CEO of The Woodstone Company, I’ve been manufacturing wooden historic replicate windows for 30 years.
That being said, there is more to window replacement than meets the eye and much of it is over-simplified or ignored altogether by design, building and manufacturing professionals for a variety of reasons. I, for example, want to promote Woodstone services and would like to indulge your opinions on historic window replacement projects; not only to promote my company’s services, but to provide you a forum on which you can expand your perspective.
Several issues have been noted in the commentary listed above, from the efficiency of storm windows to the accuracy of divided lite fenestration to the high cost of custom historic high performance wooden windows when compared to the more generic replacement windows; be they vinyl, fiberglass, aluminum, clad or semi-custom wooden windows.
As an enticement for your indulgence in this forum please consider the following query. If you could replace your existing windows, be they the original landmark historic one’s or more recent replacements installed, perhaps years ago, but in the interim, with accurately replicated high performance wooden windows and cost was not an issue, would you be inclined to do so?
Again, consider Architect Jackson’s perspective…”… a wood window which can be repaired and repaired and repaired, or recycled”.
If you purchase a window designed to last for 20 years with no maintenance and compare it to the cost of a window designed to last for 100 years or more with efficiently planned maintenance, what cost/benefit considerations come to mind?
I’ll try to visit this forum on a weekly basis at least and respond to as many inquiries or points of view as I can. In the meantime, I’ll address one other concern already listed here.
With regard to storm window efficiency; the reason storm windows are not as efficient as windows with sealed insulating glass (IG) is not only because the storm window allows air infiltration, but because there is an optimally efficient air space. When the air space between two pieces of glass reaches a certain dimension and ambient temperatures change, the air sandwiched between the panes of glass begins to circulate more in direct correlation with the increased size of the air space, be it in a sealed IG sash or separate storm sash. When air circulates, its temperature conductivity increases and energy efficiency decreases.
For those of you who’ve reached the end of this missive, I thank you, and I look forward to future discussions on historic window restoration and replication.
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 10:13 AM
THE WINDOWS ARE ONLY 1/2 THE PROBLEM WITH "ENERGY EFFICIENCY"
PLEASE READ
OK so you want new "energy efficient" thermo pane windows but consider the entire building envelope FIRST or at the very least at the same time as you are replacing windows.
I have done a lot of restoration (yes I am a contractor- and this is my first time on this site, really) and there are a few good windows on the market - my current favorite brand is Jeld Wen Custom Line - this is formerly Pozzi and their aluminum clad wood with brickmold trim in " Emerald Black" is an awesome product - the hell with Marvins these things perform and look great - it will also pass Landmarks scrutiny.
Now that you have chosen the windows think about this - what if they dont give you the results that you want? Thats right. You have them put in and your house is still a leaky sieve and you still feel wind inside.... because its the building envelope stupid.
Yes your source of air leakage is all the other poorly insulated walls and holes in the entire house - think about that nice wood entry door with little or no weather stripping, think about your cellar and all the holes and penetrations in the walls and ceilings. Thats right most of you have your cellar coupled to your living space so uncouple it by air sealing the basement floor level and doors - you are breathing the air from the cellar on the TOP FLOOR if its not air sealed. I have tested this dozens of times in multiple houses, add up all those tiny or not so tiny holes in your cellar ceiling its like having a door open to the outside to have mold dust and funk rise up the entire house.
Insulation is also key, but what type maybe you can ask that "handyman" that you have trusted to work on your multi-million dollar investment, or maybe the guy at Home Depot knows, what do you think?
Or even better ask your Architect what your Heat Load Loss is for the house or what size your boiler should be or at a 50 pascal pressure difference between inside and out how mush air exchanges per hour should your house have and how does that \translate into fuel consumption???
OK, I'm not trying to be too difficult its just that they dont know and there is a lot of talk in this post about being green and recycling but if you dont stop consuming fuel it does not matter how much recycled crap you put in your house you are still f'kin up the environment and killing your kids.
