I live in a 1920s mid-terraced house, that at some time in the past was
rendered front and back. The rendering at the front of the house
currently has a large bubble in it, and I'm not sure if the best fix
would be to replace the rendering completely or remove all of it and go
back to bare brickwork.

What's the opinion of the group? Will fresh rendering benefit by
giving a protective layer over the brickwork, or can I get away with
having it all removed (and having the pointing done at the same time)?

The front of the house faces east, and the majority of the rain I get
comes from the west and hits the rear of the property. Personally I
don't particularly like rendering, but if there's a benefit from having
it replaced then so be it.

TIA

In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
(E-Mail Removed) writes:
> I live in a 1920s mid-terraced house, that at some time in the past was
> rendered front and back. The rendering at the front of the house
> currently has a large bubble in it, and I'm not sure if the best fix
> would be to replace the rendering completely or remove all of it and go
> back to bare brickwork.
>
> What's the opinion of the group? Will fresh rendering benefit by
> giving a protective layer over the brickwork, or can I get away with
> having it all removed (and having the pointing done at the same time)?

If the wall was intended to be rendered when the house was built,
it will have been built with B-grade bricks (mishapes, broken, etc)
by the apprentice brickie, and probably won't look good enough to
be an exposed brick wall. Even if it wasn't originally built to be
rendered, it was probably done for a reason which might become
apparent when you remove the render. Finally, even if there was no
reason, getting all the render off without damaging the brick faces
and leaving them clean enough may prove impossible.

So if you do take it all off, be prepared to have to render it
again if the brickwork underneath isn't up to quality.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> If the wall was intended to be rendered when the house was built,
> it will have been built with B-grade bricks (mishapes, broken, etc)
> by the apprentice brickie, and probably won't look good enough to
> be an exposed brick wall. Even if it wasn't originally built to be
> rendered, it was probably done for a reason which might become
> apparent when you remove the render. Finally, even if there was no
> reason, getting all the render off without damaging the brick faces
> and leaving them clean enough may prove impossible.
>
> So if you do take it all off, be prepared to have to render it
> again if the brickwork underneath isn't up to quality.
>
> --
> Andrew Gabriel

Sorry, should have clarified a little more. Mine is one of only a few
houses out of a row of 20 in the terrace that has rendering, and
there's a decorative piece of 'brickwork' on the front too which make
me think the whole thing was cosmetic.

I've been told that the house was owned at some stage by a builder, and
I think it was he who plastered all the ceilings (to a good standard,
but every bloody room has a different pattern!!).

Thanks for the responses.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>> If the wall was intended to be rendered when the house was built,
>> it will have been built with B-grade bricks (mishapes, broken, etc)
>> by the apprentice brickie, and probably won't look good enough to
>> be an exposed brick wall. Even if it wasn't originally built to be
>> rendered, it was probably done for a reason which might become
>> apparent when you remove the render. Finally, even if there was no
>> reason, getting all the render off without damaging the brick faces
>> and leaving them clean enough may prove impossible.
>>
>> So if you do take it all off, be prepared to have to render it
>> again if the brickwork underneath isn't up to quality.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Gabriel
>
> Sorry, should have clarified a little more. Mine is one of only a few
> houses out of a row of 20 in the terrace that has rendering, and
> there's a decorative piece of 'brickwork' on the front too which make
> me think the whole thing was cosmetic.
>
> I've been told that the house was owned at some stage by a builder,
> and I think it was he who plastered all the ceilings (to a good
> standard, but every bloody room has a different pattern!!).
>
> Thanks for the responses.

Plastered? - do you mean artexed?

WRT the outside rendering, you may be as well removing what comes off
easily, then rendering over the lot, and you'd be wise to do it in the next
few months before it gets too warm, render sets better in cold, damp
conditions, put it on in summer and it will take much longer to set...just
make sure you have plenty of PVA adhesive and apply it to the cleaned up
area mixed at 1 pva: 1 water...if you need to give more than one coat of
render, rough up the first coat with a comb and apply the same pva mixture
prior to second coating...a good flat surface can be had by using a damp
sponge (those sold for washing cars are best) and rub it over in circular
motions without applying pressure once it's firm to the touch.

