English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The house was built in 1890 and is historical, but every wall has cracks and would need to be refinished. Would I be "disrupting" the "historical value" if I replaced the plasterd walls with sheetrock?

2007-02-10 12:43:18 · 9 answers · asked by RJ M 1 in Home & Garden Maintenance & Repairs

9 answers

It depends where you live. In most places in the US, finishers don't know how to finish plaster walls correctly. In New England, even sheetrock gets a skim coat over the entire surface, whereas other places just do the seams. In most of the North East Corridor, from Maine to say DC, there are so many older homes still around that a job like yours wouldn't be unusual. In California or Florida, for example, it would be very rare, so you'd have trouble finding an experienced plasterer.

The best way to renovate them would be to strip the old plaster and apply new to the existing lathe, but that would be kind of extreme (and expensive). There are fasteners that will pull any loose sections back onto the lathe and then the walls can be skim coated to make them smooth. Traditional plaster walls will always crack, eventually. Vibrations from road traffic, changes in temp, loose framing, settling, etc will cause cracks. The trick is to address them as they occur, before they cause the plaster to break loose from the lathe.

Saving or replacing makes no difference in the aesthetics of the house. If it will bother you to know that there is sheetrock in places, where it was originally plaster, then try to rehab them. If it won't bother you, then just replace them. Fixing might be easier, though. Either way, it shouldn't hurt the value of the house. 1890 is not really that old for a house (I'm from Boston, so...). If it was built in 1790, then I'd say rehab only for historical integrity.

Edit: Reading the answers above, DON"T try patching over it with 1/4" sheetrock. That would be a nightmare. You'd have to remove all the trim from doors and windows, then put 1/4" shim material on the jambs/frames and replace trim. WAAAAYYYY too much work for what you're talking about. And re-attatching loose plaster is not that big a deal. There are fasteners with star shaped metal rings around a screw that fasten to the lathe and take the place of the plaster 'key' that broke off. When it's all back tight, tape cracks with fiberglass tape and mud. Then you just skim coat entire wall.

Wallpaper is viable option, too (that's one reason it was invented). You still have to fix the cracks first, though, and skim the wall or imperfections will show through the paper.

2007-02-10 13:12:52 · answer #1 · answered by normobrian 6 · 0 1

I assume a 1920's era house would have the plaster installed over wood lath. So demolition is a 2 part job - knocking down the plaster and tearing off the lath. An experienced crew might use a circular saw with a masonry blade and cut vertical grooves in the plaster and most of the lath, between every other stud, then rip out the plaster+lath in one step. The 2011 National Construction Estimator says demolition of plaster ceiling with lath or furring strips will take 0.025 hours per square foot: Remove ceiling cover. Per square foot of ceiling. Add the cost of removing electrical fixtures. Debris piled on site. No salvage of materials included except as noted.

2016-05-25 06:31:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I've worked on projects exactly like that, and if the old plaster is sound (not loose on the lathe), it would be much cheaper to run a little joint compound on the cracks.

Also, the old plaster is thicker, and therefore the house will be warmer, quieter and more "homey" feeling. Even the slight unevenness of the old plaster is more natural and comforting.

Finally, putting up drywall will loosen all the trim around doors, windows, etc. Then those will need to be fixed = money pit.

2007-02-10 12:51:07 · answer #3 · answered by Pseudo Obscure 6 · 1 0

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
Do not replace that plaster with drywall. If you want to do the right thing, then listen to the other answer and skim coat and repair where needed. Removing it is a tremendous amount of work and makes a terrible mess EVERYWHERE. You'll get sanding dust in places you never knew air got to. To get to the answer of your question, yes you will disrupt the value historically. You cannot get the walls back once they're out, they're gone forever. Just make sure you dont have rot and you're good to go. You can skim coat yourself for a fraction of what drywall costs, its labor intensive and takes a while to get the knack of, but if you have a big house, you'll get lots of practice.

2007-02-10 14:05:55 · answer #4 · answered by Ann S 3 · 0 0

If you plan on selling someday,and think that the original is worth more,then printed wall paper will hide so many sins.If you don't care about resale,then yes,definately put up sheet rock.Repairing damaged old walls is a tremendous amount of work if you want to do it right.

2007-02-10 12:56:29 · answer #5 · answered by Cheese 5 · 0 0

I have seen other home owners in similar situation install 1/4 thick sheet rock over old walls. it seem to work but think about the long term and see if it to building code in your area. If you do that then you have to reset all the plugs, outlet and the door trim. It time consuming and it made be worth it in the long run.

2007-02-10 13:07:46 · answer #6 · answered by ewf20612 2 · 0 1

if it IS "Historical"... here in the USA you'd have to consult with the Historical Sites board, and I'm pretty sure they'd mandate plaster repair !

I HATE plaster though

2007-02-10 12:55:12 · answer #7 · answered by mariner31 7 · 0 1

I would replace it, though there are some purist who would want to restore as much of the original as possible. Its your house, so the choice is yours.

2007-02-10 12:50:55 · answer #8 · answered by Shelley 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers