Old Windows vs. New
I am going back and forth about how to deal with my windows. They are original wood windows in a non-landmarked wood frame house. They haven’t been touched in years and the exterior paint on many of them is in pretty bad shape. In a couple of cases there may be some rot on the…
I am going back and forth about how to deal with my windows. They are original wood windows in a non-landmarked wood frame house. They haven’t been touched in years and the exterior paint on many of them is in pretty bad shape. In a couple of cases there may be some rot on the frames.
To replace them (with vinyl although I think I would pony up for something a little nicer on the ground floor) or to have the existing windows reconditioned and the storm windows replaced? That is my dilemma. In addition to fending off the cold, I am concerned about the heat when the summer sun comes through the western-facing windows.
Interested in thoughts from people on this. Also, who reconditions old windows and what is the cost compared to replacements?
Thanks.
You are very lucky to have your original windows. With proper maintainance and storm windows, they should be more energy efficient than new windows. Studies have been done about it. A bit of caulking will do wonders. Google Jane Powell and replacement windows for more info. She has a whole chapter about it in one of her books, and you can read it online. There’s also a whole book about how to care for original windows. See also the blog Door Sixteen for inspiration. She’s fixes every damaged window herself, and they look brand new. Tinker’s Wagon may help with this. I wish I could recommend someone, but unfortunately we have the world’s cheapest vinyl windows. They don’t work at all and cannot be repaired, unlike wood windows. We may as well have open holes in our house, they are so bad — even though double paned. We had plastic over all the windows this past winter.
It’s a matter of taste.
I live in a Victorian home– we have replaced most of our windows because the
originals were is such sorry shape. We bought mainly Marvin; but put some
Andersen on the third floor.
The stained and leaded glass we kept, and had repaired. Some 6 odd original windows
we are still thinking about, and we may have those ‘rebuilt’. They are quite unusally configured, and we will think long and hard before we remove them.
I do agree with Sky–if you do change them buy the best.
If you do find a carpenter, check their work.
There is no right here– you will do the best you can with what you have. You can’t
do more, and you really shouldn’t do less–
Older homes need love too!
Keep your original windows! You are lucky to have them. The addition of a storm window will increase its energy performance, but there are MANY practical, aesthetic and sustainable reasons to keep them in your house and out of a landfill.
1. Mgmarvel is right – old windows are made from super durable, dense old growth wood. They will last hundreds of years if painted and properly maintained. New wood windows will only last 10-30 years because of the low quality of new growth, fertilized wood.
2. Your old windows have been expanding and contracting with your building for decades and they fit perfectly in the openings, however wonky that might look. New stock windows will not.
3. Most of the air coming in/out at old windows is going through gaps between the sash and the frame and around the panes of glass, which is easily fixable – not because the wood and glass are old. The National Trust has a lot of good information geared towards homeowners for “greening†their old houses.
4. I think saving old windows is an act of recycling, retains the integrity of your home, and just looks better. Most people can spot a new less-than-expensive window a mile away – they look cheap next to wood window surrounds and in the context of an older home.
I’m sure someone hear could point you in the direction of a decent carpenter…
I have an older home with three types of windows: original wood with storm windows, replacements (Marvin & Anderson) and vinyl replacements. The Marvin & Anderson windows are excellent for noise reduction and elimination of drafts. They are also very easy to clean as they tilt in or crank open. The vinyl replacements were put in by previous owners and are not worth the money. They are inexpensive and you get what you pay for. While the older original windows are beautiful, they are a nuisance to clean and are not as good at eliminating drafts and noise. Most people keep the storm windows on year-round because of the inconvenience to take them off and if you have them on floors higher than the second floor they are impossible to clean. If you are on a landmarked block you must file a permit with landmarks to do any replacement work. I would recommend replacing with the better quality windows such as Marvin or Pella. Anderson is slightly cheaper but may have less choices. You can get a replacement that looks like the original with the added benefit of newer technology. I would recommend replacing as many as you can afford and stage the rest at a later date.
I strongly encourage you to seek repair options on your existing windows before resorting to replacements. Typically, the existing wood frames on older houses are made from old-growth trees and therefore, are much more resilient than any type of new window you can buy. Plus, unless you sink a lot of dough into top quality windows, you’re likely going to end up with something tacky.
Check out the National Trust’s page on window repair/replacement. There they have links to resources.
http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/weatherization/windows/
did you check out the previous forum topics discussing windows?
Is vinyl necessarily bad?
You can easily ruin a house with bad windows. It’s not a wise move on a $1m+ house. Repair and make due with what you have until you can afford something decent. You can also replace them as you can afford them.