Window Condensation Question

[budwom]

I gasped when I read that a house 1970's or earlier is "quite old." Mine was built in 1920.

I knew it needed clarification when I wrote it. What I was trying to get across is that a lot of the nation's building standards changed after the oil embargo/shock of 1973 or so. Before then, heating fuels were very cheap, houses often had two by four construction (allowing for less insulation), and windows were often single paned.

After that event, two by six construction became more popular (standard in many places), homes were far better insulated, and double paned windows became the new standard. When we looked for a house to buy in 1990, I knew we wanted something in the newer period.

A lot of the homes built a century ago were better built than many homes today, though heat retention can be an issue that needs to be addressed...and it can be costly.

[duke79]

I gasped when I read that a house 1970's or earlier is "quite old." Mine was built in 1920.

We live in a house built in 1776 (or so)! Hard to get any insurance company to insure it. And they charge a fortune.

[Rich]

I knew it needed clarification when I wrote it. What I was trying to get across is that a lot of the nation's building standards changed after the oil embargo/shock of 1973 or so. Before then, heating fuels were very cheap, houses often had two by four construction (allowing for less insulation), and windows were often single paned.

After that event, two by six construction became more popular (standard in many places), homes were far better insulated, and double paned windows became the new standard. When we looked for a house to buy in 1990, I knew we wanted something in the newer period.

A lot of the homes built a century ago were better built than many homes today, though heat retention can be an issue that needs to be addressed...and it can be costly.

It's all ball bearings nowadays

[budwom]

We live in a house built in 1776 (or so)! Hard to get any insurance company to insure it. And they charge a fortune.

Have you updated insultation with something like the blown in variety? I'm not the handiest guy in the world, so I wanted something ready to go when it comes to heat retention, but my wife and I both love old houses.

[TruBlu]

One question that I haven’t seen addressed is:

Do you have a crawl space or an unfinished basement? If so, check for standing water or damp conditions there. A leak in your foundation could be the culprit, especially with all the rain.

[jtelander]

or see my post above. If the seals are gone (very likely) it is very easy to have the panes replaced, with a new gas seal, for the fraction of the cost for a new window. Your local glass guy can do this. Glass companies routinely do this, not the window guys. Works great.

Google it up...there are lots of web sites which discuss this. ..

Thanks very much, I will definitely check out this approach. I didn't realize that the double pane glass was replaceable. This is superior option if I can locate a qualified person to do the work.

[budwom]

One question that I haven’t seen addressed is:

Do you have a crawl space or an unfinished basement? If so, check for standing water or damp conditions there. A leak in your foundation could be the culprit, especially with all the rain.

good point. I'd still like to know the age of the house and vintage of the windows. That would reveal a lot.

[-jk]

Is this a recent change? Did the windows not fog up in winters past?

Do they fog outside in the summer (if you run AC)?

I'm still thinking something is cranking up your humidity. An ordinary dehumidifier might not be sufficient for your whole house. You can rent one of the industrial types they use after flooding to really drop it in a hurry.

-jk

[Acymetric]

Is this a recent change? Did the windows not fog up in winters past?

Do they fog outside in the summer (if you run AC)?

I'm still thinking something is cranking up your humidity. An ordinary dehumidifier might not be sufficient for your whole house. You can rent one of the industrial types they use after flooding to really drop it in a hurry.

-jk

Yeah, if the condensation is on the inside (like where you can wipe it off by hand) it seems like the first order of business is finding out the indoor humidity and the temperature differential (especially since it sounds like there were individual humidifiers in bedrooms plus some kind of humidifier connected to the furnace which is still running).

[Lord Ash]

Hey everyone!

A (happy) update!

Tried four steps:

First, ran a dehumidifier upstairs. It is a good sized one that I had.

Then, I ensured that, when showers are taken, the bathroom doors stayed shut and the fan on for the duration of the shower, and for the hours afterwards.

Also had my son sleep with his door a little open (his room tends to be the worst one).

Finally, I opened the blinds on all of the windows halfway... someone had said that the issue COULD be that the blinds are insulating the windows too well?


And voila, this morning, almost nothing!

Thank you, everyone, for your feedback. I was honestly so worried that this would be some big, big issue that I was feeling a little sick all day yesterday... can't thank everyone enough for the words of wisdom and, yes, even words of calming

Thanks!!