I just finished replacing the entire windows in a Harlem brownstone with the Pozzi's - these windows were installed on blocking and COMPLETELY spray foamed in place - but the house still leaks air - how do I know? Because I measured it. Blower door test done BEFORE and AFTER the windows were put in netted only a 8 CFM savings in air transfer -the cornice, cellar and front door and even the neighbors house were all sources of the MAJOR air leaks - After air sealing and weather stripping them we will probably save 4 to 10 times in air transfer that the windows did. The air test this week should prove that.
Dont get me wrong, new windows are great but before you spend 35k or so replacing all the windows in your house, start by spending just a few thousand and AIR SEAL the pig first.
Dont buy the hype about efficiency ratings, thermo pane glazing filled with the gas from polar bear farts or anything else -start with testing the house - This is math and numbers so the results do not lie.
Ask me how I know this......because I just do.
Good luck
P.favano@yahoo.com
Posted by: guest at June 1, 2008 12:22 AM
The assessment of air infiltration could not be more on the mark.
In fact, it’s interesting to note that the NSRE Energy Star rating for windows and doors does not currently include air infiltration standards. Go figure.
For the record, I’ve been in the historic window replication business for more than 30 years and, yes, this is a plug for what my company, Woodstone, does. I commented last on March 4th, 2008, lamenting the ‘maintenance free’ aspect of windows and doors. Again, ‘maintenance free’ is another way of saying ‘can’t be maintained’.
As other bloggers opined a while back, how does one measure the efficiency of windows with weight and pulley counter balances that last for centuries compared to the short term function of vinyl spring balances?
Are old fashion weight and pulley windows with weight pockets really as energy inefficient as everyone says they are?
Well, consider this: Woodstone fabricates accurate historic window replicates with weight and pulley counter balances. Our weight boxes are sealed. Our air infiltration specs exceed the AAMA standard by 300 percent. We only use brass, bronze and stainless steel hardware and fasteners. We fabricate true divided lite insulating glass with narrow muntin profiles and restoration glass is available. We warrant our IG for 20 years and make our windows maintenance friendly. If a piece of glass breaks or an IG seal fails, the glass is easily and inexpensively replaced; unlike a Simulated Divided Lite (SDL) sash that must be replaced in its entirety when something fails or breaks. We fabricate our windows with wood species that provide the highest resistance to decay (e.g. white oak, cherry, genuine mahogany) and our paint vendor warrants the our factory finish for 20 years. Our wood joinery is authentic coped, pegged, mortise and tenon warranted against defects in materials and workmanship for 20 years.
Why do we do this? Because we’re replacing windows that have typically provided a useful life of 100 years or more and we expect our windows to last at least that long too.
How much do our windows cost? Well, they’re not cheap. They cost at least twice that of the other so-called custom window manufacturers. But if Woodstone windows will provide service for 100 years, how many times can a homeowner, or the homeowner’s heirs and assigns, afford to replace windows AND maintain historic specifications before the replacement costs exceed the initial cost of the Woodstone window? You do the math.
When you want to sell your house 20 years after installing the usual fare, would you rather explain away the upcoming and inevitable window replacement project or show off ‘good-as-new’ energy efficient historic replicate windows?
And just how ‘green’ is it to throw those so-called ‘maintenance free’ windows in a land-fill after they’ve broken or reached the end of their comparatively short life cycle?
Woodstone windows are, admittedly, not appropriate for most projects these days. But if you own a building on the historic register or if you want to build a new one that might qualify one day, if you want windows that replicate historic fenestration details and can be easily maintained, … if you want to live in a house without listening to the ticking window replacement clock, then Woodstone is for you.
Posted by: guest at June 24, 2008 6:06 PM
Correction-
Re: Woodstone missive above
I inadvertently wrote an acronym for Vermont’s previous statewide school testing program, the New State Reference Exam (NSRE), instead of the correct acronym for the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) that administers the Energy Star rating system for windows.
Please accept my apologies - old school board habits are hard to shake away.
I also note that the NFRC Energy Star labeling for windows does include Air Infiltration, but I don't believe its a requirement for the Energy Star rating.
Here's the NFRC web site for those interested in performance evaluations.
Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 8:42 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.