Irish say no to PVC windows

What a positive move. I know it is percieved as snobbery to criticise PVC, but in historic buildings it is totally unacceptable.

But by far the worst use of the material, where it is so damaging, is in the small, unassuming vernacular buildings that line the county’s small town streets. Simple classical architecture is destroyed with bulky profiles, shiny finishes and the lack of depth in the plastic grid designs. And as for when they are opened, hinged from the top, they are just woeful. Windows are the primary feature, not to mention the eyes of these buildings, and sashes are being ripped out by the hundred. And because they’re on streets with shops, where no one supposedly looks above 12 feet, local authorities completely ignore what’s going on – as long as there’s a window box with pretty flowers infront they’re grand.

And PVC is now used in a whopping 80% of new houses, and comprises some 90% of the replacement market (surprising it’s not higher)
Someone I know was considering having PVC installed for replacement windows (but wood was still a contender) and so called out the country’s leading PVC company (let’s just say the one with the annoying jingle). I was asked to sit in on the visit apparently ‘being into that sort of thing’, but the ignorance of the rep was truly extraordinary, trying to compose a window unit with opening parts that fitted the standard tall rectangle (sash shape) opening – amongst other things he proposed that the aperture be split in two with a vertical bar, then a crossbar be placed across mid-way, and then one of those feckity 70s picture window openings be popped up in the corner!
His whole attitude was ‘well that’s what everyone else is doing’, over and over again, with no consideration whatsoever to the house or the individual circumstance. Nor did he propose that matching windows have co-ordinating opening parts – ‘oh I suppose yeah’

It is no wonder that window design has literally gone out the window in this country, with bulky, standardised, awkward lumps being shoved into every opening concievable.

Not all PVC is bad, it can work well in offices, or plain white with casements in homes with pebbledashed facades. But the majority looks terrible, esp what can only be described as that diarrhoea coloured stuff that’s supposed to look like beech, or the lastest trick – wood-effect front doors in ‘the shade of your choice’, which ironically cost more than a top-quality hardwood version.
The sales brochure for the PVC company was the most repulsive yoke I have ever seen – nearly had a nervous breakdown with the pictures of one-off ‘executive’ piles plastered in the stuff, mock-Palladian lumps with conservatories tacked on the side, and as for the sales pitch for their beautiful ‘Regency’ stained glass doors!

Nonetheless, I don’t accept the usual arguement put forward against PVC by the wood ‘n sash lobby – that the material is toxic to make, damages the environment, and is short lasting. The material is recyclable, emmission controls are enforced, and should continue to lessen with technology (I think the EU PVC lobby has set next year as a date for 40% of windows to be recycled), and considering the amount of paint or varnish, and putty needed to maintain wood for 200 years, not to mention the PVC tubs and metal cans the stuff comes in, as well as the amount of brushes and tools required over the years, the resources and energy consumed soon piles up for wood too.

Quality, visually appealing windows are desperately needed now, most of our buildings depend on them as their primary feature of interest and deserve better treatment.

For an comparative analysis o fthe window situation look at: http://www.cibse.org/pdfs/Masif.pdf

The lifespan is especially interesting.

Or in plainer English have a look at: http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/extra/?campaign_id=3988&forward_source_anchor=PVC%20free%20solutions&item_id=8646

The other point about PVC windows is that although they are recyclable, they are never recycled.

Nothing breaks my heart more than seeing 18th century timber windows being replaced by PVC frames but there is a critical issue of environmental responsiblity which goes beyond conservation and imposes a responsibility on all of us to find out the facts – as opposed to the hearsay or industry propaganda.

Finally – to end the self-righteous rant – I was once giving some architectural help to friends who had just bought a house. The house was 1960s and they wanted to replace the windows. I lobbied long and hard for timber. A couple of months later I got a call to visit and see how the work had turned out – especially the windows. When I got there they were delighted to show me that my advice had been taken and the best thing had been done with the windows – timber effect PVC.

not all places thankfully

Agree on the overlooked modern buildings. One example is Mount Carmel school – a fine 30s building on the corner of Kings Inns St and Bolton Street which replaced all the original steel windows with boxy poxy PVC in the last couple of years.

Obviously the issue here is cost although surely the public authorities subsidising/funding the school should have some conservation responsibilities or at least a policy. Had the building been a protected structure (I assume it isn’t) then a conservation grant could have been obtained at the time the work was done.

On the issu of aesthetics and the environment, insensitive use of quite chunky timber window systems – a couple of Scandinavian examples spring to mind – are excellent from an environmetal point of view but can be visually as much a problem as PVC.

Georgian Limerick is ruined with PVC windows. Oh and the only thing worse than PVC windows is pvc front doors. Most Irish provincial towns are destroyed with pvc. Most people only think that double glazing is progress and go for the PVC windows for this.

Some of the coloured aluminium windows on new houses apartments looks ok. Not sure that those wood Rationel windows that are fashionable lately are always appropriate either.

Thanks JL for those links – I’m surprised at how durable the aluminium is above all else, then again it always appears to be in good condition, even in 60s houses.

On PVC, clearly it’s toxic stuff to manufacture, but I think that the wood lobby aren’t telling the full truth when comparing. If you dumped all of the waste products of maintaining your timber windows over the course of the life of PVC into a pile on the floor, not to mention the stain or varnish products themselves, and white spirit, all of which have extremely high VOCs, and presumably are equally toxic to manufacture, and the tins and tubs and bottles (which are rarely recycled), plus brushes, I think the damage begins to add up here too – a point that the paper acknowledges is difficult to quantify. Although yes, if you use simple paint, the impact is reduced.