[Acymetric]

Then, I ensured that, when showers are taken, the bathroom doors stayed shut and the fan on for the duration of the shower, and for the hours afterwards.

I think you just mean leaving the fan running for hours afterward (with the door open), but just on the off chance you meant fan on and door closed for hours after I would recommend against that.

Glad you were able to find a quick solution!

[Ultrarunner]

Hey everyone!

A (happy) update!

Tried four steps:

First, ran a dehumidifier upstairs. It is a good sized one that I had.

Then, I ensured that, when showers are taken, the bathroom doors stayed shut and the fan on for the duration of the shower, and for the hours afterwards.

Also had my son sleep with his door a little open (his room tends to be the worst one).

Finally, I opened the blinds on all of the windows halfway... someone had said that the issue COULD be that the blinds are insulating the windows too well?


And voila, this morning, almost nothing!

Thank you, everyone, for your feedback. I was honestly so worried that this would be some big, big issue that I was feeling a little sick all day yesterday... can't thank everyone enough for the words of wisdom and, yes, even words of calming

Thanks!!

Awesome!

[Lord Ash]

I think you just mean leaving the fan running for hours afterward (with the door open), but just on the off chance you meant fan on and door closed for hours after I would recommend against that.

Glad you were able to find a quick solution!

Ah, no, I actually kept the bathroom door closed... both kids take LONG showers, and the room gets SOOOO steamy, I thought it would be smarter to just let the fan do the work... otherwise it just creates billowing clouds upstairs.

Would closing the door, turning on the fan, and opening the bathroom window be an acceptable solution?

And me too!

[Ultrarunner]

Ah, no, I actually kept the bathroom door closed... both kids take LONG showers, and the room gets SOOOO steamy, I thought it would be smarter to just let the fan do the work... otherwise it just creates billowing clouds upstairs.

Would closing the door, turning on the fan, and opening the bathroom window be an acceptable solution?

And me too!

The door open, after the showers, would be best. As long as there is an air gap at the base of the bathroom door (and there likely is), closing it won't be too detrimental.
Window open in winter. Nope, it would work, but my mom would register complaints about heating up the whole outdoors.

[Bluedog]

We live in a house built in 1776 (or so)! Hard to get any insurance company to insure it. And they charge a fortune.

Wow, impressive! That is quite old certainly for this country.

I, too, chuckled when someone said before 1970 was "old" but it's all relative based on where you're at.

My home is over 100 years old.

I did happen across this article recently (which I don't personally agree with as the proud owner of an old house!):
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...n-nice/621012/
"Stop Fetishizing Old Homes
Whatever your aesthetic preferences, new construction is better on nearly every conceivable measure."

Japan is a very interesting example though where homes are universally removed/destroyed when someone new moves in. Hence why there are more architects in Japan per capita than anywhere else AFAIK. The author does note the Japan example at the bottom. Seems kinda wasteful to me, and as the author mentions, makes housing not an "investment vehicle" but he would take that "trade-off" for all the reasons cited earlier in the article.

In my 100+ year old house, many of the windows are original still. I actually just reglazed a few. Storm windows also help things, which I only have for some of them. Getting window replacements (particularly that align with historical standards) are ASTRONIMICALLY high, and won't pay off with any "energy savings" unless you plan to live in your house 200 years. Interior storm windows also are an option, which I've gotten for some (and they're also expensive).

[duke79]

Wow, impressive! That is quite old certainly for this country.

I, too, chuckled when someone said before 1970 was "old" but it's all relative based on where you're at.

My home is over 100 years old.

I did happen across this article recently (which I don't personally agree with as the proud owner of an old house!):
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...n-nice/621012/
"Stop Fetishizing Old Homes
Whatever your aesthetic preferences, new construction is better on nearly every conceivable measure."

Japan is a very interesting example though where homes are universally removed/destroyed when someone new moves in. Hence why there are more architects in Japan per capita than anywhere else AFAIK. The author does note the Japan example at the bottom. Seems kinda wasteful to me, and as the author mentions, makes housing not an "investment vehicle" but he would take that "trade-off" for all the reasons cited earlier in the article. And no doubt that newer homes are much more environmentally friendly; our house leaks air like the proverbial sieve and we have to burn a lot of oil every winter to keep it warm.

In my 100+ year old house, many of the windows are original still. I actually just reglazed a few. Storm windows also help things, which I only have for some of them. Getting window replacements (particularly that align with historical standards) are ASTRONIMICALLY high, and won't pay off with any "energy savings" unless you plan to live in your house 200 years. Interior storm windows also are an option, which I've gotten for some (and they're also expensive).

