Originally Posted by
Urbanized
I'm referencing people who take on rehabilitation of a historic structure and who think it is a good idea or even the only option to remove historic windows (in this instance casement windows, which were fortunately NOT removed) and replace them with modern ones. In the case of the Guardian they painstakingly re-glazed the historic casements, and the payoff was obviously immense. The character is far better than it would have been with single-light aluminum windows. If someone disagrees with that I would say with all due respect that they don't fully appreciate old buildings.
By the way, when replacing with fully-sealed, fixed windows the energy efficiency trade-off is that if you cannot use cross-ventilation for climate control during nice weather but are instead forced to use your HVAC system in all conditions. So the energy efficiency of new windows is overstated. Besides, there is modern glazing - even gas-filled double- and triple-glazed panes - that can go into the historic frames and replace the old glass. When the frames have been re-worked and everything is well-sealed, it rivals the modern windows for energy-efficiency. I believe that is what transpired in this case.
I say tragic, because once the historic windows are removed, it would be cost-prohibitive to come back again and replace them with casements. It is a forever decision, and one that is taken lightly by too many people - most who do not have HP experience - when rehabilitating old buildings.
Bookmarks