The High Heeled Ruminations Of Melrose Plant

[Shyheels]

Yes, suede and slush. The nightmare scenario. I have some lovely suede boots that do not get nearly enough wear because of my fear of ruining them. Over here a blue sky doesn’t mean much if you’re going out for more than a couple of hours . 

[CrushedVamp]

On 1/18/2025 at 6:59 AM, mlroseplant said:

Don't you know I had a dream last night, that I wore suede pumps out in the snow and ruined them. It was a truly frightful experience. I swear I could feel the slushy ice all over my shoes, and they were actually starting to change color. But when I woke up, oh my dream, it was gone.

Not to steer the conversation aside, but curious if maybe you were sleeping in front of a heater or other air mover? A lot of times moving air while sleeping will give you nightmares.

I have been having nightmares because its been so cold outside that the heater in my master bedroom has been running faster and longer than normal. Just thought I would mention this in case that is the situation for you. Deflecting the moving air might help you if it is.

As for the pants I do not have many suggestions. I wore suspenders once and the wife laughed and said I looked like Paul Bunyon. That did not help. But I am with you, I hate how cotton slumps after a few hours of wear.

[mlroseplant]

3 hours ago, CrushedVamp said:

Not to steer the conversation aside, but curious if maybe you were sleeping in front of a heater or other air mover? A lot of times moving air while sleeping will give you nightmares.

I have been having nightmares because its been so cold outside that the heater in my master bedroom has been running faster and longer than normal. Just thought I would mention this in case that is the situation for you. Deflecting the moving air might help you if it is.

As for the pants I do not have many suggestions. I wore suspenders once and the wife laughed and said I looked like Paul Bunyon. That did not help. But I am with you, I hate how cotton slumps after a few hours of wear.

Interestingly enough, there has in fact been a change in our heating situation because I have the dining room ceiling torn up right now (125 year old plaster started falling down), and this causes the furnace to run more than normal because the thermostat is in that room. As a result, the upstairs bedrooms are hotter than normal, and we're not collectively smart enough to remember to turn the thermostat down before the last one goes to bed.

I don't think anyone would ever accuse me of looking like Paul Bunyan, suspenders or not. Still, a solution must be found eventually.

[CrushedVamp]

I feel your pain: I live in an old Victorian House too.

For the most part the house was better insulated than what I thought, but not always. Over Christmas the wife wanted me to remove some shelves and turn one of our libraries into a dining room. Not a big deal as it was just shelves, but behind it was some ugly 1970's paneling that only went half way up the wall. Clearly that had to go, so I ripped that out. and stripped off the horse hair plaster. Then noticed big areas of missing insulation. That was of course, behind 6,976,000 nailed on lathes. So to insulate I had to rip all those off and then get rid of the loose cellulose insulation.

But being that old there was no outlets so in the end I had to run wires for several new outlets, insulate the whole wall anew, then put up ship lapped boards, paint, and finally apply trim and paint all that... just because she wanted some shelves taken down. What should have taken a day instead took all weekend.

It's better now, and I am glad I went through all that to make it right, but there is a lot of extra work living in an old house for sure, and a lot more expensive with all the wide trim and other details that add up.

[Puffer]

4 hours ago, CrushedVamp said:

I feel your pain: I live in an old Victorian House too.

...

It's better now, and I am glad I went through all that to make it right, but there is a lot of extra work living in an old house for sure, and a lot more expensive with all the wide trim and other details that add up.

Interesting that you refer to your house in the US as 'Victorian'.   Is such reference to British monarchs (Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian) common to describe the age of a house in the US?   That said, I'm not sure what the alternatives could be, other than a straight date-reference, e.g. '1890s'.