We're very lucky...it's a charming and quaint old house. It still has many of the originals features - the original wide-board pine floors, plaster ceilings and walls, "12 over 12" windows (and ours need to be re-built and re-glazed). We live on a road with 6 or 7 homes of this vintage - all built between 1750 and 1800. But old houses DO take a LOT of time, effort, work (and money) to keep up. They ALWAYS need work. One problem is that many commercial insurance companies won't insure a home that was built before 1915 (or it might be 1913) - not sure why they use that somewhat arbitrary date, so it is a problem trying to get insurance on the property.
And no doubt newer homes are much more environmentally friendly. Our house leaks air like the proverbial sieve. It takes a lot of oil to keep the house warm in the winter.

[Ultrarunner]

Wow, impressive! That is quite old certainly for this country.

I, too, chuckled when someone said before 1970 was "old" but it's all relative based on where you're at.

My home is over 100 years old.

I did happen across this article recently (which I don't personally agree with as the proud owner of an old house!):
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...n-nice/621012/
"Stop Fetishizing Old Homes
Whatever your aesthetic preferences, new construction is better on nearly every conceivable measure."

Japan is a very interesting example though where homes are universally removed/destroyed when someone new moves in. Hence why there are more architects in Japan per capita than anywhere else AFAIK. The author does note the Japan example at the bottom. Seems kinda wasteful to me, and as the author mentions, makes housing not an "investment vehicle" but he would take that "trade-off" for all the reasons cited earlier in the article.

In my 100+ year old house, many of the windows are original still. I actually just reglazed a few. Storm windows also help things, which I only have for some of them. Getting window replacements (particularly that align with historical standards) are ASTRONIMICALLY high, and won't pay off with any "energy savings" unless you plan to live in your house 200 years. Interior storm windows also are an option, which I've gotten for some (and they're also expensive).

As an admittedly biased individual who also owns a 100+ year old house, I'm going to respectfully disagree that new houses beat old houses on nearly every measure. The quality of wood at the turn of the last century was MUCH better than today's wood, the quality of construction was often much better, and space was used efficiently with abundant natural light. The down side is that every system will need upgrading at some point in time. I've upgraded the plumbing, the electrical, and the insulation package. The insulation was critical as I had none when I moved in. Now, per the local utility, my 112 y.o. house outperforms 85 percent of my neighbors. Windows were upgraded in the 1960s and again in the early 2000s, so I'm double-paned either vinyl or wood-clad throughout.

Bluedog is right - windows take years to pencil windows on recovery costs. Storm windows are an excellent and period-appropriate fix.

New houses have a multitude of problems, usually the result of improper installation. Overall quality of construction is pretty bad and I don't see that improving any time soon. Concrete work is not nearly as good as it used to be. Additionally, poor siding practices with EIFS and now with manufactured stone veneer have created big mold problems for houses. Ditto for some of the styles of roof ventilation which are more aesthetically pleasing but not very good at ventilating.

The building codes had to be changed on fire protection as the engineered roof trusses and I-trusses used in floor construction fail MUCH faster than solid dimensional wood. Good article: Silent Floors, Silent Killers?

The new houses don't 'breathe' so we have to have forced ventilation to maintain healthy air quality. That means we have either energy loss or the additional cost of a Heat Recovery Ventilator - which is another system that can fail. The more moving parts, the more points of failure.

I'm not arguing against new homes. We need them, especially in the affordable ranges (not going to happen!) Older homes are often nice and most eventually get the upgrades needed. My eldest and middle kids are doing that with 1964 and 1968 homes. they are stoutly built but needed work. They have plans for the homes and intended to be in them for decades as their kids grow up. Those houses have a century of viable life span ahead with good maintenance and care.

If the author were honest, he would just admit that he fetishizes new houses and urban environments.

/rant

Sorry for the threadjack!

[Bluedog]

We're very lucky...it's a charming and quaint old house. It still has many of the originals features - the original wide-board pine floors, plaster ceilings and walls, "12 over 12" windows (and ours need to be re-built and re-glazed). We live on a road with 6 or 7 homes of this vintage - all built between 1750 and 1800. But old houses DO take a LOT of time, effort, work (and money) to keep up. They ALWAYS need work. One problem is that many commercial insurance companies won't insure a home that was built before 1915 (or it might be 1913) - not sure why they use that somewhat arbitrary date, so it is a problem trying to get insurance on the property.
And no doubt newer homes are much more environmentally friendly. Our house leaks air like the proverbial sieve. It takes a lot of oil to keep the house warm in the winter.

