4,245 views ·
19 replies
4k views
19 replies
Facade lacks sliding layer at the bottom... did they have that in the 60s?
One might not have thought it was wrong at that time.
But preventing any moisture that ends up on cardboard at the bottom edge of the brick facade (folded or not) by applying plaster on top can hardly be considered well thought-out, regardless of the era.
But preventing any moisture that ends up on cardboard at the bottom edge of the brick facade (folded or not) by applying plaster on top can hardly be considered well thought-out, regardless of the era.
I believe that brick houses in the past were more thoughtfully constructed than many of today's structures.roland53 said:
You need to look at the whole picture and not mix parts of today's construction with those of the past. Stone houses in the past were stone houses, meaning masonry walls throughout; it could be solid, cavity, or thin-wall, but it was rare to mix organic materials with inorganic ones. Instead, they built with stone and in places where contact with organic material was unavoidable, they took care to protect these parts with wood tar and tar paper.
The slip layer was purely a slip layer, and a well-masoned brick wall is quite dense. The brick absorbs water and holds it to dry out during dry periods. If it becomes soaked, most of the water usually runs off on the outside unless it's windy; then you can get water intrusion and free water on the backside. But since it was inorganic material throughout the wall, it would become damp but dry again without causing any damage.
Since nowadays there is often a wall of organic material on the inside, a construction has also been developed to handle this in a completely different way. If you look at a foundation wall today, it is rarely outside the brick facade; instead, the facade is a few centimeters outside the foundation wall, allowing the water runoff to work by having the paper/metal extend beyond the foundation's plaster.
But it's the need for new solutions that drives this, and I don't consider it a major problem in old houses built with brick that have a foundation wall with plaster that is a bit outside the facade and plastered up and into the lowest bed joint, even if that plaster will be slightly above the slip layer. At least, it's not usually considered a risk construction or noted at inspections, and since you live in Skåne, you must see these brick constructions everywhere. Some are several hundred years old and still just as beautiful.
Glad we agreeoceanis said:Since one often has a wall of organic material on the inside nowadays, a construction has also been developed to handle this in a completely different way, and if you look at a foundation wall today, it is rarely outside the brick façade. Instead, the façade is a few cm outside the foundation wall, allowing the water drainage to work by having the felt/metal extend beyond the foundation's plaster..
Absolutely, there is a very high risk because it's normally the inner wall that supports the rafters and beams, so do not assume that the house can be without the back wall or the wood frame, i.e., the inner wall, depending on the construction of your house. However, it is possible to brace up to replace damaged parts of the inner wall if needed.pikapika said:
Last edited:
Click here to reply