I live in a 'genuine' Victorian house (c1886) in England, semi-detached with a fully-usable basement and three storeys above.   It is solid, quite spacious with high ceilings and airy (aka 'draughty'!), and its construction and decorative features have stood the test of time, albeit that insulation could be better.   The inside of the perimeter (brick) walls is of lath-and-plaster construction (rather than plaster directly on brick) and the small air gap (about 2") gives a measure of insulation, but we could certainly do with more - a totally impractical task to install except at a very localised level.   And fixing shelves, radiators etc to those walls requires a bit more thought and work if to withstand the loading.   All that said, I would not wish to live elsewhere!

[CrushedVamp]

Yes, I am in the same way. It is a really nice home since here in the USA most modern construction is rather cheap and gaudy. No character. No embellishments, and now with the USA needing some 250,000 carpenters due to the shortage, no skills in workmanship.

My house sounds a lot like yours though, It too is three stories tall, six bedrooms, four bathrooms, two kitchens and a great room on the third floor with living rooms and formerly libraries. A big house with horse hair plaster, hidden rooms, but due to my location, was insulated well in the 1970's. The boiler has had an upgrade too. No central heating system though one of the two fireplaces is still installed, but rather a hydronic heating system that makes this house surprisingly easy and cheap to heat, but an area I am constantly improving with better insulation and boiler components. In all out honesty, it gets so cold here that a good heating system is a requirement, and more so because I live on a river. It is not only cold here, it is cold and damp between the region, and proximity to the river, and ocean not so far away.

As for the style, here Victorian is a style of house. Of which there are several variations. It typically is depicted by bays on the front of the house, turrets or towers, wide trim inside and out and of course stained glass windows. For our house, even amongst others it is known in town for its many, and very prominent stained glass windows. In buying it, I have added the ability to do stained glass in my work skills just so I can add to that house legacy and have thus added a TON of new stained glass windows to the this house since buying it two years ago. I do not have a tower/turret on this house but hope to add it someday.

In considering what I wrote above, I need further explanation. While I love old houses and always have, please do not think I would NEVER be impressed with yours perhaps. My reply above used a VERY broad brush to depict newer and older houses for sure.

There are crappy old houses and crappy new ones, just as there are good brand new houses and good older ones.

While I make my house to seem like it is perfect, it is HARDLY that. It has really rough walls, gaps and cracks, and unlevel floors. It needs a lot of work, but heck all that describes me at age 50!

[Puffer]

22 hours ago, CrushedVamp said:

...

As for the style, here Victorian is a style of house. Of which there are several variations. It typically is depicted by bays on the front of the house, turrets or towers, wide trim inside and out and of course stained glass windows.

...

You don't say when your house was built.   But, if 'Victorian' in the US is a description of style rather than age, I suppose it could be almost any age.   In the UK, we would tend to describe a large house with features like yours as 'neo-Gothic'; it would only be (also) called 'Victorian' if it was built during the reign of Victoria (1837-1901) or in the same style shortly afterwards.   The typical 'Edwardian' house that followed (roughly 1901 - 1920) was typically smaller and less ornate, but solidly built to last.   Alas, the shortage of seasoned timber resulting from WW1 means that many UK houses built after c1920 show the effects of poor materials and, in some cases, inexperienced or shoddy workmanship - and this remains true today, especially in estates of similar houses constructed by the major housebuilding companies.   But, as you say, there are both good and bad of all types, sizes and ages.

[mlroseplant]

To my knowledge, we just use the term "Victorian" to describe a style of house, as CrushedVamp said above. However, it just so happens that the vast majority of the houses built in that style were built before 1900. My house is of unknown vintage, but was undoubtedly built before 1900, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "Victorian." It's a crappy little house with small rooms and not a great deal of style. It is the oldest house in our neighborhood, and legend has it that it was once a log cabin. I haven't found any evidence of this, and if there was a log cabin on this lot, it must have been torn down when this house was built. When it comes to my ex-house, I would have and did describe as "Edwardian," but nobody around here knows what the hell I'm talking about.

[Shyheels]

In Australia a house of Edwardian age is called Federation Style because 1901 was the year the various Australian colonies formed the nation known today as Australia. 