Thanks for the details -- sounds charming but as you say, a lot of work. I live in a historic district in my city where all the homes were built between 1880 and 1920. I'm not East Coast, so wasn't much around here before late 1800s really. But, yes, everyone is constantly doing work to maintain their homes and hiring outside contractors who specialize in historically accurate preservations does cost a pretty penny. We also have to get approval from a special person at the permit office (and pay extra) to ensure permitted work adheres to historically accurate standards. I had to pay an absurd upcharge to get approval to replace a disgusting chain link fence on one side of my property with a wood one...

I've had to make some major updates to my home including electrical and plumbing. I also have original oak floors, plaster walls, and stained glass windows. Wish I had one of those iconic intricate wood stairwells that you basically can't get anymore, but alas, they didn't design my house that way.

It's a labor of love for sure...I grew up in an old home too so have some nostalgia for it, but it's not for everyone.

[devil84]

As an admittedly biased individual who also owns a 100+ year old house, I'm going to respectfully disagree that new houses beat old houses on nearly every measure. The quality of wood at the turn of the last century was MUCH better than today's wood, the quality of construction was often much better, and space was used efficiently with abundant natural light. The down side is that every system will need upgrading at some point in time. I've upgraded the plumbing, the electrical, and the insulation package. The insulation was critical as I had none when I moved in. Now, per the local utility, my 112 y.o. house outperforms 85 percent of my neighbors. Windows were upgraded in the 1960s and again in the early 2000s, so I'm double-paned either vinyl or wood-clad throughout.

I live in a c.1990 home built in the boom times of my town. It has polybutylene plumbing and while we haven't had any problems, many of our neighbors have replaced their plumbing after catastrophic failures, many after the class action lawsuit stopped paying. The original Masonite siding had to be replaced -- the class action settlement didn't go very far towards replacing it. The electrical system -- geez. Clearly that was a drive-by inspection, because I'm pretty certain nearly half the 4BR, 2.5BA house shouldn't be on one circuit. Only one or two windows were operable when we moved in at the end of 1999. Thankfully, the builder left many really huge trees on the lot, so we don't spend a fortune with AC in the summer. If we take up the carpet, there is no chance of gorgeous hardwood floors underneath. But we do have a huge ensuite bathroom with a giant, very dated, garden tub and plenty of brass fixtures where the bright brass finish has peeled or discolored, and not in a beautiful "aged patina" way. (After the pandemic, we'll take care of the bathroom and the kitchen).

All in all, I'm not sure we're much better off with a 30 year old house than a 100 year old house.

[Phredd3]

I live in a c.1990 home built in the boom times of my town. It has polybutylene plumbing and while we haven't had any problems, many of our neighbors have replaced their plumbing after catastrophic failures, many after the class action lawsuit stopped paying. The original Masonite siding had to be replaced -- the class action settlement didn't go very far towards replacing it. The electrical system -- geez. Clearly that was a drive-by inspection, because I'm pretty certain nearly half the 4BR, 2.5BA house shouldn't be on one circuit. Only one or two windows were operable when we moved in at the end of 1999. Thankfully, the builder left many really huge trees on the lot, so we don't spend a fortune with AC in the summer. If we take up the carpet, there is no chance of gorgeous hardwood floors underneath. But we do have a huge ensuite bathroom with a giant, very dated, garden tub and plenty of brass fixtures where the bright brass finish has peeled or discolored, and not in a beautiful "aged patina" way. (After the pandemic, we'll take care of the bathroom and the kitchen).

All in all, I'm not sure we're much better off with a 30 year old house than a 100 year old house.

Replace the plumbing. Do it now, before it fails. It isn't a question of if the poly will fail, it's a question of how soon. I learned this to my own detriment and spent six months and plenty of money on a new kitchen after ours quietly bit the bucket underneath the house. And yes on most of the other stuff you said, too. Our house was built in 1986, and I wouldn't say it was a quality job. It's still an asset, but any future buyer won't get a worry-free purchase, that's for sure.

But do replace that plumbing. It'll cost you some money, but that's money you won't have to spend later.