Saying that, I wouldn’t touch PVC with a barge-pole, the very idea of having plastic coated fittings is horrible, let alone the environmental impact. It’s a disgrace that so many 30’s schools are having their steel windows replaced with PVC, likewise small 19th & early 20th century schoolhouses having sashes chucked in the skip in favour of the squeaky clean, supposedly child friendly material.
The Irish Home Builders Accociation took out a big ad in one of the property supplements last week entitled ‘Plastic is Actually Fantastic’ – and amongst other things recommeded that unless your property is listed, there is no reason why you shouldn’t install PVC sashes as replacements, which apparently from a short distance are indistinguishable from their timber equivilants, enabling you to have ‘the period look of classic timber sashes with all the added benefits of low-maintainance PVC’.
Yeah – I think people noticing PVC on Leinster House from the far side of Kildare St answers that one, let alone the conservation issues. And the horns inevitably attached deteriorate quite fast, with the joins becoming evident as a result of the brittleness of the product.

I think the best place in the whole of Dublin to see sashes at their best, where uniformity of design and slender profiles truly shine is Dartmouth Square just off the Grand canal. Every single one of the 70 or so Victorian houses surrounding the large green have their original windows, with unusual arched windows on the upper floors. It is an extraordinary sight, marching lines of matching sashes – a remarkable feat of conservation, it has to be unique in the city. Suffice to say, every one of them is protected!
Mountpleasant Square in Rathmines is another gem – aside from feeling like walking back in time, what is immediately apparent are the sashes, I think there’s but one house on the whole square that has replacements.

If a building is protected, does the local authority have an obligation to insist on the removal of old replacement windows, similar to an ACA in the case of the owner applying for pp for other works as Devin mentioned earlier?
Also, if a building is listed, and original sashes are removed subsequent to its listing, are the local authority obliged to enforce their reinstatement – or is it up to the planners/conservation officer as to whether they’ll allow them?

I can think of many such cases where I think the buildings are listed, but PVCs are installed. And these would be properties that have applied for pp so the PVCs were part of the job.
The windows are so inappropriate, on a unique street, and it is disgraceful PVCs were allowed to be put in. And they’re sweeping up the place like a cancer. I’d like to follow it up because it just can’t continue, it’s been said by other people too which surprised me – but I don’t know where I stand if they are listed.
As far as I know I remember seeing them identified in the Development Plan.

JL,

Check out Section 152 of the Planning and Development Act – in summary once a legitamate representation is made to the Local Authority in writing regarding unauthorised development being or may be carried out…… the authority SHALL issue a warning letter. Purpose of warning letter is to give the authority time to investigate the complaint and then decide whether or not unauthorised dev has actually been carried out and if in their opinion it has – an enforcement notice can be issued within 12 weeks of the serving of the warning letter.

The local authority do not have to investigate complaints over the phone or in person – only those in writing.

That’s sad about the Step Inn. PVC window insertion in old buildings is still happening a lot despite the strengthened architectural heritage protection afforded by the Plan. & and Dev. Act 2000 and supposed greater public awareness of heritage etc.

Is the Step Inn a Protected Structure? I don’t have the Dunlaoghaire/Rathdown Development Plan to hand to check if it is. If it’s not, there’s not much can be done about the window replacement. If it is a Protected Structure, then the PVC window insertion is an unauthorised development and a complaint can be made to DL/R Council’s Enforcement Dept. An inspection will be made by an Enforcement Officer confirming the recent PVC insertion and a notice will be served on the owner instructing him/her to make good the unauthorised development (i. e. reinstate sashes). The owner has the option to apply for retention of the development (this is what happened in the case of Hanlon’s pub, mentioned at the start of the thread). But it won’t be given for PVC windows in a Protected Structure (After being refused retention by DCC, Hanlon’s wasted 600 Euro on a first party appeal to An Bord Pleanala – making subjective arguments as to why they should be allowed to keep the PVC – but were of course refused).

The only hope for The Step Inn if it’s not a Protected Structure is that, because it’s a landmark old building in the middle of Stepaside, it will become protected sooner or later. The Council can’t then insist on immediate reinstatement of sashes, but next time the Inn applies to do other work, they can be compelled to restore the sashes by planning permission condition. Or they might even want to do it themselves! (though not the current owner by the sound of things)

The information on protection of listed buildings in most current Development Plans is obsolete now because it’s been superseded by the Protected Structure (and ACA) system of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Though the list of “Listed Buildings” in the back of Dev Plans are the ones that are now Protected Structures (listed buildings automatically became P.S.s at the time of the Act).

Yes. You always think that any day now it’s going to stop and people are going to realise that the timber sash window is an essential design characteristic in Irish period buildings, but it just goes on.

The agressive marketing strategies of the PVC companies is a lot to blame. In the Yellow Pages there’s about 30 pages non stop of PVC company ads and maybe one or two pages for wooden window making or repairing. And they bombard old buildings with leaflets for PVC.

While the enforcement system is there for unauthorised window replacement in protected structures, it is usually ignored cos owners reckon they won’t be taken to court for something as “unimportant” as PVC windows.

Visual awareness is low in this country and a lot of people have PVC installed in good faith, thinking that by doing so they are improving and restoring the building.

I’ve made loads of complaints (on behalf of an taisce dublin city) about PVC and other unauthorised alterations to prot. strucs. and only a handful have ever been resolved. Complained about a prot. struc. on Fownes St. last year, told Frank McD. and he kindly put a piece in the Times for me.

I’d say in country towns there’s no hope at all of getting PVC out once it goes in.