[CrushedVamp]

22 hours ago, Puffer said:

You don't say when your house was built.   But, if 'Victorian' in the US is a description of style rather than age, I suppose it could be almost any age.   In the UK, we would tend to describe a large house with features like yours as 'neo-Gothic'; it would only be (also) called 'Victorian' if it was built during the reign of Victoria (1837-1901) or in the same style shortly afterwards.   The typical 'Edwardian' house that followed (roughly 1901 - 1920) was typically smaller and less ornate, but solidly built to last.   Alas, the shortage of seasoned timber resulting from WW1 means that many UK houses built after c1920 show the effects of poor materials and, in some cases, inexperienced or shoddy workmanship - and this remains true today, especially in estates of similar houses constructed by the major housebuilding companies.   But, as you say, there are both good and bad of all types, sizes and ages.

You are right, here in the USA a Victorian House is of a certain style and not an era, although often that does fall into the time of her reign. My house is thus considered a Victorian because while it was built in 1940 it is built with most of the elements of Victorian house.

I would say that it was built in that style because the area is loaded with mills, one major sawmill still operating today within site of our house. Because of its style, and how it is situated at the confluence of two rivers, what amounts to a really nice spot to put a house, I think it was built by the sawmill owners son or grandson. At that time, in producing material for the war effort in Europe, it would have been very profitable times as cheap Depression Era labor was producing high dollar war material and enabled them to build a lavish house.

But it changed.

It seems like the front part of the house was built well, and with quality materials, but the ell… the back part, was not. I think the reason was simple. Since we did not enter World War II until 1941, at first there was money, material and skilled carpenters but as the house neared completion, not so much on the back part of the house. And that is where I have found the majority of my issues. The front part of the house is bullet proof and hardly needed work, whereas almost everything on the back of the house needed attention.

[Shyheels]

It tells a story, doesn’t it? I always liked the American Victorian style, with its gables, turrets, bay windows and deep porches. Its distinctive. You don’t see that style over here so much, or at least not timber framed and clapboarded. 

[Puffer]

Thanks to all for the clarification of what the 'Victorian' style means outside the UK.   I suppose that the British should feel flattered that the label has been exported, albeit often to describe a house whose age is often anything but 19th century and possibly with features not found on the typical British Victorian house.

Just for possible interest and illustration, I attach a pic of the front elevation of my house.   (Yes, I know that the pointing needs some attention!)  The depth is almost twice the width shown.   Quite typical of its age; very similar houses (detached, semi-detached or terraced) are found everywhere, although the number of storeys and overall size varies.   Indeed, this semi is unique in our road; all others of similar age, although mostly semis, have different configurations, sometimes with a cellar but very few with a basement.

[mlroseplant]

1 hour ago, Puffer said:

Thanks to all for the clarification of what the 'Victorian' style means outside the UK.   I suppose that the British should feel flattered that the label has been exported, albeit often to describe a house whose age is often anything but 19th century and possibly with features not found on the typical British Victorian house.

Just for possible interest and illustration, I attach a pic of the front elevation of my house.   (Yes, I know that the pointing needs some attention!)  The depth is almost twice the width shown.   Quite typical of its age; very similar houses (detached, semi-detached or terraced) are found everywhere, although the number of storeys and overall size varies.   Indeed, this semi is unique in our road; all others of similar age, although mostly semis, have different configurations, sometimes with a cellar but very few with a basement.

Thanks for the illustration. It is obvious that the word means something different here vs. there, although some of the visual features are similar. Now, to keep the subject going, what is the difference between a cellar and a basement? At least in the Midwest U.S., they are synonyms. Well, sort of. If you live on the farm, you call it a cellar. If you live in town, you call it a basement. Most houses in the Midwest have basements of some sort, and they've only gotten bigger and deeper in my lifetime, and people like to actually finish them and use them as living space. Obviously, places like Florida do not have basements, as the water table is way too high for that.

