I Can See Clearly Now

Here's Patrick working on the windows at the Hague house that we're redoing.

The windows are almost 150 years old. Despite being painted shut, being nailed over, breaking some sash cords and losing the odd weight here and there, having nails put through them, having the sills broken and patched with plaster, and other indignities, they have basically worked as they were supposed to that whole time.

They've needed a little work to be restored to their best, but not much. Taken apart and re-glazed, the stops refastened, cords fixed as needed, some new weatherstripping (guaranteed to last 100 years). They look beautiful and work like a dream. With their storms, they are every bit as efficient — perhaps more so — than brand new windows. All at little expense and no waste, landfills, or carbon loss from destroying old glass and wood to put in new glass and synthetics — a win all around.

Patrick writes about it here.

-----

Then there's Summit. The part of the house that was added in the 1980s featured the highest-end casements you could get then. These casement frames were severely damaged in a hailstorm last year, rendering the windows a total loss.

The came today to take out all the old ones and out in the new ones.

Before:

After:

You would be forgiven if you don't see any difference.

I mean, in general the windows are pretty.

And, just like in the 80s, they are high end.

But even with the "best" windows, which were not cheap, they're not expected to last more than 40-50 years. Meaning we could still have to replace them in our lifetimes, if we get to be old geezers. 

They can't be taken apart and reconstructed like Patrick did at Hague. The whole section has to be taken out of the wall and replaced. It's an enormous (if necessary) waste. I'm very grateful for them, but the whole thing is a conundrum to me.

So tell me again why new construction is "better" and "greener" than restoration? Because I am just not seeing it.