6,543 views ·
10 replies
7k views
10 replies
Construction extension, plastered house
What type of construction is done when building an extension on a plastered house from the 1920s, should it be a wooden frame or should the construction be bricked up? Do you base it on the existing house's construction or does it not matter? Which solution is the most economical?
I don't intend to build myself but am trying to get an idea of what it might cost and have mostly found estimates for wooden houses to compare with.
I don't intend to build myself but am trying to get an idea of what it might cost and have mostly found estimates for wooden houses to compare with.
You can freely choose between a stone or wooden frame. It's not certain that the current house is built with stone just because it's plastered. Many houses were built in the 1920s with a plank frame and a reworked exterior (reed mat) as a base for plaster. Check by tapping on the inside. If it doesn't sound solid, it's a plank frame.
The connection: old stone house - new extension with wood, has no other disadvantages than that wood moves. But if you’re not plastering the facade, it matters less. Then you can cover the gap with a cover board or a flashing, so that the new part can move freely from the old. Will be accepted by the craftsmen.
The connection: old wooden house with plank frame - new extension with wood is naturally more logical. Definitely appreciated by the craftsmen.
The connection: old stone house - new extension with stone, is also more logical. Definitely also appreciated by the craftsmen.
The connection: old wooden house with plank frame - new extension with stone feels completely wrong from my perspective. Would probably make the craftsmen smirk unless you have a good explanation to offer.
____________________
Builder
The connection: old stone house - new extension with wood, has no other disadvantages than that wood moves. But if you’re not plastering the facade, it matters less. Then you can cover the gap with a cover board or a flashing, so that the new part can move freely from the old. Will be accepted by the craftsmen.
The connection: old wooden house with plank frame - new extension with wood is naturally more logical. Definitely appreciated by the craftsmen.
The connection: old stone house - new extension with stone, is also more logical. Definitely also appreciated by the craftsmen.
The connection: old wooden house with plank frame - new extension with stone feels completely wrong from my perspective. Would probably make the craftsmen smirk unless you have a good explanation to offer.
____________________
Builder
Whatabout old timber frame with plaster render on the outside and an extension in solid stone?
Yes, but apart from that? I'm asking now for personal reasons because I have a reverterat plankhus (albeit with brick on the outside) and I'm considering building a small addition.
Comments:
It is obviously easier to connect a wooden house with another wooden house.
Stone against wood is a different story, among other things, regarding temperature and moisture movements, as one material is hygroscopic, the other is not; one material is heat-insulating, the other is heat-conducting.
From a fire safety point of view, it also doesn't matter if you build in stone (preferably lightweight concrete) since the roof truss and much else is made of combustible wood. Then you have to cast the outer roof (as was done abroad in, among others, Italy) where they built with square brick set perpendicular to the wall's longitudinal direction with supporting crosses inside so that each stone is made up of four smaller square cells. Then they plastered the inside and outside, and the air that stands in the cells is the only heat insulation. But that method of insulation is not sufficient for our colder latitudes.
One of the advantages of building with stone/lightweight concrete is, of course, that you have a completely finished wall at the same pace as it grows in height after plastering the outside and spray filling the inside. Another advantage becomes apparent when the house is to be demolished, as the demolition debris is homogeneous and can be used as fill. Another advantage is that you avoid creaking in stone houses unless it comes from the roof truss or floor covering.
____________________
The Builder
It is obviously easier to connect a wooden house with another wooden house.
Stone against wood is a different story, among other things, regarding temperature and moisture movements, as one material is hygroscopic, the other is not; one material is heat-insulating, the other is heat-conducting.
From a fire safety point of view, it also doesn't matter if you build in stone (preferably lightweight concrete) since the roof truss and much else is made of combustible wood. Then you have to cast the outer roof (as was done abroad in, among others, Italy) where they built with square brick set perpendicular to the wall's longitudinal direction with supporting crosses inside so that each stone is made up of four smaller square cells. Then they plastered the inside and outside, and the air that stands in the cells is the only heat insulation. But that method of insulation is not sufficient for our colder latitudes.
One of the advantages of building with stone/lightweight concrete is, of course, that you have a completely finished wall at the same pace as it grows in height after plastering the outside and spray filling the inside. Another advantage becomes apparent when the house is to be demolished, as the demolition debris is homogeneous and can be used as fill. Another advantage is that you avoid creaking in stone houses unless it comes from the roof truss or floor covering.
____________________
The Builder
If the house looks like a stone house (e.g., plastered on a plank frame or an outer layer of solid brick as in my case), I think it aesthetically looks better with an extension made of stone. I want the extension to also look like a stone house, and then I think it's best to build it directly in stone, instead of wood and then plaster/brick.
How can you tell the difference between a house with stone and then plaster on top and a house with wood and then plaster on top?synpunkter said:If the house looks like a stone house (e.g., plastered on a wooden frame or with an outer layer of solid brick as in my case), then I think it aesthetically looks better with an extension in stone. I want the extension to also look like a stone house, and in that case, I think it's best to build it directly in stone, instead of wood and then plaster/brick.
I don't see that, but building with wood and then plastering is not relevant for my part.
Click here to reply