[5150PLB1]

If you are visiting San Francisco the 'Painted Ladies' Victorian houses are classic examples and are worth the visit. 

[Puffer]

In the UK, any storey of a building that is constructed mostly or wholly below the immediately prevailing ground level is its 'basement' or 'cellar'.   The two terms are often treated as synonymous but are generally regarded as having distinct application in that:

(i) a basement is a part of the building that is or could be readily used for most domestic purposes as it usually has easy access (e.g. via an internal staircase), is typically divided into separate rooms (usually with normal windows), and possibly has a separate doorway to the outside.   In many buildings, such a basement constitutes a separate dwelling, in which case there is typically no stairway connection from above. 

(ii) a cellar is not intended for normal domestic purposes and may be one open area or divided by simple supporting pillars or walls.   The internal wall surfaces, floor and ceiling are often unfinished.   There will only be windows (usually small and high up) if the surrounding ground does not fully cover the outside walls.  Access may be via a trapdoor or staircase from above, with possibly a separate doorway (or hatch) to the outside.

The essential difference is that a basement is a normally usable part of the building but a cellar is primarily for storage or to accommodate services.   But the distinction is often blurred, especially where enterprising occupants have 'converted' a cellar into living space.   In my house, the basement has an internal staircase, an external door, two living rooms, a utility room/kitchen and a bathroom (shower/basin/WC), all with windows.   My neighbour's house (a different design) has a cellar, used only for storage and reached through a trapdoor and without external access or windows. 

When my house was built (1886), the basement was intended to accommodate the servants' quarters and the kitchen.   In due course, live-in servants disappeared and the kitchen was then moved to the ground floor to occupy what had probably been a study; the original kitchen remaining as primarily a utility room and store. 

Edited yesterday at 10:25 AM by Puffer
Added info.

[mlroseplant]

If there is a distinction in the U.S., I'm sure that it's about the same as you describe. I call what is the mostly-below-grade floor of my house a "basement," but it could very well be called a "cellar," according to your definition. The only reason it is now somewhat habitable is because we switched from coal heat to gas heat a long time ago. The average height of this couple of rooms, which do not encompass the entirety of the foundation of the house (we call this a "half basement") is 6'8", or barely over 2 m. The lowest headbanger, not including the stairway to get down there, is about 6'4", or 193 cm. So forget all you tall guys!

The room contains all of the utilities, including the laundry facilities, and I prefer it that way. It also contains my entire shoe collection, most of my wardrobe, and my ironing facilities. It's also the location of the formerly famous plumbing drain pipes that used to be a regular part of my photographic contributions to this site. It is also where my son and I have our music room. Mama banished us to this place, as she can shut the kitchen door and not hear us as much. Can't fit the piano down there, though.

[Cali]

Here, if the "basement" is under 7 feet it does not count in the over all square footage of the house and does not influence the home owner's tax.  (BTW mine tax is over 9k a year). In the last house I built, we hat a 300 sq. ft. basement with access via the garage. In the house I am designing now, I will have a much larger basement, but we have a high water table here, so I will also have to design an automatic French drain system.

Edited 23 hours ago by Cali

[Puffer]

17 hours ago, Cali said:

Here, if the "basement" is under 7 feet it does not count in the over all square footage of the house and does not influence the home owner's tax.  ...

I assume you mean headroom - floor to ceiling?   (Still usable without head-banging - unless in very high heels!).   Are you intending your new house's basement to be similarly restricted, to save tax, or to potentially provide a normal living space?

Council tax in England is assessed on a fairly crude basis - the notional historic selling price in 1991, divided into eight bands.    In theory, a cellar or basement would be included according to its perceived 'added value'; in practice, many would be unknown or ignored as the overall appraisal is almost always superficial (e.g. a 'drive-by') and sometimes quite unrealistic.