HTH

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
> (E-Mail Removed) writes:
>> I live in a 1920s mid-terraced house, that at some time in the past was
>> rendered front and back. The rendering at the front of the house
>> currently has a large bubble in it, and I'm not sure if the best fix
>> would be to replace the rendering completely or remove all of it and go
>> back to bare brickwork.
>>
>> What's the opinion of the group? Will fresh rendering benefit by
>> giving a protective layer over the brickwork, or can I get away with
>> having it all removed (and having the pointing done at the same time)?

> apparent when you remove the render. Finally, even if there was no
> reason, getting all the render off without damaging the brick faces
> and leaving them clean enough may prove impossible.
>
> So if you do take it all off, be prepared to have to render it
> again if the brickwork underneath isn't up to quality.

I'll definitely go along with Andrew's comment here... I bought a 1900's
terraced house as a project which had been half-refurbished and then
given up upon; the render (which was clearly not original) had been
hacked away. I was intending to clean up the brickwork but it proved
impossible by any reasonable means, and frankly it looks a right dog's
breakfast:
<http://img.photoamp.com/i/ZcKN0IpSN.JPG>
I let out the place now and the external appearance doesn't bother the
tenants, and I'm hoping that the cementitious stains will weather away
over the years before I ever want to sell the property - otherwise I'll
need to get it re-rendered I suppose. And God knows why it was ever
rendered in the first place: 3 years later the property is perfectly dry
inside throughout.

(Just a warning before you hack all yours off expecting it to look like
new underneath!)

David

In message <kHClh.6901$(E-Mail Removed)>, Lobster
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
> I was intending to clean up the brickwork but it proved impossible by
>any reasonable means, and frankly it looks a right dog's breakfast:
><http://img.photoamp.com/i/ZcKN0IpSN.JPG>

That door looks really out of place

--
geoff

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> I live in a 1920s mid-terraced house, that at some time in the past was
> rendered front and back. The rendering at the front of the house
> currently has a large bubble in it, and I'm not sure if the best fix
> would be to replace the rendering completely or remove all of it and go
> back to bare brickwork.
>
> What's the opinion of the group? Will fresh rendering benefit by
> giving a protective layer over the brickwork, or can I get away with
> having it all removed (and having the pointing done at the same time)?
>
> The front of the house faces east, and the majority of the rain I get
> comes from the west and hits the rear of the property. Personally I
> don't particularly like rendering, but if there's a benefit from having
> it replaced then so be it.
>
> TIA

Removing cement from soft brick causes a fair bit of brick damage, and
the damaged bricks typically then deteriorates if not rerendered. OTOH
cement render is butt ugly, needs repeated painting to look ok, and in
solid walls is liable to cause damp problems. One option is lime
render, which looks fine without paint, and doesnt have the donsides
that come with cement. But this is the wrong time of year to apply it,
when frost threatens. I'd remove what has blown, leave the rest, then
lime it when frost has passed.


NT

raden wrote:
> In message <kHClh.6901$(E-Mail Removed)>, Lobster
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>> I was intending to clean up the brickwork but it proved impossible by
>> any reasonable means, and frankly it looks a right dog's breakfast:
>> <http://img.photoamp.com/i/ZcKN0IpSN.JPG>
>
> That door looks really out of place
>

Yeah - tell me about it: the doors and most of the windows were one of
the few refurb aspects that had been completed by the previous owners
before selling, and it wasn't cost-effective to do it all again... if
I'd been going to live there myself, then yes: but TBH every house in
the street has been similarly uPVC-ised and clearly regarded as a
'feature' by most purchasers of said properties.

David