[MassHistPres] Hardiplank In Historic Districts

[John Newell]

         Dear Mr. Hayward,

         I will take it that you are talking 
about the branded "HardiePlank®", a named 
registered product, a product of James Hardie 
company <http://www.jameshardie.com/>, a fiber 
cement product.  I think that is not 
insignificant, because there are other producers; 
not all are the same product but will use or 
allow the use by the distribution channels of the 
easy title as if it were a generic name, a misrepresentation as I see it.

         There was a long thread on this list 
within the last year about this same issue.  You 
may review it at the list archives 
<http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres>.

         At the time of that discussion, as I 
recall, the issue sort of settled along the 
normal lines with the pros and cons well 
represented; there was not a clear consensus in 
this venue.  The issue that appeared to me to be 
unsettled was the one of durability, 
longevity.  Coincidentally, I noticed that one of 
the php generated site pages for James Hardie 
claimed that they have been making the product 
for a hundred years.  I thus assumed that since 
they were implicitly claiming durability of their 
product, they might be able to provide examples.

         They, neither the hq or local outlets, 
did not respond to my requests for 
examples.  Since they are flogging the product to 
architects and builders, one would think they 
would have handy some examples to bolster their 
claims.  Perhaps I just do not count, being neither architect nor builder.

         At their company page 
<http://www.jameshardieeu.com/pages.php?pages=products&subpage=hplank> 
you may find pdf files about their facade 
products to download.  In short their claim at 
the dead bottom of the page this morning is: 
"HardiePlank® siding has a limited 10 year 
<http://www.jameshardieeu.com/pages.php?pages=products&subpage=hplank&related=warranty>warranty, 
see warranty section."  The details of 'limited' 
are buried in one of the downloads.


         In my opinion, a ten year warrantee is 
like no warrantee.  Lowest grade or reclaimed 
used wood claps or shingles on sheds and 
outbuildings are good for that long even when 
unpainted and un-maintained.  Thus I believe that 
this product does not qualify for use in historic 
district renovation projects.  I am faced with 
exactly this situation on my own home (1806, just 
another old house on a dead end street in 
industrial zone, not HD) and do not find 
compelling quality advantages to the cement board 
products that would merit their use.  My builder 
and architect both concur with my view.

         On price alone, the cement board prices 
we came up with were within ten percent of 
wood.  Generally, lower grade clap were lower 
priced than cement, better grades were 
higher.  Now if you say "quartersawed" and 
"heart", you may enjoy a moment of sticker shock 
that will run over the ten percent; but I am 
looking forward to savor that moment for a 
hundred years, into the fourth and fifth 
generation who seek shelter behind those clap.


         Regards,        ..........niiiiiiiiiiii



At 09:17 AM 08/07/10, you wrote:
>Good Morning Everyone
>The Medford Historical District Commission would 
>like to get everyone's opinion on the following subject.
>
>We have two homeowners (the house has been 
>divided into condos) who had the desire to take 
>their circa 1890's shingle style house and 
>restore the exterior to the best of their 
>ability. One of the homeowners is the architect, 
>who brought in drawings for the building. He 
>originally proposed to remove all the aluminum 
>siding and reuse the wood underneath which he 
>believed was in good enough condition from his 
>investigation work. We approved his work.
>?
>He has since returned to us with the problem 
>that much of the house's original wood is in 
>poor condition and needs to be replaced due to 
>cracking, cupping, and numerous patching and 
>nail holes from the siding. Because of this the 
>homeowners wish to replace all the siding on the 
>house. The homeowners have priced both?wood 
>(which every home in the district?is already) 
>and the hardiplank material. ?The homeowners are 
>claiming a $13,000 price difference between wood 
>and hardiplank material, however, this would be 
>the first house to have the item allowed as a 
>whole construction building material. The 
>commission worries about the allow for one, 
>allow for all rule where if we allow one 
>homeowner to build in this material, we will be 
>setting a precedent for all the other homes in 
>districts city wide for similar substitute materials.
>
>The other issue the commission has is that our 
>bylaw states that materials clearly need to 
>relate to the existing neighborhood, which has been, to this point, wood.
>
>Our questions for you are, have other 
>commissions approved this in their districts? 
>How generally do preservationist feel about this 
>material. I am a purist and feel that 
>preservation is not about a dollar figure but 
>about preserving those structures, places, etc 
>significant to our nations history. No figure 
>can ever be put to that. Your opinions would be 
>appreciated quickly as possible, as we need to 
>make a decision on the subject soon.
>
>Thank you!
>Ryan D. Hayward
>Medford Historical Commission
>******************************
>For administrative questions regarding this 
>list, please contact 
>Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE 
>DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST.
>MassHistPres mailing list
>MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
>http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>********************************