[CrushedVamp]

On 1/29/2025 at 5:17 AM, Puffer said:

In the UK, any storey of a building that is constructed mostly or wholly below the immediately prevailing ground level is its 'basement' or 'cellar'.   The two terms are often treated as synonymous but are generally regarded as having distinct application in that:

(i) a basement is a part of the building that is or could be readily used for most domestic purposes as it usually has easy access (e.g. via an internal staircase), is typically divided into separate rooms (usually with normal windows), and possibly has a separate doorway to the outside.   In many buildings, such a basement constitutes a separate dwelling, in which case there is typically no stairway connection from above. 

(ii) a cellar is not intended for normal domestic purposes and may be one open area or divided by simple supporting pillars or walls.   The internal wall surfaces, floor and ceiling are often unfinished.   There will only be windows (usually small and high up) if the surrounding ground does not fully cover the outside walls.  Access may be via a trapdoor or staircase from above, with possibly a separate doorway (or hatch) to the outside.

The essential difference is that a basement is a normally usable part of the building but a cellar is primarily for storage or to accommodate services.   But the distinction is often blurred, especially where enterprising occupants have 'converted' a cellar into living space.   In my house, the basement has an internal staircase, an external door, two living rooms, a utility room/kitchen and a bathroom (shower/basin/WC), all with windows.   My neighbour's house (a different design) has a cellar, used only for storage and reached through a trapdoor and without external access or windows. 

When my house was built (1886), the basement was intended to accommodate the servants' quarters and the kitchen.   In due course, live-in servants disappeared and the kitchen was then moved to the ground floor to occupy what had probably been a study; the original kitchen remaining as primarily a utility room and store. 

Thank you for typing all that as I learned something. It makes absolutely perfect sense though I did not consider it before: a basement is a livable area and a cellar is not.

I therefore have a cellar. I do have outside and inside access via stairs, but its height is too low. I would put it at 7 feet, but its the wastewater lines that mess things up. Some are five feet high. It really is too bad as the masonry work with the locally found slate and granite being superb and actually nice looking. I do not drink but always thought a wine cellar would look good down there. I would either have to reroute the plumbing lines, dig down the earthern floor, or both to make it livable. I do not see it anytime soon as we have an unfinished 3rd floor that we seldom go into now, and its just me and my wife here.

Property taxes are kind of bad though. A house on the river but with only 1 acre of land, surrounded by conservation land, and a 3300 sq ft house with 24 x 24 two story woodworking shop costs me $2200 in property taxes per year in US dollars.  Aside from that though, the part that is nice about living here is that we have NO BUILDING CODES. None. We have some state laws we have to abide by, like having a septic system so we don't pollute the river, and can't build within 50 feet of the main road, but other than that, they figure here, you have to live in whatever you build and ultimately sell it, so that is on you how you build it. The permit cost to put an addition on your house will set you back by $20 USD, and to buy raw land and build a new house will cost you $50 USD.

Our lack of building codes stems from so many people having sawmills. Because US Building Code Standards means you cannot saw your own lumber, most towns voted down building codes. One year one woman wanted to force every house in town to have smoke detectors and we all rallied together and got that defeated. Needless to say that lady no longer lives here. 

 

[mlroseplant]

20 hours ago, Cali said:

Here, if the "basement" is under 7 feet it does not count in the over all square footage of the house and does not influence the home owner's tax.  (BTW mine tax is over 9k a year). In the last house I built, we hat a 300 sq. ft. basement with access via the garage. In the house I am designing now, I will have a much larger basement, but we have a high water table here, so I will also have to design an automatic French drain system.

In our jurisdiction, basements do not count for taxation purposes unless they are finished, and mine certainly is not. Everything is bare brick and wood and ductwork. There is no means of egress except for the steep, narrow staircase that got you down there in the first place. At least it has a concrete floor.

How come we use the word "egress" pretty commonly, but "ingress" rather infrequently?